[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PRICING AND TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIES TO
ADDRESS CONGESTION ON AND FINANCING OF AMERICA'S ROADS
=======================================================================
(116-30)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 11, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) 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
40-825 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
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, Vice Chair 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 THE COMMITTEE
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the
District of Columbia, and Chairwoman, 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............................................ 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chairman, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure:
Opening statement............................................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, prepared statement............................. 105
WITNESSES
Hon. Oliver Gilbert III, Mayor, City of Miami Gardens, and
Chairman, Miami-Dade Transportation Planning Organization:
Oral statement............................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Travis Brouwer, Assistant Director for Public Affairs, Oregon
Department of Transportation:
Oral statement............................................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Tilly Chang, Executive Director, San Francisco County
Transportation Authority, on behalf of the Intelligent
Transportation Society of America:
Oral statement............................................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Darren D. Hawkins, Chief Executive Officer, YRC Worldwide Inc.,
on behalf of the American Trucking Associations:
Oral statement............................................... 36
Prepared statement........................................... 38
Timothy J. Lomax, Ph.D., P.E., Regents Fellow, Texas A&M
Transportation Institute:
Oral statement............................................... 54
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Marc Scribner, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute:
Oral statement............................................... 64
Prepared statement........................................... 66
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Letter of September 10, 2019, from Charlie Kiefer, Director of
Membership and Operations, Alliance for Toll-Free Interstates,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio.............. 105
Statement of Matthew Ginsberg, D.Phil., CEO, Connected Signals,
Inc., Submitted for the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio........ 107
Statement of International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike
Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes
Norton......................................................... 110
Letter of September 11, 2019, from Michael W. Johnson, President
and CEO, National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, Submitted
for the Record by Hon. Sam Graves.............................. 114
Letter of September 10, 2019, from Todd Spencer, President and
CEO, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc.,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Sam Graves.................... 115
Letter of March 26, 2019, from Hon. John Cornyn, U.S. Senator
from the State of Texas, et al., Submitted for the Record by
Hon. Brian Babin............................................... 90
Letter of February 27, 2019, from J. Bruce Bugg, Jr., Chairman,
Texas Transportation Commission, Submitted for the Record by
Hon. Brian Babin............................................... 116
APPENDIX
Question from Hon. Troy Balderson to Hon. Oliver Gilbert III,
Mayor, City of Miami Gardens, and Chairman, Miami-Dade
Transportation Planning Organization........................... 121
Questions from Hon. Salud O. Carbajal to Travis Brouwer,
Assistant Director for Public Affairs, Oregon Department of
Transportation................................................. 121
Questions from Hon. Troy Balderson to Travis Brouwer, Assistant
Director for Public Affairs, Oregon Department of
Transportation................................................. 123
Questions from Hon. Salud O. Carbajal to Tilly Chang, Executive
Director, San Francisco County Transportation Authority, on
behalf of the Intelligent Transportation Society of America.... 124
Question from Hon. Troy Balderson to Tilly Chang, Executive
Director, San Francisco County Transportation Authority, on
behalf of the Intelligent Transportation Society of America.... 126
Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Darren D. Hawkins, Chief
Executive Officer, YRC Worldwide Inc., on behalf of the
American Trucking Associations................................. 128
Question from Hon. Greg Stanton to Darren D. Hawkins, Chief
Executive Officer, YRC Worldwide Inc., on behalf of the
American Trucking Associations................................. 129
Questions from Hon. Troy Balderson to Darren D. Hawkins, Chief
Executive Officer, YRC Worldwide Inc., on behalf of the
American Trucking Associations................................. 129
Questions from Hon. Troy Balderson to Marc Scribner, Senior
Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute....................... 130
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
September 6, 2019
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: Members, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
FROM: Staff, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
RE: Subcommittee Hearing on ``Pricing and Technology
Strategies to Address Congestion on and Financing of America's
Roads''
PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit will meet on
Wednesday, September 11, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. in 2167 Rayburn
House Office Building to receive testimony related to ``Pricing
and Technology Strategies to Address Congestion on and
Financing of America's Roads.'' The purpose of this hearing is
to: evaluate current Federal policies on tolling and demand
management; discuss examples of tolling and pricing strategies
pursued by States and cities to address congestion and revenue
gaps for surface transportation projects; and examine how new
technologies may impact congestion. The Subcommittee will hear
from representatives from the Miami-Dade Transportation
Planning Organization, the Oregon Department of Transportation,
the Intelligent Transportation Society of America, the American
Trucking Associations, the Texas A&M Transportation Institute,
and the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
BACKGROUND
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION FUNDING: HIGHWAY TRUST FUND
Federal surface transportation investments are funded
through Federal excise taxes levied on motor fuels and on
related products such as certain tires, which are deposited
into the Highway Trust Fund (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. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
estimates that over the next 10 years, the HTF will fall $171
billion short based on continuing currently-authorized highway,
transit, and safety programs levels. An additional $5 billion
is necessary to ensure that there is a prudent balance in the
HTF, which brings the shortfall to $176 billion. This does not
include any higher investment levels to meet growing surface
transportation needs.
TOLLING
Title 23, United States Code, includes a general
prohibition on the imposition of tolls on Federal-aid highways,
including the Interstate System. Congress has grandfathered in
certain tolled highways as part of the Interstate system, and
over the years has enacted exceptions to the general
prohibition. There are currently two general Federal tolling
programs and two pilot programs, which offer States or local
public agencies opportunities to use tolling to generate
revenue for highway construction and implement priced managed
lanes on Federal-aid highways. States are free to impose tolls,
subject to State laws, on any public roads not eligible for
Federal assistance.
GENERAL TOLLING PROGRAMS
States may utilize tolling authority under the two general
Federal tolling programs, codified in Sections 129 and 166 of
Title 23, on eligible projects. However, there are restrictions
on how toll revenues can be used, and annual audits are
required to ensure compliance with these restrictions.
Section 129 of Title 23 allows public agencies to impose
new tolls on Federal-aid highways in the following cases:
Initial construction of a new highway, bridge, or
tunnel;
Initial construction of new lanes on highways,
bridges, and tunnels (including Interstates), as long as the
number of toll-free lanes is not reduced;
Reconstruction or replacement of a bridge or
tunnel;
Reconstruction of a highway (other than an
Interstate);
Reconstruction, restoration, or rehabilitation of
an Interstate highway, as long as the number of toll-free lanes
is not reduced.
Section 166 of Title 23 authorizes States and local public
agencies to allow toll-paying vehicles that do not meet minimum
occupancy standards to use high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes,
including on the Interstate. These lanes are commonly referred
to as high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes. Section 166 establishes
requirements for tolls charged to these vehicles, including
that the tolls must be variably priced in order to manage
travel demand and collected automatically. To implement tolls
on an existing HOV facility, States and local public agencies
must demonstrate that the conditions on the facility are not
already degraded and that the presence of paying vehicles will
not cause the facility to become degraded. If the HOV facility
becomes degraded, the State or local public agency is required
to develop a plan details the actions it will take in order to
bring the facility into compliance. The plan is subject to the
approval of the Secretary of Transportation. The actions can
include: increasing HOV occupancy requirements; increasing
tolls; increasing capacity of the facility; or eliminating
access to paying vehicles. Additionally, existing HOV lanes may
be converted to tolled facilities under Section 129 of Title
23.
TOLL PILOT PROGRAMS
In addition to general tolling authority, Congress has
enacted tolling exceptions under pilot programs with a limited
number of slots, as discussed below. A project sponsor is
required to submit an application and to execute a toll
agreement with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in
order to impose tolls under these programs.
The Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation
Pilot Program (ISRRPP) was authorized in 1998 under the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21; P.L.
105-178), to permit up to three existing Interstate facilities,
which must be in different States, to be tolled in order to
fund reconstruction or rehabilitation on Interstate corridors
that could not otherwise be adequately maintained or
functionally improved without the collection of tolls. For
years, all three slots for this program were reserved for
projects in Missouri (I-70), Virginia (I-95), and North
Carolina (I-95) to allow the States to develop a complete
application for the program. However, none of these States
submitted final applications under this program. In 2015,
Section 1411 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act
modified the ISRRPP by establishing timeframes under which
States must complete an application. Any State receiving
provisional approval to participate in the ISRRPP now has three
years from the date of that approval to fully satisfy the
program criteria, complete environmental review, and execute a
toll agreement with the FHWA. FHWA can extend this timeframe
for up to one additional year if the State demonstrates
material progress toward implementing its pilot project.
The Value Pricing Pilot Program (VPPP), initially
authorized in 1991 under the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA; P.L. 102-240), is an experimental
program designed to assess the potential of different value
pricing approaches for reducing congestion. Under this program,
tolls may be imposed on existing toll-free highways, bridges,
and tunnels, so long as variable pricing is used to manage
demand. Congress has authorized 15 slots for the program, which
are allocated to State, local agencies, or public authorities.
Once an entity holds a slot, there is no limit on the number of
value pricing projects that can be implemented under that slot.
Section 1216 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21) further required a project under the VPPP to
include an analysis of the effects of value pricing projects on
low-income drivers and permits the inclusion of measures to
mitigate the adverse effects of tolls on those drivers. The
VPPP requires the Secretary of Transportation to monitor the
projects for at least 10 years and submit biennial reports to
Congress. Slots may become available in the future as entities
complete their projects. Since 2012, Congress has not
authorized any additional funding for the VPPP, but FHWA
continues to manage the completion of all active projects and
can still provide tolling authority to State, local agencies,
or public authorities through an available slot.
USE OF TOLL REVENUE
Federal general tolling programs and tolling pilot programs
come with restrictions on the use of toll revenues.
Under the general tolling programs (Sections 129 and 166,
Title 23), toll revenue may be used: for debt service; to
provide a reasonable return on investment to any private party
financing a project; for improvements to and the operations and
maintenance of the toll facility; and payments between public
and private partners involved in a public-private partnership.
If the public authority with responsibility for the toll
facility certifies that the facility is being adequately
maintained, then toll revenues may also be used for other
purposes eligible under Title 23, such as a bridge or public
transit project.
The ISRRPP includes similar restrictions, but it does not
allow toll revenues to be used on other projects eligible under
Title 23, whereas the VPPP allows toll revenues to be used on
projects eligible under Title 23.
All facilities tolled under Section 129, Section 166, and
the ISRRPP tolling programs are required to undergo annual
audits to ensure compliance with these limitations and, if it
is determined that the project sponsor is not in compliance,
FHWA may require that toll collection on the facility be
discontinued until an agreement is reached to achieve
compliance.
PREVALENCE OF TOLLING
According to FHWA data, in 2017, there were approximately
6,000 toll roads in the United States, representing a small
fraction (3.5 percent) of the 164,000-mile National Highway
System. Toll bridge, tunnel, and road miles are split roughly
evenly between on the Interstate system (3,495 miles) and off
the Interstate (2,503 miles); and in rural areas (2,728 miles)
and in urban areas (3,457 miles).\1\ In 2016, States collected
$14.5 billion in toll revenue,\2\ which accounts for
approximately seven percent of State and local contributions to
highway spending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FHWA, Toll Facilities in the United States, March 2018.
\2\ FHWA Highway Statistics 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the National Council of State Legislators, at
least 35 states currently have some type of toll facility, such
as a traditional toll road, bridge, or tunnel, or a price-
managed lane.\3\ States typically pursue tolling strategies as
a means to raise revenue for surface transportation, and the
interest among States and local governments to institute tolls
has increased as highway and transit investment needs grow.
Since 2013, at least 36 states have considered more than 550
bills related to tolling.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/Documents/transportation/
P3_State_Statutes.pdf
\4\ http://www.ncsl.org/blog/2018/10/24/a-tolling-revolution-or-
just-a-loose-change.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, in 2016, the Rhode Island General Assembly
enacted legislation to establish the RhodeWorks program, with
the stated goal of bringing the State's roads and bridges into
a state of good repair by 2025. A bridge tolling program was
included in this legislation. This program imposes tolls on
large trucks in 12 locations across the State. Each of the toll
locations is paired with a bridge or bridge group that is being
repaired or replaced, which makes the tolling allowable under
Federal law. Last year, the State instituted tolls at two
locations on Interstate 95 near the Connecticut border, with 10
additional locations planned in the future; some on the
Interstate. The budget for the RhodeWorks program is $4.9
billion over ten years, but only about one tenth of that amount
will be generated by tolls. Once the Rhode Island Department of
Transportation (RIDOT) demonstrates that the tolled Interstate
bridges are adequately maintained, the State can use toll
revenues on other Title 23 eligible projects. The trucking
industry opposes the program, arguing that in the already
congested--and heavily tolled--Northeast Corridor, additional
truck-only tolls will impose significant business costs.
CONGESTION
The poor condition of our surface transportation network
has contributed to, and is exacerbated by, congestion on the
Nation's roads. The U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT)
latest Conditions & Performance Report \5\ documents that all
levels of government need to invest approximately $143 billion
per year to improve the conditions and performance of our roads
and bridges--$37 billion less than we currently invest
annually. DOT also estimates that the cost to bring rail and
bus transit systems into a state of good repair is $90 billion,
and $26.4 billion per year would need to be invested to
accommodate the high-growth scenario of future ridership. This
equates to approximately $9.5 billion more per year at all
levels of government needed for transit capital investments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ FHWA, ``2015 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and
Transit: Conditions & Performance,'' https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/
2015cpr/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congestion costs consumers time and money. Globally, three
of the top 25 most congested cities in the world are in the
United States, according to INRIX.\6\ According to the 2019
Urban Mobility Report (Report) by the Texas A&M Transportation
Institute (TTI), Americans lost a total of 8.8 billion hours
due to congestion \7\ with the average commuter spending 54
hours in traffic in 2017. The Report further found that in
2017, the annual cost of congestion rose to $166 billion, and
Americans wasted 3.3 billion gallons of fuel in traffic; and
the average commuter incurred an extra $1,010 in costs due to
wasted time and fuel from traffic congestion. The Report also
found that while hours of delay for commuters in cities over
one million people have nearly tripled since 1982, small cities
(less than 500,000 people) have fared even worse, with average
hours of delay quadrupling over that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Global Traffic Scorecard.'' INRIX Research, Feb. 2019. http:/
/inrix.com/scorecard
\7\ ``2019 Urban Mobility Report.'' Texas A&M Transportation
Institute, Aug. 2019. https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/
documents/mobility-report-2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXHIBIT 4. CONGESTION GROWTH TREND--HOURS OF DELAY PER AUTO COMMUTER
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Small = less than 500,000; Medium = 500,000 to 1 million; Large = 1
million to 3 million;
Very Large = more than 3 million
Traffic congestion also has a direct effect on businesses
and the economy. The TTI Report found that 33 percent of
traffic delays occur mid-day and overnight; in order to account
for unpredictable travel times caused by congestion, travelers
and shippers had to add nearly 70 percent more travel time in
2017. Congestion cost the trucking industry $74.5 billion in
2017, $68.1 billion of which occurred in dense urban areas.\8\
The cost of congestion for truckers grew by 40 percent between
2012 and 2017, compared to a 14 percent increase in congestion
costs for non-commercial drivers. The U.S. Travel Association
reports that Americans avoided an estimated 47.5 million
automobile trips due to highway congestion in 2018, which would
have generated $30 billion in economic activity and created
248,000 jobs.\9\ TTI predicts that congestion will grow to an
annual cost of $200 billion in 2025, and the average commuter
will waste 62 hours and 23 gallons of fuel in traffic by that
year.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Cost of Congestion to the Trucking Industry.'' American
Transportation Research Institute, Oct. 2018. https://atri-online.org/
wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ATRI-Cost-of-Congestion-to-the-Trucking-
Industry-2018-Update-10-2018.pdf.
\9\ ``Infrastructure/Road Congestion Economic Impact Study and
Survey.'' U.S. Travel Association, May 2019. https://www.ustravel.org/
sites/default/files/media_root/Congestion_Survey%20%281%29.pdf.
\10\ ``2019 Urban Mobility Report.'' Texas A&M Transportation
Institute, Aug. 2019. Page 12. https://static.tti.tamu.edu/
tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility-report-2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MITIGATING CONGESTION WITH TECHNOLOGY
According to a report by Cambridge Systematics, traffic
congestion is generally a result of seven sources, that often
interact with one and other: bottlenecks, weather, traffic
incidents, works zones, traffic control devices, special
events, and the number of vehicles on a roadway at any given
time.\11\ Current efforts to leverage technology to alleviate
congestion are successful when they target one or more causes
of congestion. Examples of technological solutions to combat
congestion include ramp metering, signal coordination,
reversible lanes, electronic signage and improved public
transit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Traffic Congestion and Reliability Trends and Advanced
Strategies for Congestion Mitigation prepared for Federal Highway
Administration prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. with Texas
Transportation Institute. Page 2-1. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/
congestion_report/congestion_report_05.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet, as the population rises and the economy adds jobs, the
additional vehicles on the road and the corresponding
additional miles traveled will further increase congestion. At
the same time, the transportation network has absorbed the
introduction of technology solutions that seek to improve
mobility. The impact that these new mobility options will have
on congestion remains to be seen. Examples of technology
solutions include:
Transportation Network Companies (TNCs), such as
Uber and Lyft, which use private vehicles and app-based
technologies to link drivers to passengers for both single
passenger trips and pooled trips.
Autonomous Vehicles, while not ready for mass
dissemination yet, use on-board systems (ex: radar and lidar)
to drive the vehicle and eliminate the risk of crashes caused
by driver behavior.
Connected Vehicles, hindered by the debate over
who gets to access the 5.9GHz spectrum, will communicate with
other vehicles and highway infrastructure, such as traffic
lights, to share speed, direction, intention, and other
information, thereby improving highway safety.
Mobility on Demand (MOD) is defined as an
innovative, consumer-focused approach which leverages emerging
mobility services, integrated transit networks, real-time data,
connected travelers, and cooperative intelligent transportation
systems (ITS) to allow for a more traveler-centric
transportation system, providing improved mobility options to
all users of the system in an efficient and safe manner.\12\ In
practice, MOD is usually accessed via a smart phone app that
provides consumers with easy access to multiple shared travel
options based on availability, price point and convenience
level. MOD apps can provide integrated trip planning and
booking, real-time information, and a single fare payment.
Transportation options facilitated through MOD providers may
include: carshare, bikeshare, rideshare, transportation network
companies (TNCs), scooter sharing, microtransit, shuttle
services, public transportation, and others. MOD can provide
real opportunities to develop a system of mobility choices,
integrated with traditional transportation options, that can
meet the needs of diverse users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://www.its.dot.gov/factsheets/pdf/MobilityonDemand.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smart traffic lights and priority signaling
technology can reduce wait times at traffic lights to improve
efficiency. Priority signaling gives buses more time to get
though a traffic light, improving the frequency of public
transit services.
Possible impacts include scenarios that may decrease or
increase congestion. For example, technology that makes
information on transportation options readily available could
help reduce congestion. Technological innovation also could
reduce congestion by eliminating crashes and improving system
efficiency and reducing the spacing between vehicles. On the
other hand, AVs and TNCs could increase vehicle miles traveled
in an already congested corridor.
MITIGATING CONGESTION WITH CONGESTION PRICING
In response to growing congestion, numerous States and
cities are looking to implement roadway pricing strategies as a
means to manage demand on highway facilities, particularly in
rush hour and other high-volume times of day. Congestion
pricing typically takes the form of a variably-priced lane,
such as an Express Lane or HOT Lane; a variable toll on an
entire roadway or facility; or a cordon charge that is levied
on drivers to enter or move within a specifically-designated
area.
Express Lanes and HOT lanes have been instituted in many
regions of the country, and currently are in operation in 10
States.\13\ These lanes, which run adjacent to a section of
existing roadway, provide a more predictable mobility option
for drivers who are willing and able to pay the toll.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Transportation Research Board managed lanes database, https://
managedlanes.wordpress.com/2017/07/07/projects-database/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several States have pursued fully variably-tolled roadways
at certain times of day to address congestion. Examples of this
include the tolls on Interstate 66 in Northern Virginia outside
of Washington, D.C., on SR 520 in Seattle, Washington, and the
proposed tolls on Interstate 5 in Portland, Oregon.
New York City is the first U.S. city to pursue cordon
pricing. In April 2019, the New York State legislature approved
legislation to implement congestion pricing in lower Manhattan
known as the Central Business District Tolling Program. Details
are still being finalized, but the program envisions a charge
to be levied for entering lower Manhattan, via the multiple
bridges and tunnels with direct access into lower Manhattan as
well as for vehicles heading south within Manhattan once they
cross 60th street. The tolls will be variably priced. Exact
tolling rates and other policies on credits and exemptions have
not been determined but will be set by an appointed six-person
Traffic Mobility Review Board. However, New York expects the
program to raise about $1 billion annually. The legislation
requires that the toll revenue be used to secure bonds totaling
$15 billion for public transit projects as part of the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority's capital program through
2024. Tolls are scheduled to start no earlier than December 31,
2020.
PUBLIC POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
When developing and implementing pricing strategies,
including tolling and congestion pricing, State and local
agencies take into account other potential impacts. States,
local agencies, and other project sponsors conduct public
engagement and evaluate the potential impacts of a new toll or
managed lane on surrounding communities as part of the planning
and environmental review processes, including through traffic
analyses which evaluate any diversion onto nearby roadways or
neighborhoods that a new toll collection facility may create.
Diversion off the tolled facility can both undermine the
revenue expectations that a new toll will generate, and in the
case of congestion pricing, can shift vehicle traffic and any
associated congestion to a different roadway.
Equity impacts of a new toll or congestion charge are also
a significant consideration. In the case of the Interstate 66
tolls in Virginia, which are dynamically priced without a cap,
tolls for single occupancy vehicles have reached as high as
$47.50 for a one-way trip in order to keep traffic moving \14\.
Paying the toll provides access for a solo driver to a segment
of I-66 that was previously only open to HOVs. The I-66 toll
lanes are part of the Virginia Department of Transportation's
Transform I-66, which consists of two programs focused on
multimodal improvements inside and outside the Capital Beltway
along the I-66 corridor in Northern Virginia. These
improvements include new express lanes, and new and improved
bus service and transit routes, new and expanded park and ride
lots, and interchange improvements. The levels reached by this
this toll illustrates that variable pricing charges deliver
mobility by pricing a roadway at a sufficient level to manage
and impact demand. States and localities may also consider how
to ensure mobility options for those unable to pay the toll or
congestion charge, how to provide alternatives to congested
roadways, and how to pay for those transportation investments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Washington Post, ``Virginia to tweak 66 Express Lanes pricing
to address tolls that have topped $47,'' April 30, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITNESS LIST
The Honorable Oliver Gilbert III, Mayor, City of
Miami Gardens, and Chairman, Miami-Dade Transportation Planning
Organization
Mr. Travis Brouwer, Assistant Director for Public
Affairs, Oregon Department of Transportation
Ms. Tilly Chang, Executive Director, San
Francisco County Transportation Authority, on behalf of the
Intelligent Transportation Society of America
Mr. Darren D. Hawkins, President and Chief
Executive Officer, YRC Worldwide Inc., on behalf of the
American Trucking Associations
Mr. Timothy J. Lomax, Ph.D., PE, Regents Fellow,
Texas A&M Transportation Institute
Mr. Marc Scribner, Senior Fellow, Competitive
Enterprise Institute
PRICING AND TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS CONGESTION ON AND
FINANCING OF AMERICA'S ROADS
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eleanor Holmes
Norton (Chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Ms. Norton. The subcommittee will come to order. I ask
unanimous consent that the chair be authorized to declare
recesses during today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
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.
I want to welcome our witnesses in particular, but all of
you to today's hearing, as we are fast galloping toward the
need to reauthorize the FAST Act, and our cities and localities
are looking to us to see what we are going to do. I met this
morning with a group here in the Congress.
The focus generally has been on revenue, and why not,
especially since that has been the most difficult part of what
we have had to do. But the issues haven't waited for Congress
to catch up on revenue, and people are asking for and indeed
using other methods to get rid of congestion and to bring us
into the 21st century on transportation.
In today's hearing we are going look at some of those
questions, the nuances of Federal tolling policy, of congestion
pricing, of technology solutions to address congestion, and
many other transportation needs today.
So while Congress fiddled and failed to solve the revenue
question, congestion has negatively affected our constituents
as never before, not to mention the quality of air we breathe
and the failure to deal with climate change, which was not even
discussed at the time of the last reauthorization, to indicate
just how far time has moved and how much Congress has to catch
up.
The ``Urban Mobility Report'' indicates--and you might want
to look at what it says for your constituents--that my
constituents pay $1,840 a year in congestion costs, and we here
in the National Capital region are the third highest in the
Nation. I hope yours aren't paying $1,840 per year, per
constituent. That is what my constituents pay.
This is nothing short of a congestion tax. And in our case
here in this region it is the result of 248 million--that is
``m''--million hours of congestion delays in 2017 across the
Washington, DC, metropolitan area. I invite you all to look at
what this means, what the ``Urban Mobility Report'' says for
your own area.
A Harvard School of Public Health study found that 83
percent of the Nation's largest urban areas contributed more
than 2,200 premature deaths annually. That is an $18 billion
cost to the healthcare system. When it says largest urban
areas, it really means the entire area of a big city and its
suburbs.
While we debate how to resolve congestion, we have left the
States and localities looking on their own and looking for more
sources of revenue. In today's testimony, we will hear support
for greater tolling flexibility, enabling States and localities
to raise more revenue. But we will also hear from others that
Congress should erect barriers to tolling.
This difference that is going to come out in this hearing
is deliberate. The division you will see on the panel is
representative of a broader disagreement on tolling policy that
Congress will have to debate.
Congestion pricing has become mainstream. They have HOT
lanes springing up across many urban areas. We have variable
rate cordon pricing, charging drivers to enter into a
congestion area. You see what New York City has done.
Closer to my own district here in the State of Virginia, we
have variable tolls on all lanes on I-66 during rush hour. I
never thought I would see what has resulted. People are paying
it with tolls as high as $47.50 for a single 10-mile trip.
Excessive tolls raise significant equity questions, of
course, particularly the impact on low-income drivers, and they
are likely to divert traffic onto nearby roads and
neighborhoods because people are not wanting to pay $47-plus to
get you anywhere. So we can't gloss over those impacts as we
look at these new strategies.
I am particularly interested in technology and how it can
help resolve congestion. Autonomous vehicles, for example, can
they reduce congestion or do they increase congestion when
anybody can hop in a car and go anyplace she wants to on her
own? We should be asking the same questions for transportation
networks and connected vehicles.
Finally, I think it is critical and I do not intend to
neglect the robust transit systems we need and the role transit
plays in reducing congestion. I cannot imagine this area, this
National Capital region, without transit. The roads would
simply be impossible.
Dense urban areas rely on subway service, while rapid bus
transit will also greatly reduce congestion, not to mention HOT
lanes, which are becoming more and more popular.
Some on today's panel suggest that toll revenues should
only go to maintain the tollroad. However, I remind you that
investing in transit and other methods to reduce vehicle-miles
traveled is a highly effective tool to reduce congestion.
I want to thank the witnesses for joining us today.
[Ms. Norton's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in
Congress from the District of Columbia, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit
Welcome to today's hearing. As we prepare to reauthorize the FAST
Act, States and cities are looking to Congress to help them tackle
growing revenue needs and congestion woes. Today's hearing will explore
the nuances of federal tolling policy, congestion pricing, and
technology solutions to address congestion.
Our constituents are reminded daily that traffic congestion is
getting worse, negatively affecting their lives, costing them time and
money, and lowering the quality of the air we breathe. According to the
latest Urban Mobility Report, my constituents pay $1,840 a year in
congestion costs, the third highest in the nation. This congestion
``tax'' is the result of the 248 million hours of congestion delays in
2017 across the Washington, DC metro area.
A Harvard School of Public Health found that air pollution from
traffic congestion in 83 of the nation's largest urban areas
contributes to more than 2,200 premature deaths annually, costing the
health system at least $18 billion.
While we debate how to resolve congestion, every state and locality
is also looking for more sources of revenue. Today, in testimony, we
will hear support for greater tolling flexibility, enabling states and
localities to raise more revenue; and conversely, we will also hear
that Congress should erect more barriers to tolling. This division on
the panel is representative of a broader disagreement on tolling policy
that Congress will have to debate.
Congestion pricing strategies have become mainstream, with HOT
lanes springing up across many urban areas. Variable rate cordon
pricing charges drivers to enter into a congested area, and is,
currently being pursued by New York City. Closer to my district, the
State of Virginia instituted variable tolls on all lanes of I-66 at
rush hour, which have reached as high as $47.50 for a single, 10-mile
trip.
Excessive tolls raise significant equity questions, particularly
the impacts on low-income drivers, and are more likely to divert
traffic onto nearby roads and neighborhoods. I believe we need to take
a hard look at current tolling and congestion pricing strategies, to
ensure that States and local governments do not gloss over these
impacts on Federal-aid roads.
I would also like to hear from our witnesses how technology can
help resolve congestion, and their thoughts on the impacts of
autonomous vehicles. Will AVs reduce congestion or increase congestion?
We should be asking the same questions for transportation network
companies (TNCs) and connected vehicles.
Finally, I think it's critically important to highlight that robust
transit service plays a major role in reducing congestion in urban
areas. Dense urban areas rely on subway service, while bus rapid
transit can greatly reduce congestion in outlying areas. Express buses
on HOT lanes can also play a critical role in ensuring everyone has
affordable access to toll lanes. Some on today's panel suggest that
toll revenues should only go to maintain the toll road. I remind you
that investing in transit and other methods to reduce vehicle miles
travelled is a highly effective tool to reduce congestion for roadway
users.
I thank our witnesses for joining us today and look forward to your
remarks.
Ms. Norton. And I want to ask the chairman of our full
committee, Mr. DeFazio--oh, excuse me. I should ask the ranking
member--how could I possibly not move to my left?--my good
friend, Mr. Davis, for his comments.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I mean, in honor, especially if we get some policies, if we
move forward, I would always yield to the chairman first, if
that helps us.
Mr. DeFazio. I want you to wake everybody up.
Mr. Davis. You want me to wake everyone up? All right. I
can do that.
Ms. Norton. Which means I put them to sleep.
Mr. Davis. Clearly, Madam Chair, it was not me who alluded
to that. That was the chairman.
In all seriousness, thank you. This is a great committee. I
really enjoy serving with Chairwoman Norton. And this committee
has a history of bipartisanship. We are looking for solutions
which is why you are all here today, is to help us find those
solutions.
I do want to thank the witnesses and recognize that this
subcommittee is going to continue to do our work to reauthorize
the Federal surface transportation policies. And as part of
this effort, as you know, you are all here. We have held a
number of hearings, too, outside of this one on very important
policy topics and I want to thank the chair for allowing us to
participate in these types of gatherings because it truly does
help us come up with solutions.
Today, as we know, the subcommittee will focus on tools
being utilized by State and local communities to mitigate
congestion. Congestion can be caused by various issues, such as
weather, traffic incidents, and, as many of you had in your
testimony, capacity constraints.
According to the ``2019 Urban Mobility Report,'' Americans
traveled an extra 8.8 billion hours due to congestion and
purchased an extra 3.3 billion gallons of fuel, leading to a
total congestion cost of $166 billion in 2017. Dr. Lomax, who
worked on this report, is with us today, and I look forward to
learning more about its findings in his testimony and followup
questions.
As we know, congestion negatively impacts our ability to
move products to domestic and international markets, which
undermines our economy and America's global competitiveness.
And congestion is not just an urban issue, although I can tell
you, in my district in central and southwestern Illinois, my
constituents' idea of congestion is much different than the
idea of congestion out here in Washington, DC, or in other
large urban areas.
But it is perhaps most importantly, though, congestion,
again, no matter where you are, in my district or here, it is a
personal issue. Sitting in traffic means that there is less
time to do the things that are most important to each of us. I
can remember sitting in traffic. It made me late to football
practices that I was coaching my kids' football game or
coaching my kids' football teams or getting to a basketball
game late to watch my daughter cheer when she was in high
school. So these are things that are very personal to us.
This hearing is going to specifically focus on how States
and local communities are utilizing some of the tools in the
toolbox: tolling, congestion pricing strategies, and new
technologies to address congestion. Our witnesses will provide
us with real-world examples of how these tools are all being
deployed, as well as give us their perspective on whether or
not these tools are working well.
There are other tools to address congestion beyond those
that are the focus of today's hearing. If we are going to
tackle congestion, we need a thoughtful approach that provides
State and local communities with the flexibility to do what
makes sense, given their unique circumstances, because no
single solution is going to work here in Washington, DC, and at
the same time work in the 13th Congressional District of
Illinois where I am blessed to serve.
I look forward to our discussion on this important issue
and learning more about how the Federal Government can be a
good partner to States and local communities as they seek to
address congestion.
And with that, again, thank you to our witnesses. Thank you
to Chairwoman Norton. And thank you to Chairman DeFazio for
being here at this important hearing today.
And I yield back.
[Mr. Davis' 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
The Subcommittee is continuing our work to reauthorize federal
surface transportation programs and policies. As part of that effort,
we have held a number of hearings on important policy topics.
Today, the Subcommittee will focus on some of the tools being
utilized by state and local communities to mitigate congestion.
Congestion can be caused by various issues, such as weather, traffic
incidents, and capacity constraints.
According to the 2019 Urban Mobility Report, Americans traveled an
extra 8.8 billion hours due to congestion and purchased an extra 3.3
billion gallons of fuel, leading to a total congestion cost of $166
billion in 2017. Dr. Lomax, who worked on this report, is with us
today, and I look forward to learning more about its findings as part
of his testimony.
Congestion negatively impacts our ability to move products to
domestic and international markets, which undermines our economy and
global competitiveness.
Congestion is also not just an urban issue. Congestion can and does
happen everywhere, in our small towns and in our large cities.
Perhaps, most importantly, congestion is a personal issue. Sitting
in traffic means that there is less time to do the things that are
important to each of us--spending time with our families and friends or
watching our children play sports, like my twin boys when they played
high school football or my daughter when she was a cheerleader.
This hearing will specifically focus on how states and local
communities are utilizing some of the tools in the toolbox--tolling,
congestion pricing strategies, and new technologies--to address
congestion. Our witnesses will provide us with real-world examples of
how these tools are being deployed, as well as give us their
perspective on whether or not these tools are working well.
There are other tools to address congestion beyond those that are
the focus of today's hearing. If we are going to tackle congestion, we
need a thoughtful approach that provides states and local communities
with the flexibility to do what makes sense given their unique
circumstances, because no single solution is going to work everywhere.
I look forward to our discussion on this important issue and
learning more about how the Federal government can be a good partner to
states and local communities as they seek to address congestion.
Ms. Norton. I appreciate your remarks, Mr. Davis.
Now it is your turn, the chairman of our full committee,
Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Madam Chair.
You have both made points that Congress needs to pay
attention to. I mean, the costs of congestion on an annual
basis are nearly four times our Federal investment in surface
transportation and transit. Just think about that. We are
wasting nearly four times as much money as we are investing on
an annual basis year after year after year.
But around here we are paralyzed. My God, we can't figure
out how are we going to pay for this. How are you ever going to
pay for this?
Oh, let's see. We haven't adjusted the gas and diesel tax
since 1993. I have proposed something that is so de minimus
that it is just embarrassing that we can't do it. Let's just
index the gas and diesel tax and do some bonding and limit the
annual increase to 1\1/2\ cents a gallon a year.
And I keep saying: You think you are going to lose your
election if the gas goes up 1\1/2\ cents a gallon? When you
drove to work today, you drove by the gas station. It probably
went up a nickel or down a nickel on the digital sign. No one
is going to notice that. And people around the country have
showed that they are willing to pay to get out of congestion.
But Congress hasn't gotten the message. The White House
hasn't gotten the message. They love to talk about: Oh, big
infrastructure bill. We were up to $2 trillion for 3 weeks and
then we were down to zero. In fact, the proposals in the
President's budget consistently cut transportation investment.
So the States can't do it on their own. They are trying.
The States are trying. A lot of all-red States have raised
their gas tax, raised their registration fees, and States that
have mixed governments in blue States. It is not a partisan
issue out there in America. It just seems to be a partisan
issue here in Washington, DC.
We are at the point of total paralysis. I am not going to
repeat the statistics on how much time people waste and the
hours. The amount of fuel wasted, sitting around? About 4
billion gallons a year wasted fuel, adding to the problems with
climate change, which some of us believe in.
So it is time to act. Now, we are going to hear some things
today, you are going to say, well, congestion pricing.
Congestion pricing with what kind of alternatives for people?
You can't just price people off the roads and say: Hey, we
solved congestion. That person doesn't set their schedule to go
to work, most likely, and they don't have a lot of options.
Unless you build sufficient options, you can't just price
people off the road.
And when Eleanor talked about $47 for 10 miles, $4.70 a
mile, that is not even a Lexus lane. That is a chauffeured
limousine lane. I mean, who can afford that? In my own State we
have freeways. We don't have tolls. Now the mayor and some in
the legislature of Portland have decided, well, maybe we ought
to just toll parts of our freeways to deal with some problems.
But, of course, it isn't even going to be like the HOT lane. No
one is going to have an option. You are going to either use it
or not use it.
What about diversion? What about people who have to go from
the East Side of Portland to the West Side of Portland to Intel
to go to work? Well, sorry, it is going to take you 2 hours or
it is going to cost you a bunch of money that you can't afford.
So, we need a comprehensive approach, which is more Federal
investment. And then we need to start applying technology,
smart technology, 21st-century technology.
You know, you sit at traffic lights. No one is coming. I
was in Pittsburgh--they have smart traffic lights, realtime.
Imagine that, 21st-century technology, and we are still working
with 19th-century technology with metered traffic lights that
are set by traffic engineers who go out and do traffic counts
and stand around on the corner and then set them according to
what they think traffic flows are going to be in the future,
which has nothing to do with reality.
So I am losing patience with what is going on around here.
The Senate passed a bill. It has got some decent policy in it.
It has got a little more spending. But the leaders of the
Senate have said: Oh, it is impossible to pay for. We don't
know how we are going to pay for that. We can't pay for that.
How are we going to pay for it?
Well, if we don't pay for it, we are going to waste a hell
of a lot more money, year in, year out, day in, day out, and
Americans are going to get more and more frustrated.
So, I hope today's hearing provides some ideas that will
help mitigate these problems. But the bottom line is we have to
pony up some money or we are not going to solve any problems.
Thank you.
[Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chairman, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thanks, Madam Chair. You both made points that Congress needs to
pay attention to. The cost of congestion on an annual basis are about
four times our Federal investment in surface transportation and
transit. Just think about that. We're wasting four times as much money
as we're investing on an annual basis year after year after year.
But around here we're paralyzed! We can't figure out how we're
going to pay for this . . . how are you ever going to pay for this?
Oh, let's see. We haven't adjusted the gas and diesel tax since
1993. I've proposed something that's so de minimis, that it's just
embarrassing that we can't do it. Let's just index the gas and diesel
tax and do some bonding and limit the annual increase to one and a half
cents a gallon a year.
And I keep saying, ``You think you're going to lose your election
if gas goes up one and a half cents a gallon?''
When you drove to work today you drove by the gas station--it
probably went up a nickel or down a nickel on the digital sign. No
one's going to notice that. And people around the country have shown
that they are willing to pay to get out of congestion.
But Congress hasn't got the message. The White House hasn't got the
message. They love to talk about a big infrastructure bill, we were up
to two trillion dollars for three weeks and then we were down to zero.
In fact, the proposals in the President's budget consistently cut
transportation investment.
The states can't do it on their own. They're trying, the states are
trying. A lot of all red states have raised their gas tax, raised their
registration fees and states that have mixed governments and blue
states.
It's not a partisan issue out there in America. Just seems to be a
partisan issue here in Washington, D.C.
Ms. Norton. I feel the chairman's frustration. We passed
the FAST Act with no new money. We just can't do what we did
last time. So in order to get new money, we had to make a 6-
year bill a 5-year bill. Who are we fooling?
And I appreciate that the chairman raised the issue of the
gas tax. How come in red States they are not afraid to raise
the gas tax but they send people to Congress who are? So we are
stuck on stupid when it comes to revenue and overwhelmed by
what needs to be done in our system. I am pleased that the
Senate, controlled by the other side, is looking at new
revenue.
I want to welcome our witnesses, the Honorable Oliver
Gilbert III, who is the mayor of the city of Miami Gardens and
chairman of the Miami-Dade Transportation Planning
Organization; Travis Brouwer, the assistant director for public
affairs for the Oregon Department of Transportation; Tilly
Chang, the executive director of the San Francisco County
Transportation Authority, on behalf of the Intelligent
Transportation Society of America; Darren D. Hawkins, chief
executive officer of YRC Worldwide Inc., on behalf of the
American Trucking Associations; Timothy Lomax, Regents fellow
at Texas A&M Transportation Institute; and Marc Scribner,
senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
I want to thank all of you for being here today. I look
forward to your testimony.
Before we hear from the panel, I would like to recognize
Ms. Wilson to introduce Mayor Gilbert, a constituent from her
district.
Ms. Wilson. Thank you so much. Thank you so much,
Chairwoman Norton.
I am honored to introduce my personal mayor, the mayor of
the great city of Miami Gardens, which will host the 2020 Super
Bowl, and chair of the Miami-Dade Transportation Planning
Organization, TPO, Mayor Oliver Gilbert.
