    [Senate Hearing 107-668]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                   S. Hrg. 107-668, Part II

                           REAUTHORIZATION OF TEA-21

    =======================================================================

                                 FIELD HEARINGS
                            AND ROUNDTABLE SYMPOSIA

                                   BEFORE THE

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION,
                       INFRASTRUCTURE, AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

                                    AND THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       ON

          REVIEW OF PROPOSALS TO REAUTHORIZE PUBLIC LAW 105-178, THE
             TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

                                   ----------

                                 MARCH 15, 2002
                                  MAY 10, 2002
                                 JUNE 14, 2002
                            AUGUST 8, 2002--RENO, NV
                        AUGUST 20, 2002--MONTPELIER, VT

                                   ----------

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

                       REAUTHORIZATION OF TEA-21, PART II

    90-854              U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                                WASHINGTON : 2003
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                                                   S. Hrg. 107-668, Part II

                           REAUTHORIZATION OF TEA-21

    =======================================================================

                                 FIELD HEARINGS
                            AND ROUNDTABLE SYMPOSIA

                                   BEFORE THE

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION,
                       INFRASTRUCTURE, AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

                                    AND THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       ON

          REVIEW OF PROPOSALS TO REAUTHORIZE PUBLIC LAW 105-178, THE
             TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 15, 2002
                                  MAY 10, 2002
                                 JUNE 14, 2002
                            AUGUST 8, 2002--RENO, NV
                        AUGUST 20, 2002--MONTPELIER, VT

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

                  COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS\1\

                          one hundred seventh congress
                      JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont, Chairman
    MAX BAUCUS, Montana                  BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
    HARRY REID, Nevada                   JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
    BOB GRAHAM, Florida                  JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut     CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
    BARBARA BOXER, California            GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
    RON WYDEN, Oregon                    MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island
    HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York     ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
    JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey           PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
                     Ken Connolly, Majority Staff Director
                     Dave Conover, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------
       Subcommittee on Transportation, Infrastructure, and Nuclear Safety

                          HARRY REID, Nevada, Chairman
    MAX BAUCUS, Montana                  JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    BOB GRAHAM, Florida                  JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
    JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut     CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
    BARBARA BOXER, California            GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
    RON WYDEN, Oregon                    LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island

    \1\Note:  During the second session of the 107th Congress,
        Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado resigned from the
        committee, and on April 23, 2002, Senator Pete V. Domenici of
        New Mexico was appointed to fill the vacancy.

                                      (ii)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                 MARCH 15, 2002
                        SURFACE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont..    11
    Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada..........    22

                                   PANELISTS

    Bernstein, Scott, Surface Transportation Policy Project..........    14
    Carlson, David B., National Asphalt Pavement Association.........    17
    Deakin, Professor Elizabeth, University of California at Berkeley     9
    Eighmy, Dr. Taylor, Director, Recycled Material Resource Center,
      University of New Hampshire....................................    14
    Judycki, Dennis C., Federal Highway Administration, Director of
      Research, Development and Technology...........................     5
    Riva, Val, American Concrete Pavement Association................    12
    Ryan, Michael M., PennDOT, AASHTO Representative.................    23
    Skinner, Robert E., Executive Director, TRB......................     6
    Tarnoff, Dr. Philip J., Institute of Transportation Engineers
      Representative.................................................    20
    Walton, Michael, University of Texas.............................     8
    White, Dr. Chelsea C., Georgia Tech, ITS America Representative..    19
    Womack, Dr. Kevin, Fellow, Committee on Environment and Public
      Works..........................................................     1
    Wright, Mr. Frederick (Bud), Federal Highway Adminstration,
      Executive Director.............................................     3
                                     ------

                                  MAY 10, 2002
                 OPERATIONS AND SECURITY IN METROPOLITAN AREAS
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of
      Missouri.......................................................    45
    Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont..    48
    Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada..........    44

                                   PANELISTS

    Bennis, Richard, Associate Undersecretary for Maritime and Land
      Security, Transportation Security Administration, Washington,
      DC.............................................................    53
    Edelman, Matthew, Executive Director, TRANSCOM, Jersey City, NJ..    53
    Goldstein, Jack, Senior Vice President, Science Applications
      International Corporation, on behalf of ITS America............    56
    Hungerbeeler, Henry, Director, Missouri Department of
      Transportation, Jefferson City, MO.............................    49
    Johnson, Dr. Christine M., Program Manager, Operations Director,
      ITS Joint Program Office, Federal Highway Administration,
      Washington, DC.................................................    47
    Lockwood, Steve, Vice President, Parsons Brinckerhoff, on behalf
      of Institute of Transportation Engineers.......................    55
    Miller, Dr. William D., Executive Director, Oklahoma Aeronautics
      and Space Commission, Director of Transportation Security Task
      Force to Governor's Security and Preparedness Executive Panel,
      Oklahoma City, OK..............................................    57
    Njord, John, Executive Director, Utah Department of
      Transportation, Salt Lake City, UT.............................    50
    Snow, Jacob, General Manager, Regional Transportation Commission
      of Southern Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, on behalf of the Association
      of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.........................    52
    Tinklenberg, Elwyn, Commissioner, Minnesota Department of
      Transportation, St. Paul, MN...................................    51
                                     ------

                                 JUNE 14, 2002
                             TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada..........   118

                                   PANELISTS

    Haifley, John, Fellow, Committee on Environment and Public Works.    96
    Hamberger, Edward, President and CEO, Association of American
      Railroads Washington, DC.......................................    99
    Hamilton, Wendy, National President, Mothers Against Drunk
      Driving Irving, TX.............................................   102
    Hill, D.B., III, President, D.B. Hill Contractor Inc., Little
      Rock, AR Chairman, Workzone Safety Committee, Associated
      General Contractors............................................   103
    Holmes, Brian, Executive Director, Maryland Highway Contractors
      Association, on behalf of American Road and Transportation
      Builders Association...........................................   101
    Holst, Kathleen, President, American Traffic Safety Services
      Association Romeoville, IL.....................................   104
    Roberts, Tricia, Director, Delaware Office of Highway Safety
      Dover, DE, on behalf of the National Association of Governors'
      Highway Safety Representatives.................................   100
    Walsh, William, Associate Administrator for Plans and Policy,
      National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC.    98
    Warner, Bruce, Director, Oregon Department of Transportation
      Salem, OR, Chairman, Standing Committee on Highway Traffic
      Safety, American Association of State Highway and
      Transportation Officials.......................................    97
    Wright, Hon. Frederick (Bud), Executive Director, Federal Highway
      Administration, Department of Transportation...................    96

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Statement, Mothers Against Drunk Driving.........................   129
                                     ------

                           AUGUST 8, 2002--RENO, NEV
       WESTERN TRANSPORTATION NEEDS AND THE FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY PROGRAM
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada..........   145

                                   WITNESSES

    Burdette, Robyn, Chairwoman, Summit Lake Paiute Tribe,
      Winnemucca, NV.................................................   169
        Prepared statement...........................................   196
    Carano, Gary, Nevada Resort Association, Reno, NV................   158
        Prepared statement...........................................   195
    Krause, Greg, Executive Director, Washoe County Regional
      Transportation Commission, Reno, NV............................   153
        Prepared statement...........................................   188
    Milton, Hon. John H., III, Commissioner, Humboldt County,
      Winnemucca, NV.................................................   168
        Prepared statement...........................................   195
    Palma, Juan, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,
      Zephyr Cove, NV................................................   156
        Prepared statement...........................................   190
    Peters, Hon. Mary E., Federal Highway Administrator, U.S.
      Department of Transportation, Washington, DC...................   147
        Prepared statement...........................................   175
    Stephens, Hon. Thomas, Director, Nevada Department of
      Transportation, Carson City, NV................................   151
        Prepared statement...........................................   180
        Policy resolution, Western Governors Association.............   184
    Warner, Hon. Bruce, Director, Oregon Department of
      Transportation, Salem, OR......................................   165
        Prepared statement...........................................   191

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Statement, Navajo Nation.........................................   199
                                     ------

                        AUGUST 20, 2002--MONTPELIER, VT
             TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF SMALL TOWNS AND RURAL AMERICA
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont..   205

                                   WITNESSES

    Adler, Thomas, Northeast Transportation Institute and Museum,
      White River Junction, VT.......................................   225
        Prepared statement...........................................   241
    Bruhn, Paul, Preservation Trust of Vermont, Burlington, VT.......   229
        Prepared statement...........................................   248
    Burton, Raymond S., Executive Councilor, Woodville, NH...........   218
    Jackson, Hon. Michael, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of
      Transportation, Washington, DC.................................   207
        Prepared statement...........................................   232
    Mazza, Hon. Richard, Chairman, Vermont Senate Committee on
      Transportation, Colchester, VT.................................   222
        Prepared statement...........................................   240
    Pembroke, Hon. Richard, Chairman, Vermont House Committee on
      Transportation, Bennington, VT.................................   219
        Prepared statement...........................................   238
    Ricker, Debra, Associated General Contractors of Vermont, Barre,
      VT.............................................................   227
        Prepared statement...........................................   245
    Searles, Hon. Brian, Secretary, Vermont Agency of Transportation,
      Montpelier, VT.................................................   214
        Prepared statement...........................................   236
    Sternberg, Matthew, Executive Director, Rutland Redevelopment
      Authority, Rutland, VT.........................................   231
        Prepared statement...........................................   251

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Memorandum, Patricia Crocker, Vermont Public Transportation
      Association....................................................   256
    Statements:
        Carter, Stephanie, Vermont Department of Tourism and
          Marketing..................................................   257
        Maguire, Meg, Scenic America.................................   259
        Rohe, Debbie, Scenic Michigan................................   262
        Tracy, Mary, Society Created to Reduce Urban Blight..........   258

                             TEA-21 REATHORIZATION

                                  ----------

                             FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 2002

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The roundtable symposium was convened at 9:30 a.m. on
    Friday, March 15, 2002, in room 406, Senate Dirksen Building,
    Washington, DC.

                        SURFACE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

        Present: Senators Jeffords and Reid.
        Staff present: Jeff Squires, Mitch Warren, Ruth Van Mark,
    Megan Stanley, Larry Vigil, Ted Michaels, John Anderson, and
    Kevin Womack [moderator].
    Panelists
        Dr. Michael Walton, University of Texas
        Mr. Robert E. Skinner, Executive Director, TRB
        Professor Elizabeth Deakin, University of California at
    Berkeley
        Dr. Taylor Eighmy, Director, Recycled Material Resource
    Center, University of New Hampshire
        Mr. Scott Bernstein, Surface Transportation Policy Project
        Mr. Val Riva, American Concrete Pavement Association
        Mr. David B. Carlson, National Asphalt Pavement Association
        Dr. Chelsea C. White, Georgia Tech, ITS America
    Representative
        Dr. Philip J. Tarnoff, Institute of Transportation
    Engineers Representative
        Mr. Michael M. Ryan, PennDOT, AASHTO Representative
        Mr. Dennis C. Judycki, Federal Highway Administration,
    Director of Research, Development and Technology
        Mr. Frederick (Bud) Wright, Federal Highway Adminstration,
    Executive Director

    STATEMENT OF KEVIN WOMACK, FELLOW, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND
                              PUBLIC WORKS

        Dr. Womack. Good morning everyone, we would like to welcome
    you to this research round table. My name is Kevin Womack. I am
    a fellow with the majority staff of the Environment and Public
    Works Committee. I will be moderating this discussion today. I
    would just like to welcome all of you, and I appreciate all of
    you coming.
        We expect some Senators to come in shortly, or at some
    point in time during our discussion. When they do, we will
    allow, if it is during opening statements, the person to
    complete their opening statement. Then we will allow the
    Senators to make their remarks. They may stay for a few minutes
    or have to go off to a vote. It's a bit hectic around here
    these days.
        But we are looking forward to that. I think they feel this
    is a very important activity, and I know that some of them want
    to be here. So we look forward to that. In particular, Senator
    Jeffords, I believe, will be here.
        What I would like to do is, I will go around and briefly
    introduce the participants. Then I'll give a couple of remarks
    on our goals and objectives, the format of how we're going to
    do this, a few instructions, and then we'll get started.
        To my immediate left, we have Mr. Bud Wright from the
    Federal Highways Administration. He is the Executive Director.
    We have Mr. Dennis Judycki, who is the Director of the Research
    and Development Program at Federal Highways, out at the Turner
    Fairbank facility.
        We have Mr. Bob Skinner, the Executive Director of the
    Transportation Research Board; Dr. Michael Walton from the
    University of Texas; and Professor Elizabeth Deakin from the
    University of California Transportation Research Center.
        We have Mr. Val Riva from the American Concrete Pavement
    Association; Dr. Taylor Eighmy, the Director of the Recycled
    Material Resource Center at the University of New Hampshire.
        We have Mr. Scott Bernstein, who is representing the
    Surface Transportation Policy Project; Mr. David Carlson from
    the National Asphalt Pavement Association; Dr. Chip White from
    Georgia Tech University, representing ITS America; Dr. Philip
    J. Tarnoff, representing the Institute of Transportation
    Engineers; and Mr. Michael Ryan, who is representing the AASHTO
    Group, and he is from PENNDOT. We appreciate all the panelists
    being here today.
        On the staff side, we have myself and Mr. Squires, who will
    be coming with Senator Jeffords; Mr. Mitch Warren and Ms. Ruth
    Van Mark from the Environment and Public Works Committee staff;
    and Mr. Jensen, as well, from Senator Smith's office; and Mr.
    Michaels from Senator Chafee's office. So that's who we have at
    the table right now.
        The objective of this discussion is to provide information
    to the EPW committee staff. We are not having a research
    hearing, so we are doing this round table discussion in lieu of
    that.
        The idea is to get direction and priorities out in the air
    and discussed among people who are significant stakeholders and
    leaders in the surface transportation research industry to help
    us develop the research title in the upcoming reauthorization
    bill.
        This is a key part of the title. It is a key effort, and
    very important to the development of our transportation system.
    So that's our fundamental goal, as we go through this
    reauthorization, to use information gathered through this round
    table to be able to develop that in a progressive manner.
        As far as the format is concerned, what we will do is, we
    will begin with the panelists. We will allow each panelist a 3-
    minute opening statement. I would ask you not necessarily to
    read what you've submitted in writing, because if you do that,
    many of those will be much more than 3 minutes; so summarize,
    please.
        We've got the timers out, so you'll know when your time is
    up. You know, we're not going to shut you off at 3 minutes if
    you're in the middle of an important statement. We would like
    to have you say at about 3 minutes.
        We will go around to the panelists, and then we will start
    and allow each of the staff members to ask a question, and kind
    of circle through the staff in doing that.
        The objective here is not to make this a question and
    answer session. I'm hoping that the questions will spur
    discussion among the panelists, so that we don't have to keep
    spurring you on to make comments. With this group, I'm sure
    that's not going to be a problem. But I just want to let you
    know that we're hoping the questions will just spur discussion.
        We're planning on running until about 11:30, so we have a
    couple of hours to do that, and I believe that's it. I guess
    one last request is that if you have something to say, signal
    me in a manner so that I can call on you by name, so that that
    will make it easier for our transcriptionist.
        This will be transcribed, and a name before a speaker helps
    the transcriptionist accomplish that task. So I will try to
    keep my head up and pay attention who would like to be heard
    from next.
        With that in mind, I guess we'll go ahead and begin. We'll
    start with Mr. Bud Wright from the Federal Highways
    Administration, and then we'll just proceed from him around the
    table.

       STATEMENT OF FREDERICK (BUD) WRIGHT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
      FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

        Mr. Wright. Thank you, Kevin.
        As Kevin noted, my name is Bud Wright, the Executive
    Director of the Federal Highway Administration. Accompanying me
    today is Dennis Judycki, FHWA's Director of Research,
    Development, and Technology at the Turner Fairbank Highway
    Research Center.
        We're pleased to be a part of this discussion, and working
    with you and the rest of this important constituency, to
    improve surface transportation research. Kevin, we just want to
    say that we very much appreciate the leadership of the Senate
    Environment and Public Works Committee staff and members in
    putting together this important forum.
        Research and technology are key to meeting the challenge
    before us, maintaining a high quality transportation network,
    while achieving goals to increase safety, ensure national
    security, improve mobility, and promote environmentally
    responsible and efficient project delivery.
        We must keep our infrastructure secure, and we must
    strengthen our commitment to reducing highway fatalities and
    injuries, even as we squeeze additional capacity from the
    system.
        FHWA has recently developed a new mission and role
    statement that recognizes the importance of research and
    technology. Among the key elements of that new mission is to be
    innovators for a better future. We know we must invest in and
    conduct transportation research on behalf of our partners and
    stakeholders, and we are taking very serious actions to
    corporately raise the bar on surface transportation research
    and the delivery of technology and innovation.
        While TEA-21 provides funds for surface transportation
    research, technology and deployment, and training and
    education, it's important to know that funding for FHWA
    research and technology activities were reduced under TEA-21
    from the level available under ISTEA. This decrease in funding,
    coupled with substantial increases in earmarks and
    designations, diminished the FHWA's ability to carry out a
    national highway research agenda.
        We believe, and our many partners support the fact that a
    reduced Federal role means a diminished national perspective,
    and a loss in efficiency. Moreover, these factors jeopardize
    FHWA's ability to remain effective in carrying out carefully
    conceived multi-year research and technology deployment plans.
        FHWA, AASHTO, and TRB created the National Highway Research
    and Technology Partnership in 1999. This partnership developed
    a draft national R&T agenda that is unprecedented in scope and
    focuses on safety, infrastructure renewal, operations and
    mobility, planning and environment, policy analysis, and system
    monitoring. FHWA, the States, academia, and private industry
    will carry out the research needs identified by this
    partnership cooperatively.
        Working through our partnership, FHWA has made significant
    progress in advancing research and delivering technology and
    innovation to our stakeholders. For example, the investment in
    safety research and technology initiatives has led to safety
    infrastructure improvements that have produced a three to one
    return in benefits.
        It is estimated that the Highway Pavement Design Guide that
    is being developed by the National Cooperative Highway Research
    Program with long-term pavement performance data will result in
    pavement rehabilitation savings of $1 billion per year.
        In the environmental area, as a result of our investment of
    $3.9 million over 9 years in noise model research, States and
    local governments will be able to save more than $19 million
    annually.
        Significant progress has been made in ITS deployment,
    including a 37 percent increase in the number of freeway miles,
    with real-time traffic data collection technologies; and an 83
    percent increase in travel or information dissemination.
        But much remains to be done. One of the keys to the success
    of our transportation programs is assuring that we have a well
    developed work force for the future. Much of America's surface
    transportation program work force is expected to retire in the
    next 5 years. The efforts of our National Highway Institute,
    the Local Technical Assistance Program Centers, the Eisenhower
    Fellowships Program, and the University Transportation Centers
    are intended to address this critical issue.
        In conclusion, the Federal Surface Transportation Research
    Program can play a key role in our ability to address the
    significant transportation challenges that face the Nation
    today.
        I would like to now turn to Denny Judycki, also
    representing FHWA.
        Dr. Womack. Mr. Judycki?

         STATEMENT OF DENNIS C. JUDYCKI, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH,
     DEVELOPMENT, AND TECHNOLOGY, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION,
                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

        Mr. Judycki. Thank you, Kevin.
        Good morning. It's good to be with everyone and provide
    some additional thoughts from the Federal Highway
    Administration.
        Understanding the environment within which surface
    transportation research is undertaken is central to us, clearly
    stating the Federal Highway Administration's mission and fully
    appreciating the partnerships that we're going to be hearing
    more about today.
        The Surface Transportation Research Program is truly a
    national program, not just a Federal one; and we must continue
    to advance that philosophy.
        The Federal Highway's role in R&T is actually a multiple
    one of providing leadership for a national program, formulating
    a vision for the future, conducting research, supporting and
    facilitating research by our partners, and stimulating and
    encouraging innovation development and deployment.
        Federal Highways is a partner in a collaborative
    decentralized national R&T endeavor, which includes the State
    Planning and Research Program, the National Cooperative Highway
    Research Program, the University Research and Education
    Programs, and industry research, just to mention some of the
    principal organizations.
        We are working very hard to create a more cohesive program
    of research and technology, which seeks to involve all of those
    partners in addressing national research priorities.
        The Federal Highways R&T Program focuses intermodally, as
    Bud suggested, on a broad array of priority needs, to advance
    the state-of-the-art and put innovation into practice.
        It's really a broad array ranging from the physical
    sciences, such as pavement and bridges, to freight, to general
    traffic flow, to air quality, to economic impact analysis, to
    support public policy, and the sharing of innovative practices
    in areas such as finance and contracting.
        You've heard and you'll hear more about our role in
    conducting gap filling, stakeholder-driven, and longer-term
    research on emerging issues; but just as important is our
    leadership role in facilitating the needs of our partners.
        The recently re-engineered Transportation Pool Funding
    Program is but one example, which consists of approximately $40
    million of Federal highway-lead and $50 million of State-lead
    research, which is mutually identified multi-state research
    needs, that comprise that pool-funded program.
        We're making available today actually two handouts that I
    would like to draw to your attention. One is a 2001 Local
    Technical Systems Report, and the other is the Federal Highway
    Research and Technology Initiatives Report, which we will make
    available after today's session.
        These summarize our R&T budget distribution, the priority
    areas within Federal Highways of the research and technology
    program; the research innovation delivery that's under way;
    examples of results from the program, as well as what we should
    be anticipating for future research.
        Finally, authorization has given us the opportunity to sit
    around the table today, and we'll be working together in the
    future. We should be guided by what TEA-21 has taught us. There
    have been successes and there are some opportunities.
        I think I would just quickly point to a couple of the
    successes. The program framework, for instance, I think, was
    well established and has worked well. The resulting national
    R&T partnership initiative that was led by Federal Highways,
    AASHTO, and TRB has been a true success.
        In fact, we have delivered; whether it's the ITS Program or
    the Highway Research Program. We have generally delivered
    products, and technology has been deployed, and in fact, a
    professional work force has been trained in priority areas.
        But there are some opportunities that we should include on
    the list. We should be moving away from Federal programs that
    are overly focused on short-term applied needs, which has
    impeded us in addressing the emerging issues in a timely
    fashion.
        More could also be done in moving market-ready technology
    and innovation into practice and encouraging industry
    partnerships, as well as product commercialization, which is
    the most difficult part, I think, of the innovation process.
        Finally, even with the national leadership, we must have
    the flexibility to step up to the plate and provide what is
    expected from us by our partners, to assure that research and
    technology investments in high priority areas are able to be
    addressed.
        Thank you very much, and I look forward to the discussion
    following the statements.
        Dr. Womack. Thank you.
        Mr. Skinner?

        STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. SKINNER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TRB

        Mr. Skinner. Thank you very much, and good morning to all
    of you.
        Let me start by re-emphasizing a point that Denny just
    made, about the decentralization of our surface transportation
    system. It's incredibly decentralized in this country, and we
    know that we have 35,000 units of government that are
    responsible for highways in this country.
        Given that, I'd argue that we need to have a research
    program that is also de-centralized, to an extent, that has
    significant components with different institutional homes, so
    that we can exploit the necessary connections between those
    different institutional actors, and exploit the comparative
    advantages that these different institutions have and bring to
    research.
        As a result, we've done this, to a large degree, and we
    have a fairly messy and complicated research structure. It's
    quite a contrast to the Department of Defense, for example.
        But I would argue, this is a good thing, and we've already
    ticked off some of the components. We have the individual State
    DOT research programs. We have pooled fund initiatives that
    Denny mentioned where multiple States work together. We have a
    national program, a National Cooperative Highway Research
    Program, where all of the States pool money for work of common
    interests.
        We have university programs, which combine research needs
    with attracting new talent and skill development. We have
    occasional strategic research programs like the Strategic
    Highway Research Program that the 1987 Act implemented. I'm
    sure today we'll hear about additional proposals for the
    future.
        Let me, at this point, shift gears and focus specifically
    on the Federal role. The Federal Government has been
    instrumental in creating and encouraging a number of the
    research initiatives that have taken place over time elsewhere.
        I'm going to draw upon a recent TWP report that
    specifically looks at the Federal role in highway research and
    technology. Let me acknowledge that that committee was chaired
    by Dr. Mike Walton, who is sitting next to me. That committee
    completed its work and published a report last Fall. I have
    copies of it, if any of you at the end would like to see it.
        It looked specifically in the beginning at the research
    agenda, and concluded that the Federal Highway Administration
    had not given enough attention to fundamental long-term
    research in its program, and recommended that a quarter of its
    research resources should be devoted to that area. One-half of
    the research resources should go to gaps not addressed by other
    programs and emerging national issues.
        Then the final quarter of research and technology resources
    ought to go to mission-oriented research at the Federal Highway
    Administration, policy and regulation development and the like,
    tech transfer, field applications, education and training, and
    tech support.
        They also recommended greater stakeholder involvement
    throughout the research project and the research programs at
    the Federal Highway Administration, all the way from initial
    problem identification through implementation of research
    results.
        The program, to the maximum extent possible, should be
    based on open competition, merit review, and systematic
    evaluation of outcomes. Those are the best methods that we know
    to ensure a quality research product.
        If FHWA's research program can be reformed along these
    lines then that, of course, requires actions by them, as well
    as the Congress. The committee supported a significant increase
    in funding. If it was not possible to do that, it recommended
    that stakeholders work with the Congress to explore other
    mechanisms for accomplishing these same goals.
        Then last, there were several other recommendations that
    I'll just briefly mention: a continuation of the State planning
    and research program, which is very, very important. They
    endorsed the Future Strategic Title Research Program, which I
    think you'll hear more about later, and they supported
    continuation of the University Transportation Centers Program,
    and urged that, again, open competition, merit review, and
    stakeholder involvement be features of those programs, as well.
        I'll conclude right at this point, and I'll look forward to
    your questions later. Thank you.
        Dr. Womack. Thank you.
        Dr. Walton?

    STATEMENT OF DR. MICHAEL WALTON, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS
                               AT AUSTIN

        Dr. Walton. Kevin, thank you and good morning.
        First of all, let me express our appreciation to the
    committee for convening this event. We sincerely appreciate it,
    and thank the members of the staff for being here and
    participating, as well. We look forward to the discussion.
        My name is Mike Walton. I'm with the University of Texas at
    Austin. I hold faculty positions in engineering in the LBJ
    School of Public Affairs.
        I'm here this morning to speak to you about a new
    initiative, the Future Strategic Highway Research Program. As
    you know, that was called for in TEA-21. It asked the NRC, or
    the National Research Council, through the academies and TRB,
    to convene a study group to determine the goals, purposes, and
    research agenda for projects, administrative structure, and
    physical needs for a new F-SHRP initiative, building on the
    previous success of F-SHRP in the past, but looking at it in a
    broader context.
        The effort that was undertaken was to probably convene the
    most extensive outreach program which I have experienced in my
    career, and include numerous items of input from groups across
    the country, some from outside the country, as well, who had
    participated in previous programs.
        From that, we were able to develop Special Report 260
    entitled, Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing
    Congestion, Improving Quality of Life. It recommends the
    establishment of a Future Strategic Highway Research Program,
    comprised of four strategic areas, which I would like to
    quickly identify with you.
        First is renewal; accelerating the renewal of America's
    highways. The research goal in the renewal area is to develop a
    consistent systematic approach to performing highway renewal
    that is rapid, causes minimum disruption, and produces long-
    life facilities.
        Now what does that mean? It means, get in, get out, and
    stay out, basically, on our highway. We think that is an
    important objective, and one that we heard a great deal from
    the constituent groups who participated in the discussion.
        Safety is the second area, making a significant improvement
    in highway safety. The research goal in the safety areas is to
    prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes through more
    accurate knowledge of cause factors that create the crashes,
    and the cost effectiveness of selected counter measures in
    these factors.
        This is a substantial opportunity and goal in which, again,
    we figured, to the extent of the input we received and the
    severity of the problem, that this is a major initiative, where
    we need if not a significant improvement, perhaps a quantum
    leap, if you will.
        Reliability is the third area, providing a highway system
    with reliable travel times. The goal in this area of
    reliability is to provide highway users with reliable travel
    times by preventing and reducing the impact of non-reoccurring
    incidents.
        The fourth area is in capacity. Providing highway capacity
    in support of the Nation's economic environmental and social
    goals. The research goal in the area of capacity is to develop
    approaches and tools for systematically integrating
    environmental, economic and community requirements into the
    analysis, planning, and design of new highway capacity; a
    substantial objective.
        Some of these projects or topics are obviously not new; but
    in essence, we are looking at resources that could be brought
    to bear that would provide us the opportunity of leaping beyond
    the incremental approach to the particular issue.
        Special Report 260 provides a strategic direction and a
    conceptual design for F-SHRP. Additional detailed planning is
    currently underway. It is funded and supported by AASHTO and
    FHWA. Under the NCHRP Program, that area is intended, or that
    initiative is intended to flesh out, if you will, these four
    strategic areas, and build a research program behind that.
        The Secretary of Pennsylvania DOT, Brad Mallory, is
    chairing this oversight panel, and we now have over 100 members
    of the highway and transportation community participating in
    the development of those plans and programs.
        There is a list of those who are participating in this
    initiative, at least on the oversight committee, attached to
    our report. Kevin, we look forward to further discussion when
    we have the opportunity.
        Dr. Womack. Thank you.
        Professor Deakin?

        STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH DEAKIN, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF
                         CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY

        Ms. Deakin. Thank you. I'm Elizabeth Deakin. I'm a
    professor at the University of California, Berkeley, where I
    have faculty appointments in actually four different groups, in
    city and regional planning, and then affiliate appointments in
    civil engineering, urban design, and energy and resources.
        In addition to chairing one of the 10 regional
    transportation centers established under the UTC Program, for
    the last couple of years, I have been serving as the chair of
    the Surface Transportation Environmental Cooperative Research
    Advisory Board, which was established, as you know, under TEA-
    21, through a call to the Secretary of Transportation, to
    establish a board to look into the needs for research in
    transportation, energy, and the environment.
        The Board has 17 members. The members draw from a very
    broad range of disciplines and backgrounds. We include State
    DOT representatives, metropolitan planning organization
    representatives, people from environmental organizations, and
    academics.
        We started our work by looking at what the State and
    Federal agencies that carry out transportation environmental
    research were doing. One of the complications, of course, with
    this area is that there is not just DOT doing research, and
    State DOTs doing research, but research also extends into the
    Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy,
    Housing and Urban Development, Agriculture, Interior. Lots and
    lots of different agencies do research on transportation and
    the environment.
        We also held a workshop in which we invited over 100 people
    to participate and help us identify research needs and discuss
    what the current research issues were. We based our work on
    that input that we got.
        One of the findings that I think is most important for this
    committee is that it was very clear that research and
    transportation in the environment has been under-funded for a
    very, very time. Because it has been under-funded, there is a
    gigantic backlog of research needs in this area.
        The research that is going on, and there is important
    research going on, is mostly focused toward the short-term,
    immediate needs the agencies that are carrying out that
    research.
        While that is very important for the agencies to do, the
    people who testified to us and our own committee membership
    identified that a real problem was that there isn't any long-
    term focus, and there is not a long-term strategic plan, to go
    beyond the issues that are mitigating environmental problems as
    they arise, to really looking at the fundamental causes of
    those environmental problems, and finding ways to avoid those
    problems.
        So the need that we've identified is for a really
    systematic research program that can look at both short-term
    and longer-term transportation, environmental, and energy
    research issues, and get beyond short-term issues, while those
    are important things to address; but to also look at the
    longer-term more fundamental issues, where we really think we
    will find a big payoff.
        An investment in that kind of long-term focused strategic
    research is something that we think we really need to do, and
    we need to do quite soon, because we have got a lot of catching
    up to do in this areas.
        The committee's report, which is in this form right now, a
    pile of draft chapters, will be out in about a month, I
    believe, or at least we're hoping that that's the schedule we
    can keep to. The report's reviews are being completed right
    now. The response to reviewers are basically done.
        We had 11 reviewers on this report, which I think might be
    a record for the Transportation Research Board. It is many
    times the typical number of reviewers.
        There were three overall reviewers, and then an additional
    eight reviewers who looked at specialty areas of the individual
    chapters, in addition to the National Academy of Sciences
    Monitor and reviews by senior administrators and staff at the
    TRB itself. So it will be a very carefully reviewed report,
    when it is finally issued.
        The findings that we've made or that we need to do research
    are in six basic areas. Those areas are the relationship
    between transportation and human health; the relationship
    between transportation and natural ecology, natural systems;
    environmental and social justice issues; emerging technologies
    and the role that they might play in addressing transportation
    energy and environmental issues; land use and transportation;
    planning and performance measures. So those are the six areas.
        In each of those areas, the report provides an initial
    agenda of research topics, where we think research can
    profitably be done. It will give us both short-term payoffs and
    longer term benefits.
        In addition to looking at those particular issues, the
    committee thought quite hard about what the best way of
    organizing this research would be. We recognize, of course,
    that we do have this multitude of existing research
    institutions.
        But having looked at those institutions, we also concluded
    that because we've had such a backlog and such a need for
    environmental research, we need a cooperative research program
    for transportation and the environment, that could be a
    partnership of public and private actors and the nonprofits,
    who are very interested in this topic, as well, where they
    could pool resources and try to address some of the conflicts
    that arise over transportation, energy, and environmental
    issues in a dispassionate way by having an independent
    organization that would be able to look at that.
        So another recommendation we make, in addition to doing
    research on these six topic areas, is that we establish a new
    cooperative research program on transportation and the
    environment.
        I would also like to say just a couple of words about the
    University Research Program, since I am director of one of
    those centers. The University Research Program grew under both
    ISTEA and TEA-21 from the 10 regional centers that we started
    with in 1987, to 33 centers now. The rest of the centers were
    earmarked centers, identified specifically in legislation.
        We believe all the centers have found ways to be productive
    and to produce important products, but we also think that the
    centers are quite under-funded, at this point.
        The 10 regional centers, in particular, haven't had a raise
    since 1987. We are operating on the same budget that we had in
    1987, or actually a reduced budget, because we are now subject
    to Federal budgeting rules, so we have had reductions in the
    amount of funding that's actually provided to us.
        That has made it extremely difficult for us to carry out
    the role of education and research that we think is so
    important. It was said earlier that we need to be producing new
    researchers for our programs in transportation, and we think
    the University Program is the way to do that. We produce
    students. That's one of our primary products. But we need
    funding to be able to do that.
        We have been successful so far, and we think we could be
    more successful in the program were funded at a higher level.
    Thank you.
        Dr. Womack. Thank you, Professor Deakin.
        We would like to turn the time now over to Senator Jeffords
    and welcome him.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT

        Senator Jeffords. I want to thank you all for coming. This
    is a very important meeting, as far as I'm concerned. I
    appreciate the participation.
        We are beginning the undertaking of the daunting task of
    preparing a new transportation authorization bill. The research
    title within that bill is a key component to the future
    performance of our highway system. I am pleased that in lieu of
    a research hearing, we have been able to put together this
    discussion today.
        My thanks go to the panelists, and I appreciate your
    willingness to share both your knowledge and your time with us.
    It is extremely important as we move forward on this
    legislation.
        I am a firm believer in the need for research. It is
    through research that we would be able to take the demands that
    are placed on our surface transportation system and improve our
    performance.
        The use of new materials, construction methods, and
    technologies will help us rebuild our aging infrastructure with
    a modern and more durable one.
        In Vermont, at the University of Vermont, we have a project
    underway that is investigating the use of new wireless
    technology to ascertain the integrity of the highway
    structures. It is my hope that in some small way my State is
    playing a role for the advancement of highway efficiency and
    performance.
        It would be through the application of technologies that we
    will increase the efficiency and safety of our surface
    transportation system.
        Research can also help us better manage and operate the
    system. Our roads and bridges are stronger and last longer,
    thanks to the quality of research we've had in the past. I
    believe that system efficiency and operational performance can
    realize similar benefit through research.
        So please keep this in mind when you discuss things today,
    and I look forward to your results, especially if you are going
    to solve other problems.
        Dr. Womack. We hope so.
        [Laughter.]
        Dr. Womack. Thank you, Senator. You are certainly welcome
    to stay with us as long as your schedule would allow. We
    appreciate you coming.
        Senator Jeffords. I will be able to stay for a while, so go
    right ahead.
        Dr. Womack. All right, thank you.
        Mr. Riva?

     STATEMENT OF VAL RIVA, AMERICAN CONCRETE PAVEMENT ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Riva. Senator and members of the panel, I was going to
    say this anyway before Senator Jeffords arrived, but I think it
    is more appropriate now, even so.
        This is the fourth Federal highway bill that I'm going to
    be working on, in various capacities. I cannot recall a time
    when either this committee or any committee in the House of
    Representatives has put research and development at the
    forefront of the legislative process, as you have today.
        Given the size of the Federal Aid Highway Program, I think
    that it's not only appropriate, but it's putting the entire
    agenda in a very appropriate order; and that is, to assess what
    needs to be done in the future, in conjunction with what's
    being done in the core program areas. So I applaud you for
    doing that.
        I have a lengthy statement, so I won't even both to go
    through most of that. I would also like to thank the Iowa State
    Research Center. They have traveled here without any budget, as
    I understand it, to be here today, and Debra Larsen and Dale
    Harrington, who is the Director of it.
        I have a couple of just very basic points, and I will keep
    to my 180 seconds. The American Concrete Pavement Association,
    and that's the first and only time I will mention concrete
    pavement in this whole presentation, believes in a couple
    things. That is that effective research has a couple of key
    components.
        One, it must be useful. We believe strongly it should be
    applied research, with a goal of promoting cost effective,
    durable, and safe pavements. We believe that it should be
    without regard to the type of pavement, even though there are
    only two types, since you can put down concrete and asphalt.
        We also agree on something that Mr. Bud Wright from Federal
    Highways pointed out. That is that education and knowledge
    transfer is absolutely critical.
        Many of our students coming out of undergraduate, civil
    engineering programs have very little knowledge of what it is
    to specify or to understand the different kinds of pavement.
    They can only get that later on in their programs. In some far-
    reaching programs, they may have an in-depth indoctrination, if
    you will, on that, but that is not often the case.
        We believe that's something that should be addressed,
    because these are the individuals that will be going to work
    for the Department of Transportation and other sectors that
    will have a pivotal role.
        We also believe that the best research is going to be
    conducted in a cooperative effort between the public and the
    private sector, in academia, and the State DOTs. To our mind,
    this makes the best of not only maximizing intellectual
    capital, but also leveraging the scarce resources that
    undoubtedly will come into play.
        We don't believe that any entity has absolutely the best
    and only solution to an issue. We find that if you clearly
    define and delineate the objectives that a research program
    has, then the best way to go about that is to bring those
    individuals to those parties together in an open, competitive
    process, and let them get to work.
        We, ourselves, have been involved in an entity called the
    Innovative Pavement Research Foundation, which we believe has
    brought some of those key issues to the front.
        We also believe that future research should not only be
    applied, but it should focus on pavement replacement, and
    upgrading the congested facilities we have in this country. I
    think it stands to reason that the amount of new construction,
    in many cases, is going to be hampered.
        Therefore, we have to find ways to make better due with the
    existing facilities that we have, construct the work faster; do
    so in a way that's environmentally sensitive; and do so in a
    way that changes or reduces the disruption and inevitable
    delays that come about as a result of construction.
        We also think that in terms of even more specifics, that we
    should focus on the materials that are used, without regard to
    the type, again, the education aspects; and with always a mind
    to environmental mitigation.
        In conclusion, I urge you to draw strongly from Government,
    from academic, from industry, in a partnership that draws the
    best from each one of those sectors.
        Thank you, that's all I have for now.
        Dr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Riva.
        Dr. Eighmy?

      STATEMENT OF DR. TAYLOR EIGHMY, DIRECTOR, RECYCLED MATERIAL
              RESOURCE CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

        Dr. Eighmy. I'd like to thank the Senator and the committee
    staff for the opportunity to be here today, and to participate
    in this discussion.
        My name is Taylor Eighmy, and I direct the Recycled
    Materials Resource Center at the University of New Hampshire.
    It's a partnership with the Federal Highway Administration to
    promote the wise use of recycled materials in the highway
    environment.
        My written testimony that I provided has a number of
    specific concrete ideas for research needs that were developed
    out of many stakeholder meetings that have taken place over the
    last year or two, so I'm not really going to touch base on
    those.
        I want to give you four take-home messages for today. They
    are really related to barrier reduction about using recycled
    materials in the highway environment.
        The first take-home point is that this research on recycled
    materials is going to require strategic partnerships. The
    second one is that these research activities have to be linked
    to the highway community. You have to put useful information
    and tangible products in the hands of decisionmakers.
        These research activities not only must produce more basic
    knowledge, but these tangible products that must also evolve
    have to be things like material specifications; performance
    specifications; best practices; guidance; evaluation
    methodologies; particularly to predict long-term performance of
    recycled materials; policy analysis as research; and
    demonstration projects. Demonstration projects are a great way
    to, pardon the bad pun, go out and kick a tire, so that people
    can understand that a proposed material in a new application
    can work.
        My last take-home message to you all is that a measurement
    of research success needs to be put in terms of actual use of
    the product by the highway community, particularly the State
    DOTs. Although I will mention, I think it is interesting to
    note that our center also feels that one of our principal
    clients, in addition to the State DOTs, is also the State EPAs.
    You can't ignore them in the recycled materials arena.
        But the notion here is that if you want to measure return
    on investment, you have to look at the use of the product.
    Thanks.
        Dr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Eighmy.
        Mr. Bernstein?

      STATEMENT OF SCOTT BERNSTEIN, SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY
                                PROJECT

        Mr. Bernstein. That's a hard act to follow.
        Good morning, and let me echo my thanks to the committee
    and the staff for putting this together. I'm Scott Bernstein.
    I'm President of the Center for Neighborhood Technology in
    Chicago, a nonprofit community development and public interest
    engineering group.
        It is my privilege to be a cofounder of the Surface
    Transportation Policy Project, a coalition of 800
    environmental, economic development, business, and community
    interests around the country, who came together back in 1990 to
    help articulate a vision for transportation that works for
    people in communities.
        As we've thought about the challenge, in the letter
    inviting us, on the successes and failures of research under
    TEA-21, the principal that we identified is that the stated
    purposes of ISTEA and TEA-21 should really be what guides the
    federally supported research information and research and
    development agenda. Just to re-articulate, those purposes are
    intermodalism, economic efficiency, environmental quality, and
    equity.
        We took a review of the expenditures and the activities
    against those principles. I want to address really briefly this
    morning five gaps or challenges that we think are there, and
    hopefully boil this down in under 3 minutes to three
    recommendations.
        The first of those gaps is in the area of transparency; the
    ability to actually see how our resources are being used. By
    analogy in another field, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and
    the Community Reinvestment Act require lenders to disclose sort
    of the origin and destination, if you will, of depositors'
    money on a community by community basis.
        This has been going on since 1975, and every day in
    America, hundreds of thousands of people log on to the Internet
    or walk into their institution, and they can find out where
    their money is, and where it's getting reinvested in.
        The lending institutions have not only gotten used to this,
    but the Federal Reserve Bank found that the best performers in
    being transparent in America turn out to be the most profitable
    in America, as well. So it works. They actually open up the
    system and, if you will, take an eye glass to how our resources
    are being used.
        If we take a look at the financial management information
    system of DOT, as an example of what that eye glass looks like
    for transportation expenditures, it's inpenetratably dense.
        We have staff here who can speak to it, if you have
    questions. But every 2 years, we go through an amazing activity
    to de-code that and make it publicly available. If the codes
    don't correspond to functions, activities, or outcomes, it's
    impossible to do a good tracking system.
        We ought to be able to do better. That's an example, and
    there are many other information systems that we think could be
    similarly re-engineered.
        The second is that good data should support good science
    and good decisions, but bad data is going to work the other
    way. The National Personal Transportation Survey is the only
    national source of data on travel demand.
        We all depend on it for input into our metropolitan and
    State models and programming activities. It's supposed to be a
    representative survey. If you take a close look at who's
    actually surveyed, it's mostly a middle class survey.
        You don't know how higher income people are traveling; but
    more importantly, it's a telephone-based survey, and it misses
    many, many low income people; people living in group quarters.
    It misses the institutional population, living at colleges and
    universities. As a result, it undercounts, for example, transit
    users by a significant degree.
        It's been stated that this is a money problem, but we don't
    think so. We think there are ways to include that sort of data
    collection. We think that it inadvertently also leads to the
    labeling of people who don't have cards as autoless households,
    to use a phrase from an annual report put out by one federally
    supported researched.
        That doesn't help us make decisions, particularly for a
    population where now the overwhelming majority of Americans
    live in metropolitan areas, and are trying to articulate
    transportation choices.
        The third area has to do with inner city travel. The
    recently released American Travel survey focuses on long-
    distance travel. It's interesting that it does state that 81
    percent of trips over 100 miles are taken by car. Only 16
    percent are taken by aviation, 2 percent by motor coach, and a
    half percent by train.
        We are fascinated by the 81 percent, and think this ought
    to be taken into account, as we think about intermodalism; but
    more importantly as we think about security investments, in
    light of September 11th.
        Every day, it seems Congress is being asked to consider
    very significant expenditures for transportation security. The
    data on the actual security events, over a 40 year period,
    seems to show that there is less likelihood of attack with
    surface transportation; and in particular, with mass transit,
    than with aviation. This strikes me as a strategic issue for
    the committee to want to think about.
        Then there are the values of fixing it first and thinking
    about the economic impact on households. The longer things
    last, the more it's worth. When the useful life of highways was
    adjusted in the GDP accounts from 60 to 45 years, the value of
    the United States dropped in those GDP account by $140 billion.
    This is just an example of how much this is worth.
        In Northeastern Illinois, the agencies there, the MOP and
    the COG, found that since the passage of TEA-21, the amount of
    money spent on the program, totally going to fix-it-first
    activities, preservation and maintenance, increased from 55 to
    80 percent, with a new impact of billions in one region alone.
    But they had to dig that information out.
        It strikes me as a performance indicator for what is
    effectively a fix-it-first bill, that we ought to be getting
    that kind of information.
        Finally, on household economics, it seems that where you
    live really makes a difference. If you have one car instead of
    two, or two cars instead of three, there's an enormous economic
    impact on households and users.
        There is no program to speak of on user economic impacts
    that is anywhere within the Department of Transportation. There
    is a chapter on economics in the Bureau of Transportation
    Statistics Report. They don't seem to be directly funded to
    even consider this. If people aren't the end users of the
    system, then who are?
        So our three recommendations are that first, information
    and research should be less modally and technology-oriented and
    more end-use oriented. This was one of the promises of creating
    Bureau of Transportation statistics. They hardly get enough
    funding to do a respectable job in this.
        The second is that information and research should be
    approached as a comprehensive effort involving both the Federal
    Government and other sectors. That's the only way to get on top
    of this and to address the funding problems that many people
    have spoken to here.
        If I can contrast with this year's Welfare Reform Bill,
    close to $100 million was spent by the Federal Government and
    by foundations in the United States, to get ready with an
    information set, so that the authorizing and appropriating
    committees would have the information needed for a good debate.
        The feedback we're getting is that it's really paying off.
    There's time to actually put together that kind of partnership
    here and we ought to think about it.
        Finally, the data collection should really be structured to
    answer the kinds of critical questions that users are really
    posing, so that the transportation investigations that result
    really meet end-use community needs.
        Walter Lippman once noted that democracy means paying
    attention. Every day in America, every week, there are
    thousands of organizations who have taken the choice to get
    increasingly involved in planning the future of their
    transportation system, despite the availability of the quality
    data they need.
        I think we owe it to them to put together the support
    structure, so that we get the best bang for the buck here, and
    meet that challenge.
        Thank you very much, and we'd be happy to answer any
    questions.
        Dr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Bernstein.
        Mr. Carlson?

       STATEMENT OF DAVID B. CARLSON, NATIONAL ASPHALT PAVEMENT
                              ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Carlson. Thank you.
        Thank you for providing this excellent forum on the
    Reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Research Program.
    I ought to mention that our company from Iowa does both
    concrete and asphalt work, but I'm here today representing the
    National Asphalt Pavement Association.
        NAPA represents companies that manufactures hot mix
    asphalt, used in the construction of roads, streets, highways,
    parking lots, airports, environmental, and recreational
    facilities.
        In short, Mr. Chairman, NAPA recommends Congress authorize
    a multi-year asphalt pavement research and technology program,
    managed by the Federal Highway Administration, with oversight
    input from members of the American Association of State Highway
    and Transportation Officials, AASHTO, and the hot mix asphalt
    industry.
        Our national highway system, as established by an Act of
    Congress in 1956, has now reached its maturity. President
    Eisenhower would be astonished to learn that 45 years later,
    the National Highway System would carry 200 million passenger
    vehicles, and 3.4 million trucks and buses.
        The volume of freight transported over highways is expected
    to double in volume over the next 20 years. This trend will
    maintain three decades of growth, as vehicle miles traveled
    increased 143 percent, and vehicle miles traveled logged by
    trucks, in particular, increased 225 percent. Yet, over the
    same period, miles of roadway increased only 6 percent.
        These divergent factors have led to serious congestion on
    our Nation's highways. The roads are handling more vehicles
    than the pavements were designed to handle.
        The results of highway congestion are often tragic, with
    more than 40,000 deaths per year, and three million injuries
    resulting from traffic accidents. The fact is that our national
    highway system is outdated and breaking down from overuse.
    Unless we plan effectively and use our highway dollars wisely,
    there is a real potential for an increase in the number of
    highway deaths.
        Mr. Chairman, there is clearly a need to increase Federal
    funding to prevent the deterioration of our road system and
    provide for growing needs. In addition, NAPA strongly believes
    that there is a fundamental need to invest in research and
    development.
        Funding a focused, multi-year national research program
    would pay huge dividends to the public, resulting in highways
    that are safer and environmentally friendly, designed for
    perpetual use, and repair projects that are quick and reduce
    traffic congestion.
        Highway research is an ongoing need. Exciting opportunities
    exist to improve pavement performance, develop better methods
    of maintenance and rehabilitation, and optimize resources
    through recycling and speed of construction.
        The hot mix industry believes a new approach to designing
    highways is needed that takes into consideration not just the
    thickness of the pavement, but the combination of materials
    used to construct an optimal pavement structure, a perpetual
    pavement.
        A perpetual pavement is designed as an asphalt that is
    designed to last longer than 50 years without requiring
    reconstruction, with only occasional surface renewal. Examples
    of long-life hot mix pavements exist around the country.
        Criteria needs to be developed so that the selection,
    design, and construction of perpetual pavements becomes a
    conscious process. A federally funded and managed hot mix
    research program could develop the very tools that highway
    designers and contractors need to build perpetual pavements.
        New and improved pavement technologies and materials can
    also achieve significant long-term savings. The total
    replacement value of the Nation's highways and bridges is
    estimated to be $3 trillion. If research can improve the
    performance and durability of roads and bridges just by 1
    percent, the direct savings would be in billions.
        NAPA recommends that Congress authorize and fund an asphalt
    pavement research and technology program in the next
    Transportation Reauthorization Bill. Furthermore, NAPA believes
    the Federal Highway Administration is best suited to manage the
    APRT Program with oversights that include AASHTO and the hot
    mix industry as equal partners.
        The APRT Program should be funded at $25 million annually,
    and focus on fundamental, long-term research aimed at achieving
    breakthroughs in our understanding of hot mix pavement
    materials, design, and performance. Such research should also
    be aimed at addressing research gaps, and not addressing other
    highway R&D programs, as well as emerging issues with national
    implications.
        In order to ensure the APRT Program is responsive to the
    major stakeholders in highway innovation, the oversight
    structure should include an Executive Committee consisting of
    HMA pavement experts from FHWA, State Departments of
    Transportation, and the hot mix industry, each having an equal
    voice.
        The Executive Committee would provide oversight and input
    in support of an APRT program. Research advisory committees
    would be formed to guide research projects and consider
    research initiative studies.
        I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
    Thank you.
        Dr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Carlson.
        Dr. White?

     STATEMENT OF DR. CHELSEA C. WHITE, GEORGIA TECH, ON BEHALF OF
                              ITS AMERICA

        Dr. White. Thank you, Kevin, for the opportunity to
    participate in this round table.
        I'm Chip White, a member of the ITS America Board of
    Directors and a Professor at Georgia Tech. I'm testifying on
    behalf of ITS America, a non-profit 501-C3, which has over 600
    member organizations from the public, private, and academic
    sectors, representing some 60,000 individuals worldwide. ITS
    America is also a utilized Federal advisory committee to U.S.
    DOT.
        Let me now briefly mention the work needed to continue our
    efforts to build on the ISTEA and TEA-21 investment in ITS
    research and deployment, in order to fully realize the benefits
    of ITS technologies.
        Regarding security, last September 10, ITS America last
    testified before this committee on the oversight of the Federal
    ITS Program.
        The following day, traffic operation centers in Northern
    Virginia and in New York City, which were designed to monitor
    traffic flows and respond to crashes, provided the
    communications needed for effective evacuations and the
    efficient management of emergency response personnel. Without
    ITS systems in place, these evacuations would have certainly
    been slower and less orderly.
        ITS America's Homeland Security Task Force has recommended
    that in reauthorization, we focus attention on a variety of
    security-related applications of ITS, including planning for
    evacuations and quarantining, traffic surveillance and incident
    detection, emergency communications hardening and redundancy,
    and asset tracking for commercial vehicles, transit systems,
    and cargo.
        More broadly and in compliance with TEA-21, ITS America has
    recently released the National Transportation Systems Program
    Plan, which outlines a vision for ITS research and deployment
    over the next 10 years. Besides creating a transportation
    system that is well protected and secure, this plan proposes
    advancing ITS to improve safety, enhance sufficiency, increase
    mobility, and improve the environment.
        In order to meet these goals, the 10 year program plan
    proposes focusing the Federal ITS Program on four areas: an
    integrated network of transportation information that involves
    the instrumentation of major intersections and roads, as well
    as data collection from commercial vehicles, transit, and rail;
    advance crash avoidance technologies, such as collision
    avoidance and adaptive cruise control; automatic crash and
    incident detection, notification, and response; advanced
    transportation management systems that enable area-wide
    surveillance and detection; and operational responses to
    traffic flow changes.
        In conclusion, ITS technologies hold the promise of
    continuing to provide our citizens with the most secure, the
    safest, and the most efficient transportation system in the
    world. ITS America looks forward to working with you to design
    the research and deployment programs that will help keep this
    promise. Thank you.
        Dr. Womack. Thank you, Dr. White.
        Dr. Tarnoff?

    STATEMENT OF DR. PHILIP J. TARNOFF, ON BEHALF OF THE INSTITUTE
                      OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS

        Dr. Tarnoff. Thank you and good morning. I also would like
    to express my appreciation for the opportunity to participate
    in this round table.
        I'm Phil Tarnoff. I'm the Director of the Center for
    Advanced Transportation Technology at the University of
    Maryland. I'm here today representing the Institute of
    Transportation Engineers.
        ITE firmly believes that the Federal Government must
    continue to play a strong leadership role in the coordination
    and pooling of resources for research and development that cuts
    across systems and modes. In order to ensure the maximum
    benefit to the traveling public, the results of this research
    must be made available as quickly as possible, for application
    nationwide.
        In reflection of that, ITE has prepared six major
    recommendations on research that we feel strongly should be
    incorporated into the revised Surface Transportation Bill.
        The first recommendation deals with the Future Strategic
    Highway Research Program, F-SHRP, that was described so capably
    by Mike Walton earlier. This funding should be provided through
    a one-quarter of 1 percent take-down of Federal Highway Funds,
    which would be approximately $450 million to $500 million, over
    the life of the bill, and support the four key program goals,
    as Mike described them, of renewal, safety, reliability, and
    capacity.
        ITE's second recommendation is to increase funding for the
    Transit Cooperative Research Program, TCRP, from $8.25 million
    per year, which has not increased since 1993 and, in fact, has
    decreased slightly, to a level of $15 million in fiscal year
    2004, and ensure that future increases are proportional to
    increases in Federal transit allocations.
        A third recommendation is, we feel that there is a need for
    a much more focused research on intersection safety
    countermeasures. Currently, 44 percent of all accidents
    nationally occur at intersections. So it makes perfect sense to
    provide this focused emphasis.
        In November, 2001, ITE hosted an intersection safety
    conference with the Federal Highway Administration and other
    transportation organizations. I have brought a preliminary
    draft of the conference findings for your review.
        I would want to say that the transportation professionals
    who participated in that conference identified the need for
    additional data regarding human operations and design factors
    that lead to increased intersection safety. These issues are
    described in the detailed statement that we're providing.
        The fourth recommendation is that the Secretary of
    Transportation initiated a study through the National Academy
    of Science to identify the best practices of incorporating
    operations and safety into the planning process. Currently,
    these activities are under-represented in the planning process,
    and additional emphasis is needed.
        In 2001, ITE, as a member of the National Steering
    Committee on Transportation Operations, hosted the National
    Summit on Transportation Operations with Federal Highways. I
    have also brought findings of this conference for staff
    reviews.
        Issues related to transportation systems integration and
    management, jurisdictional cooperation and communication,
    implementation of performance measures, and data collection
    were identified by summit participants, and could greatly
    benefit from research and best practices.
        The fifth recommendation is to continue to fund the ITS
    research and deployment program, focusing on traffic management
    center operations, traffic incident management, traffic signal
    system management, public transit management, and advanced
    travel information systems. While significant progress has been
    made, there is a continuing need for additional research focus
    on these areas.
        Improved technology is needed in response to increasing
    travel demands, and the resulting degradation in safety and
    increased congestion. The public is demanding improved
    transportation reliability, and so research is essential in
    this area.
        The sixth recommendation is to support the findings of the
    Transportation Research Board's Special Report 261, prepared by
    the Research Technology Coordinating Committee of the National
    Research Counsel. I believe Bob Skinner mentioned this. We
    believe that investments in transportation research lag
    significantly those made by most other sectors of the U.S.
    economy.
        As a result, the transportation community cannot take
    advantage of the many technological improvements emerging from
    the fields of information technology, materials, reliability,
    and operations research.
        In addition, and possibly more significant, it is difficult
    for universities and other research organizations to attract
    the best talent needed to address the needs of this community,
    because of these funding shortages.
        So in conclusion, ITE strongly believes that these
    recommendations are instrumental to ensuring the future safety,
    reliability, and security of the transportation system. ITE
    appreciates the opportunity to share our views, and looks
    forward to working with you in the future.
        Dr. Womack. Thank you, Dr. Tarnoff.
        We'd like to welcome Senator Reid, who has joined us, and
    turn the time over to him for a few remarks.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

        Senator Reid. I apologize for being late and for having to
    leave early. The Senate is still in session, and we have some
    things that I need to be working on there.
        Let me just say though that I really support Chairman
    Jeffords in this symposium, this task force, or we can call it
    whatever we want. But it's really, I think, the future of how
    we need to do things here in the Senate.
        We have been doing things the same way since I came here 20
    years ago, and I think we need to change. That was done, I bet,
    many, many years before I got here. That is, we have hearings,
    we have panels, and everyone talks for a few minutes. Senators
    come in and out; mostly out.
        I think we need to do more things like this. While we may
    not want to admit it, we here in the Senate are not really as
    in tune with the issues as they are in the House. House members
    are very limited in their jurisdiction. If you serve on the
    Transportation Committee on the House, you spend a great deal
    of time working on transportation issues.
        Here in the Senate, we are a jack of all trades and a
    master of none. We depend very, very heavily on our staff.
    That's not the way it is in the House. That's why, when we go
    to conference, even though I'm probably giving away some trade
    secrets here, we have to have our staff with us because we, a
    lot of times, don't know what's going on.
        We want our staffs to be well equipped to do this. That's
    what this hearing is all about, this symposium, so that one of
    the most important aspects of transportation, and that is
    research, gets a full airing; and these staff people who are so
    good, and have devoted their lives to public service, are able
    to better understand the research aspect of this, and then give
    it to us.
        I've been chairman of this committee on two separate
    occasions, and now I'm the chair of this subcommittee dealing
    with transportation. I've talked to Mitch Warren, my clerk on
    this most important subcommittee, and we're going to attempt to
    do things like this in the future, in addition to our standard
    regular hearings.
        We also, I think, are going to look to maybe developing
    some task forces, composed of people just like this hearing,
    people from the academic world, people from government
    agencies, advocacy groups, people from the private sector, and
    get them together.
        Then we could have a hearing where a couple of people with
    majority views, and if there are minority views, could report
    to us on what we should do in a certain area. So we are looking
    at different ways to accomplish the goal that we're trying to
    meet, and that is to have a better transportation system in
    this country.
        We all share a goal of building a more durable, safer and
    efficient service transportation system; but having said that,
    it's not easy.
        So thank you all very much for being here. Understand that
    Senator Jeffords and I weren't planning on spending a lot of
    time here. We will, of course, spend time with our staffs. I
    had a good briefing with Dr. Womack and Mitch Warren yesterday,
    talking about this and the other things that need to be done in
    this area.
        I am grateful to you for being here, and want you to be as
    free and open as you can be, because we need to come up with a
    good bill next year. Thank you.
        Dr. Womack. Thank you, Senator Reid. We appreciate you
    coming.
        Mr. Ryan?

