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

80–475 PDF 2013

STATE OF THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND: 

LONG–TERM SOLUTIONS FOR SOLVENCY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 24, 2013 

Serial No. 113–5 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget 

( 

Available on the Internet: 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/committee.action?chamber=house&committee=budget 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin, Chairman 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

KEN CALVERT, California 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

TOM MCCLINTOCK, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland, 

Ranking Minority Member 

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

BARBARA LEE, California 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York 

MARK POCAN, Wisconsin 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

AUSTIN SMYTHE, Staff Director 

THOMAS S. KAHN, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held in Washington, DC, April 24, 2013 ................................................. 1 

Hon. Paul Ryan, Chairman, Committee on the Budget ................................ 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Hon. Chris Van Hollen, ranking member, Committee on the Budget ......... 2 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Hon. Earl Blumenauer, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Oregon ....................................................................................................... 4 

Additional submissions: 

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

Letter, dated February 2, 2012, to Messrs. Camp and Levin, 

House Committee on Ways and Means ........................................ 53 

Prepared statement of the American Road and Transportation 

Builders Association (ARTBA), Internet address to .................... 67 

Question submitted for the record .................................................... 67 

Robert W. Poole, Jr., director of transportation policy, Reason Foundation ................................................................................................................. 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 72 

R. Richard Geddes, visiting scholar, American Enterprise Institute; associate professor, department of policy analysis and management and 

director, Cornell program in infrastructure policy, Cornell University ... 15 

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

Janet F. Kavinoky, executive director, transportation and infrastructure, 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce; vice president, Americans for Transportation Mobility Coalition .............................................................................. 21 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23 

Hon. Reid J. Ribble, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Wisconsin, submissions for the record: .......................................................

Letter, dated April 24, 2013, from the Associated General Contractors 

of America, et al ..................................................................................... 48 

Press release, Associated Equipment Distributors (AED), ‘‘New Study 

Examines Fuel Efficiency Impact on Gas Tax Receipts, Projects 

$365 Billion Highway Fund Shortfall’’ ................................................. 49 

Letter, dated April 24, 2013, from the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) ..................................................................................... 50 

Letter, dated April 24, 2013, and prepared statement of the National 

Stone, Sand & Gravel Association ........................................................ 50 

Letter, dated April 24, 2013, from the Portland Cement Association 

(PCA) ....................................................................................................... 52 

Hon. Bill Pascrell, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New Jersey, submissions for the record: 

Fact sheet, ‘‘Sustainable Financing for Transportation,’’ American 

Council of Engineering Companies ...................................................... 52 

Question submitted for the record ........................................................... 53 

Sarah Puro, Analyst for Surface Transportation Programs, Congressional 

Budget Office (CBO), prepared statement for the record .......................... 68 

(1) 

STATE OF THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND: 

LONG–TERM SOLUTIONS FOR SOLVENCY 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 210, 

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Paul Ryan, [chairman of the 

Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Garrett, Lankford, Ribble, Rokita, 

Woodall, Nunnelee, Rice, Williams, Van Hollen, Pascrell, Lee, 

Jeffries, Lujan Grisham, Huffman, Blumenauer. 

Chairman RYAN. The hearing will come to order. The Committee 

will come to order. Welcome, everybody. I want to thank our witnesses for agreeing to testify and for traveling the distances they 

traveled to come here today. We appreciate your time, and we appreciate the fact that you are here to share your experience and 

your knowledge. 

Infrastructure is very important and vital to our economy. And 

government plays a vital role in our public infrastructure: our highways, our roads, our bridges. But the federal government has been 

neglecting this responsibility. It is spending record levels of taxpayer dollars; in many cases it is not spending them wisely. In fact, 

it recently abandoned the key principle that we limit highway 

spending to what people pay to drive on them. 

The Highway Trust Fund is yet again going broke. This problem 

has been building for years. In the 1990s, Congress set a floor on 

spending but it did not set a ceiling, and so the gap between spending and revenue continue to grow, on average by $1 billion a year 

over the last decade, while gas-tax receipts stalled. In the next decade, the CBO anticipates the gap to widen. It expects the Highway 

Trust Fund to run annual cash deficits of $13 billion to $14 billion. 

And under current law, the trust fund cannot incur negative balance. So if funds get too low, spending will automatically decrease, 

and the Department of Transportation will ration spending to the 

States. 

If we continue to do what we have done until last year, we will 

bail out the Highway trust fund with more borrowed money, and 

it would not be the first time. We bailed out the trust fund multiple 

times over the years to the tune of $41 billion since 2008, in addition to the $27.5 billion in the stimulus. Last year when we did 

MAP-21, it included some much-needed reforms and the most recent bill. MAP-21 included $19 billion in General Fund transfers; 

that is not necessarily new, but what was new, and to its credit, 
2 

was for the first time, the cost of the General Fund transfers were 

offset in MAP-21. Despite these large infusions, however, CBO estimates that the trust fund will go bankrupt sometime in the fiscal 

year 2015 under current law. 

I want to thank Mr. Blumenauer for requesting this hearing. On 

our side of the aisle, we have three members of the Transportation 

and Infrastructure Committee. I hope that we can learn more today 

about the financial problems that we are about to experience in the 

Highway Trust Fund and some of the solutions to ensure its solvency. Unfortunately, those of us on Ways and Means have a very 

pressing mark-up, so I am going to turn the gavel over to Congressman Garrett for the remainder of the hearing, but I also know that 

I speak for the entire committee when I say I look forward to your 

insights on how to fix this problem. I want to thank you very much 

for coming, and I ask unanimous consent that all members have 

seven days in which to submit in written statements for the record. 

And without objection, so ordered. And with that, I would like to 

yield to Ranking Member Mr. Van Hollen. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Paul Ryan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL RYAN, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

Welcome, everybody. I want to thank our witnesses for agreeing to testify. We appreciate your taking the time to share your expertise. 

Infrastructure is an important part of our economy. Government plays a role in 

our public infrastructure—our highways, our roads, our bridges. But the federal government is neglecting this responsibility. It’s spending record levels of taxpayer dollars. And it’s not spending them wisely. In fact, it recently abandoned a key principle: that we limit highway spending to what people pay to drive on them. 

The Highway Trust Fund is broke. This problem has been building for years. In 

the 90s, Congress set a floor on spending. But it didn’t set a ceiling. So the gap between spending and revenue continued to grow—on average, by $1 billion a year 

over the last decade—while gas-tax receipts stalled. In the next decade, the CBO 

anticipates the gap to widen. It expects the Highway Trust Fund to run annual cash 

deficits of $13 to $14 billion. 

Under current law, the trust fund can’t incur a negative balance. So if funds get 

too low, spending will automatically decrease, and the Department of Transportation will ration money to states. If we continue what we’ve done until last year, 

we’ll bail the highway fund out with borrowed money. 

And it wouldn’t be the first time. We’ve bailed out the trust fund multiple times 

over the years—to the tune of $41 billion since 2008—in addition to $27.5 billion 

in the stimulus. Though it included some needed reforms, the most recent surfacetransportation reauthorization bill, MAP-21, included $19 billion in general-fund 

transfers. Now, to its credit, for the first time, the cost of the general-fund transfers 

were offset in MAP-21. Despite these large infusions, however, CBO estimates the 

trust fund will go bankrupt sometime in fiscal year 2015 under current law. 

I want to thank Mr. Blumenauer for requesting this hearing. On our side of the 

aisle, we have three members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. 

I hope we can learn more today about the financial problems the highway trust fund 

faces and solutions to ensure this program’s solvency. 

Unfortunately, I have a mark-up at the Ways and Means Committee, so I’m going 

to turn the gavel over to Congressman Garrett for the remainder of the hearing. 

I know I speak for the entire Committee when I say we look forward to your insights on how to solve this problem. I ask unanimous consent that all members have 

seven days to submit statements for the record. Thank you very much for coming, 

and we look forward to your suggestions. 

With that, I yield to the ranking member, Mr. Van Hollen. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

calling the hearing on this very important matter. I want to join 

the Chairman in welcoming our witnesses today, and in thanking 

Congressman Earl Blumenauer for his laser-like focus on this 

issue. This is an issue of concern to all members of the Committee, 
3 

but I appreciate his persistence in calling for the hearing, and at 

the end of my very brief remarks, I am going to yield him a minute 

just to make a brief opener. And I think if you look historically, 

from the beginning days of this Republic, the idea that the federal 

government should invest in our national infrastructure for the 

purpose of building our economy and maintaining our economic 

competitiveness has been a bipartisan idea; back from the building 

of the canals, to the inter-continental railroad, to the highway system, those are things that have brought people together. And I 

hope we can move forward in that same kind of spirit as we meet 

the challenges ahead. 

Look, the American Society for Civil Engineers has looked at our 

national infrastructure and given it the abysmal grade of a D, D 

as in dog, plus. They looked at our highway and transit systems 

and gave them a grade of a D; bridges, C-plus; grades that none 

of us should be pleased with. At the same time we have 15 percent 

unemployment in the construction industry. So, it is a no-brainer 

that we would increase our investment here in our national infrastructure in order to meet these needs, as well as help put more 

people back to work. And that is exactly why the budget that 

House Democrats put forward, the budget the president put forward, the Senate Democrats put forward, did two things. Number 

one, it had a $50 billion investment, immediate investment, in our 

national infrastructure. And it would have funded the transportation fund and the highway programs specifically, at the current 

baseline levels. As opposed, unfortunately, to the House Republican 

budget that would have cut that by 25 percent over 10 years; real, 

negative consequences to our national infrastructure. And I hope 

that we can go to conference on the budget so that we can begin 

to iron out some of those important differences. 

But with that, Mr. Chairman, if I could just yield the last minute 

of my opening statement to Mr. Blumenauer. We will have opportunities for questions, but I did want to ask him to say a few 

words. 

[The prepared statement of Chris Van Hollen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, RANKING MEMBER, 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for calling a hearing on this very important matter. I want to join the Chairman in welcoming our witnesses today and 

in thanking Congressman Earl Blumenauer for his laser-like focus on this issue. 

This is an issue of concern to all Members of the Committee, but I appreciate his 

persistence in calling for the hearing, and at the end of my very brief remarks I’m 

going to yield him a minute just to make a brief opener. And I think if you look 

historically from the beginning days of this republic, the idea that the federal government should invest in our national infrastructure for the purpose of building our 

economy and maintaining our economic competitiveness has been a bipartisan idea. 

Back from the building of the canals to the [Transcontinental] Railroad to the 

highway system, those are things that have brought people together. And I hope we 

can move forward in that same kind of spirit as we meet the challenges ahead. 

Look, the American Society for Civil Engineers has looked at our national infrastructure and given it the dismal grade of D—‘D’ as in ‘dog’—plus. They have looked 

at our highway and transit systems and gave them a grade of a D. Bridges, C-plus— 

grades that none of us should be pleased with. At the same time we have 15 percent 

unemployment in the construction industry. So it’s a no-brainer that we would increase our investment here in our national infrastructure in order to meet these 

needs, as well as help put more people back to work. 
4 

And that’s exactly why the budget that House Democrats put forward, the budget 

the President put forward, and that Senate Democrats put forward, did two things. 

Number one, it had a $50 billion investment, immediate investment, in our national 

infrastructure, and it would have funded the transportation fund and the highway 

programs specifically at the current baseline levels. As opposed, unfortunately, to 

the House Republican budget, that would have cut that by 25 percent over 10 years. 

Real, negative consequences to our national infrastructure. And I hope that we can 

go to conference on the budget so we can begin to iron out some of those important 

differences. 

But with that, Mr. Chairman, if I could just yield the last minute of my opening 

statement to Mr. Blumenauer, we’ll also have opportunities for questions, but I did 

want to ask him to say a few words. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. The time that I am yielded is what? Okay. 

Thank you. 

Well, I appreciate your courtesy, and I deeply appreciate having 

this hearing. I hope that it is the first of several hearings that we 

have on the Budget Committee dealing with infrastructure finance. 

We are all rightly concerned about the fiscal deficit, and I think it 

takes a lot of our time and attention. But I hope that we are able 

to spend some time on this Committee on the infrastructure deficit, 

which is large and growing larger. 

It was not very long ago that the American transportation systems were the envy of the world. Interstate highway systems, aviation, railroads, even the electric grid, set us apart. But that has not 

been the case for years. Now, part of what is going to be discussed 

today will be a philosophical effort, is whether it is time that we 

scale down the federal role, that it is turned back to the states and 

local governments, and allow them to locally tax and plan. And I 

welcome that conversation. I think it is an important one. We have 

had experiments with that in the past, like the first 50 years of 

railroads in this country, which resulted in different gauges of rail, 

gaps in the system, and resulted in local governments and some 

businesses taking advantage of their neighbors because they could 

make more money. I think it is fair to listen to some of our friends 

here and think about that. 

But at the same time, there are two issues that I hope that we 

put on the table. One is the simple fact that we have not been investing enough. The Highway Trust Fund is not going bankrupt, 

but it moves into a negative balance. And that is because we have 

not adjusted the funding mechanism for 20 years. We need more 

federal resources. I welcome the notion that maybe we look at a vehicle mile travel, because the gallons of fuel consumed no longer 

really represents the value of the transportation that is provided. 

And I think that there is a lot of common ground here, because in 

the next 10 years, we have got to go to a different system, because 

that is going to put us into a downward spiral, and there is a potential to modify our behaviors accordingly, and I look forward to 

that conversation. 

But I think it is critical that we look at a national system, that 

there are many areas where we have bi-state or tri-state, where it 

is not in any one community’s interest, it is in the national interest 

to make these pieces transparent and seamless, and work for us 

all. It is important that we have a system that provides credit for 

a trip not taken, which may be the cheapest way to expand our capacity. 
5 

I appreciate the hearing; I hope that this is the beginning of a 

longer conversation about what the federal role should be, what the 

funding levels should be, and to be able to hear not just from these 

three witnesses, but there are a wide range of people that want to 

be heard on this issue before this Committee. And Mr. Chairman, 

I would respectfully ask unanimous consent that we hold the 

record open for a week. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blumenauer follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. EARL BLUMENAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

I hope today’s Budget Committee hearing marks the beginning of a wider, more 

robust conversation on the budget, specifically transportation infrastructure. 

The committee has been deeply concerned about the budget deficit and appropriately so, but not enough attention has been paid to our infrastructure deficit. The 

federal government has largely failed to maintain a system of aviation facilities, the 

electrical grid, sewer and water systems, and interstate highways that once was the 

envy of the world. That is a claim that is harder to make today, and its status and 

condition continues to deteriorate. 

The majority witnesses focus time their time and energy arguing for devolution— 

the concept that we don’t need a strong federal presence and support in infrastructure development. They argue that it will be taken care by the individual decisions 

of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and local governments across America. 

The fact is that the networks (sewer, road, aviation, and rail) were all created by 

strong federal policy and investment. 

America had a 50 year experiment with devolution, local control over infrastructure. We had different gage tracks, missing segments. We had local and commercial 

interests holding their neighbor hostage because they made more money not having 

a smooth, transparent, seamless transportation system. The country as a whole was 

poorer, but individual communities and private interest made lots of money based 

on that dysfunctionality. 

I have no quarrel with the notion that we can and should do better. I think an 

independent review of state and local infrastructure decisions will suggest that 

where investment has been left exclusively to state and local governments, they 

were certainly no more visionary, they were no less corrupt and inept, and there 

was no rational reason for them to help their neighbors either near or far. 

We are on a path for significant reduction in infrastructure investment. Over the 

next 20 years, greater fuel efficiency and alternative vehicle modes put on a path 

to collect even less money. We are breaking the linkage between payment for road 

use and gallons of fuel consumed. It sketches an alternative scenario where we can 

fairly and efficiently collect revenues based on use rather than gallons of fuel consumed. It is the wave of the future. My state of Oregon is experimenting with some 

pilot projects in that regard and I look forward to this Congress expanding on those 

pilot projects. The potential of unleashing a huge wave of revenue generation and 

an intelligently managed transportation system with closely aligned benefits and 

costs. Many people will adjust their travel behaviors accordingly and it is one of the 

most efficient ways to get more out of the existing infrastructure. 

Many, important centers of commerce are bi-state, in some areas multi-state— 

New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Kansas City, Missouri, Iowa, Illinois, in my 

own backyard Oregon and Washington—and this makes it difficult for state and 

local governments to identify and pay for system-wide benefits. There is an also a 

national advantage if areas of the country like Chicago or Los Angeles make massive investment in their ports that benefit other parts of the country, but that’s a 

tough sell to local officials and their constituents when ‘‘they’re already got theirs’’. 

Indeed, improvements to freight movement that would benefit the entire nation, 

which we attempted in the recent highway extension, are in many cases aggressively opposed by local interests. Anybody who has ever been a city councilmember 

or a city commissioner knows that as vital as truck movements are (virtually every 

freight movement includes a truck), they are not popular. Because we are a vast 

nation, states have different needs at different times. States would be hard pressed 

to make investments at exactly the time they should because the local economy is 

bad. It beats trying to cut the gas tax when there was a spike in gasoline prices. 

A quick look at the national situation right now reveals a lack of appreciation and 

leadership from Congress. We are ignoring the quickest, fastest, most efficient way 

to get America back to work through local construction to improve roads, bridges, 
6 

transit. Infrastructure investment would put millions of people to work while it 

strengthens local economy, the environment, and our national competitiveness. 

When the United States is perceived by people who control hundreds of billions 

of dollars as the safest location for their money, people literally give us billions of 

dollars essentially for free given the low interest rates and modest inflationary pressures. A rational government would be borrowing and investing using other peoples’ 

money for free to make our system stronger. But we’re not. 

We need a national system that speaks to the transportation challenges of today. 

The current system dramatically undervalues investments that result in somebody 

not being on the road, somebody not being in a car in front of you idling at a traffic 

bottleneck, or fighting you for a parking space at the end of the journey. In larger 

metropolitan areas where networks are stressed, where land is at a premium, taking more private property to put more cars in pinch points is extraordinarily controversial and has arguably not been effective in facilitating movement, or reducing 

congestion or pollution. Making it possible for someone to take mass transit, Amtrak, walk, or bike is the fastest, cheapest, most environmentally benign way to facilitate movement of goods that have no alternative and for people that cannot or 

choose not to move away from their car. 

One of the most important trends in America is that people are driving less per 

capita. This is very much the case with younger drivers. Recent analysis shows a 

dramatic reduction in VMT, a 40% increase in young people’s transit utilization, and 

a 25% increase in cycling. They are even getting fewer drivers licenses; a stark 

change from my generation when you camped out the night before you turned 16 

at the local DMV so that you could be the first one through the door to take the 

test and get your license. I believe this is a lasting change. 

I welcome this conversation. I look forward to this being the beginning of the 

budget committee doing its work with the critical arena of infrastructure finance, 

the opportunities, and the national priorities for us to do our job. 

I hope that we will be able to expand our hearings and our analysis to hear from 

the amazing array of people who make their living building, managing, coping with 

infrastructure or trying to use what is not necessarily there. 

Mr. GARRETT [presiding]. I will put that in my opening statement. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. GARRETT. In my closing as well. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield back. 

Mr. GARRETT. The gentleman yields back. And at this time we 

welcome our witnesses to the panel, and we thank you. We are 

here, as Mr. Blumenauer says, to have a great debate on these 

issues from the various proposals that may be coming before us. 

And we will start with Mr. Poole, and as with all the witnesses, 

of course, you are recognized for five minutes, and your full statement will be entered, without objection, into the record and we will 

look to your statement now in five minutes. The gentleman is recognized. 

STATEMENTS OF ROBERT POOLE, SEARLE FREEDOM TRUST 

TRANSPORTATION FELLOW AND DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION POLICY, REASON FOUNDATION; R. RICHARD GEDDES, DIRECTOR OF THE CORNELL PROGRAM IN INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, CORNELL 

UNIVERSITY; JANET F. KAVINOKY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, U.S. CHAMBER 

OF COMMERCE, VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICANS FOR TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY COALITION 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT POOLE 

Mr. POOLE. Thank you, Mr. Garrett, Ranking Member Van Hollen. I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you this morning 

about this very, very important question. Let me start by noting 

that similar problems to the ones facing the Highway Trust Fund 
7 

also exist with the other three federal transportation trust funds: 

the Aviation Trust Fund, the Harbor Trust Fund, and the Waterways Trust Fund. And so I second Congressman Blumenauer’s recommendation that this Committee look at all of those trust funds, 

not just the Highway Trust Fund, because this has huge consequences and major problems that need to be fixed. 

The major problem facing the Highway Trust Fund today is how 

can America increase productive investment in transportation infrastructure while simultaneously reducing the scope of federal 

spending? The Trust Fund began with a single purpose, and that 

was to enable highway users to pay for constructing a national 

interstate highway network. Unfortunately, in my view, over time, 

that program evolved into what has become an all-purpose transportation public works program. And as it lost its focus, it also lost 

public support. It is almost impossible to get public support to increase federal fuel taxes today, and I think that ties directly to the 

fact that the program lost focus and does not really have an objective that Americans can get behind. 

And I think that also is a clue as to why the trust fund is on 

the verge of insolvency. In the SAFETEA-LU reauthorization, Congress deliberately increased outlays beyond what the projections of 

the time showed would come in in fuel tax revenue. They did this 

by planning by, and doing, spending down the $15 billion accumulated balance in the trust fund, which is basically gone now. So 

then what happened, when we got to the recession, that higher 

spending level had become what states expected to get, became the 

new norm, and that led to the political pressure to subsidize the 

trust fund with General Fund money, which, is my view, is not sustainable in the federal government’s fiscal condition. 

In my written testimony, I present two, what I consider, nearterm alternatives for dealing with this. The first would be to return 

the Highway Trust Fund to highways only. That sounds like a radical idea, but hear me out. CBO projections show that there is 

enough highway user revenue projected to come in over the next 

decade to support the highway program. The numbers work, and 

they are in the written testimony. General Fund money is only 

needed if all the non-highway programs are to be continued as part 

of the trust fund’s obligation. So I propose eliminating the middle 

man and, basically, giving the General Fund money directly to 

transit, to the FTA, and restoring the Highway Trust Fund to be 

a users pay, users benefit endeavor that it was originally started 

to be. And another idea to consider is if the FTA is shifted to General Fund support, it might make sense to relocate it to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, where it began as the 

Urban Mass Transportation Administration. And that would be 

consistent with the increasing emphasis of FTA on smart growth, 

community economic development, and so forth. So that is my first 

alternative. 

The other alternative would restructure somewhat further than 

that, and that would be to refocus the Highway Trust Fund on 

interstate commerce transportation only. That would mean a lot 

more money could be spent on those critically important, the interstates and the National Highway System corridors that desperately 

need more investment. This function would be part of a general re- 
8 

ordering of what the federal government’s responsibility is, redefining the federal role, not just in transportation, but in other areas 

as well; sorting out what is truly federal, what is properly state, 

and what is properly local. Interstate highways, National Highway 

System, for the most part, are truly federal. Most other highways 

are state, inherently. And streets and transit are inherently the 

province of local communities, local governments. Making that kind 

of shift would obviously be a big change for the states and metro 

areas, and it would be incumbent on Congress, if it does this, to 

give the states more tools to do a better job with funding productive transportation infrastructure. 

One way to do that would be on the revenue side. The single biggest thing the next re-authorization could do would be to remove 

the remaining federal ban on tolling interstate highways for the 

purpose of reconstruction and modernization; not as a general 

funding source for all kinds of things, but for the specific purpose, 

which I think the American public would get behind, of giving us 

a 21st century interstate highway system. And that would make a 

huge difference. Also, because public-private partnerships could 

play an increasing role in helping states and localities do more 

with less, the next re-authorization should strengthen the TIFIA 

loan program, which has been very successful, and expand the taxexempt private activity bond availability for these kinds of PPP 

transportation infrastructure projects. In addition, those highways 

that were removed from the federal aid system would be freed from 

the costly regulatory burdens that any dollar of federal aid brings 

with it, and so the states could do more with less in that sense, 

also. 

Looking to the longer term, it is very clear to just about everyone 

in Transportation that we need to transition from per gallon taxes 

to per mile charges, as Congressman Blumenauer rightly said, because the fuel tax system is not sustainable on a long-term basis. 

The states are already taking the lead with research and pilot programs, and this federal support, and I think that is really the best 

way forward. I do not believe we should have a massive federal topdown program imposed on the states to do this. But the states are 

very actively pursuing this. All the State DOTs know that they 

cannot continue with fuel taxes for more than the next 10 or 15 

years. Congress should encourage more of this; allowing the more 

advanced State DOTs and transportation institutes to figure out, 

by trial and error, which forms of implementing per-mile charges 

would be most politically feasible and most economically feasible. 

And it is not, in my view, going to be a mandated big brother box 

in every car, tracking every moment. That is not going to fly, will 

not happen, should not happen. But there are other ways out there, 

and I addressed some of them in my written testimony. 

And finally, as the nation transitions to mileage-based user fees, 

we will have to confront the question of whether, at that point, we 

still need a Federal Highway Trust Fund. Once all states can 

charge all highway users for every mile driven, it is not clear that 

there will still be a need to collect the money, send it to Washington, and redistribute it among the states. And there is new research cited in my written testimony that finds that what we are 

doing now, we are actually shifting money from lower income 
9 

states to higher income states through the Federal Highway Program, and favoring rural states, which have lower transportation 

needs, over states with heavy urban needs. So this suggest it is 

really, really time to rethink the federal program, and we will need 

to do that as we move towards mileage-based user fees. 

That concludes my prepared remarks, and I would be happy to 

entertain questions at whatever time is appropriate. Thank you 

very much. 

[The prepared statement of Robert Poole follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. POOLE, JR., DIRECTOR OF

TRANSPORTATION POLICY, REASON FOUNDATION

I am Robert Poole, Director of Transportation Policy at the Reason Foundation. 

Since the mid-1980s I have been researching transportation policy, including problems of funding and finance. I was a member of the Transportation Research 

Board’s special committee on the long-term viability of fuel taxes as the principal 

funding source for highways. And I am currently a member of two TRB standing 

committees, one on congestion pricing and the other on managed lanes. I am a 

member of the board of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association 

PPP Division, and I am an advisor to the International Bridge, Tunnel & Turnpike 

Association. 

CONTEXT

Before addressing the future of the Highway Trust Fund, I would like to provide 

some context about the federal role in transportation infrastructure overall. The federal government has entered a new era of fiscal stress, with many experts viewing 

the federal budget as being out of control, as illustrated by the unprecedented 

growth of the national debt and large-scale budget deficits years after the recession 

officially ended. When it comes to transportation infrastructure, we are faced with 

the conflicting needs to reduce the scope of federal spending while at the same time 

increasing productive investment in transportation infrastructure. 

