[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ALIGNING FEDERAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY TO MEET 21ST-CENTURY
NEEDS
=======================================================================
(116-7)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 13, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
35-675 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, SAM GRAVES, Missouri
District of Columbia DON YOUNG, Alaska
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland Arkansas
RICK LARSEN, Washington BOB GIBBS, Ohio
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
JOHN GARAMENDI, California RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., ROB WOODALL, Georgia
Georgia JOHN KATKO, New York
ANDRE CARSON, Indiana BRIAN BABIN, Texas
DINA TITUS, Nevada GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
JARED HUFFMAN, California MIKE BOST, Illinois
JULIA BROWNLEY, California RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas
FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida DOUG LaMALFA, California
DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania
MARK DeSAULNIER, California PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California, Vice GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Chair BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York Puerto Rico
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
GREG STANTON, Arizona ROSS SPANO, Florida
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas GREG PENCE, Indiana
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa
JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
HARLEY ROUDA, California
(ii)
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chair
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee DON YOUNG, Alaska
JOHN GARAMENDI, California ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., Arkansas
Georgia BOB GIBBS, Ohio
JARED HUFFMAN, California DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JULIA BROWNLEY, California THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California ROB WOODALL, Georgia
MARK DeSAULNIER, California JOHN KATKO, New York
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California BRIAN BABIN, Texas
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York MIKE BOST, Illinois
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey DOUG LaMALFA, California
GREG STANTON, Arizona BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan
ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota ROSS SPANO, Florida
HARLEY ROUDA, California PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey GREG PENCE, Indiana
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio)
DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DINA TITUS, Nevada
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the
District of Columbia, and Chair, Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit:
Opening statement............................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit:
Opening statement............................................ 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure:
Opening statement............................................ 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
WITNESSES
Hon. Ron Nirenberg, Mayor, City of San Antonio, Texas, on behalf
of the National League of Cities:
Oral statement............................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Roger Millar, PE, FASCE, FAICP, Secretary, Washington State
Department of Transportation, on behalf of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials:
Oral statement............................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Darran Anderson, Director of Strategy and Innovation, Texas
Department of Transportation, on behalf of the Texas Innovation
Alliance:
Oral statement............................................... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 25
John Kevin ``Jack'' Clark, Executive Director, Transportation
Learning Center:
Oral statement............................................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Therese W. McMillan, Executive Director, Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, on behalf of the Association of
Metropolitan Planning Organizations:
Oral statement............................................... 36
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Al Stanley, Vice President, Stanley Construction Company, Inc.,
on behalf of The Associated General Contractors of America:
Oral statement............................................... 42
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Michael Terry, President and CEO, Indianapolis Public
Transportation Corporation (IndyGo), on behalf of the American
Public Transportation Association (APTA):
Oral statement............................................... 50
Prepared statement........................................... 52
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Report, ``A Preventable Crisis: The Costs of a Hudson River Rail
Tunnel Shutdown,'' submitted for the record by Hon. Espaillat.. 78
Report, ``Planning Ahead: County Planning, Land Use and Zoning
Strategies for Affordable Housing,'' submitted for the record
by Hon. Garcia................................................. 81
Letter of February 1, 2019, from Mark W. Mitchell, Mayor, City of
Tempe, AZ, et al., submitted for the record by Hon. Stanton.... 95
Letter of March 13, 2019, from Shailen P. Bhatt, President and
CEO, Intelligent Transportation Society of America, submitted
for the record by Hon. Norton.................................. 101
Letter of March 11, 2019, from James D. Ogsbury, Executive
Director, Western Governors' Association, submitted for the
record by Hon. Norton.......................................... 103
Letter of May 7, 2019, and Congestion Maps, from Tori Emerson
Barnes, Executive Vice President, Public Affairs and Policy,
U.S. Travel Association, submitted for the record by Hon.
Norton......................................................... 107
APPENDIX
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Hon. Ron Nirenberg...... 113
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Roger Millar, PE, FASCE,
FAICP.......................................................... 114
Questions from Hon. Mark Meadows for Roger Millar, PE, FASCE,
FAICP.......................................................... 118
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Darran Anderson......... 118
Questions from Hon. Mark Meadows for Darran Anderson............. 121
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for John Kevin ``Jack''
Clark.......................................................... 122
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Therese W. McMillan..... 126
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Al Stanley.............. 128
Questions from Hon. Mark Meadows for Al Stanley.................. 128
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Mike Terry.............. 132
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
March 8, 2019
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: Members, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
FROM: Staff, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
RE: Subcommittee Hearing on ``Aligning Federal
Surface Transportation Policy to Meet 21st Century Needs''
PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit will meet on
Wednesday, March 13, 2019, at 10 a.m. in HVC 210, Capitol
Visitor Center, to receive testimony on ``Aligning Federal
Surface Transportation Policy to Meet 21st Century Needs.'' The
purpose of the hearing is to examine if and how Federal-aid
highway and Federal transit programs and policies need to
change in order to meet current and future transportation
challenges. The Subcommittee will hear from representatives of
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, the National League of Cities, the American Public
Transportation Association, the Association of Metropolitan
Planning Organizations, the Associated General Contractors of
America, the Transportation Learning Center, and the Texas
Innovation Alliance.
BACKGROUND
THE FEDERAL ROLE IN SURFACE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT
The Federal Government has continued its strong role in
surface transportation investment, in partnership with States,
since the 1916 Federal Aid Roads Act. The enactment of the
landmark Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 (1956 Act) (P.L. 84-
627) made significant Federal investment in America's system of
roads and bridges. This Act established formula grant programs
to distribute Federal surface transportation funds to States
through specific eligible categories. The 1956 Act also
established a dedicated funding mechanism through the Highway
Trust Fund (HTF). Secure funding, along with a long-term 13-
year authorization, gave States the certainty and continuity
needed to develop and begin construction on the Interstate
System and other surface transportation projects.
Congress has enacted a number of authorization bills in the
decades following the passage of the 1956 Act to modify the
Federal-aid highway program, create the Federal transit
program, provide ongoing funding to States for the construction
and maintenance of the Nation's surface transportation network,
and extend the highway-related taxes deposited into the HTF.
Congress has sustained the pattern of long-term, multi-year
authorization bills to continue steady, predictable funding
levels to facilitate project planning and construction. Since
1991, major authorization bills include: the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (P.L. 102-240)
enacted in 1991, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21) (P.L 105-178) enacted in 1998, the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-59) enacted in 2005,
and the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-
21) (P.L. 112-141) enacted in 2012.
Most recently, Congress enacted the Fixing America's
Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) (P.L 114-94), on December
4, 2015. The FAST Act provided $281 billion in funding for
highway, transit, and highway safety programs and reauthorized
those programs for 5 years. The FAST Act is set to expire on
September 30, 2020. In the 116th Congress, a priority for the
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit is developing and enacting
a bill to reauthorize Federal highway, public transit, and
highway safety programs.
HIGHWAY TRUST FUND SOLVENCY
Federal surface transportation investments are funded
through Federal excise taxes levied on motor fuels and on
related products such as tires and freight trucks, which are
deposited into the HTF. Congress has not adjusted the motor
fuel excise taxes since 1993, and the purchasing power of these
taxes have fallen over 40 percent in the last 25 years.
Improved vehicle fuel efficiency has further eroded Federal
revenues. As a result, revenues coming into the HTF have not
kept pace with expenditures from authorized programs.
Congress has had to transfer $144 billion from the General
Fund and other funds to keep the HTF solvent since 2008. The
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that over the next
10 years, the HTF will fall $159 billion short based on
continuing currently authorized highway, transit, and safety
program levels. An additional $5 billion is necessary to ensure
that there is a prudent balance in the HTF, which brings the
shortfall to $164 billion. This does not include any higher
investment levels to meet growing surface transportation needs.
Without a solvent HTF, Congress cannot enact a long-term,
multi-year authorization bill.
CONDITION OF OUR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
According to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data, from
2003 to 2017 Federal spending on infrastructure, including
surface transportation programs, decreased by nearly 20
percent, adjusted for inflation.\1\ This reduction has resulted
in a growing backlog of investment needs. One in three
interstate bridges have repair needs, and nearly 9 percent of
the Nation's bridges are structurally deficient.\2\ One out of
every five miles of highway pavement is in poor condition
nationwide, and more than two out of every five miles of
America's urban interstates are congested.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CBO report, ``Public Spending on Transportation and Water
Infrastructure, 1956 to 2017'' October 2018.
\2\ ARTBA Bridge Report, 2018.
\3\ ASCE Report Card, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has
identified a more than $1 trillion gap in current surface
transportation funding in order to fix what we have, meet
future needs, and restore our global competitiveness.
Similarly, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation's
(DOT) 2015 Conditions & Performance Report, there is an $836
billion backlog of unmet capital investment needs for highways
and bridges. DOT estimates that all levels of government need
to invest approximately $143 billion per year to improve the
conditions and performance of our roads and bridges. We need to
invest $37.3 billion per year at all levels of government to
improve the conditions and performance of all roads. The cost
of bringing the Nation's rail and bus transit systems into a
state of good repair is estimated at $90 billion, and we would
need to invest $26.4 billion per year to accommodate the high-
growth scenario of future transit ridership. We currently
underinvest by approximately $9.5 billion per year at all
levels of government on transit capital investments.
MEETING 21ST CENTURY CHALLENGES
The next surface transportation reauthorization bill will
only continue to facilitate economic growth, ensure global
competitiveness, and create jobs, including family supporting
jobs, if Congress makes the necessary investments in the
Nation's surface transportation system. Congress will also need
to ensure that Federal surface transportation programs can
address current and future challenges. In the coming decades,
our transportation system will come under immense pressure and
face significant challenges. America's population is expected
to grow to approximately 400 million by 2051.\4\ Freight
volumes will continue to soar as freight tons are expected to
increase by 40 percent over the next 30 years.\5\ The
Transportation Research Board's recent report on the future of
the Interstate System concluded that the Interstate System must
be preserved and rehabilitated, while also renewed and
modernized to adapt to the Nation's changing demographic,
economic, climate, and technological landscape.\6\ This hearing
is the Subcommittee's first step of its process to develop a
long-term surface transportation reauthorization bill. The
hearing will provide an opportunity for Members to consider
potential changes to Federal surface transportation policies
and programs in order to address current and future challenges.
Witness testimony is likely to touch on the following areas:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Census Bureau, ``Projections of the Size and Composition
of the U.S. Population: 2014 to 2060,'' 2015.
\5\ U.S. DOT, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, ``DOT Releases
30-Year Freight Projections,'' 2016.
\6\ Transportation Research Board, ``Renewing the National
Commitment to the Interstate Highway System: A Foundation for the
Future,'' 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strengthening the model of a Federal, State, and
local partnership,
Improving roads, bridges, and public transit
systems,
Moving people and goods safely and more
efficiently and reducing congestion,
Harnessing innovation and incorporating
technology to improve mobility,
Ensuring a qualified transportation workforce,
Building stronger and more resilient
infrastructure, and
Improving project delivery and protecting the
environment.
WITNESS LIST
The Honorable Ron Nirenberg, Mayor, city of San
Antonio, on behalf of the National League of Cities
Mr. Roger Millar, Secretary, Washington State
Department of Transportation, on behalf of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Mr. Darran Anderson, Director of Strategy and
Innovation, Texas Department of Transportation, on behalf of
the Texas Innovation Alliance
Mr. Jack Clark, Executive Director,
Transportation Learning Center
Ms. Therese W. McMillan, Executive Director,
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, on behalf of the
Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations
Mr. Al Stanley, Vice President, Stanley
Construction Company, Inc., on behalf of the Associated General
Contractors of America
Mr. Michael Terry, President and CEO, IndyGo--
Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation, on behalf of
the American Public Transportation Association
ALIGNING FEDERAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY TO MEET 21ST-CENTURY
NEEDS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
room HVC-210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Eleanor Holmes
Norton (Chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
Ms. Norton. It is time for us to come to order and begin.
I ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions.
Without objection, so ordered.
Finally, we are having the first hearing of our
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. I particularly look
forward to collaborating with my good friend, the ranking
member, Mr. Davis, and with Members on both sides of the aisle.
Bear in mind that this subcommittee and full committee have
the reputation for being the most bipartisan in the Congress.
There is a reason for that. We are dealing with what everybody
wants.
The enthusiasm about our subcommittee is clear. This
subcommittee is larger than almost all of the other full
committees in the House. Everybody wanted to get on board. I
think what that does is signal the importance of the underlying
subject matter.
We, of course, are at the end--at least by 2020--of the
FAST Act. The FAST Act was written by all of us. I was very
pleased to work with Mr. Graves and with Mr. Shuster. I intend
to run this subcommittee in the same bipartisan way. We need
everybody.
The FAST Act was a significant achievement because it was
the first full authorization act in 10 years. The chief problem
for us--and perhaps it remains a problem--is that we had to do
a 6-year bill in 5 years, because there was no increase in
funding.
We have a tall and very different order this time.
Obviously, we have got to maintain what we have, and we have
not done a good job of doing that. But at the same time, we
have got to modernize our entire system. And there are entirely
new--at least for the subcommittee--issues: climate change, you
can't build roads or transit the way you used to, with climate
change bearing upon us.
So we regard this as a transformational moment in our work,
as we try to figure out how do you move people and goods, in
what amounts to a new era for transportation and infrastructure
than even a few years ago.
The challenge is huge, and it means that infrastructure at
every level and all modes of transportation have to be looked
at anew, and not in the way we looked at it even at the last
reauthorization.
The importance of this bill, I supposed, is seen by the
priority it has been given. It is H.R. 2. You know, there is
H.R. 1 and there is H.R. 2. It means that this bill is
important to the entire country.
We will not be able to do a bill worthy of the American
people if we think the way we did last time, or if we pit one
mode against another. What we need now is adaptable
infrastructure that has to work together, particularly to avoid
congestion.
This committee has to lead in accommodating one mode of
transportation that will get people from one place to another,
and they then may need another mode of transportation. So we
will be depending not only on the usual modes of
transportation--transit and autos--driving, that is--but we
will be looking closely at biking and expediting walking, and
even scooting, which I love to talk about.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Norton. Would love to do.
Indeed, while this hearing is important, I am very
interested in holding subcommittee hearings on these
alternative modes of travel.
Transit investment is indeed a more critical part than it
was at the last reauthorization. The Committee on Ways and
Means has already begun leading. Some on the other side of
their aisle talked about something I thought we had laid to
rest some time ago, and that is that we are to stop funding
transit with Federal dollars. Are they crazy? We need more
transit. That is clean energy. I can't imagine it, and we are
not going to go down that road again. It shut down this
committee the last time it was raised.
The future of the Highway Trust Fund cannot be avoided. But
when we talked about transit--before I get to that, when we
talked about transit I recalled that from the last--from one of
the last hearings we had people from rural areas--I remember
the director of the Tennessee Department of Transportation
indicated how important transit was to all the counties of
Tennessee, and we better not just talk about that as an urban
matter.
In the last authorization--technology was a very small part
of our bill, or even our discussion. It is a major part of what
we have to do if we are serious about our crippled congestion,
and if we are serious about doing something about it. There are
troubling signs of slippage in the skill of our labor pool. We
will be having hearings on that matter.
The Committee on Ways and Means has already met to discuss
the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. I won't get into that.
The debate goes on, but whatever happens with funding, we
must do our work to get a bill by 2020 for the American people.
[Ms. Norton's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in
Congress from the District of Columbia, and Chair, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit
Welcome to the first hearing of the Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit. I look forward to collaborating with my Ranking Member, Mr.
Davis, and Members on both sides of the aisle.
Our Subcommittee, at 56 Members, is larger than almost all (18 of
21) full Committees in Congress. It is good that we have so much
interest--because we have a hefty agenda. Moving a surface
transportation authorization bill is the top priority of the
Subcommittee this Congress. The FAST Act expires at the end of
September 2020, and the Members of this Subcommittee are responsible
for developing the next bill.
Today's hearing is the first step in the authorization process. We
will hear from stakeholders at different levels of government and the
private sector who will advise us on which areas of Federal highway and
transit policy warrant a fresh look.
In this authorization, we need to restore and maintain the roads,
bridges, and transit systems we have, particularly at a time when the
changing climate threatens the longevity of these assets. We need to
modernize so that transportation policy evolves and reaps the benefits
of technology. We must also transform our transportation network to
move people and goods more safely and efficiently.
I represent the District of Columbia, a densely populated city
that--along with Maryland, Virginia, and the Federal government--
provides a transportation system for over six million people.
Congestion, transit woes, and deteriorating bridges are challenges my
region faces on a daily basis. These same challenges are found across
the country.
Today, we have with us the Mayor of the nation's fastest growing
city--San Antonio, Texas, who will share his story of tackling
congestion and delivering mobility.
We can't achieve these goals if we continue to think in outdated
ways, by pitting one mode against another. We will need adaptable
infrastructure that can accommodate any mode of transportation that
will get a person from here to there--driving, transit, biking,
walking, even scooting. We must direct investment to the most efficient
and effective solutions.
Transit investment is a crucial part of this equation. At last
week's infrastructure hearing before the Committee on Ways and Means,
some Members on the other side of the aisle raised the tired argument
that we should stop funding transit with Federal dollars. We have heard
the argument that transit funding only helps urban areas. Access to
transit is critical for every American--including in rural areas. For
colleagues new to the Subcommittee, allow me to quote from testimony we
heard in two hearings last Congress.
In a hearing on the future of the Highway Trust Fund, Mr. Jack
Schroerer, the Director of the Tennessee DOT stressed the critical role
transit plays in providing accessibility in rural areas. He stated:
``In Tennessee, we fund transit in all 95 counties . . . it is an
integral part of our rural areas to get people to the doctor and
hospitals . . . Almost all that money is Federal dollars, comes from
FTA, and we put it to good use, and people in our rural counties use it
a lot.''
At a separate hearing, we heard Julia Castillo, head of the Heart
of Iowa Regional Transit Agency testify on the importance of public
transit options in rural Iowa. Ms. Castillo stated in her testimony:
``People who live in more rural areas need the same types of services
as those in urban areas and even though it may be more challenging and
sometimes more expensive, we need to find ways in which to efficiently
meet those needs so their independence, freedom, quality of life and
ability to grow and prosper where they live is not compromised.''
In the next authorization, we must also harness technology and
innovation. Innovation has the power to address crippling congestion
problems. It has the promise of saving lives and ushering in dramatic
safety gains. And it has the ability to seamlessly connect people to a
choice of transportation options. But these gains can only be realized
if we find the right balance in public policy to protect consumers,
workers, and taxpayers while spurring innovation. This Committee must
play a strong role in finding and supporting that balance.
We must also ensure that we have a skilled labor pool to take on
the challenge of building 21st-century infrastructure. In a long-term
reauthorization bill, we must prioritize investing in human capital and
worker training. We must also ensure a level playing field for women
and minority contractors. I'm pleased to welcome Al Stanley who is here
today on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of America. Mr.
Stanley, we welcome your insight into industry needs and best practices
on workforce development. Thank you for being here today.
Of course, our Subcommittee cannot get a bill to the President's
desk without finding the means to pay for these investments. For that,
we need the Committee on Ways and Means to act to raise Federal
revenue. It is time for Congress to step up and address the solvency of
the Highway Trust Fund. I am pleased that the Ways and Means Committee
took the first step and held a hearing on this pressing issue last
week.
As the funding debate goes on, we must do our work on this
Subcommittee and develop a sound plan that directs investment to
projects and priorities that will move our country forward. Thank you
to the witnesses for sharing your ideas on that front this morning. I
look forward to your testimony.
Ms. Norton. Now I am going to ask the ranking member to
make his opening statement at this time.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and it is a
pleasure to be able to have this opportunity to work with you.
I am very thankful to our leader, Ranking Member Graves, for
giving me this opportunity to chair this--to be the ranking
member of this subcommittee. Sorry about that. Sometimes old
habits are hard to break.
I really want to thank, too, my good friend and the
chairman of the full committee, Peter DeFazio. I have got a
great working relationship with the chairman, and our years
that we have served together on this committee.
And he is--he and also Chair--Madam Chairman Holmes Norton,
they want to work with us. They want to get things done. And
that is really where I think this committee can rise above, and
this subcommittee can rise above the partisan politics that we
see kind of take over what is happening here in Washington.
You know, you mention the size of this subcommittee. It is
actually six times the size of the full committee I serve on
that I am the full committee ranking member of, the Committee
on House Administration. But it also shows the importance of
where we are as a nation, when it comes to reinvesting and
rebuilding our crumbling roads and infrastructure. And if this
subcommittee is any indication, this will be where that
bipartisan agreement comes from.
As everyone here knows, the FAST Act that provided $281
billion for Federal surface transportation programs expires at
the end of September of 2020. Madam Chair and I, along with
Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves, we will work
together to develop a long-term strategy on how to address our
Nation's infrastructure needs. But it has got to be a
bipartisan bill to put a reauthorization forward.
With this being our first hearing on reauthorization, I
think it is important to note how critical this bill is to
ensuring a good quality of life for all Americans, and to
supporting our economy.
This bill, surface reauthorization bill, will allow the
Federal Government to continue its longstanding role in
infrastructure investment. But we have got some big challenges
and some opportunities before us. Now let me highlight a few of
them.
First, the Highway Trust Fund is not able to meet our
surface transportation needs as they stand today, let alone our
future needs. Congress and the administration must come
together and find a way to shore up the Highway Trust Fund,
providing sustainable funding for our Nation's infrastructure
needs.
Second, while our current system has significant needs, we
must also begin to prepare for the future. Underinvestment has
taken its toll on the system's ability to move people and also
freight. We face increasing congestion, delays, and safety
issues. Not only is adequate infrastructure investment
important to mobility, it also creates jobs and allows our
economy to prosper.
Third, as this process moves forward, it is essential we
find ways to build more efficiently so we can stretch the
Federal dollar. We need to identify and attack hidden project
costs by streamlining the project delivery process and reducing
burdensome regulations. And this committee has a history of
doing so.
And lastly, by incorporating technologies and other
innovations, we have the opportunity to increase safety and
efficiency in our entire surface transportation system.
I believe we can look forward to and I believe we can do
these things and come to an agreement. And I look forward to
working with my colleagues on these very important issues.
And I want to take an opportunity to say thank you to each
of the witnesses that are here today, too. And I look forward
to your testimony.
[Mr. Davis's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit
As everyone here knows, the FAST Act, which provided $281 billion
for federal surface transportation programs, expires on September 30,
2020. Chairwoman Norton and I, along with Chairman DeFazio and Ranking
Member Graves, will work together to develop a long-term, bipartisan
bill to reauthorize surface transportation programs.
With this being our first hearing on reauthorization, it is
important to note how critical this bill is to ensuring a good quality
of life for all Americans and to supporting the U.S. economy. The
surface transportation reauthorization bill will allow the federal
government to continue its long-standing role in infrastructure
investment. But we have some big challenges and opportunities before
us. Let me highlight a few of them.
First, the Highway Trust Fund is not able to meet our surface
transportation needs as they stand today, let alone our future needs.
Congress and the Administration must come together and find a way to
shore-up the Highway Trust Fund, providing sustainable funding for our
Nation's surface transportation programs.
Second, while our current surface transportation system has
significant needs, we must also begin to prepare for the future.
Underinvestment has taken its toll on the system's ability to move
people and freight--we face increasing congestion, delays, and safety
issues. Not only is adequate infrastructure investment important to
mobility, it also creates jobs and allows our economy to prosper.
Third, as the reauthorization process moves forward, it is
essential that we find ways to build more efficiently--to stretch the
federal dollar. We need to identify and attack hidden project costs by
streamlining the project delivery process and reducing burdensome
regulations.
And lastly, by incorporating technologies and other innovations, we
have the opportunity to increase safety and efficiency in our surface
transportation system.
In closing, to quote the greatest band of the 90's and 2000's, ``if
today was your last day, and tomorrow was too late,'' can we reach an
agreement on reauthorization? I believe we can and look forward to
working with my colleagues this Congress to achieve this goal.
Mr. Davis. And I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. I am going to go to the--
Mr. DeFazio. No, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. I am going to go to----
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks.
Ms. Norton. If he will let me.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Norton. To the chairman of the full committee, Mr.
DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. First, I would like to give you
this, Eleanor [giving a box to Ms. Norton]. I am a bit pressed
for time, and I will miss some of your testimony because I have
to have my third call in 3 days with the FAA about 737s.
So just briefly, we have a little cognitive dissonance this
week. We have the President's budget, which again proposes, you
know, cuts pretty much across the board in transportation, on
one hand, but then talks about the fairy dust of leveraging
$200 billion of Federal money into $1 trillion of investment,
something we all know is impossible. It was part of the plan
last year by D.J. Gribbin, which I am not aware of a single
Member of Congress supporting, because it was so fanciful. It
was based in so-called asset recycling, privatization, tolling,
whatever.
We need to do something real, and it is long overdue. We
held the first hearing in the full committee on the cost of
inaction, doing nothing. And now we are going to start talking
about how we fund and move forward with the longer term bill.
You know, CRs hurt, in terms of construction. States will
delay major projects if we are in CR mode, because they don't
know what the long-term prospect is for a major project. I was
one of the few Democrats to vote against the so-called Recovery
Act, because it was all based in shovel-ready projects, running
out and putting down pavement on top of pavement, as opposed to
addressing some of the major deficiencies in the system, the
bridges, or whatever you wanted to address with real
investment, where you get secondary and tertiary employment
effects. Contractors didn't buy any new equipment, because they
knew it was a 1-year thing to go out and put down a little bit
of pavement. So the manufacturers of equipment didn't get the
orders, and so on and so on, down the line.
We need a long-term vision. We need long-term funding. The
Committee on Ways and Means did hold a hearing last week, the
first hearing, substantive hearing, by that committee on
infrastructure funding, in almost a decade. So that is
progress.
But again, people wanted to fall to easy solutions. Oh, all
we need is an investment bank. Or, oh, let's go to vehicle
miles traveled tomorrow. We can't and we won't. As far as a
private investment bank goes, we have already got TIFIA. Yes,
if you want to have a private investment bank, that is great.
But you are still competing for the same 12 percent of the
projects that can fund a revenue stream to repay those
projects. That means we have got another 88 percent of need
here.
There is no transit system in the world that makes money.
So we can't pretend that we are going to suddenly have massive
private investment in rebuilding the $100 billion of deficit we
need just to bring existing transit up to a state of good
repair, which would attract a lot more riders, let alone
building out new transit options for people.
So, you know, we are here to make the case. We know the
policies we need, we know we need more investment. We have to
make the case to America, we have to make the case to this
administration, we have to make the case to some of our
colleagues here in Congress, that you can't just paper this
over again.
The FAST Act papered it over. They pretended to, you know,
create money. We are actually borrowing money to put in the
trust fund right now. We are not admitting it because we had
illusory phoney pay-fors that the Republicans stuck in the
bill. But it was status quo funding. That was not adequate.
I did, after a long battle, get a provision in the bill
that says any additional real funds allocated by Congress will
immediately flow through the policies in this bill. So we don't
have to have a lengthy authorization fight to get some money
out there soon.
We are, at the same time, working on a long-term
reauthorization, which, as Eleanor said, will be iterative. It
is going to be the first 21st-century authorization, and it
will be different than the repetitive things we have done,
building on the Eisenhower legacy, which was a great legacy.
But it is time to move on to more progressive things.
[Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chair Norton and Ranking Member Davis, for holding this
hearing. Without question, the most imperative work this Subcommittee
will undertake in the 116th Congress is crafting a surface
transportation authorization bill.
Although the deadline when highway and transit programs expire--
September 2020--may seem a comfortable distance on the Congressional
calendar, we don't have time to spare. We must find a solution
immediately to a very real and very looming funding crisis in order to
make reauthorization possible.
We are just one week away from the official start of spring--and
the start of the construction season in many parts of the country.
Thanks to the FAST Act, States and local governments go into this
construction season with certainty when it comes to highway and transit
investments. That will not be the case for much longer. Planning
projects, signing contracts, and hiring workers will all grind to a
halt next year if Congress fails to enact a reauthorization bill.
When we get too close to the wire on passing an authorization--or
when the amount or availability of Federal funding becomes uncertain
with Continuing Resolutions and government shutdowns--it has real
effects on stalling highway and transit projects. Earlier this year, we
saw evidence of this, when Oklahoma announced that 45 projects were
being delayed due to the government shutdown. In the spring of 2015, as
Congress was beginning its process to develop the FAST Act, several
States announced they would delay the start of projects over
uncertainty about whether and when Federal funds would come.
Last week, the Committee on Ways and Means held a hearing on
finding a sustainable solution to highway and transit funding. The
hearing demonstrated once again that there is near unanimous support
among stakeholders for finding real revenues. The U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, the AFL-CIO, and the American Trucking Associations were all
in firm agreement that the cost of inaction to businesses, workers, and
the economy is real. Even more importantly, the unequivocal willingness
of the business community to pay higher user fees in order to have
better infrastructure is equally real. This is consistent with the
message this Committee has heard from stakeholders for years.
It is time for this clear willingness to translate into action by
Congress to do the right thing and raise real revenues. At the hearing,
many Republican members of the Committee advocated for private
investment, pushing State and local governments to do more on their
own, and stripping transit out of the Highway Trust Fund. Let me be
clear--this is the opposite of raising real revenue. This lowest-
common-denominator mentality does nothing to address structurally
deficient bridges, crippling congestion, or the need to build more
resilient infrastructure. In fact, it does the opposite by cementing
underinvestment as a strategy.
I see plenty of opportunity in the upcoming surface transportation
bill to improve highway and transit programs. We can save time and
money in project delivery through smarter design, increased
accountability, and tougher procurement rules. We can learn from and
reward State innovation, and we can provide more local control over
transportation dollars. We can harness the power of technologies to
reduce congestion and increase safety. We can invest in electrification
and other strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And with every
dollar, we can create and sustain more good-paying American jobs and
support U.S. manufacturing.
But all of that will only become a reality if we get serious about
finding the money and come to agreement that there is no time to wait.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I look forward to the testimony.
Mr. DeFazio. So, with that, I have to go take a call from
the Administrator, but I will be back. Thank you very much, I
appreciate it.
Ms. Norton. I want to thank our distinguished chairman for
giving me a gavel. There is nothing more precious than having
your own gavel. And it even has my name on it. So I appreciate
that very much, sir.
[Applause.]
Ms. Norton. As I think was mentioned, this hearing is being
held here. This is not our hearing room. Our hearing room will
be available in May. Therefore, you will see our Members having
to come all the way over from, usually, Rayburn.
For example, I have another very important committee
meeting going on right now. I just can't go, so I regret that.
But Members will come in when they can, and we understand.
We really have here a cross-section of witnesses to open
today's hearing, so that we begin to get the lay of the land.
We have the mayor of the city of San Antonio--the fastest
growing city, I believe, in the United States--Mayor Ron
Nirenberg.
Mr. Roger Millar, who is the secretary of the Washington
State Department of Transportation, is here on behalf of the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials.
We have Darran Anderson, the director of strategy and
innovation at the Texas Department of Transportation, but he is
here on behalf of the Texas Innovation Alliance--a very
important new area for us.
Jack Clark, the executive director of the Transportation
Learning Center.
Therese McMillan, executive director of the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission on behalf of the Association of
Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
Al Stanley, vice president of Stanley Construction Company
on behalf of Associated General Contractors of America.
And Michael Terry, who is president and CEO of IndyGo,
Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation, here on behalf
of the American Public Transportation Association.
So we will start with Mr. Nirenberg. But before we begin,
we would like Mr. Carson, my good friend from Indianapolis, to
introduce Mr. Terry, who is a constituent from his own
district.
Mr. Carson. Thank you, your excellency, Chairwoman Norton,
and to Ranking Member Davis, for allowing me to speak today. I
am going to have to leave. I know this isn't my committee, but
I have another commitment.
I am honored to introduce a friend and fellow Hoosier, Mike
Terry. Congressman Pence knows Mr. Terry, as well.
IndyGo is the Indianapolis Public Transportation
Corporation. It is our largest transportation provider in the
great Hoosier State, and it has been led by Mike Terry since
2009. And Madam Chair, under his great leadership, IndyGo was
awarded funding under the Obama administration to build the
first green bus rapid transit program in the country.
Despite the current administration's recommendations to
terminate this funding, Mike's steady leadership helped win a
voter initiative that added State funding to this transit
program, and he worked with our congressional delegation to
secure the appropriations needed to build an innovative system
that we believe will be a smart model for other mid-sized
cities.
Mr. Terry, thank you for your leadership and for testifying
today to share your thoughts with my colleagues.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Carson.
Without objection, our witnesses' full statements will be
included in the record.
Since your testimony, your entire testimony, will be made a
part of the record, we ask that you limit your oral testimony
to 5 minutes.
Mayor Nirenberg, you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. RON NIRENBERG, MAYOR, CITY OF SAN ANTONIO,
TEXAS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES; ROGER
MILLAR, PE, FASCE, FAICP, SECRETARY, WASHINGTON STATE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS;
DARRAN ANDERSON, DIRECTOR OF STRATEGY AND INNOVATION, TEXAS
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF THE TEXAS INNOVATION
ALLIANCE; JOHN KEVIN ``JACK'' CLARK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
TRANSPORTATION LEARNING CENTER; THERESE W. MCMILLAN, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, ON BEHALF OF
THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS; AL
STANLEY, VICE PRESIDENT, STANLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., ON
BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA; AND
MICHAEL TERRY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INDIANAPOLIS PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION (INDYGO), ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION (APTA)
Mr. Nirenberg. Good morning, Chair Norton, Ranking Member
Davis, and members of the subcommittee. I am Ron Nirenberg, the
mayor of San Antonio, Texas, the Nation's seventh largest and
fastest growing city in the United States. I am honored to be
here today on behalf of the residents of San Antonio and also
the National League of Cities, the Nation's oldest and largest
network of cities, towns, and villages across America.
Right now there are over 2,000 local officials here in DC
meeting with their Members of Congress to emphasize a simple
message: Invest in America's infrastructure.
America's cities and local leaders are ready to work with
this committee to reauthorize our essential transportation
programs. We believe that investing in infrastructure should be
Congress' top priority this year.
As mayors, we are tasked with fixing everything under the
sun, from street maintenance and congestion to air quality and
pollution. And as fellow Texan, President Lyndon B. Johnson,
once remarked, ``When the burdens of the Presidency seem
unusually heavy, I always remind myself it could be worse. I
could be a mayor.''
The challenges that cities and towns must confront are
great and growing, but so are the opportunities for investment
and innovation. We believe that the greatest opportunity in
front of this committee is to partner and to collaborate with
America's mayors and the National League of Cities to address
our shared infrastructure priorities. We believe that Congress
should focus on three key areas: modern mobility, regional
connectivity, and safety.
Cities believe the mobility of our citizens should be the
new measure of success in the next reauthorization. This focus
on mobility is to move people in the most efficient, effective,
and safest way possible. Today the transportation marketplace
is undergoing a technological revolution. It is unmistakable.
From ridesharing to e-scooters, entrepreneurs are innovating to
meet the demand for more and better transit options. We believe
in supporting innovation with responsible rules of the road,
and by investing in infrastructure that is durable and
adaptable to the future.
In San Antonio we are working on a framework for modern
mobility called ConnectSA. This initiative builds off past
community planning efforts around land use, buses, bikes, and
roads. The goal is to integrate all of our infrastructure
investments to achieve a more efficient transportation network
that moves people more safely and more effectively. ConnectSA
will leverage first- and last-mile technology, build an
advanced rapid transit network over 500 square miles on
dedicated lanes, and improve the bus system for more frequent
ridership. We have a menu of local revenue options to fund this
investment, but a Federal partnership is absolutely necessary
for success.
Our cities are rapidly growing, and we have to provide more
transit choices to alleviate traffic congestion and to grow our
economy. The U.S. is now the most congested developed nation in
the world, with Americans spending an entire workweek each year
stuck in traffic. And San Antonio, by 2040, will add another
million more people. And with the additional cars we will lose
yet another workweek in traffic. We have to be proactive in
addressing this challenge.
The fastest growing region in the Nation is the 74-mile
corridor anchored by Austin and San Antonio. Achieving the full
economic potential of this mega-region requires investing in
regional connectivity and reducing congestion. Current
congestion risks this growth coming to a grinding halt. By 2040
the Interstate 35 corridor between San Antonio and Austin will
exceed or rival Dallas-Fort Worth. We are working with our
metropolitan planning organizations to expand capacity and
utilize technology, and a regional rail line continues to hold
enormous promise. We need a Federal partner that invests in
regional connectivity to expand our economy.
Finally, a transportation system is only as effective as it
is safe. In addition to modern mobility and regional
connectivity, safety is a top priority for our cities. This is
an ongoing crisis that deserves more attention. Cities--along
with our health professionals, safety workers, transportation
leaders--believe that zero is the only acceptable number of
deaths on our roads. So we are all working towards Vision Zero
efforts. Saving lives on our Nation's roads is a shared
priority.
Additional funding for safety nets that are both data-
driven and evidence-based would make our transportation system
much safer. The cities and mayors of America are here to be
your partners on progress for surface transportation. We urge
you to make investing and infrastructure, modern mobility,
regional connectivity, and safety your top priority. America's
economy will only move as well as its transportation system.
And our children and grandchildren's quality of life depends on
us making bold decisions together.
Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[Mr. Nirenberg's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ron Nirenberg, Mayor, City of San Antonio,
Texas, on behalf of the National League of Cities
Good morning, Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis and Members of the
Subcommittee:
I am Ron Nirenberg, Mayor of San Antonio, Texas, the nation's
seventh largest city and the fastest growing city in the U.S. I am
honored to be here today on behalf of the city of San Antonio and the
National League of Cities (NLC), the nation's oldest and largest
network of cities, towns and villages across America.
rebuild america's infrastructure
Cities are ready to work with this Committee to increase
infrastructure investment and to reauthorize our essential
transportation programs. In fact, right now there are over 2,000 local
officials in D.C. here to meet with their Members of Congress to
reiterate that infrastructure must be Congress' top priority this year.
We ask that this Committee work with local leaders to forge a
bipartisan path forward.
Local leaders want to play a larger role in rebuilding America's
infrastructure in collaboration with our Federal and state partners.
Every day, city leaders hear from our citizens, and they're quick to
tell us--they want modern mobility options that are efficient,
reliable, cost-effective, and safe. From budget commitments to bonding
to ballot initiatives, local officials have shown that when given the
opportunity to leverage Federal investments in our regions and give our
citizens the mobility they want, we will follow through.
Today, you have asked for our feedback on aligning our
transportation policy to meet cities' needs across the country. We
believe strongly the U.S. needs to shape its transportation approach
for the future with both our growing megaregions and our small towns in
mind. Cities like San Antonio are growing rapidly along with congestion
that demands new approaches, not just more lanes. We should all be
equally invested in bridging the urban-rural divide in our country
because investing in what connects every American is a predictor of
success for both rural and urban areas. To accomplish this, local
leaders encourage Congress to focus on three key areas: investing in
mobility, regional connectivity, and data-driven safety programs.
invest in citizens' mobility
Cities believe the mobility of our citizens should be our new
measure of success in the next reauthorization. Cities of all sizes are
not only piloting technology-driven solutions with their partners but
are harnessing new mobility options in their existing pain points and
throughout their regions. Without a doubt, we also acknowledge these
new mobility options are not replacing our existing strategic
transportation investments. In fact, they are more important than ever
because innovators are leveraging them. Ride hailing use our roads and
curb space. Rapid buses move on dedicated road lanes. Bikeshare and
scooters use bike lanes and transit exchange points. Traffic management
solutions leverage our city signs, lights and broadband. Investing in
mobility is about committing to innovation and building off our
strategic assets.
In San Antonio, we are embracing this strategy. We are building a
framework for modern mobility called ConnectSA. We are focused on
better access for all our citizens by leveraging innovative transit
options and improving traffic flow through our city. Our goal is to
seamlessly integrate last-mile options like scooters and bikes and to
invest in reliable and frequent buses for an advanced rapid transit
network while we manage congestion to accommodate our future growth.
Local officials also recognize that innovation is currently not
equally distributed. However, if Congress could right-sized Federal
programs for urban, growing and small communities, new mobility models
could move more quickly into small and medium communities. Communities
of all sizes see tremendous value in right-sizing technology and
mobility models to allow greater on-demand service for both seniors,
workers heading to major employers, and for late-shift workers to have
a dependable ride home. Investing in mobility like this could change
the lives of so many of our residents at home.
invest in regional connectivity
The U.S. is now the most congested developed country in the world,
with Americans spending an entire work week each year stuck in traffic.
More than two out of every five miles of the nation's urban interstates
are congested, and most of them flow straight through our major urban
cores. Creating and sustaining a transportation network that works--a
platform for commerce and human interaction--is one of the oldest and
most important functions of government.
The fastest growing region in the Nation is the 74-mile corridor
anchored by San Antonio and Austin. This is the western half of the
Texas Triangle, and America's next great metropolis. We have all the
elements of a successful metro economy: world-class universities, an
educated and expanding workforce, a burgeoning tech community,
relatively affordable land and a business friendly environment.
Achieving the full economic potential of this San Antonio-Austin mega-
region requires investing in connectivity to reduce congestion. Current
congestion risks this growth coming to a grinding halt. By 2040, the
Interstate 35 coordinator population will rival the Dallas-Fort Worth
area's current size. We are working with our metropolitan planning
organizations to expand capacity and utilize technology, and a regional
rail line continues to hold enormous promise.
We need a Federal partner that invests in the essential
connectivity options that will keep our regions growing. A regionally
driven strategy can build partnerships and bold solutions that fit each
area's needs. One size will not fit all, but no one is better equipped
to evaluate and prioritize than those on the ground at the local and
regional level. New programs, Federal Surface Transportation Block
Grants, Transit New Starts, Transportation Alternatives, multimodal
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) and
Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) grants,
and smaller grants like Mobility on Demand will all be critical to a
future of innovative mobility and regional cooperation.
Demand for these grants far exceeds the amount of available funds.
Each year, USDOT sees many times more applications for BUILD grants
than they have funds available which should be a startling statistic if
we are committed to meeting America's intermodal needs for the future.
invest in data-driven safety
In the U.S., crashes and collisions on the roadways are the leading
cause of death for people between the ages of 5 and 24 and the cause of
over 2.5 million injuries. Cities--along with our health professionals,
our public safety workers, our transportation leaders--believe that
zero is the only acceptable number of deaths on our roads. In the Road
to Zero coalition, we are proud to be joined by over 900 partners to:
Double down on what works through proven, evidence-based
strategies
Advance life-saving technology in vehicles and
infrastructure
Prioritize safety by adopting a safe-systems approach and
creating a positive safety culture
Cites, like San Antonio, are leading Vision Zero efforts, but
saving lives on the nation's roads is a joint responsibility.
Additional funding to safety efforts that are both data-driven and
corridor-driven, taking systems-based approaches, and deploying
technical experts across regions could drive results.
conclusion
In closing, this reauthorization's transportation investment could
bring new mobility, connectivity and safety to our hometowns. Cities
believe that Congress must continue to be a steady Federal investment
partner in infrastructure through the Highway Trust Fund, and it has
become an economic and safety risk to not adequately fund a multimodal
transportation system. We encourage Congress to set a new revenue
course for the future that also course corrects our policies to
leverage the innovation happening in transportation and invest in the
mobility for our citizens.
Cities are ready to step up and be a true partner in these efforts.
I look forward to any questions you might have.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mayor Nirenberg.
Mr. Millar, secretary of the Washington State Department of
Transportation, on behalf of the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, you may proceed for 5
minutes.
Mr. Millar. Thank you, Chair Norton and Ranking Member
Davis, for inviting me to participate in this hearing. I am
Roger Millar, the secretary of the Washington State Department
of Transportation.
Today it is my honor, on behalf of the State of Washington
and AASHTO, which represents the transportation departments of
all 50 States, Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico--so it is my
honor to present on their behalf.
I am going to focus my comments today on strengthening the
Federal-State-local partnership model, improving the delivery
of projects to save time and money, utilizing innovation to
address mobility challenges, including safety, state of good
repair, congestion, and universal access, and supporting good
jobs in a qualified transportation workforce.
As the Congress considers FAST Act reauthorization, AASHTO
urges that you retain the current highway and transit program
framework. This includes retaining the current mass transit
account within the Highway Trust Fund and retaining relative
distributions. Additionally, we strongly recommend that Federal
funds continue to be provided through the existing formula-
based structure directly to the States. And we urge Congress to
enact a revenue solution for the Highway Trust Fund, and to
address the $7.6 billion rescission of unobligated contract
authority that is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2020.
States are eager to find ways to improve the delivery of
projects to save time and money, while properly engaging
diverse stakeholders and protecting the environment. Over the
past several decades, significant progress has been made
towards the goal of improving project delivery, including
through provisions in SAFETEA-LU, MAP-21, and the FAST Act.
As you all know, NEPA is not a permit you apply for. It is,
rather, a broad, transparent environmental review and
decisionmaking process.
In Washington State, 90 percent of our projects in our last
three major transportation packages since 2005 have been
delivered on or ahead of schedule and on or under budget. So
project delivery has not been a problem in Washington State.
In Washington State, 94 percent of our projects are already
excluded from NEPA through the use of categorical exclusions.
The project types that we invest in have been proven to not
negatively impact communities or the environment.
For our large projects that require detailed NEPA
documents, we find that the robust community and agency
involvement we participate in and lead upfront leads to better
outcomes, adherence to budget and schedule, and broad
acceptance and support for the projects.
Each State DOT has its own experience. Speaking on behalf
of all the AASHTO members I can tell you that some of our
States believe the NEPA process still takes too long and is too
costly.
Federal programs should support State DOTs that take
innovative approaches to improving mobility. We continue to
evolve from highway builders of the last century to stewards of
the 21st-century multimodal transportation system.
At WSDOT we recognize that we can't build our way out of
congestion, and so we are instead focused on an actionable path
forward in a congested world with limited resources. We are
working on innovative approaches that encompass cooperative,
automated transportation, mobility on demand, transportation
system management and operations, transportation demand
management, addressing the complex relationship between
transportation and land use, providing a more complete suite of
multimodal transportation choices, and making targeted
investments in roadway capacity.
We are using managed lanes and congestion pricing, where
appropriate, to improve mobility and move more people on the
infrastructure we have in place. We are making investments in
items like ramp meters and variable speeds message signs to
improve our capacities.
We are expanding our nationally recognized commute trip
reduction program to address travel modes other than the
commute, because we find that today only 16 percent of our
total traffic is commute traffic. The rest of it is people
going about their business in different ways.
Finally, State DOTs need a well-trained and diverse
workforce to deliver 21st-century transportation programs. The
Washington State DOT expects to lose a significant number of
our employees through retirement in the next 5 years, including
31 percent of our maintenance staff and 41 percent of our
engineers. If you look at our Washington State ferries, the men
and women who drive our boats, 75 percent of them are eligible
to retire in the next 5 years. And that is not a license you
pick up down at the DMV.
