[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S IMPLEMENTATION OF
MAP-21 AND FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET REQUEST FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
=======================================================================
(113-59)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 12, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
87-049 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina
VACANCY
(ii)
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina Columbia
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
GARY G. MILLER, California MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
SAM GRAVES, Missouri MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
DUNCAN HUNTER, California TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana JANICE HAHN, California
BOB GIBBS, Ohio RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida DINA TITUS, Nevada
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin, Vice SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
Chair ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
STEVE DAINES, Montana LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
TOM RICE, South Carolina CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas (Ex Officio)
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Hon. Peter M. Rogoff, Acting Under Secretary for Policy, Office
of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation............ 4
Gregory G. Nadeau, Deputy Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration................................................. 4
Therese W. McMillan, Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit
Administration................................................. 4
Hon. Anne S. Ferro, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration................................................. 4
Hon. David Friedman, Acting Administrator, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.................................. 4
PREPARED STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED
BY WITNESSES
Hon. Peter M. Rogoff:
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Answers to questions for the record from Hon. Eleanor Holmes
Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the District of
Columbia................................................... 50
Gregory G. Nadeau:
Prepared statement........................................... 64
Answers to questions for the record from the following
Representatives:
Hon. Thomas E. Petri, of Wisconsin....................... 73
Hon. Sam Graves, of Missouri............................. 75
Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr., of Tennessee................... 76
Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, of California.................. 76
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, of Oregon......................... 78
Therese W. McMillan:
Prepared statement........................................... 81
Answers to questions for the record from Hon. John Garamendi,
a Representative in Congress from the State of California.. 89
Hon. Anne S. Ferro:
Prepared statement........................................... 90
Answers to questions for the record from the following
Representatives:
Hon. Thomas E. Petri, of Wisconsin....................... 96
Hon. Sam Graves, of Missouri............................. 100
Hon. David Friedman:
Prepared statement........................................... 101
Answers to questions for the record from the following
Representatives:
Hon. Bill Shuster, of Pennsylvania....................... 106
Hon. Thomas E. Petri, of Wisconsin....................... 106
Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr., of Tennessee................... 107
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Daphne Izer, founder, Parents Against Tired Truckers, and
Christina Mahaney; letter to Hon. Michael E. Michaud, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Maine, March 27,
2014........................................................... 109
National Congress of American Indians, written testimony......... 111
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S IMPLEMENTATION OF
MAP-21 AND FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET REQUEST FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 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 will focus on oversight of the U.S. Department of
Transportation's implementation of the Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century Act, better known as MAP-21, and
the President's budget year 2015 request.
MAP-21 was signed into law by the President on July 6,
2012, and authorizes the Federal Highway Transit and Highway
Safety Programs through September 30, 2014. I was pleased to
hear the Department intends to send a reauthorization proposal
to Congress some time in the near future. Reauthorizing these
programs is a priority for the committee, and we look forward
to reviewing the Department's proposals.
MAP-21 consolidated many Federal programs that were
duplicative or were not in the Federal interest. These changes
provide greater focus on the core national systems, and give
our non-Federal partners greater flexibility to meet their
transportation needs.
MAP-21 made major reforms and improvements to the project
delivery process. It currently could take almost 14 years for a
transportation project to be completed if Federal funding is
involved, which is clearly unacceptable. Some of the MAP-21
reforms include allowing Federal agencies to review projects
concurrently, penalties for agencies that don't meet project
review deadlines, and expanding categorical exclusions for
projects in the existing right of way, or with limited Federal
investment. These reforms will help cut bureaucratic red tape
and quickly deliver the economic and safety benefits of
transportation projects. The Department has started
implementing these project delivery provisions, and I look
forward to discussing their progress.
MAP-21 also increases transparency and accountability by
requiring States and transit agencies, in conjunction with
metropolitan planning organizations, to incorporate performance
targets into their long-term transportation plans. These
performance targets will help our non-Federal partners focus
their limited Federal resources on projects that have the
greatest benefit.
MAP-21 also creates a program to provide relief for public
transportation systems that were affected by a natural disaster
or catastrophic failure. Previously, transit agencies had to
work through FEMA to replace equipment or rebuild their systems
after a disaster. But after Katrina, transit agencies sought an
emergency program similar to the emergency relief program
operated by the Federal Highway Administration. This program
was utilized by the States and communities impacted by
Hurricane Sandy.
Numerous trucking safety provisions were included in MAP-
21, which reflects Congress' commitment to keeping truckers and
the traveling public safe. Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration is tasked with implementing new regulations on
electronic logging devices, hazardous material safety permits,
a drug and alcohol clearinghouse for commercial drivers, and
motor carrier registration requirements related to unsafe
reincarnated carriers. These regulations will keep drivers
safe, while maximizing the efficiency of the trucking industry.
Congress also recognized that new highway safety challenges
have emerged. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration is required 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 changes
made in MAP-21.
I look forward to hearing from the Department on the
progress it has made implementing the reforms that I have
highlighted, and others that were included in MAP-21.
March 5th, the President released his budget year 2015
request for the Department. The request also included the
administration's vision for a 4-year, $302 billion surface
transportation reauthorization bill.
I look forward to discussing the details of the budget
request.
And now I recognize our ranking member, Eleanor Holmes
Norton, for any opening statements she may wish to make.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I thank
you for this and the continuing series of very important
hearings that the committee and the subcommittee have been
holding on MAP-21, and I look forward to hearing from the
witnesses on the progress they are making on regulations under
MAP-21, and whatever information they can provide us on the
President's own proposal.
Mr. Chairman, the changes that we enacted in MAP-21 are
proving what I think we all recognized, and that is many years
to put in place to bring about the reforms, rather considerable
reforms and vision there. That was a policy-heavy
authorization. In contrast to 2 years of flat funding, in MAP-
21 we provided an administration with many years' worth of work
on regulation. So we haven't begun yet to understand the
implications, indeed, to even see many of the regulations, and
I think that is to be expected, given how substantial were the
policy changes in MAP-21.
Mr. Chairman, I am summarizing my testimony, and ask that
my full testimony--my full opening statement, rather, be put in
the record.
Gone are the days, I believe, when we can have 3-month
extensions or even 2-year bills. Secretary Foxx has been clear.
Warning is out there that we run out of money, even for this
flat 2-year bill, in August. And he will begin rationing for
what funds are left for the States some time this summer.
Mr. Chairman, I think that spells out c-r-i-s-i-s. I don't
see how that could be more clear, not even enough money to last
throughout this authorization period. If we do not address this
crisis now--and that is why this hearing is so important, and
why so grateful for this hearing--if we do not begin right now
to focus on what is a genuinely difficult problem, in fiscal
year 2015, DOT will shut its doors to any new projects, and
States will not be able to obligate any new Federal surface
transportation program funds. I wonder if that has ever
happened in the history of the United States before. I hope it
does not happen again.
I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that, were we
to act that irresponsibly, the impact on highway and transit
capital programs and transit operations across the country
would be an unmitigated disaster. Our challenges--these
challenges make it imperative that we begin working on
addressing the trust fund shortfall, and really developing a
new template for the trust fund now.
I am very encouraged that the administration has included
an outline of a surface transportation proposal for its fiscal
year 2015 budget. I look forward to seeing the details of that
proposal when it has been submitted to full to Congress. And I
am encouraged, because there are ideas that have been
forthcoming in both Democratic and Republican proposals and the
President's own outline, and I am hopeful that we will use his
proposal as a guidepost, as we seek a way to find funding for
an authorization which I trust will be at least 6 years.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for this important hearing.
And, above all, I am grateful to today's witnesses.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Today's panel consists of the
Honorable Peter M. Rogoff, Acting Under Secretary for Policy,
Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation; Mr.
Greg Nadeau, Deputy Administrator of the Federal Highway
Administration; Therese McMillan, Deputy Administrator of the
Federal Transit Administration; the Honorable Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; and
the Honorable David Friedman, Acting Administrator of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Welcome to all of you. Your full statements, with unanimous
consent, will be made a part of the record, without objection.
And we invite you to summarize them in approximately 15
minutes, beginning with Mr. Rogoff.
TESTIMONY OF HON. PETER M. ROGOFF, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY FOR
POLICY, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; GREGORY G. NADEAU, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR,
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION; THERESE W. MCMILLAN, DEPUTY
ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION; HON. ANNE S.
FERRO, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION; AND HON. DAVID FRIEDMAN, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR,
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Rogoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Norton,
members of the subcommittee, thanks for inviting me here today
to report on our progress in carrying out the MAP-21 law, and
to discuss our 2015 budget. I am joined here this morning by
the modal Administrators who will testify principally about
MAP-21 implementation. I will testify principally about the
administration's budget and our comprehensive reauthorization
plan.
Since the beginning of the Obama administration, the USDOT
has worked extensively to rebuild our Nation's infrastructure,
put Americans back to work, and improve efficiency in our
processes. Given the deteriorating condition of our Nation's
roadways, railways, and transit systems, continued robust
Federal investment is essential, and our underlying programs
supporting our investments require an overhaul.
The Highway Trust Fund will face insolvency by as soon as
this summer. Secretary Foxx and the entire USDOT team have been
sounding the alarm on this concern for some months now. The
Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund is likely to dip
below the critical $4 billion funding level as soon as July,
and the Transit Account will fall below $1 billion some time in
August. Absent action by Congress to replenish the trust fund,
USDOT will be required to implement cash management measures to
preserve a positive balance in the trust fund and head off
insolvency.
If the trust fund were to become insolvent, hundreds of
thousands of jobs across the Nation could be at risk, and our
ability to address the many road, rail, and transit needs in
every State will be severely impeded. We look forward to
partnering with you to avoid a catastrophic impact to
transportation construction activity in the middle of this
summer's construction season.
When it comes to our investment policies, MAP-21 started us
in the right direction. It repositioned programs, and it
reformed critical aspects of the way our infrastructure is
built, the way roads and bridges are maintained, and the way
projects are delivered. We believe, however, that more needs to
be done. Going forward, the administration will be proposing
further reforms through a $302 billion, 4-year transportation
reauthorization plan that provides substantially increased and
stable funding for our Nation's highways, bridges, transit, and
rail systems. The administration's plan is fully paid for
through existing revenue, and $150 billion in transition
revenue from pro-growth business tax reform.
Mr. Chairman, you stated in your opening statement that the
record of the duration that projects take from beginning to end
is unacceptable, and the administration agrees. Our
reauthorization plan will deliver major projects more
efficiently by advancing policies to facilitate the President's
stated goal of reducing the permitting and approval time for
major infrastructure projects in half, all while creating
incentives for better outcomes for communities and the
environment.
Our plan will increase capacity to move people and freight,
which is absolutely critical, when you consider that, by the
year 2050, our country will experience an increase of over 100
million residents. This effort includes a new $10 billion
initiative over 4 years, dedicated solely to improving critical
freight connections. The program will encourage improved State
and regional planning around critical freight corridors. It
will also give shippers and truck and rail industry
representatives a meaningful role in crafting investment
decisions in partnership with State and local governments.
The plan will also ensure that we focus on fixing it first,
improving the safety and performance of our existing
infrastructure. This effort includes a new program aimed at
repairing structurally deficient Interstate Highway System
bridges, improving safety on rural roads, and supporting a
state of good repair on the National Highway System.
Our plan will also better connect Americans in both urban
and rural communities by investing in transportation projects
that better serve centers of employment, education, and
essential services. This effort includes more than $2 billion
over 4 years for a new rapid-growth area transit program that
will link people to jobs and educational opportunities in fast-
growing areas across the country. And the plan will create more
resilient communities by promoting smarter transportation
planning to reduce fuel use, conserve energy, and build for the
challenges of the future.
In the coming weeks, the administration will formally
transmit a legislative proposal to Congress to provide the
programmatic details behind each one of these plans. And when
the bill is transmitted, Mr. Chairman, we sincerely hope that
the committee will invite the Department back to discuss them
in full.
We look forward to working closely with this subcommittee
as we build on the reforms contained in MAP-21 to bring
infrastructure improvements to Americans in a faster, better,
and smarter way. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you today.
I look forward to answering your questions, when all the
testimony is complete. Thank you.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Nadeau.
Mr. Nadeau. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Norton,
members of the subcommittee, for the invitation to appear
before you today to discuss the President's fiscal year 2015
budget request, and the Federal Highway Administration's
continued progress in implementing MAP-21.
MAP-21 made changes aimed at improving safety, rebuilding
highways and bridges, expanding TIFIA credit assistance for
major infrastructure projects, focusing on freight policy,
accelerating project delivery, and moving toward a more
performance-based driven system. Building on the reforms in
MAP-21, President Obama recently proposed a budget for the next
fiscal year and laid out his vision for a 4-year surface
transportation authorization that will strengthen these and
other priorities even further.
MAP-21's infusion of performance-based planning and
programming into State and MPO investment decisionmaking will
go a long way to help preserve and improve our surface
transportation assets. We should seek to build on these efforts
in the next authorization. I am pleased to report that
yesterday the Federal Highway Administration published the
first of our rulemakings seeking public comment on the safety-
related performance measures.
The President's plan will also allow us to build on the
successes in MAP-21 in accelerating project delivery by
implementing new policies and procedures that will move USDOT
and our Federal partners toward fulfilling the President's
stated goal of reducing the permitting and approval time for
major infrastructure projects by half. This has long been a
priority area for the Federal Highway Administration, and we
will continue to pursue our Every Day Counts, or EDC, as we
know it, initiatives to demonstrate real savings of time and
cost around the country, resulting directly from the deployment
of technological and procedural innovation. Importantly, EDC is
a partnership with State and local agencies and the private
sector: important because they deliver the projects.