At a time like this, it is appropriate to step back and take a fresh look at how 

the federal government invests in this infrastructure. We have four major transportation trust funds: the Aviation Trust Fund, the Highway Trust Fund, the Harbor 

Maintenance Trust Fund, and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Each is the recipient of mode-specific user taxes which are supposed to be used only for investment 

in that mode of infrastructure. 

While all four trust funds do make investments in their respective forms of infrastructure, all share a set of fundamental problems, which lead to far less than optimal results in terms of maximizing productive investment—i.e., getting the most 

bang for the buck. In a recent Reason Foundation report,1 I identified these problems as follows: 

1. Because the user taxes are legally taxes, Congress is reluctant to increase their 

rates, even though in many cases more investment is needed. 

2. Each of these trust funds involves significant redistribution—from one part of 

the country to another, or from one subset of users to another—creating winners 

and losers and often leading to investments whose benefits are less than their costs. 

3. Federal involvement significantly increases the cost of projects that use federal 

dollars, due to numerous regulatory requirements, such as Davis-Bacon and Buy 

America. 

4. The emphasis in these programs on new capacity tends to bias state and local 

decisions against maintenance and in favor of capital-intensive projects using what 

is perceived as ‘‘free federal money.’’ 

5. Finally, these federal programs encourage large-scale capital projects to be paid 

for on a cash basis, rather than being financed and paid for over time, as users derive benefits from the improved infrastructure. 

Consequently, as we look to solve both the budget problem and the infrastructure 

investment problem, it is appropriate to critically examine the user-tax/trust-fund/ 

federal-grant model in each of these modes of transportation infrastructure. Is this 

model actually the best we can do to make cost-effective investments in vitally needed infrastructure? Let me suggest that the Budget Committee address this larger 

question, and the other transportation infrastructure trust funds, in addition to today’s topic of the Highway Trust Fund. 
10 

EVOLUTION OF THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND

The Highway Trust Fund (HTF) was created by legislation in 1956 for a single 

purpose: to have highway users pay for creating the new Interstate Highway System. It authorized a set of new federal highway user taxes, primarily on gasoline 

and diesel fuel, the proceeds of which would be accounted for in the HTF and used 

to build the Interstate system. Grants were made available to all states via a formula, with the states having to provide a 10% match, to build their portions of this 

national system. The states own the resulting highways, but were required to build 

them to federal standards and operate them as a system. 

As the Interstates went into operation, a growing economy and periodic increases 

in the fuel tax rates produced steady growth in fuel tax revenues, so Congress began 

hearing pleas from states to permit HTF monies to be used for other highways in 

addition to the Interstates. Each time Congress reauthorized the program, additional uses were approved, with the program turning into a general highway-improvement program by the early 1970s. In 1973, Congress permitted HTF monies 

to be used for buses and for rail transit facilities, as well as allowing states to withdraw a planned urban Interstate and build a transit line instead. But the biggest 

turning point came in 1982, when DOT Secretary Drew Lewis, seeking urban votes 

to support a fuel tax increase, promised mayors that 20% of the revenue from the 

increase would be dedicated to a new transit account in the HTF. The changes from 

1973 to 1982 represented a major shift away from the users-pay/users-benefit model, 

in which revenues from highway users benefitted only highway users. Especially 

after the 1991 ISTEA legislation, it became a system in which highway users are 

the source of federal funding for an ever-increasing array of purposes: transit, sidewalks, bikeways, recreational trails, etc. 

By the late 2000s, about 23% of total HTF money was being spent on non-highway purposes, including urban transit, safety regulation (FMSCA, NHTSA), ‘‘enhancements,’’ and miscellaneous spending (including the Congestion Mitigation and 

Air Quality program and monies states were allowed to shift from highways to transit under the Surface Transportation program).2

When the credit crunch of 2007-08 triggered what some have called the Great Recession, the combination of high fuel prices and fewer people employed led to an unexpected reduction in driving (measured as vehicle miles of travel—VMT). The reduced VMT along with gradually increasing fuel economy led to significantly less 

federal and state fuel tax revenues than had been projected at the time of the previous reauthorization legislation, SAFETEA-LU, in 2005. Moreover, Congress made 

the problem worse by allocating more funding than the projected HTF revenues, by 

spending down most of the rather sizeable surplus in the Trust Fund. 

Thus, when Congress was unable to agree on a successor bill during the recession, 

the continuing resolutions it passed to keep HTF monies flowing included significant 

infusions of general fund revenue, in addition to the Administration’s stimulus funding. These inflows into the HTF, averaging about $7 billion per year from 2008 

through 2011, disguised the nature of the problem of spending that was growing far 

beyond what highway user taxes were providing. Thus, what had historically been 

a self-supporting program, in which federal highway-user revenues exceeded federal 

highway spending,3 for the first time could be portrayed as a program in which general taxpayers were subsidizing highway users. 

State DOTs got used to receiving unprecedented sums during the era of 

SAFETEA-LU and its extensions. FHWA highway statistics provide the following 

revenue and spending figures for the HTF’s Highway and Transit Accounts: 

Year Highway Spending Transit Spending User-Tax Revenues Revenues minus Spending 

2005 ............................... $33.1 billion $6.8 billion $37.8 billion ¥$2.1 billion 

2006 ............................... $32.5 billion $3.3 billion $38.2 billion $2.4 billion 

2007 ............................... $34.7 billion $4.4 billion $39.4 billion $0.3 billion 

2008 ............................... $37.0 billion $6.0 billion $36.4 billion ¥$6.6 billion 

2009 ............................... $37.6 billion $7.3 billion $35.1 billion ¥$9.8 billion 

2010 ............................... $32.0 billion $7.4 billion $35.0 billion ¥$4.4 billion 

2011 ............................... $36.2 billion $8.3 billion $36.9 billion ¥$7.6 billion 

Source: FHWA highway statistics Table FE-210 

The figures above show that in nearly every year of this period, highway plus 

transit spending exceeded the revenues from highway user taxes. The difference was 

made up initially by Congress spending down the accumulated balance in the HTF, 

which had peaked at over $15 billion prior to the recession, and subsequently by 
11 

stimulus funds. But looking ahead, with the HTF balance nearly gone, and no further stimulus program in sight, the Congressional Budget Office projects that the 

HTF will start showing a negative balance in 2015 and increasing each year thereafter. This projection assumes that the spending established in MAP-21 for 2013 

and 2014 becomes the new baseline and is annually adjusted for inflation. Highway 

user revenues are projected at between $38 billion and $40.8 billion per year over 

this period, but highway plus transit spending from the Trust Fund, from the MAP21 baseline, is projected to be about $49.6 billion per year. 

NEAR-TERM ALTERNATIVES FOR THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND

There is no painless way out of the dilemma facing the HTF in coming years. 

There seems to be very little political support for increasing federal fuel taxes, and 

no other source of new revenue is on the horizon. In this section I will describe two 

near-term approaches that could be part of the next surface transportation reauthorization bill. Neither would solve the longer-term problem, which I will address 

in a subsequent section. 

RETURN THE TRUST FUND TO HIGHWAYS ONLY

This approach would recognize that the size of the annual shortfall is approximately the amount of highway user-tax revenue devoted each year to the HTF’s 

Transit Account and other non-highway programs. The 10-year CBO projection 

shows annual highway contract authority at $41 billion, and the sum of revenues 

and interest allocated to the Highway Account and the Transit Account as averaging 

$40.1 billion per year. Thus, 98% of the baseline highway spending level could be 

met by the projected highway user-tax revenue projected for this 10-year period. 

(And the Highway Account could also cease funding non-highway programs such as 

CMAQ and Transportation Alternatives.) 

How would transit be funded if there were no longer a Transit Account in the 

HTF? In the short term, Congress could allocate general-fund money directly to the 

Federal Transit Administration, rather than putting that same amount of generalfund money into the HTF’s Transit Account. This is probably not a sustainable longterm solution, given the pressures on federal general-fund spending due to the overall budget situation. But it would be intended as a transition measure, providing 

time (the duration of the next reauthorization) to come up with a longer-term solution for transit. 

The current Administration’s focus on livability and sustainability, including 

FTA’s active encouragement of local streetcar projects and economic development, 

suggests a possible alternative home for the FTA as part of the Department of 

Housing & Urban Development. Indeed, the FTA’s predecessor, the Urban Mass 

Transportation Administration, was originally part of HUD, and was only transferred to the U.S. DOT during the Carter Administration. HUD is supported by general revenues, but FTA would be a relatively small addition to HUD’s $45 billion 

budget. 

REFOCUS THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE

The second alternative goes somewhat beyond the first. As part of the overall rethinking of the federal government’s role that needs to take place this decade, the 

roles of federal, state, and local governments need to be sorted out, such that each 

does the tasks most appropriate for that level of government. The federal government should concentrate on major, nationwide issues, such as its constitutionally 

authorized role of ensuring the free flow of interstate commerce. That, along with 

the power to establish post roads, appears to provide a sound justification for a 

major national highway network, such as the Interstates (and portions of the larger 

system designated as the National Highway System). But other state highways 

should return to their historical status as state responsibilities, and transit under 

this approach would be recognized as the responsibility of urban regions. (This sorting-out approach was proposed by Alice Rivlin of the Brookings Institution in 

1992.4) 

A Highway Trust Fund devoted to Interstates and NHS could invest more than 

FHWA currently does in these critically important corridors of commerce and personal travel. The $40 billion per year expected from highway user-tax revenues over 

the next decade is twice the current annual investment in the Interstates by federal 

and state governments, though a portion of that total would continue to be spent 

on NHS highways under this approach. But by targeting federal assistance to these 

corridors of commerce, the nation could make a start on the enormous task of reconstructing and modernizing aging Interstates and key NHS corridors, replacing their 
12 

worn-out pavements, adding lanes where needed (especially in major truck corridors), and bringing designs up to current safety and durability standards. 

A major benefit of either of these near-term alternatives would be to reinstate the 

original promise made when federal highway user taxes and the HTF were introduced in the 1956 legislation: users-pay/users-benefit. American voters have by and 

large lost trust in the HTF, as the program lost its focus and became more of an 

all-purpose transportation public works program over the last three decades. Refocusing those user taxes on highways only, or preferably on major interstate-commerce highways, would be a first step in restoring voter trust in the Trust Fund, 

which is a pre-condition for its being able to increase needed investment in major 

highways and bridges. 

THE NEED FOR INCREASED HIGHWAY INVESTMENT

Before looking into longer-term options for the HTF, let me address the question 

of whether additional highway investment is actually needed. A recent study by a 

team headed by Prof. David Hartgen analyzed 20 years of federal highway data to 

address the question of whether America’s highways and bridges are ‘‘crumbling.’’ 5

Using seven key indicators, Hartgen showed that most states made major improvements in the condition of their highways and bridges over that time period, as well 

as achieving a 42% reduction in the rate of highway fatalities. The only area where 

little progress was achieved is urban traffic congestion, with only a modest 7.6% reduction in the extent of urban Interstates congested—and that is likely due to the 

effects of high fuel prices and unemployment in 2007-2008. 

But despite that progress, there is still a large backlog of bridges in poor condition, as well as the festering problem of urban congestion—as well as the fact that 

much of the Interstate system is nearing the end of its 50-year design life and in 

need of major reconstruction. The definitive source on highway investment needs is 

the Federal Highway Administration’s biennial ‘‘conditions and performance’’ report. 

Chapter 8 of the latest report presents various investment scenarios—to maintain 

the current conditions and performance (no better, no worse) or to improve conditions and performance by investing in all projects whose benefits exceed their costs.6

The table below summarizes these cases. 

Scenario Route-Miles (2010) Sustain Current 

Spending ($B/year) 

Maintain Conditions & 

Performance ($B/year) 

Improve Conditions & 

Performance ($B/year) 

Interstate System ........................... 47,328 $20.0 $24.3 $43.0 

National Highway System .............. 159,326 $42.0 $38.9 $71.8 

Entire Federal-Aid System ............. 1,024,844 $91.1 $101.0 $170.1 

For the entire federal-aid highway system, federal and state governments spent 

$91.1 billion in 2008, which was about $10 billion short of what would have been 

necessary to prevent some combination of declining pavement and bridge conditions 

and worsening of congestion (which would have required $101 billion instead). And 

to make cost-effective improvements in the system would have required $170.1 billion that year, according to FHWA’s models. Looking at the subset of highways comprising only the Interstate system, state and federal governments together invested 

$20 billion in 2008, which was $4.3 billion short of what was needed to maintain 

status-quo conditions. To make all the cost-effective improvements would have required more than double that level—$43 billion per year. That is mostly due to a 

combination of reconstruction needs and widening needs. 

These are credible estimates, based on a methodology that has been continually 

refined and improved in recent decades. These estimates are taken very seriously 

by transportation professionals, and should be taken seriously by elected officials, 

as well. They clearly show the need for increased investment in projects whose benefits exceed their costs (which is built into the models yielding the above estimates). 

As Congress looks toward the next reauthorization of the federal program, in 

2014, it is clear that under any likely revision of the program—and certainly under 

the two near-term approaches outlined previously—the states will need to continue 

taking on a larger share of the burden, compared with the now-ended era of abundant and ever-increasing federal funding. So in addition to revamping the federal 

program itself, Congress needs to give the states more tools to enable them to increase highway-user revenues and to shift more toward financing large-scale 

projects, rather than paying for them out of annual cash flow. 

On the revenue side, the single most important provision would be to remove the 

remaining federal prohibition on charging tolls on Interstates. Toll financing is a 

powerful mechanism for raising the capital needed to reconstruct and modernize the 
13 

aging Interstate system. Permitting such financing for that specific purpose would 

enable states to begin the replacement of the original 20th-century Interstate system with a truly user-funded Interstate 2.0 for the 21st century. The tolling should 

be done via state-of-the-art all-electronic tolling (AET), dispensing with the need for 

toll booths and toll plazas. Recent research has demonstrated that if AET is implemented with a streamlined business model, the cost of raising highway funds in this 

manner can be as low as 5% of the revenue collected; 20th-century cash toll collection often consumed 20 to 30% of the revenue collected.7

Two other financing tools will also help state DOTs begin a transition from grants 

to more direct user-based financing. One is to continue and possibly further expand 

the successful TIFIA loan program to provide gap financing for projects that have 

a dedicated revenue source and can achieve an investment-grade rating on their 

senior debt. And because large-scale tolled projects lend themselves to procurement 

as long-term public-private partnerships, Congress should continue to ensure that 

tax-exempt revenue bonds are available, putting PPP providers on a level financial 

playing field with government toll agencies. Current law caps the total amount of 

such private activity bonds (PABs) at $15 billion. That volume may well be used 

up by the time Congress enacts the next reauthorization, so my recommendation is 

to remove the cap altogether, or at least to double it to $30 billion. 

A LONGER-TERM PERSPECTIVE ON THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND

Nearly the entire transportation research community and most state DOTs have 

concluded that per-gallon fuel taxes are not viable going forward and will need to 

be replaced over the next several decades. The conclusion of the special TRB committee on which I served was that the replacement should be a new user fee, to retain the inherent benefits of having users pay for the highways they use.8 After extensive analysis and discussion, a similar conclusion was reached by the National 

Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, on which my Reason 

colleague Adrian Moore served. Their report concluded that the best form of user 

fee would be one based on miles traveled rather than on gallons of fuel used.9 The 

term now used for this concept is mileage-based user fees (MBUFs). 

There is considerable debate over how to design a system or systems to collect 

and enforce payment of MBUFs, as well as how to make the transition. So it would 

be premature for Congress to make decisions that would pre-empt promising research and demonstration projects that are now taking place in states such as Oregon, Minnesota, and Texas. 

Some points are becoming clear from these initial research projects. One is that 

there is extensive concern among motorists about any requirement for a device to 

be installed in all vehicles which would track the location of all travel. Popular 

media have created the impression that implementing MBUFs would require a 

‘‘GPS tracking device’’ in all vehicles. In my professional judgment, such a mandate 

would be both politically and economically infeasible. 

Another emerging finding is that there will probably not be a single, one-size-fitsall way of charging all vehicles per mile driven. What might work for truck fleets— 

many of which are already GPS-equipped—is very different from what would be feasible for a 250 million individually owned vehicles. And what might be needed for 

variable pricing on congested freeways is different from what is needed to record 

total miles driven on ordinary streets and roads. 

My current scenario for MBUF implementation is for a two-tier system for personal motor vehicles. Tier one would be a very basic, low-tech system based on annual miles recorded by vehicle odometers, probably linked with annual renewal of 

vehicle registration. This system would charge for miles driven on ordinary streets, 

roads, and lower-tier state highways. Those living in a metro area such as Kansas 

City that spans the border between two states might need to opt for a more sophisticated system that could distinguish between the miles driven in one state versus 

the other. That could be done using cell-phone towers to identify the general location of travel—one side or the other side of the border. 

Tier two would apply to the limited-access highways, namely the Interstates, 

other major limited-access highways that are part of the NHS, and urban expressways. Per-mile charging for these highways could be done at low cost via an expanded version of today’s all-electronic tolling, which is rapidly replacing earlier 

versions of electronic toll collection at toll plazas and open-road tolling to bypass toll 

plazas. With AET, no booths or plazas would exist. Instead, gantries would be required to mount the antennas and video cameras needed to assess mileage-based 

charges from the point of entry to the point of exit. The charges would be based 

on miles driven and vehicle classification, as on existing toll roads. In urban areas 
14 

with serious peak-period congestion, the per-mile charge would be variable, as on 

existing HOT lanes, to reduce congestion. 

The above approach could be phased in over a period of years, and requires no 

new technology and no Big Brother tracking. For Interstates, the introduction of 

AET could be linked with the reconstruction and modernization of individual corridors, as they reach the end of their existing design life over the next two decades. 

For state and local roads, in my view the best approach is to let a thousand flowers 

bloom, as states lead the way in testing economically and politically feasible ways 

to replace their fuel taxes with MBUFs. 

What should be the federal role in this transition? The most constructive role 

would be to encourage states to move forward with research and experimentation 

over the next decade, and to remove barriers such as the current ban on tolling 

Interstates for reconstruction. Full national interoperability for all-electronic toll collection is a precondition for the tier-two approach outlined above, and Congress 

could further encourage the promising work under way on this by the Alliance for 

Toll Interoperability. 

Once the full transition to mileage-based user charges is well under way, it will 

be appropriate to consider whether America will still need a federal Highway Trust 

Fund. The original rationale for putting the federal government in charge of creating the Interstate system was that the turnpike model pioneered by eastern states 

(Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, etc.) in the 1940s and 1950s could not produce a 

nationwide system, because traffic levels were far too low in the South and West 

to support toll-based financing. Consequently, the decision was made to enact uniform federal taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel and to redistribute funds from hightraffic states to low-traffic states to create the national network. 

The United States has changed dramatically in the nearly 60 years since the 1956 

legislation was enacted. There have been massive shifts in population to the South 

and West, with metro areas like Atlanta, Orlando, Miami, Houston, Dallas, Denver, 

Phoenix, and Las Vegas as major centers of economic activity. A huge interstate 

trucking industry has emerged, turning many Interstates into critically important 

commerce corridors. Traffic levels on many southern and western Interstates are at 

levels unimagined in 1956, and truck traffic on many key corridors is projected to 

greatly exceed their capacity over the next 30 years. Preliminary research at the 

Reason Foundation suggests that toll-financed reconstruction of Interstates may 

well be feasible for all but a handful of states—a situation that was unimaginable 

in 1956. And if that finding is verified by further research, it suggests that the original justification for the HTF—the need for large-scale redistribution of highway revenue—may no longer exist. 

Recent empirical research on how federal funding is distributed among states also 

casts doubt on the continued need for geographic redistribution. Researchers Zhu 

and Brown used data on federal highway spending from 1974 through 2008 to test 

several hypotheses to explain how much each state received, compared to what it 

contributed in federal highway user taxes.10 They found that redistribution is not 

taking place from higher-income states to lower-income states, but from states with 

lower income to states with higher income. They also found that redistribution 

shifts funds from states with greater highway system needs (due to more highways 

and greater traffic) to those with lesser needs. They also found a strong rural bias, 

and also a significant relationship between seniority on highway committees and 

per-capita funding levels. 

This recent research calls into question the ongoing need for a federal program 

to collect and then redistribute highway funds among the states. And with the transition to mileage-based user fees, most states will be able to fund and manage their 

own highway systems. The federal role might then become more of a standard-setting and regulatory role for the expanded Interstate 2.0 network, consistent with the 

federal constitutional power to ensure the free flow of interstate commerce. 

That concludes my testimony. I will be happy to entertain questions and will answer them to the best of my ability. 

ENDNOTES

1 Robert W. Poole, Jr., ‘‘Funding Important Infrastructure in a Fiscally Constrained Environment,’’ Policy Brief No. 102, Reason Foundation, January 2013 (http://reason.org/files/transportation—funding—budget—constraints.pdf) 2 Robert W. Poole, Jr. and Adrian T. Moore, ‘‘Restoring Trust in the Highway Trust Fund,’’ 

Policy Study No. 386, Reason Foundation, August 2010. (http://reason.org/studies/show/highway-trust-fund-reform) 3 Bureau of Transportation Statistics, ‘‘Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation,’’ U.S. 

Department of Transportation, December 2004 (www.bts.gov/publications/federal—subsidies— 

to—passenger—transportation) 4 Alice Rivlin, Reviving the American Dream, Brookings Institution,, 1992, p. 17. 
15 

5David T. Hartgen, et al., ‘‘Are Highways Crumbling? State and U.S. Highway Performance 

Trends, 1989-2008,’’ Policy Study No. 407, Reason Foundation, February 2013. (http://reason.org/files/us—highway—performance—20—year—trends—full—study.pdf) 6 U.S. Department of Transportation, 2010 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and 

Transit: Conditions & Performance, March 2012, Chapter 8. 7Daryl Fleming, et al., ‘‘Dispelling the Myths: Toll and Fuel Tax Collection Costs in the 21st 

Century,’’ Policy Study No. 409, Reason Foundation, November 2012. (http://reason.org/news/ 

show/myths-toll-and-gas-tax-collection) 8Transportation Research Board, The Fuel Tax and Alternatives for Transportation Funding, 

Special Report 285, 2006. 9 National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, Paying Our Way: A 

New Framework for Transportation Finance, 2009. 10Pengyu Zhu and Jeffrey Brown, ‘‘Donor States and Donee States: Investigating Geographic 

Redistribution of the U.S. Federal-Aid Highway Program, 1974-2008,’’ Transportation, Issue 1, 

2013. 

Mr. GARRETT. Sure, thank you. Appreciate your comments. Mr. 

Geddes, welcome to the panel, and you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF R. RICHARD GEDDES 

Mr. GEDDES. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Van 

Hollen, and other distinguished members of the Committee. Thank 

you for inviting me. It is an honor to be invited to this hearing on 

this important issue on the State of the Highway Trust Fund. 

There are four key points that I would like to make in my oral 

statement today. First, echoing what Bob just said, the current approach to funding the Highway Trust Fund, and to transportation 

infrastructure more generally in the United States that relies on 

the burning of fossil fuel, is unsustainable. There are a number of 

reasons for this. First, the burning of fossil fuels obviously relies 

on the driving of cars, but the fuel efficiency of those vehicles is improving rapidly over time, and the amount of vehicle miles travelled annually by Americans started to level off in about 2006. As 

vehicles become more fuel efficient, the revenue end of the Highway Trust Fund begins to fall. Improvements in fuel efficiency are 

virtually guaranteed at this point because of tightening corporate 

average fuel economy standards that we are imposing on cars and 

trucks. I believe that the revenue into the Highway Trust Fund 

will continue to be stressed relative to the demands on that fund. 

Second, I believe the best approach to funding infrastructure is 

to transition to a variable mileage-based user fee, which is really 

just a variable per-unit charge or price for the use of roads that is 

similar to the way we price any other good or service. Such a system has a number of social benefits that I believe are very important. First, we can greatly reduce traffic congestion in the United 

States through the use of variable per-unit user fees. Second, we 

create a reliable revenue stream that funds road maintenance and 

expansion, thus improving our infrastructure, giving us better 

grades with the American Society of Civil Engineers. Third, we direct transportation infrastructure to its highest-valued use through 

the prices people are willing to pay. In other words, if they are willing to pay a higher per-unit price for the use of the road, that 

means the value to motorists is higher. That should be used to help 

us direct investment. 

Third, as Bob stressed, because such fees are a departure from 

current practice, I believe that innovative approaches to enhancing 

the appeal of mileage-based user fees must be explored. In other 

words, it is not enough to simply say, ‘‘This is a good idea.’’ I think 
16 

we need to suggest ways of actually implementing these things. 

One way to accomplish this, I believe, is through the use of a permanent public trust fund, which are currently in use in Alaska, Alberta, Norway, and Texas. The substantial economic value released 

by road pricing can be captured and preserved forever in a permanent fund that distributes annual dividends to all citizens, which 

is exactly what happens in Alaska right now through the Alaska 

Permanent Fund. 

Fourth, although the value from pricing something through, in 

this case, mileage-based user fees, can be captured through either 

municipal bonding power or through a PPP concession lease, I believe that there is a range of social reasons why we should prefer 

the use of P3 concessions. Those include greater access to capital 

markets; we know we need more investment in infrastructure, the 

capital is there, ready to invest in our infrastructure. Additionally, 

high-powered, focused incentives to seek new revenue, better manage costs, operate infrastructure facilities more efficiently. You can 

tap global business acumen and experience, as well as the ability 

to bear risk, which the private sector is expert in. 

Moreover, reliance on a contracting approach that enforces a regular maintenance schedule and high-quality service can be part of 

the P3 approach. I believe that this approach generates substantial 

social value because it explicitly recognizes the rights that all citizens hold currently in their infrastructure, one of which is to capture the revenue from the value of the asset. Just as a landlord has 

a right to capture the value from renting out an apartment unit, 

the citizen owners of public infrastructure, particularly in transportation, have a right to capture the value from pricing their assets. 

That can be done through mileage-based user fees, and preserved 

forever in a permanent fund that yields dividends. 

