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

80–578 PDF 2013

IMPLEMENTING MAP–21: THE STATE AND LOCAL 

PERSPECTIVE 

(113–14) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 25, 2013 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

VACANCY 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin, Vice Chair 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Michael P. Lewis, Director, Rhode Island Department of Transportation, on 

behalf of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials ................................................................................................................. 4 

Hon. Bruce Starr, State Senator, Oregon Legislative Assembly, on behalf 

of the National Conference of State Legislatures .............................................. 4 

Peter Varga, Chief Executive Officer, Interurban Transit Partnership (The 

Rapid), on behalf of the American Public Transportation Association ............ 4 

Richard Perrin, AICP, Executive Director, Genesee Transportation Council, 

on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations ............ 4 

Terry Bobrowski, Executive Director, East Tennessee Development District, 

on behalf of the National Association of Development Organizations ............. 4 

Edward D. Reiskin, Director of Transportation, San Francisco Municipal 

Transportation Agency ........................................................................................ 4 

PREPARED STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE 

RECORD SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Michael P. Lewis: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Answers to questions from the following Representatives: 

Hon. Steve Daines, of Montana ................................................................ 59 

Hon. Lou Barletta, of Pennsylvania ........................................................ 59 

Hon. Bruce Starr, prepared statement .................................................................. 63 

Peter Varga, prepared statement ........................................................................... 85 

Richard Perrin, AICP: 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 91 

Answer to question from Hon. Lou Barletta, of Pennsylvania ..................... 97 

Terry Bobrowski, prepared statement ................................................................... 103 

Edward D. Reiskin, prepared statement ............................................................... 112 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Bruce Starr, State Senator, Oregon Legislative Assembly, on behalf 

of the National Conference of State Legislatures: 

National Conference of State Legislatures, Energy, Transportation and 

Agriculture Standing Committee, ‘‘Surface Transportation Federalism 

Policy Directive’’ ............................................................................................ 72 

National Conference of State Legislatures, ‘‘State-Federal Priorities for 

the 113th Congress’’ ...................................................................................... 83 

ADDITION TO THE RECORD 

Elizabeth Treadway, PWLF, President, American Public Works Association, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 118 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 80578.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 80578.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 80578.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 80578.004
(1) 

IMPLEMENTING MAP–21: 

THE STATE AND LOCAL PERSPECTIVE 

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013 

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

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas E. Petri 

(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. PETRI. The subcommittee will come to order. Today’s hearing 

is the second in a series of oversight hearings on the U.S. Department of Transportation’s implementation of the Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act, better known as MAP–21. 

Signed into law by the President last July, MAP–21 authorizes 

the Federal highway, transit and highway safety programs through 

September 30, 2014. These programs are administered by the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, in partnership with States, localities, and public transit agencies. And while the Department of 

Transportation provides financial and technical assistance, these 

partners are responsible for carrying out these programs on a dayto-day basis. So today we will hear their perspective on Department of Transportation’s implementation effort. 

Before we begin, let me briefly highlight some of the reforms that 

were included in MAP–21. We consolidated or eliminated more 

than 70 Federal programs. These changes allow for a greater focus 

on national transportation goals and priorities, while giving our 

partners greater flexibility to meet their transportation needs. 

States, localities, and transit agencies are now required to establish 

performance targets and incorporate them into their transportation 

plans and project selection. These performance targets will help 

focus limited Federal resources on projects that have the greatest 

benefits. It will also help ensure that American taxpayers get the 

most bang for their buck. 

Currently, it can take almost 14 years for a transportation 

project to be completed if Federal funding is involved. This is simply unacceptable. MAP–21 made major reforms and improvements 

to the project delivery process. Some of the reforms include allowing Federal agencies to review projects concurrently, penalties for 

agencies that don’t meet project review deadlines, and expanded 

categorical exclusions for projects in the existing right-of-way or 

with limited Federal investment. By cutting the bureaucratic redtape, we will realize the economic and safety benefits of these 

projects much sooner. 

2 

MAP–21 increased funding for the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act programs, or TIFIA, from $122 million 

a year to approximately $1 billion a year. This increase in funding, 

combined with a change in law to allow a TIFIA loan to account 

for 49 percent of a project’s cost, will allow the U.S. Department 

of Transportation to issue about $35 billion in loans over the next 

2 years. State governments, local governments, toll authorities, 

public transit agencies, and public-private partnerships are eligible 

to apply for these loans. 

Previously, transit agencies had to work through FEMA to replace equipment or rebuild their systems after a disaster. After 

Hurricane Katrina, transit agencies sought an emergency program 

similar to the Emergency Relief program run by the Federal Highway Administration. MAP–21 created a new program that provides 

relief for public transportation systems that are affected by a natural disaster or a catastrophic failure. This program is already 

being utilized by the States and transit agencies impacted by Hurricane Sandy. 

Congress also recognized that new highway safety challenges 

have emerged. MAP–21 requires the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration to implement a national priority safety program that incentivizes States to pass and enforce laws that address 

important safety issues. The program focuses on impaired driving 

countermeasures, occupant protection, motorcycle safety, distracted 

driving, and graduated drivers licensing. These reforms are only 

part of the sweeping policy and programmatic changes made in 

MAP–21. 

Today’s hearing will allow representatives from State departments of transportation, State legislatures, transit operators, transportation planning agencies, and local governments to provide their 

views on how MAP–21 is being implemented. And I look forward 

to hearing from our witnesses. 

But before that, I would turn the podium over to our senior leader on the Democratic side, Mr. DeFazio, for any statement he 

might like to make. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I look 

forward to hearing the perspective of local and State jurisdictions 

regarding the Federal transportation policy. 

And though MAP–21, of course, is not fully implemented yet, we 

want to hear what is working, what isn’t working, what they are 

anticipating, but this is also part of an evolution during my entire 

tenure during the committee, as we have given more discretion to 

the States, we have attempted to streamline the environmental restrictions on projects, and I want to hear about all those things. 

But I am also going to be asking specifically for the witnesses to 

tell us what the impact of a 98-percent reduction in Federal aid to 

transit and highways will mean in fiscal year 2015. The Ryan 

budget assumes that we will go from $50 billion of expenditures to 

$100 million of expenditures. And I am going to ask each of you 

to discuss what a 98-percent reduction in Federal funding would 

mean to your jurisdiction. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. And I would ask unanimous consent that 

our witnesses’ full statements be included in the record. 

[No response.] 

3 

Mr. PETRI. And without objection, so ordered. And, as you know, 

when you do make remarks, we would invite you to do your best 

to summarize them in approximately 5 minutes. The full statements are a part of the record. 

I now turn to our colleague, Jimmy Duncan, from Knoxville, Tennessee, to introduce one of the witnesses. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will follow 

the rules about limiting the opening statements to the chairman 

and ranking member. But, of course, I am very much interested in 

this subject, because I did chair this subcommittee during the last 

Congress, when MAP–21 was written, and so this is a very important hearing. 

But I wanted to welcome one of my bosses, one of my constituents, and a neighbor, and a friend, Mr. Terry Bobrowski, who has 

been the executive director of the East Tennessee Development 

District since 2002. And he has had a lot of challenges that he has 

had to deal with because our little part of east Tennessee is one 

of the fastest-growing places in the country. And so I want to welcome him. And I look forward to hearing his testimony. He is one 

of the most respected citizens in our area, and I am pleased that 

you have allowed him to be on the panel here today representing 

his national association. Thank you very much. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. And he is joined by Mr. Michael P. Lewis, 

who is the director of the Rhode Island Department of Transportation, who is appearing on behalf of the American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials; by the Honorable 

Bruce Starr, a State senator from Oregon on behalf of the National 

Conference of State Legislatures; Mr. Peter Varga, chief executive 

officer, Interurban Transit Partnership, which is known as The 

Rapid, on behalf of the American Public Transportation Association; Mr. Richard Perrin, executive director of the Genesee Transportation Council on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations; Mr. Terry Bobrowski, executive director, East 

Tennessee Development District, on behalf of the National Association of Development Organizations; and Mr. Edward D. Reiskin, 

who is the director of transportation, San Francisco Municipal 

Transportation Agency. 

Welcome to all of you, and we—I guess I would like to invite Mr. 

Lewis to open things up. 

4 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL P. LEWIS, DIRECTOR, RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF 

THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND 

TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS; HON. BRUCE STARR, STATE 

SENATOR, OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, ON BEHALF OF 

THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES; 

PETER VARGA, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INTERURBAN 

TRANSIT PARTNERSHIP (THE RAPID), ON BEHALF OF THE 

AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION; RICHARD PERRIN, AICP, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GENESEE 

TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS; 

TERRY BOBROWSKI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, EAST TENNESSEE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS; 

AND EDWARD D. REISKIN, DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION, 

SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY 

Mr. LEWIS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Petri, Ranking Member DeFazio, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am Mike Lewis, director of the Rhode Island Department of Transportation, and president of the American Association 

of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Thank you for the 

opportunity on behalf of AASHTO and the State DOTs to share our 

views on MAP–21’s implementation. 

Before I start I must express our gratitude to all of you on the 

T&I committee for the role—your role last year in enacting a bipartisan surface transportation bill with its transformative policy and 

program reforms. 

With regard to MAP–21 implementation, I will summarize three 

points for you. First, full implementation of MAP–21’s significant 

reforms will require sufficient time to be completed in a way that 

accurately reflects the direction envisioned by Congress. Therefore, 

we urge you to allow this implementation to take its course before 

contemplating major changes. In short, we need time to put the reforms in place and have them work as envisioned. 

Second, while it is early in MAP–21’s implementation, at this 

point we are pleased with the collaboration with the U.S. DOT. 

States, transit agencies, and local governments own, construct, 

maintain, operate, and manage the Nation’s highway and transit 

systems. Our unique collaboration with U.S. DOT as partners is 

absolutely essential in delivering a safe, economic, and environmentally sound surface transportation system. 

Third, we are pleased with the progress being made in implementing MAP–21, and are optimistic that the flexibilities delegated 

to the States, and the reforms envisioned by the drafters of MAP– 

21 will be appropriately reflected in future regulations and guidance. As we support and applaud these reforms, we urge you to 

maintain these reforms in the next surface transportation reauthorization bill. 

And now we would like to elaborate on three of the key reforms 

of MAP–21: accelerated project delivery, performance measurement, and freight. 

Obstacles in the environmental review and contracting processes 

have been a major contributor to project delay. We made progress 

5 

in accelerating project delivery with provisions in SAFETEA–LU. 

And much more progress will be made as a result of MAP–21’s reforms. These reforms will shave months off the simplest routine 

projects, and years off of major projects, without compromising environmental protection or opportunities for public participation. 

This will translate into real savings, savings in project costs, productivity, and lives saved, while still preserving and enhancing the 

environment. 

We urge you to encourage U.S. DOT to give priority to implementing MAP–21’s streamlining provisions in order to expedite the 

economic, social, and environmental benefits that will come from 

improving our transportation system. 

Performance measurement is another cornerstone of MAP–21’s 

policy reforms, which we fully support. State DOTs have a strong 

history of developing and using performance measures to report to 

the public, improve operations, and plan better projects. For the 

last decade, many State DOTs have implemented comprehensive 

and robust performance management systems to balance investment decisions against resource limitations. State leaders in performance management, including Michigan, Missouri, and Washington State, have well-known performance management programs 

that have been producing proven results for many years, and have 

become role models for other States, like Rhode Island. 

As responsible owners, managers, and operators of the highway 

and transit system, State DOTs, with their transit agency and 

MPO partners, are ready, willing, and able to bring greater accountability and transparency to the surface transportation programs. AASHTO urges U.S. DOT to focus on a set of meaningful 

and credible national performance measures to be implemented 

through an iterative process that allows time for experimentation 

and innovation without the unintended consequences of penalties. 