       STATEMENT OF MICHAEL M. RYAN, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
                  TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF AASHTO

        Mr. Ryan. Good morning and thank you, Dr. Womack, for the
    opportunity to testify or to present the American Association
    of State Highway and Transportation Officials' viewpoints on
    research.
        I'm Mike Ryan. I'm the Deputy Secretary with the
    Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, responsible for
    highway administration.
        I think we all agree that the innovation or the process of
    innovation involves four activities: the research, the
    technology transfer of that research, the training of
    individuals to implement the results of that research, and the
    education of people to do the research.
        While we discuss the various aspects and components of that
    activity or those activities, the fact remains that
    transportation demands are increasing on our system.
        There is more traffic out there. There are more passengers
    wanting to use transit systems and aviation. There's heavier
    vehicles, and our infrastructure is aging. I think we generally
    agree that no bill is necessarily the option or the solution to
    this dilemma.
        Meanwhile, we need to search for new materials, new
    technologies, new practices and new policies to help us better
    cope with the demands on our transportation system.
        As we have put together AASHTO's Research Reauthorization
    Report, I believe two themes have generally emerged. The first
    one is the need for enhanced fundamental, long-term higher risk
    research. We need to do essentially more of that type activity.
        You don't have to look far to find successes in the recent
    past: the Strategic Highway Research Program in the late 1980's
    and early 1990's. I can tell you from our perspective in
    Pennsylvania, Super Pave is doing a great job in helping us
    come up with pavement designs to resist the heavy loads of
    trucks.
        On pavement preservation, we have found micro-surfacing and
    things like Novachip that can give us durable thin pavements
    that can be economical and cost effective over a shorter period
    of time. We have changed our concrete pavement design to have
    90 degree joints at 20 foot spacing, as a result of the data
    that we collected from LTPP.
        In the areas of winter services, we have essentially
    revolutionized our work in that arena, just in the last five to
    10 years. Roadway weather information systems are providing
    real time data to our customers out there.
        Pre-wetted salt is reducing the demands on the amount of
    salt. Anti-icing is helping us take care of critical bridges in
    Pennsylvania. Zero velocity spreaders are enabling us to get
    over our system a lot quicker and using less material, which
    can be environmentally friendly.
        Another example is in the area of ITS. You've heard
    testimony today about easing congestion and saving lives.
    Essentially, what we are doing is talking to our customers in
    real time, and providing them with the information that they
    need to navigate our system.
        The second theme that has emerged in developing our report
    is the need to do more aggressive training, technology
    transfer, and education. AASHTO supports the UTCs. We believe
    that the future of research is training students that can do a
    job and do the kinds of fundamental long-term, high risk
    research that we're looking for. That's our investment in human
    capital.
        We also support training such as NHI and NTI, and the LTAP
    process, where we convey the knowledge and the results of
    research over to the local governments.
        We also support international scans. Recent scans in the
    area of truck size and weight, intermodal freight movement, and
    recycling of materials have all brought back good ideas from
    other countries, and enabled us to enhance our knowledge in
    those areas. I think there are opportunities to continue on.
        Following ISTEA, I think you've heard today that we've done
    a lot. F-SHRP has been developed as a way to save lives and
    improve the quality. We support that.
        We are very hopeful that F-SHRP will be like SHRP was.
    Granted, it's a series of rifle shots. Some will hit their
    target and some will not. But essentially, when you invest in
    long-term, high risk research, that's the chance that you take.
        The National R&T Partnership was a great effort. It was a
    bottom-up approach, a voluntary approach, an inclusive
    approach. We now have a huge catalog of desires in the research
    arena on a national basis.
        If we were to fund all of those recommendations, it would
    probably cost us about $700 million per year. That is certainly
    much larger than we believe we can afford. But the fact is that
    we used expert stakeholders, partners, to help put together
    that program, and it represents a great menu for future
    research.
        We also are anxious for the TRB Environmental Cooperative
    Research Program. We think in the environmental area, from the
    State's perspective, we need to save time. We need to enhance
    the quality of life, as we pursue transportation improvements,
    and we need to build trust with the resource agencies out
    there.
        In the area of FHWA, the RTCC Report finds that the FHWA is
    best suited to be that vehicle to provide the long-term, high
    risk type research. That's going to require changes, and we've
    been hearing from the FHWA a willingness to outreach to our
    partners and our stakeholders, to be more inclusive in that
    effort. We're pleased by that approach.
        Finally, I haven't said anything about State research at
    the SPNR level. We are very happy with the amount of applied
    research that is occurring at the State level now. We are not
    necessarily asking for increased funding, but just to maintain
    that program, because that's essential for the States in order
    to solve their day-to-day problems.
        We have taken a stab, for the first time, at recommending
    funding. The last page of my five page presentation, Table 1,
    has specific recommendations to target dollars for the various
    programs that we've looked at.
        We've tried to be very inclusive, in that we wanted to
    include all the programs, all the research programs, that were
    contained in TEA-21. So in essence, it's a one-stop shop, in
    terms of research recommendations.
        If you look at the dollars and totaled them, and they are
    not totaled because it is still a draft report, it represents
    about 2.5 percent, assuming a $30 billion a year program. If
    you add in State and local funding, that percentage drops to
    well less than a half of a percent, on a national basis. So
    research is not occupying a very big part of our overall
    program.
        We also support in there several new programs that have
    been testified about here this morning: environmental quality,
    the Cooperative Research Program. We think we need research in
    the area of airport operations and motor carrier safety. Those
    were not necessarily mentioned today.
        I just would like to conclude by saying that AASHTO, in and
    of itself, is a customer of research. We are not into research,
    ourselves. We believe that from that vantage point or that
    perspective, we can be fairly objective in the programs and the
    suggestions that we're representing.
        So with that, I conclude my comments, and I will take any
    questions later on. Thank you.
        Dr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Ryan.
        We'll begin the round of questions with the staff members.
    So we'll turn the time over to Mr. Squires for his questions.
        Mr. Squires. Thank you, Kevin.
        I'm sorry that I arrived late and didn't have a chance to
    hear introductions or introduce myself. I'm the Senior Policy
    Advisor to Senator Jeffords on transportation, and with the
    majority staff at EPW, and am working with my colleagues on the
    reauthorization effort.
        Let me begin by thanking Kevin for his hard work in pulling
    together today's event. I think the results speak for
    themselves. This is a wonderful turnout, and I thank all of you
    for assisting us.
        I was formerly with the Vermont Agency of Transportation,
    and your comments, Mr. Ryan, on advances in winter maintenance
    certainly resonate. Certainly, just in the brief time that I
    was working there, I could see giant leaps; and boy the
    customers in Vermont certainly appreciated that.
        I have a question, as a good and loyal staff person, to
    advance the charge that Senator Jeffords extended, where he
    talked about research to help us better manage and operate the
    system.
        My question is this. Can and will our research program do
    for operations and performance what it has done for the
    system's physical properties? What steps should we be taking in
    our work on the research title, to ensure that we achieve that
    objective?
        Mr. Wright. Well, I'll take a shot at that, Jeff, starting
    the discussion, if that's OK.
        Dr. Womack. Mr. Wright?
        Mr. Wright. Absolutely, there are substantial advances that
    could be made, and on which there is already some basic
    research being undertaken.
        An example of an area that the Federal Highway
    Administration and others have been very actively engaged in
    has to do with work zones and work zone operations. We know
    that incidents, and work zones being among those, are one of
    the major causes of delay on our highway systems, and
    congestion on our highways systems.
        We have done a great deal in recent years to try to get at
    the root of those incidents, and to help States and other local
    practitioners construct better work zones and understand what
    the consequences of certain techniques would be.
        We have developed a tool called ``Smart Zone,'' which
    actually allows a planner to determine whether or not a
    particular work zone model or design will work effectively,
    what the cues are likely to be, what transportation
    alternatives would make sense.
        We are also working very hard in the area of improving work
    zone safety. For example, we are currently in the midst of a
    variable speed limit pilot in work zones. So that is one
    example.
        We certainly see the potential for there to be vast
    improvements, and would most definitely see a Federal research
    agenda for the future, focusing very directly on operations.
        Dr. Womack. Dr. Walton?
        Dr. Walton. Mr. Squires, as you may have noted, F-SHRP has
    a component that deals with reliable travel times. It aims
    exactly at that particular issue. It's intended not only to be
    a compliment to the current programs that are under way, that
    Bud just described, but also they fall within the ITS arena.
        But it is intended to hit on those areas where we think
    technology and its application can have a substantial benefit
    to be able to determine reliable travel times. That is the key,
    the predictable estimate, that has a bearing on economic
    productivity, as well as safety. I suspect the ITS people will
    have a comment, as well.
        Dr. Womack. Dr. Tarnoff?
        Dr. Tarnoff. I think the direct answer to your question is
    resoundingly, yes. I think it can have a tremendous impact.
        I also think that it's important that we look at it from
    the broadest sense; in the sense of management of incidents,
    which is what Dr. Walton just mentioned, in terms of being able
    to improve travel reliability.
        But anybody that has ever traveled the Capitol Beltway and
    seen the sign that said, ``congestion ahead,'' and didn't know
    what to do about it, knows that there is significant room for
    improvement.
        Right now, the degree to which we manage traffic falls
    short of where we'd like to be, for a variety of reasons. Some
    of that is just shear investment in capital facilities required
    to do that; but also, there is a lack of knowledge, in terms of
    how best to manage traffic, where to put the traffic, what to
    tell people, and how they respond to it. There is a broad range
    of issues.
        In the areas of reoccurring congestion, there is
    significantly more we could do, as well. Again, if you are
    satisfied with the traffic signal operations in the Washington,
    DC. area, you're probably in the minority. While some of that,
    again, is a question of investment in improved operations,
    there is significant research that could be done to improve
    that. We can talk about that as long as you like.
        Dr. Womack. We'll go to Dr. White and then Mr. Ryan.
        Dr. White. Certainly, an enabler of good management is good
    information, good real-time information. I think Dr. Walton and
    Dr. Tarnoff were also referring to the importance of the
    information infrastructure that would provide the information,
    if it's done right, and the proper kinds of information is
    provided to decisionmakers, like drivers and so forth.
        This is one of the essential aspects of the ITS America
    Program, and the ITS program for the infrastructure in
    providing the proper kind of real-time information to provide
    management decisions with the right kinds of information.
        Dr. Womack. Mr. Ryan?
        Mr. Ryan. In the area of operations, I would like to
    comment on two things. From a motorist inconvenience
    perspective, we've got to find ways to do more work that
    minimizes the inconvenience to the traveling public; whether it
    be asphalt or concrete, but we've just got to be able to
    maintain and upgrade our systems, and minimize their
    disruption.
        People are not very patient today, and their frustration
    leads to the kind of things that Bud mentioned in terms of
    accidents in work zones. So we've got to find operationally a
    way to do our maintenance repairs, replacement, and
    rehabilitations without disruption the traffic.
        The second area, I think, is 40,000 people are losing their
    lives on highways across the country. That's not an acceptable
    statistic. We've got to find ways through research, I think, to
    bring that number down, to get a positive trend, in terms of
    reducing the number of fatalities that are occurring on our
    highway transportation systems.
        Dr. Womack. Let me just make a comment. I think we all
    agree that the intelligent transportation systems will play a
    role in the operations and management arena.
        As we discuss ITS, there are two terms that are often used,
    and I'd like to get definitions for these terms for staff and
    other purposes.
        We often talk about ITS infrastructure and integration. So
    if somebody would like to take a crack at defining those two
    terms for us; and then a brief summary in terms of where we are
    in our national system, with respect to integration and
    infrastructure.
        Dr. White?
        Dr. White. Let me take a crack at that one, Kevin.
        Let me just see if I can at least start off by describing
    what constitutes an integrated network of transportation
    information.
        It would certainly involve the instrumentation of major
    intersections, and these would be loops in the road, cameras on
    poles, that would be able to sense the position of vehicles in
    real time.
        This is the kind of information that gets fed back to the
    traffic operations centers that would allow for green and red
    light switches to be placed in a good sequence, in order to
    maximize or at least enhance mobility.
        This instrumentation would be on primarily major
    intersections, as we've already heard the importance of
    intersections in the role of safety; and on roads, both
    freeways and arterials, in both urban and rural areas.
        Admittedly, the impact that we're seeing in some of the
    studies that we've performed at the University of Michigan,
    where I was before I went to Georgia Tech, is the impact of
    this kind of information can be very significant in urban
    areas, and perhaps less so in rural areas.
        But such an integrated network of transportation
    information would also include data collection from commercial
    vehicles; routing information, for example, for HAZMAT, and
    there are a lot of security implications in that; as well as
    transit and freight and passenger rail.
        So let me stop there, at least in giving some indication of
    what an integrated network of transportation information would
    look like.
        Dr. Womack. How about infrastructure?
        Dr. Tarnoff?
        Dr. Tarnoff. I would define the infrastructure as being the
    set of equipment; communications; computers; field equipment
    including signals, signs, weather sensors, that make up the
    total system that's required to manage traffic. I think that's
    probably the briefest definition.
        I have one other comment on integration, I think, from a
    very simplistic point of view. Historically, in this business,
    agencies have tended to install systems independently from
    agencies in neighboring jurisdictions. Even within a given
    agency, a particular function has been implemented and
    operated, completely independent from another function.
        To be specific, I'll use my example of freeways and
    signals. I have other examples, by the way. I'm not stuck on
    this.
        But if in traffic, there's an incident on a freeway, say,
    on 95, what happens to the traffic that leaves the freeway and
    tries to travel along the adjacent arterials that are
    signalized? Is the signal timing adjusted automatically?
        Historically, those two systems are operated independently
    and, in many cases, by different organizations. So the answer
    is, no. If you leave a freeway due to an incident, you're stuck
    in heavier traffic on the arterial. That's where integration
    becomes very important, where things are operated to complement
    each other. Dr. Womack. Thank you.
        Mr. Bernstein?
        Mr. Bernstein. On both of these questions, I would just
    like to add the perspective that what you're measuring makes a
    difference.
        If you care mostly, for example, about work trips, you're
    going to focus on peak time congestion. The NPTS seems to show
    consistently, every time it's taken, an increase in the number
    of non-work trips. There are at least as many people concerned
    about getting to school, shopping, or what have you, as there
    are about free flow of traffic on the freeways.
        So it seems that some of the comments, particularly that
    Betty made, about the environmental research, when she alluded
    to land use, are relevant here. It would seem that in the long
    run, operations would be easier if travel demand was reduced
    for certain purposes, in that there may be some ways of doing
    that, that have to do with structural improvements in city
    suburbs and towns.
        Since the legislation has incentives for that, perhaps we
    could fine tune this a little bit, to get a bigger bang for the
    buck.
        The other comment that I have is that this integration that
    you alluded to, I think, needs a little more focus on non-
    motorized transportation, as well. While none of the numbers
    necessarily by mode add up to very much, compared to the
    overwhelming volume of passenger vehicle traffic, the growth is
    significant in every one of them: in walking, in biking, in
    mass transit use, which has consistently increased its share
    over the last several years.
        In the most recent census data, and I don't know if FHWA
    has been looking at some of the ``how people get to work'' data
    that showed up in that recently, but I'm very impressed by the
    growth in every one of the non-motorized categories.
        Even in Atlanta where we're working, there's a whopping
    shift in the number of people sharing cars, walking, biking,
    use on the mass transit there. We would feel better if, when
    these comments are made about integration and ITS and setting
    strategic research goals, that the examples given were about
    more than managing the free flow on the major Federal highways.
        Dr. Womack. Professor Deakin?
        Ms. Deakin. I'd like to add that we need to pay attention
    to the planning processes. Because one of the difficulties that
    we're seeing, even in a State like California, that's invested
    not only a lot of Federal money, but a lot of its own money, in
    new technologies, is that implementation is very spotty.
        There are reasons for that. Some of them have to do with
    inter-governmental relations and learning how to work in new
    kinds of partnerships, that TEA-21 and ISTEA before it called
    for, and we think, rightly so.
        But there's still work to be done on those partnerships and
    those planning processes, taking into consideration a broader
    range of issues in putting those things together. So that's
    another area of research that really is necessary.
        We need to integrate thinking about operations and safety
    and pedestrians and transit and automobiles all together in
    this planning process from the beginning. Right now, too often,
    we think of ITS or safety as things we do afterwards. We come
    and try to slap them in to fix a problem that has arisen, and
    that's a whole lot harder than if we integrated them into the
    planning process to begin with.
        Dr. Womack. Thank you.
        OK, Mr. Warren?
        Mr. Warren. Thank, Kevin, I'm Mitch Warren with the
    committee majority staff.
        I thank you all for coming today. As Senator Reid indicated
    in his comments, this is sort of an experiment. We're trying to
    do things a little bit differently, and see if we might be able
    to get a little more substance out of a round table discussion,
    or a research symposium like this, than we might get out of a
    traditional hearing.
        I think it's working well. Kevin Womack has done a great
    job of implementing it, and I appreciate all of you being here,
    again.
        My question relates to what somebody said earlier. I think
    it was Dr. Walton, referring to ``get in/get out and stay
    out.'' I would like to focus for a second on the ``stay out''
    part of it.
        My question is simple. I want to get a little bit of a
    historical perspective on what kind of progress we've made in
    pavement research, as we look toward the future.
        Over the past 20 or 30 years, have we improved the way our
    roads worked? Do they last longer now than they used to? Do
    they require less maintenance and rehabilitation than they did
    20 or 30 years ago? What progress have we made, and where might
    we be able to go in the future, with some additional research?
        Dr. Womack. Dr. Walton, do you want to start?
        Dr. Walton. Actually, I would yield to the others who are
    here. I'm interested in their comments on this, as well.
        Dr. Womack. Mr. Carlson; Mr. Riva?
        Mr. Riva. I think clearly this ties into the earlier
    question that was asked by Mr. Squires. We talked about in
    terms of planning and a lot of very important issues. But the
    bottom line is, what you're really paying for is for pavements
    that will last, and pavements that will do so in a manner
    that's not only cost effective, but more importantly, as a safe
    surface for as long as possible.
        Ultimately, you have a $180 billion Federal Aid Highway
    Program today. I would think one of the primary objectives that
    you can have on this committee, which is why I commended the
    work done by not only Kevin Womack, but the leadership, in
    putting this together, is putting at the forefront, which is
    perhaps the most important issue, and that is the contour of
    the Federal Aid Highway Program surfaces, when you get right
    down to it.
        Now admittedly, there's an awful lot more that goes into a
    Highway Bill than just surface. But it is truly, you know, one
    of the most, if not the most, important component.
        I can speak to the concrete side, and I know that Dave
    Carlson will speak to the asphalt side; but we have one
    overriding objective. We have a $25 million research
    cooperative effort; not only with the Federal Highway
    Administration, but one that's almost the same size, with the
    Federal Aviation Administration.
        It has exactly that one objective, in which the money, by
    the way, is split 50/50 with the agencies, but also involving
    on every task that's selected, academia, the State Departments
    of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, and
    industry.
        I could not have summed it up any better than what Dr.
    Walton did; and that is to provide something to the people, who
    are ultimately paying, the taxpayer, that inconveniences them
    the least possible way; but also provides them a road surface
    that keeps its characteristics for as long as possible.
        Speaking from my very parochial viewpoint, concrete
    certainly has come a long way. I think we had a good head-start
    in doing so, but even more so in the future. We're looking at
    not just the traditional full-depth concrete on 12 inches
    thick, that goes on forever; but also solutions for street and
    local roads, for intersections. These are intersections that
    can be rebuilt over a weekend, and be brought back on line by
    Monday, so to speak, with work starting on a Thursday or a
    Friday.
        We've done that in Seattle, Washington, and other areas. So
    that's the epitome, really, of applied research. We have
    pavements today that are like ultra white toping, that uses
    recycled, get this, ``rugs,'' for example, for fiber mesh.
        We are also promoting and have effectively done so, the use
    of steel slag in fly ash from coal production. We find that
    they make tremendous, what is called, ``cementicist''
    materials; concrete being a combination of cement, what I call
    Evian water, and an aggregate. That's about as much as I know
    about concrete, and I've got my experts behind me.
        But the bottom line is, every thing we do is to provide
    something that not only keeps the cost down, but provides a
    road surface that will be here way beyond the next one or two
    Highways Bills that are coming up. I think our design specs are
    well meeting that.
        Dr. Womack. Mr. Carlson?
        Mr. Carlson. I would throw in some comments about the
    asphalt industry. Super Pave and the SMA things that we've done
    have completely changed the way we operate.
        It was a cooperative effort of the contractors, the
    agencies, and the research that led to the development of those
    processes. It has improved the quality of the roads. I think
    we've gotten excited, because this is just the tip of the
    iceberg of what we think we can accomplish, given that research
    and combined working together.
        Being a contractor, and I think I'm the only contractor
    here, I feel rather out of place. But the field has changed,
    and the contractors are now responsible for more and more and
    more things. So that training and that knowledge has to be
    passed on to the contractors and to their personnel, in order
    for us to produce the continual higher quality product that
    we're required to produce.
        So I think that the research that we're doing is extremely
    important. NAPA has put up hard dollars for our end-cap
    facility down in Alabama at Auburn University. We understand
    the importance of research and the importance of producing high
    quality pavements. Like I said before, we've just touched the
    tip of what we can possibly accomplish.
        Dr. Womack. Mr. Judycki?
        Mr. Judycki. I would like to just pick up on that, because
    obviously, our customers do know whether or not they're having
    a smooth ride, and whether or not the pavement in their
    neighborhood is being reconstructed every 5 years, rather than
    the longer term.
        You know, I think if there's one area, and picking up on
    what Mr. Carlson said, that we've had some tremendous successes
    that we can point to, and it is what we've done, the pavement
    side, the cooperative efforts, that have been underway and
    that, in fact, still continue.
        I think it is fair to say that industry completely changed
    the way it has done business. It's not only a follow-up to the
    technical work that's been done on pavements; for instance, in
    the first SHRP; but also the work that we've collectively done
    on international scans, in bringing knowledge back home, and
    applying it to our research and environment.
        At the same time, looking to the future, because it was
    critical that we look through the LTP Program, to the future,
    as to what we were going to build into the design of pavements
    in the future; and anybody that thinks that the LTP Program is
    just a 20 year program, that's not true.
        In fact, there are spin-offs right now that are changing
    the 2002 Design Guide that will be coming out that, in fact, is
    estimated that will have benefits to States, and about $1
    billion a year, possibly, just because of the design
    improvements. So there's been significant improvements.
        What we need to look toward, I think, in the future, is
    something even more significant. That is, if we are going to
    make real improvements, what should the next generation
    pavement look like?
        What should we be thinking about, instead of talking about,
    gee, we need to go to a 50 year pavement? What is the 100 year
    pavement? As somebody said earlier, what is the perpetual
    infrastructure like, and what research needs to go into
    accomplishing that?
        Certainly, some of the breakthrough technologies that the
    future SHRP is looking toward are critical for us to address
    right up front.
        Dr. Womack. Mr. Bernstein?
        Mr. Bernstein. I have just a couple of comments. We endorse
    the idea strongly of things lasting longer. The question is,
    how long might they last, just to pick up on the last comments.
        My understanding is, the Appian Way was built 2,000 years
    ago, and it's still mostly in use. When the designer of the
    Golden Gate Bridge was asked by Wall Street what should the
    useful life be; how long will this last, he said, forever.
        I'm not suggesting that all roads will live forever. But it
    seems to me our research ought to be able to tell us, first of
    all, what the distribution of service life actually is, by type
    and by location, and in a real time basis.
        I can't get that information currently. I think you might
    have a lot of it, but it's not on the website. I think it would
    help in decisionmaking, if that was available. If it's an
    average of 45 years, there's going to be a distribution around
    that. I suspect where people are least happy is where it's not
    lasting as long, and there's too much premature paving that has
    to go on.
        This leads to a second point. Couldn't we have more
    research on the value of continuous maintenance on the roads,
    in terms of the ability of deploying what we know to actually
    do that life extension and get the benefits?
        Again, I haven't heard anything about that; but there's a
    difference between getting the life extension by continuous
    renewal, if you will, to get your perpetual pavement, you know,
    versus making sure the next road is always better than the last
    road.
        Then, I guess, the third thing has to do with the value of
    information to your State and local partners. The Federal
    Government, and I can't remember the percentage, funds
    something like one dollar out of four, I think, when you count
    the cost to State and local government.
        Here you have an asset that just came along, which we
    mentioned in the testimony. The new Government Accounting
    Standards Board, Standards Statement 34, requires starting this
    year, for State and local government to consistently report the
    valuation and the condition, narratively, of their existing
    capital assets.
        For those of you who don't know, GASBI, as it's called, is
    the sister organization of the Financial Accounting Standards
    Board. They took this action because you couldn't compare any
    two statements from year to year, or between agencies, and be
    sure that there was a correct valuation.
        We did a rough anecdotal survey, and found service lives
    for similar pieces of infrastructure, ranging from 10 to 100
    years. This doesn't make sense.
        So I think there could be a role here for the Federal
    Government in codifying some of what's in the GASBI standards
    which, right now, are voluntary.
        No. 2 would be providing technical assistance to State and
    local government, so that high performance real-time reporting
    gets married at the State and local level, with the direction
    that we're all advocating that Federal reporting go in here.
    This would give a set of incentives on the State and local
    level, to marry what comes into performance and accountability
    reporting, out of TEA-21.
        So that's a different sort of idea. It's informational,
    again, but it's a way of motivating the State and local
    partners that are part of this equation to do better in the
    same way.
        Dr. Womack. Thank you.
        Mr. Judycki, and then we'll go to Mr. Skinner.
        Mr. Judycki. I would just add one thought. That is, as we
    look at whether it's the info-structure or the infrastructure
    that, in fact, a good pavement, a good infrastructure, has a
    lot more to do with it than the research of the components that
    make it up. It has a lot to do with financing. It has a lot to
    do with contracting practices and procedures.
        So I think that, again, what I referred to earlier, that
    toughest part of the innovation process, of delivering
    innovation and technology, once you have the research deserves
    a lot of attention. We need to pay attention to that, that most
    difficult part of putting innovation into practice.
        Dr. Womack. OK, we'll go to Mr. Skinner and then Mr. Ryan.
        Mr. Skinner. I think we have made a lot of progress in
    pavements over the years. But what is happening is, our system
    is very stressed. We increasingly need to raise the bar. That
    is, in part, why we have an emphasis on the ``get in, get out,
    stay out,'' because we can't afford to disrupt our highways the
    way we used to, when we reconstruct.
        That's why we have to have greater attention to operations,
    because we need to operate these things more efficiently, as
    opposed to the laissez faire attitude that we've had in the
    past.
        We need more attention to intermodal, to options, to
    environmental impacts, to community compatibility, because the
    system is stressed, and all of those concerns are greater now.
    So we've had success, but the expectations have gone up,
    commensurate with that success.
        Dr. Womack. Thank you.
        Mr. Ryan?
        Mr. Ryan. Yes, Mr. Skinner just touched on the point that I
    wanted add. That is, I think the ``get out, stay out'' part is
    a two-prong approach. I think you've heard a number of examples
    of successes, in terms of being able to stay out, Super Pave,
    denser concrete, thicker pavements, and things of that nature.
    I think we can work toward a 50 or 100 year pavement design.
        But I think just as critical to that strategy is the
    strategy of being able to maintain the system timely and with
    the least disruption to the traffic. So it's really a two-
    pronged approach; not just building something and walking away
    for 100 years, and then coming back and doing that again.
        I think what we've got to develop is a system that has
    components that you can routinely maintain and continue to
    preserve that pavement, that infrastructure over a period of
    time, and do it with minimal disruption to the traffic.
        Dr. Womack. Thank you.
        Ms. Stanley?
        Ms. Stanley. Thank you.
        I have two questions in regard to F-SHRP, directed to Dr.
    Walton and those around him, especially Bud Wright.
        The first has to do with what I want to echo as the major
    problem of over 40,000 highways deaths every year; and the need
    to do something about that, and not just say that something
    needs to be done, but to actually do something about it.
        So I want to ask how these safety prongs of the F-SHRP
    proposal will identify or will be conducting research in areas
    that are already not being done. I know the National Highway
    Traffic Safety Administration concentrates on vehicle design
    and safety features of that, and also on driver behavior, and
    our laws mandate seat belt use, and drunk driving laws and
    things like that, having to do with vehicle behavior.
        But knowing that roads are carrying more vehicles than the
    pavement or the geometrics were designed to carry, how is this
    hopeful piece of F-SHRP going to address design improvements,
    perhaps, or in other areas so we can improve crashes on these
    systems?
        Then second, how will F-SHRP encompass other de-centralized
    efforts in research that is already going on, so that other
    research program funds perhaps are going to be decreased or
    otherwise encompassed into these F-SHRP proposals, especially
    perhaps some of the environmental research areas that Professor
    Deakin was referring to, so that we can decrease some of those
    amounts by virtue of investing in F-SHRP?
        Dr. Walton. Well, certainly, Megan, on the first question,
    the safety issue is one that we heard a great deal about in our
    outreach activities. It's one that we struggled immensely with.
        In essence, the notion is that we truly do not understand
    the cause of a crash or an accident. The data over the years
    has just not been substantial enough or sustained in its
    collection and analysis to allow us to understand that
    particular issue.
        So while there have been other efforts, and clearly, there
    are efforts now, not only within NTSHA, but within other groups
    as well, trying to deal with components of this issue, we have
    yet to be able to set up a comprehensive way of looking at that
    particular item, what actually caused the crash, and then what
    then are some of the countermeasures that we hope can deal with
    those.
        So that's a substantial effort, and it's a considerable
    debate. In fact, at this particular point in time, with that
    identified as one of the four areas and, in fact, safety being
    one that we felt perhaps strongest about, there has been a
    panel formed that will build on not only the National
    Partnership Forum Panel on Safety that existed and went through
    an elaborate hearing process; but we will take that information
    and deliberation that we had in SHRP, and begin to lay out the
    framework for this comprehensive element of the SHRP program.
        Through that and over the next year or so, and I believe
    that's the schedule, I think we'll have the opportunity to be
    able to become very crystal clear on what the work program
    components of that element are, and how they will impact the
    targeted opportunities that we feel are there.
        Everyone that we talked to and heard from stressed the
    importance of a better understanding of the crash causation,
    before you can deal with effective counter-measures.
        So that's the essence of the program. We have some
    tremendous people who have signed up to participate in that
    particular initiative. They are experts in their field, who
    have long experience in this particular effort, and have nailed
    this as the principal way to approach this problem.
        Indeed, with 43,000 deaths, we accommodate that. We don't
    like that, but it's accommodated. I hesitate to use this, but
    in essence, if we had an aircraft crash every day, we would not
    tolerate that. But that's the equivalent to what we're talking
    about, a 737 every day. We cannot afford that.
        So how do you deal with that? You come back to, what are
    some of the fundamental reasons for the crashes? We do not
    know, after all the time and energy over the years. We do not
    know some of the fundamental causes.
        Now there are companion programs that go along with this
    that will be integrated into that activity. There is a lot of
    work in the intelligent vehicle initiative, for example, and
    within the ITS community, that are looking at, again, some of
    the safety issues associated with vehicle design and
    components. We have ongoing extensive programs within Federal
    Highway and others that are focused on how you make the
    infrastructure safer and so forth, and it is the integration of
    those activities.
        But this particular element leaps beyond, and we think it
    is essential to our understanding. That was the message we
    heard. That is why it is so important, and that's why it is
    targeted as the priority element within the program.
        Now the second element, and I guess you are talking about a
    rising tide or a lowering tide or an even tide, and how do you
    deal with the position of the ships?
        Well, in essence, that's a priority among those who have
    the opportunity to allocate resources, quite frankly. The
    previous SHRP program was, in my view, labeled a success. It is
    not envisioned to be a long term continuing effort.
        This particular program is envisioned, let's say, as a 6-
    year program, with ``x'' amount of dollars, predicated on the
    same formula that the previous SHRP program was predicated
    upon. It was a bottoms-up effort, as opposed to a top-down,
    where the previous SHRP program was very targeted. It focused
    on a limited activity. It was felt that that was a strategic
    success, perhaps.
        This time, we want to make sure that it was open to a
    broader forum and a broader audience, and bring it from the
    bottom up. That's why you have four components that reach into
    a wide range of compelling issues, quite frankly. Some deal
    directly with areas that Betty spoke to. But I think there is a
    complementary program there.
        To be honest, there are so many complimentary research
    programs that are being proposed, and all are worthy in their
    own nature. But in this particular case, we feel that we've
    laid out a framework. We have constituent support, for the most
    part. In other words, the AASHTO community has endorsed this
    program. It is behind it. It came out of the Partnership Forum
    discussions.
        So in essence, if it is successful, it will come from the
    SPR Program. It is up to that program to assess how they wish
    to allocate their resources, and I think they are in the
    process of doing that.
        I am reminded that when SHRP started back in 1987, I think
    the NCHR Program was under $10 million, or maybe about $8
    million. Now the NCHR Program is probably around $30 million.
    So in essence, it gives you some notion of how everything has
    increased over time, and how the priority of resources have
    been allocated.
        Again, there are many noteworthy programs. We just felt
    that this is a unique opportunity, make a stab, and come back
    to it. We hope that over a 6-year period, we can make a quantum
    leap in these particular areas that is above and beyond what
    might be accomplished through an incremental research program.
        Dr. Womack. We need brief comments. We've got still two
    more questions to get to with Ms. Van Mark and Mr. Jensen. So
    we'll go to Professor Deakin first.
        Ms. Deakin. I just wanted to add that we coordinated the
    work of the Advisory Board with the R&T partnership. I think we
    agree that they don't overlap in a way that's negative in any
    way, and we think they're very complimentary.
        The F-SHRP program is a little more short-term focused, and
    more focused toward providing tools and techniques. I think the
    Advisory Board supports that kind of work, as well, but would
    like to see more of the Advisory Board Cooperative Research
    Program be established to do longer-term work, to try to get
    away from so much mitigation and toward more basic
    understanding and new methods altogether for handling these
    things. So I think they'd be a nice compliment.
        Dr. Womack. Mr. Bernstein?
        Mr. Bernstein. Just briefly, and I wouldn't disagree with
    Dr. Walton very much, but I think we might know some of the
    causes of what's going on, and perhaps some clues.
        Concerning your comment about the need to coordinate
    research, perhaps if we approach this the way the insurance
    industry was approaching it, by determining what we know about
    growth in congestion, or growth in trucks on the road, or
    growth in goods movement, or some of the other likely culprits,
    we may end up with a richer solution set on the safety front.
        So I would echo a call for some alignment, an aligning
    mechanism in the oversight of whatever program comes out of
    this. Because the critical need in addressing the 40,000-plus
    traffic deaths is to be able to move in real time. I mean, you
    can't wait 20 years to answer a question like that, and then
    come up with a satisfactory answer.
        When I was a young community organizer, we organized on the
    West Side of Chicago a workable streets project, because people
    thought they did know the causes of some of these things. We
    filled potholes and we put in early traffic calming devices. We
    convinced the City Council to change parking and the direction
    of the streets.
        Then in those high accident neighborhoods, morbidity and
    mortality from traffic accidents, for awhile while we could
    keep it up, would go down.
        I suspect that how we talk about this is very important, in
    terms of having a credible response and a supportable response.
    We think there needs to be more research. But it's not just the
    amount of money; it's how well you aim that.
        Dr. Womack. Briefly, Mr. Ryan?
        Mr. Ryan. Yes, I just wanted to add an observation. I
    certainly concur with Mr. Bernstein, that in a localized area,
    you can deal with a lot of issues in terms of trying to
    identify it. But when you look at the big picture, we still
    have 40,000 deaths a year, that is not significantly moving up
    or down. I think to be able to make that quantum leap, we need
    to do the kind of things that F-SHRP is suggesting.
        Dr. Womack. Thank you.
        Ms. Van Mark?
        Ms. Van Mark. First off, thank you all for coming and
    taking time out of your busy schedules. I especially appreciate
    the delegation here from Iowa.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Van Mark. If we were going to give a prize for the
    furthest traveled, I bet you'd get it. Thank you very much for
    coming.
        I've heard some conflicting messages today, and I'm hoping
    you'll be able to help me sort it through. Then I have a
    comment on what I perceive as a solution, and I would like you
    to comment on it.
        We heard from Federal Highways that we have a lot of
    diverse research going on and we are spreading out our research
    dollars very thin.
        I think a couple of other people inferred that in their
    statements, that we have a lot of research to do, we have
    limited dollars, but it seems like our research isn't focused.
    It's spread out over a lot of different entities. Yet, at the
    same time, I heard from several of you that the University
    Research Program is very important.
        Now being a political person by nature, I can tell you
    right now that the set-up now of the University Research Center
    begs for Congress to do exactly what you're telling us you
    don't want us to do, which is to spread your research dollars
    thin.
        In my Senator's home State of Oklahoma, we would love to do
    transportation research, and I assure you, whatever we come up
    with will be brilliant.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Van Mark. Now whether or not it fits in a comprehensive
    poll is another question. But when a university comes to a
    member's office and says, I want $1 million to do research on
    whatever their wonderful idea is, our goal in life is to get
    that $1 million. But are we taking that $1 million away from
    something that could actually benefit the Nation as a whole?
        So my question to you is, is there any value in trying to
    do directed research for these universities; in other words,
    taking maybe the six areas that Professor Deakin identified in
    environmental transportation, and asking universities to
    compete for research in those areas?
        So while we aren't saying which university does what, we're
    kind of focusing our research dollars in an area that we've
    identified as important.
        Dr. Womack. Mr. Wright?
        Mr. Wright. I have comment, that I think you are right on
    one point, and it's something that we strongly believe in. That
    is that all that is going on in research and technology in the
    country needs to be a part of a national plan.
        Certainly, we believe the Federal Government has a role in
    helping to lead and guide what that national plan would be; but
    there will always be the many partners helping to carry that
    out.
        One of the concepts that has been espoused with regard to
    the University Transportation Centers is the notion of centers
    of excellence, where it can be known that a particular
    institution has expertise in an area of research, and that
    where there is an element of a national plan that relates to
    that sort of expertise, then the University Transportation
    Center can offer that service.
        So I think there is a way to better integrate what is
    occurring today with University Transportation Centers into a
    national research agenda. We believe it would be important to
    try to reinforce that with legislative provisions, as we move
    forward in reauthorization.
        Dr. Womack. Professor Deakin?
        Ms. Deakin. Yes, the University Transportation Centers
    Program is a program that I think has done a lot of good. One
    of the ways it has done that in research is that it gives
    faculty members who are associated with the centers, which is a
    large number of faculty members, the opportunity to identify
    research topics that perhaps haven't come to the attention of
    Federal or metropolitan organizations.
        So there is a lot of research that's generated that's
    valuable through universities that wouldn't otherwise be even
    thought about. It's a way of creating new ideas.
        That said, every University Center has a theme, and I think
    that does sort of focus their research on particular areas
    where they have expertise on their faculties, and they are able
    to do that.
        The other thing University Centers do is they educate huge
    numbers of students. We'd like to tell people that we think our
    most important product is actually our students who are coming
    out of the transportation centers.
        We also think our research is good, but we think out
    students are marvelous. We spread them around the country, to
    Texas and all kinds of places. So they are out there in other
    parts of the country, doing good work, as well.
        That said, I would say if they are a big enough program,
    and there is enough money to go around, probably every State in
    the country probably has some people in transportation who are
    very good at doing research, and would be able to produce good
    products.
        So we support having competitive research programs, where
    everybody can bid on them, too. FHWA does that now, and we
    would like to see more of that kind of research go on, as well.
        Dr. Womack. Mr. Riva?
        Mr. Riva. If you would indulge me, I have someone who is
    from the university setting, Dale Harrington. Our initiative
    has taken into account a lot of universities, the University of
    Texas and others. I think the Iowa State Research Center has
    done excellent work. If you would indulge me, I would like for
    Dale Harrington to just briefly explain what they do.
        Dr. Womack. OK, briefly, please.
        MR. HARRINGTON. I appreciate your comments about Iowa very,
    very much. Our center is a year and-a-half old. Our partnership
    with the Federal Highway Administration industry through the
    innovative Pavement Research Foundation is unprecedented.
        I mean, I would have never expected this. I think that the
    Federal Highway Administration and the partnership that they
    have with the industry is just unbelievable. What we seem to
    lack is a partnership between other universities to work with
    us.
        I received calls within the last 3 weeks from the
    University of Texas, Texas A&M, Wisconsin, Northwestern,
    Purdue, CTL, which is a consulting firm, to partner with us on
    research along with industry, and to educate our students.
        So we must continue on with the partnerships and the
    dollars associated between industry, and particularly between
    the Federal Highway Administration and industry, and bring in
    and encourage through the programming, other universities to
    work together; because what hurts Iowa ought to hurt Kansas,
    and what hurts Kansas ought to hurt California. We must think
    of it in those terms.
        Our research facilities cannot keep up with the demand of
    educating our students without the proper dollars, to be able
    to do the research that we need to accomplish that. We simply
    have to worry about each other. The only way we can do that is
    through partnerships with each other.
        Dr. Womack. Thank you.
        Mr. Carlson, quickly?
        Mr. Carlson. I would just like to comment, the $25 million
    program that we're promoting is exactly what you're asking for.
    The national program should be administered by the Federal
    Highway Administration, and the universities can compete for
    the work that needs to be done.
        I think if you have separate earmarks, it re-dilutes the
    program. So I think you are better off to have it all funded
    through the Federal Highway Administration than try to do it
    separately, and have the little earmarks for research, because
    there's no organized controlled focus that way.
        Dr. Womack. Mr. Ryan?
        Mr. Ryan. Yes, just quickly, from AASHTO's perspective, and
    the State Departments of Transportation, the value that the
    UTCs bring to the table is the fact that they are developing
    students, undergraduates and graduate students, to do future
    long-term high risk research. So that's the real value that we
    think that they bring to the table, and that's why we support
    the UTC Program.
        We also believe, again, that the FHWA is the best vehicle
    to administer the long-term, high risk nationwide research that
    needs to be done. So that's the distinction that we see.
        Dr. Womack. Mr. Jensen?
        Mr. Jensen. Thank you.
        I'll say, to start out, thank you everyone one for coming.
    This is certainly very helpful. But I will say it would have
    been much more helpful to have more time for a give and take
    between staff and the experts. I hope that we can do this
    again.
        I spent about 2 hours reading the materials, and would have
    found it much more helpful to be able to ask more than 2
    minutes worth of questions. I do have questions that I would
    like answered, because notwithstanding the universal chorus
    that we've heard today, this is going to be a very
    controversial subject next year for reauthorization.
        In that regard, I'd like to express agreement with
    something, Dr. Eighmy, that you had in your written testimony
    which is that, ``An increase of $35 billion per year for total
    capital investment for roads and about $17 billion a year for
    bridge upgrade and maintenance is needed each year, for the
    next 20 years, to rectify the situation.''
        I agree with that, and anybody that expects that that's
    going to be funded does not have a good grasp on reality. Every
    penny that we don't spend on that, and do spend on research, is
    a value judgment that is going to be controversial; and every
    penny that we spend on research is money that does not go into
    concrete paving.
        That reality is going to be where we have our debate, and I
    would love to engage you in that debate and in that inquiry,
    some time in the next year.
        Given the lateness of the hour, I'm just going to ask them
    one question. I hardly know where to begin, but since I'm an
    alumnus of Cal-Berkeley, and since they're playing tonight, I
    will ask you, Professor Deakin, who is going to win--no.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Jensen. You mentioned that we need research and
    environmental and social justice issues. I work for a
    conservative Republican. What do you want me to tell him,
    because I am going to go back and tell him what was said today,
    is a good example of a program in that area that he can
    support?
        Ms. Deakin. Basically, we're having litigation and we're
    having arguments that are holding up projects. They are
    disagreements about what projects we ought to be investing in;
    disagreements about whether projects are being invested in
    fairly, that aren't productive. They are productive, in part,
    because we don't have agreement on what the basic issues are,
    in some of these things.
        There are issues, for example, about whether adverse
    impacts that are being felt on particular neighborhoods are
    intentional or unintentional. There are issues about how to
    resolve those impacts in a fair way and who ought to pay for
    them.
        Those are research questions that I think are addressable,
    and would solve a lot of problems and save us time and save us
    money, if we could reach some agreements on what are the right
    way to deal with those issues. We haven't really done that,
    yet. So that's just begging to be addressed.
        Maybe we can begin to put some of those things to rest and
    say, OK, we've settled on a way that we can agree to deal with
    those kinds of issues and move ahead.
        So that's where I would think we could do some good
    research. If we would do research on that topic, we ought to be
    able to find some solutions that will work for everybody.
        Mr. Jensen. I'm not sure I understand you. Is that a
    litigation solution?
        Ms. Deakin. No, no, I'm saying that the situation we're in
    now is, we have litigation; we have project delays; we have
    conflicts among people; we have decisionmakers who aren't sure
    which way to go at the metropolitan level, at the State level,
    because they are being pulled in different directions by
    different people, commenting on what impacts the projects are
    having.
        The more information we have, and the better strategies we
    have for planning those projects so we avoid adverse impacts to
    begin with, that would be my first thing, to try to figure out
    how to avoid getting into these issues. It's always harder to
    fix them after you've done them, than to avoid them in the
    first place.
        If we can have projects where everybody says, that's a fair
    project; that's a fair decision process; that's a fair way to
    get public involvement; we're doing a good job in our planning
    processes in doing that, we'll all be happier. We'll save time
    and we'll save money.
        I think my AASHTO colleagues would agree with that. We
    don't need to get into those fights, but we need some help in
    figuring out how to avoid those fights and how to do the right
    thing in these situations. I think we can do it, but I think we
    need to do some research to be able to figure out how to do
    those things.
        Mr. Jensen. Thank you.
        Dr. Womack. Thank you, Professor Deakin.
        We're past our time, so we're going to wrap this up. I,
    again, appreciate everybody's participation today.
        I think we kind of are perhaps beginning a new way of doing
    these things, as Senator Reid said. It would be nice to proceed
    in this manner in the future, and be able to spend more time
    together in resolving these issues all across the board in the
    Reauthorization Bill.
        Again, thank you all for participating, and we appreciate
    you coming.
        [Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the panel meeting was
    concluded.]

                             TEA-21 REATHORIZATION

                                  ----------

                              FRIDAY, MAY 10, 2002

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        A roundtable symposium was convened to discuss improving
    metropolitan transportation performance and security. The
    meeting was held in 406 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Friday,
    May 10, 2002, at 9:30 a.m.

                 OPERATIONS AND SECURITY IN METROPOLITAN AREAS

        Present: Senators Reid, Bond, and Jeffords.
        Staff present: Mitch Warren (moderator), Jeff Squires, J.C.
    Sandberg, Megan Stanley, Ruth Van Mark, and Lauren Jones. Staff
    representing committee members: Ann Loomis for Senator Warner
    and Caroline Berver for Senator Graham.
    Panelists
        Dr. Christine M. Johnson, Program Manager, Operations
    Director, ITS Joint Program Office, Federal Highway
    Administration, Washington, DC.
        Mr. Henry Hungerbeeler, Director, Missouri Department of
    Transportation, Jefferson City, MO.
        Mr. Elwyn Tinklenberg, Commissioner, Minnesota Department
    of Transportation, St. Paul, MN.
        Mr. John Njord, Executive Director, Utah Department of
    Transportation, Salt Lake City, UT.
        Dr. William D. Miller, Executive Director, Oklahoma
    Aeronautics and Space Commission, Director of Transportation
    Security Task Force to Governor's Security and Preparedness
    Executive Panel, Oklahoma City, OK.
        Mr. Jacob Snow, General Manager, Regional Transportation
    Commission of Southern Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, on behalf of the
    Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
        Mr. Matthew Edelman, Executive Director, TRANSCOM, Jersey
    City, NJ.
        Mr. Steve Lockwood, Vice President, Parsons Brinckerhoff,
    on behalf of Institute of Transportation Engineers.
        Mr. Jack Goldstein, Senior Vice President, Science
    Applications International Corporation, on behalf of ITS
    America.
        Mr. Richard Bennis, Associate Undersecretary for Maritime
    and Land Security, Transportation Security Administration,
    Washington, DC.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

        Senator Reid. If I could get everyone's attention, we will
    get started here. I appreciate, first of all, everyone being
    here. We will turn this over to Senator Bond in just 1 second.
    Your participation today in this Symposium on Operations and
    Security in Metropolitan Areas is very much appreciated.
        This is a second in a series of these roundtable
    discussions, which represent a new way of doing business for
    the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
        How this came about is Senator Baucus, who was the full
    committee chair, and I have been the chairman of the committee
    on two separate occasions, and we talked about a different way
    of gathering information.
        We have traditionally, in the House and the Senate, done
    our hearings behind us, where witnesses come in, and we will
    have a Senator breeze in and out once in awhile. That is the
    way we have always done things. There really has not been an
    opportunity for a good exchange.
        So I came up with this idea, and we are going to try this.
    This format allows a much more in depth discussion of critical
    issues than would be possible in a traditional format.
        Although I do not like to acknowledge this, especially with
    my colleague next to me, Senators know a little bit about a lot
    of things. We do not much about any one thing. As a result of
    that, we have to rely very heavily on our staffs. I have served
    in the House, and with members of the House, and their
    jurisdiction is quite limited, in most respects. So they are
    really knowledgeable about a few different areas.
        That is why, when we go to conference, we always make sure
    our staff people are real close to us, because the staff
    members usually know more than we know.
        This is an opportunity for you to have an in depth
    discussion with each other and the staff people that really get
    all this done anyway.
        I serve on a number of committees, this one and
    Appropriations and a number of other committees. The staff are
    the ones that give me the information. So I want you to know
    that this is a new format. We hope it works. Your input is
    critical.
        Jacob, I would like to thank you for being here today.
    Jacob Snow is the Executive Director of the Southern Nevada
    Regional Transportation Commission. That is the entity that
    takes care of rapidly growing Southern Nevada/Las Vegas. It has
    been a tremendously difficult job.
        Just to indicate some of the problems we have, we have the
    sixth largest school district in America. We built, in 1 year,
    18 new schools, just to keep up with the growth, and multiply
    that times the problems we have with roads and the millions of
    visitors we have every year. It makes Jacob's job very
    difficult.
        The subcommittee held a hearing in September on Intelligent
    Transportation Systems. This hearing left little doubt that the
    technology exists to improve the management of our road
    systems.
        The next step is to ensure that this technology is
    deployed, and that a commitment is made to focus on resources
    operating regional transportation systems.
        This represents a new mandate for many highway departments
    and metropolitan planning organizations, and requires that new
    stakeholders be identified, and that someone be held
    accountable for the performance in our transportation
    infrastructure.
        Too often, the focus is on the condition of the
    infrastructure, rather than performance. Maintaining our
    infrastructure will always be our central mission, but a new
    commitment to operations and management is essential for
    reduced congestion in metropolitan areas. Transportation is too
    important to our economy and our quality of life for us not to
    make this commitment.
        A new focus on the operations and management of the system
    has been an added benefit of improving the security of our
    transportation infrastructure. The same technology that
    provides the information needed to manage our system also helps
    to monitor the system for security purposes, to ensure that
    emergency personnel can get to the destination, and improve
    incident response and emergency evacuation.
        As the Environment and Public Works Committee proceeds with
    reauthorization, TEA-21 will be looking for new and creative
    solutions to our transportation problems. Improved management
    of the system and accountability for performance must be part
    of that solution.
        Again, I appreciate your participation.
        Senator Bond?

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

        Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Senator Reid, and I
    appreciate the candor, my good friend. It is always somewhat
    humbling to go into a conference with the House. Those poor
    guys and gals do not have anything better to do, than to get to
    learn one subject very carefully.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Bond. I commend you for the roundtable format. We
    have been doing that for about 3 years now, in the Small
    Business Committee. To be quite honest, we could not get
    Senators to show up for Small Business Committee hearings. But
    we found that the roundtable format really does give an
    opportunity to share views, challenge views.
        I hope that you will feel free, if you have a disagreement
    to, in a courteous, civil way, of course, unlike the way we
    normally handle it on the Senate floor, if you will express
    that, it will be very helpful.
        That kind of discussion, we have found to be very useful to
    staff. As the chairman, I used to sit in on those a good bit of
    the time.
        My main purpose here is to introduce our Director from the
    Missouri Department of Transportation, Henry Hungerbeeler, who
    oversees the work of 6,000 employees; and maintains the State's
    transportation system, 32,000 miles of highways; and State
    support of aviation rail transit and port systems. He has been
    there since 1999.
        On the national level, he is here today as a member of the
    Board of Directors of AASHTO, and member of AASHTO's Standing
    Committee on Administration, and chairman of the AASHTO Public
    Affairs Subcommittee.
        In September, he was named National Chair of the Task Force
    on Transportation Security for AASHTO, which is continuing to
    review security and emergency preparedness issues relating to
    bridges, tunnels, and other facilities critical to the Highway
    Transportation System and National Defense.
        He has a very impressive background. He served the Nation
    for 30 years in the Air Force, before retiring with a rank of
    Colonel. He has done an excellent in a very tough time in
    Missouri, and I will not bother you with the problems that he
    is having is Missouri. I sure wish I was back there to deal
    with the funding shortfalls that Missouri is having.
        But having made that introduction, I am going to impose
    upon my colleagues and my friends here to take a brief moment
    to highlight an issue of particular importance in the
    discussion of transportation and security in major metropolitan
    areas.
        Senator Reid and I were just discussing it. A major
    newspaper, for some reason, with a major reputation for
    accuracy, discussed it at length on Sunday. I do not mind if
    they disagree with me on the policy, but it does bother me when
    they make up the facts and leave out relevant facts.
        So just to set the record straight, we are talking about
    our waterway transportation system. The Missouri and
    Mississippi Rivers join right at St. Louis. We need to
    recognize, even if others do not, the fact that efficient water
    transportation is very important.
        One medium size tow on the Mississippi takes 870 trucks off
    the road. That is two diesel engines, versus 870. That is less
    highway congestion, less fuel burned, improved safety, cleaner
    air, in the ozone non-attainment area of St. Louis, and less
    highway wear and tear. That is one of the things that is
    killing us in Missouri, on I-70.
        With more efficient options being very critical for our
    shippers, in a growing and competitively international
    marketplace, sometimes the winner is the country that gets the
    product there most reliably and most economically.
        On the Missouri River, water transportation is an insurance
    policy against high rates from the railroads. Recent studies
    show the presence of water transportation competition saves
    shippers, including farmers, over $200 million a year.
        In closing, I thank Director Hungerbeeler and the other
    panelists for being here today, and helping us move forward. If
    you want to know more about how water transportation can lessen
    the wear and tear on the roads, the Director can talk about
    that, as well.
        Thank you very much, Henry.
        Senator Reid. We appreciate your, as a member of the
    committee, being here. What you did not say is that the reason
    you came is that you are the only one who can pronounce his
    name.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Bond. Henry; it is very easy to say.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Reid. What we would like is for everyone to give a
    statement, and we would like you to hold that statement to 3
    minutes.
        Each of you should know that here is the staff about which
    I bragged about a little earlier. These men and women are
    extremely well educated, and have the experience to be on this
    committee. Without embarrassing any of them, these jobs are
    very, very competitive, and they do great work for the
    Senators.
        So you are going to be in good hands. I have to go up to
    the Senate at 10 o'clock this morning, and I will get a report,
    hopefully early next week from my staff, as to how this
    symposium has gone.
        So feel free to say anything that you think that will help,
    because this information will be given to all the members of
    the subcommittee, and eventually the members of the committee,
    in drafting the new bill next year for highway transportation.
        So which way to you want to start, Mitch?
        Dr. Johnson?

      STATEMENT OF CHRISTINE JOHNSON, PROGRAM MANAGER, OPERATIONS
          DIRECTOR, ITS JOINT PROGRAM OFFICE, FEDERAL HIGHWAY
                             ADMINISTRATION

        Ms. Johnson. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
    I do appreciate this opportunity, and the opportunity for the
    roundtable, to discuss how operational and technological
    initiatives can support both a secure and a reliable
    transportation system, as well one that is safe and efficient.
        Congestion and security are issues at the forefront of many
    State and local transportation officials. A primary message
    that I want to communicate today is that two investments offer
    very high leverage in contributing to the solution of both
    problems: security and congestion.
        The two investments are first, an investment in monitoring
    technology that yields real-time information on traffic speed
    and volume; on incident details, large incidents and small
    incidents; transit and emergency response fleet location or
    fleet management; weather data; and emergency evacuation
    details.
        The second investment is an investment in institutional
    infrastructure that routinely brings together transportation,
    public safety, and emergency managers to collaborate on
    planning for response to routine traffic incidents and to major
    emergencies; to develop methods for communicating and sharing
    information among themselves, with the media, and with the
    public.
        We have proposed a minimum set of information requirements
    that should be expected of a modern surface transportation
    system. These are detailed in my written testimony. Suffice it
    to say, right now, we estimate that only about 25 percent of
    our highways in major metropolitan areas are capable of
    producing even a portion of this information. Clearly, there is
    much progress that needs to be made in even these minimum
    goals.
        Within the department, we have numerous efforts underway to
    advance better security and better management of our surface
    transportation system, and these are also detailed in my
    testimony.
        Let me conclude with this observation. Our nation right now
    is focused on security. We are all investing, in one way or
    another, in prevention technology and the planning that is
    necessary, in the event of an emergency.
        If our national strategies are effective and we do not have
    to respond to a national attack in the next one or 2 years, our
    plans and our newly formed security partnerships will
    inevitably atrophy, unless they are regularly used on a day-to-
    day application to smaller crisis; whether that crisis is an
    overturned tanker on a freeway system, or the evacuation of a
    football stadium at the end of a game.
        We tend to respond better in a true, large emergency, if we
    are used to using the technology, every single day, and our
    relationships are well oiled, because we talk to each other on
    a day-to-day basis.
        I want to thank the committee for this opportunity, and I
    am ready to both answer questions and engage in the dialog.
        Mr. Reid. Dr. Johnson, you set a very good example. I
    forgot to mention that we have a timer up here, and everyone
    can see it here, or I hope they can. If everyone would stick to
    that as closely as possible, we would appreciate it.
        Before we get to Henry, we are going to hear from the full
    committee chairman. Senator Jeffords is here.
        Senator Jeffords?

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT

        Senator Jeffords. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate this opportunity, and welcome you here to
    Washington. This is an extremely important issue which we are
    discussing, and I am pleased with the turn-out, and look
    forward to listening.
        I want to welcome you all, in taking the time to help us in
    our efforts to reauthorize the Nation's Surface Transportation
    Program. You are all making an important contribution, and we
    very much appreciate it.
        Today, you will exchange ideas on operations in the
    security metropolitan areas. These related topics are
    particularly timely.
        With limited financial resources and physical constraints
    that make our roadway's expansion impractical, improvement
    operations will play an increasingly important role in the
    future of our highway program. In fact, I believe that the
    operations, maintenance, and the system preservation will be
    core of the program going forward.
        The need for a focus on security is apparent. The Nation's
    infrastructure is a tempting target. It must be hardened, and
    at the same time, our transportation system is vital in times
    of emergency, from an act of nature or manmade.
        We will listen carefully to what you say. This new
    symposium or roundtable format generates an impressive record
    which, in turn, will support our work on the next
    authorization.
        So, again, I thank you for your time and consideration. I
    know that this is going to be a most productive morning, and we
    are pleased to have you all here.
        Senator Reid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Henry?

    STATEMENT OF HENRY HUNGERBEELER, DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT
                           OF TRANSPORTATION

        Mr. Hungerbeeler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator
    Jeffords, Senator Bond; I want to thank Senator Bond for his
    kind introduction.
        This morning, I will offer suggestions based on recent
    security experiences in Missouri, as well as for the country,
    as a whole, based on my position as the chair of the National
    Task Force.
        I am pleased to report that our Task Force has two early
    products, which we will send to the States early next week, a
    guidebook for vulnerability assessment, as well as a guidebook
    for emergency response. We will leave these copies here for you
    to look at.
        We all know that transportation is a fundamental asset in
    our American way of life, and absolutely necessary in times of
    emergency. Everyone relies on it every day, and in times of
    disaster, it will play a huge role in how well we respond and
    survive.
        Every other component of emergency response relies largely
    on the ability to transport people and goods quickly. Without a
    functioning transportation network, other emergency response
    plans cannot work.
        My personal conclusion is that there is really no new
    requirement out there now that we did not know on September
    10th. What has changed is that security has become a higher
    priority, and must be accelerated.
        While the emergency management community has the starring
    role on many of these matters, the State Departments of
    Transportation are critical members of the supporting cast.
    Together with first responders, they must face certain key
    issues.
        Some of these issues can be addressed through the TEA-21
    reauthorization. Some, we think, need to be addressed as part
    of funding acts for fiscal year 2003 and beyond, by the Office
    of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management
    Agency.
        As the 50 States examined the security issue on the
    Nation's highway system, we focused on four aspects: defense
    mobilization needs, protection of highways assets, the
    capabilities of the system for emergency response and special
    needs associated with the movement of goods.
        AASHTO's Board of Directors has approved the policy
    position to recommend Office of Homeland Security and the
    Federal Emergency Management Agency support for those purely
    security-related costs that States will incur, and Highway
    Trust Fund support through reauthorization for those needs that
    serve multiple purposes, such as surface transportation,
    emergency response capabilities for major incidents on or off
    the transportation system.
        AASHTO will provide you copies of our policy position, so
    in the interest of time, I will not go into detail, at this
    point.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Reid. Thank you very much.
        We will now hear from the Honorable John Njord, Utah
    Department of Transportation in Salt Lake.

    STATEMENT OF JOHN NJORD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UTAH DEPARTMENT OF
                             TRANSPORTATION

        Mr. Njord. It is my pleasure to be here today. Thank you
    very much for this opportunity.
        Growth: urbanization of the West is a very big issue for
    those of us that live in the West, and it is our experience in
    the West that we are experiencing massive growth, which places
    a huge demand upon the transportation system. We have a growth
    rate, over the past 10 years in Utah, of 30 percent, which has
    been a huge demand on us, as a department.
        As a result of this, we decided to aggressively pursue ITS
    technologies on our transportation system, and over the last
    several years, we have invested over $120 million in deploying
    an intelligent transportation system in our State.
        The Traffic Operations Center in Salt Lake City was
    launched in 1999. It covers the entire Salt Lake area, which
    the bulk of the population of the State of Utah is centered
    around that urbanized area.
        There are about 2.2 million people that live in Utah.
    Approximately 76 percent of those people live right near the
    Salt Lake City area. We have targeted some ITS applications in
    the rural part of our State, and have deployed some of those so
    far.
        Utah's ITS system, and we call it Commuter Link, is a
    system that includes closed circuit television cameras;
    congestion sensors; road pavement condition sensors; 511
    traveler information, which by the way, is the first voice
    activated traveler information system in the country, and is
    very successful and a key player in the success we had in the
    Olympic Games.
        We have also got an award-winning web site, which during
    the Olympic Games received 74 million hits during the month of
    February. There is an incredible amount of traffic taking place
    on that particular site.
        A key component of the success of a traveler information
    system is coordination with other agencies. The Traffic
    Operations Center that we have in Salt Lake City houses the
    highway patrol dispatch, which has strengthened the
    relationship between the Department of Transportation and
    public safety officials, in order to make the system overall
    work better.
        Some of the benefits of ITS we have seen already in our
    part of the country. We have seen a decrease in the amount of
    congestion on our roadways, as a result of the reconstruction
    of the I-15 project, as well as the deployment of ITS. We have
    seen a delay of approximately 30 to 40 percent on the freeway
    system. We have also seen a reduce of delay on surface street
    by up to 20 percent.
        Now the goal of Commuter Link is to reduce overall delays
    by 20 percent by reducing the secondary impacts of congestion,
    of accidents, and that type of thing.
        We have seen a lot of success, and we need Federal support,
    and we are here ready to discuss what kind of Federal support
    in the future. I appreciate this opportunity. Thank you.
        Senator Jeffords. Thank you very much.
        Please proceed, Mr. Tinklenberg.

        STATEMENT OF ELWYN TINGLENBERG, COMMISSIONER, MINNESOTA
                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

        Mr. Tinklenberg. Thank you, my name is Elwyn Tinklenberg. I
    am the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of
    Transportation, and I have been serving as the leader of
    AASHTO's effort to define reauthorization proposals for ITS
    operations.
        Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago, I had the privilege of
    participating in the University of Minnesota's first James L.
    Oberstar Forum on how we will or should respond to
    transportation long-term, after 9/11.
        One panel that I was asked to moderate included the U.S.
    DOT Administrators of Special Programs, NTSA, Federal Aviation
    Administration, and the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard.
        I asked them what they believed was the one thing, if they
    could focus on one thing, that they would change first. They
    all said communications.
        That was an important insight, and I think it goes to the
    heart of the discussion you are leading today concerning
    operations and security. Fundamentally and broadly based, it is
    an issue of communication.
        Certainly, it involved the obvious things, making sure that
    our emergency responders can talk to each other, but it goes
    well beyond that, as well. On the operations side of our
    transportation systems, for example, it means better
    communication between those systems and management, and
    adjusting the focus of our development plans, so that they
    incorporate enhancement of that capability.
        This might include the strategic deployment of advanced
    sensing technology within our highways and transit
    infrastructure, as well as on board our vehicles, which will
    help us communicate in real time with those systems: the use of
    cameras and digital imaging systems that can help us manage and
    protect vulnerable infrastructure; and advanced signal
    integration systems that can quickly respond to the needs of
    changing demand or emergency conditions.
        These and other ITS technologies are the direct outgrowth
    of the policies and financial resources you have made available
    in ISTEA and TEA-21. When they are combined with other
    communications improvements between us and our customers, like
    511 and C-vision, and improved variable message capabilities,
    they are providing powerful and cost-effective tools, to help
    us meet the mobility challenges of the 21st Century.
        In doing so, they are also supporting the transformation of
    State DOTs, themselves. While their traditional focus on
    building, replacing, and rehabilitating infrastructure remains
    a critical part of their mission, DOTs are fast becoming
    mobility managers, whose goal it is to effectively manage
    multi-modal and inter-modal transportation systems to optimize
    the customers' traveling experience.
        Empowered by ITS technology, State DOTs are assuming an
    increasingly operations orientation in order to make the best
    use of existing transportation infrastructure and preserve or
    improve system performance.
        To that end, we think there are three broad areas that must
    be addressed in reauthorization. First, reauthorization should
    incorporate policy initiatives that strength ITS development
    and deployment. Many of these initiatives will require a
    combination of legislative, regulatory, and administrative
    actions.
        Second, reauthorization should provide financial support
    for ITS deployment. AASHTO supports the continuation of the
    current ITS deployment program at a level of funding of about
    $142 million per year for advancement of these initiatives.
        Third, reauthorization should support critical research and
    development. This funding should be in the range of $125
    million per year.
        Again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the committee
    for this opportunity. At the appropriate point, I would be
    happy to answer any questions.
        Mr. Warren. Thank you.
        Mr. Snow?

          STATEMENT OF JACOB SNOW, GENERAL MANAGER, REGIONAL
    TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA, LAS VEGAS, NV, ON
          BEHALF OF THE ORGANIZATION OF METROPOLITAN PLANNING
                             ORGANIZATIONS

        Mr. Snow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my name is Jacob Snow. I
    am the General Manager of the Regional Transportation
    Commission of Southern Nevada. I am here testifying on behalf
    of the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, of
    which I am a member of their Policy Committee.
        I was very impressed, listening to John's statistics about
    growth in Utah. I believe it was 30 percent in the last 10
    years. Not in an attempt to ``one-up'' you in any way, but in
    Las Vegas, we have had 100 percent growth in the last 10 years,
    and in the four decades previous to that, we had 100 percent
    growth. So we have some tremendous challenges.
        My Board told me that they wanted to appoint a group of
    community stakeholders to address growth in transportation in
    Las Vegas, and come up with a plan to make sure we could hold
    congestion in check.
        We appointed that group. After a year and-a-half of work,
    they recommended an $8 billion program, where we would raise
    taxes locally to that level, to fund new capital improvements,
    mainly street and highway infrastructure.
        When we finally convinced them that that was not a
    realistic approach, we had to think more intelligently, if you
    will excuse the pun. We had to get the benefit of $8 billion
    worth of infrastructure, at a cheaper cost.
        So we turned to intelligent transportation systems, and we
    came up with a program where we would expand our freeway
    management system, and our arterial management system, and we
    would leverage the new commuter choice benefits that we have
    available to us now.
        When we included those elements in the program, we were
    able to come up with a program of $2 billion worth of capital
    investment, and $762 million worth of investment in ITS, and we
    have the same benefit as an $8 billion approach.
        So we would suggest to the group that, indeed, that
    increased emphasis on ITS, that Senator Jeffords spoke about,
    will be more and more important to the success of the overall
    functioning of our national transportation system.
        To summarize AMPO's position, we encourage the development
    of a performance-based management and operations element of our
    regional transportation plans. We encourage DOT and the Office
    of Homeland Security, to assist in funding needed info-
    structure, to provide data that will assess the system's
    effectiveness.
        We hope to accomplish this among all 340 MPOs and the new
    ones that are on their way, but we desperately need adequate
    funding to support this planning effort.
        Currently, the Secretary of Transportation may authorize up
    to 1 percent of the overall transportation program to
    metropolitan planning. AMPO believes that this should be
    increased to 2 percent, to ensure adequate funding growing MPO
    responsibilities.
        We are fortunate, in Nevada, in working with our State
    Department of Transportation, that they allow us to program
    flex funds; namely, STP and CMAQ money, in support of ITS
    operations.
        This is not the case in many areas around the country.
    Those types of flex funds need to be sub-allocated to MPOs, so
    that the local officials, dealing with the local transportation
    problems, can come up with the solution to those local
    problems.
        Finally, it is at the MPO where local elected officials
    work with professional staff to decide cooperatively on a
    region's transportation priorities.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Warren. Admiral Bennis?

    STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL RICHARD BENNIS, ASSOCIATE UNDER SECRETARY
        FOR MARITIME AND LAND SECURITY, TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
                             ADMINISTRATION

        Admiral Bennis. Good morning, as a matter of introduction,
    I am the new Associate Under Secretary for Maritime and Land
    Security at the Transportation Security Administration, and I
    am the leader of a very small group at the moment, but we are
    growing.
        The focus at TSA, obviously, has been on aviation security.
    Our focus is going to be on the security of passengers and
    cargo movement throughout the maritime and land modes, to
    include maritime, rail, highway, mass transit, and I have also
    got aviation cargo, and even pipeline, as that is a cargo, as
    well.
        I just want to say, it is a real pleasure to be here. It is
    a great opportunity for me to establish some relationships with
    all the folks in the room. I salute your efforts. They have
    been and continue to be exceptional, and I look forward to
    working with you in the future.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Warren. Mr. Edelman?

      STATEMENT OF MATTHEW EDELMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TRANSCOM,
                            JERSEY CITY, NJ

        Mr. Edelman. Good morning, and thank you for inviting
    TRANSCOM to today's session. As a coalition of 18 agencies in
    the New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut region, TRANSCOM has
    seen the value of transportation information to the public
    safety community, particularly after the tragic attacks of
    September 11th.
        We are honored to have public safety agencies in our
    membership: NYPD, New Jersey State Police, New York State
    Police, as well as the Port Authority of New York and New
    Jersey, whose own police force suffered such tremendous losses
    on that date.
        Through ITS technology, the quality and quantity of
    information that transportation agencies can make available to
    each other and to the police has constantly been improving. The
    week of the attack, as a ban on single occupancy autos in parts
    of Manhattan took effect, ITS technology was used by three key
    Hudson River crossings.
        With little precedent for predicting the effects of these
    restrictions, they were able to use these systems to react in a
    measured way to the changes in demand. On the day of the
    attack, bus operators were able to use our multi-agency video
    network to make the best use of their resources.
        TRANSCOM also used the I-95 Coalition's network to advise
    drivers throughout the Northeast, linked to a massive
    deployment of traveler information systems, to avoid the entire
    New York area.
        But a regional approach to operations and security is not
    only about technology. It is about working relationships among
    organizations and individuals. After the attack, many seemingly
    intractable inter-agency conflicts were resolved effectively
    through quick conference calls of transportation police
    professionals, who already knew and trusted each other.
        We are also learning that we do not always need two
    different networks of transportation information: one for
    operations and one for public safety. We are tying police
    agencies into our video network, and our regional ITS
    architecture, the new backbone of our information sharing
    network.
        We have also learned, as transportation professionals, that
    much of this flow to police agencies can be one way. While
    their missions are different from ours, we can provide them
    with transportation information that helps them to fulfil their
    responsibilities, and we are proud to do so.
        Looking to the future, I want to emphasize the need to fund
    ongoing operations and maintenance costs of ITS systems. As
    these systems become more effective, demand for them will grow
    and, correspondingly, so will these costs.
        Currently, our member agencies pay for most of our 24/7
    base operation costs. They are hard pressed to meet a wide
    range of needs, and are finding it challenging to fund the
    operation and maintenance of ITS.
        While these costs are eligible for Federal funding, the
    need to compete with other priorities may not leave sufficient
    funding for regional operations.
        Thank you again, and I look forward to this morning's
    discussion.
        Mr. Warren. Thank you.
        Mr. Lockwood?