The permanent fund approach has been studied thoroughly in 

the case particularly of Alaska, but also of Texas, and it has many 

advantages. It preserves citizen owner value from infrastructure 

forever. It smoothes out the effects of recessions by providing an 

annual dividend regardless of economic conditions, and it reduces 

income inequality. In my view, it is critical to offer such important 

benefits to gain widespread acceptance of this new, sustainable infrastructure of funding approach. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Richard Geddes follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF R. RICHARD GEDDES, VISITING SCHOLAR, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE; ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF POLICY ANALYSIS

AND MANAGEMENT AND DIRECTOR, CORNELL PROGRAM IN INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY, CORNELL UNIVERSITY

CHAIRMAN RYAN, RANKING MEMBER VAN HOLLEN, DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF

THE COMMITTEE: Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony to the House 

Budget Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives on the current state of the 

Highway Trust Fund. I am R. Richard Geddes, Associate Professor in the Department of Policy Analysis and Management at Cornell University, Director of the Cornell Program in Infrastructure Policy, and Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. I was a member of the National Surface Transportation Policy and 

Revenue Study Commission that reported its findings to Congress in 2008. I am also 

a member of the Revenue and Finance Committee of the Transportation Research 

Board. I make four main points in this testimony: 

1. Under its current structure, the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) is not sustainable, 

and a new system of funding surface transportation infrastructure must be adopted. 
17 

2. The most desirable approach is a system of variable per-mile user fees, sometimes 

called Mileage-Based User Fees (MBUFs), which is consistent with the way providers of most goods and services, including utilities, charge their customers. 

3. Adopting a system of direct MBUFs is a departure from past practice, and its 

widespread adoption may be unpopular with motorists. It is therefore important to 

consider policies to enhance the public appeal of MBUFs. An important new approach to enhancing the public appeal of MBUFs is to better recognize citizen-ownership of infrastructure assets, and to utilize a permanent fund—one type of public 

trust fund—to preserve economic value released by pricing and to generate dividends in perpetuity to asset owners. 

4. Public-private partnerships, or PPPs, which allow competitive bidding by expert 

private infrastructure operators for the opportunity to operate and maintain infrastructure assets, are an important mechanism for releasing the value embedded in 

U.S. transportation infrastructure assets. That released value can be used to capitalize the public permanent fund. 

I discuss each of those major points below. 

1. THE UNSUSTAINABLE STRUCTURE OF THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND

The fiscal condition of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) was a key focus of the Revenue and Policy Study Commission’s work. The Commission was told of the effects 

of increasing vehicular fuel efficiency on projected HTF revenue, and that the fund 

was expected to experience large shortfalls. However, annual vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT) in the United States peaked in 2006 after rising almost continuously since 

1960. As Figure 1 in the Appendix indicates, VMT has historically rarely declined, 

or even leveled off, even during periods of substantial economic weakness. The recent weakness in VMT thus appears to represent an important change in the demand for road use. Moreover, revenue from fossil fuel taxes naturally declines as 

motorists shift into alternative power sources, such as natural gas and electricity. 

The combination of improving fuel efficiency and weak VMT growth has proved 

burdensome to the HTF, necessitating transfers from general funds. Infrastructure 

funding problems extend beyond the federal level, and similar factors have reduced 

state-level resources for transportation from fossil fuel taxes. The use of general 

funds for highways is disconcerting from a policy perspective. It represents further 

movement away from a user-pays model of highway funding, which was the cornerstone of the original fuel-tax funding approach for the Interstate Highway System. 

As I explain below, it is instead socially beneficial to move closer to a user-pays approach to transportation funding. 

Moreover, HTF revenue declines are coming at a time of rising demand for resources to renovate roads and highways. In its 2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, the American Society of Civil Engineers reported that 32 percent of 

America’s roads are in poor or mediocre condition, and assigned a D as the overall 

grade for road condition. The Report Card stresses the recurring problem of deferred 

maintenance in leading to such low grades. 

The problems facing the HTF are symptomatic of deeper problems created by the 

current approach to funding U.S. infrastructure that relies on the burning of fossil 

fuels. Increasing vehicular fuel efficiency is virtually certain given more stringent 

CAFE standards. 

It is thus time to ‘‘think big’’ with regard to funding alternatives, and to move 

toward an approach that will create a sustainable, well-maintained highway system 

where investment is allocated to its highest valued use, and where traffic congestion 

is mitigated. Moving to a system of variable per-unit user charges can help achieve 

those important social goals. 

A new funding approach to such a vast infrastructure system will take time and 

effort to adopt. In the medium term, steps should be taken to restore the user-fee 

approach to highway funding. Because fossil fuel taxes are paid by highways users, 

this implies reducing the use of general funds for transit as much as possible. One 

obvious step is to dedicate all fuel tax revenues to the Highway Account within the 

HTF only, and use general revenues to fund the Transit Account, rather than using 

general funds to subsidize both. This would have the added benefit of improving 

public governance, since it would increase the transparency of any direct taxpayer 

transit subsidies. 

An increase in the federal gas tax is sometimes proposed as a remedy. I view this 

as politically infeasible. Indeed, after almost two years of work, a majority on our 

Commission recommended (and I dissented from) a 30 cent per gallon increase in 

federal fuel tax rates, a recommendation that was summarily dismissed. I believe 
18 

that the only sustainable solution—and the best one—lies in the adoption of direct 

per-unit road user charges, or variable MBUFs. 

2. TOWARD VARIABLE PER-UNIT USER FEES, LIKE OTHER GOODS AND SERVICES

The current U.S. transportation system suffers from a set of serious problems, including shortages of road capacity in many areas (which manifests as traffic congestion), deferred maintenance, under investment, and misdirected investment. The 

HTF—and our transportation system more broadly—are facing such problems not 

because of factors unique to transportation infrastructure, but because of the way 

users (or customers) currently pay for system use. If, for example, the U.S. steel industry were government owned, funded through taxes, and gave its output away for 

free, it would be suffering from problems very similar to those in U.S. infrastructure. 

There is now wide agreement among economists that the most socially beneficial 

policy change that could occur in transportation is adoption of variable per-unit user 

charges. That is, a per-mile fee that varies depending on factors that reflect the current scarcity of road capacity, such as time of day. The technology now exists to directly charge motorists based on road scarcity and miles traveled. Technology is no 

longer the barrier that it was in Eisenhower’s time. 

Variable per-unit prices paid directly by customers are the way in which the vast 

majority of goods and services are provided. Households pay for electricity per kilowatt hour used, per minute of cell phone use, per gallon of water, and per therm 

of natural gas. Those prices can be allowed to vary as desired. Indeed, virtually all 

goods are successfully provided through reliance on variable per-unit pricing. We 

pay per hamburger consumed, per car purchased, and per cup of coffee. Persistent 

problems of shortages, deferred maintenance, and underfunding do not exist in any 

sector relying on variable per-unit charges. Indeed, there is now a presumption in 

favor of the use of variable unit pricing of goods and services to regulate demand 

and to guide investment 

From the perspective of the HTF and the stability of highway funding more generally, a key social benefit of moving to a system of MBUFs is the generation of 

facility-specific revenue that will ensure the facility is adequately maintained and 

expanded as necessary over time. By creating a stream of revenues directly from 

customers, MBUFs insulate funding for facility maintenance from budgetary uncertainty. However, there are several additional valuable social benefits of MBUFs, 

which include (among others): 

• By increasing during periods of peak road demand, variable MBUFs provide 

motorists with clear signals as to when they should consider transportation alternatives. That is, they signal when road space is most scarce. Price signals are critical because they allow motorists to choose the alternative for conserving on scarce 

road capacity that is most appropriate for them, such as bus, transit, carpool, altering work schedules, telecommuting or biking. As a result, variable MBUFs reduce 

the environmental and other social harms associated with traffic congestion. 

• By reflecting motorists’ willingness to pay for road use, variable MBUFs provide 

guidance as to where investment can be most usefully directed. That is, they objectively signal where the value of added investment is highest to customers. Conversely, such price signals help avoid the allocation of scarce investment dollars to 

low value projects, sometimes referred to as ‘‘white elephants.’’ 

• Variable VMT fees reflect the same user-pays principle embodied in the original 

fuel-tax approach to Interstate highway funding, which is used successfully to fund 

the utilities mentioned above. It reflects the widely accepted fairness principle that 

someone receiving the benefits of a good or service should pay for them. Conversely, 

those who do not use the roads are not charged for them. 

• The security of facility-specific revenues generated by MBUFs can be used to 

attract private investment, or to support municipal bond issues, to renovate and 

maintain the facility. In either case, the improved certainty of MBUF revenue (relative to federal or state budgetary allocations) will generate greater resources 

through the financial markets. 

Because it shares a network structure with several key sectors, it is useful to 

think about the U.S. transportation system under a MBUF system as a public utility. This conceptual framework is useful because it facilitates examination of policy 

lessons learned from other public utilities. A complete examination of those lessons 

is outside the scope of this testimony. 

Although there is wide agreement among academics that a system of MBUFs 

would generate large social benefits, use of them in the United States thus far has 

been limited. Variable user charges have been largely limited to new transportation 

capacity, such as the new High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes on the Northern Vir-
19 

ginia side of the Washington, DC beltway, or to conversions from High-Occupancy 

Vehicle (HOV) to HOT lanes. Such limited use is generally attributed to resistance 

from motorists to the adoption of new user fees. 

It is insufficient to simply stress the benefits of MBUFs in the hope that they will 

be adopted. It is instead necessary to consider new approaches to enhancing the 

public appeal of using MBUFs. I offer one such approach below. 

3. ENHANCING THE APPEAL OF ADOPTING MBUFS

Although they may seem unrelated at first glance, the key to increasing the public 

appeal of MBUFs is to clarify the rights citizens currently hold in public infrastructure assets. Clarifying the rights held by citizens allows them to capture some of 

the value created by MBUFs. Stressing the basic property rights of citizens as the 

ultimate owners of infrastructure assets improves citizen-stakeholdership in those 

assets, creating incentives typical of ownership in asset performance and maintenance. 

The relevant jurisdiction of infrastructure asset ownership, and thus the correct 

citizen group, is currently well defined. For example the entire Interstate Highway 

System is, with the exception of federal ownership of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, 

owned by the citizens of the states in which those highways are located. 

One important aspect of ownership is a property right to asset-generated income. 

If a landlord owns several apartment units, for example, the landlord has a right 

to lease the use of a unit and to capture the rental revenue from its use, while retaining title to the unit. Analogously, the citizen-owners of infrastructure assets possess a right to benefits from pricing use of their infrastructure. Explicitly recognizing the public’s right to asset revenue can be thought of as the ‘‘public-ization’’ 

of infrastructure assets. 

The decision to adopt MBUFs lies with public-sector decision makers for publicly 

owned transportation facilities. To make adoption of variable MBUFs politically feasible, a broad group of citizens in the relevant jurisdiction must realize benefits 

from that change. Using MBUFs to price transportation capacity that is currently 

‘‘free’’ (i.e. a price of zero) allows substantial economic value latent in those critical 

infrastructure assets to be released. 

As noted above, MBUFs create a facility-specific revenue stream that can be used 

to generate a large up-front payment from either a municipal bond issue or from 

a concession payment if private partners are included through a public-private partnership (or PPP). The term ‘‘PPP’’ refers to a contractual relationship between a 

public-sector project sponsor and a private sector firm or firms coordinating to provide a critical public good or service. 

In order to ensure that infrastructure owners realize benefits directly from the 

value released, a portion of the upfront payment facilitated by MBUFs should be 

protected in perpetuity through a public permanent fund. The permanent fund 

structure is governed by Government Accounting Standards Board rules. Annual 

dividends from the permanent trust fund can be distributed to all citizen-owners of 

the infrastructure. 

Experience in preserving natural resource wealth using a permanent fund suggests that this approach is feasible, sustainable, and creates vast social benefits. 

Similar to a trust fund, a public permanent fund preserves wealth in perpetuity 

since the fund’s principal is never spent. It is a public fund because it is citizenowned. Such funds have been used successfully to preserve natural resource wealth 

in Alaska, Alberta, Norway, and Texas. The largest U.S. examples are the $45.5 billion Alaska Permanent Fund and the $28 billion Texas Permanent School Fund. 

The value embedded in citizen-owned infrastructure assets is thus preserved in a 

citizen-owned fund that provides annual dividends for those citizens. 

The Alaska Permanent Fund is a semi-independent corporation created by the 

Alaskan constitution of 1976. Alaskan natural resource wealth in the form of North 

Slope oil reserves was quickly spent by the State’s government after its discovery 

in 1968. As one commentator describes: 

In 1968, nine years after statehood, Atlantic Richfield pumped the first oil from 

Prudhoe Bay, beginning a new boom cycle. The following year the state held an auction for oil leases, and in a single day collected $900 million, at a time when the 

state budget itself was barely over $100 million. This shower of riches sent Alaska 

into a frenzy of public spending, particularly on capital projects. From 1961 to 1981 

state general fund expenditures grew at an average annual rate of 22 percent, from 

$45 million to over $3 billion. 

In response, the Alaska Permanent Fund was established to help preserve state 

natural resource wealth for future generations and to protect it from short-term 

spending pressure. The Alaskan constitution required that at least 25 percent of the 
20 

revenue from oil and gas sales or royalties be placed into the Permanent Fund. The 

Fund is invested in a diversified portfolio of assets, including stocks, bonds, real estate, and infrastructure itself. Investment income generated by the fund is used to 

pay an annual dividend to every Alaskan citizen, including children. 

The Texas Permanent School Fund was created in the Texas Constitution of 1876. 

It was capitalized by sales, trades, leases and improvements to lands set aside for 

that purpose. Investment income generated is used to fund schools. Texas also has 

a Permanent University Fund created in the Constitution of 1876 to support the 

state’s universities. 

The permanent fund model can be extended easily to preserve wealth from nonresource sources, such as the lion’s share of upfront payments from bonding against 

toll revenue or from concession leases. The key is to preserve value released by variable MBUFs through a permanent fund insulated from diversion of user-fee revenue 

for current spending in order to guarantee households an annual dividend in perpetuity. Research indicates that such dividends create permanently higher personal 

income and mitigate the effects of recessions. They are also progressive in that they 

represent a larger share of income for poor families, and thus reduce income inequality. 

4. TAX-EXEMPT BONDING OR PPP CONCESSION LEASES?

There are two main ways in which a stream of payments from tolls can be converted into an upfront payment. The first is by using tax-exempt bonds raised 

against toll revenue. The second is by securing up-front concession payments 

through PPP leases. 

There are important benefits of including private participation through PPP 

leases relative to the municipal bond approach. Under a PPP approach, a public permanent fund is capitalized with concession lease payments paid by a private partner. The private partner operates the newly tolled, or priced, transportation facility, 

such as a road, bridge, or tunnel. 

If properly implemented, such participation through greater PPP use helps address a set of problems that continue to plague America’s transportation system. Social benefits of PPPs stem from four main qualities associated with increased private participation: 

(i) High-powered, focused incentives to innovate, to seek new revenue, and to better manage costs in a sector where high-powered incentives are socially beneficial 

(ii) Business acumen, knowledge, and experience sourced from a global market for 

infrastructure operators 

(iii) Additional capital and highly developed risk-bearing services through access 

to new debt and equity capital markets 

(iv) The utilization of a competitive contracting approach that enforces high-quality service and asset maintenance, and allows the discipline of competition to be 

harnessed for the public good 

Such benefits of PPPs are currently being realized through private participation 

in many aspects of the U.S. transportation sector. For example, the entire U.S. 

freight rail system can be viewed as a large, multi-faceted PPP. The public sector 

provided the right of way and created the legal/institutional setting for contracting. 

Freight rail companies build, maintain and operate bridges, tunnels, tracks, signaling, and rolling stock, while private investors provide capital, bear risk, focused 

incentives, and budgetary discipline. It is thus no accident that the grade assigned 

to freight rail infrastructure by the American Society of Civil Engineers in its 2013 

Report Card for America’s Infrastructure improved from a C¥ in 2009 to a B in 

2013, the largest improvement of any sector. The improvement was mainly due to 

billions of added private investment. 

PPPs are the key contractual vehicle for incorporating private investment into the 

provision and operation of transportation infrastructure. A PPP is subject to the 

standard rules of contracting, with clear performance standards linked to readily observable metrics. 

There are many ways in which greater private participation through PPP concession leases will improve social welfare. Private partners contribute by bringing capital, risk-bearing services, focused incentives, and expertise to the management of 

existing transportation assets. Substantial investment in technology, upgrades, and 

renovation may be required, all of which can be supplied through a PPP. 

Importantly, increased private, for-profit participation may not be appropriate for 

the provision of all goods and services. However, a consensus has emerged in economics that private participation may not be efficient where contracting with a private partner is complex and costly due to the inability to oversee—or ‘‘monitor’’— 

the quality of service provided. To offer one possible example, one may be concerned 
21 

about contracting out the operation of a wildlife sanctuary to a private firm for fear 

that the operator would not maintain the environment in the sanctuary to a certain 

socially desirable standard, which is difficult to monitor. Stated differently, the 

quality of the wildlife’s environment could be costly to contract over because quality 

of performance is difficult for the public contract sponsor to observe. 

Because they involve ‘‘hard’’ assets, the types of activities being considered here 

for increased private participation are precisely those activities where the private 

partner’s performance is readily observable. Metrics indicating how well roads, 

bridges, and tunnels are maintained and operated are readily monitored. They can 

be provided for in a contract with measureable performance standards and clear enforcement provisions. Private participation in infrastructure management is thus 

likely to improve social welfare substantially through better asset performance. Perhaps more importantly, the enormous value locked within these critical national assets can be realized for all citizens, including future generations. 

The above approach offers one way to enhance public acceptance of shifting to a 

system of MBUFs while capturing the benefits of private participation through public-private partnerships. 

Mr. GARRETT. And I thank the gentlemen, and I thank the lady 

as well, for joining our panel this morning. You are recognized for 

five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JANET F. KAVINOKY 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Van Hollen. I am Janet Kavinoky; I am the executive director of Transportation and Infrastructure at the U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce. The Chamber and its Americans for Transportation Mobility Coalition, a nationwide business, labor, highway, and transit 

coalition, know that there is a solid case for federal leadership in 

surface transportation, which is the framework that makes economic activity possible. 

Businesses place a high value on the mobility of their employees, 

customers, and supply chains. A seamless, reliable, safe transportation system boosts gross domestic product. A system that is disjointed, unreliable, unsafe, and inadequate for future economic and 

population growth drags down the economy. When transportation 
22 

networks support predictable logistics, there is a positive and 

strong correlation with job creating foreign direct investment. However, much of the United States transportation infrastructure, and 

especially that which support interstate commerce and international trade, is becoming less competitive with the rest of the 

world. 

Federal leadership should be accompanied by investment, and 

Congress must now lay a course for the solvency of the Highway 

Trust Fund. There are three paths to Highway Trust Fund solvency. The first: to cut back programs to fit available resources, 

passing the buck to states and localities. In the view of the Chamber, this path is unacceptable, and in the last several years, Congress repeatedly rejected dramatic cuts to highway and transit programs. 

The second is to continue General Fund transfers. And although 

we appreciated the willingness of Congress to maintain federal investment in this way in prior years, this approach may not support 

economic growth, competitiveness, and jobs over the long term because it discontinues the user pays principle, which underpins a 

multi-year transportation program. 

The third is to increase existing user fees and/or find new userrelated revenue sources to maintain and ideally grow federal investments and address the well-documented needs for today and tomorrow. But we must also ensure that money invested in transportation is spent wisely: do a better job planning and prioritize, deliver projects faster, and stretch user fees farther. The Chamber 

pressed for, and Congress delivered, significant reforms through 

MAP-21 that do these things. And, in addition, we must take full 

advantage of private sector capital, innovation, problem solving, 

and collaborations. However, public-private partnerships and other 

forms of private sector involvement are not revenue sources, and 

are not substitutes for fixing the revenue problem facing the Highway Trust Fund. 

So where does the money come from? From a user fee based 

Highway Trust Fund that enables multi-year funding commitments 

and supports interstate commerce, global competitiveness, and 

other national priorities. The Chamber and its members are discussing revenue options in three time periods: avoiding a crisis in 

2015, which this Committee is well aware of; establishing a revenue approach from 2015 to 2024; and then preparing for 2025 and 

beyond. 

In 2015 and the years through 2024, there are multiple revenue 

options that could work alone or in combination. But we continue 

to believe that the simplest, most straight-forward and effective 

way to generate enough revenue for federal transportation programs is through increasing federal gasoline and diesel taxes. This 

is also the critical period for aggressive research and development 

to prepare a new approach for 2025, when CAFE standards increase, and revenues from gasoline taxes are likely to require substantial replacement as the primary source of funding. 

There is no shortage of research that looks at the questions of 

who pays, for what, how much, and by what mechanism. And the 

Chamber commends to this Committee the findings of the two commissions created by SAFTEA-LU that looked at the full array of re-
23 

ports and research on the topic of federal revenues for surface 

transportation. We have not completed our evaluation of funding 

options, but at this point, every option is on the table. There is one 

thing for certain: There is no free lunch, there is no creative option, 

and there is no avoiding the revenue discussion if we are going to 

fill the gaping hole that has emerged at the federal level. 

In conclusion, yes, this nation is faced with difficult fiscal circumstances. The Chamber has spoken out on those repeatedly. 

However, without proper investment and attention to roads, 

bridges, and, yes, transit systems, our economic stability, job 

growth, global competitiveness, and quality of life are at risk. The 

federal role is at its simplest: to make sure that the nation’s transportation system functions well as a whole to support the economy. 

Let’s seize the initiative now to set a new path that will ensure 

adequate funding to support that role for years to come. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kavinoky may be accessed at the 

following Internet address:] 

http://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/130424- 

JKTestimonytoHouseBudget-Final.pdf 

Mr. GARRETT. And thank you, as well. So I thank the panel 

again, and at this point, we turn to questions, and I will recognize 

myself for five minutes. 

So, there seem to be, I thought, some degree of agreement on 

some of these points, but maybe not so much when we got to the 

end of the panel. One of your words that you used that sort of 

struck me was that we do not want to ‘‘pass the buck’’ to the states. 

Interesting, because is it not the states that are actually passing 

the buck to us here in Washington? We are basically taking the 

bucks from the states and then deciding how we are going to use 

those by distributing out in our political process that we have here 

in Washington. 

Ms. KAVINOKY. There certainly is a passing, I suppose you would 

say, in the literal term, but what we hear from businesses who are 

involved in the planning processes, who are engaged with state 

DOTs, and with locals is that they do not necessarily view it that 

way. Yes, there is a concern that we have sent money to Washington, and now it is coming back. We have talking about those 

strings attached. I think that MAP-21 went a long way to addressing those issues. 

Mr. GARRETT. Do they not ever say to you that they are a little 

tired of having to come hat in hand with tin cup to Washington 

just to beg us to get back the taxes that we have taken from then? 

They have never expressed that to you? They do that to me all the 

time. 

Ms. KAVINOKY. I will tell you that some of them have, but then 

they realized that since 2008, they have been getting back more 

than they are putting in. 

Mr. GARRETT. Well, do we have, to the panel, do we have donor 

states and donee states any more since 2008, 2009? To the panel. 

Mr. POOLE. Yes, to some extent. I think Alaska, and Hawaii, and 

maybe Montana. But when you include the general fund revenue, 

you know, everybody is basically getting more. 
24 

Mr. GARRETT. So the point is, right, when this trust fund was a 

legitimate trust fund, and states were paying into it, and coming 

here begging for the money back, then you had the donors states 

and donee states, and that is when they complain to me, ‘‘Why do 

we have to beg to get our money back?’’ Now that they are just the 

largess of the federal government, yeah, I guess most people are 

happy now that we are borrowing money from someplace else. 

Another comment that you made, sort of struck me was, we need 

to use the money wisely. I do not know, I have been here in Washington for 10 years, and generally speaking I do not see Washington spending the money on whatever program we are talking 

about more wisely than my county government does, or my state 

government does. When I had the transportation secretary here 

under the Bush Administration, and I have asked other ones, I 

said, ‘‘Can you tell me about Route 519? Can you tell me about 

Route 23? Can you tell me about these?’’ They could not. And you 

probably could not find any bureaucrat in Washington who could 

tell us about those. But you know what? They had sent a lot of dictates and mandates on how my county engineers have to run those 

roads and spend it. Mr. Geddes, is it the best way, the wisest way, 

the most efficient ways for the federal government to dictate to the 

localities, the municipalities, and the states on how to do these 

things, or can you do it more efficiently another way? 

Mr. GEDDES. No, absolutely no, Mr. Chairman. In fact, I think 

it is inherently a flawed approach. I do not think, no matter how 

earnest, well-intentioned we try to be, I just do not think we are 

going to be able to allocate scarce resources that effectively without 

getting price signals. And that is one of the great overlooked benefits of shifting to a variable mileage-based per unit user fee. 

Mr. Chairman, I just want to emphasize that if you look around 

the hearing room, virtually every product in the hearing right now 

was funded by a variable price: the light, my phone, et cetera, it 

is all funded by a variable per-unit user fee. And I think the closer 

we can go to that system, the better. It not only allocates the demand for iPhones, but it also directs investment into, and on the 

supply side, into and out of the iPhone business, or the light business, et cetera. I think we need to keep that economic model in 

mind not just because of dealing with traffic congestion, but because of how it helps to allocate investment. 

Mr. GARRETT. Let me pick on one word that just struck me when 

you spoke, and that was when you used the word ‘‘permanent public trust fund.’’ 

Mr. GEDDES. Yes. 

Mr. GARRETT. Permanent. Everything in Washington is obviously 

permanent; once we have set up a temporary program, it becomes 

permanent. Put the word ‘‘permanent’’ in trust fund, we have had 

experience on the federal level when you set up trust funds for a 

dedicated purpose that you cannot use it for anything else, that 

somehow or other, we, in our infinite wisdom here, once again are 

able to find a way to use it for different things such as highway 

beautification, bike paths; all great things, but it would not be for 

that use. Do you have a way that we can actually make sure that 

this permanent trust fund, if we do continue to send the money 
25 

here to D.C., that we would not be able to get our hands on it and 

use it for other purposes that may not be highway usage? 

Mr. GEDDES. Thank you for the terrific question, Mr. Chairman. 

My focus has mainly been on the state level with these trust funds, 

and I do not know how quick, how easily that legal approach could 

be translated to the federal level. But if you look at the Alaska constitution, the Alaska trust fund is constitutionally protected from 

precisely that sort of thing in Alaska. The province of Alberta in 

Canada has done something similar with theirs. Texas has done 

this. Norway has done this. So these are public trust funds that are 

truly permanent in the sense that they live forever. And they are 

invested in a broad set of stocks and bonds, real estate, and alternative assets. And they produce dividends forever. It is a way to 

preserving value. I am fully appreciative of your concern, Mr. 

