[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION
BILL: LAYING THE FOUNDATION FOR U.S.
ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOB CREATION,
PART 2
=======================================================================
(114-8)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 17, 2015
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
93-775 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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 PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Vice Chair Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BOB GIBBS, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
JEFF DENHAM, California JOHN GARAMENDI, California
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JANICE HAHN, California
TOM RICE, South Carolina RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania DINA TITUS, Nevada
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
ROB WOODALL, Georgia LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
TODD ROKITA, Indiana CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
JOHN KATKO, New York JARED HUFFMAN, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JULIA BROWNLEY, California
CRESENT HARDY, Nevada
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
MIMI WALTERS, California
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
CARLOS CURBELO, Florida
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ iv
WITNESSES
Hon. Patrick McCrory, Governor, State of North Carolina, on
behalf of the National Governors Association:
Testimony.................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Responses to questions for the record from Hon. David Rouzer,
a Representative in Congress from the State of North
Carolina................................................... 63
Hon. Ralph Becker, Mayor, Salt Lake City, Utah, on behalf of the
National League of Cities:
Testimony.................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 66
Hon. John Cox, Director, Wyoming Department of Transportation, on
behalf of the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials:
Testimony.................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 83
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Anthony J. Tata, Secretary, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, on behalf of Hon. Patrick McCrory, Governor,
State of North Carolina, response to request for information
from Hon. John L. Mica, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida............................................... 14
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Mark Steffenson, Mayor, City of Maple Grove, Minnesota, and
Jeffrey Lunde, Mayor, City of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, on
behalf of the North Metro Crossing Coalition, written statement 91
National Congress of American Indians, written testimony......... 93
Rhonda Sivarajah, Chair, Board of County Commissioners, Anoka
County, Minnesota, written testimony........................... 97
Spirit Lake Road Department, Spirit Lake Nation, Tribal
Transportation Program Road Funding Needs, updated February 10,
2015........................................................... 99
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION REAUTHORIZATION BILL: LAYING THE FOUNDATION FOR
U.S. ECONOMIC GROWTH AND JOB CREATION, PART 2
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2015
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill Shuster
(Chairman of the committee) presiding.
Mr. Shuster. The committee will come to order. I want to
welcome everybody here today. I guess it is appropriate to say
top o' the morning on this St. Patrick's Day. I notice that our
three witnesses, none of them have green on. Mayor, is that
green? I cannot tell. But with the last name of McCrory, you do
not need to wear green. We know you are Irish. There you go.
But again, it is great to have you here. Our witnesses are
the Honorable Patrick McCrory, who is the Governor of the State
of North Carolina, testifying on behalf of the National
Governors Association; the Honorable Ralph Becker, mayor of
Salt Lake City, Utah, testifying on behalf of the National
League of Cities; and the Honorable John Cox, who is the
director of the Wyoming Department of Transportation,
testifying on behalf of the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials. Thank you all for being
here today. We really look forward to hearing from you.
This is our second hearing on the surface transportation
reauthorization, which is one of our committee's top
priorities. And it should be; it is a top priority for the
Nation. We are actively working together with Ranking Member
DeFazio and both sides of the aisle, working with our
leadership in the House and the Senate, the Ways and Means
Committee, and others to figure out the funding issues.
And because both sides of the aisle, both sides of the
Capitol, and both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue are talking about
the need for a long-term transportation or surface
transportation bill, I feel confident we will get there, making
the investments we need to make sure America is competitive and
continues to improve the quality of life for Americans.
So again, I look forward to hearing from all of you today,
and with that, I will yield to the ranking member, Mr. DeFazio,
for an opening statement.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Having got here not
very long ago due to a delayed flight, I forgot about the
green. And I am half Irish, DeFazio, O'Shea, Crowley, and
Buono. So I actually did bring, though, a green and yellow
chart. So if I could have the green and yellow chart from the
woman dressed all in green.
The green and yellow chart you see before you in honor of
St. Patrick's Day--here is your version so you do not have to
crane your neck, Mr. Chairman--shows the dependence of the
States on Federal funding. And as you can see, it is generally
about--the average is 51 percent. Many States are--we have 87,
is I believe, the highest--well, no, 93 for Alaska, 79 over
there for South Carolina. These are very high numbers. Oh,
Rhode Island, 102. Oops, sorry about that.
So this is what happens if there is a shortfall--that is
good. Thanks, Helena--in Federal funding. The chairman already
referenced his desire, our common desire, to do a very robust
6-year reauthorization with adequate funding. I expect funding
will be one of the linchpin issues. I will not go into the
options that are out there, but there are options to move us
forward with more robust funding.
But what I will say is that spring starts in a week, and
that really is the traditional beginning of the construction
season for the year. And States have already notified the
Federal Government that they will be delaying or postponing or
canceling projects. And I expect the number of canceled or
delayed projects will grow very, very quickly over the coming
weeks if we do not have a short-term bill.
Yes, we have a common objective on a 6-year bill. But just
to get to the end of this year with anemic levels of spending
would require $10 billion, just slightly less than $10 billion.
So we need some sort of a commitment from the Federal
Government in the next week or two or three of $10 billion or
we will see a dramatic dropoff in construction activity this
summer, costing the country jobs, costing the country needed
investment, and actually causing higher future costs because
much of this infrastructure is deteriorating at a rate that
accelerates at certain points in its deterioration, where
suddenly what was a million-dollar problem last year becomes a
$5 million problem this year and becomes a bridge replacement
problem next year.
So I feel a tremendous sense of urgency. I did have an
opportunity, since I spent so many hours getting here
yesterday, to read all your testimony. I find much to agree
with in there, and look forward to hearing more about it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. DeFazio.
I now ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full
statements be included in the record, without objection, so
ordered. We would like you to keep your oral testimony to 5
minutes. And again, your full testimony will be in the record.
I understand, Governor, you have to leave at 10:45, and I
have to leave at 10:45. So you and I can depart together.
For those Members that do not get an opportunity to ask the
Governor questions, hopefully we can submit them in writing to
him and we can get answers on it. And again, I ask all Members
to abide by the 5-minute rule.
And I would now like to call on Mr. Meadows from North
Carolina to introduce the Governor.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my honor to
introduce my Governor from the great State of North Carolina.
And not only does he come to us with great experience as a
Governor, but having served as a mayor, as a businessman, I
know full well, Governor, that you understand transportation
because you have traveled from Murphy to Manteo, some 545
miles.
To put it in perspective, that is like going from
Washington, DC, to Maine. And if you can put all the different
roads and different avenues of transportation that you would
encounter from Washington, DC, to Maine, that is similar to
what we have in North Carolina.
So as a pro-growth, as a guy who is focused on jobs and
knowing the importance of that connection, it is my honor to
welcome you here and introduce my friend and our Governor,
Governor Pat McCrory.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you very much. And Governor, with that
you can----
TESTIMONY OF HON. PATRICK MCCRORY, GOVERNOR, STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION; HON.
RALPH BECKER, MAYOR, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, ON BEHALF OF THE
NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES; AND HON. JOHN COX, DIRECTOR, WYOMING
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS
Governor McCrory. Well, thank you very much, Chairman
Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and members of the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. And I would like
to also thank my good friend Mark Meadows. And I would like to
also give my best to David Rouzer, who served in our North
Carolina legislature. And I also see my old friend from South
Carolina, the Myrtle Beach area. It is great to have you here,
and it was great getting to know you many years ago.
I am speaking on behalf of the National Governors
Association, and I am also speaking on behalf of the citizens
of North Carolina. Most people do not realize this, but North
Carolina now is the ninth most populous State in the United
States of America. And I do not think they know that in
Washington or New York, but we know it in North Carolina.
We are a very diverse State with a lot of transportation
infrastructure needs. And I would like to thank you all for
working on behalf of our State and all States in the United
States.
I want to urge the Congress to pass a long-term Federal
transportation reauthorization bill that provides States
certainty and flexibility. And we need to make sure that we
then make efficient use of transportation dollars that we use,
just like we do with our own State dollars.
In North Carolina, we recognize that transportation
infrastructure plays a crucial role in attracting business,
supporting the significant military presence in our State, and
connecting people to health care, educational opportunities,
jobs, and recreation.
In fact, just last summer Sealed Air announced it was
bringing 1200 jobs to the Charlotte region, and specifically
cited our surface transportation network, particularly
Charlotte Douglas International Airport, as a major factor in
the decision.
North Carolina maintains the second largest highway system
in the country. Our ferry division is the second largest State
owned and operated system in the country, and we also operate
two major ports and support 99 public transit systems.
The majority of our Federal transportation dollars are
needed to maintain this vast network. Much of our Nation's
transportation infrastructure, as you know, is crumbling, and
many aging structures and systems are unable to fill the
modern-day demands.
States have to become more creative with our transportation
dollars, and so does the Federal Government. In North Carolina,
we have devised a mobility formula that ranks transportation
projects on objective criteria based upon whether the projects
relieve congestion, improve safety, and/or foster economic
development. With this new approach, we will fund approximately
30 percent more projects during the next 10 years than we would
have under the old, more political formula.
As mayor of Charlotte, I implemented a 25-year
transportation plan, and now Charlotte is in the 18th year of
that plan. Similarly now as Governor of North Carolina, I
recently unveiled a 25-year transportation vision for the
entire State that identifies and now hopefully will implement
our future infrastructure needs.
Long-term investment in roads and bridges requires long-
term planning. We are now moving to consider innovative funding
options for implementing our 25-year plan in the State of North
Carolina. We seek to leverage historically low interest rates
by authorizing a $1.2 billion transportation bond to the
voters, hopefully this year. We are also working to stabilize
our gas tax revenue and are exploring alternative sources of
funding such as expanding State revenue-sharing from offshore
energy production.
Despite our creative efficiencies, our efforts still fall
far short of our needs. The funding sources we have available
today in North Carolina will fund only about 18 percent of our
transportation needs during the next decade. Twenty-eight
percent of our transportation budget is Federal.
By the way, I also want to add that one-third of our
transportation budget is currently in litigation, which is
another issue I would be glad to talk to you about in the
future.
While we are doing our part to address this shortfall, we
still need support from a strong and reliable Federal partner.
I am not here to endorse devolution of the Federal program, but
to advocate for strengthening the Federal/State partnership and
relationship. Elimination of the Federal program would be
catastrophic to our State and many States throughout the United
States, and not only to North Carolina, but everywhere, to the
country at large.
Consider that North Carolina is home to 7 military bases
that are the headquarters for some of the Nation's most vital
commands and 110,000 active duty personnel. Failure to invest
in surface infrastructure that delivers freight to our military
and provides deployment access points will degrade our Nation's
military readiness.
I consider myself an Eisenhower Republican. I have said
that since I was mayor for 14 years, and am now in my third
year as Governor of North Carolina. And it is no surprise that
a military person, President Dwight David Eisenhower, is the
father of our interstate system. His vision connected America's
East to the West, the North to the South, rural and urban.
Connectivity is what it is all about. He knew that without the
unifying force of transportation, and let me quote, ``we would
be a mere alliance of many separate parts.'' That also applies
to North Carolina's 100 counties.
Similarly, our strategic long-term plan in North Carolina
will connect the far west of our State, in Congressman Meadows'
district, to Congressman Rouzer's district in the east. In
2012, Congress passed MAP-21, which authorized highway and
transit laws for 2 years and was extended last summer for 10
months.
Without your action, as the chairman mentioned, the
extension will expire in a short 10 weeks. Important surface
transportation programs will halt at the height of the
construction season, risking thousands of jobs and disruption
to important projects.
I am here on behalf of all the Governors. And I know my
time is up. We need action now. And I want to do everything I
can as the Governor of the ninth largest State to support that
action and to come up with viable solutions for the long term.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Governor.
And with that, Mayor Becker. Your city is the fifth fastest
growing city in America, I understand, so we want to hear what
you are doing in Utah, and give us some guidance here in
Washington.
Mr. Becker. Thank you, Chairman Shuster, and thank you so
much----
Mr. Shuster. Can you pull the mic a little closer to you?
Mr. Becker. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. It moves.
Mr. Becker. Oh, it does. There we go. OK. Thank you. Thank
you, Chairman Shuster, and it was a pleasure having you in our
community last year. And I hope it was worthwhile for you as
well. Ranking Member DeFazio, thank you as well, and other
members of the committee.
I am Ralph Becker. I am the mayor of Salt Lake City and the
president of the National League of Cities, NLC. NLC is the
Nation's largest membership and advocacy organization for city
officials, serving as a resource for 19,000 cities, towns, and
villages across the country, and representing more than 218
million Americans.
As the mayor of Salt Lake City and president of NLC, I have
seen what can be achieved when partisanship takes a back seat
to policy. Last week I was honored to welcome the President to
our annual Congressional Cities Conference, where he made clear
his commitment to our infrastructure needs. And of course, we
are grateful to have one of our own, the former mayor of
Charlotte, Anthony Foxx, serving as Secretary of
Transportation. So obviously, the mayor of Charlotte is a big
steppingstone for folks from that great city.
The visibility of the dialogue between leaders on this
committee and Secretary Foxx at the Department of
Transportation is encouraging. We are hopeful that Congress and
the administration can work productively together to craft a
legislative solution that avoids the chaos and the crisis we
would endure if the surface transportation programs are
permitted to expire.
Among local officials, no Federal priority rates as
consistently high as transportation infrastructure. That is
because for cities, every transportation project is a
partnership--with other local and regional authorities, with
the State, with the Federal Government, and with the private
sector. This is certainly the case for our transportation
initiatives in Salt Lake City.
For example, few would have predicted a generation ago that
Salt Lake City would become one of the light rail capitals of
the Nation or that we would bring streetcars back to our city.
But our TRAX light rail system, our Sugar House Streetcar, and
our Bike Share program reflect some of the changes our Nation
is experiencing in metropolitan areas all across the country.
By necessity, locals are stretching the value of every
dollar to invest in small- and large-scale projects of
practical design. We are making existing corridors more
efficient and multimodal, and doing so in ways that increase
capacity at less cost to the taxpayer. These locally driven
solutions are offering more travel options to the public,
helping shippers and businesses keep goods and products moving
and delivering a bigger boost to investors, developers, and our
economies overall.