         STATEMENT OF STEVE LOCKWOOD, VICE PRESIDENT, PARSONS
       BRINKERHOFF, ON BEHALF OF THE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION
                               ENGINEERS

        Mr. Lockwood. Good morning, and thank you for the
    opportunity to provide the Institute of Transportation
    Engineers' perspective on transportation systems management and
    operations.
        My name is Steve Lockwood. I am Senior Vice President of
    Parsons Brinckerhoff, a member of ITE, and Vice Chair of the
    National Dialogue on Transportation Operations Steering
    Committee.
        ITE is a 16,000 member educational and scientific
    association of traffic and transportation engineers,
    transportation planners, and other professionals responsible
    for meeting society's needs for safe and efficient surface
    transportation.
        ITE has been involved in facilitating an important national
    initiative, the National Dialogue on Transportation Operations.
    The focus is on how to improve the transportation service
    available from the existing system, in the relative short run
    at low cost and without major construction efforts, using new
    technology concepts and appropriate institutional arrangements,
    that will maximize customer focus on systems performance.
        This initiative is sponsored by FHWA, managed by ITE, and
    involves many of the Nation's key transportation-related
    interest groups, several of which are here today.
        The vision of the dialog is to bring the system to a point
    where it is managed and operated so that its performance
    exceeds normal customer expectations. The focus is on
    integrated systems and services that preserve and improve
    customer-related performance.
        In October of this year, the Dialogue held a National
    Summit on Transportation Management and Operations in Columbia,
    Maryland, attended by over 250 professionals in academia,
    transportation, and State and local government.
        The summit reached consensus on the need for increased
    focus on transportation system management, the importance of
    focusing on activities with measurable performance improvement
    value, the value of promoting improved inter-agency
    coordination, the importance of creating linkages between the
    capital planning process and planning for management
    operations, and the relevance of system operations in
    supporting whole and security initiatives.
        Participants felt that the Federal Government can play a
    key role in several ways: accelerating the evolution of
    incorporating systems management into State and local agency
    decisionmaking by clarifying support of Federal policy;
    supporting a higher priority for performance-oriented
    improvements; provision of appropriate funding flexibility; and
    promoting stronger operations-oriented planning and multi-
    jurisdictional partnerships at the regional level.
        ITE has provided recommendations more fully developed in
    the written statement, and I would be happy to expand on the
    National Dialogue and ITE's recommendations during the open
    discussion.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Warren. Thanks.
        Mr. Goldstein?

      STATEMENT OF JACK GOLDSTEIN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, SCIENCE
       APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF ITS
                             INTERNATIONAL

        Mr. Goldstein. Thank you for the opportunity to be here
    today to represent ITS America in this important discussion.
        The central theme of my message to you today is that the
    same ITS technologies that are today being deployed as
    operations tools to improve system performance in metropolitan
    areas can be used and, in fact, are being used to enhance the
    security of the Nation's surface transportation system.
        I want to focus on two points out of my written remarks
    that I have given you. One is the need for a focus on
    operations and the role of ITS in operations; and second, the
    relationship of ITS technologies with security applications.
        First of all, with respect to operations, systems
    operations and management of the existing capacity offers both
    short-term and long-term strategies to improve the flow of
    people and goods throughout the transportation system.
        Enhancing system performance, however, is predicated on the
    ability of skilled transportation professionals to collect,
    analyze, and archive data about the performance of the system,
    during the hours of peak use.
        With this data, traffic operators have the ability to
    respond to incidents, adverse weather, or other capacity-
    constricting events now with respect to the role of ITS in
    operations.
        Intelligent transportation systems are the tools of the
    traffic operators. Traffic management systems, incident
    management systems and travel information systems are among the
    ITS tools that traffic operators use to manage a metropolitan
    area's transportation system, and manage it at its optimal
    efficiency.
        Now in order to bring these improvements to the entire
    Nation, ITS America proposes the creation of a national
    transportation information network, which will link all
    existing and future metropolitan and rural transportation
    systems in the Nation into an integrated, yet distributed, data
    network. The network will collect information on system
    performance through a variety of technologies.
        Let me shift now for a moment to security in ITS
    technologies. Research indicates that 58 percent of
    international terrorist attacks in 1998 were on transportation
    targets; and of these 92 percent were on surface
    transportation.
        The important point is that the same ITS technologies that
    serve to improve operational efficiency also serve to protect
    both critical transportation infrastructure and people who
    travel on it.
        In conclusion, ITS technologies and services play a
    critical role in improving system operation and performance,
    while at the same time, enhancing the security of our surface
    transportation system.
        With these duo purposes in mind, ITS America urges the
    Congress to redouble its commitment to ITS operations and the
    reauthorizations of TEA-21.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Warren. Thank you.
        Dr. Miller?

     STATEMENT OF WILLIAM D. MILLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OKLAHOMA
          AERONAUTICS AND SPACE COMMISSION, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK

        Mr. Miller. Thank you for the opportunity to be with you
    today. In the lexicon of the warrior, we are faced with what is
    called ``defender's disadvantage.'' We must defend against all
    possible attacks, while the terrorist only has to find one
    weakness in our system.
        We are confronted with the momentous task of securing the
    Nation's transportation infrastructure. An effort of this
    magnitude, which involves every level of Government, the
    private sector, and private citizens, requires the addressing
    of a number of issues.
        We appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you today the
    Oklahoma Department of Transportation efforts and thoughts on
    improving operation of our metropolitan transportation systems,
    while enhancing emergency response procedures, in the security
    of our transportation infrastructure.
        Since September 11th, it is imperative that our Nation
    develop and implement a clearly defined Homeland Security
    Program, that incorporates a comprehensive assessment of
    national threats and risks, and that clearly articulates,
    roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities.
        We must, as a Nation, review our policies on immigration
    and the security of our borders. Our seaports and our airports
    need particular attention.
        The Oklahoma Department of Transportation is working on and
    has completed a variety of transportation enhancement
    initiatives, and we look forward to this symposium as a vehicle
    to achieve increased effectiveness and security in our
    transportation systems.
        As the transportation leadership for this Nation, we are
    charged with developing a vision that includes national, State,
    and local objectives, that develop and ensure effective and
    efficient technologies, management systems, and security for
    our transportation systems. We must identify the essential
    elements that constitute every level of Government strategies
    for an effective and secure system.
        We are fortunate that intelligent transportation system
    technologies can be a powerful tool in aiding first responders
    and traffic managers, while assisting the efforts to secure our
    transportation infrastructure.
        The Oklahoma Department of Transportation has implemented a
    multi-phase ITS integration program that will include the
    design and completion of a fiber optic communications backbone,
    capable of integrating a myriad of ITS components, enhance
    security and preparedness, establish a network for information
    and data sharing across and between jurisdictions.
        Our program will link and integrate our department, State,
    Federal, military and local agencies into a common
    communication backbone, capable of multi-user, multi-point
    interface that will facilitate the rapid real-time sharing of
    information.
        We support a multi-agency approach to developing solutions
    to these difficult issues of operations, management, and
    security, and pledge our support and efforts to that end.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Warren. Thank you, and thanks again to everyone for
    being here. I will quickly review the agenda, before we get
    into the next section of the discussion, which is going to be
    the staff questioning.
        Each staff member here is going to get 8 minutes to ask
    questions. We can ask it any way we like; if it is directed at
    individual people, or to open it up for the whole group for
    discussion. After that, we will take a 5-minute break, and then
    come back for a general panel discussion, where panelists can
    ask questions of each other. Staff can ask follow-up questions,
    if necessary.
        We will try and keep control of that, and keep that more
    like Phil Donahue than Jerry Springer, if we can.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Warren. Then we will wrap it up, once that discussion
    begins to die out, or we get to the point where we are kicked
    out of this room at 12:30.
        We have food and drink behind us to keep everyone awake, so
    feel free to grab some coffee or juice or donuts or bagels, now
    or during the 5 minute break.
        I will start off, but if each person could just briefly
    introduce themselves, before you ask your questions. One more
    thing, this is all for the record. So before you speak if you
    could just quickly say who you are, so that the transcript can
    reflect that.
        I will begin. We have had a lot of examples so far, and I
    will ask this, and I will start with Dr. Johnson, but I will
    open it up to everybody. It is sort of a multi-part question.
        We have heard a lot of examples about different operations
    or initiatives around the Nation. Many areas have implemented
    their own initiatives, but how do you take it to the next step?
        How do you bring it all together in a comprehensive
    metropolitan operations program? Who plays the central
    coordinating role? Who is accountable for the performance of
    the system, and who brings together the multiple jurisdictions
    and agencies, who need to be part of a comprehensive operations
    initiative?
        Is it the State DOT; is it the Metropolitan Planning
    Organization; is it a separate organization like TRANSCOM?
    Where should that take place? Is an actual physical operations
    center needed to bring together all the relevant parties?
        Ms. Johnson. That is a lot of questions.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Warren. That is.
        Ms. Johnson. I am sure you would like a clear, definitive
    answer to the ``who does it'' and ``who brings them together''
    questions. We would have two.
        I cannot remember, and I know Matt participated in the
    discussion. It was nine to 12 months in panel discussions,
    trying to answer that question.
        What we ultimately came up with is, yes we need that kind
    of a table. We need a regional table that has, at minimum, the
    transit agencies at the three levels of Government;
    transportation and transit; public safety and emergency
    management. But it will be done differently in different
    regions.
        We have begun to explore what we need. It is sort of an
    incentive or a catalyst to say, and so, get on with it; but
    allowing that flexibility to occur.
        Do they need to have a physical structure? No, we do not.
    We have examples without physical structures. They can, I think
    be very successful with a distributed structure, but the people
    have to meet and get along, and figure out ways to share
    information.
        But you can have a virtual collaboration, as long as you
    are wired to each other and capable of sharing information with
    one another, and you are meeting and collaborating. So it does
    not have to be bricks and mortar that brings you together.
        I think the third question was, and what are the next steps
    in the ITS piece of it. The thing that I have suggested in my
    own testimony is, in sorting through all the possible next
    steps, we have come down to two very high leverage ones that we
    think will lead to others, on their own.
        The first is, it has been called, I think by ITS America,
    an information network, an info-structure. I think each of them
    have their own words, but we are talking about the same thing.
        Getting a minimum set of information being produced about
    the surface transportation system; there are lots of ways of
    doing it. But that minimum set of information is required, and
    so it is going after that. The second investment is investing
    in that regional table.
        Mr. Warren. Does anyone else want to jump in?
        Mr. Edelman?
        Mr. Edelman. Looking at the first issue of how one starts a
    regional operations initiative, I would agree that there cannot
    be a ``one size fits all'' approach; that looking at the
    experience, we see the leadership and the interest and the
    motivation is truly different, from region to region.
        I will give you three examples. In the Bay area, much
    leadership in that area has come from the MPO, the Metropolitan
    Transportation Commission. In the Buffalo area and in Southern
    Ontario, it has come from the State DOT, working with
    administrative transport.
        In our region, it started with operating people, who saw an
    need, in terms of massive construction projects that were
    taking place, and with all these jurisdictions, nobody was in
    charge.
        They realized that if coordination was going to take place
    to serve the public, that we had to face the fact that nobody
    would ever be in charge, perhaps, but we could have a means of
    coordinating with each other and, in effect, having that
    regional benefit.
        Now in terms of our region, we had a gentleman named Lew
    Gamseni, who was the Deputy Executive Director of the Port
    Authority, a large transportation and multi-modal agency.
        He was, to use a term coined by my colleague, John Corbin
    from Wisconsin DOT, an entrepreneurial bureaucrat. He was
    someone who was in the region, who had the vision, who realized
    there had to be another way of doing things.
        So that is where it started, with senior operating people
    who said, we have to coordinate on a regional basis to get
    these benefits.
        In terms of the physical location, again, ``one size does
    not fit all.'' We have seen distributed networks. We have seen
    everybody in one facility, such as in Houston.
        We have a facility which ties in other facilities. It is
    relatively small, in terms of the late shifts, perhaps two
    people. But what we do find is, if you have a distributed
    network, you need human beings to absorb that data, to react to
    it, to question it, and then to implement it.
        So the systems make us smarter and give us better data, but
    we still believe that if you do not necessarily have a physical
    presence, you have to have human beings who are entrusted with
    absorbing that data and reacting to that data. It is their job.
        The final thing, in terms of future growth, everyone has
    said it, and we have seen 22 percent numbers. There are just
    geometric expansions and benefits with every additional mile of
    instrumentation you add.
        You have a link, you get smart. You have many links, you
    have a corridor. You have parallel corridors, you have a
    region. And every time the ability we have to manage the system
    and help our customers, it expands significantly.
        Mr. Warren. Anyone else; Mr. Lockwood?
        Mr. Lockwood. I think I am going to sort of restate what
    has been said, in a slightly different nature. But based on the
    dialog that has occurred among a wide range of interest groups
    on this topic, I think one this that the national dialog very
    much exposed is the need for a broad consensus on the nature of
    the enterprise itself; in other words, within the metropolitan
    area, what is it that we are talking about, because there a
    fair amount of confusion and misunderstanding.
        But once the notion is understood that we can substantially
    improve the performance of the existing system and should do so
    is excepted, and we are doing that on a regional basis, along
    with the consequent need to focus on performance and the
    information needed to talk about performance and use
    performance, then the institutional response within a region or
    at the State level, in terms of the participation and the
    leadership and so on, will emerge, depending on kind of the
    legacy of relationship in institutions that are already there.
        As I think both Christine and Matt have said, there is no
    single model. But essential to move ahead is to get this sort
    of common understanding of what one is talking about, and every
    region will do it in a way that is appropriate to its
    circumstances.
        Mr. Warren. Thank you.
        I will now turn it over to Ruth Van Mark.
        Ms. Van Mark. First off, I welcome all of you to our
    symposium this morning. I want to especially welcome the folks
    from Oklahoma.
        I have to kid my colleague here from Nevada, that once
    again, Oklahoma is on the cutting edge of technology. You
    stepped right there and you have pulled together something that
    is going to help the State, not only for security, but for
    traffic management.
        One of the themes that I keep hearing throughout today's
    discussion and earlier discussions that we have had with some
    operations folks, is that communication and building of
    relationships among various agencies, to facilitate that kind
    of communication.
        I am curious to maybe discuss in greater detail exactly
    what were the events that triggered either the discussions
    initially for the communities that do have somewhat of an
    advance ITS operation. I am assuming for Utah, it was the
    Olympics, although maybe you were well on your road toward
    that, even if you had never had the Olympics. TRANSCOM said it
    was an enterprising bureaucrat, which we all wish we had those
    types of people.
        But what types of things can the Federal Government do, and
    specifically can we do in our next bill, that would trigger or
    encourage or incentivize communities to do what you have
    started to do, for those that have done it?
        Mr. Njord. I appreciate the opportunity to answer that. The
    advance traveler information system that we have in Utah was
    not developed specifically for the Olympic Games. The impetus
    behind developing such a system really evolved out of the
    serious growth that we are experiencing and the extreme
    congestion that we had on our system.
        We recognized very clearly that we could not, and I hate to
    almost say this, completely build our way out of the congestion
    that we were experiencing. We had to have a combination of
    expansion, as well as optimization of the system.
        Now you ask the question, what can the Federal Government
    do to help incentive folks to engage in that same type of
    activity? I think that there are many things that can be done.
    There are many lessons that can be learned from one State to
    another, as they engage in dialog and talk about things,
    lessons learned, what was successful, what was not successful.
        I cannot tell you how much we learned from Atlanta, when we
    deployed our system. We actually entered into an agreement with
    Atlanta, wherein they gave us all of the software that they
    produced for their traffic operations center. It was nearly an
    $8 million investment on their behalf.
        They gave it to us. We used that software and enhanced it
    and, in fact, have given pieces back to them, to enhance their
    system. So here are two States cooperating, one with another,
    in order to have a better product.
        I think the Federal Government can help us in initiating
    those types of partnerships and other things, not to be too
    long winded, here.
        Ms. Van Mark. It would seem to me that now as metropolitan
    areas plan their major transportation system, one component now
    has to be ITS, I guess technology, to be redundant.
        How do we then encourage people to include that in their
    planning. Dr. Miller, you mentioned that that is what Oklahoma
    is doing. As you move forward, is ITS just automatically an
    item that you consider, and then how do you pool various groups
    together, in order to implement that?
        Mr. Goldstein. First, back to John, with your software
    issue, that has become a very important topic to many of the
    States, and we hope to come to you and to Georgia, in an effort
    to share that software and acquire it from you.
        All this kind of took place because of the ITS meeting that
    was in Long Beach, California, 2 weeks ago, where we had
    opportunities to share those particular things, and find out
    about this software. It is going to be wonderful.
        Ruth, to address your question, typically, what we have
    looked at, in surface transportation, has been condition and
    performance. Condition, typically, you know, is what the road
    surface is like. Performance has not really been anything that
    most DOTs have looked at, over the course of the last couple of
    decades.
        Now we have added lanes of traffic, but not until recently,
    when the technologies have become available, have we been able
    to address the performance side of this transportation concept.
        Here in Oklahoma, Ruth, basically what we do is meet with
    the various governmental entities, whether we are talking about
    sister State agencies, or more to the point, meeting with our
    municipalities, and talking about what concepts, technologies,
    are going to become available through this system; and then
    figuring out a way that the municipality can join on to what we
    are calling our TRANSNET in Oklahoma.
        Clearly, our initial focus is in our large metropolitan
    areas. That is where the build-out is going to occur. But we
    are also sharing this with our rural areas, too, to give them
    an opportunity to look at how they would tie into the TRANSNET
    system.
        I think that ITS is really the first opportunity to take a
    real hard look at performance issues, principally because of
    ITS technologies.
        Ms. Van Mark. Well, am I hearing that the role that the
    Federal Government has to play in this is the gathering of
    information and the depository of information?
        Mr. Goldstein. I think so. I think what was brought about a
    few minutes ago, looking at exactly what are the improvements
    that we want, and what are the notions of what ITS is.
        If you talk to 10 different people, and you will get 10
    different answers as to what ITS is. That may not be a bad
    thing, because every State is a little bit different and, you
    know, what Jacob requires in Southern Nevada may not be
    necessarily what Oklahoma requires out in its rural areas, in
    terms of what the notion of ITS will do.
        Mr. Tinklenberg. Could I respond--El Tinklenberg from
    Minnesota--there are, as Dr. Johnson mentioned earlier, a
    couple of things, in terms of supporting a minimum level of
    information that is gathered by the system; that there is a
    capability within our systems in the metropolitan areas to
    gather and generate a certain amount of base data from our
    systems; and I think that expectation should be there.
        The development of that capability has been quite slow and
    very sporadic around the country. I think supporting that would
    be an important initiative.
        In doing that, I think the Federal Government also needs to
    look at, for example, the cost of that setup in how we do
    procurement. Obviously, procurement of ITS systems is very
    different from the general procurement of a construction
    project or things like that.
        I think right now the rules kind of assume a building
    process. I think as we look at more and more ITS installations,
    some changes in those procurement processes are necessary.
        The other thing is maintaining the flexibility, so that
    regions can use dollars from different programs within the
    transportation authorization, to allow them to fund some of
    these kinds of initiatives.
        I think that is going to be very important. Being able to
    accelerate and streamline that procurement process, that
    development process for the States or the regions is going to
    be important, as well.
        Mr. Edelman. On the question of incentivizing, what can the
    Federal Government do, to bring about cooperation, we have
    found, with all the parts in our regional coalition, and not
    just in our region, there is just a natural conflict between
    the financial interests of each individual agency, and the
    collective interest.
        There is just going to be that natural tension. One of the
    ways to incentivize it is have a separate pool of money for
    regional organizations.
        In the early days, our chairman was actually, when
    confronting another member for dues, some $50,000, that
    potential member said, ``That $50,000 could go into repairing a
    guardrail, and that guardrail could save a life.''
        That argument made it very hard for us to talk about the
    regional interest. But there is a regional interest, as we have
    shown. And I think trying to eliminate some of that financial
    tension between the parts and the whole would help.
        Ms. Johnson. Ruth, if I could, I would like to give you
    three examples, just to go back in history, that I think would
    help you in your deliberations.
        The Federal Highway Administration did a major campaign in
    the 1990's for incident management, and to do incident
    management, you need to bring at least some of those same
    people that we are all talking about together. They went all
    across the country and set up those tables.
        In sort of going back and doing some evaluation, we found
    that many of them had disappeared, because the champion had
    been promoted, retired, et cetera.
        Two other examples, then, that I would contrast that to,
    and those were sort of jawboned in place, would be actually
    TRANSCOM, and I know that same entrepreneurial bureaucrat. I
    cannot quite remember the amount of money that the Port
    Authority of New York and New Jersey agreed to put up,
    basically, to support the whole, when the parts did not see it
    in their best interests.
        But for a period of four or 5 years, they said, this is
    important for the region, and so we will pay everyone's dues to
    at least put a couple of staff members together to regularly
    convene you in a meeting.
        The other example I would point to, that has stayed in
    place, is the I-95 Coalition. While the department abhors the
    congressionally designated projects, that has been a
    congressionally designated project, primarily for the purpose
    of ITS.
        But I would argue that they have stayed together and
    expanded extraordinarily, the work they are doing together,
    because there is a small amount of money coming in, that holds
    the table together. Now they are working far beyond that
    earmark, at this point. And that would be worth looking at.
        Ms. Van Mark. I think I have eaten into Jeff's time, so I
    apologize, Jeff.
        Mr. Squires. That is quite all right. I thought it was
    stimulating stuff that we were hearing.
        Well, thank you, my name is Jeff Squires. I am the
    transportation senior policy advisor for Senator Jeffords, with
    the committee. I also want to share in welcoming all of you
    here to Washington, and express my appreciation.
        I also want to commend Mitch and Ruth and J.C. and Lauren,
    who just left the room and will now miss this, and Duane, for
    their good work in organizing today's session.
        As Senator Reid said, these are pretty valuable
    opportunities, and the logistics of organizing one of these is
    daunting, but I think it is well worth the investment in time
    and effort that was made.
        My question goes to the readiness of operations technology.
    One of the issues that we will address during reauthorization
    will be the programmatic treatment of ITS deployment.
        Today, deployment is included in the research title. In a
    sense, it is in the R&D phase, research and development phase.
    Some believe that the time has come to move it out of research,
    either into a new program category, or into one or more of the
    core program categories, as an eligible activity.
        To me, the question comes down to readiness. If we extend
    the R&D analogy to that of a consumer product, then I would
    envision two main criteria that should guide our thinking.
        One, does the product have sufficient reliability? Does it
    work? Have we gotten the bugs out of the product? Two, is there
    a market for the product? Can it compete in the market place?
    Is it, in fact, a better mouse trap?
        So my question to the panel is basically, are operations
    technologies, or ITS technologies, ready to move out of R&D?
    Are they sufficiently proven, and can they deliver sufficient
    benefit to compete with conventional build responses?
        I guess I would like to first target the question to our
    panelists from the Departments of Transportation and from the
    Metropolitan organizations; the people who make programming
    decisions. If those of you could respond first to this, and
    then perhaps the others who were in the groups that talked
    about technology.
        Henry?
        Mr. Hungerbeeler. I would be happy to give a brief
    response. Yes, I think certain parts of it are ready to move
    out of R&D. There will be a continuing need for R&D, of course.
    But we have some systems that are deployed, and certainly, we
    ought to expedite that deployment. A lot things that are
    capable of being deployed simply have not been, because of the
    lack of funding.
        Mr. Njord. Certainly, I think that we have witnesses in our
    State that this stuff is ready for prime time, Jeff. There is
    no question in my mind that it is ready for prime time, and
    that it is ready to be something much more than what it is,
    today.
        One of the things that we struggle with in the Federal
    program is deploying the systems in a rapid fashion. We had to
    put together a great deal of infrastructure for the Olympic
    Games. We had approximately 5 years to do it.
        In putting that together, there were many pieces of it that
    we clearly knew that using the Federal program would never get
    it done. Of the $120 million that we have spent on ITS
    deployment so far, most of it has been State-funded; about 73
    percent of it.
        The reason for that, in many cases, is because we knew the
    Federal program would be so difficult to get through, that it
    was much easier just to do it with our own funds.
        If you want an example, just in summary, CMAQ funds. There
    is no bigger ``bang for the buck'' than ITS technology in
    reducing congestion and increasing air quality. Yet, CMAQ funds
    can still only be used for 3 years' worth of operation. After 3
    years, you have to find some other funding source. We think
    that that needs to change.
        Mr. Tinklenberg. We, as many in the room know, had the
    opportunity to do a major study of our ramp meter system, which
    is one of the components of our traffic management.
        Mr. Squires. Elwyn, let me tell you, my family is from
    Minnesota. My father is, as a person who drives a car, of
    course, an expert on this subject.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Tinklenberg. There are many in Minnesota.
        Mr. Squires. He followed your work carefully.
        Mr. Tinklenberg. Some of them, unfortunately, have radio
    programs.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Tinklenberg. But one of the things that we discovered
    in that study, and I will just give you a few statistics, and
    this is from the summary of the findings, crashes increased by
    26 percent when metered freeways and ramps in the peak period,
    when the meters were turned off.
        Rear end crashes increased by 25 percent. Freeway travel
    times increased by an average of 22 percent when meters were
    turned off. That is the travel time, and the amount of time you
    spent on the freeway increased.
        Freeway travel times decreased by an average of 14 percent
    when the meters were turned off. The big one, and we do a lot
    of customer surveys, and in one of them, the customers say
    constantly, we want a smooth, safe, predictable trip. The
    reliability of travel time, the buffer time, decreased by 91
    percent, when the meters were turned off.
        These are real benefits; and when we get to, as Dr. Miller
    said, performance measurements, and really doing more in terms
    of measuring the performance of our systems, I think we are
    going to see more and more that these technologies are mature
    enough to make real substantive differences on the system.
        Our calculation was that it provides annual benefits. The
    ramp metering system itself provides annual benefits of about
    $40 million to our system. The cost of developing the system
    and operating the system is about $2.8 million per year. So
    there is a huge cost benefit relationship, as well.
        Mr. Squires. If I could ask a quick question, before we
    move down the line, notwithstanding John's concerns about just
    working through any Federal process takes a long time, can you
    respond to a congestion or traffic flow challenges more rapidly
    through technology deployment than through a build solution?
        Mr. Tinklenberg. I believe so. Again, it goes back to, I
    think there are some changes in the procurement process that
    need to be made, and some streamlining that is appropriate to
    ITS technology and the development of that technology, that are
    different from building another lane.
        But I think you can respond much more quickly, and with
    less disruption. If you go into a major freeway in a
    metropolitan area, and have to start buying right-of-way, the
    impact of that is enormous. Whereas, if you start wiring it, or
    providing the technology, it is much, much less noticeable.
        Mr. Warren. Jacob?
        Mr. Snow. For the record, this is Jacob Snow.
        Certain parts of the ITS infrastructure, I think, are
    definitely proven to be more specific signal controllers;
    particularly from a security standpoint.
        Previously, in Las Vegas, we had a centralized
    architecture, where everything was in one place. If you had a
    backhoe dig up a cable, the system would go down. We are much
    more vulnerable to disruptions of that sort.
        Now, with the advance signal controllers that we have,
    where the intelligence is actually located in the traffic
    signal itself, if there is a disruption somewhere else, we can
    still keep those signals in step with each other.
        What we see the role of the Federal Government doing, to
    kind of move back toward Ruth's question, is to function as a
    clearinghouse and as a repository of best practices for ITS,
    and with more funding, have agencies compete for those
    demonstrably effective ITS technologies in performance.
        One specific measure that we are doing with our bus fleet,
    because we are also the transit operator, as well as the MPO,
    people do not believe that our buses can keep up with regular
    traffic.
        Well, I am here to tell you that our buses run as many red
    lights as anybody else out there, and we can go as fast as any
    of the other vehicles on the freeway system.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Snow. We have satellite GPS-equipped transceivers on
    all 400 of our vehicles. We are using those satellites to keep
    track, real time, on our street and highway and arterial
    network in the valley.
        We can test different signal parameters, real time, to
    actually measure their performance. We have an embryonic
    performance measurement system going with that as the basis for
    it, and we plan on expanding that.
        So there are definitely demonstrable ways where ITS is
    definitely out of the research category, although we need to
    continue research and development.
        But we also look, and we would agree with John, to CMAQ
    money and, indeed, STP money needs to be broken loose, to be
    programmed at the MPO level, to be eligible for these
    activities; and we need to do that in a more aggressive
    fashion.
        Mr. Goldstein. My name is Jack Goldstein, and I want to
    speak wearing two hats. Let me speak for ITS America and then I
    want to comment on El Tinklenberg's report, with respect to
    procurement, wearing my private sector hat. So let me first
    make a couple of comments about deployment.
        I think it is very critical to continue the deployment of
    ITS, in several ways. There are many widgets out there now that
    are performing at a very, very satisfactory way.
        First, you need wider distribution of those existing
    capabilities. Second, there are things are the drawing board
    ready to be deployed, that need to be pushed to be deployed, to
    enhance that is already out there, and to spread the word more
    widely across.
        Third, you need to keep the R&D effort going, to keep
    things in the pipeline, and very importantly, to keep the
    private sector involved, to keep things moving along, to keep
    their R&D programs going, to come up with those innovative
    ideas that will give you the next generation of good things
    that are going to make a difference for the people that are
    operating the State systems.
        Now let me wear my private sector hat. What El Tinklenberg
    said is absolutely correct. The procurement process has to
    change in order to keep the private sector interested in being
    involved in this whole arena of ITS.
        Some things just do not lend themselves to fixed price, low
    bid procurements. Software development, which is critical to
    all of these ITS things that we are talking about, falls into
    that category.
        Having had experience with trying to develop software under
    a contract that is the same as for pouring concrete along the
    road, believe me when I tell you, that is very, very difficult,
    and impedes, in many ways, good private sector companies from
    wanting to stay involved in the industry, because it is a very,
    very risky business to the bottom line. Thank you.
        Mr. Warren. It would be better if we can keep it to about
    30 second, so we can move on to Megan's questions. I would like
    to hear from the Oklahoma perspective.
        Mr. Surrett. I am Mitch Surrett. I am counsel to the
    Secretary of Transportation in Oklahoma. I will make a real
    quick point.
        This is something we experienced. We received $3 million
    last year in ITS funding, and we went to actually implement
    some of the ideas we had in the programs we were pursuing. It
    was integration funds which we could not use for deployment of
    some of the systems we wanted to use.
        So I would say flexibility in the funds you receive is very
    important to us in Oklahoma, and probably to some of the other
    States. That would be all I wanted to say.
        Ms. Stanley. I am Megan Stanley. I am the general counsel
    for the Republican staff of the committee. I would like to
    allow a couple more questions to Jeff's questions, because I
    think those are key; especially talking about the technology,
    and then also talking about moving it from the research title
    to perhaps some of the core programs.
        So I know Steve Lockwood and Matt Edelman wanted to respond
    to that, so please go ahead.
        Mr. Lockwood. I will just make a brief point. This is Steve
    Lockwood, and I am associating myself with the previous
    comments, which I certainly agree with.
        Just to generalize a bit, implementing ITS in management
    operations, the technology dimension is part of the cultural
    change challenge that everybody is struggling with at the
    Federal, State, and local level, in both the public and private
    sectors.
        Many of the technologies and systems that are essential to
    get a grip on these issues evolve at a relatively rapid pace,
    compared to those technologies that are the traditional
    transportation technologies.
        The institutional arrangements, which include procurement,
    the development of standards, the allocation of funds, how one
    thinks about programming for incremental upgrades and so on, is
    simply not part of our culture. Heroic efforts have been made
    in many corners of Federal and State, to deal with these
    issues.
        You can see here and there, innovative procurement
    approaches, some of which do exist, and have been very
    successfully used, dealing with the issues that Jack referred
    to.
        The standards efforts that FHWA has led have been very
    important and continue to be important, in terms of upgrading
    and maintaining standards, because the technologies changes,
    and the research and development efforts, as well.
        The way of thinking about the technology, and the way it
    permeates all the institutional and administrative
    arrangements, has not quite sort of been institutionalized. I
    think we know what many of the answers are, and I think there
    are some significant legislative issues, some of which may
    simply be clarification, a distinct from the needs for change
    in law.
        Mr. Edelman. This is Matt Edelman. As to the question, Mr.
    Squires, of ``ready for prime time,'' we see the assistance in
    prime time every day. We see an extraordinary contrast between
    those corridors and facilities that are instrumented with ITS
    technology, and those that are not.
        In some of the corridors where, for instance, we are using
    probe technology to instrument it, where we have this
    instrumentation, we detect that everybody responds far faster.
        The quality of travel time that we can give to the public,
    which is ultimately what we think they want; the travel time
    information that can go on that variable methods sign is
    precise and it is exact.
        The ability to help bus operators with this information, in
    terms of re-routing and re-deployment is precise. It is exact.
        For construction zone management, it makes those people out
    in the field, with all the pressures they are under, respond
    more effectively.
        Contrast that to the many corridors where we are not
    instrumented, and it is sort of aggressive ``shoe leather data
    grubbing.'' A well meaning member, maybe from another agency,
    calls from an interstate run by a DOT. Something is wrong.
    Well, we did not hear anything; we will check.
        You call a DOT. Maybe the DOT regional office does not have
    it. Maybe they will call the office at the Headquarters.
        Maybe, in turn, someone will call the local police. Maybe
    someone will call and say, well, there is a construction crew
    here, we have their number in the trailer.
        That process, however aggressively we do it, can take from
    5 minutes to forty minutes. So we see it every day, how much
    better we can serve the public, when we have this kind of
    information from ITS.
        Mr. Miller. This is Bill Miller from Oklahoma. I just had a
    point for Admiral Bennis. When we started looking at security
    of our airports, we were fortunate in that we were able to
    bring in a Washington, DC.-based security firm, to look at some
    general aviation security issues.
        The guidance that we gave them was that they were going to
    have to utilize ITS technologies, as the foundation upon which
    to build this security plan, minus a couple of biometric pieces
    that we put in it.
        So what we intend to do is take these ITS technologies, Mr.
    Johnson, and extend them beyond surface transportation, into
    all realms: rail, waterways, transit. It turned out, and we put
    a 5-year tag on it, also, to look at what the lifespan on it
    would be.
        It was expensive, Admiral, there is no doubt about that.
    But we felt like we could get a pretty good product with this.
    The part about it is this airport sat right in between; on the
    west side was the interstate highway, and on the east side was
    one of two major rail corridors, running through the State or
    Oklahoma.
        So we took a very modal look at this particular instance,
    and it worked out, primarily using ITS technologies. Thank you.
        Ms. Stanley. My next question is for Mr. Njord.
    Congratulations on the successful Olympic Games. I know that
    you had a lot of challenges in completing the I-15 project. But
    I was very impressed by the statistics that you said, about
    reduced congestion in that corridor, to both the structural
    improvements to I-15 and the ITS improvements.
        Can you, perhaps attribute to either of those components,
    and give us a little idea about the challenge of that project;
    what it entailed; and how those two components work together,
    to contribute to the reduced congestion?
        Mr. Njord. I would be happy to try. Thank you for the
    compliment. It was quite an experience to go through both the
    reconstruction of I-15, and then also to stage the Olympic
    Games.
        When we began the construction of the I-15 project, we had
    some very serious deficiencies, both structural and
    operational, along the I-15 corridor. We had a lot of accidents
    that were taking place there, and a lot of people were losing
    their lives along the I-15 corridor.
        It is interesting that through the four and-a-half year
    period of time that we were building the project, the project
    took on an Olympic name. It was the Salt Lake Luge.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Njord. That was indicative of the barriers that we
    placed upon the entire corridor. Once you got inside the luge,
    you could not get out of the luge.
        We literally shut down miles of connecting roads to the
    project. But that enabled us, really, to complete the project
    in a very short period of time; a very large $1.6 billion
    project in four and-a-half years.
        We decided, from the very start, that we would implement
    the latest and greatest ITS technology in the project, and that
    it would be incorporated in every element of that particular
    project; which, by the way, once again, like the ITS
    deployment, was largely State funded--approximately 88 percent
    State funded.
        We deployed ITS technologies along the entire corridor;
    fiber optic cables and enough to expand into the future. We
    have got 200 cameras that are out there, giving us real time
    information, full motion, tilt, pan, zoom, information.
        I mentioned the statistic that we had 74 million hits on
    our website during the month of February. In a regular week, we
    have about one and-a-half million hits on our website. We
    believe the reason that they go to the website is because they
    get good, accurate real time information.
        We have a system where folks can be paged on their pagers
    or their cell phones, to tell them about their commute ride on
    the way home or on their way to work. That gives them real time
    information about what is taking place out there.
        We are continuing to expand the system. Right now, we are
    in the process of integrating all the construction plans that
    all the entities have on all of the various facilities that are
    built by either local or State or utilities, et cetera.
        We are putting all of that information together in one
    site, so that we can once again, as others have communicated
    here, we need to be able to communicate that.
        I think it was you, Matt, that said, we have got to be able
    to communicate to our customers what is happening on all the
    system, not just the system that we own. We talk about how
    important it is to collaborate and to cooperate, one with
    another, in order to make our customers satisfied with what we
    are doing.
        Ms. Stanley. To clarify, you described the ITS component,
    and what was the structural component of the I-15 corridor
    project?
        Mr. Njord. Well, I-15, it is 17 miles long, and the portion
    that we were constructing, it was three lanes in each direction
    when we started. It is now five to six lanes in each direction,
    plus an HOV lane, plus an auxiliary lanes.
        We reconstructed 142 bridges, depending on how you count
    it. I am always interested to talk to our structural engineers.
    It is 142 to 156.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Njord. I think now how can we build that many bridges
    and not know how many bridges it is. But apparently, where
    bridges come together and go apart, there are discrepancies
    about, is that a bridge or not a bridge.
        But there were a lot of physical impairments along that
    corridor. There was one bridge that I called the sacrificial
    bridge. It was a steel structural bridge, that got hit about
    four or five times a year.
        We always left that bridge just a little bit low, because
    we knew if they did not hit that bridge, they would hit the
    next bridge, which was much more critical to us. So we kept it
    artificially low, just so we could make sure we would catch
    everybody.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Njord. So all those structural deficiencies have been
    taken care of. We have a system now that is very safe. In fact,
    the accident rate has decreased incredibly along the corridor,
    as well as the death rate, which is even more important to me.
        Mr. Lockwood. This is Steve Lockwood. I just wanted to add
    a comment about I-15, which I think illustrates an important
    component about the notion of systems management and
    operations.
        In addition to the application of technology and design
    standards, one of the other key features of the project was its
    accelerated process, which was accomplished by design build and
    program management.
        Within the context of a management and operations
    perspective, that the department brought to bear, essentially
    saying, look, instead of disrupting people for, you know, 12
    years or whatever it would have been, we are going to
    concentrate the action and maintain traffic in a very effective
    way, over the shortest possible period of time.
        That is a point of view that is customer-oriented, and is
    part of the new mind set of management and operations. So it is
    not just an ITS issue or a technology issue. It is everything
    that owners do, that departments do, is infused with this
    notion of customer convenience. So it affects other things like
    procurement, like how design and construction is done, and so
    on.
        Ms. Stanley. I have one last point. Would it be fair to
    say, though, that you used 88 percent State funds, because a
    greater Federal contribution to the project would have actually
    caused more delay in the accelerated procurement and design
    build and construction processes that you were trying to
    accomplish?
        Mr. Njord. We would have gladly accepted more Federal
    funding. In fact, on the I-15 project, we followed all the
    Federal processes. Once you put a dollar of Federal money into
    it, it all becomes Federal.
        I talk about the deployment of other projects within the
    area, that are ITS related, that were totally State funded.
    They were accelerated just because we had to have them
    accelerated.
        But the I-15 project was done as a Federal project. It was
    just that the percentages were reversed. It should have been
    the other way.
        Mr. Sandberg. My name is J.C. Sandberg, and I am counsel to
    the majority staff on the Environment and Public Works
    Committee.
        I wanted to tell Mr. Njord that I was an early participant
    in the Salt Lake Luge, when I was going to school in Utah,
    quite some time ago, and remember the Jersey barriers.
        I wanted to focus on security. One of the other hats I wear
    is helping the committee oversee the Federal Emergency
    Management Agency. We speak all the time with the first
    responder community.
        As many of you have mentioned today, security has become
    the buzzword, or the watch word, since the unfortunate
    incidents of September 11th. My question, I guess, would be how
    can we use operations to better enhance our communication
    between our first responders, to move people in times of
    disaster, and to increase both surveillance and monitoring
    capacity of incidents and of critical infrastructure.
        I guess I would like to start with Mr. Edelman. We have had
    a conversation about this, and if you could kind of talk about
    your experience, following September 11th, and how you used
    operations and ITS to evacuate and reroute traffic around the
    city.
        Mr. Edelman. The first thing that we realized, and we were
    starting to realize it prior to the attacks, and then it became
    very quickly confirmed afterwards, that those of us in the
    transportation community thought we had a big enough job
    creating systems to talk to each other, working with each
    other, toll authority to DOT, DOT to bus agency, bus agency to
    rail agency, et cetera.
        Then there was the realization, even prior to September
    11th, that we are creating these architectures to exchange
    information, largely among civilians; and that the police
    community was hungry for this information. The Emergency
    Management Committee was hungry for this information. They did
    not necessarily have the time or the resources to replicate
    these networks.
        So literally on that date and at that moment, we had to
    sort of redefine ourselves, from a transportation coalition to
    a transportation and emergency management and public safety
    coalition.
        As the information went out, in collective hourly sweeps,
    of what is going on across the region, as the demand for
    information was huge, and the amount of information was huge,
    DOT would call and say, could you add my emergency management
    unit to that information? A State police unit would say, would
    you add the following stations? It would grow and grown.
        Through the I-95 Coalition, DOT would say, throw on this
    State police, and it grew from 40 transportation agencies
    talking to each other, to literally hundreds of agencies,
    exchanging information on that day and the days afterwards.
        Just through the reality, the police wanted to know, and we
    thought, in your building coalitions, it is a big enough job to
    get transportation people to work with each other; go lightly
    with regard to police people; you have a big enough job; do not
    overstate it. They were hungry. They were open for it.
        What has been happening since is, for example, our video
    network, which we thought was a big enough deal to get 14
    transportation agencies to talk to each other; since September
    11th, we are installing that in Police Plaza with NYPD.
        Now what is done with that information, we do not have
    statutory to command evacuations, to lead evaluations. But what
    we do know is we are transportation people. We have an
    infrastructure here that police are hungry for it, and we make
    it available to them in any way.
        What they do with that information, sometimes they tell us
    and sometimes they do not. But as public servants, anything
    that we have invested in and anything we can share with them,
    we do, and that is growing and growing.
        With our regional architecture, it is the same thing. It is
    largely civilians, and the number of work stations that are
    going up to our police colleagues are growing and growing.
        Your actual question about what happened on that day, it is
    hard to give a short answer to that. What we can say, and more
    of this will hopefully come out with discussion, but empowering
    our police colleagues in any way when they made the difficult
    decisions of what you open and what you shut down, this was
    strengthened through this transportation information.
        I will give just one example, and I will yield. You had a
    bus terminal in western Midtown Manhattan, that had tens of
    thousands of people, in effect, trapped there. They could not
    get the buses in to take them home. They could not, because
    they were concerned about running them through a tunnel under
    the Hudson River.
        Everybody wanted to do the right thing, and the right thing
    was, get the buses one, one agency; open up the terminal,
    another agency; get the highway from the tunnel running,
    another agency; and secure it, another agency, in this case, a
    police agency.
        We had an early investment in ITC probe technology in that
    corridor. We knew what was going on. We knew what conditions
    were, and with the relationships that we had, we could open it
    briefly, and close it.
        But what was happening, everybody was making transportation
    demand decisions. The people are here, I want to open the
    terminal. The buses are here, I want to get them in.
        Everybody tied in through the ITS technology of the
    conference call button, to quickly figure out what was going
    on. We gave them the information and they made the decisions.
    They said yes; they said no; and when they said, sorry, it is
    not secured, cannot do it; you have got 30,000 people in there
    and you want to get them home, but you want to get them home
    alive, and we deferred.
        So we had the knowledge, they had the power, and it worked
    out very well.
        Mr. Sandberg. Mr. Hungerbeeler?
        Mr. Hungerbeeler. Thank you, Henry Hungerbeeler; certainly
    I agree with what Matt has said, and I compliment them on their
    response on September 11th.
        I think it may be a little known fact that, in many cases,
    transportation agencies are first responders. I mentioned
    earlier that the first responders did the starring role, and
    transportation is usually a supporting cast member.
        But this week, in the State of Missouri, we had over 100
    State highways closed due to flooding. In almost all cases,
    transportation was the first responder for that.
        We have had cases of train derailments, where
    transportation has not only been the first responder, but the
    one who first realized there had been a train derailment, and
    called the traditional first responders.
        There is universal agreement with the traditional first
    responders, that we need a better communication system, so that
    we can all talk together and coordinate together. I am talking
    about a tactical system, a radio system. Certainly, the
    coordination and communications at the ops center level are
    needed, as well.
        We are all working ont those things, but we would like to,
    I think, suggest that the Federal Government could help in that
    regard through funding, for example, that comes from Homeland
    Security or FEMA.
        Mr. Tinklenberg. This is El Tinklenberg from Minnesota. I
    want to reinforce that we have developed transportation
    operations communication centers around the State, where we
    have a joint dispatching center for our own vehicles, and for
    the highway patrol vehicles. So we have a communications link
    there that works very well for us.
        But we still have not developed the technology, especially
    in the out-start State portions of Minnesota, that allow us to
    speak to all of the emergency responders at the same time.
        You are carrying all kinds of different radios; one to talk
    to the county sheriff, and one to talk to the city police, and
    one to talk to fire department, and one to talk to EMS. That
    really needs to change.
        It is not just in terms of what we think now in terms of
    emergency response; but natural disasters, if we have a
    tornado, and we had this experience in Minnesota, where a whole
    bunch of people came, but they could not talk to each other, in
    coordinating the communication.
        That is why I mentioned earlier at this forum, each member
    of the U.S. DOT was there, responding with communication as
    being a central issue. I think the Federal role in helping us
    deal with that is a vital security interest.
        Mr. Sandberg. Ann?
        Ms. Loomis. Welcome, everybody, I am Ann Loomis, and I am
    with Senator Warner's office from Virginia.
        Virginia is pleased to be home to many Federal agencies,
    both military and just being a part of the Metropolitan
    Washington Region. Like many of you all, we struggle every day
    with congestion in major metropolitan areas.
        I want to be sure that I understood correctly your earlier
    remarks that of the changing culture within DOTs, that because
    of the resource demands of building new facilities or adding
    lanes to existing facilities, particularly if you are in a non-
    attainment area, and the length of time it takes to implement
    those strategies, that perhaps over the past few years, there
    is a more growing investment and intention in ITS technologies,
    to improve your performance of your existing systems.
        It is those resource challenges that are getting you to be
    a little more inventive in looking at installing ITS
    technologies on existing facilities. Is that sort of the
    demands that you all are looking at? Mr. Goldstein?
        Mr. Goldstein. Ann, Jack Goldstein; you know, I want to
    comment, right here in Virginia, you had a classic example of
    how ITS can help on 9/11.
        When the Pentagon was hit, and they had to use ITS
    capabilities to actually re-deploy the traffic and, you know,
    under the good guidance of Tom Farley, whom I am sure you know
    in Northern Virginia, it was very, very successful.
        But part of your question relates to Jeff's question with
    respect to deployment, in a very important way. That is that
    ITS cannot only help on the major throughways, but can help on
    the arterials, as well.
        As you continue to deploy ITS and provide the funding for
    that deployment, in some way that clearly continues it along,
    it would have helped tremendously on 9/11, if once traffic was
    routed off of 95 and off of 66, if there had been some way to
    move it through the arterials in a much more efficient way.
        Ms. Loomis. Absolutely.
        Mr. Goldstein. I was one of those that was caught in the
    traffic. I am sure that several of you were the same way.
        There have been some examples, not entirely successful, of
    attempts at this. For example, the Smart Corridor Project out
    in California, was started after the earthquake back in Los
    Angeles, and it was an attempt to find a way, when a major
    throughway is down, like I-10 that goes through Santa Monica,
    to be able to move traffic off of the I-10 and through the
    arterials, using ITS to help speed the way through that.
    Hurricane evacuation in the Southeast is another example.
        So in my mind, when you think about continuing deployment,
    you have to think about how do you take what you have and do
    more and more with it, and the arterial deployment is one of
    those ways.
        Mr. Lockwood. This is Steve Lockwood. I want to make sure
    that you were not suggesting that there was a convention now,
    within the transportation arena, that resource shortages that
    most owners are feeling is somehow inexorably leading them to
    ITS, because I do not think that is the case.
        All owners of certainly State DOTs and major local
    governments, first of all, they have an enormous legacy project
    inertia; things that are in the pipeline, to which commitments
    have been made, and many of them have very big backlogs of
    projects that are important to those States.
        In addition to this, institutionally, given the stovepiping
    that exists in any large institution, in the absence of a very
    clear policy, and reorganization of priorities, focusing on
    management and operations, ITS projects and other kinds of
    management operations' investments are not likely to have the
    highest priority. That is just a practical reality that is
    faced virtually nationwide.
        I think the best expression of this is, with very few
    exceptions, State DOTs in particular and local governments, as
    well, do not have a line item in their budget that say ITS, or
    say systems management and operations.
        It is most often imbedded in other general activities or
    sometimes it is an earmarked program. So the challenge that we
    are facing here, in an environment of perpetual resource
    shortages, from the point of view of management, is actually a
    shift in policy and priorities, saying in that environment, we
    are going to look hard at where we get the best performance
    bang for the buck in a reasonable timeframe.
        But that is not the habit; that is not the convention, and
    we face an important uphill battle. Here is an area where I
    think Federal aid program leadership is important, to highlight
    the significance, to highlight the need to look at cost
    effectiveness and pay attention to performance.
        Ms. Loomis. Yes, Mr. Snow?
        Mr. Snow. This is Jacob Snow, for the record.
        Ann, sometimes the traditional approach of just adding
    capacity to deal with the congestion problem just is not
    feasible. You cannot get the right-of-way, or you may have some
    serious political problems.
        Ms. Loomis. Well, that is what I thought some DOTs were
    saying, that because of all those issues, particularly, if you
    are in a non-attainment area, that now you can see, you can
    more quickly implement some congestion relief through an ITS
    project, as opposed to a new capacity project.
        Is there more of a growing acceptance of looking at both
    ways to deal with congestion, as opposed to traditionally, it
    was new construction?
        Mr. Snow. A survey that we did, or I should not say we, but
    a survey that AMPO did, of people throughout the country,
    throughout the MPO planning process, indicated that there was
    higher preference for improving system management and
    operations, as opposed to adding capacity, which is certainly a
    new trend that we are seeing.
        In Las Vegas, we are going through somewhat of a minor
    freeway revolt. We have built our own beltway in that
    community, except for on the eastern part of the valley. To
    continue that beltway through, we would have to acquire 2,000
    homes. Despite the environmental disruption, the cost to do so
    is going to be prohibitive.
        The Mayor of the city of Las Vegas is on our board. He
    would go to meeting with me, and he is a very flamboyant
    individual. He would say, we have got good news and bad news.
    The good news is that the RTC has all the traffic signals
    synchronized. The bad news is that they are all red.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Snow. He always got a big laugh out of that. I never
    thought it was funny.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Snow. But it has become a populace issue that many
    politicians are now seizing saying, we have got to get these
    traffic signals synchronized and coordinated. It is now
    becoming a real popular political issue to look at ITS.
        Ms. Loomis. Yes?
        Mr. Hungerbeeler. This is Henry Hungerbeeler. I do not
    think there is any question but that we can implement ITS
    solutions that help us with our capacity problems, and we can
    do it faster and cheaper than we can with concrete and asphalt.
        I think it is imperative that we responsibly use the
    taxpayer dollars to get the maximum efficiency that we can from
    the existing system, before we expand the system further.
        Ms. Loomis. I have the red light, but I need to ask one
    more question, please. This is a more parochial question, that
    maybe Dr. Johnson and Admiral Bennis could comment on; and it
    sounds like, Mr. Edelman, you certainly have had extensive
    experience in this area.
        It is clear that ITS collects a lot of information. But I
    have greater interest in how we utilize that information. I
    know many of you have spoke about the need for greater
    coordination.
        Since September 11th, we have found nothing more
    challenging in this metropolitan area than coordination. You
    have two States, the District of Columbia, multiple local
    governments. You have a transit system. You have two commuter
    rail systems, and most importantly, you have the Federal
    Government.
        We are struggling with how to use the information that is
    collected from ITS, and to use our existing ITS systems to
    communicate to the population at large, if another major event
    unfortunately would occur.
        We find our greatest struggle is coordinating with the
    Federal Government. We have existing systems in place through
    OPM, that if you have a snow day, whether the Federal
    Government is closing or not, and that is a whole spider web of
    who has to call whom, before you decide that simple fact.
        But we are learning now, we have several MPOs in the
    region, under the umbrella of the Washington Council of
    Governments, and they are trying to coordinate who calls whom,
    and who makes some decisions about what happens.
        On September 11th, as many of you all will remember,
    incorrect information was, was the 14th Street Bridge open or
    closed? Was the subway system, WMATA, running or closed? The
    police were on the TV saying it is closed, and then the Mayor
    is on saying it is open. We realized, many people, you know,
    who has authority to make those decisions? Nobody could answer
    that. So we are all struggling now. I know the District of
    Columbia has a significant appropriation for coordination and
    evacuating plans, along with Virginia. But we find the Federal
    Government, one, not coming to the meetings; or two, coming and
    not offering to say what their role is.
        FEMA comes and says, well, we only play a role after the
    event happens. I did not know, Dr. Johnson, if you were
    participating in these meetings, or Admiral Bennis, if you are
    participating; and who decides if the Federal Government is
    open or closed; and how you communicate with everybody, to have
    rush hour trains run during the mid-day; all these are just
    types of coordinating examples.
        It sounds like, Mr. Edelman, you have been quite
    experienced within the Metropolitan Washington Area and in New
    York.
        Ms. Johnson. Well, I think you are describing what I would
    have described to exist in the New York/New Jersey region,
    prior to TRANSCOM being invented, in essence. We need, in this
    region, in my opinion, something very similar to TRANSCOM.
        Your direct question as to whether I am participating, the
    Federal Highway Administration, nor does DOT, have the
    authority to open and close things. I think that is OPM's
    responsibility.
        The appropriate entity to participate would be our division
    office, and I do not know the answer to that. What I will do is
    try to get back to you.
        Ms. Loomis. And Admiral Bennis, now in your new role,
    clearly, what the Federal Government decides to do in this
    region impacts greatly on the performance and the operations of
    our existing network. I know sometimes a Homeland Security
    officer goes to the meetings.
        I was just wondering, who is the right person in the
    Federal Government, to coordinate, and do you participate; or
    does your office participate?
        Admiral Bennis. As I said, we are small, but we will be
    participating, from this day on.
        I would like to add that I was in New York, and the work
    that community does up there is exceptional; with TRANSCOM, it
    is truly unique, the jointness of the Federal, the State, the
    local, in the New York area.
        I mean, you can go to any one of those Command Centers, any
    of the Task Forces, and they are all speaking together, talking
    together, working together. It is really a model that all
    communities should follow.
        The comment has frequently been made that they picked the
    wrong country and they picked the wrong city. New York was able
    to respond in a remarkable fashion.
        The Secretary of Transportation is shortly going to open
    his Transportation Information Operations Center, which is also
    going to bring together an awful lot of information from an
    awful lot of transportation modes.
        It is not just from the modal administrators; it is from
    the representatives out in the industry and in the community.
    It is something that we certainly need, an opportunity to bring
    together intelligence and information, and disseminate that
    rapidly to the appropriate people. I believe that is a step in
    the right direction, as well.
        Ms. Loomis. Thank you.
        Ms. Berver. Thank you, and welcome everybody, I am Caroline
    Berver, with Senator Graham of Florida's office.
        I have got a two part question, perhaps first for Dr.
    Miller and Admiral Bennis, and then anybody who would like to
    comment.
        Looking into the future, can you share your thoughts and
    the linkages or relationships between the various modes of
    transportation and national security? How does rail security
    affect highways and bridges, how do ports and cargo containers
    affect, airports, highways, and bridges, rail security, and
    then what kind of linkages there are there.
        Then from a policy perspective, are we better served as a
    Nation by developing one comprehensive transportation security
    plan, that covers all of those modes, or if this committee
    works on highways, bridges, tunnels, railways, and strengthens
    those, and cargo and port security goes for it, do we, just on
    an independent track, eventually reach the same level of
    national security, or is it better to try one more
    comprehensive plan with all of the modes? I would like to get
    your advice and comments on that.
        Admiral Bennis. I have organized my world in the
    Transportation Security Administration in an umbrella type of
    organization. Instead of having rail, highway, and maritime,
    whatever, we have broken it out by cargo, by passenger, by
    infrastructure.
        Because I believe we need the same level of security in an
    umbrella mode, as that individual or that cargo or container
    moves from Rotterdam to Rochester, or wherever it is moving
    from; and two, we should treat it the same as it crosses
    borders, as it crosses modes, as it goes from one mode to the
    next.
        Since 9/11, the modal administrators within the department
    immediately stepped up to the plate with some tremendous
    initiatives and some wonderful projects and vulnerability
    assessments of their modes. As they have done that, we hope to
    identify best practices, set industry standards, and set out
    from there.
        But my personal belief is that it works very well if you
    have an umbrella over the cargo and an umbrella over the
    passengers. There is no reason that we should look at the
    passenger on an airplane any different than a passenger on a
    4,000 passenger Staten Island ferry, or a passenger on mass
    transit in any of our cities.
        Ms. Berver. Is there anybody else that could add anything
    to that, on the linkages between the modes of transportation
    and security issues, that we could keep in mind?
        [No response.]
        Ms. Berver. I have one other question, with respect to ITS.
    we had talked about using that technology to respond to
    terrorist events or unpredicted events. Florida is heading into
    hurricane season. It will start next month.
        Dr. Johnson or Mr. Goldstein, you talked a little bit about
    using ITS for natural disasters like hurricanes. Are there
    things that you have on the horizon, that you are hoping to do,
    that would address perhaps mass evacuations, because of
    hurricane or other natural disasters?
        Ms. Johnson. We have just completed three or four workshops
    in the Southeast on evacuation, and both learned a great deal
    ourselves, for the next round.
        Hurricane Floyd set off a new relationship between DOT or
    FHWA and FEMA. So I could give you lots of information there.
        Now just following on, yesterday, as a matter of fact, we
    kicked off kind of a twin sister to those workshops, focusing
    specifically security. We will do another 10 of those in
    sequence, and then look to whether the investment is good, and
    continue that.
        But I just debriefed the individuals that were involved in
    that, and it really was successful. One of the things that came
    out, it was funny, we do not usually talk to these people, at
    least before we leave this workshop. We have an e-mail group,
    and it is those kinds of things that were coming out.
        Mr. Goldstein. This is Jack Goldstein. The only thing I
    would add to what Christine said is, again, back to this issue
    that I talked about. There are a lot of technologies out there
    right now that will permit a more orderly evacuation, with
    respect to routing, with respect to traffic control, with
    respect to flow; and those things are ready to be deployed. It
    just takes the resources to get them out there in the different
    States to deploy.
        I know that there have been several private sector/public
    sector interactions with respect to making the States in the
    Southeast aware of what is available, once the funding becomes
    available for deployment of those initiatives.
        It is not only traffic control. It is not only security,
    but it is hurricane evaluation, and all the other ancillary
    benefits that argue for this continued deployment. It goes back
    to the point I made, there are things out there and they need
    to be more widely spread. The new stuff needs to be deployed.
        What you do not want to do is lose the impetus that you now
    have, because there are things available to get out in the
    field.
        Mr. Lockwood. This is Steve Lockwood. Just to reinforce
    that point that several of us have made here, is the advantages
    of the kinds of technologies that are now called, somewhat
    annoyingly, info-structure, which we are growing to love to
    hate. These can serve multiple purposes, clearly, for
    conventional traffic management in a congestion or incident
    environment. Certainly, for hurricane evacuation and also for
    security-related events, there have been several studies of the
    application of ITS technology in hurricane evaluation settings.
    These are still inconclusive.
        But one component or one aspect or one conclusion that has
    been reached is, of course, it is not an inconsiderable
    undertaking; and that perhaps for hurricane evacuation alone,
    the justification would not be as strong as it is when you
    begin to look at the multi-purpose benefits of application, and
    that is where there really is a demand for resources.
        Many of the groups here around the table believe that an
    important part of the Federal aid program in reauthorization is
    to focus on those resource requirements for those multiple
    purposes.
        Mr. Edelman. This is Matt Edelman. I have one brief comment
    regarding future synergies between the transportation community
    and the emergency management community.
        In the months prior to 9/11, FEMA came to see us, to look
    at our regional ITS architecture and said, you know, this may
    be a means of disseminating information, before we have a
    duplicate investment.
        They were then kind enough to send one of our planner
    engineers down to Miami for a week-long evacuation planning
    workshop, relating to hurricanes. We learned a phenomenal
    amount; and after they learned about us, in terms of what we
    can do for information dissemination, we learned about them,
    and just how sophisticated they were, and the kind of tools
    that they can help us use.
        Ms. Van Mark. Dr. Miller, did you have something to add?
        Mr. Miller. Thanks, Ruth, just a question from Jacob and
    from John, in your preparations, did you do any type of
    computer-based simulations, to figure out what kind of bang you
    were going to get for the buck?
        Mr. Njord. Yes, in the years prior to the Olympics, in the
    years of planning, I used to tell our people, we are in the
    process of planning what will be an orchestrated disaster. We
    did a lot of simulations, to simulate what we thought would
    happen.
        But I think one of the things that we learned, and one of
    the things that I think is key to the effective implementation
    of an ITS system, is you have to start out with the premise
    that the customers that we serve are intelligent human beings;
    and that intelligent transportation systems, if we provide them
    good information, they will make intelligent decisions.
        We have seen that over and over, again. The campaign that
    we rolled out for the Olympics was a campaign that we called
    ``Know Before You Go,'' and we asked people to know before they
    left their homes, what was going to take place; know before you
    leave your work; know before you go to the grocery store,
    before you pick up your children; know before you go.
        What we found is that if people know before they go, they
    will make good decisions. I think as long as we keep that in
    the back of our mind, that we have to give them good
    information, reliable information, they will make good
    decisions, if they know.
        Mr. Snow. Dr. Miller, this is Jacob Snow.
        We did utilize some systems dynamic modeling. We brought in
    experts from UNLV. The core of that was our trans-plan traffic
    domain and forecasting model; but, yes, we did use system
    dynamics modeling to come up with ``bang for the buck''
    estimates.
        Mr. Warren. I have a couple of administrative items before
    the break. Somewhere around, there is a sign-up list for
    everyone to sign up, so that we can get you a transcript of
    this, once we get it back in a couple of weeks.
        I also wanted to reiterate Jeff's comments, since Lauren
    was out of the room, thanking Lauren Jones and Duane Nystrom
    for their help in putting this together.
        I think the one administrative mistake that we made was
    last night, Lauren and I came in here and decided to put
    everyone's name cards out, and did not take into account the
    humidity of the room. They all kind of melted over night. We
    came in and they were flat.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Warren. So Duane did some first aid and they are still
    drooping, but he got them back up a little bit.
        We have food here. I want to thank AASHTO for generously
    supplying the food. Take advantage of that during the break and
    we will see you in about 5 minutes.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Squires. Before we really get rolling, I want to just
    share one thought. I have been thinking about this
    extraordinary figure of 74 million hits in the month of
    February, and I have concluded that 73 million of those were
    people ordering those blue USA berets.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Goldstein. From a Canadian country.
        Mr. Warren. Well, I guess we are still missing a couple of
    panelists, but we can get started. If everyone can remember to
    just say your name before you speak, so we can get you down on
    the transcript, that will be a big help.
        But I want to open it up to anybody from the panel, who
    might want to ask a question of another panelist, or make a
    comment, or take advantage of Admiral Bennis generously
    agreeing to be with us, to make suggestions as to how the
    Transportation Security Administration might be able to work
    with you on security issues.
        Ms. Van Mark. Following up on that, Mitch, and this is Ruth
    Van Mark, Admiral, your agency is somewhat of a mystery to all
    of us.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Van Mark. So we are very excited to see you here, and
    we are hoping you can help clear that up.
        But I noticed in some of the comments of our panelists,
    they were talking about communicating with the Homeland
    Security Office. Is it more appropriate that we should be
    directing our transportation security questions to you, or is
    Homeland Security the place we should be going?
        Admiral Bennis. It is two different worlds. It depends on
    what your focus is and what your question is. My mission, my
    focus, is very clearly delineated. I mean, if you are talking
    about passenger and cargo security, that is my world.
        The Office of Homeland Security, everyone is waiting and
    watching to see what they are about to build or recommend, as
    far as emerging or existing agencies. ut their primary focus is
    homeland security, border security, protecting our borders.
    Also, they look at areas of security that perhaps need a little
    guidance and direction.
        As I have met with those folks at OHS they, too, were
    pleased that we are standing up, the maritime and land side, of
    TSA. So it is very clear, you know. If you are talking
    passengers and cargo, that is my world.
        Mr. Hungerbeeler. Certainly, I have no expertise in either
    one of those, being from a State DOT, and this is Henry
    Hungerbeeler, for the record.
        But I think Homeland Security probably should be involved,
    to some extent, because of the overriding importance of
    transportation to our national security and to the economy of
    our Nation.
        We believe that because of some of the new expenses, if you
    would, of improving the overall security of our transportation
    system, things that are not necessarily related to our normal
    course of business, that perhaps there is room for some of
    those expenses to be covered through the Homeland Security
    budget. We believe that they should be involved to that degree.
        Otherwise, I mean, there are an awful lot of things that
    have direct security implications for what we are doing, but
    also have daily utility in the transportation system. I mean,
    the ITS is the perfect example.
        So for that reason, we also believe that we need, you know,
    significant increases in the next Reauthorization Act, just to
    help us with those things that do enhance security, but also to
    help us in our every day lives, as we transport ourselves and
    all the things that we use.
        Admiral Bennis. I concur fully, absolutely. I was focusing
    on what my world is; but I am a part of that world, as well. I
    mean, OHS has a huge responsibility. Certainly, they are part
    of everything.
        Ms. Johnson. I had wanted to make a comment. I think it was
    either Carolyn or Ann that was trying to raise the question,
    and explore to what extent State DOTs were being pushed into
    the use of ITS, because it was so hard to add capacity. I think
    that that is occurring.
        But the comment that I wanted to make is, that has been a
    historic perception of various operations activities; that is,
    that they are a substitute for capacity expansion. I would at
    least like to suggest in this discussion that operations need
    to be thought of as parallel to capacity expansion, and
    parallel to maintenance.
        We would not, any more, think about building a roadway
    system, and just totally writing off any maintenance to it. We
    assume that we have to maintain it, and we do not think of
    maintenance as a substitute for construction.
        In the same way, I would like to suggest that in densely
    populated, heavily used roadway systems, we now need to think
    of operating a roadway system as another component that we
    inherit when we build a road. It is just like we inherit the
    cost of maintenance, as opposed to a substitute for
    construction.
        Mr. Warren. Matt, and then J.C.
        Mr. Edelman. I would like to affirm that point with a
    specific example. I do not think that anything that we, as a
    coalition, have dedicated ourselves to, in terms of both the
    institutional and the technological changes needed for regional
    operations and for ITS, is meant to be a substitute for the
    politically painful, but sometimes necessary decisions that
    will have to be made by our leaders, with regard to adding
    capacity, at times, in a focused way, even in a region as
    congested as ours.
        One example is, one of our member agencies has been working
    on twinning a bridge. The original bridge, which is four lanes,
    was built in 1929. It serves the seaports on both sides of a
    river.
        Even if you did not have another vehicle of growth in
    demand in our region, just because of the goods movement issues
    alone, just because of the national security issues alone, in
    terms of having access to those ports, you would want to twin
    those bridges, and allow for 12 foot lanes, and allow for
    everything else that you need to do.
        It is a tough thing to do, and they are doing it, and they
    are having the courage to do it. I know, as Christine said,
    when they do it, they will make sure they have all the latest
    ITS and operations and management systems.
        But they still have to confront the painful situation of
    adding capacity; and I would not want what I do, in any way, to
    be seen as a substitute for that.
        Mr. Sandberg. Back to a few points that were made with the
    Homeland Security, I actually have sat in some of those
    meetings. As many of you have talked about, one of the big
    issues is the communications piece.
        I know that AASHTO has some ideas on the table. Let me just
    say that we are getting ready to try and authorize how this
    First Responder Grant Program is going to go forward, $3.5
    billion. I know a big piece of that, in several of the hearings
    that we have had, post-September 11th, has been the
    communications piece.
        So I welcome and offer that to you. We are very much open
    to suggestions that you may have about how we can effectively
    go about improving communications between the first responders,
    and tying that into improved operations systems.
        We look forward to any input that you would have, if not in
    this setting, then in papers that you might have drafted or
    through e-mail or phone conversations. But we very much look
    forward to any suggestions that you might have about that.
        Mr. Warren. John Njord?
        Mr. Njord. I just wanted to say my ``here, here'' to what
    Christine said. ITS, as wonderful as it is, is no substitute
    for infrastructure. The experience that we have had in our
    State has been, you have to have both of them.
        As a result of the success that we have seen on ITS, we
    have now made it a matter of course that any new project that
    we install includes all the latest ITS elements that we can put
    in there, in order to maximize the capacity of a particular
    facility.
        To your question, J.C., about integrating other groups into
    the ITS system, as I mentioned before, in our traffic
    operations center, we have highway patrol dispatch at that
    location, watching our cameras, and actually dispatching the
    highway patrol troopers; as well as our instant management
    teams from that particular location.
        That has been huge. It has been so important to the
    integration of what we have tried to do, as agencies together.
        I did also mention that it has been difficult to integrate.
    Well, it has not been difficult. We just have not accomplished
    it yet. We have not been able to integrate the emergency
    services people: the ambulances and those types of fire
    dispatch from that location.
        But it is interesting, when public safety officials sense
    what we have got, the information that we have got, they want
    it. I think, Matt, you mentioned that in your testimony, that
    once they see it, they want it, and they want to have access to
    that information. We have been very generous in providing that
    information to whomever can use it, to enhance their
    operations.
        Just before I took off on my plane yesterday to arrive here
    today, I was at the Utah Transit Authority main office, and
    they have all of our commuter-link technology right there. They
    have the camera linkage. They watch all of the light rail
    vehicles that are going in and out of the stations, and have
    used it, to a great degree, to maximize their system, as well.
    So sharing the information is really important.
        Mr. Warren. Mr. Hungerbeeler, did you have a comment?
        Mr. Hungerbeeler. Well, yes, this is Henry again,
    responding to J.C. We have been following your hearings and so
    forth and what you are doing.
        I think what I have been trying to say is that
    transportation, in a lot of ways, is like a public utility, you
    know, like safe water supply or electricity or something else,
    a sewer system. I hate to use that one.
        Mr. Warren. Yes, right.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Sandberg. Waste water.
        Mr. Hungerbeeler. But we are not appreciated until
    something goes wrong, you know. I mean, we are kind of taken
    for granted, until something goes wrong.
        Governor Holden in Missouri formed a security panel, which
    closely mirrored a lot of the things that have been happening
    at the Federal level.
        Of course, the first responders, the emergency services
    people, the public health people, and so forth, were the ones
    who had the most interest by everyone, by the public, by the
    Government, and every one. But they all readily agreed that
    they could do nothing without a functioning transportation
    system.
        So because we are taken for granted, I guess I just want to
    keep reminding you that as you do this, as you pass out that
    money, for example, for an improved communications system,
    remember that transportation needs to be a part of that system;
    that we need to be able to talk with those other players, so
    that we can all do our job properly.
        Mr. Edelman. Just to also follow through on the issue of
    communications, including the very literal of
    telecommunications costs, as it relates to these systems. This
    relates to some of our concerns for reauthorization and hopes
    that funds are available for long-term operation and
    maintenance.
        Much of operation and maintenance is communications costs.
    These costs are often higher than we had hoped. One reason they
    are higher is because the systems are useful. The only way not
    to have confronted this issue is for the systems to fail and be
    ignored. But because people use them, there are more
    communications costs and more utilization.
        Right now, as an example, one very small example, our video
    network, within the amount of the Federal grant, was of a scope
    that it did not initially include the NYPD installation that I
    talked about. That is something that is now not even a
    question, after 9/11.
        We are talking about thousands of dollars per year for
    installation. Why; because they use it and they value it. What
    is happening here, in terms of tying it to more first
    responders, and again, as I said, taking the transportation
    community's information and giving it to the public safety
    community, there will be a cost, which is the more that they
    buy in and the more work stations they have, and the more
    servers they have, and the more they consume it, someone is
    going to have to pay for it.
        We do not have it, yet, and we will be looking to the
    future for some solution.
        Mr. Warren. Christine Johnson, and then Jeff Squires.
        Ms. Johnson. A practical suggestion is, you may want to ask
    your grantees to at least acknowledge the transportation system
    architecture that most of the transportation folks have in
    place, so that there is a link between the architectures.
        Generally if you can at least get that far, you can go the
    next two levels in systems engineering, to ensure that there is
    some ability to communicate across the systems that have been
    developed.
        Mr. Warren. Are there any responses to that, before Jeff
    asks another one?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Squires. I want to put a couple of topics on the table.
    One is a follow-up to comments in the first part of our
    session; the concerns over procurement, and that perhaps the
    standard methodology in transportation does not fit well with
    technology.
        If someone knows of other programs within the Federal
    Government that serve as models, and either wants to speak to
    them or perhaps follow-up with us on that, that would be very
    valuable. We would like to look at other ways to do things, if
    we need to find another way.
        I will pause here. Does anybody have anything right at the
    tip of their tongue on that issue; if not, perhaps somebody
    could get back to us.
        Ms. Johnson. I was going to raise this off-line to my
    AASHTO colleagues. From the time I came into my job, that has
    been the cry. I have expended more money than I care to admit
    on trying to uncover what the problem is.
        The fact is, under Federal regulation, we are covered by
    some of the same regulations that everyone else is. There are
    alternatives to the traditional means of procuring roadway
    kinds of construction. That is available to the State DOTs.
        As near as we can determine, we have worn such a well-worn
    path to that type of procurement, the other methods of
    procurement are not well understood, and we are trying to make
    our division aware of it; and through our divisions, make our
    partners aware of it.
        Mr. Squires. So it is not a matter of legislative----
        Ms. Johnson. Well, we do not think so. But we are at the
    point, because we agree with them. We do not think that this
    should be a low bid, low everything else. I am going to get
    informed.
        Mr. Tang, can you just explain that?
        Mr. Tang. Yes, I am Benjamin Tang.
        We have what we call the Innovative Bridge Researching
    Construction Program, where we would move technology to
    funding. We used to have projects to demonstrate their
    feasibility, and actually to test out the R&D.
        As you mentioned earlier about moving to implementation,
    that is one area. The other area is design build. That is very
    innovative funding mechanism for moving technologies in these
    design build contracts.
        Mr. Squires. Maybe we can all explore this a bit over the
    next few months.
        Mr. Goldstein. This is Jack Goldstein.
        Jeff, the ITS America Board of Directors has had a standing
    committee for a long time, looking particularly in the area of
    software potential alternative procurement procedures.
        I would like to offer to submit to you, subsequent to this
    meeting, for the record, the latest proceedings of that
    standing committee, which would give you at least insight into
    the thought process. Because on that standing committee are
    private sector companies that face this problem on a day-to-day
    basis.
        Mr. Njord. I do not have any solutions for you, Jeff. I
    appreciate Benjamin's comment about design build, because it is
    a technology delivery system, that has been very successful.
        But to give you a sampling of the frustration that we felt,
    we are in a situation, in ITS now, where we are dealing with
    television stations. We supply live video fees from our 200
    cameras to television stations, and they can pick any four
    cameras that they want and get a live feed directly.
        Now when we negotiate those kinds of situations with the
    television stations, that is a new world for us. It is entirely
    different than the standard world that we are dealing with, on
    a day-to-day basis.
        We need help in understanding how to deal with those
    people. Clearly, if there is some sort of incident out on the
    freeway, the last thing we want to have happen is for them to
    take control of our cameras, and zoom in on some dead body.
        Mr. Squires. Do they control the camera?
        Mr. Njord. They cannot control the camera, but they control
    which camera they pick.
        Mr. Squires. Do you charge them for this?
        Mr. Njord. No.
        Mr. Squires. That is a big mistaken.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Njord. When you are dealing with the networks, it is an
    entirely different ball game. With negotiation, it is an
    entirely higher level of negotiation.
        But we want to be able to just shut that off. If there is
    an accident, we want to be able to clip the feed, so that they
    cannot see it. They do not want that. They want to be able to
    keep it. So those are some of the frustrations that we feel.
        Mr. Squires. The other topic that I wanted to ask you to
    amplify a bit, Matt mentioned, the ops costs on pure
    telecommunications.
        Mr. Njord. Yes.
        Mr. Squires. Operations have been a thing apart from the
    traditional Federal aid highway program. Are we entering a new
    era where we need to start to think about the role of
    operations in its relationship to the Federal aid program?
        Mr. Edelman. Well, if I can answer that first, this is Matt
    Edelman. The situation we are facing, already as a coalition,
    we have our sort of 24/7 low tech manual architecture, for lack
    of a better word. We have to sort of define what we did before
    ITS came along, so we called the manual architecture. That
    takes just staffing of a center. That takes phones, faxes,
    alpha-numeric pagers.
        What we have done, and we are proud that we have been able
    to do it, is over some 12 years, get our member agencies to
    largely pay for most of that cost, despite all the other
    constraints on them, financially.
        That has been enough of a bear, but we have done it, and we
    have done it unanimously for 12 years straight. We are now up
    to 18 agencies. But it is very, very hard to get that, and it
    does not get any easier.
        You then rachet up to ITS, to a new way of communicating
    with each other, and a better way of communicating with each
    other.
        Then beyond the normal operation and maintenance, as we
    have defined as, you know, our rent and our furniture, is then
    the operation and maintenance for our ITS systems.
        You are talking about tying in 400 cameras, with the kind
    of lines required; and wide area networks, which if they are
    not going to be going to one point, are not going to be
    vulnerable. They are going to include several servers. There is
    not just the communications from TRANSCOM to each server, but
    server to server.
        All this is so bad, because it is so good. With that art
    coming, it will be hundreds of thousands of dollars, beyond our
    member agencies' dues. Now the way we are doing it, after the 2
    year Federal period, we enter into agreements with the member
    agencies, and that is just beginning now, for paying these
    thousands of dollars.
        Every agency has a different culture. Every agency has a
    different way of funding. They have a different approval
    process. It has been back breaking, but we have to do it, when
    we realize we are on our own and after the Federal period.
        That is where we are really going to look to the future, to
    hope to avoid this same sort of inter-agency constituency
    building pain we went in, when we were first created, and we
    are going through it again, now, because it is a whole other
    level of funding.
        We feel if we are implementing these systems and spending
    the capital dollars, and getting it done, that we will be
    looking to future legislation to sustain this for the long run.
        Mr. Warren. I have a question, and I do not know if anybody
    else wants to follow up on that, before I ask another question.
        I just wanted to follow up on something. I think it was
    Matt Edelman who said this earlier; that you get a geometric
    increase in benefits for every additional mile instrument.
        I wanted to see if you could expand upon that. Is there a
    level of instrumentation needed to reach critical mass, to
    really do operations effectively? I would appreciate if you
    could expand on your comment. I would also be interested in
    Jacob Snow's perspective, or any of our DOT directors on that
    issue. Taiwan
        Mr. Edelman. Yes, and I think you would probably have a
    region by region difference in some of those answers.
        In the initial days, when the first corridors were
    implemented and people had quicker ways of knowing what was
    ahead of them, and they had better information that they could
    put up on the variable message signs, people would say, well,
    that is very nice, but what do I do about it; where can I go?
        It was very good for the management of our Tappenzee Bridge
    north of region, to have 19 miles into this key crossing of the
    Hudson River instrument. People knew it was ahead. We avoided
    secondary incidents. It helped with the management of the
    construction projects.
        About a year or two ago, the parallel, and even large,
    George Washington Bridge and the approaches, and the George
    Washington Bridge, I believe, is the busiest vehicular crossing
    to the world, 15 miles to the south, the other real safety
    valve around our region, they instrumented, using some of the
    same technology.
        Then what happened is not only did you have an arithmetic
    increase, and you had another bridge, but you could suddenly
    view these huge links as a corridor.
        To put that in very practical terms, a few days after the
    attack, we had a single occupancy vehicle ban into Manhattan,
    as I said in my opening statement. Those were the two crossings
    just to the north of that ban.
        We had no precedent of knowing, is the George, the first
    permissible link, going to go from 20 minute delays to 4 hour
    delays? Are they all going to go north to the Tappenzee Bridge?
    How do we know quickly, and then how do all the support
    agencies change their signs and radio systems to channel that
    traffic?
        Well, what happened was, we knew, literally up to the
    minute, up to the second. There was no precedent for SOB bans
    after a terrorist attack into Manhattan.
        But the two most impacted crossings had this instantaneous
    information, and it could be shared from crossing to crossing,
    and the information systems could be varied accordingly.
        So that, I think, is an example of the arithmetic increase
    was, you added another bridge. The geometric increase is, you
    could view it as a system, an entire corridor across the
    northern part of our region.
        Mr. Snow. I think if we are looking at just basic
    infrastructure, we have it as a policy, since we are a street
    and highway agency, as well, that every project we do has
    conduit in it, for future expansions. Because the last thing we
    want to do is to go in and dig something up to install it.
        But just from a baseline, we have got to have the conduit
    there. We look at some sort of remote sensing capability;
    whether it is cameras or loop detectors. We need to have the
    communication links to emergency management services and to the
    public.
        We do not have as many cameras as they do in Utah, that
    John talks about, but we need to expand upon that, with the
    concept being that you can sit from at home or at work, and
    check on the cameras on your route, and plan your route
    accordingly, based upon what you see off the Internet.
        As the other factor that we would look at, just as a
    minimum for instrumentation, it would be dynamic messaging
    signs. That is basically what we look for.
        Mr. Hungerbeeler. This is Henry, again. I think as part of
    that, I mean, I would note that our two major metropolitan
    areas, for example, are on our eastern and western borders.
        So we need to let travelers know, in Kansas or in Illinois,
    what the problems are or what the situation is, in Kansas City
    or St. Louis, before they get to our borders, so that they can
    take the appropriate route, if there is any kind of a problem.
    So for that reason, a system of some size and a system that is
    regional in nature is very beneficial to us.
        Ms. Johnson. This is Christine Johnson, for the record.
    That is what we essentially attempted to do in laying out, you
    know, a couple dozen requirements, ranging from military to
    traffic management to snow management; and then saying, OK,
    what density do you have to have; the surveillance; what kind
    of information came back with several boxes of sort of what you
    need and requirements.
        That was all boiled down to what is in the more detailed
    testimony, saying we think, at a minimum, every State ought to
    have the software capability and the reporting capability of
    near real time information, any constriction on NHS.
        That would be construction, and that does not mean that I
    say it in May for what is going to happen in August. That means
    the hour that construction is changed, it is logged on. It is
    the same for police, on any major incident, and it is the same
    for any major weather incident. It is sort of near real time,
    but not sensed.
        But then in our major metropolitan areas the complete
    limited access system, as well as major arterials, having
    visual contact, as well as sensing contact, for speed, volume,
    and then the camera capacity, it is sort of the minimum on our
    roadway system.
        Then in those same large metropolitan areas, it would be
    automatic vehicle location. Actually, I think that was talked
    about in the Las Vegas system. I think Utah has a similar
    system, yes, for the transit properties.
        Mr. Tinklenberg. This is El TInklenberg. This is one of
    those areas where it is so important to maintain the
    flexibility. Because that base level is going to be so
    different in different areas.
        We have about 80 percent of our freeway system that is
    instrumented, both in terms of loop detectors and cameras,
    throughout the freeways.
        What we do not know is what happens when we start making
    management adjustments on that system. If we slow down the ramp
    meters and volume goes down, where does that traffic go?
        There is not going to be enough money to instrument all of
    the arterials off of that, that pick up the traffic, the county
    roads that get the traffic, when they get off of the freeways
    or the city streets.
        It may be that in the future, those sensors will be in the
    vehicles, and what we will be monitoring is not what is
    happening on our roads, but what is happening and the flow of
    the vehicles, themselves. There are all kinds of privacy issues
    with that and, you know, they have to be addressed.
        But you can identify and track flows and movements of
    vehicles in gross amounts, and that will be the information.
    That is on all the systems. That is the city streets, county
    roads, and our freeways. Maybe that will be the approach,
    rather than having stuff actually imbedded in the concrete.
        I think that is why it is so important, and what makes your
    job so difficult, you look ahead 6 years. You have to try and
    anticipate not only where Beta is going VHS, but where it is
    going to disks. This is changing so rapidly, that I think the
    important word in all of this is going to be maintaining that
    flexibility that allows that movement and that change.
        Mr. Warren. Jack, and then I know Megan has a question,
    next.
        Mr. Goldstein. In the prepared remarks that I submitted to
    the committee, we talked about an ITS perspective on the
    national transportation information network, which is a staged
    implementation project to incorporate both new and existing ITS
    technologies.
        The idea is that there are several things that can begin
    now to contribute to this national information network, to tie
    all these pieces together, you know, in a nationwide-type
    system.
        Among these are things like 511 and C-vision and other
    things that I have illustrated in the paper. I would just
    commend those ideas to you, because it gets at the point that
    is being made around table here. That is, how do we tie all
    these pieces together, and how do you transmit information from
    one corridor to the next corridor, from one State to the next
    State?
        There are technologies now that begin to get at it. It
    probably will take the next decade to fully deploy that system,
    but there is enough to get started.
        Mr. Warren. Thanks.
        Megan?
        Ms. Stanley. Many people around the table have mentioned
    that monitoring technology, especially cameras, have both
    traffic response and security uses.
        So my question is whether any parties have raised Fourth
    Amendment concerns against unreasonable searches and seizures,
    when these monitoring technologies are made available, both in
    theory and by example, from many parties around the table, to
    law enforcement officials; and if the ITS community is
    discussing any limitations on the use by law enforcement
    officials of the traffic monitoring technology?
        Mr. Hungerbeeler. This is Henry. The answer, at least for
    us in Missouri is yes. There are concerns about privacy rights,
    and I do not know the solution.
        I know there has been an awful lot of concern expressed
    about the use of red light cameras, for example. You know, we
    have a lot of arguments that they should be used, and that no
    one's privacy is violated, unless they break the law. But
    nevertheless, it is a public perception that we have to
    overcome.
        As we were deploying the system in our Kansas City
    metropolitan area, we made a pretty big deal out of the fact
    that we were not going to share the information for law
    enforcement purposes. It was going to be used for traffic
    purposes. Now we are having to rethink that, and I am not sure
    yet what our solution is going to be.
        Mr. Njord. Megan, we have not had a serious concern about
    that with the cameras that we have deployed. However, we
    recognize that that would be an issue, when we begin to deploy
    our camera equipment.
        Intentionally, we selected technology that had lower
    resolution than we could have. We could have gotten cameras
    that could have zoomed in on the spectacles of a person, if we
    wanted to, but we intentionally chose to have cameras that,
    when you got that close, the person is blurry. That is because
    of that reason.
        Now all of our cameras are monitored, as I mentioned
    before, by six television stations, 12 radio stations, and
    anybody can click on the Internet any time, and see what we are
    looking at.
        So I believe that that kind of control, where everyone is
    watching what we are watching, has enabled folks to feel
    comfortable that we are not looking at things that we should
    not be looking at.
        Now when you talk about turning this information over to
    public safety officials, we do not let them do an ``OJ'' with
    our cameras. If ``OJ'' is going down the freeway, they are not
    tracking him in that manner with our cameras.
        We do not let them chase criminals or prosecute criminals
    with the information that we are collecting. In fact, we had a
    fellow, and maybe this only happens in Utah, but he was on the
    freeway with a bow and arrow, shooting deer on the side of the
    freeway.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Njord. And we were watching him with a camera.
    Immediately, the public safety officials wanted a tape of what
    we were watching, so that they could prosecute the fellow.
        Well, we intentionally do not tape anything that we watch
    and, in fact, have instructed our employees that if something
    like that happens or occurs again, we are not to watch it at
    all, just because of the concerns that you have raised, Megan.
        Mr. Edelman. Matt Edelman; our traffic camera network, at
    this point, is of our transportation member agency's cameras,
    and they are cameras that are, for the degree of resolution, as
    John just said, relate to traffic management.
        Now in saying that, we are just now beginning with one
    major agency, and hopefully more, to add a police agency to it.
    So if I say we have had no problem up to now, it is because we
    have not really be in the situation yet, but that could change.
        The way that we view it is, these are cameras run by
    civilians for transportation. They share it with each other.
    They share it with bus operators, and more and more, they hope
    to share it police agencies.
        Each of those civilian agencies has the ability to
    unilaterally block out any image. The police agencies that will
    have it are generally sending it to their traffic command.
        We do not share our cameras, yet, with the public. We felt
    in our region, it was a big enough leap just to get all these
    agencies in three States to share 400 cameras. We are not at
    that point in terms of the public.
        But there have been no problems yet, and maybe since 9/11,
    people perhaps are a bit more understanding; maybe in our
    region and maybe in others. But we have not seen any problems,
    yet.
        Mr. Goldstein. ITS America has looked quite a bit into this
    privacy issue related to cameras and traffic flow, and we have
    actually submitted a paper to U.S. DOT related to privacy
    issues associated with deployment of cameras; one of the major
    points being that none of the information gathered from traffic
    information should be shared with law enforcement officials,
    similar to the point that John made.
        But I want to make another point, and that is that as you
    continue to make the argument that you will use the things that
    you deploy for ITS for homeland security applications, you are
    going to get proposals with finer and finer resolution, and you
    really will butt right up against the issue that you have just
    raised, privacy. It is a question of, how far do you want to
    go?
        You know, you could go way beyond the cameras that John has
    deployed in Utah, and do lots of things related to homeland
    security.
        My personal feeling is that, you know, we may have to
    sacrifice some of the privacy issues for the issues related to
    homeland security, and that is going to be a tradeoff that
    people who are a much higher pay grade than I am are going to
    have to make. But it is an issue that we are going to face, for
    sure.
        Mr. Warren. We are running out of time now. Ruth has a
    question, and then we want to just end by opening it up for
    final comments by any of the panelists, if anyone wants to say
    anything to us or each other, while it is on the record, before
    you leave.
        Ruth?
        Ms. Van Mark. Ruth Van Mark, for the record; and in order
    to get this question in, I had to promise Mitch that I would
    keep your answers short. So I will just direct it to anybody
    from the State DOTs.
        I think what I am hearing you tell us is that you need more
    money, obviously, in the next bill, for ITS deployment and
    operation. Are you suggesting that you want a separate funding
    category like interstate maintenance, or NHS, or STP, or do you
    just want more flexibility in the existing program, so that you
    can spend those dollars across a broader range of items?
        Mr. Tinklenberg. El Tinklenberg; there are a couple of
    areas that I mentioned in my comments that relate to specific
    funding initiatives. The $142 million, for example, for
    continuation of the current ITS deployment program is a
    specified amount. The research and development, we believe that
    is something in the range of $125 million per year.
        I know that Henry and his group have looked at things
    related to security. So we think that both is necessary. There
    needs to be money for deployment, continuing money for
    deployment. There needs to be money for research and
    development.
        But there also needs to be the flexibility, so that within
    existing programs, that allows States that are ready to make
    those priority decisions to move in that direction.
        So I think it is a matter of both having funding available
    for the kinds of research and deployment issues that we have
    talked about; but also having the flexibility available in
    existing programs.
        Ms. Van Mark. So you are not suggesting that you need a new
    apportioned category, like ITS on the same level in the
    apportionment round as NHS or STP. You can use the money you
    get now. You just want to have greater flexibility.
        Mr. Tinklenberg. Yes.
        Mr. Njord. Can I just add to that? If the funding source is
    the Highway Trust Fund, please do not create a new category.
    Just provide us more flexibility.
        Mr. Lockwood. Ruth, this is Steve Lockwood. Just to be
    clear, I think from the ITE point of view and I think some of
    the other groups, there is a desire not to categorize funds, to
    restrict flexibility.
        But the demands that are evident and the importance of
    management and operations now, plus the security issue, does
    suggest that there is a need for increase in resources, both in
    the Highway Trust Fund, and possibly from general funds, with
    regard to security issues.
        But I think there is a broad consensus, at least, that
    those funds can be channeled through the existing categorical
    programs to where they are needed, but there is definitely a
    need for an increase in funding.
        Mr. Snow. This is Jacob Snow. There is also a significant
    need, as has been emphasized here today by a number of folks,
    for communication between the various parties involved.
        What you really need to have, to facilitate that
    communication, is a regional ITS master plan. There certainly
    needs to be more funding for capital programs, to expand our
    ITS infrastructure, but there also needs to be more money for
    planning for ITS, as well.
        We would suggest that the flexibility with the existing
    sources of funding needs to be expanded and maintained. We need
    to maintain what we have, and we need to expand, like John
    said, CMAQ eligibility, and extend the period for CMAQ
    eligibility for operations. That is a good way to do it.
        Mr. Warren. Let us finish up with Matt, and then we will
    conclude.
        Mr. Edelman. Speaking as a non-DOT, we would need more than
    flexibility. Because the whole issue that I was saying before
    is, in terms of, you are not going to have regional operating
    coalitions, I think, in a New York, a Buffalo, a Houston, or
    wherever, if there is going to be that constant struggle
    between the collective interests and the individual interests.
        There are real needs, as I said, for long-term operations
    and maintenance costs; real needs for some collective
    instrumentation and regional architecture.
        There are capital costs, operating costs; and we would
    respectfully hope that there would be separate funds that would
    fund the regional interests, so that you are not sort of dead
    at the starting gate, because in putting this whole regional
    effort together, you have had such a degree of tension with
    your DOT components.
        We are not the only multi-DOT region in the country, and we
    do not like that tension, and we would hate to see anyone else
    have it, too. A separate fund, I think, would be very important
    for regional operating organizations.
        Mr. Warren. We need to begin to wrap up. Are there any
    final comments, suggestions, questions?
        Mr. Hungerbeeler. This is Henry. Yes, I mean, I think El
    and John have expressed the position of the States very well.
    Certainly, flexibility is very important.
        We do not want you to lose sight of the fact that a
    significant funding increase is very important. Flexibility
    alone will not solve our problems.
        I think when the position the States, when AASHTO provides
    that to you, you will see that we are also suggesting places
    where you can find that revenue; and I believe it is a very
    reasonable position that the States are taking.
        Mr. Warren. Are there any final comments on other issues or
    questions, before we wrap up?
        Mr. Lockwood. I have just a general one, because I think it
    explains a bit why there is a sense that more resources are
    needed, but not ones that are somehow narrowly channeled.
        I think it is important to recognize and I think there is a
    broad consensus that what systems management and operations
    means covers a fairly broad range of what you might call sort
    of program or activity areas. With routine traffic management
    on arterials, there is a tremendous backlog of need for
    improved traffic operations.
        With freeway management technologies, these are the typical
    ITS applications of one sort or the other. But it is the whole
    public safety and emergency response arena.
        Improvements in incident management, where money is not so
    much the issue as is communication relationships and
    procedures; weather response; construction zone management;
    automated regulatory and enforcement activities, for example;
    travel and information; these are a set of concepts and
    programs which are in various stages of sophistication and
    development around the country, that draw on new technologies
    of varying degrees, that need to be linked together and thought
    of together. These all require greater attention and additional
    resources, but it is not a simple formula matter.
        The response in the mix and match that is going to be done
    will be done differently, State by State and metropolitan area
    by metropolitan area, and it has to be left to those
    decisionmakers, to put together the right kind of package.
        But it is a broad set of activities, and a lot of new
    thinking, and a lot of new concepts, that require resource
    support.
        Mr. Warren. All right, well, we better close it up there,
    or we are going be kicked out of this room.
        We greatly appreciate all of you coming, traveling here
    today, and your testimony. It was a good discussion. We will
    get you the transcripts, and I am sure we will be having
    continuing conversations with all of you.
        Thanks a lot.
        [Whereupon, at 12 o'clock noon, the meeting was adjourned.]