Chairman, and how that could be done on the federal level, sir, I 

just have not studied yet. 

Mr. GARRETT. Well, thank you. I appreciate that clarification. I 

really do. Mr. Van Hollen, for five minutes. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank very much, Mr. Chairman. Again, let 

me thank all the witness for their testimony. There were some 

areas of common ground, and I hope we can probe those areas as 

we move forward. Ms. Kavinoky, if you could just respond to the 

issue that was raised earlier with respect to the transit programs 

within the overall trust fund here, because as Mr. Blumenauer 

pointed out, obviously people traveling on the highway do get a 

benefit from people who decide to use other forms of transportation 

through lower congestion, and those sorts of things. And it has 

been suggested by one of the witness, by Mr. Poole, that the way 

to deal with this at the federal level is simply to cut that portion 

out of the fund, and then just use the incoming fees for the highway fund. Could you respond to that in your capacity as testifying 

both, as I understand, with both hats on, Chamber of Commerce 

as well as the Coalition? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Sure. And, you know, when we speak, when I 

speak for the Chamber and Coalition, we really have a very unified 

set of views on these things. It is an interesting sort of theoretical 

and accounting construct to say, ‘‘Well, let’s just use the highway 

dollars for the highway people, and we will let the transit folks get 

their general funds.’’ But the 112th Congress overwhelmingly rejected that approach. 

I will tell you from the business community standpoint, business 

looks at mobility. We have, through the course of time, progressed 

from building an interstate highway system to providing for mobility. Now perhaps it is the case that the funding sources for the 

highway trust fund have not progressed with that. And I think that 

is something, actually, that the commission that Dr. Geddes was on 

also explored, this question of, ‘‘Well if you are going to have more 

mobility and multimodalism, perhaps we ought to diversify the 

funding sources.’’ And I think that is something we will debate at 

the Chamber. But what I hear from my businesses is we are really 

tired of the debates and the discussions of highways versus transit, 

we will kick this one out or put this one in. What we hear is we 

need to make investments in transportation: to move people, to fa-
26 

cilitate the movement of goods, to solve congestion problems, to create economic growth. 

A terrific example of this is in Utah. I was born and raised in 

the state of Wyoming. We did not have a lot of transit in Wyoming, 

at least not the way that I found when I moved to Washington. So 

I was really shocked when I went to Salt Lake City last year, and 

I discovered that they are making, as a state and as Salt Lake, significant investment, not just in highways or in transit, but in mobility. And they are doing that to bring major companies, major 

employment, economic competitiveness, and growth. So although 

an interesting solution to fixing the Highway Trust Fund solvency 

problem, we think that trying to separate highways and transit 

even further is not something that is going to serve the competitiveness and economic growth needs of the nation. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I appreciate that, and, you know, even if you 

were to separate it out, obviously it raises the next question. What 

is the funding source for that? And there has been no funding 

source identified in some of the proposals that have been put forward by our colleagues. Mr. Geddes, I just want to make sure I understand whether or not you believe that starting in the year 2014, 

there will be enough funds coming in through the current funding 

source to fund what you think are our national transportation 

needs. 

Mr. GEDDES. Very difficult to predict, I think, because it depends 

on demand for driving as well as the fuel efficiency of vehicles, and 

Figure 1 that I have included in my testimony shows the growth 

in annual vehicle miles traveled in the United States from 1960 to 

the present. And we have seen a leveling off in recent years that 

is unprecedented since World War II. So it seems as though there 

is some fundamental shift that I do not fully understand, sir, that 

is going on in the demand for driving in the United States, which 

I think makes it more difficult to predict the revenue that is going 

to come into the fund. So I do not know that I could provide any 

special insights on that prediction. 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Yeah, if you look at the Congressional Budget 

Office actions, they predict a substantial shortfall. I wrote my question, and we are out of time, is whether or not you think those projected revenues are sufficient for a national transportation trust 

fund. My time is up. I would just close, Mr. Chairman, by saying, 

look, you know, there is a philosophical difference in argument that 

suggests that we should leave a lot of these infrastructure investments, even those of national significance, to state and local process. But I would suggest that if we had done that in the past we 

would not have the interstate highway that we have that most people believe has been an important economic growth. I yield back 

the time that I do not have. Thank you. 

Mr. GARRETT. I guess we just lost Mr. Lankford. Mr. Ribble. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have received some letters from some outside stakeholder groups. And before I begin my 

questions, I request unanimous consent insert them into the 

record. 

Mr. GARRETT. Without objection. 

Mr. RIBBLE. All right, thank you, sir. 
27 

Well, this has been interesting. I am the vice chair for the Surface Transportation Subcommittee and TNI. So I have listened 

closely, and the discussion has been helpful, quite frankly. And I 

want to start with Mr. Poole. Thanks for your testimony today. I 

know that you have spent a lot of time looking at this particular 

circumstance, and I want to talk a little bit about some of the suggestions in your written testimony regarding mileage-based user 

fees, and how they impact rural communities versus urban communities. One of the concerns that I hear from constituents at home, 

I am from northeast Wisconsin, so I have a very rural congressional district with really no large urban areas other than Green 

Bay and Appleton. One of the concerns they have is that under the 

current system they feel that there is a shift of resources from the 

rural areas to the urban areas, and that, in fact, if you go to a 

mileage-based user fee, it becomes actually exacerbated. Right now 

they can go to a more efficient vehicle because they are driving 

more miles. Someone in Kansas City, for example, might only be 

driving two or three miles a day to work. They, on the other hand, 

might be driving 20 miles a day to work, never using a federal system, using just state roads. And how do you answer that concern? 

Mr. POOLE. That is a very legitimate and good question. And 

transportation research that is being done, there is a lot of work 

going on looking at how you would structure mileage-based user 

fees. And this is one of the big advantages that mileage-based fees 

have over fuel taxes. With fuel taxes, everybody pays the same rate 

per gallon, which basically means they pay the same rate per mile 

that they drive. But with a mileage-based charge, there is no reason why that has to be the same for all types of roads. For twolane country roads, the mileage charge probably be as low as a 

penny a mile. For major interstates, it is probably more like five 

or eight cents a mile. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Can I interrupt for a second? How do you do that? 

You know, under your testimony, one of the suggestions you made 

was using annual vehicle registration to track mileage, so you are 

not actually tracking vehicles per se. How do you, without having 

some kind of electronic tracking measure, how do you effectively do 

that? 

Mr. POOLE. Nobody really has a good answer to that. But the 

model I am using right now is a basic mileage charge base on 

odometer readings that would cover all of the general streets and 

roads, and the non-limited access highways. Then there would be 

an electronic toll, basically, on the interstates and expressways, 

that, you know, premium price for premium service. And those are 

the roads that are much more expensive to build and maintain 

than the small highways that rural people typically use. So there 

is a growing recognition in terms of studies looking at equity in different ways of doing mileage-based fees that says the charges 

should be lower because the costs are significantly lower for rural 

roads than for the big expensive urban runs and the big expensive 

interstates. I mean, the answer is we do not know yet, but there 

is work that recognizes that very, very much. 

Mr. RIBBLE. I was hoping you would know, but that is okay. I 

appreciate the response. Mr. Geddes, I am curious about should we 

be trying to streamline things a little bit and reduce traffic, par-
28 

ticularly commercial traffic, by changing weight limits. Our neighbors to the north allow much heavier vehicles to drive on the roads 

than we do here. So therefore we have to have sometimes 30 to 40 

percent more vehicle traffic on commercial vehicles then you would 

have in our competing country just to the north of us. 

Mr. GEDDES. Yes, thank you for the question. There is a large 

concern in the literature regarding the effect of axle weight on 

damage to roads. My understanding is that the current thinking in 

that the damage to the road is equal to the axle weight to the third 

power. Some people think it is the fourth. But I think, sadly, the 

third, big effect. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Would adding more axle not contribute weight? 

Mr. GEDDES. Yes. It would, absolutely. So that is why I say it 

is axle weight. And one of the points of variable user charges is 

that they can not only vary with time of day, but they can also 

vary with damage to the road. So the cost of a Prius driving on a 

road is miniscule, while the cost of a heavy truck is exponentially 

more than that. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Which goes to the question of mileage-based user 

fees, how to do it fairly. Ms. Kavinoky, just quickly, do you think 

tolling is fair to commercial users if they still have to pay a diesel 

tax? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. The Chamber does not have a strong position one 

way or another on tolling because our members are very split on 

the issue of tolling. I think that the question is ultimately what is 

the total amount that is being paid, and how is that speaking to 

the solvency of the trust fund. We could sit here and talk about 

tolls, but tolls are not a question of trust fund solvency. Tolls are 

really more of an issue of how you fund things at the state and the 

local level. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thanks for being here. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GARRETT. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Blumenauer, recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate the 

testimony. I would just make one observation relative to Mr. Geddes about transportation is changing. You have noted that we have 

peaked vehicle mile travel that has been growing dramatically, and 

vehicle mile travel per person has gone up very high. The VMT has 

leveled off, and VMT per person is going down. It is fascinating to 

look at what is happening with younger Americans. Those under 

34 have seen something in the neighborhood of 23 percent reduction in VMT per capita. But what they do in terms of cycling, if 

I may put in a plug, has gone up almost 25 percent. Transit has 

gone up 40 percent. 

Americans are interested in more choices. When I turned 16, you 

know, you camped out in front of the VMT the night before so you 

could be the first in line to get your driver’s license. And now we 

are watching that the number of driver’s licenses for young people 

is going down. In fact, the number of people under 34 without driver’s licenses is now up to 25 percent. So there is something going 

on; we need a transportation system that speaks to them. 

And I appreciate your opening the door to that notion, but I 

wish, Ms. Kavinoky, you might be able to elaborate on your point 

about mobility. Ronald Reagan established the Highway Trust 
29 

Fund portion that dealt with transit, where we set up something 

so that there was not a food fight, and it spoke to the overall benefit. You point out that that was rejected, and it was last session. 

And I have a letter that I would like to put in the record signed 

by 400 groups and organizations, including yours, rejecting that approach last congress. 

Mr. GARRETT. Without objection. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. But can you elaborate on that mobility concept for a moment in terms of what business needs? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Business is looking end to end at trips. So if we 

are talking about supply chains, global supply chains, I talk to 

major retailers who say, ‘‘Look, I do not want to debate about highways or transit, I do not want to discuss what is going on in 50 

different states. What I need to know is can I get my product from 

its point of origin to its shelves, and how efficient that is.’’ 

One of the things that we have done at the Chamber is created 

something called the Transportation Performance Index that measures, among other things, mobility. And we are looking at the system as a whole. We are looking at roads, rails, runways, rivers, the 

whole deal. Because performance is not just about mode by mode 

by mode; it is how they work together, it is how they complement 

each other, it is how they provide substitute so that you have options for transportation in terms of cost efficiency, time, the relative needs that people have. And mobility is a question that is not 

just an issue in urban areas. 

I think during the SAFETEA-LU debate we heard a lot about 

mobility in solving urban problems. I was in Bloomington, Illinois 

last week where they talked extensively about the importance of 

their transit system, and the fact that their transit system is something that companies like State Farm, Mitsubishi, and the universities in that area demand. And they are leveraging public dollars 

to invest in that system. And it is about mobility, even in that 

midsized area. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate your referencing that. Indeed, as 

we get out of the metropolitan areas, mobility for the disabled, for 

elderly people, for young becomes even more critical. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that our colleagues who are talking about the potential of devolving this system over time, and your reference to 

letting more of these decisions be made at the state and local level, 

I would hope that you could share with us any research you have. 

There is a time to elaborate in a minute, but research you have 

that indicates that local governments are going to be interested in 

making substantial investments to facilitate freight movements for 

the nation as opposed to speaking to complaints and problems that 

people have locally. They may be able to tell you about State Highway 137, but if we are talking about that interconnectiveness, I can 

tell you as a former local official for 18 years responsible for transportation in Portland, they were not so much concerned about the 

throughput of freight, they were concerned about localized items 

that we tended to over invest in, and it was a struggle to have the 

commitment to freight and the larger issues. So if you can find 

some research that indicates that that system could work effectively, I would be very interested in it, because it is certainly not 

my experience. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
30 

Mr. GARRETT. All right, thank you. I think that is an interesting 

question to ask, too. See what Mr. Poole and the panel comes back 

with. Mr. Lankford is now recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, all. Interesting conversation we have walked through, and this is not 

some we are going to solve today, but I do thank the member for 

bringing this up because I think that this is a very important issue 

to be able to deal with that we have got to be able to solve long 

term. We do not have infinite number of dollars. We do have to 

spend what we do have wisely in the direction of this. Several 

years ago EPA put out an ethanol requirement for gallons of gas 

with an assumption that we will continue to have this rising use 

of gasoline year after year after year, and now we have a greater 

requirement for ethanol use that we actually have gallons of gas 

that are going out the door, and then trying to figure out how do 

we keep forcing ethanol even higher because we have gas that has 

not continued to rise as expected. Same thing when dealing with 

the gas tax issue. We are not using as many gallons as we expected. We do not have the dollars that we expected. And so what 

do you anticipate with that? 

So let me just ask some philosophical questions. We can go 

through these, and I have several I want to talk through. When 

you deal with the cost of miles of construction, which is less expensive to do, a mile of state highway or a mile of federal highway? 

Which is less expensive? Mr. Poole. 

Mr. POOLE. Very clearly this mile of state highway because the 

state does not have all the costly requirements like Buy America, 

and Davis-Bacon, and so forth, that are imposed. One dollar of federal money significantly raises the cost of a highway project. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Does anyone else want to comment on that? 

Mr. GEDDES. I would love to. As Janet mentioned, I served on the 

congressionally-created National Surface Transportation Policy and 

Revenue Study Commission that reported our findings, I think in 

January 2008; it was section 1909 of this 2005 SAFETEA-LU Bill. 

And we sort of examined this issue, and the bottom line was we 

came up with if you accept $1 of federal money on a project, it adds 

11 years to the time of completion for that project because of the 

array of regulations and other things. The need for processes, the 

processes do not go all at once, they go from one agency to the 

other, thus slowing it down, and, of course, time is money, and it 

adds enormously, Mr. Lankford, to the cost, not only to the cost but 

to the time. So we found that it is not necessarily a per-lane mile 

of construction of installing the tar or something, it is really that 

delay that is the major cost associated with the federal money. 

Mr. LANKFORD. Did MAP-21 help with that at all? 

Mr. GEDDES. I believe it has. 

Mr. LANKFORD. There were a couple things in MAP-21 we tried 

to put on there. One was trying to stack some of those permitting 

processes. 

Mr. GEDDES. Right, right. And that is an improvement, yes. 

Mr. LANKFORD. The second thing was to try to put it in categor- ical exclusions. There was $5 million categorical exclusion that was 

included in MAP-21 to allow us to say to a state, if your project 

is $5 million or less, even though you are getting federal funds, you 
31 

go through and do the approval processes, and just check it off, and 

let us know that it was done, rather than go through the federal 

system. The folks in my state, in Oklahoma, have told me that that 

is going to save them about seven months of construction, just that 

part of it for every single project, and 80 percent of our projects in 

the state are $5 million or less. So it is a rapid acceleration. So the 

miles are going farther just by doing that. 

So the question begs to this, we can continue to try to figure out 

how to throw more money at projects, or we can figure out why 

does it cost so stinking much, and figure out if there is a way to 

make it less expensive, or at least to do it more efficient in the 

process. Some things, like a bridge, are incredibly expensive to do. 

It is a given. We are going to make it safe, we are going to do the 

verifications; we are going to do all those things. But if we are 

doing things that just make it more expensive, throwing more 

money at it is not going to help it. 

Mr. GEDDES. I know, Janet, but if I could just say one final plug 

for bikes. I will put in my plug for public-private partnerships in 

this case, because one of the big underappreciated benefits of a 

public-private partnership, I think, is you can put both the risk of 

time delays and the risk of cost overruns onto the private sector 

partner that is constructing the facility, and you can reduce the 

need for federal funding because you go more to the private sector 

to do that. So you can get projects built on time and on cost with 

an enforceable contract, where they pay penalties if that is not the 

case. So that, to me, is a smart solution. 

Mr. LANKFORD. It makes a big difference. And Mr. Poole, you had 

mentioned before this thought about how do we narrow the focus. 

What is a federal construction project, and what is a state and local 

project? It seems in the past several years, including in MAP-21, 

there is an expansion of more and more roads, and everything that 

you touch to the edge of your driveway now could have some federal nexus to say some delivery truck may, at some point, drive 

down that road and take it to another state, and so it is very important. That also has a federal nexus on it. How do we narrow the 

focus back down to say where we started in 1956? 

Mr. POOLE. Well, I mean, that is what I suggested really needs 

to be done, and we are in a time period we are rethinking what 

the federal government does is crucially important. I mean, over 

the years, we have come up with all kinds of programs like Safe 

Routes to School, you know, that sound great. It is very much 

something that would be nice have and should be done, but is that 

really the federal government’s business as opposed to the state or 

the community’s business? I think this is the time for sorting out, 

for starting, at least, to sort out and legislatively defining what is 

truly federal and what should be included with the federal taxes 

and the spending, and what really better to go back to where it 

used to be as a state and local responsibility. 

Mr. LANKFORD. And with that, my time has expired. 

Mr. GARRETT. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. LANKFORD. I yield back. 

Mr. GARRETT. Time has expired. Mr. Huffman, recognized for five 

minutes. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I yield my time to the gentleman from Oregon. 
32 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you very much, Mr. Huffman. I appreciate your courtesy. I want to go back, if I could, for a moment, Ms. 

Kavinoky, just the notion here that we go back to 1956, and we are 

just putting these federal monies on a few major arterials, as opposed to what my friend, Mr. Lankford, points out, that we have 

been looking more holistically in recent years in terms of making 

sure that there is a mixture in the works that deals with mass 

transit, which gives people choices, increases capacity. What happens in terms of our looking at the connections in terms of intermodalism. There was an ‘‘I’’ in the Intermodalism Transportation 

Surface Efficiency Act in 1991 which recognized that just throwing 

money in to a freeway did not help when goods need to move in 

a seamless fashion. There are connections between aviation, marine, rail; between local connections and interstate and arterial. 

Can you focus for a moment for us on whether or not there is a 

broader range of activities here that needs to be integrated for a 

transportation system to work? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Let me try and tie your questions together, if I 

may, because one of the things MAP-21 did was substantially 

eliminate the requirement that states spend dollars on things that 

we think are on lower national priority. Safe Routes to School is 

not a required program. It is not required that a state choose to 

spend money, with all due respect, on bike paths over fixing a 

bridge. But the states now have a planning process that they have 

to follow that will be tied to performance which we think is very 

important; performance around things like mobility, performance 

around things like freight mobility. And so it is incumbent, in fact, 

upon the states and the metropolitan planning organizations to establish their priorities and make those decisions within a framework of saying it is not just about an interstate, or it is not a binary choice between spending something on highways or transit. 

They are supposed to plan, and we believe, through Map-21 oversight, we will see that they are doing this. Businesses are much 

more involved now in the planning process than ever before. They 

are supposed to plan for mobility. They are supposed to plan for a 

system. 

So I go back to so that we could solve a Highway Trust Fund accounting problem by saying let’s substantially narrow and tell a 

state, ‘‘You can only spend this money on the interstate system.’’ 

I do not think that is what they are asking us for. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. You know, I agree with much of what you say, 

but to my friend, I would just note that there is a role for the federal government to establish policies. Highway safety is one of 

them. But for what the federal government did mandating things 

like seatbelts, every county in New Jersey could have mandated 

seatbelts. The federal government put forth a priority on safety, 

and I commend Secretary LaHood for zeroing in on it. It is a scandal in most of America right now the status of the condition for pedestrians and school children. You may not think State Routes to 

School is a high national priority. I invite you to come with me in 

North Carolina, in Nevada, in Iowa. I will hear it this weekend in 

Rochester, New York, where people look at the disproportionate 

number of people who are killed in pedestrian and bike accidents, 
33 

and look at how little federal money flows in terms of that allocation. And they think, you know, maybe there is a national priority. 

I think there is, in fact, a national priority surrounding things 

like safe cycling, safe pedestrian activity, and having transit available to people. A hundred years ago we had public-private partnerships that had unprecedented mass transit available. You could go 

from Boston to Chicago on street cars that, I think, there was like 

a 12-mile gap. Communities were served with choices for people. 

Those choices went away because we put almost everything into 

the highway and the individual automobile. And I think this is a 

very important conversation for us to have about what federal policies look like, and how much money we put, and, yes, giving 

choices to people that set standards that meet the economic and 

safety needs of our community. Thank you. 

Mr. GARRETT. The gentleman yields back, and the gentleman recognizes that the federal regulators and federal legislators are more 

caring and more compassionate than the state regulators. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. That, of course, is not what I said. I said they 

could have done it, and they did not. 

Mr. GARRETT. Exactly. Yield now for five minutes to Mr. Rice. 

Then to Mr. Williams. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. I am in the transit business. I have 

been I the automobile business for 42 years, my family 73 years, 

so I am very interested in making sure we move people and product around our country. And also I do believe the federal government has a huge role in infrastructure. A couple questions real 

quick to you, Mr. Poole. What percent of tax do you think we 

should pay if we do not go 18.4 cents? 

Mr. POOLE. I have not tried to do any calculation on that because 

the political prospects of increasing the federal tax seems so low, 

I have decided it is more productive to focus on researching the 

mileage-based user fee approach. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Right. CAFE standards, of course, we know are 

going up; what affect do you think if we lowered the CAFE standards that would do? 

Mr. POOLE. That would give a lot more breathing room for the 

federal fuel taxes. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Harder to breathe. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am certain. 

Mr. POOLE. Seriously, that would make a significant difference. 

The decline that is projected, and the amount of dollars available 

would be significantly eased. Yes. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Going back to original intent, what do you think 

that would do? That would have a big increase, too. 

Mr. POOLE. Well, there is plenty of money projected by CBO over 

the next 10 years to fully fund the existing highway program, and 

if you narrow the scope to, as I suggested, to interstate-type quarters, you could basically double the amount of spending that is currently projected. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. So if you go back to original intent, that answers 

a huge part of the problem. 

Mr. POOLE. In my view, yes. It does put a much bigger burden 

on the states and localities, but I will point out the states have 

been much more successful in the years since ICE-T in raising 
34 

their own highway user taxes. There has been no increase in the 

federal level. More than half of the states have made significant increases. Florida has indexed its fuel tax. So the states have shown 

they have a better chance of doing this. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am from Texas. 

Mr. POOLE. Well, yeah, right, right. Texas has done a great job. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Okay, but expanding the users so that everybody 

should pay something, I mean, that is something we need to take 

a look at, too, because where the 18.4 cents is carrying the load. 

Mr. POOLE. Yes, yes. No, I think the user pay model is what we 

should be strengthening. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. It is kind of like taxes. Everybody should pay 

something. 

Mr. POOLE. Everybody should pay something, I agree. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Got it. The other thing is, too, when you talk 

about the variable-based mileage fee, I was sitting here listening 

to how does it work and so forth. I am interested, what would it 

cost? The problem you have got is, is when we are raising the 

CAFE standard, it is projected when it gets to 53 miles a gallon, 

7 million people are going to be taken off the road. They will not 

be able to afford a car because it will be so expensive. So we could 

have the same problem if we go to a variable mileage fee. What is 

going to make that happen? What is that going to do to the price 

of vehicle? 

Mr. POOLE. Well, I do not think it is going to much affect the 

price of the vehicle. It will affect when and where people use their 

vehicles. I mean, if you have a 15 cent a mile variable charge on 

the freeway at rush hour, some people are going to decide to carpool who otherwise would not. Some people would use bus rapid 

transit in priced lane. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. But we do not know how it is going to work. 

Mr. POOLE. We do not know yet. No. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. It is a theory right now, and that is all it is? 

Mr. POOLE. And that is why we need more research, more experimentation and pilot programs. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. All right. Janet, you mentioned that you had done 

a study in the chamber, the 2015 to 200, 2020 to 2025. Did I understand you say from ’15 to ’20 it is a tax increase? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. So we are looking in three phases. Have to solve 

the 2015 cash flow problem from the trust fund. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. What is that tax increase? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. We still believe we still need to calculate that, 

but I would refer you to the most recent Simpson-Bowles. It says 

11 to 12 cents would be what was needed in that year to solve the 

problem, but what I would like to do is calculate that for you specifically and get back to you. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. So taxes would be 30 cents? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Yes. Taxes would have to increase to fix the trust 

fund problem in 2015, or we will have to transfer general funds. 

Not a real popular discussion, I understand, to have here, but they 

do not pay me to have popular discussions. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. All right. And then ’20 to ’25, that is still what 

we would do in that period of time? 
35 

Ms. KAVINOKY. I think it is possible that in the 2015 to 2024, so 

before we get to 2025, that user fees, current taxes, or some combination of other revenues, and I actually brought with me a small 

stack of the research that gives you the funding options, would be 

the option we are looking at. Until we can, as Bob has said, as Rick 

has said, look at some of these others research options. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. So it is still in the works? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. It is still in the works. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Well I appreciate your-all’s comments, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. GARRETT. Gentleman yields back for Mr. Jeffries. Oh, wait. 

No, Bill came in. Gentleman from New Jersey is next. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I 

would like permission to enter into the record a statement from the 

American Counsel of Engineering Companies with your permission. 

Mr. GARRETT. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. PASCRELL. The Chairman, I understand that we have a 

budget committee, and we are that, and we need to ensure that we 

are responsible with the public’s funds. However, for a decade, I 

served as a member of the House Transportation Committee. Serving on that committee, I sat for hearing after hearing about how 

our nation’s infrastructure is not keeping up with our growth, and 

we are falling behind competitors from across the globe. I heard 

from too many witnesses about how congestion is costing families 

and businesses time and money. I heard from too many witnesses 

about how our roads are crumbling and our bridges falling down, 

literally. And we know that federal investment in construction 

equals jobs for unemployed Americans. Analysts have estimated 

that for every $1 billion invested in transportation as many as 

35,000 people get jobs. 