We also have significant gaps in our available workforce
for our contractor and consulting partners. State DOTs can't
deliver our programs without qualified personnel. So Congress
should continue to support important programs like STEM
education, on-the-job training, supportive services, and
disadvantaged business enterprise supportive services to help
us bring the people we need to the workforce to deliver the
program.
In conclusion, we remain committed to assisting Congress in
the development of strategies to ensure long-term economic
growth, and enhance quality of life through robust, multimodal
transportation investments.
Thank you again for the honor and the opportunity to
testify today.
[Mr. Millar's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Roger Millar, PE, FASCE, FAICP, Secretary,
Washington State Department of Transportation, on behalf of the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
introduction
Chairman Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the perspective
of the nation's state departments of transportation on aligning Federal
surface transportation policy to meet twenty-first century needs.
My name is Roger Millar, and I serve as Secretary of the Washington
State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and as a member of the
Board of Directors and Chair of the Council on Public Transportation of
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). Today it is my honor to testify on behalf of the great State
of Washington and AASHTO, which represents the transportation
departments of all 50 States, Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico.
I joined WSDOT as Deputy Secretary in October 2015 and was
appointed Secretary of Transportation in August 2016. I've spent over
40 years working in the transportation industry at the local and state
level and in the private sector. The prominent theme that has run
through my career has been planning and implementing transportation
systems that are not ends unto themselves; but rather the means toward
economic vitality, environmental stewardship, social equity, public
health, and aesthetic quality.
I oversee an agency that is the steward of Washington State's
multimodal transportation system and responsible for ensuring that
people and goods move safely and efficiently. In addition to building,
maintaining, and operating the state highway system, WSDOT operates the
largest ferry system in the Nation, sponsors the Amtrak Cascades
intercity passenger rail service, owns and operates 16 airports, and
owns a 300-mile short-line freight rail system. We work in partnership
with others to maintain and improve local roads, railroads and
airports, as well as to support mobility options such as public
transportation, bicycle, and pedestrian programs.
Having this important conversation on the future direction of
Federal surface transportation policy could not be timelier in light of
the discussion around an infrastructure package and pending
reauthorization of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST)
Act. Given the ever-increasing pace of change in our world--through
technological advances, workforce challenges, demographic changes,
environmental instability, and economic uncertainty--there is
tremendous opportunity to make Federal policy more proactive, flexible,
and adaptable.
State DOTs have already taken signification action in modernizing
our policy and technical development at AASHTO, with our Board of
Directors approving a reorganization of the AASHTO committee structure
in 2016. This was the culmination of an 18-month effort led by a
committee of state DOT CEOs and senior DOT officials. This modernized
committee structure is inclusive of all disciplines, addresses state-
identified priorities and emerging issues, and is intended to be more
efficient and nimbler in its decisionmaking.
Perhaps the hallmark of this change is putting all modes of
transportation on equal footing when it comes to policymaking. AASHTO
now formulates transportation policy through its six modal councils--
active transportation, aviation, highways and streets, public
transportation that I now chair, rail transportation, and water
transportation--plus a special committee on freight, which I chaired
until recently, all of which support the new AASHTO Transportation
Policy Forum as the holistic policymaking body for the Association.
My remarks today center around the following key points:
Strengthening the Federal/State/local partnership model
The current Federal program structure for highway and
transit programs must be preserved.
Congress needs to enact a permanent revenue solution
for the Highway Trust Fund.
Improving the delivery of projects to save time and money
States are eager to find ways to improve the delivery
of projects to save time and money, while properly engaging diverse
stakeholders in program and project development, upholding
environmental safeguards and providing resiliency.
Utilizing innovation to address mobility challenges,
including safety, state of good repair, congestion, and universal
access
Federal programs should support state DOTs that take
innovative approaches to transportation system management, demand
management, and improved mobility.
The Federal program must support and provide sufficient
flexibility to allow state DOTs to harness innovation and technology.
Supporting good jobs and a qualified transportation
workforce
Congress should continue to fund programs that support
the development of a diverse and robust workforce suitable for staffing
the development and delivery of twenty-first century transportation
programs.
As you examine what works well and what doesn't, I urge you to make
sure that policies that work effectively are not discarded or nullified
in the name of major reform.
strengthening the federal/state/local partnership model
The current Federal program structure for highway and transit programs
must be preserved.
The state DOTs have the utmost appreciation for your Subcommittee's
leadership, along with your House and Senate peers in partner
committees to shepherd the FAST Act in December 2015. This legislation
has ensured much-needed funding stability in the federally supported
passenger rail, freight, safety, highway, and transit programs through
2020.
To further build on the Federal surface transportation's solid
foundation, we believe that it is time for all transportation
stakeholders--led by Congress and the President--to begin work on
reauthorizing the FAST Act now. We are extremely grateful for the work
of this Subcommittee in that regard. We need to ensure a smooth
transition upon the FAST Act's expiration on September 30, 2020,
without the need for disruptive extensions of the program.
As part of the work of AASHTO's Transportation Policy Forum, we are
currently in the process of gathering expert input from our wide range
of technical and modal committees comprising leaders from all state
DOTs. We're also seeking our industry partners' input during this
process prior to our formal adoption later next year, in order to
maximize the inclusivity of perspectives in our policy recommendations
to come.
As FAST Act reauthorization gets under way, AASHTO urges Congress
to retain the current highway and transit program framework as the core
foundation on which modernizing policy improvements can be made. This
means not only retaining the current Mass Transit Account within the
Highway Trust Fund (HTF) and their relative distributions of receipts
in place since 1983, but also maintaining the current maximum non-
Federal match ratios for both highway and transit programs.
Furthermore, we strongly recommend that Federal funds continue to be
provided through the existing formula-based program structure directly
to states rather than looking at untested new approaches that will
require more time and oversight.
For over one hundred years, we as a nation have enjoyed the fruits
of the Federal Government's highly successful partnership with state
DOTs to build and maintain our surface transportation system. Beginning
with the Federal-aid Road Act of 1916 establishing the foundation of a
federally funded, state-administered highway program that has been
well-suited to a growing and geographically diverse nation like ours,
Federal investment in all modes of transportation have allowed states
and their local partners to fund a wide range of projects that serve
the interest of the Nation as a whole.
The Federal surface transportation program's inherent flexibility
defers project selection and investment decisionmaking to state and
local governments. And these important decisions are based on extensive
public input from local communities and businesses to address their
unique needs and ensure goods get access to a larger market than ever
before. Formula programs remain the optimal approach to serve all
corners of our country, improving mobility and quality of life in
urban, suburban, and rural areas.
Congress needs to enact a permanent revenue solution for the Highway
Trust Fund.
I'm sure you have already heard these numbers, but they bear
repeating. The investment backlog for transportation infrastructure
continues to increase--reaching $836 billion for highways and bridges
and $122 billion for transit according to the US Department of
Transportation's (USDOT) 2015 Conditions and Performance report.
Similarly, the American Society of Civil Engineers, upon whose Board of
Direction I sit, has identified a $1.1 trillion funding gap for surface
transportation between 2016 and 2025. It is also telling to look where
our nation stands relative to global peers in infrastructure quality
and economic competitiveness. The 2018 Global Competitiveness Report
rankings from the World Economic Forum on infrastructure quality has
listed the United States at just ninth place overall.
Yet at the same time, in order to simply maintain the current HTF
spending levels adjusted for inflation after the FAST Act, Congress
will need to identify $114 billion in additional HTF receipts to
support a 6-year bill through 2026. All the while the purchasing power
of HTF revenues has declined substantially mainly due to the flat, per-
gallon motor fuel taxes that have not been adjusted since 1993, losing
over half of its value in the last quarter century. Doubling the
Federal gas tax today would bring us back the purchasing power of that
tax in 1993. Catching up to late-twentieth century Federal investment
levels will not keep the United States competitive moving forward into
the twenty-first century.
These dire trends mean that absent a revenue fix by 2020, the HTF
is expected to experience a significant cash shortfall leading to an
estimated 51 percent drop in Federal highway obligations from the year
before, or from $47 billion to $23 billion, and a zeroing out of
Federal obligations from the Mass Transit Account in 2021 and 2022. In
the past, such similar shortfall situations have led to the possibility
of a reduction in Federal reimbursements to states on existing
obligations, leading to serious cash-flow problems for states and
project delays. Simply put, this is a devastating scenario that we must
do all we can to avoid.
In addition to the massive cash shortfall issue facing the HTF, the
FAST Act included a $7.6 billion rescission of unobligated highway
contract authority to take effect on July 1, 2020, as a means to bring
the spending baseline back to the 2015 level on paper. Unfortunately,
the contract authority rescission is a budgetary artifice that at best
impedes the flexibility of state DOTs to meet their individual
infrastructure needs by disrupting transportation planning and timely
delivery of projects; and at worst, the cumulative effect of
rescissions--with over $22 billion enacted since 2002--can wipe out the
entire balance of contract authority held by states which will lead to
hard funding cuts to Federal dollars authorized under the FAST Act.
We in the transportation industry do everything in our power to
build important projects as fast as possible, but due to the nature of
large capital programs, the lack of stable, predictable funding from
the HTF makes it nearly impossible for state DOTs to plan for large
projects that need a reliable flow of funding over multiple years.
Transportation projects large and small around the country will be put
at risk near the expiration of the FAST Act if Congress fails to
address both the impending HTF shortfall and repeal of the FAST Act
rescission.
Such delays have serious economic consequences both in the short-
and long-term, as these projects employ thousands of companies and
hundreds of thousands of workers every year. More importantly, these
projects are what connect the traveling public to the many facets of
their lives. Once completed, they help stimulate economic growth and
improve quality of life in every community where they are built.
Federal funding currently covers approximately 20 percent of
WSDOT's budget. We use the vast majority of our Federal funds to
preserve the National Highway System. While the Federal fuel tax has
not been raised since 1993, Washington state has increased its Motor
Vehicle Fuel Tax by over 26 cents since 2003 to a total of 49.4 cents.
While our state legislature has stepped up to the plate to address the
need for transportation investment in Washington, those investments
have not adequately provided for the preservation of our roads,
bridges, ferries, train sets, and aviation infrastructure. Our current
annual unfunded preservation need is approximately $700 million.
Predictable funding from the Federal Government to maintain the
National Highway System in a state of good repair is necessary if we
are to compete effectively in a global economy. Washington is one of
the most trade-centric states in the Nation, with almost $600 billion
in annual trade-related economic activity. Preserving our
transportation system in a state of good repair and managing the
capacity of that system effectively are essential to moving products to
market. In the next decade, with current funding levels, we are likely
to see bridges closed, speed limits reduced, and routes not adequately
preserved, significantly impacting the ability of businesses to compete
globally.
Based on FY 2018 ending balances, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) projects Washington State will be faced with a
$117 million rescission in 2020. If rescinded, we would be left with no
apportionment balances at the end of the FAST Act.
We must take advantage of the short window of time we have right
now to head off the dual threat of a HTF funding cliff and a large
rescission in 2020. If we miss this opportunity for action, the
extremely costly and disruptive scenario for transportation programs
all around the country will become all but inevitable.
improving the delivery of projects to save time and money
States are eager to find ways to improve the delivery of projects to
save time and money, while properly engaging diverse
stakeholders in program and project development, upholding
environmental safeguards and providing resiliency.
Over the past several decades, significant progress has been made
toward the goal of improving the delivery of transportation projects.
This progress has been spurred by streamlining measures enacted in the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
Century Act (MAP-21), and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation
(FAST) Act.
Several of the streamlining measures involve the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and project delivery. Successful
measures that WSDOT uses every day:
New and revised NEPA categorical exclusions (CEs) to
expedite routine activities and projects that don't impact the
environment;
Expanded programmatic agreements with FHWA; and
Combined documents that all Federal agencies can use for
their decisionmaking.
In Washington, we've benefited from each of these improvements.
Because the NEPA process is scalable, the vast majority (94 percent) of
work in our state is excluded from NEPA through the use of CEs. Since
2005, approximately 90 percent of WSDOT capital projects have been
delivered on or ahead of schedule and on or under budget.
As you know, NEPA is not a permit; rather it is a broad,
transparent environmental review and decisionmaking process. Our
biggest multimodal projects do require detailed analysis under NEPA.
Even for these large projects, we find the robust community and agency
involvement up front leads to better outcomes, adherence to budget and
schedule, and broader acceptance and support.
Each state DOT has its own experience. Speaking on behalf of all
AASHTO members, I can tell you that even with the improvements to
USDOT's NEPA processes, many feel it still takes too long and is too
costly.
AASHTO has outlined the following ideas for future streamlining:
Continue to expand programmatic agreements within USDOT
and with the Federal resource and regulatory agencies;
Extend the use of USDOT agency NEPA CE's to other Federal
agencies when they are engaged in transportation related activities;
and
Make the current NEPA assignment more efficient for those
states who are able to use that option.
Multiple laws and regulations are considered in the NEPA process,
or as we say they fall ``under the NEPA umbrella.'' To achieve further
streamlining, focus must be paid to not only making continued
improvement in the NEPA process itself, but also in making the NEPA
process work more efficiently with other Federal requirements, all
while remaining responsible stewards of taxpayer resources and both
human and natural environments.
To make the NEPA process work more smoothly with other substantive
environmental requirements, USDOT and state DOTs should work with
Federal environmental agencies to develop programmatic approaches to
streamline environmental processes.
In Washington, we have a great example of approach. In January of
this year, we started implementing a new programmatic agreement for
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Our partners on
this are FHWA and its Western Federal Lands office, Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
and the state historic preservation office in consultation with 34
federally recognized tribes. As a result, my staff is able to undertake
Section 106 compliance on behalf of FHWA and FTA.
Programmatic agreements greatly reduce the time and cost needed to
meet environmental requirements, while maintaining resource protection
and consultation. But development of these agreements requires time and
resources. To ensure success in developing programmatic agreements, it
is essential that adequate Federal resources be dedicated to this
effort, both within the USDOT and within Federal resource agency
budgets.
Under current NEPA regulations, each Federal agency adopts its own
list of CEs applicable to actions that the agency carries out. If
multiple Federal agency approvals are needed for the same project, and
only one agency has an applicable CE, then that agency can issue a CE,
but the other Federal agencies must prepare an Environmental
Assessment, slowing down the process unnecessarily. While an existing
law allows any USDOT agency to use any other USDOT's agency's CE, this
authority has two important limitations: (1) applies only to USDOT
multimodal projects, and (2) it does not apply to agencies outside the
USDOT. Allowing CEs to be interchangeable between Federal agencies
could significantly streamline projects. I have two scenarios where
this would expedite and simplify approvals while still protecting the
environment.
First scenario: If the US Army Corps of Engineers is the
only Federal agency involved in a state funded transportation project
(bridge replacement), allow the Corps to apply a CE from FHWA's CE
list.
Another scenario: If there are multiple Federal approvals
needed for a project, allow the other agencies to defer to the NEPA
lead. At present, if a roadway project requires a new lease or land
purchase from a Federal land management agency (National Park Service,
US Forest Service, BLM), that agency can't use FHWA's CEs. Instead,
they have to do an environmental assessment for the property action.
Regarding the formal assignment of NEPA, I need to point out that
this voluntary program is not an option for all state DOTS. This is due
to state laws and/or different experiences in each state DOT. That
said, AASHTO members support the effort to improve the program for
those states that both desire them and are willing to be held
responsible for Federal authorities.
Currently, Alaska, California, Florida, Ohio, Texas, and Utah are
participating in the NEPA assignment program made available to all
states in MAP-21. Based on their collective experience, specific
changes that will make this program both more efficient and attractive
to interested states include:
Simplifying the assignment application and audit
processes;
Allowing states to assume all of the responsibilities of
the USDOT with respect to engineering and other activities related to
environmental review, consultation, permitting or other action required
under any Federal environmental law for project review or approval;
Allowing states in this program to be solely responsible
for the development of their policies, guidance and procedures so long
as Federal laws and the USDOT requirements and guidance are met;
Removing the pre-condition for a state to have taken on
NEPA assignment for highways prior to being able to take on NEPA
assignment for rail and transit projects; and
Adding NEPA assignment authority to Title 49 to allow
states to assume the Federal NEPA responsibilities of any USDOT modal
administration.
For state DOT's without NEPA assignment, like WSDOT, we have
successfully negotiated programmatic NEPA agreements. These agreements
allow the state DOT to carry out routine interagency coordination
tasks, while maintaining regular communication with USDOT. USDOT
retains responsibility for all final decisions. Often these
programmatic agreements eliminate confusion, redundancy and frees up
USDOT's limited staff resources. We view this as a model for other FHWA
approvals.
AASHTO has identified a number of areas where Congress could
provide states with additional assignment authority to make
determinations in lieu of seeking FHWA approval. Examples include
Federal funds obligation management, project agreements, right-of-way
acquisition, preventive maintenance, repayment of preliminary
engineering and right-of-way costs, and credits toward non-Federal
share, among many other possible areas of current Federal oversight.
This kind of authority would reduce time-consuming processes while
preserving the intent and integrity of Federal policy.
To foster the development and testing of new, innovative practices
and approaches aimed at expediting project delivery while maintaining
environmental protections, we ask Congress to consider establishing a
project delivery innovation program.
Thanks to the states' partnership with FHWA, we're currently
working on a limited version of such an innovation program through
Special Experimental Project--or SEP-16. Under this initiative which in
the past has yielded innovations in contracting and public-private
partnerships, FHWA is soliciting proposals for delegation of various
FHWA responsibilities directly to States. There is a wide range of
potential applications if SEP-16 criteria can be met. Some possible
examples include:
States approving modifications to Stewardship and
Oversight agreements without preapproval by FHWA, subject to FHWA's
ongoing oversight of the State's compliance with Federal requirements;
States taking the full responsibility for approving a new
or modified access point on the Interstate System; and
States developing a definition for ``high-risk''
Interstate projects that allows States to assume the full range of
responsibilities for these efforts.
Another innovative practices example WSDOT has embraced is the
design-build project delivery method as a ``tool in the toolbox.'' For
some projects, design-build can bring innovations to solve challenges
more quickly and more cost-effectively. WSDOT is one of many state DOTs
that are using design-build more often. We have learned a lot since our
first design-build project in 2001, and we've had some great successes.
Last year, we used design-build to replace the Wildcat Bridge on U.S.
12 in Yakima County. By using design-build, the creativity the private-
sector designer brought to the table resulted in the project being
completed with just 17 days of substantial construction, over 13 months
ahead of schedule and saved the Department a third of the budgeted cost
($3.7 million of $12 million budgeted).
In addition to efficiently delivering our projects, we need
resources to build more resilient infrastructure. Many of our existing
assets were not designed to meet today's needs, or to withstand the
changes we expect in the future. In addition, we know more today than
we did in the 1950's and 1960's when much of the national
transportation network was completed. We need to retrofit and we need
to build in resilience. We're also working to manage stormwater so that
our communities are protected from flood events and water-borne
pollutants.
In Washington, we're burdened with thousands of undersized
culverts, built to the Federal standard at the time of construction,
that prevent adult salmon from reaching upstream habitat and/or prevent
juvenile salmon from migrating downstream. Our culverts contribute to
the decline of salmon runs--which in turn, impacts the economy and
cultural heritage of the Pacific Northwest. In response to longstanding
obligations under treaties between the Federal Government and Pacific
Northwest Native American tribes, we are now under a Federal court
order to fix enough culverts to open up 90 percent of the blocked
habitat by 2030 at an estimated cost of over $3 billion.
utilizing innovation to address mobility challenges, including safety,
state of good repair, congestion, and universal access
Federal programs should support state DOTs that take innovative
approaches to transportation system management, demand
management, and improved mobility.
At WSDOT, we are focused on an actionable path forward in a
congested world with limited resources. The Practical Solutions Goal in
our Strategic Plan calls for collaborating with our partners to address
transportation problems/ opportunities within available resources,
making the right investments in the right locations at the right time.
It acknowledges that we are stewards of a complex transportation system
with a route network that is essentially complete. We have an
obligation to the people we serve to bring our multimodal
transportation system to a state of good repair, to make sure that it
operates safely, that it moves people, goods, and services as
efficiently as possible, that we manage demand for limited and
expensive system capacity, and that we, at times, add capacity to the
system.
WSDOT recently completed a high-level analysis of what highway lane
capacity would be required for a person to be able to drive the posted
speed limits, at all times, on the Interstates through the three most
congested areas of the state (The Central Puget Sound, Vancouver, and
Spokane). We determined that it would require an additional 451 lane
miles of highway at an estimated cost of approximately $115 billion.
Funding the construction of these facilities over a twenty-year period
would require a $2.25 to $2.50 per gallon increase in the state gas
tax. This analysis assumed no growth in population and employment and
no induced demand and did not include the cost of accommodating the
resulting increased traffic on other state highways and local roadways
or of mitigating the environmental consequences of the investment.
While additional capacity is sometimes the answer in specific
locations, we acknowledge based upon the evidence above and the
preponderance of data from other states that we cannot build our way
out of congestion. We are instead working on innovative approaches to
move forward in a congested environment that encompass transportation
system management and operations, transportation demand management,
addressing the relationships between transportation and land use,
providing a more complete suite of multimodal transportation choices,
and making targeted investments in roadway capacity. To make these
changes requires a coordinated and leveraged approach. Flexibility and
predictability in funding to develop and implement these programs will
be more important to our success in the twenty-first century than
capital investment made project-by-project without accompanying robust
investment in the life cycle stewardship of the transportation system.
Transportation system management and operation projects can be
coordinated with transportation demand and active transportation
projects to eliminate or at least delay the need for major system
expansion. Funding from the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ) program has been helpful to our efforts to support
transportation demands management with innovative local projects. We
are transitioning from 25 years of focus on employment at large
worksites--our nationally recognized Commute Trip Reduction (CTR)
program--to add smaller employers and other trips, including off peak
trips. In addition, transportation system management and operation
investments like transportation management centers, ramp meters, active
transportation management systems, and variable speed limits signs can
be used to improve the efficiency of our existing roadways and prepare
us for the capabilities of new technology coming our way.
We are also using managed lanes and congestion pricing where
appropriate to improve mobility and move more people on the
infrastructure we have in place. WSDOT has taken advantage of funding
from past and current Federal programs including the 2007 USDOT
Congestion Initiative and its Urban Partnership Agreements and the
Value Pricing Pilot Program to help us explore and test these concepts.
With our Interstate 405 Express Toll Lanes, launched in 2015, we are
able to move 35 percent more vehicles in the peak hour when compared to
a similar number of lanes and daily travel volumes on Interstate 5.
These managed lanes also provide an attractive corridor for bus rapid
transit systems and other public transportation investment.
The Federal program must support and provide sufficient flexibility to
allow state DOTs to harness innovation and technology.
We are at a global inflection point in the transportation arena
that is as significant as when the engine replaced the horse and buggy
and Eisenhower's initiation of the National System of Interstate and
Defense Highways. Today, there is dramatic change underway as the
development and deployment of new technologies are resetting the
relationships between the vehicles that transport people and goods and
our multimodal transportation infrastructure. Our transportation
systems are also responding to societal change, including a reduction
in home-based commute trips as a percentage of the total demand on the
system, a rapidly growing cohort of our population that do not possess
driver's licenses, the urbanization of our metropolitan regions with an
increased demand for walkable neighborhoods, a desire to maintain and
enhance mobility in rural America, and an increased reliance on our
transportation system for home delivery of retail goods and services.
These and other factors are fundamentally changing the ways we move
goods, services and people on our transportation system.
Concrete, asphalt, and steel are no longer the only important
materials for transportation agencies. They have been augmented by data
as the new asset that will save lives, provide transportation choice
and improved mobility to all of our citizens, enhance program and
operational efficiency, protect our environment, and create jobs. It is
important now, more than ever, that we not only optimize relationships
at local, tribal, state and Federal levels to ensure our transportation
system is a steward and not a bottleneck of continued innovation, but
expand out partnerships with the private sector, who's value to
shareholders and the public is also dependent upon a sustainable,
efficient, and reliable transportation system.
Technology creates new capabilities for transportation agencies to
effectively manage and operate our roadways. The key to harnessing
approaching technology is positioning and funding transportation
agencies to leverage new technological opportunities.
State DOTs continue to evolve from highway builders of the last
century to stewards of multimodal twenty-first century transportation
systems, and we see technological innovation as an important new tool
in our nation's transportation toolbox as we strive to provide safe
mobility and access to everyone.
To better prepare for and leverage emerging technologies, AASHTO
has recently established the Cooperative Automated Transportation (CAT)
coalition, of which I serve as co-chair. The goals of this effort
include creating a clearinghouse of connected and automated vehicle
policy frameworks, bringing new multimodal mobility tools to our
nation's communities, identifying funding opportunities and financing
models to enable near-term investments, and developing model
regulations that will facilitate near-term pilots and deployments.
As the owners and operators of a significant portion of the
multimodal transportation infrastructure throughout the country, state
DOTs are at the forefront of preparing for deployment of new
transportation technologies, including connected and automated vehicles
(CAVs) and Mobility on Demand (MOD).
Maintaining and preserving the current infrastructure in a state of
good repair that meets the needs of current system users, while
preparing for the benefits of the transformative technologies that are
being introduced almost daily has given new meaning to workforce
development and inclusionary collaboration within and between agencies.
In response, many state DOTs are reorganizing or refocusing their
project development and business processes to include preparing for
multimodal trip planning and ticketing systems, vehicles equipped with
Automated Driving System (ADS), and other innovations with the
increasing ability to connect vehicles to each other and the
infrastructure.
While encouraging consistency in traditional roadway design and
traffic control device investments can assist in deployment of new
technologies, taking steps to improve roadway pavement markings and
signage and protecting the 5.9 GHz spectrum currently reserved for
transportation safety and connectivity purposes will have lasting near
and long-term benefits for both CAV and MOD.
State, tribal, and local governments remain the primary authority
concerning operational safety of our transportation system, regardless
of the technologies involved. For CAV this includes regulating the
operation of motor vehicles after such vehicles have been constructed,
the operators of those motor vehicles, as well as establishing the
rules of the road on how motor vehicles can be safely operated on
public roadways. I say this because your Subcommittee's assistance in
helping to clarify Federal and non-Federal authority over motor vehicle
``performance'' as Congress deliberates on nationwide CAV policy will
be crucial to state, tribal, and local governments.
For MOD this state, tribal, and local government role will
encompass new protocols for partnerships between public infrastructure
owners and operators and their counterparts in the private sector to
ensure that all Americans benefit equally from MOD, that data is shared
transparently between service providers, and that public investment in
multimodal transportation infrastructure and services is optimized.
Beyond the national-level efforts by AASHTO and its members,
Washington State has also placed the development of an enabling,
cooperative automated transportation policy at the forefront. Beginning
with a Governor's Executive Order and followed by Legislative action,
public and private sector decisionmakers and stakeholders from every
corner of the state have partnered together to engage in spirited
discussion that will impact all aspects of our profession, from
redefining long-range planning policies to revisiting and realigning
near-term project priorities. WSDOT is an active partner and leader in
this effort while emphasizing an inclusive, multi-modal and integrated
approach to automation and connectivity.
For example, some of WSDOT's near-term priorities include:
increased use of public rights of way for telecom
partnerships;
infrastructure investments in roadway pavement markings
and signing;
supporting our local transit systems and private partners
in providing first and last mile connections to transit; and
expanding infrastructure investments to enable use of the
5.9 Ghz spectrum in a technology neutral manner.
supporting good jobs and a qualified transportation workforce
Congress should continue to fund programs that support the development
of a diverse and robust workforce suitable for staffing the
development and delivery of twenty-first century transportation
programs.
Inclusion and workforce development are two of the three goal areas
of the WSDOT Strategic Plan. Like many states, Washington has an
increasingly diverse population. By 2050 there will be no majority
ethnic group in our state. We approach this demographic reality as an
opportunity. A workforce with diverse backgrounds and perspectives to
draw from will make Washington more competitive in the twenty-first
century global marketplace. Through Inclusion, WSDOT is strengthening
our commitment to diversity and engagement in all WSDOT business
processes, functions and services to ensure every voice is heard. This
goal has both an internal and an external focus to assure that we have
an inclusive and diverse workforce while at the same time, meeting our
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise goals and creating opportunities for
underrepresented populations to do business with us.
Like other AASHTO members, workforce development is a priority in
Washington State. WSDOT expects to lose a significant number of our
employees through retirement in the next 5 years, including 31 percent
of our maintenance staff and 41 percent of our engineers. We also have
a significant gap in the available workforce for our contractor and
consultant partners. State DOTs can't deliver our programs without
qualified personnel. WSDOT wants to be an employer of choice and is
creating a modern work environment. We're proactively working to find
the best possible talent for the agency, while taking steps to retain
our quality workforce. As part of our Workforce Development goal, we
listen and act on employee feedback and we provide training and other
opportunities for development. At the same time, we evaluate systems to
achieve and maintain competitive compensation.
WSDOT and other AASHTO members appreciate Federal interest in and
support for our inclusion and workforce development efforts.
Initiatives that would benefit from increased Federal support include:
Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Math (STEAM)
programs, including internships for high school and college students at
state DOTs;
On the Job Training Supportive Services (OJT/SS) programs
to provide support (day care, transit fare, lunch money, etc.) to
people seeking training to enter into apprenticeships in the
transportation construction trades;
Capacity Building Mentorship programs sponsored by State
DOTs, the contracting community, and other agencies to bring
disadvantaged business enterprises into the transportation sector;
Programs like the Sustainability in Prisons Project that
provide offenders the skills to work with state DOTs when they return
to the community;
Environmental Justice and Cultural Competency training
for state DOT employees, managers, consultants, local agency partners,
and others; and
Flexible schedule and open office environment initiatives
that improve state DOT employee work environments.
conclusion
State DOTs remain committed to assisting Congress in the
development of strategies to ensure long-term economic growth and
enhanced quality of life through robust multimodal transportation
investments. Just last month, hundreds of state DOT leaders from all
corners of our country were only a few blocks away attending AASHTO's
2019 Washington Briefing.
Over 4 days of productive discussions, many of my colleagues were
on Capitol Hill meeting with their respective congressional
delegations. As they did then, and as I do again now, AASHTO and the
State DOTs will continue advocating for the reaffirmation of a strong
Federal-state partnership to address our surface transportation
investment needs.
Thank you again for the honor and opportunity to testify today, and
I am happy to answer any questions.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
Next is Mr. Darran Anderson, director of strategy and
innovation at the Texas Department of Transportation, who is
testifying on behalf of the Texas Innovation Alliance.
You may proceed, Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Anderson. Chairwoman Norton and Ranking Member Davis,
thank you again for inviting me to be here today. Again, my
name is Darran Anderson. I am the director of strategy and
innovation at the Texas Department of Transportation, and I am
speaking on behalf of the Texas Innovation Alliance today. I
appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony before the
subcommittee and to share our experience with the alliance.
In short, the Texas Innovation Alliance is an action
network of local, regional, and State agencies as well as
research institutions who are galvanized to be a capability
multiplier for mobility innovation. The mission of the
alliance, which includes cities and regions across the State,
is to strategically develop, launch, and sustain a portfolio of
advanced mobility projects across the State of Texas to improve
the lives, safety, and economic prospects of Texans.
As Texas continues to grow, the alliance proactively
develops tools beyond traditional infrastructure, including
innovative technologies, policies, and processes. The alliance
partners include our largest cities: Houston, Dallas, San
Antonio, rapidly growing cities such as Fort Worth, Austin, El
Paso, Arlington, and Frisco, and regional partners such as
Bryan-College Station and the Coastal Bend area. The alliance
is open to any Texas locality or region that is interested in
pursuing mobility solutions, as well as our research
institutions.
Individually, communities have limited capacity and
capability to develop mobility solutions and to prepare our
infrastructure for the coming transformations. But together we
have the ability to leverage our resources and our expertise
and share across those cities and regions.
Texas is at a pivotal moment, where the rate of population
growth, infrastructure needs, and technological advancement are
challenging our ability to provide quality mobility services.
Texas population is expected to nearly double by the year 2050.
It is critical that we manage this disruption proactively,
rather than allow rapid urbanization to stifle our State's
economy and reduce our quality of life.
While the alliance is working well, the Federal Government
continues to play a critical role in allowing for new
technologies. We thank this committee for your work on MAP-21
and the FAST Act to streamline programs and gain efficiencies
at the Federal level. Texas has realized time and cost savings
because of the flexibility afforded by converting 70 funding
silos into today's 6 Federal highway programs, and by providing
States the opportunity to assume responsibilities under the
National Environmental Policy Act.
The alliance is seeking to mirror those successes by not
duplicating each other's initial innovation efforts, through
sharing best practices between the alliance members, and
through fostering an open exchange of what has and hasn't
worked in their communities. The alliance partner members have
demonstrated that local and regional governments are a key
enabler to achieving our mobility goals, but the Federal
authority to resource new technology in our core funding areas
is critical.
To help enable the best use of technology to improve
transportation mobility, we offer these suggested improvements
for consideration in reauthorizing the FAST Act.
First, make technology eligible for Federal funding across
all USDOT programs.
Second, clarify that infrastructure-based ITS capital
improvements equipment required for the implementation of
Vehicle-to-Everything, or V2X, as well as advanced mobility
improvements are eligible uses under the State transportation
block grant program.
And finally, when a public entity applies for
transportation innovation grants with private-sector partners,
we would like to have our proposal partners recognized by USDOT
as sole-source contractors for the purposes of the grant, if
awarded, rather than having to later need to also competitively
bid to be part of that project after award, when they were part
of the initial proposal.
The current approach stymies, rather than promotes the use
of public-private partnerships. I have included more details on
these items in my written testimony.
In 2017, Governor Greg Abbott signed the senate bill 2205
in Texas, which cleared the way for driverless vehicles to
legally operate on Texas roadways. Laws such as senate bill
2205 encourage safe technology innovation in Texas.
Additionally, TxDOT has coordinated programs that identify,
research, review, and test emerging technologies, and those
inform the focus of the Texas Innovation Alliance.
As we usher in the next generation of technologies, an
entrepreneurial approach is needed for States to take a
leadership position, also to advance safety and the quality of
life, to enable support for a 21st-century workforce, and to
continue attracting and growing business.
On behalf of the alliance I thank the committee for the
opportunity to testify today regarding the work we are doing in
Texas.
[Mr. Anderson's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Darran Anderson, Director of Strategy and
Innovation, Texas Department of Transportation, on behalf of the Texas
Innovation Alliance
introduction
Chairwoman Norton and Ranking Member Davis, thank you for inviting
me to be here today. My name is Darran Anderson and I am the Director
of Strategy and Innovation at the Texas Department of Transportation
(TxDOT) and am here on behalf of the Texas Innovation Alliance
(Alliance). I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony before
the subcommittee today, and to share our experience creating and
organizing the Texas Innovation Alliance.
In short, the Texas Innovation Alliance is an action network of
local, regional, and state agencies, as well as research institutions
who are galvanized to be a capability multiplier for mobility
innovation. The mission of the Alliance is to strategically develop,
launch, and sustain a portfolio of advanced mobility projects across
the State of Texas, to improve the lives, safety, and economic
prospects of Texans.
texas innovation alliance overview
Building upon the momentum of the USDOT Smart City Challenge, the
Texas Department of Transportation and the city of Austin issued a call
to action in 2016. Metropolitan regions from around the state stepped
forward, uniting as the Texas Innovation Alliance to address the
state's most pressing mobility challenges.
As Texas continues to grow, the Alliance proactively develops tools
beyond traditional infrastructure, including innovative technologies,
policies, and processes. Alliance partners include our largest cities--
Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio; small, but rapidly growing cities,
such as Frisco; and regional partners, such as Bryan-College Station,
and the Coastal Bend area. The Alliance is open to any Texas locality
or region that is interested in pursuing mobility solutions (see
Appendix A).
Individually, communities have limited capacity and capability to
develop mobility solutions and prepare our infrastructure for the
coming transformations. Together, we have the ability to leverage our
resources and expertise. In fact, as I speak the Alliance is working on
submission of an application for the Federal Highway Administration's
Automated Driving Systems Demonstration Grant. Texas partners within
the Alliance are taking a collaborative approach in offering a robust
and diverse set of data, use cases, and deployments to help guide
national Automated Vehicle guidance and rulemaking.
The Texas Innovation Alliance uniquely allows for this
individualized problem identification and shared solutions. This
enables Texas' cities and regions to connect with public and private
sector partners; leverage investment to maximize impact at a lower
cost; enable rapid deployment and sustainable solutions; develop best
practices and lessons learned; and, build awareness and create unified
communications.
Texas is at a pivotal moment--where the rate of population growth,
infrastructure needs, and technological advancement are challenging our
ability to provide quality mobility services. With five of the nation's
15 fastest growing cities located in Texas and the population expected
to nearly double by the year 2050, it is critical that we manage this
disruption proactively rather than allow rapid urbanization to stifle
our state's economy.
how congress can help
While the Alliance is working well from a grass roots basis with
state assistance and the resources of our research partners, the
Federal Government continues to play a critical role in allowing for
new technologies. We thank this committee for your work on MAP-21 and
the FAST Act to streamline programs and gain efficiencies at the
Federal level. Texas has realized time and cost savings because of the
flexibility afforded by converting 70 funding silos into today's six
Federal highway programs, and by providing states the opportunity to
assume responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act.
The Alliance is seeking to mirror those successes by not duplicating
efforts, through sharing best practices, and through fostering an open
exchange of what has and hasn't worked in their communities.
To help enable not only the Alliance's efforts, but for all cities,
regions, and states seeking how to best use technology to improve
transportation mobility, we offer these suggested improvements for
consideration when reauthorizing the FAST Act:
Make technology eligible for Federal funding across all
USDOT programs.
Clarify that infrastructure-based ITS capital
improvements equipment required for the implementation of Vehicle-to-
Everything or V2X are an eligible use under the State Transportation
Block Grant Program (STBGP). This would include:
Data collection and analysis;
Maintenance;
Integration;
Fiber and the data ecosystems to manage transportation
operations; and,
The costs associated with systems, software, and
equipment required for V2X implementation.
We also support policy under the State Transportation
Block Grant Program (STBGP) that would provide funding eligibility for
advanced mobility improvements to include data infrastructure and
analysis, smart mobility improvements such as smart truck parking,
smart work zones, smart pavements, mobility-on-demand platforms, smart
fleet, and alternative vehicle charging infrastructure.
Finally, when a public entity applies for discretionary
grants, such as the Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management
Technology Development grant with private sector partners, we would
like to have our partners recognized by the Federal Highway
Administration as sole source contractors for the purposes of the
grant, if awarded. It is extremely difficult to bring in a private
partner during the application process if they will later need to
competitively bid to be part of the project. The current approach
stymies, rather than promotes the use of Public-Private Partnerships.
the nexus of txdot, its research partners, and the texas innovation
alliance
In 2017, Governor Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 2205 which cleared
the way for driverless vehicles to legally operate on Texas roadways.
Laws such as SB 2205 ensure that rapidly evolving technology on the
whole spectrum of operation remains safe on Texas roadways. To that
end, TxDOT has a coordinated effort to research, review, and test
emerging technologies that will someday have a great impact on the
transportation network, thereby informing the focus of the Texas
Innovation Alliance. This effort includes reliance on some of our other
state technology leaders, such as:
The Texas Connected and Automated Vehicle (CAV) Task Force was
created in January by Governor Greg Abbott and is led by TxDOT. This
task force will serve as a repository of information for all on-going
Connected and Automated Vehicle projects in Texas and will facilitate
progress in advancing CAV technology through hosting industry forums
and reporting lessons learned through public and private entities'
efforts to implement CAV technology.
For example, the Southwest Research Institute, located in San
Antonio, is working with other academic partners in Texas to
collaborate with Texas' new CAV Task Force. The Institute is a leader
in Connected and Automated Vehicle (CAV) research and technologies and
has worked with USDOT and Texas universities to provide a full-service
test track for these technologies.
The State Transportation Innovation Council (STIC) along with
TxDOT's Research Program contributes valued and innovative research
ideas with the potential to bring solutions and opportunities to Texas.
Areas of focus such as resiliency, improved traffic management systems,
predictive analytics, as well as emerging technologies such as the
impacts of artificial intelligence to TxDOT operations, and physical
innovations or changes needed to accommodate autonomous and connected
vehicles on our system are all research areas that inform the Alliance.
The STIC also facilitates the rapid implementation of
innovative technology and shares its deployment outcomes at all levels
of state government and throughout the private and non-profit sector,
including the Alliance, to ensure smart, efficient investment in Texas
highway and transportation infrastructure.
The Texas Technology Task Force is directed by the Texas State
Legislature to explore all types of emerging technologies, including
automated and connected vehicle technologies, and recommend those
technologies on which TxDOT should concentrate for future use in Texas'
infrastructure.
conclusion
As we usher in the next generation of technologies, a paradigm
shift has already begun in transportation. An entrepreneurial approach
is needed for Texas to take a leadership position, enabling our state
to support a 21st century workforce and to continue attracting and
growing businesses.
It is worthy to note that local leadership from the Alliance's
regional team partners, including mayors, councilmembers, Metropolitan
Planning Organization board members, and transit board members, have
all emphasized that the local and regional governments are a key
enabler to achieving our mobility goals, but that Federal authority to
resource new technology in our core funding is extremely important.
Additionally, our research partners such as those in the Texas
Innovation Alliance, including the Southwest Research Institute, the
Center for Transportation Research at the University of Texas at
Austin, and the Texas A&M Transportation Institute are also key in
identifying those technologies that will cause disruption and rapidly
change our landscape.
On behalf of the Texas Innovation Alliance, I thank the Committee
for the opportunity to testify today regarding the work we are doing in
Texas not only to explore technology and innovation to enhance
mobility, but to bring them to fruition. With a people-first, problem-
based approach partners of the Texas Innovation Alliance are committed
to working together to align local, regional, and state priorities for
the benefit of our communities. Recognizing the value of collaboration,
the Alliance stands together in pursuit of innovation and applies an
entrepreneurial approach to be the leading model in developing new
mobility solutions.
appendix a
[Appendix A is retained in committee files and is available at
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/fed/federal-surface-
transportation.pdf, pages 6-7.]
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Anderson. I know that
two of our witnesses already have been from Texas. I don't know
what you are trying to tell us here.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Norton. But we are listening.
Next I am pleased to welcome Jack Clark, who is the
executive director of the Transportation Learning Center.
Mr. Clark?
Mr. Clark. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank
you, Ranking Member Davis, for the opportunity to be here
today.
As indicated, my name is Jack Clark. I represent the
Transportation Learning Center. You have background on me and
the organization in your written materials. I look forward to
sharing more on that in the question period. But right now I
want to focus on the core problem I am here to address, and the
committee, I believe, needs to address, as well: the workforce
crisis in public transportation.
Approximately 400,000 people work in public transportation;
90 percent of them are moving vehicles or maintaining those
vehicles and the systems required to keep transit running.
In every transit agency large and small, new technologies
are changing the way work needs to be done. I share a small but
revealing story from several years back when I was dealing with
a general manager in a medium-sized transit agency completing a
bus purchase. He heard from the vendor asking, ``How many
laptops would you like,'' and he initially thought this was
some kind of bonus for his office staff, until he realized that
those laptops were key, essential tools for his bus mechanics.
Those laptops diagnose and keep track of all sorts of problems
in the engine, and they also keep track of advanced electronic
and multiplex systems that have been common in buses for more
than a decade.
The skills needed for people maintaining railcars,
signaling, electrical power systems, and other systems are even
more advanced than what bus mechanics need to know. In the face
of all those challenges, both the age and the skill mix,
transit spends far too little on training.
Taking a look simply at the percentage of payroll devoted
to training, the Paris Metro, which is a one-to-one comparison,
spends about 8 percent of its payroll. The Federal Highway
Administration sets a goal of 3 percent of its payroll for its
contractors should go to training. The average transit agency
spends between 0.66 and 0.88 percent of its payroll on
training.
There are some bright spots. My organization works a lot to
develop registered apprenticeship as a solution to the transit
skills crisis. We think it makes a lot of sense. There is a lot
of support for apprenticeship across both aisles in Congress,
and now across two administrations. There is also a lot of
support for apprenticeship around the world. It is simply a
commonsense solution, which says there is technical training
you can learn in a classroom and a lot you can learn in a very
highly structured, on-the-job learning environment.
And we are seeing some progress in some areas in developing
those apprenticeship programs. We are also seeing some
obstacles.
I would note, just in passing, that while we are talking
about a transit skills crisis here--and I note Associated
General Contractors of America is also on this panel--we won't
be hearing about a similar skills crisis on the highway
construction side because registered apprenticeship works
there. It is a system that the organized building trades and
the contractors have developed for over a century, and it
delivers a skilled workforce. It also delivers very highly
developed pre-apprenticeship programs that allow opportunities
for underrepresented populations to come into the workforce and
into highly skilled jobs. Transit, and its apprenticeship
programs, need to develop similar programs.
The profile of the skilled worker in transit is still older
white males. And it is both a moral imperative and a practical
necessity that transit develop a more diverse workforce in its
skilled ranks.
I would note that the transit--the--other people noted
this--the transit workforce is much older than the average
workforce. The average transit worker is almost 51, compared to
the average worker across all industries being about 40, 41,
42. That means that the skill--the demographic crisis is quite
severe.
Thank you for your time. I have more in my written
testimony. I would ask that you include human capital and
specific metrics in human capital in reauthorization, authorize
a national transit front-line workforce resource that could
function like the National Transit Institute, and that the
mandate that FTA work closely with other Federal agencies,
particularly Department of Labor and Office of Career,
Technical, and Adult Education, on workforce issues.
And in all the work the Congress is doing, remember that
workforce is a key part of what needs to happen in
infrastructure. It is not going to happen without a skilled
workforce. Thank you very much.
[Mr. Clark's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Kevin ``Jack'' Clark, Executive Director,
Transportation Learning Center
Good morning. My name is Jack Clark. I serve as Executive Director
of the Transportation Learning Center (the Center), a not for profit
organization with offices in Silver Spring Maryland that does national
work in transportation with a particular emphasis on the public
transportation sector. The Center focuses its efforts on the challenge
of improving training for frontline workers in public transit, the
drivers, mechanics, technicians, cleaners and helpers who comprise 90
percent of the transit workforce. Members of our Board of Directors
include leaders in management and labor and some major advocates.
Amalgamated Transit Union International President Larry Hanley serves
as Chair of our Board. American Public Transportation Association
President Paul Skoutelas and Community Transportation Association
Executive Director Scott Bogren also serve on the Board.