                             TEA-21 REATHORIZATION

                                  ----------

                             FRIDAY, JUNE 14, 2002

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.

                             TRANSPORTATION SAFETY

        A roundtable symposium was convened to examine safety
    programs funded by the Highway Trust Fund 406 Dirksen Senate
    Office Building, Friday, June 14, 2002, at 9:30 a.m.
        Present: Senator Reid.
        Staff present: John Haifley (moderator), Jeff Squires,
    Mitch Warren, J.C. Sandberg, Megan Stanley, Ruth Van Mark, and
    Matthew Kooperman. Staff representing members of the committee:
    Ann Loomis for Senator Warner; Laurie Saroff for Senator Boxer;
    John Stoody for Senator Bond; and Karen Bachman for Senator
    Voinovich.
    Panelists
        Mr. Frederick (Bud) Wright, Executive Director, Federal
    Highway Administration, Department of Transportation.
        Mr. Bruce Warner, Director, Oregon Department of
    Transportation Salem, OR, Chairman, Standing Committee on
    Highway Traffic Safety, American Association of State Highway
    and Transportation Officials.
        Mr. William Walsh, Associate Administrator for Plans and
    Policy, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
    Washington, DC.
        Mr. Edward Hamberger, President and CEO, Association of
    American Railroads Washington, DC.
        Ms. Tricia Roberts, Director, Delaware Office of Highway
    Safety Dover, DE, on behalf of the National Association of
    Governors' Highway Safety Representatives.
        Mr. Brian Holmes, Executive Director, Maryland Highway
    Contractors Association, on behalf of American Road and
    Transportation Builders Association.
        Ms. Wendy Hamilton, National President, Mothers Against
    Drunk Driving Irving, TX.
        Mr. D.B. Hill, III, President, D.B. Hill Contractor Inc.,
    Little Rock, AR Chairman, Workzone Safety Committee, Associated
    General Contractors.
        Ms. Kathleen Holst, President, American Traffic Safety
    Services Association Romeoville, IL.

    STATEMENT OF JOHN HAIFLEY, FELLOW, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND
                              PUBLIC WORKS

        Mr. Haifley. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to
    the Subcommittee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Nuclear
    Safety Symposium on Highway Safety.
        I want to thank you, the witnesses, for traveling to
    Washington, DC to discuss with this committee and its staff the
    important safety issues facing us today and in the future.
        First, I would like to begin by introducing my colleagues
    and myself. I am John Haifley. I am privileged to be Federal
    Highway's detailee to the Senate Environment and Public Works
    Committee. On my far left is Jeff Squires. Jeff, do you have
    any opening statement in the sense of saying hello to these
    people?
        Mr. Squires. I say hello to these people.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Haifley. My other boss, on the majority, Mitch Warren.
    He does have something to say to you.
        Mr. Warren. I just wanted to follow up on what Duane said
    about the vote. We have a vote at 9:35, in fact we have two
    votes. Senator Reid is going to come in between the two votes,
    make a quick statement, listen to the 15-second sound bites
    that hopefully we could keep to no more than 30 seconds. And
    then he has got to go vote again. So what we will do is we will
    start with the 2-minute opening statements. When he gets here,
    whoever is speaking could finish up their statement. He will
    give a brief opening statement, then we will go around the room
    and do the 15-second sound bites to give him a quick overview
    of what each group is looking at in terms of highway safety.
        Mr. Haifley. On my right, Ruth Van Mark.
        Ms. Van Mark. I have nothing to add to that.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Haifley. And Megan Stanley.
        Well, with that, the Symposium will begin with each witness
    stating their name, title, organization, and then presenting
    their 2-minute statement, which is to describe their priority
    legislative recommendations, with suggested funding
    requirements. As Mitch said, we will go to the 15-seconders the
    moment Senator Reid gets here.
        Bud Wright?

       STATEMENT OF FREDERICK (BUD) WRIGHT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

        Mr. Wright. Hi. Good morning, everyone. My name is Bud
    Wright. I am the Executive Director of the Federal Highway
    Administration. With me today is George Ostensen, the Associate
    Administrator for Safety of the Federal Highway Administration.
        On behalf of FHWA and DOT, thanks for scheduling this
    important discussion. We are very much looking forward to
    beginning this dialog or continuing, really, this dialog,
    preparing for reauthorization of Federal surface transportation
    programs. It is absolutely important that we focus attention on
    ways to improve highway safety. We cannot continue to accept
    the toll of over 41,000 lives lost and 3 million injuries each
    year on our highways.
        To significantly reduce fatalities and injuries, we must
    use a comprehensive approach that addresses the roadway
    environment, driver behavior, and the vehicle. On the roadway,
    the area that Federal Highway Administration has primary
    responsibility for, we should target our safety investments to
    the high-risk crash areas--run off the road crashes, crashes at
    intersections, speed management, and pedestrian safety to
    provide the greatest possible safety improvement for each
    dollar spent. Most of all, we need a joint effort involving all
    of our partners.
        We must develop a better knowledge base to guide both
    national-level policy and State and local efforts. Accurate
    crash data collection and analysis are essential to identify
    the most critical safety problems and to deploy the most
    effective countermeasures. Data development and analysis has
    been identified by Secretary Mineta as a key priority for
    reauthorization.
        We must maintain a robust research and technology program.
    R&T can give us new safety tools for behavioral, infrastructure
    and vehicle improvements. For example, linking future ITS
    solutions like cooperative highway vehicle systems can solve
    safety problems and save lives.
        We must also find ways of improving the safety and
    operation of work zones for both highway workers and motorists
    traveling through work zones. R&T may again provide solutions
    to those problems. And we must continue to improve the delivery
    of the Federal Aid Highway Program through administrative
    simplification and an increased focus on safety.
        The USDOT has set a goal of 20 percent reduction in highway
    fatalities by 2008, and ISTEA and TEA-21 have provided us with
    a solid financial and programmatic framework to build on to
    reach this goal. But we must maximize the flexibility of our
    programs and work across jurisdictional boundaries using all of
    the tools in our arsenal if we are to succeed.
        Thanks very much. I look forward to the dialog.
        Mr. Haifley. Bruce Warner?

       STATEMENT OF BRUCE WARNER, DIRECTOR, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
                       TRANSPORTATION, SALEM, OR

        Mr. Warner. Thank you.
        I am Bruce Warner. I am the Director of the Oregon
    Department of Transportation and also the chair of the American
    Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
    Standing Committee on Highway Safety.
        After three decades of decline, the reduction of the
    highway fatality rate has stalled--41,800 people were killed in
    crashes in 2000. We know what is causing these fatalities.
    Forty percent of the fatalities are alcohol related; 20 percent
    are speed related; and 73 percent of the people only use their
    seat belts. Regarding the roadways themselves, as Bud
    mentioned, one-fourth of fatalities are at intersections; one-
    third of them are run-off-the-road accidents; and 45 percent of
    all the fatalities are on rural two-lane roads. Aggressive
    action is needed.
        We believe that a higher overall investment in a highway
    program is essential. The highway program must be increased by
    at least one-third, to a level of $41 billion by 2009. And we
    believe the investment in transportation safety should be
    almost doubled. Specific recommendations are that assuming a
    substantial increase in the Federal aid program reauthorization
    should ensure that $1 billion per year of additional funds for
    roadway safety improvements and other safety activities is
    provided. Two, each State should develop a goal-oriented,
    performance-based comprehensive highway safety component of its
    long-range plan, incorporating education, enforcement,
    emergency medical services and highway infrastructure
    improvements. Third, the current Surface Transportation Program
    10 percent set aside for safety needs to be made even more
    flexible. Four, Congress should create a single Section 402
    Highway Safety Program by folding in seat belts, occupant
    protection, alcohol use and child passenger protection
    programs, and then going on, incentives here should be based
    upon performance-based criteria and the magnitude of deaths and
    injuries associated with a particular safety concern.
        Five, funding needs to be substantially increased, as Bud
    also mentioned, for Federal Safety Research Programs. And six,
    the State transportation and safety agencies should not be
    prohibited from proactively supporting new State and local
    safety measures. They should be able to actually provide
    information in support of these kind of laws.
        That would end my comments. Thank you for your
    consideration. I think you will find a more detailed discussion
    of these in my written testimony.
        Mr. Haifley. Mr. Bill Walsh?

     STATEMENT OF WILLIAM WALSH, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR FOR PLANS
       AND POLICY, NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

        Mr. Walsh. Good morning.
        My name is Bill Walsh. I am the Associate Administrator for
    Policy as NHTSA.
        We have based our reauthorization thinking on a number of
    important principles: One, streamline the grant program
    structure to reduce the administrative burden on the States;
    two, develop performance-based programs to encourage States to
    direct resources to programs with the most significant safety
    benefits; three, reward States who make the most significant
    strides in improving safety; four, design a balanced approach
    that recognizes the complexity of the problem; and five, at a
    minimum, maintain the overall funding support at levels
    provided in TEA-21.
        Every State currently has a highway safety program that
    depends on a combination of Federal, State and local funds to
    address critical issues such as seat belt use, child passenger
    safety, impaired driving, police traffic services, traffic
    records and emergency medical services. NHTSA-managed programs
    have included a combination of formula grant programs to
    support startup and evaluation of new highway safety
    countermeasures, incentive grant programs to induce States to
    pass effective laws or adopt scientifically grounded programs
    aimed at specific programs, sanctions where appropriate to
    assure that effective highway safety legislation is passed, and
    a strong Federal research and demonstration program to develop
    and evaluate new, more effective countermeasures.
        We are currently in the final stages of developing
    departmental recommendations on the reauthorization. Our
    challenges have included: strengthening and building on an
    historically successful formula grant program; developing
    performance measures that will encourage States to invest in
    effective countermeasures; performance measures must be fair,
    consistent, related to real-world safety improvement, and
    measurable; defining the most effective strategy to cause
    primary seat belt laws to be passed in all States and increase
    overall safety belt use; working with the States to improve
    traffic records; supporting the States in developing effective
    impaired driving countermeasures that address the entire
    system, from law enforcement, adjudication, education,
    treatment and record keeping; and finally, in this difficult
    post-9-11 era, strengthening our emergency medical responses to
    not only safe crash victims, but serve as the first line of
    public health and safety from terrorist acts.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Haifley. Mr. Edward Hamberger?

       STATEMENT OF EDWARD HAMBERGER, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF
                           AMERICAN RAILROADS

        Mr. Hamberger. John, thank you.
        I have the privilege and honor of being President of the
    Association of American Railroads. We have one major issue
    before this committee, and that is the Section 130 Grade
    Crossing Protection and Separation Program. Because, unlike our
    reputation, we really are a high-tech industry, behind you have
    some not reenactments, but two videos of actual crashes that
    have happened. Norfolk Southern has mounted video machines on
    the lead engine of many of their trains, and we will just go
    ahead and run through it in real-time. You will see, and we
    will back up then, and point out what happens here. The horn is
    blowing. The gates are down. Cars are stopped, and
    unfortunately . . .
        What you can hear there, if you will back it up, we will
    walk through it real quickly on a slower basis. As you get up
    close, you will see that the second car--the first car is
    stopped. The second car pulls out around the first car,
    thinking he can make it. It takes a mile to stop a train. It
    goes around the gates and unfortunately he guessed wrong and he
    did not make it.
        You also heard, perhaps did not concentrate on, the
    discussion among the two crew members in the cab. It is a
    tremendous safety problem for the crew as well as obviously a
    psychological ongoing problem when they are faced with these
    kinds of situations.
        The next one is a passive grade crossing. The car comes
    out; does not stop. You will see that there are crossbucks. It
    was, again if we will back up, there are cross bucks. There are
    markings on the road. The woman comes out, stops, and
    unfortunately the car overhangs. Fortunately, no one was badly
    hurt in that accident. But there are over 400 people a year
    killed at grade crossing incidents.
        We have made tremendous progress through the Section 130
    Program that this committee has funded. It is important to also
    take a look at NCHRP, I believe it is number 480, that just
    came out talking about markings at passive grade crossings. We
    urge you to increase, doubling the size had a nice ring to it.
    It is about $150 million a year now. We would love to see more
    money in the Section 130 Program.
        Mr. Haifley. Mrs. Tricia Roberts.

       STATEMENT OF TRICIA ROBERTS, DIRECTOR, DELAWARE OFFICE OF
                       HIGHWAY SAFETY, DOVER, DE

        Ms. Roberts. Good morning.
        I am Tricia Roberts. I am Director of the Delaware Office
    of Highway Safety. I am here today on behalf of the National
    Association of Governor's Highway Safety Representatives.
        The States have made significant advances in the safe
    behavior of drivers and road users. These advances have been
    made possible in large part due to the programs and resources
    provided under the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st
    Century. Yet, there is much more to do. We have reached the
    easily influenced, and now we must reach those populations who
    are resistant and impervious to traditional safety messages and
    programs. To make inroads in these populations, significant
    efforts must be undertaken to reduce motor vehicle-related
    crashes, deaths and injuries from the unacceptable levels that
    they are today.
        The States need appropriate Federal tools and additional
    Federal resources in order to make further progress. First and
    foremost, the States need stable and reliable sources of
    funding in order to address the behavioral aspects of highway
    safety. With assured sources of funding, States can plan their
    highway safety programs over a longer period of time,
    facilitate their work with and get commitments from grantees,
    and plan and implement improvements to the highway safety
    information systems. The budgetary firewalls that were
    authorized under TEA-21 have provided that stability. NAGHSR
    strongly supports their continuation in the next
    reauthorization.
        States also need to maintain the right to determine how
    Federal funds are spent within their States, without Federal
    approval of every aspect of State plans and programs. This
    flexibility, which States have had since 1994, has enabled us
    to focus on State data-driven problem identification and
    performance-based strategies. It has allowed the States and the
    Federal Government to work together on a more cooperative
    basis.
        Second, States need fewer Federal programs to administer.
    NAGHSR represents consolidation of all the grant programs into
    a single behavioral highway safety program with incentive
    tiers. The incentives would be given to States that enact
    specific legislation, improve their performance, or maintain a
    superior level of performance.
        Third, States need adequate resources to be able to
    effectively address safety problems. At current funding levels,
    States could maintain the programs that have been implemented
    under TEA-21. But with additional funding, States could support
    significantly more enforcement of State highway safety laws--
    laws that are needed in order to reach the hard-to-influence
    populations. With additional funding, States could also
    undertake a whole range of programs to address specific target
    populations and emerging highway safety issues.
        Fourth, States need timely, accurate and accessible data
    with which to make safety-related decisions. States use data to
    identify significant safety problems, select appropriate safety
    countermeasures, and evaluate the effectiveness of selected
    countermeasures. Nearly all States have strategic plans for
    improving their highway safety information systems, but they
    lack the resources for implementing these plans.
        Finally, States need more research on driver and road user
    behaviors. Relatively little is known about the effectiveness
    of many State laws and most highway safety programs. Further,
    there has been no recent research on crash causation. As a
    result, States implement programs without knowing if they are
    addressing the root causes of crashes and/or whether or not the
    implemented programs will work.
        Thank you for this time.
        Mr. Haifley. Thank you.
        Mr. Brian Holmes?

    STATEMENT OF BRIAN HOLMES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MARYLAND HIGHWAY
                              CONTRACTORS

        Mr. Holmes. Thank you.
        I am Brian Holmes, Executive Director of the Maryland
    Highway Contractors Association. I am here today on behalf of
    our national organization, the American Road and Transportation
    Builders Association.
        Roadway safety is a major national public health issue, and
    improving it must be a primary objective of the 2003
    reauthorization of the Federal Surface Transportation Program.
    The most recent USDOT condition and performance report
    documents that to maintain the existing physical road
    conditions, Federal investment of $50 billion a year is needed.
    The next needs report, which is due out later this year, in the
    AASHTO bottom line report, which is to be released in
    September, are expected to show that this minimum level of
    investment has grown to $60 billion.
        Accordingly, the American Road and Transportation Builders
    Association calls on Congress to enact a highway and bridge
    investment level that at a minimum maintains these existing
    roadway condition and safety levels. To achieve this increased
    level of investment, we have identified a number of ways to
    generate funds to rectify unsafe roadway conditions. Growing
    the overall level of investment will allow for the continuation
    of Federal roadway safety programs, without diluting investment
    in other areas. We have recommended specific safety initiatives
    in programs to enhance the overall safety of the system, which
    include improving safety on rural two-lane roads with a new $1
    billion two-lane roads initiative; focusing and investing in
    highway and road construction work zone safety initiatives,
    where over 1,000 people are killed and 39,000 are injured each
    year; and continuing with the Federal investment in the Federal
    Roadway Infrastructure Safety Program, such as the Highway-Rail
    Grade Crossing Program and the Hazard Elimination Program.
        But road safety initiatives must be considered in the
    overall context of the Federal Surface Transportation Program.
    I want to stress that expanding and developing programs to
    increase safety should not become a zero sum game. There are
    tremendous public safety benefits of improvements to roadway
    infrastructure. Our data shows that since 1950, investment in
    infrastructure improvements has had a two dollars to one dollar
    public health return. And for every $1 billion of investment by
    the public in government-financed road improvements, there has
    been a prevention of 1,400 premature deaths and nearly 50,000
    injuries.
        With traffic increasing at almost 3 percent a year, this
    safety gain will be squandered if proper investment is not made
    in maintaining the existing system and adding capacity. Without
    a commitment to an adequate level of investment for making
    highways safer and more efficient, crash statistics will only
    get worse.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Haifley. Wendy Hamilton? Good morning.

       STATEMENT OF WENDY HAMILTON, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, MOTHERS
                         AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING

        Ms. Hamilton. Good morning.
        My name is Wendy Hamilton. I am President-elect for Mothers
    Against Drunk Driving. In 1984, my sister and her baby were
    killed by a drunk driver.
        In 2000, 16,650 people were killed in alcohol-related
    traffic crashes. The economic loss attributable to these
    crashes cost the Nation approximately $230 billion. However, as
    someone who has lost a sister and nephew due to someone's
    careless decision to drink and drive, I can tell you that the
    human loss is immeasurable. In spite of these appalling human
    and economic losses, NHTSA's annual budget is only $400
    million. Alcohol is a factor in 40 percent of all traffic
    deaths, yet only 26 percent of all funding available to the
    States through TEA-21 is spent on alcohol-impaired driving
    countermeasures. TEA-21 severely underfunds highway safety. It
    does not provide adequate financial incentives to the States to
    enact meaningful impaired-driving legislation and to implement
    effective programs.
        MADD recommends that the subcommittee consider the
    following actions. First, provide a significant increase in
    funding for highway safety programs. Congress should allocate
    at least $1 billion annually for the creation of a national
    traffic safety fund. It is time to increase the Federal
    Government's commitment toward reducing the devastating and
    costly consequences of motor vehicle crashes.
        TEA-21 encourages States to adopt open container and repeat
    offender laws in Sections 154 and 164, respectively. Failure of
    a State to enact these laws results in the transfer of a
    portion of the State's Federal highway construction funds to
    its highway safety program, as well as the hazard elimination
    program. Highway safety program funds should not be allowed for
    the use of the hazard elimination program. States that do not
    comply with Sections 154 and 164 should only be permitted to
    direct funds for impaired driving programs.
        We also recommend modification of Section 164 to
    incorporate a comprehensive program to target higher-risk
    drivers, including repeat and high BAC offenders. There should
    also be an increase in the percentage of highway construction
    funds to be redirected to impaired driving countermeasures if a
    State does not comply with these laws. Fifty-eight percent of
    alcohol-related traffic fatalities in 2000 involved drivers
    with a BAC of .15 or higher, and one-third of all drivers
    arrested or convicted of driving while intoxicated are repeat
    offenders.
        We also call for the reauthorization of Section 154 that
    addresses open container laws. There should be an increase in
    the percentage of highway construction funds to be redirected
    if a State does not comply. And finally, we call for support
    for the enactment of a national primary seat belt standard.
    Eighty percent of the people who are fatally injured in
    impaired driving crashes are not wearing seat belts. The best
    defense against a drunk driver is a seat belt.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Haifley. Mr. Hill?

    STATEMENT OF D.B. HILL, PRESIDENT, D.B. HILL CONTRACTOR, INC.,
            ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS

        Mr. Hill. Good morning.
        I am D.B. Hill, III. I am president of D.B. Hill Contractor
    from Little Rock, Arkansas. I am chairman of AGC's Work Zone
    Safety Committee.
        As our highway infrastructure ages and our population
    expands, road construction will continue to be necessary. Much
    of the road work will be done under traffic. Motorists must be
    aware there are increased dangers in the work zone to
    themselves and to workers. Therefore, a key element in work
    zone safety is impacting the attitudes of drivers. The second
    component is enforcement of speed limits and other work zone
    restrictions.
        AGC urges Congress to include in the TEA-21 reauthorization
    legislation incentives for States to pursue work zone safety
    initiatives. We recommend the creation of a discretionary fund
    administered by the Federal Highway Administration to provide
    funding incentives that encourage States to carry out
    communications initiatives, including driver education
    programs. AGC encourages Congress to provide funding for
    incentives to make widespread use of law enforcement officers
    and devices such as photo enforcement and radar.
        Even if we are successful in changing driver attitudes
    toward the work zone, workers are still placed at risk because
    their workplace is located next to live lanes of traffic. Steps
    need to be taken to further ensure worker protection. AGC
    encourages that the national policy include guidance on the use
    of positive separation in work zones. States should be directed
    to use positive barriers on high-risk projects and funding
    should be made available to encourage their use.
        Incentives could be used for creative work zone safety
    initiatives. Initiatives that should be considered include
    classifying work zones into different categories depending on
    the level of risk to the workers and motorists. Another example
    of this might be how we set up traffic control on projects.
    Motorists are sometimes frustrated that speed limits are
    lowered in work zones. As they drive through them, they only
    see work in a limited area. We should consider looking at the
    work zone to determine if it could be set up with sub-zones
    within it so that the lower speed limits and the strictest
    enforcement happens in those areas where workers are present or
    where there is extreme danger to the motorist.
        Other creative approaches to work zone safety should be
    encouraged and providing incentives will hopefully encourage
    those creative forces.
        Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Haifley. Mrs. Kathleen Holst?

    STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN HOLST, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN TRAFFIC SAFETY
                          SERVICES ASSOCIATION