MAP–21’s focus on freight is significant. Transportation is an essential link to the economy, and the fundamental role of the Federal Government is no clearer than in the need for efficient and effective freight movement that improves interstate commerce. We 

applaud your recognition of that fact, and further commend Chairman Shuster for establishing the special Panel on 21st-Century 

Freight Transportation to examine the current state of our freight 

system and how freight transportation can strengthen our Nation’s 

economy. 

MAP–21’s freight provisions begin to put in place the central 

components to more systematically and effectively address freight 

transportation needs. As owners and operators of the highway system over which 70 percent of the domestic freight tonnage travels, 

State DOTs understand the economic imperative of addressing 

freight transportation. AASHTO urges the U.S. DOT to extend this 

collaboration to include State DOT representation on the National 

Freight Advisory Committee. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I must end by commending this committee for its leadership and commitment to consider the long-term 

sustainability of the Highway Trust Fund. The reforms to the Federal Surface Transportation Program provided in MAP–21 will take 

years to implement, and they will be for naught if Congress does 

not address the long-term stability of the Federal surface transporVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:16 Jul 25, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\4-25-1~1\80578.TXT JEAN
6 

tation program. We stand ready to support you in your efforts to 

address this fundamental challenge. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this 

opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering any questions 

you may have. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Senator Starr? 

Mr. STARR. Chairman Petri, Ranking Member DeFazio, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am Bruce Starr, president-elect of the National Conference of State Legislatures, and a 

member of the Oregon Senate. I am here today on behalf of NCSL, 

a bipartisan organization representing the 50 State legislatures, 

and the legislatures of our Nation’s commonwealths, territories, 

possessions, and the District of Columbia. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the implementation of MAP–21, and thank you, 

Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this issue. 

I would also like to applaud Congress for its approval of MAP– 

21, which put an end to the numerous short-term extensions and 

uncertainty regarding the availability of funding for surface transportation. Let me begin by saying that NCSL supports the continuation and preservation of the Federal aid surface transportation 

program that directs spending to national priorities while allowing 

for State and insular area flexibility in local and regional variations. NCSL maintains its strong support for infrastructure programs and will continue to work to ensure that all funding and financial options remain available to States to continue to economic 

benefits that infrastructure programs provide. 

To illustrate how State legislatures currently view the implementation of MAP–21, my testimony today will focus on a few key 

areas including the development of Federal performance measures, 

program consolidation, and the expansion of the Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act, commonly referred to 

as TIFIA. 

In addition to my written testimony—in addition, my written testimony addresses project streamlining, the new safety incentive 

grants, and the NCSL’s engaging with U.S. DOT as it relates to the 

implementation of MAP–21. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request 

that the copy of the NCSL’s ‘‘Surface Transportation Federalism 

Policy Directive’’ and NCSL’s ‘‘State-Federal Priorities for the 

113th Congress’’ be submitted for the record to accompany my testimony. 

Mr. PETRI. Without objection, it is included as part of the record. 

[These documents immediately follow Mr. Starr’s prepared statement.] 

Mr. STARR. Thank you. One of the largest transformations within 

MAP–21 was the shift to a more performance-based program to ensure that investments are correctly targeted, as well as to increase 

the accountability and transparency of these investments. NCSL 

encourages the Federal Government to establish a cooperative process through which performance measures can be crafted. 

NCSL also urges the U.S. DOT to both recognize and build on 

the extensive work States have done in the area to avoid creating 

additional reporting mandates or implementing lowest common denominator performance measures that run counter to good asset 

7 

management practices. I am proud to report that Oregon was recognized by the Pew Center as one of five States with a performance 

management system that received top marks in six areas. 

MAP–21 also featured a significant restructuring of the transportation programs into a smaller set of core programs with the intention that the new structure would provide States and other grantees additional flexibility to deliver projects more efficiently. NCSL 

supports this enhanced flexibility in order to meet national goals, 

and urges its continuation in any reauthorization. Again, in my 

home State of Oregon we are mirroring these consolidations made 

in MAP–21 using the flexibility it provides to break down the programmatic silos and consolidate programs. These changes allow us 

to work with stakeholders, make it easier for users to acquire funding without having to submit multiple grant applications. 

One program in particular for MAP–21 that I would like to discuss is the TIFIA program. With the expansion of the TIFIA, 

States will be able to finance and complete major projects of national and regional significance. NCSL is very supportive of this 

kind of expansion of credit-based loan guarantee programs to 

incentivize private-sector investment. 

In Oregon, we are working with Washington State to seek a 

TIFIA loan of approximately $1 billion to construct the I–5 Columbia River crossing project, a bi-state, multimodal megaproject that 

will address one of the worst bottlenecks in the Nation’s highway 

system. The favorable financing terms provided by TIFIA are expected to provide about $200 million more than if the State were 

to bond toll revenues, making the project more financially feasible. 

Finally, I would like to address—quickly address—what I believe 

to be the largest issue facing the States and our Nation: How 

MAP–21, which expires in less than a year-and-a-half, can help lay 

the foundation for the next long-term surface transportation bill. 

NCSL believes that the next reauthorization should provide for a 

more sustainable, long-term funding mechanism for surface transportation. As State legislatures have the responsibility for State 

budgets, policy planning, and oversight activities, we stand ready 

to work with Congress and this subcommittee as it develops the 

successor to MAP–21. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to testify before 

the subcommittee. I look forward to the questions from members 

of the committee. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Varga? 

Mr. VARGA. Thank you. Chairman Petri, Ranking Member 

DeFazio, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on implementation of MAP–21. I am 

Peter Varga, chief executive officer of The Rapid, the public transportation agency that serves riders in and around Grand Rapids, 

Michigan. 

Today I testify on behalf of public transportation systems across 

the country, as I am also the vice chair of the American Public 

Transportation Association, or APTA. It is an honor to testify before this committee, and I commend you for soliciting industry 

input on how the new law is being implemented. 

8 

While we recognize the enormous task facing the Department of 

Transportation in implementing the major changes made in this 2- 

year bill, we ask the FTA to resist a one-size-fits-all approach, and 

to ensure that new requirements on transit agencies are scalable 

on agency size, resources, and operational complexity. 

There is much to laud in the Department’s MAP–21 outreach 

and implementation efforts to date. The FTA wisely included extensive early guidance in its fiscal year 2013 apportionment notice. 

FTA staff have held webinars and listening sessions, and conducted 

several online national dialogues on major MAP–21 provisions. The 

FTA has actively participated in many of APTA’s recent meetings 

to share information and solicit input from the industry. 

Moving forward, we strongly urge DOT to follow all public notice 

and comment procedures for rulemakings and guidance, so all 

stakeholders have an opportunity to be heard. 

Federal Safety Authority. MAP–21 grants the FTA significant 

new safety authority, directing the agency to create a national safety plan and minimum safety performance standards for public 

transportation systems. The Department has established the 

TRACS committee to advise in this effort. APTA members remain 

concerned that industry engagement in this expansive new oversight program beyond the participants in TRACS has been limited. 

APTA, through an historic partnership with the FTA, has led efforts to develop consensus-based industry operating and equipment 

safety standards, and has administered both rail and bus safety 

management audits for many years. FTA should not abandon this 

partnership or the progress made in this effort, and should make 

full use of APTA’s expertise. 

Transit asset management, state of good repair. Increasing the 

reliability and performance of our transit systems is one of APTA’s 

most fundamental goals. FTA must encourage common asset management principles, flexible enough to accommodate a broad range 

of transit asset management plans, from sophisticated practices already functioning well at some agencies, to more general approaches suitable for smaller systems just forming their plans. 

Underpinning any asset management plan is the ultimate goal of 

bringing assets into a state of good repair. We commend FTA for 

recognizing that transit systems continue to be safe, while working 

to bring their assets into a state of good repair. We are encouraged 

by FTA outreach via informal listening sessions and online national dialogues on these topics. Yet we still await critical 

rulemakings and guidance on transit asset management plans, the 

definition of state of good repair and performance-based planning. 

Capital investment grant program—New Starts. Building on a 

rulemaking underway when MAP–21 was enacted, the FTA has already revised the New Starts program to reflect some of the law’s 

changes, including simplifying the project development process and 

revising rating and evaluation criteria. While moving quickly on 

these revisions, the FTA sought significant public input, including 

hosting a New Starts listening session at APTA’s annual meeting 

last October. 

We strongly support FTA’s move toward simplified measures. 

However, we are concerned that some of the approaches for evaluating projects did not adequately account for the substantial difVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:16 Jul 25, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\4-25-1~1\80578.TXT JEAN
9 

ferences among the wide breadth of projects seeking grants, particularly the difference between Small Starts and larger projects. 

Environmental streamlining. We applaud FTA’s continuing efforts to reform the NEPA process for transit and highway projects. 

Streamlining project approval and delivery will accelerate projects, 

reduce regulatory burdens and costs, all without compromising necessary environmental safeguards. 

In conclusion, we commend the FTA for revamping its triennial 

review program. The agency has developed a more targeted review 

strategy, focused on preventing problems before they occur. We are 

encouraged by this new streamlined approach. MAP–21 includes 

numerous important reforms long sought by the transit industry 

and we are eager to see them fully implemented. 

A healthy opportunity for public involvement in implementing 

these changes will produce stronger rules that could be implemented more effectively. These changes take place in an environment of constrained funding, so we ask that the FTA provide discretion to transit agencies as they work to expand service to meet 

ever-growing ridership demands to modernize our aging systems 

and to sustain public transportation’s enviable safety record. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Perrin? 

Mr. PERRIN. Chairman Petri, Ranking Member DeFazio, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the implementation of MAP–21 on behalf 

of the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, AMPO. 

My name is Richard Perrin, I am the executive director of the Genesee Transportation Council, the MPO for the Genesee Finger 

Lakes region, which includes Rochester, New York. And I currently 

serve as the vice president of AMPO. 

AMPO serves the needs and interests of the approximately 400 

MPOs that currently exist, nationwide. More than 85 percent of 

Americans live in metropolitan areas, and these regions drive the 

Nation’s economy and compete head-to-head with economies across 

the globe. 

While the implementation of many of the elements contained in 

MAP–21 is being advanced through the required rulemaking processes, one of the primary reforms has already taken place: the restructuring of core highway formula programs. As you are aware, 

MAP–21 places an increased emphasis on the National Highway 

System. The fiscal year 2013 Federal Aid Highway Program apportionments, the first to be made under MAP–21, increased the 

amount of required Federal investment on the National Highway 

System by 50 percent from the previous year. National Highway 

System facilities carry approximately 50 percent of vehicle miles 

traveled. Clearly, their importance is recognized by the agencies 

that own, maintain, and operate them. 

In 2011, only 5 percent of bridges on the National Highway System were classified as structurally deficient, compared to 13 percent of bridges carrying non-National Highway System facilities. 

Given that the level of funding to the Federal Aid Highway Program has remained flat, there should be a mechanism for metroVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:16 Jul 25, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\4-25-1~1\80578.TXT JEAN
10 

politan areas to be able to make a direct request to FHWA for a 

streamlined transfer of National Highway Performance Program 

funds to other programs, namely the Surface Transportation Program, provided that the requirements for the interstate system and 

National Highway System bridges have been met and can be maintained in the metropolitan area of the MPO making the request. 

While there is a clear national interest in a well-maintained, 

highly functional National Highway System, there is also a clear 

national interest in ensuring that limited Federal transportation 

funds can be invested where needed, regardless of mode or ownership of infrastructure. Even a flawless National Highway System 

can only see its benefit maximized if persons and freight can make 

their way to it via the roads and bridges that connect to it, many 

of which are owned by local governments. 