Many of our successes in shortening project delivery and
increased awareness of the innovations promoted under EDC are
recognized throughout MAP-21. For example, Congress authorized
for use on federally funded highway projects the once-
experimental Construction Manager/General Contractor project
delivery method that has been promoted under EDC. Other
examples are included in my written testimony.
Moving beyond MAP-21, we believe that the next
authorization must be comprehensive and should continue the
focus on safety, freight, streamlined project delivery, and
enhanced performance management, while increasing our
investment in multimodal freight projects, and doing more to
connect communities to centers of employment, education, and
service.
The President's 2015 budget proposes a 4-year authorization
and requests $48.6 billion for the Federal Highway
Administration in fiscal year 2015 to maintain and improve the
safety, condition, and performance of our national highway
infrastructure and enable the Federal Highway Administration to
provide effective stewardship and oversight of highway programs
and funding. The President's budget not only fills the looming
shortfall in the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund for
the next 4 years, it provides for sizable growth in highway
investment--a boost of approximately 20 percent to help us
address the many critical needs we have across the national
highway network.
Thank you again for the invitation to appear before you
today, and I look forward to continued work with you and your
staff as we build on the reforms in MAP-21 and move toward a
new surface transportation authorization. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Ms. McMillan.
Ms. McMillan. Chairman Petri and members of the committee,
thank you for inviting me to discuss the Federal Transit
Administration's progress implementing MAP-21, and the
administration's priorities for next year's budget and the
upcoming reauthorization.
MAP-21 codifies some of President Obama's highest
priorities for strengthening the Nation's public transportation
systems at a time when transit ridership is at its highest
level since 1956, with almost 10.7 billion trips taken in 2013,
according to APTA's latest figures. I am proud of the progress
we have made on the issues that are important to our riders and
to us, particularly given the challenge of the 2-year timeframe
in addressing its provisions.
For example, at a time when our Nation faces a serious $86
billion transportation infrastructure deficit for transit, MAP-
21 creates a needs-based state-of-good-repair formula program
for fixed guideways. We are in the process of establishing a
national transit asset management system to ensure that all of
our grantees adopt a strategic and individual approach for
managing their capital, and will hold them accountable for
leveraging all available resources to bring their systems into
a state of good repair.
We are reviewing comments on our landmark advanced notice
of proposed rulemaking issued last fall, emphasizing the need
for asset management and safety to go hand in hand. We are also
working closely with State safety oversight agencies to help
get them on course to put a stronger and more consistent safety
oversight regime in place. I assure you we remain sensitive to
concerns about how we implement our new authority in the safety
arena. This is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
We have also made strides under MAP-21 to help our grant
programs work better and make better use of taxpayer dollars,
issuing new regulations and guidance to accelerate project
delivery, streamline the NEPA process, and help our communities
build the transit systems they need more quickly and
efficiently.
MAP-21 has set us on a right path, but there is much more
to be done. As President Obama said recently, ``In today's
global economy, first-class jobs gravitate to first-class
infrastructure.'' That is why the President is seeking a 63-
percent increase in FTA's budget for next year over this year's
enacted level. That would provide us an additional $6.8 billion
to strengthen transit safety oversight, build our Nation's bus
and rail transit infrastructure into a state of good repair,
and provide new and expanded transit systems in many
communities.
Our request includes $2.5 billion to support construction
of major capital rail and bus projects around the Nation, and
bring relief to existing transit corridors that are at or near
capacity. These projects create thousands of good jobs, and
give communities the transportation choices to access jobs,
education, health care, and other vital services.
I would also highlight we are seeking nearly $14 billion in
formula funds to help our grantees get the job done right,
including $5.1 billion in increases above our currently funding
level to support strategic fix-it-first investments, bring our
Nation's rail transit infrastructure into a state of good
repair, and replace aging buses that have, literally, logged in
millions of miles.
We also recognize how important transit has become in rural
communities and on our tribal lands, where there are now more
than 1,400 operators providing more than 140 million trips,
annually. We are seeking over $600 million to support that
demand in communities.
Finally, I would note we are seeking $60 million for
research and training activities, including significant funds
to support workers looking to find jobs in the transportation
sector. All of this is an integral part of the President's
robust 4-year, $302 billion reauthorization package, and that
will support the Nation's surface transportation systems,
including public transit.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I am happy
to answer any questions.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Administrator Ferro.
Ms. Ferro. Thank you, Chairman Petri, Ranking Member
Norton, and members of the subcommittee. Appreciate the
opportunity to explain FMCSA's--the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration's--implementation of MAP-21 requirements,
as well as some highlights on our fiscal year 2015 budget.
DOT's top priority is safety. And, for FMCSA, it was very
exciting to see MAP-21 support the safety framework in which
FMCSA has been driving forward to make safety gains in further
reducing crashes involving commercial motor vehicles on our
highways. That framework that really is outlined very well in
MAP-21 consists of raising the bar to safety to come into this
industry; ensuring once you are operating in the industry, that
you are maintaining high safety standards to stay there; and
using all the tools at our disposal to get the high-risk
companies and drivers and service providers off the road to
either get better or get out of the business.
And so, when it comes to MAP-21, MAP-21 really advanced
some key priorities in that regard. To date, we have already
implemented more than half of the new rulemaking requirements
that MAP-21 incorporated, which number almost up to 40, and,
cutting right to the chase, right out of the box, we
implemented new rules that put in place some exemptions for
certain types of agricultural operators and agricultural
vehicles, exemptions from some of the core safety requirements,
and we put in place new mandates on financial security for
brokers and freight forwarders.
I am very excited to say that a month ago we issued and
published a notice of proposed rulemaking for the first-ever
drug and alcohol clearinghouse. And just yesterday, I got the
word from OMB that they have completed their review of a high-
priority rule known as Electronic Logging Devices, and we will
be publishing that supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
in no time, imminently.
MAP-21 also included some new enforcement authorities to
help us with our crackdown on high-risk motorcoach companies.
We have been very aggressive and--concerning motorcoach
companies, and incorporated those new tools and enhanced
training that we have already deployed across at least half of
our investigators as of this date, and will complete training
before the end of this year, as they proceed to focus on the
highest risk bus and truck companies.
And then, lastly, on MAP-21, we have underway both
listening sessions, as well as building the framework for rules
that will require testing prior to getting the authority for
any new applicant for interstate operating authority--any new
applicant, as in a company: bus, truck, motorcoach, household
goods, hazmat. And so that new entrant testing, part of MAP-21,
we have held several listening sessions on. We have a few more
to go. And that will help us set the framework for the rule.
And we are actively working on strategies to move forward with
a rulemaking on entry-level driver training for commercial
drivers.
With regard to the President's fiscal year 2015 budget
request of $669 million for FMCSA, not quite half of--about
$315 million will support FMCSA's safety enforcement work, and
allow us to implement some of the other operating requirements
of MAP-21 that accelerates our review of new entrants into the
industry. The other half, a little more than half, will go to
States in the form of grants, again, to further enhance motor
carrier safety enforcement through roadside inspections.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks, and thank you,
again, for the opportunity to talk about those key initiatives.
Mr. Petri. Thank you.
Mr. Friedman.
Mr. Friedman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Norton and all the members of the subcommittee. I truly
appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. And I
would also like to thank each and every one of you on this
committee for your efforts on MAP-21. I look forward to working
with you to strengthen highway safety through a comprehensive,
4-year reauthorization of our surface transportation programs,
as the President has proposed.
Now, NHTSA takes tremendous pride in our nearly five-
decade-long record of protecting Americans by partnering with
the States and--to enforce strong highway safety laws, and by
working to make vehicles safer. Since 1970, highway fatalities
have declined by 36 percent, and they have fallen by 22 percent
in just the last decade. But we also have to face the reality
of where the numbers are today. There are more than 30,000
fatalities on America's roadways each year. We must continue to
look for--at new and innovative ways to save lives, while
continuing to support education and enforcement efforts that we
know deliver results.
The administration does continue, as Administrator Ferro
noted, to place safety at the forefront of all that the
Department does. And the President's budget request continues
our efforts to save lives, reduce injuries, and lower the cost
of crashes. States are a vital partner in these efforts. And
that is why, as part of the budget, we are requesting $577
million for highway traffic safety grants. Implementing MAP-21
has been a major priority for NHTSA. The agency issued an
interim final rule to expedite guidance to the States as
quickly as possible. We want to get the money out and get it
doing the good work that it is intended to do, as fast as
possible. So, we continue to work with States to help them
access those resources under MAP-21, and to put them to good
use.
Now I would like to briefly discuss a few of our
priorities, as they are related to MAP-21. First of all,
seatbelts. Seatbelts remain one of the single most effective
ways to reduce deaths and injuries. And seatbelt usage is on
the rise in our Nation. And that is great news. But I do need
to emphasize that seatbelt use continues to be higher in States
with primary belt laws.
We are also working to address the issue of the epidemic of
drunk driving, where more than 10,000 Americans lose their
lives in completely avoidable crashes. We must make more
progress on this critical issue.
NHTSA is also very concerned about the upper trends in
pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities. As Americans spend more
and more time walking and cycling, we must bring new resources
and proven strategies to bear to better protect them. We are
working with the States, for example, to develop new
performance metrics on bicycles, so that we can be targeting
the resources where they need to go to affect and improve the
issue of bicycle fatalities. Bicycle and pedestrian fatalities
are a priority of Secretary Foxx, so you can expect to see our
efforts in these areas continue to grow.
Now, we have also worked very hard to help older Americans
maintain their mobility safely. Older drivers are safer
drivers, on average. But they are more likely to suffer serious
injuries if involved in a crash. And so, it is important that
we continue to look for ways to mitigate those risks.
Now, in addition to NHTSA's traditional enforcement
efforts, we are also looking to vehicle technologies for ways
to save lives. The President's budget request supports NHTSA's
plan to expand the agency's focus on technology. Advanced
safety technologies such as vehicle-to-vehicle communications
and automated vehicles can help drivers avoid crashes in the
first place. Advances in technology are also providing new
comforts and amenities for drivers and passengers. Our goal at
NHTSA is for drivers and passengers to usher in and be able to
access new technologies, while filtering out new distractions.
We will continue those efforts to work with the industry and to
work to minimize these distractions.
Now, in all of our work, President Obama and Secretary Foxx
have emphasized the need to be efficient with limited budgetary
resources. To that end, NHTSA has strengthened its budgetary
oversight to ensure that taxpayer resources are effectively
managed and appropriately invested to save lives.
Now, to conclude, and, frankly, with apologies to my DOT
colleagues, I want to close by noting that I don't think that
you will ever find a workforce more passionately invested in
its mission to save lives than you will find at NHTSA. NHTSA's
commitment to protecting the American people never wavers.
Thank you again, members of the committee, Mr. Chairman,
for the opportunity to testify, and I am happy to take any
questions you may have.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Thank you all for your summaries of
your--and your complete statements will be made a part of the
record.
I have a couple of questions. Mr. Friedman, one thing that
is worth mentioning is that, obviously, safety is number one,
and we want to be vigilant and keep making improvement, but
there has been quite a success story there, in the sense that
the number of fatalities on the Nation's highways has been
tending downward for a number of years now. And it used to be
in the 40,000 to 50,000 range, and it is now in the 30,000 to
20,000 range.
And I think the percentage of accidents that are due to
human mistakes or peccadillos of one sort or another, as
opposed to mechanical failures, as--there has been a
significant improvement in the--by the auto industry and
trucking industry in trying to build more safety into vehicles,
and give people more of a margin for error. And that is
continuing with autonomous vehicle technology that is rolling
out, and the like, and it is--we are, in Government, doing
something. But in the private sector, they are actually doing
quite a lot that has been very effective, as well.
And it is worth acknowledging, that it is saving lives. And
we should focus on success, as well as failures, I think,
because that--people like to know that they are getting
somewhere, and not just being frustrated.
But my question is that NHTSA funded the National Roadside
Survey of Alcohol and Drugged Drivers in 2013, and we have been
hearing from citizens who encountered this survey while
driving, and who believe they were pulled over by law
enforcement, subjected to breath saliva and blood samples. And
since the survey hires law enforcement officers to direct
traffic--and I guess they are often in their uniforms--it could
appear to a motorist that they were entering into a DUI
checkpoint or some sort of involuntary Government search
regime.
And I am certainly supportive of research on drunk and
drugged driving, but I am concerned that motorists who
encounter these surveys are not properly informed that the
survey is voluntary. And we are increasingly living in a
society where people are worrying about Big Brother and
Government overstepping its bounds in a number of different
areas, and I think we need to be sensitive to that.
So, my question is, how is NHTSA addressing these concerns?
And what procedures does NHTSA require in order to inform the
motorists that the survey is voluntary?
Mr. Friedman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And,
quickly, relative to your first point, we look at improving
safety as a partnership. It is a partnership with the States,
it is a partnership with Congress, and it is a partnership with
industry. We need everyone moving forward, and we have made
tremendous progress in reducing highway fatalities. Our goal is
to make a lot more.
In regards to the roadside survey, it has definitely gotten
a lot of attention. This is a very important program. It is a
voluntary program. When drivers approach these sites, the very
first thing that they see is a very large orange sign with the
words ``Paid Voluntary Survey.'' That is their very first
indication that this is a voluntary survey.
In many cases, they can be waved into the survey site by
police officers. Those police officers are there because our
priority is safety. The job of those police officers is to
ensure the safety of the participants, to ensure the safety of
the researchers, because while we are gathering this data we
need to make sure that everyone is safe. And when the driver
enters the site, they are told very clearly, in a very strict
protocol by the researchers, that this is voluntary. They are
given the opportunity to drive away. In fact, when drivers
first see this orange sign, about a quarter of them drive
through.