        Ms. Holst. I am Kathi Holst, President of the American
    Traffic Safety Services Association.
        Forty-two thousand dead, three million injured, $230.6
    billion in societal costs with taxpayer costs of $21 billion a
    year--five times more people have died on roadways since 1900
    than in all our Nation's wars. One child in 84 born today will
    die violently in a motor vehicle crash.
        With these facts in mind, ATSSA contends that in no other
    public policy arena should such horrific numbers be tolerated
    without a significant attempt by Congress to reverse the trend.
    We believe there are three key areas of focus in saving lives
    on our roadways--the automobile, the driver and the roadway
    itself.
        Automobiles have evolved from having no seat belts to the
    state-of-the-art vehicles we have today. Driver behavior has
    never been more positive thanks to NHTSA and others in reducing
    impaired driving and increasing the use-rate for seat belts.
    The last remaining area to be aggressively addressed is the
    roadway itself. ATTSA proposes a roadway safety program that
    calls upon Congress to invest $3 billion per year during the
    life of the reauthorization bill to aggressively counteract the
    role of the roadway itself in causing death and injury in
    America.
        The program targets high-risk areas of the roadway. It also
    addresses the special needs of older Americans who will
    represent one in five drivers by the year 2020. If we do not
    address their needs now, we will be faced with a situation that
    age-related diminished driving capabilities will surpass
    alcohol as a causal factor in traffic accidents. Targeted areas
    of the roadway safety program include older drivers, work
    zones, intersections, run-off-the-road crashes, pedestrians and
    bicyclists, speeding, research and emergency management.
        The most important concept is the idea of creating a
    dedicated core roadway safety program, with reporting
    requirements that give the Congress, Federal Highway
    Administration, the States and the motoring public a better
    understanding of what is being accomplished to improve roadway
    safety.
        Equally important is dedicating safety dollars that target
    low-cost safety improvements, such as wider pavement markings,
    brighter and more visible signage, rumble strips and modern
    guard rails. All have wide application and can be installed
    relatively quickly and at a lower cost.
        I would be happy to answer any questions and I thank you
    for the opportunity.
        Mr. Haifley. Thank you, and thank you all for your 2-minute
    presentations. And thank you again for keeping relatively to
    the 2 minutes. Senator Reid is still detained, so we will go to
    staff question.
        I would like to start with explaining just two small ground
    rules--one from the court reporter, please when you speak,
    state your name so we do not have to sort through and listen
    and perhaps get the wrong position with the wrong person; and
    second, my colleagues have encouraged me to encourage dialog
    between each of you. It is very important for us to hear how
    the experts dialog with each other.
        To that end, I would like to start with a direct question
    for each of you. Does any group oppose the expenditure of
    Federal funds for causal safety research. Many of you mention
    it. AASHTO wants $75 million. Does anyone oppose that? OK.
        Now--I am sorry. Brian?
        Mr. Holmes. What is causal . . .
        Mr. Haifley. Safety research--well, I will let Bruce Warner
    who wants $75 million for it, and Tricia Roberts who thinks it
    is a good idea, and others, to help with that. Please begin and
    I encourage each of you to address questions to other
    witnesses.
        Mr. Warner. Bruce Warner, Director of the Oregon Department
    of Transportation. Well, clearly what we are seeing, and you
    have heard around the table, there are a number of issues that
    we know about that cause accidents and fatalities and injuries
    on our State and local transportation systems. However, as you
    also heard, the demographics are changing. You are seeing more
    and more elderly drivers on the road system. As the baby
    boomers like myself begin to age, you are going to see many
    more of those. We need to apply research to find out what are
    the best ways, as an example, that we start to help those
    elderly drivers with some of the impairments.
        I think we also need to do research into just identifying
    what is an impaired driver, as an example. We have been
    struggling in the State of Oregon with our legislature to
    secure funding to actually put into some pilots some equipment
    that would allow us to identify at-risk folks and folks that
    needed to have further medical testing before they were allowed
    to continue with their driving privileges in the State.
        So we need to have research information to get to some of
    those kind of things, as an example. You will hear from other
    folks I am sure in the various other types of issues where we
    need research to really understand the cause, the base root
    cause of the accidents so we can design education, engineering
    and enforcement programs that can actually effectively deal
    with those issues.
        Mr. Holmes. This is Brian Holmes again. It is basically
    systematic research about why accidents happen.
        Mr. Haifley. And what we can do to prevent them.
        Mr. Holmes. And then that leads to what you can do to--
    thank you.
        Mr. Haifley. Tricia, would you like to add anything?
        Ms. Roberts. I would just concur. In some cases, it is sort
    of a shot in the dark, if you will, as far as our program
    planning without really knowing what the root causes of the
    crashes are. Having that information will help us to more
    effectively use the money and the resources that are made
    available to our States.
        Mr. Walsh. Bill Walsh from NHTSA. It is interesting. We
    have done a number of these studies over the years. The last
    study, broad study was called the Indiana Tri-Level Study. It
    was done in the early 1970's. It is literally 30 years old.
    About 20 years ago, there was a Harry Hirt study on motorcycle
    crash causation, but that is dated. And now we have seen a
    spike in motorcycle crashes.
        I support what the other people have said. One contribution
    NHTSA can make, we are doing right now. We are supporting the
    Motor Carrier Safety Administration in doing a heavy truck
    causation study. That money was provided to Motor Carriers, and
    we have been assisting them. We would like in the future to
    begin a larger crash causation study that would help answer the
    questions that have been elucidated so far--the contribution of
    the roadway, different vehicle types, the aging population--so
    that we can all devote the resources to solve the problems most
    effectively.
        Mr. Wright. This is Bud Wright with the Federal Highway
    Administration. As I will probably have to say more than I care
    to throughout the day, the Administration does not have a final
    position on its reauthorization proposal. But one of the
    concepts that has been advanced by the Transportation Research
    Board and others, and which I know AASHTO has supported, is the
    concept of the so-called ``F-SHARP'' Program. Some of you may
    be familiar with the SHARP Program that was undertaken through
    ISTEA to identify advanced pavement techniques and other
    advanced technologies, in the work zone area for example.
    Extremely successful and has been in some ways replicated
    through this so-called ``F-SHARP'' proposal. They would look at
    a new agenda of strategic highway research, including highway
    safety as one of the principle elements of that.
        One of the distinguishing features of this proposal is that
    on the safety side at least it would get into what is, as Bill
    was just stating, what would be the most comprehensive causal
    analysis on safety that has been undertaken probably ever, but
    certainly in the last 30 years.
        Also importantly, as identified by the Transportation
    Research Board Group, this would not require the authorization
    of specific funds to be carried out. In fact, following the
    precedent that was established with the original SHARP Program,
    the States would be taking off of the authorizations that are
    made available to them a small percentage in order to fund this
    effort. So it is distinguished from the remaining research and
    technology program in that it would not have to be authorized
    through what under TEA-21 was Title V. This would in fact be an
    authorization to allow the States to set aside some part of the
    moneys made available to them for this purpose.
        Mr. Haifley. Can someone tell us what this program would
    look like--the causal research--a little more detail? Anyone
    want to flesh that out? Bud perhaps could tell us what NCHRP
    is. What I am looking for is for you to help us describe what
    this program should look at. And the next question is how much
    money should it get. That is what I want you guys to come forth
    with.
        Bud, can you tell us a little bit about what NCHRP looks
    like? NAGHSR recommended NCHRP as what they would want for
    their proposed safety research model.
        Mr. Wright. Well, NCHRP is a cooperative research
    undertaking which States, Federal Government, interested
    parties identify an agenda, again drawn from moneys contributed
    by the States, not funds authorized specifically for research
    at the Federal level. It is a comprehensive agenda under NCHRP.
    It would include all aspects of highway and surface
    transportation research.
        The F-SHARP proposal is the so-called causal safety
    analysis, is built around a similar sort of a model, but it
    would actually be substantially more funding than is available
    through the NCHRP program, which I believe is at about $30
    million a year. This concept would be $75 million a year. One
    element of it would be safety and again the initial thinking,
    though not fleshed out fully yet, is that safety would probably
    represent at least half of that amount, if not slightly more.
        Again, much yet to be determined as to what would be done,
    but essentially it would involve fully instrumented vehicles
    that would, not unlike the video that we saw of the train,
    would actually record data regarding crashes that occur so that
    we understand what factors were at play. Did it involve driver
    behavior? What was the condition of the roadway? What were the
    circumstances that might have been able to prevent the crash
    from occurring? It really is extremely complicated, and because
    of the fact that it would require vehicle instrumentation, you
    are not going to have 100 percent, but you are going to have a
    large enough percentage that you are going to capture the
    crashes that are occurring on a daily basis in the country.
        So it would require substantial investment in order to
    yield the kind of results that really are going to provide the
    data that we need to say, here are where are problems lie and
    here are what the solutions are that would be most effective.
        Mr. Haifley. Anyone else have any more comments on what
    this--yes, Bruce.
        Mr. Warner. Bruce Warner, with Oregon again. I think the
    other thing, in addition to understanding what the causes are
    and the potential solutions, AASHTO is a believer that we need
    to actually get out and pilot some of these solutions to make
    sure that they actually work. We have a lead State concept
    where we actually encourage various State Departments of
    Transportation to actually get out ahead and put some of these
    innovative technologies and ideas that have been developed by
    research in place to see how they work.
        So another key component, I think, of the research program
    really needs to be some of this piloting of some of these to
    determine what are the most effective solutions, to determine
    how they work, and then again figure out a way to actually move
    those things to full implementation throughout the United
    States.
        Mr. Haifley. Brian?
        Mr. Holmes. Brian Holmes. I hate to be the skunk at the
    picnic, but it sounds to me like we are talking about spending
    a lot of money in pursuit of the obvious. It seems to me you
    have two problems when it comes to driver behavior. You have
    the fact that, taking work zones as an example, the conduct of
    normal drivers is not what we would like it to be, and that
    they go through our work zones too fast and they are following
    each other too closely.
        The second problem is the aberrational driver. In other
    words, with a lot, a great deal of the work being done, you
    have work zones functioning at the time that, you know, after
    the bars close and you get the people who no matter how good
    your signage is, they are going to find their way into your
    work area. So it would seem to me that I do not know what we
    are going to gain so much from this effort that we don't really
    already know. I mean, speed, following too closely, inattention
    and impairment seem to be about it, as far as I can see.
        Mr. Haifley. My time is almost gone, but I would like to
    ask Bill Walsh to respond to that.
        Mr. Walsh. Well, he makes a point. We do know a lot from
    our crash data. But when you actually work in the business and
    you are looking at the environment and the behavior and the
    vehicle contributions to any crash, they are like snowflakes.
    To really understand all the things that lead up to some
    crashes, many crashes, you need to have a holistic approach to
    collecting the data. Retrospectively looking at police crash
    reports--police crash reports serve their purpose, but they do
    not have the richness of data that you need to really
    understand the circumstances and the contributing factors. Many
    of the issues we are facing today are very difficult and not
    responding to many of the programs we have in place. It is a
    very modest investment in making us smarter in how to invest a
    very large sum of money. I think that is where the safety
    community is coming from in recommending resources be spent on
    this area.
        Mr. Haifley. Thank you.
        My time has expired. We are now entering into the period of
    senior transportation EPW staff questioning, beginning with
    Jeff Squires.
        Mr. Squires. We are expecting the Senator shortly, and if
    he does arrive, then I will just give way, and we will return
    to this.
        Before I ask my question, let me say a couple of things.
    One, welcome to everyone. Thank you so much for taking the time
    to join us today. This is extremely valuable in terms of
    building the information base that we will use to do our work
    going forward on reauthorization.
        Second, I want to commend my colleagues, and especially
    John Haifley, for the fine job they have done in organizing
    today's symposium. John has worked long and hard on this, and I
    think the results speak for themselves. Thank you, John, good
    job.
        This is a very sensitive topic that we are discussing
    today. Any injury or certainly any fatality is an enormous
    tragedy. And so statistics are pretty much irrelevant if that
    tragedy touches you personally. Like everybody in this room, I
    assume, I have had personal exposure to highway-related
    injuries, fortunately not fatalities. And so I think we all
    have a shared empathy on these issues. That needs to be the
    context for our discussions.
        With that in mind, however, I do want to pose a question.
    The question is based on what appears to be the recent
    performance record or track record. According to data provided
    by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, fatality rates
    declined from 1.9 per million vehicle miles traveled in 1991 to
    1.5 per million vehicle miles traveled in 2001. This 20 percent
    reduction would seem to represent a significant success story.
    This gain coincides with the ISTEA and TEA-21 transportation
    policy era, if you will.
        Now, during our work on reauthorization, we have been
    asking two questions. What lessons have we learned over the
    last 10 years? And second question, how have conditions changed
    or how are they likely to change in the future? And then based
    on those questions, and answers to those questions will guide
    our refinements and enhancements on reauthorization.
        So looking back, we are trying to understand what we should
    do going forward. In that context, I would like each of you to
    consider the reductions in fatality rates achieved during the
    last 10 years. Now, I recognize that there has not been, as one
    of the witnesses described, there has not been a fall-off. It
    has been a fairly flat number of fatalities annually, and that
    is tragic. But the growth in VMT has been dramatic. And so
    recognizing that reduction in fatality rates achieved during
    that last 10 years, I wonder what do you attribute this
    positive trend to, and how might we continue and perhaps
    accelerate this trend through reauthorization.
        Mr. Wright. This is Bud Wright with Federal Highway
    Administration. Jeff, I think you are right, that there have
    been some significant very positive actions that have occurred
    over the past decade. Certainly, the increased investment level
    made available through ISTEA and TEA-21 has made a difference.
    We know many things that do work and work well and we are
    making those kinds of right investments.
        I would say by far the single biggest contributing factor
    is the fact that while we are at only 73 percent, seat belt use
    in this country has increased substantially over the last 10
    years. That is most definitely saving lives. We made some
    gains, albeit briefly, in alcohol-impaired fatalities. So
    again, some of the behavioral programs, some of the laws that
    have been passed both federally and at State level most
    definitely are making a difference.
        But I think as we look ahead, as you note, we are at a
    plateau. We have not made much progress in the numbers. The
    rates, yes. Travel has increased. Fatalities have not gone up
    thankfully in proportion to that travel increase. But we also
    see factors which are troubling. As we look at the belted
    population, those that are not belted are the difficult to
    reach audiences. We have not made the substantial headway in
    alcohol prevention programs that we might wish to. We see a
    much older driver population facing us as we move ahead, which
    will require greater attention in terms of roadway features,
    whether it be signs, pavement markings, geometry et cetera in
    order to operate safely.
        So there is every reason to believe, unfortunately, that
    without making further inroads and taking actions which have
    yet to be taken, that we could unfortunately see that number
    increasing over time if we allow trends to continue as they
    would regarding demography and other factors.
        Mr. Squires. Ed?
        Mr. Hamberger. One trend I think you need to keep in mind
    is the study by DOT which shows that freight transportation
    will double between now and the year 2020. This is not, let me
    say up front, this is not an anti-truck screed. We get along
    very well with our biggest, fastest growing partners,
    intermodal truck carriers. But we have formed something called
    the Freight Stakeholders, which includes ATA, includes IANA,
    includes the Port Authorities, includes the Association of
    American Railroads. There are several ways I think that this
    committee can help get some of that freight off the highway,
    and when it is on the highway, have it move more safely--for
    example, to have a little big more emphasis on freight
    transportation in the MPO process; to put more money into the
    intermodal connectors which are highways which connect
    intermodal yards with the main Interstate or NHS system; and
    three, to provide, not in this committee's jurisdiction, but
    tax incentives for investments for all parts of that logistics
    chain into capacity to move intermodal freight. It is obviously
    an important part of keeping the economy moving, to move the
    freight so we can compete on world markets. With the doubling
    foreseen by DOT, and in fact the ports of L.A. and Long Beach
    think it will triple between now and 2020, and so if you would
    look at those kinds of freight movement and those kinds of
    incentives to improve the intermodal cooperation and the
    intermodal transportation of freight, I think it would have a
    positive effect on safety as well.
        For the record, this is Ed Hamberger speaking.
        Mr. Holmes. Brian Holmes. I think one of the factors that
    would explain the statistics you offer is the increased traffic
    on the Interstate System. Fatality rates for traffic using the
    Interstate System is something like .04 per million VMT. The
    rate for, for instance, a two-lane undivided is 1.-something.
    So there is a huge differential. If you can take substantial
    amounts of traffic off of these less-safe facilities and put
    them onto controlled-access expressways, you will be able to
    achieve an enormous safety benefit. Then you get into the issue
    of the capacity on our expressway systems, which is something
    that we think ought to be addressed in this context.
        Mr. Hill. I am D.B. Hill with AGC. Jeff, while I think
    that, and it is a fact that we have seen overall deaths go
    down, as we begin to rebuild more of our older highways, there
    are going to be more work zones. We have seen those deaths and
    injuries go up in the last few years. And if we do not do
    something now to stem that with better work zone traffic
    enforcement, public awareness and communications, and positive
    barrier separations between workers and traffic, I think you
    could see that number actually go up over the life of the next
    highway reauthorization bill.
        Ms. Holst. Your statistics are certainly valid, and we are
    happy to hear that. I am sure everybody here is proud of the
    contribution that we all as an industry and the public and
    private sectors have made. However, we also need to be aware of
    the fact that in 1994, the cost of crashes was $150 billion.
    Today, it is $231 billion. From a taxpayer cost standpoint, we
    are talking about a comparison of just under $14 billion to
    today's cost of $21 billion.
        As I mentioned, and it certainly endorses over and over
    again, we need to focus on the needs that are coming up right
    around the corner as well. As Mr. Hill said, there are more
    work zones. More work is being done at night. We have to
    prepare for that. We also have to prepare for those
    demographics that are approaching, and certainly coming up
    right around the corner for me. We have to prepare for 20
    percent of our driving population being 65 and older. We have
    to give them better information, better opportunity to use
    their reaction time to prevent crashes and fatalities and
    injuries.
        Ms. Hamilton. Wendy Hamilton with Mothers Against Drunk
    Driving. Strides have been made in many areas, and in fact
    drunk driving deaths went down dramatically in the early 1980's
    and the early 1990's. But things have plateaued drastically
    since then, and you have to remember that still 40 percent of
    the American public is killed in alcohol-related crashes. We
    cannot lose sight of that focus. This is a segment of the
    population that we have research on.
        Forty percent of the people killed in traffic crashes are
    alcohol-related. We do have research. We do have effective
    programs. An example is the sobriety checkpoint programs. Those
    have proven to have a 20 percent reduction in fatalities and
    arrests in Tennessee and New York, even 21 months after those
    programs have been finished. So the overall education and
    deterrent is important.
        Enforcement is critical to this issue, as is education
    about that enforcement. Because it is not just about arresting
    drunk drivers. It is about getting people to understand they
    should not be drinking and driving.
        Ms. Roberts. We have seen significant improvements in
    highway safety. I attribute it and agree with Bud Wright that
    one of the biggest things that we have done is increase seat
    belt usage. There is just no question about that. But there is
    still a lot more to be done.
        I believe that the comprehensive approach that the States
    have taken in looking at the driver and the vehicle and the
    roadway has contributed significantly to these successes, and
    that we should continue that comprehensive approach. Also, the
    combination of education and enforcement is absolutely key
    here. The one-size-fits-all type of approach does not work.
    Every State has to have the ability to set its own priorities
    through data-driven problem identification, and to implement
    performance-based strategies that are appropriate for that
    State. Again, the one-size-fits-all does not work and will not
    continue to work.
        One problem that I see and continues to grow, continuing
    highway safety program, is the number of teen drivers that we
    are seeing on our road and their over-representation in
    crashes. It is a very critical issue that we have to address.
        Mr. Haifley. That was Tricia Roberts, for the record.
        Mr. Warner. Bruce Warner with the Oregon Department of
    Transportation. I just want to state that first off, we believe
    TEA-21 was very effective. I think our State, through some of
    the initiatives, the increased funding and the cooperation
    between the agencies that was made available through some of
    the flexibility of TEA-21, actually caused in my opinion about
    375 fewer deaths and 25,000 fewer accidents and injuries on
    Oregon's roads and highways. I think it is important to note, I
    also wanted to get on the record, we start talking about the
    fatality rates overall and the fatality rates on the
    Interstates, I would remind everybody that the fatality rates
    on those rural two-lane roadways are somewhere approaching four
    fatalities per million miles traveled. And that is completely
    unacceptable.
        I think for the future, one of the things that is very
    important that you ought to continue that I think was partly
    responsible for us getting some of the rates down was the
    requirement that States consider safety in their planning
    efforts, and those become criteria whereby you are making
    decisions on investments and where you place your money. I
    think that should be continued. I think it should be
    strengthened and should force the States to work with their
    local cities and counties and all the other folks to come up
    with that comprehensive program that we described.
        I do want to state that again seat belts is clearly an area
    we need to focus on. Again, I think we ought to also have on
    the record, I think a couple of years ago the average rate
    throughout the United States was about 68 percent user rate. If
    we could raise that to 90 percent, and there are States that
    are at the 90 percent now, that in and of itself can save over
    5,000 lives a year in the United States.
        I also want to emphasize, I believe teenage drivers are a
    problem. The State of Oregon initiated a graduated drivers
    license program which has severe restrictions on the time of
    driving within 6 months of getting a license, and actually
    continues until they are age 18. In just 1 year of experience,
    we have seen a 29 percent reduction in the number of 16-year-
    old drivers behind the wheel with fatal or injury crashes. We
    think this is something that should be studied a bit and part
    of that research program that should be probably be implemented
    throughout the United States.
        Mr. Squires. Thank you all very much.
        Mr. Haifley. Ruth Van Mark.
        Ms. Van Mark. Thank you.
        I want to maybe build a little bit on Jeff's line of
    questioning. As he stated, and I agree with him--surprise, Jeff
    . . .
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Squires. How refreshing.
        Ms. Van Mark. One life lost is one life too many, but given
    that we do have limited resources, it seems that it is prudent
    for us to try to focus those resources on those areas where we
    get the most benefit, or the greatest number of lives saved.
        With that in mind, I think Mr. Warner you mentioned some
    statistics in your opening statement on the types of fatalities
    on the roads, it seemed like. Could you refresh my memory on
    that?
        Mr. Warner. Yes, I would be glad to. Let me see if I can
    actually find the statistics. I think you are referring to the
    causes of fatalities. Again, Bruce Warner, the Oregon
    Department of Transportation. Again, as you have heard over and
    over again, 40 percent of the fatalities are alcohol-related,
    so booze is clearly an issue; 20 percent are speed-related, so
    speed is clearly an issue and a cause; and only 73 percent of
    the people use their seat belts. This is updated from the 68
    percent a few years ago. So belts, booze and speed are some of
    the big areas of focus that we think upon which you ought to
    place some emphasis. Thank you.
        Ms. Van Mark. Thank you.
        With that in mind, then, for Mr. Walsh, given that NHTSA
    has placed a big priority on reducing the incidence of drunk
    drivers, along with MADD, the good work that they have done in
    that area, but also given that excessive speed appears to be a
    big bloc of the causation of accidents, could you explain to us
    what NHTSA has done with respect to trying to, if not educate
    drivers, encourage States to enforce minimum or maximum speed
    limits?
        Mr. Walsh. Well, actually I think you should have asked Bud
    about speed, but NHTSA and Federal Highway within the
    Department do have significant research and demonstration
    programs and we are working with the States to try to reduce
    speed-related crashes. Education is only part of it. I think
    what you are going to find out from any behavioral change
    program, I am going to say first of all you have to have
    reasonable speed limits, and I think the core of our program is
    to set speed limits that people think are reasonable. Because
    people will not obey speed limits that are not reasonable, and
    then that makes the whole system impossible to work. If
    everybody is speeding, enforcement does not work. So it starts
    with that, and that of course, I will let Bud talk more about
    that in a minute, but from NHTSA's point of view any behavioral
    change starts with enforcement, and you have also heard public
    education and letting people know that the laws are going to be
    enforced, and that of course is general deterrence.
        One of the things that I think personally will make a big
    contribution in the future will be automated enforcement
    because we can never put enough police on the streets to stop
    red-light running, for instance. And I know that is
    controversial in some political domains and people talk about
    lack of privacy, but when people are breaking the law and
    putting other people's lives at risk, I do not think they
    should complain about getting a ticket for it. So one of the
    hopes for the future in enforcement is automated enforcement.
        But why don't I turn it over to Bud, and you might want to
    talk about setting the speed limits.
        Mr. Wright. This is Bud Wright. I do not have a lot to add
    to what Bill said because I think he stated it well. This does
    begin with setting and posting reasonable speed limits. We know
    that analysis does not always take place, does not necessarily
    have to take place on an individual roadway basis, but it
    certainly should relate to the kinds of design characteristics
    for a roadway and take into account local conditions. We know
    that speed limits are not properly set throughout the country.
        So with regard to any enforcement mechanism, whether it be
    at intersections where we see red light violations occurring or
    whether it be on speed limits on general roads, the engineering
    analysis needs to take place first to say that we have in place
    a system that makes sense, and then aggressive enforcement
    needs to take place to ensure that motorists are complying with
    those laws. We are doing some things with regard to speed
    limits which we think are going to demonstrate some new
    techniques that might work for the future. We are spending
    research and technology money, for example, to look at the
    effectiveness of variable speed limits, that take into account
    time of day, roadway conditions et cetera. There is much
    technology today that would allow us to post variable speed
    limits that could change, again given conditions at the time of
    day.
        We also are looking at pilots regarding speed limits in
    work zones, as was referred to by Mr. Hill earlier. We
    recognize that as a significant problem, and using the
    technology that we have available today to make sure that the
    right information is available to motorists as they pass
    through, including using variable speed limits in work zones
    could make a substantial difference.
        One thing that I would add to the statistics that Bruce
    related to you is that you can cut this pie in a lot of
    different ways. And when we say 40 percent are alcohol-related,
    and x-number are related to speed, we also know that close to
    38 percent of the crashes that result in fatalities are single-
    vehicle run-off-the-road crashes, and 30 percent approximately
    are related to speed. Those are not conflicting statistics.
    They are just cutting things from a different perspective.
    There is a behavioral element associated with many crashes.
    There is also a roadway element associated with those same
    crashes. The individual speeding might be an alcohol-impaired
    driver and might be the victim of a single vehicle run-off-the-
    road crash.
        I guess my point is that it is a multi-dimensional issue
    that we are looking at, and certainly much more aggressive and
    effective enforcement of alcohol incentives or prevention
    programs would make a difference. But at the same time, taking
    steps to ensure that even someone impaired, unfortunately, is
    less likely to be a party to crash by putting in rumble strips
    or taking other measures on the roadway itself can make a
    difference as well, and a substantial difference, we think.
        Mr. Walsh. If you would permit me one last comment, since
    we are tag-teaming you, in our economic impact study, we looked
    at crashes in which at least one driver was exceeding the legal
    speed limit or driving too fast for conditions, and the costs
    were estimated to be $40 billion in 2000. This is related to
    12,350 fatalities and 690,000 non-fatal injuries. It represents
    30 percent of all fatalities and 13 percent of all non-fatal
    injuries. So it is a very significant problem.
        Ms. Van Mark. Mr. Holmes?
        Mr. Holmes. Thank you.
        I think we have lost the battle on speed. I think our speed
    limit signs have very little if in fact no credibility. Fifty-
    five miles an hour basically means 68 miles an hour, and that
    is based on an analysis of people's actual speeds. I think the
    policy in many States is if you are going 69 they will pull you
    over, and in a 55-mile-an-hour zone if you are going 68, they
    won't.
        People flout speed limits. Why don't we forget about speed
    and concentrate on following too closely? I mean, the only
    problem with speed is that you cannot stop in time to prevent a
    collision. So if we would figure out a mechanism to enforce
    leaving proper distances between vehicles, which the distances
    increase with speed, I think you might get a little more bang
    for your buck.
        The other thing which was alluded to by one of the earlier
    speakers is that we can have--it is unknown what impacts we can
    have on driver behavior. The folks from MADD have been part of
    a huge success. You have seen a societal sea-change in terms of
    people's attitudes toward drunk driving. In other areas such as
    speed, I do not think there has been any impact. I mean, seat
    belts is kind of a no-brainer, and yet we have a substantial
    chunk of the population which for one reason or another just
    won't take advantage of them.
        We can, however, control the roadway environment. We can
    make sure there are shoulders. We can make sure the turns are
    graded. There are physical things that we can do in the
    structures that we build that will be more forgiving and thus
    help prevent accidents.
        Ms. Hamilton. May I just make comment? MADD has done a lot,
    as well as other people in this room, to change behavior about
    drinking drivers. But there are still 40 percent of the people
    out there who are drinking and driving and being killed. We
    cannot lose sight of that fact. We have done a lot, but there
    is so much more that has to be done to change that problem.
        Ms. Holst. This is Kathi Holst with ATSSA. It is rewarding
    to know that when I back out of my driveway with my children in
    my car they do not allow me to put my car in gear before I put
    my seat belt on. Organizations are commended for that effort in
    teaching our children that. And it is nice to know that at
    least people know what a designated driver is. We certainly
    have a long way to go before everybody follows those rules.
        But the one thing of those three factors--the road, the
    automobile and the driver--the one thing that is static and can
    be controlled, at least to a great extent, is the roadway
    itself. And that is why we certainly look for dedicated safety
    dollars that certainly can be flexed at the State level. There
    are opportunities in New Hampshire and Vermont and more rural
    areas with two-lane rural roads that need emphasis on safety
    dollars toward those goals that differ from the Chicago area,
    where it is highly urban and congestion and mobility are bigger
    issues. So we do endorse certainly flexibility within the
    State.
        We urge the focus be on dedicated safety dollars to improve
    roadway safety. And when we do so, we are talking about target
    areas that have been identified as high risk--intersections, as
    has been said. Mr. Wright offered the statistics on the number
    of crashes that occur there. A third of all fatalities involve
    the roadway itself, and that factor certainly cannot be
    overlooked.
        Other target areas--older drivers, as I mentioned earlier,
    based on current estimates, the number of driver fatalities for
    older drivers will triple by 2030. That is a big number. That
    is about 24,000. Work zones--something near and dear to my
    heart, as I am a traffic safety contractor in the Chicago
    area--more and more work zones are being done at night. There
    is always a great deal of controversy as to whether or not we
    should keep a full stretch of construction highway closed, or
    if we should open lanes back up and let traffic expand back
    into the full lanes and close them again. More nighttime work
    poses a huge concern for us in terms of the work zone target
    area because I would certainly rather have my workers working
    beside congestion than high-speed traffic that, as was
    mentioned earlier, typically will involve more impaired drivers
    who left the bar at midnight or one o'clock in the morning and
    are driving home at high speeds.
        So it is important that we not lose focus on the fact that
    the roadway itself is something that we can control with more
    dedicated safety dollars that can be flexed at the State level.
        Ms. Van Mark. Thank you.
        I have just been given the green light, so I can ask
    another question, according to our moderator.
        This is for you, Mr. Hamberger. I will admit that the world
    of the railroad industry is a mystery to me, so I am hoping you
    can help me understand a few things. I know that the rail
    itself is private property, so when a person crosses over the
    rail at a grade crossing they are actually on private property,
    which is why I am assuming you refer to people who are on the
    track when a train hits them as trespassers, because they are
    on your property.
        Mr. Hamberger. That is correct.
        Ms. Van Mark. Under your proposal, you are asking us to
    increase the amount of money for Section 130 money to now
    handle the maintenance of those grade crossings. Who currently
    handles that maintenance and who is liable for that
    maintenance, or is anyone?
        Mr. Hamberger. The individual private railroads handle that
    maintenance. Our survey indicates that it costs the industry
    about $200 million a year to maintain the signal systems. If
    they don't work, we are liable. And so it is a major effort on
    our part, obviously, but what we would like to see, and just
    building on Kathi Holst and Brian Holmes on your previous
    question, those investments in the Section 130 program, if you
    separate a grade crossing, for example, it is a permanent
    remedy to a safety problem. You are not working on trying to
    change people's behavior. It is a physical investment that can
    be made that can remove that from a possible accident in the
    future. So if it is separated and, of course, if you improve
    the gates and have it be a more active grade crossing warning
    system, then obviously that has a tremendous impact as well.
        There was a study--I guess it was officially done in the
    1990's, I think John, that the Department of Transportation was
    directed by the Congress to determine what the proper cost
    allocation and whose responsibility it is to put those grade
    crossing signals in. It was determined that it is a highway
    responsibility, it is a highway safety responsibility, and the
    industry, the freight rail industry is responsible for as much
    as 10 percent of the cost, but it is generally in the 5 to 10
    percent investment. Then we have over the years taken on that
    responsibility of maintaining them.
        Ms. Van Mark. Just a real quick follow up to that, then--as
    I understand it, right now the railroad industry does pay a
    fuel tax that goes to deficit reduction.
        Mr. Hamberger. That is correct.
        Ms. Van Mark. And you would like, obviously, to eliminate
    that tax, but at the same time you are asking the highway
    community or specifically the Highway Trust Fund to make
    greater investments which you just showed us . . .
        Mr. Hamberger. In highway safety.
        Ms. Van Mark. . . . is private property. I am wondering,
    what would be the reaction of the rail industry if that money
    was redirected to the highway trust fund, thereby opening up
    more money for the types of program improvements that you are
    suggesting?
        Mr. Hamberger. Well, there are several problems with your
    question. It is not an investment in private property. It is an
    investment in highway safety.
        Ms. Van Mark. I guess from the perspective, you are asking
    the question is whether or not there is a problem, but go
    ahead.
        Mr. Hamberger. No, it is not an investment in private
    property. It is an investment in highway safety that is
    determined by the Department of Transportation, that this is a
    highway safety issue. The request that we have is that that
    Section 130 Program that is currently funded out of the Highway
    Trust Fund, properly so, as a highway safety program, recognize
    that there could be an even greater return on that investment
    if more money were spent. And so, the 4.3 cents, just to echo
    again what my friends in the highway industry say, the best way
    to improve safety and the best way to improve safe operations
    is to make sure that you have enough investment in the
    infrastructure. I have heard $41 billion, $50 billion, $60
    billion needed to invest in the highways. The freight railroads
    invest in their own infrastructure. We are the most capital
    intensive industry in the country. We routinely invest 16
    percent of our total revenues back into our own infrastructure,
    compared with manufacturing of about 3.5 to 4 percent.
        So what we suggest to you is that that money, which went
    for a very good cause, I suppose, to get rid of the Federal
    deficit, should be returned to us, as well as the barge and
    towing industry asking for the same thing, so that we can
    invest it in our own infrastructure.
        So I guess I have a disagreement with your basic premise
    that the investment of a grade crossing safety, whether it is a
    separation or whether it is a signal system, is an investment
    in private property. Rather, I think the Department of
    Transportation has determined it is an investment in highway
    safety.
        Ms. Van Mark. Since I have gone over my time by 9 minutes
    and 40 seconds, I will be quiet, but I hope we get a chance to
    talk about this some more.
        Mr. Hamberger. We will come back to it. Sure, of course,
    thank you.
        Mr. Haifley. Mitch Warren?
        Mr. Warren. Thanks. I would also like to thank everyone for
    making the trip and making another one of these symposiums a
    success. I want to thank John Haifley for his work in putting
    this together.
        I will ask a couple of more specific questions, I guess.
    One, in Ms. Roberts' written testimony, you propose
    consolidating the incentive grant programs into one large
    highway safety grant program, and the testimony provided some
    compelling arguments about the bureaucracy and bureaucratic
    issues involved in administering a number of similar programs.
        I wanted to give Ms. Hamilton an opportunity, as a
    representative of an advocacy group, just to respond to that
    proposal and provide your thoughts.
        Ms. Hamilton. You are talking about moving the 410 into the
    402 funds?
        Mr. Warren. Yes, consolidating.
        Ms. Hamilton. Consolidating everything together? I think
    that what we have to look at is, taking the numbers away from
    the sections is not the issue. What is important to look at is
    the effectiveness of the programs that are within those, in the
    repeat offender and in the open container, and making sure that
    the laws get passed across the board. We are not condemning
    those programs because they have been very effective. We do not
    want to close any doors on these. It is a good idea to know
    where that money is being spent, and if it is being spent
    effectively.
        Mr. Warren. Mr. Walsh, any thoughts on the issue?
        Mr. Walsh. Well, you know, in my 2 minute summary, we want
    to simplify the grant structure. The more grant programs there
    are and the more requirements that have to be met and the more
    reports or applications that have to be made, it puts a
    significant strain on the States that have to do the work.
        On the other hand, the tension, you know, mentioned by Ms.
    Hamilton is if you really believe there are specific actions
    that need to be taken to make a difference, arguably you have
    to target funds for those differences. It is a very complex
    equation.
        Mr. Warren. I will suspend my question for a moment and
    introduce Senator Reid.
        Senator Reid. Having just left cloning . . .
        [Laughter.]

                     STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

        Senator Reid. I apologize for being late. We were doing
    terrorism insurance, and all of a sudden cloning showed up. And
    I spent the last night and this morning trying to work that
    out. I think we have it worked out. We are working on an anti-
    terrorism insurance piece of legislation. It is extremely
    important to the country. We have realtors, developers,
    insurance industry and the financial institutions who are
    having real trouble because they are simply not writing anti-
    terrorism legislation. We have construction projects around the
    country on drawing boards that cannot go forward. We have
    construction projects that are being shut down, so we are
    trying to complete this, but the rules of the Senate make it
    real tough. But I think we are going to be able to get
    something out of the Senate next week.
        So that is where I have been. I apologize for being late. I
    will just take a little bit of time. My schedule is really a
    couple hours behind time already today. I have been on this
    committee since I came to the Senate. It is an extremely
    important committee. It is the public works committee of the
    Senate. And we address many important issue in the series of
    hearings and symposiums that we have had this year. We have
    developed a new way of approaching legislation. I thought we
    would try something different. For decades and decades, what we
    do is we have Senators up here and to be frank with you, that
    is about how it looks when we have a hearing. We do not have
    many people show up. So we have these Senators conducting the
    hearing, and the people that are really well-placed to ask the
    good questions are the staff sitting around doing nothing. They
    cannot ask questions in a formal hearing like that. So I
    thought we would come up with something else.
        We are fortunate to have extremely dedicated, loyal, public
    servants who work on various staffs in the Senate. They are
    really well-educated and extremely good. They are not involved
    enough, and they usually--not usually--they do most of the work
    as far as getting the legislation so that we are in a position
    to move it either out of the committee or on the Senate floor.
    And I felt this might be a good way to get them involved, and
    it has worked so well; that there is a good interchange of
    ideas and these valuable staff are able to ask questions. They
    usually, I am sure, sit back there while we are there, and say,
    why didn't you ask the question--and mumble a few other things,
    I am sure they do. This really has been a big help. We have
    made great progress.
        Now, we all understand the importance of moving things in
    our economy--freight. We understand how important it is to
    reduce congestion for improving our quality of life. And in the
    final analysis, though, we really have to take a look at
    safety. That is what this is all about here today. We have made
    great strides in safety. It goes without saying the progress we
    have made over the years. Roads are safer. Vehicles are safer
    to be in. But the level of fatalities still remains very, very
    high and it is unacceptable.
        As all of you know, more than 40,000 people die on our
    roads each year, and more than 3 million are injured every
    year. Highway safety is an issue that touches every one of us,
    and that is what this symposium is all about. I am glad we have
    people who are experts in this field to talk today to this
    committee.
        Once this symposium is completed, the information will of
    course be taken and shared with the rest of the committee
    members in preparation for moving next year our very important
    highway bill.
        So thank you for being here, and I again apologize for
    being late.
        Mr. Warren. Do you want to go through the 15-second quick
    sound bites or your presentations?
        Mr. Wright. Thank you, Senator Reid, for the opportunity to
    be here, and thanks to your staff and their leadership in
    putting together this symposium. I am Bud Wright with the
    Federal Highway Administration.
        Transportation safety, as you noted, is a national health
    issue resulting in more than 40,000 deaths and 3 million
    injuries per year. We must do better at addressing this
    epidemic. Our approach must be comprehensive, addressing
    drivers, vehicles and the roadway. It must be based on good
    data and it must be a collaborative effort in which Federal,
    State and local agencies and the public and private sectors
    work together.
        Thanks again.
        Mr. Warner. Thank you, Senator. I am Bruce Warner. I am the
    director of the Oregon Department of Transportation, also here
    representing the American Association of State Highway and
    Transportation Officials.
        To put the numbers in a little different spin, if the day
    is an average day, 114 people will lose their lives today on
    the States' and the Nation's highways and roads. Almost 9,000
    people will be injured. I agree with Bud that something needs
    to be done. I believe that the overall Federal investment in
    this program must be increased substantially, we believe at
    least one-third from where we are today. We also believe that
    the investment in transportation safety needs to nearly be
    doubled during that same time period.
        Mr. Walsh. Thank you, Senator Reid. This is a wonderful
    opportunity for us to get together and discuss a very important
    issue. My name is Bill Walsh. I am from the National Highway
    Traffic Safety Administration.
        Bud has mentioned the size of the problem. You cannot
    calculate the cost to American families of these tragedies. We
    have calculated the economic cost as being $230 billion. That
    is direct economic costs. It is something that affects the
    daily lives of everyone.
        We are in a position where we can make a difference and we
    must work together to make a difference.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Hamberger. Senator, Ed Hamberger with the Association
    of American Railroads. It is pleasure to be here.
        As you know, freight railroads are currently the safest
    mode of transportation in America. Our biggest problem is the
    grade crossing fatalities that occur--about 400 a year, a
    little over 400. There is a very worthwhile, effective Section
    130 Program that this committee has funded over the years,
    which has brought that number down from over 1,000. We just
    encourage you to continue to fund it at higher levels,
    hopefully when you reauthorize.
        Ms. Roberts. Good morning, Senator Reid. I am Tricia
    Roberts with the Delaware Office of Highway Safety and I am
    representing the National Association of Governor's Highway
    Safety Representatives.
        States have clearly made a lot of progress in highway
    safety, primarily as a result of TEA-21, but more must be done.
    In effect, we have reached the low-hanging fruit--those persons
    that are easy to convince to drive safely. If we are to make
    further headway with the more difficult populations, States
    must have stable and reliable funding, simpler more
    consolidated programs, more resources to address specific
    target populations and emerging safety issues, better data,
    additional safety research and other tools.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Holmes. Good morning, Senator. I am Brian Holmes,
    Maryland Highway Contractors, here today for the American Road
    and Transportation Builders.
        We believe that all aspects of the Federal Highway Program
    have significant safety benefits and that absent a commitment
    to substantially increase funding, we are playing a zero-sum
    game here. We are just trying to eat each other's lunch instead
    of working together collaboratively to really address and get a
    real handle on safety issues.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Hamilton. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Wendy
    Hamilton and I am President-elect of Mothers Against Drunk
    Driving.
        We are deeply concerned at the number of people that are
    killed in alcohol-related crashes. That is 40 percent. That
    number is not moving. MADD's goal for the reauthorization of
    TEA-21 is to save lives and our objective is to ensure a
    substantial funding increase for priority traffic safety
    programs.
        Thank you.
        Senator Reid. I appreciate very much everyone--oh, I missed
    a couple. Let me just say this, though, on drunk driving. Reno,
    Nevada recently we had a drunk driver go the wrong way on a
    freeway; killed five in a family. He was uninjured, of course.
    I just have so much difficulty understanding why people still
    drive and drink. I just don't understand it. It is a mystery to
    me and I do not know what more we can do, but that is one thing
    I want to make sure that we do whatever we can to get these
    people off the roads. It is a terrible tragedy--all five of
    this family killed for no reason. There was no way this family
    could have avoided being killed.
        Mr. Hill. Good morning, Senator. I am D.B. Hill, III. I am
    a highway contractor from Little Rock, Arkansas.
        Senator Reid. You sound like it.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Hill. Thank you. I am going to take that as a
    compliment.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Hill. I am also chairman of AGC's Work Zone Safety
    Committee.
        In 2000, nearly, 1,100 people were killed in highway work
    zones, most motorists and our employees. Just Wednesday, 2 days
    ago, there were six deaths in a single work zone accident on
    one of our jobs in Eastern Arkansas. AGC contractors are deeply
    troubled by this trend. Incentives need to be created to
    promote more driver awareness, to provide better enforcement of
    traffic laws, and to encourage States to make wider use of
    positive barrier separation and other work zone safety devices.
        Thank you, sir.
        Ms. Holst. Good morning, Senator. I am Kathi Holst,
    President of the American Traffic Safety Services Association.
        ATSSA's core purpose is to advance roadway safety. I am
    here to urge you to invest $3 billion annually to make
    America's roads safer by addressing high risk roadway
    activities, targeting older drivers, work zones, intersections,
    pedestrians and speeding. I very much appreciate the
    opportunity to be here.
        Senator Reid. Mr. Hill, I did mean that as a compliment.
        Mr. Hill. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Reid. Thank you all very much for your being here.
    Just from the little bit that I have been able to hear, I look
    forward to my briefing on this next week.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Haifley. Mitch Warren?
        Mr. Warren. I will just finish up real quick.
        Ms. Hamilton. Can I clarify one thing, please, on the
    Section 402 response that I had given earlier?
        Mr. Haifley. Sure.
        Ms. Hamilton. In regards to consolidating--Wendy Hamilton
    from MADD--the impaired driving countermeasures to a single 402
    program, MADD's priority is to reduce the number of traffic
    fatalities and injuries. The committee should evaluate the
    effectiveness of all programs. MADD supports streamlining the
    grant programs and the consolidation should be an option with
    the goal of saving lives through the proven effective programs.
        Mr. Haifley. Thank you.
        OK?
        Ms. Roberts. If I can just address your question also.
    Tricia Roberts from NAGHSR. I cannot stress enough how
    difficult from a State perspective those who are responsible
    for administering these dollars and administering all eight of
    the grant programs, plus the two penalty provisions, how
    difficult and cumbersome all of these programs have been to
    administer. Not that we are not grateful for the increase in
    funding and all the programs it has allowed us to do, but it
    has caused an incredible amount of administrative headaches and
    much, much too much time put on just administering the
    programs, rather than focusing on what the money is really
    there for, and that is for program development, implementation
    and evaluation of the effectiveness of the programs that we are
    implementing. Consolidation is essential.
        Mr. Warner. Bruce Warner with the Oregon Department of
    Transportation. I want to make it clear from AASHTO's
    perspective, one of the things we are recommending is that you
    folks require that States come up with a goal-oriented
    performance-based comprehensive safety plan that looks at all
    elements--engineering, education, enforcement and emergency
    services. We believe that if the States do that and do that
    with the coordination and cooperation that should be required,
    they are going to identify the priority areas for the State. If
    for example somebody said that they wanted to put the majority
    of their efforts on seat belts, they ought to have the ability
    in their States to use the money as flexibly as possible to
    attack what they believe is the No. 1 problem in their
    particular State, where they can again get the biggest bang for
    the buck and make the most impact in terms of the lives saved
    and the injuries reduced.
        So I think that what we are saying is we want flexibility
    in the use of those dollars to implement those strategic and
    safety plans that the States should do and should do in a
    comprehensive, coordinated manner.
        Mr. Warren. Mr. Walsh, a quick question for you on
    intersection-related crashes. Do you have any data or any
    feedback that has shown whether or not red light cameras have
    been effective at reducing crashes at intersections?
        Mr. Walsh. Yes, but I cannot remember the number.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Walsh. Yes, in fact there is a wide range, and I would
    be happy to supply it to you. There have been a number of
    research studies done, and many of the studies it is shown to
    be very, very effective, very high percentage of crashes are
    eliminated. I will provide that for you later.
        Mr. Wright. I was just going to add that as was stated
    earlier, enforcement really is a key in many areas of what we
    do. It is also clear pre-9-11, but certainly post 9-11, that
    the enforcement community has many priorities and many
    activities to deal with. Anything that we can do to advance
    enforcement using automated technologies is going to be a net
    benefit. There are right ways and wrong ways to do it, however,
    and we very much believe that ensuring, as I stated earlier,
    that proper engineering takes place at intersections before
    automated technology is used is a key element to that.
        But given that circumstance, we do believe that automated
    technology and red light running enforcement can make a
    difference. As Bill stated, there are statistics that show that
    they are effective means and effective tools.
        Ms. Roberts. Tricia Roberts. Just a little add-on to the
    red light running--I have just been told that the Insurance
    Institute for Highway Safety actually did do a study on an
    automated red light running project that is happening in
    Oxnard, California, I believe. They did show a 29 percent
    reduction in fatalities through that project evaluation.
        Mr. Holmes. Speaking from a personal experience with a red
    light camera, I did not stop making a right turn. I did not go
    through it. I mean, I did not go through the intersection. But
    the idea, and this was in Maryland, the idea that you pay a
    fine. It does not get reported. It is a civil matter. The
    insurance company never finds out about it. I think it would
    have huge benefits if you would install some of them in
    construction work zones. I do not know if the technology is
    there, but if we could just start mailing them out to people
    and said, hey, when we said slow down to 45, we meant it.
    Please give us $75. I think people would start slowing down
    pretty quickly.
        Mr. Haifley. That was Brian Holmes, for the record.
        Mr. Hill. And I am D.B. Hill, and I concur with him
    wholeheartedly, that we think it would significantly reduce
    speed through a work zone.
        Ms. Holst. This Kathi Holst with ATSSA. There is the
    technology available. There has been tremendous strides in
    smart work zones, intelligent transportation systems, all of
    which could certainly be incorporated into automated
    enforcement.
        Mr. Warren. Thank you. Thank you all very much for coming
    again. I appreciate it.
        Mr. Haifley. Megan Stanley, for 8 minutes.
        Ms. Stanley. Thanks.
        I think I am going to pick up on the end of this discussion
    about work zone safety and enforcement. Anecdotally, I think
    that 10 years ago, I had an expectation that I would get a
    ticket if I sped through a work zone, probably because I did
    get a ticket speeding through a work zone around that
    timeframe. But over time, I think that as work zones, as we do
    more highway construction and people are used to seeing them
    more often, and then they do not see people often when they are
    going by the traffic cones, so that expectation of safety risk
    and of enforcement of the speed reduction has disseminated over
    time, and I think that that is probably part of the cause, as I
    am sure you well know, of the increasing dangers of work zone
    fatalities and injuries.
        So I think whatever we can do in that area to raise
    awareness is going to be a positive benefit. I bet everyone in
    this room, like I do, wears their seat belt and does not drive
    drunk. But perhaps after today, you will not speed through work
    zones anymore. So I would like to ask a question of Mr. Hill.
    You mentioned incentives for doing some of what I think are
    extremely good ideas, like the different classifications of
    work zones, obviously increased enforcement. But who is
    responsible for implementing these measures in a work zone and
    how would incentives be targeted to make improvements?
        Mr. Hill. Generally speaking, the people that implement
    them are the State highway transportation organizations. That
    is who tells us as contractors what traffic control devices and
    develops the traffic control plan. Some States, contractors
    have input into the traffic control plan. Other States, they do
    not. The incentives we are talking about are an additional
    amount of money. We do not want to take it from other funds
    that are generated now. We want a new batch of money. In AGC's
    comments on reauthorization, there are several places it can
    come from. But we do not want the State highway organizations
    to have to make the choice between more asphalt and concrete
    and safety. Because in fact, they are doing that right now. We
    want this new money so if they have a good idea about how to
    make a work zone safer, then the Federal Highway Administration
    can award them extra dollars to do that.
        That is what we are talking about as incentives for work
    zone safety. Some States do a better job with it than others,
    from what I understand. Safety is a greater issue in some
    States than in others. Sometimes it seems to be where there
    have been accidents that kill workers, that those States are
    more interested in work zone safety, but do not let them have
    to choose between the two.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Holst. This is Kathi Holst with ATSSA. Mr. Hill's point
    is dead on. When cuts have to be made or when projects
    involving work zones have reached funding constraints, in all
    cases that I am aware of it is the safety aspect that gets cut
    from the program. I would like to share with you a very recent
    story as an example. I am the traffic control subcontractor on
    a very large reconstruction project on Interstate 70 in the
    down-State area in Illinois. The project involves
    reconstruction of a bridge deck. One of the safety devices that
    was called for in the traffic control plans, which was designed
    by the Illinois Department of Transportation, called for a very
    low-cost temporary barrier, a type-three barricade, the
    technical term is, which is a three-rail device, to close off a
    lane temporarily where the bridge deck was being removed. That
    is a very slow process, and so for a great deal of the time
    that that particular lane is being constructed, the route is
    actually driveable.
        Local residents and motorists figured this out quite early
    in the project. So on a regular basis, the motorists during the
    night hours would actually get out and move the type-three
    barricade and continue on through what was the closed lane of
    the reconstruction project. In all of our reports to the
    contractor and the Department of Transportation, we urge them
    to reconsider substituting these type-three, very portable
    devices with concrete barrier wall, which as you all know, a
    10-foot section you cannot pick up just by getting out of your
    car.
        Because of budget constraints, that request was denied and
    we continued to use these type-three barricades. And because
    part of my responsibility on the project is to perform a
    surveillance operation every night to make sure that the
    project is in good working order, we would continue to come
    upon these type-three barricades that had been moved and we
    would put them back, and we would continue on through the 20
    miles of the project and come back and quite often find them
    moved again.
        About 3 weeks ago, I received a call from the foreman on
    the project who informed me that once again these type-three
    barricades had been moved by a local motorist. Unfortunately,
    however, that day the rest of the bridge deck had been removed
    and it was no longer driveable. Therefore, his car plummeted to
    the roadway below and he was killed. Today, concrete barrier
    wall is now on that job site, but that is what it took.
        I am certain that there are many other contractors in this
    room that can relate those same types of stories. Let me give
    you another very quick one. There are now truck-mounted
    attenuator crash cushions that are mounted on follow vehicles
    in slow-moving or mobile operations throughout the country.
    These are extraordinary devices and have saved thousands of
    lives, I am certain. Because of some crash-worthiness studies
    at higher speeds, there is new technology for improved crash
    cushions that are called for on speeds of over 45 miles an
    hour. However, because of safety funding constraints, not all
    Departments of Transportation at the State level can keep up
    with those new technologies. Very recently, within the last
    month, a motorist was killed when he was driving 70 miles an
    hour and crashed into a crash cushion, which if he had only
    been going 45 miles or under would have saved his life.
    Unfortunately, however, that did not occur.
        So often, safety is the first thing to go. Maintenance of
    pavement markings will be delayed if the States run out of
    money. However, on a project when you have to choose between
    tons of asphalt or pavement markings, you cannot reduce the
    tonnage of asphalt and complete the project. So the pavement
    markings get delayed, both in construction and maintenance
    projects. I am certain that we have all driven the Nation's
    highways and seen signs that are terribly illegible--the
    sheeting has faded, the words have faded, some copy has perhaps
    even fallen off. I drive I-65 between my office in the Chicago
    area and another of my offices in West Lafayette, Indiana.
    There is a guidance sign that has been down for the 3 months
    that I have been driving. It is still there, but it is down--
    certain that the State funding is too tight to have to replace
    that sign.
        However, if there was a major asphalt problem on that road
    where cars would not be able to pass, I am pretty certain that
    the asphalt trucks would be out there fixing that problem.
        So we certainly urge that safety dollars be dedicated to
    these low-cost target area type improvements--pavement
    markings, signage. They are low cost. They have high benefit-
    to-cost ratios. Pavement markings, for example, is a 60 to one
    benefit-to-cost ratio. These types of eligible safety programs
    and activities have multiple uses, and certainly a wide
    coverage of benefits and opportunities.
        Mr. Holmes. Brian Holmes. I cannot speak to the issue of
    safety getting short-changed when it comes to the design of
    work zones. I do not have any knowledge of that. But there is a
    cost-based bias against positive separation. In other words, I
    think it would be helpful on the issue of work zone safety is
    basically we did not have work zones. If we had detours, if we
    constructed our pavements to begin with wide enough so that you
    could shift traffic over and put a barrier between them, so
    that you do not have the situation where you are directly--you
    know, you are working right next to traffic with a visual
    guide, instead of some physical protection next to you.
        I think that ties in with what was said earlier by one of
    my fellow panelists about getting safety and actually its
    maintenance, too, at the table in the planning stage. If you
    plan your facilities to maintain them, you can address some of
    these issues. It is kind of foolish to build a bridge and know
    you have to replace it in 40 or 50 years and you do not have
    any right-of-way. You should actually have twice what you need
    to build a bridge so that you have a place to build its
    replacement.
        Ms. Hamilton. Wendy Hamilton with MADD.
        We certainly agree that spending money on roadway design
    and vehicle design is incredibly important. We also know that
    focusing on people's behavior does make a difference. That is
    what was proven in the 1980's. We have to use consistent
    visible enforcement and we have to continuously educate and re-
    educate the public on the problems. Billions and billions of
    dollars are spent every year on roadway construction, fixing
    the roads, and that is critical. But we are spending only a
    fraction of our resources on highway safety programs.
        Let me reiterate this point, that if 90 percent of the
    people in this country use seat belts, that 5,000 lives would
    be saved. That is a pretty simple fix. With regular highly
    publicized sobriety checkpoints that we conduct in every single
    State, we will see huge reductions in alcohol-related
    fatalities. We know what works. We just need more money to do
    it, to change behaviors.
        Ms. Stanley. Thank you for that point. I agree. I think
    that it is a matter of visible enforcement and it is a great
    challenge, I am sure, because that is a local law enforcement
    and a resources issue. I seem to think that there used to be a
    lot more police officer and law enforcement in and around work
    zones in the past than I have certainly seen anytime in the
    past recent years. So there has been a change in that kind of
    activity. I think that more of that would go a long way toward
    improving safety.
        My time is up. Thank you.
        Mr. Haifley. Thank you.
        I think it is time for a break. We are 18 minutes behind
    schedule, so could we make it a very brief break. And could I
    call on the gentleman with the American flag tie and the ODOT
    people there in the back to pull the sodas out from under the
    tables. I thank Ed Hamberger and Association for providing
    refreshments to all of you.
        Mr. Hamberger. It was railroaded in today.
        Mr. Haifley. No more than 10 minutes--hard 10 minutes.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Haifley. I want to take this opportunity again to thank
    the Association of American Railroads--Ed Hamberger--for the
    fine refreshments. Thank you all for returning quickly. I would
    like to recognize a very senior individual, Ann Loomis, Senator
    Warner.
        Ms. Loomis. Thank you, and thank you all for coming today.
        I had some initial questions planned which I now intend to
    modify based on the conversations. Senator Warner was very
    involved in the repeat offender program and extremely
    supportive with Senator Chafee--he was author of our safety
    belt incentive grant program. We are very anxious to continue
    following how they have been effective, how we can improve them
    or perhaps modify them or other directions we need to take with
    those basic programs.
        I think from what I have heard this morning, though, I
    would like to engage everyone's response in this whole question
    of consolidation of the safety programs. As many of you know,
    this committee does not completely have jurisdiction over all
    the safety programs. We share jurisdiction with--we do not
    share jurisdiction. The Commerce Committee does have exclusive
    jurisdiction over some of the NHTSA programs.
        But I think Senator Warner has been privileged to be a
    member of the committee since 1985 and has worked on three
    Surface Transportation Reauthorization bills. I think we see
    the multiplication of these types of programs over time,
    frankly because of frustration on the part of the States'
    attention to these problems. Now, maybe we have all matured and
    grown over time, and we would like to work with the States and
    others on how we can simplify them to improve their
    effectiveness.
        But the key issue is going to be to ensure that we do not
    lose focus on what each one was intended; if it is just a pure
    block grant, that we do not lose focus on drunk driving
    initiatives or increasing safety belt use, and many other
    things. And maybe Ms. Roberts and then Mr. Warner, you can
    comment on how we could accomplish that without losing that
    focus.
        Ms. Roberts. Tricia Roberts, thank you.
        The fact that the States have been given incredible
    flexibility since 1994 to do really just what you are hoping
    that we will continue to do, and that is to focus on problem
    areas that have been identified in every individual States
    based on State data-driven problem identification, to create
    performance-based strategies based on the data that is
    available in the States.
        I want to assure you, speaking on behalf of the States,
    that should we be allowed to continue to have this flexible use
    of this money, of these funds, that we will continue to base
    our programming decisions and initiatives on data-driven
    problem identification. It is no secret to anyone that in every
    State, the top problems, the leading problems based on the data
    available is, as was mentioned in earlier testimony, booze,
    belts and the more broad, beyond speed, aggressive driving. I
    see no chance of emphasis coming away from that if we continue
    to be able to base our programming initiatives on data-driven
    problem identification in our individual States.
        Mr. Warner. Bruce Warner, the Oregon Department of
    Transportation.
        I think that was a very good response, and I would say the
    same. Again, based on if the States are required and do a
    comprehensive look at the safety requirements from all of the
    aspects of the programs, and for example if they could declare
    victory in seat belt usage, as an example--we are not there
    yet--and they wanted to focus more of those revenues toward
    drunk driving or DUII type of issues, based on the data and the
    priorities, that may be what they want to do. I still think we
    are a long ways. We need to continue to focus on the three top
    areas that you just heard about. I suspect that you will see
    the States come up with those. But again, as information
    becomes available, as we make progress in other areas, we may
    want to find that elderly drivers, for example, should be an
    emphasis area that we want to focus on, especially as the
    demographics and the age of the population changes over time.
        Ms. Loomis. Well, I think that is another thing that we
    have been hearing this morning. Clearly, TEA-21 did focus a lot
    on safety belt use and drunk driving issues through the repeat
    offender and the .08 Incentive Grant Program and the open
    container requirements. But clearly, we did not address as much
    attention to work zone safety and the more prominent issue,
    really, of older American drivers.
        How do we address the issue to give a Federal focus on
    those two additional problems without further creating more
    problems that you are describing, Ms. Roberts, in
    administering? Because States could focus on older Americans
    today. You could focus on increased safety measures in work
    zones today. But if you feel you need a Federal focus on that
    to get States to pay attention to those two problems, how are
    we not further creating more multiple programs, that you say
    are difficult to administer and take more staff time to
    administer?
        Ms. Roberts. Tricia Roberts. I am not sure that we really--
    how can I put this? I am not sure the issues will really
    change. When you identify a particular priority highway safety
    problem in your State, whether that be booze, belts, aggressive
    driving, once you have identified that problem, you have to
    identify appropriate strategies to address or alleviate
    whatever that problem is.
        We are really talking about a specific population. We are
    not really putting mature drivers in the category of the
    highway safety problem, so to speak, like booze, belts or
    aggressive driving. But rather, they are a target population
    that needs to have education and enforcement initiatives or
    programs developed that address the problems associated with
    that particular population, just like a young driver, minority
    populations that may be over-represented. This is just another
    population that a State can effectively address the specific
    problems that have been identified to that population, like the
    elderly or the mature driver.
        Ms. Loomis. I guess, our States doing that today? Or do you
    not see that as still as high a priority as safety belt use and
    drunk driving issues? So my question is, what direction do you
    need from the Federal Government to focus on older American
    drivers or do you? Mr. Warner, you may want to comment.
        Mr. Warner. Again, Bruce Warner, the Oregon Department of
    Transportation. I want to make it clear that first off, I think
    we are talking about we need an increased investment in safety.
    We do not believe what we have is adequate. And what I think we
    are saying, if you look at the grants or the programs that are
    there, some of the things we are talking about do not fit in
    very well with those. The impaired driver, elderly driver is
    not the term I like to use. The word ``impaired'' driver is
    what we really want to talk about.
        I think we need some flexibility to be able to put some
    money into some of the things I have talked about in terms of
    identifying some of the impairments that maybe we need to work
    on, so that again we can get drivers off the road that should
    not be driving. We do not have some of the tools or the
    technology. I would like to quite frankly use some of these
    dollars to get to that. In some cases, because of the demands
    for the dollars to do some of the basics, the priorities we are
    talking about, we do not have the funds to invest in those kind
    of technologies or research.
        Ms. Loomis. Well, are you saying you would like flexibility
    to use your existing safety dollars that may be for safety
    belts or alcohol-related programs to spend on other safety
    programs? Or do you want flexibility from construction dollars
    for these programs?
        Mr. Warner. Again, if you look at the AASHTO proposal, what
    we are suggesting is we need to create a single 402 grant
    program that essentially combines all of those together so that
    we can have the flexibility to do what we think--put the money
    where we think it will do the most good. If impaired drivers is
    one of those areas, we ought to have the flexibility to be able
    to do that. We also need additional revenues to address the
    issues sufficiently.
        Ms. Loomis. Thank you.
        Mr. Haifley. Go ahead. I yield the gentlelady two
    additional minutes. Ann?
        Ms. Loomis. I just wondered if Kathi could . . .
        Ms. Holst. Thank you. Kathi Holst, ATSSA.
        Whereas the current safety programs that have been referred
    to target behavioral issues in general, what we are looking for
    is a distinction that takes congressional priority for those
    types of infrastructure issues--low cost, high value, target
    areas--such as older drivers. The Federal Highway
    Administration has developed guidelines and recommendations
    here to address the needs of older drivers. That is an example
    of the things that might be incorporated into a roadway safety
    program, distinctive of behavioral issues.
        Older drivers needs things like brighter signs, wider edge
    lines, larger fonts on signs so that they can be read from a
    further distance. You need three times as much light to see
    something at 65 as you did when you were 20. At 40, we need
    twice as much. And gosh knows, I am already there. So there is
    an issue between--a distinction that we would like to see
    between behavioral types of issues and infrastructure-type
    issues that target these areas at a low cost.
        Ms. Loomis. Thank you.
        Mr. Haifley. Lori Saroff, Senator Boxer's office.
        Ms. Hamilton. Thank you. Wendy Hamilton from MADD.
        I would like to thank Senator Warner for his leadership on
    the repeat offender issues. We have to remember that 58 percent
    of the people that were killed in 2000 in alcohol-related
    traffic crashes were killed with a .15 BAC or higher. We cannot
    lose focus on that kind of thing. So I would like to submit for
    the record MADD's program for controlling the higher risk
    driver, which includes the repeat offender drunk driver, those
    with a blood alcohol concentration of .15 or more; and to
    remind people that we are looking for restrictions on driving
    for those people. We are looking for restitution sanctions for
    people. And we are looking for recovery provisions which will
    address the alcohol use problems of these drivers.
        [Information provided by MADD follows:]

    Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) Program for Controlling the Higher
                                  Risk Driver

    Higher Risk Drivers Are:
        a. Offenders convicted (conviction is defined as receiving a court-
    imposed sanction) of a second driving-under-the-influence offense
    within a 5-year period. b. Offenders convicted of a first driving-
    under-the-influence offense with a BAC of .15 percent or higher. c.
    Offenders convicted of a driving-while-suspended offense, where the
    suspension was the result of a conviction for driving under the
    influence.

    Minimum Sanctions for Higher Risk Drivers:
        a. RESTRICTIONS on Driving:
        Repeat Offenders and High-BAC Drivers:
        1. A 1-year administrative license suspension for people who fail
    the breath test or a 2-year suspension penalty for refusal of the
    breath test. A portion of that license suspension must be a hard
    suspension (recommended time: 90 days)
        2. Impoundment/immobilization of the vehicle driven at the time of
    arrest for the period of hard license suspension.
        3. A 5-year period from the date of conviction during which the
    offender is subject to a .05 BAC limit and required to provide a breath
    test, if requested by an officer following a legal traffic stop.
        4. Alcohol ignition interlock required prior to issuance of
    probationary/hardship/work permit license and for full license
    suspension period.

    Driving-While-Suspended Offenders:
        1. Alcohol ignition interlock device required for remaining license
    suspension period and any additional suspension period imposed as a
    result of the conviction for driving while suspended.
        2. A 1-month vehicle impoundment or immobilization upon the first
    offense for driving while suspended with vehicle forfeiture for any
    subsequent offenses.

    b. RESTITUTION sanctions:
        Repeat Offenders and High BAC Drivers:
        1. Ten days incarceration, 30 days in a special facility, or 100
    days house arrest with electronic monitoring.
        2. $1,000 fine earmarked for drunk driving prevention, enforcement,
    and prosecution.
        3. If arrest resulted from involvement in a crash, the court shall
    require restitution to the victims.

    Driving While Suspended Offenders
        1. If arrest resulted from involvement in a crash, the court shall
    require restitution to the victims

    c. RECOVERY provisions
        Repeat Offenders and High BAC Drivers:
        1. The court will place the offender under probation for 2 years.
        2. The court will require, under the terms of probation, that the
    offender attends a treatment program of up to a year in duration, as
    required by a State certified substance abuse treatment agency.
        3. During the treatment period, the offender will be required to
    meet with a case manager at least once a month who will ensure that the
    offender is attending treatment as specified by the treatment agency
    and remains abstinent.
        4. The court shall order the offender to attend a victim impact
    panel, if such a panel is available.

    Sobriety Checkpoints
        MADD advocates the use of regular, highly publicized sobriety
    checkpoints as a means of deterring, identifying, and apprehending
    higher risk drivers and other potential offenders.