The transition to performance and outcome-based planning and 

programming is probably the single most needed change that 

MAP–21 delivers. The increase in accountability and transparency 

provided by the reporting of system performance, coupled with requirements to make progress towards associated goals, should improve the level of trust among the public and businesses that the 

revenue they provide is being put to the highest and best use. 

Further, effectively communicating both achievements and additional needs may allow for a more constructive public discourse on 

additional funding for transportation. 

Most importantly, meeting the performance management requirements of MAP–21 will be dependent on MPOs and other agencies being able to conduct these processes in a cost-effective manner. With that said, a Federal approach to setting performance targets must not be prescriptive. AMPO recommends that the measures and targets not be overly rigid, but instead allow for selection 

in a manner that is responsive to statewide and regional priorities. 

Certain measures and targets are not in the purview of MPOs. The 

final rule on this matter should clearly define how agencies, measures, and targets should be integrated into the metropolitan planning process. 

In terms of freight, the competitiveness of American manufacturers, including agricultural operations, is dependent on a safe, reliable, and efficient network for moving goods at all stages of production. AMPO supports the designation of a national freight network 

and the associated goals Congress included in MAP–21. This will 

facilitate a national investment strategy in multimodal facilities 

critical to transnational and interregional movement of freight. 

AMPO appreciates the transit community’s concerns on the need 

for greater coordination between all modes, and AMPO agrees that 

MPOs should take into account the views of public transportation 

providers in planning and project selection decisions. 

The relevant provisions of MAP–21 were written broadly to allow 

for maximum flexibility and implementation. We request that U.S. 

DOT maintain the same intent when promulgating regulations or 

guidance. This is crucial to ensuring that unintended consequences 

which could reduce the quality of transit representation that exists 

today are avoided to the maximum extent practicable. 

In conclusion, we are all in this together. The impacts, positive 

and negative, of transportation do not begin nor end at the boundVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:16 Jul 25, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\4-25-1~1\80578.TXT JEAN
11 

aries of metropolitan and rural areas or States. MPOs, Federal 

agencies, State departments of transportation, public transportation operators, regional transportation planning organizations, 

and private freight-related interests have a shared responsibility to 

the public and each other to work cooperatively in the interests of 

this great Nation under the direction provided by Congress. MPOs 

stand ready to go above and beyond to ensure the continued economic and social vitality of all areas. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the 

vital work undertaken by this subcommittee. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. 

Mr. Bobrowski? 

Mr. BOBROWSKI. Thank you, Chairman Petri, Ranking Member 

DeFazio, and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to 

comment on the implementation of Moving Ahead for Progress in 

the 21st Century, or MAP–21. I would also like to recognize Congressman Duncan, from my home State of Tennessee, and thank 

him for his kind words. My name is Terry Bobrowski, I am the executive director of the East Tennessee Development District, 

headquartered in Aloca, Tennessee. The East Tennessee Development District is a voluntary association of municipal and county 

governments that are located in the Mideast region of Tennessee. 

I also serve as the treasurer of the National Association of Development Organizations, NADO. NADO’s 520 public-based regional 

development organizations promote regional strategies, partnerships, and solutions to strengthen the economic competitiveness 

and quality of life across America’s local communities. NADO members worked closely with this committee during the formulation of 

MAP–21. As the subcommittee continues to monitor the implementation of MAP–21, NADO would like to highlight the following 

three issues. 

First, Mr. Chairman, NADO is very pleased that MAP–21, for 

the first time, provides Federal recognition of rural transportation 

planning organizations for areas outside the boundaries of metropolitan planning organizations. Under MAP–21, States may establish and designate RTPOs to participate in the development and 

implementation of statewide, long-range transportation plans, 

along with the State transportation improvement program. Currently, 30 States have established some type of RTPO. 

As MAP–21 is implemented, NADO recommends that U.S. DOT 

not prescribe a single approach regarding the structure and duties 

of RTPOs, and instead provide flexibility so that the existing national network of regional transportation planning agencies does 

not have to undergo a complicated restructuring process. 

The formal involvement of rural and nonmetropolitan local officials in the transportation process provides a vital link to local economic and land-development planning. MAP–21 requires States to 

develop a consultative process with nonmetropolitan local officials 

that is separate and discreet from the public involvement process. 

MAP–21 also allows the secretary to comment on the nonmetropolitan local official consultation process developed by the States. 

NADO members look forward to working with our State DOT partners to implement these provisions and recommend the U.S. DOT 

12 

ensure the consultation process is both collaborative and meaningful. 

A second issue NADO is closely watching during the implementation of MAP–21 relates to the use of performance measures, the 

changes in MAP–21 related to the development of national performance measures goals and targets will transform the way in 

which transportation investment decisions are made in the future. 

While there are no specific roles for RTPOs and the performance 

measurement process established in MAP–21, RTPOs could be valuable partners with State DOTs in the development of statewide 

performance targets. In many States, rural and nonmetropolitan 

planning organizations already have been a part of this process. 

NADO is monitoring the new performance measurement process 

established through MAP–21, and the extent to which RTPOs are 

called upon to assist with the development of statewide performance targets. 

And finally, a third issue we would like to highlight relates to 

the implementation of the freight provisions of MAP–21. MAP–21 

requires the Secretary to consult with State DOTs and other public 

and private stakeholders in the development of the National 

Freight Strategic Plan. NADO recommends U.S. DOT ensure the 

participation and input of rural and nonmetropolitan local officials 

when developing the National Freight Strategic Plan. 

In addition, MAP–21 requires the Secretary to identify a primary 

freight network and critical rural freight corridors. MAP–21 limits 

the national freight network to no more than 30,000 center-line 

miles. It is possible that this mileage limitation may prevent the 

inclusion of important urban and rural roads as part of the network. Therefore, NADO would ask the committee to examine the 

limitation of 30,000 center-line miles in order to determine if the 

number of network miles should be expanded to adequately address all of the critical metropolitan and nonmetropolitan freight 

routes. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, we support efforts to strengthen the 

coordination of Federal surface transportation investments and 

plans more closely, with regional, local community, and economic 

development strategies, with a special emphasis on the utilization 

of the RTPO model. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would 

be pleased to answer any questions. 

Mr. PETRI. And thank you. 

Mr. Reiskin? 

Mr. REISKIN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

DeFazio, members of the subcommittee. Thank you again for the 

opportunity to provide the local perspective on MAP–21. There are 

goals that MAP–21 embodies, in terms of enhanced safety, 

strengthening infrastructure, and streamlining programs that we 

share at the local level. My name is Ed Reiskin, I am the director 

of transportation in San Francisco. I also serve as the vice president of the National Association of City Transportation Officials, 

which is a coalition of cities working together to strengthen transportation in our cities and metropolitan areas. 

13 

The cities and metropolitan areas of this country are a big part 

of what drives the national economy. And, therefore, it is important 

for us to be able to have people access jobs and have mobility, and, 

therefore, have strong transportation systems. 

My agency, the San Francisco MTA, is a somewhat unique, integrated transportation agency. We serve as the city’s transportation 

department, the main transit provider, and the regulator of the 

taxi system. So that integration of functions, of transportation 

functions, allows us to serve what is the most densely populated 

city west of the Mississippi, or in the western part of the United 

States, in ways that allow people to get around the city on transit, 

on bikes, on their feet, in taxis, and car-share vehicles, and other 

alternative forms of transportation to keep our streets relatively 

free of congestion and our air relatively free of pollution. 

We operate MUNI, which is the seventh largest transit system 

in the country, with—carrying more than 200 million people each 

year, and we maintain all the other transportation assets in the 

city, which include more than 1,000 transit vehicles, more than 

1,200 traffic signals, 28,000 parking meters, 40 off-street parking 

facilities. And I make the point of listing these assets to give a 

sense of what it takes to manage transportation in our cities. It 

takes a lot of assets, transportation assets, to keep a city moving. 

Keeping a city moving is core to driving the economy of our cities 

and our metropolitan areas. And it takes investments to keep these 

systems strong and healthy. 

The local governments have stepped up in investing in these 

transportation assets. A number of California counties, including 

San Francisco, have enacted sales taxes dedicated to transportation. There are other dedicated revenues the local governments 

and local residents are providing, which not only support transportation in our cities, but help match the Federal funds that come 

through programs funded by MAP–21. So it is a good local partnership, local and Federal partnership. 

We applaud the leadership of Congress and the administration in 

bringing forward the bipartisan MAP–21. The focuses on state of 

good repair, performance management, and safety are, we think, 

very important to the Nation’s transportation system. State of good 

repair is a significant challenge nationally and in San Francisco. At 

a national level, the mass transit account funds a level of state of 

good repair that is significantly less than the need requires. 

Down at the local level we have a similar situation. We need 

about $500 million a year in San Francisco to bring all of our assets into a state of good repair and maintain them as such. We 

have less than half of that in our capital budget, less than $250 

million. And it is about $75 million that we get annually from the 

Federal formulas. 

We are—as I mentioned, we have a sales tax. We are issuing revenue bonds and securing other grants to help fill the gap. But what 

we can do at the local level will not be adequate to meet all of the 

needs. 

MAP–21 does provide, I think, a great framework for us, going 

forward, over the next number of years. The capital investment 

program, New Starts, the fact that it has been streamlined is excellent. We have recently received a full-funding grant agreement so 

14 

we participated under the old process, so I can speak for the fact 

that a streamlined process will be much welcomed. But the funding 

for New Starts and the core capacity, with their general fund 

source and the impacts of things such as sequestration, make it 

challenging to plan for and deliver capital projects. 

I will end by saying that investing in infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, has dual benefits. Immediately it creates jobs 

that will help bring the country out of the economic recession and, 

in the long term, the transportation infrastructure is really key to 

the economy of the Nation. So the city and county of San Francisco, 

NACTO cities, and transit agencies across the country look forward 

to working with this subcommittee and Congress and the administration to bring forward adequate and sustainable funding for 

transportation. And I thank you very much for the opportunity, 

and look forward to answering any questions. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you all. And thank the folks at 

your associations, those who worked on your statements, and we 

appreciate the specificity, in many cases, of your remarks and helpful nature of the comments you have made. 

I have a question for the entire panel, and I think, as you are 

quite familiar with the program and how it is structured and all, 

you know that we need to do a major long-term reauthorization, 

which is certainly our goal and is what we need, as a country, to 

have an efficient, adequate framework for marshaling resources for 

investment and maintaining our transportation infrastructure, and 

currently the trust fund is projected to only cover roughly 60 percent of the program, if it were maintained at the current level. 

Do you or your organizations have any suggestions as to how we 

address that problem? The chairman said all options are on the 

table. We have been getting advice from trucking organizations and 

from National Chamber of Commerce, and other user-fee States are 

beginning to wrestle with this because it is a problem, it is a Federal-State partnership. And I don’t think we can avoid this issue 

if we are really going to deal with a serious reauthorization. 

Have any of your organizations taken any positions, or do you or 

your organizations have any suggestions as to where we should 

look or what we should do about solving this problem? 

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, Mike Lewis from AASHTO. 

I think that is the issue of the day, and I think we at AASHTO 

and across the States want to work with the committee and our 

partners in transportation to come up with possible solutions to 

this challenge. We know it is not easy, we know there are a lot of 

other demands placed on you and on the country. 

We do feel, however—and I think all of us feel—how important 

the transportation infrastructure is to the economic health of the 

country. And there are a finite number of options for addressing 

the revenue needs. 

We also all recognize that we continue to need to be as efficient 

as we can with the resources that we have. And we recognize it is 

not just a Federal issue, it is a State and local issue, as well. And 

I think the solution is going to come from a combination of all of 

those factors. But we stand ready to work with you, work with the 

committee on developing options for the future. 