It is also important to note this is a voluntary survey. It
collects anonymous data, purely targeted at alcohol and drug
use among drivers. I believe we have taken every effort to make
sure that that is clear. In fact, we are taking additional
efforts. For example, removing the initial use of an air
sampler to test the level of alcohol on people's breath to
ensure that we get their consent first, before gathering any
data.
Mr. Petri. Well, the next time you do one of these, or next
couple times, I don't know if you or some in your Department
could quietly and anonymously just drive down the road and see
if all these procedures work, and go through the experience
without letting--not an official inspection, but--because
sometimes you put things on paper, but in reality people follow
the path of least resistance, and it is--you know, the public
is--clearly, we are hearing from them. They are concerned about
this.
Mr. Friedman. And I understand those concerns. And we have
continued to take those concerns very seriously. And we have
sent staff out to these sites, and we regularly audit to make
sure that all these policies and procedures are moving forward.
We make sure to get the cooperation of the States, as we move
forward, as well as local law enforcement, to ensure that
everyone is informed, and safety is protected in these
voluntary and anonymous surveys. Thank you.
Mr. Petri. I have one other quick question. Ms. Ferro, some
of my constituents have expressed their frustration with
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's safety
measurement system. Roadside inspection violation data was
erroneously issued by an enforcement officer, was later
challenged in court, and the violation was dismissed. My
constituent submitted an appeal of the dismissed violation
through the DataQ's System, but the officer that issued the
violation declined to repeal the violation for the SMS.
These scores are having real-world impacts on the carriers'
ability to find business, and erroneous violations could put a
carrier out of business. So if it is not a valid
administration--a violation, why is it not being removed? And
how is this issue being addressed?
Ms. Ferro. Mr. Chairman, at the heart of that issue has
been a question about fairness. And so, we have examined--we
have spoken with a lot of companies and drivers about the
issue. We have heard a lot of recommendations.
And so, late last year, we put together an issue--published
a notice for comment on a new approach to that very issue. And
that new approach would establish, in the case where a State
charge is issued at the same time as a Federal violation on a
safety issue in a roadside inspection, if that State charge is
dismissed, the violation points would also be removed from that
SMS system. If the violation--if the State charge is
downgraded, we would make sure the record is noted that that
charge has been downgraded.
And so, we are wrapping up--we received a lot of comments.
It closed in January, we are wrapping that up, and we expect to
proceed, we think, with a better approach that actually will
likely address the concern that you raised.
Mr. Petri. Mr. DeFazio?
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To Mr. Rogoff, you
mentioned in your testimony $4 billion funding level as soon as
July for the Highway Account, and one for August, and then you
talked about implementing procedures to preserve solvency. How
soon do you think will you start adjusting downward, paring
back, delaying? I am not sure how you are going to do it,
reimbursements to States and local agencies. And what form do
you think it will take?
Mr. Rogoff. Well, Mr. DeFazio, I cited those specific
thresholds, $4 billion for the Highway Account, and $1 billion
as the Transit Account is sort of when our first alarm goes
off.
Mr. DeFazio. So you are going to go up to that point?
Mr. Rogoff. We will. But, you know, we know what--when it
is coming with increasing certainty with each passing month, as
we see the Treasury reports of receipts versus expenditures.
I think, importantly, with the re-estimate that comes with
the submission of the budget, frankly, the trajectory for the
Highway Account has actually worsened, and--which has us very
concerned about this coming summer.
The procedures that we use are effectively delaying
reimbursement. Both of these programs work on a reimbursable
basis. And we normally reimburse a grantee anywhere from within
a matter of hours to, generally, no more than a day-and-a-half.
That allows them to not have to float cash, if you will, to the
Federal Government.
Mr. DeFazio. Sure. So what are we looking at?
Mr. Rogoff. And so, certainly--but our biggest concern is,
absent action to rectify this problem, the States and the
transit agencies are going to start revisiting their investment
decisions a lot sooner than that.
Mr. DeFazio. Right.
Mr. Rogoff. So, while we will, you know, start implementing
cash management procedures as we trickle down below $4 billion
and below $1 billion, we are concerned that we will see a slow-
down before that that will impact employment.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. I believe Kansas has already
announced--at least one State--and I have got a letter from
Oregon Department of Transportation. They are looking more at
the next fiscal year. But I would assume that many States will
follow, and we could see a slow-down.
The--I am just curious. The administration has put forward
a proposal with illusory corporate tax reform, which won't
happen this year. We are going to pay for the trust fund. Do
you have a backup plan? Because I have personally presented to
the President, presented to your predecessor, presented to the
current Secretary--I mean not your predecessor, to Ray LaHood,
current Secretary, a simple idea. Now, as I drove to work on
Friday, and I came home, gas had gone up a nickel a gallon. Was
I outraged? Did I scream and yell? Did I pound? No, I expect
it. OK?
Well, what if 1.4 cents of that had gone to rebuild our
infrastructure? Simple proposal. Index the current user fee gas
tax to construction cost inflation, fleet fuel economy. We have
run the numbers, your department ran the numbers. It is about
1.4, 1.7 cents a gallon per year. I don't think anybody is
going to get unelected because of that, even though there is a
lot of tax aversion around here. And use that projected cash
flow for bonding to backfill the trust fund.
We have an unprecedented problem. We could raise the tax a
dime today. You would still have this cash flow problem,
because it is the trust fund balance that we are worried about.
I mean is the administration looking at--will they consider
a realistic backup plan like mine, which I believe could work,
and is, you know, based in history, which is it is a user fee-
funded program?
Mr. Rogoff. Mr. DeFazio, the administration has made
clear--the President, the Secretary, on down--that we are open-
minded to any alternatives that people want to put on the table
that help solve--
Mr. DeFazio. I know, but I put it on the table now for 4
years. You first--you know, you killed my reauthorization--not
you, but the administration, because they were scared to death
of revenues of any sort. Now they have got an illusory, fake--
you know, I mean, it is great. Yes, corporate tax reform is
going to pay for everything in America. It is not going to
happen. Not going to happen----
Mr. Rogoff. I am not going to buy into the notion that they
are illusory. I mean we----
Mr. DeFazio. Right. No, that is--Mr. Rogoff, that is fine.
But my point is this is a real proposal. It is real. It is
based in history. It is only 1.4, 1.7 cents a gallon, you know?
I can go to the most conservative parts of my district, tell
people what I am going to build with this, who I am going to
put to work, and say, you know, ``Will you support that?'' and
the answer is people are not going to be outraged, except for a
few idiots.
Mr. Rogoff. Sir, we have made very clear--what the
Secretary has said repeatedly in the last few weeks in
discussions with Members is that right now we have a proposal,
Mr. Camp has a proposal, there are other proposals out there--
--
Mr. DeFazio. Right.
Mr. Rogoff [continuing]. Including yours, including----
Mr. DeFazio. OK. That is good, thank you.
Quick question, Ms. Ferro. I just want to know. You were
conducting an ongoing study, as I understand it, of detention
time issues and what the impact is on drivers and et cetera.
Where are we at on that?
Ms. Ferro. The agency is continuing with the second phase
of the detention study, so that we can analyze the final link
between detention time and safety outcomes.
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Ms. Ferro. Expect those to be done in 2015. I am very eager
to see it done. Detention time is really impactful on drivers,
on driver safety, and, frankly, wastes almost $4 billion in
industry efficiency. So, thank you for the question.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Mr. Crawford?
Mr. Crawford. Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After
enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in
2009, the Department of Transportation undertook a major effort
to publicize the status and impact of these funds. It is my
understanding both the Federal Transit Administration and the
Federal Highway Administration included substantial
information, including sometimes weekly State-specific reports
on their Web sites to detail for the public the progress in
utilizing these funds.
There is a provision in MAP-21, section 1503, entitled,
``Transparency and Accountability,'' that basically directs the
Department of Transportation to do for the core highway and
public transportation program investments what it did for the
Recovery Act highway and transit funds. We have a lot of people
in our country who question the value of Federal transportation
investment.
It seems to me it would be a good idea to--place to start
in answering this question is showing them how each State
benefits from these funds. It also seems that you thought this
was a pretty good idea for a strategy for Recovery Act funds.
So, my question, then, for Mr. Rogoff and Mr. Nadeau, is
there a substantive reason why the Department has not been
providing the American people with the specifics of how core
highway and transit program funds are used in a timely manner,
pursuant to this provision of MAP-21, as you did with stimulus
funds?
Mr. Nadeau. Thank you, Congressman. First, I want you to
know we have been diligently working on this requirement, and
expect to post a detailed report on the web, and issue the
summary report to Congress by late spring.
Consistent with similar financial reports and requirements
of MAP-21, the software development was timed to ensure that we
have 1 year of data available for the report. The scale of this
particular report--for example, if you look at the report on
ARRA, we are talking about a universe of about 12,000 or 13,000
projects. This is a universe of in excess of 100,000 projects.
So, it simply is a larger task, and we are approaching it as
aggressively as we possibly can. But that is the expectation of
time, with respect to delivering that product. And our
commitment is to make it of high quality, so it will be useful
certainly to you and Congress and the American people.
Mr. Rogoff. Mr. Crawford, could I just add to that? We
agree that greater transparency of where the Federal aid
highway funds are going by project is very useful. I think, as
Members who are voting and authorizing these projects, you
should know precisely where the dollars are going, project by
project. We would like to know, ourselves.
Secretary Foxx, as a former mayor, I could tell you is--was
curious, as a mayor in North Carolina, where all of North
Carolina's dollars were going by project, and couldn't always
get the information he wanted, either. We are standing up that
capability.
You drew a distinction between the Recovery Act and our
regular program. The Recovery Act had reporting requirements in
it, in statute, that gave us all of this additional
information. That was not carried over to the Federal aid
program. And we are not necessarily recommending that it be so,
because it was really quite an administrative burden on the
grantees. But, that said, we are working to get project-by-
project data, and we are as interested in it as you are.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate it, and
yield back.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing today.
You know, I was very pleased to hear that Chairman Shuster
is looking forward to addressing the freight mobility as one of
his priorities for the bill. And I am happy to see the
administration is also interested in that.
I have a concern where--will the proposal attempt to
address the concerns of large projects that are in different
States that are relatively flat-funded formula? Is that going
to be addressed? Because they tend to fare less than the other
projects.
Mr. Rogoff. Well, if I could, the administration's proposal
for a freight program--and I think this, like a number of other
questions, we are going to be somewhat constrained to provide
great details until the bill is submitted. But I could tell you
that we are specifically looking at multistate corridor
projects and those larger projects. We are using incentive
grants to encourage multistate cooperation, because many of
these, when you look at these economic centers, especially in
your region, they cross State lines very quickly. But also, to
have a discretionary component so we could provide a sizable-
enough grant to buy down some of those major game-changing
freight projects.
Mr. Sires. Thank you. I want to address the issue of
safety. In my district we are kind of unique. We have these
jitney buses, and they are a real headache. I mean we had last
year an accident where one of the jitney buses, the driver was
from New York driving in New Jersey, he lost control of the
jitney bus, hit a carriage, killed the baby that was in the
carriage, and everybody was outraged, obviously. Do--you know,
obviously.
I just want to know. What more can the Federal Government
do, in coordination with the States, to make sure that these
jitney buses are licensed, that they are inspected, and that
they are meeting the law? Because this fellow that was
driving----
Ms. Ferro. Horrible.
Mr. Sires [continuing]. Basically had nothing. They even
think he was texting as he was driving. So I was just wondering
if you intend to focus more on that, because it is an
increasing problem, especially in urban areas where transit
companies are pulling their buses, and these jitney buses are
coming in and filling in the gap.
Ms. Ferro. Congressman, I--thanks to your concern and your
focus on this issue, we have had a very good partnership with
jurisdictional law enforcement in the areas where the jitneys
are operating in New Jersey, up in New York, as well as with
our State partners in New Jersey and our division office. And
they have had some very effective sting operations and strike
forces that have absolutely raised the attention of the jitney
industry.
We have followed in with additional investigations. But at
the heart of this, and the heart of your question is, what
resources can we devote to this issue to really press forward
and complete that--this kind of safety outcome we are all
driving towards?
Our fiscal year 2015 budget does include a request for 77
positions, the vast majority of which are for the field for
safety enforcement work relating to our motorcoach enforcement
efforts. We have a very focused and targeted motorcoach strike
force initiative underway that we launched last year that has
absolutely identified the highest risk motorcoach companies,
and we have taken very aggressive action. But it is something
that we put out there as a test to figure out what we needed to
really get to one level of safety for all passengers,
regardless of which bus they choose to use.
And so, the gap analysis on that initiative demonstrates
the need for additional resources that are incorporated in our
2015 budget. But we will keep pressing forward on a partnership
that I outlined in the initial part of my response.
Mr. Sires. Are the State of New York and New Jersey
cooperating fully with your efforts?
Ms. Ferro. Yes, we have had a very good cooperation, in
fact, between New York and New Jersey on our motorcoach work,
the whole I-95 corridor. So the answer is yes.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Mr. Barletta?
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Specifically, my
question relates to triple-trailer trucks. Triples can be as
long as 110 feet, and weigh as much as more than 120,000
pounds. On the other hand, a car is roughly 16 feet long, and
weighs less than 4,000 pounds. And, personally, these triples
scare me. And most drivers don't want to share the roads with
them.
In 2000, a USDOT study found that multitrailer trucks have
an 11 percent higher fatal crash rate than single-trailer
trucks. The study said that this finding was significant, in
terms of the debate about the safety of LCVs. This study was
based on national data. Mr. Rogoff, are you familiar with this
finding?