    Data Collection and Record-Keeping
        MADD urges the establishment and implementation of statewide DUI
    tracking and recordkeeping in order to effectively identify higher risk
    drivers and to ensure that States gather and keep accurate records on
    offenders.
        Ms. Saroff. OK. Take two. Hi, I lost my name tag here, but
    I am Lori Saroff and I work for Senator Boxer.
        The questions today are not necessarily hers. They are my
    viewpoints since I am trying to find out while I work with her
    to work on TEA-21 reauthorization. In the past, she has been
    very involved in safety issues--crash test dummies, ensuring
    different sizes for testing cars, hours of service for truck
    drivers, rollover standards, and we are still strongly working
    on NAFTA trucks and the safety issues that are going to happen
    on California's highways.
        I really also want to thank the committee for holding this
    today. I think it is a great forum to start talking about these
    issues. At the same time, I am sorry that advocates for highway
    safety are not here. Consumer Union is not here. They have done
    a lot of work on rollovers. Though we are talking a lot--the
    quality of the roads, the behavior of the drivers--a third
    component I think is also the cars people drive. They drive a
    lot of SUVs. You know, it is interesting how the rollover is
    impacting our crash numbers.
        And also, I think somebody from academia that we can work
    with as we are going through this--some new ideas in safety.
    Because one of the major things that I have heard and read last
    night and the testimony I have heard today is more money.
    Everybody wants more money. I am trying to figure out how you
    would use this more money. This is a different era than it was
    back when we were doing ISTEA reauthorization. We wanted to get
    it to a $32 billion program. You mentioned a $41 billion
    program. We are very constrained with the war on terrorism. So
    I really want to know, if we are able to get more money, where
    is that going to be spent.
        The first, I guess, MADD testimony talked about more money
    for NHTSA. How do you envision NHTSA having more funds, because
    I do know that they are underfunded?
        Ms. Hamilton. You mean the National Traffic Safety Fund?
    Yes. Where we would get that money?
        Ms. Saroff. No. How would you envision them spending that
    money? Where would you see more money for NHTSA being spent?
        Ms. Hamilton. More money being spent on . . .
        Ms. Saroff. How should they be using their resources?
        Ms. Hamilton. On more programs that are effective that are
    proven with the research that we have, and certainly on more
    enforcement and education in all areas of traffic safety, but
    certainly to be sure that because 40 percent of the people are
    killed in alcohol-related crashes, only 26 percent of that
    money is spent on alcohol safety programs. We want to make sure
    that there is more money spent in those areas.
        Ms. Saroff. Have you thought about how NHTSA would be
    complementing what the States are doing? Would it be a separate
    program? More of a national educational level? I am trying to
    figure out, if we give NHTSA more money, where should we put
    this more money? Should we give more money to the States for
    their safety programs or should we really concentrate it at the
    Federal level?
        I can also go to NHTSA. How do you feel like you need
    more--I know, you don't want to have a question--but how would
    you feel? Where do you think that NHTSA is lacking in funding
    and where you could use more money?
        Ms. Roberts. We would say the 402 Program.
        Mr. Walsh. Are you doing anything for lunch?
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Saroff. I know it is a long question, but . . .
        Mr. Walsh. I don't mean that. I mean privately.
        I think what you will hear from NHTSA when we wind through
    the whole process is that in this behavioral area, which is
    really the primary focus of this meeting, we do have a Federal
    role in our Section 403 Research and Demonstration Program. You
    know, the real action--the States have to do it. The local
    governments have to do it. The 403 Program develops new
    programs, potentially more effective programs, more effective
    enforcement schemes, looking at more effective deployment of
    enforcement resources et cetera.
        I think that the problem is so complex that we probably
    could be a value to the States if we had the ability to do more
    research. The emerging areas that you have heard about with
    elderly. We have distracted driving. There are emerging issues
    that more work needs to be done on. But clearly, I think you
    have heard today that it is such a difficult program and
    problem that the States need more resources to carry out the
    actual interventions.
        So I think it would be a balance. I am going to be very
    general. I cannot really be specific. But it would be--I think
    the need is great and that we could make use of the money and
    be effective. I know that is really insipid, but that is the
    best I can do here.
        Ms. Saroff. I do not know if Mr. Warner or Ms. Roberts want
    to follow up on that, because both of you I think in your
    testimony talked about more funding. I know you had talked
    about a $41 billion program, and obviously all of that is not
    going for safety. But I am just trying to see if you see new
    money, new programs, or just enhancing what you have, that you
    cannot do what you need to do now.
        Ms. Roberts. Tricia Roberts. It is clear I believe that the
    States could maintain the programs that we have implemented
    under TEA-21 with the current level of funding. There is no
    question about that. But could we improve upon those programs
    and enhance the amount of enforcement? The answer is no. There
    is clearly more funding needed for those efforts. With
    additional funding, the States could support significantly more
    enforcement of highway safety laws, laws that are needed in
    order to influence these populations that we have been talking
    about--the populations. And those are the hard-to-influence
    populations, be they the mature driver, the teen driver, the
    non-seat belt user. They are incredibly difficult to reach with
    the amount of resources that we have right now.
        With additional funding, the States could also undertake a
    whole range of programs to address specific target populations
    that I just mentioned, and as must mentioned, emerging highway
    safety issues.
        One thing we have not talked about at all today, this is
    the first time I have even heard it brought up, is distracted
    driving.
        Ms. Saroff. Cell phones.
        Ms. Roberts. Well, distracted driving.
        Ms. Saroff. I have just gotten one. My boss, because I have
    talked about it, I know Senator Corzine has a bill about cell
    phones, and there is an article in here, ``Should Legislators
    Regulate Cell Phone Use While Driving?'' So I mean, those are
    new things coming up.
        Ms. Roberts. Those are emerging issues, hot on the minds of
    most of the general public, and little to know research, again,
    is available for us to really effectively address those issues
    at this point. Again, more need for more resources for research
    are needed.
        So the answer is yes, we do need more money to be able to
    do more than what we are doing right now.
        Mr. Holmes. Hi, Brian Holmes.
        It seems to me that it is evident that safety,
    transportation safety ought to become a serious research
    discipline so that, No. 1, that would of course be built on a
    solid source of reliable data. Several people have complained
    that the data they get now are kind of a hodgepodge of
    different recording systems. It seems to me that we are kind of
    fumbling here in the dark. We are trying to achieve an
    objective and we all have an angle on it and nobody really
    knows the answer.
        So it seems to me that if we are going to take this
    seriously, we ought to make a commitment and start doing some
    serious study on it, and that is one of the objectives that
    ARTBA has for seeking the increased funding levels we keep
    talking about.
        We do not know all the answers, so it is really hard to say
    that, well, if you gave us more money, we could do this and do
    that.
        Ms. Saroff. Then that is an issue. We do not want to just--
    these are tight budget times. We obviously do not want to just
    throw out money and not know where they are going to be spent,
    because we need to get the bang for our buck. I think
    congressionally, I think that that is what the Senators are
    going to be looking at.
        Does Ms. Hamilton want to follow up?
        Ms. Hamilton. Yes, I think we do need to make sure that we
    are spending that money effectively. One of the things that we
    would suggest is that we remove the hazard elimination
    component of the Section 154 and 164, and put that money back
    into just highway safety programs for alcohol-impaired
    countermeasures. The other thing is that on October 1 of 2004,
    the sanctions component for .08 is going to kick into effect,
    and States are going to--that money can go back into 402 funds.
    I believe that is about $100 million.
        Ms. Saroff. Do you feel that--I guess this was after TEA-
    21, but the .08 sanction that was passed 2 years ago, do you
    feel that that is working? Do you see more States implementing
    .08 legislation?
        Ms. Hamilton. Well, clearly, we worked for years and years
    and years in the States to get .08 passed, and one State a year
    would pass it. After Congress passed .08 in 2000, we saw 13
    States come on board and now it is up to 31 States and the
    District of Columbia. So sanctions clearly worked in that area.
    They worked with the 21 minimum drinking age and zero
    tolerance.
        When we look at this patchwork quilt of laws that we have
    across the country, I want to know that my family is going to
    be just as safe driving in Utah and New York as they are in
    Louisiana and Alaska where the fatalities are horrendous. We
    have got to do something that is going to make these States
    come into compliance with what the Federal Government is asking
    them to do on open container, repeat offender, the other laws,
    and make sure that everybody is safe.
        Ms. Saroff. Thank you very much. That is it. Thank you.
        Mr. Haifley. Mr. Hill?
        Mr. Hill. From the contracting community, we think more
    funds could be used in work zone safety. Like Ms. Stanley was
    talking about, she has not seen as much law enforcement in work
    zones in recent years as she said 10 years ago. Additional
    funding could be used for that.
        Ms. Saroff. To supplement the State Police?
        Mr. Hill. Yes, ma'am.
        New technology, photo enforcement, radar, intelligent
    technology systems that warn people of construction ahead, lane
    closures, traffic backups. So the contracting community does
    feel that additional funding could be very helpful in those
    areas.
        Ms. Holst. In terms of roadway safety-type activities, let
    me just give you some numbers. Federal Highway recommends that
    lane markings be expanded to a minimum of six inches, for
    example, for older drivers. The cost of that over a 6-year
    period of a reauthorization bill is just under $4 billion.
    Crash cushions, both in temporary use and in permanent use, at
    bridge abutments at the end of concrete barrier wall, that is
    about a $ .27 billion investment.
        AASHTO tells us that the overall driver older driver issues
    that would, or needs that would need to be addressed would be
    just under $20 billion. Rumble strips alone for run-off-the-
    road crashes, which is a high-target area and a high cause of
    fatalities, would cost $5 billion. Sign replacements would cost
    about $3 billion for higher visibility, more legible signs.
    Just those items alone total $31.5 billion, and we have not
    even discussed things like mandatory training for workers,
    mandatory training for guard rail installers, research,
    breakaway systems, guard rail installation, increased presence
    of law enforcement, which has been mentioned here on a couple
    of occasions this morning and has a high success rate,
    emergency management, countermeasures for interceptions,
    automated enforcement. Those thing are not even addressed in
    the $31.5 billion over the 6 years.
        Ms. Saroff. Thank you.
        Mr. Haifley. Mr. Womack?
        Mr. Womack. Thank you, John.
        I am going to head in a bit of a different direction and
    address my questions to Mr. Wright and perhaps Mr. Walsh.
        Mr. Wright, you mention in your written submittal, the
    Intelligent Vehicle Initiative, and its relation to safety, so
    I am going to focus my questions on that. First of all, to what
    extent are the auto manufacturers participating in this program
    and in the research?
        Mr. Wright. They are very much involved, Kevin. There are a
    number of specific initiatives involving General Motors,
    involving Delco, involving others from the private sector. One
    of the key elements of the IVI initiative throughout its course
    has been that this is a public-private joint undertaking. I do
    not have the specific dollar splits. I can certainly provide
    that to you for the record, but that has been one of the key
    components of this activity, that it does involve those who
    will be responsible in the end for manufacturing new devices
    that will be necessary for this to be successful.
        Mr. Womack. Great. I would appreciate those numbers if you
    can send those to me.
        Second of all, up to this point in time, what types of
    products or systems do we have or have been developed?
        Mr. Wright. Give me 1 second, please. I do have some
    information on that, Kevin. Just 1 second. Well, let me speak
    to one that I can talk to off the top of my head. One of the
    things that we I know can be very successful are what we call
    vehicle highway cooperative systems. Those are one of the
    elements of the IVI agenda that is very much in play--where the
    roadway basically is talking to the vehicle and vice versa. For
    example, as a vehicle approaches an intersection, the driver
    may not be aware that the signal is about to change or that
    there is a vehicle approaching from another part of that
    intersection. Vehicle roadway cooperative systems provide that
    kind of information to a driver so that ultimately it might
    even contain a system that could brake the car, but certainly
    initially it could at least contain a system that would warn a
    driver that there is a crash about to occur in the
    intersection.
        Some of the other things that have been done, in Minnesota
    there has been the development of technologies for inclement
    weather, so that snow plows actually are able to detect where
    the side of the roadway is. We do not necessarily encounter it
    much in this part of the country, but for those from that part
    of the world, you know that the snow is often so high that you
    do not know where the edge lines are and that it presents a
    real risk to those operators. Using global positioning
    satellite is part of this IVI initiative and working with the
    private sector, we have been able to identify or to utilize
    technologies that allow for a much safer operation for those
    kind of services.
        With the Michigan Transportation Research Institute, MTRI,
    and DOT we have developed and are testing roadway departure
    systems that warn drivers when they are about to leave a
    roadway, again using advanced technologies that might be in the
    vehicle are that are in fact again vehicle-roadway cooperative
    systems. We have also worked with General Motors, Daimler-
    Chrysler, Ford, Nissan and Toyota to develop a tool for
    measuring the workload associated with new in-vehicle
    information systems. It is not specifically related to the
    issue of cell phones, but certainly as we are trying to put
    additional technology into vehicles, that is one of the
    legitimate issues that has been raised. So again, part of the
    IVI initiative is addressing issues such as that.
        Those are just a couple of examples of some of the things
    that we are doing. Let me add just one additional one that I
    think is an important one. It relates to a topic brought up
    earlier regarding vehicles and spacing between those vehicles.
    Another part of this initiative has been with General Motors
    and Delco to test a rear-end collision-avoidance system on
    passenger cars--so again, passing information between vehicles
    to avoid the kid of collisions that can happen in high-speed
    circumstances in particular.
        Mr. Womack. Thank you.
        How close are we to implementing things like the road-car
    interactions, the rear-end collision avoidance, roadway
    departure types of things?
        Mr. Wright. Well, many of these, as with any kinds of
    improvements to vehicles, are generational kinds of
    improvements. Once we have proven that the technology works,
    then it is a process of installing those technologies in
    vehicles or outfitting roadways so that they can pass
    information between the vehicles and the roadway. Certainly, we
    are at a point where in the foreseeable future we will start
    having those kinds of technologies implemented, or included as
    part of standard features in vehicles. But realistically, you
    are looking at least a 10-year period after that point before
    you are getting the full benefit of those kinds of
    improvements. So for some of the earlier technologies, we can
    certainly imagine that they will be a part of instrumentation
    in vehicles in the very near future, but that does not mean
    that we immediately get all the benefits of those systems.
        Mr. Womack. One last question--GM has the night vision-type
    of thing, so that kind of fits in this category. Do you see the
    manufacturers just by themselves as these things mature putting
    them on, or are we going to have to spur them along?
        Mr. Wright. I don't really know the answer to that, Kevin.
    I think in some areas it will likely require the Federal
    Government, as has been the case in the past, to provide either
    requirements or incentives for the manufacturers to include
    those devices. But one of the things, of course, that we see
    also happening today is that consumers are much more safety-
    oriented. They are looking for these kinds of new features in
    their vehicles. So it very well may be that the consumers are
    going to be demanding these kinds of improvements, and it would
    require less of the direct Federal intervention than might have
    been the case in the past.
        Mr. Womack. Thank you.
        That is it. Thank you, John.
        Mr. Haifley. Thank you.
        To quote from your invitation letter to this Safety
    Symposium, ``we . . . will conclude with each witness making a
    3-minute closing statement. The committee expects the closing
    to address the issues raised by the other participants, your
    colleagues, to enlighten the staff to new thoughts and
    concepts, to make specific funding and programmatic
    recommendations, and to make suggestions on how the ideas of
    other safety groups can be incorporated seamlessly into
    legislation that will save lives, reduce injury and reduce
    property damage.''
        With that petty task set before you in a 3-minute period,
    and we do need to hold to the 3 minutes, I recognize Bud
    Wright.
        Mr. Wright. Would you like for us to hand over legislative
    language as well?
        Mr. Haifley. That would be very helpful.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Wright. Given that formidable charge, let me make these
    closing comments.
        I think one of the things that has been emphasized here
    today most certainly is that the best safety results come from
    joint efforts. Hearing the proposals that have been advanced
    today, and the commitment of all the people in this room most
    clearly to advancing highway safety, I am confident that we
    will be able to make the kind of real progress that we need in
    tackling fatality and injury reduction.
        I believe that we really are, and as has been demonstrated,
    I think quite effectively in this forum, on the same page in
    many of the core areas and are focusing on many of the same
    issues, whether we represent government or the private sector.
    We are all looking for ways to make existing programs work
    better and assist the States to maximize their safety
    investments. Identifying and targeting high-risk crash areas is
    a strategy that we all advocate, and we all seem to agree that
    improving our causal data can help us accomplish this.
        The need for a strong research and technology program is
    another area of agreement, I think, and you have heard that
    throughout this day. A robust research program and leveraged
    advanced technology can be a key factor in jump-starting a
    reduction in fatality numbers from the levels of the last
    decade or so.
        But I think it is also important to emphasize, and again I
    think you have heard it expressed today by this group, that
    there is no single strategy and we have no magic wand. Real
    progress will require refinements in actions already underway,
    as well as new initiatives implemented over time in a
    coordinated, non-duplicative, and most important, cooperative
    effort. At the same time, we recognize that State and locality-
    specific needs and problems cannot be overlooked.
        In my written statement, I described some of the efforts
    that we currently have underway to improve highway safety, but
    we know that we can and must do more. Substantial improvement
    in transportation safety has been identified by Secretary
    Mineta and by Federal Highway Administrator Peters as a core
    principle for the Department's reauthorization proposal. As the
    Administration bill evolves, we will carefully consider the
    issues that have been raised and discussed today, and obviously
    we certainly are interested in the views of this committee and
    the many other partners that we work with in highway safety.
        We want to continue to work with everybody here to ensure
    that roadway, driver and vehicle safety is given consideration
    in every aspect of the reauthorization of surface
    transportation programs.
        Thanks again for the opportunity to participate in this
    discussion. I hope what we have had to add is going to be
    helpful for the committee.
        Mr. Warner. Bruce Warner, Director of the Oregon Department
    of Transportation.
        I think you said it well, Bud. What I see around the table
    here is a consensus and agreement that safety is a priority,
    and that the loss of lives on our State and Nation's roadways
    is unacceptable and we need to address it.
        I also feel that we are all around the table saying that we
    do need additional resources for transportation safety. We also
    need to work closely together and I am very encouraged by the
    discussion that we had today. I also believe that there is a
    consensus, and again we have to check this, that we need
    flexibility, we need to have the ability to put the money and
    the resources in the areas that are most effective for reducing
    deaths and injuries.
        We do not have all of the data, as Bud mentioned. I think
    we need to do additional research to not only deal with the
    issues that are here today, but the things that are going to be
    confronting us in the next five, ten, or 20 years.
        In terms of investments, I want to make it clear that I do
    believe we need to increase substantially the amount of money
    dedicated to safety. We spend about $1.2 billion a year on
    transportation safety now, between the programs administered by
    Federal Highway Administration, NHTSA and the Federal Motor
    Carrier Safety Administration. We are suggesting that that be
    bumped up by an additional $1 billion a year.
        We also believe, and I believe, that you as the Federal
    Government should put language that encourages or even requires
    the States to work together and get to some of the synergistic
    and cooperative things that you are hearing today, because
    right now I think some of the politics and some of the
    organizations, frankly, of the various States get in the way of
    coming up with some of the unified and coordinated responses
    that we need to address transportation safety in a way that
    really addresses the needs.
        And then finally, in terms of the question I did not get a
    chance to answer from you, is that again the additional
    resources for transportation in general need to be recognized
    as a major priority because most States--not most States--I
    would say that many States, mine is one of those, are
    struggling just to maintain and preserve the system we have
    today, let alone trying to enhance it and to deal with the
    safety improvements that need to be made to intersections to
    deal with a quarter of the fatalities that are out there, or to
    deal with upgrading of two-lane roadways to just put things in
    like rumble strips or, as suggested, redoing signing. We are
    going to be focusing most of our energy in terms of just making
    sure our bridges are structurally sound and that our pavements
    are in good enough condition so they themselves are not
    hazardous to motorists.
        So I am very encouraged by what I see here, but again I
    think investment in transportation in a holistic way needs to
    be looked at, and transportation safety is a component that
    needs to have a stand alone program and funding. But overall,
    everything we do in terms of enhancing and improving the road
    system and transportation system with investments from the
    Federal Government will yield safety benefits in a big way.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Walsh. Thank you. My name is Bill Walsh from NHTSA. We
    have heard today from a broad segment of the highway safety
    community about the terrible toll highway crashes place on
    families and the economic health of our Nation. Losing almost
    42,000 people and suffering millions of injuries is not
    acceptable.
        NHTSA is very interested in working with the Department and
    the executive branch, with the Congress and with the broad
    partnership of State and local governments, safety advocacy
    organizations, and the private sector to define, develop, and
    implement the most effective highway safety programs possible.
    What the successor to TEA-21 must do is provide the authority
    and resources to support a balanced safety program that
    incorporates a safe operating environment, safe vehicles, and
    safe behavior by vehicle operators.
        In the context of NHTSA's statutory responsibilities, we
    need to develop programs that increase safety belt use, reduce
    impaired driving and speeding, provide timely and effective
    post-crash emergency medical care, and support efforts to
    improve motorcycle, bicycle, pedestrian and school bus safety.
    The bottom line is to improve safety. The potential return on
    investment is large. Two programs stand out for their potential
    to save lives and reduce injuries--increasing safety belt use
    and reducing impaired driving. The failure of crash victims to
    wear safety belts lead to an estimated 9,200 unnecessary
    fatalities each year and 143,000 avoidable injuries, costing
    society $26 billion. In 2000, alcohol-related crashes resulted
    in 16,792 fatalities, 513,000 injuries and $50.9 billion in
    economic losses. The Department recently reexamined how it
    would meet its long-range fatality reduction goal. It examined
    the entire range of highway safety initiatives and concluded
    that two out of three lives that need to be achieved to reach
    this goal would be met from achievable increases in safety belt
    use and reductions in impaired driving.
        These are the most significant challenges and opportunities
    before us today.
        Thank you very much for allowing me to participate.
        Mr. Hamberger. Mr. Chairman, Ed Hamberger, Association of
    American Railroads.
        Rail safety, of course, is not under this committee's
    jurisdiction, but I do appreciate the opportunity to be here
    and to point out that in fact freight railroads are the safest
    mode of transportation in the country. In fact, it is safer in
    terms of lost days at work from injury or illness incurred on
    the job to work for a freight railroad than it is to work at
    one of these fast food restaurants that we will probably all go
    to in a few minutes here up on Constitution Avenue.
        So as we take a look around, the No. 1 issue surrounding
    railroad operations is highway grade crossing safety--that is
    the Section 130 program which is under your jurisdiction. It
    has been an incredibly successful program. It is, to underscore
    our view and the view of the Department of Transportation, a
    highway safety problem. It is a highway safety program.
    Separation of grade crossings does not improve rail operations,
    it improves congestion and the smooth and safe flow of highway
    operations. So we continue to urge you to take a look at that
    and to fund it to the highest possible degree.
        And as you take a look down the road at what some of the
    challenges this committee will face, the growth in freight, the
    need to take a look at intermodal connectors, the need to take
    a look at intermodal yards, the need to take a look, and I
    understand there may be a hearing next month and I would
    welcome the opportunity to come back and get into more detail,
    but I see Kathy Evans out here from the Motor Freight Carriers
    Association--we work together with the trucking companies, with
    the ports, with the Intermodal Association of North America to
    try to move freight safely and get it off the roads.
        I would like to point out that I have eschewed the
    opportunity here, as I promised Senator Reid I would, to get
    into any of the other truck safety issues and I think we need
    to keep this in a positive vein and talk about how we can work
    together.
        If I might offer my apologies to the other members, I
    unfortunately have to run. I again want to thank you for the
    opportunity to be here and I am sorry I will miss your wrap-up,
    but excuse me.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Roberts. Tricia Roberts, National Association of
    Highway Safety Leaders.
        What is most clear from today's hearing, and I am very
    grateful for the opportunity to be here today at the Symposium,
    is that despite all of us having individual key emphasis areas,
    we all share single mission, and that is to save lives and
    reduce injuries on our highways in our Nation. It can only be
    accomplished through joint efforts. There is no other way to do
    it. It is only through a comprehensive approach, the approach
    that I hope that we have all been taking in all of our States,
    and that is to look at the driver, the vehicle and the road,
    where we accomplish and buildupon the successes that we have
    already realized.
        There is considerable consensus around this table today on
    the following issues: the need for stable, reliable and
    increased funding for safety is needed to improve again on the
    successes that we have realized. There is a need for better
    data and programs to support data improvements. There is
    additional need for additional research, particularly in the
    area of crash causation. And there is an absolute need for
    program consolidation and streamlining of the process.
        We need performance-based incentives and data-driven safety
    programs. There is a need for further discussion on areas such
    as sanctions and penalties. We are heartened by the fact that
    there is so much agreement on many of these issues. We believe
    that new programs focused on the areas of agreement will have a
    significant impact on reducing the terrible toll of motor
    vehicle crashes in this country.
        Again, thank you very much for this opportunity.
        Mr. Holmes. Brian Holmes.
        At the risk of sounding like a broken record, we need to
    invest more in our highway transportation system. The figure
    that has been used here today is $231 billion, representing the
    cost of the highway fatalities and injuries. As I said in my
    opening remarks, if you spend a dollar for highway
    improvements, you get a $2 reduction in terms of public health
    benefits.
        What does that mean? That means if we increase the
    investments to the $50 billion or $60 billion that is
    recommended by USDOT in its condition of the roads report, that
    would mean ramping up the At-grade Crossing Program. It would
    mean ramping up the Hazard Elimination Program, possibly
    folding into it the issues of older drivers. It might mean a
    new two-lane road program that would address specific locations
    where fatalities have occurred and remedying them so that more
    will not occur.
        For work zones, maybe it will mean more positive
    separation, and where that is not possible, why not look at the
    work zones as laboratories and look at automated enforcement
    and other intelligent transportation systems, as well as human
    factors research. Maybe we could learn some stuff by working in
    the work zones that we could apply to the system as a whole.
        All of these and all of the other fine ideas that we have
    heard this morning are tied to the investment level. If we do
    not significantly increase the level of investment in the
    reauthorized version of ISTEA, we are going to be competing.
    How are we going to compete? How are we going to say that the
    story ATSSA tells is either more or less compelling than what
    MADD is saying? We are all talking about fatalities and
    injuries and we all have a different take on it, but if we are
    not talking about a significant increase in funding, it is
    difficult for us to collaborate effectively.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Hamilton. Wendy Hamilton with Mothers Against Drunk
    Driving.
        I think we all agree that we are part of the puzzle and
    that working together we can put this big picture together.
    MADD has a close working relationship with Governors and
    Traffic Safety Offices and agree with States that the process
    needs to be simplified and additional resources need to be made
    available for traffic safety.
        Since September 11, approximately 12,500 people have been
    killed and more than 386,000 have been injured in alcohol-
    related crashes in America. With the reauthorization of TEA-21,
    Congress has the opportunity to redouble the commitment to fund
    and properly equip those fighting the domestic war on alcohol-
    impaired driving. Congress, the executive branch, the traffic
    safety community and the public have become complacent in
    addressing the human and economic carnage caused by alcohol-
    impaired drivers. Perception and reality problem here. The
    drunk driving problem is far from solved in this Nation. This
    complacency has shifted the Nation's attention and resources to
    other issues and other traffic safety concerns.
        This past January, MADD convened an Impaired Driving Summit
    in Scottsdale, Arizona to focus on the lack of progress in
    addressing alcohol-related traffic crashes. This Summit brought
    together traffic safety experts from across the country to
    discuss the issue and develop effective strategies to
    revitalize the fight against impaired driving. Participants
    included representatives from Federal, State and local
    government, law enforcement, the medical community,
    researchers, advocacy groups and the corporate sector. The
    findings and recommendations from the Summit will be released
    next Tuesday, June 18, by MADD.
        The Impaired Driving Summit was an important first step in
    renewing the fight against impaired driving. Research
    demonstrates that the actions recommended in the Summit report
    will reduce alcohol-related traffic fatalities.
        MADD is calling on Congress to incorporate the following
    priorities as elements of any renewed TEA-21 Traffic Safety
    Program. First, increase resources for aggressive impaired
    driving enforcement, especially the use of frequent, highly
    publicized sobriety checkpoints. Sobriety checkpoints are cost-
    effective tools to deter individuals from drinking and driving.
    Second, require States to enact comprehensive sanctions for
    higher-risk offenders defined by MADD and others as repeat
    offenders or those with a blood alcohol level of .15 percent or
    higher, or impaired driving offenders who drive with a
    suspended license. A comprehensive system to target this
    population should require license and vehicle sanctions and
    studies show such sanctions to be effective.
        Additionally, we call for support for the enactment of a
    national primary seat belt standard. And last, to establish a
    national dedicated traffic safety fund to support State traffic
    safety programs and Federal initiatives to reduce highway
    crashes, deaths and injuries. Research and experience
    demonstrate the effectiveness of a variety of laws in reducing
    alcohol-related traffic crashes, deaths and injuries. There are
    States that have not passed some of the most basic laws. Ten
    States have not passed administrative license revocation.
    Eighteen States have not passed .08 percent blood alcohol laws.
    Adoption of these and other laws across the States would save
    lives.
        The war against drunk driving has stalled in traffic. Drunk
    drivers are dangerous and deadly, and last year over 500,000
    American families were directly affected by this 100 percent
    preventable crime. This Nation bears the $230 price tag and
    there are solutions that will benefit us all.
        By focusing on these recommendations, we will bring about
    real reductions in impaired driving fatalities. The Nation must
    reverse the escalation in deaths and reinvigorate the fight to
    prevent impaired driving. It is going to take strong political
    will, resources, and the public commitment to save lives and
    prevent injuries.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Hill. I am D.B. Hill with Associated General
    Contractors. AGC and the contracting industry is pleased to be
    a part of this Symposium. We, too, agree we must work together
    for a total highway safety program, and for additional funds
    for the safety program. Our members feel very deeply that
    improving work zone safety should be a top national priority.
    The number of deaths and injuries annually in the work zone is
    unacceptably high, and has been rising steadily over the past
    several years.
        Too many of our members can tell sad stories about
    employees that have been lost to work zone traffic crashes.
    This cannot and should no be tolerated. AGC believes there
    should be a national policy on work zone safety. The three key
    areas that AGC believes should be addressed in this policy is
    work zone traffic enforcement, public awareness and
    communication, and positive barrier separation between traffic
    and workers. A national policy should look to change driver
    behavior in work zones, rather than attempting to design work
    zones to meet or accommodate drivers' attitudes.
        AGC also believes that we need to look at creating
    incentives for States to pursue work zone safety initiatives.
    We urge Congress to include in the TEA-21 reauthorization
    legislation incentives for States. We recommend the creation of
    a discretionary fund administered by the Federal Highway
    Administration to provide funding incentives.
        These initiatives should also provide funding to make wide
    use of law enforcement officers and devices such as photo
    enforcement. We thank you again for us being a part of this
    Symposium.
        Ms. Holst. Kathi Holst, American Traffic Safety Services
    Association.
        I would like to begin by once again thanking the sponsors
    of this Safety Symposium for allowing me to present ATSSA's
    roadway safety program proposal.
        The major question before the Senate as we approach
    reauthorization is how best to allocate $30 billion in roadway
    funds when you are receiving requests for more than $50
    billion. I certainly do not envy your task.
        We all agree today that safety must be our highest
    priority. Yet the reality is that safety is often the first
    item dropped from a highway construction project. Under our
    proposal, States would have great flexibility in how they would
    allocate these funds, provided they would be used for eligible
    safety activities. However, because of the paramount importance
    of safety, we believe the roadway safety program funds should
    not be flexed into highway construction.
        The safety needs of our country support enhanced roadway
    safety funding. ATSSA has proposed a roadway safety program
    that we believe could easily sustain a $3 billion funding
    level. The fact is that just improving lane markings,
    initiating some older driver programs, replacing signs and
    installing rumble strips and crash cushions alone would cost
    nearly $31.5 billion over the next 6 years. More remains to be
    done in the areas of upgrading intersection safety, pedestrian
    and bicycle safety, speed management and work zone safety,
    especially in the area of mandatory training for workers.
        ATSSA supports a dedicated core roadway safety program with
    reporting requirements that give Congress, Federal Highway
    Administration, the States and the motoring public a better
    understanding of what is being accomplished to improve roadway
    safety. Equally important is dedicating safety dollars that
    target low-cost safety improvements such as wider pavement
    markings, brighter and more legible and visible signs, rumble
    strips and more modern guardrails. All have wide application
    and can be installed relatively quickly and at a lower cost.
        Every eligible activity in the Roadway Safety Program has a
    benefit-to-cost ratio that is at least three-to-one, and as
    high as 182-to-one, according to the Federal Highway
    Administration. Our Roadway Safety Program not only would
    resolve problems that exist today, but also better position the
    Nation well into the future.
        Thank you once again for the opportunity to testify today.
        Mr. Haifley. Thank you all.
        I personally want to thank each of you for working together
    today. It has been very educational, at least for me, and it is
    difficult addressing highway safety issues. They are clearly
    national problems requiring cooperation, and coordination. They
    are more than numbers and more than policy decisions. They are
    ultimately about people.
        I would like to mention something about one of our
    witnesses. Today, she is celebrating 22 years of marriage, and
    I was wondering if you would join me in congratulating Kathleen
    Holst for 22 years of marriage today.
        [Applause.]
        Mr. Haifley. Thank you all. The meeting is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the meeting was concluded.]

                             TEA-21 REATHORIZATION

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, AUGUST 8, 2002

                                           U.S. Senate,
                   Committee on Environment and Public Works,
    Subcommittee on Transportation, Infrastructure, and Nuclear
                                                        Safety,
                                                          Reno, Nevada.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:10 p.m. at
    the Reno City Council Chamber, Reno, Nevada, Harry Reid
    [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

       WESTERN TRANSPORTATION NEEDS AND THE FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY PROGRAM

        Present: Senator Reid.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

        Senator Reid. The committee will come to order.
        Let me just say that this has been a busy day already.
    We've had a nice event at the airport, where we announced the
    construction of a new tower at the airport. We've got the same
    tower for air traffic control since 1957. As you know, that was
    when we'd just started having black-and-white TV and we had
    just started having rotary phones, and we have the same tower,
    basically. It's really inadequate, and in some areas unsafe,
    and we're going to build a new tower. Instead of being 55 feet
    high it will be about 200 feet high. All parts of the airport
    will be able to be seen.
        That's one thing we were doing today, and then we just left
    with the Federal Highway Administrator, Mary Peters, here on my
    right, the groundbreaking for the Spaghetti Bowl. It's a big
    project, as you know, and, as Governor Boyd said, it's between
    Reno and Sparks--didn't want to favor either entity. It's a
    massive construction project that will take more than 2 years
    to build. It's going to have a number of new lanes. It will be
    a Spaghetti Bowl. It will be lanes going around and up and
    down. It's going to have seven miles of sound barriers that
    will be constructed. So it's going to be a good project.
        I'm happy to call this meeting to order. Some may ask why
    we're doing this meeting, why are we having a congressional
    hearing with Washington staff here. The reason we are doing
    this is that I, as some of you know, was chairman of the full
    committee on two separate occasions, and voluntarily gave it up
    a few months ago, but I'm still the chairman of the
    subcommittee that writes the transportation bill that's
    reauthorized every five or 6 years, and that's why we're here.
    We will be holding hearings this entire congressional year.
    We've held hearings in the full committee. I have spoken to
    Chairman Jeffords and Ranking Member Senator Smith, and we have
    been doing some things differently this year.
        A number of people in this audience, and certainly you, Ms.
    Peters, have come to Washington when we have had congressional
    hearings and you have Senators walk in and out and you feel
    lucky if there's two there. Usually there's only one, because
    of a wide range of jurisdiction. It's just hard to do that. So
    the work is done by the staff, and so I figured why not just
    admit that. And we've done, instead of having so many
    congressional hearings as we've had in the past, what we've
    done is we've had a number of symposiums. Senator Jeffords or I
    will kick off these symposiums at a table much as where we are
    seated today, and we get started, and then we have people who
    are able to talk at length discussing with each other,
    witnesses actually talking with each other, talking with our
    staff, and it has worked out extremely well, gathering
    information for the massive, new, hybrid bill that's going to
    come out next year.
        This hearing here today is based upon our writing this new
    transportation bill. Congress passed the last transportation
    bill, called TEA-21--that term has come from the words
    Transportation Equity Act--and we did that in 1998, authorizing
    highway and transit programs through fiscal year 2003.
        Now, Nevada, because of TEA-21 for the year 2003, we have
    $218 billion for highway and transit programs, and this
    includes over $1 billion for the State of Nevada. Nevada, I
    hope and am confident, will do better next year--I should say
    in the next bill. There's no question that a smooth, functional
    transportation system is critical to Nevada's continued
    economic growth, safety, air quality, way of life.
        Nevada's rapid population growth presents unique challenges
    to our transportation infrastructure. Administrator Peters, I'm
    happy that you are here. We tend to focus so much on southern
    Nevada because of its massive growth. The numbers coming out of
    southern Nevada are mind-boggling--almost a 90 percent growth
    we've had in the last 10 years. We've had in the last 20 years,
    for example, Hispanic population in southern Nevada has grown
    750 percent. These are numbers that are just unbelievable. But
    kind of a quiet growth is taking place right now in northern
    Nevada, and I thought we should focus on this, because we focus
    so much on southern Nevada, and recognize the unique
    transportation problems that we have in Northern Nevada.
        More people means more traffic, more congestion, more wear
    and tear on the roads. And we have problems up here that are
    certainly different from the southern part of the State.
    Because of the colder temperatures, we have to deal with the
    freezing of the potholes. We don't have to worry about that in
    southern Nevada. That's just wear and tear. But we have in
    northern Nevada some very difficult winters. So we have some
    transportation challenges here and we need to keep up with
    those.
        We know, as we heard Nevada transportation chairman
    Stephens talk about Nevada being a fast-growing State, and
    Arizona. In numbers we're not the fastest-growing State; we are
    proportionately. Some of these other States--Arizona,
    Colorado--have grown as far as numbers more than us, and Utah
    and Idaho are also growing rapidly. Rapid growth is a factor of
    life in midwestern States. Western State needs are different
    from the rest of the country, just like northern Nevada has
    different problems than southern Nevada. So in keeping with
    today's western theme, our first panel we're going to hear from
    the Federal Highway Administrator--and we're so thankful that
    you're here. We really appreciate your being here. Mary Peters
    is so uniquely qualified to be the highway administrator
    because she is from Arizona, and Arizona has many of the same
    problems we have, and I think looking through her eyes at
    something will help us.
        Our second panel will discuss the Federal lands highway
    program. This program provides funding for park roads,
    parkways, forest roads, Indian reservation roads, and refuge
    roads. We've chosen to examine the Federal lands highway
    program as part of the hearing because it is of particular
    importance to the western States. What we learn here today will
    not only be used for what we're doing in Nevada with the
    Federal lands program, but also the rest of the country.
        No State has a higher percentage of Federal land than
    Nevada. Of the State of Nevada, 87 percent is Federal lands. We
    received about $90 million from the program in the last 3
    years, and I really think that's far too little. We're going to
    look at some ways of changing that.
        As I indicated, we're fortunate to have Ms. Peters here. We
    do acknowledge your being here. I would ask you to tell us what
    you think is important on the highway program, generally, and
    what you think we ought to do.

           STATEMENT OF HON. MARY E. PETERS, FEDERAL HIGHWAY
     ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, WASHINGTON,
                                   DC

        Ms. Peters. Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this
    hearing to examine the important transportation issues of the
    western States. As you said, there are some very unique issues,
    transportation issues that we face here in Nevada.
        I want to take a moment to introduce three Federal Highway
    officials who are here with me today. Art Hamilton is our
    Associate Administrator for the Federal Lands Highway Program;
    John Price, our Nevada Division Administrator, short-timer that
    he is. He's still with us, of course. And Bill Kappus is the
    Nevada Assistant Division Administrator. I appreciate you all
    joining me here today.
        It is a great pleasure to be back in Nevada to discuss the
    progress made in TEA-21 and to address the transportation
    issues of the western States, particularly in implementing the
    Federal Lands Highway Program, which is very important to this
    part of the country.
        If you look at a map--and I have looked at a map--at the
    amount of Federal land here in Nevada, it is overwhelming to
    look at the color schemes on a map.
        Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my written statement be part
    of the record. I have gone into much more detail.
        Senator Reid. That will be the order.
        Ms. Peters. Thank you so much.
        Nevada is a very appropriate setting for discussing the
    Federal Lands Highways Program. The greater part of all Federal
    and tribal lands is located in the 13 western-most States, and
    Nevada, as the Senator said, has a higher percentage of
    federally owned land than any other State.
        Our Federal Lands Highways Program works with Federal land
    management agencies and with tribal governments and State and
    local transportation agencies to provide access to and within
    Federal and Tribal lands. Our goal is to create the best
    transportation system possible, balancing the environmental and
    cultural values of Federal and Tribal land.
        In TEA-21, a total of $4.1 billion was authorized for the
    Federal Lands Highways Program to be distributed in five
    categories: Forest Highways; Public Lands Highways
    Discretionary; Indian Reservation Roads; Park Roads and
    Parkways; and Refugee Roads.
        In fiscal years 1998 to 2002, about 66 percent of Federal
    Lands Highways funds were allocated to projects located in the
    13 western-most States. Projects such as the State Route 28
    Forest Highway project in Lake Tahoe Basin, Park and Parkway
    work in the Lake Mead National Recreational area, Public Lands
    Discretionary funding for U.S. 95 in Clark County, and road
    improvements at Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge.
        TEA-21 also reaffirms our commitment to providing safe and
    efficient access to and within tribal lands. Since the
    enactment of TEA-21, the Indian Reservation Road Program has
    provided funding to construct or improve 2,000 miles of roads
    under the IRR program set-asides, and $27.6 million has been
    obligated for 51 projects to improve or replace deficient
    bridges on tribal lands.
        TEA-21 also strengthened the commitment of the Federal
    Government to increasing the involvement of tribal governments
    in transportation programming and planning for the Federal-aid
    Highway program as well as the Indian Reservation Road Program.
        States consult with tribal governments in the development
    of long-range transportation plans and State transportation
    improvement programs and tribes can use IRR planning funds to
    participate in metropolitan and State-wide planning as part of
    the Federal-aid program.
        Overall, the Federal-aid program and the Federal Land
    Highways Program are working well in supporting the Nation's
    economy and improving the quality of life for our citizens.
    Under TEA-21, Nevada, for example, will have received $200
    million per year in Federal highway funds, allowing the State
    to expand and improve its highway transportation network, such
    as the project that we saw today, Senator, at the
    groundbreaking. Oregon, for example, will receive about $1.8
    billion over the life of TEA-21, and this has made possible
    improvement and the reconstruction of I-5 in the Salem area, as
    well as highway and transit projects in the Portland area.
        The populations are growing and vehicle miles traveled are
    increasing substantially, especially here in the west. The
    challenges facing us are to maintain and improve our
    transportation system, to provide safe and efficient and
    convenient transportation options, while protecting the
    environment.
        Senator I know that the programs are not returning nearly
    enough to these areas, these high-growth areas, and we look
    forward to working with you, with Senator Ensign, and with
    Representative Gibbons who represents this area as we approach
    reauthorization.
        I thank you so much for the opportunity to participate in
    this hearing today, and I look forward to answering any
    questions.
        Senator Reid. As former director of the Arizona DOT, as
    we've established, you're familiar with the strains that rapid
    population growth places on a transportation system. Our
    formulas, though, for distributing funds under TEA-21 don't
    account for the rapid population growth experience for Nevada,
    Arizona, and other western States. This makes it more
    challenging for our system to keep up with its growth. How do
    you suggest we address these issues?
        Ms. Peters. Senator, I think we should address these issues
    within the context of looking at the allocation formulas and
    reauthorization. As you know so very well, those are sometimes
    controversial projects to undertake when we look at the
    allocation formulas, but I think it is incumbent on the
    Administration and Congress to not shy away from that very
    important issue.
        Senator Reid. One of the things that I mentioned briefly in
    my statement, Nevada is 87 percent Federal land, but the
    majority of that Federal land is administered by the Bureau of
    Land Management. Roads owned and operated by the Bureau are not
    part of the Federal lands highway program and are not taken
    into account when distributing money and in the highway funding
    formulas. Do you think this can be changed or should be
    changed?
        Ms. Peters. Senator, we have already initiated
    conversations with the Department of Interior and Bureau of
    Land Management to discuss this and a number of other issues
    that have to do with BLM roads. Currently, BLM classifies those
    roads as administrative or even public roads and,
    unfortunately, as such they are not eligible for Federal
    funding. But, again, we have initiated discussions with the
    Department of Interior and BLM and would hope to, as part of
    the Administration's reauthorization proposal, come forward
    with some recommendations resolving this, because it is, as you
    say, a very important issue.
        Senator Reid. Senator Kyl of Arizona knew I was going to
    hold this hearing, and he said, ``Make sure that you ask the
    administrator about Hoover Dam.''
        For those of us 450 miles away, Hoover Dam has become a
    tremendous bottleneck. Traffic can be backed up there 8 or 10
    miles trying to get on the bridge which is the dam, actually.
    And, as a result of 9/11, people are even more concerned.
        What hope do you have for us to move that project along? I
    think we've gotten $40 million--$90 million, but that's a
    project that that's just a--I won't say ``drop in the bucket,''
    but it is a project that I think will cost around $300 or $350
    million.
        Ms. Peters. Senator, it is. As you know, and as Governor
    Gwynn knows, I worked very hard on that project when I was the
    director of the Arizona Department of Transportation and
    continue to see the importance.
        We believe that the design work will be completed later
    this year and be ready to have a construction contract.
    Construction would be expected to take about four or 5 years. I
    think we are looking at construction completion in the year
    2005. But, as you importantly point out, there is a funding gap
    there to be closed.
        I do have to be a bit cautious in talking about the
    project--and I will defer to Art Hamilton, my counterpart
    here--because I am prevented from talking in detail about
    Arizona projects for 1 year. Suffice to say that I very much
    recognize the importance of closing that funding gap and would
    be pleased to work with you and with the Arizona delegation to
    find a way to do that.
        Senator Reid. I think one of the things--and I have
    language in one of the bills--is to allow the project to go
    forward with the financing, even though we haven't appropriated
    all the money. It is so important. OMB has signed off on the
    proposal--I'm quite conscious of that--to allow that to go
    forward and that means we can move on that.
        Ms. Peters. Sir, I would be very happy to work with you on
    that, because, as you say, it really isn't a bridge. It's a
    road on the crest of the dam, and the grades going into that
    area, the congestion, are significant problems in terms of
    connectivity that need to be resolved.
        Senator Reid. Well, we're fortunate, as we've said several
    times today at this event and the one we had previously out at
    the Spaghetti Bowl, Nevada is very fortunate that you have been
    selected to be the head of the highway programs in this
    country. You know, Rodney Slater is a good friend of mine. I
    think he did an outstanding job and, you know, he became
    Secretary of Transportation, but Rodney was always playing
    catch-up because it was hard for him to understand the problems
    we have here in Nevada, and with rare exception that's the way
    it has been, so we are fortunate to have you. We're grateful
    that you came to spend some time with us today.
        Ms. Peters. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Senator Reid. I do want to say that Senator Ensign is not
    here. We were together earlier today. He is certainly
    supportive of what we're trying to do here and I want to
    acknowledge that. And Congressman Gibbons was also invited to
    attend this hearing, but he had other obligations. They are
    here in spirit if not in person.
        Tom Stephens, our own fine transportation director, is our
    first panelist. He's here to talk about Nevada's State-wide
    transportation needs.
        Greg Krause, the executive director of the Washoe County
    Regional Transportation Commission will talk about Washoe
    County's transportation needs. As we know, the needs are not
    always highways.
        Juan Palma, executive director of the Tahoe Regional
    Planning Agency, I first met when we were trying to do some
    good things up at Lake Tahoe. Juan, certainly good to see you.
    Juan did an outstanding job there at the Forest Service. He was
    there and he was instrumental in our developing and carrying
    out, to everyone's surprise, that great summit we had where we
    had the President and Vice President there, and we had five
    Cabinet officers that came here. We're happy to have you here,
    Juan.
        Gary Carano is here to discuss the importance of
    transportation from the perspective of Washoe County's business
    community. There's no family--and I say that without
    reservation or hesitation--than the Carano family who dedicated
    more of their time, energy, and resources to maintaining the
    tourism industry in northern Nevada.
        Thank you all for coming today. I look forward to hearing
    your testimony.
        We'll first hear from Stephens, Krause, Palma, and Carano,
    in that order.

    STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, NEVADA DEPARTMENT
                 OF TRANSPORTATION, CARSON CITY, NEVADA

        Mr. Stephens. Mr. Chairman, I am Tom Stephens, for the
    record, Director of the Nevada Department of Transportation,
    and I am pleased to testify for Nevada, as well as brief you on
    the Western Governors Association policy statement on
    reauthorization, which I helped coordinate as president of the
    Western Association of State Highway and Transportation
    Officials, thanks to Mary Peters being elevated.
        I commend you for seeking a western perspective on
    reauthorization. One-size-does-not-fit-all, and the west is
    considerably different than the rest of the country. I
    especially want to thank you, Senator Reid, for your leadership
    on highway issues.
        Nevada is the Nation's fastest-growing State, as the map
    shows behind me. Nevada's growth rate of 66 percent in the past
    decade is far ahead of second-place Arizona at 40 percent. Of
    that, 85 percent is Clark County and 35 percent is the rest of
    Nevada. You blend those in, and they become 66 percent.
        As you mentioned earlier, 87 percent of our State is under
    Federal control. These are untaxable lands and must be accessed
    and crossed with highways.
        Nevada has recognized the tremendous need for
    transportation. The Governor is the chairman of our State
    Transportation Board. Our taxes for transportation are high;
    however, these taxes are not enough. We desperately need an
    increase in Federal funding to match the growth of our State.
        In northern Nevada the highway issues are preservation,
    safety, and congestion. Aging highways with greatly increased
    truck loadings must be maintained. State-wide traffic
    fatalities are up 20 percent over last year. Northern Nevada is
    growing. As I mentioned, if we were in two States, Clark County
    being one--which would be about the area of Massachusetts--and
    northern Nevada being the other, which would be the area of
    Wyoming, with 25 percent more people, northern Nevada would be
    the third-fastest growing State at 35 percent. Obviously, we
    cannot ignore the growth-driven needs of northern Nevada.
        On the maintenance front, although congestion gets the
    attention, NDOT must still spend more than half of our
    construction dollars on maintenance projects. For example,
    truck traffic on Interstate 80 is greatly increased due to
    California's growth, and the change in distribution from
    regional warehousing to just-in-time delivery, but increasing
    maintenance needs have not been fully meet in Federal funding.
    If Federal funding is reduced to bridge States like Nevada, as
    some suggest, the Nation's interstate systems will deteriorate.
        In 1996 I spoke to a group of California transportation
    officials who were advocating keeping all of California's
    Federal revenue collected in their State. As it was the 150th
    anniversary of the Donner Party, I pointed out that the reason
    the Donner Party got in trouble was because there were no good
    roads across Nevada. And the same thing would happen to
    California's economy today if they cutoff Federal funding for
    interstate maintenance across Nevada.
        Since Interstate 80 was finished, the population of the
    Reno/Carson area has tripled, and we have been building U.S.
    395 to freeway standards since that time. The last remaining
    nine-mile segment between Reno and Carson City is ready to go
    out to bid for bridge construction starting early next year. If
    funding is available for this nine-mile segment, we should be
    able to complete it all by 2007. Phase one of the Carson Bypass
    around Carson City is scheduled to go to bid this year absent
    delays. The whole nine miles, including the bridge, is about
    $250 million.
        We also need additional freeway widening in the Reno area.
    We need to widen it north from the Spaghetti Bowl, we need to
    widen it from keystone up to Robb Drive, we need to widen east
    from McCarran to Vista, and, of course, we're going to need to
    widen past the airport. It's getting more and more crowded
    there, and in the next 10 years we'll have to do that.
        We've got a number of two-lane highways that need to be
    widened to four-lane because of increased traffic and increased
    accidents. These include the Fallon/Fernley Highway and the
    Dayton/Silver Springs Highway.
        Five years ago Senator Reid led the effort to bring
    national attention to the degradation of water quality in Lake
    Tahoe, and Juan is going to talk about that, but Nevada has 39
    miles of highway along the lake. We have spent $40 million on
    13 miles of road thus far. We still have 26 miles of roadway
    remaining at a cost of $80 million to do the erosion control
    and the runoff collection. Lake Tahoe is a national treasure
    and deserving of continuing national attention.
        I'd like to just real briefly go through the Western
    Governors Association policies and put forth just a couple of
    bullets, things that they asked for in their policy. This is
    the first time they've come up with a policy. We did not do
    that last time, and they did not ask WASHTO to help them, so
    this was a big step forward for us transportation officials.
        Well, surprise, surprise, they asked for increased
    revenues. I'm sure you haven't heard that before.
        They want you to address the gasohol issues in Congress.
        They want to retain the firewalls.
        They want to provide flexibility in transferring funds
    among categories. They don't want to create any new set-asides
    or sub-allocations.
        They want to define timeframes for resource agencies to
    conduct environmental reviews so these aren't endless
    processes.
        They want to have one-stop permitting for Section 4-F and
    106 reviews. Section 4-F means that you can't go through a
    park, 106 is the historic preservation. We go to ridiculous
    ends in some cases for very little impact on any one of those,
    so we'd like to have one-stop permitting.
        Define an environmental dispute resolution if we have
    disputes between Federal agencies and the States. That needs to
    be better defined. We want to clarify the points in the process
    where environmental judicial challenges are appropriate. Right
    now, the Sierra Club is trying to stop U.S. 95, which is under
    construction, and yet we've been working on that for 5 years.
    They could have filed a lawsuit at any time. The defendant in
    that case is the Federal Highway Administration.
        We want to study the impact on tax collections of energy
    efficient technologies. I think Administrator Peters has
    brought this forward, also.
        We want to address the loss of revenues from service
    stations on tribal lands. It's a big issue in certain States.
        We want to provide guidance for security vulnerability
    assessments and provide some non-transportation funding for the
    security issues.
        They want to allocate the public lands highway funds to
    areas of greatest need and to the States with the largest
    public lands acreage. You're going to talk about that on the
    next panel.
        They want, for earmarked project requests, they'd like to
    establish criteria to address the ability of the project
    sponsors to meet program design time and contract standards so
    that appropriations aren't made to projects that aren't even
    going to go for three or 4 years.
        And they want to reform the trade corridor program.
        In conclusion, I would like to recognize that TEA-21 has
    been very good for Nevada, but I believe it needs to be refined
    a little bit and I strongly urge that Nevada's Federal funding
    be increased to match our growth.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I guess
    I've gone over my time.
        Senator Reid. We'll have some questions for you, Tom, as
    soon as the other witnesses complete their statements.
        Everyone should also understand that public access cameras
    are picking up whatever we have been saying, and local stations
    are going to use this, so I should have warned you, Tom.
        Mr. Stephens. Did I say something wrong?
        Senator Reid. Greg?

      STATEMENT OF GREG KRAUSE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WASHOE COUNTY
            REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, RENO, NEVADA

        Mr. Krause. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Administrator
    Peters. My name is Greg Krause. I'm the executive director of
    the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, and I
    very much appreciate this opportunity to testify before you
    regarding the transportation issues we're facing here in Reno
    and Sparks and really our neighboring communities and counties
    in northern Nevada.
        As Director Stephens has noted previously, we have been
    growing very rapidly, and that has placed tremendous demands on
    the transportation system.
        We are fortunate in northern Nevada that the Federal
    Government and the State Department of Transportation has
    really done an exceptional job of developing the transportation
    system, particularly the freeways, principal arterials, and the
    major investments that have been made in public transportation
    over the past decades. I'd really like to acknowledge the
    leadership and vision of this particular committee. I think the
    ISTEA and TEA-21, and I'm sure the successor to TEA-21, will
    continue to provide great assistance and policy direction to
    continue the great work that has been done.
        I certainly want to thank you, Senator Reid, for your great
    assistance to us here in Washoe County. With your help, in just
    the last 3 years, $14 million in new transit centers and new
    buses for city fare and city lift and our intelligent
    transportation system have been critical to our success. Our
    flagship vehicle, the articulated bus, has just been put into
    service on South Virginia Street, which is our busiest
    corridor. I'll talk about that in just a minute.
        Our challenge is really the future. Our agency does long-
    range transportation planning, and we spent many hours with
    thousands of community residents trying to develop a vision for
    the future, the 2030 transportation plan. This is a document. A
    document is helpful, but it doesn't get the job done, clearly.
    We need to find a way to implement. I want to talk a little bit
    about a couple of the key issues that we identified.
        One of them has to do with a new type of mass
    transportation that I'm sure you're familiar with that will be
    a new addition here in the Reno/Sparks area, and that's bus
    rapid transit. The city of Reno has, as I mentioned, a very
    busy corridor. We are running a city fare bus, a regular-sized
    bus, every 10 minutes, plus our new articulated bus, and we
    have standing room only loads. We have been working with the
    land use planners to try to develop a plan that further
    concentrates within easy walking distance more homes, more
    jobs, more businesses, more services. We think that this is the
    perfect corridor to utilize bus rapid transit.
        As you probably are aware, bus rapid transit or BRT is the
    rubber-tired version of the rail investments, and it has the
    great potential to serve Reno and Sparks and many medium-sized
    cities in the United States. Clearly, it has been used in
    Europe and South America. It is a newer technology here, but it
    has great potential. It can provide the quality, the capacity,
    and the convenience of light rail at a fraction of the cost.
    And, more important, BRT is an approach to improving transit
    service that allows for incremental development. We don't need
    all of that money right at once.
        By protecting the dedicated right-of-way for the future, it
    really sets the stage ultimately for future generations, if
    they so choose and it is appropriate, to make that rail
    investment.
        In order for communities like Reno and Sparks, and, as I
    mentioned, probably many other cities across the country, to
    have an opportunity to invest in bus rapid transit, I think it
    is very important to consider having a dedicated funding source
    for this particular application. I think it would pay great
    dividends.
        When we were doing our planning process, we also
    acknowledged the importance of the freeway system. We had the
    great opportunity to celebrate the start of a key project in
    the improvements in our Spaghetti Bowl. We envision in the year
    2030 that we would have made substantial improvements
    throughout the system. And, as Director Stephens has talked
    about, it is not just the growth issue we have to address in
    increasing capacity, but as the system ages and it approaches
    335 years and over the next 30 years, much if it will have to
    be rehabilitated and reconstructed, so that's clearly a very
    expensive but critical investment that we need to make.
        I guess the one thing that I'd suggest is we have been, I
    think, very well served in northern Nevada by the investments
    of Federal funds in the transportation system, but the
    challenge that we have seen is the major funding source is the
    gas tax, and it has great attraction as a user fee, and that as
    you use that system more you contribute more. There's a direct
    relationship between the benefits received versus the taxes
    that you are paying as a user. But what seems to be a real
    challenge for us locally--and I think even federally--is that
    that funding source as a flat rate does not account for
    inflation, and we need to try to address that.
        I guess the final point I wanted to make and what we found
    in developing our long-range plan is, in addition to the
    Federal contributions and assistance, we need to take on our
    burdens and shoulder our share at the local level, and we are
    proposing to the residents of Washoe County a ballot question
    this November that would do exactly what I've just talked about
    at the local level. We are proposing that our local gas taxes
    be indexed to inflation. We are proposing that the new
    development impact fees--and new development has made a major
    contribution, over $100 million in the last 8 years through
    these impact fees--that they also go up as inflation occurs.
        We are also asking for a 1/8 percent investment increase in
    the sales tax, and that's critical because that is the one fund
    source that we have available to improve public transportation.
    That sales tax increment will be a key to matching the Federal
    funds that we hope will be available for bus rapid transit and
    other public transportation investments.
        The final thing that we have committed to and I think is
    critical is we need to become more efficient in the public
    sector. We have committed at the RTC and the other local
    governments $50 million in efficiency savings in roadway
    maintenance management.
        With approval of this funding question--and I hope I'm not
    being too optimistic--the State and local funding sources will
    generate 78 percent of the $5.4 billion that we plan the spend
    on the transportation system in the next 3 years. The Federal
    share of 22 percent is smaller than most people realize, but it
    is critical to our success, nevertheless. We believe strongly
    in partnerships at the RTC, and we look forward to continued
    strong partnerships with transportation leaders at the local,
    State, and Federal level. I am convinced that we can, working
    together and proactively, bring our vision of 2030 to reality.
        I want to thank you for this opportunity to address you,
    and I'll try to answer any questions you have.
        Senator Reid. I've been a little lenient here, but let's
    try to stick with the 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF JUAN PALMA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TAHOE REGIONAL
                  PLANNING AGENCY, ZEPHYR COVE, NEVADA

        Mr. Palma. Thank you, Senator Reid and Administrator
    Peters, for having me. My name is Juan Palma, executive
    director for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.
        I'd like to introduce one of my deputies, Carl Hasty. I
    think some of you know Carl is just a tremendous asset to us
    here. Also, one of our board members, Coe Swoe, who some of you
    I think know. He's going to be a board member of TRPA. We're
    glad to have him with us.
        Since 1997 when president Clinton and Vice President Gore
    and yourself, Senator Reid, were in Tahoe, you really
    reaffirmed the Federal commitment in helping to manage Lake
    Tahoe and really call it a national treasure by improving
    coordination at the Federal, the State, and the local level.
    The Administration at that time took bold steps on actions on
    water quality, transportation, forest health, and also on
    tourism and other areas, and also to protect the environment,
    the economy of Lake Tahoe
        TEA-21 played an instrumental, key role in this effort.
    TEA-21 provided a consent to the Congress for the establishment
    of what we call the Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization,
    or TMPO, for short. Designated by Governor Miller from Nevada
    and Governor Wilson from California, TMPO is today emerging as
    an essential element in the planning and programming of
    transportation elements and projects in the Lake Tahoe region--
    --
        Senator Reid. We had Tahoe declared a metropolitan planning
    organization agency, and that allowed them to get funding.
    Population-wise, it is the smallest in the country.
        Mr. Palma. Using population, we couldn't qualify for an
    MPO, so we have to go through this route to qualify as an MPO
    because our population is just not big enough. But that is
    critical, Administrator Peters, to be able to move forward.
        Now, these projects are not just the result of the TMPO.
    The Nevada Department of Transportation with Tom Stephens,
    NDOT, the California Department of Transportation, Caltrans
    from California, these are major players in Lake Tahoe. And
    both agencies, Caltrans and NDOT, have prepared water quality
    master plans for retrofitting the road system in Lake Tahoe.
        Tom spoke about some of the millions of dollars invested at
    Lake Tahoe. I'd like to invite you folks to come see Lake Tahoe
    so you can see the wonderful projects that are going on right
    now. You can actually see the work occurring today all along
    Lake Tahoe. It has tremendous progress. That's the result of
    the TMPO, and the result of the effort or the coordination of
    the local, Federal, and State agencies in Lake Tahoe.
        The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, or TRPA, we implemented
    an environmental improvement program about $908 million. This
    approach is over 10 years, and it is to achieve and maintain
    our Lake Tahoe environmental thresholds for Lake Tahoe region.
    Many of these projects are transportation-related projects.
    Neither NDOT nor Caltrans can afford to complete the EIP
    projects with the usual sources of funds. We suggest the
    Federal lands highway program is essential in providing
    additional funding for NDOT as well as Caltrans.
        The Federal lands highway program is well suited for Lake
    Tahoe. Under this program, Lake Tahoe projects are eligible
    both under the Federal highway and discretionary sub-programs.
    We think the sub-programs was a good idea. NDOT has used or is
    using their forest highway allocation, along with the voter-
    approved State-wide bonds, to construct erosion control
    facilities along sections of State Route 28 and Highway 50. As
    you may be aware, sections of SR 28 in Nevada have been
    designated a national scenic byway.
        NDOT is also using the funding for similar erosion control
    projects on U.S. 50, also to identify future projects like
    Kingsbury Grade as well as Mount Rose Highway.
        Continuation of the Federal lands highway program in the
    reauthorization of TEA-21 will provide for more of these kinds
    of erosion center projects for both Nevada and California, and
    we support that among the TRPA.
        TEA-21 also provided an additional money to the MPO that we
    have. Funds made available to the TMPO to not more than 1
    percent in the legislation that occurred--in the legislation
    that occurred back in 1998, the legislation allocated 1 percent
    of the Federal highway funds to Lake Tahoe. We believe that
    that legislation needs to continue in the next TEA-21. The
    intent of this provision of the 1 percent has not been fully
    realized, however. The amount of funds provided in the
    definition of what is considered eligible, planning has been
    limited administratively. We ask that the TEA-21
    reauthorization discussion proceeds that clearly the authority
    be provided for TRPA to use Tahoe's 1 percent provision to
    conduct specific project planning activities defined as concept
    development, site assessment, environmental studies, and
    preliminary project designs. We ask that this clear authority
    also be given to NDOT and Caltrans to use Tahoe's 1 percent to
    conduct similar activities.
        The existing administrative interpretation of TEA-21
    language does not provide either the TMPO, NDOT, or Caltrans
    the ability to utilize the Federal public lands highway
    program. This program, if not interpreted so narrowly, could
    easily serve as one of the most significant funding vehicles
    for meeting the Federal commitment for Lake Tahoe.
        We ask that this Administration, as well as the help of
    TEA-21, can help us define this 1 percent a little more
    further.
        The predecessor of TEA-21, the ISTEA, included numerous
    programs that benefit Lake Tahoe. I want to name some of those
    programs that we believe should continue, because they really
    served many, many positive things for Lake Tahoe. The transit
    capital and operations grants program--we think that ought to
    continue. The jobs excess and reserve commute grants ought to
    continue. Transportation enhancement activities should
    continue. The national scenic byways should continue.
    Congestion and mitigation air quality funds should continue.
    And intelligent transportation systems are just critical for
    Lake Tahoe, as well, as well as the clean fuels program,
    bicycle and pedestrian programs, and recreational trails
    programs. All of those are important pieces for Lake Tahoe, and
    we ask whatever is approved, Senator, that those pieces not be
    forgotten along the way.
        In conclusion, I would like to ask Congress and the
    Administration that there is some difficult choices to be made
    when it comes to transportation, and specifically the
    reauthorization of TEA-21. Transportation needs in this country
    are great, enormous throughout the country. We encourage you to
    take bold, assertive action within the context of our national
    priorities, and we support the reauthorization of TEA-21 and
    encourage you to consider the above recommendations regarding
    Lake Tahoe.
        Thank you for this opportunity.
        Senator Reid. Gary?

      STATEMENT OF GARY CARANO, NEVADA RESORT ASSOCIATION, RENO,
                                 NEVADA

        Mr. Carano. Welcome back to northern Nevada. Administrator
    Peters and your staff, welcome also to northern Nevada.
        I am Gary Carano, the general manager of the Silver Legacy
    in Reno, and I'm here today representing the Nevada Resort
    Association.
        The transportation issues that I'd like to discuss today
    with you impact all of northern Nevada, and all of our
    colleagues for once are united in this effort to address these
    issues today.
        The Reno/Sparks economy is very dependent on tourism. We
    receive over six million visitors a year to our fair city.
    These visitors come here to recreate in a variety of ways with
    entertainment, all the retail opportunities we have, the
    beautiful resorts we have to offer in northern Nevada. Lake
    Tahoe is a beautiful 35 minutes away. Roughly 35 percent of
    these only travel to northern Nevada by plane. The rest all
    come through our main arterial Interstate 80.
        Senator Reid. What about visitors traveling to Las Vegas?
    Is the traffic to Las Vegas mostly over the roads?
        Mr. Carano. I believe, Senator, that probably it is just
    opposite. The visitor count to Las Vegas airport is much
    greater than what we receive on the highways.
        Northern and central Californians are this area's leading
    customers, and these guests come here by Interstate 80.
    Interstate 80 is truly the economic lifeline of this community,
    not only for our tourists, but also the major link of goods and
    services from San Francisco and also through the port of
    Oakland, which is undergoing a billion-dollar, multi-year
    expansion which will lead to many more trains, which you've
    graciously helped us on that, and also trucks traveling
    Interstate 80.
        Driving Interstate 80 is truly a horrible experience
    currently, even with the work that is ongoing up there now, and
    together with the Senator and yourself, Administrator Peters,
    we hope that we can make a change in our future.
        Now more than ever we must work together to improve the
    interstate. The construction of new casinos throughout northern
    California and the rest of the country is challenging the
    tourism-based economy which this community relies on heavily.
    The proliferation of gaming is in 48 States now. Vacationers
    have vast choices that didn't exist only a couple of years ago.
    Most notably, of course, Native American casinos are drawing
    customers who previously traveled to this fair city. Nevada's
    gaming industry is innovative, exciting, and dynamic. We have
    never shied away from competition. Instead, we have found
    innovative ways to continue offering world-class facilities
    that appeal to our guests. As always, we will find ways to draw
    customers to our exciting city. We will always compete, no
    matter what happens.
        But we need your assistance to help ensure that the
    infrastructure necessary to bring these guests, these visitors
    to northern Nevada is healthy and an enjoyable experience on
    that highway. Right now Interstate 80 from Nevada's western
    border to Sacramento all the way to San Francisco, the bay
    area, is very much in deterioration. Much of this road is over
    50 years old, and it is in great need of modernization.
    Interstate 80 is in such bad condition and design, it often
    dissuades people from making the trip to Reno, especially when
    they have the option of enjoying recreational or entertainment
    opportunities much closer to home. In addition to Native
    American gaming, there's much more demand for the recreational
    dollar today than there was years ago.
        Motorists are forced to compete with dense traffic on a
    two-lane highway in both directions that has not increased
    capacity proportionate to major population growth in northern
    California and Nevada. Placer County, which is Auburn, is a
    short hour-and-a-half drive from here and is the fastest-
    growing county in California, probably the second-fastest
    growing population county in America, second only to Clark
    County.
        Added to this grim situation is the fact that I-80 is the
    primary east-west trucking route through the northern part of
    the Nation. Slow-moving semis with insufficient truck climbing
    lanes are highly disruptive to traffic. Furthermore, the lack
    of adequate shoulders in most areas can halt traffic when there
    is an accident or a simple mechanical failure, or in the
    wintertime when the interstate closes because of snow. Thus,
    there are no significant alternative east-west routes when the
    road is congested or closed.
        I know that you are aware of these problems and have been
    working on ways to improve I-80 for years. Northern Nevada
    businesses appreciate everything that you do and the committee
    has done. Through your leadership, portions of the decaying
    highway have improved and today still are under construction
    and are improving. Moreover, you played a pivotal role
    providing fundamental funding of an intelligent transportation
    system. This high-tech system posts accurate, up-to-the-minute
    traffic conditions on electronic billboards throughout the
    Interstate 80 corridor. Given the unpredictability of severe
    weather in the Sierra during the winter months, it is important
    to have an intelligent transportation system that allows
    motorists to make smart decisions about their trips across
    Donner Pass.
        Finally, we would like to thank you for your help during
    this year's appropriation cycle. Despite all the work that you
    and Congress have accomplished to fix this important highway,
    much more needs to be done. The Nevada Resort Association
    supports the efforts of Sierra Gateway Coalition, which is a
    group consisting of northern Nevada and northern California
    businesses, which is a group consisting of local and regional
    governments that work with the governments and public and
    private associations. The coalition has identified 11 essential
    projects on Interstate 80. These projects range from adding
    truck climbing lanes in the mountains to widening the shoulders
    for enhanced safety to adding vehicle lanes in the Sacramento
    Valley.
        As you undertake this important task of passing a new
    transportation reauthorization bill, we believe the Sierra
    Gateway Coalition report will help you identify the projects
    that will bring the most relief to this old highway and to the
    northern Nevada economy.
        I also must take the opportunity to speak of another
    transportation issue that you, Senator, have been very much a
    part of, and that's our air service. Highway traffic is not the
    only transportation concern of northern Nevada and our resort
    association. Air travel to the Reno/Tahoe Airport has decreased
    significantly since 1997. In an effort to increase
    profitability, major airlines have cut several flights from
    Reno. Prime markets in Canada and southern California are being
    choked off by airlines pulling out of this area. Customer
    counts have dropped spectacularly in the last 2 years.
    Passenger count for the first 6 months are down 17 percent.
    While much of this drop is due to the post-September 11th fear
    of flying, also the effects of Native American gaming, lack of
    a bowling convention in town this year, a poor California
    ``dot-com'' economy, and our national economy definitely leads
    to these decreases.
        We understand you have been working hard to encourage
    airlines to increase flights to Washoe County and broaden our
    market base, and we are very thankful for you doing this.
        The drop in air traffic underscores the need to modernize
    our highway infrastructure. If our customers are leery to fly,
    for whatever reason, we want to make sure that they don't have
    an excuse for not driving here.
        We encourage you to focus on Interstate 80 as you write the
    next transportation authorization legislation. Northern
    Nevada's economy depends on this link to California, which is
    in desperate need of repair.
        Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity.
        Senator Reid. Gary, I believe that we really haven't done
    nearly enough in northern Nevada. The I-80 problem has been a
    secret that has been kept. There have been some voices, but I
    don't think we've heard them nearly well enough. I think it
    is--I won't say a crisis stage, but it is at a point where we
    really need to focus on it.
        The sad part about it is our entire Federal interstate
    highway system is old and needs work done on it, and this is no
    exception. As you know, we got a couple million dollars for
    intelligent transportation, which will be a big help,
    especially when it is snowing or when it starts to snow, but
    that, to my understanding, has not been implemented yet. Is
    that right, Tom, $2 million worth of it?
        Mr. Stephens. It's in Caltrans' hands. No, it hasn't been
    put into place yet. We share the concerns about Interstate 80.
    Caltrans has been doing a lot of work on Interstate 80, but it
    is time consuming and it is traffic delaying when they do it,
    and there's more that could be done.
        Senator Reid. One of the things we've learned, problems in
    Nevada affect California commerce. I-15 in southern Nevada,
    that being jammed up, that doesn't--that just doesn't stop
    tourists from coming to Las Vegas, it stops commerce from
    traveling to and from southern California. The same applies to
    I-80. I think we need to do a better job of selling that. The
    problem is California is such a big, big State--$35 million
    people with problems every place you go.
        We have a Senate bill that is being passed out of--I'm
    sorry, it is out of committee now. The full committee has
    passed it. We have $1 million to look at the Colfax problem,
    and that's for planning. That was really a big help. But we're
    talking about needs not for $2 million or $1 million, although
    I am very happy to have that, but it's going to take large
    chunks of money to do that.
        I think one of the things we are going to have to look at,
    Tom, is working with California as we did with some of the
    major interchanges and stuff in California. I worked hard to
    get money appropriated for California because it helped Nevada,
    and people thought we were a little goofy doing that, but I
    have no regrets of doing that because it's good for Nevada. We
    may have to do the same up here. So anyway, that's my
    observations there.
        Greg, we talked about highways here a lot. Your
    responsibilities are more than cars riding on streets and
    highways. Tell us how you feel mass transit--you've done that
    in an abbreviated form in your statement--mass transit will
    alleviate some of the problems you have experienced.
        Mr. Krause. I think that what we need to do is plan for
    mobility, and as the community grows we can't build enough
    roads. In the developed areas, I think mass transit, if it is
    convenient, if it's safe and efficient, it is going to be the
    mode of choice. We think we can get much higher percentages of
    travel on the mass transit if we can make investments like bus
    rapid transit. I think it only makes sense in those dense
    corridors. We don't think it is the solution that we want to
    have in the suburban areas and the lower-density areas, but it
    clearly makes sense in those key corridors. Certainly Las Vegas
    has the strip, the same sort of thing. So that's where I think
    we have great potential.
        I guess if I can take just a moment, the other need that is
    an ongoing concern is serving the disabled. We have a
    requirement. It's a civil right to have access to that ADA
    service, and that's something that we also want to try to
    address. Again, we are trying to help ourselves locally with
    the funding measures that I talked about, but I think that's
    another area where we will continue to look for the Federal
    assistance as you have given us in both the capital funds and
    trying to make sure that we have operating assistance for that
    particular need for the disabled. That's just an even faster-
    growing portion of the community that needs to be served.
        Senator Reid. It's not a faster-growing part of the need,
    it's just that they're becoming aware of their rights, and, as
    a result of that, I think they're wanting to use the same
    facilities that are available to other people. I think that's
    part of the modern society I think we should feel good about.
    People no longer have to sit home until somebody can haul them
    around. That sometimes never occurred. So now we have rules,
    regulations, and laws that allow the disabled to be treated
    like those that aren't disabled. It's expensive, but I think it
    is the right thing to do.
        Juan, I have some questions and I want you to elaborate,
    especially with Mary Peters being here. Explain in more detail
    this Tahoe 1 percent provision of Federal lands highway
    program. Explain that in more detail to me, please.
        Mr. Palma. I'd be happy to, Senator. The Tahoe--when the
    TMPO was created, it was in that language of that bill that
    Tahoe was allowed 1 percent of the Federal lands highway
    program. That was the bill. When it was----
        Senator Reid. That's 1 percent of what?
        Mr. Palma. Of the national Federal lands highway program.
    As we began to proceed to interpret what the language was that
    was approved, the Administration interpreted that to be--
    various interpretations came about. To this day, we have
    various interpretations of that.
        We still believe at Tahoe that 1 percent was meant to be of
    the national Federal lands highway program, and we need to
    clarify that. We believe it is 1 percent of the national, but
    we need to have that discussion with all the critical players.
    With reauthorization of TEA-21, we need to clarify that. Our
    clarity would be that it would be 1 percent of a national
    Federal lands highway problem.
        Senator Reid. And the reasoning being that then the
    Republican Governor of California and the Democratic Governor
    of Nevada and now the Republican Governor of California, there
    has been agreement between these two States that there has to
    be something done about Lake Tahoe.
        Mr. Palma. Yes.
        Senator Reid. And one of the funding sources they are
    looking to to meet this $1 billion of requirements--we've done
    pretty good, especially compared to what we've done in the
    past, to get moneys for that. We have--Mary, an example. We
    have logging roads that are about 100 years old that have been
    polluting the lake for 100 years. We now have money to take
    care of some of that. We have, as Tom indicated, things we can
    do for more environmental cleanup. We can use mass transit. We
    can use all the other things we're doing. It's a huge, huge
    project, and it's all to save a very pristine lake that's
    losing its unique clarity.
        We will follow up on that some time.
        Mr. Palma. May I follow up with that, Senator Reid, as I
    think Gary mentioned that Placer County, which borders Lake
    Tahoe, is one of the fastest-growing counties. El Dorado County
    just to the south is another huge-growing county. This county
    is growing. Douglas County is growing. The populations all
    around Lake Tahoe just continue to skyrocket on all sides.
        So what we have, Administrator Peters, is that we have a
    big population that wants to go recreate Lake Tahoe on a daily
    basis. As the more population, the more want to go on Lake
    Tahoe. We have got to now begin to plan for the future growth
    of the highway system, but also for transportation, whether it
    is intelligent transportation systems.
        We are the beneficiaries of many of those things in Lake
    Tahoe, and I'd just encourage to continue that, because we want
    to save that beautiful lake for generations to come, and it is
    going to take all of us from the Federal Government, State
    government, local governments to do that.
        Senator Reid. Gary, let me just say this, also. When you
    talk about the lake, you know, that's a place. It's easier to
    get money for that than it is I-80, from my perspective. You
    know, it's something people understand now.
        I am not one for pushing lobbyists, but I think one of the
    things that the northern Nevada resort community needs to do--
    and I mean hire people. You have to be more aggressive because,
    believe me, there's a lot of people who represent different
    parts of Nevada that are pushing very, very hard, and there's a
    limited amount of dollars to go around, and highway
    transportation dollars are no different than dollars for other
    programs. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. I think, frankly,
    the northern Nevada resort industry has been too silent on
    this.
        Mr. Carano. Senator, I appreciate your comments. It has
    been, as our good friend John Asquaga would say, the topic of
    discussion for quite a few years. I agree with you--we have not
    been aggressive enough, and I will take that back to the Resort
    Association and suggest that we get aggressive and get
    competitive and try to follow the model that you led in
    southern Nevada with Interstate 15, with your leadership of
    bringing two States together.
        Senator Reid. Gary, I would also say this. The burying of
    the tracks is extremely controversial. But in my personal
    opinion--and I know I should stay out of this, even though I
    can't, because I arranged a lot of the funding for that--I just
    think it's something that needed to be done in northern Nevada.
    That's 50 years past due. I just think that we need to be more
    aggressive in what we need here, even though there's going to
    be tremendous heartburn and heartache burying these tracks,
    especially in the short term. In the long term it will be
    wonderful. We need to, as I say, let people know some of the
    problems we're having here in northern Nevada with traffic.
    California will help us if we make our cases.
        Mary, do you have anything?
        Ms. Peters. Just a few brief comments, if I might.
        Senator Reid. Yes.
        Ms. Peters. I would appreciate hearing from all of you. As
    the Department is finalizing our proposal for reauthorization,
    a couple of areas are important to us, and several of you have
    touched on those. One is the use of Intelligent Transportation
    Systems (ITS), both to relieve congestion and improve safety.
    If you have specific ideas as we look at the next generation of
    ITS, we would welcome those comments. I'll make sure my staff
    gets information to you on how to contact us before we leave
    today.
        Gary, I really wanted to talk a little bit about bus rapid
    transit. I think you are exactly right. That's a good way to
    grow the transit system and I will, with your permission, carry
    those comments back to Jenna Dorn, my counterpart in the
    Federal Transit Administration. If there's anything we can do
    to help you, we will be pleased to do that.
        Juan, I will ask our attorneys to again revisit this issue
    of the 1 percent, and I'll talk with them and see if we have
    any discretion. If not, we'll come back to you soon and let you
    know what we need to do there.
        And I think, Tom, one thing perhaps--I really appreciate
    your sharing the Western Governors' views on reauthoriztion. I
    think that that was important. I had an opportunity to meet
    with the Western Governors when they were in Washington in
    February of last year and strongly encouraged this, so I was
    very pleased when I saw that you were following up on that.
    Those contacts will be very, very important as we compare the
    Administration's proposal, so I do thank you.
        Senator Reid. Thank you, gentlemen.
        Mr. Stephens. May I add something?
        Senator Reid. Sure.
        Mr. Stephens. I just wanted to add the point that you
    talked about what we did in California, but I just wanted to
    add a couple of figures for the record.
        We put $5 million into the Barstow Interchange of I-40 and
    I-15, and that was under ISTEA and appropriations there, and
    that went a long ways toward getting that project done. And,
    Senator Reid, as he alluded to, got $16 million in Nevada
    appropriations for the Barstow-to-Victorville section. And even
    though that project is, like, a $100 million project, that $16
    million went a long, long way.
        We stand ready to work with the northern Nevada resort
    community on similar efforts as those. I think that there needs
    to be, you know, more attention from within the resort
    community, too, because we're there, we're ready, we're
    available to help you, and we have the experience in southern
    Nevada, and I think Senator Reid is indicating that he's there,
    too, but you have to come up with a plan and a schedule and how
    you're going to do it.
        Senator Reid. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
        The next panel will address, as we've talked, the Federal
    lands highway program. This is important. For example, roads
    owned by the Bureau of Land Management don't count toward the
    funding formulas that we've talked about.
        Mary Peters, let me just say this for the record. You're
    going to learn a little bit about Nevada today. we're going to
    have the director of the Oregon Department of Transportation,
    but we're also going to have two witnesses from rural Nevada.
    It reminds me of a story. When I first went to the State
    Legislature we had a Speaker of the Assembly who served in the
    Nevada State Legislature for many, many years. He was from a
    place in Nevada called Battle Mountain, and he went to a
    legislative meeting where all the speakers of the 50 States for
    the Lower House were in attendance, and they each introduced
    themselves. When it came to him, he said, ``I'm Bill
    Swackhammer from Battle Mountain, Nevada,'' and somebody said,
    ``Battle Mountain, Nevada? Where is that?'' He said, ``It's
    easy. It's right between Carlin and Valmy.''
        Today you're going to hear from one of the commissioners
    from Humboldt County, Nevada, from a place called Winnemucca.
    You're probably not familiar with the country-western singer
    Hank Snow. Have you ever heard of Hank Snow? Well, I went to
    the Grand Ole Opry once and had an opportunity to meet Hank
    Snow. Anyway, he has this great song where he sings, ``I've
    been everywhere,'' and one of the places he mentions is
    Winnemucca. I guess that's a little insight in Nevada. You've
    heard Hank Snow sing that, haven't you?
        We welcome you here. We're going to first hear from The
    Honorable Bruce Warner, director of the Oregon Department of
    Transportation. We're going to hear from John Milton, who is
    commissioner from Humboldt County, and Robyn Burdette, who is
    the chairwoman of the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe.
        We'll first hear from Warner, Milton, and Burdette in that
    order.

    STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE WARNER, DIRECTOR, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
                     TRANSPORTATION, SALEM, OREGON

        Mr. Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be
    here. Thank you for the hospitality I might extend to Nevada
    for letting me----
        Senator Reid. Ron Wyden, of course, serves on the
    committee. We're very happy to have him. He and I served in the
    House together. He's a wonderful man.
        Mr. Warner. Well, again, thank you for the opportunity to
    be here to talk about what I think is a very important
    reauthorization of TEA-21 and the Federal lands highway
    program. I believe you have written testimony from me, so I
    will just briefly----
        Senator Reid. We do.
        Mr. Warner [continuing]. Go through some of the highlights.
        Senator Reid. Your full statement will be part of the
    record.
        Mr. Warner. Thank you.
        I think you all know there's a tremendous amount at stake
    as we near the end of one surface transportation bill and move
    forward in debating the next. From Oregon's perspective, we
    believe TEA-21 has been an indisputable success. I wanted to
    get on the record, for example, Oregon's highways are safer--
    traffic deaths now have fallen to a 40-year low. Our pavement
    conditions have improved slightly, although they are not yet
    where I want them to be. And thousands of highway-related jobs
    have been supported over the years. I think it is a success.
        Reauthorization comes at a challenge time. We face new
    challenges, including the economic downturn and a new era of
    combatting terrorism at home and abroad. And I think, Senator,
    you touched on it first, that the infrastructure built after
    World War II is entering old age at the same time. You have
    also heard quite a lot about rapid growth and congestion. I
    think they both threaten our liveability and economic
    opportunity.
        You've heard it before. I'm going to be a broken record on
    this. We need additional resources from the Federal Government
    and additional revenues to strengthen our transportation
    system. We are trying to do our part, but we also believe
    additional Federal resources are needed. I think you are aware
    of many of the ideas that people are talking about to raise new
    revenue. You've heard about the eliminating ethanol tax
    exemptions and trying to retain the interest that's earned on
    the highway trust fund balance. But I also heard what I thought
    was very interesting. I would encourage your committee to take
    a look at indexing Federal fuels taxes. I believe that indexing
    taxes to deal with inflation is a critical issue. In Oregon
    we've done some analysis and we're finding out that people
    actually pay less in real terms than they did in 1970.
        Senator Reid. If I could interrupt, people in America pay
    less gas taxes than anywhere else.
        Mr. Warner. Well, increasing taxes is never popular, but I
    think the stakes are very high.
        One of the things that Administrator Peters and I have
    talked about is the need to explore new methods of financing
    transportation in the future. The experts are saying we are
    overly reliant on fossil fuels, and as fuel efficiency
    continues to grow, revenues to the highway trust fund are going
    to go down.
        I think all of us believe that vehicles, no matter how they
    are powered, should pay their fair share for improvements to
    the transportation system, because all vehicles cause
    congestion and wear and tear. In Oregon, we're looking at
    things like vehicle miles traveled taxes to tackle this
    problem. Our legislature charged us to look at new ways to
    ensure all vehicles pay their fair share. We're going to be
    exploring experimental ideas and reporting back to the
    Legislature next year.
        I encourage you to look at creating a pilot study that
    would promote research and testing of new methods for financing
    transportation. It would be very helpful, I believe.
        I did want to touch on the Federal lands highway program
    because I believe the continuation of a strong Federal lands
    highway program in the next surface transportation
    authorization is of national importance and a high priority for
    all of us western States. The State of Oregon has almost 32
    million acres in Federal ownership, an area greater than the
    sum of 35 other States' Federal lands.
        I wanted to also make the committee aware that, even while
    timber harvests in Oregon are declining, more people are still
    employed in the lumber and wood products industry than any
    other single manufacturing industry in the State.
        Senator Reid. I'm stunned by that.
        Mr. Warner. That's right. Recreational opportunities on
    publicly owned lands are another thing that's becoming vital
    for Oregon's travel and tourism industry.
        TEA-21 continued the Federal lands highway program
    established by ISTEA. It added some additional categories
    dealing with transit and public lands, national parks, Indian
    reservations, and preservation and construction of roads in
    national wildlife refuges. Oregon supports these categories and
    the changes that were made in TEA-21.
        In regards to the future, you are going to be deciding the
    overall authorization level for this program, the number of
    program categories, and how the funds are allocated. As you're
    aware, funding was increased dramatically from $447 million in
    1997 to about $700 million in the current year, and obviously
    we would like to see some similar increases. I know you're
    going to hear about the demands that are there right now.
        I did want to stress the point that the Western Governors
    Association and WASHTO--the Western State Highway and
    Transportation Officials--have adopted resolutions in support
    of increased funding, and they're also saying they don't want
    to see additional categories created within the Federal lands
    highway program.
        You've already heard about the BLM issue. We're concerned
    about that issue as well. I'm very pleased to hear that
    Administrator Peters is talking with the BLM. I hope the
    western States will be involved in those conversations.
        We were very concerned to learn that the U.S. Forest
    Service, for example, would like to add 60,000 miles of U.S.
    Forest Service roads to the Federal Highway Program. We support
    their need, but we don't think you can add a category of roads
    that's greater in size than the Interstate Highway System, and
    fund it from the Highway Trust Fund. We have encouraged the
    U.S. Forest Service to look for funds from the general fund or
    other sources.
        Again, I think there are many other issues that we could
    probably talk about. I just wanted to quickly talk about the
    aging infrastructure in Oregon. We have a bridge problem in
    Oregon. Our bridges were built in the 1950's and 1960's
    utilizing a technology that we're now finding out was maybe
    deficient, and a number of them are going to be impacting the
    movement of freight as a result of load limiting. We're going
    to be our legislature next session for major funding, but the
    State cannot fix this problem alone.
        I think there is a similar problem throughout the United
    States, and we probably need to look at making sure bridges are
    brought up to current standards on the interstate, because that
    is the primary backbone of our freight system.
        You've seen in my testimony some recommendations for the
    national corridor planning and development program. We really
    support it, but we think that it's being diluted and funding is
    not really going to the purpose that it should. I think you
    need to look at making sure those moneys go to important
    freight corridors in the United States, especially those hubs
    where you have the various modes going together that are
    critical to the freight and the economy of the Nation. We have
    one in the Portland area, the I-5 Trade Corridor, we think is
    one that should be on that list.
        Other things you've heard about include the transportation
    and community and system preservation program and environmental
    streamlining. We think that you need to look at these programs,
    to continue them, but also maybe refocus them. We'd be glad to
    have further conversations with you, your staff, or the
    Department on how that might be done.
        So, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to state that a
    strong transportation system is vital to the future of the
    United States. Reauthorization is clearly an opportunity to
    strengthen the transportation system and buildupon the
    successes of TEA-21 and ISTEA. To do this, we believe
    additional Federal resources are needed because States simply
    cannot overcome the many challenges we face alone. But I wanted
    to really stress that I don't think you need to recreate the
    wheel on this. I think the basic structure is sound. We have
    proven programs such as the Federal lands highway program that
    are generally working well.
        Some changes need to be made to ensure that discretionary
    program funding is targeted to projects that really support the
    primary objectives of those programs, and funding guarantees
    and firewalls that were established in TEA-21 need to be
    protected. And I think you do need to look at new sources of
    revenue.
        And, finally, it is crucial that the State highway
    apportionments increase substantially as they did under TEA-21.
    I think it benefits Oregon, it benefits the western States, our
    cities, counties, metropolitan planning organizations, transit
    districts, and others.
        Again, I am very pleased to be here and I again want to
    thank you for the opportunity to talk with you.
        Senator Reid. Mr. Milton?

     STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. MILTON, III, COMMISSIONER, HUMBOLDT
                       COUNTY, WINNEMUCCA, NEVADA

        Mr. Milton. Senator Reid, Administrator Peters, thank you
    for allowing me to be here today. My name is John Milton. I'm a
    senior member of the Humboldt County Commission and a member of
    the board of directors of the Nevada Association of Counties.
        Thank you for the opportunity to spend a few minutes
    discussing western transportation issues and the Federal lands
    highway program, in particular.
        As you are aware, Senator Reid, over 87 percent of the land
    in our State is managed and controlled by the Federal
    Government. The majority of this land is accessed over county-
    maintained roads. Most of these roads are gravel, which require
    a high level of maintenance. In Humboldt County we have 941
    miles of county-maintained roads in our system. Of that amount,
    669 miles or 71 percent of our system serve Federal lands.
    These lands do not generate revenue which can be used for
    building new roads or maintaining existing roads.
        In reviewing the Federal lands highway program I noticed
    that the majority of this money goes to the public lands
    highway category. In that category, 66 percent goes to forest
    highways, 33 percent goes to discretionary programs. In
    Humboldt County and the majority of Nevada, the Department of
    Interior is the manager of the Federal lands, and they receive
    no funding in this program.
        In Nevada there are approximately 61.7 million acres of
    Federal land, of which 51.1 million acres are administered by
    the Department of Interior, primarily the BLM. I would
    recommend that in the reauthorization you consider a new
    category related to these lands which would be similar to the
    current categories for refuge roads, park roads, and parkways.
        The Sheldon Antelope Refuge is the only wildlife refuge
    located in Humboldt County. Access to this refuge is via county
    roads. We believe we should be allowed to access refuge road
    category funds for improvements to these county roads. We
    currently receive 5,000 a year in revenue sharing from the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service, but return $2,500 for the
    maintenance of the Virgin Valley Campground. This does not
    leave much for maintenance of the roads leading to or within
    the refuge.
        In April of 2000 I appeared before the Senate Subcommittee
    on Forest and Public Land Management to testify on the Black
    Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National
    Conservation Area. That's a long name. In that time, one of my
    concerns I expressed was access to the NCA via our county roads
    system. That bill became law, and my concerns have not gone
    away. Most, if not all, the major access points are reached by
    county roads. Many of these are Humboldt County roads,
    including Cedarville Road, which provides access to the NCA and
    Sheldon Antelope Refuge, and a 95-mile road from Winnemucca to
    Gerlach which provides access to the entire southern boundary
    of the NCA.
        Senator Reid. Are these paved or dirt roads?
        Mr. Milton. These are all gravel roads.
        We expect use of these roads to increase dramatically. The
    cost of maintaining them will also increase. Improving these
    roads to handle increased traffic is beyond our means. For
    example, the estimate we obtained to upgrade the road from
    Winnemucca to Gerlach to an all-weather gravel road exceeds $7
    million. This does not include the $480,000 cost for cultural
    clearance, right-of-way acquisition, gravel pit development,
    and water sources or the $200,000 annual cost for maintenance.
    This road crosses three counties, none of which can afford to
    spend this type of money.
        Although roads such as these serve Federal lands, Humboldt
    County maintains them with no assistance from the Federal
    Government.
        The access to the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in
    Humboldt County is also via our county road system. We maintain
    approximately 44.1 additional miles within the forest under
    agreement with the Forest Service. In exchange, the Forest
    Service maintenance crews undertake projects on county roads
    leading to the national forest to offset our costs incurred by
    the county.
        In conclusion, I would ask that you give strong
    consideration in the reauthorization of the Transportation
    Equity Act of the 21st Century by addressing the concerns I
    have expressed today. In particular, I would ask that a
    category be created to address the vast holdings of the
    Department of Interior. Also, that public roads maintained by
    someone other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service be
    allowed to utilize the money in the refuge roads category.
        Thank you for allowing me to speak today.
        Senator Reid. Excellent statement.
        Senator Reid. Robyn?

      STATEMENT OF ROBYN BURDETTE, CHAIRWOMAN, SUMMIT LAKE PAIUTE
                       TRIBE, WINNEMUCCA, NEVADA

        Ms. Burdette. Thank you. I'm glad to be here, speaking here
    in Nevada. I think it is good that you came here. I appreciate
    that. I've also been enlightened a little bit about Mary
    Peters. I understand she comes from Arizona.
        I'll try not to read my statement, because it is a long
    statement, however----
        Senator Reid. Your whole statement will be part of the
    record. If you would summarize in about 5 minutes, that would
    be appreciated.
        Ms. Burdette. OK. Thank you.
        The Summit Lake Tribe is located in the northwest portion
    of Nevada. As discussed, it is adjacent to the areas of Sheldon
    and Black Rock, and it is also open to very high-use
    recreational area. That's a big economy up there in our country
    in the rural areas.
        In 1999 I was chosen to sit on the Transportation Equity
    Act Negotiated Rule-Making Committee for Indian Reservation
    Roads, and my tribe was placed with 54 other tribes in the
    western region who service Nevada, Utah, and Arizona.
        One of the things I do want to mention, although I know
    it's not part of the IRR program, is road maintenance. Road
    maintenance. Road maintenance is a real need for Indian roads
    to maintain Indian reservation roads, and I know that the
    refuge road get funded, and I'm not suggesting that I'm in
    favor of putting an increase for road OM into our IRR program,
    but I think that it should be looked at because we're building
    new roads and we're not able to maintain roads that exist.
    However, the BIA OM budget should be targeted for an increase.
        The Rule-Making Committee just finished--and I think the
    publication came out for procedures and a relative needs
    formula. However, this is the first time that nationally the
    tribes got to see and participate and develop this formula.
    Unfortunately, with minimal funding it is very difficult to
    come up with a formula that's going to service so many tribes
    with so much need.
        We went back again to the population average daily traffic
    counts and cost to construct; however, a lot of what is needed
    to get to that point is planning dollars, and with low
    populations and rural areas, most of the tribes really don't
    benefit from this. I know my tribe has never received funding.
    And because we receive such low funding, we never, ever get a
    construction project. Sometimes my relative need portion will
    vary from $19,000 to $30,000, my estimated road project--this
    is without any new roads--is $1.7 million. That's an estimate.
    So it's very doubtful that I'll ever get to that when the
    region has to service 54 other tribes and my tribe is on the
    low end because of the population count. So that's a very big
    concern of ours.
        In the new proposed regulations there are some new
    categories that have potential, but they really need to be
    looked at further, and that is the high priority projects. This
    would allow for tribes who have never had a construction
    project and will only need one construction project to get
    serviced; however, there has been inclusion in this fund, this
    potential fund, of emergency and disaster. With Indian
    reservation roads, we have those on a daily basis. That really
    doesn't solve any problems. It just adds more funds to those
    types of categories.
        Likewise, my tribe--and I've added some pictures in the
    back of my statement--in 1999, we experienced the flood that
    Nevada had back then, and we applied for funds through the ERFO
    project. We had to go through the BIA to apply for those funds,
    and we were--denied eventually, it took us a couple of years to
    do that just because of the process of getting everything. We
    really didn't receive that much technical assistance. I think,
    had we been able to go straight to the Federal Lands Office
    instead of going through the BIA it would have been a much
    better process.
        Our road is the sole access from one point to the other,
    and I'm very glad to see John Milton here, because we share the
    same road problem. People cannot travel through this area
    unless they come through the reservation. So there's a lot of
    problems in this area that are going to need to be addressed.
    We have a lake, and the lake rises and the water comes in.
        BIA, their hands are tied because they have so many tribes
    to service.
        So, you know, I really don't want to be saying anything
    really bad. I just think that the Western Region Office needs
    to be looked at a little bit better. This affects us on a
    national level because, obviously, not only do we serve these
    roads public roads, but on the national level you have the Duck
    Valley Shoshone Tribe who has numerous accidents near or on
    their reservation, and yet they're targeted for transportation
    of nuclear receptacles. So tribal roads can potentially have a
    national effect, especially here in Nevada.
        I think the tribes in Nevada are looking forward to
    partnering with the State of Nevada; however, they need to get
    some of the funds geared for that.
        One of the other areas that's proposed in the negotiated
    rulemaking for the IRR program is capacity-based funding, but,
    again, it is based on population, and I think that it's really
    not going to work the way it is proposed. I think that base
    funding should be based on getting a project concluded, not
    based on your population and sub-category. I think without that
    we're not going to be able to partner and solve some of the
    problems that affect all of us.
        In other areas for the IRR program that were important to
    us, overall, nationally, was that the IRR program is a
    construction program. Unfortunately, we have to address all our
    transportation needs with construction dollars, like transit.
    We also have take-downs that are taking away, decreasing those
    funds, such as the obligation limitation and the 62 percent
    transportation. They come off the top, which limits our funds
    at the bottom.
        In closing, I would just ask that those areas be looked at
    again. I think that tribes can manage their programs if they're
    given the resources to do that, and I think we would love to be
    partnering with some of our county governments, also, to
    address these problems.
        Senator Reid. We thank all the witnesses in this panel very
    much.
        I say to you, Mr. Warner, you understand that the budget
    the President gave us is $8.6 billion short of just where we
    break even, and we've got huge money problems, and that's going
    to be a real hassle next year. As you know, every member of the
    Senate committee and every member of the House committee,
    Democrats and Republicans, signed on to a bill to increase that
    funding, but that's just up to current levels, and that's
    certainly not going to do the trick. So you need to understand
    your plaintive plea for money is one we've heard, but it's a
    difficult, difficult situation we have. I can't imagine going
    into this bill with the same amount of money we had 5 years
    ago. That will make things so much more difficult. I feel bad
    for the country. But we hope things will turn around and we can
    do something here.
        One question I have for you, in TEA-21 Senator Wyden, with
    the support, we're told, of the Oregon Department of
    Transportation, championed creation of the transportation
    community system preservation pilot program. Tell us what that
    is and how it has worked.
        Mr. Warner. Mr. Chairman, Administrator Peters, obviously
    the program, at least from our perspective, we thought it was a
    program that was to encourage people doing the right things
    from a land use and transportation standpoint, to look at
    environment liveability and to come up with projects that could
    promote liveability, alternative modes of transportation, could
    again promote compact communities, and allowing things to be
    done differently than they were being done now.
        What we've seen in that program--it was well-intended. It's
    one of those programs that I described where I think the policy
    intent was pretty clear, but this is a program that, again,
    became earmarked 100 percent. I'm not sure that all the
    projects that were funded by that through that program really
    fit the overall policy intent, so anything the committee could
    do, if you feel that's still a program you want to continue--
    and I think we should continue that program----
        Senator Reid. You'd have some discretionary money.
        Mr. Warner. Exactly. Exactly. And I don't know whether it
    is a formula based or, again, given a discretionary program to
    the Federal Highway Administration to administer, but I think
    the intent was to have some sort of a competitive process where
    we could pit projects that really showcase things we wanted to
    maybe have occur throughout the United States and other places
    and use those as learning experiences, but I don't think the
    program has worked as well as originally intended, if I'm
    answering your question, Senator.
        Senator Reid. You're answering very directly. And I would
    hope that this program and others take into consideration what
    local governments and States have done to help themselves. If a
    State of local entity has done nothing but look for Federal
    largesse, then I think that in these discretionary programs, I
    think that the administrator and others should take into
    consideration what local government has done.
        One last question I'd like to ask you. The border and
    corridor program, I'm told by everyone, has not worked very
    well. The purpose of it, of course, was to take care of
    bottlenecks in our trade corridors. What do you think we should
    do to improve this program so that it meets the critical
    freight needs of this country?
        Mr. Warner. Well, Mr. Chairman and Administrator Peters, I
    think obviously the language in the authorizing bill needs to
    be clear about the intent of those moneys, and we need to have,
    first off, oversight to make sure that those moneys that are
    going to projects that do what the program is designed to do,
    and I think we need to make sure that it is focused in the
    specific corridors that are of national significance in
    movement of freight, and maybe we even need to go as far as
    identifying some of those right up front so that here's the
    kind of corridors we're looking at and to make it clear that's
    what we want to do with this money.
        I think if you put that clear direction in, give the
    Department some clear direction on how you want it
    administered, I think the program would work better, but right
    now what we're seeing is a lot of smaller projects not really
    addressing, as you point out, the great bottlenecks that are
    there in those corridors. So it has not worked out as we had
    planned.
        Senator Reid. I'd say to Mr. Milton and Chairwoman
    Burdette, you know, we talk all the time about unfunded
    mandates. The example that you gave where we've created this
    large new entity, Black Rock, that's an unfunded mandate as far
    as you are concerned because you have basically two choices--do
    something to try to improve the roads or just do nothing, and
    in the process the roads become more dangerous and, of course,
    I would think that there are some business benefits from people
    traveling on these roads to people in the area. The roads are
    so bad, people simply won't want to come.
        So I think we really do have to take a look at it, to help
    with non-freeway type roads, dirt roads. People come to me now
    and say, ``What street did you live on?'' We didn't have
    streets. You know, they're working on Main Street or--it's hard
    for people to comprehend what the west was like.
        I've traveled through the Sheldon Antelope Range. It's a
    dirt road. It's a nice dirt road, one of the nicer ones that
    I've driven on, but I'm sure the need there is significant. No
    matter what you do on a dirt road, you can't save it from a
    cloudburst. These things happen and wash things away.
        Your statements are very important.
        Chairwoman Burdette, tell us a little bit about the Summit
    Lake Tribe. How many tribal members do you have?
        Ms. Burdette. We have an enrollment population of 94, I
    believe.
        Senator Reid. That's a difficult problem you have. How many
    hundreds of thousands of Navajos? How many hundreds and
    hundreds of thousands. Even in Nevada, 94 when you compare it
    to Shoshone, which is about 4,000, I believe, so you're always
    fighting an uphill battle.
        Ms. Burdette. We are always trying.
        Senator Reid. Tell us a little bit, for the record, the
    history of the Summit Lake Tribe. When did it start?
        Ms. Burdette. Of course, the Summit Lake Tribe, Nevada if
    their aboriginal territory, of course. The tribe was
    organized----
        Senator Reid. Where you are now was?
        Ms. Burdette. Yes. And it was organized or recognized by
    the IRR in 1913, I believe.
        Senator Reid. Was the membership in the beginning very
    small?
        Ms. Burdette. Membership has remained small, and we--a lot
    of the impact on our reservation and something that I'm
    concerned about on a national area is that a lot of people
    assume that there aren't members there, and there are a lot of
    members and we all maintain our ties to the reservation. We are
    just starting to develop our land. We have a lot of impact
    because of the recreational high-use area. I mean, you cannot
    get from one side--we're right next to Oregon, we're right next
    to California, we're in a high recreational area. People love
    to hunt up there, so they impact the area.
        Senator Reid. What is the area of land?
        Ms. Burdette. The reservation, itself, is about 12,000
    acres.
        Senator Reid. Which is very small.
        Ms. Burdette. Very small. It includes the lake.
        Senator Reid. Well, we appreciate your coming here very
    much.
        Mr. Carano is still in the room. Gary, I would remind you
    what she's done at the Summit Lake Tribe is indicative of what
    the Northern Resort Association should do. Only 94 members,
    but, boy, I'll tell you they are loud. They maintain identity.
    For example, she's here testifying today. A lot of other tribal
    governments didn't come. She's really done a good job.
        Ms. Burdette. I thank you for the opportunity.
        Senator Reid. Mary, do you have anything you would like to
    say?
        Ms. Peters. Senator, just a few comments.
        First of all, I want to thank all the witnesses, both this
    panel and the prior. It has been very enlightening for me to
    actually come out here to America and hear from the people
    about how you want America's money spent because, at the end of
    the day, this Administration certainly realizes the importance
    of this and we look forward to addressing some of the issues,
    most specifically the aging infrastructure and bridges. That's
    a topic that my staff and I spent hours talking about lately,
    and we'd like to consult with you some more about what we can
    do about that. Clearly, and especially in a State like this
    with so much growth, there are new needs, but there are also
    very important needs such as on I-80 to maintain existing
    infrastructure. I do appreciate such needs and we'd like to
    discuss them more.
        Senator Reid. Mary, let me just say, to complicate that, I
    had a conversation this morning with some people who are
    wanting to do some experiments, because one of the areas that
    the terrorists have targeted are our bridges, and that's a
    difficult problem. What can we do to protect our bridges. And,
    to indicate the nature, the aging of the bridges, very
    significant number of bridges where a school bus pulls up to
    it, lets the kids out, the kids walk across and the take the
    bus across the bridge.
        Ms. Peters. It is a concern, and Secretary Mineta
    especially shares your concern about the condition of the
    bridges in this country.
        Mr. Milton from Humboldt County, I also appreciate your
    concerns. We'll go back and look at the issue again, and I
    think, as was said earlier, it is important to consult with all
    of you because we do know, especially in a State like this with
    so much public land, it is recreational, and tribal land, as
    well. It is land that people want to have access to and
    recreate on, so we do appreciate the significant challenges
    that we have.
        Ms. Burdette, we do have a program that I'd like to have
    someone send information to you on called the ``capacity
    building program.'' It helps with planning, building planning
    capacity and capability. I understand what you're saying about
    money, but that program may be of some assistance to you in the
    nearer term.
        But again, Senator, I very much appreciate your giving me
    the opportunity to come out and hear from the people in America
    and here in Nevada. I very, very much appreciate it.
        Senator Reid. Let me just comment about this Sheldon
    Antelope Ranch. If I'm not mistaken, that was done during the
    era of Theodore Roosevelt. He got that started. It's a huge
    area, a huge area. It is a great recreation area. That part of
    the country, except for Alaska, is the most sparsely populated
    part of our country.
        This committee stands in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
    to reconvene at the call of the chair.]
        [Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

       Statement of Hon. Mary E. Peters, Administrator, Federal Highway
               Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

        Mr. Chairman, it is truly a pleasure to be here in Nevada today.
    This is an appropriate setting for discussing the Federal Lands Highway
    Program (FLHP). Federal and Tribal lands account for approximately 31
    percent of the United States and the greater part of these lands is
    located in the 13 western-most States. As you know, federally owned
    lands constitute a greater percentage of total land area in Nevada than
    is the case in any other State.
        Through FLHP funding, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
    works in cooperation with the Federal land management agencies, Tribal
    governments, and State and local transportation agencies to provide
    access to and within Federal and Tribal lands. Our goal is to create
    the best transportation system possible in balance with the
    environmental and cultural values of Federal and Tribal lands. I
    appreciate this opportunity to report to you on some of the
    accomplishments of the FLHP under the Transportation Equity Act for the
    21st Century (TEA-21).

                                   BACKGROUND

        Transportation is critical to the quality of life of Native
    Americans and other residents on Tribal and Federal lands. Moreover,
    Federal and Tribal lands have many uses, including grazing, timber
    harvesting, mineral extraction, energy production, and wilderness and
    wildlife protection; but tourism and recreation are the largest and
    fastest growing uses. The economies of many western States and local
    communities are dependent on tourists. Safe and sufficient
    transportation access to and within Federal and Tribal lands is
    essential to providing a positive experience and encouraging repeat
    visits.
        The Federal lands highway system comprises 96,130 miles of public
    roads and almost 10,000 bridges and tunnels. A substantial number of
    the nation's All American Roads and National Scenic Byways are part of
    the Federal lands highway system. There are also approximately 510,000
    miles of Federal public and non-public administrative and land access
    management roads and trails which connect to the Federal lands highway
    system, but which are owned by the Federal land management agencies and
    the Department of Defense and are not eligible for funding under the
    FLHP.
        Congress created the FLHP as part of the 1982 Surface
    Transportation Assistance Act. The Act brought together for the first
    time a consolidated and coordinated long-range funded program for
    Federal lands highways. The Federal Lands Highway Office administers
    the program through memoranda of agreement with our Federal partners
    that define the roles and responsibilities of each agency.
        The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
    (ISTEA), followed by TEA-21, expanded requirements of the FLHP;
    enhanced flexibility of the program, including eligibility of transit
    facilities for funding; and increased program funding levels. TEA-21
    authorized a total of $4.1 billion for the FLHP for FYs 1998-2003, to
    be distributed under five categories: Forest Highways, Public Lands
    Highways Discretionary (PLHD), Indian Reservation Roads (IRR), Park
    Roads and Parkways (PRP), and Refuge Roads. In FYs 1998-2002, about 66
    percent of the FLHP funds were allocated to projects located in the 13
    western States that contain the majority of Federal and Tribal lands,
    as shown in the following table.

                                                         FLH Program Funding
                           State                         in Millions, Fiscay
                                                            Year 1998-2002

    Alaska.............................................  181
    Arizona............................................  362
    California.........................................  193
    Colorado...........................................  94
    Hawaii.............................................  12
    Idaho..............................................  81
    Montana............................................  165
    Nevada.............................................  87
    New Mexico.........................................  264
    Oregon.............................................  131
    Utah...............................................  74
    Washington.........................................  106
    Wyoming............................................  127
        Western State Total............................  1,877
        Remaining 37 States............................  950

                             FOREST HIGHWAY PROGRAM

        The Forest Highway program is the oldest funding category in the
    FLHP, originating in the Federal-Aid Road Act of 1916. The program
    serves 175 national Forests and Grasslands, and consists of 29,214
    miles of road and 4,214 bridges. FHWA works through 41 tri-party
    agreements (FHWA, State, and Forest Service) to administer the Forest
    Highway program. TEA-21 made available $129 million in 1998 and $162
    million per fiscal year for 1999-2003 for project funding under the
    Forest Highway Program.
        Since TEA-21, a major emphasis of the Forest Service and FHWA has
    been in the transportation planning area. In fiscal year 2002, FHWA has
    co-sponsored a series of six conferences with the U.S. Forest Service
    on ``Innovative Approaches to Transportation-Planning, Partnerships,
    and Programs,'' designed to: (1) further increase awareness of Forest
    Service personnel of the resources available for their transportation
    needs; (2) increase awareness of the vital importance of building
    partnerships with gateway communities, State Departments of
    Transportation (DOTs), Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs),
    rural regional planning agencies, and Tribal governments; (3) share
    good practices in the areas of transportation planning, project
    financing, public involvement, and environmental stewardship and
    streamlining; and (4) promote greater integration in transportation
    planning activities conducted by the States, local transportation
    officials, and the Forest Service. Reno was the site of one of the
    conferences.
        There are well over 100 Forest Highway projects in some level of
    development or construction at any given time in the West. Under TEA-
    21, $560 million have been allocated to these projects in the western
    States, which represents about 84 percent of the total expenditures
    under the program.
        The major Forest Highway work in Nevada over the past few years has
    been road stabilization and erosion control on State Route 28 in the
    Lake Tahoe Basin and reconstruction of the Harrison Pass Road near
    Elko. Nevada receives about $2 million annually from the Forest Highway
    program and it has been divided nearly equally between these two
    projects.

               PUBLIC LANDS HIGHWAY DISCRETIONARY PROGRAM (PLHD)

        PLHD provides funding for transportation projects that are eligible
    under title 23; that are in a State containing Federal lands, Federal
    reservations, or Tribal lands; and that provide or improve access to
    Federal lands or Tribal lands. Funds are to be allocated by the Federal
    Highway Administrator, who is directed to give preference to
    applications from States that have at least 3 percent of the nation's
    total Federal lands.
        There have been many successes under this program since its
    inception. Since enactment of ISTEA, we have provided about $725
    million (through fiscal year 2002) for over 400 projects. The 13
    western States have received the majority of funds allocated under this
    program, with Nevada receiving the largest amount of funding from the
    program over the past 20 years--$96.96 million out of $1.113 billion
    allocated.
        PLHD has provided over $30 million since 1992 for major
    reconstruction of New Mexico Route 537 through the Jicarilla Indian
    Reservation, which has significantly improved access in this area, and
    enhanced economic development for the Reservation. We have also
    provided over $28 million since 1990 for numerous roadway
    reconstruction and rehabilitation projects to improve access in and
    around the National Mall in Washington, DC.
        To date under TEA-21, $403 million have been made available for 246
    PLHD projects. The Hoover Dam Bypass project, which is a joint project
    between Arizona and Nevada, has received $18 million of PLHD funds
    since fiscal year 1999. Other PLHD projects in Nevada include $10
    million for the Pahrump Valley Road, $10.5 million for US-50 and SR-28
    in the Lake Tahoe area, $8 million for US-95 near Searchlight, and $4
    million for the St. Rose Parkway in Clark County.
        TEA-21 changes allow funding for administrative costs of Federal
    land management agencies in connection with public lands highways and
    costs of Federal land management agencies to conduct necessary
    transportation planning for Federal lands, where funding for the
    planning is not provided by other FLHP categories. Between $4-6 million
    per year have been allocated to Federal agencies under these
    provisions.

                     INDIAN RESERVATION ROAD PROGRAM (IRR)

        TEA-21 reaffirmed the Federal Government's commitment to providing
    safe and efficient access to and within Tribal lands by authorizing
    $1.6 billion in IRR funding for fiscal years 1998-2003. Since the
    enactment of TEA-21, the IRR program has provided funding to construct
    or improve 2,000 miles of roads and 51 bridges. TEA-21 also
    strengthened the commitment of the Federal Government to increasing the
    involvement of Tribal governments in transportation programming and
    planning.
        As part of the TEA-21 requirements to develop transportation
    planning procedures, the FHWA and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),
    in consultation with the Tribal governments, developed the AIndian
    Reservation Roads Program Transportation Planning Procedures and
    Guidelines,
        which is now available as interim guidance for transportation
    planning. FHWA conducted training on these planning procedures in
    cooperation with the BIA and Tribal Technical Assistance Program
    Centers.
        Other actions taken, as a part of our TEA-21 implementation efforts
    to improve transportation for Tribal lands while increasing Tribal
    involvement in the process, include FHWA's renewal of four Tribal
    Technical Assistance Program centers and establishment of three new
    ones to serve Tribes in Oklahoma, California, and Alaska. Also, the BIA
    established a self-governance pilot program wherein two self-governance
    Tribes receive IRR funds as part of their annual funding agreements.
        One noteworthy project under the IRR program, also using PLHD
    funding, is the Walden Point Road Project for the Metlakatla Indian
    Community of Alaska. The project illustrates the diversity of the IRR
    program and successful program delivery through joint agency and Tribal
    efforts. The proposed 14-mile project will provide a safe and
    convenient transportation link between Metlakatla and the Ketchikan
    road system. The roadway will also tie into the Alaska DOT's marine
    highway system via a planned ferry terminal facility at Annette Bay,
    the northern terminus of the Walden Point Road. Upon completion, this
    project will be part of a multi-modal transportation system that will
    replace a restricted travel service with a regular and safer commuter
    service. The FHWA's Western Federal Lands Division has led delivery of
    this project with partners including the United States Pacific Command,
    the United States Alaskan Command, the Alaska Department of
    Transportation and Public Facilities, the Metlakatla Indian Community,
    the Alaska National Guard, and the BIA. The project has showcased the
    feasibility, benefits, and success of utilizing US-based training
    opportunities for the Department of Defense's Innovative Readiness
    Training Program. The project will also improve the quality of life for
    the Metlakatla Indian Community by providing safe, convenient, and
    efficient multi-modal transportation linkage between Metlakatla and the
    Ketchikan road system.

    Negotiated Rulemaking
        TEA-21 directed the Secretary of the Interior to develop an Indian
    Reservation Roads fund distribution formula and program procedures,
    using negotiated rulemaking with Tribal governments. We understand that
    final review and coordination of the Department of the Interior
    proposed rule has been completed and it will be published shortly in
    the Federal Register.
        A committee consisting of 29 Tribal representatives, 10 Department
    of Interior representatives, and 3 FHWA representatives met between
    March 1999 and December 2001. Considerable time was spent in agreeing
    on one IRR funding distribution formula. Some major unresolved issues
    remain, and will be discussed in the preamble of the notice of proposed
    rulemaking. These include: use of IRR administrative funds; delegation
    of plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) approval to Tribes;
    process of obtaining IRR eligibility determinations; content of annual
    funding agreement; contract support costs; profits/savings; advance
    payments; and procedure for Tribes applying for emergency relief for
    federally owned roads (ERFO) funds and ERFO eligibility determinations.
        Federal and Tribal committee members will be conducting 12
    informational meetings on the proposed program procedures and fund
    distribution formula during the 60-day comment period. After the
    comment period, the committee plans to meet, evaluate comments, and
    draft the final program procedures and fund distribution formula.

    Indian Reservation Roads Bridge Program (IRRBP)
        TEA-21 directed the Secretary of Transportation, in cooperation
    with the Secretary of the Interior, to establish a nationwide Priority
    Program for improving or replacing deficient Indian Reservation Road
    bridges, using a set-aside of not less than $13 million of IRR funds
    per year.
        After soliciting comments on project selection and fund allocation
    procedures, through meetings with Tribal representatives and a Federal
    Register Notice, the FHWA developed guidance for the Bridge Program
    that was published as an Interim Final Rule in July 1999. We followed
    up with training sessions on the Bridge Program and are working with
    the BIA and Tribal governments to maximize the number of bridges
    participating in the IRRBP.
        To date, $27.6 million has been obligated for 51 bridge projects.
    Based on BIA plans, we expect to obligate an additional $18.3 million
    for another 40 bridge projects. Some of the supplemental IRR funds
    provided in fiscal years 2001 were allocated to Tribes and BIA regional
    offices to prepare plans for replacing deficient bridges. We anticipate
    that proposed projects for fiscal year 2003 will fully utilize the
    remaining IRR bridge funds set-aside by TEA-21.

    Tribal Government Involvement in the Federal-Aid Highway Program
        Additional opportunities exist for Tribal governments to
    participate in the Federal-aid highway program as well as the IRR
    program. Tribes can use IRR planning funds to participate in
    metropolitan and statewide planning procedures for the Federal-aid
    program. TEA-21 requires States to consult with Tribal governments in
    development of the long-range transportation plan and the State
    Transportation Improvement Program.
        FHWA Federal-aid division offices have consulted with Tribal
    governments on overall FHWA programs, National Environmental Policy Act
    (NEPA), and historic preservation. In some States, Tribal/State
    Transportation summits and workshops have been held with the objective
    of improving intergovernmental relations and increasing Tribal
    governments' capacity to manage transportation projects and programs.

                         PARK ROAD AND PARKWAYS PROGRAM

        The Park Roads and Parkways (PRP) program provides funding for the
    planning, design, construction, or reconstruction of designated public
    roads that provide access to or within national parks, recreation
    areas, historic areas, and other units of the National Park Service.
    TEA-21 made available $115 million in 1998 and $165 million per fiscal
    year for 1999-2003 for project funding under the PRP Program.
        FHWA and the NPS jointly administer the program and share project
    development responsibilities. FHWA undertakes a majority of the design,
    construction, and oversight work, while the NPS develops a priority
    program of projects and is responsible for planning, environment, and
    protection of NPS values.
        Projects funded under TEA-21 through 2002 include $ 38 million at
    Lake Mead National Recreation Area, $44.2 million in construction on
    Yellowstone National Park roads, and $7 million on Glacier National
    Park roads.
        Since the enactment of TEA-21, the NPS and FHWA have completed
    three out of six congressionally mandated parkway completion projects.
    The completed projects are the George Washington Memorial Parkway,
    Cumberland Gap National Historic Park Tunnel, and the Chickamauga-
    Chattanooga Route 27 Bypass in Georgia. In addition, the Baltimore-
    Washington Parkway is almost 99 percent complete.
        The Alternative Transportation Program under the PRP program
    integrates all modes of travel within a park including transit,
    bicycle, pedestrian linkages, and automobiles. The PRP program has
    invested approximately $22 million in five alternative transportation
    pilot projects in Acadia National Park, Golden Gate National Recreation
    Area, Grand Canyon National Park, Yosemite National Park, and Zion
    National Park.
        The NPS and FHWA have also conducted Transportation Planning
    Seminars throughout the country and produced The National Park Service
    Transportation Planning Guidebook.

                              REFUGE ROADS PROGRAM

        Refuge Roads is a new category established in the FLHP under TEA-
    21, with authorizations of $20 million a year for fiscal years 1999
    through 2003. The program funds maintenance and improvement of public
    roads that provide access to or within a unit of the National Wildlife
    Refuge System.
        The program is co-administered by FHWA and the U.S. Department of
    Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). FHWA and the FWS signed a
    memorandum of agreement, and together have developed program procedures
    and a fund distribution methodology, selected projects, and developed
    transportation improvement programs.
        Funds are to be allocated according to the relative needs of the
    various refuges in the National Wildlife Refuge System. The formula for
    distributing the funding between the FWS Regions is based on four
    attributes of a Regional refuge road network: road inventory, roadway
    condition, traffic volumes, and traffic accident rates. In Nevada,
    projects are complete or underway in National Wildlife Refuges
    including Desert, Pahranagat/Ash Meadows, Ruby Lake, and Stillwater, to
    improve public access and enjoyment at these sites.
        During fiscal years 2000 and 2001, the FHWA conducted a condition
    inventory of all refuge roads. The FWS regions use the condition
    information during project selection and for assessing future funding
    needs.

                       ADDITIONAL TEA-21 FLHP PROVISIONS

        Federal Management Systems Regulation. TEA-21 requires the
    Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of each appropriate
    Federal land management agency to develop safety, bridge, pavement and
    congestion management systems for roads funded under the FLHP.
        The FHWA issued four Advance Notices of Public Rulemaking (ANPRM)
    in September 1999, one for each of the four Federal land management
    agencies (NPS, FS, BIA, FWS). In each of these four ANPRMs, the FHWA
    and the appropriate agencies solicited public comment on developing a
    rule to meet both transportation planning and management system issues.
    However, FHWA has decided to issue an NPRM addressing only the
    management systems and will address the transportation planning
    procedures at a later date. The NPRM is being prepared for publication
    later this year. The resulting management systems will serve to guide
    the agencies and Indian Tribes in making project selection and resource
    allocation decisions.

    Study of Alternative Transportation Needs in National Parks and Related
            Public Lands
        In section 3039, TEA-21 directed the Secretary of Transportation,
    in coordination with the Secretary of the Interior, to undertake a
    comprehensive study of alternative transportation needs in national
    parks and related public lands managed by the National Park Service,
    the Bureau of Land Management, and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
    During the study, alternative transportation system needs were examined
    at 207 sites having likely transit needs over the next 20 years.
    Transit needs were identified at 118 of 169 NPS sites, 6 of 15 BLM
    sites, and 13 of 23 FWS sites. A summary report of the section 3039
    Study was transmitted to Congress in November 2001.
        After completion of the section 3039 study, the NPS, in
    consultation with its stakeholders, developed a 5-year Alternate
    Transportation Plan aimed at improving existing alternative
    transportation systems and increasing the number of parks that are
    served by such systems. FLHP is currently working with the other
    Federal land management agencies to address their similar needs.
        The NPS, in cooperation with the gateway community of Springdale,
    Utah, has implemented a significant transit project at Zion National
    Park. Park patrons utilize a shuttle bus system from a number of stops
    in Springdale, or from various points of interest in the Park, as the
    only means of access on Canyon Scenic Drive during the peak season.
    Since the new system was implemented, wildlife has returned to the
    canyon and noise levels have been reduced.

    Hoover Dam Bridge
        TEA-21 made construction of a project to replace the Hoover Dam
    Bridge specifically eligible for FLHP funding and, since the enactment
    of TEA-21, $86 million has been allocated toward the construction of
    this project.
        The FHWA Central Federal Lands Highway Division is the lead agency
    for delivery of the Hoover Dam Bypass Project located on US 93 at the
    Nevada/Arizona border. U.S. Highway 93, a segment of the CANAMEX
    Corridor, is a designated NAFTA route between Mexico and Canada. The
    project addresses increases in traffic and the unsafe mix of
    pedestrians, cars, and trucks, that result in traffic gridlock, high
    accident rates, and potential for a catastrophic accident. The NEPA
    process was concluded in late March 2001 with selection of the
    Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative. This alternative will remove trucks and
    other through-traffic from the crest of Hoover Dam. This project is a
    model of cooperative effort between two States and multiple Federal
    agencies to solve a transportation safety and congestion problem at the
    Hoover Dam site.
        The Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative includes a 2,000 foot-long
    bridge located 1,700 feet downstream and rising 250 feet above the
    Hoover Dam. This alternative also includes 3.5 miles of 4-lane roadway
    construction in extremely rugged terrain.
        Construction is scheduled to begin in late 2002. At this time, four
    individual construction projects are planned in the following order:
    Arizona approach, Nevada approach, Colorado River Bridge, and final
    surfacing. The project delivery plan is flexible yet provides a
    structured approach to expenditure of sequential funds. Construction is
    anticipated to last 5 years with completion in 2007.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Overall, the Federal Lands Highway Program is working well in
    supporting our nation's economy and improving the quality of life for
    all of our citizens. But the Federal Lands Highway system faces
    increasing demands from tourist traffic and resource development. The
    challenges facing us are to maintain and improve our transportation
    systems serving Federal and Tribal lands, in order to provide safe and
    sufficient transportation for residents and access for visitor
    enjoyment, while protecting the environmentally sensitive lands and
    cultural resources. Innovative and creative solutions will be required
    to address these challenges and must involve all Federal, Tribal,
    State, and local stakeholders.
        I look forward to continue working with Congress and our partners
    during the reauthorization of the surface transportation programs to
    find solutions for improved mobility and safety to and within Federal
    and Tribal lands. Mr. Chairman, I again thank you for the opportunity
    to testify today. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may
    have.

                                   __________
           Statement of Tom Stephens, Director, Nevada Department of
                                 Transportation

        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Tom Stephens.
    For the past 7 years I have been the Director of the Nevada Department
    of Transportation and I am here to testify today on behalf of the State
    of Nevada. I just completed a term as the President of the Western
    Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (WASHTO) and
    will testify on the Western Governor's Association (WGA) policy
    statement on reauthorization of TEA-21 which I helped coordinate. I am
    also on the Executive Committee of the American Association of State
    Highway and Transportation Officials and worked closely with them on
    the reauthorization of ISTEA as well as in formulation of their
    position on the reauthorization of TEA-21.
        I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify to you again on
    a matter of great importance to the Nation and to the State of Nevada.
    I want to commend you for seeking a western perspective on the issues
    involved in the reauthorization of TEA-21. One size does not fit all
    and the west is considerably different than the rest of the country.
        I especially want to thank Senator Reid for his leadership on
    highway issues. His work has not only benefited Nevada, but also the
    Nation as a whole.
        While Nevada faces many of the same transportation issues as other
    States it is also unique in a number of ways. Nevada is and has been
    the nation's fastest growing State for many, many years. With a growth
    rate of 66 percent in the past decade it is far ahead of second place
    Arizona, which is at 40 percent, and Colorado, Utah and Idaho, which
    complete the top five growth States at around 30 percent. (See attached
    U.S. map showing percentage growth of the States from 1990-2000.) Like
    many of our neighbors in the west, Nevada has a high percentage of
    federally owned lands. In fact, with 87 percent of our State federally
    owned, Nevada has the highest percentage of Federal land ownership.
    These lands, which are not on the tax rolls, must be accessed and
    crossed with the highway system. (See attached maps of Federal Land
    Ownership in Nevada and the continental U. S.)
        Nevadans recognize the tremendous national and State need for a
    good transportation system and the costs this need creates. The State
    Transportation Board is chaired by the Governor and has three other
    statewide elected officials (Lt. Governor, Attorney General and State
    Controller) as well as three appointed members. No other State has its
    Governor as a member of its transportation board. Local and State fuel
    taxes are high compared to most States, vehicle registration taxes are
    high, and there is menu of local taxes collected to support
    transportation projects (e.g. taxes on new homes and commercial
    development, hotel room taxes, vehicle registration taxes, sales taxes
    and jet fuel taxes). I doubt that any other State has the level of
    support that Nevada provides to transportation from in-state taxes.
    However, this is not enough to meet the increasing needs and we need an
    increase in the Federal funding to match the growth of the State.
        Today my remarks will emphasize the highway needs in Northern
    Nevada. The issues are preservation, safety and congestion. We must
    maintain the system, which is deteriorating with age and greatly
    increased truck loading at the same time we address the congestion
    issues in the urban areas created by the tremendous population
    increase. Most of the heavy trucking is on the interstate and most of
    the interstate mileage is in Northern Nevada. (i.e. 411 miles on I-80
    versus 124 miles on I-15) Safety is a big issue that we address through
    better maintenance and reducing congestion as well as addressing high
    hazard areas. Highway fatalities are up 20 percent this year over last
    year and this will translate in 60 more deaths on Nevada highways this
    year as compared to last. Some do not consider that Northern Nevada is
    growing very fast compared to Southern Nevada and therefore congestion
    issues in the North should not receive any priority. If Nevada were
    divided into two States, one being Clark County in Southern Nevada (an
    area the size of the State of Massachusetts) and the rest of Nevada (an
    area larger than Wyoming with 25 percent more people), then Clark
    County would still be the fastest growing State at an 85 percent growth
    rate, Arizona would be second at 40 percent and Northern Nevada would
    be third at 35 percent. Obviously we cannot ignore the growth driven
    needs of Northern Nevada.

                                  MAINTENANCE

        Although congestion in the nation's fastest growing State seemingly
    gets most of our attention, we must still spend more than half of our
    construction dollars on preserving the existing State highway system.
    If allowed to deteriorate, it would cost much more to bring the State
    highway system back to good condition than it costs to keep it that way
    through timely projects identified by an excellent maintenance
    management system. The importance economically of a good transportation
    system cannot be emphasized enough.
        Of special concern is the idea being floated in a few large States
    that the Federal fuel tax dollars collected in those States should be
    returned 100 percent to those States. This would seriously undermine
    the national highway system. For example, in Nevada the four-lane
    Interstate 80 across the northern part of the State has continued to
    meet the needs of rural growth without much expansion, but the
    tremendous increase in truck traffic due to the growth of California
    and the change in distribution of products from a regional warehousing
    to ``just-in-time'' delivery has created tremendous maintenance needs
    which have not been fully met by Federal funding. If the Federal
    funding is further reduced, ``bridge'' States like Nevada will not be
    able to maintain the interstate systems and national commerce will be
    severely adversely affected.
        In 1996, I spoke to a group of local and State transportation
    officials in Sacramento who were advocating that California keep all
    the Federal revenue collected in their State. It happened to be the
    150th anniversary of the Donner Party and I pointed out to this
    audience that the reason the Donner party got in trouble was because
    there were no good roads across Nevada and that the same thing would
    happen to California's economy today if they cutoff the funding for
    interstate maintenance across Nevada.

                  FREEWAY NEEDS IN THE RENO-CARSON URBAN AREA

       In the past thirty years since Interstate 80 was finished through
    Reno, the population of the Reno-Carson area has tripled to more than
    400,000 people. Over those years the primary NDOT freeway project has
    been to bring U.S. 395 up to freeway standards from the north
    California State line to the junction with U.S. 50 south of Carson
    City. When completed, Carson City will be one of the last State
    capitals to be put on the interstate system.
        The 8.5 miles between the Mount Rose Road and the Bowers Mansion
    Road is the last remaining unfinished freeway segment between Reno and
    Carson City. The construction of the bridges for this challenging
    project is scheduled to go to out to bid early next year with the
    roadway to be constructed after the bridges are complete. The entire
    project is expected to take four to 5 years. The nine mile long freeway
    bypass around Carson City has had bridges constructed for the northern
    segment with the roadway work for Phase I scheduled to go out to bid
    late this year absent any delays due to right-of-way issues. The
    remaining five miles of the southern portion of this route just started
    design and is projected to be built by the end of the decade.
        Meanwhile I-80 in Reno has aged and traffic has increased beyond
    original design capacity. We broke ground today for the $53 million
    rejuvenation of the Reno Spaghetti Bowl (i.e. interchange of I-80 and
    U.S. 395), which will replace aging pavements, seismic retrofit the
    bridges to current standards, and widen some bridges and ramps to
    improve safety and smooth traffic flow.
        However, the mainline freeways in Reno and Sparks are approaching
    maximum capacity and projects will have to be launched over the next 10
    years to widen I-80 from McCarran east to Vista and from Keystone west
    to Robb Drive as well as to widen U.S. 395 north of McCarran to Lemmon
    Drive and sections south of the Spaghetti Bowl to Delmonte.

                        RURAL TWO LANE HIGHWAY WIDENING

        Rural two-lane highways are an item of special concern in a growing
    State. Head-on accidents, which almost always have one vehicle with no
    fault, are especially troublesome.
        In southern Nevada, NDOT has been able to add lanes to SR 163
    between US 95 and Laughlin and on SR 160 between Las Vegas and Pahrump.
    We are currently out to bid on the first phase of widening US 95 to
    four lanes between US 93 and SR 163 with a bid opening date of August
    15. These projects are not cheap. The 18 miles of the US 95 widening
    now out to bid are estimated to cost $20.7 million or more than a
    million dollars a mile. With the growth of the State and the
    competition for funds from the urban areas, none of these rural two-
    lane highways could have been widened without additional Federal
    funding.
        We have a similar need to widen two-lane highways in Northern
    Nevada. The two most pressing needs are to widen 21 miles of two-lane
    highway on US 50 Alternate between Fernley and Fallon and 21 miles of
    two-lane US 50 between Dayton and Silver Springs.
        The traffic on the Fernley to Fallon highway has greatly increased
    as a result of expanded Federal operations at the Fallon Naval Air
    Station. In October and November of 2000 there were five fatalities on
    the Fernley to Fallon highway. There were ten fatalities on this road
    in the previous 4 years to make the average three a year over the 5-
    year period, a very high rate. Although we have taken interim measures,
    which held the death count to two in the last year and a half, the
    permanent solution is to widen the highway. The first four-mile phase
    of this highway widening is now out to bid with a construction cost
    estimate of $12.2 million. However, the remaining 17 miles of needed
    widening, estimated to cost nearly $20 million, remains unfunded.
    Widening the first 6 miles between Dayton and Silver Springs is in
    design with a project cost of $7 million for construction in 2005. The
    remaining 15 miles of widening remains unfunded.

                     ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OF LAKE TAHOE

        Five years ago Senator Reid led the effort to bring national
    attention to the continuing degradation of water quality in Lake Tahoe.
    President Clinton and Vice President Gore as well as other high
    administration officials visited the Lake and commitments were made.
        The runoff of both soil matter and road material from the highways
    around the lake contributes to the degradation of the water quality in
    Lake Tahoe. With over 39 miles of highway running along the west side
    of Lake Tahoe, erosion control and run-off treatment has been a major
    challenge for NDOT. Although we did an early project in 1996, our
    efforts to protect Lake Tahoe were energized by the conferences in
    1997. Thus far, Nevada DOT has spent nearly $36 million on 12 miles of
    road. This year $4 million is being spent on a mile of road. This still
    leaves 26 miles of roadwork at a cost more than $80 million. The roads
    around the California side of Lake Tahoe also have a lot of protection
    work yet to be done. Funding of this effort is a major issue in both
    States. Lake Tahoe is a national treasure and deserving of continuing
    national attention.

           WESTERN GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION POSITION ON REAUTHORIZATION

        As President of the 18-State Western Association of State Highway
    and Transportation Officials, I helped coordinate the drafting of the
    Governors' Policy Statement for the Western Governors Association
    entitled: ?Policy Resolution 02-16: Reauthorization of the
    Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century'' passed at WGA?s annual
    meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, on June 25, 2002. (Please see attached
    copy.) The Policy Statement makes recommendations in nine areas
    summarized as follows:

    1. Continuation of TEA-21 Programs
          Although TEA-21 programs are meeting their legislative
    objectives, there needs to be refinement of the programs to better
    address specific issues, deficiencies and inequities.
          There is a need to increase revenues to assure dollars
    are available to meet legislative commitments.
          Ensure that all taxes paid by the users are deposited in
    the fund and especially address the gasohol issues.
          Retain the firewalls and address current flaws in the
    RABA mechanism so that revenues are predictable.
          Provide greater flexibility in transferring funds among
    program categories and do not create any new set-asides or sub
    allocations.

    2. Environmental Streamlining Process
          The Governors urge Congress to look at examples of best
    practices various States have used to improve the TEA-21 environmental
    review process.
          Federal resource agencies should be directed to define
    timeframes necessary to conduct environmental reviews.
          There should be a one-stop permitting process for Section
    4(f) and 106 reviews.
          There should be a defined dispute resolution process to
    resolve disputes between the States and Federal resource agencies.
          In the environmental review process the points where
    judicial challenges are appropriate should be clarified to reduce the
    continual use of such challenges as a measure to extend both the time
    and scope of the process.
          Level the playing field for the project environmental
    review process for projects that include multiple modes.
          While the Governors support the use of higher gas mileage
    cars, hybrid cars and other energy efficient and environmentally
    protective technologies, the impact on the transportation funding
    mechanism (e.g. fuel tax collections) should be studied to ensure TEA-
    21 programs are fully funded.
          While Governors support the sovereign status of tribes,
    there are concerns about the loss of revenues from the establishment of
    service stations on tribal lands and we request Federal assistance in
    developing a fair tax collection process through an equitable
    settlement negotiations process.

    3. State-MPO Planning Process
        While the Governor's support the cooperative process between the
    State transportation agency and the metropolitan planning
    organizations, they urge Congress to look at the excellent examples of
    how well the process is working to clarify any misconceptions.

    4. Security
        Congress is requested to provide guidance for performing critically
    and vulnerability assessments of the surface transportation system and
    guidance for identifying and protecting critical elements. Funding
    issues from non-transportation sources should also be addressed.

    5. Intelligent Transportation Systems
        The Governors are concerned that innovative ITS technologies
    developed by the Federal Government are not being deployed in a timely
    manner. They also urge Congress to identify selected multi-State
    highway corridors on which to deploy its systems.

    6. Federal Lands Roads
        Public Lands Highways Funds should be allocated to areas of
    greatest need and to States with the largest amount of public lands
    acreage.

    7. Discretionary Programs
        In relation to earmarking funds for projects, criteria should be
    established to address the ability of the project sponsors to meet
    program, design, timing and contracting standards.

    8. Border Crossings and Trade Corridor Programs
          Congress is asked to restate its original objective for
    the trade corridor program in support of NAFTA and to give priority to
    multi-State projects that facilitate bi-national trade.
          A reformed trade corridor program should be adequately
    funded.
          Congress should urge the Departments of Transportation,
    Justice, and Commerce to coordinate their activities to improve the
    movement of commerce.

    9. Modal Integration
        In planning and constructing multi and inter-modal projects, the
    procurement and management requirements imposed by Congress and USDOT
    must be more uniform.
        In conclusion, while I am urging that Nevada's Federal funding be
    increased to meet our growth and that certain provisions of TEA-21 be
    refined as part of the reauthorization, I would like to reiterate that
    TEA-21 has been very good for Nevada Thank you again for the
    opportunity to testify on this important issue.
                                     ______

     Policy Resolution 02-16 Reauthorization of the Transportation Equity
    Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) Annual Meeting June 25, 2002 Phoenix,
                                    Arizona

                    SPONSORS: GOVERNORS KEMPTHORNE AND HULL

    A. Background
        1. In 1998, Congress enacted Public Law 105-178, the Transportation
    Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) which authorized the Federal
    surface transportation programs for highways, highway safety, and
    transit for 6 years (1998-2003). The Act increased funding levels for
    highway and transit programs, provided more program flexibility,
    promised environmental review streamlining and heightened expectations
    for greater efficiencies in transportation program delivery.
        2. Western transportation leaders met in Tempe, Arizona in April
    2002 as a working group of the Western Governors' Association, charged
    to assist the Governors develop a Western position on the
    reauthorization of the Federal highway and transit programs. The
    participants agreed that the TEA-21 programs were working and require
    only minor changes to address specific issues. The working group's
    recommendations were transmitted to the Western Governors for their
    adoption and are presented in this policy resolution.
        3. The Western Association of State Highway and Transportation
    Officials (WASHTO) and the American Association of State Highway and
    Transportation Officials (AASHTO) also recommend that Congress approach
    the reauthorization of TEA-21 as a continuation of the evolutionary
    process in surface transportation programming started by the ISTEA and
    TEA-21 acts.
        4. The Western Governors lead the Nation in calling on Congress to
    restore fiscal year 2003 funding to the maximum amount that can be
    sustained by the Highway Trust Fund. Due to poor forecasting methods
    and revenue accounting, funding to the States for fiscal year 2003
    would have been reduced by $9 billion, even though the Highway Trust
    Fund has a cash balance of more than $19 billion. The loss of these
    funds to States would cause major disruptions in transportation
    programs for the West and the Nation.
        5. One strength of TEA-21 has been the predictability of funding
    levels for Federal and State surface transportation programs. This
    cornerstone of the Federal surface transportation program is being
    weakened by decreased revenue collections in the Highway Trust Fund due
    to the downturn in the economy and to greater use of alternative fuels
    that are taxed at a lower rate or not taxed at all.
        The Federal Highway Administrator has requested a study of the
    effects these changes in national policy are having on the ability of
    the Nation to continue to pay for its transportation infrastructure.
    Additionally, the Administrator has requested that options be
    identified for both making changes in the current system of depositing
    some highway user fee revenues into the general fund, and for
    implementing new or more stable funding mechanisms.
        6. Safety is a primary focus of all the surface transportation
    programs. The Governors continue to believe that the number of deaths,
    injuries, and property damage which occurring annually on the Western
    transportation systems is unacceptable and support improving safety
    through better engineering, enhanced enforcement and more education.
    The Governors do not believe in Aone size fits all and that Federal
    mandates enforced by funding sanctions is not in the best interest of
    achieving the safety objective, since they prevent States from
    addressing their highest priorities.
        7. The growth in trade through our ports and bi-national border
    crossings has placed significant pressure on the surface transportation
    infrastructure supporting the movement of people and goods. This is
    true especially along north/south corridors between Canada and Mexico.
    As a result, Western States are increasingly forced to commit local
    funding to alleviate congestion, maintenance and safety issues that
    meet national needs. Meeting the needs of bi-national border
    infrastructure, international port access, and interstate goods
    movement corridors is complex process, requiring the involvement of
    multiple Federal, State and provincial authorities, including the U.S.
    Department of Justice, Treasury, Transportation and Commerce. However,
    States that are meeting these national needs are doing so by diverting
    funds from local mobility and safety concerns to meet these national
    needs.
        8. Funding to maintain highways on Federal lands under the Federal
    Public Lands Highway program is not being targeted to the areas of
    highest need. Public lands highways serve as the gateway to the
    nation's National Forests, National Parks and National Monuments.
    Although only 6 percent of all public lands are located outside of the
    West, for the past 4 years between 25-35 percent of the Public Lands
    Highway funding has been directed to projects in other regions. This is
    due in part to Congress earmarking funds to local projects, 66 percent
    in FY1999, 55 percent in FY2000 and 100 percent in FY2001. At the same
    time the condition of these highways and roads in the West continue to
    deteriorate, forcing Federal land agencies to close greater numbers of
    miles and recreation areas to the public each year.
        9. Federal Highway Trust Fund revenues are being negatively
    impacted by the growth in the number of motor fuel and vehicle sales
    establishments on federally recognized tribal reservations. These
    establishments are exempt and in some States are prohibited from
    collecting State and Federal fuel and vehicle taxes. The Governors
    support the continued actions to improve the economic independence of
    Native Americans, but also find the potential of tax avoidance is
    hindering the funding of the transportation infrastructure necessary to
    support national, tribal and State economies.