Unfortunately, uncertainty at the Federal level is driving
up the cost of financing and stalling projects, and many States
are compounding the problem by limiting the authority of
municipal governments to raise new revenue through taxation.
Since 1978, 30 States have enacted formal limitations on taxes,
budgets, or outlays on local governments.
As you know, when the Federal Highway Act was signed into
law in 1956, it was federally planned and coordinated. But it
responded to urgent local needs, calling for cities and towns
to be better connected. Today this vision needs an update.
Technological advances and demographic shifts are
challenging the assumptions on which our current system is
based. Smartphones have enabled users to access transit
information in real time, raising expectations for reliable and
on-demand service. Electric cars are becoming more viable and
less expensive. And autonomous vehicles, driverless cars, are
being developed as we speak, as the chairman knows well. Our
transportation systems will need to adapt to these
developments.
Demand for public transit and active transportation is also
rising at a rate that is way beyond current capacity. The
greatest demand and energy for transportation improvements in
Salt Lake City comes from transit, biking, and pedestrian
improvements.
Transit agencies have reported growth in ridership in 12 of
the last 15 years. Currently there are 99 transit expansion
projects and 23 major system renovations underway throughout
the country in addition to almost 100 other projects in the
pipeline.
Young people aged 16 to 34 drove 23 percent fewer miles, on
average, in 2009 than in 2001. In that same age group, only 67
percent of Americans have driver's licenses. And according to
the 2009 National Travel Survey, 1 in 12 U.S. households is
completely car-free.
From 2000 to 2012, the number of people who primarily bike
to work has increased 60 percent nationwide. In larger urban
areas, the number of bike commuters has more than doubled. Bike
share systems have become commonplace, with 49 American cities,
including Salt Lake City, implementing new systems, and many
more in planning phases.
I know that the safe and efficient movement of commercial
goods is also high on the agenda for the next authorization.
Every link in the movement of goods, from ports, agricultural
centers, and manufacturing plants to their destination should
be strong. But our first and last miles are falling behind.
The Federal Government is devoting a significant investment
to the modernization of U.S. ports to accommodate Supermax
container ships and assure America's global economic
leadership. Investment in the roads between our ports and
highways should be made in conjunction with ports
modernization. But unfortunately, these municipally owned
stretches of road are among the most neglected.
None of this is to express preference for any particular
mode. In Salt Lake City, for example, we need all of our modes
functioning at a high performance level, and I know that is the
case in all of our cities across the country.
We now have more choices than ever, but our authorized
transportation system at the Federal level does not reflect
this shift. And in Salt Lake City, where 55 percent of our air
pollution is from mobile sources, we need all the choices we
can get. So however the future of transportation unfolds, we
know the committee will need to balance investment with
maintenance.
Local governments own and operate 78 percent of the
Nation's road miles, 43 percent of the Nation's Federal aid
highways, and 50 percent of the Nation's bridge inventory.
However, over the past 20 years, roughly 80 percent of all
funding has consistently been reserved for the highway system.
And although the remaining 20 percent is theoretically devoted
to transit and other alternative transportation programs, it is
not easy to steer funding that passes through State departments
of transportation away from auto-oriented projects.
Congress ought to fix this imbalance. The next
transportation bill should directly allocate greater funding to
local governments and provide more flexibility for local
decisionmakers to choose the best mix of transportation options
to fit regional needs.
NLC is working in partnership with the other major local
government organizations to build support for a much-needed
course correction, not a radical departure from the current
authorization. My written testimony includes four specific
proposals supported by NLC, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the
National Association of Counties, the National Association of
Regional Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Planning
Organizations, and the National Association of Development
Organizations.
Our proposal would reorient Federal transportation policy
toward cities and metropolitan areas, where the changes in the
transportation market are happening, and they would strengthen
the partnership among all stakeholders to improve the quality
of project selection, the practicality of design, and the value
of every dollar spent.
On behalf of the National League of Cities, I would like to
offer the ongoing assistance of the elected and appointed
officials from our members and staff as you pursue the long-
term, well-funded transportation reauthorization we all seek
and for which we all strive. Let us know how we can help. Thank
you.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mayor.
And with that, Director Cox, please proceed.
Mr. Cox. Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio,
members of the committee, my name is John Cox and I am serving
as president of the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials or AASHTO, which is much easier to
say. I have also had the privilege of serving as the Wyoming
Department of Transportation director for just a little bit
over 10 years.
My main message this morning is to urge prompt action on a
well-funded, long-term highway transit and highway safety bill.
Our country needs a Federal transportation system program with
robust investment levels coupled with long-term funding
stability. Furthermore, the program should provide States with
flexibility by preserving the percentage of funds distributed
by formula, and by streamlining regulations and program
requirements.
Throughout our country's history, transportation has played
a pivotal role in the success of our economy. While States have
done a great job of addressing transportation within their
boundaries, there is clearly a need for a cohesive national
transportation system.
In Wyoming, for instance, I-80 stretches 401 miles across
the southern part of the State. Over half of the traffic on
this route is trucks, and over three-quarters of that truck
traffic is in transit through Wyoming between Midwest markets
and west coast ports, carrying all manner of goods, from
agricultural commodities to raw materials and manufactured
goods. This traffic, which is national commerce, would not be
possible without an effective interstate transportation system.
As you know, our national highway program at its core is a
federally funded, State-administered program based on a 100-
year-old partnership between the Federal Government and State
DOTs. The State department of transportation plays a critical
role in ensuring a safe, reliable, and efficient transportation
network.
In 2013, my Governor, Governor Matt Mead, sought to
establish a sustainable State funding base for transportation
projects by signing a 10-cent increase in the State motor fuels
tax law. Supported by business and civic groups like the
Wyoming Taxpayers Association, and with strong legislative
leadership, this action has allowed us to raise over $70
million per year to invest in both State and local
transportation infrastructure.
Dozens of other States are successfully adopting
legislation that increases revenue for transportation
investment. But it is important to note that States take action
to supplement the Federal program and not as a substitute for
it.
State departments of transportation have strong
partnerships with local governments in their respective States.
The transportation planning process requires our DOTs to work
extensively with local planning agencies and the public in
developing multimodal transportation plans and identifying
projects that are supported by Federal dollars.
This process works, and it is the foundation of the
performance-based program requirements that were established
2\1/2\ years ago in MAP-21. State DOTs have strong, productive
partnerships with local governments, and the transportation
planning process is working well. We would not alter the
federally funded, State-administered nature of the program.
Before closing, let me comment on some regulatory points.
We need to be careful when it comes to developing and
implementing Federal regulations. A number of currently
proposed rules would impose new requirements, increasing
administrative costs at a time when construction inflation eats
away at the flatlined Federal funding level.
One proposed rule would have States collect multiple data
items for all public roads, including unpaved and low-volume
roads. Scarce dollars would be much better used on road and
bridge projects. Simply put, we need to continue working on
reducing administrative burdens and maximizing actual
transportation outcomes and services from Federal program
dollars.
MAP-21 made significant changes in the project delivery
process to accelerate the speed at which we can maintain and
improve highway and transit projects. We can build on this with
additional streamlining provisions in the next bill, and we can
propose streamlining ideas.
To conclude, AASHTO remains committed to helping Congress
pass a robust, long-term surface transportation bill as soon as
possible. The current extension expires in the middle of this
spring construction season, and already several State DOTs are
postponing needed projects because of the unpredictable Federal
funding.
For example, Tennessee, Arkansas, and my State, Wyoming,
have already postponed multiple projects, ranging from $28
million in Wyoming to $400 million in Tennessee, because of the
uncertainty in Federal funding. The sooner Congress acts, the
greater the likelihood that these important projects will not
be pushed back another year.
Mr. Chairman and committee, I want to thank you again for
the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to the
questions.
Mr. Shuster. Well, thank you all very much. And it is
really important having you here, the three of you. You are the
front lines out there. You see the problems firsthand, whether
it is streamlining--and one of my focuses is going to be the
streamlining to build on what Chairman Mica did in MAP-21. And
I think there are important reforms in that. Some of those are
being implemented today, slowly; some of them are being
implemented in ways that we are going to have to tighten up the
law to make sure that streamlining occurs.
But every time we do a Federal surface transportation bill,
there are those that talk about eliminating the Federal role.
And I think you all three made it pretty clear. But if that
were to happen, can you give us some specifics on what the
outcomes would be if we were to eliminate the Federal role,
which of course I do not advocate, but just so folks
understand. And you are the folks that know what is going to
happen out there.
So Governor?
Governor McCrory. Well, it is obvious there would be major
financial implications. And you know the numbers on what it
looks like for each State. But I think it really goes back to
the whole connectivity issue.
One of our country's biggest challenges and my State's
biggest challenge is connecting economic regions with other
regions that are not faring as well during this recovery. And
if we have hodgepodge type of planning up and down the east
coast or going east to west or north to south, you are going to
have major segments of our transportation system in turmoil,
which will impact the trade and commerce of the United States,
and also impact the environment of the United States.
So I believe in an interconnectivity plan, connecting East
with West, North with South, rural with urban, ports with areas
of commerce, and the list goes on and on. And if we do not have
that Federal presence, I think we would go back to a system in
which there is not a clear planning, and I think there would be
a waste of dollars on roads and other infrastructure that do
not have an interconnectivity to other investments, both the
Federal, State, and local governments.
Mr. Shuster. Mayor?
Mr. Becker. Thank you. I think I would just add that if you
look at, as I know we all have, the history of the Federal role
around transportation in this country, it goes all the way back
to the beginning. The Federal Government played the key roles
in canals and then in railroads and then obviously with the
Interstate Highway System and with the transit system.
And as we are moving into this new arena, I think our
Federal partnership is needed more than ever for the reasons
that both our national economy is so completely dependent on
having a good circulation system, whether it is a local
circulation system or whether it is an interstate or
interconnected system or whether it is ports to other means and
modes of transportation.
The Federal role has always been there, and the great
challenge we have today is we have an uncertain partner. And we
cannot plan and design with the long-term projects that we have
based on that uncertainty.
Mr. Shuster. Director Cox?
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, obviously AASHTO does not support
devolution. We are 1 of 38 organizations that signed a letter
sent to Members of Congress yesterday opposing devolution
presentations. We support a strong Federal highway and transit
program. As I stated in my testimony, a strong Federal program
is needed to support interstate commerce, and I gave examples
from I-80 across southern Wyoming.
According to some data that was released by the American
Road and Transportation Builders Association yesterday, in
Wyoming we would have to raise our fuel tax 30-plus cents per
gallon in order to make up the difference. Looking at the chart
that ARTBA released yesterday, there is not one State in the
country that could go through what I went through, what we went
through in Wyoming to raise the fuel tax on the stateside 10
cents, and break even. So the impact in terms of cost at the
State level would be considerable.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. And Governor, you mentioned a
staggering statistic. One-third of your highway funding is
wrapped up in litigation. Is it the funding part of it? Is it
environmental? Is it all the above?
Governor McCrory. Most of it is a type of environmental,
where we have projects that have been held up due to
woodpeckers, to snails, to other types of species under the
Endangered Species Act. And you can delay a project 5 years, 20
years, 50 years, and it gets more and more expensive the longer
we delay. We put a lot of money into lawyers and lawsuits.
And not only that, but it ties up the money, and that is
one area where we would like some more flexibility at the State
level. If we do have a project tied up, let us have the
flexibility to transfer that money to another high-priority
project. I want to respect that relationship. If you allow us
to transfer that money, allow us to transfer that money to a
higher priority project which would have also a positive impact
on not only the statewide system but the system connecting the
Nation.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio?
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would observe that,
Governor, your State has the third highest gas tax in the
country. Utah just changed to a percent basis for fuel taxes,
and I think it has an inflation adjuster in there. And Mr. Cox,
you testified that Wyoming, which is a somewhat conservative
State, shall we say, just raised their gas tax 10 cents.
And I guess what I would ask all three of you to reflect on
quickly yet again, just to emphasize it--because some Members
may have been distracted; I had a phone call--that even despite
this incredible amount of self-help, third highest gas tax in
the country, moving to a percent basis, up a dime, you still
need the Federal program.
Just emphasize that just one more time because we still
have a few devolutionists around here. I know the chairman
asked this, but I just want to put a nail in the coffin, stake
through the heart, and garlic around the neck.
[Laughter]
Governor McCrory. Well, again, yes. The answer is, we need
that money. And listen, I understand the theory of devolution.
But when it comes to infrastructure as opposed to other types
of Federal Government, infrastructure does not recognize city,
county, or State boundaries.
Congestion does not recognize that. Neither does the
environment recognize that. And trade does not recognize that.
When you are stuck in traffic, they do not know what city or
county they are in or State in many instances. So we must have
an interconnectivity plan.
And we have worked--in fact, I just supported an effort in
my own legislature to stabilize the current gas funding source.
There was an effort to reduce the gas tax in our State based
upon other factors going on right now. And I supported an
effort to stabilize the current funding source that we have
now.
I also need to let you know we all need to recognize,
because of fuel efficiencies and other factors, we are going to
have to look for other types of revenue sources to help pay for
the needed infrastructure. And that is the process that I am
going through now, looking at other alternatives in addition to
the current user application of the gas tax.
Mr. DeFazio. I would be happy to talk to you about that.
Spent a lot of time on it. But dealing with the existing
revenue source, you could index it to fleet fuel economy and
construction cost inflation, which I have recommended at the
Federal level. And that would help deal with that in the short
term. Long term we will probably go to vehicle miles traveled,
but there is privacy and other issues.
Mayor?
Mr. Becker. Yes. Thank you for the question. So just last
week our State legislature--we concluded our session last
Thursday night--adopted a change in our gas tax to a 12-percent
sales tax on gas and increased the gas tax effectively by 5
cents. In addition to that, they provided local authority to
increase our sales tax so that we could provide better for our
roads and other transportation needs, transit and other needs.
We are a very conservative State, as everybody knows, I am
sure. But it was recognized that when we start putting more and
more of our General Fund money and other money into roads--and
the average is more than 50 percent in Salt Lake; it is 70
percent now, we pay for roads out of General Fund money, for
example--we are really hurting every other function that we
have to perform at the local level.