15 

Mr. STARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Happy to address that 

question. In previous policy, we had supported an increase in the 

Federal fuel tax. In our existing policy today, we don’t specifically 

identify a funding source. It is clear, though, that the options available are limited. And your partners at the State level, State legislative level, will partner with you and work with you to address 

these issues. 

I would just comment that State legislatures across the country 

are addressing this issue, head on. We have legislators that are increasing their State fuel tax to address the issue. We have legislators that are going toward a sales tax on fuel as a source of funding. 

And I would also just like to highlight some of the things that 

we are doing in Oregon to address this in the long term. We have 

undertaken two pilot programs studying the road user tax, or road 

user charge, to charge folks based on how many miles they would 

drive, as opposed to how much gasoline they might buy. I believe 

that, potentially, that is an option that other States might pursue. 

It might be an option that this committee might consider studying. 

I would ask, as well, that the Congress work with the States in 

providing dollars so that States can investigate and contest some 

of these new options. You have State legislators who are willing to 

take risks, who are responsible for the infrastructure in their 

States, and I think stand ready to work together cooperatively to 

address this issue. It is the number one issue that we need to address in transportation, long-term funding. 

Mr. VARGA. Chairman Petri, you know it is really all about mobility. All transportation modes are about mobility, moving people, 

goods, everywhere. So we are concerned that the funds are diminishing. 

I am from Michigan. The State legislature is debating various 

issues on how to move their agenda forward because of the shortfall of funds in the State. I think it is going to be comparable at 

the Federal level. There are many items that are going to be put 

on the table. And what I would encourage is that all of our partners in transportation work with the committee to investigate all 

possible options so we come up with the best possible solution. Although we don’t have any significant main priorities right now, the 

issue is to have a short-term and a long-term view as to how we 

will raise the money. 

We know what the short-term possibilities are, you know, with 

gas tax and all that. But I think long term, we are going to have 

to look at all kinds of different options in terms of dealing with the 

mobility solution. We stand ready to work on all of the transportation problems to solve all of the mobility needs that we are engaged in. 

Mr. PERRIN. Mr. Chairman, I think I would echo some of the 

other individuals at the table in saying that this is obviously the 

single largest issue that we need to address. But I think there is 

a bit more to this than just going out and saying, ‘‘We need more 

funds.’’ 

When I give presentations, I show a picture of a Starbucks cup 

of coffee, and I say—you know, it’s the largest one, and I say, ‘‘This 

is—this costs about $2.35. This is the average motorist’s weekly 

16 

contribution to the Highway Trust Fund.’’ I then take that picture 

and turn it into an iPad, and I say, ‘‘Nobody needed iPads until 

Apple told them they did.’’ We have needed roads and bridges for 

hundreds of years, centuries. Our problem is that we don’t sell our 

product well enough. We have a great product. We move people 

and goods to jobs, to day care, to education. It is absolutely imperative and critical, what we do. This is the largest issue that we have 

to address. 

Both of the commissions that came out of SAFETEA–LU said the 

same thing. In the immediate term, an increase in the gas tax is 

something that has got to be fully considered. We agree with Chairman Shuster; all options have to be on the table. 

But ultimately, we are not going to have a complementary energy and transportation policy if we are saying, ‘‘Drive more fuelefficient vehicles, reduce our dependence on foreign oil,’’ yet that is 

going to be our primary source for funding Federal transportation 

investments. So it is not a simple question, it is a difficult task that 

this committee and Congress are charged with. It is times like 

these I am glad I am on this side of the table. 

But, ultimately, AMPO is here, we are ready to discuss these 

issues, provide our input. It is not just about what is happening in 

50 States and the District and some territories. It is about individual metropolitan areas. It will only work if people see a result 

and see a positive benefit for what their funds, their hard-earned 

funds, are going to. And at the same time that they are tightening 

their belts, we have to tighten ours. And I think that is why these 

performance management requirements of MAP–21 are so absolutely critical. 

Again, as I said, we can discuss achievements, but we can also 

discuss additional needs on what we could be able to effectively 

purchase with their dollars if we invest them as wisely as possible 

and had some additional funds to work with. 

Mr. BOBROWSKI. Mr. Chairman, I can tell you in the State of Tennessee, we have a backlog of about $10 billion worth of transportation projects. And our effective annual budget to deal with 

those problems is about $500 million. So everybody can do the 

math. Obviously, there is just not enough money to really deal with 

the projects that we have got, not to mention that we cannot add 

any new projects to that list because it is simply ridiculous to add 

a new project to a list that is already vastly underfunded. 

As vehicle miles traveled goes down in our State, and we are dependent on the gas tax for our primary source of revenue, the situation is going to be exacerbated over time. 

So, we are doing all that we can, and I am speaking for our Tennessee Department of Transportation. We don’t, at the development district, have anything to do with fiscal policy. But we have 

inside knowledge about what is going on down there. So it really 

is getting to a critical point in Tennessee, as it is in other areas. 

Mr. REISKIN. Mr. Chairman, I would concur with the other panelists. I think if we are going to have a strong transportation system 

that is suitable to the needs of the American economy, we need to 

resource it adequately. 

I concur also that we really need all options to be on the table. 

The Bay Area’s metropolitan planning organization, the MTC, reVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:16 Jul 25, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\4-25-1~1\80578.TXT JEAN
17 

cently made a recommendation for a percentage-based fuel tax. 

And I believe they included a recommendation for floors and caps, 

such that when revenues were strong, excess revenues would flow 

to the general fund. And when they were below the floor, that the 

general fund would subsidize. So more of a two-way street between 

the trust fund and the general fund. 

I also think that the usage-based fees, such as Oregon is looking 

at, has a much stronger policy basis to support it. And I concur 

with the idea of supporting States and metropolitan areas and local 

jurisdictions and experimenting with different ways to better tie 

usage to the funding of the transportation system. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Perrin, actually, 

you know, one point you made was very good, which is not only 

haven’t we increased the gas tax, but as cars become more efficient, 

and vehicle miles traveled can actually go up, impact on the system 

goes up, but revenues go down. That is why I propose that we 

should index the existing gas tax to both fleet fuel economy average 

and a construction cost inflation, and then project those revenues, 

issue bonds, and backfill the trust fund. 

I mean the bottom line is if we adopted the Chamber of Commerce position, and raised the gas tax a nickel, that wouldn’t solve 

the problem in 2015. That would mean that instead of going to 

$100 million Federal investment in our highways and bridges, we 

would be somewhere around $8 million or $9 million. But that is 

still dramatic—so we need something more immediate to heal the 

trust fund. 

I would just like—I mean I think the Ryan budget reflects reality, which is the fact that if we don’t do something, if Congress 

doesn’t do something, in 2015 Federal investment in highways, 

roads, bridges, goes from $40.3 billion to $100 million. That is a national number, $100 million. 

Senator Starr, if we shared that under the formula in Oregon, we 

would get $1.23 million from the Federal Government. This year 

we are getting $483 million. What kind of impact would that have 

on our programs, a reduction of $481 or $482 million? Think you 

could make that up real easily? 

Mr. STARR. Yes. Mr. Chair, Congressman DeFazio, as you know, 

that would put a huge dent in our construction process. There is 

no doubt—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Or maybe a giant hole. 

Mr. STARR. Yes, exactly. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. And then transit, you know, on the transit 

side, we are looking at going to only a reduction from $9.6 billion 

to $1 billion. So that would only be, you know, about 90 percent, 

80-some-odd percent reduction. How would that impact transit operators? 

Mr. VARGA. Chairman DeFazio, I mean, it would cripple us slowly over the future. Our transit system is in a state of extremely 

good repair. We will be in total disrepair. We won’t be able to meet 

the objectives of the folks that support us with property tax revenues and other revenues. And it is unconscionable because we will 

have the funds to operate services, but we are not going to be able 

to provide them. And I think that has—you know, you have to look 

18 

at how you are going to address all these mobility needs over time 

without crippling the agencies who are trying to make it work. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. And San Francisco? 

Mr. REISKIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. In San Francisco, more than 30 

percent of the trips taken each day are on transit. And a significant 

portion of the capital support for transit comes from the Federal 

Government. So with cuts at the levels that you had suggested we 

would not be able to maintain our systems in a state of good repair. 

We would not be able to safely operate them. And, therefore, we 

wouldn’t be able to move those 30-plus percent of the people. 

So it would really have a crippling effect on our economy, and 

would really significantly change the quality of life in our city and 

in our region. We are very transit-dependent, we are very densely 

populated. And there is no way that we could safely operate our 

systems and attract people to them with funding levels such as 

those you suggested. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. All right. And, Mr. Lewis, I have an estimate from 

an outside group, we haven’t had a chance to vet it yet, but it said 

if Rhode Island wanted to make up the deficit of loss of Federal 

funds, they would have to raise both the gas and diesel tax by $.25 

a gallon. Do you think that is a viable option for you? 

Mr. LEWIS. The other alternative might be to join Massachusetts 

or Connecticut and, you know, eliminate the State borders. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LEWIS. For a small State like Rhode Island, and some of the 

rural Western States, the economy is such that it just doesn’t have 

the economic base to produce enough funding to replace the reliance on the Federal program. And, we are taking steps locally to 

prepare for change, and to bring more to the table locally, but we 

could never fill the loss that would come from the Federal program. 

Our construction program would virtually screech to a halt. And, 

in the Northeast we have some of the worst bridge condition in the 

country, due to its age, due to the climate, and due to investment. 

So, it would be devastating. And I think that is true at different 

levels all across the country. Forty percent, on average, of the highway programs is dependent upon the Federal Highway Trust Fund 

across the country. So this would be, as you said, an enormous hole 

in the program. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

I would just ask that each of you who represent organizations 

take back my idea, look at it—if you got other ideas—but you 

know, looking at the indexation and bonding approach to take care 

of both immediate and some longer term problems. Wouldn’t solve 

everything, and I agree with those who say at some point we are 

going to have to move toward vehicle miles traveled. 

But Oregon is now doing a more representative sample or experiment or pilot. The first one, as I say to people—people say, ‘‘Well, 

it worked pretty well, didn’t it?’’ 

I say, ‘‘Well, that was Earl Blumenauer’s district, and the people 

who live there are happy to have the Government know where they 

are every moment of the day at all times. And a lot of people in 

my district, not so much.’’ So we have some issues to work out yet 

on vehicle miles traveled. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Duncan. 

19 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yesterday, at the tail— 

at the end of a hearing that I chaired, I said I think that our three 

biggest challenges on transportation projects overall are—number 

one, of course, is funding that most of you have mentioned. 

Number two is this great need to speed up the projects. Two of 

the most recent Federal highway studies have said that the average highway projects take—one study said 13 years, one said 15 

years from conception to completion. Obviously, if we could cut that 

in half, we could do a lot more with less, or double the number of 

projects. 

And, number three, how do we balance our limited resources? 

Because you have got many big cities that—especially in the Northeast and Midwest that are losing population. You have to—have 

aging infrastructures, and they need help. You have got fast-growing areas like my home area and a lot of places in the Southeast 

that, because of their rapid growth, they need a lot of help. And 

also the—a lot of the small towns and rural areas can’t be left out 

because they—some of them are economically depressed and need 

help and have a lot of needs also. 

But I am—Mr. Lewis, this is my 25th year on this committee, 

and we have been talking about environmental streamlining all 

through those years. I think we went further in MAP–21 than we 

have ever done before by saying that a lot of these Federal agencies 

had to do studies concurrently, and we put limits with fines and 

so forth. Do you see progress being made from these Federal agencies? And do you have hope that we will see more progress than 

we have seen in the past? 