The Center practices labor-management partnership in its daily
work. None of us involved in this work is naive. Labor and management
do have and will continue to have major differences and conflicting
interests, particularly on zero-sum issues such as how resources are
distributed between hourly wages and other priorities an agency might
have. Those conflicts are not going away; nor should they. Unions
represent a very large share of public transit workers, and workers
through their unions can, do and should pursue collective bargaining to
advance their interests. Likewise, managers can, do and should use the
process to assert their rights and interests.
While recognizing the inevitable areas of conflict, the Center has
benefited from an insight that former US Secretary of Labor Ray
Marshall offered to its Board more than a decade ago. Dr. Marshall
noted that in the broad picture of interactions between labor and
management, conflict, particularly zero-sum conflict, comprises a small
fraction of how the two sides can interact. In areas like safety for
the riding public and for the workforce, labor and management should
have common interests. Similarly, workers and managers share an
interest in improving the overall quality of the riders' experience in
transit; both want a strong and reliable system that serves the public
well and can count on needed public support for ongoing and expanded
funding.
Dr. Marshall knows that even in those areas of shared interest,
sharp conflict can and does arise. He was positing, and the Center's
Board has generally accepted the concept that common interests do exist
between labor and management. Building on those common interests can
result in better outcomes for all.
The Center bases its work on just such a common interest: training
for the frontline workforce. A more skilled workforce clearly benefits
managers. More skilled workers can get the job done faster and better.
Improved training offers transit workers opportunities for upward
mobility in their careers. Cleaners or helpers, for example, can become
skilled mechanics. Training can also enhance skills, knowledge and
abilities of highly experienced transit workers who need to learn how
advancing technologies affect how they do their jobs. When really
excellent training, developed and executed on a partnership basis, is
implemented, the performance of the whole organization improves and the
workplace moves to a new culture that values life-long learning.
That ideal picture does occur occasionally. If that dynamic were
the rule rather than the exception in public transit, the work of the
Transportation Learning Center might not be needed.
Sadly, adequate training for the frontline workforce remains rare
in transit.
One might posit that training does not occur because there is not a
great need. To the contrary, transit is suffering through a skills
crisis that will only become worse.
Start by looking at just a simple and easily understood metric: the
age of the workforce.
For the economy as a whole, everyone comments on the problem of our
aging workforce. Retirements of the baby boom generation no longer loom
as a future issue to be confronted. It is happening now across the
economy. Finding both the sheer number of workers required and filling
the gap left by retirement of skilled workers concerns all employers.
Consider, though, that for all occupations and industries in the
US, the median age of workers is 42 years of age. In transportation and
warehousing, the median age is over 44. The median age in bus service
and urban transit is nearly 51.
Figure 1--Median Age of Workers for Selected Transportation Sectors
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
We see that the aging workforce issue, widely understood as a
crisis for the overall economy, stands as an even larger challenge for
transit.
Looking at only the age distribution understates the workforce
challenge for transit. About 400,000 people work in public
transportation now. Of that figure, 90 percent currently work in the
frontline occupations I referenced earlier. Because of retirements and
other exits from transit employment, transit has a very large number of
jobs to fill. In 2015, the Center helped research a major study for the
US Department of Transportation, the US Department of Labor and the US
Department of Education on the future of the transportation workforce.
Based on data through 2014, the best estimate at that time was that
transit needed to hire, train and retain approximately 126 percent of
its current workforce over a 10-year period. No one has done the
research to update those estimates, and we are halfway through the 10
years. The Center works closely with a large number of transit
locations. We know from daily experience in work with those locations
that hiring and training a sufficient number of people provides a
continuing challenge.
Most of my testimony will address issues around technical training
for skilled maintenance work, but I want to take a moment to address
the issue of exits from transit employment other than retirements. In
general, transit maintenance workers, particularly skilled maintenance
staff, tend to stay in their jobs for a long time. For bus drivers, the
picture is more complex.
Hiring and retaining bus drivers poses a major challenge for the
industry. Wages certainly are part of the problem. As the ``Fight for
$15'' movement makes further gains, driving a bus at a starting wage of
$15 per hour looks less attractive. Operator assaults, widely
publicized in the areas where they happen, certainly discourage
potential applicants from applying in the first place. I wish to state
my strong support for H.R. 1139, legislation sponsored by
Representative Napolitano and supported by transit labor. This
legislation does not mandate any particular remedy for the problem of
assault beyond identifying whether there is a need to address the
problem, and if there is, bringing together workers and managers to
develop a plan. H.R. 1139 also requires that data be collected and
analyzed on a national level so that policymakers know what the scope
of the problem is. Good data can drive good policy. Lack of data leads
to bad guesses.
I will return to the issue of operator training and retention in
the context of national work the Center is doing on apprenticeship.
As Members of Congress know, in a number of areas, transit service
is expanding. That adds to the workforce challenge. In every transit
agency, large and small, new technologies are changing the way work
needs to be done. I share an amusing but revealing story from a
conversation several years ago with a General Manager at a medium-sized
agency. He was completing a procurement for a major bus purchase. In
the final negotiations to close the deal, the bus vendor asked how many
laptop computers the agency wanted to include. Delighted by this
question, the General Manager thought he was getting some kind of bonus
for his office staff until he realized that the laptops were a required
tool for bus mechanics.
Those laptop computers provide the basic diagnostic tool for bus
maintenance. Complex electrical, electronic and multiplexing systems
have been commonplace on transit buses for well more than a decade.
Buses have hybrid systems that require training on high voltage
electricity. Fully electric buses provide a growing proportion of bus
purchases.
For railcars, signaling, wayside and power equipment, even higher
levels of skill are required to maintain systems properly.
In some locations, training to deal with these advanced
technologies occurs regularly and is done well. Sadly, once again, that
is the exception, not the rule.
A reasonable measure of the commitment to training by any employer
is the percentage of payroll devoted to training. The Federal Highway
Administration seeks a minimum of 3 percent of payroll devoted to
training for projects it funds. High performance US firms often spend
4-5 percent of payroll on training. In a direct transit comparison, the
Paris Metro spends a bit more than 8 percent of payroll. A careful
analysis in a study overseen by the Transit Cooperative Research
Program shows that the average US transit agency spends between 0.66
and 0.88 percent of payroll on training.
Figure 2--Public Transportation Training Investment
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Look at Federal funding for transit. Nearly all the money goes to
physical capital while scant resources are devoted to the building the
skills of people who will maintain that infrastructure.
Figure 3--Annual Federal Investment in Transit
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Note: Physical Capital Investment is based on the 2016 Federal capital
funds from the 2018 APTA Fact Book. Human Capital Investment includes
annualized funding for the 2015 FTA Innovative Workforce Development
programs ($9.5 million over 2 years) and $5 million a year for the
National Transit Institute in the FAST Act.
Before closing out this testimony, I will review this discrepancy
between physical and human capital and recommend action in the
reauthorization of the FAST Act.
Having cited multiple problems and shortcomings in transit
training, I will highlight an approach that already shows great promise
and can deliver sustainable results for training transit workers:
registered apprenticeship.
Quite simply, apprenticeship combines classroom instruction with
on-the-job learning. Most workers learn most of their skills in
practical application. For the highly technical aspects of maintenance,
learning basic and advanced principles of electricity, for example,
cannot be optional. Applying that learning under the guidance of more
experienced workers reinforces and strengthens the apprentice's
comprehension of the principles.
The Center, under a grant from the US Department of Labor, is
working to develop individual apprenticeship programs in a number of
transit agencies. More broadly, the Center endeavors to make
registered, joint labor-management apprenticeship programs the new norm
for how the transit industry addresses the workforce and skills crisis.
In the rest of the advanced industrial world, apprenticeship has
established itself as the norm for training. Germany, which enjoys a
substantial trade surplus in manufactured goods, relies heavily on
apprenticeship to fill the ranks of its highly skilled workforce. In
the US, apprenticeship has enjoyed bipartisan support from successive
Administrations and from both parties in Congress.
Specific to this subcommittee's jurisdiction, on the highway
construction side, we are not seeing the dire skills shortages spelled
out here for the transit workforce. Construction unions have more than
a century of experience with joint apprenticeship programs, and those
programs work well to address ongoing and future needs. Like all
sectors of the economy, construction does face issues with an aging
workforce as well as a need to diversify the pool of candidates
qualifying for journey level jobs. There, too, the building trades
joint apprenticeship programs are demonstrating the capacity to respond
to the challenge. The Multi-Craft Core Curriculum (MC3), developed by
the building trades apprenticeship directors, serves as a model for
effective pre-apprenticeship training.
Apprenticeship for skilled maintenance work in transit clearly
makes sense. Well-structured apprenticeship with good mentoring and
possibly with some pre-apprenticeship options can also help transit
address some glaring problems in its workforce profile. Simply put, the
skilled maintenance workforce in transit remains overwhelmingly male
and nearly as overwhelmingly white. Transit cannot adequately address
its workforce shortages unless it reaches out to the entire workforce.
More inclusive outreach and training for the well-paid jobs the transit
industry offers is a moral imperative; it is also a practical
necessity.
Figure 4--Percentage of Women in the Workforce
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 5--Employment in Transportation Jobs by Race
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 6--Employment in Transportation Jobs by Ethnicity
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source (Figure 4-6): Data Report on Transportation Workforce Needs by
the U.S. Departments of Education, Transportation and Labor.
Having identified apprenticeship as a promising approach, we return
to the hard reality that training never rises to a priority level for
transit. Bus maintenance is by far the largest maintenance craft. On
the bus maintenance side, the Center has identified several small to
midsize agencies that have a sincere interest in establishing an
apprenticeship program but are severely handicapped because they do not
have the time or resources to implement such a program. These agencies
typically do not have a training department or have limited training
staff barely able to keep pace with refresher and new technology
training. Providing classroom instruction to apprentices, which
constitutes about one-third of the program, becomes extremely difficult
with such limited resources. Making matters worse is that nearly all
agencies, large, medium and small, are lacking technicians, putting
increased pressure on them to make buses road ready for revenue
service. This pervasive condition makes it extremely difficult to spare
senior technicians as mentors needed to provide apprentices with on the
job training, which makes up the remaining and essential apprenticeship
activity.
The Center also works on developing apprenticeship for bus drivers
(or as some locations call them, transit coach operators). That may
seem counter-intuitive. After all, bus operators do not need to learn
advanced electronics or similar technical material. Earlier in the
testimony, I referred to high turnover among bus drivers. As noted,
operator assaults play a role there. So does the ordinary and grinding
routine of driving a bus. New hires work the least desirable shifts in
the worst neighborhoods. Training focuses on earning the Commercial
Driver's License and on how to handle a large vehicle in traffic. The
larger challenge for people aspiring to be bus drivers is how to deal
with the public. Turnover among new hires can be very high. One large
city gave me an estimate that 50 percent of new hires were still
driving a bus a year after completing training. Another city, which has
paid a lot of attention to operator training, has about 60 percent
retention over that 1-year period. These are not sustainable numbers.
Operator apprenticeship started at Valley Transit Authority (VTA)
in San Jose, California. The Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 265
initiated the program, and its members played a large role in making it
work. Mentors, selected by the union and approved by management,
volunteer to work with new drivers. They offer their insights and
experience, sometimes riding with the new driver, often by phone, a few
times every year in a conference setting. By chance, VTA launched its
pilot apprenticeship program at the same time as it ran a traditional
class. Union and management agreed that the new program required
additional resources so that only one cohort would benefit. Eighteen
months later, VTA looked at the two cohorts. VTA does a lot better than
most on retention as a general rule. More than 70 percent of driver
trainees who started in the traditional class were still driving a bus
for VTA. For the cohort that went through the full mentoring and
apprenticeship, nearly 100 percent were driving a bus 18 months later.
VTA also saw a rise in customer satisfaction, a drop in absenteeism
and improved safety. Those are results we want to replicate across the
transit industry. VTA and ATU Local 265 created a Joint Workforce
Initiative (JWI) to oversee apprenticeship and training across all
occupations. Once again, San Jose provides a model that should be
replicated.
By definition, apprenticeship takes places at the local level.
Sharing across locations can help people learn and improve what they
are doing. The Center has taken that cross-location learning a major
step further. Bringing together subject matter experts from both labor
and management and from different locations, the Center has developed
Consortium work for delivery of instructor-ready courseware for rail
car technicians, signals maintainers and transit elevator-escalator
mechanics. Agencies, even large agencies, often lack the capacity to
develop new and up-to-date courses on their own. Consortium material
enhances the training department's ability to deliver courses.
To recap, we have seen some data on the skills crisis facing public
transit. Neither the transit agencies nor the Federal Government is
addressing the need for training adequately.
What, if any relevance, does all of this have for reauthorization.
I would advance several recommendations:
1. Make human capital count by counting human capital. The FAST
Act could require more attention to human capital. Dr. Beverly Scott,
an experienced General Manager at several agencies and a major industry
leader on workforce issues, proposes that the National Transit Data
base be required to include basic workforce measures. She proposed this
as part of rulemaking process on Transit Asset Management arguing that
human capital needs to be assessed as much as physical capital. She
notes that GAO as early as 2001 cited lack of a strategic approach to
workforce as a major problem across all public sector entities. If
agencies are required to report on human capital and know that it is a
responsibility funders take seriously, then human capital will become a
higher management priority. Elements of human capital she proposed to
include in the National Transit Data Base:
a. Total Labor Cost (payroll, contingent and contract worker
pay, benefits excluding consultants); % of Operating Expense;
b. Workforce Profile--# Total Employees (Full-Time/Part-Time),
Major Job Classifications, ``Key Positions'' (industry-wide by mode),
Average Age, Tenure, EEO Profile and Underutilization Target Groups--
annual progress;
c. Total # Annual Vacancies/3-Year Average (``new'' positions;
attrition/turnover rates (including promotions)); by ``Key positions'';
d. 5-Year Hire and Retirement Projections (Retirement
``Eligibility'' and ``Likelihood'' based on historical agency
experience);
e. Average Time to Fill Positions--``Key Positions'', by Major
Job Classification;
f. Annual Absenteeism Data by Major Job Classification/Total and
Agency Cost;
g. Total Training, Apprenticeship & Employee Development
Investment; % of Budget;
h. Mandatory Employee Training/Completion Rates;
i. Annual Safety Training/Certification Completion Rates;
j. Employee/Passenger Injury Data (Human Factors primary;
contributing factor);
k. Prepare a H.R. Risk Registry (5-Year Planning Horizon), which
identifies major workforce challenges (current, emerging, and future)
and plans to address.
2. Authorize funding (the Secretary shall, not the Secretary may)
for a national resource center for frontline workforce training at a
level equal to current funding for the National Transit Institute.
Naturally, I propose that the Transportation Learning Center play that
role. So long as the national workforce center must reflect both labor
and management interests, must address diversity of the incoming
technical workforce, must focus on apprenticeship, then the Center can
compete for the designation. Win or lose, we will know that the issues
that need to be addressed are addressed.
3. Require that USDOT coordinate workforce efforts with other
Federal entities, particularly the US Department of Labor's National
Office of Apprenticeship and the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult
Education at the US Department of Education. In numerous instances,
particularly at the state level, transit is excluded from Federal
training funds because funds are reserved for private sector employers.
As documented here, transit under-invests in training, largely because
transit is underfunded. The jobs in transit offer career ladders and
family sustaining wages. DOT should advocate with other Federal funders
to maximize the opportunity for transit agencies to benefit from
workforce funds.
4. This subcommittee and its members will help shape any Federal
infrastructure package that may go well beyond the scope of the FAST
Act and will almost certainly include funding for upgrading transit
infrastructure. I am not addressing in this testimony how
infrastructure will be financed, but I do want to emphasize that while
infrastructure spending can and will create jobs, there needs to be
corresponding increases in workforce funding to prepare people for
those jobs.
Thank you.
Ms. Norton. I thank you for that reminder. There was a time
when we thought these people just floated into this industry.
That is not the case today.
Next is Therese McMillan, executive director of the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission on behalf of the
Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
Ms. McMillan?
Ms. McMillan. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, my name
is Therese McMillan. I am the executive director of the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the federally
designated MPO for the nine-county San Francisco Bay area. And
in that role we not only conduct long-range planning and
project prioritization for the bay area's 7 million residents,
we also are the recipient of the Federal Transit Administration
formula and Federal Highway Administration funds.
Put simply, a strong Federal role in our Nation's
multimodal transportation system has been essential for the
entirety of our Nation's history. But transportation is not
just about moving people and goods, as was noted. It is about
access to opportunity and quality of life, and we believe it is
time for the Federal Government to do more.
We at MTC and the Nation's other MPOs look forward to
working with you to reauthorize the FAST Act, to strengthen our
economy, and create new opportunities for well-paying jobs that
can rebuild our Nation's ailing transportation infrastructure,
while continually striving to make travel both safer and more
reliable within and across the Nation's diverse communities.
The local State-Federal partnership model enshrined in the
FAST Act is a model that works. In the bay area our local
commitment to this model includes over $1.5 billion annually of
sales tax and toll dollars dedicated to our multimodal
transportation system. All are voter-approved. Even still, our
residents recognize that more needs to be done as they continue
to experience daily our congested roadways and increasingly
aging and crowded transit systems.
In 2017 our State legislature, committed to holding up its
end of the partnership bargain, voting by a two-thirds majority
a historic transportation funding package comprised of a wide
array of user fees that generates over $5 billion annually.
These funds are solely dedicated to rebuilding and improving
California's streets, highways, and bridges, and public transit
systems. And the cornerstone of that bill was restoring the gas
tax to its purchasing power in 1994 and indexing it into the
future.
Providing for continued growth in the U.S. economy demands
a much larger Federal commitment to the local-State-Federal
partnership. As a member of the family of MPOs, we especially
call upon Congress to expand the share of funds that are
invested in the Nation's metropolitan areas, the engines of our
Nation's economy. Two programs in particular have been vital to
regions' ability to create solutions to challenges we face at
the local level across the country.
Specifically, the surface transportation block grant
program, which we continue to call STP, and the congestion
mitigation and air quality, or CMAQ program, enable the
flexibility that creative solutions demand across very
different communities.
As an example, in the bay area we are now using this
flexibility to direct STP and CMAQ dollars to cities and
counties as an incentive to build more housing at or near
existing transit stops and other transportation services. This
strategy leverages Federal funds by enhancing significantly a
transportation project's mobility and access benefits,
encouraging those who can now live closer to transit and those
projects to actually use it, which in turn helps to curb
congestion and reduces longer auto trips and carbon emissions.
Importantly, STP and CMAQ programs deliver funds to an
array of projects that improve people's lives at a very local
level, giving taxpayers more confidence and visible certainty
about how Federal money is being spent and invested in their
communities.
Therefore, we urge you to invest more funds in STP, and to
directly allocate those block grants to MPOs nationwide, so
that their residents can benefit from projects selected at the
regional level, consistent with priorities developed in the
regional transportation plans.
In addition we would ask you to restore the local
distributed share of STP to a historic level of 62.5 percent,
if not higher. Directing more dollars to metropolitan areas
serves all of our interests. The bay area and other metro areas
continue to drive national economic output, and in these areas
new innovations are most often made and new technologies are
being developed and deployed.
As we look to the future, the field of transportation may
be poised to undergo as much change in the next decade as any
time since the automotive age. For those of us that have been
in the transportation field our entire career, the pace of this
change is astounding. Overnight, cities are finding their
streets and sidewalks teeming with new e-bikes, or e-scooters,
deployed by the latest shared mobility startups. In my home in
the San Francisco Bay area, we are seeing these changes up
close with the likes of Tesla, Uber, Lyft, Google's Waymo,
Apple Car, Cruise Automation, and dozens more.
And as with all technological breakthroughs, there are
risks as well as benefits. Building the highway and
communications platform necessary for a connected and
autonomous future is a fundamental Federal responsibility we
would urge this committee to take up.
In addition to the technological change, we are preparing
ourselves in the bay area region to be more resilient in the
face of a changing climate and, in particular, sea level rise.
One visible local example is State Highway 37, which travels
through Marin, Solano, Napa, and Sonoma Counties in the north
of our region. This 20-mile corridor is regularly backed up
with traffic and too often shut down due to flooding during the
winter season, including twice in the last few weeks. What is
more, it is also highly vulnerable to complete inundation, due
to sea level rise 30 years from now.
Improvements for the project are designed to improve
ecological enhancements upfront, in tandem with reducing the
roadway flooding vulnerability. As this committee considers the
future of the Federal transportation program, I would encourage
you to prioritize projects like this that will help communities
across the Nation adjust to a changing climate.
In conclusion, Madam Chair and committee members, America's
diverse metropolitan areas are prime to tackle the myriad
mobility and related access challenges of the future, be they
technical, financial, environmental, or societal in nature. We
seek and ask a strong Federal partnership to help support the
solutions to address those challenges. And in doing so, to
seize the opportunities this country should extend to all of
its people.
Thank you for having me here today.
[Ms. McMillan's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Therese W. McMillan, Executive Director,
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, on behalf of the Association of
Metropolitan Planning Organizations
introduction
Good morning. My name is Therese McMillan. I am the Executive
Director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the
federally-designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the
nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. In that role, we not only conduct
long-range planning and project prioritization for the Bay Area's 7
million residents, we also are the recipient of Federal Transit
Administration formula and Federal Highway Administration funds.
Put simply, a strong federal role in our nation's multimodal
transportation system has been essential for the entirety of our
nation's history. It is a core federal responsibility. But
transportation is not just about moving people and goods around. It is
about access to opportunity and quality of life and we believe it is
time for the federal government to do more, much more.
We at MTC and the nation's other MPOs look forward to working with
Congress to reauthorize the Fixing America's Surface Transportation
(FAST) Act--to strengthen our economy, to create new opportunities for
well-paying jobs that can rebuild our nation's ailing transportation
infrastructure, while continually striving to make travel both safer
and more reliable within and across all of the nation's diverse
communities.
bay area perspective
With hundreds of miles of interstate freeway and rail lines,
thousands of buses and rail cars, three international airports, a major
West Coast seaport and a freight railhead that serves both urban and
rural America, the Bay Area serves as a complex, multimodal hub, as
well as a destination. Providing adequate funding to maintain, operate
and expand this transportation system to meet the needs of today and
tomorrow is an endless challenge. Local voters have contributed
enormously to that endeavor, but we also depend greatly on
contributions from our state and federal partners.
The local/state/federal partnership model enshrined in the FAST Act
is a model that works. In the Bay Area, our local commitment to this
model includes over $1.5 billion annually of sales tax and toll dollars
dedicated to our multi-modal transportation system--all voter-approved.
Even still, our residents recognize that more resources are needed, as
they continue to experience daily our congested roadways, and
increasingly aging and crowded transit systems.
In 2017 the California Legislature committed to holding up its end
of the partnership bargain, voting to support--by a two-thirds
majority--a historic transportation funding package comprised of a wide
array of user fees that generates over $5 billion annually statewide.
These funds are solely dedicated to rebuilding and improving
California's streets, highways and bridges, and public transit systems.
The cornerstone of the bill was restoring the gas tax to its purchasing
power in 1994 and indexing it into the future.
Though federal dollars account for only 10 percent of the Bay
Area's total transportation investments--or $29 billion through 2040--
they are critical to delivering major projects that will improve
connectivity between the region's population and job centers, and that
will continue our outsized contribution to the nation's economic
growth. Seven of the Bay Area's 10 largest transportation investments
through 2040 have received or anticipate receiving billions in federal
transit capital grants primarily from the FAST Act's Capital Investment
Grant (CIG) program.\1\ Given the scope of these major projects, even
with significant state and local matching funds, it is impossible to
conceive of how these projects can be built without CIG funds. In
addition, Bay Area transit operators are forecast to receive
approximately $2.6 billion in FAST Act core formula funding through
2020, which is prioritized for vitally-needed state of good repair
projects. Additionally, as described in the next section, flexible FAST
Act highway funding allows Bay Area cities and counties to invest in
local transportation priorities that improve safety, spur economic
development, encourage construction of affordable housing, and help the
region meet climate change and air quality improvement goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the project list, see the ``Top 10'' Plan Bay Area Capital
Projects graphic on page 4 of MTC and ABAG's 2019 Report to Congress
(https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019_Report_to_Congress-MTC-
ABAG.pdf)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, we recommend that the FAST Act reauthorization grow
the core highway and transit programs that have proven effective in
delivering essential funds for states and regions to address their
pressing capital investment and state of good repair needs.
case for a bigger federal program/(flexible investment capacity for
regions and capital investment grant program)
Flexible Investment Capacity for Regions
Providing for continued growth in the U.S. economy demands a much
larger federal commitment to the local-state-federal partnership. As a
member of the family of MPOs, we especially call upon Congress to
increase federal investment flexibility directly available to the
nation's metropolitan areas for local mobility needs, an investment
strategy that serves all our interests.
The Bay Area and other metro areas continue to drive national
economic output, and it is in these areas where new innovations are
most often made, and where new technologies are being developed and
deployed. Flexible, metro-level funding allows for regions to implement
creative solutions to address the myriad challenges that confront
different communities across the nation. Two programs in particular
have been vital to MTC's ability to create solutions to challenges we
face at the local level. Specifically, the Surface Transportation Block
Grant Program, which we continue to call STP, and the Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality--or CMAQ program, provide the flexibility
that creative solutions demand across very different communities.
As an example, in the Bay Area, where our housing crisis is
contributing to record levels of traffic congestion, we are using this
flexibility to direct STP and CMAQ dollars to cities and counties as an
incentive to build more housing at or near existing transit stops and
job centers. Cities and counties that approve new housing construction
and adopt housing-supportive local plans are rewarded with additional
federal funds that they may direct to a wide range of transportation
projects, from Vision Zero safety improvements to local street and road
maintenance. This strategy supports the Bay Area in making progress
toward a number of our performance goals: transit and job center-
oriented development helps curb congestion and reduce longer auto trips
to minimize on-road mobile source emissions and pavement wear and tear.
Two unique elements of the STP and CMAQ programs enable MTC to
effectively leverage these federal dollars. First, the programs' broad
project eligibility helps these funds serve as an effective incentive,
as locals are able to direct the funds to their highest priority
projects. Second, because the funds are distributed at the metro area
level, MPOs are able to invest these funds to provide innovative
regional solutions that span jurisdictional boundaries. Projects such
as the Clipper card (our multi-operator transit-fare payment card) or
our regional bikeshare program are harder to pay for with funds that
are awarded to specific transit operators or local jurisdictions for
specific projects (if voter approved) or for mode-siloed investments.
Importantly, the STP and CMAQ programs deliver funds to an array of
projects that improve people's lives at a very local level--giving
taxpayers more confidence and certainty about how federal money is
being spent and invested in their communities. This combination of
flexibility and accountability is the right way to meet the challenges
before us now, and to adapt to the uncertain and rapid change we
anticipate ahead.
Therefore, we urge Congress to invest more funds in STP and to
directly allocate these block grants to MPOs nationwide so that
residents living outside of California--where suballocation is provided
for in state law--can also benefit from projects selected at the
regional level, consistent with the priorities developed in the
regional transportation plans. In addition, we would ask you to restore
the local distributed share of STP to its historic level of 62.5
percent, if not higher.
Capital Investment Grant Program
The Bay Area has developed an aggressive $26 billion investment
plan to improve transit connectivity between the region's population
and job centers. CIG funding--matched 2-to-1 by state and local
dollars--is key to advancing priorities that will not only address
critical regional core capacity and expansion needs, but will
contribute to the nation's economic growth. For example, Caltrain, a
vital link in the Bay Area's transportation network connecting San
Francisco to San Jose and to the nation's most high-profile tech
companies, secured a $647 million full funding grant agreement in 2017,
accelerating an electrification project (PCEP) that has been in the
works for more than two decades. PCEP will help create over $2.5
billion in economic value and address one of the Bay Area's principal
barriers to economic growth by relieving traffic on the increasingly
congested Interstate 280 and U.S. Route 101 corridors. Modernizing
Caltrain will put Americans to work and significantly increase rail
commuting capacity to Silicon Valley, one of the most economically
productive areas in the United States. In the coming years, Bay Area
transit operators will be seeking more than $3 billion in new CIG
commitments for the region's next generation of transit capacity
projects, including Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Silicon Valley Phase
II, Caltrain Downtown Extension and BART Transbay Corridor Core
Capacity.
change is coming (planning for uncertainty and investing in a
transformative and adaptive transportation network)
As we look to the future, the field of transportation may be poised
to undergo as much change in the next decade as it has at any time
since the dawn of the automotive age. For those of us who have been in
the transportation field our entire career, the pace of change is
astounding. Overnight, cities find their streets and sidewalks teeming
with new e-bikes or e-scooters deployed by the latest shared mobility
start-up. In my home in the San Francisco Bay Area we are seeing these
changes up close, with the likes of Tesla, Uber, Lyft, Google's Waymo,
Apple Car, Cruise Automation and dozens more. And as with all
technological breakthroughs, there are risks as well as benefits.
Building the highway and communications platform necessary for a
connected and autonomous future is a fundamental federal responsibility
we would urge this committee to embrace.
In addition to technological change, we are preparing ourselves in
the region to be more resilient in the face of a changing climate, and
in particular, sea-level rise. One visible local example is State
Highway 37, which travels through Marin, Solano, Napa, and Sonoma
counties. This 20-mile corridor is regularly backed up with traffic and
too often shut down due to flooding during the winter season, including
twice in the last few weeks. What's more, it is also highly vulnerable
to complete inundation due to sea-level rise 30 years from now.
Improvement projects are designed to provide ecological enhancements up
front in tandem with reducing the roadway flooding vulnerability.
As this committee considers the future of the federal
transportation program, I would encourage you to support communities
across the nation in making our transportation networks responsive to
the technology-fueled transformation in how people and goods move, and
to the changing climate.
Planning for an Uncertain Future
New technologies are expected to transform how people will connect,
travel and transport freight. Extreme weather and rising sea levels
challenge us to adapt and develop more resilient infrastructure. Like
states and regions throughout the nation, the Bay Area is grappling
with how to best incorporate the uncertainties posed by climate change
and transformative transportation technologies into our planning and
near-term investment decisions.
MTC has recently undertaken Horizon, a new effort to plan for--and
help shape--a range of possible futures. By expanding beyond
traditional long-range scenario planning, which holds fixed certain
transportation and land-use assumptions, Horizon will help inform big
questions facing the transportation industry, such as:
How might automation help solve the first-mile/last-mile
transit challenge, reducing barriers to transit ridership? What type of
investments are needed to get us there?
What roadway investments could maximize the opportunities
associated with the shift to connected and autonomous vehicles, and
expedite short-term safety benefits?
How do we prepare or adapt our transportation systems to
be resilient against rising sea levels?
Ultimately, this effort is designed to enable planners to analyze a
potential project's performance across a range of different futures and
lead to better decision-making by policy makers with regard to project
prioritization. Though the benefits may be significant, this planning
effort requires substantial time and resources. Because it is a break
from traditional planning, Horizon is a wholly separate effort that MTC
will complete in advance of developing the region's federally mandated
Metropolitan Transportation Plan update.
This committee could consider expanding the scope of the long-range
planning process to include new mobility-related technology
considerations, and increase planning funds to help regions and states
better address complexities around transformative transportation
technologies and climate change. Increased planning funding will also
support states and MPOs in fulfilling current performance-based
planning mandates, which were added in the 2012 transportation
authorization without a commensurate increase in planning resources.
Importantly, we recommend retaining existing flexibility for planners
to innovate, specifically in how they incorporate new mobility-related
technology considerations into the planning process.
The committee could also consider creating a pilot program to
generate best practices for states and MPOs to be responsive to a new
mobility paradigm and to uncertainties posed by climate change. The
United States Department of Transportation could provide state and
regional pilot program participants with tools (e.g., data sets and
case studies) to incorporate the transportation system impacts of
mobility-related technologies and to incorporate climate change
considerations into transportation system performance evaluations.
Investing in a 21st Century Transportation Network
Metro areas drive the nation's economy, house much of the nation's
critical infrastructure and will be the test beds of large-scale
deployment of new mobility-related technologies that are expected to
transform how people and goods travel. These areas will require
substantial investment to adapt our infrastructure to be resilient to a
changing climate and to be responsive to a new mobility paradigm.
Federally supported, near-term infrastructure improvements will provide
the dual benefit of immediately mitigating carbon-emitting congestion
while preparing our nation for the future. For example, a high-speed
communications infrastructure backbone would support near-term
congestion-reduction and air quality improvement strategies like smart
traffic signal operations while laying the foundation for future
vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications.
The committee should consider creating a new flexible program to
make our transportation networks more resilient in the face of a
changing climate and more responsive to the technology-fueled
transformation in how people and goods move. To be most effective, the
program should be highly flexible, mode-neutral and include formula and
discretionary components. Eligible projects should include capital and
operational investments that improve both near-term and long-term
system safety and performance. Examples include programs to support
deployment of autonomous vehicles, including vehicle-to-vehicle,
vehicle-to-infrastructure and vehicle-to-everything (V2X)
communications technologies; priced managed lanes; transportation
demand management programs; strategic micro-transit investments;
advanced parking freight delivery and incident management systems;
alternative fuel charging infrastructure and other advanced
technologies to support a clean transportation system; and climate
mitigation/resiliency improvements. The formula component of the
program should be allocated to large metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs), the nation's population and job centers with the
most immediate needs. Discretionary grant funding should additionally
support states, local governments, transit agencies and ports in
efforts to upgrade freight corridors and other critical infrastructure.
The discretionary component should have a rural set-aside to ensure
such communities also have access to program funds.
In lieu of a new program, the committee could also consider
providing resources for 21st century transportation investments through
existing FAST Act programs, including STP, a revised Nationally
Significant Freight and Highway Projects program, and a significantly
expanded and revised Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management
Technologies Deployment program by expanding project eligibility within
these programs.
In conclusion, Madam Chair and Committee members, America's diverse
metropolitan areas are primed to tackle the myriad mobility and related
access challenges of the future--be they technical, financial,
environmental or societal in nature. We ask for a strong federal
partnership to help support the solutions required to address them--and
in doing so, to seize the opportunities in this country that should
extend to all of its people.
Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Ms. McMillan.
Al Stanley, vice president of the Stanley Construction
Company, on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of
America.
You may proceed.
Mr. Stanley. Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to be
part of today's hearing. My name is Al Stanley, and I am a
highway site work and civil construction builder from
Huntsville, Alabama.
Stanley Construction Company was established in 1961 by my
father. At that time the major emphasis was on landscaping for
residential and commercial clients, and there were only three
employees. Today our company has grown into a diverse business
enterprise, completing numerous commercial projects as well as
State and Federal projects.
I am here today representing the Associated General
Contractors of America and currently serve on AGC's board of
directors. I also served in 2009 as the president of Alabama
AGC's State chapter. AGC is a national organization
representing 26,000 businesses involved in every aspect of the
construction industry.
Madam Chairwoman, in AGC's written testimony we have
pointed out the conditions and needs facing our Nation's
transportation infrastructure, both urban and rural. As we
approach the expiration of the FAST Act, Congress must address
today's upkeep, maintenance, and expansion, while also looking
to the transportation needs of the future.
Choices must be made to advance transportation to the next
level by modernizing the system by making the best use of
available and upcoming technology. The transportation network
is on the cusp of technological change that will impact how we
plan, design, and build our projects; how we inventory and plan
maintenance in our transportation assets; and how vehicles that
use the system are driven, and how they interact with each
other, with the infrastructure.
Indeed, Madam Chairwoman, the future of transportation is
exciting. However, nothing is guaranteed, and the gravest
threat to the advancement of transportation infrastructure is
the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund.
Shortly after the FAST Act expires, additional revenue of
some $18 billion per year will be needed just to maintain
current funding levels. Failure to address the funding's
ongoing revenue shortfall undermines the ability to advance our
infrastructure to the next level.
AGC believes the Highway Trust Fund revenue sources should
be real, reliable, dedicated, sustainable, and derived from
users and beneficiaries of our surface transportation system.
They should be sufficient to end the chronic shortfalls, and
support increased investment, and they should be dedicated
solely to surface transportation improvements. Increasing the
Federal motor fuels tax is the simplest and most effective way
to achieve this goal, but several other viable options do
exist.
AGC is part of the Mileage-Based User Fee Alliance. We
believe that user fees based on road usage in the future is the
most fairest way of collecting the revenue needed for road
improvements and transportation technology advances. We urge
you to continue supporting the State pilot programs that were
initiated in the FAST Act, and hope that you will also
institute a national trial program to advance the concept from
the beta stage to reality.
While the Federal Government fails to act, States continue
to make significant commitments to investment and
transportation infrastructure. Currently, in my own State of
Alabama, the Governor's Rebuild Alabama plan increases funding
for roads and bridges by raising the State's gasoline tax 10
cents per gallon. The Federal Government must do their fair
share, as States rely on Federal aid funding for the majority
of their capital improvements.
While funding is critically important, AGC also believes
this legislation should improve project delivery by removing
impediments that slow down planning and design and construction
of needed infrastructure.
AGC is very appreciative for the work this committee has
done in helping enact bipartisan environmental reforms in MAP-
21 and in the FAST Act. But more can be done, and improvements
upon those enacted reforms can be made. We have included some
recommendations in our written testimony that has been
submitted.
In addition, we urge this committee to consider two issues
that cause construction delays.
First, transportation improvement projects that interface
with railroad properties are often subject to significant
restrictions and delays imposed by railroad owners. Obtaining
fair and equitable railroad agreements, as well as ensuring
that commitments are made in a timely manner are often a
struggle, and add time and cost to transportation projects. My
written testimony includes recommendations to improve this
process.
Second, relocating underground utilities and highway right-
of-way continues to be one of the leading causes of delay in
completing projects. Underground utilities that are incorrectly
marked poses a significant safety risk to workers, and can
impact third-party business operations. AGC participates in the
Common Ground Alliance that grew out of a study directed in
TEA-21 to look at the issue of utility relocation. AGC
encourages the CGA best practices be used more universally.
In conclusion, the needs of our transportation
infrastructure are clear. Now is the time to act in a
bipartisan way to provide a stable and growing revenue source
for the Highway Trust Fund, while enacting a surface
transportation reauthorization that meets the need of our
growing economy and our growing population, as well.
Thank you for this opportunity to present our position, and
we look forward to questions. Thank you.
[Mr. Stanley's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Al Stanley, Vice President, Stanley Construction
Company, Inc., on behalf of The Associated General Contractors of
America
Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Davis and members of the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
thank you for inviting me here today. My name is Al Stanley. I am a
highway, site work and civil construction builder from Huntsville,
Alabama. I am currently serving on the Board of Directors of the
Associated General Contractors of America (AGC). AGC is a national
organization representing 26,500 businesses involved in every aspect of
construction activity in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and Washington, DC.
AGC members build the highway, bridge, airports, transit systems, rail
facilities and other transportation projects that keep America running.
Infrastructure in general, and transportation infrastructure in
particular, is an issue that has no partisan bounds. Transportation
impacts our daily lives whether we live in rural American communities
or in our great urban meccas. It impacts everything from our ability to
get to work, the cost and availability of the products we rely on both
in our personal lives and in our businesses, to the global
competitiveness of our nation's economy.
looking to the future while addressing today's needs
The vision of transportation and political leaders in the mid-20th
century to imagine and invest in the Interstate Highway System (IHS)
has paid and will continue to pay significant benefits to generations
of Americans. The IHS was the leading factor in America's growth since
World War II and made the United States the world's economic leader
that it is today. The IHS has grown to not only provide the primary
corridors for passenger and freight movement within large urban centers
and between metropolitan and rural areas but it also provides the
necessary connections between state and local roads systems and other
transportation modes including, railroads, marine ports, airports, and
public transit.
Today's transportation and political leaders are faced with new
choices that can equally impact future generations. The first choice is
to address the need for upkeep, maintenance and expansion of the
existing transportation system to meet today's needs.
But just as important, choices need to be made to advance
transportation to the next level by modernizing the system making the
best use of available and upcoming technology developments. The
transportation network is on the cusp of technological change that will
impact how we plan, design and build projects; how we inventory and
maintain our transportation assets; and how vehicles that use the
system are driven and how they interact with each other and with the
infrastructure.
Transportation investment drives these technology advances.
Advances made in autonomous vehicle technology is driven by
transportation needs and, once available commercially, will rely on a
good transportation network to operate safely and efficiently.
There has been a technology boom in transportation construction
that is increasing productivity and enhancing quality. Contractors are
making widespread use of drones, estimating and project management
software, automated machine guidance systems on equipment, 3D modeling,
paperless projects, e-construction, precast-slide in bridges and the
list goes on. States are managing construction projects through e-
construction and keeping track of asset conditions through electronic
models. Most of this technology is developed and manufactured in the
United States. New materials and treatments are being developed to
lengthen the life of the infrastructure once put in place.
In the longer-term, these improvements will enhance economic
competitiveness and improve quality of life by reducing travel delays
and transportation costs, improving access and mobility, improving
safety, and stimulating sustained job growth.
AGC commends Congress for its leadership in enacting into law the
Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act in December 2015.
The FAST Act provided 5 years of stability that our Federal-aid highway
and transit programs had not seen since 2008. As we get closer to the
expiration of the authorization, our nation's transportation
infrastructure needs continue to grow. As a result of sustained
economic growth, increased population, emerging technologies and aging
infrastructure, it is critically important that the next
reauthorization bill not only looks to the future but does not fail to
address the needs that we are facing, and--in some cases--ignoring
today.
the u.s. transportation infrastructure system's needs cannot sustain a
status quo approach to investment
Despite the importance of transportation investment to the U.S.
economy, there remains a significant need for improvement and growth.
The 2015 AASHTO Transportation Bottom Line Report found that annual
investment in the nation's roads, highways and bridges needs to
increase from $88 billion to $120 billion and from $17 billion to $43
billion in the nation's public transit systems, to improve conditions
and meet the nation's mobility needs. The investment backlog for
transportation infrastructure continues to increase, reaching $836
billion for highways and bridges and $122 billion for transit according
to the U.S. Department of Transportation. The American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) has identified a $1.1 trillion funding gap for surface
transportation between 2016 and 2025.
The Road Information Program (TRIP) reports that increases in
vehicle travel since 2000 have resulted in a significant increase in
wear and tear on the nation's roads. Vehicle travel growth, which
slowed significantly because of the Great Recession and the subsequent
economic recovery, has since returned to pre-recession growth rates.
From 2000 to 2016, vehicle travel in the U.S. increased by 16 percent.
The rate of growth in vehicle miles of travel has accelerated since
2013, increasing by 6 percent between 2013 and 2016. Travel by large
commercial trucks, which place significant stress on paved road and
highway surfaces, continues to increase at a rate approximately double
the rate for all vehicles. And, it is anticipated to continue to grow
at a significant rate through 2030. Travel by large commercial trucks
in the U.S. increased by 29 percent from 2000 to 2016. The level of
heavy truck travel nationally is anticipated to increase by
approximately 56 percent from 2018 to 2045, putting greater stress on
the nation's roadways.
From coast to coast, major streets and freeways in most U.S.
communities are showing significant signs of distress. Reports provided
by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), based on data submitted
annually by state departments of transportation on the condition of
major state and locally maintained roads and highways show that forty-
four percent of America's major roads are in poor or mediocre
condition. One-third of the nation's major urban roadways--highways and
major streets that are the main routes for commuters and commerce--are
in poor condition. These critical links in the nation's transportation
system carry 70 percent of the approximately 3.2 trillion miles driven
annually in America. Forty-five percent of America's major urban
interstates experience congestion during peak hours.
Based on Texas Transportation Institute calculations, TRIP
estimates that traffic congestion in the U.S. in 2017 resulted in 7.3
billion hours of delays--an average of 45 hours annually per commuter--
and costing the Nation $176 billion in the value of lost time and
wasted fuel. The nation expects to add another 60 million people over
the next 20 years. Meanwhile, the value of goods shipped annually (in
inflation adjusted dollars) is expected to increase by 104 percent by
2045--and by 91 percent for goods shipped by trucking. Without
additional capacity, congestion can only be expected to increase.
Americans rely heavily on motor vehicles for mobility. Travel in
private vehicles accounts for 88 percent of all person miles of travel.
Air travel accounts for 8 percent of all person miles of travel, while
transit (including buses and trains) accounts for 1 percent.
In fact, a 2017 global traffic congestion report by INRIX found
that 16 out of the 100 most congested urban areas globally are in the
U.S., with the most congested urban areas in order being Boston (8th),
Washington, DC. (19th), Chicago (23d), New York (40th) and Los Angeles
(47th).
Driving on roads in need of repair costs U.S. motorists $130
billion a year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs, amounting
to $599 per motorist. Nine percent or 54,259 of America's bridges are
structurally deficient, meaning there is significant deterioration to
the major components of the bridge. And most troubling, we have seen a
significant increase in traffic fatalities, which have gone up 14
percent between 2014 and 2017 from 32,675 to 37,133. And the traffic
fatality rate on the nation's non-Interstate rural roads is nearly two-
and-a-half times higher than on all other roads.
Our transportation infrastructure needs do not discriminate between
rural and urban America. Many of the transportation challenges facing
rural America are like those in urbanized areas. However, rural
residents tend to be more heavily reliant on their limited
transportation network--primarily rural roads and highways--than their
counterparts in more urban areas. Residents of rural areas often must
travel longer distances to access education, employment, retail
locations, social opportunities and health services. America's rural
heartland plays a vital role in our economy as home to a significant
share of the nation's population, many of its natural resources, and
popular tourist destinations. It is also the primary source of the
energy, food and fiber that supports America's economy and way of life.
US DOT reports that in 2015, 15 percent of the nation's major rural
roads (arterials and collectors) were rated in poor condition, 21
percent were rated in mediocre condition, 16 percent were rated in fair
condition and 48 percent were rated in good condition. In 2016, 10
percent of the nation's rural bridges were rated as structurally
deficient.
A concern in the rural areas of our country is motorist safety. As
TRIP points out, ``The higher traffic fatality rate found on rural,
non-Interstate routes is a result of multiple factors, including a lack
of desirable roadway safety features, longer emergency vehicle response
times, and the higher speeds traveled on rural roads compared to urban
roads.'' Many of the safety deficiencies on rural roads can be fixed.
These include narrow lanes, limited shoulders, sharp curves, exposed
hazards, pavement drop-offs, steep slopes and limited clear zones along
roadsides.
the economic benefits of transportation infrastructure investment are
well-documented
The positive relationship between transportation capital
investment, economic output and private sector productivity has been
well documented for decades by business analysts, economists and the
research community. A safe, reliable and efficient transportation
network helps businesses increase access to labor and materials,
increase market share and expand their customer base, reduce production
costs, access global markets and foster innovation. A 2017 study
performed for NAIOP--the Commercial Real Estate Development
Association--by Professor Stephen Fuller of George Mason University
found the $1.16 trillion in construction spending in 2016:
Contributed $3.4 trillion to U.S. GDP.
Generated $1.1 trillion in new personal earnings.