It is our jobs, as elected representatives, to find solutions for 

these problems. Congress used to be able to renew our federal 

transportation program in a bipartisan way. When I got on the 

Transportation Committee, Chairman and Ranking Member said to 

me very clearly, ‘‘Look, this is one committee where we are going 

to work together, we are going to fight and argue, but we are going 

to come in this together.’’ Whatever happened, Mr. Chairman, to 

that feeling of working together on these issues that are 

prioritized? Too many short-term extensions followed by a modestly-sized reauthorization. We had to fight like hell to get a twoyear extension on the highway bill, transportation bill. Ensuring 

solvency for the trust fund is a key component. Admitting our 

transportation challenges while patches in the budget for general 

revenues are desperately needed. It is a dereliction of our duty to 

allow our transportation systems to flounder. And this happening 

in many states in the union where they have their own transportation funds that are depleted. 

So who takes care of this stuff? Janet, the trust fund needs new 

resources and revenue. Every option needs to be on the table. I am 

telling this Committee, and I continue to tell my brothers and sisters on the Committee that we need to find the resources to meet 

the challenges of our nation. 

Now I would like to ask Ms. Kavinoky this question. Does the 

Chamber of Commerce have a position on the legislation which 
36 

deals with this, supposedly deals with this, HR 1065, the so-called 

State Act? Do you have a position on that bill which would place 

much of the burden on the states rather than the federal government? Even in partnership, let me use that would partnership. 

Good word today. What is your position on that? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Congressman, we have not looked specifically at 

that legislation but I am somewhat familiar with it, and as I referred to in both my written statement and my oral statement, the 

Chamber does not believe that leaving the states and the localities 

to handle transportation problems is going to serve the mobility 

needs of the country. I certainly do not disagree that there are 

things we can do to take the burdens off of them, to provide states 

with the kind of flexibility that they need, and to make sure that 

every federal dollar stretches farther, but we still believe there is 

a strong federal role in both policy and investment in transportation. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, when you put forth this legislation, the State Act, I thought it was very interesting, and it reminded me of our debates back in the New Jersey Assembly many 

moons ago, when we both served together. 

Mr. GARRETT. I remember those days. Fond memories. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Fond memories. I have really great memories, Mr. 

Chairman. You said in the statement that our children and our 

grandchildren’s future must put an end to Washington bailouts. 

Mr. GARRETT. Okay. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Do you believe that the trust fund is a bailout of 

our transportation needs in this country? 

Mr. GARRETT. What I was saying was that up until 2008 or 2009, 

my constituents and yours had to come down to Washington and 

literally beg us, as congressional representatives, to get our own 

New Jersey dollars back, and I said that should not be the case. 

They should not have to beg us to gather the money because the 

people are paying every day in your district and my district at the 

pump. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Well, you know, Mr. Chairman, we certainly pay 

our fair share of taxes in the state of New Jersey. 

Mr. GARRETT. And so we should keep it. 

Mr. PASCRELL. But the point of the matter is this is one nation. 

We are not talking about alcoves, we are talking about one nation 

of 50 states. In fact, President Eisenhower, whom I admire, he put 

the interstate transportation system basically together, spent 

money. 

Mr. GARRETT. And to the best of my knowledge, that interstate 

system has been completed. 

Mr. PASCRELL. But it needs to be repaired. It needs to be maintained. Bridges go over, you know, tunnels go under it. There is a 

whole lot of changes that have occurred, Mr. Chairman. And I respect what you are doing on this. I do not agree with anything in 

the bill, but I understand that we have got to find some other 

ways. We got to find some other ways that we are going to address 

the trust fund. And we have to do the same thing in New Jersey, 

do not we? We cannot face the trust fund. The governor of the state 

does not want to deal with having to possibly raise gas taxes, you 

know? This is what we used to do. So what you are suggesting, as 
37 

I understand it, you are suggesting that, in conclusion, you are suggesting that what we do is get the states to take on more of a burden by giving them the opportunity to name the projects if we are 

going to provide any dollars for them. Is that what you are suggesting? 

Mr. GARRETT. I think that we are already providing that burden, 

now we should get the benefit. With that your time has expired. 

Mr. Rice, did you want to reclaim your time? Before you did not. 

Mr. RICE. I would like that, yes, sir. 

Mr. GARRETT. Then you are recognized. 

Mr. RICE. This is more of a statement than a question. I appreciate all of you being here. You have certainly given me a lot of 

education. I have the great fortune of serving on this Budget Committee as well as the Transportation Infrastructure Committee, 

and, you know, I recognize that if we are going to be competitive 

worldwide, we have got to invest in infrastructure; that our competitors are doing that, and they are coming up where, at best, we 

are remaining stable; and that if we want to try to stem the tide 

of American jobs leaving our shores and start bringing some back, 

then we have to make ourselves more and more competitive. 

And I think the public agrees with that. I think both side of the 

aisle agree with that. I do not think you will hear any argument 

there. The question is how you pay for it. And I have heard interesting observations from you guys, but whether you call it a user 

fee, or whether you call it a gas tax, or any other thing, it is additional taxes. It is additional revenues. You know, I do not think the 

public would argue with that so much normally, but now it is hard, 

and there is a reason that it is so hard. The reason is because we 

are spending now. The federal spending has increased 15 to 20 percent in the last five years. Remains well above, as a percent of 

GDP, historical norms, and, at the same time, the spending in most 

states has gone down. Certainly spending in most households has 

gone down. And, you know, we are sitting here spending 15 to 20 

percent more, yet our Highway Trust Fund is going broke. That is 

why it is so hard, because the public does not understand why our 

budget has increased so much, and yet we are struggling to find 

infrastructure money. And in the face of all this, that we would 

seek additional revenues when our spending has increased and everybody else’s has gone down. That is what makes this so difficult. 

I agree that spending on infrastructure is not spending, per se, 

it is an investment. And that we have to invest limited dollars 

wisely, but I submit to you that we have plenty of money, it is just 

we are prioritizing how we spend it differently than I would if it 

was my choice. That we could find money from other places to fund 

this, and that this absolutely should have priority because it has 

such a huge effect on our overall economy, such a huge effect on 

our worldwide competitiveness, such a huge effect on jobs. And I 

think the public would agree with that, and I think that they 

would fight very hard against any additional fees, or revenues, or 

taxes, or whatever you want to call it in the face of our excessive 

spending across the board, which is what this Budget Committee 

is about, and which is why I think the work on this Committee is 

the most important, work being done in Congress right now. Thank 
38 

you again for being here. Sorry I did not have any questions or observations, but you have truly taught me a lot, and I appreciate it. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Mr. 

Jeffries is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GARRETT. Sure. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Poole, the suggestion that you have put forth 

that we, as a federal government, should walk away from any contributions to state or city mass transportation systems, perhaps 

consistent with original intent, as another member of the Committee has put it, is that grounded in a belief that the federal government should not engage in the business of mass transportation, 

or is it just grounded in a solvency concern related to the trust 

fund? 

Mr. POOLE. Near term it is grounded more in the solvency concern, but longer term, I mean, it really does reflect my view of federalism, that a the big challenge with the federal government being 

overextended is to sort out for the future, not in one day or one 

year, but over a period of time, what roles properly are the things 

that the federal government alone can do and should do for the 

country, and what things are really much more properly the responsibility of state governments and urban area governments? 

And my strong belief, after 25 to 30 years in transportation policy, 

is that local metro areas, transit is very important, but it ought to 

be their responsibility to decide the types and amount of spending, 

and what to invest it in on urban transit. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Would you agree that robust urban transit systems reduce highway congestion? 

Mr. POOLE. To a very limited extent. I mean, most of what has 

been invested in these days maybe has 1 percent or 2 percent improvement in the share of people commuting by transit, as opposed 

to by some form of using the highways. It is not a very big bang 

for the buck in terms of what it costs. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Reclaiming my time. Is there a connection between 

a robust mass transportation system and sort of the industry and 

economy on an interstate level? 

Mr. POOLE. Very, very little. The Brookings Institution did a 

study about a year ago. Looked at what percentage of a metro 

area’s jobs can be reached within 45 minutes by using the transit 

system, and in the vast majority of metro areas, it is something 

like under 10 percent of the jobs can be reached within 45 minutes, 

when the average commute in America is about 25 minutes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Do you think Wall Street is an important industry 

for not just the city of New York, for the state, for the country? 

Mr. POOLE. Certainly. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And do you think that a robust financial services 

industry is a significant thing for the continued prosperity and vitality for the United States of America? 

Mr. POOLE. Definitely. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And would you acknowledge that the mass transportation system that connects the city of New York with suburban 

New Jersey and suburban Connecticut, three states, is important? 
39 

Mr. POOLE. Critically important for that metro area, absolutely. 

Mass transit makes imminently good sense there, just as it does in 

London, Tokyo, other very huge, dense urban concentrations. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. But it makes sense for the region, but as you have 

acknowledged, it also makes sense for the country in that context, 

correct? 

Mr. POOLE. Well, in a roundabout way, yes, certainly. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay, Ms. Kavinoky. Did I pronounce that, 

Kavinoky? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Kavinoky, yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Kavinoky. Could you comment on the Chamber’s 

view between a robust, mass transportation system, and a vital industry and economy across interstate commerce? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Certainly. You know, one of the interesting 

things, and, you know, Bob mentioned, yes, there have been studies 

that say that only a certain number of jobs are within a particular 

distance of transit, but businesses make choices to locate in places 

not just because their employees specifically can get to work on a 

specific transit system. It is about the vibrancy of the area, the customers that they have; it is about the quality of life that it provides, and that, in turn, grows economic prosperity. Businesses 

choose to locate where there are strong transportation systems, and 

that is not just about businesses who are choosing, ‘‘Should I locate 

in New York, Chicago, Bloomington?’’ It is about businesses saying, 

‘‘Should I locate in one part of the world, or another part of the 

world?’’ So we do believe that transit is part of a transportation 

system that works. 

In addition, if you speak with industries that are moving goods, 

what they will tell you is that a lot of the bottlenecks on the interstate highway system are in urban areas. We are not going to be 

able to build our way out of that. Now, there are tools that are 

available, and, you know, we can certainly talk about variable pricing and other management tools for the road network, but at some 

point, we are talking about what is the capacity of the transportation system? How do we unlock those different bottlenecks? And 

that can be a function of road capacity, of technology, but also, yes, 

of transit, of rail, and other modes of transportation. So we still, 

I suppose, and this is something that Bob and I will disagree on, 

is I think that transit, and transportation more holistically, belongs 

as part of federal transportation policy. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Thank you. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Rokita, 

recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the Chair, I also thank the witnesses. Good 

morning. Great discussion we are having on the whole. I had to 

step out for about five to 10 minutes to congratulate the Teacher 

of the Year in Indiana, Suzanne Whitten, so a shout-out to her. I 

apologize with my line of questioning, might overlap as a result. 

First of all, I wanted to see if Mr. Geddes had anything to add to 

the discussion that was just happening, that started with Congressman Jeffries’ line of questioning? 

Do you want to—do you dare to step into that? Is that a yes or 

no? 
40 

Mr. GEDDES. Yeah, yes, sorry. Definitely yes. I am honored to 

step into the discussion. Basically the model that I utilized is, 

‘‘How close can we get our funding approach to what works in the 

vast majority of other utilities, and other goods and services, which 

is a variable user fee.’’ And I think that Bob’s proposal of focusing 

The Highway Trust Fund on highways is moving us closer to that. 

I think having transit parts, we can think of other parts, we have 

the leaky underground storage tank fund, et cetera, is moving us 

away from that fundamental model, and I think that is a mistake. 

I think we have a model that we know works very well, and a 

whole set of utilities for the provision of a whole set of goods and 

services, and it is not perfect by any stretch, but it is the best one 

we have, and I think we need to move our funding and financing 

for transportation infrastructure in that direction, rather than 

away from it, and I believe that Bob’s proposal would help do that. 

Mr. ROKITA. Okay, thank you very much. And the following on, 

Mr. Kavinoky. What kind of name is that, Russian? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. It is Russian and Polish. 

Mr. ROKITA. Yes, okay, well, I am a member of that tribe, so I 

can ask questions like that, I guess. Is it that position of the U.S. 

Chamber, then, that people who pay a gas tax really need to be 

paying for the more holistic policy of mobility and transportation? 

Is that what you are saying? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Not necessarily so. 

Mr. ROKITA. Okay, well, let’s stop there. 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Sure. 

Mr. ROKITA. So, right, when you put gas in your car, and you are 

paying 18.4 cents up to uphold and maintain the highway system; 

that seems fair to me. And Mr. Jeffries’ comments, well taken, I 

am glad to see that someone on his side is finally acknowledging 

the value of Wall Street, instead of demagoguing it, but why do I 

have to pay for that if there has to be a subsidy for that industry, 

as he used as an example; why does the person who drives a car 

and puts gasoline in it have to pay for that industry? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Because you are not just paying for the maintenance and upkeep of the roads, you are paying for having the performance that you need to get from one place to another. 

Mr. ROKITA. So you disagree with Mr. Poole inherently and wholly that it is only about a 1 or 2 percent difference effect? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. I certainly have not looked at the research that 

he is citing. 

Mr. ROKITA. Okay, so we do not know, right? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. At this point, I do not know. 

Mr. ROKITA. Yeah. Let’s see what else. Mr. Blumenauer asked 

you two to provide some research on a particular issue. Did you 

want to comment on that now, because he was running out of time. 

I forget exactly what that was, but I do not know if we want to 

put that on record. 

Mr. POOLE. Right, it was research on the interests of local governments in investing in things like facilitating national freight 

movement. The good example is Los Angeles, where 40 or 50 percent of all the containers into the United States come through the 

ports of L.A. and Long Beach, and then have to be trucked through 

on the freeways and on trains. 
41 

Mr. ROKITA. So he did not find any evidence. 

Mr. POOLE. Well, certainly, the Alameda Corridor is an example 

in Los Angeles of local self-help with some degree, a little bit of federal aid, to create a unified rail corridor to move a lot of that containers into one single corridor, to remove a lot of grade crossings, 

and so forth. 

Mr. ROKITA. You indeed have such evidence, such research, and 

you will provide it? 

Mr. POOLE. I will provide what I can, yes. 

Mr. ROKITA. And Mr. Geddes? 

Mr. GEDDES. I do not think I have much to add. 

Mr. ROKITA. Here is what I would like to add to it. So this concept of devolution, where if we got the federal government out of 

the business of collecting all but a very small amount of the gas 

tax, and let each state decide what additional gas tax they want 

to add into that, would not we address Mr. Blumenauer’s concern? 

Do not look at me that way. Would not we address Mr. 

Blumenauer’s concern, which I think is a valid one, because we do 

need someone to look at the 30,000-foot level under national planning? Let the U.S. DOT do the planning, and let the states maintain, based on the taxes that they mostly now will collect, instead 

of making this money go all the way to Washington, in some 

judgmental fashion, come back. 

Mr. GEDDES. Can I comment on that? 

Mr. ROKITA. Yes, please. 

Mr. GEDDES. I would strongly urge the committee to take a look 

at the way the freight rail system in the United States works. 

Freight rail, because in The American Society of Civil Engineers 

report that was cited for 2013, that is a quadrennial report, the 

sector that had the biggest improvement in grades was freight rail, 

which is largely based on the approach that I am suggesting of 

heavy, private infrastructure investment with a variable per-unit 

price charged to shippers. And we have freight rail systems, like 

take a look at CSX and their map, Union Pacific, BNSF, that 

crosses state lines, and they are able to optimize that system across 

state lines, just through proper business methods. 

Mr. ROKITA. To a free market kind of principle? 

Mr. GEDDES. Of course, of course. 

Mr. ROKITA. Yes, and my time has expired. I yield back. 

Mr. GARRETT. Gentleman yields back. Gentlelady from California. This lady is recognized for five minutes. 

Ms. LEE. Good morning. I apologize for being late. So if my questions are redundant, I am sorry. But, just wanted to first thank 

you for being here again, and just say that, you know, our nation’s 

highway system and public transit system, they are really key infrastructure backbones that have been critical to our nation’s 

strength and economic growth. I think everyone agrees with that. 

Also, these public investments have allowed businesses and families across our nation to not only survive, but to thrive. They have 

created tremendous good-paying jobs with benefits. 

A couple of things I wanted to ask you though, in terms of just 

the funding as it relates to the gas tax on low-income Americans. 

And I would like all three of you to answer this question if you 

could. In terms of low-income Americans, do they pay proportion-
42 

ally more in gas taxes to travel to their jobs and to live their everyday lives? Do they pay more than upper-income families? And then 

if they do, what can we do to reduce some of this burden? And 

would relying on more public and private roadways that charge 

tolls, would that increase or decrease the burden of low-income 

families? 

Then the second question has to do with incentives for green alternatives. Some proposals, as I understand it, would require drivers of alternative fuel cars, like electric or hybrid cars, or even simply more efficient, high-mileage cars, actually to pay more, because 

these drivers buy less gas, and consequently pay less in gas taxes. 

So what would the impact of removing incentives for getting more 

drivers to conserve gas, and to adopt cleaner and more efficient 

technologies, what impact would this have if we do raise the rates, 

the gas taxes, for those who drive alternative cars and try to conserve? 

Mr. POOLE. Let me take a stab. On the question of equity, fuel 

taxes are widely seen as regressive. They take a bigger bite out of 

family income for low-income people than for higher-income people. 

Although, it goes both ways; higher-income people generally have 

much longer commutes, they live in nice, wealthy suburbs, and so 

it is not clear what the overall difference in incidence is of fuel 

taxes, rich versus poor, well-off versus not. The equity impacts of 

a mileage-based system are still being studied, and it is not really 

clear how that would work. Again, it depends partly on the commuting patterns that people have, where the jobs are versus where 

people live, and, you know, how far the average distance is. To the 

extent that that system would be variable prices in urban areas to 

deal with traffic congestion, it would certainly provide incentives 

for more use of transit, and more carpooling to share those costs, 

and though that would probably, as is today, that would tend to 

skew toward more lower-income people than high-income people. 

The impact on green cars, mileage-based user fees, there is a 

trade-off there. What we are seeing is that what you have to look 

at is there is a whole bunch of policy tools that government has to 

deal with energy efficiency and reduced greenhouse gases, and so 

forth. But CAFE standards, which are, you know, going to double 

the required fuel economy for new vehicles by 2025, are the most 

powerful tool the federal government currently is using, and those 

would be unaffected by a shift to mileage-based user fees. It would 

probably hasten the transition of people away from fossil fuel powered cars in any event, so it is a question of, ‘‘Do you need to still 

have an incentive in the price of the motive power, you know, the 

source of propulsion, because we already have CAFE standards and 

other kinds of environmental standards.’’ It is not clear. I think it 

is kind of overkill, and then we do not need to build into the mileage-based fee some kind of a green component because we already 

are phasing out fossil fuels thanks to the CAFE standards, and 

that problem will go away over time. 

And Oregon, I must say, is one of the pioneer states in looking 

at charging a mileage-based fee initially to electrical vehicle drivers, because they are not currently paying virtually anything to 

support the costs of the road system, but they are taking up the 

same amount of space on it as drivers of gas-powered cars. 
43 

Mr. GEDDES. Thank you, Ms. Lee, for the great questions, and 

this is an issue that is still being worked out, and it is a very important issue. I would just add a few things to what Bob said, 

which I largely agree with, is that lower-income folks do not use 

cars as much as folks in the higher end of the income distribution. 

Tend to use buses, rapid transit more, and I believe that the proposals that we have suggested today would, by pricing road use, 

you will get more use of those other alternative forms of transit, 

which will improve those. I think that that would be a benefit to 

folks at the lower end of the income distribution. 

Mr. GARRETT. I will cut you off there, Mr. Geddes. We have got 

to get on to the next question, your time has expired. 

Mr. GEDDES. Okay. 

Mr. GARRETT. Thank you very much. Mr. Woodall is recognized 

for five minutes. 

Mr. WOODALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the 

gentlemen from Oregon’s encouraging this hearing to be held. I 

think about what Mr. Pascrell said, that during his time that this 

transportation used to be a bipartisan, cooperative issue, and it is 

not now. And I go back to one of your opening statements, Mr. 

Poole, where you made the statement that as The Highway Trust 

Fund has lost its focus, it has lost public support. I do not know 

about the school districts that Mr. Blumenauer was referring to 

earlier, but I walked the school every day of my elementary school 

life, unless I was riding my new huffy bike that Santa Claus 

brought one of those years. And when an intersection got to be too 

busy, the community got together and we put in a traffic light 

there and crosswalks, and when it still was too busy, we brought 

in a crossing guard, and the community had this need and this concern, and the community solved these things. 

I find when I am working on these issues back home, it does not 

much matter whether I am working with a Democrat, an Independent, or a Libertarian, or Republican, we are talking about 

somebody’s kids and somebody’s family, and we can come together 

to do those, but as we elevate what that principle should be, past 

my city, past my county, past my state, all the way to Washington, 

D.C., we do begin to lose that focus. 

What is that national interest now? Ms. Kavinoky, I know you 

expressed some concerns about devolving some of these responsibilities to the states. I have my biggest county Chamber of Commerce. 

In fact, this county’s bigger than a congressional district, Gwinnett 

County is here today, and we are going to talk transportation. I 

have no doubt the first word out of their mouth is going to be, ‘‘We 

need to devolve these things back to the local level for all of the 

reasons that Mr. Lankford referenced, and Mr. Poole referenced, 

and Mr. Geddes referenced, and that is that we have problems 

today, and you folks in Washington are not solving these problems 

today, and if you let us do it, we would do it for less, and get it 

done faster, and we would start that process today.’’ But that is not 

what you are hearing from your member companies. 

Ms. KAVINOKY. It is not what I am hearing from my member 

companies. Certainly not what I heard from the Metro Atlanta 

Chamber this morning, and I am curious, and this would be an interesting dialogue for you and I to have, on why nine out of 12 dis-
44 

tricts in Georgia rejected the T-SPLOST proposals, given that that 

was a way to substantially step up investment in transportation? 

What I hear from companies in Georgia, from companies across the 

country, is ‘‘We still need to maintain that interconnected system, 

and that we still need federal assistance in doing so, even if we are 

going to take those funds and we are going to leverage them to get 

funds raised at our own levels.’’ 

Mr. WOODALL. I think that unquestionably true. It fascinates me 

up here in this part of the world because it is not this way down 

in Georgia. If I drive I-95 from suburban Washington down to Richmond, I am paralleling U.S. 1. U.S. 1 is never more than two miles 

away, an entire drive from Washington to Richmond, and yet we 

are funding both of those cars. I would tell you we have a national 

interest in maintaining I-95, but not a national interest in maintaining U.S. 1. That is now a local Virginia concern. I drive north 

to Baltimore. I have U.S. Interstate 95 on one hand. I have the 

Baltimore-Washington Federal Parkway on the other hand. They 

are never separated by more than five miles, and yet I have U.S.1 

running right through the middle of those from here to Baltimore. 

I would tell you we do not have a national interest in maintaining 

three corridors on that same 50-mile stretch. Perhaps we have a 

national interest in maintaining to it, and that is what my local 

folks would suggest. 

One thing they have on their mind, though, is we have a new toll 

system down there, a toll system that the prices go up during 

heavy traffic, down during light traffic. You can go free if you are 

in a carpool. Otherwise, you have pay. I am glad to hear that no 

one is in favor of putting a GPS system in my car that is tracking 

where I am going and what I am doing. My constituents would be 

pleased to hear that was universally rejected today. What about a 

unified national toll standard? Gentleman from Oregon talked 

about the merits of setting a federal standard. I think there are 

three competing toll standards out there today. What about that 

opportunity to, in an effort to bill people for what they use, having 

a standardized toll system that allows me to be billed in that way? 

Mr. POOLE. You know, I think that critically important, and the 

toll industry has an Alliance for Toll Interoperability that is working on that. They have pile-up projects setting up clearinghouse to 

exchange information, including with state departments and motor 

vehicles. This is coming; federal government can encourage the continued work that is going on already on that with, you know, a little more research money and that sort of thing. But that is definitely going to be here. Within probably five years, we will have 

some form of national interoperability, and that makes it more 

practical to do things like financing the replacement and modernization of the existing interstates with a 21st century version 

that could be financed in this way through toll finance. 

Mr. WOODALL. I thank you all for this discussion. 

Mr. GARRETT. Gentlemen’s time has expired. Now recognize Ms. 

Lujan Grisham from New Mexico for five minutes. 

Ms. LUJAn Grisham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I, too, appreciate this discussion, because having critical investments and 

having as a priority, both publicly and privately, transportation infrastructure certainly is not something new, and making sure that 
45 

we can continue those investments in the future. I am reminded 

that in December of ’82, when Reagan was president, the unemployment rate was 10.8 percent, interest rates were about 20 percent, deficits were skyrocketing, country was definitely in a recession, and even in that tough economic time, the president understood that it was essential to invest in infrastructure. And when 

they signed the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, among 

other things, he pointed out that we could now, as part of our heritage, weave a network of highways and mass transit that has enabled our commerce to thrive, our country to grow, and our people 

to roam freely and easily to every corner of the land. 

And as a county commissioner, this exact discussion about what 

we do with a critical federal highway, in much-needed repair and 

expansion, that is critical to our business corridor, and local bodies 

of government do not typically get involved, certainly not the county. City road, federal issues, state issues, that is the partnership, 

and we did the cost-shifting debate because of the economic realities for far too long, so now the project is much more expensive, 

and so, as a county commissioner, I said, ‘‘The county should put 

money in.’’ If you want people to put money in, then step up and 

figure it out. So we did that, and it spurred, then, the entire investment. All right, state put in their money, the city put in their 

money, we put in our money to the highest degree that we could, 

and the feds put in money. Now the fed part was less than 10 percent, so the notion that there is all that money coming from here, 

I think we need to be clear about that. And when we talk about 

shifting to states, I think we should be clear that we have. And we 

are shifting in all kinds of ways. And when we made that critical 

decision, which was supported by business, of course, we did not 

buy fire trucks, and ambulances, and we did not provide safety net 

investments, and we did not take care of other critical road or mass 

transit projects, so I want to go back to this shifting to the states 

and to other entities. What other kind of gaps do you foresee as we 

are asking states and other folks to step up in an environment 

where they cannot? And I will do that for Ms. Kavinoky. 

Ms. KAVINOKY. Okay, sorry. I think that we are seeing very consistently what you are seeing, that states and localities are already 

stepping up, and, in fact, they are providing a greater and greater 

portion of the revenues that are needed, that ultimately could be 

leveraged through public-private partnerships, or that could be 

used in other ways. If the federal government walks away, if we 

say we are not going to fix the Highway Trust Fund problem, we 

are not going to fill the hole that is coming, we will simply sort of 

de facto devolve to the states more, that just puts more burden on 

the laps of the states and of the localities to come up with even 

more money. 