When I learned that this subcommittee was having a hearing
on congestion and tolling, Mayor Gilbert was the first witness
that I knew I had to recommend. He is a young lawyer with a
long and distinguished career in public service that began as
an aide in the Florida Legislature. He was regarded as an
astute staffer, both legislatively and politically. Within a
decade, he became the mayor of the city of Miami Gardens.
As mayor, he has launched several successful initiatives to
increase access to public transportation and improve mobility.
One such initiative is the Miami Gardens Express, a free
trolley service that many, many residents depend on.
His accomplishments as mayor and leadership on
transportation issues compelled his Miami-Dade TPO colleagues
to elect him as their chair in January 2019. As TPO chair,
Mayor Gilbert oversees the implementation of the county's
Strategic Miami Area Rapid Transportation, SMART Plan, a
multibillion-dollar infrastructure investment program to reduce
congestion and spur economic growth.
Mayor Gilbert, welcome to Congress, and thank you for
testifying today and for your leadership on transportation
issues that greatly concern Floridians and others throughout
this Nation.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Congresswoman Wilson.
I would like to now recognize Congresswoman Davids to
introduce Mr. Hawkins.
Ms. Davids. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member.
I would like to take the opportunity of introducing Mr.
Darren D. Hawkins, chief executive officer of YRC Worldwide
Inc., on behalf of the American Trucking Associations.
YRC Worldwide is a freight holding company based in the
Kansas Third Congressional District in Overland Park, Kansas.
They employ 24,000 drivers and dock workers who are members of
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Their trucks travel
more than 900 million miles annually in the United States, and
more than 1,700 YRCW drivers have more than 1 million
consecutive accident-free miles. That is something a lot of us
should be celebrating.
YRCW has a long history and has long been important in the
Kansas City metropolitan area business community and the civic
community and we are proud to be very well represented in
hearing your testimony today, Mr. Hawkins, and I appreciate you
taking the time to be here. It is a pleasure to have you.
And I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Congresswoman Davids.
Without objection, witnesses' full statements will be
entered into the record. Since your written testimony will be
made a part of the record, the subcommittee requests that you
limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes.
Mayor Gilbert, I ask you to proceed now, sir.
TESTIMONY OF HON. OLIVER GILBERT III, MAYOR, CITY OF MIAMI
GARDENS, AND CHAIRMAN, MIAMI-DADE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
ORGANIZATION; TRAVIS BROUWER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC
AFFAIRS, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; TILLY CHANG,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY, ON BEHALF OF THE INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SOCIETY
OF AMERICA; DARREN D. HAWKINS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, YRC
WORLDWIDE INC., ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN TRUCKING
ASSOCIATIONS; TIMOTHY J. LOMAX, Ph.D., P.E., REGENTS FELLOW,
TEXAS A&M TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE; AND MARC SCRIBNER, SENIOR
FELLOW, COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
Mr. Gilbert. Thank you.
I would be remiss if I didn't start by saying 18 years ago
this country was attacked. I stand in awe of you all's service
and the men and women of our military, what they do for us
around the world to ensure that we can be here in this room,
having this discussion. It is important. I thank them, and I
thank you all.
Good morning, Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, Chair
DeFazio, and members of this distinguished subcommittee. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify.
I would also like to thank my congresswoman, Frederica
Wilson, for her service to our district. Today I stand as her
mayor and resident in awe of her service and the example she
sets for our community.
I am Oliver Gilbert, as stated before, the chair of the
Miami-Dade County Transportation Planning Organization, and I
am also the proud mayor of Miami Gardens, and also the proud
mayor of the Miami Dolphins. Yeah, I know. Yeah, I know. I am
long suffering. It is a thing.
You know, I am here to tell you today that roads, they
aren't just asphalt. They are pathways to something greater.
Rail is not just something that carries trains. Rail,
specifically the Metrorail in Miami-Dade County, carried a
young boy from Miami Gardens to the University of Miami Law
School every day. It helped him get his law degree. Ultimately,
it was responsible for him being the mayor of his hometown,
Miami Gardens.
I stand before you today in large part because someone
invested in meaningful and efficient public transportation.
Today I advocate that we pay their brilliance forward and find
ways to expand rail, create dynamic transportation, reduce
congestion, and promote conservation of time and of the planet.
I would like to now share how we are starting to address
this in Miami-Dade County and how you can partner with us to
make transportation an instrument of economic development and
job creation.
In Miami-Dade County, traffic is an impediment not just to
our growth economically, but to our development as a community.
Our expressway system has almost reached its limit, and we have
no room to build our way out of congestion.
This is why we are providing travel choices and
alternatives that include both express lanes, as well as
expanding transit through the Miami-Dade SMART Plan, a rapid
transit plan for our future.
95 Express has been in operation for 10 years and it has
reduced overall traffic congestion and increased traffic flow.
While the Miami-Dade region has the fourth largest population,
we are the 12th ranked area of congestion, partly due to the
use of express lanes and BERT service.
BERT service has been highly successful, with ridership
rising 48 percent in the first 2 years it was implemented. We
plan to expand this network as a part of the SMART Plan.
Congress' support of the Value Pricing Pilot Program and
the leadership of Congressman Webster, who was in the Florida
Senate at the time, allowed us to pilot the 95 Express project
forward and convert HOV lanes to HOT lanes. We improved our
rankings on hours of driver delay from 10th to 12th, even as
our population grew, which is actually quite remarkable.
This is not to say that congestion isn't a problem.
However, the express lanes in BERT improved the commute times
for all lanes, including the nontolled lanes, which is also
significant.
While express lanes help, the best long-term remedy for
relieving congestion in south Florida is through the expansion
of a rapid transit network.
Our TPO has designated the SMART Plan as our top priority.
The SMART Plan involves improvements to the BERT network and
six rapid transit corridors. Right now the south corridor of
the plan is in the development and funding stage. Miami-Dade
has committed $100 million. The State has committed $100
million. We are asking the FTA to commit $100 million.
Locally, we have committed all available local funding,
including TIPs, over the next 40 years to implement the
projects. But it won't be enough. We need your help.
Federal support of innovative projects like SMART is
essential and a Federal process that offers certainty and helps
move projects like SMART forward is a must.
For example, the north corridor. The expansion of the
Metrorail was initially contemplated when I was in elementary
school and still no rail has been built. Students in class
right now at Scott Lake and Crestview and Norland and Parkway,
they deserve better.
We have to do better, and we have to do it faster. We need
a Federal funding process that acknowledges the need of a
community to access opportunity within a reasonable timeframe
so all the partners can plan and do their part. There needs to
be predefined funding structures for regions like Miami-Dade
that provide for more than widened highways as a solution to
congestion.
With this, we can create a future with substantially less
congestion. With this, we can create a future so that a kid who
went to FAMU can actually do some great things.
I would end my comments with this, just the wisdom of
Albert Einstein: You can't solve a problem with the same
thinking that created it. Our goal must not only be better
answers, but also we have to ask tomorrow's questions. This
will allow us to design and build a system that is flexible,
expansive, and growable.
Thank you for your partnership, thank you for your support,
and thank you for your leadership. Together we can grow the
system forward.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[Mr. Gilbert's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Oliver Gilbert III, Mayor, City of Miami
Gardens, and Chairman, Miami-Dade Transportation Planning Organization
Good morning, Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and members of
the distinguished House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. Giving special attention and
admiration to my Congresswoman Frederica Wilson. Today, I stand as her
Mayor and Resident and someone who is awed by her service through voice
and example for her community. Thank you all for your service to your
congressional districts and to this country. Here your voices define
not just who we are but who we are to become as an America.
I am Oliver Gilbert, Chairman of the Miami-Dade County
Transportation Planning Organization (TPO). I am also the Mayor of
Miami Gardens. Thank you for the opportunity to address the topic of
``Pricing And Technology Strategies To Address Congestion On And
Financing Of America's Roads.'' Before I get into the technical aspects
of my testimony, I want to offer some general thoughts on
transportation and how we should see it as a growing and developing
America.
I engage your imagination to view a road as not just pavement and
asphalt. I ask that you see traffic independent of its congestion; to
see rail without regard to its cost. While all the things mentioned are
relevant, roads are pathways to something greater. They are instruments
of economic development and job creation. Traffic is an impediment not
just to our growth economically but to our development as a community.
Rail is not just something to carry trains. Rail, specifically the
Metrorail in Miami Dade County, carried a young boy from Miami Gardens
to the University of Miami every day. It helped him get his law degree.
Ultimately, it's responsible for him being the mayor of his hometown
Miami Gardens. I stand before you today in large part because someone
invested in meaningful and efficient public transportation. Today, I
advocate that we pay their brilliance forward and find ways to expand
rail, create dynamic interactions with regard to roads, reduce
congestion, all the aforementioned promote conservation of time and of
the planet.
Expressway System Built Out in Miami-Dade
The expressway system in Miami-Dade has reached its limit, and we
have no room to build our way out of congestion. Heavy congestion has
become a way of life in Southeast Florida. We have one possible new
extension of an expressway, and beyond that we must provide travel
choices and alternatives that include:
1. Rebuilding and fine-tuning operations of existing expressways
such as express lanes; and
2. Expanding rapid public transit through the Miami-Dade Strategic
Miami Area Rapid Transit (SMART) Plan.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 1. Level of Service depicting I-95 Corridor
Electronic Tolled Express Lanes Improve Throughput
The fine-tuning of highway operations has involved providing a
choice for users of highly congested expressways through ``express
lanes,'' which are electronic tolled lanes (SunPass electronic tolls
only) within expressways that also include non-tolled lanes. Managed
lanes which we term express lanes are expressway lanes dynamically
tolled based upon congestion levels, where tolls fluctuate per the
amount of traffic using these lanes. The goals of 95 Express are to
reduce overall traffic congestion; provide a safe and predictable trip,
in terms of travel time, for express lane motorists; maintain an
express lane free-flow speed of 45 mph or greater for users including
express buses; and increase the overall throughput of vehicles per hour
on the entire expressway facility. The express tolls are electronically
set by software and detection equipment that detects the speed and
level of traffic in the express lanes and raises the toll when speeds
drop and lowers the toll when speeds rise compared to a preset speed. A
section of 95 Express is shown in Figure 2 below where the lanes to the
right are non-tolled and ``poles'' separate the tolled express lanes to
the left. Vanpools, buses, and registered carpools use the express
lanes toll free.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 2_Source: Florida Department of Transportation (http://
floridaexpresslanes.com/southeastfl/)
The 95 Express lanes projects were developed and funded through an
Urban Partnership between the United States Department of
Transportation, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), local
Metropolitan Planning Organizations, local transit agencies and the
State of Florida with general funding. This Urban Partnership was
facilitated by you through the congressionally created Value Pricing
Pilot Program that allowed the conversion of High Occupancy Vehicle
lanes (HOV) to High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes. Subsequent changes in
Federal law by Congress expanded the ability to provide toll lanes
within existing non-tolled expressway facilities that have been
codified into Title 23 and Title 49 of United States Code. Thank you
for your support of these innovative options for highly congested
expressways. A special thank you to Congressman Daniel Webster, who as
a leader in the Florida Senate led the effort for state general funds
and FDOT funds to match the Federal Urban Partnership grant to move the
pilot 95 Express project forward.
We are pleased that the express lane tolls in Southeast Florida are
supporting Express Bus service in the express lanes. Our Express Bus
system on the express lanes has been highly successful and provides a
viable alternative to driving a car in the express lanes. We plan to
expand the Express Bus network to all the current and future express
lanes to ensure that all travelers have an option to take advantage of
more reliable travel times provided by the express lanes. Express Bus
ridership for Miami-Dade Express rose 48% from 2008 to 2010 (depicted
in Figure 3 on the next page), after the express lanes were implemented
in mid-2009.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 3 Source: Florida Department of Transportation
The success of 95 Express resulted in rapid growth of express lanes
in Southeast Florida and across Florida's major metro areas. For
example, we started 95 Express as a pilot in 2008 with Phase 1, being 7
miles that fully opened in 2010. As of September 2019, we have 62 miles
of express lanes open in Southeast Florida (shown below in green in
Figure 4) that provide a choice for daily travelers and visitors on
most expressways, being I-95, I-75, I-595, Palmetto Expressway and soon
on Florida's Turnpike Homestead Extension. By 2024, South Florida will
have a total of 155 miles of express lanes (shown in green and red on
Figure 4) open to traffic with 188 miles (shown in blue in Figure 4)
under consideration as express lanes in the future (as shown in Figure
4).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 4_Source: Florida Department of Transportation (http://
floridaexpresslanes.com/southeastfl/)
In the Texas A&M Transportation Institute Report Titled, 2019 Urban
Mobility Report [https://mobility.tamu.edu/umr/], ``Miami'' Urbanized
Area, which includes Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, has
the 4th ranked population and the 12th ranked level of congestion. We
believe the rating of 12th on congestion compared to 4th on population
is in part due to providing choices for travelers on our congested
expressway system such as express lanes and Bus Express Rapid Transit
(BERT) service. As the express lane network and BERT was coming on-
line, we improved from ranking 10th on hours of driver delay in the
early 2000s to 12th on hours of driver delay in 2017. This is a
remarkable improvement considering the Miami Urbanized Area population
grew from a rank of 5th in the early 2000s to 4th in 2017 while also
improving in the hour of driver delay congestion index. This is not to
say our congestion is good by any means; it does, however, indicate
that express lanes and BERT have helped make the congestion more
tolerable and improved the commute times for all lanes including the
non-tolled lanes.
We learned many lessons during the past decade on pricing and
technology to provide choices and alternatives to congested
expressways. They include:
Communication is essential because express lanes are not
``normal'' operations for expressways. A consistent level of
communication to elected officials, press, public, transportation
professionals, and expressway system users is essential. This can be
very challenging. When the first express lanes were proposed in Miami-
Dade and Broward Counties in Florida, there was not a point of
reference to help frame how express lanes work. Communication is also
essential over time as newly elected officials assume office and the
press, public and users change.
Providing a higher level of service in express lanes is
essential including enforcement, roadway service to clear issues
timely, and clear and timely message signs on toll information so
drivers can make decisions about using the express lanes or continue in
the non-tolled lanes.
Express lanes reduce travel times for the express lane
users significantly while also improving travel times for those in the
non-tolled lanes. A higher overall speed in the expressway corridor
moves more vehicles through the corridor perhour throughout the day.
SMART Rapid Transit Plan
Express lanes are essential, but we believe the best long-term
alternative to highly congested roadways in Miami-Dade is to expand our
rapid transit network. The Miami-Dade Transportation Planning
Organization designated the Strategic Miami Area Rapid Transit Plan or
SMART Plan our top priority. This involves the BERT network and the
addition of six rapid transit corridors. We are seeing high growth
around existing rapid transit stations, and near the private sector
premium rapid intercity rail service called Brightline-Virgin Rail
currently running between Miami and Palm Beach with construction
underway to Orlando.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 5_Source: Miami-Dade Transportation Planning Organization
(http://miamidadetpo.org/smartplan.asp)
The South Corridor of the SMART Plan is in the development and
funding stage with a local funding commitment of $100 million, as well
as Florida DOT committing $100 million, and a request with the Federal
Transit Administration for a Small Starts grant of $100 million. The
remaining five rapid transit corridors will reach the locally preferred
alternative stage in the next six to twelve months and will be
presented to Florida DOT and the Federal Transit Administration for
development and funding in 2020. The Miami-Dade County Commission and
Mayor have allocated over $9 billion of future local funds over 40-
years as the local share of funding for the SMART Plan. This includes
harnessing the fees and taxes from development along existing and new
rapid transit corridors to help fund the local share. The SMART Plan
Rapid Transit and BERT corridors are shown in Figure 5 above.
Automated Vehicles
In addition, the Miami-Dade Transportation Planning Organization is
working with Florida DOT and the industry on the future of automated
vehicle technology. With the growth in popularity of Autonomous
Connected Electric Shared (ACES) vehicle technology, it is imperative
that current infrastructure be adaptable to accommodate these future
platforms/technologies. Express lanes and their underlying technology
infrastructure provide a great opportunity for integration of automated
vehicles on our public roadways given the less complex maneuvers and
the safety that comes with separating special use lanes.
We look forward to improved automated vehicle technology and will
consider adjusting the use of the expressway such as automated vehicle
uses of the express lanes to best facilitate those vehicles when they
become a significant part of the future.
Conclusion
Thank you for providing the tools to support electronic express
lanes and BERT in the express lanes, and we certainly want these tools
to continue. We support a public transit program that includes a strong
capital program for the Federal Transit Administration to help support
implementation of the Miami-Dade SMART Plan.
We support innovative project delivery approaches that best solve
the cost-effective and timely delivery for each major project.
Our assessment is congestion in Miami-Dade County will require ALL
innovations, choices, and alternatives including electronic express
lanes, modern rapid transit, and automated vehicles to provide
Residents and visitors with more reliable travel options in the future.
A future that is of our creation. A future that will determine
whether a young boy or girl can build upon their dreams and become the
mayor of their hometown. A future that will enhance economic
development and increase the amount of time that we get to spend with
our families. A future that will use every tool and resource available
to create the South Florida and America we deserve. We are not just
talking about congestion and traffic. We are talking about growth,
development, education, and opportunity. We are talking about the
American dream.
Thank you for your partnership again. Thank you for your support
and your leadership. Together, we go forward.
__________
Reference Information on Express Lanes in Florida
Florida Department of Transportation and partners have developed a
network of express lanes in Southeast Florida that now includes the
facilities in the table below that are open or under construction in
Florida's major metro areas. The map in Figure 6 and Table 1 in the
outline below illustrate the express lanes network statewide. http://
floridaexpresslanes.com/
Table 1--Florida Express Lanes
Open to Use and Under Construction as of September 2019
Northeast Florida
Northeast Florida Express (I-295) in the Jacksonville
metro area
I-95 to Buckman Bridge (5 miles): 2 express lanes per
direction open to traffic
SR 9B to J. Turner Butler Boulevard (5 miles): 2
express lanes per direction open 2020
Central Florida
Beachline Express (SR 528) in the Orlando metro area
I-4 to Florida's Turnpike Mainline (4 miles): 2 express
lanes per direction open to traffic
Florida's Turnpike Mainline to McCoy Road (4 miles): 1
express lane per direction open Fall 2019
I-4 Express in the Orlando metro area--SR 434 to Kirkman
Road (21 miles): 2 express lanes per direction open 2021
Florida's Turnpike in the Orlando metro area--Osceola
Parkway to Beachline West Expressway / SR 528 (6 miles): 2 express
lanes per direction open 2021
Tampa Bay
Veterans Express in the Tampa metro area--Hillsborough
Ave. to Dale Mabry Hwy. (9 miles): 1 express lane per direction open to
traffic
Crosstown Parkway Express adjacent to the Selmon
Crosstown Parkway in Tampa--approximately 10 miles--3 reversible lanes
open to traffic
I-275 in St. Petersburg metro area--Gandy Boulevard to
4th Street N (4 miles): 1 express lane per direction open 2022
Southeast Florida
95 Express in Miami/Fort Lauderdale/Palm Beach metro
areas
Junction of I-95 and SR 836/I-395 in downtown Miami to
Golden Glades interchange (7 miles): 2 express lanes per direction open
to traffic
Golden Glades interchange to Broward Boulevard (14
miles): 1 to 2 express lanes per direction open to traffic
Broward Boulevard to SW 10th Street (19 miles): 2
express lanes per direction--open 2020
SW 10th Street to Glades Road (5 miles): 2 express
lanes per direction open 2022
595 Express in the Fort Lauderdale metro area--I/595/I-
75/Sawgrass Expressway to Turnpike Mainline (10 miles): 3 reversible
express lanes open to traffic
75 Express in the Fort Lauderdale/Miami metro areas
Miami Gardens Drive to I-595 (11 miles): 2 express
lanes per direction open to traffic
Palmetto Expressway/SR 826 to Miami Gardens Drive (4
miles): 1 express lane per direction open to traffic
Palmetto Express in the Miami metro area--West Flagler
Street to NW 154th Street (9 miles): 2 express lanes per direction open
to traffic
Florida's Turnpike Homestead Extension in the Miami metro
area (opens in segments through 2024)
Biscayne Drive to Killian Parkway (14 miles): 1 express
lane per direction
Killian Parkway to Dolphin Expressway/SR 836 (7 miles):
2 express lanes per direction
I-75 to Turnpike Mainline (8 miles): 1 express lane per
direction
Under Study as of September 2019 (under consideration in the planning
stages)
Northeast Florida
I-295 (9 miles)
I-95 (26 miles)
Central Florida
Florida's Turnpike Mainline (46 miles)
I-4 (41 miles)
Tampa Bay
I-275 (21 miles)
SR-60 (3 miles)
I-4 (25 miles)
I-75 (42 miles)
Southeast Florida
Florida's Turnpike Mainline (88 miles)
Florida's Turnpike Homestead Extension (14 miles)
I-95 (50 miles)
Sawgrass Expressway (21 miles)
Palmetto Expressway (15 miles)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 6 Source: Florida Department of Transportation
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mayor Gilbert.
I am going to now call on Travis Brouwer, assistant
director of public affairs for the Oregon Department of
Transportation.
Mr. Brouwer. Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, Chairman
DeFazio, and members of the subcommittee, my name is Travis
Brouwer. I am the assistant director for public affairs of the
Oregon Department of Transportation, or ODOT. I want to thank
you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I
particularly want to thank Chairman DeFazio for his leadership
on transportation issues and all he has done over three decades
of service on this committee to make our Nation's
transportation stronger.
It is interesting to be here talking about tolling, because
Oregon and ODOT, we don't operate any tollroads currently. But
that could change in coming years as the clamor from the public
for relief from the gridlock that is gripping the Portland
metro area has led our legislators to direct ODOT to implement
tolling.
Data show that the Portland metro region's congestion is
bad and getting worse due to rapid population and job growth.
In just 2 years, from 2015 to 2017, hours of congestion
increased by 13 percent across the region and daily vehicle
hours of delays increased by 20 percent, and that was on top of
a similar increase in the previous 2 years.
Many of our highways function more like parking lots at
rush hour, and rush hour has now spread to become rush
afternoon and evening as five sections of State highway in the
Portland metro region are congested at least 7 hours every day.
Residents and businesses across the State increasingly are
complaining to legislators and ODOT about how congestion in
Portland poses a growing threat to our State's economy, making
it more costly for companies across Oregon to get their goods
to market.
In response to these concerns about the threat to the
economy and our quality of life, in 2017 the Oregon Legislature
passed the largest transportation investment package in the
State's history, known as Keep Oregon Moving. This legislation
included a comprehensive multimodal congestion relief strategy.
The legislature funded new lanes on I-5, I-205, and other
highways to alleviate bottlenecks.
But they recognized that we can't build our way out of
congestion. So they also invested in intelligent transportation
systems that help make traffic flow more efficiently, and they
provided significant investment in transportation options,
particularly public transportation. This will allow TriMet, our
major transit agency in the region, to launch its biggest
service expansion ever.
But the legislature recognized that even with all of these
investments, they wouldn't be enough to achieve the congestion
reduction the public demands. Even with this historic funding
package, the legislature could not fund a number of high-
priority congestion relief projects, including improvements to
Interstate 205.
That is why the legislature turned to tolling to address
congestion and raise revenue for improvements. In Keep Oregon
Moving, they directed the Oregon Transportation Commission,
ODOT's governing body, to implement tolling on both I-5 and I-
205, our main north/south corridors in the region that carry
the bulk of our freight and face the worst congestion.
Faced with this legislative mandate, the commission engaged
regional stakeholders and created a public engagement process
that reached members of the public more than 46,000 times. They
created a stakeholder advisory committee made up of local
government officials, the trucking industry, advocates for low-
income communities, and others.
The commission charged this group with developing a
recommendation for where we could use tolling to reduce
congestion and how to address potential impacts. We analyzed
options for tolling along the I-5 and I-205 corridors,
including managed lanes, tolling all lanes, and tolling
bridges.
After detailed analysis, managed lanes, like high-occupancy
toll lanes and express toll lanes, fell by the wayside. We
simply didn't find any location where these would offer
significant congestion relief. What the advisory committee
ultimately recommended was two tolling options that could
significantly reduce congestion.
First, implement variable rate tolling on I-5 through the
core of the Portland metro region. The American Trucking
Research Institute recently ranked this the 28th worst truck
bottleneck in the Nation. Tolling would be implemented in
conjunction with a congestion relief project that will add
lanes at the interchange between I-5, I-84, and I-405. Tolling
could help pay for this and other improvements.
Second, toll on or near the Abernethy Bridge on Interstate
205. This section of I-205 is just two lanes in each direction
and we are designing a project to widen that section of
highway, but neither the legislature nor ODOT has been able to
find a half billion dollars needed to fund that project.
Tolling offers a potential way to fund some or all of it.
In addition to recommending where tolling could benefit the
public, the committee also looked at some of the areas where we
need to mitigate potential impacts of tolling. They asked the
commission to find ways to avoid diversion of traffic onto
local streets, to ensure that tolling doesn't cause significant
issues for low-income families who may not be able to afford
tolls, and to ensure that there is good transit service so that
people have another option to get around.
The commission is moving forward on these recommendations,
and we are developing an indepth public involvement process
that will answer many of these questions. Ongoing public
engagement is going to be critical because we know that in
order to be successful we need to address the public's concerns
and show how tolling can improve their ability to get around
efficiently.
We are a member of the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, or AASHTO. AASHTO
supports increased tolling flexibility to allow States to
maximize revenue-raising opportunities in light of some of the
Federal funding challenges that Congressman DeFazio mentioned.
Greater flexibility would allow States to work with communities
to use tolling to help improve our transportation system across
the Nation.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
[Mr. Brouwer's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Travis Brouwer, Assistant Director for Public
Affairs, Oregon Department of Transportation
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Chair Norton, Ranking
Member Davis, and other distinguished members of the Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear
before you today.
My name is Travis Brouwer and I am the Assistant Director for
Public Affairs at the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). I am
here today to discuss tolling and congestion pricing on state highways
in Oregon.
Growing Congestion in Portland Pushes Oregon to Toll
Today, Oregon is not a toll state. No state-owned highway, bridge
or tunnel is tolled, and this has been the case for decades. However,
growing congestion in Portland led the Oregon Legislature in 2017 to
direct ODOT to implement tolling on Interstate 5 and Interstate 205 in
the Portland metro area.
In the lead up to consideration of a major transportation funding
bill, both a blue-ribbon commission created by Oregon Governor Kate
Brown and members of the state legislature embarked on statewide
transportation listening tours. These efforts revealed that freeway
congestion in the Portland metropolitan area is a statewide concern.
Communities and businesses across the state, in many cases located
hundreds of miles away from Portland, consistently reported struggles
with getting products and people to and through the Portland area.
Thanks to these listening tours, policymakers recognized that Portland
congestion is an urban problem and a rural problem that must be
addressed at a statewide level in Oregon.
Indeed, Portland area congestion is bad and getting worse. From
2015 to 2017, hours of congestion increased by 13 percent across the
region. In that same period, daily vehicle hours of delay increased by
20 percent. Increasingly, Portland area highways are congested not just
in the traditional evening ``rush hour,'' but throughout the entire
afternoon and evening.
Traffic congestion in Portland affects the statewide economy
through delayed movement of goods and services, and it compromises
reliability for employers and employees. Quality of life is reduced for
residents as they sit in cars or buses trying to meet work or family
commitments on time. Commuters, business travelers, freight haulers,
and others struggle to plan consistent departure and arrival times. The
rapid population growth of the Portland area has only compounded these
problems.
Keep Oregon Moving Legislative Direction to Toll
In 2017, the Oregon Legislative Assembly passed a $5.3 billion
state-level funding package for transportation dubbed Keep Oregon
Moving, the largest investment in Oregon's transportation system in
history. To address the growing challenge of Portland-area congestion,
the state legislature included in Keep Oregon Moving a comprehensive
congestion relief program. This program is an ``all of the above''
approach to congestion relief that includes funding for bottleneck
relief projects on the Portland-area freeway system, investments in
intelligent transportation system technology to increase the efficiency
of existing highway capacity, more resources for transportation options
such as public transportation, and more state level investments in
freight rail improvements.
However, the legislature realized that even these significant
investments would not be enough to achieve the congestion relief the
public demands--and they also realized additional resources are needed
to complete congestion relief projects in the region, as a number of
high-priority congestion relief projects could not be funded even with
Keep Oregon Moving's historic levels of investment.
In response, Keep Oregon Moving directs the Oregon Transportation
Commission (ODOT's Governor-appointed policy and oversight body) to
implement tolling on both Interstate 5 and Interstate 205 in the
Portland metropolitan area. The legislation required the Oregon
Transportation Commission to seek approval from the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) by December 2018 to implement tolls.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Oregon State Legislature, 2017 Regular Session, HB 2017
Enrolled:
SECTION 120.
(1) The Oregon Transportation Commission shall establish a
traffic congestion relief program.
(2) No later than December 31, 2018, the commission shall seek
approval from the Federal Highway Administration, if required by
federal law, to implement value pricing as described in this section.
(3) After seeking and receiving approval from the Federal Highway
Administration, the commission shall implement value pricing to reduce
traffic congestion. Value pricing may include, but is not limited to,
variable time-of-day pricing. The commission shall implement value
pricing in the following locations:
(a) On Interstate 205, beginning at the Washington state line
and ending where it intersects with Interstate 5 in this state.
(b) On Interstate 5, beginning at the Washington state line and
ending where it intersects with Interstate 205.
(4) In addition to areas listed in subsection (3) of this
section, the commission may implement value pricing in other areas of
this state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interstate 5 and Interstate 205 are the two key north-south freight
routes through the Portland metro region, Oregon's largest urban area.
Interstate 5 travels through the urban core and provides connections to
the Port of Portland's marine terminals--it is also the most congested
corridor in the Portland metro region. Interstate 205 provides direct
connections to Portland International Airport and experiences severe
congestion. Addressing congestion on both of these corridors will be
complex and incredibly costly. Even after passage of Keep Oregon
Moving, we simply do not have the funding we need to make the necessary
improvements on these corridors.
Oregon's Process for Implementing the Toll Mandate
With only 18 months to respond to this new mandate, the Oregon
Transportation Commission and ODOT assembled an extensive engagement
process to consider questions about how tolling could work in the
Portland area. The Commission created a multi-stakeholder Policy
Advisory Committee to publicly explore questions about what types of
tolling should be applied in the Portland area and what mitigation
strategies should be pursued to reduce negative impacts on individuals
and communities. This 24 member Committee included members of the
Oregon Transportation Commission, local governments from both Oregon
and Washington, public transit, private business, trucking and
automotive highway user associations, environmental justice advocates,
ports, and more. The Oregon Transportation Commission charged this
committee with developing tolling recommendations in the Portland area
that will reduce congestion by helping fund bottleneck relief
construction projects or by managing demand.
Our analysis of tolling options included extensive public
engagement because we recognized the need to listen to the public in
order to develop a plan that will provide significant benefit to users
of the transportation system and address their concerns. In addition to
the six public meetings held by the Policy Advisory Committee where
rigorous discussions of tolling analysis and stakeholder concerns took
place, we made 49 presentations to community groups, held eight in-
person open houses in both Oregon and Washington, hosted six equity-
focused discussion groups, and held two online open houses and a public
hearing. All told, we reached stakeholders more than 46,000 times
through our public engagement.
The Policy Advisory Committee considered a number of tolling
options on Interstate 5 and Interstate 205. These options ranged from
the expansive--tolling all miles of all lanes on both corridors--to
managed lanes to more traditional and straightforward bridge tolling.
After analysis, high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes, express toll lanes,
and other managed lanes were ruled out because they simply did not
provide congestion relief. Our analysis showed the cost of building a
new HOT lane would exceed the revenue the facility would generate,
leaving ODOT unable to fund construction of a new lane.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
At the conclusion of the public engagement process, the Policy
Advisory Committee recommended that the Oregon Transportation
Commission pursue two separate tolling projects to address two of our
major congestion chokepoints:
1. Toll all lanes of Interstate 5 through the core of metro
Portland using variable rate congestion pricing. This is one of the
most congested sections of freeway in the region and was recently
ranked as the 28th worst truck bottleneck in the nation by the American
Trucking Research Institute. Tolling would be implemented in
conjunction with a freeway improvement project that will add lanes at
the interchange between Interstate 5, Interstate 84, and Interstate
405. Tolling could help pay for these and other freeway improvements.
2. Toll on or near the Interstate 205 Abernethy Bridge over the
Willamette River. This section of the Interstate is just two lanes in
each direction, and we are developing a project to address this
bottleneck. However, neither the legislature nor ODOT has been able to
identify the funding to construct this more than $500 million project.
Tolling offers a potential way to fund some or all of this project,
including widening the Abernethy Bridge and adjacent sections of
freeway.
The Policy Advisory Committee also recommended three key mitigation
strategies: Improved transit along the newly tolled corridors,
provisions to mitigate the costs of tolling for low-income communities,
and strategies to minimize and mitigate impacts of diversion.
Based on the recommendation from the Policy Advisory Committee, the
Oregon Transportation Commission made a formal request of FHWA in
December of 2018 to move forward with both tolling concepts. FHWA has
indicated that both proposals would likely be eligible to proceed--the
Interstate 5 proposal under the Value Pricing Pilot Program and the
Interstate 205 Abernethy Bridge toll proposal under either Title 23 US
Code, Section 129 (mainstream tolling program) or the Value Pricing
Pilot Program, depending on the configuration.
For ODOT, the next steps in the implementation process include in-
depth planning and environmental analysis, policy development, and toll
system development--all backed by extensive public engagement.
Keys to Success
While we are still in the early stages of this process, there are
several key elements we know we must employ if we are to be successful
in advancing tolling as a tool for transportation challenges in the
region.
Recognizing that the public will experience a monumental
shift in how the highway system works and how people get around, high
quality and extensive public engagement and involvement will continue
to be a key element of the implementation strategy at each step moving
forward. ODOT will remain closely coordinated with FHWA, other state
and federal agencies, regional transportation partners, community and
stakeholder organizations, and the general public. Included in this
coordination will be extensive community engagement with a strong focus
on underrepresented populations to ensure tolling policies reflect the
values and priorities of the broader region.
Before moving forward we must ensure that tolling will
offer the public a significant benefit. If the public is to pay tolls,
they must be able to see how tolling will enhance their mobility.
We must find ways to mitigate potential issues, including
impacts to low-income families and traffic diversions that affects
local communities.
Tolling must be just one of the tools we use to address
congestion and enhance mobility. We must have a comprehensive strategy
to address gridlock that includes all modes of the transportation
system, and we must recognize that tolling by itself will not solve all
our problems.
Tolling Policy Going Forward
The realities of endlessly growing congestion and rapidly
increasing population have conspired to move Oregon from its longtime
status as a no toll state, just as many other jurisdictions are turning
toward tolls to address their funding and congestion challenges.
Current federal authority for states to toll and use pricing to
generate revenue as well as manage congestion and environmental impacts
has evolved over time. Since the creation of the Interstate Highway
System, federal law has limited where tolls can be used. Currently,
tolling is generally limited to new roads and new lanes on existing
highways, as well as reconstruction or replacement of bridges. In
recent decades Congress has taken steps to evolve the federal stance on
tolling by permitting public agencies to toll a limited number of
existing Interstate highway corridors on a pilot basis, build High
Occupancy Toll lanes to reduce congestion, allow variable congestion-
based pricing on existing Interstate highways to manage roadway
congestion and regional air quality, and allow new or reconstructed
Interstate highway bridges to be tolled.
As a state department of transportation, ODOT is a member of the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO). AASHTO represents states with a range of viewpoints on
tolling and pricing, and as a result, the association supports
increased tolling flexibility to states to allow those states that so
choose to maximize revenue-raising opportunities in light of federal
funding challenges. Greater flexibility would allow states to work with
their communities to use tolling to help improve their transportation
systems. ODOT also supports this increased flexibility.
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Chair Norton, Ranking
Member Davis, and members of the subcommittee thank you again for the
opportunity to testify before you today. I look forward to your
questions.
Ms. Norton. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Brouwer.
We will hear next from Tilly Chang, executive director of
the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, who is
speaking on behalf of the Intelligent Transportation Society of
America.
Welcome, Ms. Chang.
Ms. Chang. Good morning, Chair Norton, Ranking Member
Davis, Chair DeFazio, and subcommittee members. Thank you so
much for the opportunity to provide San Francisco's and ITS
America's perspective on the topic of pricing and congestion
management.
My name is Tilly Chang. I serve as the executive director
of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority, and it is
an honor to provide testimony on our local experience with
these topics and why we believe pricing and incentives are
promising strategies to help us reach our transportation goals.
First, let me provide an overview of the problem. As in
other places, rising population and employment, but also
combined with the growth of ride hail vehicles, are clogging
our streets. In a typical year commuters spend about 116 hours,
almost 3 weeks, stuck in traffic. Muni buses, private cars
alike, they crawl on city streets at about 5 to 10 miles per
hour during the rush hour period.
Congestion also affects public health in our core
neighborhoods. These are areas seeing record numbers of severe
and fatal crashes, which our Vision Zero policy seeks to
address. In addition, particulate emissions are adversely
affecting our health of the freeway-adjacent neighborhoods in
the downtown and leading areas.
Finally, congestion is a big part of why transportation as
a sector is the largest component of greenhouse gas emissions
in our city and State.
So why are we looking at pricing? As a city we have taken
many steps to try to alleviate our rising congestion. We are
investing heavily in our transit systems, building out our
bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and approving more
housing than ever near transit. And we have also implemented
variable pricing of parking through our federally funded SFpark
program.
But it is not enough. We need more long-term Federal
funding. And in the near term we hope to address our needs
through congestion pricing and incentives, because this
strategy has the potential to dramatically and cost effectively
reduce traffic, improve public health, and increase equitable
access.
What is pricing? Let me address the basic components of a
typical congestion pricing system. Pricing involves charging
motorists a fee to drive in the busiest locations and times of
day. Best practice usually combines pricing, transit, and
discounts and incentives altogether, these policies and
programs that new technologies now allows us to implement more
effectively.
In San Francisco we began studying the feasibility of
congestion pricing for our downtown area in 2008 with the
support of a Federal Urban Partnership Agreement grant and
Value Pricing Program. That study found multiple benefits of a
potential cordon, including 12 percent fewer rush hour trips,
20 percent faster bus speeds, and 16 percent lower emissions in
the priced zone. The program also would generate about $80
million a year as estimated in 2010.
We successfully piloted an incentive-based program as well
in 2016 with Bay Area Rapid Transit, or BART, using Federal
Value Pricing Pilot Program funds. This project shifted 10
percent of riders to the off-peak shoulder hours during average
weekday morning peaks, and this was possible by using very
modest rider rewards. So the use of carrots and not just sticks
is possible through technology.
Recently, due to the return of severe congestion, our board
asked us to update these studies and identify an implementable
area pricing or cordon pricing program by the end of next year.
We are partnering with State, regional, and local agencies to
do that work currently.
A common concern around congestion pricing is whether the
use of price to manage demand is fair. We think about this
important question in three ways.
First, driving in San Francisco is an expensive way to
commute. Most peak period drivers earn high incomes, and the
lowest income travelers are generally on transit. For low-
income motorists and choice commuters who would prefer to take
transit but don't have good options, pricing comes with a
built-in solution, revenues, revenues to fund new, affordable
transit services, as well as active transportation.
Next, equity and efficiency have been balanced before in
other sectors. Consider what happens in the power sector. Where
demand is high, rates rise. And as found in that sector,
lifeline rates can help mitigate financial impacts of peak
charge for those who need it most.
Finally, beyond mitigating the impacts of pricing, we
believe such programs can actually help make San Francisco's
transportation more equitable. This is because traffic
disproportionately affects poor neighborhoods, as I mentioned
previously, through impacts to transit performance, pedestrian
safety, and emissions.
Traffic reduction and revenue generation can greatly
benefit low-income communities. Going forward, we intend to
directly involve these communities in the program design
itself. We will seek input about fee levels, discounts, and how
to invest net revenues from those most affected, and we will
explore innovative new approaches, like enabling frequent
transit riders to earn toll credits for those times when they
need to drive.
In conclusion, San Francisco faces a steep challenge with
congestion and we think a congestion pricing pilot can move the
city toward a healthier, more equitable future. Our agency and
ITS America are hopeful that the FAST Act reauthorization will
maintain policy and grow funding support for pricing
strategies, as well as for deployment of new technologies.
Federal support for pricing and technology deployment could
build on existing programs, like the Advanced Transportation
and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment program or
Value Pricing Program, or take the form similar to the 2008
Urban Partnership Agreements that I mentioned previously.
Based on the large response to the Smart Cities Challenge a
few years ago, our region believes demand for congestion relief
programs will be high. We urge the committee to consider
expanding this program and to provide flexibility to cities,
regions, and States in designing our respective solutions.
Thank you again, and thank you for your leadership. I am
pleased to answer your questions.
[Ms. Chang's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tilly Chang, Executive Director, San Francisco
County Transportation Authority, on behalf of the Intelligent
Transportation Society of America
Introduction
Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the San
Francisco County Transportation Authority and Intelligent
Transportation Society of America's (ITS America) perspectives on
``Pricing and Technology Strategies to Address Congestion on and
Financing of America's Roads.''