Supported a total of 23.8 million jobs throughout the
U.S. economy
Enhancing critical transportation assets will boost the economy in
the short-term by creating jobs in construction and related fields. In
the longer-term these improvements will enhance economic
competitiveness and improve the quality of life by reducing travel
delays and transportation costs, improving access and mobility,
improving safety, and stimulating sustained job growth.
a sustainable, long-term solution to funding the highway trust fund
must be a priority
Prior to the expiration of the FAST Act next year, Congress must
take the opportunity to fix the Highway Trust Fund and look at ways to
enhance the existing Federal transportation infrastructure programs.
While the FAST Act was a welcome reprieve from the uncertainty created
by the many delays and short-term extensions of authorization that led
up to its passage, it still left a great deal of uncertainty about
future surface transportation investments. The FAST Act temporarily
stabilized Federal highway and public transportation investment by
transferring $70 billion from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury to
supplement an estimated $208 billion in HTF revenue from existing
sources over the 5-year duration of the bill.
When the FAST Act expires, the Congressional Budget Office
estimates that $159 billion in additional funding would be required to
maintain current spending levels plus inflation from fiscal years 2022-
2029. Failing to address the fund's ongoing revenue shortfall leaves
open the possibility of disruptive uncertainty for states and the
construction industry once the FAST Act expires. Without an extension
and new revenue, AASHTO estimates that states will see about a 50
percent reduction in highway funding from FY 2020 to the following year
and $47 billion to $23 billion in FY 2021. We urge you to act sooner
rather than later. In the past failure to meet the deadline resulted in
numerous short-term extensions that caused project cancellations,
higher costs and delay of improvements affecting safety, efficiency and
economic development.
With the hope that the legislation will not just keep the country
treading water but will instead provide the kind of investment needed
to propel our economy into the future, AGC urges you to provide real,
reliable, dedicated and sustainable revenue sources derived from the
users and beneficiaries of the system for the Highway Trust Fund that
supports increased Federal surface transportation investments. AGC's
preferred method to address the solvency of the trust fund is an
increase in the Federal motor fuels tax--something that has not been
done since 1993. Recognizing the growing number of electric and hybrid
vehicles, we also recommend Congress consider imposing an annual
registration on electric and hybrid vehicles.
In 2009, the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure
Commission concluded that the U.S. needs a new approach to
transportation infrastructure financing, stating that ``Direct user
charges are the most viable and sustainable long-term, user pay option
for the Federal Government.'' The commission recommended moving to a
vehicle mile traveled (VMT) fee or mileage-based user fee (MBUF). The
VMT is a user charge based on miles driven in a specific vehicle as
opposed to the current excise tax on fuel consumed. At its simplest,
the fee would be cents per mile. A VMT would ensure that all users are
paying their ``fair share'' to keep roads and bridges in a state of
good repair regardless of the type of vehicle they drive.
To make it work on a national scale, a VMT system needs to be
tested, piloted and refined at the state and local level. In the FAST
Act Congress provided some $95 million to states to undertake pilot
programs to look at implementation of a VMT fee. Thus far, 11 states
have been awarded funds to enter into pilots, with many more states
exploring VMTs. Many lessons are being learned from these pilots
including privacy protection, equity by income, geography and vehicle
type, cost of administration and complexity of implementation. If we
are to transition to a VMT as an eventual replacement for the motor
fuels tax it is imperative that a robust national pilot program is
included in a reauthorization bill.
Public Private Partnerships (P3s) have been given much emphasis in
the past few years. Clearly, there is a place for P3s in addressing
current and future transportation needs. P3s bring additional financing
options to the table to address transportation needs that would not be
there without Federal encouragement. In addition, P3s shift risk away
from state DOTs and bring new players into the operations and
maintenance mix. However, P3s are not the universal answer to the
funding shortfall. Only certain types of projects are attractive to P3
development. These are primarily revenue generating projects and
largely in dense urban areas. While encouragement for P3s should
continue, it must be understood that they are an enhancement and not
alone the solution to the funding shortfall.
continued federal, state and local partnership is critical to the
success of our national transportation system
The partnership between Federal, state and local governments is
critical to our transportation infrastructure. This partnership is as
important as ever and must be continued for our country to meet the
transportation needs of our growing economy. As such, state and local
governments have taken it upon themselves to raise revenue to
supplement their respective programs.
According to the USDOT's 2015 Conditions and Performance report,
state and local governments provided 80 percent of $217 billion
invested in state and local road-related programs and 74 percent of $43
billion invested in transit-related programs compared to 20 percent and
26 percent, respectively, contributed by the Federal Government. States
continue to make significant commitments to invest in transportation
infrastructure as evidenced by successful enactment of transportation
revenue packages in 33 states since 2012. Unfortunately, the Federal
Government has not kept up its end of the bargain by failing to adjust
the user fees that provide funding for much of our Federal surface
transportation investments.
Federal leadership and commitment are crucial ingredients for
ensuring the continued success of this long-standing partnership. The
certainty of Federal investments help state departments of
transportation (DOTs) make needed investments in the major freight
corridors that drive national and regional economic growth. The 1
million miles of roadways eligible for the Federal aid highway program
account for 25 percent of total miles but carry 84 percent of all
traffic. The 48,000 miles of the Interstate Highway System, which is
the backbone of the U.S. economy, carries 25 percent of all traffic,
including over half of the miles driven by freight trucks delivering
goods across the country. Federal investment also accounts for 82
percent of rural and 64 percent of urban transit agency capital
outlays, in infrastructure and rolling stock. Federal-aid funding
remains critical to state-level capital investment in highways and
bridges, averaging 52 percent of that state investment in recent years.
Highway accessibility was ranked the No. 1 site selection factor in
a 2017 survey of corporate executives by Area Development Magazine.
Labor costs and the availability of skilled labor, which are both
impacted by a site's level of accessibility, were rated second and
third, respectively. Seventy-three percent of the $27.7 trillion worth
of commodities shipped to and from sites in the U.S. is transported by
trucks on the nation's highways. An additional 14 percent is delivered
by rail, water, parcel, U.S. Postal Service or courier, which use
multiple modes, including highways.
The formula-based distribution of funds through the Federal-aid
highway program has worked well over the years and should be
maintained. In order to have a strong national system, it is important
that all segments of the system receive support. The formula-based
funding also garners political and public support. Support for transit
investment has also come from the Highway Trust Fund. With the growing
use of transit in many communities, the traditional 80-20 share of
Highway trust Fund revenue between these two transportation modes
should be maintained. However, additional revenue sources must be found
to support transit infrastructure needs.
further improving the environmental review and permitting process
AGC is very appreciative for the work this committee has undertaken
in helping enact bipartisan environmental reforms in MAP-21 and the
FAST Act. But more work can be done and improvements upon those enacted
reforms can be made.
AGC members have pointed to a host of technical and procedural
problems that government agencies face, in general, during document
preparation and interagency reviews: they inevitably lead to
inconsistencies in the environmental approval process, schedule delays
and costs overruns. Such uncertainty spurs legal challenges, which can
ultimately threaten the viability of the project. AGC has worked
closely with the administration and supports its efforts to further
improve the environmental review and permitting process. Additionally,
we have shared our extensive environmental recommendations to the House
and Senate in testimony or statements for the record.
Three of these reforms that would have substantial positive impacts
are:
First, require a merger of the National Environmental
Policy Act and Clean Water Act 404 permitting processes with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers issuing permits at the end of the process,
using the NEPA-generated information;
Second, allow the monitoring, mitigation and other
environmental planning work performed during the NEPA process, and
included the final Environmental Impact Statement / Record of Decision,
to satisfy Federal environmental permitting requirements, unless there
is a material change in the project; and
Third, develop a reasonable and measured approach to
citizen suit reform to prevent misuse of environmental laws.
improving project delivery decreases costs
Transportation improvement projects also face delays from a host of
third-party impacts that occur leading up to or during construction.
There is much room for improvement in this arena.
Coordination with Railroads:
Transportation construction projects that interface with railroad
properties are often subject to significant restrictions and delays
imposed by railroad owners. Obtaining fair and equitable railroad
agreements as well as ensuring the commitments are made in a timely
manner are often a struggle and add time and cost to transportation
projects.
AGC recommends that USDOT be authorized to establish consistent
requirements, commitments, and timeframes with all public and private
railroad owners to facilitate transportation work within and across
railroad rights of way and provide USDOT the authority to enforce those
provisions with the railroads. As such, we ask Congress to require
USDOT to establish model agreements for standard activities conducted
by the state DOTs in railroad right-of-way (and vice versa) and provide
guidance on the establishment of agreements for special or more complex
activities.
Utility Relocation:
Relocating underground utilities in highway right-of-way, while
undertaking road improvement projects, continues to be one of the
leading causes of delay in completing projects once the construction
phase has started. Underground utilities that are unmarked or
incorrectly marked pose a significant safety risk to the construction
workforce, DOT employees and the public. Damage to utility facilities
can be costly to all parties to the contract and negatively impact the
collaborative spirit on jobs and lead to litigation. Current rules
allow for states to be reimbursed with Federal funds when the state
pays for utility relocations for project construction. The Common
Ground Alliance (CGA) is an outgrowth of a study conducted by USDOT--as
directed by Congress--that has best practices in place nationwide to
address these concerns.
AGC believes there are measures that can be taken to improve this
situation including:
Allow utility relocation to take place after a preferred
alternative is identified but prior to NEPA completion with appropriate
limitations to ensure the integrity of the NEPA process.
Encourage state DOT involvement in efforts such as the
CGA to promote shared responsibilities for utility protection and
adopting their recommended best practices.
Grant authority for state DOTs to participate in their
local one-call systems or develop in-house capabilities to locate DOT
owned facilities within the right-of-way (ROW).
Look for ways to encourage that utilities located in
highway ROW participate in preconstruction meeting with the DOT and
contractor.
Look at ways to maintain a repository of electronic ``as
built'' 3D data of completed highway improvement projects to begin
compiling an index of utility locations for future road improvement
uses.
Simplify Buy America Requirements:
Buy America requirements have been part of the procurement process
for construction projects funded through the Federal-aid highway and
the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) grant program since the
early eighties. FHWA has applied Buy America requirements to steel and
iron products.
Generally, Buy America regulations require a domestic manufacturing
process for steel and iron materials that are permanently incorporated
into a federally assisted construction project. The requirement
interprets domestic manufacturing process to include melting, rolling,
cutting, welding, fabrication, and the process of applying a coating.
The FTA is also subject to Buy America and requires that for
manufactured products, regardless of the material they are made from,
the manufacturing processes must take place in the United States and
all components of the product must be of U.S. origin regardless of the
origin of its subcomponents.
While the industry has been able to meet these requirements and
produce high quality projects Buy America requirements can
significantly delay projects and add to overall cost because of their
complexities.
AGC recommendations for Buy America implementation include:
Manufactured products that consist of 90 percent or more
of steel should be U.S. produced. Waivers should be available for
commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) products with iron and
steel components and manufactured products that contain a variety of
different components made of a variety of different materials,
including steel, and in different amounts.
Small, incidental products such as bolts, screws,
connectors, etc., should be considered de minimus and excluded from the
requirements. The cost and time required to trace and document these
products can far outweigh their de minimis financial impact to the
project's total value.
Allow for the minimum use exclusion as currently
implemented by FHWA to increase from one tenth of 1 percent to 1
percent or a ceiling of $20,000 from the current $2,500 limit.
Buy America requirements should be limited to steel and
iron products and not expanded to other construction products not
generally manufactured, such as cement.
The waiver application process with FHWA should be timely
and should not become a barrier to efficient project delivery or
related decisionmaking by the owner and contractor.
Utility and railroad facilities relocated as part of a
Federal-aid highway project should not be covered by the project.
On FTA funded projects, the construction industry and
grant recipients are looking for clearer and more consistent direction
from the FTA. Clear cut guidance on how to categorize end products,
components and subcomponents is needed. FTA needs to provide guidance
clarifying how Buy America content in the end project, components,
subcomponents and sub-sub components is to be determined. Directing FTA
to develop a standardized audit or certification program for suppliers
may help resolve these issues.
A standardized template to assist suppliers in providing
relevant product information and accurately calculating percentage
costs might help, especially related to Rolling Stock materials.
building resilience in infrastructure
In 2014, AGC was one of 21 building-related national organizations
and professional societies to sign the Industry Statement on
Resilience, which defines resilience based on National Research Council
work as the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from, and
more successfully adapt to adverse events. That group continues to look
for ways to address the issue. But, simply put, in the design of
infrastructure, resilience to natural disasters that hit in specific
areas should be part of the design criteria. Retrofitting structures
where possible should be considered. Resilient adaptation decisions for
roadways can include elevation, decisions on bridge size and elevation,
material choices, and drainage. Rebuilding substandard infrastructure
is an opportunity to address resilience.
workforce
Workforce shortages have been a problem facing many industries and
the construction industry, in particular. AGC worked with FHWA and
AASHTO on a highway construction worker pilot program to identify,
train and place workers in highway construction careers. The Department
of Labor cooperated in encouraging local and state work force
development boards to participate as well. For the pilot program the
group identified 12 areas, six states and six urban areas where the
state DOT, FHWA Division office and the AGC chapter can work with the
local or state Workforce Investment Board to identify individuals with
the interest and motivation to work in highway construction. FHWA has
made grant funds available to support these pilots. Using the lessons
learned from these pilots and providing additional grant funding to
support the initiatives could pay big dividends for workers looking for
well paying career as well as supporting the workforce needed to
deliver the transportation infrastructure projects.
conclusion
Madam Chairperson, thank you again for convening today's hearing
and for allowing AGC to participate. The role of our national
transportation system in supporting U.S. competitiveness and our
quality of life cannot be understated. Transportation impacts the daily
lives of citizens and businesses in every state in the Union. The
American public recognizes the need to improve our system and bring it
back to world class status. A golden opportunity is before you. At a
time when it seems there is little we all agree on infrastructure may
prove to be the missing link. I urge you to take advantage of this
opportunity.
An important step Congress can take is to fix the Highway Trust
Fund. Providing a reliable, dedicated and sustainable revenue source
derived from the users and beneficiaries of the transportation system
to not only address the annual shortage but allow for robust future
investments is key. Please do not put off this debate until later. The
longer you wait the more difficult the solution becomes. You have shown
great leadership in not waiting until the new Congress convenes before
holding this hearing. Continue that leadership and allow the
legislation to move forward. Again, thank you for your time and
consideration.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Stanley.
And finally, Michael Terry, president and CEO of IndyGo,
Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation, on behalf of
the American Public Transportation Association.
You may proceed, sir.
Mr. Terry. Thank you. I first wanted to thank Congressman
Carson for his very kind introduction earlier.
Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Davis, members of the
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, I just thank you for this
opportunity to testify on behalf of the American Public
Transportation Association. My name is Mike Terry, I am
president and chief executive officer of IndyGo, which is the
Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation.
IndyGo is the largest public transportation agency in the
State of Indiana. Our service is 100 percent bus operations. As
a county agency, we serve more than 820,000 people, operating
approximately 160 vehicles over 400 square miles. Last year we
invested in additional service frequency on our busiest routes,
and we were able to increase monthly ridership by an average of
4 percent.
As this subcommittee considers what Federal policies should
be modified in the next surface transportation authorization,
APTA is in the process of consulting with its members and
finalizing recommendations on how Federal public transportation
policy can be enhanced to meet the needs of the 21st century.
APTA's top legislative issue is ensuring the solvency of
the Highway Trust Fund. We have long supported increased
dedicated Federal revenues to the Highway Trust Fund. It has
been more than 25 years since Congress last raised the Federal
fuel taxes that primarily support the Highway Trust Fund, and
the purchasing power of this revenue has decreased by more than
40 percent over that time.
APTA strongly supports the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's
proposed plan of increasing the Federal motor vehicle fuel user
fee by 5 cents per year for 5 years. We also support any other
reasonable, bipartisan plan to increase dedicated revenues to
the Highway Trust Fund, and we are ready to work with Congress
to advance this critical priority.
APTA continues to advocate for increased investment in
public transportation from all levels of Government. But the
Federal partnership remains absolutely critical. IndyGo can
attest to the importance of ensuring a Federal role in public
transportation. Our voters locally passed a local income tax
referendum to support a transit plan that will provide expanded
frequency of hours of service on our fixed-route bus network.
Without a Federal partnership we would not be able to
efficiently operate the increased local network in three rapid
bus transit corridors. Several U.S. Department of
Transportation grants have been critical in the success of this
transit plan.
The capital investment grants, the CIG, are vital public
transportation investments for APTA members, including IndyGo.
We received a Small Starts grant last year for our red line bus
rapid transit, and we have two more projects in the CIG
pipeline: our purple line and blue line BRTs. IndyGo is
building an enhanced bus network that will upgrade to rapid
service to ensure an even more seamless travel experience for
our riders.
The importance of public transportation capital program
cannot be overemphasized. Unfortunately, the CIG program has
shifted from an efficient public transportation capital program
that can build good projects while protecting taxpayer dollars
to a grant program that has requirements above and beyond that
of comparable modes, such as highway grant programs.
We believe Congress must change the program to make it more
efficient. APTA anticipates endorsing a zero-base review of the
CIG program to eliminate unnecessary statutory, regulatory, or
policy requirements.
APTA is leading the charge to support public transportation
agencies' efforts to implement innovative mobility management
strategies, including introducing cutting-edge technologies and
integrating new service delivery approaches.
At IndyGo we have embraced the new mobility paradigm. Many
areas outside the core of Indianapolis are not developed in a
way that is ideal for public transit. To better reach these
sprawling neighborhoods, IndyGo is collaborating with the
multisector collective to integrate multiple modes of transport
to enhance access beyond where transit will be successful.
We envision a connected, on-demand network of car-sharing,
ride-hailing, bike-sharing, and other new mobility options to
create first- and last-mile connections. Last year IndyGo
partnered with Lyft and BlueIndy, which is an electric car-
share program, on a program to incentivize Indianapolis
residents to utilize several mobility options into their daily
lives to a great success.
As president and CEO of IndyGo for the past decade, I have
seen tangible, equitable, and very real benefits that public
transportation provides to residents, communities, and our
Nation. It is imperative that a continued Federal partnership
with a dedicated source of funding remain a core principle of
the next surface transportation authorization.
Thank you very much, Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member
Davis, and other members of the committee. I look forward to
answering your questions.
[Mr. Terry's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Terry, President and CEO, Indianapolis
Public Transportation Corporation (IndyGo), on behalf of the American
Public Transportation Association (APTA)
introduction
Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and Members of the
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, on behalf of the American Public
Transportation Association (APTA) and its more than 1,500 public- and
private-sector member organizations, thank you for the opportunity to
testify on Aligning Federal Surface Transportation Policy to Meet 21st
Century Needs.
My name is Michael Terry, and I am the President and Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) of the Indianapolis Public Transportation
Corporation, also known as IndyGo. I joined IndyGo in 2003 as the Vice
President of Business Development and have served as President and CEO
for more than a decade.
IndyGo is the largest public transportation agency in the state of
Indiana. Our service is 100 percent bus operations. As a county agency,
we serve more than 820,000 people, operating approximately 160 vehicles
over 400 square miles. Our paratransit service provides critical curb-
to-curb service for residents with disabilities anywhere in the county.
We leverage Federal and local dollars to enhance frequency and grow
capacity, reliability, and efficiency. Last year, we invested in
additional service frequency on our busiest routes, and were able to
increase monthly ridership by an average of 4 percent. We are grateful
for the Federal and local partnerships that are making IndyGo's
expansion possible.
Today, I would like to share with the Subcommittee some of the
important concepts that APTA is considering as we look to the next
surface transportation authorization that will succeed the Fixing
America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) (P.L. 114-94). While
APTA is still in the process of finalizing its recommendations, here
are some important considerations for enhancing Federal public
transportation policy:
The Solvency of The Highway Trust Fund
APTA's top legislative issue is ensuring the solvency of the
Highway Trust Fund. The backlog of transit state-of-good-repair needs
is more than $90 billion and growing. APTA has long supported increased
dedicated Federal revenues to the Highway Trust Fund for programs that
support the national transportation network, cost-effectively address
the problem of deferred maintenance, and enable public transportation
agencies to meet growing demands for increased mobility.
It has been more than 25 years since Congress last raised the
Federal fuel taxes that primarily support the Highway Trust Fund, and
the purchasing power of this revenue has decreased by more than 40
percent over that time. Current revenues deposited into the Highway
Trust Fund are insufficient to support the existing Federal highway and
public transportation programs without significant general fund
contributions. This status quo is unsustainable and tough choices need
to be made by Congress.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recognizes the urgency
and critical importance of long-term, sustainable surface
transportation funding. Last week, GAO noted, in its 2019 High-Risk
Series report, that ``the nation's surface transportation system--
including highways, transit, maritime ports, and rail systems that move
both people and freight--is under growing strain . . . the cost to
repair and upgrade the system to meet current and future demand is
estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars.'' \1\ Although
funding the nation's surface transportation system has been on GAO's
High-Risk list for more than a decade, Congress has not provided the
necessary resources or dedicated funding to address these critical
issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Government Accountability Office, HIGH-RISK SERIES: Substantial
Efforts Needed to Achieve Greater Progress on High-Risk Areas, March 6,
2019, 86-90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2018, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce proposed a plan to
increase the Federal motor vehicle fuel user fee by five cents per year
over 5 years (Total: 25-cent increase). APTA strongly supports this
plan and our Board of Directors has specifically endorsed it. We also
support any other reasonable, bipartisan plan to increase dedicated
revenues to the Highway Trust Fund. Our most important issue continues
to be the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund, and we stand
ready to work with Congress to advance this critical priority.
Dedicated Federal Funding for Public Transportation
Public transportation represents a $71 billion industry that
directly employs 430,000 people and supports millions of private-sector
jobs. Public transportation supports economic development, produces a
safer, more efficient transportation system, connects people with jobs
and employers with potential workers, and supports national priorities.
APTA continues to advocate for increased investment in public
transportation from all levels of government, but the Federal
partnership remains absolutely critical. States and public
transportation agencies need predictable Federal funding to support
long-term planning and multi-year capital projects.
Dedicated and sustained Federal funding for public transportation
complements the unprecedented contributions already made by states and
local governments to operate and maintain these services. In recent
years, several states have raised motor fuel taxes and localities have
raised other taxes that help pay for surface transportation, including
public transportation. In 2018, voters approved 82 percent of transit
ballot initiatives, which increased or secured revenues for public
transit investment. However, the success of these local initiatives
depends on a strong Federal partnership.
IndyGo can attest to the importance of ensuring a Federal role in
public transportation. In 2016, Marion County voters and leaders passed
a local income tax referendum of 0.25 percent to support the
implementation and operation of the Marion County Transit Plan (Transit
Plan). The Transit Plan is transforming IndyGo by laying the foundation
for expanded frequency and hours of service for our fixed-route local
network, which will amount to a 70 percent increase in service. Without
a Federal partner, we would not be able to effectively operate the
increased local network and three rapid transit corridors that will
provide this high-quality public transportation service. Several core
capital improvements are necessary, and U.S. Department of
Transportation grants have been critical to the success of our Transit
Plan.
Capital Investment Grants
Capital Investment Grants (CIG) are a vital public transportation
investment for APTA members, including IndyGo. The CIG program provides
grants for fixed-guideway investments, such as new and expanded
subways, light rail, commuter rail, streetcars, bus rapid transit
(BRT), and ferries. We are extremely grateful for Congress' continued
recognition of the importance of the CIG program by providing
appropriations higher than the $2.3 billion provided in the FAST Act in
each of the past three fiscal years (Fiscal Years 2017-2019).
IndyGo has accessed the critical CIG program to build an enhanced
bus network--the Red Line. The Red Line received a Small Start grant,
one of four categories of projects in the CIG program, in May 2018.
IndyGo will operate full battery-electric BRT vehicles on these
critical, high-volume corridors. Further, IndyGo also has two BRT
projects in the CIG pipeline--the Blue Line Rapid Transit and the
Purple Line Rapid Transit. These projects are along two corridors that
currently are among IndyGo's most productive, frequent, high ridership
routes. The BRT projects will upgrade service on the corridors to rapid
service to ensure an even more seamless travel experience for our
riders.
The importance of this public transportation capital program cannot
be overemphasized. Unfortunately, the CIG program has shifted from an
efficient public transportation capital program that can build good
projects while protecting taxpayer dollars to a grant program that has
requirements above and beyond that of comparable modes--such as highway
grant programs.
We believe Congress must change the program to make it more
efficient. Currently, CIG project sponsors must navigate a bureaucratic
maze over multiple years to receive a grant agreement. Beginning with
enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA
21) in 1998, both Congress and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
have repeatedly layered additional requirements on the CIG program.
APTA anticipates endorsing a zero-based review of the CIG program to
eliminate unnecessary statutory, regulatory or policy requirements.
We urge Congress to adopt provisions that will strengthen the CIG
program and ensure that these critical public transportation projects
across the country are delivered in a timely manner.
Safety
Safety is the public transportation industry's top priority.
Research shows that modest increases in public transportation ridership
in a metropolitan area can cut traffic fatalities by 40 percent. Today,
traveling by public transportation is 10 times safer for passengers
than traveling by car. Providing more and improved public
transportation is one of the most powerful traffic safety tools that a
community can employ to help reduce the more than 37,000 traffic deaths
per year on our nation's roadways.
Our members view safety as an essential and primary component to
ensuring customer satisfaction and providing seamless service. The
FTA's State Safety Oversight (SSO) Program outlines minimum safety
requirements for passengers and agency employees. APTA is proud that 30
states have achieved their SSO Program certifications well before the
statutory deadline. The FTA is reviewing the final, multi-state
certification (Metrorail Safety Commission) and we are very hopeful
that the Commission will receive its certification prior to the April
15, 2019 deadline.
Moreover, our commuter railroads are committed to making rail
travel even safer with full implementation of Positive Train Control
(PTC). As a result of this commitment, some commuter railroads have
completed PTC implementation and others are on the path to fully
implement PTC by the end of 2020. While implementation of PTC is a
critical safety overlay, the industry takes a comprehensive approach to
safety that includes multiple essential safety countermeasures. Those
measures include reducing operator fatigue, implementing new safety
monitoring equipment like inward- and outward-facing cameras,
addressing grade-crossing and trespassing incidents, and conducting
rigorous safety audits.
The public transportation industry has an incredibly strong safety
record. We are grateful for the work that this Subcommittee has done to
make our nation's surface transportation safer.
The Evolving Mobility Landscape
Advances in technology have allowed vehicles to operate with
increased autonomy and efficiencies. Data capabilities have evolved and
enable effortless trip planning and streamline information sharing, and
new business platforms have supported the explosion of ride-hailing and
bike-sharing services. According to a recent APTA study, The
Transformation of the American Commuter, 77 percent of Americans say
public transportation is the backbone of a multi-transit lifestyle.\2\
APTA is leading the charge to support public transportation agencies'
efforts to implement innovative mobility management strategies,
including introducing cutting-edge technologies and integrating new
service delivery approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ American Public Transportation Association, The Transformation
of the American Commuter, December 2018, 1-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At IndyGo, we have embraced the new mobility paradigm. One of our
core strategic principles is to advance mobility as a catalyst for
success. Many areas outside the core of Indianapolis are not developed
in a way that is ideal for public transit. Many suburban neighborhoods
built in the 1960's through the 1990's are extremely car-centric in
design--single family, detached homes on large lots in cul-de-sac
developments. To better reach these sprawling neighborhoods, IndyGo is
collaborating with a multi-sector collective to integrate multiple
modes of transport to enhance access beyond where transit will be
successful. We envision a connected, on-demand network of car sharing,
ride hailing, bike sharing and other new mobility options to create
first- and last-mile connections. For example, in fall 2018, IndyGo
partnered with Lyft and BlueIndy (an electric car service) on a program
to incentivize Indianapolis residents to utilize several mobility
options into their daily lives. It was a great success. In addition,
leveraging an FTA technical assistance grant, we are building a new
account-based fare system, which in the future will serve as the
financial infrastructure to facilitate seamless connections to other
modes.
IndyGo is an early adopter of electric bus technology. IndyGo has
leveraged $10 million in Federal funding to acquire 21 fully electric
vehicles, with operating costs one-fourth the amount of a traditional
diesel bus. IndyGo plans to substantially upgrade its aging fleet (of
which 44 percent have surpassed their useful life), replacing all of
its diesel buses with electric vehicles by 2032. It will also install
bus charging infrastructure along its routes. Another Federal grant was
leveraged to install a solar array on the roof of its main garage. This
solar infrastructure is generating enough power to offset the increased
electric demand from charging requirements-13 of the existing 21
electric bus fleet are being charged by the power generated by the
solar array.
Given the rapid changes in technology and mobility, public
transportation has a key role in the transportation network. With an
upcoming surface transportation authorization bill, Congress needs to
ensure that public transportation agencies have the flexibility to meet
changing mobility needs.
conclusion
As President and CEO of IndyGo for the past decade, I have seen the
tangible and very real benefits that public transportation provides to
residents, communities, and our Nation. Public transportation not only
spurs economic growth, but reduces congestion, improves air quality,
saves time and money, and advances an equitable and better quality of
life for our communities. It is imperative that a continued Federal
partnership with a dedicated source of funding remains a core principle
of the next surface transportation authorization act.
On behalf of APTA, thank you for including us in this important
discussion as the Subcommittee begins developing the next surface
transportation bill. As APTA continues to move forward with finalizing
its surface transportation authorization proposal, we very much welcome
the opportunity to continue the conversation and stand ready to assist
in advancing our mutual objectives.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Terry. We are now
going to move on to Members' questions, and each will have 5
minutes.
Mr. Terry, I got a hold of your testimony where you
indicated that you have, by adding service frequency, been able
to get a 4-percent increase in ridership. Now, we see ridership
going down in transit in other cities. Just by having more
frequent service you got an increase in transit ridership? Is
that the problem?
Mr. Terry. I think that is one of the problems. It is
actually focusing on where mass transit has the highest and
best use, the highest productivity. In our realignment that we
are doing, incorporating rapid transit as well as our regular
bus network, people want reliable, dedicated, and frequent
service. And we are finding increasing that frequency and
expansion of hours of service, where people can rely on that,
is increasing ridership.
Ms. Norton. So it is not just trains should run on time,
there should be more frequent trains. And then people will get
off the road and get on the train.
Mr. Terry. Yes, ma'am. That is the way we feel.
Ms. Norton. Well, this is very important information.
Ms. McMillan, I am interested in your testimony that speaks
about expanding the share of funds which go to what you call
the Nation's metropolitan areas. So who would control these
funds? How would that work? Would there be conflicts among the
parts of the region?
Ms. McMillan. Well, and certainly I can speak in the bay
area, where the funds do come to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, as the MPO. But we work extremely
closely with a bottoms-up approach with our cities and counties
to determine how those funds would then be distributed----
Ms. Norton. So who does that?
Ms. McMillan [continuing]. If we are talking about STP----
Ms. Norton. Who controls that? Who do you talk to if you
are working on an area-ride basis--perfectly understandable,
because of the way people cross county lines just to get to
work or to shop. But who is in charge of deciding where the
funds go?
Ms. McMillan. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission,
within our region, as the MPO, would ultimately be the one that
would make this--but I would stress that on our board is
represented the local entities of the counties and cities. And
so getting their input about what the needs are, and then
working with us to determine how to distribute those funds to
the relative needs in the different areas of this county is
very important.
So I think that cooperation among us to determine how
investments should be made, and particularly in those areas
where a problem is not located in one city or another, but does
cross, you know, boundaries, we need to recognize that the
riding public often doesn't recognize those boundaries, and we
need to come up with a solution, collectively, to address their
overall journey, wherever that may start or end.
Ms. Norton. Well, I would really also like to ask Mr. Clark
and then maybe others of you--Mr. Stanley--who could speak to
this. Very concerned about the differences in how people now
look at the workforce for transportation. Mr. Clark spoke about
registered apprenticeship.
Now, you know, young men whose fathers or grandfathers were
in the industry, you know, sitting at computers, they don't
even have to be very skilled to do that. Don't we need to do
more than look at registered apprenticeship? Because they don't
even get to the apprenticeship in the first place.
How do we draw people to this very important industry to do
the work that needs to be done?
Both of you, I would like to hear what you have to say on
that.
Mr. Clark. I will start. I think one of the things--several
things we need to do. One thing that we clearly need to do is
talk differently about what the workforce looks like. Quite
often, when we have discussions about the workforce--and I
focused very much on the frontline workforce--and in rooms full
of people, one of the things I often do is ask how many people
here have a bachelor's degree or more. And usually in those
discussions, almost all hands go up.
Actually, only about one-third of adults have a bachelor's
degree. And if we keep communicating to young people that the
only way you get ahead is by getting a 4-year college
education, it is a self-defeating strategy. The jobs, skilled
jobs in transit, are good, family-supporting jobs. That is true
of jobs in highway construction and a lot of others. They tend
to be neglected, because people just don't think about them,
they think they are going away.
The same is true of a lot of high-tech manufacturing. We
need to be communicating that there are abilities to get those
jobs. We also need to be equipping people with the skills to
function in those jobs. The jobs are no longer simply heavy
lifting. They are extremely skilled jobs with a lot of
diagnostic skills, a lot of mental work. People need to come in
with strong math abilities.
People have referred to STEM, career technical education,
and I mentioned specific peer apprenticeship for people who are
a little bit older and need to make up some skill deficits to
make this work. But I think there are strategies that can get
people there. We need to start rethinking about how we
communicate to people about what the labor market actually
looks like.
Ms. Norton. Well, my time has expired, so thank you very
much. I am going now to the ranking member, Mr. Davis, for his
5 minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Mayor, the mayor of San Antonio, right? You served on
the city council before that?
Mr. Nirenberg. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis. Can you tell me how many times my colleague and
good friend, Joaquin Castro, tried to sit in for his twin
brother at city council meetings?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Nirenberg. No, sir, I can't. He was busy up here.
Mr. Davis. I will ask him about that. But thank you.
Welcome, and thanks for being here.
Mr. Millar, I pinch-hit for Leader Graves today at the ASCE
event this morning just across town. They told me you were
coming here on behalf of them, too, and to take it easy on you.
But I will not do that today. I am going to start you with a
question. Actually, it will be a question I think will provide
a lot of us on this committee some information that expands a
little bit on your opening statement.
You mentioned expanding categorical exclusions across
Federal agencies. Can you expand on that a little bit? And in
particular, how do we make them more interchangeable?
Mr. Millar. Yes. Again, as I mentioned in my opening
remarks, about 94 percent of the work that we do happens
through categorical exclusions. The categorical exclusions are
a provision in the National Environmental Policy Act that allow
for projects to move forward that have been demonstrated to
have no significant impact on the environment--the environment
being the economy, social and the natural environment.
Different agencies have different rules for that. We found
in the work that we do that the key to moving forward is making
sure that the resource agencies are adequately funded to
respond to our requests for, you know, permits, for approvals,
for reviews and the like. That is what works for us.
There are some in AASHTO that would like for
transportation-related projects for other agencies to be able
to use a list of categorical exclusions that the Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration has adopted. We
don't have to do that in Washington State because, again, we
find that by working with the resource agencies upfront, we
don't have that problem.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you. My 6\1/2\ years on this
committee, any chance we can reduce what I call the paperwork
process to get to construction faster to make the Federal
dollar stretch further, I am always interested in that. So
thank you for your testimony and your responses.
Mr. Stanley, thank you. Are you aware that your
Representative on the Hill had his ribs broken in a
congressional hockey game by our colleague on this committee,
Mr. Katko?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Stanley. I have heard rumors. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis. Have you? You may want to rethink your
representation there.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Davis. Can you tell me, Mr. Stanley, how do we balance
the surface transportation investments needs that we are
experiencing today with what we may need in the future?
Mr. Stanley. I think the balancing is a balancing act, as
you said. The funding has got to be short-term and it has got
to be long-term. A lot of your State DOTs don't do long-term
projects because of short-term funding.
So in the past, the continuing resolutions have delayed
projects caused for cost increases and things like that. So we
definitely need to look at the short-term needs, but then look
further out in the future. Because as different types of
transportation come online with automated cars, potentially,
and things like that, we have all got to share the road.
We have got more large trucks that are transporting more
goods each year by year. So we have to work on multimodal
corridors, as well. So basically, that money needs to be
looking at a lot of different modes of transportation, as well
as expanding capacity and advancing new technologies, as well.
Mr. Davis. Great, thank you.
Mr. Anderson, I know you represent the great State of
Texas. Thank you for being here today. I ask you the same
question.
Mr. Anderson. Well, yes, in our priorities relative to the
FAST Act we also echo stable, predictable, and sustainable
funding streams. We ask for updated data relative to lane miles
and census data as it relates to our core funding programs.
But we are also very fortunate in Texas because we have
passed prop 1 and prop 7, and our people then identified
additional transportation needs that they wanted to have, and
they looked at the State to provide funding for those. So we
looked, you know, both at the Federal Government, but also to
our State to identify ways to achieve better funding revenue,
and then put that towards the priorities of our local and
regional partners.
Mr. Davis. Great. Well, thank you all for your time today.
Thanks for your testimony and your responses. I look forward to
hearing more.
I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.
Chairman DeFazio?
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mayor Nirenberg, you talked here about ConnectSA. And I
would be interested in hearing a brief description of how you
are going to do that.
Mr. Nirenberg. Yes. Well, we are working on an integrative
strategy that takes all of the different planning elements in
place, from our land use strategies to our bus routes, to our
pedestrian pathways, even our linear creekway systems, and
tries to create an effective and intermodal transportation
system.
On top of that we are looking at developing our first-ever
advanced rapid transit system. And San Antonio is a 500-square-
mile city, fast-growing city. We have an underfunded bus system
that needs to increase frequency. And all the elements in place
are the only way we believe we can keep our economic vibrancy
and be able to meet the demands of moving San Antonians around
inside of our city.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you.
Secretary Millar, you talked about how you couldn't build
your way out of it. So what are the tools that we should
highlight, incentivize, or create in the next transportation
bill that would give people what they need to look at more
innovative ways to mitigate congestion?
Mr. Millar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question. Yes,
we can't build our way out of congestion. When I was first
appointed secretary I got an email from a constituent,
``Congratulations. By the way, your speed limit signs say 60
miles an hour. I can't drive 60 miles an hour on your freeways.
Your agency is a failure.''
[Laughter.]
Mr. Millar. I thanked that constituent and then I asked,
``What would it take to be able to drive 60 miles an hour all
the time on our freeways?'' A $115 billion investment. Doing
that over 20 years is a $2.50-a-gallon gas tax. And that did
not accommodate any growth in our region, it didn't accommodate
any growth in the local road system, and the like.
The fact that we cannot build our way out of congestion is
not a failure of Government, it is an economic and
environmental and demographic reality. So we are talking about
moving forward in a congested world, and that involves first
taking care of the system we have in place. So preservation is
hugely important to us.
We have today in Washington State a $700 million-a-year
unfunded preservation backlog.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, basically state of good repair.
Mr. Millar. State of good repair.
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Mr. Millar. Then safety----
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Mr. Millar. When you look at the $3.5 billion that is--
impacts our economy, congestion costs our economy in Washington
State about $3.5 billion. The deaths and serious injury
accidents in Washington State cost our economy $8.5 billion. We
talk about congestion all the time. We are not talking about
the safety issues on our roadways. So making our transportation
system safe is important.
Transportation system management and operations,
recognizing that if you think about the transportation system
that is going to be in place 20 years from now, most of it is
there today. But we need to get more throughput out of the
system we have through things like express toll lanes, managed
lanes, automated transportation management systems, investing
in incident response to clear crashes and get roads back open.
Investing in the relationships between land use and
transportation, so we don't continue to make stupid decisions
that necessitate investments that we can't afford to make any
more.
And then, as a last resort, targeted system expansion.
Typically, in our world, you see a problem, the answer is
``more.'' That should be the last thing we do, not the first
thing we do. And that is the progression of decisionmaking that
we are making in Washington State.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you. Any suggestions any of you have
that are specific to ways Federal funds are restricted that
don't allow you to take reasonable steps to get better
throughput on our existing infrastructure would be very welcome
in this committee.
And then I just want to observe, Mr. Terry--thanks for your
testimony about Indianapolis. But when you talked about--and a
number of other people have recommended the 55555. The fact is
if we do 55555, it is 6\1/2\ years before we increase spending
above the current levels, which I think is too long to wait. We
need to be looking at leveraging whatever we do with gas and
diesel tax with bonds, so that we get that money upfront more
quickly.
I would observe--and you probably--I don't know how old
your bus fleet is, but part of the reason in some places people
are abandoning transit is because it is not reliable because it
is worn out. And just bringing transit up to a state of good
repair, I believe would attract a lot of people back to the
system. Do you agree?
Mr. Terry. Very much so. The rider experience is very
important. Our fleet is--44 percent is past its useful life. So
you are exactly correct. State of good repair is extremely
important.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Mr. Balderson?
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning,
everyone, and thank you to the panel for being here this
morning. My first question is for Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Anderson, according to the most recent census data,
Columbus is the fastest growing major city in the Midwest,
which is in my district. As a result, Columbus has undertaken
major initiatives to reduce such congestion, such as the CMAQ
bus line, which I have gone and visited, which syncs buses with
traffic signals to improve efficiency and reduce traffic.
As the winner of the Department of Transportation's Smart
City Challenge, Columbus is also implementing smart mobility
hubs and state-of-the-art multimodal trip planning apps for
residents. How has the Texas Department of Transportation
collaborated with its colleagues in other States to share and
build on emerging technologies and ideas?
Mr. Anderson. Well, through a number of measures: the
AASHTO committees, the transportation research board
organization.
We also--our Texas Innovation Alliance, along with a number
of other smart cities, including Columbus, are in a larger
smart city consortium. And those cities and regional partners
are sharing the best practices and the capabilities that they
are developing, real time. And it runs the gamut. It looks at
data management, it looks at what is a better integrated
traffic management system, what additional ITS sensors or
technologies better enable them to manage that system or to
provide information out to the public.
And then in the case of multimodal, you mentioned, you
know, multimodal integrated applications that make it easier
for a person to move between modes and know what the optimum
movement is for them. Those are all being shared across
multiple cities, not only in Texas, but in a larger nationwide
capability.
Mr. Balderson. OK, thank you very much. My next question is
for Ms. McMillan.
Good morning, Ms. McMillan, thank you for being here today.
Like most planning organizations, the Mid-Ohio Regional
Planning Commission is currently working on their 2020 to 2050
transportation plan to identify deficiencies, strategies, and
projects the group will oversee for decades to come.
In your experience, how does the uncertainty at the Federal
level impact regional planning organizations when developing
these long-term plans?
Ms. McMillan. Well, I think you hit the nail on the head,
that certainty of funding is critical when you are trying to
anticipate very difficult resource choices. And with all
sources of funding, you know, having some sense of what exists
today and how it may be growing into the future as reliable--it
is hard to do a 40-year plan when you are only looking at
Federal funds in 6- or 5-year increments. And that puts you in
a position of having to extrapolate some pretty significant
assumptions with respect to that partnership.
But I would add that, you know, another part of the funding
picture there is knowing at the Federal level what
flexibilities you have to use those dollars, knowing it is
going to be a piece of a leverage package for almost any major
infrastructure that is going to go forward.
So some sense of where the dollars can be used, how they
can be used, the timing that is available to them, the
restrictions that may be attached. If we can build more
flexibility into that, it also helps us in looking to those
uncertain areas of where we might put them, and how they can be
best leveraged with a State or Federal dollar.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, I yield back the remaining time.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Mr. Lowenthal?
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Millar, I have a question for you. I represent the Long
Beach side of the L.A.-Long Beach Port complex. And I am really
pleased that you are here, because in many ways Washington is a
great model for the country, in terms of the importance of
strategic freight investment, and I really want to talk about
freight.
You have had in your State a freight investment program and
a freight mobility strategic investment board to oversee these
investments in freight, especially dealing with the linkages,
the intermodal linkages. And as I understand, because of the
coordination between all the freight stakeholders, your DOT,
your local government, Washington has been able to leverage
State investments in freight infrastructures by more than six
to one. But that doesn't mean your State doesn't have major
challenges.
And so this is what I want to ask, also. You have
identified Washington--a pipeline of highway, rail, grade
crossings in congested corridors that are really going to need
separation to manage the flow of people and goods. And your
Northwest Seaport Alliance continues to set records for cargo
volume being up, I believe, 27 percent, from January of 2018 to
January of 2019. So this is going to stress any freight
infrastructure, as it is.
What I am getting to is I am going to be reintroducing my
freight legislation that provides a dedicated revenue stream
for needed freight improvements, and a yearly dedicated revenue
stream that has both formula funding and also competitive
funding. It makes critical multimodal and intermodal
investments. Just in the formula funding, Washington State
would get over somewhere between $120 and $150 million a year
in just formula funding, and with great anticipation of that
going up as freight volumes will continue to go up.
What kind of investments, the question is, would your State
be able to make if there were additional dedicated revenues for
freight infrastructure? What would you need now to help
accelerate your freight investments that are going on already
in Washington?
Mr. Millar. Thank you for that question. It is a great one.
And I do sit on our Freight Mobility Strategic Investment
Board. I am also--just stepped down as the chair of AASHTO's
Special Committee on Freight. So these are issues that are
important to States other than Washington.
More money would be great. How would we spend it? First-
last mile connections are hugely important, enhancing those.
Changing the make-up of our fleet. One of our principal sources
of greenhouse gas emissions in Washington State is the
transportation industry. It is 40 percent plus. Our drayage.
Converting it to something that was electric or alternative
fuel would be a great enhancement to make.
Grade crossings, we are a part of the Great Northern
Corridor Coalition between the ports in Washington and Oregon
and Chicago and all the States in between, working with
Burlington Northern Railroad and others. Being able to move
freight fast and safely on our system, those grade crossings
are important.
Preservation is hugely important. Interstate 90, Interstate
5, if we have to low-grade bridges so that full trucks can't
operate, we have got a problem. If we have to reduce speeds
because pavement quality doesn't allow us to run that speed, we
have got a problem. Those are things we are looking at.
Truck parking is a huge issue. The safety of our citizens,
the safety of our truckers, they are required to stop and
sleep. They need a place to stop. There aren't in those places.
And you mix that with our ports and warehousing and
distribution facilities kind of working bankers hours, we have
got all these trucks around the region waiting to come into
town in the morning when the gates open with the commuters. So
we need to work on that.
We also need to work on the whole issue of freight
logistics. Our departments typically do interchange-to-
interchange planning for freight. And what we need to do is
door-to-door and think about what is in those trucks.
If I have 1,000 trucks leaving the Port of Seattle or the
Port of Tacoma and all of them are half full, I have the
opportunity to move that same freight with half the trucks, or
move twice the freight. And so working with the private sector
on optimizing freight logistics is something that Washington
State DOT is looking at, and something that DOTs around the
country are looking at.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. And I just--as I end, and just
before I yield back, I would like to thank Ms. McMillan for
really talking about the impact of climate change--and you
talked about that.