So we provided basically an indexing to deal with
inflation. We provided for an increase. And we provided for
local transportation needs, and for the changing needs around
transit and active transportation. It was remarkable. We have
done the same thing in Salt Lake City. A very conservative
place. We increased our property taxes 2 years ago to provide
mostly for our transportation infrastructure that was falling
apart.
So the partnership has always been there, and it makes it
extremely difficult for us to do our jobs without the Federal
partnership.
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Cox?
Mr. Cox. Ranking Member DeFazio, you mentioned in your
opening statement and you showed this chart with the various
levels of dependency on Federal funds among the States. I think
you said the average was about 51 percent. So I will start with
my most embarrassing fact first. Wyoming was about 68 percent
dependent at one time. That is much better because of the 10-
cent fuel tax hike than it was at one time. But I would tell
you that that universal balance there where the States are
dependent speaks for itself.
But I think, more importantly, as the Governor started this
morning, he mentioned the connectivity issue between the
States. The strong Federal role and partnership has been proven
for 100 years. And so when done right, it has stood the test of
time. We think that it needs to be continued.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. It must be lonely out there, Mayor,
with all those Republicans that surround you.
Mr. Becker. We are friends.
[Laughter]
Mr. Shuster. It sounds like you are working together. That
is great.
With that, Chairman Mica.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. And I think there is a lot of support
for passage of a strong transportation highway bill. You all
testified that you support a strong Federal program. Is that
right? Governor? Governor? Governor? We have got three nods,
for the record.
And this Federal activity in transportation consists of two
things. It consists of funding and basically regulation. Is
that pretty much correct, too, Governors? Yes. So I do not
think anyone testified that you want more Federal regulation.
In fact, I heard you do not want that. So basically, what you
are here for is asking for more Federal funding.
In MAP-21, we tried to do everything we could to devolve
much of the funding and the responsibility to the States. I
would have liked to have gone even further. When you say
devolution, some folks mean turn the whole thing over to the
States. Others mean that we can be a strong partner and help
finance.
Let's go through regulations first. We streamlined the
permitting process. Mr. Gibbs and all of these guys here, Mr.
Ribble, all these guys did an incredible job, I think, in
streamlining that. We also allowed devolution of some of the
permitting. And I understand California, Texas--I know Florida
is working on it, and I think Utah has an application in to
take over some of the permitting. What about the others? Can
you comment? North Carolina?
Governor McCrory. Sure. What we have liked so far is some
of the categorical extensions and giving us some flexibilities.
And that is what I am really looking for.
Mr. Mica. Well, we have given you that. But you also have
the ability to do some of the permitting, and that would speed
things up devolving.
Governor McCrory. Absolutely. We can speak----
Mr. Mica. So you will be having your secretary send me a
letter, a note, on when that is going to start. Right? Because
I am one of your constituents. I have a place. I have been
paying taxes in Watauga County for 35 years.
Governor McCrory. I am glad to hear that. Thank you very
much. I appreciate that. I am going there next week.
[The letter that Congressman Mica requested of Governor
McCrory follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
Mr. Mica. All right. And, let's see, Utah is currently
applying. Is that correct?
Mr. Becker. I believe so. I have been hearing a little bit
about it.
Mr. Mica. Well, you have got to know more, because 2 years
ago we intended to devolve the regulatory process more to the
States. And you can do it. So I will expect that letter, too.
Governor Cox [sic]?
Mr. Cox. Thank you for the promotion, Representative Mica.
Wyoming has not made any moves similar to Texas and California
at this point. Let me make a statement, though, quickly on
behalf of AASHTO.
To the extent that MAP-21 extended some State authority
that could be applied for and granted at the State level, let
me speak just specifically for a second to projects within the
right-of-way. We think that there is an opportunity here in the
next bill to extend those privileges under NEPA to include
transportation conformity determinations.
One area where there has been progress is inside the right-
of-way. When a State has a short construction season, that is
us, and that is virtually any Northern State, and has to wait
for a clearance or permit from some non-DOT agency. That can be
the difference in whether or not the project can be completed.
Mr. Mica. We put provisions in there. That needs to be
strengthened. Great recommendation.
The other thing--and even though you are a former chairman
you only get so much time--the other thing I would like to see
from you and from your secretaries of transportation for the
record is what we have put in law--and we had good intentions
to speed things up in permitting.
But I would like to see where the problems are, where the
Feds are not operating as we intended. Most of our
recommendations came from our States. All of our
recommendations came from our States. We could not get them all
in. And then what is lacking.
One of the things, real quick, to end up on: The lawsuits,
have they increased in the last 2\1/2\ or 3 years? And I wonder
if any of that has been impacted by what we did in the law. How
does it compare with before MAP, Governor McCrory? Or if you do
not have it----
Governor McCrory. I do not. I will get that information
back to you. By the way, I do know----
Mr. Mica. I would like to know if we had an impact in
increasing the litigation through some of the things that we
did.
Governor McCrory. A lot of the litigation I inherited
during my first 2 years has been around a long, long time. And
I also agree with Mr. Cox about the right-of-way, and that is a
big issue for us. And the other issue is wetlands, another
major area of delay.
Mr. Mica. Once we take out ``navigable,'' you will be fine.
Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Mica.
Ms. Norton is recognized.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate
this second hearing.
Mr. Cox, perhaps also Mayor Becker, not until I became
ranking member of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit had
I focused on a big part of our transportation bill that I bet
most of us do not even know much about, and that has to do with
roads through Federal lands.
I think of this issue because of Wyoming and Utah. In my
own district there is Arlington Memorial Bridge, for example,
the gateway to Arlington Cemetery and to Virginia and to all
the Southern States. But that is not included in your State
allocation, and it should not be because these are assets on
Federal lands.
As a result, because we have not paid as much attention to
these roads through places like Yellowstone and Grand Teton and
the Arlington Memorial Bridge that I just named, there is this
huge, growing backlog, which is not the responsibility of the
States.
I wonder, Mr. Cox, for example, if you--by the way, I
assume that these Federal lands are responsible for some
tourism and therefore for revenue to the States. I wonder if
you would say something about the transportation needs on
Federal lands in places like Wyoming. Do you agree that they
are a critical component, albeit not from your State
allocation, of the needs that must be attended to by a bill?
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, Representative Norton, from both a
Wyoming perspective and a national perspective, we support both
the Federal Lands Transportation Program, and I will mention
something here that adds to that, and that is the Tribal
Transportation Program.
You mentioned the national parks, Yellowstone and Grand
Teton National Park, and we have also got many miles of
National Forest highway as well. Ensuring access to these parks
and transportation within those facilities is clearly a Federal
responsibility, but I will tell you that it is the second
largest revenue generator in Wyoming, the second largest
industry.
It is also important to support our Nation's tribal
communities. I just got a figure yesterday that there are just
short of 600 different recognized tribes of Native Americans
within the United States. And those tribal lands include a
large portion of Wyoming, equal to the largest county in
Wyoming. And if you will allow me to focus for one second here,
I want to tell you a success story that reinforces our support
of Federal lands in the program.
The collaboration between WYDOT, my organization, the
Arapaho and Shoshone Tribes, which are the residents of the
Wind River Reservation, in the center of Federal lands led to a
successful overhaul and construction of a road called 17 Mile
Road, which on a VMT basis was the deadliest piece of highway
in Wyoming.
And we just finished that last year and turned it over to
the tribes. So without that collaboration from those three
angles and without the participation of the Federal lands
program, it could not have been possible to get done what we
did.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Becker?
Mr. Becker. Thank you, Delegate Norton, and nice to be back
in my home town. Appreciate your representation.
As a former National Park Service employee, obviously these
issues are near and dear to my heart, and public lands really
represent two-thirds of the land mass in the State of Utah. The
current backlog just for national parks, maintenance backlog,
is $6 billion, and that has been growing. It is not part of the
State and local funding mechanism, and so we see this
increasing deterioration affecting obviously the incredible
tourism destination the national parks represent in Utah and
across the country.
The recommendation that we have heard is that that funding
allocation from the transportation bill be increased from $240
million to at least $365 million, with progressive increases to
be able to keep up or at least start addressing this backlog in
maintenance. And any of you who have traveled in national parks
realize not only their beauty but that their infrastructure is
deteriorating. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Becker.
Governor McCrory, I wonder, if you were mayor of a big city
like DC, we have seen an enormous increase in preference for
transit, bike, and pedestrian trails. There has been some
controversy--well, why should highway money go to these
transportation options?
Have you seen or do you agree that allowing people to
pursue these options draws significant amounts of traffic off
of our highways and therefore are viable options that should be
funded in the transportation bill?
Governor McCrory. I think what they do is provide options,
and options are always good. The more choice you have in
transportation, the more beneficial it is to the quality of
life, environment, and choices that the consumer has.
And what we have in our statewide formula for our cities
and towns, both rural and urban, are a variety of options that
are put into the formula that are looking at how much does it
relieve congestion? How much does it help safety? And also how
much does it help deal with the economic opportunities of that
area, whether it be large cities or small towns alike?
So we include all those options in our formula, and we
think that is an important part. But in North Carolina, I have
tried to take the politics out of all those options and do it
based upon a formula. And so we get the biggest bang for our
buck on where we spend the money. How we spend the money in a
city like a Raleigh or Charlotte might be different than how we
spend the money in a Tryon or a North Wilkesboro.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. I thank the Governor.
Mr. Crawford is recognized. Five minutes.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, I
appreciate you being here today.
Governor McCrory, I want to visit with you a little bit.
Your State took on a pretty big change in your transportation
project selection process. What prompted you to do that? Talk
about that a little bit.
Governor McCrory. Well, we were making a lot of decisions
on our roadbuilding based upon politics. And as you went down,
we did not have the interconnectivity that we should have had.
You would go down from the East to the West, North to the
South, and we would have highways going from two lanes to four
lanes back to two lanes back to eight lanes. And it made no
rhyme or reason on why the roads were wide in one area and very
narrow in others. And we also saw that it was not an efficient
use of limited tax dollars.
So in a bipartisan agreement, Republicans and Democrats
both agreed to change that formula. In fact, my good friend,
Mr. Rouzer, helped support that when he was in the State
legislature. We now base our formula on how we spend money on
congestion, on economic opportunity, and on safety, the three
major criteria of how we decide to spend the money.
And instead of just looking at project by project, we are
now looking at, in our bond referendum, which I hope to bring
to the voters of North Carolina, a connectivity plan--for
example, from Asheville down to the coast of Wilmington near
your district. And that is, we look for the choke points in
that 6-hour drive and we unleash the choke points, which does
not mean every county between those choke points is going to
have a project.
But if we unleash the two or three major choke points, it
benefits every county between Asheville and Wilmington, North
Carolina. And then we have good commerce among counties, just
like I ask for the same interconnectivity on I-95 or I-40 or I-
85 or I-77 or I-26, which are all intersecting in our State,
which are important for the commerce not only within our State
but between States.
I see the congressman from South Carolina. We need
connectivity between Myrtle Beach and Wilmington. It is a very
important corridor.
Mr. Rice. Do not forget 73.
Governor McCrory. So that connectivity crossing political
jurisdiction is extremely important, and that is the plan that
we have implemented in North Carolina. And in just the short
term--I think I have statistics in front of me that have been
given by my staff--we have now, I think, added about 300 more
projects based upon the new formula. And they are going to be
much more interconnected projects, which have long-term
sustainability for all of North Carolina, and I think the
Nation also in the Southeast.
Mr. Crawford. Safe to say that it has been pretty well
received by the general public on that transparency and the
streamlining the process, taking the politics out?
Governor McCrory. Absolutely. And I think where I keep
bringing up Eisenhower, for each of you, too, is I think as we
look for more funding, Mr. Chairman, we need to also show the
vision of where we plan to have this interconnectivity from a
national perspective, from a regional perspective, from a State
perspective, and even, yes, to a local perspective.
If we show that, where we are planning to spend that money,
and show that we do have a plan and a vision for the next
generation and the generation after that, I think people are
willing to pay for it. But if we do not have their trust and
spend the money as we have always spent it, I do not think we
are going to get the trust of the people to increase the amount
of funding for transportation.
And my first step is to gain the trust of the public, to
show them this is how we are making the decisions and this is
the vision for the next 25 to 50 years. I think we have to do
that at all levels of Government. I did it as a mayor with
regards to mass transit; I showed them our 25-year plan. But
without showing the plan, I do not think we would have ever
received the support of the voters.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Governor. Appreciate it,
gentlemen. I yield back.
Mr. Shuster. Thank the gentleman.
Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, first let me say I enjoyed very much your comments. I
agree with just about everything you said, and coming from a
State like New Jersey, where fees are very prominent on any
roads. So I was just wondering, you are looking at alternative
funding. And I know that--this is a bad word, toll roads--and I
was just wondering where that fits in.
And Governor, my best friend is moving to your State, and
he just told me that you built a road where you charge 40 cents
in North Carolina, and people are boycotting it because you are
charging a toll on it. I was just wondering if that is
accurate. But I cannot imagine that the States you come from,
tolls are an alternative for funding transportation projects.
Governor McCrory. Well, one rule we have in our State is if
we ever do a toll, there also has to be an alternative for
people to have another option to use. So while we are
experimenting in tolls right now, we do have a road outside of
Raleigh which is a toll road, and then we are experimenting
also. We are in the trial period----
Mr. Sires. It is about 40 cents you charge on that toll
road?
Governor McCrory. I do not have the price with me. I will
be glad to get that to you. But the other thing is we are
experimenting with HOT lanes, so not toll the entire road but
toll a new lane that would be added so we can speed up the
construction of the widening of major corridors at this point
in time.
We are doing one between downtown Charlotte and Cornelius,
North Carolina, where we are going to do a HOT lane and toll
that lane based upon the congestion. And the toll will be based
upon how much congestion there is. And I just think we have to
think out of the box on where the limited dollars are, and we
are all going to have to see what works best, from looking at
user fees to looking at potential tolls of HOT lanes, and then
also looking at stabilizing and at least maintaining our
current gas tax.