Mr. Rogoff. I am.
Mr. Barletta. Are you including it in your study findings?
Mr. Rogoff. As it relates--if you would--if you would be
agreeable, Mr. Barletta, I am going to let Mr. Nadeau take the
question specifically about the weight and size study.
Mr. Nadeau. Thank you, Peter. Mr. Barletta, there are a
number of configurations including the study of triples. And
that will be thoroughly examined, with respect to impact on
infrastructure and impact----
Mr. Barletta. So it will be included in the study findings.
Will you be updating the findings for the current study?
Mr. Nadeau. Well, what I am referring to is the current
study, which is, by direction of MAP-21, due to Congress by
November of this year. And that work is presently going on. A
number of groups that we have assembled are analyzing various
elements of----
Mr. Barletta. So it will be including the information from
the 2000 study and updating current----
Mr. Nadeau. The study is completely comprehensive, and does
focus in large part on current literature, historical
literature, and applied research. So----
Mr. Barletta. Good.
Mr. Nadeau [continuing]. Across the board, sir.
Mr. Barletta. Good. Thank you. Administrator Ferro, a
recent GAO study found significant flaws in CSA, and the
program continues to label safe carriers as unsafe within the
trucking marketplace. Now, your budget requests millions to fix
the system's algorithms. Since your budget priorities seem to
suggest that you recognize the problems associated with CSA,
why isn't FMCSA doing the right thing and pulling those scores
off the public Web site until CSA is fixed?
Ms. Ferro. Congressman, thank you for that question. The
CSA program, Compliance, Safety, Accountability program, is at
the core of our enforcement platform, and it really builds on
work we did a decade ago that we used to call SafeStat. Again,
it used certain inspection and investigation data to identify
the highest risk companies. CSA really built upon that to
utilize our full suite of inspection data, investigation data,
to help not just FMCSA prioritize the highest risk companies--
and the program does--but also help companies themselves
identify more quickly where they may have a safety issue and
address it, so that they can continue operating and put safety
as a key part of their bottom line.
With regard to program critiques, program analysis from
GAO, you know, at the heart of GAO's analysis they identify
some areas of improvement that we are committed to do, as I
have been from the moment we rolled this program out in 2010.
It has got to be a continuous improvement effort. We have got
to make full use of our data. And we absolutely owe it to the
public to help prevent crashes, not wait for them to occur and
then go ahead and look at the company. The GAO study, one of
their core recommendations is to do just what I said: wait
until the crash occurs and, by the way, just look at the larger
companies.
Now, we have 500,000 companies, the vast majority of which
are 10 trucks or fewer. So it is very important that we
incorporate all the safety data into our analysis and use that
analysis to anticipate a crash, get to that company ahead of
time with an intervention, and help them avoid that crash and
that fatality. But rest assured, we are committed to
incorporate improvements that are recommended through the kinds
of analysis that you referenced.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Petri. Ms. Hahn?
Ms. Hahn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to address
my question to Mr. Nadeau. So, as you probably know, Los
Angeles puts a lot of our own money into funding transportation
projects. Most recently in 2008, voters of L.A. County approved
Measure R, which was a half-cent sales tax that will raise $40
billion over the next 30 years for road and transit projects.
So, we came up with the concept of America Fast Forward.
Instead of waiting 30 years using tax revenue to build these
projects, we thought it was a smarter idea to have the Federal
Government kind of frontload those projects, with the
guaranteed return of the revenue over 30 years. Part of America
Fast Forward was advancing the expansion of TIFIA program,
which was successfully adopted into MAP-21.
This expansion was seen as having the potential to speed up
the construction of a number of large, critical programs that
weren't approved under the previous TIFIA program, which had
smaller lending authority. States and localities all across
this country are depending on the favorable term rates of TIFIA
to revolutionize the way they finance infrastructure projects.
Fortunately, we heard testimony during this subcommittee's
last roundtable discussion that mentioned, despite the
substantial increase in loan authority, DOT's approval of TIFIA
loans was still incredibly slow, and the pace of approval for
TIFIA projects was no faster than it was before this expansion.
So, particularly in L.A. County, we are concerned on doing a
better job of approving these.
Give you a shout out that we were informed that DOT--that
TIFIA sent a letter to the Gerald Desmond Bridge replacement
project in Long Beach, inviting them to apply for a TIFIA loan,
which could provide up to $300 million for the project. But
want to know what you are doing to increase the rate at which
your office approves these loans. That is what is going to be
critical as we move forward to invest in our country's
infrastructure.
Mr. Rogoff. Congresswoman, Hahn, if it is OK, I am going to
take that question.
Ms. Hahn. OK.
Mr. Rogoff. We have always been very impressed, and hold
out, obviously, Measure R as sort of a national model on how--
when the local voters step up and decide to invest in
themselves, that the Federal Government should both applaud and
help that, and magnify that investment.
I believe we have actually been rather successful in the
following respect in making the TIFIA loans happen for L.A. in
a timely manner, in that we have been able to, for the first
time, get the Federal Transit Administration and the TIFIA
program sort of working hand-in-glove, so when we were ready to
sign a full-funding grant agreement for the regional connector,
the TIFIA loan was ready to go. When we were ready to sign a
full-funding grant agreement for the West Side Subway, the
TIFIA grant is ready to go.
Now, I think it is important to remember. We are working--
and I know our chief financial officer, Sylvia Garcia, is
working on this. But it is also important to remember that
TIFIA loans are not like pack-n-play, one size, they are all
identical. In fact, every one of them--I believe there is
probably no two deals that are identical. Each borrower has a
different creditworthiness profile. Each loan has to be
negotiated separately. Maybe we will get to a point where we
could do these on a kind of more formatted basis.
But in order to protect the taxpayer interest, we do need
to make sure--now, we will do well. We are getting, you know--
--
Ms. Hahn. You are saying--the testimony that we heard last
roundtable that--the approval was still incredibly slow, and it
has really been no faster than----
Mr. Rogoff. Well, we share the----
Ms. Hahn. Yes.
Mr. Rogoff. We share the frustration----
Ms. Hahn. So I guess my question is, what are you doing
to----
Mr. Rogoff. We are reviewing----
Ms. Hahn [continuing]. Even so that we are----
Mr. Rogoff [continuing]. The processes. We are looking at
the creditworthiness reviews. We are looking at--again, but one
of the challenges we have, we want to make things go more
quickly, also. We are asking for $4 billion over 4 years for
TIFIA, so we greatly applaud the expansion of the program that
began under----
Ms. Hahn. So what are you doing to increase the rate----
Mr. Rogoff. We are specifically looking at the process by
which we put each borrower through, in terms of the multiple
steps, and seeing if that can be streamlined. Our challenge
comes when each borrower wants a slightly different deal,
because then we need to go and do our due diligence on their
payback ability for that deal.
Now, we--the Secretary was just in New York, talking to
people interested in public-private partnerships. We are as
critically interested as the committee in sort of getting more
of that private money to bear on infrastructure projects. But
these are complicated transactions. I cannot tell you that we
can execute them as rapidly as we do a grant.
Ms. Hahn. Well, it is critical, obviously. It is critical
for--and not just L.A. County region, but certainly across this
country. Folks are really depending on this loan process to
speed up the investment in infrastructure. And we know that is
what is going to keep our transportation system viable, create
jobs, improve the economy. Really a lot depends on----
Mr. Rogoff. Indeed. And when you look across our budget
proposals, we obviously want to make this a more robust
element. Not only are we making a $4 billion commitment to
TIFIA over 4 years, the President's budget also has the re-
institution of America Fast Forward bonds, and the institution
of an infrastructure bank that actually expands beyond
transportation, but goes to other areas of investment, be it
school infrastructure investment, power grid, other areas that
we want.
So we are on board, I am just trying to explain that we
can't turn on a dime and suddenly do a transaction in 2 weeks
that used to take 2 months.
Ms. Hahn. Thank you.
Mr. Petri. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Rogoff, I will keep you
going. In section 192 of the 2014 omnibus, Congress made
available $80 million in unused SAFETEA-LU Maglev dollars to
fund several dormant rail grant programs, including passenger
rail capital projects, railroad safety technology grants that
can be used for PTC implementation, and high-speed rail
corridor planning grants.
Of the $80 million, as you know, $20 million is set aside
for the high-speed rail corridor planning grants. Recognizing
that the omnibus gives significant discretion to your
Department, can you shed some light on how the Department
specifically intends to allocate the remaining $60 million?
Mr. Rogoff. It is currently under review, Mr. Davis. I
would, you know, be happy--I think it would make more sense, if
you would like, is I could come up to your office with our FRA
Administrator, Joe Szabo, and talk through that, because I have
been a part of some of those discussions, but not all of them.
And I know a hard decision has not yet been made.
Mr. Davis. OK. Any time I can get a chance to meet with my
colleague from Illinois, Mr. Szabo----
Mr. Rogoff. Yes, that is right.
Mr. Davis [continuing]. I will have my office give your
office a call.
Mr. Rogoff. Absolutely.
Mr. Davis. I would like to do that sooner, rather than
later.
Mr. Rogoff. Happy to do it.
Mr. Davis. Thank you. Ms. McMillan, you mentioned in your
testimony that last year was a very challenging year for the
capital investment grant program, because of sequestration, but
that 2014 offers a brighter future. Can you tell me what
guidance or rules that the FTA has, and plans to issue moving
forward to carry out the changes made in MAP-21 to improve the
project's approval process?
Ms. McMillan. Thank you very much, Congressman, for that
question. I think this is an area where the Federal Transit
Administration has made some great strides. Even prior to MAP-
21, we had developed new criteria that was far more responsive
to communities for the purposes of evaluating projects,
including a far more understandable cost effectiveness measure,
and new criteria on environmental benefits and the like.
We have also been working very closely to continue our
streamlining efforts, including the notion of a warrant, where
an agency that either has a small amount of funding as part--
Federal funding in the larger package, or has demonstrated
experience in the past can get through our evaluation process
more quickly.
MAP-21, as you know, also reduced the number of steps that
are required as part of the capital investment grant program,
and we are working very closely on rulemaking to put that into
regulation and guidance for our grantees. This is a very
popular program, and this has been one of our top priorities.
I would also say that one of the elements that has made the
process a bit arduous in the past is the requirement to do
travel modeling. In other words, to estimate ridership of these
future projects. And we are proud to say that we have developed
an off-the-shelf transit forecasting tool that, if you meet
certain assumptions and conditions, can really reduce what used
to be a 2-year process for estimating transit trips maybe down
to 2 weeks, if you can use this off-the-shelf tool and FTA has
been working hand in hand with our industry to bring that tool
to bear.
So, there are some examples of what we are doing to get
this process moving.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Ms. McMillan. And, Mr. Nadeau,
following up on what my colleague, Ms. Hahn, mentioned on the
TIFIA program, I want to give you a chance. And you mentioned
in your testimony that DOT has closed on eight projects through
TIFIA. I want to know, because I am a true believer in public
money to leverage private money and encourage some public-
private partnerships. And we both know MAP-21 made some changes
to improve participation in rural areas. What kind of response
have you seen, and do you think there are ways to build upon
these changes and increase rural participation?
Mr. Nadeau. It is--I think for projects--and rural doesn't
necessarily always mean smaller scale. I think the
administration----
Mr. Davis. I know. Look at my district.
Mr. Nadeau. Exactly. But it depends entirely on the
economics of the revenue side. If you are generally looking at
debt financing as a solution, then, obviously, revenue becomes
the key. So that either relies on a revenue stream coming from
State or local revenue sources or, for example, tolling, where
that is economically viable.
I think the administration's view is to develop tools that
are flexible and creative and that, above all, leverage capital
from private markets. That theory works both in an urban
setting and a rural setting, and it depends entirely on the
circumstances surrounding the individual project, as Mr. Rogoff
pointed out.
Mr. Rogoff. I am sorry, I just want to--your State has
actually stepped out. I mean, in that--at least in the case
of--it is a project that is before us and under consideration,
but in the case of the Illiana Parkway, for example, the
challenge is who is going to pay back the debt. And in that
particular case, recognizing that the resources might not be
local to pay back the--the State is committing themselves to
repayment, and that is what facilitates the rural project. So
we are working on it.
Mr. Davis. Great. Thank you all very much. I yield back.
Mr. Petri. Ms. Edwards?
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the
hearing today, and to our witnesses. I want to first thank the
President and the administration for making sure that in its
New Starts budget proposals, it includes funding for the long
sought-after Purple Line here, in the national capital region,
and the Red Line in Baltimore. And so, I hope that we are able
to come through with the resources needed to get those
underway, because I think it would do a lot to improve things
like air and water quality here in the metropolitan region, and
to free up transit along the beltway, so that we can free up
that 95 corridor, so that farmers can get their goods to
market, and other sorts of things.
I have been long concerned about rail safety. When I first
came into Congress, it was just after--just before, rather, we
had that tragic accident on the Red Line. And so I think a lot
has been done by the administration and by WMATA and our States
to make sure that that kind of tragedy doesn't happen in the
future, adding, you know, better cars on the line--Mr. Rogoff,
you know that--but also, Senator Mikulski and I, along with our
bipartisan delegation here in the metropolitan region, worked
to make sure that began to get some national Metro safety
standards in place, because this accident didn't stand alone.
It had been a whole history across the country of similar
accidents, and finding out that, despite recommendations for
years, we didn't have, really, national standards.