I am not hearing, as I travel around the country, an ability to 

continue going at it alone, but I also, and I bring this back to 

where I started in terms of the federal role, there is still a federal 

role, there is a national interest in investing in our economy, in 

keeping the country together, in policy priorities, and if we are 

going to advance the national interest of the country, that has to 

come with some of that investment. Although I think that we will 

increasingly see states and locals stepping up, and we should con-
46 

tinue encouraging that, we should continue encouraging them to leverage those limited dollars as far as they can, that does not mean 

that we should solve our transportation funding problem at the federal level by simply saying, ‘‘We are not going to deal with revenue.’’ 

Ms. LUJAn Grisham. And I appreciate that, because then we are 

just going to cost-shift other priorities back to the feds, and we just 

keep this circular environment without having effective partnerships for effective priorities. With that, I would like to balance the 

remainder of my time, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Blumenauer. 

Mr. GARRETT. Recognized. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, I appreciate the gentlelady’s courtesy. Two observations, one about marginal impact of transit. During the L.A. transit strike in 2003, congestion increased 89 percent. 

It has a huge impact, not just in communities like L.A., and Chicago, and New York, but in Oklahoma City, Salt Lake, as you mentioned, this is part of that fundamental infrastructure; also, the 

railroad investment that you are referring to, part of that has been 

a significant uptake in federal money that went to the railroads, 

and I would take modest exception of the notion that the Alameda 

Corridor is mostly just local money. We have that huge federal investment in that, and a number of us on the Transportation Committee worked with Southern California to make that rail connection work because it was not cost effective for them, but it made 

a difference for Chicago and points in between. Thank you. 

Mr. GARRETT. Gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Nunnelee from 

Mississippi is recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. NUNNELEE. There we go, thank you Mr. Chairman. I want 

to thank the Chairman and the staff for putting this meeting together. I do not think we get to do nearly enough of this, to talk 

about big ideas, and I want to take up where Mr. Rokita left off. 

He was talking Mr. Kavinoky about this concept of, men and 

women when they go to fill up with gasoline or diesel, and the idea 

that, yes, they are paying for the roads they drive on, but also, it 

is the Chamber’s position that they pay for part of the mass transit 

as part of an overall transportation policy. I want to look at it from 

a little different angle. What is the Chamber’s thought on mass 

transit? When an individual goes to work, they buy ticket, they are 

paying for part of their cost of transportation, the taxpayers and 

their local and state are helping subsidize, and the taxpayers that 

are buying gasoline and diesel are paying part. What percent does 

the Chamber think is right for the people that are buying gasoline 

and diesel to pay for the overall total transportation? Is it 50 percent, 20 percent? How much should the mass transit passenger pay 

for their own transportation, and how much should be subsidized 

by people that are buying gas and diesel? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. You know, that is not something that is codified 

in chamber policy, to the best of my knowledge. I have been around 

for a little while. What I would point out is, for road users, they 

are also not paying the full cost of their roads. In fact, in most 

states, general sales taxes, general taxation, state and local bond 

issues are also part of those roads. So there is a degree of subsidy 

across all of the transportation networks. The Chamber has been 

supportive of continuing the 2.86 cents of the 18.4 cents of the gas-
47 

oline tax that has gone to transit. But we, as I noted in my oral 

testimony, we are taking a very close look for the future funding 

of transportation at all of the possible revenue options for surface 

transportation. And so although I acknowledge that, in the past, 

we have focused on that 2.86 cents out of gasoline taxes, and then 

complimenting that with general funds, certainly, again, according 

to the Commission that Dr. Geddes was on, and others, we may 

need to look at diversifying those options. 

Mr. NUNNELEE. All right. And then by extension, bicycle users, 

and, again, I support those people that ride bikes to work or for 

pleasure, but as I see it, outside of being general taxpayers and 

helping pay for what they utilize, they do not pay anything to bypass the roads that they are using on. Has the Chamber taken a 

position that should bicycle users pay residual costs for the infrastructure that they are using? 

Ms. KAVINOKY. You know, again, we have not taken a position, 

but I can certainly say that in the discussions we have started having with our members, we have begun saying, ‘‘Well, if you are 

using a road, or if you are using a bike path, or if you are using 

the rails for transit, you know, we ought to consider the different 

forms of revenue that may come to that to support investments.’’ 

So, I think that is an open question for us. 

Mr. NUNNELEE. And then just maybe wrap it up for the other 

two members. If we were to go back to the original intent of the 

Highway Trust Fund, what impact would that have on the future 

of that fund? 

Mr. GEDDES. My understanding of the original funding approach 

under President Eisenhower for using a per-gallon fuel tax was 

that it was as close to a toll as he could get without, in those days, 

physically having to stop traffic to throw money into a basket, 

which would have defeated the whole purpose of a high-speed limited access system of highways. So President Eisenhower saw the 

next best thing as charging a per-gallon gas tax. So I think moving 

back to that, sir, your question is about the funding, and I think 

it would be funded the way electricity is funded, the way natural 

gas is funded, the way other utilities, I believe, are successfully 

funded through per-unit fees. And I am almost certain that we 

would get a lot more funding into our transportation system if we 

did it that way. 

Mr. POOLE. Let me just add, in my written testimony, I show the 

numbers that currently the interstate system, state and federal 

government is spending about $20 billion a year on. If the Highway 

Trust Fund were devoted exclusively to the interstates, the $40 billion would be twice the amount currently being spent on interstates, which would certainly provide a way to start the aggressive 

reconstruction and modernization of the interstates. So I am not 

saying, necessarily, that we should do that, but that is how the 

numbers work out. 

Mr. GARRETT. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. NUNNELEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GARRETT. I want to thank the ranking member, all the members, and especially the witnesses for an enlightening exchange of 

information; this is one of our better hearings. I thank you all, and 

this hearing is adjourned. 
48 

[Additional submissions of Hon. Reid J. Ribble, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, follow:] 

April 24, 2013. 

Hon. PAUL RYAN, Chairman; Hon. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Ranking Member, 

Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN RYAN AND RANKING MEMBER VAN HOLLEN: We are writing in regards to the House Budget Committee hearing, ‘‘State of the Highway Trust Fund: 

Long-Term Solutions for Solvency.’’ The undersigned organizations urge Congress 

and the Administration to address the very serious financial situation of the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). 

Remarkable progress was made in 2012 through Moving Ahead for Progress in 

the 21st Century (MAP-21) to reform and streamline the federal highway and transit programs while providing stable funding through fiscal year 2014. Unfortunately 

MAP-21 did not provide for the long-term financial stability of the HTF. As a result, 

according to the Congressional Budget Office, the HTF will completely exhaust its 

cash balance sometime in Fiscal Year 2015, necessitating steep cuts in highway and 

transit spending unless new revenues are provided. If Congress were to maintain 

the Federal surface transportation program investment at current levels, and the 

Highway Trust Fund would need an additional $150 billion in revenue through 

2024. 

As Congressional leaders and the Administration debate a fiscal path for 2014 

and beyond, we urge the inclusion of stabilizing the HTF as part of that discussion. 

The Administration’s budget proposal and the budget resolutions in the House of 

Representatives and Senate assume full funding for HTF programs in fiscal year 

2014 and recognize the funding challenges following the expiration of MAP-21, with 

the Administration and Senate providing a reserve fund that allows for increased 

transportation spending. It is disappointing that none of the budgets offers an adequate proposal to address the long-term structural problems of the HTF. We recognize the economic and budgetary challenges our country faces; however, by returning the HTF to a user-supported revenue system with predictable, sustainable and 

growing revenue sources, Congress and the Administration could reduce budget deficits by approximately $150 billion during the period from 2015-2024, or about $15 

billion per year. 

The federal government has a fundamental role to play in investing in the nation’s highway and transit system to serve passenger travel, interstate commerce 

and national defense. Unlike most other government programs, the HTF programs 

historically have been funded entirely by fuel taxes and truck fees paid by those 

who use and benefit from our national highway system. However, the user fees, 

which were last increased in 1993, continue to be insufficient to meet the Nation’s 

needs. We hope Senators and Representatives will make a distinction between general taxes and user fees paid by the direct beneficiaries of the program in considering solutions to the HTF funding crisis. 

A long-term solution to the HTF’s revenue challenge would boost the economy 

while reducing the deficit. Putting the HTF on sound financial footing is not only 

fiscally responsible, but the combination of this new stability with MAP-21’s policy 

reforms would maximize the impact of federal surface transportation investments 

to facilitate economic growth and job creation. 

We encourage the Administration and members of Congress in both parties to 

work together on this matter, explore all options, build a consensus, and then take 
49 

decisive action to address the financial future of the HTF. Our organizations stand 

together to support you in that effort. 

Sincerely, 

ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA; 

AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS; 

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS

AMERICAN ROAD AND TRANSPORTATION BUILDERS; 

AGRICULTURAL & FOOD TRANSPORTERS CONFERENCE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION

OF EXPORTERS AND IMPORTERS AMERICAN CONCRETE PAVEMENT ASSOCIATION; 

AMERICAN COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES AMERICAN HIGHWAYS USERS

ALLIANCE AMERICAN MOVING & STORAGE ASSOCIATION AMERICAN PUBLIC

TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS; 

AMERICAN TRAFFIC SAFETY SERVICES ASSOCIATION ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT

DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT MANUFACTURERS BUILDING AMERICA’S

FUTURE; 

CONCRETE REINFORCING STEEL INSTITUTE; 

INSTITUTE OF MAKERS OF EXPLOSIVES; 

INTERNATIONAL WAREHOUSING & LOGISTICS ASSOCIATION NATIONAL ASPHALT

PAVEMENT ASSOCIATION; 

NATIONAL PRIVATE TRUCK COUNCIL NATIONAL RETAIL FEDERATION; 

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRANSPORTATION LEAGUE NATIONAL STONE, SAND & 

GRAVEL ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL TANK TRUCK CARRIERS; 

OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION PORTLAND CEMENT

ASSOCIATION; 

NATIONAL READY MIXED CONCRETE ASSOCIATION SSAB AMERICAS; 

STEEL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION TRANSPORTATION INTERMEDIARIES

ASSOCIATION. 

NEW STUDY EXAMINES FUEL EFFICIENCY IMPACT ON GAS TAX RECEIPTS, PROJECTS $365 BILLION HIGHWAY FUND SHORTFALL

WASHINGTON, DC.—As automobile fuel economy increases, the federal highway 

program’s fiscal position will become ever more precarious, a new study by researchers at the College of William and Mary finds. 

The team from William and Mary’s Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy 

(TJPPP) forecasts that over the next 23 years, as Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

(CAFE) standards rise, gasoline consumption will decline. This will lead to a drop 

in gas tax payments to the federal Highway Trust Fund (HTF), the highway program’s primary funding source. Failing to change the existing tax structure while 

maintaining current investment will cause the HTF’s account to incur a $365.5 billion deficit over the next 23 years, the study concludes. 

The highway program is already in dire straits. Although it has been self-sustaining for many years thanks to the gas tax and other user fees, declining revenues 

have made transfers from the general budget necessary to prevent road and bridge 

spending cuts. Myriad studies have shown that merely maintaining current spending is insufficient to build the infrastructure our growing economy needs. One report 

by the Texas Transportation Institute found that traffic congestion, resulting in 

large part from inadequate capacity, costs the country more than $100 billion per 

year in wasted time and fuel. 

‘‘HTF revenues are inadequate to support today’s road and bridge spending levels, 

which are already well below what’s needed to maintain the interstate system’s performance,’’ said Christian Klein, vice president of government affairs for Associated 

Equipment Distributors (AED), which sponsored the research. ‘‘As part of the broader tax and budget reform debate, Congress needs to do something bold to put the 

program back on solid fiscal footing.’’ 

The William and Mary study offers a few possible solutions. The gas tax was last 

increased—to 18.4 cents per gallon—in 1993. The research team determined that restoring the gas tax’s 1993 spending power by raising it to 25 cents and indexing 

it for future inflation would raise $167 billion above current baseline spending requirements over the next two decades. The study also examined ways to implement 

a vehicle mileage-based user fee. 

‘‘We hope Congress will take these findings to heart and act quickly to identify 

new revenue streams for the road program,’’ AED President & CEO Toby Mack 

said. ‘‘Highways are the arteries of commerce and the arteries are clogged. The 

longer lawmakers wait to tackle the problem, the worse it’ll get and the harder it’ll 

be to fix.’’ 

The full report is available at http://www.aednet.org/government/pdf-2013/WMHTF-Report.pdf. 
50 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS, 

April 24, 2013. 

Hon. PAUL RYAN, Chairman; Hon. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Ranking Member, 

Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN RYAN AND RANKING MEMBER VAN HOLLEN: The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) believes increased funding for the nation’s transportation infrastructure is a critical priority which will help keep manufacturing competitive and grow the nation’s economy. Today’s hearing is an important step in the 

process of returning the federal Highway Trust Fund (HTF) to an improved condition of solvency and long-term sustainability. The Congressional Budget Office 

(CBO) anticipates the HTF will run a negative balance at some point in Fiscal Year 

2015. Congress must soon begin to secure the financial health of the main funding 

mechanism for the nation’s highway and transit systems. 

Significant shifts in driving patterns and improved automobile fuel economy 

standards over the past decade have contributed to declining HTF revenues. These 

trends will continue, and unfortunately the fuel tax has not kept pace with these 

changes. In addition, the cost of construction materials and services has increased 

over time due to inflation and other market conditions. The result has been diminished purchasing power for each construction dollar dedicated to federal transportation investments. Nearly 20 years has passed since Congress has increased the 

fuel tax, a basic user fee paid by those who drive on the nation’s highways. 

In spite of these significant challenges, the motor fuel tax for gas and diesel remains the foundation for all of our current and future federal highway and transit 

investments. While new models, strategies and financing options need to be more 

seriously evaluated by Congress, manufacturers believe the Highway Trust Fund 

continues to offer a reliable source of funding to states for roads, bridges and transit 

systems. 

Investing in infrastructure and ensuring the long-term sustainability of the Highway Trust Fund move in tandem with the goals of economic growth and doubling 

the nation’s export capacity. Thank you for providing a forum for a discussion of this 

important issue to manufacturers. 

Sincerely, 

ROBYN M. BOERSTLING, Director, 

Transportation & Infrastructure Policy. 

April 24, 2013. 

Hon. PAUL RYAN, Chairman; Hon. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Ranking Member, 

Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN RYAN AND RANKING MEMBER VAN HOLLEN: On behalf of the 

membership of the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, thank you for holding the hearing titled State of the Highway Trust Fund: Long-Term Solutions for 

Solvency. NSSGA supports all efforts to find a viable, long-term solution to the 

pending insolvency facing the Highway Trust Fund, and we commend you for addressing this matter in the public forum it deserves. 

Attached is a draft statement for the record of the hearing. Thank you in advance 

for the opportunity to comment on an issue of utmost importance to NSSGA members. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. 

Sincerely, 

PAMELA J. WHITTED, Senior Vice President, 

Legislative & Regulatory Affairs, National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association. 

Enclosure. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL STONE, SAND & GRAVEL ASSOCIATION

With the passage of the most recent surface transportation law, Moving Ahead 

for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), in July 2012, highway and transit 

investment was stabilized for two years by supplementing the Highway Trust Fund 

(HTF) with general fund transfers and non-transportation revenue sources. MAP21 was delayed by over 1,000 days from the expiration of the previous highway bill, 

SAFETEA-LU, in September 2009—largely because HTF revenue could no longer 

maintain the minimum needed for federal highway and transit investment. 

Although we appreciate the historic and much needed program reforms contained 

in MAP-21, unfortunately Congress did not adequately address the revenue shortfall. As a result the HTF again is facing bankruptcy by the expiration of MAP-21 

at the end of fiscal year 2014. This means that in 17 months Congress again will 

be forced to choose between implementing a long-term HTF revenue solution, mas-
51 

sive investment cuts that will eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs, or further 

bailouts. 

NSSGA supports passage of a surface transportation reauthorization bill that returns to the six-year term, which provides the multi-year certainty necessary for 

state departments of transportation—and the businesses and workforces they depend upon—to execute their priority projects. The aggregates industry is a capital 

intensive industry. Our members require certainty for efficient and cost-effective allocation of human and financial resources. 

According to the Congressional Budget Office’s official cost estimate for MAP-21, the HTF would need an additional $76 billion, over and above existing user fee revenues, just to fund a six-year bill (FY 2015 to FY 2020) at MAP-21 levels. (The total 

includes $52 billion for Highway Account and $24 billion for Mass Transit Account.) 

The solvency of the HTF must be addressed and secured, and it is imperative that 

Congress select or combine any number of innovative funding mechanisms—new or 

otherwise. Whether it is an increase in the gas user fee, which has not been raised 

since 1993; a move to a system based on vehicle-miles traveled; linking increased 

energy production with surface transportation funding; or a combination of these 

and other ideas, NSSGA supports full consideration of all. 

Two independent, bipartisan commissions authorized in the 2005 surface transportation law, SAFETEA-LU, the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission and the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, arrived at the same conclusion. In the short-term, these commissions recommended increasing the gas user fee and transitioning to a vehiclemiles-traveled user fee over the long-term. Additionally, they evaluated the pros and 

cons of a host of other possible fundraising solutions. 

Historically, the short-fall in the surface transportation funding has been dealt 

with in the context of broad fiscal reform, which has been proposed and implemented by Republicans and Democrats alike. In 1990, Congress and President 

George H. W. Bush raised the motor fuels user fee by five cents, with half going 

to the HTF and half to deficit reduction. Three years later, Congress and President 

Bill Clinton again raised the user fee in a 1993 tax/deficit reduction package that 

allocated a 4.3 cents per gallon increase to deficit reduction and redirected the 1990 

2.5 cents deficit reduction component to the HTF. Finally, the 1993 4.3 cents per 

gallon user fee increase was then shifted from deficit reduction to the HTF in a 1997 

tax bill, which provided the revenue foundation for the 1998 surface transportation 

reauthorization. 

Investment in transportation assets has been and continues to be a cornerstone 

of the American economy and, indeed, our national way of life. Underinvesting in 

this basic foundation of our economy leads to increased traffic congestion and the 

loss of jobs—not only of those who construct transportation systems, but also of 

those whose goods and services depend on those systems. We must invest in rebuilding and improving our transportation infrastructure to ensure that we adequately 

maintain these systems for years to come. 

Ultimately, a well-maintained system of roads, bridges, mass transit, aviation, 

and rail provides Americans’ freedom of mobility, a treasured American value that 

allows them to go where they want, when they want. It allows them to purchase 

goods at affordable prices brought to market by the fastest and most efficient 

means. 

America has an infrastructure deficit. American investment in maintenance and 

expansion of its transportation infrastructure has not kept up with demand and as 

a result our nation faces stiff competition from Asian and European nations. America’s surface transportation system that used to be the envy of the world is now 

ranked 25th by the World Economic Forum. It is not an overstatement to suggest 

that without an immediate and significant investment in our transportation infrastructure the United States economy will cease to compete globally and will be on 

par with other third world nations. This crisis is ripe for leadership from Congress 

and further delay is not only costly but dangerous. 

Based near the nation’s capital, NSSGA is the world’s largest mining association 

by product volume. Its member companies represent more than 90% of the crushed 

stone and 70% of the sand and gravel consumed annually in the U.S. and employ 

107,800 working men and women. 

Stone, sand, and gravel—aggregates—are a base construction material essential 

to the built environment. The sale of natural aggregates generates nearly $40 billion 

annually for the U.S. economy. During 2012, nearly two billion metric tons of aggregates—valued at roughly $17 billion—were produced and sold in the U.S. The materials are used in nearly all residential, commercial and industrial building and in 

most public works projects, such as: roads, highways, bridges, railroad beds, dams, 

airports, water and sewage treatment plants and tunnels. 
52 

There are more than 10,000 construction aggregates operations nationwide. Almost every congressional district is home to a crushed stone, sand or gravel operation. Proximity to market is critical due to high transportation costs, so 70% of our 

nation’s counties include an aggregates operation. Approximately 70% of NSSGA 

member companies are considered small businesses. While the American public 

pays little attention to these raw natural materials, they go into the manufacture 

of asphalt, concrete, glass, paper, paint, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, chewing gum, 

household cleaners and many other consumer goods. 

NSSGA welcomes the opportunity to submit comments on this important issue 

and supports your efforts to find a solution to the pending insolvency of the Highway Trust Fund. Doing so now will lay the foundation for a more advanced surface 

transportation network that will undoubtedly spur the American economy for decades to come. 

PORTLAND CEMENT ASSOCIATION (PCA), 

April 24, 2013. 

Hon. PAUL RYAN, Chairman; Hon. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Ranking Member, 

Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN RYAN AND RANKING MEMBER VAN HOLLEN: Thank you for holding this hearing on the ‘‘State of the Highway Trust Fund: Long-term Solutions for 

Solvency.’’ The Portland Cement Association (PCA) takes great interest in our nation’s infrastructure and the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. On behalf of the 

PCA, I wish to share the views of the U.S. cement manufacturing industry. 

Our nation’s infrastructure is falling behind. The inefficiencies of our transportation network raise costs, making basic goods more expensive and adding new challenges to U.S. businesses struggling to stay atop a highly competitive international 

marketplace. This does not even touch on the quality of life issues associated, for 

example, with long work-related commutes. 

PCA believes the U.S. should be spending more on our infrastructure, but realizes 

this is not a universally held view. Whatever your view, most everyone agrees that 

we have to be smart about how we build, especially when it comes to our roads. 

Building smarter and doing so in a fiscally responsible manner, should be a key 

focus of identifying ways to improve the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust 

Fund. It is essential that transportation departments properly consider durability 

and examine the long-term maintenance costs of pavement options. 

There is room for improvement when it comes to project decision-making and 

properly accounting for long-term costs of our roadways. MAP-21 tasked the U.S. 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) with preparing a report on the ‘‘best practices for calculating lifecycle costs and benefits for federally funded highway 

projects.’’ Expected to be completed in July, this report will hopefully help improve 

the planning process so that limited dollars go farther and are spent wiser. 

Should you have any questions or need more information, please feel free to contact me or David Hubbard. We can reached by email or phone (gscott@cement.org, 

dhubbard@cement.org, or 202-408-9494). 

Sincerely, 

GREGORY M. SCOTT, 

President and Chief Executive Officer Portland Cement Association. 

[Additional submissions of Hon. Bill Pascrell, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, follow:] 

American Council of Engineering Companies (Fact Sheet) 

Sustainable Financing for Transportation 

ISSUE

Federal investment in transportation infrastructure plays an essential role in protecting public health and safety, promoting commerce, and keeping America competitive. Tremendous headway was made in 2012 with enactment of the Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), which provided two years of 

funding stability for highway and transit programs while delivering much-needed 

reforms to streamline project delivery and focus on core national interests. These 

important changes are already reducing costs and bringing project benefits to the 

public faster. 

Unfortunately, MAP-21 did not provide for the long-term financial stability of the 

Highway Trust Fund (HTF). According to the Congressional Budget Office, the balance of the HTF will be depleted in Fiscal Year 2015, necessitating dramatic cuts 

in highway and transit spending unless new revenues are provided. Absent congres-
53 

sional action, highway program funding would fall from $40 billion to approximately 

$4 billion, while funding for transit projects would fall from $11 billion to $7 billion. 

These cuts would have a devastating impact on state and local transportation agencies and postpone critical projects to improve safety, reduce congestion and enhance 

mobility. 

Continued underinvestment in transportation infrastructure will only hamper economic growth. Deteriorating roads and bridges and worsening congestion have 

raised the price of doing business through increased maintenance costs, wasted fuel, 

and delayed shipments. Last year, our economy was crippled by $121 billion in congestion costs, or $818 per U.S. commuter, and an additional $230 billion in economic 

costs from accidents. 

Conversely, a long-term solution to the revenue challenges facing the HTF would 

boost the economy while also reducing the deficit. With predictable, sustainable and 

growing revenue sources—particularly user fees—the Highway Trust Fund will support infrastructure investments that foster economic growth in a fiscally responsible 

way. A wide array of options have been identified that would help to address the 

challenge, including increasing and indexing the current user fees, switching to a 

sales tax on fuel, mileage-based fees, tolling, bonding and other financing mechanisms, freight charges, and revenues from increased domestic energy production. 

KEY POINTS

• Transportation infrastructure forms the basis of continued economic growth. 

Every dollar invested in highway construction generates up to $8 in economic output. According to the U.S. DOT, each $1 billion in federal highway investment supports 34,000 jobs. 

• The Highway Trust Fund is on an unsustainable fiscal path. At least $15 billion 

is needed in additional annual revenues in order to simply maintain current funding 

levels, adjusted for inflation, over the next ten years. 

ACTION REQUESTED

• Protect current funding levels for federal infrastructure programs that support 

highways, transit, aviation, rail, ports and other transportation systems. 

• Address the looming Highway Trust Fund fiscal crisis with new sources of revenue. 

[Question submitted for the record by Mr. Pascrell follows:] 

QUESTION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY HON. BILL PASCRELL, JR., A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

QUESTION TO MR. POOLE

Mr. Poole, I am a big believer in our nation’s public transit systems and support 

robust federal investment in their growth. That said, one of the ways that can reduce taxpayer burden in financing our public transportation system is creating more 

private sector involvement and an intermodal transportation network. Do you see 

barriers to entry for private sector operators like the motorcoach industry in accessing federally supported transportation facilities? 

[Additional submissions of Mr. Blumenauer follow:] 

February 2, 2012. 

Hon. DAVE CAMP, Chairman; Hon. Sander M. Levin, Ranking Member, 

Committee on Ways and Means. 1102 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, 

DC 20515. 

Re: Surface Transportation Finance and the Highway Trust Fund 

DEAR CHAIRMAN CAMP AND RANKING MEMBER LEVIN: For the past thirty years, 

Congress has provided dedicated funding for highway and transit programs through 

an excise tax on gasoline dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund. This funding structure has successfully provided highway and transit programs with secure, dedicated 

revenues and budgetary firewalls dating back to the Reagan administration. The 

success of this approach is without question: The Trust Fund has been critical to 

our nation’s ability to build an efficient and multimodal transportation system. With 

record transit ridership, now is not the time to eliminate guaranteed funding for our 

nation’s public transportation systems, which saved Americans close to $19 billion 

in congestion costs in 2009. For the first time in thirty years, the pending legislation 

H.R. 3864, the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Financing Act, removes 
54 

the certainty of a continued revenue source for our transit systems as well as the 

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program. 