And any of our investments--those roads may not be there in
30 years, and we--you were the first panelist to really
identify that, and talk about that. And so at some point I
would like to talk to you about--also, about more investments
in this. But I don't think I have enough time, so I am going to
yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Good question.
Mr. Pence?
Mr. Pence. Thank you, Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis,
and the panel, for being here today. The discussion of a
surface transportation reauthorization bill can be sorted into
two buckets: what the needs of the system are, and how the
Nation will pay for them.
It is no secret that our Nation's infrastructure is in
critical need of repair, expansion, and modernization. However,
in Indiana, the crossroads of America, we have always
recognized the importance of modernizing and investing in our
aging infrastructure, and we have made progress that we are
proud of.
For the most part, we can all agree on the needs of our
transportation system. It is how our Nation will pay for them
that Hoosiers are particularly concerned about. The National
Academies committee estimates that renewing and modernizing the
interstate will require doubling or tripling the amount of
current spending on interstates. In Indiana we have used State
and Federal dollars as seed money to encourage additional
infrastructure investments by localities like IndyGo and
private partners.
I ask whoever wishes to comment on this. If we are to
consider new sources of revenue, it is my fear that Hoosiers
will not receive a fair share of funds, as Ms. McMillan stated.
How can we ensure States like Indiana, who have been good
stewards of Federal and State tax dollars, get their fair
share, their fair slice of the pie?
Mr. Nirenberg. I will go ahead and start. I would say that
formula funding at the Federal level has, I think, justifiably
encouraged infrastructure investment in the most populated
centers. The most congested highway corridors in our Nation are
located in population centers, and that is very much needed.
I think we should continue to incentivize local communities
and local decisionmaking, providing local investments, and that
is what we have done in Texas with investments of local bond
programs, for instance. We have passed sales tax revenue
projects that fund transportation. But we need a balanced
approach that has a Federal partner that makes long-term
investments in our community.
Mr. Millar. Congressman, I would add to that that the key
to us is the flexibility of the program. It is a Federal
program administered by the States. Whether it is a gas tax or
a road user charge or some other means of funding the system,
that funding needs to come to the States so that it can be
allocated again between State needs, local needs, and the like,
as we have done successfully in the past.
So I would encourage the Congress, regardless of the
mechanism of raising the funds, that we maintain the
partnerships we have between the Federal Government, State
government, and local governments moving forward.
Mr. Terry. If I could add, too, thank you, Congressman
Pence. And, as a Hoosier, I appreciate those comments.
I think it does start with planning, too. But what is the
highest and best use of the funds, how we can work
collaboratively across all modes to make sure these are good
plans. And also, land use. As Ms. McMillan had pointed out,
that is very important.
But I think we want to make an effective transportation
network across all modes, and I think the formula grants that
are going into the rule providers is of critical importance,
and particularly in some of the areas that you represent. And
in the urban areas, as well, how do we create the most
effective transportation in multimodal?
Mr. Pence. Thank you.
I yield back, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Ms. Davids?
Ms. Davids. Thank you, Madam Chair. I represent the Kansas
Third Congressional District, which has a lot of--we are the
heartland for a lot of reasons. One of those is that we are a
major hub for transportation of goods, particularly, across the
country.
And Mayor, I thank you for making sure to acknowledge the
National League of Cities is going on. I have had the chance,
not just because of that, but over the course of the couple of
months I have been serving I have had the chance to meet with a
lot of the local county and city officials because I think it
is really, really important to have those voices involved, as
we are here making decisions about funding--and hopefully we
will make some decisions about funding.
You know, I can tell you that the folks from Kansas City,
Kansas and Olathe and Lenexa and Shawnee, I mean, everybody is
coming in, as soon as they sit down, ``Infrastructure.'' First
thing they say. And, you know, it is because we have a lot of
needs.
And I read through everyone's testimony. I appreciated the
fact that, you know, we have to acknowledge that we have got to
be investing in infrastructure, and we have got to do it now.
So putting--taking the view of--actually, Ms. McMillan, I
appreciated the comments you were making earlier about
addressing the disconnect between having to make these long-
term, 10-, 20-, 30-year plans on infrastructure when we, as a
body, are providing, you know, 5-year authorizations and
shorter appropriations than that.
So you brought up flexibility. And then, Mr. Millar, I
would like to come to you after this. Can you talk a little bit
about what does that flexibility look like, and how do we make
sure that the local and State-level governments are giving us
the information we need to make it as flexible as possible?
Ms. McMillan. Thank you so much for the question. You know,
in representing the metropolitan planning organizations around
the country, there are 408 of them. And I think the one thing
we can say is that each one of them is different.
And so a core part of the flexibility is recognizing that
you first start with--at least, you know, in the metropolitan
planning partnership model--you work with your cities and
counties, and you come up with a plan that deals not only with
very localized impacts and needs, but also those that, again,
cross across those boundaries and impact the regional economy
that is going to lift everyone, if it is well invested in. And
so that is really the beginning of that.
But once you have the plan, if the funding sources aren't
flexible enough to invest in the solutions you have identified,
then it makes it really difficult to actually take a plan into
implementation and do improvements on the ground.
So the notion of the flexibility is not only multimodal
going across, you know, the different investments--you may need
transit heavily in a particular area, you may want to invest in
bike and pedestrian in another. Freight, of course, in your,
you know, arena is incredibly important. But I think it is also
necessary to be flexible enough to adapt to changes as they
happen.
So, taking a look, as some of the speakers pointed out, is
the regulatory framework that wraps around those needs--you
want things in place to make things as safe as possible, for
example, all the time. But then there is under areas where
perhaps we need to think about the dollars being flexible
enough and nimble enough to invest in something that wasn't
evidenced 5 years ago. And I think we are seeing those kinds of
technological and other changes happening that quickly.
Ms. Davids. OK, thank you.
And then, Mr. Millar, you mentioned flexibility. And you
also, I--in the testimony, when I was reading through it, one
of the things that popped into my mind, partly because Mr.
Clark's testimony included a listing of metrics that we could
be thinking about, and I think that is a place where we miss
out and could figure out ways to be more flexible--do you have
any kind of ideas or thoughts on metrics that we should be
thinking about that can help us move toward a more flexible
system?
Mr. Millar. This is a great question. And I think the
metrics that have been put in place with MAP-21 and the FAST
Act have just been put in place. The rulemaking has just been
completed. And we need a little time to work with those rules
before we look at changing them.
Something that I look at in Washington State, the Federal
funding that comes to our State makes up approximately 20
percent of our State transportation budget. And it goes
primarily to preservation, because that is not a particularly
flexible source of funding. We allocate the Federal funding
that comes to the State--to our organization and the cities and
counties.
Something that we are looking at--you know, we talk about
trucks, and trucks--you know, freight is really important to
your community. We anticipate we are going to have 30 percent
more truck traffic in Washington State in the next 20 years. We
are not going to have 30 percent more places to put those
trucks.
So we are thinking about it kind of like the energy
industry thinks about it. What is the best source of power to
sell to industry? Well, power that residential customers don't
use. So how do we come up with a transportation equivalent of
CFLs and low-flow shower heads to encourage people to try
something different?
And to have funding coming from the Federal Government that
could be used for stuff other than the good old-fashioned
adding capacity to the system, to be used on transportation
system management and operations, to be used on demand
management, to be flexed, as we do today, to other modes when
that makes more sense--if you think about most of the trips
that people take today, 40 percent of the trips that
Washingtonians take are less than 1 mile in length. Of those
trips that are less than 1 mile in length, 60 percent of them
are taken driving a car. And the reason people drive a car is
it is the only safe way they can make that trip, because we
haven't invested in the pedestrian infrastructure, we haven't
invested in the bicycle infrastructure, we haven't invested in
the transit infrastructure to make that possible.
So I can't tell you how many people jump on the freeway for
one exit, because we haven't made the investment in other ways
to get around that don't involve getting behind the car seat
and turning the key. That kind of flexibility would be very
helpful to us.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
Ms. Davids. Thank you, I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Gallagher?
Mr. Gallagher. Thank you. I think there is a shared sense
on the committee that we need to do more to invest in our
infrastructure. There is disagreements about how we pay for it,
dramatic disagreements at times.
I tend to think one of the fundamental divides that I am
trying to wrap my head around is how we incentivize or get the
balance right between new projects versus maintenance of
existing projects. And CBO suggests that 73 percent of Federal
spending goes towards new projects, and a lot of maintenance
over time is left to State and local governments.
So if our infrastructure is crumbling right now, which we
all seem to agree upon, and the Highway Trust Fund is
insolvent, what can we do to get this balance right? How should
the Federal Government think about incentivizing new projects
versus maintenance of existing projects?
And I just would love the local and State perspective on
that question. I don't even know where to begin, though. So any
takers?
No one wants to be the first student to raise their hand?
Mr. Millar. I will start----
Mr. Gallagher. Sir, I appreciate that.
Mr. Millar [continuing]. Congressman. I think you have to
start with good data. I mean the performance measures that were
put in place, again, in MAP-21 and in the FAST Act are just now
coming into place. We are going to be reporting for the first
time, many of us, on those measures.
So knowing what is actually happening out there, knowing
what the condition of our National Highway System is, the
condition of our bridges, we have some of that. We need to keep
reporting that. Rather than directly connecting performance to
funding, though, for us in Washington State we are making the
decisions that make sense for our State, our economy, our
community, our geographic uniqueness.
I wouldn't want to see Federal money tied strictly to
performance. I think, though, having those performance measures
gives us the data we need to make those smart decisions.
As I indicated, most of our Federal money goes into
preservation. And where we add to the system, we are adding to
the system with State dollars. And that preservation investment
is hugely important to us. If the Federal Government were to
double the gas tax today, we would have the purchasing power we
had with that gas tax in 1993.
So we would love to see significantly more investment, we
would love to see it come to the States through the formula
program. And each of us has unique situations that we would not
want to have a one-size-fits-all, you know, Federal
prescription get in the way of.
Mr. Gallagher. Sure. Ms. McMillan and then Mayor Nirenberg
was--quickly, because I am going to run out of time, but----
Ms. McMillan. Yes, just very quickly, the only thing I
would add there is that we also need to think about not just
how the Federal money gets split, but the capacity of States
and locals to partner to bring additional money to the table to
put together what needs to be delivered.
So, in that case, that capability may also dictate--it
could be very different in California than it might be, say, in
Minnesota. And so thinking about how the Federal dollar could
also respond to helping in combination with other sources----
Mr. Gallagher. Sure.
Ms. McMillan [continuing]. To bundle together to deal with
that could be one way of thinking about a way forward.
Mr. Gallagher. Thank you.
Mayor Nirenberg?
Mr. Nirenberg. Diversify the revenue streams, allow for
local options, and also encourage and build in resiliency as we
move forward. That is the reason why many urban communities
like ours, which is 300 years old, are emphasizing transit.
Mr. Gallagher. I appreciate that. And I think the bottom-up
perspective is critical as we consider big action here at the
Federal level.
I confess, I am still trying to wrap my head around this
and get the balance correct. I understand the outcry at the
local and the State level in the White House's plan, which
should increase the financial burden on States and local
governments, but I also think the intent behind it is one that
we shouldn't reject out of hand, right?
To the extent I understand it--and I don't speak for the
White House--it was to force us at the State and local level to
prioritize projects and think on a 30-year time horizon about
how we maintain projects effectively, or fix the projects that
are crumbling right now.
And so I really appreciate your perspective. Thank you for
being here.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Pappas?
Mr. Pappas. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you
to our panel for the expertise that you provided for us all
today. And I think you all see a broad commitment in this
committee to getting something done this year.
One of my concerns--and we heard this at an earlier hearing
as we talked about the cost of doing nothing--is the incredible
downshifting that we have seen from the Federal Government to
States and municipalities when it comes to transportation
spending over the last many years. We have seen a 19-percent
decrease in the Federal share of transportation investment
since the early 2000s, and I think that is alarming. So I think
we have got to make sure we create some predictability, and
make sure that the Federal Government has some more skin in the
game here.
I am wondering, as I talk to regional planning commissions,
my own State DOT, I hear concern about how they are going to be
able to plan for the future in fiscal year 2021 and beyond. I
am wondering, at the State level for those States that are
represented here, how you are handling this. How are you
handling the uncertainty of what will happen beyond the FAST
Act?
We are all assuming something is going to get done here,
but there is the reality that potentially there could be less
money available from the Federal Government for States, going
forward.
Mr. Anderson. I will answer for Texas. We work with our
State comptroller, we work with all of our local and regional
partners, and we talk about what is a reasonable projection. We
don't want to be overly conservative, because then we find
ourselves at times facing a huge need and not being prepared
enough to deliver on a long-range transportation program.
By the same token, we don't want to overplan and
overpromise, and then find ourselves short. So it is an art,
working with the comptroller and working with other elements of
the State to actually look at what are all the funding sources
that we have available to us currently, what is in the toolbox,
and then which ones do we have most confidence in to the least
confidence, and then establish projections for each one of
those.
Mr. Millar. And from Washington State's perspective, again,
Federal funding is about 20 percent of our program. It is
vitally important to us, but it is--most of the money that we
are spending is generated right there in the State. And the
State of Washington has stepped up. Our gas tax has gone from
26 cents a gallon to 49.4 cents a gallon. And that has made a
significant difference.
For us, as we plan, you know, we look at these 6-year
increments. The problem with the 6-year increments is more in
the programming and the short-term spending of the money. We
can look back 50 years at trend. In Washington State, when you
look at our transit investment, the voters passed and we are
building a $54 billion transit investment in the central Puget
Sound area. During that same 30-year period where we are going
to be spending that $54 billion, if historic trends play out,
we are going to be spending $90 billion at the State level.
What we are looking for from the Federal Government is,
again, the strong Federal partnership that we had in the 1960s
and the 1970s to give us the capacity to catch up with our
economy and take our transportation system from where it is
today to the 21st-century system that we need to really be
globally competitive.
Mr. Pappas. And if there is an increase, on the flip side,
in State highway dollars, are there projects in the short term
that are prepared to move more quickly and advance in the plan?
Mr. Millar. Absolutely, absolutely.
Mr. Pappas. Great. I don't see that is a problem anywhere I
travel.
One further question for Mr. Millar. I know that there will
be a $7.6 billion rescission of unobligated highway contract
authority on July 1, 2020. I have heard about this from my own
State DOT, who tells me this is going to make their budgeting
more difficult, reduce their ability to move money between
accounts, as projects are ready between different pots of
money.
I am wondering if you can walk me through the real-world
effects of these rescissions in your State, and how AASHTO
feels about this.
Mr. Millar. Well, the--not in--it would take the day to get
through the details of that. And I think the folks on AASHTO's
staff would be happy to meet with you and your team to get into
the details of it.
But basically, the concern we have is we are moving
projects forward in a complicated world, and some projects
advance and some don't. And at the end of the fiscal year, we
have to balance the books. So the projects that advance, we are
moving monies around. And it takes obligation authority to be
able to do that.
Rescission ties our hands. And what that can mean for us is
that, even with the actual appropriation being available, we
are not able to flex it and get work out the door. And what
that means is projects don't get built. What that means is
contractors don't get employed. What that means is that the
people we serve don't see the benefits of the investments we
are making.
Mr. Pappas. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Mr. Woodall?
Mr. Woodall. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all for
being here. I represent the Metropolitan Atlanta area. We have
been out to Texas more than once, Mr. Anderson, to check out
the DART system, to see how it is we can build mass transit in
the middle of an already-thriving metropolitan area.
I want to pick up where Mr. Pappas left off on financing.
New Hampshire is a donor State. Texas is the only true donor
State in the transportation sense of the word, sending more
transportation taxes than you get back in transportation
dollars. But every single State represented here today is a
donor State once you factor in the general fund revenues that
are subsidizing the Highway Trust Fund. So it is a different
conversation we have today than we did in the 1990s, because
everybody is getting back more than they think that they are
paying in, with the exception of Texas.
I can't find an account that my local DOT or my local
mayors or my local county commissioners tell me they receive
from the Federal Government that they find easier to spend than
those dollars that they raise locally. But I have got a very
diverse panel here, so can someone tell me about a pot of money
that you get from Washington that you find easier to spend than
the matching funds that you are raising locally?
And I only ask that because, since the Federal commitment
hasn't increased since 1993, you have been doing more and more
and more and more locally, and our estimation in Georgia is we
are doing it better and better and better locally. We just
passed a new transportation tax in Georgia, too, to the tune of
about $1 billion a year. And we are succeeding in ways that the
Federal Government would not have allowed us to succeed.
And I ask that question--if nobody has got a particular
pot, I ask that question to question the merit of raising the
Federal commitment. If the only place I have to receive those
Federal revenue dollars are from your citizens, and you are
already raising taxes on your citizens--I heard it from
Indiana, heard it from Alabama, heard it from Washington, heard
it from Texas--you are already raising additional revenues from
your citizens. What is the merit of me placing Federal burdens
on them, only to give you your own money back again?
I want to keep the Federal commitment that we have got. I
don't want to weaken the Federal commitment at all. I want to
be a partner, and a stable partner. But I want to understand
the merit of taking money from your citizenry to return it to
you.
You said from Washington State's perspective, Mr. Millar,
you are doing the same thing that Florida is doing and Georgia
is now doing: committing those dollars to maintenance, because
these are inflexible dollars you are getting back from
Washington, and you are using them in the most efficient way
that you can. But it might not be your first priority if you
had more flexible dollars.
Who can help me? Why should I take 20 more cents a gallon
from your citizens to give it back to you is my question. I am
happy to do it if you ask me to.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Millar. Well----
Mr. Woodall. I just want to understand why it is
meritorious.
Mr. Millar. And, Congressman, I would ask you to do it.
What we are looking at in our State is addressing our
problems. But we got to also think about the Federal role in
transportation. The Federal role in transportation from the
1950s to, basically, today has been building out the Eisenhower
Interstate System. We are done.
Something that we need to think about as a people is what
is the Federal role in surface transportation, moving forward.
And for me, I look at the containers that come in to the Port
of Seattle and the Port of Tacoma. Most of those are not going
to Washington State. They are going somewhere else. But they
are going somewhere else on an interstate highway that we
operate and maintain and preserve.
We need more capacity there. Moving that freight from our
ports to other States may involve getting some of our citizens
out of the way by incentivizing them to take transit or do
something else. There is a key Federal role in this. And we
need, one, the policy guidance from the Congress, and the
revenue stream to keep that Federal role in play.
Mr. Woodall. Yes, my experience is policy guidance is
easier to provide than revenue stream. So let me commit to the
first, and we are going to start working on the second.
Mr. Nirenberg?
Mr. Nirenberg. What I would say is it requires a
partnership. It requires a partnership from the local level to
the State level, from the State level to the Federal level. And
I don't think that we are suggesting that anyone can do it
alone.
In fact, what we are providing is ways that we can do it
better. It has been since----
Mr. Woodall. Well, because----
Mr. Nirenberg. Yes.
Mr. Woodall [continuing]. You are so close, you are the
closest to the people here----
Mr. Nirenberg. Sure.
Mr. Woodall [continuing]. Let me just drill down on that.
We are going to raise more money for transportation, as a
Nation.
Mr. Nirenberg. Yes.
Mr. Woodall. The Federal commitment to your community is
rock solid. What is the merit of taking an additional dime from
your city and bringing it to Washington before sending it back?
Does that improve the plight?
And if it does, I want to partner with you on that.
Mr. Nirenberg. Well, if the dime that was taken out in 1993
were worth the same amount that was taken out in 2019 I would
say you are right. But the fact is that those revenue streams
have not scaled up as time has gone on. So we have had to fill
in the gaps. And we know that there is an extraordinary gap
with the Highway Trust Fund.
But that is not where it ends, either. We are suggesting
also in local communities that we can't continue to do the same
thing over and over again and get different results. What we
are trying to focus on is now moving people in high-density,
urban communities, which includes multiple modes: transit,
bicycles, pedestrian pathways, and, of course, our roadways.
And we have more and more infrastructure need, but less and
less dollar power at the Federal level and the local level to
deal with that.
We have funding constraints at the local level, as well.
Mr. Woodall. I will be interested to hear what those
restraints are.
Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Mrs. Craig?
Mrs. Craig. Thank you so much, Madam Chairman. I wanted to
start by just saying I represent a district that is probably
one-third suburban, one-third exurban, and one-third rural,
from a voter perspective, constituent perspective. But over
half of my District in Minnesota's Second Congressional is
rural.
So I wanted to start with Mr. Stanley, and just ask you.
You spoke in your testimony to higher highway fatalities on
rural, non-interstate routes because of things like narrow
lanes or limited shoulders, et cetera. How can Federal funding
be structured to better target the needs of rural Americans?
And how can we better consider small communities that often
don't have the necessary resources or grant writers, or things
like that to be as successful as other communities?
Mr. Stanley. Excuse me. I think it is a partnership with
the Federal level, as well, the planning organizations and
things like that, to get those resources out to those
communities that need them.
The problems are readily identifiable, as we point out in
our written testimony, that are causing the problems: narrow
lanes, shoulder drop-offs, things that are easily rectified
with proper finance and then proper design, and things like
that. But too oftentimes those revenue dollars don't stream
down to those communities for the reason that you provided.
So I think that we, as a Nation, we just need to figure out
how to disseminate those dollars down the pipeline, and then
give them the tools they need, whether it is a Federal help
center for smaller communities, or something like that, to
actually help them see where the dollars are and address them
to the specific issues. But that would be helpful.
Mrs. Craig. Thank you very much. And I wanted to address my
next question to Mr. Clark.
So my background is in corporate HR. I spent 4 years as the
head of HR for a major U.S. company. And I was interested in
the section of your testimony that spoke to workplace training
as a percentage of payroll. According to studies you cited,
transit agencies spend significantly less than suggested.
Can you speak to the efficiencies that could be created if
transit had a better trained workforce and more opportunities?
And what do you think the Federal Government should do to help?
Mr. Clark. Thank you very much for that question. And I
should have expanded on that more in my testimony. I think that
there is substantial evidence that better training leads to
better results, that more training leads to better on-time
performance, fewer accidents.
A lot of people have talked about state of good repair and
the maintenance of the system. It is hard to keep all that
stuff up if you don't have the skills of the workforce at the
level you need to have them. And I actually have some data I
could provide on that. There are some great anecdotes, but also
some very solid data, in terms of Albany reducing its need for
spare buses, for example, or SEPTA getting over 700 percent
return on its investment over a 4-year period by increasing
training. I think there are very, very substantial benefits
there.
And as I indicated, I think part of the Federal role here
is that the Federal Government spends a lot on capital, but
doesn't spend nearly as much as it needs to on human capital.
Secretary Millar talked about metrics and people just starting
to pay attention to them. In my testimony I said Dr. Beverly
Scott, who is a former chair of APTA and a leader in the
industry--and one of the mantras she often comes back to is if
you are not measuring it and if you are not holding people
accountable on it, it doesn't happen.
So one of the things that the Federal Government clearly
can do is say we want some good data on what is happening with
your workforce. What are your projected retirements? How many
people do you have in apprenticeship? What is the period of
time it takes to get people trained? And getting--it is going
to take some time for that data to accumulate and be a useful
tool, but good data is a good tool.
I would also urge that something--National Transit
Institute does some very good work. By their own admission,
they focus almost entirely on the white collar side of the
workforce. I think some kind of Federal resource for the
frontline workforce could make a big difference. Thank you.
Mrs. Craig. Thank you so much. I couldn't agree with you
more. I think as we are investing in the infrastructure in this
country, part of that has got to be work skill development.
And the apprenticeship institute idea and a partnership
between the Government and the private sector is something that
is very, very appealing to me, and long overdue. So thank you
so much.
Madam Chairwoman, I yield the remainder of my time.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Babin?
Dr. Babin. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you,
witnesses, as well.
Mr. Terry, let me start off with a little history lesson.
Almost 100 years ago most major cities began implementing
motorized coach buses to provide their citizens with affordable
and reliable public transportation. It worked like this. The
rider pays a single flat fare to board a bus that goes around
all day in a big loop, sometimes with 5 people aboard,
sometimes overflowing with 50 or more. And to reach their final
destination, riders have to either walk great distances or
switch to another bus line, costing them time and productivity
on a daily basis.
Fast forward to today, and this model pretty much remains
the very same. A number of cities and transit agencies are
deploying new services powered by innovative technologies that
hold the promise of improving economic mobility at a much lower
cost to the American taxpayer than a traditional public
transit.
For example, in my home State of Texas, Arlington, Texas
has become the first city in the country to run a transit
service comprised exclusively of on-demand, dynamically routed
shuttles, otherwise known as microtransit. According to the
mayor in Arlington, the city has ``hit on something that is
tremendously successful, that is getting the ridership that we
have all been hoping for at a fraction of the cost of
traditional transportation like buses or light rail.''
Mr. Terry, how can the Federal Government encourage public-
private partnerships to bring innovation to the public transit
sector?
Mr. Terry. I would say in Indianapolis, which is an urban
area, densely populated, we are focusing on where mass transit
is the highest and best use, the highest productivity. Sprawl
can be a problem. We don't have the topography or geography
that limits that.
The microtransits are, I think, proving to be very
successful. The ones I think would work very effectively
integrated into a more robust regional transit plan, especially
for our edge communities.
I think the operating costs that we have now that are
funded mostly on the local and State level, and the investments
we are doing from mostly the Federal capital dollars that we
are receiving are utilizing the technologies from fare
modernization to make a more account-based system for
multimodal use, integrating not just our transit system, but
a--we have an electric car-share program, utilizing Ubers or
Lyft, or bike-shares to maximize the mobility options for
individuals, and not making mass transit a one-size-fits-all.
Dr. Babin. Thank you very much.
I would also like to welcome--we have two fellow Texans
here, I see, Mr. Anderson and Mayor Nirenberg. Thank you for
being here. Welcome to DC.
But Mr. Anderson, you work for TxDOT. Thank you for being
here. As you may know, my district, 36, I represent 9 counties,
from Houston over to Louisiana. We suffered greatly from the
devastation of Hurricane Harvey just a couple of years ago. All
nine of my counties were Federal disaster zones.
Are there ways that new and innovative transportation
technologies can help during disasters like Hurricane Harvey?
Mr. Anderson. Texas Innovation Alliance members, as well as
TxDOT, have been working on a number of those, not only post-
Harvey, but prior to that.
And as an example, during the Hurricane Harvey event--we
have a DriveTexas.org website that maintains our system that--
you know, the part that TxDOT is responsible for, and the
conditions on that system, be it construction or water on the
road. And that map became the de facto map, the operational
map, for the Federal agencies and for all the State agencies to
bring logistics into the affected areas, as well as to evacuate
across the entirety of that swath, which was roughly 300 miles
wide and 150 miles deep.
Dr. Babin. Right.
Mr. Anderson. And that same tool, or the information that
feeds that tool, we are looking to expand over the coming
years, based upon lessons learned, to incorporate the State and
city roads, and then bring that data and share it more broadly
to other solutions, such as----
Dr. Babin. OK. And then, to follow that up, what can
Congress do to assist the State departments of transportation
in preparing for extreme weather like we suffered during
Hurricane Harvey?
Mr. Anderson. They can work with us to examine what are the
challenges that we most likely expect, especially at a regional
and local level. What are the extreme weather events that are
the ones that we are most concerned about, and then what are
our plans to deal with those? And then, how can we work with
them to develop a national strategy and address those within
our formula funding?
Dr. Babin. I am sure everybody out there on the panel could
answer that in some form or fashion, but I am running out of
time. So I need to yield back. Thank you very much.
Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Congressman----
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Ms. Titus?
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Madam Chairman. As we look at surface
transportation as an opportunity to see what we focused on in
the past and what we need to focus on in the future, and one of
the things that seems striking to me is that we have not paid
much attention to the movement of people. And by people I mean
tourists.
We considered road miles, we have looked at population, we
look at freight movement, all when we are considering resources
or revenue, but not actually the movement of people. Now, this
is important to me. I represent the heart of the Las Vegas
Valley. We welcome over 42 million tourists every year. Now,
some of them drive from Utah, Arizona, southern California.
Some of them fly into McCarran, which is the seventh-busiest
airport. Hopefully, some will be coming by speed train some
time in the future.
So we have to deal with getting them there, and then moving
them around, once they get there. Our MPO and the Las Vegas
Convention Authority RTC all work together to try to plan how
to accommodate them. So it is part of our planning process, but
we don't have the resources to take into account all these
visitors.
So I would ask Mayor Nirenberg and Ms. McMillan to address
this. I know, Mayor, I have had the pleasure of welcoming the
Visit San Antonio folks. They have come to my office. I cochair
the Congressional Travel and Tourism Caucus. So they describe
some of the same problems--I believe I saw you had 37 million
visitors a year. And then San Francisco welcomes about 26
million visitors a year, and that doesn't count Napa Valley. So
again, you have some of the same kind of problems.
So I would ask you two to talk a little bit about how you
meet the needs of moving visitors around, and if you would
support including visitors as a metric for determining funding.
That is the first question.
And then, question, what do you think about the possibility
of having a national travel mobility program, kind of like we
have the freight mobility program, that takes into account some
alternative projects that enhance travel and moving tourists
around, and look at connectivity among major tourist
destinations?
Mr. Nirenberg. Well, thank you very much for making that
note. Visitors are--and the visitor industry, certainly, is a
bedrock of San Antonio's economy, and will remain that way, and
has impacts on our transportation system. I think that is an
extension of how we are trying to build a multimodal
transportation system for the future that actually--our vision
for success is how we move people around and give consumers
choice in how they move around.
We are integrating last-mile transit, as the gentleman said
earlier, from scooters to bike-share to other elements, and
being able to build walkable communities and plan our land use
around that. But we also have to give people options on how
they can move from the main halls, whether it is via public
transportation, transit lines, a rental car, Uber and Lyft
rideshare types of modes. But we are trying to integrate
everything. Our philosophy on transportation for the future,
whether it is a visitor or resident, is all of the above.
Ms. Titus. Well, you didn't answer my question, though.
Would you support including visitors as part of a metric for
funding?
Mr. Nirenberg. Absolutely would. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Titus. And you think it is a good idea to have a
national travel plan, as well as a freight plan?
Mr. Nirenberg. Obviously, we would have to learn more about
that, but it sounds good to me.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
Ms. McMillan. You know, I agree with a lot of what was
observed and said here. I think I would note that, actually,
under the FAST Act, one of the things that changed under the
planning rules was that we need to look at tourism----
Ms. Titus. Yes.
Ms. McMillan [continuing]. Part of the----
Ms. Titus. That was part of my bill. I remember it very
well.
[Laughter.]
Ms. McMillan. Right, OK. Well, I am coming back to it, so I
apologize, and give you----
Ms. Titus. Glad you noticed.
Ms. McMillan [continuing]. Kudos for adding that in. But I
think one of the things that is--you know, that whole idea of
choice is really important, particularly for tourists. Because,
unlike the type of planning we would do when we can anticipate
who has jobs, and where the jobs are located, at least to some
degree have a predictability about where they want to go, I
think with our tourist community that is really different.
So things that we are beginning to tackle now, and have to
think about how funding dollars can best accommodate it are the
very information-driving improvements that we are thinking
about. We have all these choices, but how do we get the
information out to people to use it, in terms of the apps and
the new technologies related to that?
What--I am beginning to see, certainly when I was with FTA,
is these new needs of how we use what we have differently, and
particularly, again, the choices and availability and
nimbleness to move or adjust them to peaks that might, you
know, accommodate seasonal or tourist travel is something that
is a very different funding source than building a lot of
infrastructure. And sometimes our Federal, as well as State,
you know, dollars have been designed on eligibilities that are
linked to that more traditional infrastructure structure. And
we have to rethink that, in terms of overlays on infrastructure
that are much more nimble and fast-moving.
So this is something I think, overall, we need to look to
in our investment programs.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you. Mr. Spano?
Mr. Spano. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thank you
for being here. We appreciate your presence and your expertise.
You have been very helpful for us. I have a couple questions
for Mr. Anderson, specifically.
You all have really served as a model, I think, for the
rest of the country. And we are grateful for that, number one.
There are a couple programs you guys--and projects you guys
have undertaken, and I would like you to just explain and tell
me what benefits you have derived from those programs.
The first is the Texas connected freight corridors project,
and then the second would be the truck platooning
demonstration. If you could, just detail those projects, and
then maybe tell us how you think the rest of the country could
benefit by implementing similar programs.
Mr. Anderson. The connected vehicle freight program is
actually an ATCMTD grant that we received about a year ago. And
it is focused on what we call a Texas triangle, running from
Houston up to Dallas and then back down to Austin, San Antonio,
and on to Laredo, and then connecting over between San Antonio
and Houston. And that is a preponderance of a lot of the
freight movement in our State coming from both our land and
gulf ports.
And so the focus there is to enhance the movement of
freight along those corridors, and then to expand those lessons
learned to a lot of our east-west corridors, such as I-10 and
I-20. And in doing that, we are going to look at different
connected vehicle systems and the information it provides to
freight that could help freight be more safe and to move more
effectively and efficiently across the system. And then, as we
find which ones are most successful, we are going to scale that
across the State. And we begin to implement it, we are working
with Federal highways on the project, and we believe we are
going to have a lot of success with doing that.
Related to that, then, we did do research on truck
platooning. We maintained that for several years, looking at
the capability of full 18-wheelers and their ability to platoon
and, in some cases, to be automated and share operations
between the two. And looking at the safety of that, and looking
at the impacts as a passenger vehicle interacts with that. And
all of those have been successful and have begun to feed the
department--and not only our department, but agencies such as
the DMV and the DPS, to inform them about how those might
operate on the system.
And recently, last session, the House passed a bill that
allowed a certain version of truck platooning in the State. So
the capability exists now, and a number of companies are
looking to start doing that.
Mr. Spano. And then I would also ask you if you could just
give us your opinions on how other States might be able to
replicate what the Texas Innovation Alliance is doing.
Mr. Anderson. Well, I mentioned earlier the larger
organization. It is called the Smart Cities Lab. And we teamed
with a number of the other cities that applied for the smart
cities grant back--almost 4 years ago now. And we share that
information amongst each other as each city or region develops
these smart technologies.
And as I mentioned earlier, both the Texas Innovation
Alliance, but with the Smart Cities Lab--and I think any other
State could do this organically--I mean it was a grassroots
effort. This is not something that was directed by the State.
This followed the smart cities competition.
And a number of the mayors said, you know, they had
supported Austin's proposal, even though they weren't the
winner. And following that, they said, ``You know, we had
something really working well, in terms of teaming, and we want
to continue that.'' So with their lead and with their staffs
and combined with TxDOT and some of our research institutions,
we agreed to just, you know, federate, essentially, and work on
it together in a combined effort.
And we have spread that to other States and talked to them.
I believe Colorado actually announced last week that they have
something similar to that. I think it is focused more in the
Denver area. But I think it is replicable and it can be done
not with a lot of top-driven demands, but more from a group
effort.
Mr. Spano. Thank you, Mr. Anderson.
Madam Chair, I yield the remainder of my time.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Spano.
Mr. Espaillat?
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, and thanks to the witnesses for
being here. We have the opportunity today to have our first
hearing on a major part of our infrastructure, just as the
Trump administration released a budget that will divest the
Federal Government from infrastructure.
And, in fact, the administration had the gall to say that a
major project of regional and national significance, and
perhaps of even national security importance, such as the
Gateway Project and the replacement of the Hudson River
Tunnels, is a State issue. And, therefore, that the Federal
Government should not be involved.
Despite a chilling recent report by the Regional Plan
Association showing that if the tunnels had to be shut down it
would cost the Federal Government $1.5 billion in tax revenue,
and it would rob the national economy of $16 billion.
Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter the RPA
report titled, ``A Preventable Crisis'' into the record.
Ms. Norton. So ordered.
[The information follows:]
a preventable crisis: the costs of a hudson river rail tunnel shutdown
[The report is retained in committee files and is available at:
http://library.rpa.org/pdf/RPA-HRT_Impact_Study_20190225.pdf]
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, this is just
one area where the administration is failing to meet our
infrastructure needs, but there are many more.
For example, the Trump budget, again, calls for eliminating
capital improvement grants. This program includes the New
Starts and Small Starts, provides critical Federal funding to
help get major local projects underway.
In New York City, funding through the New Starts program is
absolutely vital for extending the Second Avenue subway into my
district in East Harlem. The project would tie a new line of
the subway system into the Metro-North Commuter Rail,
alleviating the long, overcrowded Lexington Avenue line, as
well. It would also better connect the East Side to a direct
bus to LaGuardia Airport. So the project has regional and
multimodal significance, and it would eliminate a serious
transit desert that has persisted in the Nation's largest city
for decades.
My question to the panel is how critical have the capital
improvement grants such as New Starts and Small Starts been in
making sure projects get off the ground, and in helping local
governments cope with growing population?
[No response.]
Mr. Espaillat. Anybody from the panel? Yes?
Mr. Terry. So--Mike Terry--yes, we have been awarded
recently a CIG grant, and it is under the Small Starts, for our
first electrification of a bus rapid transit corridor, it is 13
miles. And it is the beginning of the spine for our whole
transit system. We don't have subways, but this is as close as
we are getting right now. And it is vital for the density, to
support the density. It is already proven corridors.
So, from the Federal Government's side, I think these are
competitive grants going through a very rigorous and lengthy
process. But it is vital to our success of our build-out of our
transit system in Indianapolis.
Mr. Espaillat. Additionally, these efforts are not only
good for transportation and infrastructure, but they are also
an important window of opportunity for economic development in
our cities and across our country. And I have a question for
Mr. Clark.
I know that you have mentioned programs, training programs
that you have seen work for--apprenticeship programs and also
minority- and women-owned business opportunities. What model is
there out there that we can rely on to ensure that folks would
be ready at the starting line?
I mean often what happens is these projects take off, and
the local population is not ready to compete for these jobs. So
what training programs will you advocate for that will help
people be ready at the starting line?
Mr. Clark. I think you start early, and the--working on
career technical education and good contextual learning skills
as early as middle school, and career arenas, and all that kind
of stuff helps.
I think there are some really good models. Los Angeles did
some really dramatic work in increasing its transit capacity.
And they did that some time ago. Using tools like the
multicraft core curriculum that the building trades have
developed, and working with organizations like the Los Angeles
Alliance for a New Economy, there was really dramatic impact in
terms of reaching impacted communities. There were tough
targets to make sure that people from historically
disadvantaged groups got represented. And it got down to zip
code levels, in terms of trying to get people into those jobs.
And there was great success.
I think Los Angeles had some unique advantages in doing
that, but I think there were a lot of elements of that that can
be implemented nationally. And I think the building trades,
nationally, I think, deserve a lot of credit for the multicraft
core curriculum, which has been an extremely successful
apprenticeship program. And I don't have the numbers at my
fingertips, but a very large majority of the people graduating
from those MC3 programs are women and people of color.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Espaillat.
Mr. Garcia?
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair Norton and Ranking
Member Davis, for organizing this hearing to begin the work of
addressing our urgent surface transportation needs. And I want
to thank all of the panelists who have presented this morning.
As the testimony thus far has made clear, we need to
establish a more stable, long-term, and sustainable revenue
source to both meet the needs of our growing economy, adapt to
the adoption of more energy-efficient vehicles, and close the
growing funding gap to bring our current assets to a state of
good repair.
Madam Chair, as we endeavor to draft a FAST Act
reauthorization, I look forward to working with you, Chairman
DeFazio, and all the other colleagues to seek more equity for
historically underserved communities and populations like the
ones that I represent. To add to the testimony today I submit
just some of those needs specific to the Chicago region.
According to the Regional Transportation Authority, which
oversees the Chicago land transit systems, we need an
additional $32 billion just to bring our assets to a state of
good repair. The Illinois Department of Transportation
estimates that we will need another $30 billion, fully, to
maintain our road and highway network.
Today I would like to focus on two specific issues: one,
the need for better transit-oriented development that breaks
down the silos in which planning for transit and housing
projects currently occur; and two, the need to address our
transit workforce safety and training needs, and especially for
front-line workers like the bus drivers for Pace and the
Chicago Transit Authority in Chicago.
Director McMillan, Director Anderson, and Secretary Millar
or others, a neighborhood in my district, Logan Square, has
lost over 23,000 long-term Hispanic and African-American
residents, due to the rising home costs, increasing problems in
transit access, and increasing congestion. Some of this is
rooted in poor planning that ultimately results in
gentrification, or displacement.
The National Association of Counties--and mind you, I was a
former county commissioner--produced a 2018 report entitled,
``Planning Ahead,'' and I would like to request unanimous
consent to enter that report into the record.
Madam Chair?
Ms. Norton. So ordered.
[The information follows:]
planning ahead: county planning, land use and zoning strategies for
affordable housing
[The report is retained in committee files and is available at:
https://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/documents/Planning%20Ahead%20-
%20County%20
Planning%2C%20Land%20Use%20and%20Zoning%20Strategies%20for%20
Affordable%20Housing.pdf.]
Mr. Garcia. Thank you. The report describes many of the
pressures that counties and local authorities face to attract
higher tax bases to increase revenues. The result is higher
home costs, rents, and gentrification. This unintended and
sometimes intended consequence can be avoided by better land
use planning.
If affordable housing is an after-thought in transit-
oriented development, cost per square foot increases and
affordable housing construction can become cost-prohibitive. In
title 23 of U.S. Code 134, and title 49 of the U.S. Code
section 5303 MPOs are instructed to consult with various local
agencies for responsible land use. Is there something that we
can adjust to more explicitly require the consideration of low-
income for affordable housing as part of the planning process?
And a brief answer would be very welcome.
[Laughter.]
Ms. McMillan. Well, I will be--maybe I can start
representing the MPOs and the planning processes you just
cited. And I think there--very briefly, a couple of things.
One, we need to get much better in data, particularly in
our underserved communities, understanding what is happening on
the ground in those communities, in terms of socio-demographics
and availability of--you know, housing vulnerability and those
type of things is really important.
I think we also need to work very closely on these
intersecting issues. Transportation and housing, at least
certainly in the bay area--and I would say across California--
you can't solve one without the other at this point in our
metro areas. And we are working very aggressively to do the
type of coordinated planning and then coordinated investments--
and this is where we could explore more of how Federal
programs, for example, at HUD and Federal flexible
transportation programs under USDOT can recognize joint
criteria or performance metrics to allow those investments to
work better together. That might be one area to explore.
Mr. Garcia. Well, thank you.
I am about to run out of time, so I will submit some
additional questions for followup. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Carbajal?
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to all
the witnesses today.
Ms. McMillan, thank you for your testimony. As many of us
are aware, the administration released their so-called
infrastructure proposal last year. It would have required
States and local governments to pay a larger share of the costs
of infrastructure--80 percent, to be exact. However, States and
local governments are already financing infrastructure projects
at higher levels than the Federal Government. And, let's face
it, if the locals had 80 percent of the funds, they would
already be doing a lot more.
As a matter of fact, when I served in local government in
Santa Barbara County, county residents voted in support for
renewing a self-help tax in order to finance larger regional
infrastructure projects.
So I have a couple questions: one, how can the Federal
Government be a better partner for local governments to bring
our infrastructure to a state of good repair; and two, what are
the pros and cons for local governments to have access to
different financing tools, such as the infrastructure bank or
an infrastructure corporation?
Ms. McMillan. Well, I would like to comment first--observe,
Congressman, your observation that is really important. While
State and local governments--I think particularly in our home
State of California--have stepped up with a greater share of
investment, it was never to replace the Federal dollar, it was
to augment the Federal dollar in a continuing partnership. At
no point have we ever, in stepping forward, not recognized that
our Federal investment needs to remain and needs to remain
robust.
And so I think, you know, your observations there of
partnership are so critical. And I think that theme needs to
carry forward in whatever discussions we have associated with
reauthorization.
With respect to financing, I think we generally--given the
complexity of the problems we have, maybe one overarching view
is that the more tools we have, the more we are going to be
able to apply them to whatever problems may arise--again,
avoiding that one-fits-all scenario. Financing is incredibly
important to deliver our projects faster and, you know, allow
for improvements to get to the public more quickly.
But financing is not funding. There always needs to be a
revenue stream that is underlying whatever financing we do. And
so I think that is a key reminder, as we talk about the value
of those tools we would like to see in place.
Mr. Carbajal. So a public infrastructure bank would be a
good tool to have, nonetheless?
Ms. McMillan. I think any amount of tools available to us
is something we should explore. More tools are better than
fewer.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you so much.
Mayor Nirenberg, thank you for your service in local
government, and thank you for being here on behalf of the
National League of Cities. We all know that congestion is a
huge issue for commuters, an issue I also experienced in my
district. It takes a toll also on our economy.
Our committee's website, under Chairman DeFazio's
leadership, estimates that congestion has cost our economy over
$342 billion since 2017. What are some of the ways that we can
leverage different modes of transportation, such as regional
rail, to minimize congestion?
Mr. Nirenberg. Well, thank you very much for that question.
I think you are absolutely right. We need to provide people
options. Not everyone would choose to get behind a single-
occupancy vehicle if they had other choices, which is why, in
San Antonio, we are working on a comprehensive, multimodal
strategy that allows people options from the first mile to the
last mile, and everything in between.
Many people will choose to continue to drive their own
vehicle, but we need to make sure that we have a fully funded
public transportation system for people who don't have the
choice have now an option to get to and from work, get to and
from school.
And then, from a regional standpoint, providing, you know,
ways to move around what is now the fastest growing corridor in
the country, and probably the spark of Texas economy right now,
which is the I-35 corridor. And largely, the Texas Triangle,
which will be home to about 40 million people by 2050.
So the bottom line for us is we need to provide options, we
need them to be multimodal, and that requires a broad
partnership with the Federal Government, the State government,
and the local government to provide diverse revenue streams
and, really, as many tools as possible to fund them.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mayor.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Mrs. Miller?
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton, and thank you
all for being here today.
Improving our Nation's roads and bridges is imperative to
increasing safety, as well as connecting our Nation. My own
district faces issues connecting our rural communities with
larger, more populous areas. Good infrastructure helps us
preserve the all-important rural way of life, while also
ensuring my constituents in small towns can have easy access to
goods and services in our larger cities. I believe, if we
invest in our Nation's roads now, we will see long-term
economic benefits, nationwide.
The King Coal Highway and the Tolsia Highway in my district
have been under construction since 1999, and are nowhere close
to completion. Finishing this highway would increase safety and
cut travel times in half in the mountainous southern West
Virginia, and bring much-needed economic development to this
region. For 20 years there has been talk of completing this
project, but no action.
I also have a bridge to nowhere in my district, where
construction has been stalled since 2007. It is totally
unacceptable that the bridge has been completed for over a
decade, but is still wholly unusable, since there are no paved
roads connecting it to my State's highway system. When
completed, this bridge will be a shining example of
infrastructure connecting communities. But until then it
represents the millions of dollars wasted on incomplete
projects across the country.