Now the question becomes how do you implement those
standards? And I know that Deputy Administrator McMillan--that
your administration has been in the process of implementing
those standards. You released some grants for, I think, fiscal
years 2013 and 2014 for State safety oversight. But I am
curious to know whether there were existing State--I cannot say
that--State safety oversight grants that did not meet the
criteria that was set forth in MAP-21, and how many of these
formula grants went out, versus ones that were not.
And then, lastly, what is the FTA doing to bring these
oversight agencies into compliance?
Ms. McMillan. Thank you very much for the question,
Congresswoman. And, indeed, as we have said and can't say
enough, safety remains the top priority for the DOT, overall.
And the establishment of the safety authority for FTA under
MAP-21 was a much-appreciated and forward-looking
acknowledgment of that priority, and it remains one of the
major focus areas for implementation for us.
With regards to the State safety oversight agencies, again,
as a launching off point, these are the agencies that actually
existed prior. What MAP-21 has done is to clarify and
strengthen what their responsibilities are. The amount of
funding that has been available to help them do that, as you
noted, has--the apportionments have been published for both
fiscal year 2013--about $21 million--and $22 million in 2014.
In order to access those funds, they need to be able to either
have met the criteria that MAP-21 outlines, or be able to put
together a plan to show how they are going to get----
Ms. Edwards. So how many of them met the--of the ones who
qualify, how many of them met the criteria?
Ms. McMillan. Two of them have met them currently,
California and Massachusetts. For the remaining ones, we have
been working individually with the State safety oversight
agencies on a compliance review to say what are the gaps, and
to help them put together a plan in order to show how they can
meet those.
Ms. Edwards. But they got the grants anyway?
Ms. McMillan. No. They get the grants at the point they
submit a plan, and we can see if they have got a path forward.
And once that plan is reviewed, then the apportionment
available to them would be made available to them, in terms of
a grant. So, it is a step-by-step process.
Ms. Edwards. I would like to follow up with you about that.
But as my time remains, I have one question that--it is at a
high order, and this goes to Mr. Rogoff.
There has been a debate within this committee about the
relative merit of Federal or taxpayers ``subsidizing'' transit.
And I wonder if you could tell us about the value of investing
in transit, whether or not you make money off of it, to the
traveling public and to the taxpayer. And do we get some of
those same concerns that get raised for roads that are in the
middle of nowhere, but we still have them anyway, and are happy
to fund them?
Mr. Rogoff. Well, I think our position throughout has been
that transit investments are absolutely essential. And,
frankly, they are more essential now than they ever have been
in the modern era. I think Deputy Administrator McMillan said
in her opening statement we have now crept back to a level of
transit ridership not experienced since 1956, and it just seems
to keep going up.
What we are most focused on at the Department of
Transportation is the 2010 census, and what it tells us:
namely, about 100 million more people, just by 2050. And, even
more acutely, those people are largely going to reside in areas
that have already experienced sizable population growth
already. So the fast-growing areas are going to grow even
faster. And if we are going to avoid a situation where that
growth doesn't choke off that area, and choke off the economy
in those areas, transit is going to be part of the solution. So
is highways, so is ports, so are runways.
I mean, with 100 million more people coming by 2050, we
need more of all of it, but transit is certainly part of that
solution.
Mr. Hanna [presiding]. I live in the middle of nowhere,
Donna, I want you to know that. Thank you. Because I got to get
home, you know?
Ms. Ferro, thank you for being--it is good to see you. I
want to say that, in some ways--and I believe your intentions
are good--you are hurting the people that--I hear regularly--
that you are paid to help.
The--as you are aware, on February 3, 2014, the Government
Accountability Office issued a report that examined CSA. This
is about the CSA and the safety measurement system. Among other
things, the GAO found that FMCSA's minimum data required to
receive the CSA SMS scores are not sufficient to produce
reliable scores, and do not allow for a cross comparison of
different carriers. GAO pointed out that this led to FMCSA to
identify high-risk carriers who were not substantially involved
in crashes. Ultimately, the GAO recommended that the FMCSA
address limitations of the CSA program.
Although the CSA program improves carrier attention to
safety over its predecessor, we have heard from--I have heard
from stakeholders throughout the transportation industry
expressing serious concerns with the FMCSA's implementation of
CSA programs. Inaccurate SMS scores have caused increases in
insurance rates, expensive litigation, losses to business
operation.
For example, according to January 12th report of the
American Transportation Research Institute, 50 percent of
shippers admitted they did not enter into new contracts with
carriers based on negative scores, largely--and you admitted
this earlier--these scores are not necessarily accurate. In
many cases, they are erroneous.
Furthermore, you and I have had an ongoing discussion about
hours of service. Your own report, that was not done before the
rule was enacted--and nobody is arguing that you had a legal
right to enact the rule--your report would discuss the FMCSA's
hours-of-service rules. The field study, which came to Congress
5 months late, had only 100 carriers, and showed a mere 12-
minute increase--12-minute increase--in average sleep time for
drivers who now operate under the new rules.
The American Transportation Research Institute again
questions your alleging that this is a savings. They believe
that it costs almost $400 million--$374 million--a year. So
that--my point is that these rules and regulations that you
talked about earlier, how about you are addressing them, these
are real day, everyday constant, ongoing, tortuous problems
that you are putting these truckers through. And, frankly, the
organization acts like they have got all the time in the world
to correct these problems that are online. These drivers, who
try hard, are suffering because they get a rating that
apparently the GAO says could possibly be erroneous--and a lot
of them we know they are--the comparisons between large
truckers and small truckers.
Doesn't that cause you some concern that, I mean, the very
business that you are trying to help, the people whose lives--
and I know you, you are earnest, you are trying to save lives
and this--your own study that requires people to sleep at
certain hours, that tells them when they are tired and when
they are not, did not even begin to measure the fact that you
pushed these drivers into early morning hours, when they are
much, much, much busier, when the traffic is much more
congested?
What I am saying is that you are really--I think you need
to back up, ma'am, and take a look at some of this stuff, and
believe the drivers that--who tell you or write you, and
Congressman from Maine, Michaud, when I wrote you a letter
about this.
So, I have kind of used up my time--therefore, yours--but I
am assuming--and I didn't necessarily do that on purpose, but I
think you get it, but it is--are we so thick that we can't hear
the very people whose lives we are impacting? I mean is there
nobody you believe but some academic who does a study? And why
is it so rigidly adhered to, when every day--and I know you do
yourself, you are from people who do not like these rules,
regulations, and you know you are hurting people. And the facts
are--I mean they are not written by people who are not doing it
earnestly. But, I am sorry, go ahead. Thank you.
Ms. Ferro. All right, thank you. Thank you, Congressman
Hanna.
Look, from the outset, real quickly, I am not hired to help
the industry. I am hired to ensure the safety of the traveling
public, and improve the safety of the operations of trucks and
buses. That is what the agency was created to do. And, as its
lead, I am very proud to be a part of that----
Mr. Hanna. I would say that you are not doing that. Because
what I hear from the truckers is that you are pushing them into
hours that are less safe, that, in many cases, you are
prescriptive about when they are tired, and when they are not.
And, therefore, they may be less safe. And when drivers can't
get a score that is accurate, and they are measured, their cost
of doing business and who they are hired by are affected.
And when you take hours-of-service rules that cause
truckers to buy more trucks, work more--hire more drivers, put
more trucks on the road, you are not necessarily doing what you
say you are trying to do. Yet I have no argument that you
believe that.
Ms. Ferro. And so, the second two pieces, on CSA and hours
of service--I appreciate--I understand what you are saying, and
we have had these conversations before, and I appreciate the
time you have taken with me on those conversations, and I
assure everybody this broken wrist is not from those
conversations, you have always been very cordial and, I think,
very energetic.
The hours-of-service rule, at its heart, is designed to
reduce the kind of cumulative fatigue that comes from working
up to 80 hours a week, week after week after week. And the
effects of that fatigue impact the ability of drivers to drive
safely. We certainly recognize there is a financial impact to
that rule. There is a much larger and offsetting safety benefit
to that rule, and health benefit to the drivers.
Mr. Hanna. We do not agree on that.
Ms. Ferro. Yes, I----
Mr. Hanna. And neither do most drivers that I talk to. And
12 minutes a week does nothing to mitigate--to support what you
just said. And that is your study, not anyone else's.
Ms. Ferro. And so, on the Compliance Safety Accountability
program, you know, look, we have had several key studies
recently. GSA says--GAO says you are not doing--you are doing
too much, use less data. Oh, are we--have I lost my time now,
completely?
Mr. Hanna. No, I did that to you, I apologize.
Ms. Ferro. OK.
Mr. Hanna. Thank you to my friends for indulging me.
Ms. Frankel?
Ms. Frankel. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank
the leaders and the leaders in this committee. I think we did a
really good job on water, and I hope we can do an excellent job
on the surface transportation bill. And thank you all for being
here.
My question is a little bit parochial, but, actually, I
think it will serve as an example for other areas of the
Nation. Florida--I am from south Florida. And we have been
notified by FEC about a project called All Aboard, which will
be a nonstop train that will make a few stops, one in Miami,
Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, and Orlando. And I happen to
represent the area--a large part of that area that the train
will go through, and I am getting mixed comments from my
stakeholders, depending upon where they are situated.
The cities where there is going to be a stop are embracing
the project, because they believe that there may be an
opportunity for more economic growth. The cities that the train
just passes through multiple times a day, of course, are
concerned. And let me tell you what some of their concerns are,
and--because my question is going to be whether or not there is
a way to address them with a Federal response.
For All Aboard to do the project, they are applying for a
RIF loan of over $1 billion. Here is what my cities are asking.
They are going to need funding for a traffic signalization, for
quiet zone infrastructure, for--there will be one city where
streets will be closed because of a new platform. They need
money for overpasses, for reliever roads. And then, there are
those venues that want opportunities to take advantage of the
All Aboard, and they are looking for money for other connecting
transportation, both infrastructure and operating costs.
And finally, the cities are all saying, ``Well, now we are
obligated under law''--under the railroad law, I guess, that
they are going to have to pay more money to maintain the
improvements. And so, my question is, I guess, what do you
suggest as the best way to go about coordinating the good, the
bad, and the ugly for our community?
Mr. Rogoff. Well, Ms. Frankel, we are well aware of the RIF
loan application. We have been in discussions with the FEC
about it. It has been--undergone a few changes. I think the
short answer to your question, in terms of local impacts, those
issues are generally--need to be solved locally, because just
as we have in other areas of Florida, whether it was in the
SunRail project in the Orlando area, there was a lot of
communications between the impacted municipalities, some of
whom were making a financial contribution to get SunRail
service, about these issues, about traffic interruption, about
related infrastructure.
The RIF program itself can only pay for the railroad
infrastructure. But this needs to be part of a broader regional
agreement. We are concerned specifically about one aspect about
it, and that is to make sure that we don't end up subsidizing,
if you will, two competing entities between Tri-Rail and the
All Aboard Florida vision. And we are expecting that there will
be an agreement between the south Florida Regional Transit
Authority and FEC before any RIF loan is made to bring that
about.
But I would strongly encourage you to have those local
community leaders engage the FEC, in terms of--you know, the
issue always comes down to who is going to pay for what. And
that generally needs to be a regional discussion. Certainly
formula funds that are brought to south Florida could be
brought to bear on some of those needs. But the RIF program
could only pay for the railroad infrastructure by law.
Ms. Frankel. Does that--would that include the
infrastructure needed for quiet zones?
Mr. Rogoff. Some of that related for quiet zones would be
railroad infrastructure. You know, in terms of the
signalization, in terms of the sort of added, more robust
railroad safety measures to ensure that we--they would not have
to use the horn, and therefore could progress through the
community, that generally requires greater gates, more precise
signalization, and that would be RIF-eligible.
Ms. Frankel. And--OK, that is very helpful. What about in
coordinating other grant opportunities, such as a TIGER grant?
Mr. Rogoff. Well, those other expenses in the communities
would be eligible for a TIGER grant, and we have just kicked
off the new round, round six, which we are very excited about.
The flip side of that, of course, is, as we have had to say, it
is easier to get into Harvard than get a TIGER grant, just
based on the extraordinary competition for that money. So I
don't want to sort of lay out hopes and expectations. But it is
certainly eligible for a TIGER grant.
Ms. Frankel. OK. And just one final question on the trust
fund. If the trust--if what you say comes true, and there is no
more money in the trust fund, are there going to be projects
around this country that are going to be left uncompleted?
Mr. Rogoff. Absolutely. If we have, you know, major
projects in play, and we have to eventually cease
reimbursement, you know, we would start by slowing
reimbursements. But I have to think that, across the country,
as not only State transportation secretaries--entities like
FDOT, but also the transit agencies themselves--have assumed
multiyear funding, when suddenly they know that they don't have
the cash to float the Federal Government to wait for
reimbursement for weeks, if not months, then some projects are
going to have to be halted.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Petri [presiding]. Thank you. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate all of
you being here. Secretary Rogoff, my question to you--I
represent Texas. Of course a lot of what you are talking about
is really important to us. And my question would be to you is
this. The President has requested $825 million to implement
positive train control, the system, on commuter railroads, with
a phase-out scheduled in 2018.
Now, will you please explain to this subcommittee the
significance of the 2018 spending timeline, and as the
administration--and is the administration planning to propose
an extension to the December 2015 PTC deadline currently in
statute? Do you think it would be--it would make sense to
extend the deadline beyond 2015, given your budget proposal?
Mr. Rogoff. Well, Mr. Williams, we certainly recognize that
the 2015 deadline is going to be extraordinarily hard to meet.
And, quite honestly, we are having new and emergent
complications with our partners at the FCC regarding the
construction of towers that are necessary in some cases for PTC
to be installed.