Mr. LEWIS. Congressman, I absolutely do see progress, and I absolutely do have hope that we will be able to streamline the project 

delivery process and timelines. I think working very closely with 

Administrator Victor Mendez of the Federal Highway Administration and his program of Every Day Counts really speaks to the emphasis that U.S. DOT, and the Federal Highway Administration, in 

particular, are putting on streamlining the project delivery process. 

We in Rhode Island just went through a recent environmental reevaluation. And the responsiveness of the Federal Highway Administration to the time commitment was exemplary. Just this week 

we have got a revised record decision on a process that, in my past 

life, might have taken years to produce. So I think we, at the State 

level, at AASHTO, absolutely see this as a critical step forward. We 

see that the U.S. DOT is committed to helping us with that. And 

I have a very positive outlook that we are going to make real 

progress. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, good. I remember when I chaired the Aviation Subcommittee, the Atlanta Airport testified that their newest 

runway, which is several years old now, took 14 years from conception to completion for a runway, and took 99 construction days that 

they did in thirty-three 24-hour days, they were so relieved to get 

all the approvals. 

Senator Starr, you mentioned your vehicle miles traveled. And I 

am very interested in that. Specifically, what have you done? How 

far along? Is it just being done in a few places, or—Congressman 

DeFazio mentioned the opposition from people in his district and 

20 

the supporting Congressman Blumenauer’s district. I would like to 

hear a little bit more about that. 

Mr. STARR. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Road User Fee 

Task Force was created in 2001 through a bill that I introduced. 

I chaired that task force. That task force then put together our first 

pilot program, which Mr. DeFazio referenced, that mandated a particular device in vehicles. It was a test, it was a pilot. And ultimately, it proved effective. 

We have gone since then to a different system, what we call an 

open system, where we—we have just accomplished another pilot 

that concluded at the end of January. And it was actually the—our 

second pilot included individuals from the State of Washington and 

individuals from the State of Nevada. And folks could choose from 

a menu of options of how they wanted to have their miles recorded. 

And from a very high-tech device that basically did identify where 

folks were driving and at what times to a very low-tech opportunity 

of paying a flat fee, where they didn’t have any technology necessarily at all. That program is the one that ultimately, I think, is 

the future. 

We partnered with the private sector, rather than having Government mandate, or the State of Oregon mandate a particular 

technology. Ultimately, I believe that—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. You mean the low-tech one is the future? Is that 

the one most people chose? 

Mr. STARR. No, actually—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. Or they—— 

Mr. STARR. Actually, folks chose all across the board. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Oh. 

Mr. STARR. But the opportunity for us to partner with the private 

sector to divide—to develop the technology, where it is not Government that is mandating a particular device. I see a future where, 

in the time of vehicles that have a significant amount of technology 

already included in the vehicle, you have individuals that are driving with smartphones in their car that is linked to the vehicle, 

where there is an opportunity for the private sector to collect the 

data that is necessary and actually collect and remit the fee, rather 

than creating a huge bureaucracy in Government, which is one of 

the challenges that we would face in this type of situation. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I am sorry, my time is up. Thank you. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Representative Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much, and let me express my appreciation for the hearing and for the witnesses. I have 

been listening for the information we can use to fund these many 

infrastructure needs that we have. We hear a lot about the problems and not a lot about where we get the money. 

Also recently have seen the ads not to increase gas tax. So I 

would like each of you to comment more specifically on what you 

would suggest we do to find the funds to deal with the Nation’s infrastructure problems. 

Mr. LEWIS. Congressman Johnson, I think, as many of us mentioned, there is a finite list of options that have been raised by national commissions, State commissions, and blue-ribbon panels that 

have looked into the challenge of raising revenue sufficient to meet 

21 

the Nation’s needs in transportation. And the options range from 

the existing system, the gas and the diesel fuel tax—are there 

modifications to that, or are there increases to that that are viable? 

Long term, many of us have mentioned the potential of a true 

user-based fee that may be a vehicle miles traveled tax. There are 

other methods that I think that can be explored that could raise 

the necessary revenues. And it is a combination of revenues at the 

Federal, State, and local levels. I don’t think there is a one-sizefits-all solution. But we stand ready to work with you, work with 

the committee, and work with all of our partners to come up with 

a menu of options that is achievable and meets the objectives of 

raising the revenues that are needed. 

Mr. STARR. Thank you for the question, Congressman Johnson. 

In the short term, I don’t know how you get away from addressing 

the shortfall outside of the fuel tax. But in the long term you have 

to move—transition away from a tax that is based on the use of 

fuel to something else. And I believe it is a road user charge situation where folks that use the system pay for it. The user fee principle, I think, is an important one. 

In the midterm, I would ask for a partnership between the Federal Government and the States to help support States’ testing 

pilot programs. 

Mr. VARGA. Representative Johnson, you know, I would like to 

start by saying that the public, the people, really understand the 

issues. Last year, 80 percent of transit tax measures locally in the 

United States were passed under difficult circumstances. So the 

question is, how do you bring something forward to the people so 

they understand that the problem has to be solved, and that you 

have worked out a solution? 

And I agree with Mr. Starr, you know, you have to start somewhere, but you eventually are going to have to figure out different 

options for paying for what is needed out there in the communities. 

But I will emphasize, I think the voters know the problem, I 

think you have to bring something to them that solves what they 

need in life, which is mobility for everybody. 

Mr. PERRIN. Representative Johnson, I mean I think we have 

heard—and I would say maybe in a little disagreement with my 

colleague to my right—that I am not sure people understand the 

issue. They may see it—if there is needed cuts, they may see it 

when a bridge closes. But right now I don’t think people understand the impending crisis that is coming. Transportation is not on 

the top of their list. Any Pew Center poll you see, it is not up there. 

So, the question is, should it be up there? I mean we all know 

that these things need to be done. But ultimately, it is those voters 

who decide, and they decide with—where they decide to live and 

what they decide to do. So, I think it is a very challenging issue. 

I think ultimately, though, the vehicle miles traveled tax or fee 

charged, whatever you want to call it, still has some things to be 

worked out. Oregon is clearly far, far ahead of most places. One of 

the issues that has to be considered is how easily is it basically gotten around. I mean that is one of the beauties of the fuel tax. It 

is paid for at the pump—actually, pre-paid for by the time you fill 

up. 

22 

As one of my colleagues says, my peer in Little Rock, Arkansas, 

the implementability of the vehicle miles traveled tax will be there 

when Hell’s Angels and other motorcycle gangs let you put those 

on their bikes. Until then, there is going to be people looking to get 

around this, and they are going to be able to find a way to do it, 

even as the technology advances. 

So, I think it is what everybody—what I would like to think everybody up here is saying, which is let’s start with the immediate 

options that we have available. Ranking Member DeFazio put one 

in there where, you know, as far as balancing it out, you know, 

make hay when the sun shines. When it is working, let’s go with 

it, and let’s have it backfilled for when things are in a more difficult place. But eventually, we have to get to something that, 

along with being able to be implemented, is also a fair and equitable way to charge for uses of our roads and our transit systems. 

And that is ultimately going to depend on how much you drive, 

what type of vehicle you have that does what type of wear and tear 

on the roads, and how far you want to go when you use a particular public transportation system. Thank you. 

Mr. BOBROWSKI. Thank you. Representative Johnson, I work for 

exclusively local governments. So my area of knowledge and expertise as it relates to your question is very limited. So I am just going 

to pass. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. That is not an excuse; I don’t accept 

that. 

Mr. BOBROWSKI. Pardon me? 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. I don’t accept your response. If you are 

with the local government, you know exactly where money comes 

from and how it is used. 

Mr. REISKIN. Congresswoman Johnson, I also believe that, in the 

short term, something based on the current system, whether it is 

indexing the current fuel tax or switching to a percentage, a sales 

tax approach, I think is probably the most practical. In the longer 

term, I think shifting towards more of a user-based system would 

make more sense, from a policy perspective. But as people have 

said, there are issues to be worked out there. 

I don’t presume to understand voter sentiment that well. But as 

Mr. Varga said, there have been a number of transportation revenue measures at the State and local level in the last few years 

that have done very well, including in California, where generally 

we have a two-thirds threshold for voter approval. 

And while I know that the gas tax, or increases in the gas tax, 

whether a one-time or through indexing, tend to be thought of as 

not popular, I would just note that when you look around our cities 

and towns, from gas station to gas station and from day to day, 

prices vary quite considerably. And the demand doesn’t respond 

very much to some of these price swings. So I think with the right 

kind of education, understanding of the state of our Nation’s infrastructure, its importance to the economy, I think it would be possible to build support for a more rational short-term basis for funding the trust fund. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much. I know my time 

has expired, but let me just say that we know that whatever we 

can come up with, we will need all of you, your input and your supVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:16 Jul 25, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\4-25-1~1\80578.TXT JEAN
23 

port, to help us educate the public and educate us here, so that we 

can take some tough stands, as well. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Bucshon. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make 

a couple of comments first. And I agree with Mr. Perrin, that we 

have not sold our product well. When I talk to people in my district, there is a, I feel, a general lack of understanding even about 

where the gas tax money goes and what it is used for. And there 

is also, really, I think an uncertainty about whether the Federal 

Government is actually using it for what we say we are supposed 

to be using it for. And historically, there is some—unfortunately, 

some truth to that. So, we have some public relations work to do 

in convincing the American people that we need more money, and 

where that should come from to fund our highways. 

Mr. Reiskin just commented on the unpopularity, and there is a 

recent polling that shows that over two-thirds of the American people say, ‘‘Don’t raise the Federal gas tax, even if it means that it 

goes to infrastructure.’’ And I think that relates to their lack of 

confidence in the Federal Government’s ability to actually use it for 

infrastructure. I really do. 

So, in my district, at least, I tell people exactly what the deficits 

are and what we need to do to fix that. That is my first comment. 

Also, as everyone knows, recently and historically we have used 

the—you know, the user fee, the gas tax, as well as some general 

fund money to keep the level of funding where we had it, basically, 

in the last 4 or 5 years. But as Congress continues to fail to address, really, the long-term drivers of our Federal debt and deficit—you know, the 60 percent of the pie chart that is mandatory 

spending—discretionary spending programs across the board, including transportation, are going to continue to feel the pinch. So—and with $17 trillion in debt, imagine what will happen to 

our spending, mandatory spending, if the interest rates go up. And 

this will continue to crowd out all other spending that is discretionary, including transportation. So I think we have a bigger—a 

smaller picture that is focused on funding transportation, but a bigger picture on how we fund everything that we need in our country, 

as it relates to all of these problems. 

So, my first question, Mr. Reiskin, does your bus system use natural—are you going to natural gas or electric power, I mean, in 

your city? 

Mr. REISKIN. Yes. So we have about 800 buses. About 300 of 

them are purely electric. They run from a overhead wire system 

that is powered by hydroelectric power, so it is very—— 

Dr. BUCSHON. And I have ridden on those. Those are fun to ride 

on. 

Mr. REISKIN. Very, very clean energy. All of our rail system, 

about 150 light rail vehicles, about 60 or 70 historic street cars and 

cable cars, all running on clean electric power. The balance of the 

buses, about 500 of them, we are shifting to B20 biodiesel hybrids. 

So they are hybrids that are running like a Prius or anything else, 

runs on electricity when it can, and then it shifts over to B20 biodiesel when it needs gasoline. 

Dr. BUCSHON. And that is where, when we talk about where the 

funding comes from, as you see, when large cities convert over from 

24 

gasoline powered engines or even diesel engines, you know, we are 

going to lose even more revenue, not to mention the fact that they 

are more fuel efficient. 

Mr. Lewis, I—when I talk to Indiana—I am from Indiana—the 

Indiana Department of Transportation, they have expressed some 

frustration with how long it is taking Federal DOT to implement 

these—some of the regulatory changes in MAP–21. Is AASHTO 

hearing that from DOTs around the country? 