Further, the Coalfields Expressway abruptly changes from a
paved, four-laned highway to a dirt road. This is another
example of a highway that has been in the works for far too
long. Route 2 and Route 10 also need enhancement and
modernization. These projects, when taken on, will breathe
commerce, jobs, and economic growth into our southern counties,
connecting West Virginia to Virginia and beyond.
West Virginia is in dire need of infrastructure investment.
I was sent here to Congress to improve the lives of my
constituents in West Virginia who are forced to commute for
hours on dangerous and damaged rural mountain roads, just to
get to work in the nearest town. Building and maintaining our
major road system is essential for exporting West Virginia's
abundant resources, and encouraging economic prosperity. I do
hope that this subcommittee is able to find solutions for the
Highway Trust Fund in order to promote West Virginia's economic
development.
Mr. Millar, the Highway Trust Fund allocates billions of
dollars every year. What kind of oversight does the Federal
Government have over how money from the Highway Trust Fund is
used to make sure it is not wasted?
Mr. Millar. Congresswoman, that is a great question. In the
State of Washington I work closely with the Division
Administrator for the Washington division of the Federal
Highway Administration, which provides oversight of everything
we do with Federal highway dollars. I also work with the Region
Administrator of the FTA region, region 10, on the transit
dollars that get spent.
The oversight is in place. I think the nature of our
transportation investment, where you have a Federal program
that is administered by the States, gives each of the States
the individual authority to make decisions about how the
Federal money that comes to that State gets spent.
So in Washington State we have a great relationship with
our Federal partners. The money comes to the State, the money
gets spent, the projects get built, our people move.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. With increased traffic volume
overall, as well as increased ownership of high mileage and
electric vehicles, what are we doing to properly fund the
Highway Trust Fund? What more could we be doing? And please be
as comprehensive as possible.
Mr. Millar. Back at me, great.
Mrs. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Millar. Yes, Congresswoman. The way we are funding the
Highway Trust Fund now is with fuel tax and our grandchildren's
money. We are borrowing. The fuel tax, because of the more
efficient vehicles we have because of alternative fuels coming
on to the market, it is a flat funding source. And it does not
have a sustainable future.
The alternatives to the motor fuel tax are all unpopular.
But how many popular taxes do you know of?
Whether it is a road user charge or congestion pricing or
some other way of funding the transportation system, I think
what all of us agree on is that it should be user-based, it
should be a fee for service. It should be--you know, that is
the notion behind the fuel tax, it is the notion behind what we
should do, going forward.
We are testing these ideas around the country. I am the
vice chair of the Western Road Usage Charge Alliance. States
all over the American West are looking at how they would
administer a road user charge, the mechanics of it. Taking this
on nationally is something we are going to have to do at some
point. We are looking forward to continuing the conversation.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Brown?
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is clear to me that
the--and so many--that the Federal Government must invest in a
resilient, modern infrastructure that communities around our
country desperately need, and Congress needs to act.
But additional investments, I believe, will be meaningless
without a capable workforce prepared for tomorrow's shovel-
ready projects. Congress has acknowledged our workforce
challenges and the need for more apprenticeships, internships,
and vocational training for our manufacturing and construction
sectors.
The private sector has struggle to provide the job training
necessary, and we cannot depend solely on our high schools,
community colleges, and universities to train and sustain a
modern, competitive workforce. That is why we must bring both
industry, labor, and education to the table and ensure that we
are working hand in glove to meet the workforce demands of
tomorrow.
Mr. Clark, a question for you. In your testimony you talk
about the value of registered apprenticeship. I have a bill
called the Hard Hat Act that would require 20 percent of
workers on a federally funded construction project to complete
a registered apprenticeship program. You spoke about the idea
of utilizing this model for maintenance and other skilled labor
positions in the industry.
Can you elaborate on your comments as to why it makes sense
to have these high-standard, joint labor-management
apprenticeship programs for all aspects within the transit
industry? And what are some pre-apprenticeship options that can
be used to help address workforce pipeline challenges?
Mr. Clark. Thank you. You have answered much of your own
question, but I welcome the opportunity.
Mr. Brown. As long as it looks good on camera.
Mr. Clark. It does.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Clark. The--apprenticeship really does involve--the
technical learning needs to be there. You don't go out and deal
with high-voltage electricity without learning something in the
classroom about principles of electricity. But to work well in
those blue collar settings--and, indeed, in most settings--
people learn most of what they do by doing it, not by passively
absorbing information.
An apprenticeship takes that principle of learning and
implements it fully. And that works very well. I think your
bill is a great idea. We also have some experience starting
these apprenticeship programs in some places in transit, and
the results are phenomenal. People pick up the skills.
And, as I indicated in my testimony, if you get to the
highest end of this--and I think Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority in Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia, has
reached some of this at times--we get engineers and front-line
workers taking on a problem, seeing something, and saying, hey,
we are paying a lot of money to get this particular element
from a vendor. We can do that in-house if we re-jigger the
systems a little bit.
There are, really, a lot of benefits here, including the
workforce becoming more engaged, people enjoying their jobs
more, but also just delivering better, more efficient service.
Mr. Brown. Thank you.
Secretary Millar, in your testimony you talk about the need
for Congress to support initiatives that create new
opportunities for high school and college students, including
internships in STEAM fields to ensure an adequate workforce
pipeline. I have a bill that looks at dual enrollment programs
with a focus on private-sector buy-in.
How can we better prepare the high school junior and senior
that is about to graduate for a family-supporting career in the
transportation industry? And what are ways that State
departments of transportation are engaged in the next
generation of workers? And what can we learn from them?
Mr. Millar. That is a great, great question, Congressman.
We are doing a lot in Washington State. We could do more,
if we were resourced to do more. We are reaching out in high
schools and middle schools across the State to engage those
children in thinking of the construction trades as a way
forward. As we talked about earlier today, a lot of folks
figure that 4-year degree is the way to go.
I have a friend in the development industry that said,
``What I tell kids is go to community college, get some skills,
go out, do an apprenticeship, learn a trade. By the time your
friends graduate from college, you will be ready to hire them
as employees.''
[Laughter.]
Mr. Millar. So we require today 15 percent of our labor
hours worked on our contracts be done by apprentices. We are at
18.6 percent, as an agency. And 44 percent of those apprentice
hours are worked by women and people of color.
Providing a pipeline to that apprenticeship program through
pre-apprenticeship support and on-the-job training is the place
where we need help. We have a State-funded program--it started
at $750,000, it is up to $3 million--that we are spending on
things like daycare and lunch money and equipment, tools, so
that young men and women can get into these apprenticeship
programs.
We are not doing that work, we are getting that money out
to labor, to faith-based groups, to community groups to bring
people from the community in.
Another thing I am doing--to wrap this up--is working with
the secretary of corrections in Washington State in the prison
population to bring that same set of pre-apprenticeship skills
together, so that people can leave the prison population--when
they come back into their communities, they come back into the
community with a full-time job with the Washington State DOT.
Mr. Brown. Thank you to the panel. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
Mr. Malinowski.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Anderson, you mentioned in your testimony the
experience of Texas with autonomous vehicles, the experiment
that is just beginning. And I wanted to ask you to leap forward
a bit and imagine the brave new world.
Imagine a day, you know, a few years from now, when you and
I own a vehicle that we can summon at any time, we can jump
into it not having to drive it. We can read a book, watch a
movie, eat a meal, take a nap. It can take us wherever we want
to go. We don't have to worry about parking it, because we can
let it circle the block or go somewhere else while we are doing
our thing, and we can summon it back any time.
In that world, what incentive do you and I have to take
public transportation or get on a bike? And if I am right about
the answer to that question, what is the impact on congestion?
What is the impact on pollution, especially if some of these
vehicles are not zero-emissions vehicles? What is the impact on
some of the bigger challenges that we are already facing in our
transportation system?
Mr. Anderson. So we have talked a lot about this with both
startup-level autonomous vehicle companies, as well as the OEMs
and the transit community, as well, because they are looking at
AV buses and other solutions similar to that--microtransit was
mentioned earlier.
I don't think it is a one-size-fits-all solution. There has
been discussion of having services, almost like you have cable
subscriptions. You subscribe to a particular manufacturer's
vehicle, or its system and its service that it provides, and
you don't own that car whatsoever. It shows up when you need
it, and delivers you to where you want to go. But where you
want to go may not be, you know, door to door. It may be door
to a multimodal hub that might involve other transit services,
as well.
So the mix and the solutions that are being driven, you
know, back to the Texas Innovation Alliance are locally
identified. The problems that they have--and each region has
disparate--you know, they have similar problems, but they have
regional challenges that are different, and each transportation
system is different. So they are looking at what fits best with
what they project over the next 20, 30 years, what they
currently have, and how they can get to that point. And a mix
of those solutions, typically, is what they are seeing as the
first best option, rather than trying to select what the only
option is going to be in the near future.
Mr. Malinowski. OK. So I am wrong to be worried about that?
Mr. Anderson. I am not saying you are wrong to be worried.
I think that there are a lot of people, including the mayor's
team and others in the State--and I mentioned the Smart Cities
Labs and a number across the Nation in ITS America, and AASHTO,
and the Transportation Research Board have communal discussions
on this on a regular basis, and are looking at what can be done
to address that specific challenge, and what is the
reliability, the safety, the security, the privacy, which are
all concerns that we have, and that we communicate regularly to
the industry that is developing it to make sure that all of
those things are addressed, and deliver the quality of life
that would be imagined in that kind of future.
Mr. Malinowski. And what is--what do you see--and I will
invite anybody to answer this question--is the Federal role in
regulating, overseeing driverless vehicles with respect to the
questions I raised: safety, privacy, other issues that you
mentioned?
Mr. Anderson. Well, the Federal Highway Administration has
had a number of meetings, national-level dialogues, and they
have published autonomous vehicle guidance over the past
several years. And that has served as a catalyst and an enabler
to the States, especially those States that have moved forward
on passing autonomous vehicle and connected vehicle-related
laws. And I think that that has been a positive and natural
relationship between the two.
And to date, the regulation hasn't been necessary. However,
the work that was being done on the previous autonomous vehicle
bill mirrored, in many cases, our State's laws, and Michigan
DOT's State's laws, and several others. There were very common
themes in those, and it seemed like that was going in the right
direction before. That didn't make it through the last session.
Mr. Millar. And Congressman, if I could add to it, I am on
the board of the Intelligent Transportation Society of America.
And at AASHTO I cochair with the secretary from Delaware, the
Cooperative Automated Transportation Coalition Executive
Committee, which is a joint effort of AASHTO, ITS America, the
Institute of Transportation Engineers, and FHWA and FTA are at
both of those tables.
When you look at the automated vehicle, the SAE level 4,
level 5 vehicle that is 99.9 percent of the way there, a
colleague of mine from Germany points out that--imagine you are
climbing Mount Everest. If you fly to New Delhi, you are 99
percent of the way there. If you fly from there to Kathmandu,
99.9 percent. Go to the base camp, you still have to climb the
mountain.
Something that we are looking at, in terms of mobility, is
the notion of mobility on demand, and the ability to say I am
here, I want to go there, what are my options? You have trip
planning done for you, you pick the trip you want to take,
knowing the cost, knowing the time, knowing perhaps the
environmental consequences or the health benefits, what have
you. And then that app does the transactions for you and gives
you the permissions to go where you are going.
ITS America is standing up a mobility on demand alliance
next month--in Seattle, because I am cochairing that effort.
That kind of work is going on, and the Federal Government has
been a great partner in that and in developing policy. We are
working together to determine what are the questions that need
to be asked and answered.
We are hearing a lot from our friends in industry that--you
know, start with a light touch, and that is what we are doing.
But the conversations are ongoing. The Federal role is much
appreciated. The seed money, the mobility on demand sandbox and
other things that agencies are doing are helping make our jobs
easier as we enter into this brave new world.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Payne?
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Stanley, in your testimony you discuss the economic
benefits of transportation infrastructure investment. How can
we better ensure that infrastructure projects benefit local
economies?
You know, I would specifically like your opinion on how we
can ensure the inclusion of minorities, women, veterans, and
other small businesses, as primes or subcontractors on these
infrastructure projects, thereby creating a more diverse
workforce.
Mr. Stanley. Thank you, sir. Transportation projects are
often--if you look at the breakdown of our members as
associated general contractors, we are made up of some large
companies, but a lot of them are smaller, family-owned or
individual-owned businesses. A lot of those businesses will go
out and are investing in capital and infrastructure to actually
get those projects done.
There is structure in place in the Federal projects right
now, as you are aware, with the DBE program for disadvantaged
business enterprises, and that has tended to work well in some
areas. There are some improvements that we think that can be
made to make it more accessible to others.
There are some issues with the registration and situation
with the DBE program. The cost, if you are a startup company to
go into the registration process and to get certified, some of
those things tend to be cost-prohibitive to some of those
communities, as well.
The second thing that we think needs to be done is--and we
definitely advocate, there is diversity and inclusion through
all levels of the construction process, not only just in the
prime contract or the subcontractor, but what we see and what
is--my experience personally has been--is that a lot of your
DBEs haven't experienced the mid-level and high-level jobs in
your major corporations. A lot of construction companies are
actually started by people who have worked for larger
businesses for 5, 10 years, learned the planning, the financial
expertise, the scheduling expertise that are needed to make the
process and the job go smoothly.
So when minorities and people that are disadvantaged aren't
in those positions in majority corporations, when they go out
to start new companies, a lot of those skills aren't there. So
I think the DBE supports services--things that the--that are in
the Federal program now need to be taken advantage of more to
help people that start the businesses with the tools to be
successful.
But then I think the diversity inclusion, which--AGC has a
document that our board of directors has voted on and approved
that calls for diversity inclusion throughout the process, not
just meeting our DBE goals, but let's diversify our companies.
Let's get more disadvantaged people or constituents through all
levels of the construction process, from engineers to
architects to business owners to project managers. And I think
that will help the program be more successful over the future.
Mr. Payne. And how do we--you feel the Federal Government
can bolster and support that effort to ensure that the
disadvantaged can meet the criteria needed in order to compete?
Mr. Stanley. Right. So I think the oversight that is being
done now through the DBE program is a good starting point. I
mean, obviously, you need to have certain financial stability,
and things of that nature. So that would be one of my main
ways, I think, that--I would suggest that.
Mr. Payne. OK, thank you.
And Ms. McMillan, given all the new technological advances
in transportation, such as with ride-sharing companies, how do
we balance the new technology with local community needs,
specifically with the potential displacement of local
workforces?
Ms. McMillan. Yes, I think that is an excellent question,
Congressman. And part of certainly what we are doing in the San
Francisco Bay area is aggressively bringing that consideration
of impact on our historically underserved communities at the
forefront of our planning.
One of the things that we have recently engaged in,
importantly, was a very detailed, 10-point plan housing
analysis. Referring back to what I observed before, that the
housing and transportation demands in our communities are
inextricably linked, including the challenge of gentrification
or displacement around a new piece of transportation
infrastructure that suddenly makes a neighborhood much more
viable.
One of the things included in there were tenant protections
and policies to--you know, to specifically speak to that need.
The idea of identifying and preserving naturally affordable
housing and not seeing it flip, in terms of that--of
development that is happening around the areas, ensuring that
affordable housing is incorporated not, you know, as a target,
but a requirement as part of the development that happens in
the areas around our transit stations. All of those elements
need to come into play, I think, importantly.
We are also recognizing a one-size-fits-all doesn't really
work in those circumstances, understanding each community. We
are seeing higher levels of poverty in our suburban areas, as
well as traditionally urbanized pockets of economic distress.
So I think maybe the answer to your question is bringing
this in at the front end of the planning process, not at the
back end, is the best way of identifying the problems and
coming up with the solutions, and bringing the tools to bear to
solve them.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Rouda?
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Hi, I am Harley Rouda, I am from Orange County,
California's 48th District. And I appreciate all of you being
here. And I also apologize that--we serve on multiple
committees, so if I ask questions that have already been asked
and answered, I apologize.
I also want to thank Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member
Graves for having this hearing, because I do believe that
infrastructure is a key component in our ability to fight
climate change, and having this hearing is so important.
As I mentioned, I am from California. California is known
for many things, including its traffic. In fact, 16.9 percent
of California's roads are in poor condition, 6.2 percent of our
bridges are deficient, 53 percent of our dams are at high risk.
So we recognize how important it is to have the interaction of
the Federal Government work with States and local
municipalities in addressing these issues.
I want to read a couple facts with you and then get into
some questions.
It is shown that personal cars are unused 95 percent of the
time. So a wasting asset 95 percent of the time. In densely
populated cities like Los Angeles, 15 percent of urban land is
used for parking, yet estimates by 2035 is that parking spaces
will decline by 5.7 million square meters. If we get to a point
where we actually have 90 percent driverless cars, it would
result in $447 billion in savings and productivity.
So if we assume for a minute that we had level 5 auto
automation, supporting high levels of autonomous vehicles, we
had ride sharing, we had mobility on demand as you mentioned,
Mr. Millar, how is that going to impact--this is an open
question for all of you--infrastructure design?
Because if population is expected to grow by--your
respective cities--by 25 percent in the next 25 years, that
doesn't mean we need 25 percent increase in the highways, and
so on, if we have these. So I am just curious how you guys are
working this into your long-term planning for infrastructure.
Mr. Nirenberg. Well, we are considering--and actually have
been implementing--flexible plans for some of that
infrastructure. You know, it is my dream one day that we built
our last structured parking garage at some point. But as we
build those structures, we are also considering future use in
them, knowing that there is some time off.
But it also really depends. I mean--and there is a great
potential for urban recapture. And we know we have a great need
for housing and things like that in our urban communities. But
how we build the transition phase between where we are today
and a more multimodal and perhaps autonomous future is very
much in the balance. And that is why we are working towards
better land use, coordinated with housing and transportation,
and also including public transportation.
Mr. Millar. Just to add to that, one of the things that we
are hoping to see is more flexibility in the funding that comes
to us to allow us to adapt to these things.
A specific example, we are building bus rapid transit on
the east side of the central Puget Sound area. The suburban
mayors along that route come to the Sound Transit board that I
sit on and beg for more park-and-ride. ``Give us more park-and-
ride, give us more park-and-ride.'' Fifty-thousand-plus a space
to build those. The best park-and-ride is your own garage.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Millar. If we could invest money in working with the
private sector, working with labor and public transit to get
people from their home to the transit center----
Mr. Rouda. Right.
Mr. Millar [continuing]. And leave their car at home, we
would be better off----
Mr. Rouda. You would solve that problem.
Mr. Millar. That land could be used for housing at the
transit center, instead of parking cars.
Mr. Rouda. And I know that is a whole other topic, and you
started to touch on that, as well, the intersection of
affordable housing and transportation.
I also want to ask you, too, there is always a large debate
about how to fund infrastructure needs, and whether it is a
gasoline tax or miles traveled. And, you know, when we talked
about miles traveled and congestion pricing, and with the
growing use of ride-share ride apps and so on, don't we--there
is always this question. Can we even measure miles traveled?
And I believe we can, right now, to a large degree, with
certain aspects of what we are seeing in these developing
technologies and these ride-share techniques. Is that being
discussed at your level on how to use those existing
applications to help monitor miles traveled, and use that as a
tax base?
Mr. Millar. How to measure it is being discussed. A more
interesting discussion is who measures it, and who shares it.
We, as an agency--I have 9,000 sensors around Seattle alone
measuring traffic volumes and traffic speeds. I know that data.
We know that data--I don't have the technical experience--we
know that data, we know how it has been generated, we know the
problems with it. We have private-sector entities that are
creating data from different places. We don't know as much
about the black box that they use to turn that data into
information.
As this all evolves, a place where we could use some
Federal guidance, some Federal support, is what are the
relationships, what data gets shared, how does it get shared,
how are trade secrets protected, how--if the public sector
enables this to happen on its system, what do we get back from
the private sector, in terms of the data streams that they
collect?
It is not just us at the DOT or the city or the county,
there are lots of players in that. So what we measure is
important, who measures it, and how we get access to that
information is critically important.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to go
on a different route.
Mr. Clark, thank you for highlighting the issue on assault
on bus drivers. My legislation with Mr. Katko, H.R. 1139, the
Transit Worker and Pedestrian Protection Act, requiring transit
agencies to work with labor on implementing safety plans to
protect bus driver assault, and also requires the transit
agencies and the USDOT to collect better data on this growing
problem, which is inadequate at times.
And as you point out, anecdotal data from newspaper stories
every day show it is a growing problem. It is discouraging new
bus driver applicants. Can you further discuss how assaults on
bus drivers--and the deterrent to hiring new drivers,
especially when the new bus drivers get the dregs?
Mr. Clark. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes.
I think, obviously, if the data is not collected
nationally, obviously, it is known locally. And people--and
stories spread. And you are right. You are absolutely right.
Driving a bus is, under the best circumstances, a difficult
job. And there used to be--if you are starting at $15 an hour
20 years ago, that was an extraordinarily--that is about what
the wage was 20 years ago, and that was an extraordinarily
competitive wage in that labor market. It is much less so right
now.
And if the likely--if people--it is not likely,
statistically it is not a likelihood. But if the specter of
those attacks looms large, people will stay away.
I applaud your bill because it--there may be barriers to
the right answer, there may be other things with the right
answer, but the Federal Government is not trying to mandate
what the right answer is. The Federal Government is saying
solve it at the level where you can solve it, and the
represented workforce--or unrepresented workforce, as the case
may be--and local management come together to plan around it.
And I think that is a good model for training, that is a good
model for labor relations in transit, that is a good model
for--the safety management system that is being implemented
rests on that involvement of that front-line workforce. And I
think your bill addresses that well.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
And Ms. McMillan, I recall meeting you when you were in
Federal Transit Administration a while ago, and when you worked
at the L.A. Metro. We will miss you in L.A., but
congratulations, ma'am, for your new role. I want to ask you
about the ability of local transportation agencies to hire
local workers.
The Trump administration budget calls for more State and
local investment in transportation, but prohibits local
governments from hiring local preference on infrastructure
projects. Most taxpayers believe that when you are--they are
paying for a public transportation project, they should be
given a preference on jobs associated with that project.
As a local transportation leader, do you believe that you
and other local transportation agencies should be allowed to
set a local hire preference for your citizens? And how can this
Federal law hinder those local hiring?
Ms. McMillan. I want to be careful, Congresswoman, to speak
to my experience, where there was a very clear, you know,
position there. But I think the intent behind it and the spirit
behind it would extend to many other communities.
As we build our infrastructure, it has impacts on the
communities. It brings a lot of benefits, in terms of access to
opportunities, and it also can have--at least certainly while
it is happening--a major impact on the local businesses and a
number of other things.
One of the ways of giving back to the community and having
them be able to own and buy into the entire life package of
that project would be to have those employment opportunities
offered to community members. And I think, in this case, we
want the option to be available. For communities that want to
do that, where they see a powerful benefit in giving back to
their community in a number of different ways with these
investments, that should be on the table. I think it is the
option to have that available for communities that want to use
it is where, I think, the core of certainly the pilot program
that was done, you know, with FTA.
And when I was with Los Angeles, that was something that
was incredibly important to them, and they grabbed it. And so
the option is the importance.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much.
Anybody else?
Ms. Norton. There is going to be a vote between 1 o'clock
and 1:30, so I would like to get everybody in.
Mr. Stanton?
Mr. Stanton. Madam Chair, thank you for hosting this
hearing, having these outstanding representatives from a broad
range of industry on this important topic. And yes, I will try
to keep it tight so we can get to our votes, which are very
important.
Before serving in Congress--I am a freshman Member--I was
mayor of Phoenix, Arizona, one of the fastest growing cities in
America, kind of like San Antonio. And so the dynamic in a lot
of communities, where the urban center wants more money for
transit, and the suburban communities want more money for roads
and highways, that kind of gets turned on its head in a city
like Phoenix, where, as a mayor, you got to be supportive of
all of it, because we are over 500 square miles, but a growing
center city.
So we passed a major infrastructure investment plan that
did have--tripling the amount of money for our light rail
system, increasing support for our bus and bus rapid transit
system, bikeability, walkability, and more money for roads on
the more suburban parts of our community.
And, Mayor, I am sure it is very similar to what is going
on in San Antonio, also one of the fastest growing. So I want
to get your thoughts, you know, as we make important decisions
in this committee, about a transportation infrastructure
investment plan for America. For a city like yours, thinking
beyond roads and bridges, what kind of investments are you
looking for?
Mr. Nirenberg. Yes, well, I certainly appreciate your
perspective, Congressman. And absolutely right. I think there
is urban/rural issues at play here.
But what we found--and there is a great study by the
National League of Cities that shows that when we have a proper
balance, the results create great synergies for everybody,
including, you know, supply chains from the economic
development side to more quality of life for those who seek to
live inside or outside of the city.
We are seeking a balanced approach to multiple modes of
transportation, and sustainable sources of funding that
recognize the local leveraging that is taking place already. We
applaud the work of our Congress on many things, including
fully funding transit projects in years past. We would like to
see a return to that.
We are also working on partnerships with regard to new
technologies and how we regulate those technologies, and
autonomous vehicles comes up, and making sure that we have
respective local authorities when it comes to, you know,
regulating the design and maintenance of traffic infrastructure
and traffic management systems, and so forth.
You have a partner in local governments, because we
represent the same constituents who have the same concerns and
who rely, from an equity standpoint, on an efficient
transportation system.
Mr. Stanton. I appreciate you saying that. You haven't had
as good of a partner as cities deserve in the Federal
Government over the last few decades, where the support for
projects like what you described have been eroding. Both of our
cities have grown so fast, but at a period of time when Federal
support has been going in the opposite direction, which has
forced cities like ours more and more to kind of go it alone.
Phoenix first passed our transit election in the early
2000s. We came to the table with 50 percent support for the
project. When I was mayor just a few years ago we went to the
voters to do that significant infrastructure investment. We
calculated that we would only get a 30-percent match from the
Federal Government, 70 percent for the local government. We are
not going to keep up with infrastructure in America if the
Federal Government doesn't up its game, if you will, and be a
much better partner to local government. So I really appreciate
your perspective.
Mr. Nirenberg. Yes, and I would just add we are working on
our first-ever rapid transit system. You had great city
management there in Phoenix to bring that online. We do, too,
here, in San Antonio. But we are working on our first-ever
rapid transit system in San Antonio.
I can tell you that my community will pass it. We are going
to bring it to the ballot in 2020 if we can show that we have
funding available long-term to make it happen. And that is only
going to be--that can only happen if we have a partner in the
Federal Government.
Mr. Stanton. That is great. And one final question. I don't
know if we have had a chance to talk about public-private
partnerships. For a lot of mayors, sometimes the mirage of
public-private partnerships versus the reality--so maybe, Mr.
Stanley, you may be the best one on the panel to talk a little
bit about--in addition to the funding that cities deserve from
this Federal Government when it comes to major infrastructure
and transportation projects, looking at also opportunities for
public-private partnership. Because, as a practical matter,
that is the only way we are going to get a bipartisan bill. And
I think we need to get a bipartisan bill to make this happen.
Mr. Stanley. Thank you, sir. So I think the issue of
public-private partnerships is much like the other issues that
have been discussed today. It should just be one of the tools
in the toolbox.
I think the outstanding and the ongoing commitment of the
Federal Government to the highway program and transportation
program is still the main key. But still, having the public-
private partnerships is a tool to allow some private investment
where it makes sense.
And so, some of the issues you have with a public-private
partnership are in some of the transportation modes in transit
and things like that, that are not financially sustainable. You
are not going to get public-private partnerships to take on
those projects. So you are--still have to have that Federal
investment. But there are some things--toll roads, toll
bridges--where the public-private partnerships make sense. And
so, allowing that to be a tool in the tool kit is important.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much.
Madam Chair----
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Mr. Stanton [continuing]. I ask for consent to enter into
the record a letter from my friend, the mayor of Tempe,
Arizona, which is now in my district, as well, lamenting the
lack of a strong Federal partner in public transportation, and
we need more of it. So I would like to enter it into the
record.
Ms. Norton. So ordered.
[The information follows:]
Letter from Mark W. Mitchell, Mayor, City of Tempe, AZ, et al.,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Stanton
February 1, 2019.
Hon. Greg Stanton
U.S. House of Representatives, 128 Cannon HOB, Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative Stanton:
As leaders in the City of Tempe, Arizona and the National League of
Cities, we are writing today to ask for your commitment to address one
of our country's most pressing challenges--rebuilding America's
infrastructure. As we emerge from an extended partial government
shutdown and return to a working, stable federal government, we are
joining leaders from the 19,000 cities, towns and villages across the
country calling on our federal leaders to not repeat this crisis and to
work in a bipartisan manner to pass comprehensive legislation that
rebuilds and reimagines America's infrastructure in partnership with
local governments.
Infrastructure investments are the foundation that connects us as a
country, improves the quality of life for our residents, supports jobs
for thousands of workers, strengthens our nation's economic
competitiveness, and keeps our communities safe. Unfortunately, the
federal partnership for infrastructure investments has eroded over the
last two decades, putting America at risk of falling behind on an ever-
increasing list of potential hazards that undermine our economy and
threaten our standard of living. Today, our transportation network is a
knot of congestion and disrepair, our broadband lags behind other
countries and families drink from bottled water in the absence of safe
tap water. Moving a bipartisan infrastructure package would demonstrate
to the country that Congress is focused on delivering results that will
improve the daily lives of our constituents.
Cities like ours will continue doing our share, but it is time for
Congress to act and rebuild with us. Across the country, much of our
infrastructure is at a breaking point. We need a strong federal-local
partnership to upgrade the 100-year-old leaking pipes, to replace the
50-year-old crumbling bridges and to install modern and resilient
solutions for the next 100 years. Congress must prioritize a long-term
infrastructure plan early in 2019 that will work holistically to
improve our nation's water, broadband, and transportation systems and
create well-paying jobs for our nation's workforce that will build and
maintain these important assets.
For our economy and for our future, addressing America's
infrastructure challenges is a shared priority in 2019. We look forward
to meeting with you soon to discuss how we can work together.
Sincerely,
Mark W. Mitchell, Mayor
Robin Arredondo-Savage, Councilmember
Joel Navarro, Councilmember
Ms. Norton. Ms. Finkenauer?
Ms. Finkenauer. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all
for being here today. This is, obviously, an incredibly
important topic for States all over the country. And one of the
things I want to touch on came up in my time as a State
representative in Iowa.
See, I sat on the transportation committee for 3 years in
Iowa in my 4 years in the statehouse. And, you know, I remember
looking back on 2016 and the idea that we heard from the
administration, our current administration now, and Democrats,
and Republicans all across the country talking about caring
about the same things, like Made in America and making sure our
workers are paid fair wages and we have opportunities for
working-class families. We heard that again across all sides of
the aisle.
However, you can imagine my surprise, then, just a few
months later, when I went back to the statehouse in early 2017
and I was sitting on the transportation committee, and one of
the first bills that gets brought up was H.F. 203. And it was a
bill that would authorize the use of primary road funds for
secondary road funds, and--I mean and municipal systems.
So, basically, this was a tool to bring in the Federal
dollars that would typically have gone just directly to our
cities and our counties, which would have Davis-Bacon and Made
in America attached to them, instead go through our State
first--and I am from Iowa, where we do not have prevailing wage
or Made in America provisions--and then those dollars would go
out to our cities and our counties. You can imagine my concern,
and the concern of a lot of the folks that I worked with in
Iowa.
Now, you know, I know one of the arguments was that our
cities and our counties needed the help, especially with the
paperwork and, you know, what comes with that for getting
Federal dollars. And I want to make sure that we are addressing
that, making that easier for our cities and our counties to be
able to--regardless if you are in a big city or in a rural
community--to access those dollars. And I want to know if there
is anything that you guys are looking at to be able--so that we
should be adding to this transportation bill to make sure that
we do that.
Secondly, I want to know if you have any ideas--
specifically, Mr. Clark or Mr. Millar, I know this may be
something that you have looked into a little bit--about how do
we make sure that if we are making a very large investment in
Federal dollars going out to our States, which I hope we are
doing--we desperately need it--how do we make sure that those
dollars are 100 percent then going with those Davis-Bacon
provisions and also those Made in America provisions?
Because, quite frankly, our economy depends on it. Our
States depend on it. And I just want to make sure that we are
doing this the right way.
So if you all have any comments, I would appreciate that.
Mr. Clark. I think that is an excellent question, thank
you.
Some of it is just insisting on things like Davis-Bacon.
But I think there is a larger set of issues here. People have
talked about ride-handling services a lot. There was a piece in
the Washington Post op-ed page just a couple of days ago that
was amusing, but also very instructive, written by--I think, I
believe--by a writer from the Cato Institute, which is a fairly
conservative group of people. And her point was--she told a
story about people selling their cars because they are going to
rely on the ride-handling services, saying that just isn't
going to work.
And her ultimate point was the ride-handling services are
losing money hand over fist, and they are doing it because they
have got deep venture capital pockets to support it. But in the
meantime, they are depressing the wages of what traditionally
were not great jobs, but decent jobs for taxi drivers and other
kinds of people.
I don't know what the answer is for the Federal
Government's role there, but I think we have got to pay
attention, because there--you are absolutely right, there are
lots and lots of forces driving us to race to the bottom, in
terms of working-class living standards.
And transportation traditionally has been a sector where
people make a decent living. And I think the Federal Government
needs to look carefully at how we make sure transportation
continues to provide decent livings for people, and it doesn't
become how we play a beggar-thy-neighbor policy to drive
working-class living standards down further and further to
provide an inexpensive utility to middle-class people.
Ms. Finkenauer. Thank you.
And Mr. Millar, do you have anything to add, especially in
regards to the State part of it?
Mr. Millar. Well, I would, one, what Mr. Clark said.
And I think what we look at--quite often we are asked by
local governments, ``Would you take the Federal money that we
get--because it is so difficult to administer, would you take
it and spend it at the State level and send State money to
us?'' The problem we have is that we need our State dollars to
match the Federal dollars that comes to us. You know, it is--
there--it is a very constrained pot of money.
I think with--what comes to us from the Federal Government
comes to us with Davis-Bacon, you know, Buy America. Those
provisions are in it. The State money that we have--we have
many of the same provisions. We don't have that particular
issue.
I think it is important that we are all contributing--
again, the partnership, the Federal, the State, the local--and
I would encourage you to look at it maintenance of effort. We
are investing heavily, as the State. You know, our gas tax has
gone up. We are making heavy investments. If more Federal money
comes, that doesn't give us the ability--it shouldn't give us
the ability to take our foot off the throttle. We need to be
doing that, and the local government needs to be doing that, as
well. We are today. Increased Federal investment should come
with an assurance that State and local partnership is going to
maintain its--be in place.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
Ms. Finkenauer. Thank you, I appreciate it.
Ms. Norton. Finally, Mr. Allred.
Mr. Allred. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I guess we have
saved the best for last.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Allred. I wanted to just begin by thanking my fellow
Texans for being here. I have the honor of representing the
only donor State to the highway fund, the great State of Texas,
and Dallas, in particular.
Mayor Nirenberg, I want to thank you for being here as a
representative of the second best city in Texas.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Allred. I have questions for all of you, but we don't
have enough time to get into it. And I want to thank you for
your testimony. I have read through all of your written
testimonies, and this has been a very informative hearing, and
I think that it is an important one for us to talk about, where
we are going from here.
Dallas is, like San Antonio, one of the most rapidly
growing cities in the country. We have all of the issues that
have been talked about here today. We are urban, suburban, we
have congestion. I think we are the seventh most contested city
in the country now. We have some exciting things that are going
on with DART, which is doing, I think, a very good job.
And we also have, of course, TxDOT and the Texas Innovation
Alliance, which has done some great work, Mr. Anderson, so
thank you for all of your hard work.
I wanted to quickly get into your written testimony, where
you mentioned the Federal Highway Administration's automated
driving systems demonstration grant program. And I just wanted
to see if you could describe some of the projects that the
alliance would like to pursue, if you are awarded that grant.
Mr. Anderson. Well, I talked about, as a whole, the
alliance has been working in addition to several other
technologies, and relative to solutions or challenges that they
had. But autonomous vehicles are a part of that.
And across many of the cities in Texas--and, as I mentioned
earlier in my testimony, starting with the passage of senate
bill 2205, which opened the doors for that innovation in the
State--all of those cities have been looking at first- and
last-mile solutions, looking at movement on universities,
movement between universities and housing areas, medical center
movement for--especially for disabled or elderly that need to
move in and around, for example, Houston and some of Dallas'
medical complexes, and who can't do the walking, for example.
And they are also looking at freight movement, both within
the urban areas and then moving, you know, outside of the urban
areas along our corridors. So several of those.
We know that we are going to have many of those actually
happening in the next year, beyond the ones that currently are
occurring in Arlington and Frisco, where we have circulators of
autonomous vehicles. In the case of Arlington, it is in the
entertainment district, and in the Frisco area it is between a
business district and a restaurant area, and it is limiting the
amount of vehicles that have to be moving nearing lunch time,
and things like that.
But also in Austin, San Antonio, Houston, Bryan-College
Station, Coastal Bend area, and El Paso, they all have either
microtransit solutions or circulator routes that they are
looking to deploy in the next year. And all of those are a part
of that proposed autonomous driving system grant.
Mr. Allred. Right.
Mr. Anderson. They are offering those to be data sets for
what is happening--you know, not a pilot, but something that is
happening now, and providing that data to the Federal highways.
Mr. Allred. Thank you, Mr. Anderson.
Mr. Terry, I am interested in how you increased ridership.
I know you discussed it briefly previously there. As I have
spoken with our DART officials, obviously, that is the
challenge for our local regional transit folks. And if you
could, just very quickly go into how you approach doing that.
Mr. Terry. Sure, thank you. It is putting the frequency,
the reliability that people can count on, the hours of service.
We are focusing on the density, where the employment centers
are.
Mr. Allred. Did you have to decrease the area that you were
serving to get that----
Mr. Terry. We have an increase of local funding through a
referendum to support. And we were increasing our system by
over 70 percent. But it is not adding a lot of more routes, it
is more focusing on that frequency----
Mr. Allred. Right.
Mr. Terry [continuing]. The hours, and the--starting
earlier every route, every day. So now you have that
dependability that people can count on. And when you have the
frequency--we are creating a 15-minute frequency grid that
feeds into, eventually, three rapid transit corridors--people
start using it.
So we already invested in several routes this past year
with some of the new funding, and immediately we started seeing
an increase in ridership. So it is starting to validate our
planning.
Mr. Allred. Well, thank you. I think when we say frequency,
we should also say just convenience.
Mr. Terry. Yes.
Mr. Allred. And Mr. Mayor, just really quickly, you talked
about the importance of the Federal Government investing in
regional transportation solutions in your written testimony. We
have a promising high-speed rail project between Dallas and
Houston. Probably get San Antonio in on that, eventually. If
you could, just very quickly, just touch on how that would be
helpful.
Mr. Nirenberg. Yes. Well, the regional rail between Austin
and San Antonio has been a long sought-after dream. We have had
a couple of committees, organizations set up to support it. But
we really are reliant on leveraging existing infrastructure in
the corridor.
But certainly that project is not going to be enabled
unless we have Federal support, so it is vital to our State's
economy, as you know. The Texas Triangle is where our State's
economy runs, will for the foreseeable future. And Texas is one
of the leading economies in the world now, so it is very
important for us in our economic sustainability to see that
corridor connected with something other than just our highway
system.
Mr. Allred. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much for that answer. And I want
to thank each and every one of the witnesses for this
informative testimony. We have kept you a long time, but we
have learned a lot, if that is any recompense.
I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided
answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in
writing, and unanimous consent that the record remain open for
15 days for any additional comments and information submitted
by Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's
hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
If no other Members have anything to add, the subcommittee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:23 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Letter from Shailen P. Bhatt, President and CEO, Intelligent
Transportation Society of America, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Norton
March 13, 2019.
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
Chair
Hon. Rodney Davis
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
20515
Dear Chair Norton and Ranking Member Davis:
In anticipation of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
upcoming hearing entitled ``Aligning Federal Surface Transportation
Policy to Meet 21st Century Needs,'' the Intelligent Transportation
Society of America (``ITS America'') urges the Subcommittee to
prioritize the research and deployment of intelligent mobility and
smart infrastructure in the reauthorization of Fixing America's Surface
Transportation (FAST) Act and an infrastructure package.
This hearing takes place at an important time. Just as
transportation infrastructure was critical to the development of our
economy in the 20th century, maintenance of existing infrastructure and
deployment of intelligent mobility and smart infrastructure will be
critical for our global competitiveness in this century. Advances in
robotics, artificial intelligence, and wireless communications have
inspired a race to make the next generation of transportation and
infrastructure a reality. We are entering a technology revolution that
will define the way people, goods, services, and information move in
the 21st century. Part of that revolution includes new technologies
that allow freedom of movement for those who have limited mobility
access, such as people with disabilities, older adults, and people
living in transit deserts. And most importantly, these technology
advancements will finally help us begin to reduce the epidemic of
fatalities on our roadways.
Members of ITS America are state and city departments of
transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, automotive
manufacturers and suppliers, technology companies, engineering firms,
and research universities. We are united around a shared vision of a
better future transformed by intelligent mobility that is safer,
greener, and smarter. ITS America looks forward to working with you on
a FAST Act reauthorization and an infrastructure package that increases
federal commitments to intelligent transportation technologies that
save lives, improve mobility, promote sustainability, and increase
efficiency and productivity.
ITS America is developing our FAST Act reauthorization policy,
which we look forward to sharing with the Subcommittee early this
summer. In the meantime, the following are our high-level
transportation infrastructure policies that will frame the
association's FAST Act reauthorization platform:
FAST Act Reauthorization: In the 20th century, transportation was
about moving cars. In the 21st century, the transportation landscape is
rapidly evolving. New forms of mobility are being deployed even as
others are being developed. A century ago with the invention of the
car, Departments of Roads were created to deal with this new form of
transportation. Those agencies are now Departments of Transportation,
having grown to include other modes of transportation. Now those same
agencies need to evolve again to provide seamless mobility. Instead of
just moving cars, transportation is about moving people, data and
freight. To keep pace with these advances in technology, which are
transforming transportation, ITS America supports a FAST Act
reauthorization that prioritizes federal policy and programs that make
intelligent transportation deployment the rule rather than the
exception and provides federal funding that encourage the rapid
deployment of intelligent transportation technologies.
Increase Federal Investment in Transportation by Prioritizing
Safety through Research and Deployment of Intelligent Mobility and
Smart Infrastructure: Support increased revenue for intelligent
mobility and smart infrastructure; ensure the solvency of the Highway
Trust Fund; and transition to long-term and sustainable revenue for
America's transportation system. Only with such certainty will the
nation finally see the research and the large-scale transformational
deployments of intelligent transportation technologies--and most
importantly, finally help us begin to reduce the epidemic of fatalities
on our roadways.
Saving the Spectrum for Transportation Critical Safety
Communications: New and developing vehicle to everything (V2X)
technology that depends on the 5.9 GHz band is allowing us to finally
address the lives lost and ruined on our nation's roads. Our members
are actively developing and deploying such technologies, which send
hazard alerts to vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians, and traffic lights.
These technologies can also enhance automated driving systems, which
hold the promise to provide numerous economic, environmental, and
societal benefits, such as decreased congestion and fuel consumption,
and increased access for the elderly and disabled. These safety
innovations require dedicated spectrum to ensure they work every time
without signal interference. Millions of dollars have already been
invested in this effort, including incorporating connected vehicle
technologies into infrastructure by states and cities. ITS America
strongly supports preserving the entire 5.9 GHz band for transportation
safety applications. Speed matters when safety information is involved;
sharing the band could compromise the speed and put lives as risk. With
all the advancements and technology deployments, we are finally on the
cusp of turning the corner to reduce deaths, but we need the spectrum
to do that.
Increase Buildout of Alternative Fuel Vehicle Infrastructure:
Transportation is now the largest source of carbon emissions in the
United States, and carbon emissions from cars and light trucks account
for almost one-sixth of the nation's total emissions. ITS America
supports policies in the transportation infrastructure sector that will
help reduce transportation emissions. Given that automakers are
committing to alternative fuel vehicles that will reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, ITS America supports standalone legislation and language in
the reauthorization of the FAST Act and an infrastructure package that
would provide increased federal funding to rapidly buildout alternative
fuel vehicle infrastructure and new technologies such as inductive
charging to speed the deployment of electric vehicles.
New Technology Grants to Support Congestion Relief: ITS America
urges Congress to create a new emerging technology grant program to
support congestion relief in metropolitan and urban cores as well as
heavily traveled regions and freight corridors. Eligible projects would
include capital and operational investments that improve system safety
and performance such as priced-managed lanes; transportation demand
management programs; strategic transit investments; advanced parking,
freight delivery, and incident management systems; and programs to
support the deployment of connected and autonomous vehicles, including
vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications
technologies.
Mobility on Demand: Mobility on Demand (``MOD'') facilitates a
transportation ecosystem in which consumers can research, book, and pay
for all parts of their daily journeys--no matter the form of
transportation (e.g., transit, rideshare/bikeshare, personal vehicles,
micromobility, etc.)--on one integrated platform accessible on request.
Developing the policy conditions for MOD to flourish will better enable
consumers to identify and use the transportation options that best meet
their mobility needs at any time. MOD promotes societal benefits such
as a less congested, less costly, and more sustainable transportation
system. Leveraging the insights gained from MOD data, new business
models can be developed to enhance mobility and address unmet
transportation needs. ITS America advocates for policies that promote
MOD and remove roadblocks that limit or restrict federal funding for
MOD and supports an increased national commitment to public transit as
it will be a key component in any successful implementation of MOD. To
that end, ITS America supports policies that promote arrangements
between public transit agencies and other shared modes of
transportation to help promote first mile/last mile solutions as well
as policies that foster alternative transportation modes. Additionally,
we support increased funding levels for the MOD Sandbox program
administered by the FTA Office of Research, Demonstration and
Innovation.
We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit on a reauthorization of the FAST Act and an infrastructure
package that prioritize investments in intelligent mobility and smart
infrastructure.
Sincerely,
Shailen P. Bhatt,
President and CEO, Intelligent Transportation Society of America
The ITS America Board is represented by the following companies:
AAA, AECOM, Arizona Department of Transportation, California Department
of Transportation, California PATH UC Berkeley, Conduent, Central Ohio
Transit Authority, Crown Castle, Cubic, Delaware Department of
Transportation, District of Columbia Department of Transportation,
Econolite, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Gridsmart, HELP, Inc.,
HNTB, Iteris, Kapsch TraffiCom North America, MCity, Michael Baker
International, San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, National Renewable Energy Lab, New York City Department of
Transportation, Panasonic North America, Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation, Qualcomm, Southwest Research Institute, State Farm
Insurance, Toyota, Texas Transportation Institute, Utah Department of
Transportation, Washington State Department of Transportation.