Mr. Sires. Mr. Becker?
Mr. Becker. Yes. Thank you. In Utah, I was in the
legislature for 11 years before I became mayor, and I have been
mayor for--I am in my eighth year now. The toll roads have been
proposed, attempted, tried over and over again. We do have some
very limited tolling.
The issue that really has prevented us, I think, from
taking on tolling more is the first tolling location always
says, why are you picking on us? And we have not come up with a
statewide system. So while tolling represents a great way to
have another user fee, in our State I think we have chosen to
look at other means of financing roads and leaving the roads
open.
We certainly do provide, as is true, it sounds like, in
North Carolina, for someone being able to buy into greater use
of the HOV lanes by paying a fee. And it is a way for us to
both use those lanes more and capture some more revenues. But
it has been really tough, so in our State we have gone in a
different direction.
Mr. Sires. Mr. Cox?
Mr. Cox. Representative Sires, in Wyoming there are no toll
roads. Several years ago----
Mr. Sires. Good for you.
Mr. Cox [continuing]. At the tail end of SAFETEA-LU, there
was an indepth study. So it is not as if to say there has not
been a conversation about it. But there was an indepth study
ordered by the legislature into the viability of a possible
tolling scenario on I-80 should that be enabled at the Federal
level. I would tell you that the viability was there. It was a
conversation before its time, and the people spoke very loudly
that it was not a popular idea with the populace.
Mr. Sires. Well, thank you. I can tell you that in New
Jersey, basically I think the tolls are out of control. I mean,
when you charge $15 to go into New York City and then going
down the turnpike, it is just--I am not a proponent of toll
roads, let me put it this way. It is just too easy to raise the
tolls on people. To me, it is double taxation. And they just
keep raising it unless you need it.
Governor McCrory. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I
also want to say I think the other item with tolls is, does the
consumer have a choice of another route? And the other is, it
is very difficult to retrofit existing roads. And that would be
a major negative issue in my State, for example with the I-95
corridor; to try to retrofit an existing road into a toll would
be, I think--it would not happen.
Mr. Sires. The problem with New Jersey is that the
alternate road also has tolls on it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Mr. Sires.
Mr. Gibbs, and Mr. Gibbs will be the last question before I
know the Governor has a hard stop. So you might want to direct
the last question, or your question, Mr. Gibbs, to the
Governor.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
panelists.
Governor, I want to expand a little bit more on
Representative Crawford's questioning, talking about the
intermodal, and you were talking about the seven military bases
and all that, and with rail, because I think intermodal is
really important, and then also when you go across State lines.
Is that what we need to look at more, who facilitates this?
Because you are working with the Department of Defense and then
of course the private railroad companies if you go across State
lines. You are taking the leadership as the Governor, but what
should be the Federal role to help facilitate that between
State lines and the Department of Defense and what your status
is on the intermodal?
Governor McCrory. Yes. I think where I could use help from
the Federal Government is showing that plan of connecting
economic regions. For example, I have an Elizabeth City area in
North Carolina, northeastern North Carolina, which is closer to
here than it is to where I was mayor of Charlotte. It is
actually pretty close to Washington, DC.
We think that their unemployment rate has not been reduced
as much as other parts of the State have. We have gone from the
fifth highest unemployment rate; now we are not even in the top
30, I believe. So we have done very well. But there are pockets
where we need still more connectivity.
And their best connectivity in Elizabeth City, and this is
coming from the Governor of North Carolina, is to connect to
Hampton Roads, Virginia. Connecting to that economic region
would be the best benefit to them. So where I would like to see
the Federal Government is to see, where do we need that
connectivity that crosses political jurisdictions, especially
statewide jurisdictions?
Another one is the connectivity to South Carolina and North
Carolina, from Wilmington to Myrtle Beach, which is a major
travel and tourism destination. I want Myrtle Beach to do well.
I want Wilmington and the rest of our coast to do well. But to
have that interconnectivity is very important for the entire
economic region.
And economic regions, again, do not recognize these
political boundaries when we are recruiting new industrial
customers or travel and tourism. And I think that is where we
could use your help. And that is why I think the Federal
Government has to play a role, so we do not have these logjams
along the coast or connecting our major regions.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Also, Governor, I think Mr. Cox--
especially Mr. Cox--you talked in your testimony about being
careful on the regulatory side. And Governor, you mentioned
wetlands.
There is a new regulation that the administration has
proposed and they are probably trying to implement here in a
month or so. It is called Large United States Borders. Have any
of you looked at that and what the impact might be to your
States on your road projects?
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, Wyoming is looking at that. We are
very concerned about it. And there is probably not a lot I can
say because the State has drawn a legal stance on the matter.
But Wyoming is concerned with it.
I think that from the standpoint of AASHTO and the State
DOTs in general, there is deep concern. We have got situations
prior to this proposed ruling that range from great
relationships which lead to relatively quick approvals all the
way to if you turn a shovel in the right-of-way in the ditch
that you have to have permission. And so that is something that
AASHTO is watching very closely.
Mr. Gibbs. Well, my opinion, we need to keep those
regulations as close to the local States as we can and not have
a one-size-fits-all policy coming out of DC that centralizes
it, more bureaucracy and going to add cost to your States.
Governor McCrory. In fact, my DENR secretary will be
testifying here in Washington next week in front of a Senate
committee. But we have major issues with it, especially with
the agriculture.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes. Mr. Becker, in your testimony you mentioned
GROW AMERICA. This is going to be more a comment on my part,
but anyway, I guess you can answer. The President in his budget
proposal how to fund for the surface highway bill is 14 percent
new tax on American companies that have profits overseas on
their crude profits, even though those profits might have been
plowed back into their capital operations overseas, and then
tax those profits 19 percent going forward.
I see a couple of problems. First of all, I do not know how
you enforce it. I think this is a pipe dream. Second, I think
it encourages businesses in the United States to move their
headquarters, and then of course more importantly, I think it
would encourage more inversions, where foreign companies are
buying American companies.
And so I do not believe that proposal will work. I notice
you had in your testimony about the GROW AMERICA. So you can
comment if you want. Go ahead.
Mr. Becker. I will just comment briefly. Obviously, there
are different opinions and views on the funding sources for
transportation. And from a local government point of view and I
think even from a State point of view, we recognize there are
varying sources.
That is one that has been identified by the administration
as sustainable. It is obviously up to this committee and to the
Congress to decide a sustainable funding----
Mr. Gibbs. Well, I think everything should be on the table,
but I do not think that proposal will work. But my time is
expired. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Becker. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you. And with that, Governor, I know you
have got a hard stop. I have to depart, myself, so we can leave
together. And I am going to leave the gavel in the hand of the
vice chair of the full committee, Mr. Duncan from Tennessee.
And before I leave, I will recognize Ms. Esty for 5
minutes. Governor, thank you so much for being here.
Governor McCrory. Thank you all very much for your hard
work. Appreciate it.
Ms. Esty. Thank you, Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member
DeFazio, for holding today's important hearing on the
reauthorization of the Federal surface transportation program.
And I would very much like to thank our distinguished witnesses
for their testimony and taking time from your very busy
schedules to be here today.
Governor McCrory, I will follow up with you. But I was just
meeting yesterday with our Governor Malloy, who has a 30-year
plan. And I want to commend you for your long-range planning.
And thank you for emphasizing the importance to this committee
of Congress doing its job to provide long-term, sustainable
funding for the Governors, the mayors, and all of our planners
in our local communities to make good decisions for the
American people. So we will follow up with specific questions
for you.
Governor McCrory. Thank you.
Ms. Esty. Fifty-year plan--wow, we are getting really
ambitious. Thank you. So I would like to note, as the Governor
is departing, the importance of these long-term plans. And
Connecticut has just announced a 30-year plan for us to really
make that kind of long-term investment.
Mayor Becker, since you are staying with us, thank you. I
want to thank you for sharing your perspective on improving
transportation systems at the municipal level and for sharing
your experience in Salt Lake City. I want to thank you also for
highlighting in the National League of Cities the cities,
towns, and common ground proposal. I have heard a number of
similar concerns in my State about the difficulty of
implementing some of the federally funded local priority
projects into the Federal regulatory framework.
What do you think we could do here at the Federal level to
empower municipalities to develop and implement projects at the
local level that make our transportation infrastructure more
efficient and effective?
Mr. Becker. Thank you so much for the question. I will just
reinforce your planning point. In Utah, I believe a key for us
in getting everyone on board for funding transportation long
term has been a unified transportation plan that has been
adopted at the State level by all the local jurisdictions, by
all the MPOs, by the transit agencies, and really has given us
a very clear path forward, and what the funding needs are
associated with that.
At the local level, I think we are seeing some real
improvements, I think, with the TAP funds, with the
transportation alternative funds there. We would like to see
those funds clearly dedicated, with 100 percent of those for
TAP-eligible activities.
I think today we are seeing--and I know this varies from
place to place--those funds getting diverted more and more,
often for other needs. And as I described in the testimony and
you have heard from others, the real increasing and fast-
increasing demand at the community level, which represents 80
percent of the people, 90 percent of the population in this
country, is around transit and active transportation first and
foremost.
So having dedicated funds there, as well as the CMAQ funds
and having those clearly programmed to go to the metropolitan
planning organizations rather than to States, will give us much
greater flexibility to address our needs locally.
So those are two areas certainly I can highlight for you
that we believe both represents more the needs at the local
level, which is where people are living more and more, and
where our economy is driven.
Ms. Esty. Thank you very much. We have seen that as well in
my State, both the point you highlighted of young people moving
into cities not wanting to use cars, as well as senior
populations. And I think that we do agree with you. We need to
readjust our planning.
And for both of you, if you could add your perspective. One
of the growing areas of concern we have seen in Connecticut is
the impact of corrosion on our infrastructure. I have started a
corrosion caucus to deal with that. If you could talk about
what we need to do at the national level to help support the
maintenance, long-term maintenance.
We have put a lot of money into these systems, but if we do
not maintain them or prep them properly, then they degrade much
faster than they ought to. And it would be helpful to hear your
perspective on those issues.
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, first of all, we can get back to the
committee for the record with some deeper information than
this. However, I would tell you I think from a multistate
perspective and certainly from the perspective of the State
where I live, that concern exists.
I do not know at this point that I have a recommendation
for what to do from the Federal level to address that. I
believe the fact that it has to have our attention speaks for
itself. But I do not have a recommendation at this point. We
will get back to you.
Mr. Becker. I know in Utah and in Salt Lake, it has been a
major focus of our attention to deal with bridges and with
corrosion. We believe that it would be really almost necessary
at this point to include locally owned bridges in the Federal
funding formulas, and that is something that apparently,
whether it is oversight or otherwise, is not reflected in the
current legislation.
Ms. Esty. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan [presiding]. Thank you.
Next on our side is Mr. Rice.
Mr. Rice. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today and
sharing your insights. My focus here in Congress is on American
competitiveness and jobs, and I know that Salt Lake City and
Wyoming are doing their best to be competitive in this global
environment.
I got a call this last summer from the secretary of
transportation in my home State of South Carolina who said, I
understand the Highway Trust Fund is about to run out of money,
and what are we supposed to do. Are we supposed to not enter
contracts or to put contingency clauses in our contracts?
I want you all to, if you could, comment on how that
uncertainty affects our national competitiveness and the
competitiveness in your jurisdictions.
Mr. Becker. Well, it makes a huge difference for us because
if we cannot plan and design and build, which are long-term
endeavors, our transportation system to meet today's needs----
Mr. Rice. You mean you cannot stop and start highway
projects on a dime?
Mr. Becker. No. And it is a multiyear endeavor to go from
planning to design to construction, even under the best of
conditions, where the regulatory system does not lengthen that
process. And today, we do not live in an economy, even in a
city, in a metropolitan area the size of the Salt Lake area,
which is about 1.5 million--we increasingly look towards our
export businesses as a major part of our economy.
We are continually looking at how we get goods in that are
coming from overseas into our arena, into our area. And so for
us, it really is an international matter. I think we have seen,
with the metropolitan sort of revolution that is occurring all
across the country, that our metropolitan areas simply----
Mr. Rice. I hate to cut you off, but I only have limited
time. Do you think that this uncertainty generated by the
Federal Government's lack of willingness to proceed on the
Highway Trust Fund or these major items makes you, Salt Lake
City, more or less competitive in the world?
Mr. Becker. It clearly makes us less competitive. I will be
very brief.
Mr. Rice. Mr. Cox?
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, to answer the first question,
clearly it makes us less competitive. The problem with the
uncertainty is not only--we could go on and on about the
planning process and the long-term issues with highway design
and construction.
But if you look at the construction community, in Wyoming
we have an instate capacity. We rely on surrounding States'
contractors. They cannot plan their own workforces. That is
jobs. They cannot plan their own physical plant and equipment
unless there is some sort of certainty in terms of funding in
general, including----
Mr. Rice. And do you have that certainty now?
Mr. Cox. No.
Mr. Rice. Now, let me ask you this. In Wyoming, when you
are talking about construction jobs, it is one thing. And you
are probably talking about thousands of jobs. Right?
Mr. Cox. Yes, sir.
Mr. Rice. And then when you talk about the collateral
benefit of the infrastructure, you are talking about multiples
of that. Right? In terms of jobs.
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, absolutely. In my State----
Mr. Rice. So here is where I am getting. Then I want you to
answer. Would you expect that, nationwide--project Wyoming on
the entire country--are we talking thousands of jobs or are we
talking about millions of jobs?
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, whether you are talking about the
corpus of jobs involved in construction or the ripple effect,
you are talking about millions of jobs.
Mr. Rice. Millions of American jobs on the line?
Mr. Cox. I believe so.
Mr. Rice. I believe so, too. You know, the Highway Trust
Fund is something that we certainly need to deal with. And I am
very proud to serve on the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, and I am confident that we are going to find a long-
term solution because reactionary short-term planning will get
us nowhere.
But if you look at other problems facing our country,
whether it is the Medicare Trust Fund or the Social Security
Trust Fund or even immigration or these other major issues that
face us, all these things create huge uncertainty in our
economy, and in my opinion make us less competitive and are
costing us millions of jobs.