My name is Tilly Chang, and I am Executive Director of the San
Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA). As Congestion
Management Agency and transportation sales tax administrator for San
Francisco, the Transportation Authority collaborates with public
agencies, community groups, and the private sector to improve
transportation options for residents, local and regional commuters, and
visitors. Our mission is to make travel safer, healthier, and easier
for all.
Our agency's Board of Commissioners are the eleven members of the
Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco. As the
designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for San Francisco under
state law, we have a wide range of responsibilities, including
prioritizing state and federal transportation funds for San Francisco,
preparing the long-range Countywide Transportation Plan, and developing
a computerized travel demand forecasting model and supporting
databases.
Before becoming SFTCA's Executive Director in 2013, I served as the
Transportation Authority's Deputy Director for Planning and held posts
with the World Bank, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and
a technology startup. I serve on the boards of the California
Transportation Foundation, San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban
Research Association, and the University of California Transportation
Centers.
I also serve on the ITS America Advocacy Trust, which is the
association's principal policymaking group, where I most recently
advised on the association's Fixing America's Surface Transportation
(FAST) Act reauthorization platform: Moving People, Data, and Freight:
Safer. Greener. Smarter. ITS America's vision is ``A better future
transformed by intelligent mobility--one that is safer, greener, and
smarter.'' Our mission is to advance the research and deployment of
intelligent transportation technologies and solutions to save lives,
improve mobility, promote sustainability, and increase efficiency and
productivity. Our focus is policy that accelerates seamless mobility
technology, connected and automated vehicle technologies, and smart
infrastructure; policy that breathes new life into our transportation
infrastructure by expanding investments in technologies that support
smart communities; and policy that encourages new models and modes of
transportation, including micro-transit, rideshare, carshare,
bikeshare, micro-mobility, and unmanned systems. Investments in these
new modes should also address issues of transportation equity so
everyone gains access to mobility and opportunity.
ITS America recognizes that only with investment certainty will
cities, metropolitan areas, and states see and benefit from
transformational deployment of intelligent transportation technologies
that will define the way people, goods, services, and information move
in the 21st century. To that end, ITS America's Moving People, Data,
and Freight: Safer. Greener. Smarter. FAST Act reauthorization platform
supports maintaining federal programs that allow state, metropolitan
areas, and city congestion pricing strategies.
The following sections of my testimony are real-world pricing and
technology use cases in the San Francisco Metropolitan Area. Following
the use cases are ITS America's FAST Act reauthorization priorities
that bridge new and exciting infrastructure technologies and new modes
of mobility that we see across the country with the utmost importance
of this Congress to make urgent investments to bring our nation's
transit, roads, bridges, and rail infrastructure to a state of good
repair and to integrate technology in order to maximize infrastructure
and mobility efficiencies and safety through a timely reauthorization.
Pricing and Technology Strategies: Reduce Traffic, Improve Public
Health, and Increase Equity
Congestion in San Francisco has reached record levels: whether on
Muni buses or in private cars, commuters average 5-10 mph on our city
streets during peak periods.\1\ Rising population and job growth--
combined with a growing presence of ride-hail vehicles--has resulted in
clogged streets, particularly in our downtown, South of Market and
Eastern neighborhoods. We are studying congestion pricing
implementation options because this strategy has the potential to
dramatically reduce traffic, improve public health and increase
equitable access for our community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ SFCTA, 2017 Congestion Management Program, https://
www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2019-03/CMP_2017_12.05.17.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given our city's long-standing Transit First Policy, San Francisco
has deployed multiple transit, bicycling and pedestrian improvement
strategies, and paired these with land use, parking and managed lanes
initiatives, to tackle congestion. However, with the addition of 80,000
residents \2\ and over 150,000 jobs \3\ since 2010, and the rise of
transportation network companies (TNCs), San Francisco is experiencing
significant levels of congestion on our roadways. In a typical year,
San Francisco commuters are estimated to spend 116 hours (or almost 3
work weeks) stuck in traffic.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://sf.curbed.com/2018/3/26/17165370/san-francisco-
population-2017-census-increase
\3\ https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/
TNCs_Congestion_Report_
181015_Finals.pdf
\4\ http://inrix.com/scorecard/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apart from the economic cost of this congestion, we are concerned
about the safety, public health and equity impacts of gridlock. On
average, a Muni bus travels at one half to two-thirds the speed and
reliability of private vehicles on our downtown streets, while carrying
40 times more people of lower than average incomes. High volumes of
vehicles also contribute to San Francisco's record high numbers of
severe and fatal crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists (here San
Francisco's troubling trends mirror national ones \5\), which our
Vision Zero policy seeks to eradicate.\6\ And, in addition to
generating heavy loads of particulate emissions affecting freeway
adjacent neighborhoods, rising vehicle use and congestion makes the
transportation sector the largest component of greenhouse gas emissions
in our city and state. In San Francisco, due to the clean profile of
our stationary sources energy use, the transportation sector accounts
for 46% of greenhouse gas emissions.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/us/pedestrian-
deaths.html?auth=login-email&login=email&module=inline, ``An estimated
6,227 pedestrians were killed in traffic in 2018, according to the
study from the Governors Highway Safety Association, a projection based
on data from the first half of the year. That figure represents a
striking rise from a decade earlier, when 4,109 pedestrians were killed
in traffic.''
\6\ https://www.visionzerosf.org/
\7\ SF Department of the Environment, San Francisco Climate Action
Plans 2014-2017
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this reason, with the help of Federal, state and regional
funding partners, we are investing heavily in rail expansion for Bay
Area Rapid Transit (BART), our local Muni, and Caltrain, and adding
signal priority and dedicated lanes for buses and bicycles. We are
emphasizing safer streets in pursuit of our Vision Zero goals and
changing land use polices to reduce parking requirements and vehicle
miles traveled (VMT). But as I noted in a news article earlier this
year, all of this has not been enough.\8\ Hundreds of thousands of
commuters, on Muni buses and in cars, experience gridlocked conditions
on typical weekday peak periods in our city's core.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/nyregion/new-york-
congestion-pricing.html, ``Everyone agrees there's a [congestion]
problem. There are multiple views of the solution. But frankly, we've
tried a lot of them and they're not enough.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While a significant portion of this chronic on-street congestion in
San Francisco is due to economic growth, a comparable contributor is
the rise of ridehail trips by transportation network companies (TNCs).
In our 2017 report ``TNCs Today,'' we estimate that on an average
weekday, about 170,000 ridehail trips operate on our streets,
accounting for about 1 in 4 trips downtown and 15% of intra-city
(local) daily trips, citywide.\9\ Our TNCs and Congestion report
subsequently estimated that about 50% of the rise of congestion in San
Francisco between 2010 and 2016 was due to the growth of ridehail
services and that TNC trips account for 25% of total 2016 citywide
congestion.\10\ Recently released trip figures from Uber and Lyft
themselves indicate that San Francisco TNC trip activity exceeds our
2017 estimates, likely due to the addition of two years of trip growth
and the inclusion of all San Francisco trips, including regional trips
with one trip end outside of San Francisco.\11\ The benefits of
ridehail are numerous in many areas, but for San Francisco, the impacts
are great as well, in terms of induced traffic, conflicts with
pedestrians, bus and bicycle lanes, and erosion of public transit
ridership.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ SFCTA, TNCs Today, 2017, https://www.sfcta.org/projects/tncs-
today
\10\ SFCTA, TNCs and Congestion, 2018, https://www.sfcta.org/
projects/tncs-and-congestion
\11\ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/08/uber-lyft-
traffic-congestion-ride-hailing-cities-drivers-vmt/595393/
\12\ Regina R. Clewlow and Gouri Shankar Mishra, ``Disruptive
Transportation: The Adoption, Utilization, and Impacts of Ride-Hailing
in the United States'', UC Davis, October 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With limited ability for San Francisco to regulate ridehail
companies (due to California Public Utilities Commission exclusive
regulatory jurisdiction), recent local plans, studies \13\ and task
forces \14\ in San Francisco have recommended strategies like
congestion pricing and a per-ride tax to manage demand and generate
congestion relief funds to offset the impact of these services. San
Francisco is currently pursuing both congestion pricing (on all peak
area motorists) and a per-trip tax measure (citywide). Because our
workforce is highly regional, we have requested and received funding
and technical support for our congestion pricing study from the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, our regional MPO (metropolitan
planning organization). The ridehail industry also is generally
supportive of area-based congestion pricing as a congestion reduction
strategy, provided all vehicle trips are priced.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ SFCTA, Emerging Mobility Evaluation Report,2018, https://
www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2019-03/
Emerging%20Mobility%20Studies_11.pdf
\14\ San Francisco Transportation 2045 Task Force Report, 2018,
https://www.sfcta.org/sites/default/files/2019-03/
T2045%20TF%20Report%20for%20TA%20Board_v2.pdf
\15\ https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/8/6/20757593/uber-lyft-
traffic-congestion-pricing
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some experts believe the popularity of ridehail services are a
precursor of what the future may bring with automated vehicles
(AV).\16\ Deployed ideally, AVs will result in safety, mobility,
economic, and environmental benefits. For example, if deployed as
shared, electric, and affordable fleet-based services, AVs should
dramatically increase safety, increase the accessibility and efficiency
of our transportation system and reduce demand for parking and road
space. On the other hand, the ease, comfort and convenience of AVs
could induce greater private vehicle travel demand and associated
vehicle miles of travel (VMT), exacerbating congestion, hindering
transit performance, and widening equity disparities. This risk
presages the need to explore management strategies like de-congestion
pricing and the prioritization of street space for sustainable
modes.\17\ To avoid further gridlock, SFCTA is investing in dedicated
infrastructure for walking, bicycling, transit and carpooling and
studying the best way to implement congestion pricing.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ There are a large number of unknowns about how AVs will impact
the transportation system. As such, cities and states should retain
existing roles and responsibilities with respect to the operation of
AVs or vehicles equipped with automated driving systems to shape and
manage a range of possible AV futures.
\17\ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/07/autonomous-vehicles-
driverless-cars-public-transport
\18\ https://www.sfcta.org/policies/transit-first-policy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this way, San Francisco is joining cities around the United
States and the world that are looking to transportation demand
management, pricing and incentives to help reach safety, climate,
access, equity and Transit First goals.\19\ In the United States,
multiple cities are also examining potential applications of area-based
congestion pricing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ https://www.sfcta.org/policies/pricing-incentives
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pricing and Technology Strategies: Congestion Pricing and Rewards--San
Francisco's Experience
What is congestion pricing? Congestion pricing is a way to manage
demand for driving by charging motorists a fee to drive in the most
congested locations at the most congested times of day (typically AM
and PM peak). It is one of the most cost-effective tools in our
congestion management toolbox. Industry best practice is to evaluate
congestion pricing carefully and inclusively, typically packaging the
pricing with incentives/rewards, discount and exemption policies, and
multimodal improvements funded by the pricing program itself.
Below is a summary of key San Francisco pricing-related programs
and initiatives:
1. SFMTA SFpark Program--In the late 2000's, during the Bush
Administration and under U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters,
SFCTA, the MTC and our sister agency the San Francisco Municipal
Transportation Agency (SFMTA) applied for and received a Federal Urban
Partnership Program grant.\20\ This grant allowed SFMTA to develop and
test its SFpark parking management system at 7,000 metered spaces and
12,250 spaces in city-owned parking garages.\21\ The SFpark pilot
collected and distributed real-time information about available parking
so that drivers can quickly find open spaces. To help achieve the ideal
level of parking availability, SFpark periodically adjusts meter and
garage pricing up and down to match demand. Demand-responsive pricing
encourages drivers to park in underused areas and garages, reducing
demand in overused areas. Through SFpark, real-time data and demand-
responsive pricing work together to readjust parking patterns in the
city so that parking is easier to find. As a federally-funded
demonstration of a new approach to managing parking, the SFpark project
collected an unprecedented data set to enable a thorough evaluation of
its effectiveness.\22\ A main finding of the evaluation was that, even
as the economy, population, and overall parking demand grew, parking
availability improved dramatically in SFpark pilot areas. The target
parking availability (60-80% occupancy) increased by 31 percent in
pilot areas, compared to a 6 percent increase in control areas. Federal
funding through the Department of Transportation's Urban Partnership
Program paid for 80 percent of the SFpark project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/congestionpricing/agreements/docs/
termsheetsanfran.htm
\21\ https://www.sfmta.com/projects/sfpark-pilot-program
\22\ https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around/drive-park/demand-
responsive-pricing/sfpark-evaluation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 2010 Congestion Pricing Feasibility Study--In 2007, after
visiting officials in Stockholm and seeing the success of their cordon
pricing system, our agency received a federal Value Pricing Pilot
Program grant to study downtown cordon pricing in San Francisco. The $1
million VPPP grant was key to our ability to conduct inclusive
community outreach and thorough technical studies on potential pricing
program designs. The San Francisco Mobility Access and Pricing study
found that an area-pricing program would be feasible and effective and
recommended a ``northeast cordon'' pilot, with peak period charges of
$3/crossing and a series of discounts for residents of the zone and
low-income motorists. This program was estimated to reduce peak period
vehicle trips by 12%, increase bus speeds by 20-25%, generate net $80M/
year in revenues toward funding a multi-modal package of transit,
bicycling and mobility improvements, and ultimately to reduce daily
emissions by about 16%.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ SFCTA, Mobility Access and Pricing Study, 2010, https://
www.sfcta.org/projects/downtown-congestion-pricing
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 2011 Treasure Island Development and Transportation Improvement
Plan--In 2011, San Francisco approved a large multi-use development on
Treasure Island that includes congestion pricing as a way to manage
demand for driving and fund robust investment in bus, ferry and non-
motorized infrastructure across the Island. Following passage of state
legislative authority to implement congestion pricing on the Island,
SFCTA (acting as the Treasure Island Mobility Management Agency) became
the administrator of the transportation program in 2014 and continues
to develop the toll system and transit service and affordability
program, as well as to lead a Federally-funded (2016 ACTMTD grant,
awarded to SFMTA) on-Island tolling system and Autonomous Vehicle
Shuttle pilot project.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ https://www.sfcta.org/projects/treasure-island-transportation-
program
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 2017 BART Perks Rewards Program and Pilot--BART Perks was a
six-month federally-funded (VPPP) test program led by SFCTA in
partnership with BART to explore the use of incentives and rewards to
reduce crowding on BART. The goal of the program was to see if small
incentives could effectively encourage people to ride outside of the
morning rush. The pilot found that incentives can successfully shift
the travel behavior of BART riders. Evaluation studies found that of
the 2,600 Perks participants who had traveled during the peak hour each
day before the program, an average of 250 Perks participants each
weekday (about 10%) shifted their ride to either before or after the
peak morning rush hour. That amounts to the equivalent of two full BART
cars being freed up each weekday morning during BART's busiest
hour.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ SFCTA, Evaluation Findings from the BART Perks Program, 2018,
https://www.sfcta.org/projects/bart-perks-test-program
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 2017-2019 Managed Lanes Studies (ongoing)--Like other counties
and regions, we are also leading express lane studies for US101-I-280
within San Francisco, in partnership with Caltrans and MTC.\26\ Express
lanes are a system of freeway lane management that aims to improve
reliability and efficiency (people throughput) of regional highways by
allowing transit and carpool trips to use the lane for free, and solo
travelers to use the lane for a fee. The fee level is typically
dynamically set to maintain reliable travel times and reliability of
the lane. Net revenues may be invested in public transit services in
the corridor (regional and local public bus services). Our board has
asked that equity analyses and transit service planning be integrated
into our managed lanes studies to ensure a comprehensive and equitable
approach, going forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ SFCTA, Freeway Corridor Management Study Phase 2 Final Report,
2018, https://www.sfcta.org/projects/101280-carpool-and-express-lane-
project
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 2019 Congestion Pricing Update--Finally, we are currently
updating our prior study of cordon pricing for the northeast quadrant
of San Francisco. We believe a program that utilizes pricing and
incentives can greatly improve system efficiency (person/goods
movement), effectiveness (improving reliability, travel times, travel
options) and equity (reducing emissions, increasing public health,
advancing equity). Two new aspects to this study compared with the
prior 2010 study will be how to address TNCs and new mobility modes and
how to bring incentives and rewards into the program design. While
other cities are looking to congestion pricing to raise revenue as well
as to manage demand, we remain focused on reducing private vehicle
demand, with net revenue--which can fund increased transit service and
bicycle/pedestrian and circulation improvements as well as equity
investments--as an important, but secondary, objective.
Pricing and Technology Strategies: Making Sure Pricing Programs are
Fair
One concern that our SFCTA Board and members of the public express
is whether the use of price to manage transportation demand is fair. An
important consideration is to consider the status quo. Inequities have
long been ingrained in our transportation system, as noted in the 2019
TransForm report `Pricing Roads, Advancing Equity.' Vulnerable
communities--which include low-income households, people of color, and
those disadvantaged due to ability, age, or other factors--have long
borne the brunt of negative transportation impacts while paying a
proportionally larger share of their income to get where they need to
go--especially if they are automobile dependent--the report states.
With careful design and inclusive public involvement, we believe
transportation pricing can make San Francisco's transportation system
more equitable.\27\ At the request of our Board, our Downtown
Congestion Pricing Update study will begin with data collection and
analysis to better understand who is driving in the peak (our 2010
study estimated that less than 5% of peak period motorists had annual
incomes below $50,000/household), designing for equitable impacts, and
involving communities of concern and stakeholder who are most impacted
by vehicle congestion from the start.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Assistant Professor Michael Manville, UCLA and 100 Hours
Campaign ``Is congestion pricing fair to the poor?'', 2017, https://
medium.com/100-hours/is-congestion-pricing-fair-to-the-poor-
62e281924ca3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A best practice for ensuring an equitable pricing program is to
combine a fee with subsidies, discounts, and/or incentives that
specifically help disadvantaged travelers. Another common practice is
to use pricing revenues to pay for more sustainable transportation
modes such as transit, walking, and biking. A few examples include:
Targeted Re-investment of Fees: Prioritize revenue from
congestion fees for services and improvements benefitting low-income
travelers and affected neighborhoods such as increased bus service,
lighting, and safer streets.
Subsidies: People with low incomes receive a subsidy to
offset the costs of a pricing system. For example, Los Angeles Metro's
Low-Income Assistance Plan for the region's express lanes provides $25
in toll credits and waives monthly fees for low-income customers.
Discounts: People with low incomes, disabilities or clean
air vehicles pay a discounted rate.
Incentives: People with low incomes accrue credits after
taking a certain number of trips on transit and can use those credits
to pay for pricing fees, transit, or other services like bikeshare.
San Francisco Pricing and Technology Strategies: Who is Leading and
Who's Involved?
SFCTA is the County Congestion Management Agency for San Francisco
and is leading several of the aforementioned pricing and demand
management studies and projects, in partnership with local, regional
and, in some cases, state agencies. With regional commuters comprising
60% of our workforce, it is critical to ensure coordination with other
agencies and adjacent communities.
Downtown Congestion Pricing Study Update--SFCTA is
leading the study in collaboration with key partners City and County of
San Francisco (CCSF) /SFMTA and MTC and involvement of several regional
and state agencies including Caltrans. State legislative authority is
required to implement the project.
Treasure Island Transportation Improvement Program--SFCTA
acting as the Treasure Island Mobility Management Agency (TIMMA) is
implementing the Treasure Island mobility management and congestion
pricing program, in partnership with the Treasure Island Development
Authority.
US101/I-280 Managed Lanes--SFCTA is leading the San
Francisco network study, in coordination with Caltrans (freeway owner),
MTC (Regional network planning lead) and San Mateo and Santa Clara
counties (US101 corridor partners).
Pricing and Technology Strategies: Technology in Congestion Pricing/
Congestion Management
Technology innovation is enabling rapid and robust congestion
management solutions that were previously out of reach in terms of cost
or otherwise infeasible. New solutions bring the possibility and
promise of expanding mobility choices and filling access gaps. We at
SFCTA are particularly excited about first/last mile services to
complement mainline transit networks, and highly customer-oriented
integrated payment and trip planning/booking systems known as Mobility
as a Service (MaaS). We are also preparing to test autonomous shuttles
on Treasure Island.
Technology is not a silver bullet, though, and some new services
have the potential to hinder rather than help cities' abilities to
reach their goals. Successful transitions require the public sector to
have clear goals, willingness to engage/pilot, capacity to regulate and
lead initiatives, and strong ground rules and research/transparency at
this early stage to inform policy. San Francisco transportation
agencies (SFCTA, SFMTA) have invested in staff, research and tools to
help manage this transition and our policy boards have adopted 10
Emerging Mobility Services and Technology goals and objectives to
anchor our city's new mobility policy framework and preliminary sector
evaluation.\28\ These are informing implementation policies, permit
systems and pilots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ SFCTA, Emerging Mobility Evaluation Report, 2018, https://
www.sfcta.org/policies/emerging-mobility
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to congestion pricing, we are interested in safety,
customer focused, mobility on demand, and system efficiency-oriented
innovations including:
1. Inter-operability and standardization
2. Curb management solutions
3. Integrated payments (Mobile Wallet)
4. Trip planning/booking apps
5. Modernization and enhancement of public transit
6. Shared, Electric, Automated shuttles for first/last mile public
transit access
7. Bicycle and micromobility infrastructure
8. Strong data transparency, community-based pilots and data-
driven research
The recent Senate Environment and Public Works Committee proposal
for reauthorization of the FAST Act proposes to continue a federal
commitment to support innovative approaches to solve pressing
congestion and mobility challenges. The proposal included a new $40
million discretionary congestion relief program to fund integrated
congestion management, pricing strategies, operation of mobility
services, incentives programs to carpool or shift travel to non-peak
periods, as well as other innovative solutions. This program could
provide opportunities for regions and jurisdictions like San Francisco
to pilot cost-effective near-term demand management strategies and
document results for federal program evaluation and dissemination.
In fact, given the growing number of cities that are studying this
strategy, an even larger program may be desirable. The following
federal programs have provided valuable funding and technical support
to San Francisco pricing studies and pilots:
FHWA Value Pricing Pilot Program, which provided
incentives in support of congestion pricing programs. San Francisco has
been fortunate to receive several VPPP grants including a 2007 grant
for our congestion pricing feasibility study (Mobility Access and
Pricing Study), multiple innovative parking program grants through the
UPA (2008, 2011, 2012), priced electric-assist bicycle sharing (2011),
BART Perks (completed 2018) and the Treasure Island Mobility Management
study (2012).
FHWA Urban Partnership Agreement/Congestion Reduction
Demonstration Program (2007-2009) which funded $80 million of pricing
projects that focused on the 4 Ts:
Tolling or other pricing
Transit
Telecommuting, including additional TDM strategies
Technology
San Francisco received a UPA grant to support SFpark variable
pricing program among other activities.
One of the most important components of the UPA program was the
inclusion of bus and bus facilities grants to help ensure adequate
transit capacity to support demand mode shifts for pricing projects. A
successful congestion pricing program must provide increased transit
service on Day 1, and these grants provide critical capacity to handle
mode shifts from private car travel to public transportation on Day 1
of a pricing pilot.
Pricing and Technology Strategies: Advancing the Next Generation of
Mobility
Rapid technological change is transforming the options for travel,
and the federal government can play a key role supporting efforts to
help fund, research, test and evaluate new mobility deployments. The
next federal transportation bill could advance study and
experimentation using new mobility technology by sustaining and
expanding initiatives established by the FAST Act:
The FHWA Advanced Transportation and Congestion
Management Technologies Deployment program funds competitive grants to
pilot large scale installation and operation of advanced transportation
technologies to improve safety, efficiency, system performance, and
cost effectiveness. San Francisco (SFMTA) received $10.9 million under
this program to advance congestion pricing, carpooling and ridesharing,
smart connected traffic signals, and dynamic curb management. The SFCTA
received a portion of these funds to install tolling equipment and
pilot an automated shuttle service for Treasure Island and Yerba Buena
Island in support of the Treasure Island Transportation Improvement
Program.
The FTA Integrated Mobility Innovation program funds
projects that demonstrate innovative and effective practices,
partnerships, and technologies to enhance public transportation
effectiveness, increase efficiency, expand quality, promote safety, and
improve the traveler experience. It includes the Mobility on Demand
Sandbox Project program for local jurisdictions to pilot new mobility
concepts and solutions in real time, including bike- and car-sharing
systems, demand-responsive bus services, and projects that provide
travelers with flexible and convenient transportation options.
The FHWA Surface Transportation System Funding
Alternatives program funds grants to test new ways to finance highway
and bridge projects, with the 2018 round supporting an exploration of
how California's Road Usage Charge program could connect with emerging
technologies and services, specifically TNCs and autonomous vehicles.
As a self-help county, we are interested in studying congestion pricing
as a way to supplement federal aid revenues, under this program.
Public sector agencies need this type of funding to support
piloting and evaluation of new mobility services and technologies that
provide both opportunities and challenges. Federal support for public
involvement, research, analysis, and demonstration pilots are essential
to ensure that states, regions and localities can develop policies for
integrating new mobility services into our existing transportation
systems effectively.
ITS America's Fast Act Reauthorization Platform: Moving People, Data,
and Freight
Given the title and focus of the hearing is ``Pricing and
Technology Strategies to Address Congestion on and Financing of
America's Roads,'' and with Congress increasingly focused on the
reauthorization of the FAST Act, the balance of my written testimony
encompasses ITS America's FAST Act Reauthorization Platform: Moving
People, Data, and Freight. Moving People, Data, and Freight.
Increase Investment in Research and Deployment of Intelligent
Transportation Technologies
Intelligent transportation technologies advance transportation
safety and mobility, reduce congestion, improve air quality, and
enhance American productivity by integrating advanced technologies into
transportation infrastructure, operations, and vehicles. The Moving
People, Data, and Freight investment policy supports the solvency of
the Highway Trust Fund; the transition to a long-term and sustainable
revenue source for transportation; and a national VMT pilot. In
connection with a national VMT pilot, the platform recommends that
large freight shippers participate and examines whether fleet
telematics can be used as a method of data collection.
The platform supports increased funding for research, development,
and demonstration of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
technology; maintaining federal programs that allow state, metropolitan
areas, and city congestion pricing strategies; and increased funding
for ITS programs to streamline the movement of goods beginning at ports
and continuing through the multimodal supply chain, including freight
ITS and digital infrastructure systems.
ITS America strongly supports the Advanced Transportation and
Congestion Management Technologies Deployment (ATCMTD) program. San
Francisco was fortunate to receive one of the first set of grants for
testing autonomous shuttles and implementing congestion pricing on
Treasure Island.
The ITSA platform supports increasing the funding and federal share
to 80%. Moving People, Data, and Freight recommends increasing the
federal share to 100% for safety critical connected vehicle
technologies including Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V), Vehicle-to-
Infrastructure (V2I), and Vehicle-to-Pedestrian (V2P) under ATCMTD. ITS
America supports policy that makes V2P technologies an eligible
activity under ATCMTD. Moving People, Data, and Freight recommends
authorizing and dedicating separate funding for ATCMTD. Under the FAST
Act, the ATCMTD program has been funded through a set-aside from the
Highway Research and Development, Technology and Innovation Deployment
and Intelligent Transportation System Research programs, which has
resulted in a reduction of transportation research and development that
has historically propelled United States leadership in areas such as
connected and automated vehicle development and the emerging area of
artificial intelligence in mobility management.
Safeguard Transportation Infrastructure from Cybersecurity Threats
As vehicles and infrastructure become more connected, our nation's
transportation system faces increasing cybersecurity risks. Given the
ability to cause loss of life and inflict significant economic damage
in a highly visible manner, cybersecurity attacks directed at those
producing or operating technologies travelling over or connected to
U.S. roadways will intensify. ITS America supports policy that would
provide states and localities funding and technical assistance under
federal-aid highway programs, federal public transportation programs,
and ATCMTD to safeguard critical transportation systems that are more
reliant than ever on connectivity to communicate and exchange data from
cybersecurity threats.
Grow Investments in Vehicle-to-Pedestrian Technologies
The U.S. Department of Transportation is working with industry,
safety, and public sector stakeholders to develop and evaluate
cooperative technologies, equipment, and applications known as
Connected Vehicle (CV) technologies that operate in the 5.9 GHz band,
inclusive of V2V (vehicle to vehicle), V2I (vehicle to infrastructure),
and V2P (vehicle to pedestrian)--collectively referred to as Vehicle-
to-Everything (V2X). This includes all V2X technologies--Dedicated
Short Range Communications (DSRC) as well as Cellular vehicle-to-
everything (C-V2X)--because these technologies can be configured to
enable real-time crash-avoidance alerts and warnings, offering a
significant opportunity to transform transportation safety.
As mentioned earlier, we are seeing record crashes involving
pedestrians in San Francisco and nationally. Pedestrian deaths
increased by an estimated 4 percent and ``pedalcyclist'' deaths
increased by an estimated 10 percent in 2018, according to NHTSA's
preliminary statistics. V2X will enable deployment of safety solutions
to protect vulnerable users of the system. By allowing vehicles to
communicate with these users through sensors or vehicle-to-device
communication, we can significantly reduce the number of people killed
on our roadways. V2P encompasses a broad set of road users--people
walking, children being pushed in strollers, people using wheelchairs
or other mobility devices, passengers embarking and disembarking buses
and trains, and people riding bicycles and scooters. ITS America
recommends expanding eligibility under the Advanced Transportation and
Congestion Management Technologies Deployment (ATCMTD) program to
include V2P technologies.
Expand Investment in Advanced Mobility Improvements
ITS America supports expanding eligibility under highway programs
to include advanced mobility safety improvements including data
infrastructure and analysis, smart mobility improvements such as smart
truck parking, smart work zones, smart pavements, predictive analytics
platform, and build out of electric vehicle charging stations, hydrogen
fueling infrastructure, natural gas fueling infrastructure, and other
alternative fuels.
Plan for Transformative Transportation Technologies
States, providers of public transportation and Metropolitan
Planning Organizations (MPOs) are expanding beyond traditional long-
range scenario planning, which holds fixed certain transportation and
land use assumptions, to consider big questions facing the
transportation system including whether connected and automated
vehicles will increase the vehicle capacity of existing highway lanes;
how automation and active transportation connections might help solve
the first mile/last mile transit challenge, what roadway investments
could incentivize the shift to connected and automated vehicles, how to
make sure the entire transportation system is working together, and how
to expedite technology safety benefits. Increased funding and
flexibility will help planners analyze project performance across a
range of different futures, including ensuring all modes of
transportation work in concert, which will lead to more informed
project prioritization that maximizes the benefits of connected and
automated technologies.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the metropolitan
planning organization for the San Francisco Bay Area, has undertaken
Horizon, a new effort to plan for, and help shape, a range of possible
connected and automated vehicle 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:
Will connected and automated vehicles substantially
increase the vehicle capacity of existing highway lanes? If so, does it
make sense to add additional physical capacity today?
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 incentivize the shift to
connected and automated vehicles and expedite short-term safety
benefits?
Ultimately, this effort could help planners analyze project
performance across a range of different futures and lead to more
informed project prioritization. Though the benefits may be
significant, this planning effort requires substantial time and
resources. Additional federal planning funds and flexibility to
experiment with innovative initiatives like Horizon could support
transportation planners in efforts to maximize the benefits of
connected and automated technologies.
Establish a Mobility on Demand (MOD) Program for the New World of
Mobility
In the 21st century, mobility is less about moving vehicles and
more about moving people, data and freight. Long-existing silos among
cities, states, counties, road and transit agencies are disappearing;
and private mobility service providers barely existed a decade ago.
More choices exist now, but for people to fully realize the benefits of
this new world of mobility, it must be easier to choose which option
best meets their needs. This also means services that are accessible
for every traveler and in all communities and neighborhoods.
In cities, MOD offers convenient, affordable, and, in the case of
bikeshare, rideshare or micromobility services, more sustainable
alternatives to driving within congested environments. For suburban
areas, MOD offers first mile/last mile accessibility to transit, as
well as more dynamic on-demand services to get around town. While often
seen as an urban/metro transportation solution, MOD deployed in rural
areas also provides first mile/last mile (though more like first/last
50 miles) connections to transit, intercity bus and rail transport, and
essential air service airports. Rideshare and ride sourcing is
providing support for seniors to access social and health services.
Micromobility services offer options to travel in town. MOD include
bikeshare and scooter share deployments on college campuses. New and
improved MOD transit and paratransit services also can benefit rural
communities.
Moving People, Data, and Freight supports establishing MOD program
that encourages flexibility within federal transportation programs to
meet changing mobility needs including partnerships with companies
offering shared-use trips (car, bicycle, new mobility modes), data
management, and other technology companies for first mile/last mile
services, the integration of mobility services and technologies, and
new fare technologies. ITS America supports the integration of MOD
programs with public transportation that fosters the efficient use of
capacity, enhances management of new modes of mobility, and promotes
the creation of innovative planning tools.
Please read ITS America's full FAST Act reauthorization at
www.itsa.org.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the transportation sector in San Francisco and
communities across the nation are undergoing historic transformations
with the promise of greatly boosting the safety, access, equity, and
sustainability of our transportation system. We in San Francisco
believe that strong federal policy and funding support can help states,
regions and localities explore cost-effective congestion reduction
solutions like congestion pricing and rewards, as well as bolster road
user fee initiatives like mileage-based Road User Charge programs that
build upon our primary but declining transportation funding mechanism:
the gas tax. With San Francisco's Transit First, Vision Zero, Climate
and Equity goals serving as our durable North Star, we remain
optimistic that aspirational but achievable policies are within reach
with effective federal, state, local and private sector partnerships.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I am
happy to answer any questions you may have.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Ms. Chang.
Next we will hear from Mr. Darren Hawkins, CEO of YRC
Worldwide Inc., speaking on behalf of the American Trucking
Associations.
You can proceed, please.
Mr. Hawkins. Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, Chairman
DeFazio, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
providing me with the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
American Trucking Associations.
And a special thanks to Congresswoman Davids for the intro
and also for the representation in Kansas where we have 1,200
employees in 6 specific operations.
I am CEO of YRC Worldwide, one of the Nation's largest
trucking companies. We have 380 terminals nationwide and employ
31,000 nonunion and union people across the country. Each year
we transport 20 million shipments with our 14,000 tractors and
45,000 trailers.
Given that this is National Truck Driver Appreciation Week,
I would also like to offer a special thanks to our professional
drivers and all truckdrivers who work hard to deliver 71
percent of America's freight.
While the trucking industry is willing to pay its fair
share for infrastructure improvement, we believe that tolls are
not the right solution and, in fact, can be very harmful to our
industry, our customers, and ultimately to all consumers. ATA
does not oppose toll financing of new interstate highway lanes,
nor do we oppose the conversion of HOV lanes to HOT lanes. Our
concern is with the tolling of existing general-purpose
interstate highways.
Tolling has very high collection costs relative to other
highway user fees. A recent study found that converting all
interstates into tollroads would cost more than $55 billion.
While the cost of collection has come down with the
introduction of transponders, costs can still exceed 10
percent.
On some major toll facilities these costs are much higher.
On the Ohio turnpike, for example, 19 cents out of every dollar
is spent collecting tolls, while the Pennsylvania turnpike's
collection costs exceed 20 percent. Contrast this with the 0.2-
percent cost of collecting Federal fuel taxes.
Of the $37 billion in Federal fuel tax revenue collected in
2017, just $75 million went to collection. Compare this with
the Pennsylvania turnpike, which in 2016 spent more than $212
million to collect just over $1 billion.
Clearly the waste that goes into collecting a toll is
simply unacceptable when far more efficient alternatives are
available. Our user fees should be allocated to build roads and
bridges, not to pay excessive tollroad administrative fees,
especially at a time when the American Society of Civil
Engineers gives our roles a D grade and our bridges a grade of
C-plus.
Another significant problem is diversion of traffic to
alternative routes. These routes are likely to be less safe and
not as well-constructed as the tolled highway.
It is often claimed that one advantage of tolls is that it
is a true user fee. Motorists pay to use the facility, and the
tolls cover the cost. In practice, this is not always the
reality. In most cases Federal law allows States to shift
excess tolling revenue to any title 23-eligible purpose. This
results in tollpayers bankrolling projects that they may not
benefit from.
In addition, because the vast majority of roads can't
support tolls, a small minority of motorists can be saddled
with the subsidization of a State surface transportation
system, regardless of whether the tollpayers benefit.
Furthermore, States often look for opportunities to target
motorists with little political power, such as non-State
residents, particularly trucks engaged in interstate commerce.
Several States and cities are exploring the use of
congestion pricing to manage traffic congestion. This might be
an effective tool for car drivers. However, since it is the
customer who determines pickup and delivery times, often with
penalties for late deliveries, pricing is not an effective tool
for influencing truck travel choices.
Today's e-commerce-driven supply chain sets the timeline in
motion, and it will not be influenced by tolling. Therefore,
pricing has very little impact on congestion caused by trucks.
While ATA flatly opposes tolls on existing interstates and
would prefer the elimination of all related Federal tolling
authority, we recognize that there is an interest in allowing
tolls for certain purposes, specifically for very expensive
bridge and tunnel projects and congestion management.
ATA has recommended several changes to Federal tolling law
that will protect the public from the types of abuses I have
described, while still allowing tolls to be used under some
circumstances. For example, States should be required to
disclose the likely impacts of toll diversion on safety,
congestion, and air quality. In addition, toll rate
discrimination based on vehicle class or State of residence
should be outlawed, and tollpayers should not be forced to
subsidize projects they don't benefit from.
Finally, it is important to note that tolls will not solve
the most important challenge facing this subcommittee, the
impending bankruptcy of the Highway Trust Fund. Failure to
address the shortfall will continue to induce States to
consider bad options like tolls. ATA and nearly every
organization that cares about surface transportation efficiency
has proposed an increase in the fuel tax to address these
needs, and we urge your support.
Thank you again for this opportunity. I look forward to
your questions.
[Mr. Hawkins' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Darren D. Hawkins, Chief Executive Officer, YRC
Worldwide Inc., on behalf of the American Trucking Associations
Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for providing me with the opportunity to
testify on behalf of the American Trucking Associations (ATA).\1\ My
name is Darren Hawkins, and I am Chief Executive Officer of YRC
Worldwide Inc., a publicly traded holding company for a portfolio of
successful less than truckload companies including Holland, New Penn,
Reddaway, YRC Freight and our newest company, HNRY Logistics. YRC
Worldwide is headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas, and we have 380
terminals from coast to coast employing 31,000 people. Annually we
transport twenty million shipments for our customers with our 17,000
drivers, 14,000 tractors and 45,000 trailers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ American Trucking Associations is the largest national trade
association for the trucking industry. Through a federation of 50
affiliated state trucking associations and industry-related conferences
and councils, ATA is the voice of the industry America depends on most
to move our nation's freight. Follow ATA on Twitter or on Facebook.
Trucking Moves America Forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As CEO of one of the Nation's largest trucking companies I want to
take a moment to thank our 17,000 professional drivers for their
commitment to safety. While there is much talk about autonomous trucks,
the most important safety device in a truck is still a professional
driver. More than 1,700 of our drivers have over one million
consecutive accident free miles. Our commitment to safety is not unique
or even unusual, as the same commitment to safety can be found with our
fellow ATA member companies.
I serve on the Executive Committee of ATA, an 86-year-old
federation that represents every sector of the trucking industry, with
affiliates in all 50 states. The federation has members in every
Congressional district and every community. More than 80 percent of
U.S. communities rely exclusively on trucks for their freight
transportation needs. Trucking is the lifeline that connects all modes
of freight transport in support of the American economy.
Madam Chair, we very much appreciate this opportunity to focus
attention on the spread of toll roads. While the trucking industry is
willing to pay its fair share for infrastructure improvement, we
believe that tolls are not the right solution, and in fact can be very
harmful to our industry, customers and ultimately, to consumers. My
testimony will explain why toll roads are a poor revenue source for
highways and how Congress can reform existing federal laws to better
protect the public from their negative effects.
The Trucking Industry
This year the trucking industry will move 71 percent of the
nation's freight tonnage, and over the next decade will be tasked with
moving 2.5 billion more tons of freight than it does today while
continuing to deliver the vast majority of goods.\2\ Trucks haul 100
percent of the freight originating in the District of Columbia, and DC
residents and businesses rely on trucks to deliver 98% of the goods
coming into the District. More than two-thirds of the freight delivered
to and from Illinois was loaded onto a truck. In 2017, the goods moved
by trucks nationwide were worth more than $10 trillion.\3\ The trucking
industry is also a significant source of employment, with 7.8 million
people working in various occupations--including 3.5 million drivers--
accounting for every 1 in 18 jobs in the U.S.\4\ Furthermore, ``truck
driver'' is the top job in 29 states.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Freight Transportation Forecast 2019 to 2030. American Trucking
Associations, 2019.
\3\ 2017 Commodity Flow Survey Preliminary Report. U.S. Census
Bureau, Dec. 7, 2018.
\4\ American Trucking Trends 2019, American Trucking Associations.
\5\ https://www.marketwatch.com/story/keep-on-truckin-in-a-
majority-of-states-its-the-most-popular-job-2015-02-09.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Without trucks, our cities, towns and communities would lack key
necessities including food and drinking water; there would not be
clothes to purchase, and no parts to build automobiles or fuel to power
them. The rail, air and water intermodal sectors would not exist in
their current form without the trucking industry to support them.
Trucks are central to our nation's economy and our way of life, and
every time the government makes a decision that affects the trucking
industry, those impacts are also felt by individuals and by the
millions of businesses that could not exist without trucks.