Specifically, we are deeply concerned about the prov1swn in H.R. 3864 that would 

terminate funding from the excise tax on gasoline and replace it with the Alternative Transportation Account. In place of gasoline tax revenues, the legislation 

would provide a one-time $40 billion transfer of General Fund revenues to the Alternative Transportation Account. Not only is this level of funding insufficient to fully 

fund the proposed authorized levels for the Alternative Transportation Account, but 

it would subject transit and CMAQ funding to the annual appropriations process. 

This change will make it impossible for public transit systems across the country 

to plan for the future. lt will also make it impossible for the FTA to honor grant 

agreements. 

In addition, this legislation does not make clear how the $40 billion in General 

Fund revenues will be offset in the U.S. budget. As a result of this funding gap, 

we are concerned that the $40 billion general revenue transfer may not occur leaving transit programs out in the cold. 

We strongly encourage the Committee to reject H.R. 3864 and work to continue 

to fund highway and transit programs through dedicated funding. 

Sincerely, 

Michael P. Melaniphy President & CEO American Public Transportation Association 

John Robert Smith President and CEO Reconnecting America 

Joyce A. Rogers Senior Vice President, Government Affairs AARP 

Jeff Miller President/CEO Alliance for Biking & Walking 

James Corless Director Transportation for America 

Geoff Anderson President & CEO Smart Growth America 

Brian Pallasch, CAE Managing Director, Government Relations & Infrastructure 

Initiatives American Society of Civil Engineers 

Richard Eidlin Policy Director American Sustainable Business Council 

Jeff Rosenberg Legislative Director Amalgated Transit Union 

Caron Whitaker Campaign Director America Bikes 

Kristy Anderson Government Relations Manager American Heart Association/American Stroke Association 

Brian Shaw President Association for Commuter Transportation 

Billy Altom Executive Director Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living (APRIL) 

Marcia L Hale President Building America’s Future 

Andrew Goldberg Managing Director, Gov’t Relations American Institute of Architects 

Mike Kruglik Executive Director Building One America 

Jason Jordan Director of Policy & Government Affairs American Planning Association 

Don Hoppert Director, Government Relations American Public Health Association 

(APHA) 

Steve Winkelman Director, Transportation Program Center for Clean Air Policy 

Tim Marema Vice President Center for Rural Strategies 

Margo Wootan Director, Nutrition Policy Center for Science in the Public Interest 

Fred McLuckie Legislative Director International Brotherhood of Teamsters 

David T. Downey President/CEO 

Stewart Schwartz Executive Director International Downtown Association 

Coalition for Smarter Growth 

Just Transition Alliance 

Scott Bogren Communications Director Community Transportation Association of 

America 

Peter N otarstefano Director of Home and Community-Based Services 

LeadingAge 

John Norquist President Congress for the New Urbanism 

Andrew Clarke President League of American Bicyclists 

Michael A Spotts Policy Analyst Enterprise Community Partners 

Sara Chieffo Legislative Director League of Conservation Voters 

John Cross Federal Transportation Advocate Environment America 

Niel Ritchie Executive Director League of Rural Voters 

Ana Garcia-Ashley Executive Director Gamaliel 

Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins CEO Green For All 

Paul Weech Executive Vice President for Policy and Member Engagement 

Housing Partnership Network 

Michael Replogle Global Policy Director and Founder Institute for Transportation & 

Development Policy 
55 

Christopher Coes Director LOCUS: Reponsible Real Estate Developers and Investors 

Ron Thaniel Executive Director National Association of City Transportation Officials 

Bob Fogel Senior Legislative Director National Association of Counties 

Eli Briggs Govt Affairs Director National Association of County & City Health Officials 

Sean Jeans-Gail Vice President National Association of Railroad Passengers 

Darren Smith Policy Representative; Smart Growth and State & Local Issues National Association of Realtors 

Mark Plotz Conference Director National Center for Bicycling & Walking 

Melissa Merson Executive Director National Coalition for Promoting Physical Activity 

National Economic and Social Rights Initiative 

Ethan Handelman Vice President for Policy and Advocacy 

National Housing Conference 

Michael Bodaken Executive Director National Housing Trust 

Leslie Wallack Program Director National League of Cities 

Sheila Crowley president and ceo National Low Income Housing Coalition 

Chuck Baker President National Railroad Construction and Maintenance Association 

Madura Wijewardena (on behalf of the CEO, Marc Morial) Director, Research & Policy National Urban League Policy Institute 

Robert H. McNulty President Partners for Livable Communities 

Leslie Moody Executive Director Partnership for Working Families 

Anita Hairston Senior Associate PolicyLink 

Virginia Lee Program Manager Prevention Institute 

Tyson Slocum Director, Energy Program Public Citizen 

Kevin Mills Vice President of Policy and Trail Development Rails-to-Trails Conservancy 

Margo Pedroso Deputy Director Safe Routes to School National Partnership 

Jesse Prentice-Dunn Washington Representative Sierra Club 

Stephan Kline Associate vice president The Jewish Federations of North America 

KJ Hertz The National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (n4a) 

Portia White Director, Political Department Transport Workers Union of America, 

AFL-CIO 

Laura Barrett Executive Director Transportation Equity Network 

Bryan Howard Legislative Director U.S. Green Building Council 

Andy Kunz President & CEO U.S. High Speed Rail Association 

Janet F. Kavinoky Executive Director, Transportation & Infrastructure, Vice President, Americans for Transportation Mobility United States Chamber of Commerce 

Phineas Baxandall Senior Analyst for Tax and Budget Policy United States Public 

Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG) 

Leo Gerard President United Steelworkers 

Heidi Guenin Transportation Policy Coordinator Upstream Public Health 

James Engelhardt Director, Affordable Housing Development 

Volunteers of America 

The Honorable Governor John Kitzhaber Governor of Oregon 

The Honorable Governor Christine Gregoire Governor of Washington 

State, Local, and Regional Organizations and Officials 

SOUTHEAST

Trip Pollard Director, Land and Community Program Southern Environmental Law 

Center Equity and Inclusion Campaign AL, MS, LA 

ARKANSAS

John Squires CEO Community Resource Group,Inc Fayetteville, AR 

Jeff Mansker Para-Transit Coordinator Jonesboro Economical Transportation System Jonesboro, AR 

ARIZONA

Rose Arck President ACS Realty Services Phoenix, AZ 

Diane Brown Executive Director Arizona Public Interest Research Group 

James Dickey Executive Director Arizona Transit Association Fountain Hills, AZ 

Tom Finnerty Executive Committee Member ASREA Phoenix, AZ 

Caroline Tillman President Associated Right of Way, LLC Glendale, AZ 
56 

Scott Reynolds Senior Project Manager Blood Systems Inc. Scottsdale, AZ 

Mike James Transit Services Director City of Mesa Mesa, AZ 

The Honorable Mayor Greg Stanton City of Phoenix Phoenix, AZ 

Lisa Williams President Excellence by Design Phoenix, AZ 

Chris Wass Founder Firefly Real Estate LLC Phoenix, AZ 

David Schwartz Executive Director Friends of Transit Phoenix, AZ 

Gregory A Walker Vice President Huitt-Zollars Phoenix, AZ Rhonda Bannard 

Founder and Chief Connector Inspired Connections Phoenix, AZ 

Donce Walker Sustainability Manager Maricopa County Phoenix, AZ 

Walt Gray Coordinator Merchants for a Better Maryvale Phoenix, AZ 

Gwynn Simpson CEO Phoenix Rising Consultants-HCD Chandler, AZ 

Edward Jensen Co-chair, Executive Committee 

CALIFORNIA

Will Wright Director, Government & Public Affairs AIA Los Angeles Los Angeles, 

CA 

Mary King Interim General Manager Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC 

Transit) Oakland, CA 

Arnold Luft Principal ARUP Los Angeles, CA 

Hugh Saurenman President ATS Consulting Pasadena, CA 

Paul Steinberg Director of Americas Avego San Jose, CA 

Andy Katz Government Relations Director Breathe California Daly City, CA 

Neal Richman Director of Programs and Advocacy Breathe California of Los Angeles 

County 

Ruben Cantu Program Director California Pan-Ethnic Health Network Oakland, 

Sacramento, CA 

Jon Fox CalPIRG Consumer Advocate California Public Interest Research Group 

Wendy Alfsen Executive Director California WALKS Berkeley, CA 

Betsy Reifsnider Environmental Justice Director Catholic Charities, Diocese of 

Stockton Stockton, CA 

Reyna Villalobos Community Lead Central California Regional Obesity Prevention 

Program Madera, CA 

Kenneth Grimes Executive Director CHCDC San Diego, CA 

Rick Hutchinson CEO City CarShare San Francisco, CA 

Kristin Sherwood csc City of Beaumont Beaumont, CA 

Nelson D. Nelson City Engineer City of Corona Public Works Department Corona, 

CA 

Brian Champion Transportation Planning Manager City of Corona Transit Service 

Corona, CA 

The Honorable Mayor Ashley Swearengin City of Fresno Fresno, CA 

The Honorable Mayor Jean Quan City of Oakland Oakland, CA 

Virginia Field Vice President Clean Air Now Riverside, CA 

Jonathan Parfrey Executive Director Climate Resolve Los Angeles, CA 

Martin Schlageter Campaign Director Coalition for Clean Air Evalnbar Board member 

Coalition for Sustainable Transportation Santa Barbara, CA 

Michael Chiacos Transportation Specialist Community Environmental Council 

Santa Barbara, CA 

Victor Griego President Diverse Strategies for Organizing, Inc. Los Angeles, CA 

Lars Clutterham Partner downeygreen Downey, CA 

Cheryl Dye Principal Dye &Assoc San Diego, CA 

Dave Campbell Program Director East Bay Bicycle Coalition Oakland, CA 

Michael Fitts Staff Attorney Endangered Habitats League Santa Monica, CA 

Heather Hood Director of Programs, Northern California Enterprise Community 

Partners San Francisco, CA 

David Dutchen Area Sales Manager Enterprise Rideshare Carson, CA 

Matthew Baker Habitat Director Environmental Council of Sacramento Sacramento, 

CA 

Hilary Norton Executive Director FAST—Fixing Angelenos Stuck in Traffic Los Angeles, CA 

Matt Henry President/CEO Fehr & Peers California 

Jack Swearengen Chair Friends of SMART Santa Rosa, CA 

Stephanie Taylor Interim Executive Director Green LA Coalition Los Angeles, CA 

Stephanie Reyes Policy Director Greenbelt Alliance California 

Maria E. Pacheco Consultant Head West Inc. Compton, CA 

Ginger Hitzke President Hitzke Development Corporation San Marcos, CA 

Johnny O’Kane Business Agent Ironworkers Los Angeles, CA 
57 

Jose A. Naranjo Business Manager/Financial Secretary-Treasurer Ironworkers Local 

Union 229 San Diego, CA 

Jackelyn Cornejo Senior Research/Policy Analyst Los Angeles Alliance for a New 

Economy (LAANE) Los Angeles, CA 

Jessica Duboff Public Policy Manager Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce Los 

Angeles, CA 

Alexis Lantz Planning & Policy Director Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition Los 

Angeles, CA 

Deborah Murphy Founder Los Angeles Walks Los Angeles, CA 

Corey Carlisle Director, Federal Policy and Government Affairs Low Income Investment Fund San Francisco, CA 

Andy Peri Advocacy Director Marin County Bicycle Coalition Fairfax, CA 

Steve Heminger Executive Director Metropolitan Transportation Commission San 

Francisco, CA 

Carl Sedoryk General Manager/CEO Monterey-Salinas Transit District Monterey, 

CA, CA 

Denny Zane Executive Director Move LA Los Angeles, CA 

Elyse Lowe Executive Director Move San Diego San Diego, CA Jennifer Kalt Secretary Northcoast Environmental Center Arcata, CA 

Bruce Reznik Executive Director Planning and Conservation League Sacramento, 

CA 

Guillermo Mayer Senior Staff Attorney Public Advocates Inc. San Francisco, CA 

Anthony Hernandez Transportation Planner RBF Consulting California 

Anna Maria Havens Systems Change Advocate Resources for Independence Central 

Valley Fresno, CA 

Eric Ustation Government Affairs Representative Riverside Transit Agency Riverside, CA 

John Smatlak President RPR Consulting Los Angeles, CA 

Ryan Snyder President Ryan Snyder Associates California 

Kendra Bridges Land Use Policy Director Sacramento Housing Alliance Sacramento, 

CA 

Chris Morfas Legislative Liaison Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District Sacramento, CA 

Evan McLaughlin Political and Legislative Director San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council, AFL-CIO San Diego, CA 

Jim Lazarus Senior Vice President San Francisco Chamber of Commerce San Francisco, CA 

Krute Singa Manager, TDM Programs San Francisco Department of the Environment San Francisco, CA 

Edward D. Reiskin Director of San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency San 

Francisco, CA 

Howard Strassner Secretary Save Muni California 

Kate Breen Government Affairs Manager SFMTA San Francisco, CA 

Steven Frisch President Sierra Business Council Truckee, CA 

Paul Zimmerman Executive Director 

Southern California Assoc. of Non-Profit Housing 

John Rosenthal President Southpaw Communications Santa Monica, CA 

Egon Terplan Regional Planning Director SPUR San Francisco, CA 

Arthur J. Hadnett Vice President—Transportation Stantec Northridge, CA 

Greg Bashem Worker Representative/Political Coordinator/Volunteer Organizer/Delegate IBT, JC 42, L.A.-0.C Building Trades, L.A. County Federation of Labor/ 

Metal Trades Council Teamsters Local 986 South El Monte, CA 

Bart Reed Executive Director The Transit Coalition San Fernando, CA 

Patrick Merrick Executive Vice-President Tolar Manufacturing Company Inc Corona, CA 

Gary Tolar Owner Tolar Mfg. Co Inc. Corona, CA 

Bart Reed Executive Director Train Riders Association of California (TRAC) San 

Fernando, CA 

Stuart Cohen Executive Director Trans Form Oakland, CA Francisca Porchas National Coordinator Transit Riders for Public Transportation Los Angeles, CA 

David A Raley Chairman Transportation NOW Moreno Valley, CA Ernestine Bonn 

Treasurer UH CDC San Diego, CA 

Bob Allen Transportation Justice Program Director Urban Habitat Oakland, CA 

Michael Cassadine Director Voice for the People Los Angeles, CA 

Victor H. Spencer National Account Executive VPSI Sacramento, CA 

Jonathan Bair Board President Walk Oakland Bike Oakland Oakland, CA 

Terry Preston Complete Streets Coordnator WALKSacramento 95814-2920, CA 

James Stone Executive Director WalkSanDiego San Diego, CA 
58 

Charles Anderson General Manager Western Contra Costa Transit Authority Pinole, 

CA 

Jerard Wright Director Wright Concept California 

Jeremy Merz Policy Advocate California Chamber of Commerce 

Ron Sundergill Sr. Director, Pacific Region National Parks Conservation Association 

San Francisco, California 

COLORADO

Audrey DeBarros Executive Director 36 Commuting Solutions Louisville, CO 

Deven Meininger Multi Modal Specialist City of Durango Durango, CO 

Alice Laird Executive Director Clean Energy Economy for the Region Carbondale, 

CO 

Danny Katz State Director Colorado Public Interest Research Group 

Brad Weinig TOD Program Director Enterprise Community Partners Denver, CO 

Helen Bushnell Owner Train Star Lakewood, CO 

Kathleen Osher Executive Director Transit Alliance Denver, CO 

CONNECTICUT

Nichole Strack Executive Director 1000 Friends of Connecticut Hartford, CT 

MaryEllen Thibodeau President Bike Walk Connecticut 

Debra Greenwood CEO/President Center for Women and Families of Eastern Fairfield County Bridgeport, CT 

Mary Tomolonius Executive Director Connecticut Association for Community Transportation Canton, CT 

Molly McKay Transportation Chair Connecticut Chapter of Sierra Club Mystic, CT 

Lori Brown Executive Director Connecticut League of Conservation Voters Education Fund Hartford, CT 

Mark Abraham Steering Committee Member Connecticut Livable Streets Campaign 

Jill Kely Co-Chair Connecticut-Citizens Transportation Lobby 

Andy McDonald ConnPIRG Policy Advisor Connectiut Public Interest Research 

Group 

Barbara Kalosky President North East Transportation Co. Inc. Waterbury, CT 

Karen Burnaska Coordinator Transit for Connecticut Monroe, CT 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Advancement Project Washington, DC 

Julie Gould Senior Vice President Mercy Housing Washington, DC 

Douglas Franklin Marketing Specialist Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Washington, DC 

Jason Broehm Chair Streetcars4DC Washington, DC 

Paul Dean Vice President TransitCenter Washington, DC 

DELAWARE

Shailen Bhatt Secretary Delaware Department of Transportation 

FLORIDA

Charles G. Pattison, FAICP President and CEO 1000 Friends of Florida Tallahassee, FL 

Jeffrey Lewin business development manager All Area Bicycle Boynton Beach, FL 

Darla Letourneau Steering Group Member BikeWalkLee Sanibel, FL 

Susan Stechnij Board Member Citizens 4 Transit West Palm Beach, FL 

Patricia Zeiler Managing Director Downtown Fort Lauderdale TMA Fort Lauderdale, FL 

Brad Ashwell Advocate Florida Public Interest Research Group 

Wes Watson Executive Director Florida Public Transportation Association Tampa, 

FL 

John Hopkins Executive Director Green Mobility Network Miami, FL 

Denis Eirikis Communications Manager IM4Transit Campaign Tampa, FL 

William Shrout Supervisor 

Lee Tran Fort Myers, FL 

G. Seth Platt Project Manager LSN Partners Fort Lauderdale, FL 

Gloria Katz Founder Smart Growth Partnership Fort Lauderdale, FL 

Terry Stick Vice President The Stick Group Florida 

Brian Seel Chairman TRANSITion Tampa Bay Tampa, FL 
59 

GEORGIA

Linda Hieter Board Chair Ashley Robbins President Citizens for Progressive Transit 

Canyon Area Bus Service Riggins, ID Atlanta, GA 

Shannon Grow Transit Manager 

Richard Mendoza Commissioner of Public Works City of Atlanta Atlanta, GA 

The Honorable Mayor Robert Reichert City of Macon, GA Macon, GA 

Environmental Justice Resource Center Atlanta, GA 

IDAHO

City of Lewiston Lewiston, ID 

Gary J. Riedner City Supervisor City of Moscow, ID 

Clifton Warren District 1Mobility Manager CTAI Sandpoint, ID 

Jessica Wilson Georgia PIRG Program Associate Georgia Public Interest Research 

Group 

Transit Riders Union Jobs With Justice Atlanta, GA 

Ada Bike Alliance Ada, ID 

Jim Buffington Manager Ada County Highway District Garden City, ID 

Heather Wheeler Executive Director CTAI Boise, ID 

John Murray Mobility Manager Dist 2 CTAI Lewiston, ID 

Carl Root District 2 Representative District 2 Public Transportation Advisory Commission Idaho 

Rachel Winer Executive Director Idaho Smart Growth Boise, ID 

Steven Wolper Board Member Mountain Rides Transportation Authority Ketchum, 

ID 

Dave Hunt Transit Director Pocatello Regional Transit Pocatello, ID 

Marion Director Selkirks-Pend Oreille Transit Dover, ID 

Kelli Fairless Executive Director Valley Regional Transit Meridian, ID 

IOWA

Sonia Ashe Iowa PIRG Advocate Iowa Public Interest Research Group 

Lisa Brady Co-director 

ILLINOIS

Ron Burke Executive Director Active Transportation Alliance Chicago, IL 

Dwayne Lawrence President/CEO Affordable Housing Consortium, Inc. Chicago, IL 

Kim Green President GFI Genfare Elk Grove, IL 

Phil Hanegraaf Vice President HNTB Chicago, IL 

Brian Imus Director Illinois PIRG Chicago, IL 

Mike Pitula Organizer Little Village for Environmental Justice Organization Chicago, IL 

Sam Smith Legislative Affairs Officer Metra Commuter Rail Chicago Chicago, IL 

Peter Skosey Vice President Metropolitan Planning Council Chicago, IL 

Richard Harnish Executive Director Midwest High Speed Rail Association 

Mary Kay Christopher Owner MKC Associates Berwyn, IL 

Will Tanzman Co-Executive Director Southsiders Organized for Unity and Liberation Chicago, IL 

Jeff Worley Sr. Business Analyst United Airlines Chicago, IL 

Robert W. Guy State Legislative Director United Transportation Union-Illinois Legislative Board Chicago, IL 

Steve Schlickman Executive Director University of Illinois at Chicago Urban Transportation Center Chicago, IL 

Valerie Kretchmer President Valerie S. Kretchmer Associates, Inc. Evanston, IL 

Tom Zucker Executive director Voluntary Action Center of DeKalb County Sycamore, IL 

INDIANA

Jamie Palmer Legislative Chair American Planning Association Indiana Chapter Indianapolis, IN 

Kent McDaniel Vice Chairman Bloomington Public Transportation Corporation, 

Board of Directors Bloomington, IN 

Thomas Tokarski President Citizens for Appropriate Rural Roads Bloomington, IN 

Mindy Martynowicz Executive Director Fulton County Council on Aging Rochester, 

IN 

Kim Irwin Executive Director Health by Design Indianapolis, IN 

Jesse Kharbanda Executive Director Hoosier Environmental Council Indiana 

Amelia Miller Chair Indiana Citizens’ Alliance for Transit Indianapolis, IN 
60 

Jamie Palmer Chair Indiana Land Use Consortium Indianapolis, IN 

Kent McDaniel Executive Director Indiana Transportation Association Bloomington, 

IN 

Lori Miser Executive Director Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization Indianapolis, IN 

Kevin Whited Executive Director INDY COG Indianapolis, IN 

Becky Allen Director of Transportation Johnson County Association for Retarded 

Citizens/Access Johnson County Franklin, IN 

Beverly Ferry CEO Living Well in Wabash County CoA, Inc. Wabash, IN 

Jerrold Bridges Executive Director Madison County Council of Governments Anderson, IN 

Kevin Crawford Vice Chair South Shore Trails East Chicago, IN 

Meg Storrow President Storrow Kinsella Associates Indianapolis, IN 

KANSAS

Gretchen M. Ashton President 

Sarah Krom Transportation Coordinator Sunflower Diversified Services Great Bend, 

KS 

LOUISIANA

Advocates for Environmental Human Rights New Orleans, LA 

Paul Brumfield President Baton Rouge Rider’s Advisory Group (BRRAG) Baton 

Rouge, LA 

Ashton Associates Inc. Boston, MA 

Steven E. Miller Director 

Boston GreenRoutes 

Boston, MA 

Nancy Goodman VP for Policy 

Environmental League of Massachusetts 

Joan Tighe Coordinator 

Fairmount/Indigo Line CDC Collaborative Boston, MA 

Linda Stone 

New Orleans Program & Operations Director 

Global Green USA 

New Orleans, LA 

Marla Newman Executive Director 

Louisiana Housing Alliance Baton Rouge, LA 

MASSACHUSETTS 

Ace-Transit Riders Union Boston, MA 

Kalila Barnett Executive Director Alternatives for Community and Environment 

Boston, MA 

Monica G. Tibbits Executive Director 128 Business Council Waltham, MA 

Pamela Bender Senior Organizer Massachusetts Association of CDCs Boston, MA 

David Watson Executive Director Massachusetts Bicycle Coalition Boston, MA 

Elizabeth Weyant Staff Attorney MASSPIRG Boston, MA 

Howard Ostroff Principal StarTran Software Dedham, MA 

Zachary Tucker Founder Students Against T Cuts Boston, MA 

Wendy Landman Executive Director WalkBoston Boston, MA 

MARYLAND

Dru Schmidt-Perkins Executive Director 1000 Friends of Maryland Baltimore, MD 

Paul Graziano Housing Commissioner City of Baltimore Department of Housing and 

Community Development Baltimore, MD 

Chelsea Arkin Enterprise Green Communities Enterprise Community Partners Baltimore, MD 

Ronald J. Wilson Director of Housing Initiatives Enterprise Homes, Inc. Baltimore, 

MD Mark Counselman Founder 

Friends of the Charles St. Trolley Baltimore, MD 

Rohit Patel, CEO lntelect Corporation Baltimore, MD 

Jenny Levin Maryland Public Interest Research Group 

Robert Goldman President Montgomery Housing Partnership Silver Spring, MD 

David Reznick Chairman Reznick Group Bethesda, MD 

Jeffrey Stern Principal Riverside Advisors, LLC Baltimore, MD 

Kent Watkins CEO TOD Associates Bethesda, MD 
61 

MAINE

Tony Donovan Founding member Maine Rail Transit Coaltion Portland, ME 

MICHIGAN

Jill Drury Manager Charlevoix County Transit Boyne City, MI 

Sulkowski Executive Director Disability Advocates of Kent County Grand Rapids, 

MI 

Michele McGowen Co-Chair Friends of Transit for Kalamazoo County Kalamazoo, 

MI 

Tom Manderscheid Transportation Director Harbor Transit Grand Haven, MI 

John Drury Administrator MASSTrans Bay City, MI 

Marie Donigan Consultant McKenna Associates Royal Oak, MI 

Ron Schalow Executive Director Mecosta Osceola Transit Authority Big Rapids, MI 

John D. Langdon Governmental/Public Affairs Coordinator Michigan Association of 

Railroad Passengers Holland, MI 

Tim Fischer Deputy Policy Director Michigan Environmental Council Lansing, MI 

Jim Lively Program Director Michigan Land Use Institute Traverse City, MI 

Daniel Luria Vice President Research Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center 

Plymouth, MI 

Arnold Weinfeld Director, Strategic Initiatives and Federal Affairs Michigan Municipal League Lansing, MI 

Michigan Public Interest Research Group 

Clark Harder Executive Director Michigan Public Transit Association Owosso, MI 

Peter Hughes Sustainable Development Specialist Michigan State Housing Development Authority Lansing, MI 

Richard Murphy Transportation Director Michigan Suburbs Alliance Ferndale, MI 

Megan Owens Executive Director Transportation Riders United Detroit, MI 

MIDWEST

Howard Learner Executive Director Environmental Law & Policy Center Chicago, 

IL 

MINNESOTA

Russ Adams Executive Director Alliance for Metropolitan Stability Minneapolis, MN 

Mr. Jon Wertjes, PE, PTOE Director of Traffic & Parking Services City of Minneapolis Minneapolis, MN 

Jim Heilig Director of Administration and Planning Duluth Transit Authority Duluth, MN 