That said, we are not inclined to move the deadline. We are
just inclined to keep the momentum going. I think the
groundbreaking step, as part of our budget, is to say we
recognize that this is not only an urgent safety requirement
required by law, it is also an expensive one. And we are
helping put some Federal resources behind it. But, no, we are
not inclined to necessarily move the deadline. But I think you
could take the multiyear budget request as an acknowledgment
that not everyone is going to make it.
Mr. Williams. OK, thank you. My next question would be to
you, Mr. Friedman. One of the rulemakings that you are working
on that raises my concern regards requiring speed limiters on
heavy-duty trucks. In States like mine, Texas, we often have
speed limits above 65, where trucks and cars, they drive safely
on the highway at the same rate of speed. If you require the
use of a speed limiter, you not only prevent the trucker from
moving with the flow of traffic, but in many States you will
require them to drive below the speed limit. This adds a speed
differential to the highway which leads to accidents.
And do you, when you are analyzing this, is this a concern,
and--when you start thinking about this rulemkaing?
Mr. Rogoff. Thank you very much, Congressman. As you know,
we are in the middle of a rulemaking process on this issue. We
were petitioned by the American Trucking Association, as well
as safety advocates, to address serious concerns about roadway
fatalities with large vehicles. What we are doing as we go
through this rulemaking is ensuring that we consider the data
on to what degree does speeding increase fatalities. The higher
the speed, the more the energy in a crash, the more dangerous
the crash can be.
What we are trying to do is diligently make sure that we
are looking into the data, we are evaluating the costs and
benefits, and we will soon be able to talk to you about how we
plan to move forward with rulemaking on this process.
Mr. Williams. Well, I think it is important, because, you
know, traffic flow is what we are all after. I appreciate you
taking a look at it.
Mr. Rogoff. Thank you, sir. Safety is our bottom line. With
all of this, we want to make sure that everyone can get where
they need to go, in the time they need to go, and that they are
safe all along the way.
Mr. Williams. People and product.
Mr. Rogoff. Thank you.
Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Eleanor Holmes Norton.
Ms. Norton. Let me just say how much I regret not having
been here to hear the questions, given how this committee has
proceeded, proceeding in good faith to try to get a bill out.
So I would have benefitted greatly. I had a markup,
unfortunately, in another committee.
This region experienced a horrific tragedy. And out of that
tragedy, I am pleased to say, at least came the first Federal
authority to regulate Metrorail safety through cities. It was
the only form of transportation that was not regulated.
Now, I understand that these grants have been given to
local jurisdictions to proceed, but I have a hard time
understanding how they can do so adequately without the final
rule on rail safety. So I suppose I should be asking Ms.
McMillan about the final rule, and how does that link to what
the States are doing without the authority of the Federal
Government in place?
Ms. McMillan. Thank you very much for that question,
Congresswoman Norton. And, you know, indeed, as we have been
saying, safety is absolutely critical. And advancing where FTA
stands in that paradigm was a huge part of MAP-21 that we are
taking very seriously, and implementing.
With respect to, again, the State safety oversight agencies
that are overseeing and partnering with us in carrying out this
law, one of the things that we realized is that a number of
State safety oversight agencies are not yet positioned to meet
all of the requirements that are in MAP-21, which stipulated,
you know, what they need to be, in terms of an organization,
and their capabilities for enforcement, and issues like that.
But, as well, laying out the steps that they would need to take
in terms of carrying out the regulations.
On the former, it was important that we also recognize they
need some resources to get to the place they need to be. So we
have been working with each one individually--we call it sort
of gap analysis--of where they are falling short of what MAP-21
envisions them to be, in terms of their capabilities to carry
out regulations once they are done. And we are ensuring that
they have a plan of how to get there. And this grant funding
will assist them in getting to the place that, again, MAP-21
and the Federal Transit Administration would like them to be,
in terms of their own capabilities.
The SSOs will continue to be a partner with us, as on
another track we are actually implementing the regulatory
elements for safety, including the commonsense thresholds and
requirements that need to be met.
Ms. Norton. Now, when do you expect those to----
Ms. McMillan. We issued an advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking back in the fall, because we knew that this was such
a groundbreaking new element, and we didn't want to jump into
the deep end of the pool of rulemaking without getting
substantial input from the industry, from the public, and from
other stakeholders. We got hundreds of comments on that ANPRM,
and we are working through reviewing that right now, and we
will then be proceeding to issue formal notices of proposed
rulemaking--NPRM--once we have had a chance to go through
that----
Ms. Norton. But you don't have a date on that yet?
Ms. McMillan. We don't have a date yet. But we----
Ms. Norton. Could I ask you one question about buses? You
know, there has been complaints from some parts of the country
that buses are--and trucks are stepchildren, for example, Ms.
McMillan. For the state of good repair, I would like to know--
it seems to be mostly for rail. And yet, buses and bus
facilities have suffered tremendously. Is it mostly--what
portion of the $86 billion is for buses?
Ms. McMillan. That is an excellent question. And just to be
clear, the $86 billion is the estimate of the backlog for
deferred investment--reinvestment need in transit
infrastructure. A major chunk of that figure is related to
rail. But what is important to note is that even though buses
may not make up the vast majority of that delta, the buses--
because they aren't as capital intensive as rail systems--40
percent of buses, we believe, are in marginal or poor
condition. This leads to one of the major recommendations we
have made as part of the President's budget.
We have heard, since MAP-21 went into effect, that the bus
and bus facilities program funding level authorized for those 2
years is insufficient to meet the needs of the very
constituents you are talking about, which are bus providers,
very often in small urbanized areas, or rural areas. And we are
seeking over a 300-percent increase in the funding level to
deal with that particular program. It went from a discretionary
program under SAFETEA-LU to a formula program under MAP-21. And
there were so many parties negatively affected that the funding
level really does need to be raised by this committee.
So, we are hearing what the industry is telling us, as you
have heard yourself. And we have a proposal on the table to
address that need, specifically.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, do I have time just to ask one
question for trucks? Thank you very much.
There has been serious concern about a rule that was
withdrawn. This has gone on for some years now. It has to do
with the entry-level training requirements. This, I think, goes
to Ms. Ferro for truck and bus drivers. Now we see an industry
where that form of transportation, if anything, is increasing.
And most of these are not your big companies that, of course,
have their own driver training.
In the absence of Federal action for behind-the-wheel
training--and that is what I am mostly concerned about--what
you had--and this is a vibrant, private economy--you have got
private training schools. Some of them may be all right, but,
frankly, they have been much criticized as being the diploma
mills who increase their own bottom line because they are
offering the service that is otherwise unavailable.
I am very concerned that you apparently had a rule and
withdrew the rule. I like to know--and since we required this
years ago--when you intend to issue a rule pursuant to the
congressional mandate to do so. Was it 20 years ago that we
said--how many years ago were they supposed to be--yes, 20
years ago.
Ms. Ferro. Yes.
Ms. Norton. I think you all are a little late, in other
words.
Ms. Ferro. Well, it is clearly a rule that would have
reached the age of majority and had its license long before
now. So I appreciate your concern. And I think what is always
so surprising to all of us is that a--an issue that seems so
widely shared in interest and understanding, that to operate a
piece of equipment that could weigh up to 80,000 pounds, that
could carry up to 70 to 80 people, that that driver is not
required today to have training. And so I appreciate the
concerns you raised, Ranking Member Norton.
The FMCSA has tried for a number of years to move forward
on a rulemaking, and we have been challenged in finding the
research that demonstrates the cost benefit analysis that we
must provide with any rulemaking that shows that training a CDL
driver before they get behind the wheel actually results in a
long-term savings and safety gains--or savings through those
safety gains.
Consequently, after we had an NPRM on the street, we did,
in fact, pull it down shortly after MAP-21 was enacted, moved
forward with two research projects that will, in fact, help
inform us on that very outcome, those safety outcomes that
result from training, and have begun the process of convening
a--at least striving towards an approach of a negotiated
rulemaking. There is so much agreement on the core of this
issue, but the elements for which there is still not a clear
consensus is how many hours behind the wheel, how many
classroom hours. Should it be performance-based? Should it be a
set number?
And so, we are moving ahead. We are very eager to because,
again, for the very concerns you raise----
Ms. Norton. So I don't know how you are proceeding, whether
it is mandated rules or what. I invite you to look at how we
did--when there was disagreement as to how we ought to approach
the regulation of rail when it hadn't been--Metrorail had not
been done before, and we gave guidance to the States on how to
do things. I mean we got to break out of this if the kind of
mandated rules don't work. I certainly hope there is another
way to get it done, and that it would be within the mandate of
Congress.
And I thank you very much for your indulgence, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Mr. Perry?
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you folks for
being here.
Mr. Friedman, I am going to start my questions with you,
and it regards the National Roadside Survey. I have not myself
witnessed, but I have citizens that are concerned, and I am
going to ask these questions on their behalf.
The option to drive past, is it that I am driving past and
I can just keep driving, or I have to pull in and then opt out?
Mr. Friedman. Thank you, Congressman Perry, for your
question. This is, as I mentioned before, a voluntary,
anonymous survey.
Mr. Perry. Just asking----
Mr. Friedman. Absolutely. When the driver first approaches
the scene, they see this large, orange sign. And if they choose
not to pull in, they can drive right on past. In fact, we
believe that roughly about a quarter of the drivers, after they
see the sign and are signaled to pull into the site, just
simply drive right on.
Mr. Perry. All right. Do you keep any records, or is there
any tallying of--when you say you believe this many people
drive past, is there any empirical data regarding that, or is
it just kind of a survey that you take randomly as you watch
cars go by?
Mr. Friedman. That is an important and very specific
question, so that is something I would like to get back to you
on the record, to make sure that I have got the information you
need.
Mr. Perry. OK. Are there police standing by that sign, or
parked by that sign, or anywhere close to the entry of that
sign, where people might be encouraged, because they see police
officers there, flashing lights, et cetera?
Mr. Friedman. Well, there are no flashing lights. What you
have is a police officer, who is standing near the entrance to
the road side survey site itself. The sign is further up, and
that is the very first thing that the driver will see.
Mr. Perry. And what are the police officer's actions? Does
he flag--is he waving people in? Is he just standing there?
What is he doing?
Mr. Friedman. Well, that is actually at the discretion of
the police officers. The goal of having the police officers
there is to ensure safety. And so we defer to them in their
judgment. In some cases, the police officers choose to be the
one directing traffic, because they have the training, and they
are confident, and want to be the one directing the traffic
safely. In other cases, they don't, and our research team are
the ones who are directing the traffic into the site.
Mr. Perry. So I understand checking for the use of alcohol
and drugs. And if there is that present, that there aren't
arrests made at the location. But doesn't that put law
enforcement in a kind of untenable position, if they find
somebody under the influence of something, that they--you know,
I guess you are going to take the driver home, or you are going
to offer something. But isn't the driver also violating the
law, which at that point the police are in some untenable
position, because they are duty-bound to act?
Mr. Friedman. Well, what I can tell you, Congressman Perry,
is that within the 40 years that this survey has been going on,
not one survey participant has been arrested. Why? Because we
have very strict protocols in place, and that works.
Mr. Perry. I understand that. I am talking about the police
officers. What position are they being placed in?
Mr. Friedman. Well, the police officer in these positions
are there to ensure safety. And this protocol ensures that if
we come upon an impaired driver, that they are safe. And so we
are able to ensure that the police officer is able to meet--
there to do their job, and ensure safety, to make sure that----
Mr. Perry. I don't want to cut you short, but I have got
some other questions. What I would like you to do, if you
could, is address the concerns of the citizens that I am
dealing with regarding the term ``volunteer,'' and how it is
perceived if the default is to I kind of got to opt out. And
strictly regarding law enforcement's presence there, and what
you might be doing as an agency to encourage people to go, but
not with law enforcement, or to really truly make it volunteer.
And, regarding the safety enforcement, maybe some other
alternatives. Like, maybe the fire police or a private
contractor that says ``safety'' on it, as opposed to a
uniformed police officer.
Moving on, Ms. Ferro, I would like to just talk to you a
little bit about on-board recorders. In the rulemaking planning
that you are considering, will there be any requirement that
the device have features which induce always on data
connectivity and real-time tracking? That might induce that?
Ms. Ferro. Well, I am hard-pressed to answer to that level
of specificity, Congressman, because we are in the midst of the
rulemaking process itself.
Mr. Perry. Sure.
Ms. Ferro. But I can tell you that we worked very closely
before the rulemaking was launched with the technical experts,
with stakeholders through listening sessions, and the--our
advisory committee----
Mr. Perry. So--but you would acknowledge that goes beyond
the statutory requirement.
Ms. Ferro. I will say that we have stuck very close to the
requirements of MAP-21, as to the properties of that electronic
logging device. And we will have the rule out shortly, so folks
will have a chance to answer that question more specifically.
Mr. Perry. So, because it would go beyond the statutory
requirement, can we get any kind of feeling from you if it will
specifically state that real-time tracking is not required in
the rule itself, that verbiage--some type of verbiage to that
effect?
Ms. Ferro. Well, again, I can't get to that level of
specificity. I just want to drive home the point that this is a
supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. We will have a 60-
day comment period----
Mr. Perry. OK, all right.
Ms. Ferro [continuing]. And really will look forward to
those comments.
Mr. Perry. I just want to get a couple other questions in
here. It is my understanding that most electronic logging--I am
not a driver--but these devices record time minute-by-minute or
second-by-second. So, the question would be, what is a driver
to do when they are close to the location that they are
supposed to stop, but they are not there yet? Traffic,
something has happened. Are they supposed to pull over
immediately, or what is the give-and-take there? What are the
parameters for the drivers that will be operating with these
devices?