The Cost of Inaction on the Highway System
A well-maintained, reliable and efficient network of highways is
crucial to the delivery of the nation's freight and vital to our
country's economic and social well-being. However, the road system is
rapidly deteriorating, and costs the average motorist more than $1,600
a year in higher maintenance and congestion expenses.\6\ Highway
congestion also adds nearly $75 billion to the cost of freight
transportation each year.\7\ In 2016, truck drivers sat in traffic for
nearly 1.2 billion hours, equivalent to more than 425,000 drivers
sitting idle for a working year.\8\ At a time when we need more truck
drivers the prospect of a driver spending a good part of their working
day stuck in traffic is not an attractive career proposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Bumpy Road Ahead: America's Roughest Rides and Strategies to
make our Roads Smoother, The Road Information Program, Oct. 2018; 2019
Urban Mobility Report. Texas Transportation Institute, Aug. 2019.
\7\ Cost of Congestion to the Trucking Industry: 2018 Update.
American Transportation Research Institute, Oct. 2018.
\8\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Highway Trust Fund (HTF), the primary source of federal revenue
for highway projects, safety programs and transit investments, is
projected to run short of the funds necessary to maintain current
spending levels by FY2021.\9\ While an average of approximately $42
billion per year is expected to be collected from highway users over
the next decade, nearly $60 billion will be required annually to
prevent significant reductions in federal aid for critical projects and
programs.\10\ It should be noted that a $60 billion annual average
federal investment still falls well short of the resources necessary to
provide the federal share of the expenditure needed to address the
nation's surface transportation safety, maintenance and capacity
needs.\11\ According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the
U.S. spends less than half of what is necessary to address these needs.
As the investment gap continues to grow, so too will the number of
deficient bridges, miles of roads in poor condition, number of highway
bottlenecks and, most critically, the number of crashes and fatalities
attributable to inadequate roadways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Budget and Economic Outlook 2019-2029, January 2019
Congressional Budget Office.
\10\ Ibid.
\11\ 2015 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit:
Conditions & Performance. USDOT, Dec. 2016; see also 2017
Infrastructure Report Card. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toll Financing of Highways
While federal law generally restricts states' ability to toll
existing Interstates (23 U.S.C. 301), there are several exceptions.
States may use tolls to finance new, reconstructed, or replacement
bridges or tunnels (23 U.S.C. 129(a)), or apply to the U.S.
Department of Transportation (USDOT) for authority to toll under two
pilot programs. The Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation
Pilot Program (ISRRPP), authorized under Section 1216(b) of the 1998
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, allows three states to
toll one Interstate highway, with revenue to be used for improvement of
the tolled facility. The Value Pricing Pilot Program, initially
authorized by Congress in the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991, allows up to 15 jurisdictions to apply for
authority to toll Interstates for the purpose of managing traffic
demand by adjusting toll rates to a level that reduces peak-hour
travel.
ATA does not oppose toll financing to cover the costs of new
Interstate highway lanes, provided a reasonable toll-free option is
available. For example, some states have built tolled express lanes
parallel to existing toll-free lanes. Nor does ATA oppose the
conversion of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to high-occupancy toll
(HOT) lanes. Our concern is with the conversion of existing toll-free
general-purpose Interstate highway lanes to a tolled facility. My
testimony will discuss the general problems with tolling Interstates
and will then describe specific concerns we have with current federal
legal exceptions to the general prohibition on Interstate highway
tolls.
General Concerns with Interstate Tolls
Collection Costs
Tolling systems have very high collection costs relative to other
user fees because there are several necessary components that are
generally not present or are less onerous in fuel taxes, registration
fees, license fees, and other common user fees. One study found that
converting all Interstate highways into toll roads would cost more than
$55 billion.\12\ A National Academy of Sciences report listed some of
the potential components that should be considered when determining the
potential costs of toll collection: \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Renewing the National Commitment to the Interstate Highway
System: A Foundation for the Future (2018). Transportation Research
Board, National Academy of Sciences, p. 6-13.
\13\ Patrick Balducci et all, NCHRP Report 689: Costs of
Alternative Revenue-Generation Systems, National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, Transportation Research Board: Washington DC, 2011,
DOI: 10.17226/14532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational costs:
Operation and maintenance of tollbooths;
Operation and maintenance of ETC [electronic toll
collection] and video tolling systems as well as the related
information technology hardware and software;
Customer account management, payment processing, and
banking charges relating to toll accounts;
Inventory, distribution, and sale of transponders; and
Cash counting, transportation and vault services.
Enforcement costs:
Catching violators;
Assessing administrative fees and fines;
Account settlement before the toll violation reaches
court; and
Prosecuting violators (court costs).
While the cost of toll collection has come down with the
introduction of electronic toll collection (ETC), according to a
Congressional Research Service report, collection costs on ETC systems
can still exceed 10 percent.\14\ On some major toll facilities
collection costs are much higher. In 2016, for example, toll collection
costs on the Ohio Turnpike were 19.2 percent, while the Pennsylvania
Turnpike's collection costs exceeded 20 percent.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Congressional Research Service. Tolling U.S. Highways and
Bridges, Aug. 4, 2017.
\15\ American Transportation Research Institute. A Framework for
Infrastructure Funding, Nov. 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contrast this with the cost of collecting fuel taxes. Because fuel
taxes are collected from just 850 taxpayers nationwide at the terminal
rack, both collection costs and evasion are extremely low.\16\ In fact,
one study found that the cost to collect the federal fuel tax is just
0.2 percent of revenue.\17\ This means that of the $37 billion in
federal fuel tax revenue collected in 2017, just $75 million went to
collection costs. Contrast this with the Pennsylvania Turnpike, which
in 2016 spent more than $212 million to collect just over $1 billion in
toll revenue. Clearly, from a highway user's perspective, the waste
that goes into collecting a toll is simply unacceptable when far more
efficient alternatives are available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Congressional Research Service. Tolling U.S. Highways and
Bridges, Aug. 4, 2017.
\17\ American Transportation Research Institute. A Framework for
Infrastructure Funding, Nov. 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traffic Diversion
Another significant problem with Interstate highway tolls is
diversion of traffic to alternative routes. These routes are likely to
be less safe and not as well constructed as the tolled highway. It is
well documented that Interstate highways have a lower crash rate than
the lower-order roadways that vehicles are expected to divert on
to.\18\ For example, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation
found that rural Interstates had an average crash rate that is 58
percent lower than the average for rural roads statewide, while urban
Interstates were more than 3.5 times safer than the average urban
road.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See for example: https://www.mass.gov/service-details/
intersection-and-roadway-crash-rate-data-for-analysis
http://apps.itd.idaho.gov/apps/ohs/Crash/14/2014RoadClass.pdf.
\19\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A study that explored the impacts of tolling untolled roads found
that all nine facilities studied experienced traffic diversion.\20\ The
report found impacts in the range of -10 to -36 percent of motorists
diverting from the tolled facilities. One example cited by the study is
IL-390, previously the Elgin-O'Hare Expressway and now known as the
Elgin-O'Hare Tollway after it was transferred to the Illinois Tollway
Authority and tolled in 2016. Even after $3.4 billion in improvements,
traffic counts on the highway dropped by 23 percent after tolls were
imposed, sending 45,000 vehicles per day to alternative routes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The Tradeoffs of Tolling Untolled Roads. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Volume
2672, Issue 4, 2018, pp 54-64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically with regard to the trucking industry, whether a
carrier decides to avoid a toll road depends on a number of factors,
including the type of load, delivery deadline, whether the driver or
carrier determines route choice, and whether the driver or carrier is
responsible for toll costs. Note that the critical missing element here
is the shipper. With few exceptions, the shipper is not directly billed
for toll costs. Therefore the carrier usually bears the cost of the
toll and has to attempt to recover these costs by either improving
efficiencies or increasing rates across the carrier's entire customer
base. This is a crucial factor, particularly when it comes to the
ability to influence carrier behavior through congestion pricing, which
will be addressed later.
While tolling analyses attempt to determine the impacts of tolls on
trucking diversion using standard value-of-time assumptions, they often
underestimate diversion by failing to take the above factors into
consideration.\21\ A survey of truck drivers found wide variation in
their willingness to avoid paying a toll, with some drivers unwilling
to lose any time by using an alternative route, and others willing to
lose an average of 52 minutes in order to avoid a toll payment of any
amount.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Toledo, T., Sun, Y., Rosa, K., Ben-Akiva, M., Flanagan, K.,
Sanchez, R. and Spissu, E. (2013), ``Decision-Making Process and
Factors Affecting Truck Routing.''
\22\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfair Subsidization
An oft-cited advantage of tolls is that it is a true user fee--
motorists pay to use the facility and the tolls they pay cover the
costs of that facility. In practice this is often not the reality.
Except for tolls authorized under the ISRRPP, Federal law allows states
to shift toll revenue to any Title 23 eligible purpose, provided toll
facility financing costs have been covered and the state certifies that
the facility is being adequately maintained. This results in toll
payers bankrolling all manner of projects that they may not benefit
from. In addition, because the vast majority of roads cannot support
tolls, a small minority of motorists can be saddled with the
subsidization costs of an entire state's surface transportation system,
regardless of whether the toll payers benefit from this spending. As
one Congressional Research Service report put it:
Whether it is built or operated by a government agency or by
private investors, a toll road must have sufficient traffic
willing to pay a high enough toll to cover construction,
maintenance, and toll collection costs if it is to be
financially successful. Most roads on the federal-aid system
are not likely to pass that test. In rural areas, highways
often do not have enough traffic to cover the cost of building
toll-collection infrastructure and collecting tolls. Although
urban roads typically have more traffic, they may not be able
to generate sufficient toll revenue to make the facilities
self-sustaining.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Congressional Research Service. Tolling U.S. Highways and
Bridges, Aug. 4, 2017.
Furthermore, states often look for opportunities to target
motorists with little political power, such as non-state residents--
particularly trucks engaged in interstate commerce--and low-income or
minority communities. Both of these factors came into play when
Virginia attempted to use the authority granted by the ISRRPP to toll
I-95 near the North Carolina border. The tolls would have been placed
in an area with significant non-state traffic in a location with a
large low-income minority population. In Rhode Island the bridge
exemption was used to toll tractor-semitrailers only, and toll rates
are structured so that they explicitly target out-of-state drivers for
a disproportionate share of toll revenue.\24\ On the Indiana Toll Road
(ITR), which carries a significant amount of through traffic, tolls
have been raised substantially to pay for projects more than 150 miles
away. When announcing a 35 percent increase in ITR toll rates, the
Governor explicitly acknowledged that the increases were intended to
milk non-Indiana residents to pay for projects that primarily
benefitted Indiana residents, stating: ``The majority of the traffic is
from out-of-state,'' Holcomb said. ``We're capturing other people's
money.'' \25\ It is important to note that with the Indiana increase
the trucking industry's fee will be in part used to support more
international flights from the Indianapolis Airport and expand rural
broadband access. At a time when the Highway Trust Fund is nearly broke
and our bridges and roadways are in critical condition, this form of
diversion is the worst kind of public policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ https://www.ttnews.com/articles/ata-carriers-sue-rhode-island-
dot-over-truck-only-tolls.
\25\ https://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/state-
to-receive-billion-in-exchange-for-allowing-higher-truck/
article_640a7253-34cb-5bfe-a7fd-5b653ba4ef86.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific Concerns with Federal Tolling Law
Interstate System Reconstruction & Rehabilitation Pilot
Program (ISRRPP)
The Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot
Program (ISRRPP), authorized under Section 1216(b) of the 1998
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, allows three states to
toll a single Interstate highway for the purpose of funding
improvements to that highway. All of the revenue must be spent on the
tolled facility and the state must submit a detailed application to the
FHWA in order to win approval. Despite several attempts \26\ by various
states to utilize this pilot program, not a single project has been
authorized by FHWA. These states wasted many years and millions of
dollars on consultants, only to abandon a toll strategy and finally
address their funding shortfalls with more efficient and fair revenue
sources. After 21 years it is clear that this pilot program has failed,
and it is time to finally put an end to it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Arkansas multiple Interstates; Virginia I-81 & I-95; N.
Carolina I-95; Pennsylvania I-80; Missouri I-70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridge and Tunnel Exception
States may use tolls to finance new, reconstructed, or replacement
Interstate highway bridges or tunnels under 23 U.S.C. 129(a). This
exception to the general ban on tolls on federally funded roads was
enacted in 1927 (for bridges, tunnels were added in 1958) for new
structures only.
Since the tolled bridge or tunnel was to become toll-free once the
construction costs were paid off, it is clear that the original intent
was to allow this exception for the express purpose of covering the
original costs of building the facility. Over the years, however, this
provision has been expanded to allow tolls for reconstructed bridges
and tunnels, and the requirement that tolls must end once the project
is paid off was eliminated. Now, any revenue in excess of project costs
can be used for any purpose eligible under Title 23 of the U.S. Code,
provided the state self-certifies that the facility is being adequately
maintained.
The federal law that authorizes the tolls only requires that the
tolled facility is a bridge or tunnel and that the structure is
replaced or reconstructed. A bridge is undefined in this context and
has been broadly interpreted by USDOT to include any structure over 20
feet long with supports, erected over a depression or obstruction.\27\
With nearly 58,000 bridges on the 48,000-mile Interstate system,
essentially the entire network is eligible for tolling under this
section of law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 23 CFR 650.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Rhode Island experience is a case study in how this provision
can be abused. It illustrates why Congress should revisit this
exception in order to preserve the original intent of the provision to
give states the opportunity to use tolls to finance projects that are
too expensive, while inserting language that protects the public.
In June 2018 Rhode Island imposed tolls at two locations on
Interstate 95 near the border with Connecticut, and recently activated
a toll gantry on U.S. 6 in Providence. The state has indicated that it
will impose tolls at eight additional locations statewide, including on
three Interstate highway routes. The tolls are charged only on tractor-
semitrailers.\28\ The I-95 tolls alone are costing YRC Worldwide
companies $750,000 per year for what is essentially a microscopic
section of our nation's entire Interstate system. Providence is as the
130th largest city in the United States. What would happen to our
nation's supply chain, truck drivers and economy if just half of the
largest 100 cities in America implemented similar tolls?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See here for details on the tolling program: http://
www.dot.ri.gov/rhodeworks/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither federal law, nor agency regulation or guidance, establishes
any standards governing the condition of the structures eligible for
tolling. In fact, several bridges targeted for tolling by Rhode Island
are neither structurally deficient nor functionally obsolete, despite
the fact that the state has the highest proportion of structurally
deficient bridges in the country.\29\ It appears that the state chose
many of these bridges for tolling primarily due to their potential for
revenue collection, and not because they are a priority for
improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, there appear to be no current federal standards that
define ``reconstruction,'' but FHWA has apparently interpreted it to
include relatively minor improvements, given the Rhode Island example.
Some of the ``reconstruction'' projects paid for partially with toll
revenue are expected to cost less than $10 million. Furthermore, in
some cases toll revenue represents a small fraction of the cost of the
project; for example, in one case toll revenue is expected to cover
just six percent of project costs. Overall, Rhode Island's 10-year
bridge improvement program relies on bridge tolls to cover just 10
percent of the costs. As stated above, once the state certifies that
the tolled bridges are being adequately maintained, the toll revenue
can be used for any project eligible under Title 23 of the U.S. Code.
This includes federal-aid roads statewide, transit projects, bicycle
and pedestrian facilities, ferries and any number of other projects
that may be of no benefit whatsoever to the toll payers, all of whom
are the operators of tractor-semitrailers. It is clear that Rhode
Island's intent all along was not to use tolls to pay for its bridge
program, but to use the flexibility in federal law to treat tractor-
semitrailers as a perpetual piggy bank for projects that they are very
unlikely to benefit from.
Another troubling aspect of the Rhode Island experience is the role
that the U.S. Department of Transportation played. USDOT authorized the
Rhode Island Department of Transportation to issue an Environmental
Assessment (EA) rather than conduct a more detailed Environmental
Impact Statement normally required of projects that are, among other
things, likely to have a significant impact on traffic patterns.\30\
USDOT also made the bizarre decision to allow RIDOT to only evaluate
the impacts of tolls on an individual facility basis, without
consideration of what would happen once the state tolled virtually its
entire highway network. RIDOT clearly indicated this was its intent,
and USDOT was clearly aware of it because the agency signed a
Memorandum of Understanding authorizing tolls on all of these bridges
prior to the inception of the environmental review process.\31\ This
very likely resulted in an incomplete and inaccurate analysis of
traffic diversion patterns. Furthermore, even though ATA and others
pointed out numerous, obvious flaws in the EA (including, for example,
failing to analyze the most likely diversion routes), USDOT approved
the EA as written and twice issued a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI), allowing tolls to move forward.\32\ This, despite the fact
that the EA failed to include a safety or economic analysis, and did
not consider alternatives to tolling, even though USDOT stated in a
2015 document that an alternative funding analysis is advisable.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ http://www.dot.ri.gov/tolling/docs/Toll_Locations_1-
2_Environmental_Assessment.pdf; http://www.dot.ri.gov/tolling/docs/
Toll_Locations_3-13_Environmental_Assessment.pdf.
\31\ http://www.dot.ri.gov/documents/news/
Executed_MOUs_RhodeWorks_Tolling_
Program.pdf.
\32\ http://www.dot.ri.gov/tolling/docs/Toll_Locations_1-
2_Environmental_Assessment.pdf; http://www.dot.ri.gov/tolling/docs/
Toll_Locations_3-13_Environmental_Assessment.pdf.
\33\ Federal Highway Administration. Public-Private Partnership
Oversight: How FHWA Reviews P3s, Jan. 2015, p. 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even in a case where the state is seemingly attempting to use the
bridge and tunnel exception for its intended purpose, several problems
have presented themselves that illustrate the problems with toll
financing. The I-10 Mobile River Bridge and Bayway project would have
replaced a currently toll-free bridge and tunnel with a tolled
crossing. The Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) intended to
finance the project using a concession public-private partnership (P3)
model. Three P3 groups were under consideration.\34\ FHWA recently
issued a Record of Decision (ROD) giving ALDOT the federal green light
to proceed.\35\ However, after a populist uprising against tolls, a
local Metropolitan Planning Organization's Board voted to remove the
project from its Transportation Improvement Plan, which prevents the
project from receiving federal funds.\36\ Following the vote the
Governor declared that the project is ``dead.'' \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ For more information see the project website: https://
mobileriverbridge.com/.
\35\ https://mobileriverbridge.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/I-10-
Mobile-River-Bridge-and-Bayway-Combined-FEIS-ROD_Signed-08-15-2019.pdf.
\36\ https://www.al.com/politics/2019/08/gov-kay-ivey-declares-i-
10-mobile-river-bridge-and-bayway-project-dead.html.
\37\ https://governor.alabama.gov/statements/governor-ivey-makes-
statement-following-eastern-shore-mpos-failure-to-prioritize-mobile-
river-bridge-and-bayway-project/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When it was originally conceived, the project's cost was estimated
to be approximately $800 million. It ballooned to $2.1 billion, in part
to pay for a bridge that meets the 100-year floodplain threshold, which
ALDOT claimed was required by the Federal Highway Administration.
Recently a FHWA official reportedly confirmed that this was never a
requirement.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ https://www.fox10tv.com/news/mobile_river_bridge_and_bayway/
lawmakers-question-where-new-bridge-estimate-came-from/
article_edf2e17c-c5f6-11e9-bb49-6780d9b32716.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to financing costs, including the profits incurred by the
private partners, the actual cost to toll payers was projected to be
around $7 billion according to an ALDOT consultant analysis.\39\
Initially, cars were expected to pay a maximum toll rate of $6.00 per
crossing, with trucks paying up to $24.00 per crossing, with toll rates
rising over time to a maximum rate of $18.97 for cars and $75.88 for
trucks in 30 years. For the commuter who crosses the entire facility
twice per day, the initial weekly cost would have been $60.00, or
$3,120 per year.\40\ Even with the various commuter discounts proposed
by ALDOT, these costs are prohibitive for many families. Compare this
with a strategy to finance the project with a dedicated fuel tax, as an
example. Raising an equivalent amount of revenue over the first decade
would require an increase in the state fuel tax of just four cents per
gallon, costing the average passenger car driver about $20 per year, or
38 cents per week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ https://mobileriverbridge.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/
ALDOT-I-10-Mobile-River-TR-Report-DRAFT-May-2018.pdf, Chapter 11.
\40\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to ALDOT's consultant analysis, in 2030 traffic on the
Cochrane Bridge, a designated alternative toll-free route, would
increase from 26,400 vehicles under a no-build scenario to 47,900
vehicles with a $6 toll on the I-10 corridor. However, if the project
was built without tolls, just 17,900 vehicles were projected to use the
Cochrane Bridge in 2030. Under the build, no-toll scenario, the
significant environmental justice impacts identified by ALDOT are
eliminated, as are the many other safety, economic and environmental
impacts associated with tolls and traffic diversion. However, ALDOT
failed to consider alternative revenue sources that could have avoided
these impacts and lowered project costs and the financial burden to the
local population.
These are just two examples of how the bridge and tunnel exception
is being applied in a way that fails to take the public interest, and
the federal interest in protecting interstate commerce, into
consideration. ATA is aware of several other states that are exploring
the possibility of using this provision to toll their Interstate
systems. While we support elimination of the exception, if it is to be
preserved we recommend the following reforms:
Eligible projects are those with a total project cost of
at least $2 billion. These are single facility costs, not network
costs.
A state must conduct an Environmental Impact Statement
for each project.
When conducting an EIS for a network of tolls, an EIS
must determine the effects of both individual toll locations and the
collective network effects of a proposal.
Revenue generated by the tolls can only be used for
financing costs and project costs related to the facility. Once project
costs have been paid off and USDOT determines, on an annual basis, that
the facility is being adequately maintained, revenue can be used for
Title 23 eligible highway or transit projects that directly benefit the
users of the tolled facility. Revenue from the lease or sale of an
Interstate toll facility should also be subject to this requirement.
The maximum toll rate for any vehicle class may not
exceed any other toll rate by more than five times.
Any toll discounts must be offered to all users,
regardless of residency or the state a transponder was purchased from.
At a minimum, the State's application, either through an
EIS or separate documentation, should demonstrate the following:
There is a net congestion reduction, taking into
consideration mobility on both the tolled route and any routes to which
traffic diverts. There is also a net reduction in vehicle emissions on
these routes.
The number and severity of crashes is not likely to
increase.
If additional maintenance or capacity improvements on
diversion routes are anticipated, the state must document these
improvements and include a plan to implement them within a reasonable
timeframe.
Environmental justice impacts of tolls and mitigation
measures.
A cost-benefit analysis that includes the impacts of
tolls on roadside businesses, commercial vehicle operators, and the
impacts on businesses and consumers affected by tolls, both inside and
outside the states where the tolls are located.
A determination with regard to whether the location of
tolls or the toll rate structure discriminates against interstate
commerce.
An analysis of alternative revenue mechanisms.
The state is required to submit a report to the
Secretary every five years with an analysis of the above, and the
Secretary is to determine whether the state continues to meet the
requirements.
Value Pricing Pilot Program
The Value Pricing Pilot Program (VPPP) was initially authorized by
Congress in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991, and was originally called the Congestion Pricing Pilot Program.
It allows up to 15 jurisdictions to apply for authority to toll an
unlimited number and unlimited miles of Interstates as part of a
congestion pilot program. The VPPP was amended several times, and today
many of the original provisions are mainstreamed, and states no longer
require approval of an application to gain tolling authority under many
circumstances. Currently the only restriction on tolling that requires
approval under the VPPP is the ability to toll a general purpose
Interstate highway lane. To date, no state has used the authority under
the VPPP for this purpose.
The statute is extremely broad, leaving it to USDOT to determine
qualification requirements. The only requirement is that USDOT must
report to Congress the effect of programs authorized under the VPPP on
``driver behavior, traffic, volume, transit ridership, air quality, and
availability of funds for transportation programs.''
The term ``congestion pricing'' is generally understood to mean, as
FHWA has stated:
. . . tolling and non-tolling strategies that can reduce peak
period congestion by charging motorists new or higher fees for
use of roads and parking during peak times in order to
encourage drivers to shift to other travel modes, routes or
destinations; to travel at other times of the day; or to forgo
making the trip altogether.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Report on the Value Pricing Pilot Program through April 2016,
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration.
However, since a definition exists in neither statute nor
regulation, FHWA is essentially unbound in determining the types of
projects that qualify. Presumably, some level of congestion reduction
and air quality improvement would reasonably be expected to be achieved
in order to qualify under the pilot, but the magnitude of such changes
is entirely the province of FHWA's subjective opinion. Taken to the
extreme, FHWA could approve a project if it can be expected to increase
average peak period speeds by any number greater than zero.
Furthermore, while USDOT is required to report to Congress on the
results of the pilots, there is no recourse if a pilot fails to meet
the objectives claimed in the application.
A debate currently being waged in Connecticut illustrates why this
lack of specificity is potentially problematic. For several years
Connecticut has been exploring statewide tolling on Interstates and
other major highways to raise revenue. During his 2018 campaign,
Governor Ned Lamont touted truck-only tolls, but once elected shifted
his advocacy to tolls on all vehicles after concluding that tolls only
on trucks would not raise enough money.\42\ Throughout 2019 the
Governor, along with state General Assembly leaders, have advocated for
legislation that would authorize the Connecticut Department of
Transportation to toll statewide. As of this writing the legislation
had not passed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ https://www.ttnews.com/articles/connecticut-gov-ned-lamont-
pivots-truck-only-toll-plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While several tolling strategies have been discussed, the
conversation has centered on taking advantage of the tolling exception
in the VPPP. Draft tolling legislation includes resident and frequent
commuter discounts.\43\ Legislative leaders have stated that under this
proposal an out-of-state driver could pay a toll rate that is more than
twice as high as the rate for an in-state driver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ https://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/upload/2019/06/
0619FinalPresentation.pdf, Slide 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is clear that the current proposal under consideration is
primarily designed not to affect travel choices, as Congress intended,
but to raise revenue. The toll rates, when the various discounts are
factored in, are explicitly anticipated to impose the greatest
financial burden on non-resident drivers, while giving the biggest
discounts to those drivers who, under congestion pricing theory and
practice, should be charged the highest rates in order to reduce
congestion. This is clearly inconsistent with both the letter and
intent of the VPPP.
The U.S. Department of Transportation has not received an
application yet, and has therefore not determined whether the proposal
passes muster. To date, FHWA has not taken final action on an
application under the VPPP that involves tolling existing general
purpose lanes of the Interstate Highway System, so there is no
precedent to rely on. However, the criteria for qualification under the
VPPP are so loose that a favorable decision is possible since there is
no delineated threshold for the amount of congestion reduction or
improvement in air quality in statute, regulation or agency guidance
necessary to win approval.
It is also worth noting that there is no evidence that congestion
pricing has an impact on truck travel choices sufficient to achieve
significant reduction in congestion or improvements in air quality.
Research has found that trucking companies are usually unable to pass
along toll costs to customers, who determine pick-up and delivery
times. Therefore customers have no incentive to change their schedules
in a way that allows trucks to avoid traveling during peak periods.\44\
Applying pricing pressure to trucks simply increases the cost of moving
freight, without the theoretical benefits generally associated with
congestion pricing. The North American supply chain is a highly
choreographed daily industrial ballet. Movements are timed to keep
factories running, hospitals filled with medical supplies and grocery
stores stocked with fresh foods. The supply chain sets the demand cycle
and congestion pricing will not throw it out of sync, especially in
this era of e-commerce and same day deliveries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Holguin-Veras, J. (2008) ``Necessary conditions for Off-Hour
Deliveries and the Effectiveness of Urban Freight Road Pricing and
Alternative financial Policies in Competitive Markets'' Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice Vol. 42A(2), pp. 392-413.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While ATA recommends eliminating the VPPP, should it remain we
recommend the following reforms:
States must demonstrate that the pricing of highways (not
the projects funded by tolls) by themselves significantly alleviate
congestion and improve air quality in a highway corridor, including on
alternative routes.
A state must conduct an Environmental Impact Statement
for each project.
When conducting an EIS for a network of tolls, an EIS
must determine the effects of both individual toll locations and the
collective network effects of a proposal.
Revenue generated by the tolls can only be used for
financing costs and project costs related to the facility. Once project
costs have been paid off and USDOT determines, on an annual basis, that
the facility is being adequately maintained, revenue can be used for
Title 23 eligible highway or transit projects that directly benefit the
users of the tolled facility. Revenue from the lease or sale of an
Interstate toll facility should also be subject to this requirement.
The maximum toll rate for any vehicle class may not
exceed any other toll rate by more than five times.
Any toll discounts must be offered to all users,
regardless of residency or the state a transponder was purchased from.
At a minimum, the State's application, either through an
EIS or separate documentation, should demonstrate the following:
There is a net congestion reduction, taking into
consideration mobility on both the tolled route and any routes to which
traffic diverts. There is also a net reduction in vehicle emissions on
these routes.
The number and severity of crashes is not likely to
increase.
If additional maintenance or capacity improvements on
diversion routes are anticipated, the state must document these
improvements and include a plan to implement them within a reasonable
timeframe.
Environmental justice impacts of tolls and mitigation
measures.
A cost-benefit analysis that includes the impacts of
tolls on roadside businesses, commercial vehicle operators, and the
impacts on businesses and consumers affected by tolls, both inside and
outside the states where the tolls are located.
A determination with regard to whether the location of
tolls or the toll rate structure discriminates against interstate
commerce.
The state is required to submit a report to the
Secretary every five years with an analysis of the above, and the
Secretary is to determine whether the state continues to meet the
requirements.
Lessons From Current Tolling Practices
We do not need to speculate about the potential abuses motorists
could face from the further imposition of tolls on Interstate highways.
There are current examples that illustrate how the public is harmed,
and portends a horrifically damaging future should Interstate tolls
become more widespread.
Northeast Corridor
Drivers who travel from Washington, D.C. to Boston encounter
numerous toll roads, bridges and tunnels. On this 443-mile journey,
motorists will pay tolls at least six times, on average a toll every 74
miles. For trucking companies this is a very expensive journey. A five-
axle truck with a transponder will pay about $222 in tolls, with slight
variations depending on whether the truck qualifies for any discounts
and the time of day, or day of week, the driver travels through these
tolled facilities.
It is helpful to put that figure into context. A $222 toll on a
443-mile trip adds up to a 50 cent per-mile charge. That's equivalent
to a truck paying a $3.00 per gallon fuel tax--at current diesel prices
a 100% sales tax. Fifty cents per mile for the trip represents 23% of
that truck's operating costs, a higher share than the cost of fuel and
nearly equal to the wages paid to the driver.\45\ A truck that has a
regular route along the Northeast Corridor could pay up to $50,000 in
tolls each year. By comparison that truck, on average, pays
approximately $3,900 in federal and state fuel taxes.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ An Analysis of the Operational Costs of Trucking: 2018 Update.
American Transportation Research Institute, Oct. 2018.
\46\ American Trucking Trends 2019, American Trucking Associations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Turnpike
A 2007 state law required the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission
(PTC) to make substantial payments to the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation (PennDOT) for other projects. Thus far, much of the
revenue has gone to transportation improvements that do not directly
benefit Turnpike users. These types of transfers are authorized by 23
U.S.C. 129, which allows toll revenue on federal-aid facilities to be
used for any Title 23 eligible project if the state certifies annually
that the facility is being adequately maintained. Incidentally, a
recent lawsuit against the Turnpike Commission revealed that it has not
complied with the certification requirement.\47\ Nonetheless, USDOT has
allowed the transfers to continue unabated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/191775p.pdf, p. 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The same lawsuit alleged that PennDOT has used toll revenue for
projects whose benefits are completely unrelated to the Turnpike and
are unlikely to benefit toll-payers, many of whom are simply passing
through the state. Examples include:
Development of a mixed-used residential, office and
transportation facility in Pittsburgh;
Replacement of a roof at a bus garage in Allegheny
County;
Sidewalk installation in Yardley and in a shopping center
in Susquehanna;
Improvements to the Erie International Airport terminal
building; and
Creation of a multi-use trail in Centre County.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Ibid, pp. 9-11.
Under the 2007 law, the PTC will pay PennDOT a total of nearly $10
billion. As of May 2018, the PTC had paid the agency more than $6
billion. This year, and continuing through 2022, the PTC will transfer
$450 million to PennDOT, which represents approximately 37% of the
Turnpike's gross fare revenue.
Since 2009 the PTC has increased toll rates every year by an
average of six percent. Today, a 5-axle truck traversing the Turnpike
pays a $100 toll, or 52 cents per mile. By 2048 trucks are projected to
pay more than $287 to cross the Turnpike, while the rate for cars will
increase from $26 to $75.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ https://www.paturnpike.com/pdfs/business/finance/
AuditorGeneralsPeformanceAudit
Mar2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 1, 2019, Pennsylvania's Auditor General warned that the
PTC ``is facing `a road to ruin' if it continues to rely on unfair and
unsustainable toll increases to pay off $11.8 billion in debt.''
Furthermore, he stated that the PTC, `` . . . once viewed by some as a
cash cow, has been milked to the brink of collapse.'' He added that
``Hiking tolls year after year while hoping that E-ZPass users won't
notice is not a sustainable revenue plan and it causes a financial
hardship for motorists.'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These examples should serve as a wake-up call. The exorbitant fees
paid by motorists to support toll facilities are far in excess of the
fuel taxes, registration fees and other revenue sources that support
toll-free highways, bridges and tunnels. A large share of toll revenue
goes not to infrastructure improvement, but to support the massive
bureaucracies required for toll financing.
Furthermore, motorists who happen to be traveling on a particular
highway should not be responsible for subsidizing projects or programs
that they do not benefit from. The Interstate Highway System was built
to facilitate the efficient movement of military and commercial
traffic, not to become a cash cow for all manner of unrelated purposes.
It is time for Congress to build guardrails that protect the public
from these types of abuses. In addition to the reforms we have proposed
for future toll roads, ATA suggests the following changes in law for
existing Interstate toll facilities:
Revenue generated by the tolls can only be used for
financing costs and project costs related to the facility. Once project
costs have been paid off and USDOT determines, on an annual basis, that
the facility is being adequately maintained, revenue can be used for
Title 23 eligible highway or transit projects that directly benefit the
users of the tolled facility. Revenue from the lease or sale of an
Interstate toll facility should also be subject to this requirement.
The maximum toll rate for any vehicle class may not
exceed any other toll rate by more than five times.
Any toll discounts must be offered to all users,
regardless of residency or the state a transponder was purchased
from.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ This article describes why these practices are problematic:
https://www.marylandmatters.org/2019/07/05/the-cost-of-that-toll-
depends-on-your-e-zpass/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asset Recycling
Related to tolls, some have suggested using highway asset recycling
to raise money for infrastructure investment. Asset recycling involves
selling or leasing public assets to the private sector. Where asset
recycling has been utilized on toll roads in the U.S., toll payers have
seen their rates increase significantly, only to subsidize projects
with little or no benefit to them.
One need only consider the recent 35% increase in truck toll rates
on the Indiana Toll Road for an example of these abusive practices. The
state got a single tranche of money, while in return the private
operator of the highway reaps the profits for the next six decades.
This most recent increase is costing the YRC Worldwide companies $1.3
million annually. As referenced earlier, instead of using that money to
hire new drivers, increase salaries and benefits or buy safer, cleaner
equipment, we are forced to subsidize improvements at the Indianapolis
airport, rural broadband infrastructure, and hiking and biking trails,
projects that have little or no benefit to my company or millions of
other motorists who use the ITR. Furthermore, this latest increase is
on top of the doubling of toll rates prior to the initial lease in
2006, and subsequent annual increases that have resulted in a 311%
increase in truck toll rates over the past 13 years, with little or no
benefit to toll road users. ATA is adamantly opposed to applying these
types of forced subsidies to highway users.
Implications For The Federal-Aid Program
It is important to note that toll financing does not in any way
address the fiscal crisis facing the Highway Trust Fund. Some may argue
that toll revenue could offset shortfalls in funding from traditional
state and federal sources. However, as CRS has noted, ``While the
amount of toll revenue has grown significantly in recent years, toll
revenue as a share of total spending on highways has been relatively
steady for more than half a century, in the range of roughly 5% to
6%.'' \52\ According to the same report, toll-road mileage comprises
just 0.6 percent of the total miles for all federal-aid eligible roads
and `` . . . imposing tolls on individual transportation facilities is
likely to be of only limited use in helping states overcome reductions
in federal grants . . . '' Another CRS report concludes that ``Many
roads may not have enough traffic to make tolling worthwhile. Tolling
is unlikely to expand on a scale that would allow for major reductions
in federal grant spending in the near term.'' \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Congressional Research Service. Tolling U.S. Highways and
Bridges, Aug. 4, 2017.
\53\ Congressional Research Service. Highway and Public Transit
Funding Issues, June 4, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tolls are a niche funding mechanism, and that is unlikely to change
in the foreseeable future. Congress cannot and should not wash its
hands of its responsibility to provide the revenue needed to address
the nation's massive infrastructure funding deficit by simply expanding
tolling authority. This simply will not work.
ATA has proposed a real solution to the highway funding crisis.
Called the Build America Fund (BAF), it would initiate a new 20 cent
per gallon fee built into the price of transportation fuels collected
at the terminal rack, to be phased in over four years. The fee will be
indexed to both inflation and improvements in fuel efficiency, with a
five percent annual cap. We estimate that the fee will generate nearly
$340 billion over the first 10 years. It will cost the average
passenger vehicle driver just over $100 per year once fully phased
in.\54\ We also support a new fee on hybrid and electric vehicles,
which underpay for their use of the highway system or do not contribute
at all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2016, Table
VM-1. Average light-duty vehicle consumed 522 gallons of fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This approach would give state and local transportation agencies
the long-term certainty and revenue stability they need to not only
maintain, but also begin to improve their surface transportation
systems. They should not be forced to resort to costly, inefficient
practices--such as deferred maintenance--necessitated by the
unpredictable federal revenue streams that have become all too common
since 2008. Furthermore, while transportation investment has long-term
benefits that extend beyond the initial construction phase, it is
estimated that our proposal would add nearly half a million annual jobs
related to construction nationwide, including nearly 2,000 jobs in
Washington, D.C. and almost 7,000 jobs in Illinois (see Appendix A for
a full list of state-specific employment figures).\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ A Framework for Infrastructure Funding. American
Transportation Research Institute, Nov. 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fuel tax is the most immediate, cost-efficient and conservative
mechanism currently available for funding surface transportation
projects and programs. Collection costs are less than one percent of
revenue.\56\ Our proposal will not add to the federal debt or force
states to resort to detrimental financing options that could jeopardize
their bond ratings. Unlike other approaches that simply pass the buck
to state and local governments by giving them additional ``tools'' to
debt-finance their infrastructure funding shortfalls for the few
projects that qualify, the BAF will generate real money that can be
utilized for any federal-aid project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While some have suggested that a fuel tax is regressive, the
economic harm of failing to enact our proposal will be far more
damaging to motorists. The $100 per year paid by the average car driver
under this proposal pales in comparison with the $1,600 they are now
forced to pay annually due to additional vehicle maintenance, lost
time, and wasted fuel that has resulted from underinvestment in our
infrastructure. Borrowing billions of dollars each year from China to
debt finance the HTF funding gap--a cost imposed on current and future
generations of Americans who will be forced to pay the interest--is far
more regressive than the modest fee needed to avoid further blowing up
our already massive national debt.
Forcing states to resort to tolls by starving them of federal funds
is far more regressive than the $2.00 a week motorists would pay under
our proposal. One needs to only look to I-66 in Northern Virginia,
where tolls average more than $12.00 per roundtrip and can sometimes
exceed $46.00, to understand the potential impacts on lower- or middle-
income Americans.\57\ To put this into perspective, even if motorists
only paid the average toll, the cost of a 10-mile trip over an eight
day period on I-66 would be equivalent to their cost for an entire year
under ATA's BAF proposal for all roads and bridges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ http://www.66expresslanes.org/documents/
66_express_lanes_january_2018_
performance_ereport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a perception that the fuel tax is no longer a viable
revenue source due to the availability of electric vehicles and
improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency. This notion is belied by the
facts. According to the Congressional Budget Office's latest estimates,
revenue from fuel taxes will drop less than eight percent over the next
decade, or about $3 billion.\58\ A modest increase in the fuel tax, or
a new fee on alternative fuel vehicles, can easily recover these lost
revenues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Congressional Budget Office, Budget and Economic Outlook:
2019-2029, January 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify today on this
very important subject. We look forward to working with the
subcommittee to address the inequities and hardships imposed on
motorists and trucking companies who are being forced to pay exorbitant
and wasteful tolls to fund unnecessary bureaucracies and subsidize
projects that they receive little or no benefit from. We also look
forward to working with you to produce real funding solutions to the
infrastructure investment crisis.