Ethan Fawley Transportation Policy Director Fresh Energy St. Paul, MN 

Doran Schrantz Executive Director ISAIAH Minneapolis, MN 

James L. Erkel Director, Land Use and Transportation Program Minnesota Center 

for Environmental Advocacy Saint Paul, MN 

Tony Kellen President Minnesota Public Transit Association St. Cloud, MN 

Margaret Donahoe Executive Director Minnesota Transportation Alliance St. Paul, 

MN 

Jessica Treat Executive Director St. Paul Smart Trips St. Paul, MN 

Bill Neuendorf Director of Advocacy Transit for Livable Communities Saint Paul, 

MN 

MISSOURI

Kim Cella Executive Director Citizens for Modern Transit St. Louis, MO 

Kite Singleton Chair Kansas City Regional Transit Alliance Kansas City, MO 

Steve Blackledge MOPIRG Policy Advisor Missouri Public Interest Research Group 

Ann Mac Executive Director Trailnet St. Louis, MO 

MONTANA

Darlene Tussing Proprietor Active Transportation Alternatives Billings, MT 

Jim Sayer Executive Director Adventure Cycling Association Montana 

Nancy Wilson Director ASUM Transportation, The University of Montana Missoula, 

MT 

David Kack Coordinator Big Sky Transportation District Bozeman, MT 

Nash Emrich President BikeNet Billings, MT 

Bill Cochran Chair Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board Bozeman, MT 

Sam Haraldson Chairman Bozeman Bike Kitchen Bozeman, MT 

John Rundquist, PE Director of Public Works City of Helena, Montana Helena, MT 
62 

Bob Jaffe Alderman City of Missoula City Council Ward 3 Missoula, MT 

Lisa Ballard President Current Transportation Solutions Bozeman, MT 

Ed Gulick Architect High Plains Architects Billings, MT 

Melanie Reynolds Health Officer Lewis and Clark City-County Health Department 

Montana 

John Wolverton Member/Volunteer Missoula Advocates for Sustainable Transportation Missoula, MT 

Jason Wiener Alderman Missoula City Council Missoula, MT 

Bob Maffit Executive Director MT Independent Living Program Helena, MT 

Barbara Schneeman Director, Communication & Advocacy RiverStone Health Billings, MT 

NORTH CAROLINA

Michael Sule Founder Asheville on Bikes Asheville, NC 

Jeffrey Wharton President IMPulse NC LLC Mount Olive, NC 

Allison Cairo NCPIRG Policy Advisor North Carolina Public Interest Research 

Group 

The Honorable Mayor Gary T. Knox Former Mayor Town of Cornelius, NC 

NORTH DAKOTA

Robin Werre Executive Director BIS-MAN Transit Bismarck, ND 

Dale Bergman Transportation Superintendent Grand Forks Cities Area Transit 

Grand Forks, ND 

Kim Adair Transit Section Program Manager North Dakota Department of Transportation Bismarck, ND 

NEW JERSEY

Pam Landsem Director Walsh County Public Transportation Walsh County, North 

Dakota 

Addie Shankle New Hampshire Public Interest Research Group 

Barbara Armand President Armand Corporation Cherry Hill, NJ 

Doug O’Malley Field Director Environment New Jersey Trenton, NJ 

Michael Groh Sr. Program Coordinator National Transit Institute New Brunswick, 

NJ 

Jim Nicholson Executive Director New Jersey Bike & Walk Coalition Ramsey, NJ 

Peter Kasabach Executive Director New Jersey Future Trenton, NJ 

Jennifer Kim Advocate New Jersey Public Interest Research Group (NJPIRG) Trenton, NJ 

Lucy Vandenberg Executive Director PlanSmart NJ Trenton, NJ 

Dan Fatton Chairperson Trenton Cycling Revolution Trenton, NJ 

NEW MEXICO

Chainbreaker Collective Santa Fe, NM 

Mary Lou Kemp Director Clovis Area Transit System Portales, NM 

Jon Bulthuis President New Mexico Passenger Transportation Association 

Alexander Corkett NMPIRG Program Associate New Mexico Public Interest Research Group 

Deanza Sapien Rio Grande Chapter-New Mexico Sierra Club 

NORTHEAST

Melissa Hoffer Vice President, Director Conservation Law Foundation Boston, MA 

NEW YORK

Chuck Watson IVP ATU of Syracuse Syracuse, NY 

Chuck Wochele V.P. Industry & Government Relations Alstom Transportation New 

York 

Willie Moorer Union Rep./Bus Operator ATU Local #1056 Rosedale, NY 

Kimberly Pettit President BikeLidLLC New York 

Mary A. Donch Vice General Chairman BLE&T Metro-North General Committee 

New Rochelle, NY 

Brittny Saunders Senior Advocate Center for Social Inclusion New York, NY 

Michelle Gavin Director of Transit City of Beloit Transit Beloit, NY 

COMMUTE New York, NY 

Mark Gerling FST Local ATU Local #1321 Albany, NY 

Mark Ginsberg Partner Curtis+Ginsberg Architects New York, NY 
63 

Vincent Crehan President/BA ATU Local #1342 Buffalo, NY 

DaShawn Pretlow CEO & Founder DP Regional Transport Service Brooklyn, NY 

Jacques Chapman President ATU Local #282 Rochester, NY 

Peter Fleischer Executive Director Empire State Future Albany, NY 

Scott Sopczyk Transportation Dir. Greater Glens Falls Transit Glen Falls, NY 

Elena Conte Organizer for Public Policy Campaigns Pratt Center for Community 

Development Brooklyn, NY 

Maxine Finkelstein Senior Transportation Analyst IEI New York, NY 

Mike Governale Director Reconnect Rochester Rochester, NY 

Susan Gilbert President Interactive Elements Inc. New York, NY 

Robert D. Yaro President Regional Plan Association New York, NY 

Patti Bourne Executive Vice President Kimmel Housing Development Foundation 

New York 

Joshua A Sannar Sustainable Business Practices Coordinator Rochester Institute of 

Technology Rochester, NY 

Jeremie Greer Senior Policy Officer Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) 

New York, NY 

New York City Environmental Justice Alliance New York, NY 

Roxanne Warren Principal RWA Architects/vision42 New-York 

Richard Clements Eastern Regional Manager Tolar Manufacturing Company Inc. 

Williamsville, NY 

Judy Calogero CEO New York Housing Conference Saratoga Springs & New York 

City, NY 

Rosemary Mascali Manager Transit Solutions Manhasset, NY 

Jeff Jones Director New York State Apollo Alliance Albany, NY 

Paul Steely White Executive Director Transportation Alternatives New York, NY 

Gene Russianoff Senior Attorney NYPIRG Straphangers Campaign New York, NY 

Steven Higashide Federal Advocate Tri-State Transportation Campaign New York, 

NY 

Frank Hotchkiss District Political Coordinator United Steelworkers of Buffalo Buffalo, NY 

UPROSE New York, NY 

Eric Alexander Executive Director Vision Long Island Northport, NY 

Dan Neuburger President Commuter Services WageWorks New York, NY 

WE ACT for Environmental Justice New York, NY 

Maria C. Garcia Board Director WTS International New York, NY 

OHIO

Janice C Monks President/CEO American Association of Service Coordinators Ohio 

Brian Higgins Principal Arch City Development Group Columbus, OH 

Matthew M. Dutkevicz Assistant General Manager Butler County Regional Transit 

Authority Hamilton, OH 

Edward W Schock Councilman City of Riverside Riverside, OH 

Joseph Calabrese General Manager Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority 

Cleveland, OH 

Len Montgomery Ohio PIRG Organizing Director Ohio Public Interest Research 

Group 

OKLAHOMA

Wayne Wickham Manager of Operations Cleveland Area Rapid Transit Norman, OK 

Tom Elmore Chairman Oklahoma Transportation Options Moore, OK 

Elaine Meek Chair Transit Matters Tulsa, OK 

OREGON

Matthew Garrett Director Oregon Department of Transportation 

Jason Miner Executive Director 1000 Friends of Oregon Portland, OR 

Scott Bricker Executive Director America Walks Portland, OR 

Donald Leap President Association of Oregon Rail and Transit Advocates Portland, 

OR 

Rob Sadowsky Executive Director Bicycle Transportation Alliance Portland, OR 

The Honorable Mayor Denny Doyle City of Beaverton Beaverton, OR 

Mara Gross Policy Director Coalition for a Livable Future Portland, OR 

C. Scott Richman Senior Associate David Evans and Associates, Inc. Portland, OR 

Stuart Liebowitz Facilitator Douglas County Global Warming Coalition Roseburg, 

OR 

Sarni Fournier Owner Element Exercise Bend, OR 
64 

Adolph ‘‘Val’’ Valfre, Jr. Executive Director Housing Authority of Washington County, Oregon Hillsboro, OR 

Carolyn Harvey Healthy Communities Program Coordinator Jefferson County Public Health Department Oregon 

Daniel Kinkier Chair Lane County Young Democrats Springfield, OR 

Ron Kilcoyne General Manager Lane Transit District Eugene, OR 

The Honorable Mayor Kitty Piercy City of Eugene Eugene, OR 

The Honorable Mayor Sam Adams City of Portland Portland, OR 

Tom Hughes Metro Council President Metro Regional Government Portland, OR 

Beth Ann Beamer Director, Community Health Mountain View Hospital Madras, 

OR 

Kelly Rodgers Program Manager North American Sustainable Transportation Council Oregon 

Oregon Action Portland, OR 

Christine Hagerbaumer Deputy Director Oregon Environmental Council Portland, 

OR 

Chandra Brown President United Streetcar Oregon 

Dave Rosenfeld Executive Director Oregon State Public Interest Research Group 

(OSPIRG) 

Todd Borkowitz Legislative Committee CoChair Willamette Pedestrian Coalition 

Portland, OR 

Jonathan Ostar Director Organizing People-Activating Leaders-Bus Riders Unite 

Portland, OR 

Rick Finn Federal Affairs Manager Port of Portland (Oregon) Portland, OR 

Allan Pollock General Manager Salem-Keizer Transit Salem, OR 

Ray Burstedt President SEDCOR Salem, OR 

Kate Wells Director of Community Outreach St. Charles Health System Bend, OR 

Michael Mehaffy Executive Director Sustasis Foundation Portland, OR 

David Brook Managing Partner Team Red US Portland, OR 

PENNSYLVANIA

Bijan Pashanamaei Senior Vice President AECOM Pennsylvania 

Christopher J. Menna, P.E. Region 2 Governor American Society of Civil Engineers 

Philadelphia, PA 

John R. Clark Manager, Aftermarket Sales Department Bombardier Transportation 

Pittsburgh, PA 

Hugh A. Mose General Manager Centre Area Transportation Authority State College, PA 

The Honorable Deputy Mayor Rina Cutler Deputy Mayor, Transportation and Utilities City of Philadelphia 

Joseph Minott Executive Director Clean Air Council Philadelphia, PA 

John Nawn Executive Vice President Czop/Specter Pennsylvania 

David Bennett Chairman Delaware County Cycling Committee of the BCGP 

Lansdowne, PA 

Andy Sharpe Communications Director Delaware Valley Association of Rail Passengers (DVARP) Philadelphia, PA 

Molly Duffy President Earthsmart Consulting Pennsylvania 

Peter Mazzeo Project Manager HNTB Pennsylvania 

Anne Moore Treasurer Human Relations Council of Greater West Chester West 

Chester, PA 

George Wolff Founder Keystone Transportation Funding Coaliation Palmyra, PA 

Richard Kline President Klintech LLC Kennett Square, PA 

Stanley Strelish Executive director LCTA Kingston, PA 

Angela N. Murray AICP Assistant Director, Building & Planning Lower Merion 

Township Ardmore, PA 

Thomas R. Tulip Executive Director Mercer County Transit Operations Hermitage, 

PA 

Mark Alisesky Assistant Vice President Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Philadelphia, PA 

Chris Jandoli Supervising Transportation Planner Parsons Brinckerhoff Philadelphia, PA 

Alana Miller PennPIRG Pennsylvania Public Interest Research Group 

Peter Javsicas Executive Director Pennsylvanians for Transportation Solutions 

(PenTrans) Philadelphia, PA 

Dave Petrucci Principal Petrucci Consulting, LLC Media, PA 

Chris Sandvig Regional Policy Manager Pittsburgh Connunity Reinvestment Group 

Pittsburgh, PA 

Michael Veltri Manager Port Authority of Allegheny County Pittsburgh, PA 
65 

John Nawn Vice President PSPE Pennsylvania 

Dennis Winters Conservation Chair Sierra Club—Southeast PA Group Philadelphia, 

PA 

Jacquelynn Puriefoy-Brinkley Chair Southeastern Pennsylvania First Suburbs 

Project Lansdowne, PA 

Court Gould Executive Director Sustainable Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA 

Thomas Frawley Principal Thomas E Frawley Consulting, LLC Berwyn, PA 

Kevin L. Johnson President Traffic Planning and Design, Inc. Phoenixville, PA 

Tanya Seaman Principal Transformative Consulting Philadelphia, PA 

Michael Sypolt Owner TransitGuru Limited Pittsburgh, PA 

RHODE ISLAND

Bari George President Bike Newport Newport, RI 

Susan Marcus Board member DOT Watch Rhode Island 

Jef Nickerson President Greater City: Providence Providence, RI 

John Flaherty Director of Research & Communications Grow Smart Rhode Island 

Providence, RI 

Seth Handy Principal Handy Law LLC Providence, RI 

Ross Cann, RA Chairman Newport Architectural Forum Newport, RI 

Abel Collins Program Manager Sierra Club Rhode Island 

SOUTH CAROLINA

Andrew Meeker Urban Designer City of Greenville 

SOUTH DAKOTA

Brenda Paradis Palace Transit Mitchell, SD 

Mark D Klumph Sr Executive Director People’s Transit Huron, SD 

Winnie Jo Jons Transit Director ROCS Transit Lake Andes, SD 

Karen Walton General Manager Sioux Area Metro Sioux Falls, SD 

Barb Ballensky Transit Director Vermillion Public Transit Vermillion, SD 

Pam Kwasniewski Director Watertown Area Transit, Inc. Watertown, SD 

TENNESSEE

Steven Sondheim Coordinator Citizens for Transportation Reform Memphis, TN 

Cliff Lippard Board President Transit Now Nashville Nashville, TN 

Ed Cole Executive Director Transit Alliance of Middle Tennessee Nashville, TN 

Paul Ballard CEO Nashville MTA Nashville, TN 

Debbie Henry Executive Director The TMA Group-Franklin Transit Authority 

Franklin, TN 

Ralph Schulz President and CEO Nash ville Area Chamber of Commerce Nashville, 

TN 

David Kleinfelter President Dylon Walker Assistant Joplin Management Nashville, 

TN 

Liza Joffrion Principal multiModal Research, LLC Nashville, TN 

Walk/Bike Nashville Nashville, TN 

Ted Cornelius Executive Director YMCA of Middle Tennessee Nashville, TN 

TEXAS

Francisco Flores Deacon Brownsville Diocese Mission, TX 

David L Turney Chairman and CEO DRI Dallas, TX 

David Crossley President Houston Tomorrow Houston, TX 

John S. Kulpa, PhD Regional Transit Manager Jacobs Engineering San Antonio, TX 

Martha Sanchez Coordinator of Organizers La Union del Pueblo Entero Alton, TX 

People Organized in Defense of the Earth and her Resources Austin, TX 

Ann Williams Cass Executive Director Proyecto Azteca Sanjuan, TX 

Kay Warhol Steering Committee Chair RichmondRail.org Houston, TX 

Michael Seifert Coordinator Rio Grande Valley Equal Voice Network Texas 

Kristen Joyner Executive Director South West Transit Association Fort Worth, TX 

Dave Dobbs Executive Director Texas Association for Public Transportation 

Melissa Cubria TexPIRG Advocate Texas Public Interest Research Group 

UTAH

Michael Allegra General Manager Utah Transit Authority 

Christian Schlegel President HCDC LLC Park City, Utah 
66 

VIRGINIA

The Honorable Mayor Dwight Jones City of Richmond Richmond, VA 

Amy Algarin Owner AC Services Richmond,VA 

Joel Yudken, Ph.D. Principal High Road Strategies, LLC Arlington, VA 

Michelle Kroeker Executive Director Northern Virginia Affordable Housing Alliance 

Rees Shearer Chairman RAIL Solution Emory,VA 

Sarah Lewontin Executive Director Bellwether Housing Washington 

Tom Riddell Driver/Manager Transportation Centers, Inc. Vienna, VA 

Frank Trosset Owner Bo Zahn Brewing Company 

Lisa Guthrie Executive Director Virginia League of Conservation Voters Richmond, 

VA 

VERMONT 

John Hickman Vice President 

Meredith Birkett Acting General Manager CCTA Burlington, VT 

Chapin Spencer Executive Director Local Motion Burlington, VT 

Brian Searles Secretary of Transportation Vermont Agency of Transportation Montpelier, VT 

Christopher Parker Executive Director Vermont Rail Action Network Vermont-wide, 

VT 

WASHINGTON

Craig M. Benjamin Policy and Government Affairs Manager Cascade Bicycle Club 

Seattle, WA 

Paula Hammond Secretary Washington State Department of Transportation Olympia, WA 

Catholic Housing Services Washington 

Colman Director Childhood Obesity Prevention Coalition Seattle, WA 

Sondra Nielsen Director of Consulting Services Common Ground Seattle, WA 

Linda Hugo Executive Director Community Frameworks Bremerton, WA 

Todd Morrow Chief, Strategic Communications Community Transit Everett, WA 

MJ Kiser Program Director Compass Housing Alliance Seattle, WA 

Hilary Franz Executive Director Futurewise Washington 

Michelle Morlan Director National Development Council Seattle, WA 

Mark Rupp Director, Washington, DC Office Gov. Chris Gregoire (WA) Olympia, 

WA 

Harry Hoffman Executive Director Housing Development Consortium of SeattleKing County Seattle, WA 

Paul Bay Principal Paul N. Bay, P.E., Transportation Consultant Redmond, WA 

Sherwin Lee Associate Editor Seattle Transit Blog Seattle, WA 

Marchelle Mertens Affordable Housing Associate Imagine Housing Kirkland, WA 

Joni Earl Chief Executive Officers Sound Transit Seattle, WA 

David Leard Principal Consultant InfraConsult LLC Seattle, WA 

Kristin Ryan Director Jonathan Rose Companies Seattle, WA 

Dow Constantine King County Executive King County Seattle, WA 

Matt Sullivan Associate Mithun, Inc. Seattle, WA 

Erika Straus-Bowers Resident Services Manager Mt. Baker Housing Association Seattle, WA 

Connie Brown Executive Director Tacoma Pierce County Afffordable Housing Consortium Tacoma, WA 

Andrew Austin Field Director Transportation Choices Seattle, WA 

Dan Burden Executive Director Walkable and Livable Communities Institute Port 

Townsend, WA 

Elizabeth Rinehart Project Manager Walsh Constructon Co Seattle, WA 

Jane Moore Executive Director Washington Coalition for Promoting Physical Activity Tacoma, WA 

Dulcie Claassen Vice President Washington Community Reinvestment Association 

Seattle, WA 

Sasha Rosen WashPIRG Organizing Director Washington Public Interest Research 

Group 

Melinda Giovengo Executive Director Youth Care Seattle, WA 

WISCONSIN

Steve Hiniker Executive Director 1000 Friends of Wisconsin Madison, WI 

Michael H. McCoy President All Aboard Wisconsin Madison, WI 

Tim J. Sheehan Executive Director CIL for Western Wisconsin Menomonie, WI 

Lynn Gilles Transit Manager Fond du Lac Area Transit Fond du Lac, WI 
67 

Susan De Vos President Madison Area Bus Advocates Madison, WI 

Christopher Spahr Planning Associate Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Wisconsin 

Milwaukee Transit Riders Union Milwaukee, WI 

Joyce Tang Boyland Coordinator New Urban Friends Milwaukee, WI 

Jennifer Wenzel Secretary NFB of Wisconsin Janesville, WI 

Daniel Mager Principal Staples Marketing Pewaukee, WI 

Deborah Wetter General Manager Valley Transit Appleton, WI 

Jay Timmerman Member at large Wisconsin Association of Rail Passengers Middleton, WI 

Robert Fisher Secretary Wisconsin Association of Railroad Passengers La Crosse, 

WI 

Kyle Bailey Program Associate WISPIRG Madison, WI 

WEST VIRGINIA

The Honorable Mayor John Manchester City of Lewisburg, West Virginia 

Lewisburg, WV 

John David Executive Director Southern Appalachian Labor School Oak Hill, WV 

Gary Zuckett Executive Director WV Citizen Action Group Charleston, WV 

WYOMING

Josh Jones Traffic Engineer Wyoming Local Technical Assistance Program Laramie, 

WY 

[The prepared statement of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) may be accessed at the following Internet address:] 

http://db78bc60e308ad8dc7c2-6f6534a35fc09b927eb00e4333a7f4cf.r47.cf2.rackcdn.com/uploaded/a/ 

0e2130933_artba-highway-trust-fund-statement.pdf 

QUESTION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY HON. EARL BLUMENAUER, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Context 

MS. KAVINOKY

Business is looking end to end at trips. So if we are talking about supply chains, 

global supply chains, I talk to major retailers who say, ‘‘Look, I do not want to debate about highways or transit, I do not want to discuss what is going on in 50 different states. What I need to know is can I get my product from its point of origin 

to its shelves, and how efficient that is.’’ 

One of the things that we have done at the Chamber is created something called 

the Transportation Performance Index that measures, among other things, mobility. 

And we are looking at the system as a whole. We are looking at roads, rails, runways, rivers, the whole deal. Because performance is not just about mode by mode 

by mode; it is how they work together, it is how they complement each other, it is 

how they provide substitute so that you have options for transportation in terms of 

cost efficiency, time, the relative needs that people have. And mobility is a question 

that is not just an issue in urban areas. 

I think during the SAFETEA-LU debate we heard a lot about mobility in solving 

urban problems. I was in Bloomington, Illinois last week where they talked extensively about the importance of their transit system, and the fact that their transit 

system is something that companies like State Farm, Mitsubishi, and the universities in that area demand. And they are leveraging public dollars to invest in that 

system. And it is about mobility, even in that midsized area. 

Question 

MR. BLUMENAUER

I appreciate your referencing that. Indeed, as we get out of the metropolitan 

areas, mobility for the disabled, for elderly people, for young becomes even more 

critical. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that our colleagues who are talking about the 

potential of devolving this system over time, and your reference to letting more of 

these decisions be made at the state and local level, I would hope that you could 

share with us any research you have. There is a time to elaborate in a minute, but 

research you have that indicates that local governments are going to be interested 

in making substantial investments to facilitate freight movements for the nation as 

opposed to speaking to complaints and problems that people have locally. They may 
68 

be able to tell you about State Highway 137, but if we are talking about that 

interconnectiveness, I can tell you as a former local official for 18 years responsible 

for transportation in Portland, they were not so much concerned about the throughput of freight, they were concerned about localized items that we tended to over invest in, and it was a struggle to have the commitment to freight and the larger 

issues. So if you can find some research that indicates that that system could work 

effectively, I would be very interested in it, because it is certainly not my experience. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
69 
70 
71 
72 

MR. POOLE’S RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Question 1 (Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr.): Do you see barriers to entry for private-sector 

operators like the motorcoach industry in accessing federally supported transportation facilities? 

Answer: The motorcoach industry is an under-appreciated transportation resource 

for inter-city travel (and potentially for longer-distance urban transit). To the best 

of my knowledge there is no federal policy to ensure that airports (which receive 

federal AIP grants) and highways (which receive FHWA grants for projects such as 

HOT lanes and express toll lanes) ensure non-discriminatory access for motorcoach 

operators. In some cases, motorcoach providers are serving airport terminals directly, on the same basis as local transit buses, but this is not universally the case. 

Likewise, HOT lanes and express toll lanes on freeways almost always provide access for local transit buses at no charge, but some apparently do not permit (or 
73 

charge tolls to) motorcoach operators. Given the important role that the motorcoach 

industry already plays in inter-city passenger transportation, and the role that it 

could play in providing regional express bus service in large metro areas, federally 

supported airports and highways should provide equal access for motorcoaches and 

public-sector buses. 

Question 2 (Rep. Earl Blumenauer): Please share research showing that [state and] 

local governments are going to be interested in making substantial investments to facilitate freight movements for the nation as opposed to problems that people have locally. 

Answer: In our current funding system, most goods-movement projects make use 

of some mix of local, state, and federal funding. But I see increasing willingness of 

state and local governments to initiate and significantly fund goods-movement 

projects with national benefits. Here are some examples from the past decade. 

Alameda Corridor: This $2.4 billion project was proposed by the Los Angeles 

County MTA and funded with a combination of local and state resources plus a federal loan that was repaid early. It replaced several rail lines between the ports and 

downtown Los Angeles with a multi-railroad trench, eliminating numerous grade 

crossings and thereby speeding the movement of container trains as well as local 

roadway traffic. The largest single component of its funding was $1.16 billion in revenue bonds, being repaid by railroad user fees. Another $400 million was from a 

U.S. DOT loan, and $412 million from the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. 

LACMTA put in $347 million, portions of which came from various state and federal 

programs. 

US 460, Virginia: This project is under way by Virginia DOT as a $1.4 billion nonprofit public-private partnership. It is providing a toll road to link the ports at 

Hampton Roads to I-95 at Petersburg and on to Richmond. Although the toll road 

will serve cars as well as trucks, its primary purpose is to facilitate the movement 

of trucks serving the port terminals. 

Port of Miami Tunnel: Under a $1 billion public-private partnership, Florida DOT 

along with the City of Miami and Miami-Dade County are well along on a tunnel 

to provide a direct connection between the Port and the region’s Interstate highways. In addition, the Port and Florida East Coast Railway are upgrading rail access to the Port. FDOT and the Port have committed to funding channel deepening 

to 50 feet, to ensure that this project proceeds whether or not Congress provides federal funding. 

CREATE Program: This $3.2 billion program aims to unsnarl freight rail, passenger rail, and roadways in the Chicago area, via 70 projects. As of May 2013, 17 

of the projects have been completed, 12 more are under construction, and 19 are in 

detailed planning, with the remaining 22 still seeking funding. Thus far, funding 

has come from railroads, the City of Chicago, the State of Illinois, and the federal 

government, but the project was initiated and is being carried out as a local publicprivate partnership. 

These are a few of many examples. A common theme is that these projects provide 

national freight-movement benefits while also addressing local problems. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