Ms. Ferro. Well, today companies have electronic logs on
their----
Mr. Perry. Sure.
Ms. Ferro [continuing]. Vehicles of all types. And their
guidance to drivers is to adhere to the logging timeframes on
that--on those devices.
Mr. Perry. OK, but that is their advice to their drivers.
This is going to be a Federal rule, it is a force of law. So,
when I come up within minutes and seconds of my data-logging
device, and it says I am supposed to be off the road at this
time, am I supposed to--I am sitting in the middle of the
Holland Tunnel, and my clock is up. What do I do?
Ms. Ferro. Well, again, that is the--precisely the kind of
question and comment that we expect to see during this comment
period. And we will have a great opportunity to have those
sorts of discussions.
Mr. Perry. All right, thank you.
Ms. Ferro. Thank you.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Mrs. Napolitano? I apologize for--we
were trying to move it up, and----
Mrs. Napolitano. That is OK. I only got here when nobody
was here. So I have been waiting through the whole thing. And
it is great to have the opportunity to pose some questions.
And, Under Secretary Rogoff and Administrator Nadeau, my
area is the home of the Corridor of National Significance,
rail-truck corridor, 100 trains a day, 50,000 trucks through my
district. And it has a major effect on the roads, on the
environment, on the congestion, the poor air quality and safety
hazards. And we really appreciate the commitment over the 4
years. But does your freight proposal focus on mitigation
projects, especially air quality and grade separations? And how
do you ensure those projects are giving a level playing field
with freight efficiency--playing field with the freight
efficiency projects? In other words, so that they do--are able
to work with those.
And then I have another question, so I would appreciate a
quick answer.
Mr. Rogoff. I am going to give you a very quick answer,
Congresswoman, and that is that I think we will be able to
spell this out when we actually transmit the bill in April, and
be able to describe it. But it really is--the notion is to have
combined decisionmaking with freight stakeholders and State and
local government, and the State and local government will have
a say in it.
Plus, there is a substantial discretionary component to the
freight program. And the issue of mitigation measures,
especially those that deal with the particulate matter issues
and clean air for the children of the community, I think, is
critical, and would be part of our consideration.
Mrs. Napolitano. I would appreciate some information when
you do come to that, because I have some areas that are very
low-income that are suffering from impact.
And the second question is to Administrator Nadeau, is the
comprehensive truck size and weight study. And I understand
that you are working on a comprehensive truck size and weight
study required by MAP-21. In the concerns over the study
process, the data which is being relied upon to draw
conclusions about safety and infrastructure impacts, there has
been some criticism of the contractors selected to do the
study. And you agreed to set up an external peer review to
study--six of those individuals on the committee have been
found to have direct ties to the trucking industry, or who had
publicly advocated for higher size and weight limits. How are
we to ensure that this is going to be a study that is going to
draw conclusions that are fair to everybody, and that is not
predisposed on one side or the other, and might not be skewed?
And then, it would also go to the prediction that there is
going to be a 63-percent increase in truck freight by 2040 not
being factored in. Or that we are not considering the impact
this has on bridges, and--which are structurally deficient.
Mr. Nadeau. Thank you, Mrs. Napolitano. Let me begin by
saying that the Department is working diligently to produce the
truck size and weight study, as required by MAP-21. And we are
equally committed to ensuring that it is conducted in a data-
driven, objective, and transparent manner.
I will first touch on the peer review process. The National
Academy of Sciences and Transportation Research Board were
contracted to provide that peer review. By contract, and by
history and tradition, in the conduct of such a peer review, it
is objective, as well. They were responsible for selecting the
team. A number of interests volunteered suggestions for that
team. We are confident that that process, which has already
actually been engaged----
Mrs. Napolitano. How can we be confident of that?
Mr. Nadeau. I would like to say the results, but that is
not sufficient, I am sure, with respect to your question. I
think that the Transportation Research Board and the National
Academy of Sciences, and their reputation, and our commitment
to ensure that their role in the process is objective is
something that I hope will provide you with some assurance that
they will conduct their responsibilities responsibly.
Mrs. Napolitano. Will we be able to ensure that--is it
going to be a report to this committee, to be able to ensure
that this is being followed, and the transparency process?
Mr. Nadeau. Well, I think, as you know, the statutory
deadline for the report itself is November 2014. But we are
working extremely hard to produce at least elements of the
study, and as we produce them in a very transparent way, post
it on the Web site. The work that the individual work groups
are doing in the execution of the study itself is being posted
on a regular basis. So you will see the work product from the
various working groups--and there are five study areas--as the
work is produced. Extensive public outreach and public----
Mrs. Napolitano. And I understand all of that, sir. My
concern is, like in California, they try to go to a tandem 53-
footer, which cannot navigate the on-ramps and off-ramps in our
freeways. So, for us to be able to be ensuring that this is
going to be addressed, we want to make sure that we are looking
at what some of the outcomes are, so that we can address them
from our States, or at least from the western Governors'
States' viewpoint, is so needed.
Mr. Nadeau. We are confident that the expert teams that we
have assembled can provide you with that objective, data-driven
analysis.
Mrs. Napolitano. And the answer to the bridges? You know,
the truck freight is not being factored in, supposedly,
according to our information. And then secondly is that the
study--we are relying on a sample of bridges, but it does not
include those that are structurally deficient, already provided
for by this committee. Would you take that into consideration,
then come back and let us know, please? Because this is
critical.
Mr. Nadeau. I was going to suggest--so I am absolutely
clear on what your question is, and what you are talking about,
I would suggest that we spend some time together----
Mrs. Napolitano. Would you please, sir? Thank you very
much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your----
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Mr. Ribble?
Mr. Ribble. Well, good morning. We are getting near the
end, folks. Hang in there.
Administrator Ferro, I have got just one comment, something
to kind of put on your radar screen. And then a question.
My comment, first, relates to safe work practices for
female drivers. I have had some female drivers coming in, and
more and more women are entering the trade of driving trucks.
They are concerned with the work rules requirement, as it
relates to finding safe harbor places to rest in the evenings,
that there are well-known places where they are very safe, and
others have worse reputations. Sometimes they feel like they
are forced in a position of having to drive 35, 40, 50 miles
further than what the--to find a safe place in which to get
rest. And they are concerned if they can't do that, then they
are in a rest environment where they cannot rest, because they
are concerned about personal safety while they are supposed to
be resting. So I am putting that on your radar screen as
something to take a look at.
I want to just ask a quick question about traffic
enforcement-initiated truck inspections. Last year, the agency
found that this enforcement activity was highly effective for
safety, yet the numbers are falling off dramatically. In 2010
through 2013, those inspections dropped by 39 percent. And so
far, in this year, 2014, they have dropped by 18 percent. Why
would a highly effective safety method be reduced?
Ms. Ferro. Well, I--Congressman, thank you. I agree, and I
assure you that my agency leadership and employees across the
country agree that, at the end of the day, it is all about the
driver. And so, traffic enforcement is an essential component
of ensuring that we are getting to the safety outcomes we are
driving towards in commercial vehicle oversight.
The data that you are citing actually was raised--brought
to our attention, and reinforces to--at least to me and my team
that we have had States--we have a grant structure that has
incentivized States to do more traffic enforcement through
ticketing aggressive cars and trucks--or ticketing aggressive
drivers operating around large vehicles. And those data, that
work, is not counted as traffic enforcement within the normal
grant program. And so, where some of their work, they are--
inspectors may have been diverted to do some of that on-road
enforcement work, we wouldn't see it in the numbers. And so, we
are re-examining both the level of enforcement work, but also,
most importantly, how they are reporting it.
Now, augmenting that, even more importantly, is we have
worked extensively with the International Association of Chiefs
of Police to augment their ability to carry out driver
enforcement on commercial vehicles. Just straight speeding,
unsafe lane changing, none of the complexity of different
levels of inspection. And IACP has been very energized and
eager to press forward, because that all of a sudden takes our
12,000 grant-funded State officers to almost 800,000, because,
again, I couldn't agree with you more, the traffic enforcement
is very important.
Mr. Ribble. Could you keep this committee up to speed,
then, going forward, on how your decisionmaking process is, as
it relates to that issue, then?
Ms. Ferro. I certainly will.
Mr. Ribble. Thank you. Thank you very much. And with that,
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Petri. Thank you. Mr. Michaud?
Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for having
this hearing. I want to thank the panelists, as well, for being
here this morning. And my question is for Mr. Nadeau.
As you are well aware, for several years now Maine has had
an excellent, real-world experience with the use of heavier
trucks, 6-axle trucks, that are permitted on both State and
interstate highways under our 20-year pilot program. The
program is supported by the Maine Department of Transportation,
Maine State Troopers, Maine truckers, Maine shippers, as it has
improved road safety and lowered the shipping cost, while still
protecting our infrastructure, at the same time. In fact, the
Maine Department of Transportation engineering analysis found
that additional bridge costs to accommodate the heavier trucks
are theoretical, and perhaps even zero.
This is not theory or projections for some interest groups.
This is practical, on-the-ground experience that should be very
informative to the Department of Transportation truck size and
weight team. We hear a lot about the theory and what is really
happening out there, real world, is different.
My question is, can you assure me that the Department of
Transportation study is giving appropriate weight to the
practical and real-world experience that we have seen in Maine,
not theory, in what some of those that might be for or against
these are using, theoretical examples, not practical
experience?
Mr. Nadeau. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman
Michaud. I think I can, in that specifically what the study
calls for is comparing impacts in jurisdictions where heavier
weights and lengths are allowed to those where they are not.
So, an empirical approach and analysis of this nature, I
think, will yield that kind of real-world comparison, based on
real experience on the ground. So I think I can assure you of
that, sir.
Mr. Michaud. I appreciate that, because I know a couple of
years ago--actually, 3 or 4 years ago--when we first initially
had the weight limit discussion for this committee--as you
know, in the real world, before I became a Member of Congress,
that is what I used to do, is actually load tractor trailers
and box cars. So in some of the testimony we heard at that
point in time was based on theory, not the practical world. So
I appreciate that.
My second question, also for Administrator Nadeau, is that
when I met with your predecessor in this December, you know,
the Federal Highway Administration pledged to review the
standing general and nationwide waivers to determine if they
were still warranted in the Buy America revision. Can you tell
me whether the Federal Highway Administration has indeed
conducted a review of these general waivers, and what specific
steps the Federal Highway Administration intends to take in
regard to these nationwide waivers that are currently in
effect?
Mr. Nadeau. Be happy to. Thank you for the question, sir.
We actually since that time--we had initially issued a memo to
all of our division offices essentially clarifying the
application of the national waiver requirements. Subsequently,
we put that out for public comment and received an extensive
amount of interest in specific waivers and, of course, all the
national waivers that are included.
As a result of the interest and the complexity of some of
those issues, we will issue a notice of public rulemaking on
the national waiver provisions of Buy America, which, by the
way, of significant interest to the administration is a broadly
balanced applicability of Buy America provisions to ensure we
leverage the economic impact of the investments that the
taxpayers make in their infrastructure.
So, that NPRM will provide, I think, the opportunity for
the entire highway community to evaluate the national waivers
and their impact on the program, and we are looking forward to
that exchange with the American public.
Mr. Michaud. Thank you. And I can appreciate your comment,
both--how important this is to the administration. However, I
have seen in other cases where the administration talks--the
President talks about Buy America as it relates to the Berry
Amendment, which has been law since 1941, yet the Department of
Defense is still not complying with the law that requires all
soldiers be clothed from head to toe with American-made
clothing. They are getting around that by giving a waiver for
the athletic footwear.
So, hopefully, in this particular case, what the
administration says is what the administration will do. I have
found in other cases that has not been the case, and we are
still pushing them to completely comply with the Berry
Amendment as it relates to DOD. And I know that is not your
issue, but hopefully we will see a different tack as it relates
to this Buy America provision.
So, once again, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I see I
ran out of time. Thank you, Mr. Nadeau.
Mr. Nadeau. Yes, sir.
Mr. Petri. Mr. Mullin.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you. I guess they saved the best for
last. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Petri. No.
Mr. Mullin. Oh, I am sorry.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Mullin. I didn't see you back there. Well, I want to--
Secretary Ferro, you know, we have spent actually quite a bit
of time--you have actually came to my office and visited with
me, and I appreciate that. We have talked a couple times on the
phone. But I still have huge concerns with the hours of
service. You know, we make a lot of rules here that have
unintended consequences. And when we have a one-size-fit-all
approach, it has unintended consequences. And the hours of
service is having a lot of unintended consequences.
So I just want to ask you how many hours a week do you
work? Not at your office, but how many hours a week do you
work, from the time you get your first email, your first text,
first phone call in the morning, until your last?
Ms. Ferro. Quite a few hours.
Mr. Mullin. I know, but the industry that you have set, and
that you are regulating, you are regulating their hours. Their
industry is just as important as yours.
Ms. Ferro. That is right.
Mr. Mullin. And you are telling them how many hours they
have to work, how many hours they have to rest. So how many
hours do you think you put in a week?
Ms. Ferro. Well, I will clarify. Again, I work in an
office, not behind the wheel, so my office is stationary----
Mr. Mullin. Their office is their truck, and my office used
to be my truck, too.
Ms. Ferro. Yes, that is right. Their office is on the
roadway. So, certainly, I work probably, on average, 60 hours a
week.
Mr. Mullin. Does that include your Fridays and Saturday
phone calls?
Ms. Ferro. Well, I would say on average----
Mr. Mullin. Or Saturday or Sunday phone calls?
Ms. Ferro. I would just say, if we average it out, it is
probably about 60 hours a week.