APPENDIX A: Funding Impact Matrix--Annual State-Level Job and Revenue
Increases Resulting from Federal Fuel Tax Increases
State-Level Job and Revenue Creation Associated with Federal Fuel Tax Increases
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Annual Allocation Twenty Cent-Increase Federal Motor Fuels Tax Annual Twenty Five Cent-Increase Federal Motor Fuels Tax
---------------------------- Benefits Annual Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional
State FAST ACT Additional $37.25
Apportioned Percent of $30 Billion State Match Total New Billion State Match Total New
Funds (in Total Federal (20%) (in Funds (in # of Jobs Federal (20%) (in Funds (in # of Jobs
milions) Funding (in millions) millions) Funding (in millions) millions)
millions) millions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA\\ $ 770 1.9% $ 581 $ 116 $ 697 9,067 $ 722 $ 144 $ 866 11,258
ALASKA $ 509 1.3% $ 384 $ 77 $ 461 5,992 $ 477 $ 95 $ 572 7,440
ARIZONA $ 742 1.9% $ 560 $ 112 $ 673 8,744 $ 696 $ 139 $ 835 10,857
ARKANSAS $ 525 1.3% $ 397 $ 79 $ 476 6,187 $ 492 $ 98 $ 591 7,682
CALIFORNIA $ 3,723 9.4% $ 2,812 $ 562 $ 3,374 43,862 $ 3,491 $ 698 $ 4,189 54,462
COLORADO $ 542 1.4% $ 410 $ 82 $ 492 6,390 $ 509 $ 102 $ 610 7,935
CONNECTICUT $ 509 1.3% $ 385 $ 77 $ 462 6,002 $ 478 $ 96 $ 573 7,453
DELAWARE $ 172 0.4% $ 130 $ 26 $ 156 2,022 $ 161 $ 32 $ 193 2,510
DIST. OF COL. $ 162 0.4% $ 122 $ 24 $ 147 1,907 $ 152 $ 30 $ 182 2,368
FLORIDA $ 1,922 4.8% $ 1,451 $ 290 $ 1,742 22,642 $ 1,802 $ 360 $ 2,163 28,114
GEORGIA $ 1,310 3.3% $ 989 $ 198 $ 1,187 15,430 $ 1,228 $ 246 $ 1,474 19,159
HAWAII $ 172 0.4% $ 130 $ 26 $ 155 2,021 $ 161 $ 32 $ 193 2,510
IDAHO $ 290 0.7% $ 219 $ 44 $ 263 3,418 $ 272 $ 54 $ 326 4,244
ILLINOIS $ 1,442 3.6% $ 1,089 $ 218 $ 1,307 16,990 $ 1,352 $ 270 $ 1,623 21,097
INDIANA $ 967 2.4% $ 730 $ 146 $ 876 11,387 $ 906 $ 181 $ 1,088 14,139
IOWA $ 499 1.3% $ 376 $ 75 $ 452 5,873 $ 467 $ 93 $ 561 7,292
KANSAS $ 383 1.0% $ 289 $ 58 $ 347 4,516 $ 359 $ 72 $ 431 5,607
KENTUCKY $ 674 1.7% $ 509 $ 102 $ 611 7,940 $ 632 $ 126 $ 758 9,859
LOUISIANA $ 712 1.8% $ 538 $ 108 $ 645 8,387 $ 668 $ 134 $ 801 10,414
MAINE $ 187 0.5% $ 141 $ 28 $ 170 2,206 $ 176 $ 35 $ 211 2,739
MARYLAND $ 610 1.5% $ 460 $ 92 $ 552 7,181 $ 572 $ 114 $ 686 8,917
MASSACHUSETTS $ 616 1.6% $ 465 $ 93 $ 558 7,258 $ 578 $ 116 $ 693 9,012
MICHIGAN $ 1,068 2.7% $ 807 $ 161 $ 968 12,582 $ 1,001 $ 200 $ 1,202 15,623
MINNESOTA $ 661 1.7% $ 500 $ 100 $ 599 7,793 $ 620 $ 124 $ 744 9,676
MISSISSIPPI $ 491 1.2% $ 370 $ 74 $ 445 5,780 $ 460 $ 92 $ 552 7,177
MISSOURI $ 960 2.4% $ 725 $ 145 $ 870 11,313 $ 900 $ 180 $ 1,081 14,047
MONTANA $ 416 1.0% $ 314 $ 63 $ 377 4,903 $ 390 $ 78 $ 468 6,088
NEBRASKA $ 293 0.7% $ 221 $ 44 $ 266 3,454 $ 275 $ 55 $ 330 4,289
NEVADA $ 368 0.9% $ 278 $ 56 $ 334 4,339 $ 345 $ 69 $ 414 5,388
NEW HAMPSHIRE $ 168 0.4% $ 127 $ 25 $ 152 1,974 $ 157 $ 31 $ 189 2,452
NEW JERSEY $ 1,013 2.5% $ 765 $ 153 $ 918 11,932 $ 950 $ 190 $ 1,140 14,816
NEW MEXICO $ 372 0.9% $ 281 $ 56 $ 338 4,389 $ 349 $ 70 $ 419 5,449
NEW YORK $ 1,703 4.3% $ 1,286 $ 257 $ 1,543 20,059 $ 1,597 $ 319 $ 1,916 24,907
NORTH CAROLINA $ 1,058 2.7% $ 799 $ 160 $ 959 12,464 $ 992 $ 198 $ 1,190 15,476
NORTH DAKOTA $ 252 0.6% $ 190 $ 38 $ 228 2,967 $ 236 $ 47 $ 283 3,684
OHIO $ 1,360 3.4% $ 1,027 $ 205 $ 1,232 16,019 $ 1,275 $ 255 $ 1,530 19,890
OKLAHOMA $ 643 1.6% $ 486 $ 97 $ 583 7,579 $ 603 $ 121 $ 724 9,411
OREGON $ 507 1.3% $ 383 $ 77 $ 459 5,973 $ 475 $ 95 $ 571 7,417
PENNSYLVANIA $ 1,664 4.2% $ 1,257 $ 251 $ 1,508 19,608 $ 1,561 $ 312 $ 1,873 24,346
RHODE ISLAND $ 222 0.6% $ 168 $ 34 $ 201 2,614 $ 208 $ 42 $ 250 3,245
SOUTH CAROLINA $ 679 1.7% $ 513 $ 103 $ 616 8,002 $ 637 $ 127 $ 764 9,936
SOUTH DAKOTA $ 286 0.7% $ 216 $ 43 $ 259 3,370 $ 268 $ 54 $ 322 4,185
TENNESSEE $ 857 2.2% $ 647 $ 129 $ 777 10,098 $ 804 $ 161 $ 965 12,539
TEXAS $ 3,501 8.8% $ 2,644 $ 529 $ 3,173 41,250 $ 3,283 $ 657 $ 3,940 51,219
UTAH $ 352 0.9% $ 266 $ 53 $ 319 4,150 $ 330 $ 66 $ 396 5,153
VERMONT $ 206 0.5% $ 155 $ 31 $ 187 2,425 $ 193 $ 39 $ 232 3,012
VIRGINIA $ 1,032 2.6% $ 780 $ 156 $ 935 12,161 $ 968 $ 194 $ 1,162 15,100
WASHINGTON $ 688 1.7% $ 519 $ 104 $ 623 8,101 $ 645 $ 129 $ 774 10,059
WEST VIRGINIA $ 443 1.1% $ 335 $ 67 $ 402 5,223 $ 416 $ 83 $ 499 6,485
WISCONSIN $ 763 1.9% $ 576 $ 115 $ 692 8,992 $ 716 $ 143 $ 859 11,165
WYOMING $ 260 0.7% $ 196 $ 39 $ 235 3,061 $ 244 $ 49 $ 292 3,801
TOTAL $ 39,724 100.0% $ 30,000 $ 6,000 $ 36,000 468,000 $ 37,250 $ 7,450 $ 44,700 581,100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\\Source: American Transportation Research Institute. A Framework for Infrastructure Funding, Nov. 2017
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Hawkins.
We will hear next from Dr. Timothy Lomax, who is a Regents
fellow at Texas A&M Transportation Institute.
Mr. Lomax. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Davis,
Chairman DeFazio, distinguished members of the subcommittee. I
appreciate the invitation to speak today regarding America's
mobility and connectivity problems and some possible solutions.
TTI is the most comprehensive higher education-affiliated
transportation research center in the United States. We have
worked in all 50 States and in 51 countries, and last month we
released the 24th edition of the national congestion estimate.
You have heard today our national congestion value of $166
billion. I would point out that that doesn't include safety
effects, environmental effects, the business inefficiencies
that also come along with that. That is just the value of the
wasted time and fuel.
So how do we start to address these issues, the topic
today? In a comprehensive analysis, you might look at five
questions. What should we do? How much would it cost? How
should we pay for it? What is the benefit of doing something?
And what is the cost of doing nothing?
Far too often we agree that all strategies should be
considered and that the solutions will cost a lot. When we ask
how we should pay for solving the problem, we hear this. This
is where the crickets are supposed to play.
There aren't enough conversations about how we would pay
for the solutions. There isn't enough information about the
benefits. And there certainly isn't enough discussion about the
high cost of doing nothing.
The analysis we did for the State of Texas projected that
the total cost to sustain the 2010 condition of Texas' roads
and highways would be $273 million over the next 25 years. The
economic impact of doing nothing was $989 million. That was the
estimated effect of continuing to do the same things, the same
funding sources, and the same policies. It is clear that doing
nothing is not free.
I would like to summarize a few other points from my
written testimony.
Congestion problems will continue to challenge metropolitan
regions of all sizes. This is not just a big city problem. The
projects, programs, and policies that each region uses to solve
problems will be different.
This is a reflection, I think, of the creativity and
diversity in our country and in our metropolitan regions. The
strategies are going to be different from region to region.
They are also going to be different between a suburban area and
the downtown area within the same metropolitan region.
Just like a specific set of solution strategies are the
result of a public engagement and technical design process, the
level of congestion deemed unacceptable is also a local
decision. One size doesn't fit all. For example, smaller urban
areas are very likely going to expect higher average speeds on
an urban freeway during rush hour than a larger urban area.
I would point out not all congestion is bad. Sometimes it
is a reflection of a vibrant area. And no congestion isn't
always a good goal. But too much congestion makes it difficult
to get from where you are to those vibrant activity centers.
I would point out that technology has a role. It may be
showing commuters what their travel options are. It could be
helping plan a trip. It could be allowing frequent bus riders
to use a tollroad for a free trip every so often.
Several States and regions have had success with the
difficult conversation around more funding, new options, or
changing policies. These are usually a combination of doing a
good job, making sure the public understands that you are doing
a good job, having a clear plan for the additional spending,
committing to an effort that engages the public on determining
which projects, programs, and funding sources to pursue, and
providing an accountable, transparent reporting of the
schedules, budgets, and effects. These solutions work.
Almost every strategy works in some situation, and almost
every strategy is the wrong treatment in some places and times.
Anyone who tells you there is a single solution that can solve
congestion, be publicly supported, and implemented everywhere
is exaggerating the effect of their idea.
I would like to acknowledge the support of the University
Transportation Centers program for the past ``Urban Mobility
Reports.'' We have been able to increase the number of urban
areas analyzed, look at the economic effects of congestion on
freight movements and the effect of transit on congestion
levels. Our ``2019 Urban Mobility Report'' was sponsored by the
Texas Department of Transportation as part of their
benchmarking process to address their congestion problem.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. There is more
information about TTI on our website. I am happy to answer
questions about the important task of helping Americans get to
their job, school, shops, health facilities, and freight
destinations to support a desirable quality of life and growth
in economic opportunity.
[Mr. Lomax's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Timothy J. Lomax, Ph.D., P.E., Regents Fellow,
Texas A&M Transportation Institute
Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking
Member Graves, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting
me to testify before the Subcommittee regarding the impact of
congestion and possible solutions to address it. My name is Tim Lomax
and I am a Regents Fellow at the Texas A&M Transportation Institute
(TTI). Established in 1950 and part of the Texas A&M University System,
TTI is a state agency and the largest and most comprehensive higher
education-affiliated transportation research center in the United
States. TTI has conducted work in all 50 states and in 51 countries.
The Texas A&M University System is one of the largest systems of
higher education in the nation, with a budget of $4.7 billion. Through
a statewide network of 11 universities and eight state agencies, the
Texas A&M System educates more than 153,000 students and makes more
than 22 million educational contacts through service and outreach
programs each year. System-wide, research and development expenditures
exceeded $996 million in FY 2017.
Last month, TTI released its 2019 Urban Mobility Report. Funded by
the Texas Department of Transportation and completed in cooperation
with INRIX, the Urban Mobility Report examines traffic conditions in
494 urban areas across all states and Puerto Rico. While the Urban
Mobility Report has been a showcase product of TTI for over two
decades, the depth, breadth and comprehensiveness of the report was
transformed with funding from TTI-led USDOT University Transportation
Centers. These UTC-sponsored improvements included the use of real-time
travel speed data through a partnership with a private vendor (data
provided at no cost to TTI)--a first-of-its-kind use that preceded a
similar effort by the Federal Highway Administration by several years.
TTI was also able to increase the number of urban areas analyzed,
improve our estimates of the economic impact of congestion, freight
movement effects, and the effect of transit on congestion levels.
The 2019 Urban Mobility Report found that congestion is back to its
growth pattern after the economic recession. The 8- to 10-year growing
economy has brought traffic congestion to the highest measured levels
in most U.S. cities. The myriad possible solutions--more highways,
streets and public transportation; better traffic operations; more
travel options; new land development styles; and advanced technology--
have not been deployed in sufficient numbers to restrain the mobility
degradation.
For more information and congestion data on the individual cities,
visit: http://mobility.tamu.edu/umr.
The trends from 1982 to 2017 (see Exhibit 1) show that congestion
is a persistently growing problem.
The problem is larger than ever. In 2017, congestion
caused urban Americans to travel an extra 8.8 billion hours and
purchase an extra 3.3 billion gallons of fuel for a congestion cost of
$166 billion.
Trucks account for $21 billion of the cost, a much bigger
share of the cost than their 7 percent of traffic.
The average auto commuter spends 54 hours in congestion
and wastes 21 gallons of fuel due to congestion at a cost of $1,010 in
wasted time and fuel.
The variation in congestion is often more difficult for
commuters and freight shippers to accommodate than the regular,
predictable back-ups. To reliably arrive on time for important freeway
trips, travelers had to allow 34 minutes to make a trip that takes 20
minutes in light traffic.
Employment was up by 1.9 million jobs from 2016 to 2017,
slower growth than the 2.3+ million job growth in 4 of the previous 5
years, but substantial enough to cause congestion growth (1). Exhibit 2
shows the historical national congestion trend.
More detailed speed data on more roads and more hours of
the day from INRIX (2), a leading private sector provider of travel
time information for travelers and shippers, were combined with travel
volume estimates developed from the Federal Highway Administration's
Highway Performance Monitoring System (3).
Each region should use the combination of strategies that match its
goals and vision. There is no panacea. And the decade-long recovery
from economic recession has proven that the problem will not solve
itself.
Exhibit 1. Major Findings of the 2019 Urban Mobility Report (494 U.S. Urban Areas)
(Note: See page 3 for description of changes since the 2015 report)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measures of . . . 1982 2000 2012 2017 5-Yr Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . Individual Congestion
Yearly delay per auto commuter (hours) 20 38 47 54 15%
Travel Time Index 1.10 1.19 1.22 1.23 1 Point
Planning Time Index (Freeway only) -- -- -- 1.67 --
``Wasted'' fuel per auto commuter 5 16 20 21 5%
(gallons)
Congestion cost per auto commuter (2017 $) $550 $860 $910 $1,010 11%
. . . The Nation's Congestion Problem
Travel delay (billion hours) 1.8 5.3 7.7 8.8 14%
``Wasted'' fuel (billion gallons) 0.8 2.5 3.2 3.3 3%
Truck congestion cost (billions of 2017 $1.9 $7.1 $14.6 $20.5 40%
dollars)
Congestion cost (billions of 2017 dollars) $14 $71 $142 $166 17%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yearly delay per auto commuter--The extra time spent during the year traveling at congested speeds rather than
free-flow speeds by
private vehicle drivers and passengers who typically travel in the peak periods.
Travel Time Index (TTI)--The ratio of travel time in the peak period to travel time at free-flow conditions. A
Travel Time Index of 1.30
indicates a 20-minute free-flow trip takes 26 minutes in the peak period.
Planning Time Index (PTI)--The ratio of travel time on the worst day of the month to travel time in free-flow
conditions.
Wasted fuel--Extra fuel consumed during congested travel.
Congestion cost--The yearly value of delay time and wasted fuel by all vehicles.
Truck congestion cost--The yearly value of extra operating time and wasted fuel for commercial trucks.
Exhibit 2. National Congestion Measures, 1982 to 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost
Year U.S. Jobs Delay Per Total Delay Fuel Wasted (Billions of 2017
(Millions) Commuter (Hours) (Billion Hours) (Billion Gallons) Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5-Year Change 8% 15% 14% 3% 17%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017 153.3 54 8.8 3.3 $166
2016 151.4 53 8.6 3.3 $157
2015 148.8 51 8.4 3.3 $153
2014 146.3 50 8.2 3.2 $152
2013 143.9 48 8.0 3.2 $148
2012 142.5 47 7.7 3.2 $142
2011 139.9 45 7.5 3.2 $133
2010 139.1 44 7.2 3.1 $124
2009 139.9 43 6.9 3.1 $116
2008 145.4 42 6.8 3.2 $119
2007 146.1 43 6.8 3.2 $113
2006 144.4 42 6.7 3.1 $108
2005 141.7 42 6.6 3.0 $101
2004 139.2 41 6.3 2.9 $94
2003 137.7 41 6.1 2.8 $86
2002 136.5 40 5.9 2.7 $81
2001 136.9 39 5.6 2.6 $77
2000 136.9 38 5.3 2.5 $71
1999 133.5 37 5.1 2.3 $65
1998 131.5 36 4.8 2.2 $60
1997 129.6 36 4.6 2.1 $56
1996 126.7 34 4.3 2.0 $52
1995 124.9 33 4.1 1.9 $48
1994 123.1 32 3.8 1.8 $44
1993 120.3 31 3.6 1.7 $40
1992 118.5 30 3.4 1.6 $37
1991 117.7 29 3.2 1.5 $34
1990 118.8 28 3.0 1.4 $30
1989 117.3 27 2.9 1.3 $27
1988 115.0 26 2.7 1.2 $25
1987 112.4 25 2.5 1.1 $22
1986 109.6 24 2.4 1.1 $20
1985 107.2 23 2.2 1.0 $19
1984 105.0 22 2.1 0.9 $17
1983 100.8 21 1.9 0.9 $15
1982 99.5 20 1.8 0.8 $14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: See Exhibit 1 for explanation of measures. For more congestion information see Tables 1 to 4 in the
report. For congestion information on individual cities, visit http://mobility.tamu.edu/umr.
Congestion Problems and Trends
Rush-hour traffic jams are expected in big cities. When a large
percentage of workers are on an 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. or 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
schedule, there will be travel delays on freeways, streets, and even
public transportation. This results in a ``rush hour'' in the morning
and afternoon. The problem obviously affects commuters, but it also
affects many other trip types: manufacturers that rely on a reliable
transportation system and companies who have delivery schedules and
service calls. Some key measures are listed below. See data for your
city at http://mobility.tamu.edu/umr/congestion_data.
Congestion costs are increasing. The ``invoice'' for only two of
the congestion effects--the cost of extra time and fuel--in the 494
U.S. urban areas was (all values in constant 2017 dollars):
In 2017--$166 billion
In 2016--$157 billion
In 2000--$71 billion
In 1982--$14 billion
Congestion wastes a massive amount of time and fuel and creates
more uncertainty for travelers and freight. In 2017:
8.8 billion hours of extra travel time (in that time, 124
million couples could binge-watch all eight seasons of Game of
Thrones).
3.3 billion gallons of wasted fuel (equal to a line of
18-wheeler fuel trucks from Los Angeles to Boston).
And if all that isn't bad enough, travelers and freight
shippers making important trips had to add nearly 70 percent more
travel time compared with light traffic conditions to account for the
effects of unexpected crashes, bad weather, special events and other
irregular congestion causes.
Congestion is also a type of tax
$166 billion of delay and fuel cost (equal to the cost of
about 163 million summer vacations)
The negative effect of uncertain or longer delivery
times, missed meetings, business relocations and other congestion-
related effects are not included.
12 percent ($21 billion) of the delay cost was the effect
of congestion on truck operations (equivalent to the average grocery
bills of 2.7 million families); this does not include any value for the
goods being transported in the trucks.
The cost to the average auto commuter was $1,010; it was
an inflation-adjusted $550 in 1982.
Congestion affects people who travel during the peak period. The
average auto commuter:
Spent an extra 54 hours traveling--more than a week of
vacation--up from 20 hours in 1982.
Wasted 21 gallons of fuel in 2017--a week's worth of fuel
for the average U.S. driver--up from 5 gallons in 1982.
In areas with over 1 million persons, 2017 auto commuters
experienced:
an average of 71 hours of extra travel time;
a road network that was congested for about 6 hours of
the average weekday;
had a congestion tax of $1,330.
Congestion is also a problem at other hours.
Approximately 33 percent of total delay occurs in the
midday and overnight (outside of the peak hours) times of day when
travelers and shippers expect free-flow travel.
Congestion, by every measure, has increased substantially over the
36 years covered in this report. Almost all regions have worse
congestion than before the 2008 economic recession which caused a
decrease in traffic problems. Traffic problems as measured by per-
commuter measures are worse than a decade ago. Since there are so many
more commuters, as well as more congestion during off-peak hours, total
delay has increased by two billion hours. The total congestion cost has
also risen with more wasted hours, greater fuel consumption and more
trucks stuck in stop-and-go traffic.
Congestion is worse in areas of every size--it is not just a big
city problem. The growing delays also hit residents of smaller cities
(Exhibit 3). The growth trend looks similar for 2000, 2010 and 2017,
but that final period is only 7 years long, suggesting that if the
economy does not enter another recession, congestion will be a much
larger problem in 2020.
Both big towns and small cities have congestion problems. Every
economy is different and smaller regions often count on good mobility
as a quality-of-life aspect that allows them to compete with larger,
more economically diverse regions. As the national economy improves, it
is important to develop the consensus on action steps, as major
projects, programs and funding efforts take 10 to 15 years to develop.
Exhibit 3. Congestion Growth Trend--Hours of Delay per Auto Commuter
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Small = less than 500,000; Medium = 500,000 to 1 million; Large = 1
million to 3 million;
Very Large = more than 3 million
The Trouble With Planning Your Trip
Many urban residents, travelers and freight movers have given up on
having congestion-free trips in rush hours; they would just like some
dependability in their travel times. The variation in travel time from
day-to-day is often more frustrating than expected congestion. We know
that for those urgent trips--catching an airplane, getting to a medical
appointment or picking up a child at daycare on time--we need to leave
a little earlier to make sure we are not late. And this need to add
extra time is not just a ``rush hour'' consideration.
Exhibit 4 illustrates this problem. Say your typical trip takes 20
minutes when there are few other cars on the road. That is represented
by the green bars. Your trip usually takes longer, on average, whether
that trip is in the morning, midday or evening. This ``average trip
time'' is shown in the yellow bars in Exhibit 10. In 2017, the average
big city auto commute was 26 minutes in the morning and 28 minutes in
the evening peak hours.
Now, if you must make a very important trip during any of these
time periods there is additional ``planning time'' you must allow to
reliably arrive on-time. As shown in the red bars in Exhibit 10, your
20-minute trip means you should plan for around 33 minutes in the
morning, 36 minutes in the evening and 30 minutes during the midday
when congestion is not usually a concern.
This is not just a ``big city rush hour'' problem; the planning
time averages 24 minutes in the morning and 26 minutes in the evening
for the smaller regions.
Exhibit 4. How Much Time Must You Allow to Be `On-Time' for a 20-Minute
Trip?
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Green Bar_No congestion; Yellow Bar_Average congestion; Red Bar_Plan
around this congestion if you're making an important trip
Delivering the Goods: And Your Role in the Congestion Impacts on
Trucking
What causes all the trucks on the road anyway?
Do you eat anything or buy anything? Of course you do. We all do.
And getting all that stuff to you requires trucks.
The consumer expectation to ``get it now'' has resulted in a boom
in e-commerce. This e-commerce growth will continue. Booming economies
and growing areas require goods and services, and the trucks to provide
them.
What are the impacts of congestion on trucking and trucking on
congestion?
The price tag for truck congestion cost is over $20 billion in
wasted time and fuel. Truck congestion is 12 percent of the total
congestion cost, but trucks are only 7 percent of the traffic. Only
half of the $20 billion truck congestion cost is in the largest 15
urban areas, illustrating that truck congestion is a problem spread
throughout all urban areas. Furthermore, the share of truck cost to the
total congestion cost has gone up from 10 percent in 2012 to 12 percent
in 2017.
Being on-time is particularly important for truck deliveries. Just-
in-time manufacturing and on-time parcel deliveries make travel time
predictability a critical need. On average in the 101 most congested
urban areas, we find that to ensure an on-time delivery for the most
important trips, truckers need to add 15 minutes to a trip that
typically takes 20 minutes in light traffic (see Table 3). In Los
Angeles, nearly 40 additional minutes are needed for urgent trips. This
unreliability in the transportation system is especially detrimental
for the trucking community and service companies.
There are many other costs incurred by shippers and carriers due to
a congested and unreliable transportation system, which are not
captured in our congestion costs. Companies need more trucks to make
deliveries and service calls, they invest more time and technology to
``beat the traffic'' and more distribution centers are needed to
fulfill demand.
What can be done?
In many dense urban areas, there is daily competition where the
battle trenches are the curb space along our urban streets. It is here
that freight delivery vehicles jockey with cars, buses, on-demand
transportation services and other activities. The congestion, and the
battle at the curb, puts a tremendous strain on shippers and carriers
looking to gain any competitive edge, as well as motorists, cyclists
and other users.
Managing the time spent in loading zones can help mitigate the
problem; common delivery areas such as locked spaces where deliveries
and pick-ups can be done at different times provide one possible
solution in urban areas. Transportation providers are also testing
technologies such as automated vehicles, delivery robots or drones for
deliveries, as well as cargo cycles and other transport methods.
Congestion Relief--An Overview of the Strategies
We recommend a balanced and diversified approach to reduce
congestion--one that focuses on more of everything; more policies,
programs, projects, flexibility, options and understanding. It is clear
that the solution investments have not kept pace with the problems.
Most urban regions have big problems now--more congestion, poorer
pavement and bridge conditions and less public transportation service
than they would like.
What is the right solution to a specific congestion problem? The
answer is usually found in one word: Context.
Almost every solution strategy works somewhere in some situation.
And almost every strategy is the wrong treatment in some places and
times. Anyone who tells you there is a single solution that can solve
congestion, be supported and implemented everywhere (or even in most
locations) is exaggerating the effect of their idea.
Some solutions need more congestion before they are fully
effective, and some can be very useful before congestion is a big
problem. There is almost always a role for providing more travel
options and operating the system more efficiently. Their effects are
important but, especially in growing regions, they will not be enough
to meet community mobility goals. The private sector, the market and
government regulations all play a role. Some cities see growth near
downtowns that provide good home and work options, but rarely dominate
the regional growth trends. Governments have been streamlining
regulations to make near-town developing as easy as suburban
developments.
More information on the possible solutions, places they have been
implemented and their effects can be found on the website: https://
policy.tti.tamu.edu/congestion/how-to-fix-congestion/
None of these ideas are the whole mobility solution, but they can
all play a role.
Get as much as possible from what we have--``Get the best
bang for the buck'' is the theme here. Many low-cost improvements have
broad public support and can be rapidly deployed. These operations
programs require innovation, new monitoring technologies and staffing
plans, constant attention and adjustment, but they pay dividends in
faster, safer and more reliable travel. Rapidly removing crashed
vehicles, timing traffic signals so that more vehicles see green
lights, and improving road and intersection designs are relatively
simple actions. More complex changes, such as traffic signals that
rapidly adapt to different traffic patterns, systems that smooth
traffic flow and reduce traffic collisions, and communication
technologies that assist travelers (in all modes) and the
transportation network also play a role.
Provide choices--``Customize your trip'' might involve
different travel routes, departure times, travel modes or lanes that
involve a toll for high-speed and reliable service. These options allow
travelers and shippers to make trips when, where and in a form that
best suits their needs and wants. There are many sources of travel
information involving displays of existing travel times, locations of
roadwork or crashes, transit ridership and arrival information, and a
variety of trip planner resources. The solutions also involve changes
in the way employers and travelers conduct business to avoid traveling
in the traditional ``rush hours.'' Flexible work hours, internet
connections or phones allow employees to choose work schedules that
meet family needs and the needs of their jobs. Companies have seen
productivity increase when workers are able to adjust their hours and
commute trips to meet family or other obligations.
Add capacity in critical corridors--``We just need more''
in some places. Increases in freight and person movement often require
new or expanded facilities. Important corridors or growing regions can
benefit from more street and highway lanes, new or expanded public
transportation facilities, and larger bus and rail fleets. Some of
``more'' will be better paths and routes for bicyclists and
pedestrians. Some of the ``more'' will also be in the form of
advancements in connected and autonomous vehicles--cars, trucks, buses
and trains that communicate with each other and with the transportation
network resulting in reduced crashes and congestion.
Diversify the development patterns--``Everyone doesn't
want to live in '' is a discussion in most urban
regions. It is always true--because there is no one-size-fits-all home
type. The market is diverse for the same reasons as the U.S. culture,
economy and society is varied. The ``real market'' includes denser
developments with a mix of jobs, shops and homes (so that more people
can walk, bike or take transit to more and closer destinations). Also,
urban residential patterns of moderate density single-family and multi-
family buildings, and suburban residential and commercial developments
are popular today. Sustaining quality-of-life and gaining economic
development without the typical increment of congestion in each of
these sub-regions appears to be part, but not all, of the mobility
solution. Recognizing that many home and job location choices are the
result of choices about family, elementary and secondary education
preferences, and entertainment and cultural sites allows planners to
adjust projects and policies to meet these varied markets.
Technology advancements also hold promise as solutions.
While we are not yet at the ``Meet George Jetson'' level of technology,
the technology disruptors coming to market every week will alter the
urban mobility landscape. Crowdsourced data from INRIX has improved the
report, and an increasingly connected world will offer more
opportunities to understand and improve the movement of people, goods
and the data itself. Connected vehicles ``talking'' to each other, such
as traffic signals and other systems--and providing this information to
decision-makers--will provide unprecedented data and insights to
identify and fix mobility problems. Newer model vehicles sense and
adjust to their surroundings, increasing safety and efficient movement
of goods and people. Other technologies, such as The Internet of Things
(IoT) (''connected things''), 3D printers, Blockchain, and Artificial
Intelligence (AI) will impact transportation systems of the future.
Will the mobility improvements of these technologies offset induced
trips or other unforeseen mobility consequences? In many cases, it
will. Again, context is the key, and the jury is still out on the
evolving impacts.
Realistic expectations are also part of the solution.
Large urban areas will be congested. Some locations near key activity
centers in smaller urban areas will also be congested. Identifying
solutions and funding sources that meet a variety of community goals is
challenging enough without attempting to eliminate congestion in all
locations at all times. Congestion does not have to be an all-day
event, and in many cases, improving travel time awareness and
predictability can be a positive first step toward improving urban
mobility.
Case studies, analytical methods and data are available to support
development of these strategies and monitor the effectiveness of
deployments. There are also many good state and regional mobility
reports that provide ideas for communicating the findings of the data
analysis.
Where Should the Congestion Solutions Be Implemented?
There will be a different mix of solutions in metro regions,
cities, neighborhoods, job centers and shopping areas. Some areas might
be more amenable to construction solutions, while other areas might use
more technology to promote and facilitate travel options, operational
improvements, or land use redevelopment. In all cases, the solutions
need to work together to provide an interconnected network of smart
transportation services as well as improve the quality-of-life.
There will also be a range of congestion targets. Many large urban
areas, for example, use a target speed of 35 mph or 45 mph for their
freeways; if speeds are above that level, there is not a ``congestion
problem.'' Smaller metro areas, however, typically decide that good
mobility is one aspect of their quality-of-life goals and have higher
speed expectations. Even within a metro region, the congestion target
will typically be different between downtown and the remote suburbs,
different for freeways and streets, and different for rush hours than
midday travel.
Just like the specific set of strategies used to improve mobility
is the result of a public engagement and technical design process, the
level of congestion deemed unacceptable is a local decision. The 2019
Urban Mobility Report uses one consistent, easily understood comparison
level. But that level is not ``the goal,'' it is only an expression of
the problem. The report is only one of many pieces of information that
should be considered when determining how much of the problem to solve.
Better data can play a valuable role in all of the analyses.
Advancements in volume collection, travel speed data and origin to
destination travel paths for people and freight allow transportation
agencies at all government levels and the private sector to better
identify existing chokepoints, possible alternatives and growth
patterns. The solution begins with better understanding of the
challenges, problems, possibilities and opportunities--where, when, how
and how often mobility problems occur. This evolves into similar
questions about solutions--where, when, and how can mobility be
improved. These data will allow travelers to capitalize on new
transportation services, identify novel programs, have better travel
time reliability and improve their access to information.
The High Cost of Doing Nothing
Transportation solutions should involve a dialogue about five
significant questions.
1. What should we do?
2. How much will it cost?
3. How should we pay for it?
4. What is the benefit of doing something?
5. What is the cost of doing nothing?
If you examine the public discussion about regional or national-
level solutions, however, far too often the process stops after we
agree that everything should be done and that it will cost a lot. Less
often there are conversations about how we could pay for solutions, the
benefits of doing something and the high cost of doing nothing.
Several analyses of Texas' transportation future conducted over the
past two decades have consistently pointed to the need for additional
funding to address the growth challenges. The Texas 2030 Committee, a
blue-ribbon style committee of civic and business leaders, worked from
2008 to 2011 with researchers from TTI, the Center for Transportation
Research at the University of Texas, and the University of Texas at San
Antonio to examine future needs in urban mobility, rural connectivity,
and bridge and pavement quality (4). The conclusion was that Texans
would pay more in transportation costs over the next 25 years--either
by suffering the consequences of doing nothing to address the
transportation challenges, resulting in stop-and-go traffic, lost
family and work time, and economic loss, or by paying additional taxes,
fees, and licenses to reduce the scale of these types of problems.
The data developed by the Texas 2030 Committee (Exhibit 5) clearly
shows that living with the problem is more detrimental and more costly
than tackling the problem with a variety of methods. The projected
trend in population and job growth, as well as the expected funding
levels and the resulting projects, policies and programs would see an
average of $320 in transportation fees paid by the average household
over the period from 2011 to 2035, while the value of extra travel
time, wasted fuel, and vehicle maintenance would be about $6,000 per
year. As more funds are invested in solving the problem, the lower the
total costs--declining from $6,300 to $4,300 if 2010 conditions were
maintained.
Five significant funding increases have been approved by the Texas
Legislature and/or voters since this dialogue began 15 years ago. While
congestion has increased since 2010, the conversation is about how much
congestion to address and what types of solutions will be used. There
is general agreement that the problem exists and must be addressed.
With Texas projected to add 1 million people every 3 years, the
total cost to sustain 2010 conditions was estimated to be $273 million
in 2010 dollars, while the economic impact of doing nothing other than
the planned spending and policy program was $989 million. Doing nothing
is not free.
Exhibit 5. Average Yearly Total Transportation Cost per Texas
Household--2011 to 2035
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: Reference 4
Concluding Thoughts
The national economy has improved since the 2015 Urban Mobility
Report, but unfortunately congestion has gotten worse. This has been
the case in the past--the economy-congestion linkage is as dependable
as gravity. Some analysts had touted the decline in driving per capita
and dip in congestion levels that accompanied the 2008/2009 recession
as a sign that traffic congestion would, in essence, fix itself. That
has not happened.
The other seemingly dependable trend--not enough of any solution
being deployed--also appears to be holding in most growing regions.
That is really the lesson from this series of reports. The mix of
solutions that are used is relatively less important than the number of
solutions being implemented. All of the potential congestion-reducing
strategies should be considered, and there is a role and location for
most of the strategies.
Getting more productivity out of the existing road and
public transportation systems is vital to reducing congestion and
improving travel time reliability.
Businesses and employees can use a variety of strategies
to modify their work schedules, freight delivery procedures, travel
times and travel modes to avoid the peak periods, use less vehicle
travel and increase the amount of electronic ``travel.''
In growth corridors, there also may be a role for
additional road and public transportation capacity to move people and
freight more rapidly and reliably.
Some areas are seeing renewed interest in higher density
living in neighborhoods with a mix of residential, office, shopping and
other developments. These places can promote shorter trips that are
more amenable to walking, cycling or public transportation modes.
The 2019 Urban Mobility Report points to national measures of the
congestion problem for the 494 urban areas in 2017:
$166 billion of wasted time and fuel,
Including $21 billion of extra truck operating time and
fuel,
An extra 8.8 billion hours of travel, and
3.3 billion gallons of fuel consumed
The average urban commuter in 2017:
Spent an extra 54 hours of travel time on roads than if
the travel was done in low-volume conditions, and
Used 21 extra gallons of fuel,
Which amounted to an average value of $1,010 per
commuter.
States and cities have been addressing the congestion problems they
face with a variety of strategies and more detailed data analysis. Some
of the solution lies in using the smart data systems and range of
technologies, projects and programs to achieve results and communicate
the effects to assure the public that their project dollars are being
spent wisely. And a component of the solution lies in identifying
mobility level targets and implementing a range of solutions to achieve
them in service to broader quality of life and economic productivity
goals.
References
1. Current Employment Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
U.S. Department of Labor, Washington D.C. Accessed 2019. http://
www.bls.gov/ces/home.htm
2. National Average Speed Database, 2009 to 2014. INRIX. Kirkland,
WA. www.inrix.com
3. Federal Highway Administration. ``Highway Performance
Monitoring System,'' 1982 to 2017 Data. November 2018. Available:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms.cfm
4. It's About Time: Investing in Transportation to Keep Texas
Economically Competitive. Texas 2030 Committee, March 2011. https://
texas2030committee.tamu.edu/
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Dr. Lomax.
Next, Marc Scribner, senior fellow, Competitive Enterprise
Institute.
Mr. Scribner. Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, Chair
DeFazio, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for giving
me the opportunity to testify before you today.
Congestion is a persistent and growing problem facing
America's road networks, as Dr. Lomax just explained. The
challenge facing policymakers is how to address it. Given that
traffic congestion is inherently a local phenomenon, the
Federal Government has a limited set of tools to address it.
Fortunately, in its role as a supporting partner to State
and local transportation agencies, there are policy options
available to Members of Congress to promote effective
congestion mitigation and management. Even better, these tend
not to involve increasing Federal-aid highway spending. Rather,
modernizing Federal law to permit greater flexibility at the
State and local level to price road use is the best way to
address peak hour traffic congestion that plagues many of
America's metropolitan areas.
Nobel Laureate economist William Vickrey, in a seminal 1963
paper, said of the then and still status quo of urban
transportation management that, in quote, ``no other major area
are pricing practices so irrational, so out of date, and so
conducive to waste,'' unquote.
The problem, as Vickrey and other economists saw it, was
scare roadway space was inefficiently allocated by nonmarket
means so that the practical result of unpriced urban roads was
queuing and a degradation of the network. With traffic flows
increasingly unstable, travel times would lengthen and travel
time predictability would worsen.
In attempting to address this queuing due to a lack of
pricing, policymakers would then make decisions to
inefficiently expand physical roadway capacity, generally at
great expense to society. This vicious cycle would then repeat
itself.
To effectively address peak hour traffic congestion and
efficiently allocate scare urban road space, Vickrey proposed
an electronic variable pricing scheme to promote stable traffic
flows, quite similar to today's electronic transponder systems
used by tolling networks such as E-ZPass.
Variable road pricing is now generally viewed by economists
as the most effective means to address peak hour traffic
congestion. Policymakers select a desired average speed to
maintain and then let rising prices do the rest.
Physical capacity expansions in the absence of pricing can
temporarily reduce congestion and improve traffic flows, but
such improvements may be fleeting due to what economist Anthony
Downs calls triple convergence. Under triple convergence,
traffic flows on recently expanded roads soon begin to trend
toward their preexpansion state of congestion, albeit with
greater traffic volumes and the resulting benefits of that
additional travel.
In that sense, while roadway expansions can certainly
benefit travelers in a given region, even at congested peak
hours, in the absence of pricing many of the potential benefits
may be unrealized due to persistent network congestion.
Section 166 HOV to HOT conversions are likely the most
promising near-term vehicles for implementing road pricing.
Historically, HOV lanes have suffered from chronic
underutilization. Converting HOV lanes to HOT lanes allows road
authorities to make better use of lane capacity while providing
motorists traveling below minimum HOV occupancy requirements a
choice to pay for shorter and more predictable travel times.
However, existing exemptions and pilot programs by
themselves will not be able to address the related problems of
growing traffic congestion and aging highway infrastructure.
Reconstruction needs of the Interstate Highway System alone are
estimated to be more than $1 trillion over the next two
decades.
If Congress wishes to address both this fiscal challenge
and traffic congestion, it must reconsider the general Federal
tolling prohibition. It should also seek to harness innovative
financing and management practices made available through
public-private partnerships by expanding project eligibility
and lifting the lifetime volume cap on private activity bonds.
Public acceptance of congestion pricing is crucial to its
success. At a time when urban surface streets are riddled with
potholes and other road infrastructure is being neglected, the
first revenue priority of policymakers should be to be improve
the Nation's tolled roadways to a state of good repair.
Adherence to this fairness principle will do much to address
public concerns that additional road charges will simply amount
to more wasteful Government spending to benefit politically
favored constituencies.