Letter from James D. Ogsbury, Executive Director, Western Governors'
Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Norton
March 11, 2019.
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
Chair
Hon. Rodney Davis
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
20515
Dear Chair Norton and Ranking Member Davis:
Terrain and landownership patterns in the West underscore the
purpose and vital need for a federal role in surface transportation.
Western states are responsible for vast expanses of national highways
and interstates that serve as critical freight and transportation
routes for the nation. The infrastructure in the region, especially in
rural areas, is under strain from increased movement of goods and
people and from underinvestment in infrastructure needed to keep pace
with this growth and change.
Thank you for examining this important topic at the Subcommittee's
March 13 hearing on Aligning Federal Surface Transportation Policy to
Meet 21st Century Needs. To inform your consideration of this subject,
I request that the Subcommittee include the following attachments in
the permanent record of the hearing:
WGA Policy Resolution 2018-06, Transportation
Infrastructure in the Western United States, which emphasizes the
importance of a state-federal partnership in improving our nation's
surface transportation and of a long-term federal funding mechanism for
the maintenance and expansion of surface transportation networks.
WGA Policy Resolution 2018-15, Modernizing Western
Infrastructure, which sets forth the Western Governors' support for
more efficient infrastructure permitting and environmental review
processes without shortening timelines for state input and consultation
or compromising natural resource, environmental, or cultural values.
Early, meaningful and ongoing state consultation on infrastructure will
help prevent delays, reduce duplication, and streamline the process.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
James D. Ogsbury,
Executive Director, Western Governors' Association
Attachments
Policy Resolution 2018-06--Transportation Infrastructure in the Western
United States
A. Background
1. The American West encompasses a huge land mass representing 2.4
million square miles or over two-thirds of the entire country. Over 116
million people live in these states and they reside in large, densely
populated cities, smaller cities and towns and in rural areas.
2. Perhaps more than any other region, terrain and landownership
patterns in the West underscore the purpose and vital need for a
federal role in surface transportation. Western states are responsible
for vast expanses of national highways and interstates that often do
not correlate with population centers but serve as critical national
freight and transportation routes for the nation.
3. Western states ports are national assets, moving needed parts
and retail goods into the country, while also providing the gateway for
our nation's exports. Although they benefit the entire country, the
financial burden of developing, expanding and maintaining them to meet
the demands of growing trade is almost entirely borne at the state and
local level.
4. Jobs, the economy and quality of life in the West depend on
high quality transportation infrastructure that efficiently,
effectively and safely moves goods and people. Western transportation
infrastructure is part of a national network that serves national
interests. Among other things, transportation infrastructure in the
West: moves agricultural and natural resource products from source to
national and world markets; carries goods from western ports on western
highways and railroad track to eastern and southern cities; and enables
travelers to visit the great National Parks and other destinations in
the West.
5. The transportation and transit needs in the West differ
significantly from our eastern counterparts. Western states are
building new capacity to keep up with growth, including new
interstates, new multimodal systems including high-speed passenger rail
and transit systems and increased capacity on existing infrastructure.
6. The infrastructure in the region is under strain from both
increased movement of goods and people and from underinvestment in
repair and new infrastructure needed to keep pace with this growth and
change.
7. The vast stretches of highways and railroad track that connect
the West to the nation do not have the population densities seen in the
eastern United States.
8. Raising private funds to carry forward infrastructure projects
in the rural West will be extremely challenging. The low traffic
volumes in rural states will not support tolls, even if one wanted to
impose them. Projects in rural areas are unlikely to generate revenues
that will attract investors to finance those projects, even if the
revenues are supplemented by tax credits.
B. Governors' Policy Statement
1. Western Governors believe there is a strong federal role, in
partnership with the states, for the continued investment in our
surface transportation network--particularly on federal routes and in
multimodal transportation networks throughout the West that are
critical to interstate commerce and a growing economy. These routes and
networks traverse hundreds of miles without traffic densities
sufficient to either make public-private partnerships feasible or allow
state and local governments to raise capital beyond the historic cost
share.
2. Western Governors believe the current project decision-making
role of state and local governments in investment decisions should
continue. Western Governors desire additional flexibility to determine
how and where to deploy investment in order to maximize the use of
scarce resources.
3. Western Governors believe regulation accompanying Federal
Transportation programs should be reduced by expediting project
delivery and streamlining the environmental review process without
diminishing environmental standards or safeguards.
4. Western Governors believe that a viable, long-term funding
mechanism is critical to the maintenance and expansion of our surface
transportation network and encourage Congress to work together to
identify a workable solution that adequately funds the unique needs of
the West.
5. Western Governors believe in enhancing the ability to leverage
scarce resources by supplementing traditional base funding by creating
and enhancing financing mechanisms and tools that are appropriate for
all areas of the United States, including those with low traffic
densities where tolling and public private partnerships are not
feasible.
6. Western Governors believe using the historic formula-based
approach for the distribution of funds would ensure that both rural and
urban states participate in any infrastructure initiative and it would
deliver the benefits of an infrastructure initiative to the public
promptly.
7. Western Governors believe the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) and the
programs it supports are critically important to success in efforts to
maintain and improve America's surface transportation infrastructure.
Currently, the HTF will not be able to support even current Federal
surface transportation program levels and will not meet the needs of
the country that will grow as the economy grows. Congress must provide
a long-term solution to ensure HTF solvency and provide for increased,
sustainable federal transportation investment through the HTF.
8. Western Governors strongly encourage western states port
operators and their labor unions to work together to avoid future work
slowdowns by resolving labor issues well before contracts are set to
expire. In recent years protracted disagreement in bargaining between
parties has had an adverse impact on the American economy that should
not be repeated.
9. Western Governors believe modern ports infrastructure is
essential to strong national and western economy and urge Congress to
fully fund the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and to reform the Harbor
Maintenance Tax to ensure western ports remain competitive.
Furthermore, Western Governors believe the Federal government must work
collaboratively with states, along with ports, local governments and
key private sector transportation providers like the railroads, to
ensure the necessary public and private investments to move imports and
exports efficiently through the intermodal system.
C. Governors' Management Directive
1. The Governors direct WGA staff to work with Congressional
committees of jurisdiction, the Executive Branch, and other entities,
where appropriate, to achieve the objectives of this resolution.
2. Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to consult with the
Staff Advisory Council regarding its efforts to realize the objectives
of this resolution and to keep the Governors apprised of its progress
in this regard.
Policy Resolution 2018-15--Modernizing Western Infrastructure
A. Background
1. Western states depend on a safe, reliable and resilient network
of infrastructure to move goods, people, energy, and agricultural
products to meet growing demands across our nation and world.
Investments to modernize our state's infrastructure, including ports,
water systems, bridges, pipelines, highways, airports, electric
generation and transmission, communications facilities, recreational
assets and railways not only support the economic well-being of our
communities, they also serve to position our economies to attract and
retain investment through maintaining our competitive advantage in a
growing global marketplace. Because a significant portion of the West
is federally-owned, federal processes impact the region's
infrastructure.
2. Modernizing and maintaining the West's network of
infrastructure relies upon permitting and review processes that require
close coordination and consultation among state, federal and tribal
governments. State and federal coordination is necessary to ensure that
infrastructure projects are designed, financed, built, operated and
maintained in a manner that meets the needs of our economies,
environment, public health, safety and security. Early, ongoing,
substantial, and meaningful state-federal consultation can provide
efficiency, transparency, and predictability for states, as well as
prevent delays, in the federal permitting and environmental review
process.
3. Western Governors applaud the principles and intent of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which, since its enactment in
1970, has required that federal agencies consider how proposed federal
actions may impact natural, cultural, economic and social resources for
present and future generations of Americans. The process by which NEPA
is implemented has been defined over time through regulations and
guidance issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
4. Congress recognized the need for improved state-federal
coordination in the NEPA process in the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation (FAST) Act, passed in December 2015, which implements
reforms regarding cooperating agency status and coordination with state
and local governments. This statute should be consistently implemented.
5. NEPA mandates federal agency cooperation with state and local
governments through the designation of qualified ``cooperating
agencies.'' Under existing law, an entity shall: (i) participate in the
NEPA process at the earliest possible time; (ii) participate in the
NEPA scoping process; (iii) assume, at the lead agency's request,
responsibility for developing information and preparing environmental
analyses; (iv) provide staff support upon request of the lead agency;
and (v) use its own funds in its participation as a cooperating
agency.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 40 CFR Sec. 1501.6(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. The manner in which cooperating agencies are selected by a lead
agency to participate in the NEPA process is unclear and inconsistently
implemented. Additionally, a lead agency's determination of whether or
not to grant cooperating agency status to a federal or non-federal
governmental entity is not subject to judicial review.
7. State and local governments often have the best available
science, data and expertise related to natural resources within their
borders. In cases where the states have primary management authority,
such as wildlife and water governance, states also possess the most
experience in managing those resources and knowledge of state- and
locality-specific considerations that should inform infrastructure
siting decisions.
B. Governors' Policy Statement
1. Western Governors support improved infrastructure permitting
and environmental review processes that result in more efficient
reviews without shortening timelines for state input and consultation,
or compromising natural resource, wildlife, environmental quality or
cultural values.
2. Western states have a diverse mix of infrastructure needs
spanning rural and urban areas and across multiple sectors of our
economies. Infrastructure financing reforms should recognize this
diversity and should avoid shifting costs to states or creating undue
or disproportionate impacts to the infrastructure that connects the
West's cities and rural communities with the nation and world. Federal
infrastructure financing appropriations should acknowledge and support
the diverse infrastructure needs facing western states.
3. The federal infrastructure permitting and environmental review
process must be transparent, predictable and consistent for states and
project developers. Federal processes must ensure that agencies set,
and adhere to, timelines and schedules for completion of reviews and
develop improved metrics for tracking and accountability.
4. Federal programs that increase bottom-up coordination among
agencies, state and local governments and that foster collaboration
among diverse stakeholders and project proponents can create efficiency
and predictability in the NEPA process, including reducing the risks of
delays due to litigation.
5. State, local and tribal governments, as well as their political
subdivisions, have unique and critical duties to serve their citizens
and should not be considered ordinary ``stakeholders'' for purposes of
the NEPA process.
6. Federal agencies should be required to engage with states and
state agencies in early, meaningful, substantive and ongoing
consultation. Federal agencies should be required to invite all
qualified state governmental entities to participate in the NEPA
process as ``cooperating agencies'' and promulgate regulations to
clarify consultation procedures and states' roles as cooperating
agencies. The denial of any bona fide request for cooperating status
should be accompanied by a clear and thorough explanation from the lead
agency denying such request, citing specific factors the agency used in
its determination. Such information should be recorded and maintained
by the lead federal agency and collected by the Office of Management
and Budget.
7. Western Governors encourage consistency in the implementation
of NEPA within and among agencies and across regions. The federal
government should identify and eliminate inconsistencies in
environmental review and analysis across agencies to make the process
more efficient.
8. Federal NEPA regulations should allow for existing state
environmental review processes to supplement and inform federal
environmental review under NEPA. Federal agencies, in their NEPA
implementation guidelines, should encourage joint reviews with the
states where possible.
9. The federal government should consider and apply peer-reviewed
environmental science in a consistent manner across agencies as each
undertake their NEPA reviews of different projects' impacts on and
contributions to environmental quality. Federal agencies should work
directly with states to obtain and use up-to-date state data and
analyses as critical sources of information in the NEPA process.
C. Governors' Management Directive
1. The Governors direct WGA staff to work with Congressional
committees of jurisdiction, the Executive Branch, and other entities,
where appropriate, to achieve the objectives of this resolution.
2. Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to consult with the
Staff Advisory Council regarding its efforts to realize the objectives
of this resolution and to keep the Governors apprised of its progress
in this regard.
Western Governors enact new policy resolutions and amend existing
resolutions on a bi-annual basis. Please consult www.westgov.org/
policies for the most current copy of a resolution and a list of all
current WGA policy resolutions.
Letter and Congestion Maps from Tori Emerson Barnes, Executive Vice
President, Public Affairs and Policy, U.S. Travel Association,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Norton
May 7, 2019.
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
Chairman
Hon. Sam Graves
Ranking Member
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515
Re: Hearing: ``Aligning Federal Surface Transportation Policy to Meet
21st-Century Needs''
Dear Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves:
On behalf of America's travel and tourism industry, I am pleased to
submit the findings of a new U.S. Travel Association study for this
important hearing on ``Aligning Federal Surface Transportation Policy
to Meet 21st Century Needs.''
Travel to and within the United States is one of the largest and
most important aspects of interstate commerce. Travel generates $1.1
trillion in direct spending, produces $2.5 trillion in total economic
output and supports 15.7 million--or one out of every 10--American
jobs. Each of the 2.3 billion business and leisure trips that take
place to and within the United States each year, and every dollar of
economic output generated by the travel industry depends on our
nation's transportation network.
Unfortunately, inadequate federal investment in America's travel
infrastructure has increased congestion across all modes of
transportation, reduced national and regional connectivity, and
restricted travel demand. Every day, whether commuting to work,
traveling for business, visiting family or taking a vacation, Americans
feel the consequences of Congressional inaction.
The U.S. Travel Association recently conducted a study on the
``time toll'' that Americans pay due overcrowded, underfunded,
crumbling bridges, tunnels and highways. Using data from INRIX
Research, the study examines travel times along major Interstate
corridors under three conditions:
Ideal: driving with no congestion;
Summer: driving under summer traffic conditions; and
Peak: driving during peak holiday conditions.
The results show that in the time it takes to drive between major
U.S. cities during summer and peak hours, Americans could travel
hundreds of miles farther if they had the efficient, safe and modern
transportation network that our nation deserves.
For example, along the I-95 corridor from Washington, DC to New
York, NY, the study found that:
During the summer months, travelers could drive an
additional 68 miles--or the equivalent distance to New Haven, CT--under
ideal conditions; and
During peak holidays, travelers could drive an additional
109 miles--or the equivalent distance to Hartford, CT--under ideal
conditions.
To better illustrate these findings, U.S. Travel developed maps of
the United States where the distances between cities are based on
average drive times, rather than mileage. As drive times increase, the
distances between cities grows.
These maps tell a troubling story of how Congressional inaction to
boost investment in our nation's infrastructure is pushing America's
cities, businesses, and citizens farther apart. When our commutes get
longer, our jobs get farther away from our homes. As the time to
deliver goods grows, businesses get farther away from their customers,
and prices become higher than what families can afford. As the hours
traveling between cities pile up, our families, friends, and
communities grow farther apart.
Congestion takes a toll on more than just our time--it also takes a
toll on our economy. According to a U.S. Travel survey, highway
congestion caused 38 percent of Americans to avoid at least one
business or leisure trip by car during the previous year. This resulted
in $23 billion in lost travel spending, which is enough to support
208,000 American jobs.
Without significant policy changes to provide increased,
sustainable investment in our nation's infrastructure, travel's vital
role in interstate commerce and the future growth and competitiveness
of America's travel industry are at risk.
Please find enclosed examples of the ``congestion maps'' described
above, along with an outline of the U.S. Travel Association's
recommendations for aligning federal surface transportation policy with
America's 21st Century needs.
Thank you for your leadership in identifying policy solutions that
increase investment in the nation's transportation infrastructure. We
look forward to working with you to solve our infrastructure investment
crisis and support American jobs in every corner of the country.
Sincerely,
Tori Emerson Barnes
Executive Vice President, Public Affairs and Policy, U.S. Travel
Association
u.s. travel association--transportation and infrastructure policy
recommendations
Increase federal user fees: Adjust federal user fees
dedicated to the HTF, to finance surface transportation
improvements needed to maintain and modernize our nation's travel
infrastructure network. Congress should consider all user fee
options, including (but not limited to):
Federal gas tax;
Federal taxes on heavy vehicles;
A vehicle sales tax based on fuel economy or emissions;
Registration Fees;
Federal bonds, loans, and tax credits back by user fees;
or
A value-added gas tax, with a progressive rebate for
certain consumers
Establish a Projects and Corridors of National Significance
Program. Authorize a Projects and Corridors of National
Significance (PCNS) program within U.S. DOT that provides funding
for major multimodal projects that cannot be supported by current
formula programs. The PCNS program should include the following
elements:
Multi-state planning and operations. Award funding to
multi-state organizations that promote cross-jurisdictional cooperation
in project planning and construction, and conduct activities that
improve operations along critical travel corridors. Eligible activities
should include:
Projects of National Significance (PNS): Provide funding
for major multimodal surface transportation projects that generate
economic benefits that accrue beyond local areas and states, but cannot
otherwise be supported through existing formula programs. Selection
criteria should prioritize funding for:
Projects along critical corridors that support
significant volumes of long-haul passenger travel, ensure the
resiliency of travel infrastructure, improve access to major travel
destinations and attractions, and enhance the economic contributions of
business, leisure and international travel; and
Projects that were planned and developed through
multistate corridor coalitions or achieve the goals of the National
Travel and Tourism Infrastructure Strategic Plan (Sec. 1431(e) of P.L.
114-94).
Authorize a National Travel Mobility Program. Establish a
National Travel Mobility Program funded at $1.2 billion per year
for the development of long-term plans and capital improvements
that ensure the efficient movement of people on the national
transportation network. Funds would be distributed to States by
formula for eligible projects that:
Alleviate congestion, provide mobility options and
accommodate future growth along major corridors for long-haul travel;
Improve safety, efficiency and reliability of the surface
transportation system; and
Enhance connectivity between modes and to major
destinations; or
Improve mobility within destinations; and
Achieve the goals of the National Travel Infrastructure
Strategic Plan.
Program Elements:
Authorization Period: 5 years
Obligation Limitation: Obligations would be reimbursed
from the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. Funds would come
with contract authority and be subject to the annual obligation
limitation imposed on the Federal-aid Highway Program.
Federal Share: 80 percent
Establishment of National Multimodal Travel
Infrastructure Network: Direct the Secretary of Transportation
designate a NMTIN made up of the NHS, rail, National Parks, Federal
lands access, Scenic Byways, transit systems, and other surface
transportation assets that are critical to facilitating a majority of
long-haul travel (50 miles or more) to and within the United States.
Long-Term Planning: Consistent with current STIP and TIP
planning requirements, States and MPOs would identify projects and
strategies for enhancing national and regional travel mobility. Funds
provided under the program could be used to conduct long-term planning
activities related to enhancing national and regional travel mobility.
Project Eligibility: Project eligible to be carried out
under Title 23 U.S.C.
Formula: Direct the Secretary of Transportation to
develop a methodology for determining the annual number of non-local
visitors to each State (definition: anyone taking a trip of more than
50 miles from that includes at least one overnight stay). For each
state, apportion $1.50 for each out-of-state visitor and $.50 for each
in-state visitor.
congestion maps--washington, dc-new york, ny / portland, or-seattle, wa
/ los angeles, ca-san francisco, ca
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix
----------
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Hon. Ron Nirenberg
Highway Fatalities
Question 1. Mayor Nirenberg, in your testimony you raise the appalling
fact that roadway accidents are the leading cause of death for youth
ages 5-24, but you go on to note that cities like San Antonio are
leading efforts to reduce deaths on our Nation's roadways through
Vision Zero and related efforts.
What methods have been most effective in your city for lowering
traffic fatalities?
Answer. In 2015, San Antonio began a Vision Zero program led by the
City's Transportation & Capital Improvements (TCI) to take a citywide
systems-level and multi-faceted approach to protect people on our
roads. Cities across the country have also recognized this unmet need
and more than 40 have formed their own programs [https://
visionzeronetwork.org/resources/vision-zero-cities/]. Vision Zero is
different than past safety efforts because the focus lies on using a
multi-faceted approach to make the roadway safe for all users. Our
approach uses the five essential elements for a safe transportation
system: Engineering, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement and
Evaluation. By focusing on the 5 ``E'' approach, San Antonio brings
community awareness to the epidemic of traffic fatalities while
evaluating crashes and identifying the areas in most need of enhanced
infrastructure. We want San Antonio roadways to be safe for everyone:
whether they choose to walk, bike or drive.
Question 2. What are the biggest hurdles to implementing safety
measures?
Answer. Vision Zero efforts are generally being funded locally or
through competitive grants, but more could be done with federal support
for both planning and implementation according to organizations such as
the National Transportation Safety Board, Governors Highway Safety
Association, and the Vision Zero Network. Additionally, many changes
with proven results, such as lowering speed limits or using automated
enforcement to modify driver behavior, require onerous special
permission from state DOTs or state legislatures; we must put all
safety tools to work to prevent deaths on the roads. Incentives for
cooperation should be pursued in all safety programs. Lastly, state
DOTs have traditionally had a singular focus on congestion reduction
and need to expand the focus to safety improvements and other modes of
transportation.
Question 3. What can Congress do to direct Federal investments to
move the needle on safety?
Answer. Congress should ensure that federal programs are data-
driven and promote and support changes to best practices to reduce
roadway fatalities, particularly those identified in the Toward Zero
Deaths National Strategy. While FARS continues to be the data of record
on fatalities, state and local government data is more readily
available and actionable much more quickly; federal platforms and
systems to collect and analyze data that will generate the information
needed to target safety interventions must catch up. We hope that
Congress will also explore opportunities to align safety research and
development funding with fatalities and trends to improve return on
investment.
Additionally, the National League of Cities concurs with GHSA's
latest 2019 report, ``Speeding Away from Zero: Rethinking a Forgotten
Traffic Safety Challenge,'' [https://www.ghsa.org/resources/Speeding19]
which calls for increased attention to speeding as one of the most
forgotten safety challenges. With approximately 1 out of every 3
crashes involving speed, Congress could consider calling out speeding
in a similar way that drunk driving, an issue with unfortunate and
similar crash risk, is focused on in legislated programs. GHSA's
recommendation is to focus on speeding with ``comprehensive public
awareness campaigns, traditional and automated enforcement efforts, and
traffic calming infrastructure'' and take ``successful approaches to
speeding, including the implementation of Vision Zero concepts in urban
areas.'' Proven countermeasures to manage speed would also move the
needle to zero traffic deaths.
Finally, for the High-Risk Rural Roads program, Congress should
allow for quicker safety interventions if the number of fatalities on a
rural road reaches a certain threshold prior to the end of the
reporting period [Reference: 23 U.S.C. 148(g)(1)]. Waiting to act where
data supports action is not prudent. We would also recommend that
states work in coordination with local governments in regard to setting
their high-risk rural roads within their road safety program
[Reference: 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(1)].
Question 4. Would it be helpful to require Federal safety dollars--
that are currently allocated to State DOTs--to be spent in specific
areas of a State where the most fatalities occur?
Answer. Yes, in order to reach our vision of zero fatalities, we
should be allocating federal dollars directly to the corridors and
transportation systems where fatalities are occurring based on the
data, but also where risk is greatest for the most vulnerable road
users who are biking and walking. For example, with 76 areas of high
crash concern in San Antonio, it will take us nearly 20 years to
address the simple pedestrian infrastructure need we have. The city
currently has committed $1M for infrastructure, education, and
outreach, but this does not even address the education, outreach and
innovative programs that are needed to make a difference in traffic
safety for all our modes of transportation. We would welcome more
support from our state and federal partners to continue to take action
to save lives.
Mobility and Connectivity
Question 5. Mayor Nirenberg, your testimony states that the mobility of
our citizens should be our measure of success in the next surface
transportation reauthorization bill.
Do you feel it is necessary for the Federal government to support
both the Interstate Highway System as well as local transit in order to
increase mobility?
Answer. Transportation should be about the safe mobility of all of
our residents, whether walking, bicycling, taking transit or driving,
and every region will have different needs to improve their
transportation network. We should be investing in the transportation
options that best support moving people through our regions safely
whether that is a highway or transit investment. The innovation that's
happening in transportation today is changing out views on what is
possible, but just proceeding with the status quo of programs and
funding ratios is not leaning into that innovation happening in
mobility, transportation data, or rapid transit networks. Now more than
ever do flexible and accountable transportation programs, like the
Surface Transportation Block Grant and the Mobility on Demand Sandbox,
need to be embraced as the right tools for the federal government to
unlock the potential of mobility innovation and strive for greater
equity among our modes.
Question 6. Are local transit options and broader regional
connectivity closely related?
Answer. Yes, mobility is central to individual prosperity, as well
as to commerce and to the growth of communities, and both local transit
and regional connectivity options have a role to play in our future
planning. In San Antonio, 79% of our residents commute by single
occupancy vehicles. We know that this is not sustainable, especially as
we are experiencing such rapid growth and expected to have nearly
double our population by 2040. In order to have an effective,
sustainable transportation system, we need to have realistic choices
for our residents.
Question 7. How does this connectivity affect the overall strength
of our national transportation system?
Answer. Transportation is about flow and also, for growing areas
like San Antonio, about what is keeping that from happening. As a
country, our national transportation system should not be slowed to a
crawl in our most productive urban economic centers. To create flow, we
must make system-level decisions like investing in transit options and
investing in regional connectivity with fast and reliable trains, as
well as walkable communities that support local businesses and healthy
activity. America must invest in the performance of our system for our
residents.
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Roger Millar, PE, FASCE, FAICP
Multimodal Investment
Question 1: Secretary Millar, as the head of Washington State's
Department of Transportation, you have a unique perspective on the
importance of multimodal transportation. As you mention, your agency
oversees everything from ferries to airports, and rail systems to
public transit.
Can you give an example or two of how your agency makes multimodal
investments in the transportation system?
Answer. Like many states, Washington has an amendment to our state
constitution that limits the use of gas tax revenue to highway uses.
However, we have other sources of revenue that can be used for
multimodal investments, including some federal funding, and we make
full use of those revenues.
Through our practical solutions approach to solving transportation
challenges, we work to first understand what the problem is and don't
presuppose what the solution to a transportation challenge should be.
It might be that widening a highway or updating an interchange is the
appropriate solution. But it might also be investments in our local
partner's system, increased transit service, adding managed lanes or
improving bike and pedestrian connectivity that will best address the
transportation challenge that's been identified. We strive to work with
our local partners, our state legislature, USDOT modal administrations,
and within our funding constraints to identify and fund the best
solutions to complex transportation challenges and needs.
We also support the transportation system through a series of
multimodal grants and loans to cities, counties, transit agencies,
ports and nonprofits. These transportation projects create access for
those who have no other transportation options, reduce delay for
people, improve goods movement, lessen demand, reduce carbon emissions,
create safe routes to schools, and improve sidewalks and bike lanes for
all Washingtonians. For example, we award over $250 million in public
transportation grants per biennium, and we award nearly $15 million in
rail loans and grants per biennium to help support freight rail capital
needs.
Washington has also led the nation in design and implementation of
our rural intercity bus network. It is designed as a system so that
people can make timed connections with multiple providers on multiple
routes. Our public-private partnership with the industry opened up new
ways of ensuring that people can get to wherever it is they need to go
throughout the country. We should note our thanks to both the Federal
Transit Administration for allowing us to pilot this partnership and
Congress for codifying it in subsequent surface transportation
authorizations.
Our I-405 Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes
project [https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/I405/RentontoBellevue/home]
is a good example of an investment in a highway expansion and
congestion management project that also supports a bus rapid transit
(BRT) investment by our regional transit partner, Sound Transit. The
new express toll lanes between Renton and Bellevue will connect to the
existing express toll lane system between Bellevue and Lynnwood to the
north, as well as the SR 167 HOT lanes to the south, to create a 40-
mile system of express toll lanes. This project is designed to improve
speeds and trip reliability for all travelers and support the new I-405
BRT line between Lynnwood and Tukwila included in the voter-approved
Sound Transit 3 package. It's the state's investment in widening I-405
to finish the express toll lanes that will enable Sound Transit to make
its BRT investment in the corridor. Without the state's investment, BRT
would not work as the buses would be stuck in congestion and wouldn't
have a reliable trip.
As a part of the I-405 Corridor Master Plan, we are also working
with King County to add 16.7 miles of new regional trail in the
corridor that will connect the ``Eastside'' of Lake Washington like
never before and provide the cities of Renton, Bellevue, Kirkland,
Woodinville, and Redmond with new opportunities for non-motorized
recreation and transportation. This trail investment is being linked to
our earlier multi-use trail investments in the Interstate 90 and State
Route 520 corridors, connecting the Eastside with Seattle over our
floating bridges and to Eastern Washington via the Mountains to Sound
Greenway corridor.
Even before we finish the Renton to Bellevue express toll lanes, on
the existing Bellevue to Lynnwood segment, we're moving more than 25
percent more people and giving transit riders a faster and more
reliable ride. King County Metro ridership is up 9 percent in the 405
corridor and Community Transit ridership is up 2 percent.
As a final example, the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program in
Seattle replaced a seismically vulnerable highway with a safer roadway
and tunnel under downtown. After the nearly 60-foot-tall viaduct is
removed, the central business district will be reconnected to the
historic waterfront with new streets that provide connections for
people who drive, bike, walk and roll. The City of Seattle is also
building out 20 acres of public space and a new promenade for people to
enjoy. Additionally, WSDOT built a new shared use path that links
neighborhoods with downtown Seattle and the state's largest ferry
terminal. A second shared use path will be connected in 2020. Later
this year, two surface streets that were severed by the old highway
will be rebuilt--one is a green street--reconnecting several vibrant
neighborhoods for many modes of travel.
Question 2: In your opinion, how important is it that the Federal
government invest in multimodal transportation options?
Answer. Federal investment in multimodal transportation options is
critical. People need choices when it comes to transportation. Not
everyone is able to drive or can afford a car, yet they need a reliable
way to get to work, to doctor appointments and other important
destinations. In Washington state, I-5 is the backbone of our
transportation system and goods movement on the west coast is dependent
upon it. Transit and active transportation give viable and well-used
choices to driving alone, freeing up space on I-5 for trucks to get
goods to market. It also frees up space for those that prefer or have
no choice but to drive. Similarly, our Amtrak Cascades intercity
passenger rail service that we sponsor along with the Oregon DOT
reduces vehicle demand on I-5 and gives both business and leisure
travelers another option. More than 800,000 passengers rode Amtrak
Cascades in 2018. Without that service most of those passengers would
have had to drive on I-5.
Question 3: Can you speak to the impact having a strong multimodal
system has on both passengers as well as the movement of goods?
Answer. Per the answer to question number two above, when people
have safe, direct, and convenient alternatives to driving alone, it
frees up critical space on the Interstate for trucks to get goods to
market. Not everyone in Washington state can or wants to drive, and
there are many that can't afford a car, yet they still have a right to
access to opportunity and to have a viable way to get where they need
to go. Having transportation options is integral to having a strong
economy.
Rural Versus Urban Needs
Question 4: Secretary Millar, your State is unique in that it has major
urban areas which are home to some of the largest companies in the
Nation, while also having extremely rural populations as well.
How can we ensure that as we modernize our Federal highway and
transit programs we address the needs of both urban and rural
populations equally?
Answer. Transit and active transportation programs are just as
important to urban and rural communities as are the federal-aid highway
programs. In urban areas, transit and active transportation provide a
critical option to avoiding congestion. In rural areas, transit often
provides a critical lifeline for those who cannot drive or who cannot
afford to drive. Agriculture is a major part of our state's economy and
those commodities must get to market, using our roads, railways,
waterways and airports. As you work on reauthorization of the FAST Act,
we encourage you to increase investment in all of the formula programs,
highways, transit and ferries, as well as the rail programs and allow
state DOTs the flexibility to continue to work with our local partners
to invest those funds in both our urban and rural areas depending on
our most critical needs. When it comes to urban and rural, it's not an
either/or, it's both. Everyone deserves transportation choices and all
parts of Washington state need safe and efficient transportation
options.
Technological Advancements
Question 5: Secretary Millar, in your testimony, you mention AASHTO's
recently established Cooperative Automated Transportation (CAT)
coalition which will help leverage emerging technologies. You also
mention that State DOTs are planning now for a future which integrates
new technological advancements with existing systems, such as connected
vehicles and multimodal trip planning.
In your opinion, how soon will we begin to see technological shifts
in local transportation systems to this degree?
Answer. Advances in vehicle automation, connectivity,
electrification, and shared mobility are already impacting the state's
transportation system and have begun to radically change the movement
of people, data and goods. The private sector has made significant
advances in the development and deployment of automated vehicles (AV)
and connected transportation technology. Opinions differ about the
deployment level, rate and timing of AVs. However, it is expected that
some level of vehicle automation will be widespread by 2025, and fully
automated cars are anticipated to be more broadly adopted by 2030.
Currently, most new vehicles are equipped with a range of driver
assistive options. This may include adaptive cruise control, blind spot
detection, forward collision warning, lane departure warning, rearview
video systems, vehicle and pedestrian automatic emergency braking,
pedestrian protection, rear cross traffic alert, and lane centered
assist. At this time, ten technology companies and original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) are registered to conduct on-road testing on
Washington's public roadways. This number is expected to increase as is
the number of initial automated vehicle pilot and deployment projects
conducted in Washington state. Transportation network companies such as
UBER and Lyft and cloud computing and data integration companies such
as Amazon, Google, Atos, and INRIX have already begun deployment of
Mobility on Demand (MOD) services. These services provide multimodal
traveler information, scheduling and payment platforms which are
already impacting the way transportation agencies develop and deliver
services and the way people and goods are moved.
Question 6: What are the risks and benefits associated with
utilizing these new technologies?
Answer. Automated and connected transportation has the potential
for significant mobility and societal benefits. This includes safety,
system efficiency, reduced congestion, environmental sustainability and
improved equity and access. At the same time, without careful policy
guidance and management, these technologies could also have less
desirable effects such as increased trips, congestion and emissions.
Safety
In 2017, there were 560 fatalities and more than 2,200 serious
injuries due to crashes on Washington state roadways, resulting in an
$8.4 billion impact to Washington's economy. Ninety-four percent of
these crashes are assumed to be related to human error. Vehicle
automation that provides driver assistive systems now or driverless
options later have the potential to drastically reduce crashes and
fatalities. By minimizing or eliminating human error from the operation
of cars and trucks, automation can support Washington's Target Zero
goal (reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries on Washington's
roadways to zero by the year 2030). While technology is not infallible
and government agencies need to ensure deployments of automated
vehicles are safe, it is important to note that, on average in the
United States, 100 people lose their lives on our roadways every day.
In addition, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), connected, Vehicle to Infrastructure (V2I)
technology helps drivers safely negotiate intersections and could help
prevent 41 to 55 percent of intersection crashes. Another connected
vehicle safety application that helps drivers with left turns at
intersections could help prevent 36 to 62 percent of leftturn crashes,
according to NHTSA. In addition to the lives saved, just these two
applications alone could prevent up to 592,000 crashes and 270,000
injuries each year.
Congestion and System Efficiency
According to the 2017 Global Traffic Scorecard from INRIX, U.S.
drivers spent an average of 41 hours a year in traffic during peak
hours, which cost drivers nearly $305 billion, an average of $1,445 per
driver. According to the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI),
congestion produced 56 billion pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution
and contributed to 3.1 billion gallons of wasted fuel in 2015. Without
stewardship and active engagement, there are also risks that automation
can further increase the number of trips, traffic congestion and urban
sprawl. Automated technology can potentially reduce the cost of
transportation and therefore increase access and demand. This would add
pressure to state and local transportation systems, many of which are
already operating beyond capacity. However, if emphasis is placed on
shared automated vehicles and Mobility on Demand solutions that
leverage investment in public transportation and active transportation
networks, the transportation system could be used more efficiently,
resulting in less demand for roadway expansion projects.
Environmental Sustainability
Automated electric vehicles have the potential to reduce carbon
dioxide (CO2) pollution and our nation's dependence on oil. However, to
maximize the environmental benefits of automated transportation, it
should be both electric and shared. Fossil-fueled automated vehicles
could increase emissions if the convenience of automated vehicles
results in selecting a single-occupancy AV travel over transit or other
modes, traveling longer distances to home and work, and letting empty
AVs circulate until a ride is needed. Research conducted by UC Davis
projected that if vehicles are automated but not electrified or shared,
greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector could rise 50
percent by 2050 compared to current levels. However, if autonomous
vehicles are electrified and shared, transportation sector emissions
could decline by 80 percent.
Access and Equity
Connected and automated vehicle technologies coupled with Mobility
on Demand applications and supportive policies have the potential to
expand access to transportation for everyone and especially the
disadvantaged populations, including older Americans and people with
disabilities. According to the U.S. census, residents age 65 and over
grew from 35.0 million in 2000, to 49.2 million in 2016, accounting for
12.4 percent and 15.2 percent of the total population, respectively;
and nearly one in five people have a disability. Similarly, it is hoped
that automation will provide more options and access for people in
underserved communities to support better work opportunities, better
education, and access to better healthcare. These communities need to
be actively engaged as stakeholders in the development and deployment
of these new technologies.
Infrastructure
At this time, infrastructure investments that may be needed to
support automation are still being defined. For competitive reasons,
the various Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) are hesitant to
define specific infrastructure modification needs. However, it is
understood that a minimum level of infrastructure systems, conditions
and maintenance levels will be needed for automated vehicles to operate
properly. Most automated vehicles analyze real-time inputs from a
combination of active sensors. Ideally, supervised and/or unsupervised
``machine learning'' occurs to improve performance of these processes
over time, extending and expanding safety capabilities across vehicle
models. Consistency in the implementation and maintenance of traffic
control devices is important. Signage and markings provides direction,
guidance and warnings to drivers. Some states elect to follow the
federal Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), while other
states may generate different iterations of the MUTCD. Even if a road
sign design is not the easiest to perceive or assimilate for a human
driver, for an automated vehicle vision detection and classification
system, it is likely easier to learn how to interpret a single but
ambiguous traffic sign as opposed to having to learn to interpret a
large number of different but more easily identifiable signs. Not only
is consistency important, maintenance is also vital. In some
circumstances, poorly maintained markings and signage can be worse than
having no markings and signage at all, as they can result in unintended
responses by the automated driving system Road surface conditions are
also important. Poorly maintained roadway surfaces (buckled asphalt,
potholes, etc.) could increase the risk of damaging vehicle sensors.
Damage to sensors can compromise vehicle performance and may force a
vehicle into a degraded state where automation must be deactivated.
Questions from Hon. Mark Meadows for Roger Millar, PE, FASCE, FAICP
Question 7: Part of meeting 21st Century needs is making sure we are
addressing the current maintenance backlog plaguing our roads and
bridges. For instance, the National Park Service has almost $6 billion
in overdue needs, including almost $275 million for the Blue Ridge
Parkway that runs right through my district.
How do we make sure that we are adequately addressing the needs of
our federal lands roads as we consider policy proposals?
Answer. Lack of funding to keep transportation infrastructure in a
state of good repair is a problem nationwide and at all levels of
government. Like other western states, Washington has a large amount of
federal lands, including three national parks, which are important to
tourism and our economy. The Federal Lands Access Program is an
important source of revenue to ensure these important national
treasures are open and safe for the public to access. As the Committee
works on reauthorization of the FAST Act, we encourage you to make
investing in preserving and maintaining our existing infrastructure in
a state of good repair--at all levels of government--a top priority.
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Darran Anderson
Technology Applications for Rural Communities
Question 1: Mr. Anderson, your testimony gave great insight into how
States can harness emerging technologies to solve mobility and other
transportation issues through applications such as connected vehicles
and data sharing across modes. However, most of these examples seem to
be geared toward large, metropolitan areas.
Can you provide some examples of technology applications that Texas
has used to benefit rural or underserved communities?
Answer. Transportation has been identified as a barrier to jobs,
medical care, schools and other critical services. In Texas, as in a
number of other states, car ownership is often essential to access
economic opportunity. The challenge is widespread: it exists for
vulnerable and underserved communities in regions where affordability,
displacement, and rapid growth are applying pressure. But it is also
impacting smaller or more rural communities that are particularly
limited in their budgets to meet their residents' needs. To combat
this, the Texas Innovation Alliance has identified a number of
strategies and action items. These are (1) to improve access to jobs,
medical care, schools, and critical services, (2) to explore innovative
paratransit partnerships, and (3) to assess affordability and
livability. As new developments in technology emerge, it will be
critical for public agencies to develop a mobility system that
continues serving all communities.
For example, in Bryan-College Station, the Brazos Valley Center for
Independent Living has purchased SimpliTransport, an on-line software
package that allows trips to be coordinated by multiple agencies. In
the past year, they have introduced the software to the human service
agencies in their area and have met with local hospitals to determine
how best to serve those who need transportation for medical services
but do not have access to a vehicle.
Another example is in Arlington, Texas. Although Arlington is
located between two very large metropolitan areas, there are people who
live in nearby suburban communities that depend on these bigger cities
for access to medical care, jobs, education, and even groceries. The
Via Rideshare Service in Arlington provides a flexible and personalized
on-demand transportation solution to those services. Via Transportation
shares extensive data with the City of Arlington to allow informed
decision making regarding transportation in the future. The city is
also exploring possibilities to coordinate existing paratransit
services within the Via platform and service to improve access and
efficiencies.
Question 2: Do you believe there is a disparity in how
technological advancements can benefit varying populations, and if so,
how can we level the playing field so everyone shares the benefits?
Answer. Research has indicated clear economic benefits of access to
opportunity provided by transportation mobility--including affordable
public transportation. As emerging technologies advance transportation
mobility, we should consider that many low-income people and households
either do not have access to a vehicle nor do they live near public
transportation. This can significantly limit their access to
opportunity, healthcare, food, and steady employment. Moreover, many
elderly or low-income individuals do not have access to a smart phone
or even a computer from which they could access rideshare opportunities
such as Uber or Lyft. As technology innovations to mobility systems
advance, we should continue to work with private stakeholders to
develop options that offer all communities affordable, accessible, and
convenient transportation options.
Promoting Innovation
Question 3: Your testimony lays out examples of successful innovations
based on your experience in Texas.
Can you provide some examples of successful innovations in local
infrastructure?
Answer. There are a number of projects which are active and funded
or active pilots in Texas that provide examples of successful
innovations in local infrastructure. Many of them are in the early
stages and data is still being collected and analyzed to assess the
performance of the projects. Here are some examples:
Arlington, Texas--Applied Information Test Deployment:
The City of Arlington has initiated a pilot program with Applied
Information for a test deployment of a Connected Vehicle (CV)
application. The application can provide travelers with alerts and
information for pedestrian/bicycle proximity, signal phase and timing,
fire truck approaching, school zone, etc., through a wireless network.
The test site is located from UTA Boulevard to Randol Mill Road along
the Cooper Street corridor that includes high pedestrian/bike activity,
a railroad crossing, and a school zone.
Arlington, Texas--Developing a Standard for Construction/
Lane Closure/Incident Information: The City has enrolled in the Waze
Connected Citizen Program and become a partner in the Waze Global Event
Partner Program. The traffic engineering division of the Public Works
and Transportation (PWT) Department programs closures for events,
construction, incidents, etc., into the Waze Road Closure tool. PWT
staff use Waze traffic alerts to identify traffic congestion areas and
adjust signal timing as needed. The North Central Texas Council of
Governments (NCTCOG) became a partner with Waze and created the data
exchange path between Waze and 511DFW. The residents of the City are
informed with the current road closure information at their fingertips
through Waze or the 511DFW app. Developing this standard will allow for
efficient management of traffic diverted due to incidents on highways
or arterials.
Frisco, Texas--Real Time Data Sharing: Frisco partners
with Traffic Technology Services to provide Vehicle to Infrastructure
(V2I) technology to Audi vehicles at all of the city's signals. They
are starting to collect and process the reciprocal data from these
vehicles to help optimize their signal system.
Houston, Texas--ConnectSmart: The Houston District of the
Texas Department of Transportation received an $8.9 million grant under
FHWA's Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies
Deployment (ATCMTD) program to deploy advanced technologies as part of
Houston's ConnectSmart. The project integrates transportation
management systems across the various modes of transportation to
benefit drivers and carpoolers, transit riders and bicyclists. The
system will provide additional real-time information on carpooling,
ridesharing and the availability of shared electric bicycles.
ConnectSmart's mobility-as-a-service platform will help to manage
congestion in the Houston metro area. It will provide transportation
stakeholders with data to improve their operational efficiency with the
goal of encouraging multi-modal transportation based on data-driven
rider recommendations.
Dallas, Texas--Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART)+Uber:
DART recently awarded an RFP to Uber for providing first/last mile
solutions. The initiative enables riders to request an Uber ride using
DART's GoPass mobile ticketing application. The DART and Uber
partnership emerged after a successful trial during the Dallas St.
Patrick's Day parade that encouraged people to ride transit and
overcome first/last mile obstacles.
Question 4: What obstacles do you feel are the most significant to
promoting innovation in our Federal transportation programs?
Answer. Funding is always an obstacle, but indecision, not keeping
pace with technological innovations, and outdated and inconsistent
procurement regulations are as well. Some examples are:
The continued delay on a decision on technology
deployment. It is challenging for states and localities to invest in
certain technology when we don't know when or if the federal government
is going to choose to employ Dedicated Short-Range Communications or
opt to use 5G for Connected Vehicles (CVs). Many technology experts say
the two solutions will never be able to fully integrate and be
interoperable, so it would require multiple redundant devices to have a
dual-mode solution. We appreciate that the USDOT wants an interoperable
system, but we don't want to invest in a Betamax if a VCR will be the
standard.
The lack of passing and implementing an Automated Vehicle
law or declaring a national Connected and Automated Vehicle strategy
for several years has created uncertainty and encourages inconsistency
and incongruity as state and local officials design their own
solutions.
The slow speed at which the MUTCD keeps pace with new
technology, industry innovation, and transportation readiness to
implement new capabilities. MUTCD advancement could be tied directly
into national connected and automated vehicle (CAV) and other research
programs, so that as states and national entities complete research
projects, the new standards are immediately allowed.
Some federal agencies seem tied to the ``way things have
always been done'' and deny proven concepts such as allowing an
alternative font on highway signs, or considering the use of
sponsorship logos on Dynamic Message Signs to rapidly deploy and
improve our Traffic Management System. We see dynamic billboards along
highways, but we are refused the opportunity to conduct a limited test
on public roads of a public-private sponsorship concept that places a
logo on part of a DMS during non-emergency situations.
Inconsistency in the application of procurement laws for
grant programs. For example, the Federal Highway Administration's
Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies
Deployment (ATCMTD) grant program encourages public sector applicants
to include private sector interests in their grant application. If
awarded an ATCMTD grant, the public sector awardee is then charged with
holding an open procurement for the functions meant to be handled by
their private sector partners. Yet, the Federal Transit
Administration's MOD Sandbox grant treats private sector partners that
are part of a public sector application as a sole source contract.
There is no incentive for the private sector to partner with a public
institution on a grant proposal if they are going to have to recompete
for the partnership after the grant is awarded.
The federal government should also allow state and local
DOTs to allow broader flexibility in public-private partnership
arrangements. Using public-private partnerships can assist with
deploying, operating, and maintaining innovative technology solutions,
like CV, and make these technologies available to the public faster
than if they are exclusively funded by traditional public programs that
require a local match (CMAQ, STBG, etc.). Often, however, these
arrangements can bring additional and unnecessarily federal regulatory
oversight into the mix that can stymie innovation and efficiency.