Mr. LEWIS. I think there is, Congressman, some frustration. I 

was with Mike Cline, my counterpart in Indiana, just a week or so 

ago and we had a good discussion on some of the challenges. And 

I think there is progress to be made. I think that we still have a 

challenge. But I do believe that the U.S. DOT is working with the 

States on improving the flow, so we can do more review concurrently. 

I think there is more work to be done on the Federal resource 

agencies so that not just within the U.S. Department of Transportation, but within the other Federal permitting agencies, that we 

can work more collaboratively. But that is true on the State level, 

as well. And so, it is a challenge, but I do believe the hearts and 

minds are in the right place, and we are moving forward. 

Dr. BUCSHON. That is good to know. This question will be for Mr. 

Perrin and Mr. Bobrowski. When it comes to MPOs or the RTPOs, 

in my State we have had some—you know, there is a Federal highway project that goes multistate, multicountry. And there were 

some issues relating to local MPOs and that type of thing, and 

their ability to include or not include this project in their TIP. And 

how do you see—you know, I agree with local control. 

I think local people have to have some say in this process. But 

when you have a disagreement between a local organization maybe 

and the Federal Government, how do you see that interaction—how 

do you see us solving that dispute? 

Mr. PERRIN. I am familiar with the project that you are referring 

to, and I believe that got resolved by Governor Daniels standing— 

stepping in and deciding he will just do it with State money, or 

something along those lines, to—— 

Dr. BUCSHON. Actually, it subsequently got reapproved by the 

MPO, so—— 

Mr. PERRIN. Yes. I have 24 voting board members representing 

local, regional, and State interests. In an era of limited funding like 

this, I generally know I am doing a good job if everybody is equally 

upset with me. I mean that is just a function of what we are dealing—— 

Dr. BUCSHON. We have got that same issue here. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PERRIN. So that is the issue we are dealing with. I think, 

though, that the example you have given is few and far between. 

I think generally, you know, MPOs are not solely to represent local 

governments. They are there as a cooperative body, and that is 

their function. It is important to note that when it comes to Federal funding, the largest owners, maintainers, and operators of 

highway infrastructure are State departments of transportation. I 

view our State DOT as just as important a customer as anybody 

else, and it is about finding that balance. 

25 

I don’t have a short answer to your question. The best I can say 

is we haven’t had an instance like that, and I haven’t heard of another one outside of Indiana. But I don’t imagine that it will be in 

any way, shape, or form unique going forward, as communities look 

at reinventing and re-purposing the transportation system. And 

where there are interstates and they go through neighborhoods, 

you are going to have discussions. We saw those years ago in New 

York with Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs, as he sought to build an 

empire. So—thank you. 

Dr. BUCSHON. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. I just—— 

Dr. BUCSHON. My time has expired, so—— 

Mr. PETRI. Yes. 

Mr. PERRIN. Thank you. 

Dr. BUCSHON [continuing]. I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Michaud? 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This one is 

for Mr. Varga. 

You know, I appreciate your testimony on the well-established 

precedent of using CMAQ funds for transit projects. I was particularly interested in your concern regarding FTA’s lack of guidance 

and refusal to release funds for approved grants. Have you communicated these concerns with—well, to FTA? And, if so, what was 

their response? 

Mr. VARGA. We have communicated the concerns about CMAQ 

funding. We are not entirely sure where this is going. But what we 

are concerned about is the funds that were under CMAQ under the 

old authorization bill, that they should be moving forward as of the 

old bill, because that was what was intended at the time. And so 

the new guidance may change things, but funds that were actually 

allocated under the old authorization bill should move forward so 

that those entities can make those projects work. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Yes. Have you gotten any response from FTA? 

Mr. VARGA. I am sure at some point we will. I don’t have it on 

hand yet, but when I do we will be able to communicate that to 

you, sir. 

Mr. MICHAUD. OK, thank you. As you know, in Maine the Amtrak Downeaster has relied on the CMAQ funds for operating assistance since 2001. And, as you know, under Section 1113 of 

MAP–21 included language that stated CMAQ funds could be used 

for operating assistance. Now I understand that FTA may interpret 

the law differently and restrict States’ ability to continue to use the 

CMAQ funds for facilities such as Downeaster. 

In your opinion, looking at the language, is there anything in the 

new law that would justify an FTA interpretation to restrict the 

use of CMAQ funds for the Downeaster or similar projects? 

Mr. VARGA. From my reading I don’t see that, sir. But I think 

that that is information that we can get back to you. What our concern really is is the funds that were appropriated under the old authorization bill clearly expressed that that could be done, and that 

is what we would like to see happen then. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Great, thank you. No further questions, Mr. 

Chairman, so I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Farenthold? 

26 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Starr, I would like to start with you. The Texas Legislature is currently hearing a bill that will give the Texas Department 

of Transportation authority to oversee the NEPA process. Is your 

State or any other States you are aware of seeking NEPA delegation? And can you tell me any thoughts you have on that? 

Mr. STARR. I don’t know. Thank you for the question. I don’t 

know of any other State that is pursuing that similar legislation, 

and I don’t believe that NCSL, as a conference, has a policy that 

particularly addresses that issue. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Lewis, do you have any other information 

on that? 

Mr. LEWIS. I am aware that California currently has NEPA responsibility—I don’t know exactly how long that has been in effect, 

but California has been working under a delegation of NEPA. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Well, hopefully Texas can do it better than the 

Federal Government. 

Mr. Perrin, let’s talk a little bit about the metropolitan planning 

organizations. MAP–21 carries the distribution percentages each 

State received in 2009. And these numbers were based on the 2000 

census. As a result, fast-growing States like Texas, Arizona, and 

North Carolina end up big losers, while States with more stagnant 

population growth like New York, Michigan, and Illinois were the 

big winners, as well as the minimum allocation States like 

Vermont, Montana, and Wyoming. 

For example, one MPO, Burlington, Vermont, has an urbanized 

population of 108,740. For fiscal year 2013, Vermont gets just over 

$2 million. And now CAMPO, which is the Austin, Texas planning 

organization, has an urbanized population of 1,362,416 people. 

That is 12.5 times the population of Vermont. And the metro planning funds that they received in Austin for fiscal year 2013 was 

$1,906,022, which is $100,000 less than Vermont. You think there 

needs to be a fix there? 

Mr. PERRIN. I don’t know that AMPO has looked at specifically 

what the distribution is at the Federal level. 

Now, it is important to note that the States distribute those metropolitan planning funds, both the FHWA metropolitan planning 

and the FTA Section 5303 metropolitan planning funds, based on 

formulas that are more or less decided at the State level. Clearly, 

though, I think anything you—I mean I am a planner. I don’t want 

to use 2000 census data, I want to use 2010 census data. To the 

degree that it is even more reliable, I want to use the American 

Community Survey estimates from up to 2009, 2010. So I think 

that is really a function of how does it get distributed to the States, 

and that is something that Congress does. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. And let’s talk a little bit about performance data. One of the things we are kicking off in Texas now 

is TEXDOT, our department of transportation, is working with the 

State association of MPOs to coordinate and share information regarding the national performance management process. 

Rather than waiting for rulemaking, we are getting a go on that. 

What is your organization doing to prepare to get that information? 

27 

Mr. PERRIN. I think AMPO has obviously been very clear about 

what they want to see, and that is not prescriptive Federal regulation from U.S. DOT about how this needs to happen. 

But I think you are absolutely right. In New York we have a 

New York State association of MPOs. We have an integrated planning initiative. And we have jumped right into this and said, 

‘‘What is the data we are going to need?’’ Regardless of what comes 

down from Washington, when it gets to us and our 13 MPOs, what 

is the data we are going to need? How do we get that most costeffectively? Does it really make sense for the 13 of us to be purchasing employment projections separately, or is this something we 

can do through the New York State DOT? 

So that is really the critical part, is how do we do this to save 

money. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. Mr. Lewis, I want to get to TIFIA 

for a second. You know, MAP–21 substantially expanded the TIFIA 

program. And I was wondering if you all could—Mr. Lewis or anybody—could give me some information particularly on how this is 

working with respect to rural areas. Are we seeing TIFIA help 

rural areas as much as we are urban areas? 

Mr. LEWIS. I don’t have the specifics on that, Congressman. But 

we see it from the States’ perspective as a very important tool in 

the toolbox for advancing our goals in transportation. It is not a solution. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And, you know, Texas now has, I think, four 

TIFIA letters of interest, but we are really finding that it is pretty 

slow-going. Is that consistent with the rest of your organization of 

not getting fast-enough response on that? 

Mr. LEWIS. Congressman, I will work with the staff and get you 

an answer on that, poll the States to determine what their experiences are in terms of TIFIA—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I would appreciate it. We have got these alternatives out there that I think the—never forget the time value of 

money. The sooner we can get these things going, the better we 

are. 

I see my time has expired now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Ms. Hahn? 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I represent Los Angeles. 

And we, as I think most counties and cities in this country, are beginning to realize that we can’t totally depend on the Federal Government for investment in our transportation infrastructure, although I do think the Federal Government has a role to play in investing in this Nation’s infrastructure. I think it absolutely makes 

for a more seamless system in this country, as well as leading to 

jobs in the economy. 

But—so we in Los Angeles passed, with a two-thirds vote requirement, Measure R in L.A. County, which was a half-cent sales 

tax, and raised $40 billion. Originally it was $40 billion that would 

be used over the course of 30 years. But Mayor Villaraigosa came 

up with the idea of 30/10, and asking the Federal Government if 

they would consider front-loading that money in the first 10 years 

of the tax measure, and then we would pay back the Federal Government over the course of 30 years. It seems like it would make 

28 

a great—it made great sense. Front-load the projects, get the economy going, build the system. 

And so, that sort of morphed into America Fast Forward, where, 

you know, cities and counties across this country could leverage 

local dollars with the Federal Government’s ability to front-load 

those initiatives with tax—with bonds and tax credits. 

So, now, one of the new ideas the advocates of America Fast Forward want to push for qualified transportation improvement bonds, 

QTIB—not to be confused with Q-Tip—which would have the Federal Government subsidize most or all of the long-term borrowing 

cost for investors in large-scale transportation projects. 

So, I am just going to ask those of you on the panel. How helpful 

would a new class of tax credit bonds for transportation similar to 

these Build America bonds be for local and State governments? Is 

that something we should pursue? 

Mr. REISKIN. Congresswoman, from our perspective I think it 

would be extremely helpful. As I mentioned, we have a half-cent 

sales tax in San Francisco. We are about 10 years into a 30-year 

authorization. But we have ourselves advanced a lot of that value 

at a much higher cost than we would be able to under, say, a QTIB 

kind of process. So we are now looking at—in addition to going to 

the voters next year for a possible general obligation bond, going 

in the next few years for a reauthorization and possible expansion 

of the sales tax. The ability to capitalize those revenues with credit 

support or other kind of low-interest financing from the Federal 

Government would certainly help invest dollars now that would 

save us costs down the road. 

With—before I was in this job I was the public works director in 

San Francisco. And what I learned there is that as you delay expenditures over time, the cost of bringing things back into a state 

of good repair get exponentially more expensive. So being able to 

borrow forward with low-interest money to invest now cannot only 

improve today’s infrastructure, but can save money in the long 

term. So I think it would be extremely helpful. 

Mr. LEWIS. Congressman, I think, as I mentioned earlier, it is a 

potential tool in the toolbox. From the States’ perspective, as you 

may know, the GARVEE bonds are a program that the States can 

borrow to advance work to get it done more quickly, and Rhode Island has taken advantage of that. But we are pledging our future 

Federal revenues to pay off those bonds. And with the uncertainty 

in future Federal revenues, that makes this a more risky proposition. 