Road pricing generally and congestion pricing specifically
will be valuable tools going forward. The primary Federal
concern should not be the implementation of any given pricing
project. Rather, Congress should focus on removing outdated
barriers to road pricing and give States the flexibility to use
these tools that best suit their own needs.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
subcommittee, and I welcome your questions.
[Mr. Scribner's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marc Scribner, Senior Fellow, Competitive
Enterprise Institute
Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before
you today. My name is Marc Scribner. I am a senior fellow at the
Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), where I focus on
transportation, land use, and urban growth policy issues.\1\ CEI is a
nonprofit, nonpartisan public interest organization dedicated to the
principles of free enterprise and limited, constitutional government.
CEI has consistently supported pro-market approaches to infrastructure
investment and management through analysis and advocacy during its 35-
year history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ My biography and writings are available at https://cei.org/
expert/marc-scribner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congestion is a persistent and growing problem facing America's
road network. The 2019 Urban Mobility Report from the Texas A&M
Transportation Institute (TTI) estimates that traffic congestion
resulted in 3.3 billion gallons of wasted fuel and 8.8 billion hours in
wasted time per year in 2017. It estimates the nationwide cost at $166
billion, or $1,010 per rush-hour commuter. This represents an 83.6
percent increase in travel time delay and wasted fuel congestion costs
per commuting motorist since 1982.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ David Schrank et al., 2019 Urban Mobility Report, Texas A&M
Transportation Institute, August 2019, https://static.tti.tamu.edu/
tti.tamu.edu/documents/mobility-report-2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the TTI congestion analysis looks only at commuting
motorists travel time delay and wasted fuel costs. When considering the
costs associated with productivity losses, unreliability losses, truck
cargo delays, and safety and environmental costs, the total annual
economic cost of traffic congestion was estimated by the chief
economist of the U.S. Department of Transportation to be more than
double the TTI estimate.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Jack Wells, ``The Role of Transportation in the U.S. Economy,''
PowerPoint presentation to the National Surface Transportation Policy
and Revenue Commission, June 26, 2006, slide 21, https://
web.archive.org/web/20090226032621/http://
www.transportationfortomorrow.org/pdfs/commission_meetings/
0606_meeting_washington/wells_presentation_0606_meeting.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The challenge facing policy makers is how to address this growing
problem. Given that traffic congestion is inherently a local
phenomenon, the federal government has a limited set of tools to
address it. Fortunately, in its role as a supporting partner to state
and local transportation agencies, there are policy options available
to members of Congress to promote effective congestion mitigation and
management. Even better, these tend not to involve increasing federal
highway-aid program spending. Rather, modernizing federal law to permit
greater flexibility at the state and local level to price road use is
the best way to address peak-hour traffic congestion that plagues many
of America's metropolitan areas.
Unleashing Markets to Mitigate Traffic Congestion
Nobel-laureate economist William Vickrey, in a seminal 1963 paper,
said of the then- and still-status quo of urban transportation
management that in ``no other major area are pricing practices so
irrational, so out of date, and so conducive to waste.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ William S. Vickrey, ``Pricing in Urban and Suburban
Transport,'' The American Economic Review, Vol. 53, No. 2, May 1963,
pp. 452-465.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem, as Vickrey and other economists saw it, was scarce
roadway space was inefficiently allocated by non-market means, so that
the practical result of unpriced urban roads was queuing and a
degradation of the network. With traffic flows increasingly unstable,
travel times would lengthen and travel time predictability would
worsen. In attempts to address this queuing due to a lack of pricing,
policy makers would then make decisions to inefficiently expand
physical roadway capacity, generally at great expense to society. This
vicious cycle would then repeat.
To effectively address road traffic peak-hour congestion and
efficiently allocate scarce urban road space, Vickrey proposed an
electronic variable pricing scheme to promote stable traffic flows,
quite similar to today's electronic transponder systems used by tolling
networks such as E-ZPass in the United States. At the time, technology
and budget limitations appeared prohibitive in carrying out this travel
demand management vision, but today's modern and increasingly
commonplace all-electronic tolling technology is relatively inexpensive
and highly effective.
Variable road pricing is now generally viewed by economists as the
most effective means to address peak-hour traffic congestion. Policy
makers select a desired average speed to maintain and then let rising
prices do the rest. Physical capacity expansions in the absence of
pricing can temporarily reduce congestion and improve traffic flows,
but such improvements may be fleeting due to what economist Anthony
Downs labels ``triple convergence.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Anthony Downs, ``Traffic: Why It's Getting Worse, What
Government Can Do,'' Brookings Institution, January 1, 2004, https://
www.brookings.edu/research/traffic-why-its-getting-worse-what-
government-can-do/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Triple convergence refers to the expected events following roadway
expansion in the absence of pricing during peak hours. Imagine a
congested urban highway segment sees its physical capacity doubled
overnight. The next day, we would expect to see free-flowing traffic.
But as word spreads and motorists in the region internalize this new
information, it would prompt three types of travelers to flock to and
clog the new lanes: 1) motorists who previously avoided peak-hour
travel on the congested road would shift back to peak-hour travel, 2)
motorists who took alternative routes during the peak would shift to
the expanded road, and 3) travelers who took other transportation modes
during peak hours would switch to cars.
Under triple convergence, traffic flows on recently expanded roads
soon begin to trend toward their pre-expansion state of congestion,
albeit with greater traffic volumes and the resulting benefits of that
additional travel. In that sense, while roadway expansions can
certainly benefit travelers in a given region--even at congested peak
hours--in the absence of pricing, many of the potential benefits may be
unrealized due to persistent network congestion.
To effectively address traffic congestion in many of America's
largest metropolitan areas, policy makers need to embrace road pricing.
This can come in several forms--from central city cordon pricing to
high-occupancy toll lanes on urban Interstate segments--and each
approach should be tailored to the local peculiarities of a given
metropolitan area. Research has found that congestion pricing
implementation is highly case specific and subject to public
perceptions of value.\6\ It follows that policy makers should be
extremely concerned with the details of specific projects and in
ensuring public trust in any implementation of congestion pricing. It
also means the most successful congestion pricing regimes will be
narrowly focused on improving traffic flows during peak hours, as
opposed to providing governments with new general revenue sources to be
appropriated to projects that do not directly benefit the paying users
of the priced road.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Diana Vonk Noordegraaf et al., ``Policy implementation lessons
from six road pricing cases,'' Transportation Research Part A: Policy
and Practice, Vol. 59, 2014, pp. 172-191.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Policy and Road Pricing
Federal law permits some congestion pricing on federal-aid
highways, but can be improved to allow the states to fully take
advantage of this tool. Under longstanding federal law, tolling is
generally prohibited on the federal-aid highway system. However, in
more recent times, Congress has enacted several exceptions to this
rule:
Section 129 general toll program exemptions.\7\ Initially
codified to exempt pre-Interstate system toll facilities from the
federal prohibition, Congress has gradually expanded Section 129 to
include exemptions for:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 23 U.S.C. 129(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial construction of highways, bridges, or tunnels;
Initial construction of new lanes on highways bridges,
and tunnels as long as the number of toll-free lanes is not reduced;
Reconstruction or replacement of a bridge or tunnel;
Reconstruction of a non-Interstate highway; and
Reconstruction, restoration, or rehabilitation of an
Interstate highway as long as the number of toll-free lanes is not
reduced.
Section 166 HOV/HOT lane conversion exemptions.\8\
Section 166 permits the conversion of high-occupancy vehicle lanes to
high-occupancy (HOV) toll lanes. High-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes are
defined as high-occupancy vehicle lanes that allow vehicles traveling
below the minimum occupancy requirement to use the lanes in exchange
for paying a toll.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 23 U.S.C. 166(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interstate System Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot
Program.\9\ This pilot program allows three participating projects to
impose tolls on existing Interstate lanes. Each of the three projects
must be in different states. Section 1411(c) of the Fixing America's
Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015 added additional requirements
on state legislative authority and a ``use it or lose it'' three-year
time frame for participating states to complete the program's
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Federal Highway Administration, ``Fact Sheet: Interstate System
Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Pilot Program (ISRRPP),'' FHWA Center
for Innovative Finance Support website, accessed September 5, 2019,
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/tolling_and_pricing/tolling_pricing/
interstate_rr_fact_sheet.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value Pricing Pilot Program (VPPP).\10\ In 1991, Congress
established a congestion pricing program open to up to 15 projects.
Since 2012, Congress has authorized no additional funding for the
program and the Federal Highway Administration strongly encourages
states seeking to impose tolls on federally aided highway segments to
seek exemptions under Sections 129 and 166 rather than via VPPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Federal Highway Administration, ``Value Pricing Pilot
Program,'' FHWA Office of Operations website, accessed September 5,
2019, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/tolling_and_pricing/tolling_pricing/
vppp.aspx.
While federal funding for VPPP projects has not been renewed for
nearly a decade, VPPP can still be used to provide tolling authority to
states and support innovative projects. But Section 166 HOV/HOT
conversions are likely the most promising near-term vehicles for
implementing road pricing. Historically, HOV lanes have suffered from
chronic underutilization. Converting HOV lanes to HOT lanes allows road
authorities to make better use of lane capacity while providing
motorists traveling below minimum HOV occupancy requirements a choice
to pay for shorter and more predictable travel times.
However, Section 166 HOV/HOT lane conversions by themselves will
not be able to address the related problems of growing traffic
congestion and aging highway infrastructure.
Reconstruction needs for the Interstate Highway System alone are
estimated to be more than $1 trillion over the next two decades.\11\ If
Congress wishes to address both this fiscal challenge and congestion,
it must reconsider the federal general tolling prohibition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,
Renewing the National Commitment to the Interstate Highway System: A
Foundation for the Future, Transportation Research Board Special Report
329, 2019, p. 165, https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25334/renewing-the-
national-commitment-to-the-interstate-highway-system-a-foundation-for-
the-future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, given the potential for dedicated revenue collection,
transportation agencies can attract private investment and management
to shifts costs and risks associated with these projects away from
taxpayers and onto private investors. These public-private partnerships
(P3s) have been used sparingly in the U.S., but are widely used
internationally.
In countries as varied as Australia, France, China, and Chile, P3s
have played major roles in the provision and management of
transportation infrastructure.\12\ Concession agreements under which
the concessionaire designs, builds, finances, operates, and maintains
the project over the long term have successfully reduced project costs,
shifted costs and risks away from taxpayers and onto private investors
and users, and delivered projects in a more timely fashion.\13\ In the
U.S., several states have enacted robust P3 legislation and have
entered into long-term leases with private concessionaires to build,
modernize, and/or manage public-purpose tolled highways.\14\ This has
resulted in road users getting better infrastructure and taxpayers
saving billions of dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Robert W. Poole, Jr., Rethinking America's Highways: A 21st
Century Vision for Better Infrastructure (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2018), pp. 52-66.
\13\ Ibid., pp. 96-135.
\14\ Ibid., p. 104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These P3 toll roads rely on a mix of equity and debt financing.
Private activity bonds (PABs) play a key role, with toll revenue used
to service this debt. PABs are tax exempt like traditional municipal
bonds, leveling the playing field between the public and private
sectors in financing infrastructure. Unfortunately, Congress created a
national aggregate volume cap on PABs of $15 billion for surface
transportation projects.\15\ According to the latest data from the U.S.
Department of Transportation, more than two-thirds of that $15 billion
has already been issued or allocated.\16\ If Congress wants to free the
states and private sector to deliver better infrastructure value to the
traveling public, this cap should be greatly increased or eliminated
and project eligibility should be expanded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 26 U.S.C. 142(m)(2)(A).
\16\ Build America Bureau, ``Private Activity Bonds,'' U.S.
Department of Transportation website, updated August 9, 2019, https://
www.transportation.gov/buildamerica/programs-services/pab.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But Congress shouldn't stop there. Looking to the future, new
technologies may enable superior congestion management and revenue
collection than is currently possible with all-electronic tolling. A
number of states in recent years have been piloting new mileage-based
revenue collection technologies and practices, which are variously
known as mileage-based user fees, road usage charges, and vehicle-miles
traveled taxes. All refer to the same approach, whereby road users are
directly charged based on the distance (and perhaps weight of the
vehicle) they drive.
Oregon has the most advanced pilot in operation, established by
2013 legislation. The program's volunteers can opt for two versions of
mileage-recording technology: non-location-based supplementary
odometers and a location-based option that can offer users more
precision and add-on features such as geofenced alerts for parents of
teen drivers. Participants are refunded their estimated fuel tax
payments upon transmission of their mileage data.
Location-based systems can differentiate between roads by
satellite, thereby allowing for dynamic pricing across the entire road
network with less costly infrastructure investments. In the long run,
Congress should consider a shift away from fuel taxation as the primary
highway revenue source and toward mileage-based user fees. As was noted
above, congestion is inherently a local problem and is best addressed
locally through tailored pricing solutions and capacity enhancements.
This means that while Congress should not seek to impose congestion
pricing, it should consider how states can integrate their own
congestion pricing programs into future mileage-based user fee systems.
Principles for Sound Road Pricing Implementation
For congestion pricing to be publicly acceptable, policy makers
should focus on delivering value to those paying the charges. As such,
they should not seek to divert toll revenue to address unrelated
projects. To do so, they should first adhere to the longstanding users-
pay/users-benefit principle that has guided U.S. highway policy for two
generations, which offers the following advantages over alternatives:
Fairness: Road users benefit from the improvements their
user charges generate.
Proportionality: Users who drive more pay more.
Funding predictability: Highway use and highway user
revenues do not fluctuate wildly in the short-run.
Signaling investment: Because revenue roughly tracks use,
the mechanism provides policy makers with an important signal as to how
much and where infrastructure investment is needed to maintain a
desired level of efficiency.
Policy makers will face persistent calls from special interest
groups to impose congestion pricing and direct toll revenue to their
favored projects, such as with New York City's cordon pricing plan to
direct nearly all revenue from a Manhattan central business district
congestion charge to mass transit improvements.\17\ To be sure,
congestion pricing revenue can--and in some places should--be used to
support mass transit enhancements. However, New York City is an extreme
outlier and should not be treated as a model for other U.S. cities. At
a time when urban surface streets are riddled with potholes and other
road infrastructure is being neglected, the first revenue priority of
policy makers should be to improve the nation's tolled roadways to a
state of good repair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Winnie Hu, ``Confused About Congestion Pricing? Here's What We
Know,'' The New York Times, April 24, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/
2019/04/24/nyregion/what-is-congestion-pricing.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public acceptance of congestion pricing is crucial to its success.
Adherence to this fairness principle will do much to address public
concerns that additional road charges will simply amount to more
wasteful government spending to benefit politically favored
constituencies. One way to better ensure public buy-in to a pricing
regime--particularly when converting previously unpriced lanes to
priced lanes--is for policy makers to adopt a proposal from
transportation policy scholar Robert Poole, which he calls ``value-
added tolling.'' \18\ Poole's five value-added tolling principles are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Robert W. Poole, Jr., ``Value-Added Tolling: A Better Deal for
America's Highway Users,'' Policy Brief 116, Reason Foundation, March
2014, https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/
value_added_tolling.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Begin tolling only after major improvements are completed;
2. Prohibit toll revenue diversion to projects outside the
facility or system where they are collected;
3. Toll rates should only be high enough to cover initial
construction or rehabilitation, maintenance and operations, and needed
improvements;
4. Motor fuel taxpayers should be reimbursed for the taxes they
paid while using toll roads; and
5. Provide a better level of service on the facility after tolling
is imposed.
If these principles are adopted by policy makers seeking to
implement road pricing, they can lead to better informed infrastructure
investment decisions. Policy makers would be able to learn both the
revenue potential of a tolled roadway and the distribution of
motorists' willingness to pay. This information can be used to conduct
robust benefit/cost analyses and better target roadway expansions.
In conclusion, road pricing generally and congestion pricing
specifically will be valuable tools going forward. The primary federal
concern should not be the implementation of any given pricing project.
Rather, Congress should focus on removing outdated barriers to road
pricing and give states the flexibility to use these tools that best
suit their own needs.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee,
and I welcome your questions.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Scribner.
I want to thank all of you for your valuable testimony
today.
And we are going to move now to Member questions. Each
Member will have 5 minutes to ask questions. I begin by
recognizing myself.
Mr. Gilbert, I notice you had an illustration in your
testimony. You said that the lanes on the right--I mean, even
people far away can see--the lanes on the right are nontolled
and the lanes on the left are tolled. Is that right?
Mr. Gilbert. I believe it is correct.
Ms. Norton. So I see a lot of congestion on the right. It
looks like people are not willing to get into this lane. Is
this only tolling that determines where people will go here?
Mr. Gilbert. There are toll lanes, and the one on I believe
the left should be the toll lane.
We know that overall with regard to Miami-Dade County it
has been successful in reducing congestion for both sides.
Ms. Norton. So, this picture does not--see, this doesn't
show reducing congestion. It shows people--it shows lots of
room on the right here, my right, and it looks as though people
are saying, no, thank you.
Are the tolls very high?
Mr. Gilbert. The tolls can be high. And let me just clarify
also, reducing congestion doesn't mean eliminating congestion.
We still have bad congestion. It just got a little better with
bus express, rapid transit, and the express lanes.
Ms. Norton. So they use this other side, though.
Mr. Gilbert. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Can they use this road? Can they use this
tollroad, buses, and----
Mr. Gilbert. If they pay the toll, they can, yes.
Ms. Norton. Yeah. I mean, do they?
Mr. Gilbert. Oh, yes, yes, they do.
Ms. Norton. They do. Because I don't see any of them. I
feel it just happens to be when this picture was taken.
Mr. Gilbert. Well, no, Madam Chair, I assure you the toll
lane gets pretty crowded also. We just have a lot of people and
a lot of traffic in Miami-Dade County as a region. So we know
that the times have gotten better, but still I think of the
lost business hours, the lost production, the lost time you
spend with your family.
We have to do something. The tolls have helped. We need
more help. So people do use the toll lanes, and they do get
very expensive.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Hawkins, do you object to the use of toll
lanes? We know that you testified against tolls. I don't know
if trucks pay tolls or would pay tolls on such a lane. What is
your view?
Mr. Hawkins. My company alone pays $25 million annually in
tolls across the United States. So certainly from a CEO
perspective and an ATA perspective, we don't support new
tolling on interstate highways.
Now, certain tolling can be appropriate to handle specific
issues around the country in select cities, but overall we
don't feel like it is the solution.
When I think of some of the opening comments, if we had
been sitting in church this morning when Chair DeFazio made his
opening comments, I would have said ``amen'' when he mentioned
that not since 1993 has Congress increased our Federal fuel tax
to invest in our infrastructure.
Just the nickel example that he gave, if we did that
immediately, that would generate $340 billion in long-term
predictable financing that would address a lot of these issues
and expand current roads without tolling.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Hawkins, a lot of us up here would agree
with you and agree with Mr. DeFazio as well on that issue.
I do want to ask a question, though, of Ms. Chang.
I am very intrigued by the technologies and what they can
do and believe, frankly, that they are going to be necessary if
we are going to move these congestion issues.
How do we make sure they are going to be deployed with
equity considerations in mind? I would be interested whether
you all have thought that through as a part of your
recommendation?
Ms. Chang. Yes, thank you very much, Chair Norton.
This is a top concern for our local community and
policymakers as well. We have seen that technology has come to
a point where we can actually implement some of the policy
responses on equity and features of programs that we have long
wanted, but haven't been able to truly deploy cost effectively.
Examples would be the ability to more strategically target
those types of road users who we believe need to have discounts
and exemptions, enabling them to have accounts using their
transponders, which are the electronic detection systems in the
vehicles that allow the trip to be measured, to allow us to be
able to connect that to a particular household and understand--
--
Ms. Norton. Is any experimental work being done on that?
Ms. Chang. Pardon me?
Ms. Norton. Is there any pilot work being done on that to
connect----
Ms. Chang. I see. Elsewhere, absolutely. Certainly on the
express lanes and express roads that have been discussed in
other places, and in our own bay area region, yes. But we don't
have that in San Francisco quite yet. We are still studying it
for the downtown zone.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
I would move now to Mr. Davis, who I recognize for 5
minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thanks again to the witnesses for your testimony, for
being here.
Very important issue. As I said in my opening statements,
congestion even hits a district like mine. It is rural and many
urban areas. According to the TTI's report, in 2017 congestion
in certain cities in my district, like Springfield, Illinois,
cost residents about $300 a year; in Decatur, Illinois, about
$240; and in Champaign, Illinois, $225.
North of me, north of my district a couple hours, is
Chicago. Commuters there saw an average cost of $1,307 in 2017.
I recently have seen reports that the mayor of Chicago,
Mayor Lightfoot, is considering a congestion pricing scheme to
address traffic. Now, that may work in Chicago, but I am really
not convinced it is going to work in the smaller cities that I
represent.
And as we examine this issue of congestion, are there other
ways besides congestion pricing schemes that we can use to
address the problem?
And I will start with you, Mr. Lomax.
Mr. Lomax. Strategies other than pricing, I think we are
talking about using sort of the whole toolbox, if you will. We
have got issues that Ms. Chang talked about of operations. We
heard earlier about timing traffic signals, getting the crashes
and stalled vehicles out of the way. These are kind of good
Government basic policy kinds of approaches that everybody
accepts.
Mr. Davis. There are some things that should be working
right now in some of our smaller, many urban areas.
Mr. Lomax. Exactly. They cut across all regions of all
sizes. I think adding capacity where you have growth, where you
have bottlenecks, is certainly a plus and certainly part of the
toolbox, and that could be road capacity, transit capacity,
more bike lanes, more pedestrian paths. It has to be tailored
to the problem.
And certainly having additional conversations with
employers and employees about, can I have flexible work hours,
can I look at alternate commuting paths, things like that.
Technology has a role, as I said. Smartphone apps help you
plan a trip. Well, maybe we could have that smartphone app push
information to you based on your calendar that says: Hey, you
are just going to go to the office today, you don't have
anything really chaotic, why don't you try to bus or try
carpooling with somebody, and I can go out and match your
carpool trips while you are taking a shower and report back to
you when you are eating breakfast.
Mr. Davis. OK.
Anybody else? Any ideas? Want to take a crack at it?
Are you going to say ``amen''?
Mr. Hawkins. Amen.
Mr. Davis. All right. There you go.
Mr. Hawkins. Good morning.
I think it is a wonderful point, especially when we think
about Illinois. Just my company alone, we have got 16 terminals
there and 3,000 employees.
And you mentioned in a more rural area about the cost being
a couple hundred dollars annually for congestion. Chair Norton
mentioned in her high density district of it being over $1,700.
And if we average that across the United States, it is about
$1,600 per person.
If we go with the fuel tax that we have talked about many
times over and that hasn't been adjusted since 1993, we are
talking about an annual impact of $100 per person.
So when we think about rural versus density and then
congestion pricing, and the last thing on congestion pricing,
everyone in this room and everyone in the United States has
become accustomed to a point-and-click mentality. When you
point and click and make a purchase, you expect your doorbell
to ring with that product very quickly. And that tolling, other
things, congestion pricing, is not going to impact what
transportation companies have to do to meet the expectations of
their customer base.
Mr. Davis. Great.
Ms. Chang.
Ms. Chang. Yes, Ranking Member Davis. Thank you for the
question.
I believe that the built-in solution that I mentioned of
the revenues from a congestion pricing type of program are
important to mention here. I mean, we all need better options
as far as active transportation, public transit, new express
buses. These are all things that revenues can help pay for.
There are carpool incentives, vanpool incentives, employer-
based programs, a whole host of very creative solutions on the
public and private side.
Developers are now asking: Instead of building that
parking, what if I invested in a system of shuttles? What if I
incentivized bike sharing, car share? What if I partnered with
the development down the street and we shared a micro transit?
So first/last mile solutions, the whole landscape of
solutions is starting to change. And the idea of using proceeds
not only for funding direct infrastructure, but also incentives
to let people try these things out, maybe also a new
opportunity.
Mr. Davis. I am glad you closed with incentives, because
the problem we have here in Federal Government is we have a
trust fund that doesn't keep up, so we are having to add money
to it. But many States may have a surplus in some of their
trust funds. So those user fees then get pulled out and used to
fill other budget holes. And that is something that I think the
panelists and all of us in this committee ought to consider
when we look at Federal solutions.
I am out of time. I yield back nothing. But thanks again
for the opportunity to hear from you.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.
In your answers you mentioned--both witnesses mentioned
public transit. I know we don't have a public transit witness.
I don't want anybody to think that we think that that
alternative is outmoded. We think it ought to be used more than
it is.
Of course, I speak from a region that has Metro and uses
that. So the fact that we don't have a witness doesn't mean
that we don't understand that transit and buses, rapid transit,
still need to be a part of the solution. Expensive to build,
but still need to be a part of the solution.
Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Madam Chair.
Just in response to the ranking member's comments, the
Federal Highway Trust Fund moneys are not ever spent and never
have been spent on anything other than transportation purposes.
So diversion here is not a problem.
If you are concerned that if we increase Federal revenues
that States would then choose to divert more of their funds to
nontransportation purposes, we can certainly build in a
maintenance-of-effort provision.
And also in terms of these optional tolling things we have
allowed, we shouldn't allow any diversion of funds or the
flexibility that is being granted beyond uses to benefit those
users.
So I think there are ways to deal with that, but the bottom
line is we need more investment.
Now, Dr. Lomax, I know TTI, I appreciate your work, I
always quote it, use it in trying to justify to some people
around here to move off of zero on funding. But this tolling, I
am a little disturbed about all the obsession and talk about
tolling and congestion pricing and all that. And I think since
you are in Texas, haven't we seen a little bit of tolling
fatigue in Texas? Didn't they just pass a moratorium on more
tolling there?
Mr. Lomax. Absolutely. That is what our State legislature
did in response to some public comment about we are sort of
tired of tolling as the solution that is being enacted.
Mr. DeFazio. Right. And it didn't solve the problems?
Mr. Lomax. Well, we are early on, but, yeah, it hasn't
solved the problems yet.
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Mr. Lomax. We are afflicted with economic prosperity, is
the way we describe it.
Mr. DeFazio. Yeah.
Mayor Gilbert, you just said a couple of times, quite high,
the tolls. Can you give me a number how high ``high'' was in
those toll lanes to avoid the congestion?
Mr. Gilbert. It depends on the time of day. It can be
upwards of $17, $18, $19 that people will pay in the toll
lanes. And let me just say that----
Mr. DeFazio. How many miles is that for $18?
Mr. Gilbert. Well, that would be the entire length of the--
--
Mr. DeFazio. Yeah, but I don't know the length of it. I
have only been on it a couple of times.
Mr. Gilbert. About 10 miles.
Mr. DeFazio. So, I mean, the question I have--and I would
turn to Mr. Brouwer, because in his testimony he talks about
HOT lanes won't provide enough congestion relief, and so we are
talking about variable pricing. And, I mean, we are talking
$1.70 a mile there. We have seen almost 5 bucks a mile in DC.
What kind of public acceptance do you think that is going
to have? And how high do you have to price it to get to your
targets to reduce congestion?
Mr. Brouwer. Chairman DeFazio, as we have done just our
initial analysis of tolling, we are at a point of
hypercongestion on the Portland system where we have so many
vehicles at rush hour that the system is actually breaking down
and the throughput collapses.
Our consultants have told us if we move a relatively small
number of vehicles off the system at rush hour, it will flow
much better and we could actually see out throughput increase
greatly. We already see that effect in a number of places today
where throughput is better before rush hour than it is at rush
hour.
Mr. DeFazio. So you think there are a lot of people
optionally jumping into the curves in backed-up traffic, they
are not doing that because they have to get their kid to soccer
at a certain time, they are not doing it because they have to
get to work at a certain time, or they leave work at a certain
time, it is just people who decide to go out, and therefore,
they won't come anymore, and they will change their schedule?
So you think there is enough people that are just out there
optionally, that don't have to go somewhere when I wouldn't
want to try and go anywhere? Do you think that is going to
solve this?
Mr. Brouwer. Chairman DeFazio, I think there is probably a
relatively limited number of people who are in that situation,
but if we can move a few of them off. We actually did some
public opinion research, and people saw as one of the best
arguments in favor of tolling with variable rates that there
are some opportunities for people to change their schedules, to
move by a different mode, or to telecommute or take other ways
of getting to work.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, some people may have that flexibility,
the question is how many.
We were very light here on the panel, I am very
disappointed that we really didn't get very much into
technology. I mean, and there is one company in my district
called Connected Signals, they have a very simple system where
basically in the car you know what--if you are on a road that
has synchronized lights you are sometimes tempted to speed up
to try and get to the next light or you are going to slow down.
But this will tell you exactly like there is a sweet spot where
you can drive that whole road and never hit a light. And they
are estimating that there could be, if we did a lot more
coordinated signalization, synchronized signalization, we could
save probably another percent of fuel and mitigate congestion.
You know, again, as in Pittsburgh, smart traffic lights.
You don't sit there when no one is coming. And then, when we
ultimately get to--and we are a ways away--driverless or
substantially driver-assisted vehicles and you don't have the
stop-and-go so much, I have seen estimates, so we can have
twice the throughput on the existing roadways that we currently
have.
So, I mean, I really think that we are awfully heavy here
on pricing, and I think we are heavy here on pricing because of
the failure of the Federal Government to partner with local
jurisdictions and to hold up its end of the bargain for a
national transportation system. It isn't State by State. I
didn't bring my poster today, my famous poster of the brandnew
Kansas turnpike, ending at the Oklahoma State line until we had
the Eisenhower plan.
This needs to be a coordinated Federal system. We need to
go heavily into the 21st century in new technologies and look
at all the options before us.
So, with that, Madam Chair, I thank you for holding this
hearing.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Chairman DeFazio.
Mr. Crawford, 5 minutes.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just a real quick question. Mr. Hawkins, in your written
testimony you discuss the need to tax electric vehicles.
Currently electric vehicle drivers are effectively paid by the
American taxpayer to use roads through the Qualified Plug-In
Electric Vehicle Tax Credit. Can you elaborate on why this is
problematic, especially for commercial drivers?
Mr. Hawkins. Well, when you look at it as a whole, and
certainly some of the points that have already been made around
the fuel tax and other pieces, and the longevity of that as
technology changes.
I think a lot of times we overestimate what we can
accomplish in the next year and we underestimate what can be
accomplished in the next 5 years on many of these technology
fronts, especially electrification, which personally, as CEO of
YRC Worldwide and with the number of tractors that we have
right now, diesel tractors, it is very important to us how that
evolves over time.
And also for a company that spends north of $25 million a
month on diesel, electrification can mean a lot to our industry
and also a lot to the economy overall.
So a big fan of electrification and how that goes. And when
I think about the Highway Trust Fund, myself and the ATA's
opinion is the fuel tax is the appropriate measure for now
because of the situation we are in and the urgency of the
matter around the Highway Trust Fund with potential insolvency
by 2021.
So, overall, electrification will be a wonderful solution
over time.
Mr. Crawford. So the fuel tax is what you would advocate
for, increasing the fuel tax on gas and nonfarm diesel?
Mr. Hawkins. Yeah, as we sit here today and what we are
facing, and also what we forced individual States into doing
from a tolling perspective and others to try and deal with the
crumbling infrastructure we have around the United States. And
that interstate commerce depends on this overall.
And as we think about our 45,000 miles of interstates in
the United States and how we protect those and keep them open
freely for free movement among States, if this continues on the
path that we are on, from what we have seen from three or four
individual States, it could become an epidemic sooner than
later.
So as we sit here today, I see it as an emergency, and
because of that the fuel tax is the immediate remedy.
From a technology perspective and the other pieces, we have
got some great information that is coming now through ELDs,
through the Federal mandate on electronic logging devices in
commercial vehicles.
I am also a member of the board of American Transportation
Research Institute, and a lot of the staff that has been quoted
here today, we are able to collect those because companies like
mine and all others, FedEx, UPS, all of the big transportation
players, are making their ELD data available.
So this committee will have a lot more data to work with
moving forward from a technology standpoint on how we address
this in certain pockets.
Mr. Crawford. So you are saying right now fuel tax
increase. As the chairman indicated before, the last time we
messed with the fuel tax was 1993. I think one of the flaws
that we didn't anticipate then was that it wasn't indexed, so
it hasn't kept pace with the economy.
What does it look like? To your mind, what is the
appropriate action to take with regard to a fuel tax?
Mr. Hawkins. When we look at that, our recommendation would
be a 5-cent increase per year over the next 4 years, and that
is the $340 billion long-term number that I mentioned. And then
also the impact would be $100 per year when we think about the
congestion stats.
Now, certainly, I know that all constituents would say:
$100 a year, are you kidding? That comes directly out of my
grocery bill and other places. And I understand that, as fuel
prices have a direct impact on the pocketbook of every
American. I understand the sensitivity. But also every
American, I believe, is also witnessing firsthand the
infrastructure trouble that we have with bridges and roads all
over.
I traveled here from Baltimore this morning, and the
situation from Baltimore to DC, if you haven't done it in a car
recently, it is tough, and there is a lot of opportunity that
could be addressed.
Mr. Crawford. So you are suggesting, if I am clear, a 5-
cent-per-gallon increase on gasoline and on nonfarm diesel?
Mr. Hawkins. Yes.
Mr. Crawford. And that would increase 5 cents every year
over a period of 4 years.
Mr. Hawkins. Yes.
Mr. Crawford. So in 5 years we would have an increase of 20
cents a gallon?
Mr. Hawkins. That is correct.
Mr. Crawford. I just want to make sure I am understanding
you clearly on that and what your recommendations are and
appreciate your comments.
And I will yield back.
Ms. Norton. Well, I appreciate, Mr. Crawford, that you drew
out the witness on this matter.
I am interested, you said this fuel tax, maybe $100 a year?
It is not as if we hadn't had an experiment already in this.
The States are already doing it. What are we afraid of?
Whatever happened to that $100 a year, people have clearly
measured that against getting to work late and other
impediments on the road, and they have accepted it in the
States. The only people who haven't accepted it are sitting in
this building, the Congress of the United States.
Going next to Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank the witnesses for your testimony today.
Mr. Scribner, you are with CEI, which is a nonprofit,
nonpartisan public interest organization supporting promarket
approaches to infrastructure investment and management. Do you
have any problems with raising the gas tax or is that against
free market principles?
Mr. Scribner. I testified at a hearing in March before the
Ways and Means Committee, and I was the only witness to oppose
raising the Federal gas tax.
I think there are a lot of problems with the Federal
programs, and I think that we could better align incentives
properly if we were to keep the fuel tax at the same level and
focus on reforms in other areas, specifically getting rid of
the prohibitions on tolling and expanding opportunities for
private financing.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Yeah, not just tolling, which tends
to be everybody paying a fee to drive on a highway, but
actually kind of HOT lanes, is what you promoted. Is that
correct?
Mr. Scribner. HOT lanes, I think, if they fit the right
purpose, that is great. I also think in the long term we should
be looking towards a replacement for fuel taxation through
mileage-based user fees. I strongly support an effort of this
Congress to do that.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Basically, congestion pricing is
what you advocate for?
Mr. Scribner. I think congestion pricing can be a valuable
tool in areas where it is too expensive to expand capacity.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Let me ask you this. Can you shed
some light on how congestion pricing alleviates congestion in
metropolitan areas?
Mr. Scribner. So if you saw at the I-66 lanes inside the
beltway that have been brought up here that have the kind of
notorious high tolls----
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. And the HOT lane looks good when it
is, what, $42 for a 10-mile segment. In Georgia, in Atlanta
last week, we got up to $17 for a 12-mile stretch of road and
it was like big news. But here for $42 for 10 miles, I mean, I
bet you that that HOT lane was pretty much empty, but there was
congestion in the two or three lanes on the other side of that
HOT lane.
So my question is, given if what I said is true, how does
the HOT lane or congestion pricing alleviate traffic
congestion?
Mr. Scribner. So when you are talking about those very high
prices, the 40-some dollars on I-66, you are talking about a
handful of people who actually pay that.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Even if it is only $1, even if it
is only a $1.50 for 10 miles, you are still going to see that
lane relatively easy flow, but the three lanes to the side are
still congested. How does the HOT lane cure that traffic
congestion?
Mr. Scribner. The idea is, within the HOT lane, the idea--
--
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I understand the idea, but in
effect it has not worked.
Mr. Scribner. So it causes--often you run into problems if
you have too many exemptions, for instance. So if you say you
don't have----
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. OK. All right. Thank you. I am
running out of time.
Mr. Hawkins, what are your thoughts on these HOT lanes and
how they can actually cure the issue of traffic congestion in
urban areas at all times of the day? We have congestion in this
area 24/7 in some places.
Mr. Hawkins. Well, Congressman, Atlanta, specifically, the
ATRI board that I am on, as you know, two of the worst
congestion areas in the country are both in Atlanta. So because
of that, addressing Atlanta--and I will also say, in my opening
comments, when I said 71 percent of the Nation's goods come by
truck, in Atlanta it is 85 percent because of the geography of
that area.
So Atlanta is crucial. And it is a wonderful city for our
business, our business there is great. But the congestion in
Atlanta and some of the work we are doing right now around
hours of service and other things actually are triggered toward
the Atlanta market and at us taking more trucks off the road
during those congestion periods so that we can enter and exit
that city appropriately by working with technology to not make
the situation worse.
But, overall, I think the investments that Atlanta has made
are to be commended, and that also rebuilding and extending and
expanding the infrastructure in Atlanta is crucial because the
city is just such a powerhouse in the Nation, especially for
transportation.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I should address the full committee chair, my friend,
Chairman DeFazio. I have been on this committee for 9 years.
For 8 of those years I had to hear my good friend from Oregon
rail on us about not doing anything. And in his opening
statement he railed again. I only assume that maybe he is
railing not on us anymore, because we are in the minority, he
must be railing on leadership, because, Mr. Chairman, just put
a bill out there. Let's have a bill to talk about.
And I think it is interesting that your top 10 bills in the
majority, 1 through 10, H.R. 1 through 10, none of them address
infrastructure, 3 don't have a topic in them. So put one of
those in one of those 1 through 10 bills, Mr. Chairman, put a
bill out there.
So I just remind you, you are on the majority now. I kind
of thought maybe I was back in another twilight zone, because I
have heard the same thing for the last 8 years.
To the panel, a couple thoughts. Once in a while I do drive
back to Ohio, and I try to avoid rush hour on the outer belt,
as it can add a couple hours to my 6-, 7-hour drive.
My experience during rush hour, the HOV lanes I think are a
joke. I think it is just our behavior, our culture, that we
don't carpool or we are too independent, it doesn't work. I
have seen stop-and-go in the outer belt and the HOV lanes that
hardly have any traffic.
Now this new concept, the tolling on these other lanes. And
Madam Chair raised the picture there about congestion on the
three lanes and the other two, about utilization. In industry
if you a manufacturing facility, if you are not operating at at
least 80 percent, you got a problem.
I guess my question is, on those other lanes when you are
doing--I guess this would be to Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Brouwer of
Oregon--have you ever experimented around during rush hour to
just open up everything to everybody and see what happens? And
then figure out then also if you are still going to toll in
those other lanes, where is that sweet spot so people still use
it, so you are getting a certain percentage of utilization.
Because if you are only getting 40 or 50 percent
utilization on the tolling lanes, probably your fee is not high
enough, you have got a problem. So you have got to get this
balanced here.
Does that make sense? Have you ever opened up all the lanes
just to see what happens?
Mr. Gilbert. I don't think we actually do that.
I think what we are also missing from that picture are the
buses. So when I gave the statistic that ridership increased 46
percent over the first 2 years, what that tells us is that some
people got out of their cars, got on the bus, express rapid
transit, and took it down there.
And the fellow panelist was right, you don't have to take a
lot of cars off to make a difference. So what we know from data
is that the time got better because of bus express rapid
transit and the HOT and----
Mr. Gibbs. I got that. But another observation I have made,
especially here in the outer belt or Columbus, Ohio, in their
outer belt, during the peak periods, the rush hour periods, all
those lanes, there might be five, six, seven lanes, are
congested. But then nonpeak hours there is a lot of room out.
So we just can't build a bunch more capacity to meet a certain
amount of time. That is why we need to be adopting more
technology and other things.
But I am kind of intrigued with this concept of what you
call the HOT lanes, but I don't want to make them--some people,
I think my friend here from Florida, calls them Lexus lanes. So
you have got to get a balance there.
So the goal should be that you are getting maximum
utilization out of all the lanes. That is why I hate the HOV
concept, because I think that is a failure. When you have got
stop-and-go over here, and you got an HOV lane that is 10
percent or 20 percent utilization, or you took a four-lane
highway and you made it an HOV lane, so you cut 25 percent of
the lanes, probably 20 percent of the capacity, that is a
problem. We are not thinking straight.
So that is why I think we need to do more research on this
concept, because we can't--I don't think we can build a whole
bunch of capacity--additional capacity--to address a few hours
Monday through Friday without addressing trying to change
behavior or incentives to make people change their work habits
or whatever. That is what I am thinking about.
So I think it would be an interesting experiment to see
what you do when you open up all the lanes and see what happens
during rush hour, and then see how you do a variable pricing
scheme.
Mr. Gilbert. Congressman, we will look at it. I will say
that I don't think that tolling is necessarily the answer. I
think it is one of the answers.
So we are talking about these issues as though it is either
tolling or something else. It is probably some tolling, it is
probably the gas tax, it is probably rapid transit, it is
probably bus rapid transit.