Question 5: Do you think Congress should make substantial changes
to how we approach Federal surface transportation policy, or should we
focus on improvements to how things work currently? If you do favor
innovating our policies, what is the most important change Congress can
make?
Answer. The most substantial action Congress can take in the next
surface transportation bill is to use current data to inform the
formulas used to allocate funds, and ensure this remains the case going
forward. As population changes continue across the country, it is
critical that the allocation of federal fuel taxes keep pace with
changing system demands and performance. Since the current formula for
the distribution of federal motor fuel taxes uses 2000 Census data and
a formula last updated in 2005, it is important that the federal
government provide each state with an amount equal to what it
contributed in federal fuel taxes. TxDOT's current federal priorities
document, enclosed with this letter, provides additional thoughts on
this and other changes we believe would benefit the nation's surface
transportation system.
Questions from Hon. Mark Meadows for Darran Anderson
Question 6: The current Administration states its goal is to ``seek
long-term reforms on how infrastructure projects are regulated, funded,
delivered, and maintained.'' It directed agencies ``whenever feasible,
to specify performance objectives, rather than behavior, in crafting
new regulations.'' A recent report from the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) states that although ``agencies may design their
regulations in different ways to achieve intended policy outcomes,''
agency ``officials reported a preference for `performance' designs that
establish an outcome. . .''.
In your experience with Texas Department of Transportation, do you
believe the use of outcome-based performance standards both in Texas
and nation-wide will be less prescriptive, as required by Executive
Order 12866, while facilitating less costly, safer regulatory outcomes
that do not stifle innovation?
Answer. One of many challenges for Texas continues to be the
increasing disparity between demand and available capacity. Since 1990,
the state's population has increased by 55 percent. During the same
period, daily vehicle miles traveled have increased 70 percent and
daily truck miles traveled have increased 110 percent on TxDOT-
maintained roadways, while roadway centerline miles have increased at a
disproportionate rate of 7 percent. This demand is only expected to
increase for Texas. To address needs amid increasingly constrained
resources it is critical to understand investment trade-offs and
maximize the impact of every dollar spent. Outcome-based performance
standards provide a path for TxDOT to align transportation investment
decisions to address passenger and freight needs and demands amid
unprecedented growth and declining revenues. TxDOT uses performance-
based planning to determine strategic direction and performance
outcomes to evaluate and improve strategies going-forward.
TxDOT wants the federal government to use a consistent set of
performance measures, considering the most currently available data and
performance factors. With that, we do need the flexibility in
implementation of federal programs and projects to achieve the desired
outcome as established by Texas, not federal regulations. Because each
state's circumstances are unique and their ability to achieve a desired
outcome is just as varied, it is not appropriate to prescribe specific
regulations for a single outcome for all states. Additionally,
technological advancements in transportation can quickly outdate
regulations, even upon passage.
Every state and political subdivision faces different constraints
and opportunities affecting their transportation system. Stable,
reliable, and predictable funding is a particularly important variable
for states in planning and target setting, but there are other factors
(as described above for Texas), including economic conditions,
environmental conditions, population growth trends, legislative and
gubernatorial mandates and priorities, and issues identified in the
public involvement process. Consequently, it is essential that states
and MPOs have the flexibility to determine the best approach for
achieving outcome-based performance targets, including targets that
have performance holding steady or, in some situations, declining.
Regulations pertaining to performance reporting should focus on
providing the public and interested parties clear, concise, and easily
available information on transportation system performance in the state
as determined by the state.
Texas understands and appreciates the federal desire to hold states
accountable for progress toward achieving desired federal outcomes;
however, we believe that states are in the best position to understand
the needs of our state and, therefore, states--in partnership with MPOs
and regional leaders--should be the ones to decide program and project
funding within the state. It is essential that any federal regulations
do not compromise flexibility, delay project delivery, or create
redundancies in requirements. It is also important to clarify language
and definitions to avoid future variances in interpretation and
guidance.
Question 7: What is Texas' experience with applying outcome-based
performance standards and how can the federal government best apply
outcome-based performance standards?
Answer. As noted in response to Question 6, TxDOT wants the federal
government to use a consistent set of performance measures, considering
the most currently available data and performance factors. TxDOT has
applied outcome-based performance standards in select programs for many
years and, in doing so, has developed measures (in some cases very
detailed measures) that evaluate objectives and results. Texas'
experience has led to a greater use of performance measures--from the
performance-based annual planning cycle to the state's first
performance-based long-range transportation plan (Texas Transportation
Plan 2040 adopted on February 26, 2015) to MAP-21/FAST Act and Texas'
Legislative Budget Board performance measures and set targets.
Visit the Texas Transportation Commission's Performance Dashboard
[http://www.dot.state.tx.us/dashboard/index.htm] for examples of some
of the high-level, strategic performance measures, targets, and results
that TxDOT uses to help monitor and shape transportation policy
efforts.
Texas believes that it is extremely important that states set their
own performance targets, although we understand that the federal
government should retain oversight to ensure that state metrics are
reasonable, realistic and data-driven. Texas would prefer a program
that does not include the federal agencies both establishing and
evaluating state performance measure targets. Furthermore, any
performance management structure should support meaningful
transportation investment decisionmaking by establishing target and
reporting timeframes that are realistic and appropriate for the
measures being used.
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for John Kevin ``Jack'' Clark
Workforce Training
Question 1: Mr. Clark, your testimony highlights the importance of
apprenticeship programs as well as other frontline training programs.
You make the case that Federal investment in infrastructure should be
accompanied by investments in training programs.
How can Congress specifically target Federal dollars to help
transit agencies overcome the ``skills crisis'' in transit you mention,
as well as a rapidly aging workforce? Should Congress set aside
dedicated workforce training funds from the urban and rural transit
formula funds, so every transit agency has a small amount of workforce
training dollars?
Question 2: What is the most efficient way for Federal investments
in human capital to result in on-the-ground worker training?
Workforce Training Resource Center
Question 3: Mr. Clark, one of your policy proposals for reauthorization
of the FAST Act is to create a ``national resource center'' devoted to
frontline transit worker training.
Can you elaborate on what role you see this resource center
playing? What would be the center's objectives? What authority would it
have and how would it advance solutions?
Answers to Questions 1-3. At this time, I would not propose a
federal mandate on a portion of federal grants that needs to be spent
on training. As the question makes explicit, the resulting formula
would lead to a ``small amount of workforce training dollars'' for each
agency. Transit managers are likely to resist another mandate for
already scarce capital funds, and it does make sense to push through
that resistance for a small set-aside that isn't up to the scale of the
problem.
I would reiterate the absolute need for a national resource center
for the frontline workforce. There is a long history of authorizing and
appropriating funds to support the National Transit Institute. NTI does
invaluable work. By its own admission, NTI focuses on training for the
15-20 percent of the transit workforce in management and front-office
roles.
The national resource center that is urgently needed now, on the
other hand, would focus on identifying and quantifying the shortcomings
of current training for the frontline workforce, developing training
materials for agencies to implement, assisting agencies in improving
their training, and developing registered apprenticeship programs. As
the new frontline workforce center grows, it can and will work to
develop recruitment and training strategies for the next generation of
technical workers. Registered apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship
will be part of that strategy. Reaching out to Career and Technical
Education schools at the secondary and post-secondary levels will also
be part of that recruitment effort. Conscious strategies to diversity
the transit workforce need to be central to addressing the workforce
skills crisis. Representative Brown from Maryland asked during the
hearing if there is any successful history of training programs that
have helped previously disadvantaged and excluded populations enter
skilled transit jobs. I cited the experience in Los Angeles. I would
like to enter into the record a 2013 study that the Transportation
Learning Center submitted to the Leadership Conference on Civil and
Human Rights Education Fund, entitled ``Pathways to Equity: Effective
Transportation Career Partnerships.'' That study also highlights some
innovative work by both union and management leaders in Philadelphia to
reach out to inner-city high school youth. An effective frontline
workforce center could identify and help to replicate successes like
these.
Transit labor needs to have a full and equal voice in oversight of
this frontline workforce center, and the entity housing this new
frontline workforce center needs to have demonstrated experience in
working with labor-management partnerships to improve training. I will
return to the potential functions of a frontline workforce center in
some closing comments and in some specific challenges confronting
transit now.
It is useful to recall the scale of the challenge on workforce
training. Take one very dramatic current example: the transition to
battery electric buses (BEBs). FTA continues to place large sums of
money in the no-low emissions grant program. California and a handful
of other states have set timelines for zero emission buses. More states
are following suit, and federal legislation has been filed to create a
mandate for zero emission transit fleets. Substantial private funding
is accelerating the transition. Even Cummins, the sole manufacturer of
bus diesel engines, is entering a partnership with Gillig to produce an
electric bus. FTA will continue to fund no-low procurement. Investors,
responding to those procurements and to their own projections on the
likelihood of BEBs, will continue to increase the capacity of the BEB
vendors. Agencies will use the federal money to purchase this new
technology. Reducing airborne pollution by deploying BEB's achieves
many good outcomes.
Who is paying attention to the need for training frontline workers
to be ready to understand and maintain BEBs?
We know from a 2002 Transit Cooperative Research study (Training
for On-Board Bus Electronics) that electric and electronic skills
presented and still present a major challenge for current technicians.
My own organization, the Transportation Learning Center, has conducted
skills gap surveys at dozens of agencies large and small. Consistently,
the skills gap shows up most prominently in electrical and electronic
skills. The industry needs a major mobilization to make sure that
current workers have the proper skills. We know enough to know that
mobilization is not occurring.
A funded resource center dedicated to the frontline workforce, with
leadership from both labor and management, could provide needed focus
on training for this and many other new technologies.
Question 2 asks how we can ensure that federal funds result in on
the ground training.
The federal government can have a powerful influence in ensuring
that training reaches the frontline workforce. The Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) monitors transit agencies on safety, on state of
good repair, on grants management and fiscal capacity. Currently, the
federal government does not ask agencies to report on what training is
taking place or who is receiving training. Congress can and should
mandate that FTA include training in its oversight of agencies. FTA's
review of system safety requires a level of workforce engagement. How
much safety training occurs? FTA has been dogged in reviewing state of
good repair in vehicle fleets. Is there adequate training for
maintenance staff to achieve and hold that state of good repair? At
many industry meetings and conferences, discussions center on the need
for succession planning in the executive suite. Is anyone paying
attention to succession for the next generation of mechanics and
operators? Speaking of operators, some of the dramatic numbers in
hiring needs come from very high attrition rates among new operators.
Are agencies taking steps to reduce that rate of attrition?
Metrics need to be developed on workforce so that FTA has a proper
framework for its oversight role. One piece of data that should be on
that list is spare staffing ratio for maintenance. Maintaining a spare
bus ratio is long-standing good practice for agencies. Accidents occur;
breakdowns happen. Having spare buses ensures that you can maintain
service. As we know, you need maintenance staff to keep the buses
running, too. The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) released
a study in 2016 on ``Maintenance Technician Levels for Modern
Transportation Fleets,'' complete with a tool for calculating a proper
ratio of technicians to buses. FTA needs to adapt and revise that ratio
to allow for some spare capacity so that agencies can make daily bus
turnout and be able to devote time for training. That ratio will vary
over time. When an agency needs to recruit and train a large number of
mechanics, those apprentices need classroom time. In addition,
experienced mechanics will spend time coaching and mentoring
apprentices through on the job learning. That needs to happen, and it
needs to be included in the calculation for appropriate maintenance
training. A mature workforce with few apprentices will still require
time for training and new learning, but it will be a smaller ratio.
In addition to improved monitoring and oversight by FTA, Congress
can look at how capital funds currently support--or fail to support--
good frontline workforce training.
Federal funds support capital spending in two ways.
1. Current law allows states to give agencies leeway to divert up
to 0.5 percent of federal capital funds to workforce development
activities. Congress can and should increase that flexibility so that
agencies can use up to 5 percent of capital funds for workforce
development. Congress can and should ask for reports from FTA on the
use of that provision to fund workforce development and on what
workforce development activities it supports. In general, in transit
and in the economy more generally, training funds are spent
disproportionately to support training for employees with higher levels
of education and more managerial responsibilities. Congress has an
interest in ensuring that any federal funds support training for the
frontline workforce.
2. Because the federal government is paying 85 percent of the
cost, most agencies include training in the bid process for new
equipment. For the agencies and especially for the vendors selling the
equipment, that training comes as an afterthought, not as a key
deliverable in the bid process. The Transportation Learning Center
worked with a wide range of transit rail subject matter experts to
develop a 2014 study on ``Establishing a National Transit Industry Rail
Vehicle Technician Qualification Program Building for Success. To quote
directly from the study:
OEM-provided training that comes packaged with new
capital equipment is an important source of training,
but it can fall short of the training needs of agencies
for this new equipment. In a 2012 survey conducted by
the Transportation Learning Center, SMEs on the
National Rail Vehicle Training Standards Committee
identified 50 distinct training areas on which OEMs
provide training materials. The named OEMs include
leading vendors in the industry. In 35 (70 percent) of
these areas, the SMEs rated OEM training materials as
poor or fair. Among the topics covered by the OEM
training materials, rail vehicle troubleshooting and
communications were found to be the most problematic.
Not one subject area had an average score that put it
in the ``Very Good'' Category across all vendors.
Anecdotally, some ``training'' consists of OEM sales personnel
coming to tout how great their equipment is. That is an extreme
example, but it happens. Training from the vendor more often is
developed late without much thought on how to deliver it to people
charged with doing the actual work. Frontline technicians then sit
through a course written by an engineer that might--or might not--work
for other engineers. Another common problem is that even if the vendor
training is excellent, it's not timely. Technicians get good background
on equipment that's covered by an extended warranty. They won't touch
that equipment for five years. Can Congress cut through this thick
underbrush of problems with OEM-training? Once again, there could be a
substantial role for a frontline workforce center to conduct more
research like the example from the TCRP Rail Car study. On capital
purchases, a number of agencies have established best practice
procurement where representatives of the maintenance and operator
workforce have a direct voice in design. Frontline workforce
representatives could help develop guidelines in the original bid for
what OEM training needs to include. The American Public Transportation
Association has developed detailed industry-standard recommended
practices for what constitutes good training in most technical areas.
OEM's might be required to identify how the training on the new
equipment they are providing relates to the recommended practices for
training in rail or bus maintenance.
So far have this note has addressed some core mandates and
potential benefits of a resource center focused on the frontline
workforce. Let me elaborate a bit more on some key functions for such a
center:
Promoting apprenticeship in public transportation. In
recent years, apprenticeship has won bipartisan support in Congress and
the strong backing of successive Administrations of different parties.
Quite simply, apprenticeship combines technical learning in a classroom
setting with a lot of structured on the job learning. Transit needs to
adopt and adapt apprenticeship to meet its need to upgrade current
workers and to recruit a new generation.
Supporting agencies and local unions, particularly with
``Train the Trainer'' and ``Train the Mentor'' programs. Mentoring
provides the basis for structured on the job learning. Workers who have
mastered the skills teach those willing to learn. A frontline workforce
center can develop effective training to help those mentors communicate
more effectively. Similarly, very experienced technical experts may be
ready and willing to become technical trainers. An intensive train the
trainer program can give those works the skills to come into the
classroom ready to help working adults learn.
Broadening the reach of transit recruitment. By
maintaining strong ties to Career Technical Education programs,
programs like Job Corps, Tradeswomen networks and community-based
training providers, a national frontline workforce training center can
help the transit industry reach well-qualified candidates for jobs who
might not otherwise be considered.
Creating and sustaining cross site interaction of
frontline subject matter experts, especially for developing strong
training materials. Working with multiple agencies and unions, a
frontline workforce center can create and update excellent, classroom-
ready training materials in a range of technical areas.
Documenting the return on investment for good training.
Like most employers, transit managers tend to see training as a cost.
It's really an investment that can pay for itself many times over. A
well-resourced frontline workforce center can do the needed legwork and
analysis to make this case.
Sharing current best practices in training. Surprisingly,
there is too little of this in transit now. Part of the problem grows
from the fact that most cross-site sharing in the industry occurs among
senior managers and doesn't involve frontline workers. By creating and
funding a center that functions like NTI but with a focus on frontline
workers, that dynamic starts to change. TCRP in a two-volume study
released in 2018 (Guide To Developing Best Practices and Sharing
Resources for Transit Technical Training) documented the lack of
sustainable work in developing and sharing best practices. On a level
of small but crucial detail, this two-volume study noted the lack of an
institution capable of maintaining and curating good training material
on a shared internet platform. That finding alone provides an adequate
case for the creation of a frontline workforce center.
In summary, I oppose the idea of a mandated training set-aside, and
I favor increasing from 0.5 to 5 percent the funds that can be used
flexibly from capital funds to support workforce development. I propose
that Congress insist that FTA include both data collection and direct
accountability from agencies on workforce needs as part of its ongoing
oversight and monitoring of transit agencies. That oversight will
ensure that needed training occurs regularly. Finally, I urge an
authorization and appropriation for a resource center for the frontline
workforce funded at a level equal to the National Transit Institute.
In my original testimony and in response to these questions, I have
made specific reference to studies published by the Transit Cooperative
Research Program (TCRP) and to one specific study the Transportation
Learning Center did on behalf of the Leadership Conference on Human and
Civil Rights Education Fund. I am including here the Transportation
Learning Center paper and a few TCRP studies relevant to the topics
covered with a brief explanation of the study.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2005. A
Guidebook for Developing and Sharing Transit Bus Maintenance Practices.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/
13562.
Transportation Learning Center 2013. Pathways to Equity: Effective
Transportation Career Partnerships. http://www.transportcenter.org/
images/uploads/publications/LCCHR_FINAL112013.pdf
This report focuses on two local case profiles for transit Career
Pathways: a Project Labor Agreement in Los Angeles providing expanded
access to jobs and training for public transportation capital
construction, and a youth Career Pathways partnership in Philadelphia
linking career and technical education with future transit careers.
Both of these models, if taken to scale in the transit industry, can
have positive impacts, locally and nationally, for improving access to
family-sustaining careers and training and for improving educational
outcomes for disadvantaged groups--urban low-income and minority groups
as well as women--who have previously been under-represented in these
occupations.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2013.
Building a Sustainable Workforce in the Public Transportation
lndustry--A Systems Approach. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/22489.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2014.
Establishing a National Transit Industry Rail Vehicle Technician
Qualification Program--Building for Success. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/22346.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. The
Transportation Workforce Challenge: Recruiting, Training, and Retaining
Qualified Workers for Transportation and Transit Agencies--Special
Report 275. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://
doi.org/10.17226/10764.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2018. Transit
Technical Training, Volume 1: Guide to Applying Best Practices and
Sharing Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://doi.org/10.17226/25157.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018.
Transit Technical Training, Volume 2: Guide to Overcoming Barriers to
Implementing Best and Innovative Training. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25158.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2002.
Training for On-Board Bus Electronics, A Synthesis ofTransit Practice.
TCRP Synthesis 44. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. http://
onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_44.pdf
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Therese W. McMillan
Federal-State-Local Partnership
Question 1: Ms. McMillan, as Executive Director of a transportation
commission overseeing seven million residents in nine counties, you
have a unique perspective on the need for Federal investment in
transportation and the Federal-State-local partnership.
Can you describe for this Committee briefly how MTC accesses
Federal dollars? What portions of the Federal-aid highway and transit
program, do you have access to, and do you get the funds directly or
does it flow through the State?
Answer. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the San
Francisco Bay Area's federally designated metropolitan planning
organization (MPO), invests around $180 million in surface
transportation block grant program (or STP, as we continue to call it
in our region) and congestion mitigation and air quality improvement
program (CMAQ) funding each year. In California, direct suballocation
to MPOs of the population-based STP funds (23 USC 133 (d)) and CMAQ
funds are provided for in state law. While these funds technically
remain with the state department of transportation, rather than being
formally transferred to the MPOs, the MPOs have full control over the
expenditure of the funds, including establishing the criteria for how
we distribute the funding. Because the funds are distributed at the
metro area level, we are able to invest these funds to provide
innovative regional solutions that span jurisdictional boundaries.
Projects such as the Clipper card (our multioperator transit-fare
payment card) or our Bay Bridge Forward initiative (an effort to
relieve congestion and transit crowding in the San Francisco-Oakland
Bay Bridge corridor) are harder to pay for with funds that are awarded
to specific transit operators or to local jurisdictions for specific
projects (if voter approved) or for mode-siloed investments. This
regional perspective also helps us prioritize funding for local
projects that are consistent with regionwide goals, including our
federal performance goals.
MTC also works with the Bay Area's 23 transit operators to identify
our region's federal transit program spending priorities.\1\ MTC is the
designated recipient of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
Section 5307 Urbanized Area, Section 3357 State of Good Repair and
Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities formula funds for our region's
large urbanized areas. The California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) has further authorized MTC to select projects and recommend
funding allocations for our region's small urbanized areas' Section
5307 and 5339 funds and for the Section 5311 Rural Area Formula
programs. MTC works cooperatively with our region's transit operators,
cities, counties and Caltrans to establish transit capital project
priorities and to fund those priority projects. As an example, the
region is currently experiencing a time of major reinvestment with the
replacement of the BART car fleet. MTC, working with our regional and
federal partners, developed a funding plan using our federal transit
dollars to deliver this $2.6 billion project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are 25 transit operators in the Bay Area, 23 of which are
FTA grantees. MTC works with those 23 FTA grantees to identify our
region's federal transit program spending priorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, federal metropolitan transportation planning funds
are allocated by the state to MTC to fund our federally mandated
metropolitan transportation planning activities.
Resiliency
Question 2: Ms. McMillan, your testimony encourages us to prioritize
resiliency of our infrastructure as we begin consideration of a new
surface transportation bill.
Do you feel that the current Federal approach under the FAST Act
allows for prioritization of resiliency? What has the Federal
government done well in encouraging resiliency, and what can we improve
upon?
Answer. No, the FAST Act does not provide states and regions with
sufficient resources to both invest in the longstanding federal
priorities of state of good repair and improved mobility while also
adapting our transportation assets and services to be more resilient to
extreme weather and a changing climate. The core FAST Act highway and
transit programs are structured to support important national
performance goals such as improved safety and infrastructure condition,
congestion reduction, and economic vitality. While many resiliency
improvements are eligible under the core programs, the current
performance-based approach--which MTC has long-supported--encourages
states, locals and transit agencies to prioritize investments in order
to make progress toward those national goals.\2\ Even with a strong
local partnership--in the Bay Area we match our FAST Act funds 9-to-1
with state and local dollars--adapting our infrastructure to a changing
climate in addition to investing in the above-mentioned priorities will
require significant resources that simply are not available at the
scale of the investment authorized in the FAST Act. For example, MTC
estimates that at the current scale of investment, the Bay Area would
receive nearly $30 billion in federal transportation funds between 2016
and 2040. Preliminary cost estimates for one regional adaptation
priority--the 20-mile State Route 37 corridor that, as I referenced in
my testimony, is highly vulnerable to complete inundation due to sea
level rise--are upwards of $5 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We consider the following to be the core highway and transit
programs: the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, the Highway
Safety Improvement Program, the National Highway Performance Program
the National Highway Freight formula and discretionary programs, the
Capital Investment Grant Program, the 5307 and 5311 Urban and Rural
transit formula programs, the 5337 State of Good Repair Program, the
5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Program and the 5310 Enhanced Mobility for
Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program. While not part of
the core program, the FAST Act structure specifically supports disaster
recovery through the highway and transit emergency relief programs. We
are encouraged that these programs may be used, to a limited extent, to
harden infrastructure. However, resiliency improvements are only
eligible post-disaster--dedicated resources are not broadly available
to proactively adapt our nation's infrastructure to a changing climate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We encourage the committee to create a new flexible program that
will make our transportation networks resilient in the face of a
changing climate. Fifty percent of the funding should flow via formula
to metropolitan areas--our nation's population and job centers--which
house much of the nation's critical at-risk infrastructure.
Discretionary grant funding (the remaining 50 percent of the funds)
should additionally support states, local governments, transit agencies
and ports in efforts to upgrade freight corridors and other critical
infrastructure. The discretionary component should have a 25 percent
rural set-aside to ensure such communities have access to program
funds. To be most effective, the program should be mode-neutral and
have broad project eligibility so that states and regions can
prioritize the road, bridge, bus, rail or other resiliency upgrades
that are most critical to keep their economies moving.
In lieu of a new program, the committee could also prioritize
resiliency through substantially growing the existing FAST Act
programs--including the Surface Transportation Block Grant program; the
Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program, the federal transit urban,
rural and state of good repair formula programs; and the freight
formula and discretionary programs--and revising programs like CIG so
that transit capital investments intended primary to improve resiliency
are eligible for grant funding.
From a planning perspective, the FAST Act took a step in the right
direction by expanding the scope of state and metropolitan long range
plans to include resiliency. We would also like to see an increase in
planning funds to help regions and states better address complexities
around climate change. Increased planning funding also will support
states and MPOs in fulfilling current performance-based planning
mandates, which were added in the 2012 transportation authorization
without a commensurate increase in planning resources. Importantly, we
do not recommend new mandates with respect to resiliency planning. The
current federal planning framework enables planners to innovate and
determine precisely how to incorporate resiliency considerations and
other uncertainties, such as those posed by transformative
transportation technologies, into transportation planning and near-term
investment decisions.
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Al Stanley
Workforce Pilot Program
Question 1: Mr. Stanley, you mention in your testimony that AGC has
partnered with the Federal Highway Administration and AASHTO on a
highway construction worker pilot program.
Can you provide additional details about the program and elaborate
on what you hope will come from the pilot program?
Answer. For the past two years, AGC has worked with the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), AASHTO, state DOTs and the Department of
Labor's Education and Training Administration on a highway construction
worker pilot program to identify ways to interest workers in careers in
highway construction. The idea grew out of discussions in the AASHTO-
AGC-ARTBA Joint Committee on construction industry work force needs.
AGC members routinely identify worker recruitment, training and
placement as a significant challenge. The Joint Committee noted that
the cost and inefficiencies of these continuing workforce challenges
compromise highway project delivery and efforts to provide for a safe
and effective highway system. The pilot was established to address this
serious and on-going workforce development issue in the highway
construction industry.
Six cities and six states were selected to examine these issues
from urban--rural, union-non-union perspectives. In these locations the
different stakeholders looked at available resources including
training, outreach and placement programs to determine where there were
gaps and how industry and the public sector could work together to fill
these gaps. The coordination proved very successful. What was key was
the realization that there was not one solution but many different
approaches. The two-year pilot program effort ended on December 31,
2018. A ``Playbook'' was developed to identify best practices and
successful strategies that AGC chapters and other industry groups can
take to implement a program. Follow-on webinars are also being planned
to continue the progress and highlight accomplishments. In some most
cases coordination was the key to success. A well-attended educational
session was held during AGCs 2019 convention to present the results and
lessons learned.
FHWA was able to make some grant funds available to support these
pilots. This financial support was used to take good ideas and make
them more widely available. For example, through this initiative AGC's
Pittsburgh area chapter (Contractors Association of Western
Pennsylvania) received grant funding to make its Future Road Builders
app more generally available to others in the industry with
modifications to make it applicable to other areas.
The pilot is now transitioning to a Highway Construction Workforce
Partnership (HCWP) that will encourage other city and state highway
industry and workforce system partners to work together to identify,
train and place individuals into highway construction jobs. The
``Playbook'' will be used as the centerpiece for further outreach. FHWA
has also developed a ``Roads to Your Future'' website to house all of
the resources.
Questions from Hon. Mark Meadows for Al Stanley
Question 2: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is currently
considering reforms which would provide greater flexibility to States
to use propriety or patented materials in Federal-aid highway projects.
What is your experience with FHWA's patented and proprietary
products rule and what, if any, reforms would you recommend?
Answer. In comments to the Federal Highway Administration
(attached), AGC expressed contractors' strong opposition to its
proposal to eliminate or significantly modify the long-standing
restriction prohibiting states from specifying the use of proprietary
or patented products in federal-aid highway contracts. AGC believes
that the existing policy has worked well over time by providing a
balanced approach ensuring competition while creating a process for
patented and proprietary products to be used. AGC maintains that the
arguments put forth to make this drastic change are insufficient to
justify this action.
To date, there has been no lack of new materials, products or
processes used in highway and transportation construction. The history
of the highway program is replete with examples of new and innovative
products being adopted. For example, significant advancements have been
made in pavement technology--both in the materials and placement
processes that have made pavements smoother, longer lasting and more
skid resistant. Bridge construction techniques and the technology
incorporated into these structures has made significant paradigm shifts
over the years in how bridges are built. Many of these changes started
out as proprietary products or processes. Materials such as composites,
disc bearings for bridges, movable traffic barriers, high visibility
signage and breakaway sign posts are all examples of good ideas that
have been adopted and brought into the mainstream. All this occurred
with the current rule in place.
AGC is very concerned that altering the rule will have a
detrimental impact on competition by allowing suppliers of patented
products to determine the costs that State DOTs pay for products rather
than through the open competitive bid system. AGC is also concerned
that altering the rule could allow suppliers of proprietary products to
determine which company is ultimately the low bidder by deciding which
contractors to provide quotes and at what price. AGC also believes the
proposed rule change gives an advantage to product suppliers with the
most aggressive sales force or political influence without necessarily
having the best product.
Numerous state departments of transportation weighed in on the rule
both for and against it. AGC notes that state Departments of
transportation are mixed in their response to this proposed change.
Because of the disparity in their members opinions on the change,
AASHTO responded to the proposed rule change by pointing out some of
the problems with the rule change without taking a position.
AGC's full set of comments are attached for your information and
review.
attachment--comments to the federal highway administration
January 14, 2019.
Mr. John Huyer
Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
New Jersey Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20590
RE: FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2018-0036 ``Construction and Maintenance--
Promoting Innovation in Use of Patented and Proprietary Products''
Dear Mr. Huyer:
The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) is a national
organization representing more than 27,000 businesses involved in every
aspect of construction activity in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and
Washington, D.C. AGC members perform contracts for the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), state departments of transportation (DOTs),
local agencies and other entities that receive funding through the
Federal-aid highway program and are therefore directly impacted by
FHWA's policy on the Use of Patented and Proprietary Products.
executive summary
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the contractor's point of
view on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) ``Construction and
Maintenance--Promoting Innovation in Use of Patented and Proprietary
Products.'' AGC strongly opposes FHWA's proposal to rescind or
significantly modify its long standing and effective policy on the use
of patented and proprietary products on Federal-aid highway projects as
detailed in 23 CFR 635.41. AGC recommends that the current regulation
not be changed and that it be retained ``as is.''
The arguments put forth in this NPRM to make this drastic change
are insufficient to justify this action. The petitioners assert,
without providing any data, that the rule has somehow stifled the
introduction of new and innovative products. AGC believes that the
existing policy is a balanced approach to ensuring competition while
creating a process for patented and proprietary products to be used.
AGC is very concerned that altering the rule will have a
detrimental impact on competition by allowing suppliers of patented
products to determine the costs that State DOTs pay for products rather
than through the open competitive bid system. AGC is also concerned
that altering the rule could allow suppliers of proprietary products to
determine which company is ultimately the low bidder by deciding which
contractors to provide quotes and at what price. AGC also believes the
proposed rule change gives an advantage to product suppliers with the
most aggressive sales force or political influence without necessarily
having the best product.
rule has been effective
For almost 70 years, the Federal-aid highway program has
successfully delivered transportation improvement projects that are of
the highest quality and at the best cost primarily through the
competitive bidding/competitive proposal process. The Federal-aid
Highway Act directs that the Transportation Secretary shall require
such plans and specifications and such methods of bidding as shall be
effective in securing competition. This system has served the nation
and taxpayers well.
The current proprietary product rule is part of the competitive
bidding requirements. It is based on the concept that allowing bidders
the maximum flexibility to select materials and/or products to meet the
contract specifications will result in the lowest bid prices for the
project. Limiting the range of possible materials/products will result
in higher bid prices. Through the competitive bid process contractors
are incentivized to look for improvements in means, methods, equipment,
materials and other factors that make their business operations more
cost effective than their competitors. Limiting competition forproducts
and processes in the bidding process will undermine the competitive bid
system and limit the use of alternative and equally effective products
from being used on specific projects.
To date, there has not been a lack of new materials, products or
processes used in highway and transportation construction. The history
of the highway program is replete with examples of new and innovative
products being adopted. For example, significant advancements have been
made in pavement technology--both in the materials and placement
processes that have made pavements smoother, longer lasting and more
skid resistant. Bridge construction techniques and the technology
incorporated into these structures has made significant paradigm shifts
over the years in how bridges are built. Many of these changes started
out as proprietary products or processes. Materials such as composites,
disc bearings for bridges, movable traffic barriers, high visibility
signage and breakaway sign posts are all examples of good ideas that
have been adopted and brought into the mainstream. All this occurred
with the current rule in place.
While the current rule prohibits the use of proprietary products it
does permit an exception which allows for the use of such products. In
fact, proprietary products are used widely on Federal-aid Highway
projects using exceptions permitted by the rule. States can use
proprietary products: (1) if they are purchased through competitive
bidding with equally suitable unpatented items; (2) if a State
certifies either that such proprietary item is essential for
synchronization with existing highway facilities, or that no equally
suitable alternate exists; or (3) if a proprietary item is used for
research or for a distinctive type of construction on relatively short
sections of road for experimental purposes.
In addition, States may specify a proprietary product by
demonstrating that there is a public interest served by using that
product. Many States have been delegated the authority to approve
public interest findings without the direct involvement of FHWA. States
have a common understanding of the certification required for a public
interest finding and have developed streamlined implementation
processes to allow the determinations to move forward expeditiously.
States may also choose to use a proprietary product and not be
reimbursed by FHWA for the cost of that product, instead paying with
state dollars.
This exception process that FHWA has adopted over the years has
worked well and not limited the development of new materials, equipment
or methods, or discouraged innovative utilization of them. New
materials, equipment or methods that show sufficient promise may be
(and have been) approved for inclusion and evaluated as appropriate
pursuant to 23 CFR 635.411. Also, in accordance with 23 CFR 635.411,
State DOTs may specify a higher standard of performance (i.e., above
what would normally be set) on certain construction projects even
though it would result in a single product being available. The
established Approved Product Lists and Qualified Products Lists allows
DOTs to use products that are demonstrated to be better or have
specific properties that DOTs desire.
case for change has not been made:
Petitioners make the argument that the rule is a relic of the past
that was adopted in 1916 and needs to be modernized. However, the
longevity of the rule's life does not necessarily undermine its
reasonableness and effectiveness. As FHWA points out in the NPRM,
``Over the years, the regulation was clarified through various policy
and guidance memoranda, and subsequent Federal Register Notices,
including 25 FR 4162 published on May 11, 1960.'' Most recently, FHWA
looked at its rule and issued new guidance for the use of patented and
proprietary products in 2006 and again in 2011 to further clarify the
steps that DOTs can take to use these products.
AGC maintains that these requirements have not stifled innovation
in products, equipment, processes or methods. The rule provides a good
balance that allows new products and processes to be adopted while at
the same time protecting the competitive bidding process, eliminating
undue influence over state specification writers and providing the most
cost-effective delivery of the final transportation construction
project.
Petitioners also argue that the existing rule prevents safer and
innovative products from being used. It then goes on to cite a list of
products that are currently being widely used in highway construction
applications. As their own list shows, safer and innovative products
have been approved and are being used under the current rule. While the
time line for adoption may not provide manufacturers with the return on
investment as quickly as desired it nevertheless ensures that new
products and processes receive the scrutiny and testing necessary to
determine how effective they will be long term. AGC recognizes that
there needs to be an opportunity for new products/processes to come
into the marketplace. While petitioners claim that the current rule
stifles this from happening, AGC maintains that the existing process
for adopting new materials and processes has been effective.
problems with such a radical change:
AGC believes the negatives far outweigh the positives associated
with eliminating the current rule, which has proven efficient,
effective and flexible over the years. We outline below a host of
problems that can come from such a radical change.
PROBLEM: Suppliers of patented products will determine the costs that
State DOTs will pay for products rather than through the open
competitive bid system
Requiring use of proprietary and/or patented products will increase
costs to State DOTs. Just as prescription drug producers have
exponentially increased the costs of name-brand medicines over
generics, so too would suppliers of their name-brand products specified
in Federal-aid highway contracts. While generic drugs have the same
chemical makeups, side-effects, and results as the namebrand drugs,
they do not have the advertising and sales force budgets the name-
brands may have. As a result, patients bear the cost for the marketing
of the name-brand when prescribed but would otherwise receive the same
medical benefit from generic drugs at a fraction of the cost. The
Federal-aid highway program would very likely experience a similar to
the name-brand drug impact if this radical change is adopted.
In addition, once a proprietary product is included in state
construction specifications they often remain there for years. Since
contractors are not able to use an alternative product that has similar
characteristics there is no competition for those products or processes
and they stifle efforts by other manufacturers to develop a similar and
potentially mproved product. In this way there is no competition on
price and manufacturers can charge what they please. When comparable
products can be used, prices remain competitive and innovation is
increased due to competition with the proprietary product.
Suppliers are naturally advocates for their products. Suppliers
believe them to be the best available and have a strong monetary
incentive to get their product specified. The sales force for product
suppliers can be very persuasive in convincing state officials
responsible for project design to include their product in the
specifications. This can create the circumstances for undue pressure on
state officials to adopt the proprietary product.
PROBLEM: Eliminating the general prohibition on the use of proprietary
products can lead to manipulation in the bidding process.
As noted above, if this radical change is adopted, a significant
shift in the marketplace could occur where suppliers would be able to
dictate not only price, but competition within the bidding process. How
this would occur is explained below:
PROBLEM: Federal-aid highway contractors may not have equal access to
specified proprietary products
Suppliers can require that contractors sign exclusivity contracts,
be licensed by the supplier or pay royalty fees to the supplier to be
able to purchase or use their proprietary products. Such arrangements
would enable one or a limited pool of contractors access to the
supplier's proprietary product. As a result, a small and limited number
of contractors--where such a product is specified in a Federal-aid
highway contract--would be able to bid on the contract. This would
restrict competition and increase costs to State DOTs.
PROBLEM: Supplier quotes on proprietary products may not be competitive
for all bidders
Suppliers do not necessarily provide the same price quote for their
products equally to all potential purchasers. For a variety of reasons
suppliers may choose to favor one contractor over another by providing
better pricing. In doing so, some contractors may be priced out of the
market, particularly if the proprietary product is a significant part
of the overall contract value and the price quoted is significantly
higher than the price quoted to another contractor. When the product is
proprietary the contractor has no other source to get a more
competitive quote. In this way the product supplier can become the
determining factor in which contractor is the low bidder rather than
the competitive bid system.
PROBLEM: The proprietary product may not be available in the quantities
needed
When new products come to the marketplace the necessary
manufacturing infrastructure is not always in place to provide the
product in the quantities needed to meet market demand. This can be a
significant problem when demand for the product increases substantially
because a product manufacturer convinces a major client, like a state
DOT, to use their product exclusively. This can have a negative impact
on completion time for transportation projects and increase the cost.
PROBLEM: The proprietary product may not stand up to the test of time
There needs to be some assurance for states and contractors that
new and proprietary products have been field tested and are judged to
be of an acceptable quality and longevity and that they have some value
added to the transportation system. This happens best through the
existing process rather than subjecting public officials to the
influence of product sales people behind closed doors.
The state certification process should be open and transparent and
based on the documented analysis and professional judgment of qualified
state transportation officials that the patented or proprietary item
will contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the goals set
forth in the state's strategic highway improvement plan.
PROBLEM: Liability for the use of proprietary products in
specifications is uncertain
If or when a specified proprietary product fails, what entity is
liable for that failure may be unclear. Assuming the contractor
incorporates the proprietary product into the project properly, subject
to industry standards and the manufacturer's specifications, it is
unlikely that the contractor would be liable. The issue would be if the
State DOT fails to properly test and examine the product--as is done
under the current process and rule. The State DOT could be subject to
gross negligence if it does not undertake the same rigorous process for
vetting such products use as a matter of public safety. In addition,
determining who is at fault can lead to disputes and possibly
litigation.
option one not acceptable
FHWA also proposes an alternative option in the NPRM that would be
short of total repeal. Option one suggests allowing states to specify
proprietary products but require each state DOT to: (1) Implement
procedures and specifications that provide for fair, open, and
transparent competition awarded only by contract to the lowest
responsive bid. It is unclear how this option would improve the
existing process for allowing states to specify proprietary products.
AGC believes this option muddles the existing successful process. Under
this option, instead of having one well tested and proven process used
by all states to justify the use of a proprietary product, each state
would instead set up its own process and FHWA would have to make a
state-by-state determination as to whether these new, undefined
standards are being met. This creates confusion and uncertainty
nationwide for manufacturers and contractors. AGC believes that this
option should also be rejected.
conclusion:
Competition requirements in the Federal-aid highway program have
served states, material suppliers, product manufacturers, contractors
and, most importantly, taxpayers well over the years and should remain
an important factor in the program moving forward. AGC believes that
the current regulation on patented and proprietary products as
implemented provides a good balance allowing new products to be
utilized while maintaining strong support for competition in the
delivery of construction projects.
AGC strongly encourages FHWA to leave the current rule in place.
Sincerely,
Brian Deery
Senior Director, Highway and Transportation Division, The
Associated General Contractors of America
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Mike Terry
Account Based Fare System
Question 1: Mr. Terry, your testimony talks about IndyGo's efforts to
build an account based fare system allowing for seamless connections to
other modes.
How much is that costing IndyGo to set up an account based fare
system?
Answer. Flowbird's contract to modernize our fare system is $4.3
million. The new system will allow our users to utilize mobile devices
and allows IndyGo to implement daily and weekly fare capping, which
will improve our customer experience. This amount includes capital
investments that are necessary to modernize our system, such as ticket
vending machines. Based on the improved customer experience, including
fare capping, IndyGo considers the modernized fare system a wise
investment.
Question 2: Can you elaborate on the impact this will have on
riders, congestion, and reduced emissions?
Answer. Ease of ticketing, purchase, transfers, and cost of
frequent riding are all variables that impact ridership. Introducing
fare capping allows current and future riders to pay the best value for
their trip-nature, and IndyGo anticipates this will increase ridership
(both new riders and more frequent). Additionally, the account-based
system allows more seamless partnerships with other agencies,
organizations, universities, social services, large employers, and
schools: All improving rider experience, building a generation of
future riders, reducing single occupancy vehicle (SOV) miles driven,
and allowing an integration with other mobility means.
Broadly incorporating enhancements to the fare collection system
throughout the IndyGo service area will allow IndyGo to reduce cash
collection on-board, offering air quality benefits that are twofold:
direct and indirect. Direct air quality benefits are achieved through
shorter dwell times which reduces fuel consumption on diesel buses, and
thus reduced emissions from IndyGo vehicles. Indirect air quality
benefits will be achieved through attracting new ridership to IndyGo's
local routes, thus reducing (SOV) trips and associated emissions.
Electric Buses
Question 3: Mr. Terry, your testimony mentions IndyGo's goal of
replacing all your diesel buses with electric buses in the next 14
years.
What are the obstacles to accomplishing that goal?
Answer. New technology comes with stops and start. Electric
vehicles provide an overall reduction in operating costs over the
lifetime of the vehicle, but the upfront costs can be an obstacle. When
we began planning to replace our diesel vehicles with electric
vehicles, the two initial concerns were the upfront capital costs of
the vehicles and the cost of the charging infrastructure. The
commitment of Indianapolis residents to the Marion County Transit Plan
allows us to implement the vision for an all-electric fleet. However,
reductions in funding commitments from our local, state, or federal
sources would be a potential obstacle.
Beyond capital needs, the other obstacles we face include training
our fleet maintenance staff to work on all-electric vehicles, including
special training to be safe around high-voltage equipment.
Additionally, we are working closely with vendors to address concerns
or issues that may arise (range, heating/cooling). Balancing and
transitioning vehicle maintenance personnel with diesel training and
experience to a workforce of trained and experienced high voltage
technicians to maintain vehicles in a state of good repair and
performance will be challenging. In the full employment market that we
are currently experiencing in our region, recruiting, training and
retaining experienced and qualified employees will continue to be a
barrier to our operation.
A final challenge is the length of time between ordering a vehicle
and placing that vehicle in revenue service--an 18-month delay. While
IndyGo and other transit agencies plan for this reality, an increase in
orders for electric vehicle manufacturers may create backlogs, further
delaying the vehicles.
IndyGo is committed to reducing the negative impact on the
environment from diesel engines and the use of fossil fuels by
transitioning to a fully electric fleet.
Question 4: How much capital will these bus purchases require and
do you anticipate the current Federal No/Low bus program will be able
to fund your request and every other agency trying to achieve a similar
goal?
Answer. Each 40-foot electric vehicle costs approximately $850,000.
IndyGo's fleet replacement schedule is one-twelfth of the fleet per
year. With 160 vehicles, IndyGo anticipates purchasing approximately 12
vehicles a year, at a total expense of $10.2 million. IndyGo funds
vehicle purchases from a combination of sources: FTA Section 5307
formula grants; FTA Section 5339 competitive grant funding, Surface
Transportation Block Grant funding through the Indianapolis
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and local sources, including
bonds.
Low/No funding is a vital program for transit agencies to shift
their fleets to hybrid orelectric vehicles. However, even fully funded,
the program is not adequate to meet the needs of the nation's transit
providers. As evidence, the FY2018 Low/No program received 149
proposals from 42 states requesting $557 million in Federal funds; but
only $85 million was available to award. As additional manufacturers
recognize the ethical and business sense of electric vehicles and
transit agencies become more comfortable with electric vehicles in
their fleet, we can only assume that this demand will increase.
Question 5: As your electric vehicle fleet increases, will your
charging needs require higher capacity electrical infrastructure and
who pays for that infrastructure?
Answer. With the purchase of battery electric buses for the rapid
transit line, we increased our electrical infrastructure on site. This
was partially funded through a competitive FTA State of Good Repair
grant award. Moving forward, we will continue to seek federal
assistance to support necessary infrastructure additions to meet our
goal of electrification. We will also engage local public, private, and
philanthropic partners in meeting electric needs.
Question 6: As your electric vehicle fleet increases, could IndyGo
benefit from technical assistance to help determine how to restructure
routes to optimize them for electric buses and their charging needs?
Answer. As electric vehicle technology for transit buses
accelerates, we believe that the range and reliability will improve,
limiting the need to assign or design around electric vehicles. Having
resources available to support transit system planning would be helpful
and especially beneficial learning from subject matter experts in
electric vehicle technology and network design. With the variety of
range capabilities for electric vehicles, battery and charging options,
and transit network topography, climate and operational plans,
utilizing technical expertise and experience would be very helpful.