And so, I think that any opportunity that we can add to the toolbox is helpful. But it can’t replace the funding needs that we have 

at a national level. 

Mr. STARR. And State legislatures as well, I think, look at the 

wide variety of opportunities to address these issues. And bonding 

borrowing is one of those tools. And in a way I think we have positions supporting bonding in our policy statements. So we would 

support this, as well. 

Mr. VARGA. You know, in Grand Rapids right now we don’t see 

it as a tool that we could use, but I could see how, in the future, 

it might be. And I agree with Mr. Reiskin’s statement, that this is 

something that they find useful, and I think the opportunities for 

29 

leveraging funds that way do save money. And so I would encourage any institutions that really want to pursue it to have that 

available. 

Mr. PERRIN. I would just agree with, basically, Mr. Lewis’s comment and Senator Starr’s, which is it is something else that is 

available to us. And the wider range of options, the more diversified portfolio we can have to tap into, is always going to be a benefit. 

Mr. BOBROWSKI. I would agree with the rest of the panel. I mean 

that is—you know, in Tennessee, again, we need all the help that 

we can get, in terms of funding. 

Ms. HAHN. Thanks. Well, my time is up, but again, I think some 

of the comments that transportation is not on the front burner for 

the general public, we have not found that to be true. Of course, 

I think Los Angeles was just named the worst city for traffic in the 

country. 

But I think my history in Los Angeles has been the voters will 

continue to tax themselves if they know that the money is going 

directly to projects which will benefit their daily commutes on the 

freeways, the highways. And we understand in Los Angeles the 

idea of goods movement, so we get the idea of good bridges and 

overpasses and roads and truck expressways. So—but we found 

that over and over. If the voters understand the purpose for which 

the tax is going, they will, again and again, be willing to cough up 

the money to pay for a better transportation system. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Rice. 

Mr. RICE. Thank you. Thank you, members of the committee, for 

allowing me to participate. Thank you, witnesses, for coming all 

this way to educate us. And I certainly learned a lot. I appreciate 

your perspective. 

I agree that funding is the biggest issue that we face. And we 

have a real need—I think that infrastructure drives American competitiveness, worldwide. Our competitors for jobs across the world 

are advancing, I believe, at a much faster pace than we are. I think 

that a lot of that is due to regulation, and these MAP–21 restrictions are certainly going to help. 

But in terms of funding, I think—Mr. Perrin, you said earlier 

that people are tightening their belts, and they want to see us 

tighten ours, too. And the unfortunate truth is that the Federal 

Government’s budget has grown by about 29 percent in the last 5 

years. 

Mr. Starr, in Oregon has your budget grown by 29 percent in the 

last 5 years? 

Mr. STARR. No, sir, it has not. 

Mr. RICE. No, it hasn’t. In fact, a lot of States are static. In fact, 

a lot have actually gone down. You know, we are spending at a 

massive level, running record deficit after record deficit. 

And unfortunately, also, at the same time, we have had a—we 

had a huge tax increase at the very end of the last year to satisfy 

the fiscal cliff deal. And with the implementation of the largest expansion of entitlements since the sixties, with Obamacare, we have 

got another massive tax increase scheduled to hit January 1st of 

next year. It was delayed. When they passed it they delayed it for 

30 

a few years so they didn’t have to feel the impact. So we got two 

massive tax increases coming. 

I very much agree with what Ms. Hahn said, that across the 

country—in fact, in my county, back at Horry County, South Carolina, we adopted a local option sales tax to pay for roads. I think 

voters don’t mind doing that, as she said, if they see that it will 

go directly to projects that benefit them. But the truth is that the 

Federal fuel tax doesn’t all go to highways. We have robbed that. 

We have got a ports fund supposed to go to maintain ports, but it 

doesn’t. We have robbed that. So I am not sure that, in the Federal 

Government’s case, that the voters actually believe that the money 

goes directly to highway funding. 

You know, we have got a massive problem with infrastructure. 

I think it would be my absolutely top priority. But it is a matter 

of priorities. And we can’t expand on every front and expect the 

voters to step up and pay for that. We got the biggest, as I said, 

expansion of entitlements with Obamacare hitting next year, and 

we got to decide what we are going to pursue. Are we going to pursue entitlements? Or—and have more people dependent on the 

Government, and increase their dependence on the Government? 

Or are we going to explore economic expansion through infrastructure, maintenance, and growth, and try to growth the economy. 

So, I think we have a choice that we are faced with. Right now, 

we are, unfortunately, on the path of expanding entitlements. I 

don’t know that it is realistic to ask the people to stand for three 

big tax increases in 1 year. That may be just a little bit unrealistic. 

The MAP–21 restrictions, you know, we are working on a Federal highway project, trying to get permits. We have been working 

for 6 years now to try to get permits to build I–73. Still don’t have 

a permit. I appreciate very much the restrictions that MAP–21 

puts in place with a 4-year limit. My personal opinion is a 4-year 

limit is about three times as long as it should be. We have to balance environmental requirements, obviously, with the need for economic growth. But I think the tail is wagging the dog. When it 

takes 14 years to get a permit to dredge the port in Miami so that 

we can get Panama Canal ships in there. And if we started digging 

today it wouldn’t happen. 

I think our priorities may be a little bit skewed and we need to 

do—we have got to do a better job. I think we live in the greatest 

country on earth, I don’t think anybody can beat us. But I think 

we can sure beat ourselves, and we are doing a great job of it. We 

got the regulatory noose around our own neck and we are strangling ourselves. 

So, particularly when you got limited dollars, as we have here, 

all the money we spend on studies, all the time we waste, all the 

delays and the increased cost that we could be using to lay asphalt 

and dredge our ports and make this country more competitive, I 

think we really, really need to rethink that. 

So, I know I didn’t give you any questions, it was more observations. I appreciate you being here. Thank you very much. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Barletta. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Lewis, one of the important provisions in MAP–21 was Jason’s Law, which makes truck 

parking improvements a regular expense for State DOTs and 

31 

MPOs. I am interested in your opinion. Do you agree that, first of 

all, that adequate truck parking facilities are a critical safety and 

infrastructure investment? 

Mr. LEWIS. Yes. Congressman, in different areas of the country 

it is a bigger problem than in other areas, in certain localities. But 

safety is our principal objective at the State transportation departments, and also within the U.S. DOT. So we want to look very 

closely at provisions that would promote safe travel on the highways, and that certainly includes the movement of heavy trucks. I 

can ask staff to review policies with regard to truck parking, and 

we would be glad to get back to you, Congressman, with a specific 

response to that question. 

Mr. BARLETTA. You know, obviously, you know, regulations require truckers to park their trucks after so many hours of driving. 

And Jason’s Law was named after a trucker who was fatally shot 

in an abandoned gas station. So how do we encourage local transportation officials to ensure that this investment is made? When 

they have a buffet of what they can choose from, how do we communicate that to local? 

Mr. LEWIS. I think that communication is key. A number of your 

colleagues have mentioned that we need to improve our efforts in 

communicating on all fronts with regard to the investment in 

transportation. And the point you raise is a critical issue that probably many, many people don’t know is an issue. I think that we 

have an obligation to better educate so that it is on the table when 

prioritization is evaluated. At the local level, at the MPO level, and 

on the State level, we think that this is an important issue, and 

it is one that we need to better educate the populace. 

Mr. BARLETTA. I agree. Mr. Bobrowski, a driver is two-and-a-half 

times more likely to die on a rural road than on an urban road. 

As local entities, how can we increase roadway safety infrastructure on locally owned roads to reduce fatalities and serious injuries? 

Mr. BOBROWSKI. I would go back, Congressman, to the local consultation process. I think there really needs to be a close relationship between State DOTs and the local folks in those communities. 

They know best where their problems are. 

And, you know, the communication of those problems to the 

State DOT is just a critical, critical process. And it needs to be 

something that is stable, that is supported by documented statistics. And, you know, I think, just given the nature of rural roads, 

that that statistic might be a little bit skewed. But many times we 

look at making large-scale expensive improvements four-laning a 

road, when really only a truck-passing lane might do the trick to 

really help safety concerns. 

And so, I think the local consultation process is a key to kind of 

improving what is going on on rural roads. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Do you see opportunities in MAP–21 to address 

safety and effective incident management issues at both the State 

and local level for corridors that cross multiple State lines? I know 

Interstate 81, for example, goes through Pennsylvania, and is a—— 

Mr. BOBROWSKI. Right. 

Mr. BARLETTA. And the I–81 corridor, obviously, is an issue. 

32 

Mr. BOBROWSKI. Well, certainly, you know, I–81 is an interstate 

that passes through seven States, I believe. And I think there is 

an effort afoot to get an I–81 corridor planning authority established, and Tennessee is involved with Virginia and Pennsylvania 

and New York and Maryland and the rest of the States that are 

involved, or through which I–81 passes. 

So, yes, I think there are great opportunities. But, you know, 

funding is really a key issue because these are typically grass roots 

kind of organizations. They are managed at the local level. And I 

know we have a very, very sophisticated and effective I–95 corridor 

management agency. So I think where, you know, efforts are afoot 

to do that kind of thing in other areas of the country, I think they 

really need to be supported, at least partially, by Federal transportation dollars. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Yes. Safety, obviously, you know, if you asked everyone, they would say that is such an important issue. But when 

it comes to funding, sometimes we bypass it for other things. 

My family was in the road-building business and I was a pavement-marking contractor. We did the line painting, only the 

straight lines. But one thing that I always took pride in is that we 

never read the names in the paper of the people’s lives we saved. 

Mr. BOBROWSKI. Right. 

Mr. BARLETTA. And I think that is something we should all remember when we are looking at projects and funding. Thank you. 

Mr. BOBROWSKI. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Mullin. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, panel, for 

taking the time. I know you guys probably enjoy this as much as 

I do, which isn’t very much, but it is a necessity for us to make 

sure that we are doing the job that is put in front of us. And it 

is an honor to do so, and it is an honor to sit in front of you. And 

so, please, as I have said before in some panels, don’t think you are 

wasting your time. I think you will find out that in T&I we have 

an interest, and we can usually agree that we truly want to get the 

problems fixed. It is just things don’t move very fast up here. And 

common sense, sometimes you can spend time butting your head 

against the wall, and it is frustrating. 

I come from a construction background, I still own a construction 

company. Have about 120-plus employees back in Oklahoma. And 

I am sitting in front of you because of the frustration. So I share 

it with you. But we still got a job to do. And I have a few questions 

I want to throw out, and I hopefully won’t take all of our time. 

But MAP–21 included category exclusions for projects and rightof-ways and projects receiving less than $5 million in Federal 

funds. And that is good. But what has happened is the Department 

has yet to complete the regulations that is needed, and now we are 

past the deadline to start some of this. 

In Oklahoma, Mr. Lewis, in Oklahoma I have heard from our department of transportation that this delay in rulemaking is causing 

a delay in the project’s implementation, has affected what we do. 

And how has it affected your State? 

Mr. LEWIS. Congressman, we agree. We would like to see that 

provision move forward as quickly as possible. There is a rulemaking pending right now, and AASHTO is in the process of comVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:16 Jul 25, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\HT\4-25-1~1\80578.TXT JEAN
33 

menting on that, as we speak. We think this is an important and 

relatively easy change that can move projects forward more quickly 

and more expeditiously. 

Mr. MULLIN. Well, for some reason it seems like we are dragging 

our feet. Are you experiencing cost delays? Are you experiencing— 

where you are having situations that the project should already be 

completed, and now it is holding up and putting you in a backlog? 