Mr. Mullin. I would probably say, just knowing you, you
probably actually do a lot more than that. I know, myself, I
would easily exceed that. And I also know my sleeping habits. I
also know that I operate just fine off of 5 hours of sleep. I
actually get a headache at 6 hours. I also know that, when I am
traveling, there are things that happen.
I mean, for instance, if you got to travel during these
storms that we have had, especially this winter, and you get
stuck at airport, and you don't get to the hotel until 1 a.m.
or 2 a.m., like happened to us multiple times this year, and
your first meeting is scheduled for 8 a.m., do you push it back
because you got to have 8 hours in the berth--or, I am sorry,
in the hotel room?
Ms. Ferro. Well, again, I am going to reinforce. The agency
that I operate, FMCSA, was established to oversee and ensure
that crashes involving commercial motor vehicles----
Mr. Mullin. I get that. It is safety.
Ms. Ferro. And we take all the----
Mr. Mullin. I get that. So you look at safety. But what I
am saying is you are treating an industry like it is less
important than the work that you have to get done. And when you
have start times, and says that you have 14 hours to get 10 to
11 hours of driving done, period, and yet you are going through
Atlanta and a storm happens, and you got to stop, then we have
unintended consequences because they run out of time. And if
they don't get some place to get in a berth, in the sleeper,
the berth, they don't get someplace to get into the sleeper,
then they get fined, serious fined. And then that can affect
their rating. And then when they return, that can affect their
ability to carry for certain people. But yet it was beyond
their control, because they got stuck in the traffic jam, and
they can't get their hours done.
And so, what we end up doing is having trucks pull off on
the shoulders and off-ramps, and they sit there. And then they
run out of time. And you know that is true. And there is no
safe zones for them to go to. So now the trucker, his safety is
in concern, because he is nowhere in a protected area, and
anybody can drive up. They know that that guy is there, and
they know that they can rob his goods and rob him, too, and he
can't move. He has to stop there, or he is going to get fined,
and his rating is going to go down. Unintended consequences.
Or, we are in the situation that they have got to pull over
because they are out of time and the storm is right on their
tailgate, it is right behind them. And if they can get through
this period, this dry period--because they know they can push
themselves. They know where they are at, and when they are
tired, and they are not. They are professionals. You are a
professional. I am a professional. We know ourselves.
And the industry has done a great job of regulating
themselves. But now it is not good enough. Instead, we have got
to have somebody come in and tell them, ``You can only work 36
hours at a time.'' ``You cannot start your truck between 1 a.m.
and 5 a.m., at least for two periods.'' 1 a.m. to 5 a.m.?
Sometimes that is the best times to drive, especially if we
want to talk about safety, because there is less cars on the
road. But we are regulating them. And, ma'am, no one regulates
how many hours you can work.
Ms. Ferro. That--Congressman, what you just described is
absolutely why this is a very difficult industry to be part of,
and why we have every reason to be grateful for the commercial
drivers who are professional, who are--put safety first. And
the hours----
Mr. Mullin. But we are doing a one-size-fits-all approach.
Ms. Ferro. The hours----
Mr. Mullin. And this is already having unintended
consequences.
Ms. Ferro. Right.
Mr. Mullin. And yet you don't want to hear anything about
it. We tried to challenge this.
Ms. Ferro. Yes, I listen all the time. I like to hear a lot
about----
Mr. Mullin. But what are we doing about it? Nothing.
Instead, the rule went ahead and went into effect. And I think
it is quite hypocritical that you are working outside the
parameters and the hours that you are telling the truckers that
they can't work.
Why don't you do this? Why don't you do a study. You work
the exact same hours for 1 month that you are regulating these
drivers that say they can work. You go off the same, exact
timeframe that they go off of. Don't answer your phone, don't
take an email, don't take a phone call during the same periods
of time. You work only the hours that they are allowed to
work----
Ms. Ferro. Now, Congressman, again----
Mr. Mullin [continuing]. And see if you can still do your
job.
Ms. Ferro. Congressman, we are talking about an industry
whose office is behind the wheel, on the highways, with your
family, every family member----
Mr. Mullin. And we are talking about me and my drivers.
Ms. Ferro. I understand.
Mr. Mullin. We are talking about an industry that has done
a phenomenal job----
Ms. Ferro. Yes, and drivers----
Mr. Mullin. A phenomenal job since 1978, a phenomenal job--
--
Ms. Ferro. And under this new rule--right.
Mr. Mullin [continuing]. Of bringing it down before you and
FMCSA----
Ms. Ferro. I see.
Mr. Mullin [continuing]. Got involved.
Ms. Ferro. But the hours-of-service rule has been out there
for decades. The recent changes----
Mr. Mullin. But there was flexibility in it.
Ms. Ferro. The recent changes retained a driver's ability
to run 70 hours a week. Seventy hours a week. Sixty hours a
week, without needing a restart. So, again, there are
significant----
Mr. Mullin. And, once again, how many hours do you work a
week?
Ms. Ferro. There are significant operating opportunities
within this rule. And, really, what you have described is why
drivers should get paid more, and be treated as well as----
Mr. Mullin. I do agree with that.
Ms. Ferro. Yes.
Mr. Mullin. But, ma'am, a one-size-fits-all doesn't
approach, and yet you don't live by the same rules you are
requiring this industry to live under. And every industry is
vitally important. Every profession is just as important as
another profession. If there was a little bit of flexibility,
maybe some human factors in play, maybe then we could talk. But
a one-size-to-fit-all approach does not fit an entire industry.
Why don't we focus on those few that are breaking the law,
instead of punishing everybody?
Ms. Ferro. Well, and that is at the heart of CSA, so thank
you for that closing point.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you. Mr. Mica?
Mr. Mica. Thank you. We did save the best for last. So just
want to clarify that for the record.
Let me go through some of this. First of all, when we
worked on MAP-21 our intent was to try to consolidate or
eliminate some programs. A report I have here from the staff
says we consolidated or eliminated 70 DOT programs. I had asked
earlier--I guess last year--how many positions had been
eliminated or cut as a result of the consolidation or
elimination. Mr. Rogoff, any idea?
Mr. Rogoff. Mr. Mica, I don't think we reduced--net, as a
Department, I don't believe we did reduce positions as a result
of MAP-21.
Mr. Mica. See, I think that is horrible, terrible, bad.
Staff, get the number of FTEs they had last year, this year.
That wasn't the intent. The intent was to honestly consolidate,
eliminate some positions. Then also devolve to the States where
we can--as many projects--while we are at that now, are you
going to oversee the TIGER--this TIGER round?
Mr. Rogoff. The TIGER grant is run out of the office of
policy, which is under the Under Secretary's office. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. That is yours? OK. Was it $700 million in this--
--
Mr. Rogoff. $600 million, sir.
Mr. Mica. $600 million? OK. What is the date for those?
Mr. Rogoff. We just put out the notice, and I believe the
application date is either--deadline is either April 24th or
28th.
Mr. Mica. So we have had some bad processing, and not
transparency. I hope that will be eliminated. So I want to ask
the committee staff also, let's monitor how that is being done.
Mr. Rogoff. Sure, we have----
Mr. Mica. Does all that money have to be out by October?
Mr. Rogoff. Our goal is to get the grants out in that
timeframe.
Mr. Mica. OK.
Mr. Rogoff. Does it have to be out? Not as a matter of law.
It does not----
Mr. Mica. Try not to screw my State this time, too, like
they did in the first round. I appreciate that. I know you got
better as things went on. I know, personally, you would----
Mr. Rogoff. We welcome all and every application from
Florida----
Mr. Mica. I don't know of any just now, I just meant in the
general drafting.
But, let's see. So we want to check on the number of
positions. Guys, be witness to this. Nothing gets eliminated or
cut in any--OK.
Project delivery and streamlining. That was also supposed
to reduce some of the Federal involvement. Can you--anybody
there, anything in NEPA? Do you know of any reduction in
staffing----
Mr. Rogoff. Well, I think most of the NEPA streamlining,
sir, takes the form of potentially less work on the part of
project sponsors and consultants.
Mr. Mica. But it also would be some on----
Mr. Rogoff. It could, over time, but----
Mr. Mica. But there is no net----
Mr. Rogoff. Those provisions, those would still be----
Mr. Mica. No net efficiency, then, out of DOT.
Mr. Rogoff. I think we are making a lot of our processes
more efficient.
Mr. Mica. Oh, OK. Here is what I would like you to do----
Mr. Rogoff. We also got new requirements under MAP-21 to--
--
Mr. Mica. Maybe for the record--don't mean to interrupt,
but maybe for the record, just to substantiate what you are
saying, is how many more you have processed. Can you tell us?
Or the volumes, maybe numbers, process, money amounts,
something to substantiate that actually the streamlining is
taking place?
Mr. Rogoff. I think that would be a good one to take back
for the record, Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Could you do that?
Mr. Rogoff. It is a data call, really----
Mr. Mica. I just wanted to substantiate what is going on,
and what our intent was.
OK. Got a couple more questions here. TIFIA. How much was
the total request for TIFIA that we had coming in? I know we--
about----
Mr. Rogoff. We are doing--we are proposing $1 billion a
year for 4 years, sir.
Mr. Mica. That was what we increased it to----
Mr. Rogoff. You, I think, did 750 the first year, and a----
Mr. Mica. OK, the first year, and then it went up.
Mr. Rogoff. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. Because we had that little problem of a balance
at the beginning, so we knocked it down the first year. But
what was the total number of requests you had for the 750 or
the billion, whatever you got?
Mr. Rogoff. I--we have got a great many requests.
Mr. Mica. I mean was it----
Mr. Rogoff. I don't have a hard number, but it is well in
the tens of billions of--well in excess of any----
Mr. Mica. Provide that to us. Because, see, I heard----
Mr. Rogoff. That is easy.
Mr. Mica [continuing]. And the administration talking about
additional. And you leverage those dollars, it is a big deal.
But I know there were a hell of a lot more requests than we
funded.
Mr. Rogoff. There are. It is light years from what it used
to be.
Mr. Mica. And that is the cornerstone of any new bill, a
huge number of requests. Right?
Mr. Rogoff. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. OK. So we need to look at that. That should be
our goal, is to try to get that up there for----
Mr. Rogoff. And it is not just requests. There are larger
projects, too.
Mr. Mica. Staff, if you can give me that, too. And work
with you. I mean that works. And then we are going to do--if
they get to rail, we could do RIF, which would also provide a
lot of capacity for financing, if you don't have the bucks.
OK, let's see. Two things I have got remaining. Hours of
service, I heard that little discussion. Last hearing I had
talked about one of the truckers who came up, a trucking
official said there is something that they use to see if troops
or others are fatigued. We have that technology. He says all
the stuff they are doing is crap. He says it is a waste of
time. The records can be--all this stuff is--can be done. But
he said you can get this equipment the military has, put it on
a driver, and tell if they are fatigued. Have you looked in--
anyone looked into that?
Ms. Ferro. We have been working through the Small Business
Innovative Research program.
Mr. Mica. Have you seen that? Has anyone seen it?
Ms. Ferro. I have seen----
Mr. Mica. Could you report back to me, personally, Ms.
Ferro?
Ms. Ferro. Yes, I will. Yes, I will.
Mr. Mica. Because I was told that, I asked about it last
year. And I think we are playing a bunch of games, but I am
telling you those truckers just got me by the collar and said
the technology is there, but we are in another era. And I would
like to see something on that.
Ms. Ferro. OK.
Mr. Mica. Then the final thing is deaths. Who works in
death on Transportation? Rogoff, you got the--or Mr. Nadeau?
You have the numbers from last year, how many people were
killed in accidents?
Mr. Nadeau. Maybe--Acting Administrator Friedman may--
probably has the roadway fatalities.
Mr. Mica. How many, Mr. Friedman?
Mr. Friedman. There were over 30,000 lives lost on our
highways last year.
Mr. Mica. But that is over. Now, we went--we were in the
40s, we came down to the 30s, mostly----
Mr. Friedman. It is about 33,000.
Mr. Mica. 33,000. So where--and then it went up a little
bit. Are we back? Did we have a reduction over the previous
year, or did we have an increase?
Mr. Friedman. So, we have gotten to historic lows. And
then, in 2012, we saw an increase. The early data from 2013 is
showing that we have gone back down----
Mr. Mica. Back down.
Mr. Friedman [continuing]. From 2012. But we have got to
wait for that data to be finalized to be sure. But we have seen
a decrease, according to the early data.
Mr. Mica. And have we done anything more on--one of the
things is just like the--separating the traffic with barriers
in between on the interstate. I had asked the question, too,
how many miles we have of that separation. Anybody know?
Mr. Nadeau. Cable median barriers?
Mr. Mica. Yes, any kind of barrier, the cheapest thing to
keep them going across, killing people.
Mr. Nadeau. That would be cable median barriers. And in
many, many States across the country----
Mr. Mica. Can you give me the number of miles----
Mr. Nadeau. My camp would be happy to get back to you
with----
Mr. Mica. Give me the number of miles we have done, and
what we have got to do. OK?
Mr. Nadeau. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. I think that is worthwhile. Of course, the
distracted driver is still a huge problem.
Well, that is all for now. But I will--how long you going
to leave the thing open, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Petri. Fifteen days.
Mr. Mica. OK. I might have a couple I want to submit. I
look forward to Ferro getting me back on that, some of the
other information I requested. Don't forget, Florida, F-l-o-r-
i-d-a, Mr. Rogoff. Six hundred million dollars, we will take
even a small share. Still high unemployment.
Thank you, bye.
Mr. Rogoff. Good to see you again, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Petri. I ask unanimous consent 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 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
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:26 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]