The problem with the system is that everyone has a
pedestrian view of what they want to accomplish with it. Right
now we are talking about tolling, and I don't think anybody up
here just really wants to have more tolling. Tolling was
responsive to an absence of funding in the system and a lot of
congestion.
Mr. Gibbs. My time is up, so I will interrupt you and take
my time. I just want to make sure that our capacity we have, we
are getting maximum utilization. I am not so sure some of the
things we are doing are doing that.
I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Gibbs.
I appreciate your rendition, Mr. Gilbert, of the
combination of strategies we will need as opposed to one size
fits all.
Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
In Maryland there are several ongoing efforts to expand and
toll high-commuter roadways, most notably I-495, known as the
Capital Beltway, as well as the Baltimore-Washington Parkway,
which is owned by the National Park Service.
I have opposed these efforts to widen and to toll these
roads. I support tolling more in the case of new facilities,
not in existing facilities, and I don't view expanding existing
facilitate as a new facility. But I also think, as Chairman
DeFazio and others mentioned, it falls disproportionately on
particularly working families who don't have the flexibility in
their commute.
Mayor Gilbert, two of the original alternatives put forward
in the NEPA study for this Capital Beltway project I just
mentioned included dedicated bus managed lane and fixed
guideway bus rapid transit alternatives. Unfortunately, they
were not included in the list of screened alternatives. In
fact, none of the transit alternatives were included in the
final list.
And you say in your written testimony, and I wanted you to
have an opportunity to expand on this because you were about to
do that in response to the last question, you said that
electronic tolled ``express lanes are essential, but we believe
the best long-term alternative to highly congested roadways in
Miami-Dade is to expand our rapid transit network.''
Seems like, and I think Dr. Lomax agrees as well in his
written testimony, you have to provide choices. Can you just
talk about that combination and the real value added with your
express bus system?
Mr. Gilbert. Express bus, it has to be an option, and tolls
have to be an option. But it only really works right if you
actually have rapid transit that is available. If you don't,
you are actually--you are starting to price people out of the
ability to get places very quickly.
So the system isn't meant to be a one-off system. And right
now that is what we are all trying to do. We are trying to find
this silver bullet to actually--this is what is going to
happen, this is what is going to fix it.
Bus rapid transit is going to be important on 95 in those
express lanes, but it is not going to be the answer because we
still have the first and the last miles.
So we know that rapid transit down our major corridors is
going to be important, but it is not going to be the answer
because those are just the major corridors. We need a system
that actually addresses all of the needs. And if we are going
to fund that system, that is probably going to take some type
of tolling. It is probably going to take adjusting the gas tax.
Mr. Brown. Let me ask you, though, on that first/last mile.
So are the buses only traveling on the interstate highway or
have you also expanded bus service into the communities?
Mr. Gilbert. We have an extensive bus service, but the bus
express rapid transit is primarily in those areas. What we have
done, for instance, in my hometown and a lot of the cities in
Miami-Dade is we have free shuttles. The Miami Gardens Express
that Congresswoman Wilson referenced was actually our effort to
actually take people from the major corridors into the interior
areas of the city where buses don't necessarily take you very
often.
And so we didn't want people sitting out there waiting, for
instance, to get to an internal park. So we put all of those
things on a free shuttle. And that is our answer to that last
mile, and the first mile because it actually takes you to the
major commercial corridors. A number of cities in south Florida
have that. But let me just say, those are built out through a
half penny that we actually started collecting, I guess, 30
years ago, 20, 30 years ago, and the city's portion of it, that
is how we provide those shuttles.
Mr. Brown. And let me ask you this. Would the express
lanes, the electronic tolled express lanes, would that work? I
mean, would you be achieving the kinds of successes that you
are achieving without express bus if you didn't include the
express bus in it?
Mr. Gilbert. No, I don't believe we would. I believe the
increase in that ridership over the first 2 years shows us that
people do want an option to getting out of their vehicle, and
they don't necessarily want to pay the prices that are
associated with the express lanes.
Mr. Brown. Thank you.
Dr. Lomax, is there anything that you want to expand on in
terms of diversifying travel options?
Mr. Lomax. I think it is key that all the strategies are
going to be needed.
I think maybe another component of this is the public
engagement process. We have had some discussion about that. I
think part of the issue of resolving the funding crisis is
going to be to make sure that people understand what the money
is going for. I don't think they get a real sense of what the
value proposition is. And in the cases where funding has been
increased, there is a very clear connection between what you
are paying and what you are getting.
Mr. Brown. I know you have, in the mobility report, you
looked at the DC region and you have seen the cost of doing
nothing. So do you think it makes sense to expand the 495
system without including at least a look at bus rapid transit
or other transit options?
Mr. Lomax. In general, I think transit options are a great
part of the express lane system. I haven't studied the 495
Capital Beltway in detail.
Mr. Brown. Thank you.
I yield back nothing as well, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Brown.
Mr. Katko.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And, Mayor Gilbert, you were cut off from what your last
statement was with Mr. Gibbs, but I think you were saying that
congestion pricing is a product of us not properly funding the
Federal highway fund and having the money to make these roads.
Is that correct?
Mr. Gilbert. Not just you. No, it is not just you all not
funding it. It is the product of a lot of things. That is a
part of it, the system, the roads not being wide enough, in
some places the road not being able to be wide enough, the
absence of rapid transit. There is not one single cause to the
problem. There are a lot of causes to the problems, and how we
address it and how we solve there are going to be a lot of
different solutions.
So I wouldn't, by any means, say that it is just on you
all. Some might say that. I wouldn't say that. I say that it is
a big part because you all have the ability to affect a lot
of--well, every State. You have the ability to move projects
along.
So it is not your fault solely, but we all need to do
better in addressing the congestion, because congestion--look,
we don't talk about this in terms of just time sometimes. Think
about it in terms of people and the time they are spending with
their family and people growing their businesses and commerce.
It actually has a cost.
We are losing money with our families, we are losing money
with your jobs and our industry. We are losing everything
because we don't address this.
Mr. Katko. Yeah. In 2017, the annual estimated cost of
congestion was approximately $166 billion. And I don't know all
the factors that went into it, but that doesn't seen
unrealistic to me, given what some of these cities go through,
like you mentioned.
I want to talk about, take a step back, because it is clear
to me that the Federal highway fund is a huge component of any
cure to this matter. Let's not forget that 20 percent of the
funding goes to mass transit. And if the Federal highway fund
isn't being properly managed, there are less funds going for
mass transit, and that puts even more pressure on the State and
local governments. You are not going to develop your mass
transit if you don't have a steady stream of funding, and that
is a big concern to me.
So I want to take a step back and kind of look at some
other components of our failure as a country, no matter what
the reason, of having proper infrastructure. The wear and tear
on vehicles is something that people need to estimate into
this.
So can anybody give me an idea of the estimates on the wear
and tear of vehicles, both personal and trucks?
Ms. Chang and then Mr. Hawkins.
Ms. Chang. Yes, Congressman. Last year when we were looking
at SB-1, our California gas tax increase, there were estimates
of about $800 to $900 per year per household vehicle as far as
the cost of repairs from potholes and road maintenance.
Mr. Katko. What type of repairs are we talking about, just
the wear and tear in tires and all the other things? Struts?
Ms. Chang. It could be--I am sorry, I don't have the
details, but that was the overall estimate for the cost of
repairing a vehicle.
Mr. Katko. Per household?
Ms. Chang. Per household.
Mr. Katko. OK. And, Mr. Hawkins, I know there is some in
the trucking industry.
Mr. Hawkins. Yeah, absolutely. And outside of commercial
vehicles, those numbers we were quoting earlier around rural
and high density areas. The $1,600 annually, that estimate
includes vehicle maintenance and congestion cost per household.
So that was the estimate that included the cost of maintaining
a vehicle on roads that are crumbling.
Mr. Katko. So I am just wondering if that is factored in
enough in the discussion here of the cost estimates, doing
something with the highway fund. The highway fund has not been
indexed for inflation, so therefore it is woefully short. And
we have seen estimates as much as $171 billion shortfall over
the next 10 years.
So something has to be done to at least plug that gap. And
we have to account for the fact that more vehicles are not
gasoline burning vehicles. I know UPS and FedEx, for example,
are ordering fleets of electric vehicles, and they are going to
be riding the roads and not paying anything from a gas tax
standpoint. So I am concerned about that as well.
Mr. Hawkins. And, Congressman, that is why I spoke in terms
of the next 4 years for that piece.
And just take New York, for instance, 93 percent of the
goods for the people of New York come by truck. So because of
that, that is not going to change any time soon, and we have to
invest in that.
And for my opinion, taking on the Highway Trust Fund and
doing the right thing is really an investment in our economy.
And if we continue to ignore it and not make those investments,
then what we are doing is saying it is going to be OK to put
our economy in continued decline because we don't have adequate
infrastructure for the movement of goods across our country.
Mr. Katko. And if these repair estimates are actually
legit, and I have heard it from a lot of different sources and
companies in general, if they are legit, I am not sure that
doing something with the funding stream is going to be an
increased cost to the consumer. It may end up being an ultimate
net savings.
And so I am just not sure why we haven't done this. We
didn't do it when we were in the majority, so I don't fault the
Democrats for not doing it now. But I think we need to get
together on this. This is a quintessentially bipartisan issue,
and we should get together on this and stop the discussion and
just acknowledge that we are probably going to save consumers
and businesses a lot of money in the long run if we have the
political courage to do what we need to do to fix the revenue
stream. And part of it has to address the alternative fuel
component, which is a big part of it.
Mr. Hawkins. Amen, Congressman.
Mr. Katko. Thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Norton. I appreciate the Member's questions and
remarks.
Mr. Malinowski.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I represent a district in New Jersey from which a number of
my constituents commute to New York City, so congestion pricing
is a very big issue for us.
A lot of folks commute by train, but that option is not
available to everybody because of decades of underinvestment by
both regional governments and the Federal Government. And so a
lot of people are driving their cars to New York City, and they
are worried about New York City's proposed congestion pricing
plan.
I absolutely get that New York has a problem and that they
need to look for solutions to address that problem, but I am
obviously concerned, as are my constituents, about the impact
that is going to have.
So let me start with questions to some of the local
officials who have been through this, maybe Mr. Brouwer, Ms.
Chang, Mayor Gilbert.
When you are thinking about congestion pricing, the various
ideas that we have discussed here, are you doing this or
conceiving of it to encourage drivers to take different routes
or not to get in their cars at all?
Mr. Brouwer. Congressman, really when you are looking at
tolling and congestion pricing you are trying to find a
multitude of ways to change behavior. One would be for people
to perhaps not drive at rush hour, drive at a different time.
Another would be to take a different mode, bike to work, walk
to work, take transit, or perhaps carpool.
There is also the potential for people to take a different
route that would be untolled, and perhaps ideally that is a
better route as opposed to one that creates diversion.
So in reality it is really all of the above, multiple
options for people to find different ways to not use those
extremely congested routes, and then, ideally, improve the
transportation system as a whole for all people.
We in the Portland metro region have a great transit system
for a city of its size, about 45 percent of commute trips in
the central business district are by transit. And we hope that
the I-5 proposal that we are moving forward would help provide
an additional incentive for people to use transit to get into
the central business district. God and the FTA willing, we will
have light rail, one more leg into the central business
district in the next few years. That will help with that.
Mr. Malinowski. Understood. Well, for my folks, hundreds of
thousands of people in New Jersey, there are basically three
options. You either drive across a bridge or a tunnel, you take
the train, or you swim across the Hudson River. So not a lot of
options there. And so that leads to my next question.
If public transit is the option, which in many cases really
will be the only option, and we do go towards congestion
pricing, shouldn't some of those revenues be used to support
expansion of public transit? That can be for anybody.
Mr. Gilbert. Yes.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you.
Does anyone disagree?
And I think, Mr. Scribner, you noted the New York area----
Mr. Scribner. I have a ``yes, but.''
Mr. Malinowski. I will take the yes part of that at least.
And for me this gets back ultimately to where Chairman
DeFazio was, because even the question I just asked suggests
that the burden is entirely on the shoulders of local and
regional authorities. And to the extent that they share that
burden, I believe certainly in the case of New York that some
of those funds need to be spent to help New Jersey Transit and
regional rail networks bring people into the city.
But it can't just be that. And I think this is more than
just about money, this is a dignity question. I mean, whether
it is Government or the private sector, in so many areas we are
seeing people being asked to pay more for services for things
that used to be taken for granted. Whether you want to take a
bag on a plane or not waste your life in traffic, you are being
asked to pay more.
And I wonder, are we solving problems here or just finding
new ways to divide our fellow Americans based on income? Are we
finding new ways to remind some of our fellow Americans that
they are worth less?
And if there is not Federal investment, if there is not a
policy that is based on the American people sharing this burden
in an equitable way, aren't we in effect having that impact on
our fellow Americans?
For anybody.
Ms. Chang. Congressman, I really appreciate that sentiment.
I think that we all feel that the Federal role over the past
now 40 years has reduced so much to the point where all of us
do need to reach for this new tool in the toolbox. The
technology is there if we wish to do it. But these are hard
decisions. These are difficult and complex challenges.
The solutions are there and we are being creative and we
are learning from cities around the world and one another about
how to do it. But I do think we are very, very keenly in need
of the significant Federal role in transportation and
infrastructure and transit and all the rest in order to really
have a resilient and sustainable national infrastructure.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Hawkins. Can I comment quickly, Congressman?
Mr. Malinowski. Certainly.
Mr. Hawkins. Excellent point. And I think it is important
to separate the Federal interstate piece from a local city or
opportunity, when you think about Newark to New York or
Atlanta, Houston, some of the really tough density problems
with congestion, but then separate from a Federal aspect,
protecting interstate commerce on the 45,000 miles of
interstate I do believe is a Federal issue.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you.
Mr. Garcia [presiding]. Next we will hear from Mr. Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank each of you for your testimony.
So it is very difficult for me to go back to North
Carolina, where a congestion problem in North Carolina is very
different than it might be in some of your cities, and suggest
that what we are going to do is raise taxes so that you can
have less congestion in your cities.
So how do I sell that? Mr. Mayor, how would I sell that?
And I came from Florida, so I know your area extremely well. So
how do I convince people that they need to raise their taxes so
that you can have less congestion in Miami-Dade?
Mr. Gilbert. You don't start by saying it like that. You
don't do that.
Mr. Meadows. But that is what it is.
Mr. Gilbert. I don't know that it is. I think you actually
humanize it first. And I am not suggesting that you sell it. I
am not suggesting that everything is right for every area.
Mr. Meadows. But why don't you just raise your taxes to
take care of your--why is it a Federal responsibility?
Now, I get back to the interstate commerce side of it, and
I am all in from a Federal standpoint. But with all due respect
to my friend from New Jersey, why do you think the people of
North Carolina should pay more taxes so that he can have a
better commute into the city?
Mr. Gilbert. Well, first, we are in it together, we are the
United States of America. That is going to be the first thing.
The second thing is when trucks get off of the interstate,
they can't drive on dirt roads on our streets. That has an
effect on interstate commerce.
Mr. Meadows. Listen, we can have hyperbole all day. You are
a smart guy and this isn't my first rodeo, so let's don't start
talking about dirt roads in New York City or even in Miami.
So if we are looking at this--here is the problem we have
got, is it is either a fee to keep people from using the
roads--because if we are talking about changing behavior, all
of you have an app on your phone that you already use that
changes your behavior, because you have GPS that has Waze or
anything else in it. It changes. I mean, I can drive out in
Washington, DC, today and it will tell me which way to go to
the same location depending on traffic.
So we don't need a financial model to do that unless it is
going to say, ``Well, Mark, you need to get up at 6 o'clock or
5 o'clock,'' and change my behavior that way.
So how do we do that? Because it is a tough sell in North
Carolina to say raise taxes to help you in Miami or anyone else
unless it is dealing with interstate commerce and our truckers.
So how do we do it? I mean, because if not, this is all happy
talk, guys.
Mr. Gilbert. I think you are limiting what interstate
commerce is to interstate highways, and I don't think that that
is actually true. I think interstate commerce, if you look at
all types of, whether it be the rulings from the courts or just
as a practical matter, interstate commerce exists not just on
I-95, but when you get off on Northwest 8th Street. I don't
think you can disconnect those things. And I think if you start
to parse out your part of the system, then it kind of diffuses
the idea that we are actually in this together.
I by no means would ask you to ask your residents to raise
taxes for us. What I would ask them to do is, is understand
that as go one part of this country goes every part of this
country.
Look, when we are trying to bring in goods and services and
our port is busy in Miami-Dade County, that is not just good
for Miami-Dade County, that is not just good for Florida.
Mr. Meadows. I agree, Mayor.
Mr. Gilbert. It is good for America.
Mr. Meadows. Yeah, so I agree with that. But when you talk
about a Federal role for airports, seaports, and interstate,
that is very different than a meter for congestion on commuter
traffic in and around major metropolitan cities. It is very
different.
Now, I don't deny that there is commerce going on there,
but what I am telling you is, is that when you look at it, when
you look at commuter congestion--we already have Federal
dollars that go disproportionately to major metropolitan areas
for mass transit, don't we?
Mr. Gilbert. I don't know that it is disproportionate.
Mr. Meadows. Yeah, 82 percent of our mass transit dollars
goes to major metropolitan cities, none of which are in North
Carolina or even Georgia.
So when you look at that, when we are looking at that fair
share, what I would ask each of you to do, and I will yield
back with this, I would ask each of you to do, is look at it
from a standpoint of a rural area and State, what should be
their appropriate contribution from a Federal standpoint to
help you deal with an issue that many view as a local issue,
unless they happen to be traveling to Miami or New York or Los
Angeles or wherever it may be.
Would you come back with recommendations for me, each one
of you, three recommendations on how I can sell it in North
Carolina?
And I will yield back.
Mr. Gilbert. Absolutely, Congressman.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
Ms. Davids.
Ms. Davids. Thank you.
And I would like to start off by expressing appreciation to
the chairwoman and to the ranking member for holding this
hearing today.
Also, I would like to say that I appreciate Chairwoman
Norton for highlighting in her opening statement the tolling
and congestion strategies that are inherently linked to issues
of equity and that are oftentimes adversely affecting lower
income communities and communities of color.
Kansas has for a long time taken pride in our
infrastructure; the roads, bridges, railways, and ports that
our State provides means that transportation of the food and a
lot of goods that feed the world and are put out through the
rest of the country and internationally come through our State.
A number of the corridors in the Kansas Third Congressional
District, which I represent, badly need investment to expand
the number of lanes to ease heavy congestion, to adopt new
designs that require less expansion, and implement modern
safety measures.
My constituents consistently tell me that they want to see
smart, sustainable, and resilient infrastructure so we can
build the foundation for economic growth for the future. I am
here on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to make
that happen.
I also want to highlight that I did have the chance not too
long ago to host Chairman DeFazio in our district to tour
Highway 69, which is a major thoroughfare in our district, and
we had the chance to talk about the infrastructure needs there.
YRCW, which I highlighted earlier, is a really good example
of a corporate and civic citizen in our district, and we need
to make sure that we highlight the good work that you are
doing. But also I want to talk about the massive swings that
YRCW is all too familiar with. And when I say that, I mean, you
know what it is like to go through a downturn and then come out
of that a much stronger company.
And so I just want to make sure that if you have a chance
after when I am asking the question, if you could speak to
that.
I am particularly interested in your approach, though, for
my question, your approach to tolling and congestion charges.
And you touched on this in your remarks, but there is a common
misconception that trucking companies don't want to pay their
fair share. And you spoke to that and indicated it is not the
case.
And I would like to hear you expand on how the existing and
future tolling mechanisms and schemes that we have heard about
affect a company like yours, whether that is the positive
effects or the negative effects.
Mr. Hawkins. Thank you, Congresswoman Davids.
And quickly, when I mentioned earlier, YRCW, we pay $25
million a year in tolls. At our company, we are a $5 billion
company, so if you look at it from an operating standpoint,
that is half of an operating point just in tolls that we are
paying.
Now as far as transportation companies paying their fair
share, trucks are about 4 percent of registered vehicles, 9
percent of miles traveled in the United States, but we pay
about 42 percent of the Federal highway users fee. So, when I
make a case for increasing the fuel tax, that certainly has
both barrels pointed at the trucking industry, but we are well
aware, just like in the State of Kansas, that 90 percent of
everything that goes into Kansas from a goods-used standpoint
comes by truck. And we have to preserve this great heritage we
have in the Nation of adequate infrastructure that,
unfortunately, has been underinvested in over a longer period
of time.
The best way I can make this point--and we have had a lot
of conversation about individual cities but when we talk about
interstate commerce, when one State is forced to take action
for whatever reason to put toll gantries on a Federal
interstate just because they happen to have a few miles of that
interstate in their State, and then all users, including my
company and many others, are taxed through a very small State
that we do very little business in. Those types of situations
endanger companies, and it endangers free enterprise, because
any State that has an interstate running through it could
actually have one of these hostage centers where all linehaul
traffic is going.
There is a company that is not here today that went out of
business earlier this year, a unionized company based in New
Jersey; and in the public statements they made around their
closing, they mentioned the tolls in the Northeast area of the
country where they operate.
So, I think that is the ultimate example of what can happen
if we don't take this seriously and also look at the Highway
Trust Fund as an investment in our economy moving forward and
certainly in the free enterprise of the United States.
Ms. Norton [presiding]. Thank you very much. Your time has
expired.
Next is Mr. Babin.
Dr. Babin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank you, all the
expert witnesses and for your testimony.
Mr. Scribner, thank you for being here today as well. This
entire committee, myself included, is eager to address the
issue of dwindling resources of our Highway Trust Fund.
However, as we work to solve this issue, I want to be sure that
we have parity in the contributions made to the fund across all
users; and I have two points that I would like to make here.
Texas is the only donor State to the Federal Highway Trust
Fund. We get 95 percent back--95 cents back for every dollar
that we put in, which costs Texans roughly $900 million a year.
Every other State gets more than they put in, resulting in
Texas basically subsidizing every other State in this Union.
Other States get from 101 percent to 685 percent back on their
contributions.
I would like to introduce a letter, Madam Chair, which was
submitted from our Texas delegation here in the House and
Senate jurisdiction.
Ms. Norton. So ordered.
Dr. Babin. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Letter of March 26, 2019, from Hon. John Cornyn, U.S. Senator from the
State of Texas, et al., Submitted for the Record by Hon. Brian Babin
March 26, 2019.
Hon. John Barrasso
Chairman
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington,
DC 20510
Hon. Tom Carper
Ranking Member
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington,
DC 20510
Hon. Peter DeFazio
Chairman
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515
Hon. Sam Graves
Ranking Member
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairmen and Ranking Members:
We write to bring attention to a long-standing problem with federal
transportation funding: the flawed and outdated apportionment of
highway funding that has resulted in Texas standing alone as the last
``donor'' state. Relative to the federal highway gas taxes that Texans
pay, we have historically received a disproportionately small share of
federal transportation funding.
By the will of Texas voters, we have added long-term state
transportation funding solutions that dedicate new state transportation
dollars to build more roads and improve our existing infrastructure
without raising taxes, fees, tolls or debt The Texas voters
overwhelmingly supported these increases on two different statewide
propositions by over 80 percent. Although this is a giant stride to
ensuring that Texas infrastructure can keep up with our growth, our
work is not done.
According to the Federal Highway Administration, in FY 2019, Texas
remains the only ``donor'' state, when considering funds contributed
directly to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund versus
apportionments received. In fact, Texas only receives 95 cents back for
every dollar it sent to Washington in federal fuel taxes. Texas
contributed 11.17 percent of all federal fuel taxes paid into the
Highway Trust Fund, yet only received back 8.95 percent of the total
apportionments, equating to just an 80 percent return on a percentage
basis. By this calculation, Texas is shortchanged by up to $940 million
in FY 2019. This imbalance is exacerbated by the fact that when
Congress last developed funding formulas, 2000 Census data was used to
calculate funding. In 2000, the Texas population was 20 million.
However, our population has grown nearly 50 percent and is now
estimated at over 29 million. These metrics must be brought current.
Without using current data, we simply fail to have a true formula
distribution.
As Congress continues discussions on new infrastructure
legislation, we hope that a fair, equitable and logical approach to
federal transportation funding is considered.
Thank you for your consideration of this important issue and for
your continued service on behalf of our nation on transportation
issues.
Sincerely,
John Cornyn
United States Senator
Ted Cruz
United States Senator
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Member of Congress
Sylvia R. Garcia
Member of Congress
Louie Gohmert
Member of Congress
Pete Olson
Member of Congress
Joaquin Castro
Member of Congress
Randy K. Weber, Sr.
Member of Congress
Kevin Brady
Member of Congress
Michael Cloud
Member of Congress
Roger Williams
Member of Congress
K. Michael Conaway
Member of Congress
John R. Carter
Member of Congress
Ron Wright
Member of Congress
Lance Gooden
Member of Congress
Lizzie Fletcher
Member of Congress
Kenny Marchant
Member of Congress
Chip Roy
Member of Congress
Kay Granger
Member of Congress
Jodey C. Arrington
Member of Congress
Sheila Jackson Lee
Member of Congress
Vicente Gonzalez
Member of Congress
Henry Cuellar
Member of Congress
Mac Thornberry
Member of Congress
Dan Crenshaw
Member of Congress
Veronica Escobar
Member of Congress
Michael T. McCaul
Member of Congress
Filemon Vela
Member of Congress
Van Taylor
Member of Congress
Marc A. Veasey
Member of Congress
Will Hurd
Member of Congress
Al Green
Member of Congress
Bill Flores
Member of Congress
Brian Babin
Member of Congress
Colin Z. Allred
Member of Congress
John Ratcliffe
Member of Congress
Michael C. Burgess
Member of Congress
Lloyd Doggett
Member of Congress
Dr. Babin. But there was another point I would also like to
make. Any proposal considered on changes to the Highway Trust
Fund contributions should also recognize that, even though
there are more and more high-efficiency electric vehicles on
the road, these cars are still pounding the pavement as well.
The same as gas-powered vehicles.
So, those are two points that I would like to ask you.
Could you please share with us how you believe that we can
ensure parity on our surface transportation system, not only
for drivers on the road, but also State apportionment, and how
all should contribute equitably, reliably, and sustainably?
Mr. Scribner. Yeah, thank you for those questions.
Yeah, the donor/donee State issue went away for a while,
since the bailouts began in 2008; but as you said, it is now
back a little bit now that Texas is, once again, a net donor
State.
And I think that is, you know, we can tweak the formula all
we want, and there have been battles over that in the past, but
at the end of the day, we just have to recognize that the way
the Federal program works is you collect money and send it to
DC just to send it back. That is primarily what it does, and it
is also important to put it in context. Seventy-five percent of
our surface transportation spending is State and local, not
Federal. So, the Federal is a--it plays a smaller role than the
States and locals.
And I think going forward, especially when we are looking
at replacing the fuel tax with something viable for the long
term, I think revisiting the broader Federal role, I do think
that there is a Federal role in policing interstate commerce
concerns; but in terms of spending and taxation, yeah, going
forward, I think those are very reasonable questions to ask,
and potentially rethink on how we do things.
And then in terms of the electric vehicles, as long as the
fuel tax is the primary method of collecting revenue for road
projects, that is how we are going to do it. I think there are
better ways to address that than others. I think you should
charge by use rather than slapping big fees on them. But, yeah,
we need to find a solution, because eventually, the internal
combustion engine and the fuel tax will not be very valuable to
this discussion.
Dr. Babin. OK. And then a followup question about that.
Texas adds about 1 million people every 3 years to our
population. In your expert opinion, how can Congress focus
Federal investment on our surface transportation system that
actually maximizes economic growth, not only in Texas but
everywhere else as well, and, also, promotes global
competitiveness. If you would----
Mr. Scribner. I mean, I think----
Dr. Babin [continuing]. Short answer, please.
Mr. Scribner. Pricing is really key. I mean, we have--you
could think of traffic congestion as bread lines in the Soviet
Union. It is the same problem. It is a misallocation of
resources because we are not doing the price signal, and what
we end up doing is spending a lot of time to basically try to
replicate the information we can get through pricing, through
bureaucratic and engineering means.
So, if we had pricing, we could know where to better invest
going forward. I think we just have a much more efficient
system overall.
Dr. Babin. OK. I am about out of time.
And, Mr. Lomax, you are a fellow Texan here, and really
quick--it is no--she is cutting me off. I guess my time has
expired.
Thank you.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Babin. Thank you for those
questions.
Ms. Davids.
I am sorry. Mr. Garcia.
Ms. Davids has already spoken.
Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair Norton and Ranking
Member Davis for putting this hearing together, and my
appreciation to all of the expert panelists.
I would like to begin with some local context. In 2018, a
study entitled, ``Global Traffic Scorecard,'' Chicago was
ranked as the third most impacted city in the country when it
comes to traffic congestion. The previous year, by the same
metric, we ranked eighth. So, it is a significant bump up, and
it is getting worse. Individual drivers, the Chicagoland area,
lose up to 138 hours per year in traffic. Nationally, the
average is 97 hours lost per year for an average loss of
$1,348. For someone making the Federal minimum wage of $7.25 an
hour, working 40 hours a week, all 52 weeks of the year, that
is almost 10 percent of the $15,000 annual income.
There is a lot wrong with this picture, but the picture I
am trying to paint is, one, traffic congestion is costing our
economy and our constituents significant sums of money; and,
two, congestion has severely disproportionate effects on
working-class families struggling to make ends meet.
Many of my constituents suffer every day in Chicago
congestion, and there are growing talks about introducing a
congestion fee in our downtown area. While this had positive
results throughout Europe, I caution diehard advocates to keep
in mind the unintended consequences of flat fees on congestion.
Flat fees without respect to vehicle type, type of travel and
location can easily erect financial barriers for lower income
individuals and their access to good jobs throughout the city.
Right now, rideshare consumers of services like Uber and
Lyft pay a $.72 fee entering in Chicago's downtown. We should
look at that pricing. We should look at a congestion fee and
various models, but it will take years of study, in my opinion,
if we are to properly implement a fee.
If any, we need to get it right. What I want to focus on is
deeper and at the route of congestion, land-use policy. That is
why I am working on legislation to promote more equitable
transit-oriented development, affordable housing, and more
economic development around transit corridors so that those who
need it most have the best access to transit options.
I would like to ask a question and direct it to Ms. Chang.
The Texas Transportation Institute testimony mentions
diversifying development patterns as a potential solution to
congestion. Zoning, job location, and schools play a large role
in where people live, and the density of their neighborhood.
Encouraging mixed use and higher density neighborhoods that
naturally reduce the need for travel can improve congestion.
Can you address the role of zoning and development in
improving congestion, and what do you think that Congress
should do to incentivize denser housing to help resolve the
housing crisis without adding to congestion?
Ms. Chang. Congressman, thank you so much for your question
and your leadership.
In San Francisco, transportation and congestion are
intricately tied to the land-use question, and I think the
transit-first policy for the last 40 years has recognized this,
starting with our original downtown plan, which kept parking
low, densities high, and invested heavily in BART and heavy
rail, Muni, BART systems. So, that formula has been proven time
and again. I think the Federal role can really be to help fund
the transit, fund the sustainable and complete streets, fund
the infrastructure so that communities can be able to have a
comprehensive approach to the land use and the transit-oriented
development.
There has to be a partnership, a State, local, Federal
partnership. We all do our role. It is a very important
question, and, I think, one of the ways that we have been able
to succeed is to, for example, even bring value capture into
that conversation. So that the Federal investment in things
like our Transbay Transit Center really brings dividends back
to the national investment, sort of, formula.
We are definitely leveraging local funds. We are bringing
greater development opportunities and growing sort of the
economic pie, and really showing what it--the powerful synergy
between the land use and the transportation, especially when
the local/Federal partnership happen together.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Palmer.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
One of the things I want to point out as we get started
with this and we have talked a lot about the fact that the gas
tax hasn't been raised since the 1990s. Congress was--at the
same time we passed the last gas tax, we started passing these
corporate auto fuel economy standards, and there is such things
as the law of unintended consequences. As we passed the CAFE
standards, raising the miles-per-gallon requirements for
automobile manufacturers, we didn't take into account that as
the fuel efficiency increased, fuel consumption would go down,
and thus, the revenues would go down. So Congress is somewhat--
I won't say somewhat, but very complicit in the problem that we
are experiencing right now. We didn't take that into account.
The other thing that I think we have to take into account--
and there is a report from the Texas Transportation Institute,
which I believe you are affiliated with--that points out the
problem with delay costs. The report cites three projects: a
small project, which was a rural road; a medium-size project
with U.S. Highway 59; the large project, which was an
interchange on I-10 and I-410 near San Antonio. It is in the
San Antonio district. The total of those delay costs was over
$26 million. That is money that comes out of your
transportation funding. That is not something that a
construction company absorbs. And we are literally wasting
billions of dollars in our transportation funding, paying delay
costs because of activist lawsuits blocking projects and
permitting issues. So, that is another issue that I think we
need to address.
I want to speak to Mr. Hawkins about, you know, you said a
couple of times that your company paid $25 million in tolls,
and I am sure that is true, but that $25 million was passed on
to the ultimate consumers of the products or goods and services
that your trucks were transporting. So, the burden of tolls,
one way or the other, is going to get passed on to consumers.
It is the same way with the gas tax. Whether the individual is
paying it in their personal passenger vehicle, or it is a
trucking company paying it or anybody else, it gets passed on.
It gets added to that burden.
I want to talk about some solutions, and I am sorry that
Chairman DeFazio has left because he hit on a key point about
how cyber and high tech can help reduce congestion.
The University of Alabama has a cyber unit where they are
able to monitor traffic flow and control traffic lights. If
they see that, say, the east/west traffic is low, they are able
to keep the north/south corridors open. We need to take
advantage of the technology we have in the immediately, and can
immediately do some of these things to reduce congestion.
And then another thing that we need to talk about is most
of the discussion we have had here today has been in regard to
urban congestion. And I was in Miami earlier this year, and I
thought, I will never go back. It was unbelievable. There are
other places that I literally try to avoid driving through. I
am from Birmingham, and we have some congestion, but nothing
like Atlanta, Miami, and some other places I have been.
One of the things I think we need to talk about, Madam
Chairman, is a paper that came out from the Obama
administration. It is in the archives now, and it was entitled,
``Rural Means Business,'' and its subtitle was ``Bringing Tech
Jobs to Rural America.'' With the technology we have today, and
particularly with the opportunity to expand broadband, that
needs to be part of our infrastructure discussion, expanding
broadband to rural areas so that there is an opportunity for
companies to locate out. Miami could be a hub for a much
broader economic region. Atlanta could be, Birmingham could be,
so that people don't have to live in close proximity to these
urban areas.
I think we have had a lot of discussion here, but I think
we really need to double-down on coming up with some ideas to
reduce traffic congestion and move more businesses and more
people out away from these areas so you don't have that
problem.
With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Palmer.
The next Member, Mr. Rouda.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you all of the witnesses for being here today.
Mayor Gilbert and Mr. Brouwer, thank you for your comments
and testimony as well. I am from Orange County, California, and
I am really proud of the Orange County Transportation Authority
and the job they are doing.
And, Ms. Chang, you, as well, your comments are very
similar to what we are trying to accomplish in Orange County.
And I am proud of them, because right now, to the best of
my knowledge, they are running the largest highway project in
the country, about a $2 billion project to expand the 405 in
one of the most congested areas in the country.
And interestingly, I know one of the Representatives here
asked about the reason rural communities should care about what
is going on in the cities. One of the things that is
interesting to note in the $2 billion project that we are doing
in Orange County, there is only $46 million in Federal funds.
That is about 2\1/2\ percent of the overall costs.
Approximately half of it is being funded by the taxpayers of
Orange County. So, we are addressing those issues with a lot of
locally raised tax dollars, but would certainly be nice to have
more support from the Federal Government in that respect.
And one of the areas that is important is the TIFIA loans,
and I am just curious from Ms. Chang and Mr. Brouwer, and
perhaps, Mayor Gilbert. I know they are important to you, but
can you espouse a little bit more on what you would like to see
from a process-oriented standpoint to make it occur faster,
easier, less bureaucratic?
Mr. Brouwer. Congressman, we have not yet used the TIFIA
program; and I emphasize the word ``yet,'' because I do expect
we will be. We are looking to replacing the interstate bridge
between Oregon and Washington. It is about a $3.5 billion
project. We were achingly close to getting that project across
the finish line a few years ago, and we were looking at $1
billion TIFIA loans, which had incredible terms, very low
interest rates, very low coverage rates, which means you can
leverage more dollars there.
And so, we see the TIFIA program as a likely source of
great funding for projects going forward. The Federal
Government has been very helpful in working through those. It
is a lengthy process, and the Federal Government has to do
their due diligence. We would hope over time, they would be
able to expand the percentage of the project that that program
can cover, and make sure that we can take advantage of those at
the right timing.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you.
And Ms. Chang and Mayor Gilbert, I apologize. I am going to
shift a little bit just to try and cover a couple of other
areas.
Dr. Lomax, I really enjoyed the presentation you provided
us and the background information, and I want to make sure I
understand this right. It is $166 billion in cost associated
with lost time, and that is just gasoline and time and
calculating that cost, and I believe you had mentioned also
environmental costs, health cost, business loss is not in that
number. And I pulled from Google that the EPA says there is 5.5
pounds of CO2 per gallon--that is before it is combusted--and
over 19 pounds when combustion occurs. So that is 63 billion
pounds of CO2 per year going into the atmosphere with the fact
we have this massive amount of congestion.
Does that sound about right?
Mr. Lomax. I am not sure about the science behind
combustion.
Mr. Rouda. Well, trust me on the EPA.
And I guess that is another reason to my friend from North
Carolina as to why it would be good for us addressing this
issue overall, correct?
Mr. Lomax. Certainly there are a lot of other facts beyond
what we measure.
Mr. Rouda. A lot of reasons. And, in fact, of that $166
billion, it is fairly safe to assume that we are all paying for
that $166 billion in increased costs of goods and services. Is
that a safe statement?
Mr. Lomax. I think my colleague with YRCW would confirm
that, too, yes.
Mr. Rouda. And I have had the privilege of touring the Port
of Long Beach. And the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los
Angeles account for 40 percent of all goods shipped in to the
United States, and those goods are delivered to every single
district in the United States. So, when we talk about how
important it is to have quality infrastructure even in the
cities, because typically, ports are associated with cities,
the cost of transporting those goods has a direct impact on
every community in the country including rural communities.
Is that a safe assumption?
Ms. Chang. Yes.
Mr. Brouwer. Yes.
Mr. Rouda. You would agree with that?
And then the last thing I will ask with my remaining time
to Dr. Lomax is, again, I think your testimony and the data and
information you have provided us is so important. You use Texas
as a model that the do-nothing-versus-do-something, it is a 4-X
cost increase in not doing anything versus doing something. Is
that a fairly consistent statistic across the United States?
Mr. Lomax. The analysis that we have done show that it is,
yes.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you very much.
And I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much for those questions.
Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton and Ranking
Member Pence.
And thank all of you all for being here today.
Developing our highway infrastructure is essential for the
continued development of my home State of West Virginia. While
a major focus of today's hearing is on urban traffic
congestion, I do believe that there are aspects that can be
applied to roadway construction and repair across our country.
Mr. Hawkins, tolling disproportionately affects the
trucking industry that delivers the largest portion of our
Nation's goods. What is the most effective way that the Federal
Government can fund highway construction and repair initiatives
that is fair to both commuters and industry?
Mr. Hawkins. Congresswoman, I think that is an excellent
question, and it really gets to the heart of the matter of the
way this discussion has taken place today, urban versus rural.
From the ATRI standpoint, the American Transportation Research
Institute, when we talk about technology and what it can tell
us, that technology tells us that 87 percent of freight
congestion on our National Highway System is just in 17 percent
of the system,
So, for example, California, where we have got a huge
presence--we have got more terminals there than any other
State, but we are a national carrier. So, we are represented in
every State.
The ATA's solution to that is that we take a portion of the
Highway Trust Fund and dedicate it to this 17 percent--that is
where the big trouble is in all of the public transit and the
areas where congestion is really hampering the overall economy.
But for the other percentage of the system that we dedicate it
appropriately by showing all Americans that we are going to
rebuild the infrastructure that really built this company.
When Dwight Eisenhower had the vision to push through
45,000 miles of interstate across our country, it opened up the
whole country and it opened up commerce with it and protecting
that is how we do it.
The Highway Trust Fund is not perfect, the fuel tax is not
perfect, but for the immediate need that we all have, it is the
solution we need to do today. And then, also, we can protect
this infrastructure while we are figuring the rest out but a
portion of that fund does need to go to these urban areas that
have these tremendous congestion problems. But overall, we
can't ignore the rural areas that many of us are from and that
our country depends on, especially from a manufacturing
standpoint.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
Mr. Lomax, while a fuel tax is an obvious cost on
commuters, what are the unseen prices of underfunding highway
construction and repair?
Mr. Lomax. I think certainly you see the vehicle
maintenance go up when you have bad roads; but in addition to
that, you see business inefficiencies. The YRCW trucks can
carry less goods and services. When they can't go over load-
zone bridges, you see schoolbuses having to route around county
bridges that have load deficiencies. So, there is a whole range
of costs and effects on economic opportunity and quality of
life.
Mrs. Miller. What costs do rural commuters face compared to
urban commuters?