Mr. LEWIS. Speaking from Rhode Island’s perspective, we have 

had that issue in the past, but we don’t have that issue currently 

affecting any of our projects right now. But I am aware that other 

States across the country are experiencing a greater frustration 

with this. I think we do need to up our game, and are working with 

the U.S. DOT, to get this matter moved forward. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you. Mr. Starr, I appreciate your testimony 

on the Indian roads program. And I want to point out that in Oklahoma we have a very strong working relationship between the 

Oklahoma Department of Transportation and the tribes in my 

State. Because of Oklahoma’s unique situation where we don’t actually have reservations, it is important that the departments and 

the tribes have synergy on this issue. 

In your opinion, what can things—what things can be done to 

help facilitate these kinds of cooperative interactions across the 

country? 

Mr. STARR. In Oregon we have a very cooperative relationship 

with the tribes. And it is a relationship that is based in honoring 

each other as independent nations and fostering strong communication between our State governments and the tribal governments. I 

believe that is the crux to having a solid relationship with the 

tribes, whether it is dealing with transportation issues or any other 

issues that you have to deal with on a cross-government basis. 

Mr. MULLIN. Right. And in my county, which is a very big county, I have a town of 1,200 people where I live. And we had a major 

flood 3 years ago on Easter. I mean literally moved the banks of 

some of our creeks over 100 feet, washed out all of our bridges, our 

low-water bridges. There wasn’t a bridge around. In fact, we had 

to cancel school for several days, just because the bus routes 

couldn’t run on some of these country roads. And the county just 

didn’t have the money. The State didn’t have the money. I mean 

these bridges were built by my granddad in the war program. 

And the tribes stepped up and started knocking these out in a 

very fast pace, faster than we could have ever got it done. But also, 

the State had the opportunity to waive a lot of the environmental 

studies and the fish and wildlife studies and all these NEPA programs that are out there that I know you guys love dealing with. 

But it showed that the projects can be completed. And people are 

willing to do it, but it seems like we keep hitting our head against 

the wall, because we are our worst enemy. 

So, we look forward, with MAP–21, working to help get this problem figured out, and working with you all, too. So thank you so 

much, and I appreciate your time. 

Mr. STARR. Thank you. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Davis. 

34 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all the gentlemen who came in today. And the good news is when you get to 

me it is almost over. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DAVIS. You are almost done. There is no more nameplates. 

But it is—and I won’t keep you long, I promise. But I appreciate 

what you do. I think, as you have seen here today, the T&I Committee is the epitome of bipartisanship. There are no Republican 

bridges, Democrat bridges. We are going to work together. It is important. It is important to get beyond the party politics and talk 

about rebuilding this crumbling infrastructure that all of you have 

addressed so eloquently today and sat patiently answering all of 

our colleagues’ questions. 

I have one question related to the transit issue. So everybody but 

Mr. Varga, it is over. You don’t have any more. Mr. Varga, I am 

sorry. But I just want your opinion. And actually, Mr. Lewis, feel 

free to jump in on behalf of the departments of transportation. And 

our department of transportation, in particular in Illinois, does an 

excellent job of working together with the delegation. And I got to 

commend Ann Schneider and those that have served before her in 

doing so. And I look forward to working with her now, as a new 

Member of Congress, to move more projects forward. 

But, Mr. Varga, I want to—and if you were asked this earlier, 

I apologize. But I know the formula grant program, when you talk 

about transit for bus and bus facilities, is newer. Whereas before, 

in previous transportation reauthorizations like SAFETEA–LU and 

TEA–21, et cetera, it was earmarked. A lot of earmarked funding 

mechanisms. 

Tell me. Is the formula grant working, the process working? Is 

it easier for the decision to be made at the State level? And is that 

being—is that easier for your organizations that make up your association to deal with? Or was it easier when the Federal Government picked and choose? 

Mr. VARGA. This is a very important question. I am hearing from 

a lot of different members in the association that for many of them 

it is not working because they don’t know how to plan long term 

for getting the funds, because less funds are available than had 

been before MAP–21. So, for them it is how do you plan long term, 

and how do we address this issue? You know, we are looking forward to working with the FTA and with you to find a solution to 

that issue, because that is what I am hearing from my members. 

From my own perspective, in Grand Rapids we are in a state of 

very good repair. But eventually we will need to replace buses that 

we have purchased over time under the old method. And I think 

that that issue will be coming forward for us, as well. 

So, how to balance off multiyear needs for capital equipment, for 

transit system in the bus category, is something that we are going 

to have to look at carefully. Because I a hearing that from a lot of 

the members and we are going to have to work together to find 

some solution. 

Mr. DAVIS. OK. Mr. Lewis? 

Mr. LEWIS. As an organization, AASHTO has supported formularization. But with that, some places are getting less than they 

have previously, and I think that that is a difficult place to be. 

35 

Many transit projects—and I come from the Northeast area, the 

Boston area—are very heavily capital-intensive. And then the operating cost of those programs is, as you know so well from Chicago, 

also very intensive. 

So, I think that from our perspective at AASHTO, we really need 

to recognize it is a balanced system of transportation. It is not one 

mode winning out over another mode, but that providing flexibility 

to the States to make those decisions is really where the answer 

is. Each locality, each State, each region needs to make those decisions within an overall national transportation system. 

Mr. DAVIS. Excellent. Well, again, thank you very much to all of 

you for being here today. Thanks for working with us. And I look 

forward to working with you in the future as this term goes along. 

I yield back. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. And do you have another—Mr. DeFazio. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Just one last question. Mr. Lewis, you referenced 

the operational right-of-way issue as a relatively simple—I am 

afraid it isn’t, because I advocated for what I defined—and we had 

this discussion—but the final draft came out with a different definition—that we couldn’t possibly know what right-of-way around 

this country has been acquired. How much of the NAFTA highway 

did Texas acquire for their 20-lane road? And how much of it do 

they still have? And suddenly we are going to exempt it from any 

environmental review? 

So, the intent was actual operational—you know, basically within 

the existing footprint, not any property that was acquired. And 

that is, I think, part of the problem at DOT is that someone, somewhere, somehow—you know, the Senate not being very good at 

drafting legislation, you know, slipped that in there. And so I think 

it is problematic. Because, I mean, I can’t even envision—you 

know, we had a famous fight over the Mount Hood Freeway in 

Portland many years ago, and, I don’t know, maybe we still got 

some leftover right-of-way there that would be exempt from any environmental review for a greenfields project. 

The intent—and I really push this hard—was when you are laying down a streetcar track in the middle of an asphalt, you 

shouldn’t have to go to a—you know, through a NEPA process. I 

mean there is a net benefit. But to expand a two-lane road to an 

eight-lane road, well, I am afraid that probably needs some scrutiny. So I don’t think it is simple. 

Mr. LEWIS. No, and I am sure I could feel my—the staff behind 

me cringing when I said anything was simple. So I apologize for 

that. 

I think in certain cases it is relatively simple. But I think you 

have raised a very good point, that it is not universally true. And 

I think that the State and local reviews will also come into play, 

so by simplifying the Federal rules, it doesn’t give carte blanche. 

And I think there is some local decisionmaking that can protect 

those resources. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this hearing. Thanks very much. 

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. And I am informed by our staff that there 

is, in fact, strong disagreement as to what congressional intent 

36 

was. And so there are several positions on it. And I just would note 

that for the—— 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I was noting my intent. 

Mr. PETRI. Yes. We would like to thank you all for your participation and that of the organizations that you represent. 

And before we adjourn, I would ask unanimous consent that the 

record of today’s hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in writing, and unanimous consent that the record 

remain open for 15 days for additional comments and information 

submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record of 

today’s hearing. 

[No response.] 

Mr. PETRI. Without objection, so ordered. And this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

37 


Insert offset folio 5 here 80578.005
38 


Insert offset folio 6 here 80578.006
39 


Insert offset folio 7 here 80578.007
40 


Insert offset folio 8 here 80578.008
41 


Insert offset folio 9 here 80578.009
42 


Insert offset folio 10 here 80578.010
43 


Insert offset folio 11 here 80578.011
44 


Insert offset folio 12 here 80578.012
45 


Insert offset folio 13 here 80578.013
46 


Insert offset folio 14 here 80578.014
47 


Insert offset folio 15 here 80578.015
48 


Insert offset folio 16 here 80578.016
49 


Insert offset folio 17 here 80578.017
50 


Insert offset folio 18 here 80578.018
51 


Insert offset folio 19 here 80578.019
52 


Insert offset folio 20 here 80578.020
53 


Insert offset folio 21 here 80578.021
54 


Insert offset folio 22 here 80578.022
55 


Insert offset folio 23 here 80578.023
56 


Insert offset folio 24 here 80578.024
57 


Insert offset folio 25 here 80578.025
58 


Insert offset folio 26 here 80578.026
59 


Insert offset folio 27 here 80578.027
60 


Insert offset folio 28 here 80578.028
61 


Insert offset folio 29 here 80578.029
62 


Insert offset folio 30 here 80578.030
63 


Insert offset folio 31 here 80578.031
64 


Insert offset folio 32 here 80578.032
65 


Insert offset folio 33 here 80578.033
66 


Insert offset folio 34 here 80578.034
67 


Insert offset folio 35 here 80578.035
68 


Insert offset folio 36 here 80578.036
69 


Insert offset folio 37 here 80578.037
70 


Insert offset folio 38 here 80578.038
71 


Insert offset folio 39 here 80578.039
72 


Insert offset folio 40 here 80578.040
73 


Insert offset folio 41 here 80578.041
74 


Insert offset folio 42 here 80578.042
75 


Insert offset folio 43 here 80578.043
76 


Insert offset folio 44 here 80578.044
77 


Insert offset folio 45 here 80578.045
78 


Insert offset folio 46 here 80578.046
79 


Insert offset folio 47 here 80578.047
80 


Insert offset folio 48 here 80578.048
81 


Insert offset folio 49 here 80578.049
82 


Insert offset folio 50 here 80578.050
83 


Insert offset folio 51 here 80578.051
84 


Insert offset folio 52 here 80578.052
85 


Insert offset folio 53 here 80578.053
86 


Insert offset folio 54 here 80578.054
87 


Insert offset folio 55 here 80578.055
88 


Insert offset folio 56 here 80578.056
89 


Insert offset folio 57 here 80578.057
90 


Insert offset folio 58 here 80578.058
91 


Insert offset folio 59 here 80578.059
92 


Insert offset folio 60 here 80578.060
93 


Insert offset folio 61 here 80578.061
94 


Insert offset folio 62 here 80578.062
95 


Insert offset folio 63 here 80578.063
96 


Insert offset folio 64 here 80578.064
97 


Insert offset folio 65 here 80578.065
98 


Insert offset folio 66 here 80578.066
99 


Insert offset folio 67 here 80578.067
100 


Insert offset folio 68 here 80578.068
101 


Insert offset folio 69 here 80578.069
102 


Insert offset folio 70 here 80578.070
103 


Insert offset folio 71 here 80578.071
104 


Insert offset folio 72 here 80578.072
105 


Insert offset folio 73 here 80578.073
106 


Insert offset folio 74 here 80578.074
107 


Insert offset folio 75 here 80578.075
108 


Insert offset folio 76 here 80578.076
109 


Insert offset folio 77 here 80578.077
110 


Insert offset folio 78 here 80578.078
111 


Insert offset folio 79 here 80578.079
112 


Insert offset folio 80 here 80578.080
113 


Insert offset folio 81 here 80578.081
114 


Insert offset folio 82 here 80578.082
115 


Insert offset folio 83 here 80578.083
116 


Insert offset folio 84 here 80578.084
117 


Insert offset folio 85 here 80578.085
118 


Insert offset folio 86 here 80578.086
119 


Insert offset folio 87 here 80578.087
120 


Insert offset folio 88 here 80578.088
121 


Insert offset folio 89 here 80578.089
122 


Insert offset folio 90 here 80578.090
123 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 91 here 80578.091