And the shocking thing to me and the frustrating thing to
me is, everybody in this room knows we have these problems. I
do not think anybody would dispute that. But we are amazingly
unable or incapable of finding long-term solutions.
So I appreciate your comments, I thank you for being here,
and I for one will be looking hard for a long-term solution to
the Highway Trust Fund.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much.
Next, Ms. Brownley.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
both of you and the Governor for being here today and
testifying in front of our committee. I am a new member of the
committee. I am very honored to be here.
Last week I was at home in my district and met with every
single transportation stakeholder in my district, and their
message to me is the same message, I think, that you are giving
the committee, is that we need a long-term, sustainable finance
surface transportation bill here in Congress.
And we all know that the vexing challenge here is, what is
the mechanism? How are we going to provide that revenue source
to pay for the so important investments that we need to make?
So I just wanted to ask all of you, in terms of the
organizations that you represent, has there been a discussion
or any specific recommendations from the National League of
Cities or from the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials about a specific position with raising
the gas tax or a one-time or ongoing repatriation method, if
you have made any recommendations or had any of those
discussions?
Mr. Becker. We have had extensive discussions in an ongoing
way in the National League of Cities about funding
transportation. And there are many options, as this committee
knows better than anyone, in terms of how to fund them.
At the local level, we rely on the gas tax as a primary
source of funding. And we recognize there are times when we
have to bite the bullet if we are going to provide for a
transportation infrastructure in our communities. And as tough
as it is, those are decisions that we make every day or every
year, certainly, when it comes to our budgets and looking at
what our needs are and justifying the needs and living up to a
long-term commitment we have to our communities.
So for us, whether it is the GROW AMERICA Act proposal,
whether it is a gas tax, or whether it is some congestion
pricing formula, whatever kinds of approaches that you would
find acceptable, the important thing from our vantage point is
to make a decision. The American people, we believe--certainly
our communities reflect this--expect us to make those hard
decisions and accept it without consequence, I can tell you, in
terms of our elected and political lives.
Ms. Brownley. Mr. Cox?
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, first of all it would be hard to
overstate my agreement, our agreement, with you that a long-
term, sustainable source of funding for transportation is
absolutely needed. AASHTO has put together a matrix that
illustrates a large menu of options, every one known to us, and
most of those are known to many, but that have been
exhaustively discussed. I am not sure that there are any out
there that--there may be some creative alternatives out there
that have yet to make it to the list.
The elephant in the room, for sure, is how to pay for this.
I think, from the perspective of our States, whatever immediate
short-term action needs to be done, whatever needs to be done
in terms of a multiyear bill probably is going to involve a
little bit of a different consideration than is, what does the
future look like?
Because I think all of us recognize that the Highway Trust
Fund and the funding mechanism for it is one that is becoming
inadequate. And so what does that look like in the future? That
will be a combination, most assuredly, of options.
Ms. Brownley. But it would be fair to say that any and all
options would be acceptable within your organizations? There
would not be any of those options that would not be acceptable?
Mr. Becker. Correct.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you. And Mr. Mayor, I wanted to ask
you--I was excited about your testimony as it relates to better
pedestrian traffic and the use of bicycles. And actually, in my
district, which is Ventura County in California, we have twice
as many people who bike or walk to work than use transit.
So my question is just a broad one. How do you think that
Congress can best support local communities that want to invest
more in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure?
Mr. Becker. Thank you for that. This transformation is
really remarkable that we see around communities all across the
country for active transportation. And it is where there is
clearly, I can tell you in our region, the most energy of
people excited and willing to take it on.
My sense is that if you dedicate the TAP funds and make
that clearly for those purposes so they do not get diverted,
the CMAQ funds, and to the extent you can identify funds that
should be used for active transportation, it goes so much
further than we see for funds for roads because usually the
infrastructure improvements are so much less expensive.
And we just saw, in legislation passed by our State last
week, that for the first time they are actually identifying
specifically active transportation funding at the State level
as well.
Ms. Brownley. And do you have data to show that that kind
of investment is really reducing congestion in your area?
Mr. Becker. We are tracking that very closely. There is
national information I would be happy to try to get to you on
that. And I can tell you locally we are tracking it very
closely, and there is no question that even where we take out a
lane of traffic on some of our streets and slowing the traffic
down, we are actually providing for more people getting through
on those streets.
Ms. Brownley. Mr. Cox, do you have any comments on bicycle
and pedestrian infrastructure?
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, as a lifelong cyclist and
competitive cyclist as well, I am absolutely in favor of the
use of alternative modes of transportation. Having said that,
let me just comment on this to come back to the big picture in
terms of what is facing us today.
In Wyoming, and I think in many States, I am trying to
solve a $15 problem with 10 bucks. And if at the end of the day
under the MAP-21 construct--I think Ranking Member DeFazio
mentioned that it is $10 billion before just the end of this
year.
And so as we consider these emerging needs, the things that
are very popular and the things that will reduce congestion in
those areas where that is sorely needed, we also need to keep
our eye on the ball, I believe, though, and that is that what
are we going to do in the shorter term?
Because if we are not careful, we could end up dividing
what already exists, and do not know how to fund tomorrow, too
much. And in my State, one of the illustrations that we use
with our legislators at the State level is--I think it has to
be dumbed down so I can understand it. OK? But we use what we
call the FRAM oil filter illustration: Pay me now or pay me
later.
And if you spend a dollar today on the infrastructure, you
will save 4 to 8 to 12 bucks later on. That is the problem that
is really overpowering us right now, but in agreement with the
fact that all of these other modes and possibilities need to be
taken into consideration as time goes on.
Mr. Duncan. I am sorry, Director Cox, the time has long ago
expired.
Mr. Davis is next on our side.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate the time, and I appreciate the witnesses being here
today.
I have got one first question to Mr. Becker. Thank you for
your service, Mayor. I believe more local control of our
transportation dollars should be a priority. And my district is
mostly rural, with some smaller urban areas like Bloomington-
Normal, Champaign, Illinois, Springfield, Illinois--home to
Abraham Lincoln--and Decatur, Illinois.
I want to ask you a quick question. What changes would you
recommend this committee make to help our communities that may
not be like yours, with less than 200,000, get their fair share
of Federal transportation dollars?
Mr. Becker. Thank you for that question. And I mentioned
before the TAP funds and the CMAQ funds and having those
clearly dedicated so that local communities can address these
changing needs. But I realize, as Mr. Cox indicated, that in
many places there are varying needs.
So having more local control and discretion over funds is
huge. We are recommending that a greater share of the surface
transportation funds--that is, 75 percent--go to the
metropolitan planning organization, where you have the State
departments of transportation, the transit agencies, and all
the local governments sitting at the table to decide how best
to use that money within a region.
It is currently a 50/50 split, and we believe that if we
devolve that, using your terminology earlier, to the local
level, we are going to see a much smarter use and practical use
of those funds.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much. Obviously, we have had a
lot of discussion on funding sources. We love to be able to
talk about the different issues, and many of my colleagues said
no source should be off the table. And I am just glad we are
having this debate. Some that I talk to in my district do not
even think we are talking about trying to have a robust, fully
funded transportation bill.
But I want to ask you your opinion because I hear a lot of
rhetoric in regards to other infrastructure projects. And I
believe, when it comes to the transportation bill, we need to
put together a list or a pie of priorities, somewhat of a
diversified portfolio, rather than just relying upon one
source. And I am glad we are talking about these different
sources.
But in the debate regarding an infrastructure project, the
Keystone pipeline, many of my colleagues, many who serve on the
other side of the Capitol, are talking about how it is only
going to create 35 permanent jobs. Well, I think that hinders
our ability to talk about what infrastructure and construction
means to our economy and to local communities and States.
It does not help us to talk about the need to fund a robust
infrastructure policy when we know permanent jobs along
highways and interstates are not going to be created at all in
the State of Illinois, but it is going to help grow other jobs,
as my colleague Mr. Rice talked about, the indirect jobs that
are created by economic growth.
This is a frustration for me because I think as we move
forward on this debate, when it comes to funding the highway
and transit bill, that same rhetoric will be used to talk about
not investing in infrastructure at all. So I would urge you to
remind some of your colleagues who may be utilizing that
rhetoric because of their own political thoughts regarding the
Keystone pipeline, reassure them that that debate does not help
us when we are talking about construction projects. I would
like to get both of your thoughts on that.
Mr. Becker. Appreciate the comment. I will tell you from
the local perspective, and we have talked about this probably
as much as you have in your committee here, we are here to
support you in making a decision that will give us a
sustainable, long-term funding and transportation system that
we can all rely on.
So when this Congress is able to rally itself around a
source, and as has been noted, there are many different sources
for funding, we will be here to support you. And we appreciate
that transportation is the circulation system for our country,
whether it is local, at the State level, or nationally. And we
are going to be here to support you in making those decisions.
Mr. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Cox? I have got about 25 seconds for you.
Mr. Cox. Representative Davis, just quickly, I want to
focus in on one comment that you made about the collateral
benefits of transportation investment. AASHTO as an
organization can furnish you with information. There has been a
robust amount of discussion on that issue.
And I will tell you that at the same time, one of the
things that we are conceding among my colleagues across the
country is that the Department of Transportation needs to get
better at showing what the economic benefit is that the need
drives. In other words, not only do we need to get out from
behind the eight ball, but what is the benefit in the long
term? So I am in agreement with you, sir.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you very much. And I appreciate what
both of you do to move this debate along. I think you can sense
my frustration because I came here to work with my colleagues
to hopefully come up with a long-term solution. And there is no
committee that epitomizes the ability to work together in a
bipartisan basis than this committee, and all you have to do is
look at what we did with the water infrastructure bill during
the last Congress. With your help, we will do it again this
year. Thanks for your time.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much.
Mr. Larsen?
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cox, the first question I have is for you from a
perspective of AASHTO. I was talking with our Secretary Lynn
Peterson last week from Washington State a little bit about
this issue of practical design. And despite the efforts of
AASHTO, only a handful of States have actually adopted
practical design consistently, something that in Washington
State we are trying to do, and trying to perhaps get that to be
used more.
Can you talk a little bit about why States regularly are
not using practical design to develop and deliver projects, and
what some of the hurdles may be?
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman and Representative Duncan, can we get
back to you with information on that? We will answer that
question, but I did not come prepared to answer that.
Mr. Larsen. Oh, OK. Great. Yes, I would appreciate that. It
is something we want to be looking at.
As well, we have seen decreased traffic fatalities over the
past few years, but pedestrian and bike deaths have not gone
down at the same rate. So last year a few of us asked the GAO
to look at this trend, and one suggestion we have heard is that
we are over-engineering or over-building roads so that the
posted speed limit may not match the size of the road. As a
result, that contributes to a more unsafe road for bikers and
pedestrians.
Has AASHTO looked at this issue, the relationship between
design standards and road safety for bikers and pedestrians?
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, Representative, yes. The simple
answer is yes. AASHTO is looking at that. Let me just expand
for one second here.
I would tell you that in Wyoming, and I think this is a
microcosm of the discussions that are going on in other
places--and I am talking about the highway system, nonurban, at
this point. OK?
Mr. Larsen. Sure.
Mr. Cox. Robust discussion. The legislature there is
talking about how does highway design and driver and cyclist
behavior interact in terms of the fatality count. We quintupled
this last year our average over the last 10 years in terms of
cyclist deaths.
But when we analyze that--and by the way, those numbers are
not nearly as big as that might sound, putting it that way--but
when we analyzed it, what we found was behavior, driver
behavior and cyclist behavior, was really 100 percent the
issue, not the design of the pavement.
So there is a broader discussion that needs to be held. And
as a career law enforcement officer before coming into my
current position, that is one of the things that we have that
ability to emphasize, that that is part of the discussion at
the table as we analyze that.
Mr. Larsen. Yes. Thanks.
Mayor, I have several questions for you. It has to do with
a bill that I have introduced called TIGER CUBS. You know the
TIGER program is for large projects. We introduced something
that would be for smaller projects because we found that if you
want nickels and dimes, you can get it from the Federal highway
program. If you want big chunks of money, you can get it. But
if you are a city of mid-size and you want something in
between, there is really no one pot of money for that city to
complete a project that is big for that mid-sized city but
small compared to what TIGER is directed at.
I was wondering if NLC has taken a look either at that, my
bill, or just the general idea of looking at some of these mid-
sized cities and how to help them access Federal dollars for
those one-time big projects that are big for those mid-sized
cities.
Mr. Becker. I am not sure, and I will get back to you on
whether or not NLC has a specific position as it relates to a
TIGER CUBS program. But I will tell you this because I believe
this is very consistent with our approach.
The TIGER program has been enormously successful, not just
because it is leveraging Federal dollars so much more and that
it is tailored to local needs and combines multiagency
perspectives and needs to reflect what community needs are as
it surrounds transportation projects. And having a simpler
program, which I assume is consistent with what you are
proposing for smaller communities, can only increase
dramatically how Federal funds get used to meet those local
needs and the State needs.
We are finding, and we have been a beneficiary of a TIGER
grant, and we took basically a relatively small Federal grant
and we leveraged that with two cities, with our transit agency,
and then with private funding to be able to build out a
project. And that kind of creativity that comes through a
program like that we think forces us to think better and to
broaden our reach in terms of who we go to both for funding and
conceiving and developing a project at the local level.
So we would encourage that kind of approach as a way to
optimize, really, the Federal money and really tailor it to
local needs.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you. And just one final note. If you
all--and I will pass it on to the NGA as well--if you all can
be more specific and help us be more specific about the funding
issue. We are always talking about robust funding, but trying
to get to the answer here is a little like talking about the
weather. Right? Everyone talks about it and no one does
anything about it. We need to get a lot of help to be specific
about the funding need in the future.
Mr. Duncan. Good point.
Mr. Zeldin is next on our side.
Mr. Zeldin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And appreciate you
doing this hearing on an important issue. I represent New York
1. This is the East End of Long Island, the First Congressional
District of New York. A lot of people think of Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee thinking of roads and bridges. My
district is almost completely surrounded by water, so the Army
Corps jurisdiction, the FAA jurisdiction, it is great to be on
this committee.