Mr. Lomax. Particularly for rural commuters who are going
to bigger cities, going to the bigger economies, you see much
longer travel distances. I think West Virginia has the longest
average commute of any State because of the distances that many
of your constituents travel. Certainly, the travel options are
also not there. It is much harder to find bus service or train
service from any of the rural communities in urban areas.
Mrs. Miller. That is correct.
Mr. Scribner, how do the public--I will start that again.
Do the private-public partnerships for infrastructure
projects tend to lower costs for commuters?
Mr. Scribner. They can certainly lower costs for taxpayers
by shifting that risk off of the public and onto private
investors. They have a much stronger--to get the job done right
and cheaper than conventional procurement. So, I think often it
is the case that you see substantial savings to both the users,
given what they are getting in terms of the quality of the
asset that they are--they have now paid for, as well as the
taxpayers who are no longer shouldering the burden of the
project.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you so much.
I yield back my time.
Ms. Norton. I thank the gentlelady.
Finally, Mr. Pence.
Mr. Pence. Thank you, Madam Chair Norton and Ranking Member
Davis, for holding this committee meeting and the witnesses for
being here today.
Recently, the American Transportation Research Institute
found that highway congestion is negatively impacting our
economy by staggering numbers. According to the study,
congestion on our Nation's highways costs the trucking industry
$74 billion, which has the same impact as if 425 truckdrivers
sat idle for an entire year.
The Texas A&M Transportation Institute produced a study
that shows in 2017 Americans lost a total of 8.8 billion hours
of productivity due to congestion. Over 1.2 billion hours of
lost productivity were attributed to the trucking industry
alone.
As the crossroads of America, my home State, Indiana, is
home to three of the country's worst bottlenecks, with the 11th
worst chokepoint at I-65 and I-80 which I am sure many truckers
know very well.
Today, we have heard about the benefits of share riding,
technology, tollroads, HOV, or express lanes.
Mr. Hawkins, as a fellow trucker for many, many years and,
frankly, all my life, I was particularly interested in your
testimony. I wish this hearing and more of the industry would
highlight, include, and consider, the benefits of truck-only
lanes or critical commerce corridors to physically separate
cars and trucks in congested areas or the 17 percent of the
system, as you mentioned.
CCCs utilized the existing interstate for truck lanes,
which are constructed with increased pavement depth, reducing
the amount of repairs that have to be done. Passenger traffic
would be rewarded with new roadways and the right of way, which
require thinner pavements and cost less to build. Truck traffic
would benefit from dedicated lanes where predictability of
shipments would be greatly enhanced with the potential for
drafting and tuning, not to mention the safety separating the
cars and the trucks.
There is a growing interest in finding creative ways to pay
for CCCs, including a diesel tax increase that would be
dedicated to truck lanes. I am aware that truckers already pay
more than any other entity using our highways.
Mr. Hawkins, have you or the American Trucking Associations
considered utilizing CCCs, and, if we were able to wall off
these funds and dedicate them exclusively to CCCs, would the
ATA consider supporting this option?
Mr. Hawkins. Congressman, our distribution center in
Indianapolis is one of our largest in the Nation; and I agree.
It is a critical point just from your home State; but overall,
when we think about trucking and also its impact on Americans,
I think it is important to protect that. Through the Highway
Trust Fund and the recommendations we have made, I am not an
expert on all infrastructure in the United States or the
appropriate way to fund that.
The points I have tried to make, and me taking a day away
from running the fifth largest trucking company in the United
States to be here was all about that, to just increase
awareness, but also to make a plea that action needs to be
imminent on the subjects to protect our overall economy across
the United States.
So, to answer your question, certainly I am a fan of any
opportunity for us to make sure that 71 percent of our Nation's
goods and the delivery mechanisms for those goods are protected
over a long period of time; and I think just what you have
talked about would accommodate that. I do realize that we have
to work across all aisles to make sure that what we do is not
just good for truckers, that it is good for the environment and
good for the country overall, but at the end of the day, I
think solutions like that would help move us down the road.
Mr. Pence. Thank you, Mr. Hawkins.
Just a few seconds left. Anyone have a comment about that?
No?
Madam Chair, I yield my time.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much for those questions.
Mr. Smucker.
Mr. Smucker. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member.
It has been a long hearing, but I think an excellent
discussion about some of the needs in our highway
transportation system, and I very much appreciate all of the
testimony of everyone here today.
Mayor Gilbert, I am going to read from your testimony,
because I think, perhaps--this is the end of the hearing here,
but I think this perhaps provides some perspective. You said
``Roads are pathways to something greater. They are instruments
of economic development and job creation.'' Then you go on
further to say, ``I stand before you today, in large part,
because someone invested in meaningful and efficient
transportation systems.''
And that is so true. I was a business owner myself for
years in construction, and saw the impact on the economy and on
my business, the ability to grow the business, after investment
in infrastructure that provided additional ways to get around
congested cities and so on. It opened up entire new markets for
us.
Do you think the public, do you think, the people in your
community, the people in your State, understand the impact of
Government investment in infrastructure and understand what it
would look like if those investments had not occurred in the
past?
Mr. Gilbert. I think that they are being made to
understand, and it is coming to their awareness now.
One of the things we have been talking about in south
Florida is transit-oriented development and how different
communities can look and how we need to have good conversations
with business owners, not just residents, about how mass
transit is going to operate up and down those corridors.
We know that, if done right, it is not just the money we
spend. It is all the money we are going to get back and all the
opportunities we are going to create. So, I would be remiss if
I didn't point that out, that we have an opportunity to, in a
lot of ways, reshape south Florida but reshape America with how
we do transit. We can use it as a tool to do something more
than just take us from point A to point Z.
Mr. Smucker. Yes.
Mr. Hawkins, I think all of you have mentioned an
interstate system, the investment, but you just a few questions
ago answered that and talked about the economic opportunity
that has created. Do you think people take a minute to step
back and think how things would look if that had not occurred?
Mr. Hawkins. I think from a transportation aspect, we are
the largest employer in many States, and when you look at 29 of
our States, transportation can be the leading employer in most
cases and, because of that, people understand that over a long
period of time, the infrastructure has been what has allowed
this country to thrive as we have, and that the underinvestment
for many of us that have--I have been in this industry for 32
years. And because of that, I have watched what has happened,
and my growing concern, and also the reason I am here today is
just that, that I believe Americans do understand and then
overall, they understand the bottlenecks, they understand the
congestion. And they are experiencing this on a daily basis,
regardless of what else they are seeing on the news, they are
living it. Even in rural areas, they are seeing bridges that
have been affected by flooding and other areas over the last
couple of years that is worse than we have seen in the last 20.
Mr. Smucker. I could tell you--and I am running out of
time, but I can tell you in my district, and in my State of
Pennsylvania, people understand that investment in
infrastructure is a core function of Government and is
important to our economic growth, important to each one of
them.
I know that because Pennsylvania was one of the States that
implemented an increase in the gas tax. I was in the
Pennsylvania State Senate at that time, advocated for that,
helped to build the support for it. It was done with the public
support who really understood the cost of congestion, and the
cost of impact on vehicle maintenance, as you had just
described.
Mr. Hawkins. And we just did the National Truck Driving
Championship in Pittsburgh 2 weeks ago.
Mr. Smucker. Yes. However, we haven't seen the public
support yet for an additional Federal investment. I don't have
a lot of people calling my office yet, and I am not sure why
that is. But I can tell you two concerns that we heard in
Pennsylvania that I think we can learn from.
One is, they want to ensure that, if we are going to do
additional investment for transportation, if there is going to
be additional user fees, that it is used for that. It is very,
very important. It can't be diverted to something else. It has
got to be used for that.
Secondly, it has to be used efficiently. And as a part of
what we passed in Pennsylvania, we made some significant
changes to the permitting process and to the way projects were
delivered that resulted in cost savings. I think that has not
yet been part of the conversation here, very, very important.
And then, finally--and this point was raised by several
others, Mr. Meadows and Mr. Babin--you have to understand, you
have to know that it is going to affect, if the money is coming
from our area, it is going to impact. I have to go back to
people in my district. Every Member here has to go back and
say, this is a problem we have in the district that will be
addressed.
And I am not--I won't have time for you to answer this
question, but I am not sure that we have addressed that yet
either. I think there are--it is time we step up. It is time we
get this done. Legislators need to hear from the public on this
issue, because it is an important issue. But I think we also
have to address those very, very important questions about how
we will spend that funding, and how those dollars will be
efficiently invested.
And just one other point. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You know, a State like Pennsylvania that has made the
commitment to invest in infrastructure, we have a fairly high
gas tax. There are a number of reasons for that, but the
biggest reason is because we recognize the need to do that. I
want to know as well, that if there are dollars coming from
Pennsylvania into the Federal system, that Pennsylvania will
receive credit for the investments they have already made, and
for what we have already asked for from taxpayers.
So, just some random thoughts. I wish we had a little more
time to address some of those issues.
But, again, thank you for each of you for being here.
I thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. I want to thank you, Mr. Smucker, for that very
thoughtful line of questions. I was intrigued to hear that when
you were in the, I think it was the Pennsylvania Legislature,
you voted for an increase in the gas tax.
I don't know what happens when they kick people upstairs,
but I understand that in the States you are closer to the
people, and I think it is informative, and I would like to hear
more from Members what their own experience has been.
You raised certain issues, and I wanted to assure you that
we will follow up on those issues you raised. Certainly open to
ways to increase revenue besides the old-fashioned ways.
We are concerned that the States are leading the Federal
Government when our bill will show that 80 percent of the funds
are Federal, and there is a match of 20 percent from the
States. So, the ball really is in our court. It looks like
Members are from States that have valuable information to give
to us as we try to figure out what to do.
I indicated already that the Senate has passed a bill--
sorry, that is incorrect--have a draft bill which increases
revenue. They are not prepared yet to make that visible. They
have an appropriator to work with, and they have got to make
sure that happens. In our case, Ways and Means has had a
hearing and we have got to wait to see what they do about
revenue.
But I want to assure Members that we are open to their
suggestions and ideas as we try to figure out how to do a new
bill, a 2020 bill, that is nowhere like what our last bill was,
which was no revenue increases at all.
I want to thank Members on the other side for working with
us, because what we did, of course, as I indicated at the
opening of this hearing, was to make a 6-year bill a 5-year
bill.
So, I was pleased to have them work with us to get some
increased revenue. I don't think anybody wants to do that next
time, and I think the witnesses today have helped us to
understand the urgency and the differences that we have to take
into account in coming forward with a new bill that, in many
ways, it must look very different from the FAST Act. Very
valuable testimony.
Are there any further questions from the subcommittee?
Seeing none, I want to thank, again, our witnesses for the
many contributions you have made today to our thinking.
I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided
answers to the questions that may be submitted to them in
writing, or have been submitted from the dais, and unanimous
consent that the record remain open for 15 days for any
additional comments and information submitted by our 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.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
It is with great appreciation that I thank the Chairwoman for
holding this hearing today, as it allows us to discuss solutions to
congestion on America's roads.
Most Americans deal with congestion on a regular basis. Today, I am
eager to hear from the witnesses on the possible solutions to
addressing congestion on America's roads and possible technological
strategies that can assist.
We have so many goods flowing through my home state of Texas, and
so many people who are dependent on our transportation network to get
to their destinations. North Texas is a transportation hub for the
entire country.
For instance, a new high-speed passenger rail line is in the works,
which will connect Dallas and Houston, the fourth and seventh largest
economies in the country, in less than 90 minutes.
Currently, I-45 connects Dallas and Houston. The drive is about 4
hours and with traffic it is even longer. By using the high-speed rail,
riders will save time and reduce congestion on I-45.
I recognize that solutions for congestion need to be tailored to
the community and that a ``one-size fits all solution'' is not the
answer.
I am ready to work with my colleagues in examining ways we can help
relieve congestion.
I look forward to hearing the testimony and solutions from all the
witnesses today.
Thank you. I yield back.
Letter of September 10, 2019, from Charlie Kiefer, Director of
Membership and Operations, Alliance for Toll-Free Interstates,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
September 10, 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
20510
RE: September 11, 2019 Hearing titled ``Pricing and Technology
Strategies to Address Congestion on and Financing of America's Roads''
Dear Chair Norton and Ranking Member Davis:
The Alliance for Toll-Free Interstates (ATFI) is a growing alliance
of individuals, businesses and organizations advocating for long-term,
sustainable, efficient, equitable, and sensible highway infrastructure
funding solutions. ATFI applauds the renewed public emphasis on
infrastructure funding coming from Congress but wishes to register our
opposition to tolling on existing interstates. We are particularly
concerned that Congress may even consider expanding tolling authority
during the surface transportation reauthorization process, as evidenced
by a provision in the Senate's ``America's Transportation
Infrastructure Act of 2019 (S. 2302, ``ATIA'').
Implemented properly, infrastructure funding can provide meaningful
employment opportunities to those individuals and communities that need
it the most, while also modernizing the transportation system to
improve the free flow of people and goods throughout the country. At
the same time, poorly conceived infrastructure legislation can be
counter-productive, causing negative unintended impacts on
transportation networks, economies and local communities.
Keeping these principles in mind, ATFI opposes expansion of
Interstate tolling authority. ATIA's Congestion Relief Program (Sec.
1404) enables states to more easily toll existing interstates. We hope
that the subcommittee will reject similar expansion of this authority,
and we urge Congress to eliminate programs such as the ISRRPP
altogether. That specific program has been in effect since 1998 and has
never been successfully implemented in its 21-year history.
History has shown that, when given full consideration, states
recognize what all the impacted industries have always known--that
tolling interstate lanes which drivers now freely access is not only
unpopular, it is an inefficient financing mechanism that is the worst
possible approach to raising transportation revenue. Imposing tolls on
existing interstates will increase shipping costs for goods, suppress
consumer activity, waste revenues on bureaucratic administration,
double-tax businesses, divert traffic onto local roads, and negatively
impact residents and communities located around toll facilities.
Efforts to make tolling easier will hurt America's economic future and
reroute prosperity around the communities where tolls are located.
Hardest hit by tolls will be America's small businesses and their
employees. Tolls raise business costs for moving goods through the
supply chain, hurting the competitiveness of local companies.
Restaurants, convenience stores, travel plazas and gas stations
operating near the newly tolled interstate will face higher costs from
manufacturers and shippers, who will be forced to charge more to
transport goods by truck. Everyday consumers will be shouldering the
burden by paying more for goods, demonstrating the fact that the toll
is nothing more than an underhanded tax on the general public.
In addition, tolling is fiscally irresponsible and financially
inefficient. Toll gantries cost millions of dollars to build and
maintain. Even with the latest technology, collection costs alone are
at least 8 to 11% of revenue collected, according to the Congressional
Budget Office. Toll management, enforcement and operations total a
significantly larger portion of revenues that do not go to actual road
maintenance. In 2018, the all-electronic North Carolina Triangle
Expressway spent 36.8% of annual revenue on toll operating costs; those
are funds that could go toward road improvements with more efficient
funding mechanisms. For example, increasing fuel taxes, which have a
less than 1% administration fee, and registration fees do not increase
collection costs, so nearly 100% of revenue can go toward
infrastructure improvements. America's interstates were built using tax
revenue, and fuel taxes have paid to maintain them since. Because tolls
are generally upheld as a `user fee' for the roads traveled, diverting
these funds away from infrastructure improvements is a violation of the
public trust. Quite simply, the fuel tax is the ultimate user fee, and
it is already in place.
Not only are the financial ramifications of tolls unfair to the
public, but the social costs are discriminatory. Tolls devour take-home
pay for drivers and are especially oppressive to low-income Americans.
They would make driving on interstates simply unaffordable for some
families. Additionally, electronic tolling discriminates against the
tens of millions of financially vulnerable Americans who do not have
bank accounts. This places the heaviest burden from tolls on the backs
of those least able to afford it, who, lacking the financial
instruments of a debit or credit card, are sent a bill in the mail
charging them the toll plus a fee and a stamp. Tolls are expensive for
all drivers, but especially costly for drivers without bank accounts.
To toll drivers on top of these fuel taxes is double taxation.
Since the inception of the Federal Interstate Highway System, the
federal gas tax has always been the primary source of revenue for the
construction and maintenance of federal interstate lanes. Every time a
motorist puts gas in his vehicle, he is upholding his end of the deal
for interstate maintenance. A new toll on an existing interstate, even
when combined with a congestion relief effort, forces drivers to pay
two taxes for that same road: a gas tax and a toll tax.
Furthermore, tolls will force drivers to use secondary roads to
avoid these new taxes. This diversion causes congestion and delays
response times for emergency personnel who rely on these secondary
routes to quickly get to and from accidents and emergencies. A 2013
study on the consequences of tolls in North Carolina, a state which
held but did not use an ISRRPP tolling slot for 18 years, predicted
that tolls would divert up to 36% of traffic to alternate routes,
contributing to delays, traffic accidents, and wear and tear on smaller
secondary roads that were not built to handle high traffic levels.
Voters and state-level policymakers continue to reject tolling
existing interstates because they understand tolling is bad public
policy with myriad negative consequences, both economic and social. We
appreciate you taking into account your constituents' vocal opposition
to tolling existing interstates. As we have seen with the failed
ISRRPP, when states learn the true impacts of tolling existing
interstates, they reject this option. The reasonable response to that
failure is to eliminate it and move on to more viable revenue
generation ideas.
As reauthorization is discussed, the thousands of private citizens
and numerous businesses and organizations that make up ATFI urge you to
fully reject tolling existing interstates. Americans need sustainable
investment in our infrastructure, not discriminatory, ineffective
policies that take more and more money from hardworking motorists and
businesses. The needs of America's transportation network are vast and
deserve serious attention without the distraction of tolls.
We appreciate the opportunity to offer these comments and ask they
be submitted for the official record. We thank you for your
consideration and look forward to working with you to move forward this
important legislation. Should you have any additional questions, please
contact me.
Sincerely,
Charlie Kiefer
Director of Membership & Operations, The Alliance for Toll-Free
Interstates
Statement of Matthew Ginsberg, D.Phil., CEO, Connected Signals, Inc.,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
Introduction
Chair DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Chair Norton, Ranking Member
Davis, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity
to provide a statement on Pricing and Technology Strategies to Address
Congestion on and Financing of America's Roads.
My name is Matt Ginsberg, and I am the CEO of Connected Signals,
Inc., an Oregon startup dedicated to improving traffic safety,
throughput, fuel consumption, and emissions by connecting vehicles to
traffic lights.
The idea of connected vehicles, and especially a Vehicle-to-
Infrastructure (V2I) connection, has gained tremendous momentum in the
last few years. The expectation has been that we can deploy
communications infrastructure at traffic signals and other locations,
and that that infrastructure can then relay valuable information to
vehicles and drivers. If cars knew the color of upcoming signals, they
could operate more efficiently while reducing red light running and the
attendant carnage. If signals knew what vehicles were approaching, they
could adapt to improve traffic flow and give appropriate priority to
buses, ambulances, bicycles and others.
A studies have shown that providing traffic light information to
vehicles leads to significant improvements in safety, throughput, fuel
efficiency, and emissions production. Vehicles with access to such
information can be expected to operate 8-15% more efficiently,
according to independent estimates from automakers such as BMW [1, 2]
and Audi [3, 4], as well as from the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory [5]. The USDOT reports that in 2014 two trillion vehicle
miles were travelled on US urban roadways, two thirds of all miles
driven nationwide [6]. Meanwhile, red light incursions accounted for
over 250,000 accidents in 1999, with over 40% resulting in injury or
death [7]. V2I systems are believed capable of addressing about 25
percent of all these crashes [8, 9]. Our best estimates are that if
every vehicle on the planet knew what every traffic light was doing,
human carbon production would fall by 1.3%. Similar and additional
savings would correspond to the traffic lights being aware of the
vehicles.
Current V2I Approaches
DSRC
To help achieve the goals of improving traffic safety, efficiency,
and throughput, government and industry have committed to an ambitious
program of installing special- purpose communication equipment in
vehicles and encouraging the deployment of V2I infrastructure at
intersections nationwide. The proposed mechanism has been to use
Dedicated Short-Range Communication (DSRC) devices operating in a
spectrum block reserved for traffic safety applications.
The use of DSRC is intended to allow vehicles and signals to share
the information needed to optimize both vehicle and signal behavior.
Vehicles can report their location and speed to nearby signals, while
signals can report their state and anticipated future behavior to
vehicles. Vehicles could then adjust their speed to avoid delays at
signals, increasing throughput and fuel efficiency. Signals can adjust
their timing to speed as much traffic as possible on its way as quickly
as possible.
Unfortunately, there are two significant impediments to the
widespread deployment of DSRC-based technology. The first is cost, and
the second is spectrum.
The cost of DSRC appears to be prohibitive on a large scale. While
the technology offers many benefits, it requires a significant
investment in new infrastructure and will take decades to be deployed
on a scale that would have a significant impact on US fuel consumption,
emissions, and safety. The cost of DSRC roadside equipment installation
at one intersection is on the order of $13-21K,\1\ with attendant
annual maintenance costs of $1950-$3350/year.\2\ In its Letter Report,
Review of the Status of the Dedicated Short-Range Communications
Technology and Applications [Draft] Report to Congress [10] the
Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academy of Sciences
notes that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.itscosts.its.dot.gov/ITS/benecost.nsf/SummID/SC2014-
00325?OpenDocument
&Query=Home
\2\ http://www.itscosts.its.dot.gov/ITS/benecost.nsf/SummID/SC2014-
00329?OpenDocument
&Query=Home
As USDOT is undoubtedly well aware, funding for the deployment,
operation, and maintenance of the roadside hardware and
software necessary for V2I communication is unresolved.
Congress has struggled to find ways to fund the upkeep of the
existing highways and bridges on the federal-aid system, and
DSRC will add new, more sophisticated technologies that will
require ongoing upkeep expenditures. Moreover, many of the
nation's busiest intersections that would be priority
candidates for V2I infrastructure and applications may not even
be on the federal-aid system, and a new financial burden on
county and municipal governments that can barely afford to
retime traffic signals on a regular basis would be imposed.
Until these issues are addressed, rollout of V2I applications
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
on a broad scale appears questionable.
Moreover, there are significant and growing concerns that DSRC may
not be up to the proposed task at all. The TRB report further observes
that there are significant concerns with DSRC's ability to handle the
volume of communications that could be expected in V2I applications in
high-traffic areas. Specifically:
The DSRC report notes that unpublished NHTSA and CAMP research
demonstrates that V2V communications ``perform reliably'' with
up to 200 vehicles and that ongoing research will estimate the
number of vehicles at which channel congestion would be
significant. Without access to the results of the CAMP
research, the committee is not in a position to verify this
conclusion. The NHTSA Readiness report (page 109) provides an
example indicating that up to 800 vehicles could be within DSRC
range on a congested freeway.
The TRB report covers a number of other concerns. In addition,
there is the question of whether the DSRC specification itself, which
is nearly two decades old, is sufficiently rich to support the
burgeoning array of V2I applications that have been proposed. For
example, DSRC's message formats do not support the type of rich
predictive information, such as distinguishing between expected,
minimum, and maximum time to signal change.
Cellular Roadside Equipment
Between the time of DSRC's development and today, the potential
drawbacks of DSRC have become apparent as cellular technology has
become ubiquitous. This has led to numerous calls to replace DSRC with
CV2I (Cellular V2I). These suggestions have been buttressed by the fact
that cellular radios are becoming a universal fixture in modern
vehicles, eliminating the need for each vehicle to have a special-
purpose radio solely for V2I applications. The broader range of
cellular spectrum available, and the advent of 5G technology based on
microcells have given further impetus to these ideas. The European
Union, for example, appears poised to mandate cellular over DSRC
communication for V2I applications.
Nevertheless, a significant cost issue remains. Installing cellular
roadside equipment at every signalized intersection shows little
prospect of being less expensive or easier to deploy than DSRC itself.
Use of Existing Infrastructure
Most--perhaps all--of the expected benefits of V2I can be achieved
without the deployment of new and expensive infrastructure. Connected
Signals and other companies are pioneering a technology that connects
vehicles to traffic signals using existing infrastructure.
Specifically, a combination of existing traffic management networks,
Internet connections, and cellular communications has been shown to
provide the significant safety, fuel-efficiency, emission, and traffic
benefits of the sort previously envisioned for DSRC systems. Such
systems can be deployed citywide in weeks at virtually no cost to a
city, can be made highly secure, and can provide benefits both to
specially equipped vehicles and to anyone with a smart phone and a
fixed mount.
Connected Signals has already deployed such a system at over 18,000
intersections on 3 continents, including in 4 of the 10 largest US
cities. The installations require minimal effort and virtually no
expense on traffic agencies' part and require no hardware installation
at intersections.
In a study conducted by Argonne National Laboratory (Etherington,
Rousseau, Sokolov, & Schmid, 2016), this technology was demonstrated to
have a positive safety impact on the behavior of drivers approaching
traffic signals. A Transit Signal Priority system deployment in
Arcadia, CA has been shown to provide reduced bus waiting times at
signals and more consistent speed profiles for buses [12] [13].
In order for this approach to succeed, each agency (municipality,
state DOT, etc.) that controls traffic lights must provide access to
the signal status feed from its traffic management system. Securing
agency participation typically encounters one of three difficulties.
First, an agency must be contacted and persuaded that its residents
will benefit if real-time signal information is made available. This is
becoming progressively easier as the concept and potential benefits of
V2I technology become more widely known and as an increasing number of
government agencies deploy cloud-based V2I systems such as Connected
Signals'.
Second, agencies are often concerned about the security impact of
allowing any connection to their Traffic Management System at all.
Every traffic engineer is rightly worried about possible abuse of his
or her network. This concern is typically addressable by a detailed
explanation of the security protocols that are incorporated into the
mechanisms that provide data access to and from city networks.
Finally, municipalities are concerned about the possibility of
incurring liability by providing signal information to drivers. Might
those drivers then blame the agency for the consequences of their
actions? This specific obstacle is often insurmountable, as it is
impossible to convince a city attorney that their city won't get sued,
and the fear of such an eventuality can overwhelm the potential
benefits to their residents, their commuters, and the environment.
How Can This Subcommittee Help?
This subcommittee and Congress could do two things that would help
to maximize the availability and utility of traffic-signal V2I in the
US. The first is to recognize that DSRC may not be the most effective
way to provide V2I capabilities, and to move to encourage the
consideration of other technologies that can offer cheaper, more easily
deployed, and more universal solutions. We believe that approaches that
do not require new infrastructure offer the greatest chance to achieve
the widest possible distribution of the technology and the greatest net
benefit in the shortest possible time.
Second, the subcommittee could consider supporting legislation that
would immunize government bodies that provide real-time traffic-related
information to drivers. There are precedents in terms of providing
manufacturers immunity from liability for the uses to which their
products are put, and it seems clear that the benefits achievable
through V2I provide a sufficient public good to justify such action in
this case.
Thank you for your consideration and for the opportunity to provide
you with this statement.
References
[1] A. Weber and A. Winckler, ``Advanced Traffic Signal Control
Algorithms, Appendix A: Exploratory Advanced Research Project: BMW
Final Report,'' September 2013. [Online]. Available: http://
www.dot.ca.gov/newtech/researchreports/reports/2013/
final_report_task_2157b.pdf. [Accessed May 2015].
[2] H. Xia, K. Boriboonsomsin, F. Schweizer, A. Winckler, K. Zhou,
W.-B. Zhang and M. Barth, ``Fieldoperational Testing of ECO-Approach
Technology at a Fixed-Time Signalized Intersection,'' in 15th
International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems
(ITSC), Anchorage,2012.
[3] S. Blanco, `Audi traffic light recognition could save 240
million gallons of fuel,'' 10 03 2014. [Online]. Available: http://
www.autoblog.com/2014/03/10/audi-traffic-light-recognition-could-save-
240-million-gallons-of/. [Accessed May 2015].
[4] Telematics News, 11 March 2014. [Online]. Available: Http://
telematicsnews.info/2014/03/11/audi-says-online-traffic-light-system-
could-save-15-of- emissions_m5112/. [Accessed May 2015].
[5] J. Gonder, M. Earleywine and W. Sparks, ``Analyzing Vehicle
Fuel Saving Opportunities Through Intelligent Driver Feedback,'' in
2012 SAE World Congress, Detroit, 2012.
[6] Federal Highway Administration, ``Traffic Volume Trends,''
December 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
policyinformation/travel_monitoring/14dectvt/14dectvt.pdf. [Accessed 12
June 2015].
[7] Institute of Transportation Engineers, ``Making Intersections
Safer: A Toolbox of Engineering Countermeasures to Reduce Red-Light
Running,'' Washington, 2003.
[8] C. Tan and K. Eccles, ``Safety-Based Deployment Assistance for
Location of V2I Applications,'' in 41st International Forum on Traffic
Records and Highway Information Systems, 2015.
[9] National Highway Safety Administration, ``Frequency of Target
Crashes for IntelliDrive Safety Systems,'' 2010.
[10] D. Wilkie, ``Review of the Status of the Dedicated Short-
Range Communications Technologyand Applications [Draft] Report to
Congress,'' Washington, DC, 2015.
[11] D. W. Etherington, A. Rousseau, V. Sokolov and C. Schmid, A
Real World Evaluation of the Effects of Predictive Real-Time Traffic
Signal Information, San Jose, CA: ITS America, 2016.
[12] D. W. Etherington, ``A Performance Analysis of Connected
Signals' Implementation of Transit Signal Priority for the City of
Arcadia,'' Eugene, OR, 2019.
[13] D. W. Etherington, ``Arcadia Signal Priority System: Final
Report,'' Eugene, OR, 2019.
Statement of International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association,
Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
On behalf of the International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike
Association (IBTTA), we are pleased to submit this Statement for the
Record to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit (Subcommittee).
IBTTA is the worldwide association for the owners and operators of
toll facilities and the businesses that provide products and services
to the industry. Our mission is to advance transportation solutions
through tolling. Founded in 1932, IBTTA has more than 60 toll agency
members in the United States and hundreds more in 20 countries on six
continents.
We commend you, Chairman Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and the
subcommittee for working to develop a thoughtful successor to the FAST
Act that considers ways to manage congestion and generate additional
revenues to maintain and improve the nation's surface transportation
infrastructure.
While IBTTA supports increasing the fuel tax to pump additional
revenue into the Highway Trust Fund, no level of increase will likely
be enough to address the large and growing investment needs across
transportation modes among all the states. Therefore, road operators
should have access to as many funding tools as possible to manage their
transportation assets. While tolling is not the solution to every
transportation problem, it is a very powerful and effective tool now
used to support more than 6,000 miles of the most heavily traveled
highways in 34 states and Puerto Rico.
Congress has been instrumental in the exploration of congestion
management through pricing with the establishment of the Congestion
Pilot Pricing Program in 1991. The program was renamed the Value
Pricing Pilot Program in 1998 and it has allowed many states and local
governments to research, explore and implement different ways in which
road pricing could be introduced to meet transportation demands.
Because the subject of this hearing is ``Pricing and Technology
Strategies to Address Congestion on and Financing of America's Roads,''
we would like to make the Subcommittee aware of the current use of
tolling systems along with other innovative methods and technologies
that are now being used to reduce congestion and improve vehicle
throughput in congested urban areas. Toll agencies have been intimately
involved in developing and implementing many of these systems and
innovations.
Congestion Pricing
During the hearing, there were statements suggesting some confusion
about the goals of congestion pricing and how it works. We will attempt
to clear up some of the confusion.
Congestion pricing is different from traditional tolling. The toll
on a typical toll road like the New Jersey Turnpike is a fixed price
and is used to retire the debt on that road and pay for the ongoing
maintenance (pavement repair) and operation (snow removal, etc.) of the
toll road.
The I-66 Express Lane facility in Northern Virginia outside
Washington, DC is one example of congestion pricing that was mentioned
in the hearing. The I-66 Express Lanes are known as ``priced managed
lanes.'' They are not typical toll lanes. These priced managed lanes
were designed for the specific purpose of reducing congestion in the
lanes to ensure that traffic flows smoothly at a minimum speed of 50
mph or higher. In this case, the toll increases as congestion increases
and falls as congestion falls. Increasing the toll discourages some
motorists from entering the lane so that those who remain are able to
drive under ``free flow'' conditions. When congestion in the priced
lane dissipates, the toll decreases. This is called dynamic pricing.
The $47 figure that is often cited is the peak charge that very few
people pay. In fact, only .08 percent of express lane trips paid a toll
higher than $40.
Data from the Virginia Department of Transportation show that the
average round-trip price on the I-66 Express Lanes for the month of
January 2018 was $12.37, $8.07 eastbound and $4.30 westbound. Out of
594,381 trips in January, only 461 trips were priced at $40 or more, or
0.08 percent of all express lane trips.
An important distinction to keep in mind is that HOV and bus
traffic remains free or discounted on the I-66 Express Lanes,
preserving an incentive for drivers to consider changing their travel
mode by adding passengers and thereby increasing corridor throughput.
Express lanes are charging for available space in otherwise exclusive
HOV lanes and tolled traffic could be entirely excluded if HOV demand
ever becomes high enough to make full use of that space. Very high toll
rates suggest that at certain times such space is, in fact, scarce
which should be viewed positively as an indicator of high HOV use. When
HOV traffic volume is low and dedicated space is otherwise unused,
allowing single occupancy vehicles (SOV's) to make use of that space
for a fee (regulated to ensure consistent rate of travel) is an
efficient use of space that would otherwise be unused. When the Express
Lanes are functioning at high capacity, this also benefits the non-toll
payers by reducing some of the traffic load in the general purpose
lanes.
The 91 Express Lane facility which opened in Orange County,
California in December 1995 is another example of priced managed lanes.
The Express Lane facility consists of two reversible lanes in the
median of SR 91 which has two general purpose lanes in each direction,
for a total of six lanes. The price to ride in the Express Lanes
changes by time of day to ensure free-flow travel through the Express
Lanes. The two Express Lanes represent 33% of the lane capacity in the
corridor (2 lanes/6 lanes = 33%). However, because of the free-flow
characteristics enabled by variable pricing, during the afternoon peak,
the two Express Lanes handle more than 40% of throughput.
The 91 Express Lane facility was the first Priced Managed Lane
facility in the U.S. Because of their success, many other states have
followed suit. Today, there are 51 priced managed lane facilities in 11
states that operate 718 center line miles of roadway as noted in the
following chart.
Chart 1. Express Lanes by US State as of August 15, 2019
California
91 Express Lanes--Orange County
91 Express Lanes--Riverside County
I-10 Express Lanes
I-110 Express Lanes
I-15 Express Lanes
I-580 Express Lanes
I-680 Contra Costa Express Lanes
I-680 Sunol Express Lanes
Silicon Valley Express Lanes (I-880/237 Express Lanes)
Colorado
I-25 Express Lanes
I-70 Mountain Express Lanes
US 36 Express Lanes
Florida
I-595 Express
I-75/Palmetto Express Lanes
I-95 Express
Veterans Expressway (SR 589) Express Lanes
I-295 Express Lanes
Beachline Expressway (SR-528) Express Lanes
Georgia
I-75 South Metro Express Lanes
I-85 Express Lanes
Georgia (con't)
Northwest Corridor Express Lanes
I-85 Express Lanes Extension
North Carolina
I-77 Express
Maryland
John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway--Express Toll Lanes (ETL)
Minnesota
I-35E Express Lanes
I-35W Express Lanes
I-394 Express Lanes
Texas
635 East HOV/Express Lanes (TEXpress Lanes)
71 Toll Lane
DFW Connector (SH-114) TEXpress Lanes
I-10 West (Katy Managed Lanes) HOV/HOT Lane
I-30 TEXpress Lanes
I-35E TEXpress Lanes
IH 45 North (Gulf Freeway) HOV/HOT Lane
IH 45 South (Gulf Freeway) HOV/HOT Lane
LBJ Express TEXpress Lanes
MoPac Express Lanes
Texas (con't)
North Tarrant Express (NTE) I-35W TEXpress Lanes
North Tarrant Express (NTE) I-820/SH121/18 3 TEXpress Lanes
SH-114 TEXpress Lanes (Midtown Express)
US 290 (Northwest Freeway) HOV/HOT lane
US 59 (Eastex Freeway) HOV/HOT lane
US 59 (Southwest Freeway) HOV/HOT lane
SH 183 TEXpress Lanes (Midtown Express)
Loop 12 TEXpress Lanes (Midtown Express)
Utah
I-15 Express Lanes
Virginia
495 Express Lanes
64 Express Lanes
I-66 Express Lanes Inside the Beltway
I-95 Express Lanes
Washington
I-405 Express Toll Lanes
SR 167--HOT Lanes
Source: IBTTA TollMiner TM
Express lanes offer numerous benefits including:
Trip Time Reliability: The traffic metering function of
variable pricing promotes predictable travel times.
Travel-Time Savings: By managing traffic flow, express
lanes allow higher speeds than congested general-purpose lanes.
Enhanced Corridor Mobility: Improved trip-time
reliability, higher speeds, travel-time savings, and possible transit
improvements all lead to greater mobility at the corridor level.
Environmental Advantages: Compared to general-purpose
lanes, express lanes limit greenhouse gas emissions caused by stop-and-
go traffic.
Travel Options: Express lanes provide Single Occupancy
Vehicles (SOV) motorists with the option of paying for a congestion-
free, dependable, and faster trip.
Efficient Use of Capacity: Express lanes provide an
opportunity to improve the efficiency of HOV lanes by filling ``excess
capacity'' that would not otherwise be used.
There are many different tools that can be used to reduce
congestion and improve mobility in congested urban areas. Priced
Managed Lanes, which are enabled by electronic toll collection, are one
of those tools.
Several of the witnesses made statements about congestion and
pricing with which we agree, and we would like to highlight them here:
Given that traffic congestion is inherently a local phenomenon,
the federal government has a limited set of tools to address
it. Modernizing federal law to permit greater flexibility at
the state and local level to price road use is the best way to
address peak-hour traffic congestion that plagues many of
America's metropolitan areas.--Competitive Enterprise Institute
AASHTO represents states with a range of viewpoints on tolling
and pricing, and as a result, the association supports
increased tolling flexibility to states to allow those states
that so choose to maximize revenue-raising opportunities in
light of federal funding challenges. Greater flexibility would
allow states to work with their communities to use tolling to
help improve their transportation systems. ODOT also supports
this increased flexibility.--Oregon DOT
Almost every solution strategy works somewhere in some
situation. And almost every strategy is the wrong treatment in
some places and times. Just like the specific set of strategies
used to improve mobility is the result of a public engagement
and technical design process, the level of congestion deemed
unacceptable is a local decision.--Texas A&M Transportation
Institute
Innovations in the Tolling Industry
The core issue associated with urban traffic congestion is the
difficulty of expanding facilities and capacity to accommodate current
or future travel demand. Even with adequate funding the acquisition of
additional right of way ranges from extremely difficult to impossible,
forcing any road operator to consider ways to make the most efficient
use of already existing access.
As already discussed, managed lanes are one response, including
High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. Ramp metering using traffic lights
to allow vehicles access at limited rates to preserve the rate of
travel on a main roadway is another response. Coupling these methods
with pricing has been successful in boosting the effectiveness of
traffic management.
The tolling industry continues to lead the way in transportation
innovations both in the implementation of transportation programs and
in the use of technology. IBTTA members are involved in several
programs that encourage greater transit use as well as higher density
(and higher speed) commutes in congested areas.
Examples include:
The Reversible Express Lanes (REL), operated by the Tampa
Hillsborough Expressway Authority in Florida, was a first-of-its-kind
facility combining the innovations of concrete segmental bridges,
reversible express lanes, and all electronic tolling. As in many urban
areas, purchasing the additional land needed in this corridor to
accomplish a typical highway widening was neither physically nor
financially feasible. To minimize the footprint of the expressway, most
of the project was constructed as a concrete segmental bridge using
only 6 feet of space within the existing median. The REL provides
quality service with an aesthetically pleasing structure and reduced
impacts to the community and the environment.
The REL provides a direct connection between Brandon and downtown
Tampa, allowing for express travel of people in cars and buses. It is
an innovative project that has won approximately two dozen awards by
local, state, national and international organizations.
Coordination with transit services. In 2014, the state of Georgia
embarked upon a strategic integration of two of its major
transportation agencies--the State Road and Tollway Authority (SRTA)
and the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA). By
integrating organizations responsible for financing road construction
projects and operating toll facilities (SRTA) and administering a
regional network of express commuter buses (GRTA), the state aimed to
more efficiently address the state's transportation issues by
identifying opportunities for shared infrastructure, operations and
costs. Since this integration, the combined agencies have successfully
applied innovative approaches to achieve their common goal of improving
regional mobility in Metro Atlanta.
As a newly consolidated transportation agency, both entities
benefited from efficiencies in shared operational and organizational
resources. This included the formation of a single, unified customer
service operation. Additionally, seeking to take advantage of the
shared infrastructure, SRTA introduced the Commuter Credits Program to
help commuters think about their transportation options in a more
integrated way. The stated goals of the program were to:
1. Promote alternate transportation modes for Peach Pass users
traveling Georgia's Express Lanes (Peach Pass is the electronic tolling
program in Georgia);
2. Provide an incentive for Peach Pass users to change their
driving behavior and shift some SOV usage away from peak periods;
3. Increase usage of express commuter transit service in the I-85
corridor;
4. Offer options that offset the costs of increasing tolls due to
increasing demand; and
5. Reinforce the ``4Ts Strategies'' of congestion reduction: