[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-578 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, Columbia
Vice Chair JERROLD NADLER, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida CORRINE BROWN, Florida
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
GARY G. MILLER, California ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
SAM GRAVES, Missouri RICK LARSEN, Washington
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
DUNCAN HUNTER, California MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BOB GIBBS, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York JOHN GARAMENDI, California
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida JANICE HAHN, California
JEFF DENHAM, California RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky DINA TITUS, Nevada
STEVE DAINES, Montana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
TOM RICE, South Carolina ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
TREY RADEL, Florida
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
VACANCY
(ii)
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERROLD NADLER, New York
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
JOHN L. MICA, Florida MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
GARY G. MILLER, California GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
SAM GRAVES, Missouri TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
DUNCAN HUNTER, California ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas JANICE HAHN, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
BOB GIBBS, Ohio ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York DINA TITUS, Nevada
STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin, Vice ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
Chair LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
STEVE DAINES, Montana CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
TOM RICE, South Carolina NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma (Ex Officio)
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
(iii)
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
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80578.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80578.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80578.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80578.004
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 day-to-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 red-tape, we will realize the
economic and safety benefits of these projects much sooner.
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.]
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.
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 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 transportation 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 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.
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 differences 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 metropolitan 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 boundaries 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 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.
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 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.
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 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
fuel-efficient 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, recently 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 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.
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
re-evaluation. 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 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 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-size-fits-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.
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
support, 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 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.
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?
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?
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 cost-effectively? 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 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 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 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
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.
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
right-of-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
commenting 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.
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. 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 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.]