I just wanted to put a little bit of perspective on this
type of district. A lot of people ask me where the district is
and I say, it is the Hamptons. Oh, yes, we know where your
district is. We have the vineyards of the North Fork, the five
East End towns. But almost 500,000 people who live in my
district live in a small town just west of the Hamptons called
Brookhaven, and it has just under 500,000 residents.
Now, this town has only 21 miles of interstate. It is
called I-495, the Long Island Expressway. The town highway
department is responsible for over 2100 miles of roadway, and
the need for road repairs go way beyond this one stretch of
Federal highway.
We had a pretty rough winter up in the Northeast. A lot of
people have read about it coming from warmer climates elsewhere
in the country. My colleague, Carlos Curbelo, sent a Tweet
where he had a picture of him down in Miami asking Elise
Stefanik, Ryan Costello, and I how the weather was up in our
area in the middle of one of those blizzards. I appreciate
that.
[Laughter]
Mr. Zeldin. So I wanted to ask a question. From your
perspective, what can we in Congress do to grant more
flexibility to States and municipalities with a massive need to
prepare critical roads that are not under Federal jurisdiction?
Mr. Becker. Well, I will go back to some things that I
talked about before. There are Federal programs under the
Transportation Reauthorization Act, MAP-21, where there is a
lot of discretionary money that goes to the States. And while
we certainly appreciate the State need--and I can tell you in
Utah we have an incredible partnership between our State
department of transportation, our transit agency, and our local
governments--having that discretionary money go to the State
level impedes our ability to address our local needs very well.
If money can get delegated in TAP or in CMAQ funds or in
the surface transportation funds to the MPO level, then we can
much better address the allocation of those monies in a way, I
think, that achieves practical design, that achieves Complete
Streets policies, whatever the local needs are.
And so shifting that authorization a bit helps us meet what
is a quickly transforming desire from our publics, and a lot of
it, and always will be, around roads, at least for the
foreseeable future. But much of it is increasingly in other
areas. And it varies. In a place like Utah, our air quality
issues drive our decisions more than they would in your
district.
Mr. Zeldin. Director Cox, I want to give you an opportunity
to answer that as well. I guess maybe taking the question one
step further is, what more can we do to be able to represent a
district like mine? I mean, my colleague, David Rouzer, when
people think of a highway bill, you think of a district like
his where you have these two huge interstates crossing paths.
But as I mentioned, this town that I represent of 486,000
people with 2100 miles of roadway, 21 miles of it being
Federal, are there particular Federal policies that for your
life as a mayor or as a State transportation official made it
more difficult? What more can I do to be representing a
district like mine?
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, wow, a couple things. One thing is
to keep in mind the big picture. The Federal program is
designed to ensure that Federal funding goes to projects that
are in the Federal interest. So if you keep that in mind kind
of as the backdrop, it may inform the discussion as you go
along.
The other point that I would make here is that with all of
us conceding that the elephant in the room is the funding and
what the mechanism is and what the size should be and all of
that--I do not think there is a colleague of mine across the
country who would not say quickly that they could put to use
more Federal funding if it were available.
In a fiscally constrained environment, the biggest question
is, are we going to be able to take care of the $10 billion
between now and the end of the year? Are we going to get a
multiyear bill at the current levels or plus inflation passed?
Those are the big questions begging.
But I guess my caution would be here, and in somewhat
agreement with my friend the mayor here, but at the same time
throwing a caution here that unless the program is expanded
significantly in terms of the funding, then any change in
priority toward your district, toward the local cities and
towns of Federal funding will take away from what is the
national interest and the Federal interest in some cases, at
least.
The other thing is--I sense that you wanted to ask another
question, so I will just let you----
Mr. Zeldin. No, no. If you could wrap up. I am just about
to run out of time, so if you could just finish your answer.
Mr. Cox. OK. Well, even Secretary Foxx, a man that I have
tremendous respect for, mentioned in a meeting with us just
several weeks ago here in DC that the advocacy that he is
undertaking for more Federal funding for municipalities and for
cities is predicated upon a growth of the overall program. In
other words, hold harmless those programs that are resident
today in the Highway Trust Fund. So that might be something,
just as a baseline, to keep in mind.
Mr. Zeldin. I appreciate this. And what I am about to say
is by no means targeting our guests here. But coming from a
district where we do not have all of these Federal highways
running all through our district, we are paying the gas tax. We
are paying into the Highway Trust Fund just like every other
district everywhere else in the country.
So when I am back at home I am getting asked the question,
why are we sending so much more to Washington than we get back
in return? It seems like we have the system set up where we are
subsidizing the rest of the country. I appreciate your point
very much.
Mr. Duncan. I am sorry. The time of the gentleman----
Mr. Zeldin. All right. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Duncan [continuing]. Is long expired.
Mr. Carson?
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Cox--well, Mayor, my com director used to work for
KCPW. She wants to meet you. But I will let you guys talk
later. And she is from your State.
Mr. Cox, many of us have worked hard, as you know, to
reauthorize the DBE program at DOT, most recently, in MAP-21.
We are starting now to work on the new highway reauthorization,
but it has been deeply disappointing to discover weak
oversight, quite frankly, with regards to this program
described in the Department of Transportation inspector
general's report.
Now, Federal agencies, sir, as you well know, say they rely
on State and local agencies for data with regards to
contracting and subcontracting. But I want to make sure that
small and disadvantaged businesses will be able to participate.
Could you tell us, sir, with your expertise, about things that
are being done to improve the performance of the DBE program?
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, Representative Carson, all I can do
is comment on Wyoming. And we will have to get back to you with
a specific answer with regards to the bigger picture in AASHTO.
In Wyoming, we have a little bit of a hybrid program. But I
would tell you that the percentages of DBE on contracts has
exceeded the goals agreed upon between the State of Wyoming and
Federal Highways every year since we arrived at this negotiated
approach. And I can provide you details on that. But I do not
know that that is representative of the whole. So we will get
back to you with an answer.
Mr. Carson. This is for both of you. Many of us were
pleased about the announcement that the Department of
Transportation has started steps to enable vehicle-to-vehicle
communication for light vehicles in particular.
Now, I think we all know that this technology will improve
the safety of most of hopefully our constituents and U.S.
citizens. What can you tell us about this new technology and
how it is being tested in your States? And are there early
reports or even trends that you would like to share with us
about how we can make our roads safer?
Mr. Becker. Thank you for that question. And I will have to
get back to you on the specifics in terms of at the State level
what is being done.
Mr. Carson. Sure.
Mr. Becker. I have had an opportunity to go visit where
some of these vehicles are being manufactured and used, and it
is truly remarkable what is happening with this technology. And
I know that we always try to work hard to stay up to or in
front of those technology changes.
I can tell you that the safety issues that we see we think
will only improve with this technology. And we are going to
need to think also about how we combine that with other users
of the road in a Complete Streets concept with both pedestrians
and cyclists, who are increasingly taking advantage of our
rights-of-way.
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Mayor.
Mr. Cox. Representative Carson, I feel a little bit
inadequate for that question. One of my predecessors, Kirk
Steudle, who is the director in Michigan, has immersed himself
in this and could go on as long as you wanted to talk about it.
But we will get back to you with an AASHTO answer on this.
The one thing that I have been impressed with, and which is
emerging now, is in terms of the safety features on the newer
cars. There is no question that they are increasing the safety
margin even in Wyoming, which has not pioneered anything at
this point in terms of connected vehicles or roadside
appurtenances that would speak to the cars.
But I would tell you that in the West, at least one State--
I think he would appreciate it if I did not name him right
now--has a pilot project cooking for connected freight, a
connected freight pilot project across their State in the near
future.
Mr. Carson. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you, Mr. Carson.
Mayor Becker, I have to tell you that from the time I was 9
until I was 17, I grew up at City Hall. My dad for a little
over 3 years was city law director and then mayor for about 6
years. And I learned that everybody and his brother wanted to
be a fireman or a policeman, and then the day after they went
on the force, they wanted a promotion and a raise. And I
wonder, is that still true?
Mr. Becker. Some things do not change.
[Laughter]
Mr. Duncan. Let me ask two quick questions. Number one, I
chaired a special panel last year on public-private
partnerships, and on all types of transportation and
infrastructure projects, a lot of places seem to be going more
toward public-private partnerships. We found out there is great
interest in that. We had a hearing on Wall Street, and some of
the financial giants came to us and said that they were getting
a lot of calls.
Do you see that as a wave of the future, or are you
skeptical about public-private partnerships in regard to
transportation and infrastructure projects?
Mr. Becker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see that in terms
of, in our area, not just as a wave of the future but the
present. We do not do anything, I can tell you, in our
community and in our region around infrastructure where we do
not just engage our Chamber of Commerce, where we do not engage
adjacent businesses and property owners in trying to make
decisions about how we fund those projects.
And increasingly, I think without question, we are going to
need to look to those means to reflect the growing costs
associated with infrastructure improvements, the clear benefits
that come to both businesses and local areas and regionally,
and I think it is being well received and supported in the
private sector because they realize how important
transportation projects are.
I know that for me, with every project we go forward with,
my first stop is usually with the Chamber of Commerce. And
without exception, they have been supportive in finding funding
mechanisms that take advantage of the private sector in our
funding efforts.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you very much. We have found that
there are some efficiencies on a lot of these projects that are
possible if they are done right.
Director Cox, I am a strong supporter of building roads and
fixing roads up, and I really like roadbuilders. But in some
States, roadbuilding has been a very highly profitable
industry. Do you think, number one, is there enough competition
in the roadbuilding industry in most States? And secondly, are
you doing anything to try to hold down the costs of these
roadbuilding projects so we can get the work done but save a
little money, too?
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, let me give you two angles on that.
First, in the broad context, under the current funding levels--
and I cannot speak for every State on the stateside--but under
the current funding levels on the Federal side, there is plenty
of capacity for most projects.
In terms of stewardship inside the State, and I will give
you a Wyoming answer on that, our Transportation Commission has
statutory authority to exercise discretion. And what that goes
to, we have a contractor prequalification process that is
rigorous, and contractors are not allowed to bid unless they
meet requirements, and they are not allowed to continue to bid
unless they perform on those contracts. Those are very
important components within our State, and that has been a very
successful program for us.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to the
gentlemen, sorry I was not here to hear your presentations, but
I had another commitment also.
My community, the area that I represent, is greatly
impacted by freight movement. And while it creates jobs, there
is an impact on the communities that sometimes becomes adverse.
I want to ask if you feel we should include a freight movement
program in the next transportation bill? And should we
prioritize projects that mitigate the negative impacts that
freight has in our communities?
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman and Representative Napolitano, AASHTO
supports maintaining the federally funded State-administered
nature of the program that served the Nation well for the past
100 years, and retaining that Federal/State relationship
ensures that Federal funding goes to projects that are in the
national interest. I am sorry, I am----
Mrs. Napolitano. My concern has been that while my area,
the Alameda Corridor, brings in over 45 to 55 percent of the
goods to the eastern seaboard, it has an impact because the
whole corridor goes through my district. And it has
environmental impacts, safety impacts. There are other things.
And so those cities that have that kind of impact, do you
not believe that we should address it in the next
transportation bill to allow the communities to have some
assistance in doing whether it is quad gates, whether it is
grade separations, whether it is amelioration of the negative
impact?
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman and Representative, I apologize for
beginning to answer the wrong question here. Is your question
with regard to a separate freight program or just addressing
the impacts in those----
Mrs. Napolitano. Either/or. Whatever works to help our
communities be able to deal with this negative impact.
Mr. Cox. I believe there is probably an appropriate role
for attempting to address the impact of freight on any portion
of the system.
Mrs. Napolitano. Have you had any cities address this
impact, this negative impact?
Mr. Becker. I thank you for that question. Let me put this
in very concrete terms in Salt Lake City. We are a major
corridor for railroad freight and for freight moving through.
Those freight corridors have a huge impact on really
segregating portions in neighborhoods in our community.
And when we try to have crossings of those railroads in
particular, it is very difficult. And it has actually prevented
us from moving forward, for example, with a streetcar line
going into one neighborhood because there is some rule in place
that prevents streetcars from crossing railroad tracks. So it
keeps us from serving a neighborhood the way we should be able
to.
So those kinds of issues for us to be able to address would
be enormously helpful at the community level.
Mrs. Napolitano. Have you proposed anything in that area?
Simply because I know it is not just California. It has got to
be other States that have the same feeling of not being able to
move forward, like you say, on your streetcar. How do we
address it so that we are all aware that it is not a one size
fits all, but rather that we all have different areas where we
could get help?
Mr. Becker. Well, in our case we have had great difficulty
working with the railroads themselves. So providing some
authority or some direction for us to be able to address the
safety needs, but not just provide the complete discretion with
the private railroad company saying we cannot cross their
railroad in a way that we know can be done safely.
Mrs. Napolitano. Great. Well, that is a big issue. And of
course, I have always tasked the railroad to pony up more money
for the grade separations because they only deal with about 3
percent of it even though there might be a little bit more in
some areas.
The other question I have is for Mayor Becker. We just
passed a temporary Department of Transportation advantage of
hiring locally. How do you see that helping your cities and
your communities?
Mr. Becker. Well, it is critical for us, obviously, to be
able to use a very well qualified and committed workforce to be
able to provide employment in our areas. And I know even in
this State legislative session that just passed that we
included a preference for local hiring in future projects.
So we build that into our project at a community level. To
the extent that is done at the Federal level, we think that
provides benefits to the economy, and it is probably much more
efficient.
Mrs. Napolitano. Will it help, then, some of the
communities that have a very high unemployment rate?
Mr. Becker. Certainly. Fortunately, I can say that Salt
Lake City does not--we are at about 3 percent or less
unemployment right now. But being able to provide the kind of
direction that keeps money in local hands always provides not
only local jobs but a greater multiplier.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you.
We will turn the time over to Mr. Woodall.
Mr. Woodall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I recall when we
opened this hearing the chairman and the ranking member both
talking about devolution and put you both on the spot talking
about devolution.
It strikes me, and I have only had a voting card for 4
years, but when you have a flat rate per gallon gas tax and the
number of gallons purchased is going down and it is not indexed
for inflation and it has stayed in place for two decades, we
kind of have devolution going on today. If you are going to
take care of your roads and bridges and we are not footing the
bill, somebody is footing the bill.
My question is, I found Mr. Cox's testimony about 75
percent of the traffic going through Wyoming being in transit
from one place to another very compelling, and I feel that
burden of responsibility as a Federal legislator to focus on
those opportunities.
But I worry that accepting those dollars for noncritical
freight path projects is reducing the bang for the buck that I
am getting. I will give you one example, and Mayor, you may
have had this same experience.
We just did a $200 million bond initiative. I only
represent two counties. One of them just did a $200 million
bond initiative because they wanted the roads widened and the
State did not have the money. The Feds were not providing the
money. Two hundred million dollars, we are going to do it
ourselves. It is going to be 1 year from the date of the vote
to groundbreaking. One year in the State of Georgia. We rank
number one and number two, respectively, in bringing in
projects on time and under budget in Georgia.
So when I delegate those dollars elsewhere and folks start
doing things like creating local hiring initiatives, which I
understand why that is important though it might not be the
best economic outcome; when folks start putting in their own
perhaps value-added but also cost-added efforts into a project,
I begin to question whether or not I am giving the American
taxpayer the best bang for their buck.
How do we get more local governments with skin in that game
on the one hand? And number two, what can we do with those
Federal dollars? I will stipulate that they are going to be
provided, but to get you from receipt of those dollars to
groundbreaking in 1 year.
The fact that my friends in Florida seem to not take
Federal dollars for new construction and only take Federal
dollars for maintenance seems to suggest to me we have run far
afield if what our collective goal here is building things and
making America more efficient in terms of transit. Mayor?
Mr. Becker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Representative
Woodall. We put huge skin in the game, and that is true whether
we look at the Federal funding or whether we look at State
funding. At the local level, the vast majority of the money we
spend is local.
We do rely on partners. In a place like Salt Lake City, we
are the crossroads of the West, as we say. We are also the
center of a region and we serve a population that goes far
beyond Salt Lake City, whether that is interstate commerce or
whether that is regional traffic.
And so for us, we have been biting that bullet for quite
some time. But there is still such an important Federal role
here because so much of what is happening is interstate
commerce and is national and international in terms of its
nature.
In terms of how I think, if I heard the second part of your
question best, I can tell you, as someone who has spent a
career working as a NEPA planner and lawyer, that what has
happened with what I view as an absolutely great environmental
law, the National Environmental Policy Act, is truly
unfortunate.
As court cases have been lost in infrastructure projects
and transportation and water, the agencies just add on another
step instead of looking at how they work to reflect what the
statute calls for, which is disclosure of environmental
impacts, considering alternatives, involving the public in
making a decision.
We have gone from processes that should be a year, a year
and a half, to processes that are 5 to 7 years in many big
transportation projects. We need to get back to addressing what
is critically important, which is that we consider
environmental impacts and we base our decisions with
consideration of those environmental impacts. And we have gone
afield from that. MAP-21 helped. We can go a lot further.
Mr. Woodall. It will not come as a surprise to you that the
National League of Cities has more credibility on that NEPA
discussion down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue than does a
Republican congressman from the great State of Georgia. And I
would welcome your leadership on that. It drives me crazy in
this place that we can agree on what that fundamental principle
is, but getting from here to that goal that we all share takes
us in that circuitous route.
It was also not lost on me that we have a Delta
brotherhood, Salt Lake City and Atlanta, that we share. If
there is one thing we want to make sure, I do not care about
your streetcar very much, but I want to make sure your airport
remains the pride of the region. And be happy to partner with
you going forward.
Mr. Becker. Thank you. We are in a $2 billion rebuild of
our airport, so you will be----
Mr. Woodall. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Duncan. The gentleman's time expired. Thank you.
We will turn the time over to Congresswoman Edwards.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you to our witnesses today because I think you have been really
patient. But you can also tell how important this issue is to
so many of us on this committee and in the Congress.
We do know that neglected problems have a way eventually of
falling down on us. And I think in my district we had that
experience just a few weeks ago in early February when a block
of concrete fell down from an overpass around our Capital
Beltway onto a woman who was just running her errands.
Fortunately, she was not injured and did not injure others on
the road, but it could have been a disaster.
I have said before on this committee, I shudder to think
that every time I am driving, I have to actually look up in
addition to paying attention to what is going on around me on
the roads. And so we are at a really important time when we
have to figure out both how we pay for it and the fact that we
are investing in our infrastructure.
The incident that happened there is just illustrative of
many incidents that have happened over the course of time, even
since I've been on this committee. We were dealing then with
the aftermath and the report back from the bridge collapsing in
Minnesota. And I would note that on that project, the process
was expedited, Federal funding was provided, local funding
provided, and the project was completed in short order. So we
can actually do this when it comes to our infrastructure.
The Woodrow Wilson Bridge right out in my district
connecting Maryland and Virginia and the District of Columbia,
all three of the jurisdictions put in their money. The Feds put
in Federal money. And the project was completed on budget and
on time.
And so I think we have a number of examples where we can go
through a process that respects the environmental
considerations, that respects the local jurisdictions, allows
them to put up the resources that they need, and gets the job
done.
And I have a question for you all. One, for AASHTO, Mr.
Cox, I read through your testimony and I appreciate that you
make a note to all of us that Federal funding is a supplement--
the State funding is a supplement to the Federal program. That
is your words, not as a substitute for Federal programs.
Because I think sometimes we forget that, and as the
Highway Trust Fund is preparing to expire and we have to
reauthorize that and extend it for a period of time so that
long-term projects can get done and not just the short-term
projects, I am reminded that in our State we took some
extraordinary measures a couple of years ago.
And so we actually are going to be able to wait the tide
out and will not run out of money, actually, until next year
that would supplement our Highway Trust Fund. But that is not
the case for all of our States, and it means that we are not
going to be able to spend money on some projects that we would
ordinarily do if we had an assurance of a Federal partner.
Also, in your testimony, Mr. Cox, you indicated that there
has to be an important balance struck between transit and
traditional highway funding. And I appreciate your striking
that because as Mayor Becker knows, Governor McCrory if he were
here, he would say the same thing. You have got jurisdictions
that serve as regional hubs. We need the combination of the
transit and the roads for our agriculture and other kinds of
commerce.
And so I wonder if the two of you could say what kinds of
revenue sources your organization would support or not. Is it
vehicle miles traveled? Is it an increase in the gas tax? Is it
indexing the gas tax to inflation? Is it an infrastructure
bank? Be really specific because we have to be specific when it
comes to getting our work done on this committee.
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman and Representative Edwards, I
appreciate the question. But I will tell you that as president
of AASHTO, I represent 52 different sets of political
realities. And so it would be very accurate to say that while
we have put together a matrix of options to be considered, ones
that not only would work today but may work in part tomorrow,
we can illustrate for you that it will be most probably a mix
of options that will fund the transportation system of
tomorrow.
That said, I do not believe that any of my colleagues
sitting here would say this is the way to do it. Now, what I
said earlier I think maybe applies here. And the question is
what mechanisms work right now? Obviously, the historical
mechanism is one that has to be a centerpoint of that for the
moment.
But what mechanisms will work in the future as they mature?
And I will point out one that you have heard about, I am sure.
The State of Oregon has developed a VMT model that is now being
evaluated in Oregon and on a regional basis. Will it mature
into the funding mechanisms tomorrow? I guess time will tell.
But it occurs to me that as time goes on, not to be too
redundant here, but it will be a menu of options rather than
just one. I do not think that what you are going to see is any
resistance on the part of AASHTO in supporting what the
Congress does in terms of funding a transportation bill. That
is not really our focus. Our focus is, figure out how to fund
it and get it done.
And I do not mean to be insensitive when I answer that
question. Governor Freudenthal, when he first appointed me,
gave me a marching order, and he said, John, we know you need
money for highways. He said, I want you to go in and testify to
the magnitude of the need, and you leave how that is paid for
to the legislature.
Now, that was instate, in Wyoming. And at the risk of
sounding flippant--I do not want to put in flippant terms at
all--I recognize that there is a huge challenge before you all.
We respect the hard work that you are going to have to do.
There are a number of options, and we will be happy to provide
you with what we have got.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. The gentlelady's time is expired.
We turn the time over to Mr. Babin.
Dr. Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really
appreciate it.
A major issue that is facing my district, 36 in the State
of Texas, is the integration of Highway U.S. 59 into Interstate
69. And while the benefits of this project are very numerous,
there is also a very strong concern by some of my constituents
that these new Federal truck weight standards will disrupt the
decades-long practices of loggers and other industry.
Simply put, the route of this highway will stay the same,
but new weight standards could dramatically impact the way
companies throughout Texas and America do business while
traversing the highway. Notably, log trucks will have to reduce
their weight by 4 tons, a substantial loss with mills and
logging contractors and truckers that already have very thin
profit margins. Many of these loggers have already left the
industry in recent years.
My first question: Throughout your time as a mayor or as
the State department of transportation director, have you
confronted a similar challenge as regards upgrading an existing
State or U.S. highway to a Federal interstate? Are there not a
number of States where weights are grandfathered in, where a
State highway or a U.S. highway has become an interstate? Can
you speak to that, please, sir?
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, Representative Babin, Wyoming does
not have that kind of transition in progress, nor have we
contemplated one that would go from a State route, a lower
designation route to an interstate. But I would tell you that
there is a dramatic difference between what is allowed by the
Federal Government on the interstate, the 80,000-pound max size
and weight limitations, and what is allowed on the two-lane
highways in Wyoming.
Perhaps more compelling is that--and I am kind of speaking
from a western perspective here, but having been in meetings
with Western States, we are all over the map. It is very
difficult, without changing a highway designation like you are
referring to in Texas----
Dr. Babin. Right.
Mr. Cox [continuing]. There is dramatic differences as soon
as you cross the border into the neighboring State in a number
of instances. And so there is a move on to allow States
flexibility to get together and develop a coalition and try to
solve those problems regionally, rather than--rather than just
having State-to-State standards. That said, AASHTO has not
taken a position on size and weight, but I would tell you that
that's a pretty much front-burner topic in many States.
Dr. Babin. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Becker. Thank you. That's not an experience, as you can
probably imagine, on a community level, that we--we certainly
do experience, oftentimes, how do we handle the increased
weights and traffics on our--and traffic on our roads, and we
are continually having to upgrade our roads to try to deal with
weights, and the increased weights, I do know, pose an
incredible challenge for us in our community, when we see these
heavier vehicles going on roads that just weren't built to
that--to that standard.
Dr. Babin. Yes sir, and I appreciate that. I'm sorry that
the Governor had to leave, because I am sure he has had that
experience in North Carolina.
But let me follow up. Hearing what I have said, would you
recommend that policymakers in Congress and the Department of
Transportation err on the side of grandfathering in
longstanding traditions, such as truck weights, when a highway
is being upgraded to an interstate? Especially to preserve the
integrity of the biggest interest group in industry, in this
part of my district, in what we call DPS Texas. Because I know
there are some other States that have done this in the past.
Because that is a substantial drop in a payload, a cargo of
logs, to go from 88,000 pounds to be specific in the State of
Texas, down to 80,000 pounds. That's 4 tons. Would you
recommend erring on the side of the industry?
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, could you repeat just the
last part of your question?
Dr. Babin. Yeah. I'm asking you if you think it would be
wise for policymakers in Congress, and with the Department of
Transportation, to side on the grandfathering of longstanding
traditions, and make a grandfather clause, if you would, for
these truckers and these people in the timber industry in my
part of the State of Texas, so that they don't have to lose 4
tons of cargo in an industry that is already operating on very
thin profit margins.
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, Representative Babin, this response
isn't direct to your question, but it does apply to it, and
it's a little bit from the hip. But I would tell you that it
seems to me that just simply allowing State flexibility in that
specific matter, rather than grandfathering something, or
grandfathering certain people, or a certain route, just allow
State flexibility might be something to contemplate.
Dr. Babin. Thank you.
Mr. Hardy [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired.
I'd like to turn the time over to----
Dr. Babin. Thank you.
Mr. Hardy [continuing]. Gentlelady Frankel.
Ms. Frankel. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you gentlemen for
being here. And without being repetitious, I just want to say I
join my colleagues in urging that--that we all dig deep to find
a sustainable funding source for our Highway Trust Fund.
I want to move on, to say that I was a mayor for 8 years,
so I am very sympathetic to the local funding issues. And
without just repeating some of the testimony, I would ask you,
Mayor Becker: Is there a specific formula that you advocate--I
think we talked--you talked about sending money directly to the
MPOs, but is there any incentive program or formula that you
would recommend?
Mr. Becker. Yes, thank you. So I mentioned these before,
but I think what we proposed from the local and regional
perspective is that a greater share of the surface
transportation funds go to local governments, and specifically,
it's presently 75 percent, I think, going to States. And we
believe having a 50/50 share makes a lot more sense, and brings
everybody to the table in making the decisions about
prioritizing our transportation funds.
Ms. Frankel. And I--did you want to respond to that? No.
But I come from south Florida, and one of the issues that
comes up quite often is local governments having more
flexibility to use some of the capital funding for operational
funding. Would you like to weigh in on that?
Mr. Becker. I can't weigh in on behalf of the National
League of Cities. I will just say that I try, in my own
budgeting, as I'm sure you did as--as mayor, to have a very
clear line between capital and operational money, and not to
use one-time monies for operational money, and I think if
there's a long-term transportation funding bill that we can
rely on, then that issue tends to go away. And providing the
flexibility, I think, makes the most sense.
On the other hand, if the Federal priority is for capital
expenditures, tell us and we will follow, obviously, your
direction accordingly.
Ms. Frankel. Well, OK, Mr. Cox. Did you--you're shaking
your head.
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, I'm in agreement with what the mayor
said.
Ms. Frankel. One of the issue--I just want to take that a
little bit further, because what we're finding in south
Florida, and this is probably true in most parts of the
country, is that our population is getting older and older, and
the need for public transportation is increasing, and will
increase. And that seems to be where there is a shortfall in
the budget, which is: operating funds to move public vehicles.
Are you not allowed to say anything, because this is not a
position that the League has taken, or----
Mr. Becker. No, I will tell you, we see the exact same
conditions in Salt Lake City. I can tell you on behalf of Salt
Lake and my experience there, the elderly, the millennial
generation is moving away from an auto-focused world, either
out of necessity or out of desire, or different ways to stay
connected in different ways and--we--our greatest need in our
community is not, today, for road funding. Our greatest need in
our community is for increased transit funding and providing
for alternative modes of transportation.
And to the extent as we've described even in our proposals
with TAP funding and CMAQ funding, and other funds, you can
both move more of that funding to the local level, where so
much of our population lives and where conditions are changing,
and allow us to address those needs, which can be different in
Laramie, Wyoming, than they are in Salt Lake City or Miami-Dade
area. We're going to be able, I think, to negotiate among
ourselves to reflect those needs, and meet what is a rapidly
changing desire for more options in our transportation
infrastructure.
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, the one thing I would say here, is
remember: $15 problem, 10 bucks to solve it. And so as we
contemplate these further options, also remember that one size
doesn't fit all as the mayor just--as the mayor just hinted at.
If the program doesn't grow measurably, it will detract
from a situation that I think is nationwide, but let me just
tell you what Wyoming is. Wyoming is $64.5 million a year from
keeping our transportation system, that is under State
jurisdiction--which includes mileage in towns--in its present
condition. Sixty four and a half million dollars a year short
of that.
And I believe that that's a situation that--that is
nationwide in their numbers.
Mr. Hardy. The gentlelady's time has expired. I'd like to
turn the time over to Mr. Webster.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Cox, in the area of transportation-disadvantaged
funding, there has been a GAO report from time to time
identifying all kinds of waste, and this particular case in
almost every one of those reports TD is mentioned. And the
reason is because there's 87 different programs, some of which
are--there could be one person covered by eight different TD
programs.
Theoretically, for instance in Orlando, Florida, where I'm
from, that we have a new VA that's being built, a huge
beautiful building that's almost complete, and the VA is
working on a program where they would buy vehicles and would
give door-to-door service for the--for any person that's in the
system.
On the other hand, our same provider of transit also offers
door-to-door service. So that's just two. There's some programs
where they cover one person, like I said, eight different
times; same need. And theoretically, could have a transit
vehicle going down a street picking up one person, and then
there could be someone else, who is qualified under the same
exact thing, being picked up by someone else.
I just wondered if AASHTO has done anything in trying to
grab hold of that issue at all?
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to need to get back to you
with information on that. I'm not prepared to answer that
today, I'm sorry.
Mr. Webster. OK, thank you. Then, I had one other thing,
and that is in the area of planning, when we talk about
regional planning, there's a lot of talk about the Governor and
others about the fact that, you know, roads and transportation
facilities don't end at the State line or even county lines or
city lines, so forth; so there has to be some sort of planning.
On the other hand, I guess we would want to maintain the
sovereignty of the States. Has AASHTO come up with any kind of
way where we might use some sort of either benefit or
encouragement that would allow us to do those kind of planning
between either States or even in other areas? Even sometimes
there's--it's difficult to even in coordinating between
different MPOs and others. Is there anything you've done in
that arena?
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, if your question--Representative
Webster, if your question is across State lines involving more
than one State, I would have to get back to you with
information on that. I can't answer that question, but I will
be happy to get back to you.
Mr. Webster. Mayor, could I ask you one question, and that
would be from a National League of Cities standpoint, is there
a common goal on how cities would normally get their
transportation issues funded for your own local roads, in that
in some cases the State gets money and some cases the County
has a gas tax or so forth, or maybe it's even local option
taxes or other things. Is there a--do you have--I mean, or is
there some sort of commonality in how cities would get some
sort of revenue sharing from that?
Mr. Becker. I'd say there is a commonality. Certainly the
gas tax is probably in every State, and there are probably
different ways that it's allocated. In the State of Utah for
example, 30 percent of the gas tax goes to counties and to
cities.
Mr. Webster. Do you divide that up by an interlocal
agreement of some sort?
Mr. Becker. It is directed in State legislation. And then
there are other authorities, for example, in our State, for
transit where there is a local option sales tax that at the
community level the community can opt into. There is a
regional--it's actually a statewide, but it operates on a
regional basis, by opting in for local governments to
participate in the transit program, which is regional in
nature.
I will say in--with your last question, the State of Utah
developed a unified transportation plan that I mentioned
earlier, that brought every local jurisdiction, all of the MPOs
and the State, as well as the transit agency all together
through a major public involvement process and thorough vetting
and came up with a unified plan for the entire State; for all
parts, local transit and State transportation program that has
really served as the gathering place for us to determine what
our needs are for the next 30 years.
Mr. Webster. Yield back.
Mr. Hardy. The gentleman's time has expired. I'd like to
recognize Mr. Rokita for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rokita. I thank the chairman. I appreciate the
testimony. I know it looks like we're coming up on about 3
hours of you guys--gentlemen sitting here, so I appreciate your
patience.
I'm new to the committee, and so a lot of folks have been
visiting me with different interests in my office and I wanted
to get your opinion, either your association's opinion or your
personal opinion or both on a couple of things.
First, regarding project labor agreements, or Davis-Bacon
or however you want to talk about it. Is there an appreciable
difference in quality between non-PLA projects and ones that
are done under project labor agreements or through Davis-Bacon?
And is there an appreciable difference in cost?
[Pause]
For example, I'm told--alright, via some information I'm
receiving, that you can build 20 percent more road if you don't
use a union. What's your opinion, as experts in the field?
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, I'm no kind of expert on union,
because Wyoming's a decidedly nonunion State, so my experience
doesn't stretch over that at all.
Mr. Rokita. OK. But what's your experience in terms of your
association?
Mr. Cox. We would be happy to get back to you on that.
Mr. Rokita. Oh yeah, that reminds me. When--OK, I
appreciate that. I'm not trying to be tricky with you, but when
can you get back with me? Can you give me a date? What's a fair
amount of time?
Mr. Cox. Within a week.
Mr. Rokita. Ah, that's fine. So, within a week, I just want
to get that on record.
Mr. Cox. Sure.
Mr. Rokita. And then, Congressman Webster asked a question
that you were going to get back with him on too, do you have a
date for that?
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, it's in our interests to get back to
you immediately with information----
Mr. Rokita. I know, and you guys are great at the State
level. I don't have that same kind experience at the Federal
level, so I just want to get--make sure we have an
understanding of when we might get a response.
Mr. Cox. And we'll get back to you on both of those within
a week, sir.
Mr. Rokita. Thank you, sir.
Mayor?
Mr. Becker. I just--the National League of Cities does call
for some flexibility with the Davis-Bacon Act. On the primary
question you're asking, in terms of additional cost, I do not
have any information on that, I'm sorry to tell you.
Mr. Rokita. So as a mayor, you don't--you don't find any
appreciable difference in quality under cost?
Mr. Becker. No. In fact, I will tell you my experience, and
we've undergone major building projects, public projects. Salt
Lake City-sponsored projects. We have actually found that our
costs--that the quality control that comes through assuring
folks have been through apprenticeship programs and have good
training and have some standards to meet, are beneficial in our
community.
Mr. Rokita. OK. Thank you both.
Dr. Babin, I thought, if I understood him right, was asking
something maybe similar, so I apologize if I'm repeating, but I
want to ask specifically about the concept of twin 33 trailers.
And then specifically about the concept of increasing weight
from 80,000 pounds to 100,000 pounds, distributing that over a
third axle. I'm being told on the latter, for example, that
that actually saves roads because it disperses the weight, and
I would like your opinion on that, and again on the concept of
twin 33s.
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, I'm not an engineer, but from an
engineering perspective, the computation of the impact on
pavement life by weight is by per axle. And so there is an
argument to be made, but I can't tell you--I'm not going to
take one position over the other.
From our perspective, in the West, and I think across the
rest of the States as well, the deterioration in the pavement
based on weight--axle weight is one consideration; safety is
another consideration. So in the whole--in the broader
discussion of increasing size and weight and length, that has
to be taken under----
Mr. Rokita. And then, 10 seconds on twin 33s? Same--same
answer?
Mr. Cox. Same answer.
Mr. Rokita. OK. Mayor, thank you.
Mr. Becker. I'm sorry, I don't have anything to add to
that.
Mr. Rokita. Do you agree? With that answer?
Mr. Becker. Oh, I agree with everything that Mr. Cox has
said the entire morning.
Mr. Rokita. Fair enough. In the remaining time I have
left--I'm very interested in streamlining the regulation
process, and I think Congressman Mica might have asked about
that before I got here earlier in the hearing, but it's hard
for me to get some pinpoint regulations to work on
streamlining, so I'd like your opinion on any particular
regulations that you would like to comment on and if MAP-21 is
doing its job or not in terms of that streamlining.
Mayor?
Mr. Becker. First I'll say, I think MAP-21 has really been
a step in a great direction. And I will say that at the
Department of Transportation, they're working very hard on
streamlining. We have a long ways to go.
Mr. Rokita. Any particular thing I could work on?
Mr. Becker. What I would say is, you take the Council on
Environmental Quality guidelines for the National Environmental
Policy Act, and make those truly the core and the basic
requirement for all agencies and go back to those guidelines.
We will reduce these incremental additional steps that have
been added agency by agency, and still accomplish the same
goals.
Mr. Rokita. Thank you both.
Mr. Hardy. The gentleman's time has expired. I'd like to
give myself 5 minutes, if I could.
Gentlemen, probably you, Mayor Becker probably, mostly
could answer this: During our discussions, we've talked about
light rail and alternate modes of transportation; bicycle, and
other. With these components--we all support them, we all think
they're great aspects of getting around. Myself, I haven't seen
the percentage of bicyclers commuting to work on bicycles, at
least in the West, like maybe they do in the East, but that's
neither here nor there.
With these alternate modes of transportation, and most of
where the majority of our dollars are obtained, like fuel tax;
do you see us being able to continue to sustain the type of
transportation infrastructure that we want, to continue to fund
these type of projects, or should we be looking at another
alternate mode of financing for these light rail systems, for
these bicycle transportations, and being a guy from the
construction industry, I do know that anything tied to a
highway, if it's a bike lane, costs just as much to put in
place as it does--as the highway itself, because that structure
has to be put in. I mean, if it's a designated bike lane
outside of that right-of-way, then it is a cheaper avenue, but
any comments on that?
Mr. Becker. Yes, thank you. The easiest way, of course, to
provide bike lanes is to provide the space and simply paint the
lanes, and that is such an easy thing to do, and provides a
basic form of safety.
When we get to protected bikeways, then obviously the costs
escalate pretty dramatically, but then with that as well, the
estimate is in our analysis, and in our community and we're
seeing is that when you provide additional safety, then people
feel much more secure getting out on the road, and we--and the
numbers of people going up, we've been seeing 25-plus percent
increases a year when we start putting in additional safety
measures. And that obviously doesn't take nearly as much space
on a road for someone who's cycling.
Similarly for transit, and I know my former colleague,
who's now Speaker of the House, Greg Hughes, in testifying
before our committee here noted that, as the leader of the
Conservative Caucus and our State House of Representatives, he
is the strongest advocate for transit, because it is the most
efficient way to move people in an area. When you look at the
number of people you can move in a single-occupant vehicle
versus on a train or on a bus, it is a much more efficient way,
and if we have a good transit system that is accessible and
that is convenient, that people will use it.
Our greatest demand, as I mentioned earlier, is for the----
Mr. Hardy. I'd like to interrupt you just a minute. I
agree, people are using it, we need to--it's a--educational
process is a great thing, but if we went over to transit
tomorrow, and everybody went 100 percent, how do we fund it,
based on our tax dollars? That's the question I'm asking here.
Where--we've got to look at a different--it's been paying the
way through fuel tax for years, and I think that's been part of
the demise.
We haven't looked far enough in the future, how we're going
to fund these projects, other than a fuel tax.
Mr. Becker. So my--my basic answer would be that for buses
it makes sense to still use the fuel tax, because buses are
using roads just like cars.
For rail, we use a separate--and we do actually for transit
in the State of Utah; we use a local option sales tax. And it
is by a vote of the people to support improvements to our
transit service. That is required, by the way our State law
works.
It may be that a different source of funding is a better
source of funding for transit, recognizing what you're saying,
you know, a fuel tax goes to roads. And we would welcome
whatever form you come up with and we'll support you in that.
Mr. Hardy. Any comments, Mr. Cox?
Mr. Cox. Mr. Chairman, let me just give you a comment, kind
of in the highway context. You made the concession that the
use--and I'm going to talk specifically about vulnerable users
on the highway systems. Specifically bicyclists; that's
something that I do. I understand it.
Also, I'm around the planning process, and around the
highway building process. There's no question that the use is
up, even in a rural setting like where I live. And so even if
there were no requirements to take that into account in our
planning process, we would anyway, because it's a reality that
we have to deal with there.
I believe that there is--that that is something that--that
would be universal among the States, and I think that--that
when--I don't know how to answer your question about how to pay
for something that--that isn't directly underwritten by the--by
the user fee under today's construct, but I would tell you that
it's something that we have to pay attention to.
I also believe, that--because this is the world we live in,
in--in Wyoming, is that some of those accommodations can be
readily made with safety measures on the existing roadway, and
when you improve and add enough to not greatly spread the cost,
but accommodate both types of user.
Mr. Hardy. Thank you. My time has expired also.
Are there any further comments from the committee members?
Seeing none, I would like to thank the witnesses. I really
do appreciate your being here. I think your responses and your
testimony today, your contribution today as discussed has been
very informative and helpful.
I'd like to ask for unanimous consent that the record of
today's hearing remain open until such time that other
witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may be
submitted to--in writing, and the unanimous consent that the
record remain open for 15 days for additional comments and
information submitted by the Members and the witnesses to be
included in the record of today's hearing.
Without objection?
Seeing none, so ordered.
If there are no other Members having anything to add, the
committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
[all]