    B. Governors' Policy Statement
                Continuation of TEA-21 Programs
        1. The Governors find that TEA-21 programs are meeting their
    legislative objectives, but there needs to be refinement of the
    programs to better address specific issues, deficiencies and
    inequities. Therefore, Congress is urged to approach the
    reauthorization of the TEA-21 legislation as an evolutionary process
    and to build on the TEA-21 programs.
        2. The Governors urge Congress to address both the need to increase
    revenues to the Highway Trust Fund and to make the process of
    distributing funds to the States from the Trust Fund more predictable.
    Congress is encouraged to:
        a. Review the current sources of revenue to ensure that all the
        taxes paid by the users are deposited to the fund, such as
        retaining the taxes collected on gasohol which currently go into
        the General Fund, and holding the highway trust fund harmless from
        tax incentives for ethanol.
        b. Increase the amount of revenues to the Highway Trust Fund to
        assure the dollars are available to meet the legislative
        commitments.
        c. Retain the firewalls and funding guarantees for the highway and
        transit programs as established in TEA-21.
        d. Refine the current Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA)
        mechanism to address the current flaws that cause the funding to
        the States to fluctuate radically between fiscal years.
        e. Address the need for greater flexibility in transferring funds
        among and between major program categories thereby allowing States
        to address their highest priorities.
        f. Create no new set-asides or suballocations which prevent States
        from directing Federal Highway funds to their greatest needs

                Environmental Process Streamlining

        3. The Governors fully support the goal of protecting the
    environment, and the health and safety of the public. The Governors
    believe that the States have developed some exemplary practices in the
    area of environmental review and believe that Congress should look to
    these examples for best practices to improve the TEA-21 project
    environmental review process. The Western Governors have identified
    similar best practices for the natural resource programs through their
    Enlibra Program. The Governors recommend that a similar approach be
    used for transportation.
        4. The Governors urge Congress to refine the current project
    environmental review process to reduce the delays, timeframe and
    unpredictability of the current process. Specifically, Congress is
    urged to:
        a. Authorize the Secretary of Transportation to certify State
        project environmental review processes as being equivalent to that
        of the U.S. Department of Transportation. In doing such, the
        Secretary would delegate the review process to the certified States
        subject to oversight by the Department.
        b. Charge the Secretary of Transportation to establish the tests
        and standards that must be met by the States in seeking the
        environmental review certification and delegation authority.
        c. Direct the Secretary to work with the States and Federal
        resource agencies to define applicable guidance for the project
        environmental review process.
        d. Direct the Federal resource agencies to define the timeframes
        necessary to conduct project environmental reviews and to refine
        the mitigation negotiation process to allow for accountability and
        predictability in the system. Congress is urged to provide these
        agencies with the funding necessary to fully staff the
        environmental reviews in a timely manner.
        e. Direct the Secretary to work with his counterpart agencies to
        establish a one-stop permitting process for Sections 4(f) and 106
        processes or to combine the overlapping portions into one
        regulation.
        f. Authorize the Secretary of Transportation to establish a defined
        dispute resolution process that may be led or chaired by the
        Secretary of US DOT to resolve disputes between the State
        transportation agencies and Federal resource agencies.
        g. Clarify the points in the project environmental review process
        where judicial challenges are appropriate in order to bring
        predictability to the review process, rather than the continual use
        of such challenges as a measure to extend both the time and scope
        of the review process.
        5. Congress is urged to level the playing field for the project
    environmental review processes for projects that include multiple
    modes. Currently, there are differing processes and criteria for
    conducting the environmental reviews for each mode of transportation,
    transit, highways and railroads. This creates both difficult and
    conflicting procedures for the reviews and offers additional points for
    challenging the decisions.
        6. Governors support the use higher gas mileage cars, hybrid cars,
    and other technologies for improving energy efficiencies and protecting
    the environment. At the same time, there is an increasing demand for an
    efficient transportation system that requires that revenues collected
    from the system users be sufficient to fund the necessary improvements.
    The Secretary has requested that a study be conducted to examine the
    funding mechanisms to ensure that the transportation system and TEA-21
    programs are fully funded.
        7. Governors support the sovereign status of tribes and their
    ability to establish selfsustaining economies. One negative impact of
    the tribes establishing businesses, such as service stations, bulk fuel
    sales and vehicle sales agencies on federally recognized tribal lands
    has been the reduction in transportation revenues to the Federal and
    State highway trust funds. Both tribal members and State residents
    demand efficient transportation systems to support their economic
    needs. The Governors urge Congress to look to the best practices of the
    States and to the Federal Highway Administrator's study on revenue to
    assist in developing a fair tax collection process through an equitable
    settlement negotiations process, possibly using the Western water
    rights settlement process as a model.

                State--MPO Planning Process
        8. Governors support a cooperative process between the States'
    transportation agencies and the metropolitan planning organization
    (MPO). The Governor's also support the consultative planning process
    between the States' transportation agencies and its local governments.
    There are several excellent examples of how the State-MPO planning and
    review process can work effectively and Congress should request from
    the Secretary a summary of best practices in order to clarify the
    current misconceptions in the process.

                Security
        9. Congress is urged to provide guidance related to the roles and
    responsibilities of the Office of Homeland Security, Departments of
    Transportation, Justice, Commerce and Defense, and the States and local
    units of government in providing for the security of the nation's
    transportation systems. In providing such guidance Congress is
    requested to address the following:
        a. Guidance for performing criticality and vulnerability
        assessments of the surface transportation systems. Such standards
        have been defined for the nation's aviation system.
        b. Guidance for identifying and protecting critical elements of the
        surface transportation system which support interstate commerce,
        information exchange, and the movement of critical military and
        emergency response resources.
        10. In defining the roles and responsibilities, Congress must
    address the issues related to funding for these activities and
    resulting improvements to the surface transportation systems. Security
    of the transportation system is such a broad and potentially costly
    issue that it is best funded from all appropriate resources, including
    non-transportation related sources. Congress also needs to make it
    clear that all agencies of the Federal Government must coordinate their
    activities in order for there to be an effective response to terrorism.

                Intelligent Transportation Systems
        11. The Governors recognize the important role that ITS can play in
    the operation and management of all surface transportation systems. The
    Federal Government has invested significant amounts of money into the
    development of innovative technologies, but they are not being deployed
    onto the highway system in a timely manner. The Governors urge Congress
    to adjust the program priorities to address the deployment of these
    systems and, where appropriate, integrating them across different
    components of the surface transportation system in order to achieve the
    maximum utilization of this investment.
        12. Congress is urged to direct the U.S. Department of
    Transportation to work with the Western States and the Western
    Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials to identify
    selected multi-State highway corridors on which to deploy ITS systems
    in an effort refine the tools and institutional mechanisms needed to
    create a national network operations system.

                Federal Lands Roads
        13. The Governors urge Congress and the U.S. Department of
    Transportation to ensure that funds under the Public Lands Highway
    program are allocated to areas of greatest need and to States with the
    largest amounts of public land acreage. No new program categories or
    set-asides should be created within the Federal Lands Highways Program.

                Discretionary Programs
        14. The Congress has employed the earmarking privilege to fund
    specific transportation projects under the highway discretionary
    program. The value of these projects toward improving the
    transportation system, technology and system operation may be
    appropriate, but the use of this process has significantly reduced or
    consumed the entire funding available to some programs. Congress, in
    reauthorizing TEA-21, should review the process by which these projects
    are designated and criteria established for determining the ability of
    project sponsors to implement the projects. The criteria should address
    the ability of the project sponsors to meet program, design, timing and
    contracting standards. Second, Congress is encouraged to address the
    issue of excessive ear marking in certain programs, i.e. Public Lands
    Highways and the Trade Corridor programs.

                Border Crossing and Trade Corridor Programs
        15. The Governors believe that Congress must restate its original
    objective of establishing a trade corridor program in support of the
    North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and reform that program to
    facilitate the movement of goods, services and people between the
    United States, Mexico and Canada. Congress is encouraged to give
    priority to those multi-State projects that facilitate bi-national
    trade.
        16. Congress must also address the need to adequately fund a
    reformed trade corridor program and directing funding to corridors that
    support NAFTA objectives and international trade.
        17. Congress is urged to direct the U.S. Departments of
    Transportation, Justice, and Commerce to establish a process for
    coordinating their activities to improve the movement of commerce
    through the northern and southern ports-of-entry. The Coordinated
    Border Infrastructure Discretionary Program was established to fund
    border enhancement projects. But transportation infrastructure is not
    the only solution to capacity problems. With the increased emphases on
    national security Congress needs to provide guidance for coordinating
    the response to these needs and balance the sources of funding for
    improvements.

                Modal Integration
        18. In planning and constructing multi and inter-modal projects,
    the procurement and management requirements imposed by Congress and
    U.S. Department of Transportation must be made more uniform. The
    Governors urge both Congress and the Secretary of Transportation to
    work collaboratively with the States to identify where these processes
    can be made more simplified and uniform thereby reducing the cost and
    time to complete these projects. Examples of best practices should be
    used in defining these processes, i.e. the Alameda Corridor in
    California.

    C. Governors' Management Directives
        1. WGA is to transmit this resolution to the Secretary of
    Transportation, the Western congressional delegation, the
    transportation and appropriation committees of Congress, and to WASHTO
    and AASHTO.
        2. The Governors request WASHTO to monitor the reauthorization of
    the Federal surface transportation programs and to report on
    congressional actions.

        This resolution was originally adopted in 1999 as WGA Resolution
    99-017.
        Approval of a WGA resolution requires an affirmative vote of two-
        thirds of the Board of the Directors present at the meeting.
        Dissenting votes, if any, are indicated in the resolution. The
        Board of Directors is comprised of the Governors of Alaska,
        American Samoa, Arizona, California, Colorado, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho,
        Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota,
        Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah,
        Washington and Wyoming.
        All policy resolutions are posted on the WGA Web site
        (www.westgov.org) or you may request a copy by writing or calling:

                                     ______

    Statement of Greg Krause, Executive Director, Washoe County, Nevada, on
                Behalf of the Regional Transportation Commission

        My name is Greg Krause, Executive Director of the Regional
    Transportation Commission of Washoe County. I appreciate the
    opportunity to speak with you today regarding Western Transportation
    Issues and the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act of the
    21st Century.
        The RTC serves the cities of Reno and Sparks as well as the
    unincorporated area of Washoe County. Our agency has three main
    businesses: long range transportation planning as the designated
    Metropolitan Planning Organization, provision of public transportation
    services, and construction and repair of the regional roads. With this
    fairly unique combination of both planning and implementation of all
    modes of surface transportation for our community, I offer the follow
    comments regarding transportation needs in our community and
    reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century:
        Before I address the future transportation needs of Washoe County,
    I would like to acknowledge the leadership that this committee has
    displayed in developing national transportation legislation, resulting
    in major improvements in the capacity, quality and efficiency of the
    system. I would also like to acknowledge Senator Reid for his
    leadership and commitment to helping Nevada meet the transportation
    needs of a growing population in Washoe County. He has specifically
    helped Washoe County obtain funding for an Intelligent Transportation
    System and 17 replacement vehicles for Citifare and CitiLift, and major
    funding for the new transit centers in Downtown Reno and Sparks,
    including over $14 million in discretionary Federal transit funds in
    the last 3 years.

                     TRANSPORTATION NEEDS IN WASHOE COUNTY

    2030 Transportation Plan
        The RTC has completed a blueprint for the future, the 2030
    Transportation Plan. Thousands of citizens, involved in hundreds of
    hours of meetings, helped formulate the 2030 Transportation Plan over a
    2-year period. The 2030 Transportation Plan found that as our community
    grows from 320,000 people to over 540,000 in the next thirty years, we
    need to make major investments to repair our roads, increase their
    efficiency and capacity, and improve public transportation services.
    The 2030 Transportation Plan identified a funding shortfall of $716
    million in roadway needs and $100 million in public transportation
    needs.

    Funding Solution
        We are proposing a local solution to this funding shortfall. The
    proposal will be presented to the public as a Washoe County advisory
    ballot question in November 2002. It includes indexing local gas taxes
    to go up with inflation, indexing the development impact fees to go up
    with inflation, a 1/8 percent increase in the local sales tax, and
    increased efficiencies in roadway maintenance programs that will
    generate $50 million in savings over the next 30 years. The
    continuation of Federal transportation funding at least at levels
    provided under TEA-21 will also be critical to our success.

    Key Transportation Needs
        Public transportation will play a key and growing role in our
    future mobility. A priority will be to construct new transit centers in
    Downtown Reno and Sparks. With design and right of way funding already
    secured, funding for construction will be our next priority. These new
    transit centers will include child care, retail and other services that
    make public transportation more convenient and attractive. Another
    public transportation priority will be the development of a Bus Rapid
    Transit (BRT) corridor along South Virginia Street. We are currently
    preparing a preliminary feasibility study and cost estimate for this
    project so it may be considered for inclusion in the reauthorization
    legislation for TEA-21.
        Streets and highways will also need major improvements. Several key
    projects include:

          I-580 from Mt. Rose Highway to Washoe Valley; this
    project will address one of the most critical safety hazards in the
    State as well as complete the freeway link between Carson City and Reno
          I-80 from Keystone Avenue to McCarran Blvd; this project
    will widen a congested section of I-80 and support new retail
    development planned for Northwest Reno
          I-580/Meadowood Way Intechange; this project will relieve
    congestion at South Virginia/McCarran and support office and retail
    development in the South Reno
          US 395/McCarran Blvd. to Lemmon Drive; this project will
    relieve congestion for travel to the North Valleys

        These are some of the key near term projects that will need to be
    addressed and will require substantial Federal funds. The RTC has and
    will continue to partner with the Nevada DOT to ensure that these and
    other critical projects are implemented in a timely manner.
        Initiatives for the Reauthorization of the Transportation Equity
    Act of the 21st Century
        The following suggestions are offered to the committee as you
    consider the reauthorization of TEA-21.

    Index the Federal Gas Tax to Inflation
        Gas taxes are a major source of transportation funding, and have
    served the transportation system well at the Federal, State and local
    levels. The nexus between who pays the gas tax, how much they pay, and
    the benefits received has made this tax understandable and one of the
    more acceptable of taxes. The principal draw back of ``flat'' gas taxes
    is the steady erosion of their purchasing power over time due to
    inflation. The last significant increase in the Federal gas tax rate
    occurred in 1993, and since then, this revenue has lost 22 percent of
    its purchasing power due to construction cost inflation. We are
    pursuing a local initiative to allow the local gas tax to inflate,
    within limits, with the consumer price index on an annual basis. I
    would request consideration of a similar inflationary adjustment for
    the Federal gas tax.

    Continue Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) Funding in Air
            Quality Maintenance Areas
        The CMAQ program has been a critical funding source for public
    transportation and system efficiency investments that have a proven air
    quality benefit. For regions that are successful in achieving the
    National Ambient Air Quality Standards, CMAQ funding should continue so
    that we do not take a step backward in air quality.

    Dedicated Funding for Bus Rapid Transit Start-Up
        The success of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) has been demonstrated both
    in the United States and abroad. BRT has provided the capacity and
    convenience of rail investments at a fraction of the cost. Where
    favorable conditions may develop for rail service in the future, BRT
    provides the opportunity for an evolutionary transition to rail by
    building ridership and a culture of transit use. BRT will not only
    provide a cost-effective solution for decades in Reno and other smaller
    communities, but will also protect the dedicated right of way today
    necessary to allow for rail investments, if that is the choice of
    future generations. In order for communities to have the chance to
    invest in BRT, it would be beneficial to create a dedicated funding
    source for this purpose.

    Streamlined Federal Partnership/Stewardship Process
        In the old days, only State DOTs were allowed to implement Federal
    projects. However, as resources have declined and workloads increased
    at the State level, partnering between State and local entities in
    implementing federally funded transportation projects has increased.
    Great successes have resulted from this innovative approach, with local
    entities sometimes taking the lead within the team. The immense
    benefits of this approach have been diminished when local entities have
    been forced to certify not only to the Federal Government, but also to
    the State DOT, that all Federal requirements have been met. It would be
    a fairly easy solution to simplify this duplicative process so that the
    local entity is only required to certify compliance with the Federal
    Government. Obviously, this authority should only be granted to local
    entities that have the capability to meet the Federal guidelines, but
    the RTC, among many other local entities will perform even more
    efficiently in the administration of federally funded projects if
    oversight can be streamlined, with certification provided directly to
    the Federal DOT.

    Elimination of the Nevada Special Rule
        The State of Nevada has had a special provision in ISTEA and TEA21
    which has basically given the majority, approximately 65 percent, of
    the eligible Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding to the State
    DOT and the minority of funding , approximately 35 percent, to the
    urbanized areas. This is the reverse of the formula applied to
    virtually every other State in the Nation. Ironically, Nevada has one
    of the highest percentages of population that lives within the
    urbanized area. While the State DOT has done a very good job of making
    investment decisions within the current STP allocation formula, the RTC
    is convinced that the priority setting process will be even more
    effective as more of the STP funds are prioritized by the MPO in each
    urbanized area.

                                   __________
     Statement of Juan Palma, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning
                                   Commission

        Good afternoon members of the Subcommittee, staff, ladies and
    gentlemen. My name is Juan Palma, Executive Director of the Tahoe
    Regional Planning Agency, an agency created to lead the cooperative
    effort to preserve, restore and enhance the unique natural and human
    environment of the Lake Tahoe Region.
        In July 1997, then President Clinton and Vice President Gore
    reaffirmed their administration's role in helping to manage Lake Tahoe,
    a national treasure, by improving coordination among Federal, State,
    and local agencies. That administration took bold and aggressive
    actions on water quality, transportation, forest management, recreation
    and tourism to protect Lake Tahoe's environment, economy and quality of
    life.
        TEA-21 played a major part in that effort. TEA-21 provided the
    consent of Congress for the establishment of the Tahoe Metropolitan
    Planning Organization (TMPO). Designated by Governor Miller of Nevada
    and Governor Wilson of California, the TMPO is emerging as an essential
    element in the planning and programming of transportation projects in
    the Lake Tahoe Region, projects that are today providing water and air
    quality benefits.
        These projects are not just the result of the TMPO. The Nevada
    Department of Transportation (NDOT), as well as the California
    Department of Transportation (Caltrans), are major players in the Lake
    Tahoe Basin. Both agencies have prepared water quality and erosion
    control master plans that identify the where, when and how much for
    retrofitting the existing roadway network in the Lake Tahoe Region,
    providing needed Best Management Practices (BMP) to protect Lake
    Tahoe's water quality. NDOT in particular has been recognized for its
    partnership approach in the development and implementation of these
    BMPs.
        The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency's (TRPA) Environmental
    Improvement Program (EIP) is a $906 million integrated approach over 10
    years to achieve and maintain all nine of the environmental thresholds
    for the Lake Tahoe Region. Many of the projects in the EIP are
    transportation related. Neither NDOT nor Caltrans can afford to
    complete their EIP projects with their usual source of funds. The
    Federal Lands Highway Program is essential in providing additional
    funding in support of these projects.
        The Federal Lands Highway Program is well suited to the Lake Tahoe
    region's needs. Under this program, Lake Tahoe projects are eligible
    under both the Forest Highway and the Discretionary sub-programs. NDOT
    has used or is using their Forest Highway allocations, along with voter
    approved statewide bonds, to construct erosion control facilities along
    most sections of SR 28. As you may be aware, sections of SR 28 in
    Nevada have been designated as a National Scenic Byway. NDOT is also
    using their funding for similar erosion control purposes on US 50, and
    has identified future projects on Kingsbury Grade and Mt. Rose Highway.
    Continuation of the Federal Lands Highway Program in the
    reauthorization of TEA-21 will provide for more of these erosion
    control projects in both Nevada and California.
        TEA-21 also provided that in addition to the typical MPO funds made
    available to the TMPO, that ``not more than 1 percent of the funds
    allocated under Section 202 (Federal Lands Highway Program) may be used
    to carry out the transportation planning process for the Lake Tahoe
    region''. It is important that the reauthorization of TEA-21 continue
    this eligibility.
        The intent of this provision has not been fully realized, however.
    The amount of funds provided and the definition of what is considered
    eligible planning has been limited administratively. We ask that as the
    TEA-21 reauthorization discussion proceeds, that clear authority be
    provided for TRPA to use Tahoe's 1 percent provision to conduct
    specific project planning activities, defined as concept development,
    site assessment, environmental studies and preliminary project design.
    Similarly, we ask that clear authority be provided for NDOT and
    Caltrans to use Tahoe's 1 percent provision to conduct these
    activities, and provide for project construction.
        The existing administrative interpretation of the TEA-21 language
    does not provide either the TMPO, NDOT or Caltrans the ability to
    utilize the Federal Public Lands Highway Program as was originally
    envisioned. This program, if not interpreted so narrowly, could easily
    serve as one of the most significant funding vehicles for meeting the
    Federal commitment to Lake Tahoe directed by the Clinton Administration
    in 1997, and for meeting the mandates and responsibilities set for in
    PL 96-551, the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact.
        Both TEA-21 and its predecessor the Intermodal Surface
    Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) included numerous other programs
    of benefit to Lake Tahoe and Nevada. Lake Tahoe and Nevada continue to
    benefit from programs such as transit capital and operations grant
    programs, the Jobs Access and Reverse Commute Grant (JARC),
    Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEA), National Scenic Byways
    (NSB), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), Intelligent
    Transportation Systems (ITS), the Clean Fuels program, bicycle and
    pedestrian programs, and the Recreational Trails program. We urge you
    to continue these programs in the next transportation legislation.
        As a member of the Association of Metropolitan Planning
    Organizations (AMPO), we concur with their objectives for
    reauthorization, in particular extending the sub-allocation of
    urbanized Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds to all MPOs,
    increasing to 2 percent the metropolitan planning takedown funds in
    order to account for increased planning responsibilities, and to use
    National Highway System (NHS) , STP, and CMAQ funds for projects that
    manage and operate the transportation system. These changes would
    greatly enhance our ability to address transportation needs here at
    Lake Tahoe.
        Congress and the Administration have many difficult choices to make
    for the reauthorization of TEA-21. The transportation needs of this
    country are enormous. We encourage you to take bold, assertive actions
    within the context of all our national priorities. We support the
    reauthorization of TEA-21, and encourage you to consider the above
    recommendations regarding Lake Tahoe. Thank you for this opportunity to
    help make those choices.

                                   __________
           Statement by Bruce Warner, Director, Oregon Department of
                                 Transportation

    Introduction
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, for the
    opportunity to testify on the reauthorization of the Transportation
    Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and the Federal Lands Highways
    Program.
        The nation's transportation system is critical--it drives the
    economy, moves people and goods, strategically links our homeland
    defenses, and helps shape our communities. When our transportation
    system is strong, our economy, our safety and our quality of life are
    improved.
        There is a tremendous amount at stake as we near the end of one
    surface transportation bill, and begin debating the next. TEA-21 has
    been an indisputable success. In Oregon for example, our highways are
    safer (traffic deaths have fallen to a 40-year low), the condition of
    roads statewide has improved, and thousands of highway-related jobs
    have been supported each year. Congress should continue TEA-21's
    funding guarantees, budgetary firewalls, and basic program structure in
    the next bill.

    Reauthorization of TEA-21: Challenging Times
        As Congress begins the process of reauthorizing TEA-21, the country
    faces new challenges, including a severe economic slowdown and a new
    era of combating terrorism at home and abroad. We also face:
          Aging infrastructure--The vast network of roads and
    bridges built after World War II is reaching old age all at once.
          Rapid growth--Growth threatens future economic prosperity
    and livability.
          Congestion--Bottlenecks on key freight routes hinder the
    movement of people and freight.

    Need for New Revenue
        To face these challenges, it is clear that additional Federal
    resources are needed to strengthen our transportation system.
    Transportation industry groups, States and some Members of Congress
    have proposed several ways to increase the size of the Highway Trust
    Fund (HTF).
          Regain the interest on the HTF balance. Prior to TEA-21
    the HTF earned interest on its balance, which was paid by the General
    Fund. Treasury estimates a $4 billion dollar loss to the HTF between
    September 1999 and February 2002.
          Raise the taxes on gasoline and heavy truck use.
          Transfer the 2.5 cents ethanol tax paid to the General
    Fund to the HTF.
          Require the General Fund to reimburse the HTF for the
    loss incurred by the ethanol tax exemption.
          Eliminate the ethanol tax exemption.
          Begin to index the tax on fuel so that the tax
    corresponds to fluctuations in the economy, i.e. The Consumer Price
    Index (CPI).

    Financing Transportation
        There is also a mounting need to explore new methods of financing
    transportation as many experts predict a declining yield from the
    current petroleum-based Federal tax structure as fuel efficiency rises
    and greater numbers of alternative fuel vehicles hit the roads. The
    impacts are not insignificant. For example, average fuel economy
    increased from 12.0 miles per gallon in 1970 to 16.9 miles per gallon
    in 2000, a 29.0 percent increase. This increase in fuel efficiency made
    it possible to have a 248 percent increase in vehicle-miles of travel
    with only a 176 percent increase in fuel use over the same period.
        All vehicles should pay their fair share of the costs to maintain
    the tion's highways and bridges. Regardless of fuel type all vehicles
    add to congestion and cause wear and tear on roads. Some have suggested
    that new user fees based on miles traveled or vehicle registration
    could supplement existing Federal fuel taxes. These ideas need to be
    explored further and implemented, perhaps as a pilot program in the
    next authorization bill.

    Federal Lands Highways Program (FLHP)
        Additional funding is needed to increase authorizations for
    important transportation programs such as the Federal Lands Highways
    Program and increase annual highway apportionments to States in the
    next ``TEA'' bill.
        The FLHP provides funding to improve roads that are within or
    provide access to federally owned lands. The continuation of a strong
    Federal Lands Highways Program in the next surface transportation
    authorization bill is of national importance and a high priority for
    western States.
        In the State of Oregon, Federal lands are integral to the economy.
    The Federal Government owns one out of every two acres of land. The
    total area publicly owned approaches 32 million acres--more than the
    amount of 35 other States combined. While timber harvests have
    declined, more people are still employed in the lumber and wood
    products industry than any other single manufacturing industry in the
    State. Recreational opportunities on publicly owned land play a vital
    role in Oregon's travel and tourism industry. Oregon is second only to
    California in the volume of passenger vehicle traffic on roads within
    Federal lands.

    TEA-21
        TEA-21 continued the Federal Lands Highways Program established by
    the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA).
    The bill expanded eligible projects to include transit facilities
    within public lands, national parks and Indian Reservations. TEA-21
    also added a new FLHP category for the preservation and improvement of
    roads within or providing access to National Wildlife Refuges.
    Currently under TEA-21 the FLHP is comprised of four categories: 1)
    Indian Reservation Roads, 2) Park Roads and Parkways, 3) Public Lands
    Highways and 4) Refuge Roads.
        Each of the FLHP categories uses a different approach for
    allocating and distributing funding. Increased funding for the FLHP
    should be distributed proportionally among these categories.
    Indian Reservation Roads
        The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Bureau of Indian
    Affairs jointly administer the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program.
    Indian tribes select area projects. IRR funds used on State and county
    roads must be used as a supplement to and not in lieu of regular
    Federal highway funding.

    Park Roads and Parkways
        The National Park Service (NPS) and FHWA jointly administer the
    Park Roads and Parkway Program. The NPS selects area projects and
    program funds may only be used on roads under the jurisdiction of the
    NPS.

    Refuge Roads
        The Refuge Roads Program is administered by FHWA. Funds may only be
    used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and FHWA for the 3,260 miles
    of public roads that provide access to or are located within the
    national Wildlife Refuge System. Projects are selected from
    transportation improvement programs developed by the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service.

    Public Lands Highways
        Two different processes are used by FHWA to administer the Public
    Lands Highways (PLH) Program. The Secretary of Transportation is
    directed to allocate 66 percent of authorizations for Public Lands
    Highways according to the administrative formula used to allocate
    previous Forest Highways funds and distribute 34 percent PLH funds on a
    ``needs basis'' (i.e. discretionary grants).
        The Western Federal Lands Highway Division (Western Federal Lands)
    of FHWA has primary responsibility for managing the PLH funds allocated
    to western States in accordance with the Forest Highways administrative
    formula. In Oregon, projects are selected for funding by a committee
    with representatives from the U.S. Forest Service, Oregon Department of
    Transportation (ODOT), Oregon Counties and Western Federal Lands.
        Under the discretionary component of the program, FHWA normally
    solicits grant applications from States each year. Increasingly,
    however, Congress is earmarking PLH funding in annual transportation
    appropriations bills--about 20 percent of PLH discretionary program
    funding in fiscal year 2000, 80 percent in fiscal year 2001, and 100
    percent in fiscal year 2002.

    The Future of the Federal Lands Highways Program
        The next surface transportation bill will determine the future of
    the FLHP, including: 1) the overall authorization level, the number of
    program categories, and how funds are allocated.

    Authorization Level
        TEA-21 increased authorization levels for the FLHP by over 60
    percent--from $447 million in 1997, the last year of ISTEA, to over
    $700 million a year. A similar size increase is needed in the next
    bill. The Western Governors Association and the Western Association of
    State Highway and Transportation Officials (WASHTO) have adopted
    resolutions in support of increased funding for the FLHP in the next
    authorization bill.

    Funding Allocations
        Public lands are not equally distributed around the Nation and thus
    States with larger amounts of publicly owned lands have greater needs
    than States with smaller amounts. FLHP funding should be allocated:

          Mainly to States with at least 3 percent of the nation's
    total public land.
          The current formula used to allocate funding under the
    Forest Highways component of the Public Lands Highways Program should
    be maintained. It is based on the extent and use of public lands in
    each State--timberland areas, harvest volumes, recreational visitor
    days, traffic volumes, etc.
          To prevent earmarking of funds in annual appropriations
    bills, the discretionary component of the Public Lands Highways Program
    should either be rolled into the existing formula component or
    distributed directly to States by a new formula. The new formula could
    focus funding on a specific problem facing States with large public
    lands, such as funding culvert replacement or other transportation
    related work that is required to comply with the Endangered Species
    Act.

    Program Categories
        The American Association of State Highway and Transportation
    Officials (AASHTO) and Western Governors Association have taken the
    position that no new categories should be created within the Federal
    Lands Highways Program. This position was in part a response to a
    proposal that would establish a new national road system made up of
    60,000 miles of U.S. Forest Service roads, funded from the Highway
    Trust Fund. If adopted, the proposal would create within the Federal
    Highway Program a new system of roads larger than the Interstate
    System. The States support additional funding for the U.S. Forest
    Service from the General Fund.

    Other Reauthorization Issues
        There are many other important issues that will be decided during
    reauthorization of TEA-21. The following are ODOT's comments on a few
    of them.

    Bridge Replacement
        In Oregon we face a particularly pressing challenge--many of the
    State's bridges built during the Interstate era are beginning to show
    signs of cracking. Over 300 bridges have been identified as needing
    repairs or replacement due to severe cracking at a cost of over $600
    million. If the problem is not addressed soon, there will be economic
    impacts as weight limits are imposed and freight is diverted off the
    Interstate System, often through small communities, detouring as many
    as 100 miles per trip. The State alone cannot fix a problem of this
    scale. Additional Federal bridge funding will be needed in the next
    authorization bill.

    National Corridor Planning and Development Program (NCPD)
        In the next bill, NCPD funding should be increased and focused on
    eliminating freight bottlenecks in key trade corridors, especially at
    regional hubs where many modes of freight converge. In Oregon, the I-5
    Portland/Vancouver Trade Corridor is a prime example of a congested
    freight hub--where two Class I railroads, two Interstate highways, two
    ports, barge traffic, a high-speed rail corridor and an airport meet--
    that is a crossroads for regional and international trade. The current
    NCPD program is under funded and unfocused. With grants averaging $4-5
    million, and little oversight to ensure funds are going to true trade
    corridors, the program as currently authorized is not targeting
    critical freight bottlenecks as is needed.

    Environmental Stewardship and Streamlining
        In response to Section 1309 of TEA-21, ODOT has developed and
    implemented a coordinated review process for highway construction
    projects. This improved method for State and Federal permitting
    agencies to review highway projects is up and running in Oregon. Known
    as ``CETAS'' (Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement
    on Streamlining), it establishes a working relationship between ODOT
    and ten State and Federal transportation, natural and cultural resource
    and land use planning agencies.
        The next bill should support State-led efforts to both protect the
    environment and streamline the review process for transportation
    projects by encouraging agencies to participate in collaborative
    stewardship/streamlining efforts through:

          Incentives--to get resource protection agencies and
    transportation agencies at the Federal and State level working
    together. With limited resources, many agencies find it difficult or
    impossible to participate in collaborative stewardship/streamlining
    efforts because they must take staff away from their daily duties.
          Research and technology--can provide tools to make it
    easier for agencies to implement stewardship/streamlining initiatives.
    For example, GIS mapping of natural and cultural resources gives
    transportation departments information in a format that they can easily
    incorporate into their ongoing planning, operations, maintenance and
    construction methods.
          Innovative permitting--the permitting process can be
    improved through innovating permitting techniques. For example,
    resource agencies are beginning to approve programmatic permits for
    routine transportation activities, saving time and money that can be
    used for mitigation and projects. Federal agencies need to be
    encouraged to develop new programmatic approaches to permitting.
    Advanced wetland and conservation banking for transportation projects
    should be sanctioned.

    Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program
            (TCSP)
        The TCSP program has proven to be extremely popular among States,
    metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and other units of local
    governments. Demand for funding has far exceeded available funding.
    Like other discretionary programs, annual appropriations bills have
    earmarked increasing amounts of the program's funding. This trend has
    undermined the purpose of discretionary programs--to implement Federal
    policy goals by awarding Federal grants to projects that demonstrate
    they support those goals, based on an objective and rigorous grant
    application process administered by the U.S. Department of
    Transportation.
        The program should be restructured and its funding increased to: 1)
    better support program goals by providing incentives to States, and 2)
    prevent earmarking of the program in future annual appropriations
    bills. The TCSP program could be improved by:

          Establishing the TCSP as a permanent Federal-aid highway
    program.
          Re-establishing an effective discretionary program.
          Adding incentives to encourage States to implement the
    goals of the program.
          Increasing the annual authorization level for the new
    program to $250 million.

    Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Public Road Mileage
        In 1999, BLM listed all of its 43,000 miles of roads as
    ``administrative'' and therefore no longer ``public'' road miles. This
    despite that fact that BLM roads are open to the public and many are
    paved. The classification of public road mileage is extremely important
    to western States because it is a formula factor for the allocation of
    motor carrier and highway safety program funding. The Western Governors
    Association and WASHTO have called on the U.S. Department of
    Transportation not to exclude BLM road miles from public road mileage
    certified by States until a study is undertaken to review the criteria
    and methods used to determine the classification of roads as
    ``public''. The study should be done in cooperation with the western
    States.

    Conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, a strong transportation system is vital to the future
    of the United States. Reauthorization is an opportunity to strengthen
    the transportation system and buildupon the successes of TEA-21 and
    ISTEA. To do this, additional Federal resources are needed. States
    simply will not be able to overcome the many challenges we face alone.
        We do not need to re-create the wheel this reauthorization cycle.
    The basic program structure is sound and proven programs such as the
    Federal Lands Highways Program are generally working well. Some changes
    need to be made, such as ensuring discretionary program funding is
    targeted to projects that support the program's objectives. The funding
    guarantees and firewall provisions established in TEA-21 will need to
    be protected. New revenue sources will have to be explored.
        Finally, it is crucial that State highway apportionments increase
    substantially as they did under TEA-21. Oregon's cities, counties,
    Metropolitan Planning Organizations, transit districts and many other
    jurisdictions benefit when the State's annual apportionment increases.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any
    questions.

                                   __________
              Statement of Gary Carano, Nevada Resort Association

        Thank you Senator Reid and members of the subcommittee staff for
    the opportunity to talk with you today. My name is Gary Carano, and I
    am the General Manager of the Silver Legacy Resort Hotel, but I am here
    today representing the Nevada Resort Association. The transportation
    issues that I would like to discuss with you today impact all of my
    Northern Nevada colleagues, and the resort industry is united in its
    efforts to address these issues.
        The Reno/Sparks economy depends on tourism. We receive over 5
    million visitors to Washoe County each year. These people come here to
    enjoy the vast recreation, entertainment, and retail opportunities that
    this area has to offer (appendix 1). Roughly 35 percent of these
    visitors travel to Northern Nevada by plane, and nearly all of the rest
    come by highway. Northern and Central Californians are this area's
    leading customers and these folks come to Reno on Interstate 80. I-80
    is truly the economic lifeline of this community, not only for
    tourists, but also as a major link of goods and services from San
    Francisco through the Port of Oakland and on to the east coast (see
    bullets and graph below).

                                   __________

    Statement of John H. Milton, III, Commissioner, Humboldt County, Nevada

        Senator Reid, members of the Committee, good afternoon. My name is
    John H. Milton, III and I am the senior member of the Humboldt County,
    Nevada, Commission and a member of the Board of Directors of the Nevada
    Association of Counties. Thank you for the opportunity to spend a few
    minutes discussing ``Western Transportation Issues'' and the Federal
    Lands Highway Program in particular.
        As you are aware Senator Reid, over 87 percent of the land in our
    State is managed and controlled by the Federal Government. The majority
    of this land accessed over County maintained roads. Most of these roads
    are gravel which require a high level of maintenance. In Humboldt
    County, we have 941 miles of County maintained roads in our system. Of
    that amount 669 miles, or 71 percent of our system, serve Federal
    lands. These lands do not generate revenue, which can be used for the
    building new roads or the maintaining of existing roads.
        In reviewing the Federal Lands Highway program, I noticed that the
    majority of this money goes into the Public Lands Highway category. In
    that category, 66 percent goes to Forest Highways and 33 percent goes
    to the discretionary program. In Humboldt County and the majority of
    Nevada, the Department of the Interior is the manager of the Federal
    Lands and they receive no funding in this program. In Nevada, there are
    approximately 61.7 million acres of Federal land of which 51.1 million
    acres are administered by the Department of the Interior, primarily
    BLM. I would recommend that in the reauthorization you consider a new
    category related to these lands which similar to current categories for
    Refuge Roads, and Park Roads and Parkways.
        The Sheldon Antelope Refuge is the only wildlife refuge located in
    Humboldt County. Access to this refuge is via a County Road. We believe
    we should be allowed to access the Refuge Road Category for
    improvements to this County Road. We currently receive $5,000 a year in
    revenue sharing from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but return
    $2,500 to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the maintenance of the
    Virgin Valley Campground. This does not leave much for maintenance of
    the roads leading to or within the refuge.
        In April of 2000, I appeared before the Senate Subcommittee on
    Forest and Public Land Management to testify on the Black Rock Desert-
    High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area (NCA). At
    that time one of the concerns I expressed was access to the NCA via our
    county road system. That bill became law and my concerns have not gone
    away. Most, if not all, of the major access points are reached by
    County Roads. Many of these are Humboldt County Roads, including the
    Cedarville Road which provides access to the NCA and the Sheldon
    Antelope Range, and the 95-mile road from Winnemucca to Gerlach which
    provides access to the entire southern boundary of the NCA. We expect
    the use of these roads to increase dramatically; the cost to maintain
    them will also increase. Improving these roads to handle increased
    traffic is beyond our means. For example, the estimate we obtained to
    upgrade the road from Winnemucca to Gerlach to an all weather road
    exceeds seven million dollars. This does not include the $480,000 cost
    for cultural clearance, right of way acquisition, gravel pit
    development, and water sources or the $200,000.00 annual cost for
    maintenance. This road crosses three Counties, none of which can afford
    to spend this type of money. Although roads such as these serve Federal
    lands, Humboldt County maintains them with no assistance from the
    Federal Government.
        The access to the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in Humboldt
    County is also via our County Road system. We maintain approximately
    44.1 additional miles within the Forest under agreement with the Forest
    Service. In exchange, the Forest Service maintenance crew undertakes
    projects on the County roads leading to the National Forest to offset
    our costs incurred by the County for the requested maintenance.
        In conclusion, I would ask that you give strong consideration in
    the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st
    Century (TEA-21) by addressing the concerns I have expressed today. In
    particular I would ask that a category be created to address the vast
    holdings of the Department of the Interior. Also that the public roads
    maintained by someone other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service be
    allowed to utilize the money in Refuge Roads category.
        Thank you for the opportunity to address you concerning the Federal
    Lands Highway Program today and I would be happy to answer any
    questions you may have at this time.

                                   __________
       Statement of Tribal Chairwoman Robyn Burdette, Summit Lake Paiute
                                 Tribe, Nevada

        Thank you, for the opportunity to speak on the issue of
    transportation in Indian Country and in Nevada.
        The Summit Lake Paiute Tribe is a small geographically isolated
    tribe located in the extreme upper northwest portion of Nevada. Bureau
    of Land Management and Sheldon U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge surround
    the reservation, in addition to the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Natural
    Area. The main road system on the reservation consists primarily of two
    BIA routes, which link to three county routes. The majority of the land
    adjacent to the reservation is generally used for activities such as
    hunting, fishing, hiking and camping. This area is a very high use
    recreational area. The Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant
    Trails National Conservation Area Act of 2000 gives national
    conservation area and wilderness designation to nearly 1.2 million
    acres of public lands in the vicinity and adjacent to the reservation.
        In 1999, I was chosen to sit on the Transportation Equity Act for
    the Twenty First Century Negotiated Rulemaking Committee for the Indian
    Reservation Roads Program. My tribe is part of the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs Western Region located in Phoenix, Arizona with 54 other tribes
    from Utah, Nevada and Arizona. In Nevada there are 29 individual
    tribes, each responsible to provide for the self-governance and safety
    of their communities. Well-constructed and maintained roads are
    essential for economic development of Indian communities, as businesses
    cannot occur without roads to provide access for customers and
    supplies. Well-maintained roads are essential for public safety of the
    local citizens and people traveling through the area. Indian children
    must travel--often for great distances--on Indian roads. Police and
    medical vehicles rely upon good roads to provide public safety and
    emergency medical services. Roads have been placed in the top ten
    budget priorities for the past two fiscal years by the BIA Western
    Region Tribes.
        Road Maintenance--The maintenance account for the BIA WRO provides
    funds to tribal governments to maintain roads and bridges on Indian
    lands. The current level of funding provides approximately one-fifth of
    the total of funds needed. The budget would have to be quadrupled to
    provide adequate level of funding. As an example--the Summit Lake
    Paiute Tribe gets $3,300.00 for road maintenance. With extreme snow
    conditions and heavy equipment costs this provides a fraction of the
    cost necessary to maintain our roads on a full time basis A snow cat
    costs $70,000.00. The tribe operates its maintenance program with a
    1950 Huber grader which breaks down on a regular basis, parts, if
    found, cost between $1,000.00--$2,000.00. A replacement grader would be
    $100,000.00. The road maintenance program is not in the IRR program,
    however, to build new roads with inadequate maintenance, creates a loss
    in capital improvement, and additional loss of precious dollars. The
    refuge roads program makes an allowance for maintenance costs, perhaps,
    and I say this cautiously, the IRR program should be evaluated to allow
    for an increase in funding for Road Operation &Maintenance. The BIA O &
    M corresponding budget should be targeted for an increase.
        The rulemaking committee for IRR was established to provide
    procedures and a relative need allocation formula. The committee was
    comprised of small, medium and large tribes across the Nation, many
    with no prior experience and some with many years of experience and
    expertise in transportation.
        This was the first time, nationally, that the tribes saw and
    participated in the development of a relative needs formula. The
    committee meetings provided an educational overview into the Indian
    Reservation Roads program that some of us have never had. The tribal
    representatives held true to their task of participating in the IRR
    Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on a government-to-government basis in
    recognition of Indian self-governance and self-determination. Although
    a monumental task, procedures and the development of a single formula,
    based on the inadequate funding allocated to the IRR program, was
    completed. What has yet to be demonstrated, but may be possible, is
    that problems in getting a project may not be entirely due to funding
    but the process of getting the funding/project.
        Some of the inequities found within the IRR program for tribes are:

          lack of adequate funding
          concern that too many programs are being placed within
    the Indian Reservation

        Roads Construction Program like:

          Indian Reservation Roads Bridge Program
          Transit
          Obligation Limitation
          6 percent BIA takedown

        The relative needs formula is based upon the total population;
    vehicle miles traveled, and cost to improve. Considering these factors,
    the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe is currently at a disadvantage because of
    poor qualifiers in the relative needs formula including a low
    population, low average daily traffic, and lack of transportation
    planning reports (identifying cost to improve estimates, roadway
    inventories, ADT, etc). As a result, funding for the tribe based on the
    relative need formula has proven inadequate, especially for routine
    maintenance, and improvement of the reservation roadway system. The
    Summit Lake Paiute Tribe has historically received no funding for road
    construction.
        The proposed relative needs formula includes a capacity base
    funding and a high priority funding category, however, funding is based
    on population, this seems to create a pool where low population tribes
    only receive insufficient funding to operate a transportation program.
    It also creates a pool whereby the BIA can take from to supply funding
    for a ``construction project'' that may not be yours. Funding should be
    allocated based on the entire project to its completion.
        The proposed high priority projects, well intended to address
    funding for tribes that have never received funding for a construction
    project, will likely struggle to receive a approved construction
    project due to the poor qualifiers mentioned above. The inclusion of
    the emergency/disaster projects will further exclude a tribe from
    meeting transportation needs. Because of insufficient funding the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs currently prioritizes IRR funds to build roads
    with respect to those tribes who the BIA qualifies as having unsafe
    roads or bridges.
        The Summit Lake Tribe has generated a relative needs share between
    $19,000.00 to $30,000.00 per year and has only twice received funding
    through 2 percent planning not through its relative needs portion.
        In 1999, the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe's roadway system was flooded,
    all access was stopped. Many travelers were stranded or attempted to
    circumnavigate the flooded section, (which was the sole access from
    north to south), and began to cut new roadways into the surrounding
    areas, many of which consist of wetland habitat. This situation results
    in extreme environmental degradation and safety concerns. When the
    tribe sought assistance through the Emergency Relief for federally
    Owned Roads program, bureaucratic red tape and process stifled the
    tribe. For 2 years the effects of this flood impacted the tribe and the
    economy of the area. What was the bureaucratic red tape? The
    requirement to apply through the Bureau of Indian Affairs instead of
    the Federal Lands Office which administers ERFO funding.
        Many reservations share this same story, it is common to have roads
    that are well beneath ground level or consist of narrow pavements with
    no shoulders or inadequate signage with sharp narrow passages or
    curves.
        When the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe generates a relative needs fund
    totaling $19,000.00--$30,000.00 per year and it is estimated that
    $1,781,635.00 is needed to rebuild existing roads, not including future
    roads, the Summit Lake Paiute Tribe will always remain at the bottom
    end of the priority list. When competing for funding at the national
    level for a construction project against tribes, who are in the same
    category, funding will remain unlikely with the poor qualifiers of low
    population, ADT, and cost to construct.
        Tribes in Nevada receive little or no support from the BIA WRO and
    have requested many meetings to obtain information regarding
    assistance. Unfortunately, due to distance--we are geographically
    crippled from obtaining the training and technical assistance necessary
    for consideration under the IRR program. To get on the WRO TIP, a tribe
    must request BIA to approve funding for the tribal project. This
    process is passed over for the majority of tribes due to limited
    funding and the lack of technical assistance from the Western Region
    Office.
        What are the effects on a national level? Several Tribes in Nevada
    have major highways traveling through their reservation. The Duck
    Valley Shoshone-Paiute Tribe may have nuclear receptacles traveling
    through their area on the very same roads numerous accidents occur.
    Tribes who do not have emergency response preparedness and have unsafe
    road conditions will be ill equipped to handle the proposed nuclear
    transportation.
        Tribes in Nevada are capable of partnering with the State of Nevada
    to address transportation issues, however, there are distinct
    differences with Tribes. Not only is there a jurisdictional
    considerations but the fact that many tribes need to participate fully
    in research programs like safety and transit. Accesses to funds are
    dependent upon the inventory of tribes, it is critical that tribes are
    able to provide the State agencies accurate inventory information.
    Again, we cross the path of needing those base/planning dollars in
    order to report and compile the correct information.
        The Tribal Technical Assistance Program serving Nevada Tribes is
    also critical to meeting the transportation need, however, this program
    has been non-existent for several years. Just recently, a provider has
    been selected in California where conditions are very different than
    those in Nevada. In addition, this displaces us from the other Tribes
    in the WRO office and further complicates matters when trying to pull
    together information and resources.
        Suggestions to improve--Provide for equal partnership with tribes.
    Implement the procedures developed by the Negotiated Rulemaking
    committee and provide full funding for the IRR program. Remove the
    obligation limitation from the IRR program. Adjust the takedowns, the
    BIA 6 percent and re-evaluate the funding formula.
        Although tribes have to agree on a single formula, there are areas
    for improvement. Population based formula do not work for anyone. The
    high priority programs can work if revolved around meeting the need of
    those tribes who do not get enough funds to construct a project in a
    set period of time but not if all tribes can access funds due to
    safety. The majority of Indian roads provide a safety risk.
        Finally, tribal roads are given inequitable attention, we are
    overlooked because we lack the capacity and knowledge to manage our
    program, not because we can't but because we are not allowed to. Given
    the resources, and by partnering, we can provide for safe accessible
    transportation system and contribute to the local economy. Thank you.

                                   __________

                         Statement of the Navajo Nation

    Introduction
        The Navajo Nation appreciates this opportunity to share its views
    about what is working within the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR)
    Program, what is not working, and what this Congress can do to improve
    transportation in Indian Country. We commend the Federal Highway
    Administration for its commitment to provide safe and efficient access
    to Tribal lands. Roads, bridges, and transit quite literally carry
    people across a network that connects communities, commerce and
    culture.
        As former U.S. Secretary Rodney E. Slater said, ``Transportation is
    the tie that binds us together as a Nation.'' The Indian Reservation
    Roads Program impacts all people, tribal and non-tribal alike. Tribal
    Lands provide vitally needed access within and between States, and
    support a multitude of economic interests, including tourism,
    agriculture, energy production, manufacturing, mineral extraction and
    timber harvesting.
        But progress does not travel down dirt roads and broken bridges.
    Many people and places in Indian Country still have very poor access to
    opportunity. A few discreet changes to the Transportation Equity Act
    for the 21st Century could dramatically help efforts to lift First
    Americans out of Third World conditions, onto the same economic status
    as other communities throughout the United States. Background
    Navajo Nation
        The Navajo Reservation is located on 26,109 square miles, or 17.1
    million acres within the exterior boundaries of New Mexico, Arizona,
    and Utah. It is roughly the geographic size of West Virginia. The
    Navajo Nation's land base also includes three Navajo satellite
    communities-Alamo, Tohajillee, and Ramah-located in western and central
    New Mexico.
        With 280,000 members, the Navajo Nation is the largest federally
    recognized Indian Tribe. Limited availability of housing and employment
    on the reservation forces people to commute long distances everyday for
    work, school, health care and basic government services. Seventy-eight
    percent of the roads within Navajo are unpaved.
        According to the 2000 BIA Road Inventory Data base, the Navajo IRR
    system consists of 9,826 miles of public roads. Of that, Navajo Nation
    must maintain 1,451 miles of paved road, 4,601 miles of gravel and dirt
    roads. Weather conditions often make many of those roads impassable.
        The Navajo Reservation soils have high clay content with less
    forage. In the winter, snow and rain create Snow and Mud Emergencies
    that prohibit access even to rescue vehicles. This year, because of the
    prolonged drought, these roads have become nearly impassable due to
    sand dunes, rocky surfaces and deep holes. Not only are impassable
    roads a consistent problem within Navajo, so are impassable bridges.
    The Navajo must maintain 173 bridges. 51 bridges have been identified
    as being deficient, of which 27 bridges need complete replacement and
    24 bridges need major rehabilitation.
        For people who do not have access to a vehicle, The Navajo Transit
    System (NTS) currently operates a fleet of 14 buses and 3 vans that
    carry 6,250 passengers a month, or 75,000 passengers a year. NTS
    provides public transportation not only to people of Navajo, but also
    to people of Gallup and Farmington, New Mexico, and Flagstaff and
    Winslow, Arizona. NTS not only links tribal and non-tribal communities
    together, but also improves the area's environment, economy and overall
    quality of life.

    Indian Country
        The Navajo Nation, like every Tribe, has its own unique challenges.
    Yet Navajo consistently struggles with three problems that are nearly
    universal throughout Indian Country: 1) lack of adequate health care;
    2) lack of public safety officers; and 3) lack of economic development
    opportunities. These problems are compounded by the lack of
    transportation infrastructure within tribal communities.
        Health clinics on most reservations tend to be few and far between,
    where they exist at all. Tribal members, including the elderly,
    children, and disabled, often must travel hundreds of miles to receive
    specialized care. Dirt roads, deteriorating paved roads, and
    treacherous bridges make their long journeys that much more difficult.
        Public Safety is also compromised by lack of decent roads and
    bridges within reservations. Automobile accidents are the No. 1 cause
    of death among young American Indians. The annual fatality rate on
    Indian Reservation Roads is more than four times the national average.
    Bad roads make it very difficult for tribal police, few in numbers, to
    enforce traffic and other laws in Indian Country.
        Lack of adequate vehicle access is also a disincentive for economic
    development in tribal communities. On a regular basis, several
    businesses explore the possibility of locating to the Navajo Nation
    before realizing obstacles including inadequate paved roads. Due to the
    lack of economic developments and supporting infrastructures, the
    following facts exist:

          According to 1990 census, which provides the most recent
    analysis, per capita income for American Indians living on reservations
    is about $4,500 per year, compared to about $14,500 nationally. In
    1997, the per capita income of Navajo people was $5,599.
          According to the 1990 census, 51 percent of American
    Indians living on reservations lived below the poverty level, as
    compared to 13 percent nationally. 56 percent of Navajo people live
    below the poverty level.
          Although unemployment in Indian Country fluctuates
    seasonally, it is greater than 50 percent annually, as compared to less
    than 10 percent nationally. The unemployment rate on the Navajo Nation
    is about 50 percent.
        National Security As we all know, since September 11, 2001,
    Homeland Security has become the national priority. Indian reservation
    roads and bridges are vitally important to national safety. Tribal
    transportation infrastructure must be able to carry emergency services,
    as well as evacuation traffic.
        Unfortunately, most tribal transportation infrastructures are not
    yet up to the task. For example, Arizona Department of Transportation
    developed an I-40 Emergency Interstate Closure Plan--which was created
    to anticipate such pre-September 11 catastrophes as earthquakes and
    hazardous or radioactive spills--that calls for detouring up to 8,000
    trucks per day onto Navajo BIA routes. The Navajo bridges onto which
    traffic would be detoured can only safely accommodate one truck at a
    time, traveling no faster than 35 miles per hour.
        In addition, State highways through Indian Reservation Roads
    regularly carry hazardous materials. The Navajo Nation serve as a
    shipment route for hazardous materials. Not all potential routes are
    paved.
        Hazardous waste is carried across the Navajo Nation every day on
    five different routes:

          I-40 is a main route for hazardous waste;
          U.S. 89 is a main route for transport of organic waste,
    as well as propane and gasoline shipments;
          U.S. 160 is main route for transport of hazardous waste;
          U.S. 163 is main route for transport of hazardous
    shipments from Arizona to Utah and Colorado; and
          U.S. 666 is highly traveled by vehicles carrying
    hazardous waste.
        Nuclear waste transportation also cuts across Indian Country. In
    Navajo, I-40 is the main route for high-level radioactive waste
    transported to or from New Mexico. U.S. 160 is the main route for
    transport of high-level radioactive waste. When Yucca Mountain Nuclear
    Waste Storage facility starts accepting waste, much of it will come
    right through the Navajo Nation. Tribal roads must be constructed,
    improved and maintained to safely handle such dangerous traffic.

                    TRANSPORTATION ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

    What is Working
        Based on its own experience, the Navajo Nation believes that The
    Transportation Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), through the Indian
    Reservation Roads Program, is providing critically needed funding and
    assistance for reservation and bridge projects in Indian Country. While
    the IRR Program has its problems, three specific aspects of the Program
    that are working well for the Navajo people:

    1. Relative Needs Formula
          Current distribution is based on formula of ``relative
    needs'' of the various Indian Tribes as jointly identified by the
    Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of the Interior.
          The Relative Needs Formula currently being used is
    measurable, verifiable, and equitable: 20 percent total Indian
    Population; 30 percent total vehicle miles traveled; 50 percent total
    cost of improvement
          Amount of roads Navajo has constructed or improved from
    1992 to 2001 (ISTEA and TEA-21 authorizations) is 334 miles of road and
    1,988 lineal feet of bridges.

    2. Cooperative Funding for School Bus Routes
          Agreements entered into between Navajo Nation and
    counties of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah have been very successful in
    fostering coordination and communication for the maintenance of school
    bus routes.
          TEA-21 funds have been used to improve several miles of
    school bus routes on or near the Navajo Nation that could not have been
    maintained without the funding.

    3. Tribal Technical Assistance Program
          On September 11 and 12, 2002, the Navajo Nation
    Department of Transportation and the Colorado State University Tribal
    Technical Assistance Program will co-host the Navajo Nation
    Transportation Symposium in Flagstaff, Arizona. The Symposium will
    feature national keynote speakers and training workshops on critical
    national transportation initiatives.
          Such ongoing technical support benefits tribal and non-
    tribal community alike.

                              WHAT IS NOT WORKING

        It is the experience of the Navajo Nation that five specific
    aspects of the IRR Program are currently undermining the Federal
    Government's commitment to provide safe and efficient access to tribal
    lands:

    1. Negotiated Rule Making Process
        TEA-21 provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall issue
    regulations governing the IRR Program and establish a funding
    distribution formula in accordance with the negotiated rulemaking
    committee. Of the four workgroups that make up the Negotiated
    Rulemaking Committee, the workgroup steeped in the most controversy is
    the Funding Formula Workgroup, which has been asked to review and
    develop possible alternative methods to the current Need Based Formula
    for distributing funds under the IRR Program.
        The Negotiated Rulemaking Process attempt to develop an alternative
    distribution funding formula has undermined one of the central goals of
    TEA-21--to improve the transportation infrastructure of Indian Country.
    Alternative distribution efforts have 1) derailed meaningful progress
    by pitting small tribes against big tribes in a fight over an
    inadequate budget; 2) delayed disbursement of IRR funds 4 years
    straight, in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002; and 3) resulted in suspended
    Indian roads projects and roads employees.
        Navajo Nation has long advocated Needs Based Formula for all tribal
    funding in the interest of fairness and accountability. The BIA Road
    Inventory miles used in computing the distribution formula must be true
    roadway miles, fair, accurate and verifiable. The alternative funding
    formula being sought by small tribes, which advocates ``base level
    funding'' and set-asides for non-existent road miles (ghost miles), is
    neither reasonable nor practicable.

    2. Bridge Funding
        The National Bridge Priority Program currently only provides
    funding for construction of bridges, not funding for such pre-
    construction activities as planning and design. Moneys for pre-
    construction bridge activities must be sought from regular IRR funds,
    where such requests are in direct competition with funding requests for
    road construction projects. The current process is not only cumbersome
    and unfair, but also risky where replacement and/or rehabilitation of a
    bridge is an immediate health and safety need.
        Bridges within the Navajo Nation must be able to support the
    traffic of workers, patients, school children, commerce, and hazardous
    materials. As of November 10, 1999, 46 bridges within the Navajo Nation
    were identified as being deficient. The Navajo Nation needs at least
    $5.2 million for planning and designing in order for bridges to advance
    to construction.
        As Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R, NY) of the House
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee stated, ``You don't fix a
    bridge with good intentions; it takes cold hard cash to pay for the
    rehabilitation or replacement.'' The current Bridge Priority Program
    does not provide Tribes access to funds to plan for such rehabilitation
    and replacement.

    3. Obligation Limitation
        The current method of redistributing approximately 10 percent of
    Federal Lands Highways Program funds to States as Surface
    Transportation Program funds-commonly known as the ``Obligation
    Limitation"--has a detrimental impact on Tribes and the IRR Program.
    Because the Indian Reservation Road Program is located within the
    Federal Lands Highway Program, the Obligation Limitation significantly
    reduces the availability of critically needed construction funds for
    developments for all American Indian Tribes. Since Obligation
    Limitation became applicable on the Indian Reservation Roads Program,
    the redistribution of funds has accumulated to $129.4 million, of which
    Navajo Nation could have received $34 million for construction.

    4. Maintenance Funding
        Road maintenance is a statutory obligation under 23 U.S.C. Section
    116, which is intended to protect investments made with Federal Highway
    Trust Funds. The scarcity of maintenance funding available to Tribes
    transforms this statutory obligation into an unfunded mandate that
    tribal governments cannot fulfill. The problem is that Indian Road
    maintenance is funded not through the IRR Program, but through the
    Department of Interior, which year after year lacks the necessary
    funding to maintain BIA roads built in Indian Country with IRR Program
    moneys.
        The experience of the Navajo Nation is fairly typical. Each year,
    Navajo submits its annual request for maintenance funding to BIA. Each
    year, Navajo is only funded at 30 percent of need.
        The Navajo Region Office/Branch of Roads Program is maintaining
    6,000 miles of Navajo Region BIA road system but is funded at only $6
    million, or 1/5 of the $31.66 million needed. The Interior
    appropriation is only marginal and is not enough to protect the Navajo
    Nation's investment in improving its road system by use of the Highway
    Trust Fund moneys paid by tax dollars.

    5. Transit Funding
        Currently, Tribal Transit Programs receive Federal transit funds
    through distribution from the States. Tribal transit programs are low
    priority to the States and must compete with State transit programs. In
    the absence of meaningful access to Federal transit dollars, Tribes
    must use precious Indian Reservation Road Program dollars for Tribal
    Transit.

                                RECOMMENDATIONS

    1. Increase Annual Appropriation
          Increase the Annual Funding Level for the IRR Program
    from its present level of $275 million to $500 million. Past inadequate
    funding of IRR Program has created a crisis that can only be ignored at
    the risk of those travelers who drive 2 billion vehicle miles on the
    IRR system each year. In its 1999 study of the nation's highways and
    bridges, the Federal Highway Administration determined that ``The
    annual fatality rate on Indian Reservation Roads is more than four
    times the national average . . . The estimated backlog of improvement
    needs for BIA and selected State and Local IRR roads exceeds $6.8
    billion.'' The Navajo Nation alone needs $100 million per year for the
    next 20 years just to satisfy its unmet present and future
    transportation needs.

    2. Remove Obligation Funding
          Exempt the Indian Reservation Roads Program from the
    Obligation Limitation Provision, 23 U.S.C. Section 1102 (f), which
    created an obligation to redistribute Federal Lands Highways Program
    funds to the States as Surface Transportation funds. Because the Indian
    Reservation Road Program is located within the Federal Lands Highway
    Program, the Obligation Limitation has significantly reduced the
    availability of construction funds for road developments for all
    American Indian Tribes. Since 1998, the Obligation Limitation has
    reduced funding for the Indian Reservation Roads program by about 10
    percent each year.

    3. End Bridge Set Aside and Begin Separate Bridge Fund
          Permit National Indian Reservation Bridge Priority
    Program funds be used for pre-construction activities, such as planning
    and design.
          Create a separate source of funding for the National
    Indian Reservation Bridge Priority Program from the Highway Trust Fund
    so that bridges do not have to compete with roads under TEA-21.
          Provide $15 million yearly authorized funding level from
    Highway Trust Fund for fiscal years 2004 through 2009 for Indian
    Reservation bridge projects.
          Expand allowable uses of bridge funding to include
    inspection, planning, design, engineering and construction of projects
    to replace and improve bridges on Indian reservations.
          The National Bridge Priority Program funding should have
    a separate funding source rather than the current $13 million take down
    from the IRR Program.

    4. Increase Ability to Use Funds for Planning Roads
          Encourage administrative capacity building within Indian
    Country by increasing the amount of money Tribes are allowed to use for
    transportation planning from the current limit of 2 percent of
    allocated funds to a new limit of 4 percent. The Transportation
    Planning funds are essential for a Tribe to be able to compile
    necessary transportation data and forecast future transportation needs.
    Transportation planning on Indian reservations is needed more than ever
    because of the growing populations on Indian reservations and because
    of new national security concerns.

    5. Create New Reservation Transit Program.
          Establish a new Indian reservation rural transit program
    with an annual funding level of $20 million per year so that Tribes may
    apply direct to the Federal Transit Administration for competitive
    grants for rural transit programs on reservations. Currently, Tribes
    must apply for transit funding to the States within which they are
    located. This requirement not only puts Tribes at an extreme
    disadvantage by forcing Tribal transit projects to compete with State
    projects before a State grant maker, it also violates the government-
    to-government relationship that exists as a matter of law and policy
    between the Federal Government and Tribes. This relationship, rooted in
    the Federal Trust Doctrine, has been reaffirmed not only by Executive
    Order 13175, but also by the November 16, 1999 Order of the Department
    of Transportation, which requires agencies of the U.S. Department of
    Transportation to build more effective working relationships with
    Native American tribal governments by, among other things, ``Work[ing]
    with federally recognized tribes and their designated representatives
    on a government-to-government basis respecting their rights to
    represent their interests.''

    6. Provide Additional Funding to Maintain School Bus Routes
          Increase annual funding for maintenance of school bus
    routes on, or near, or adjacent to Indian reservations larger than
    10,000,000 acres from current level of $1.5 million per year so that
    miles and miles of seasonably unpassable dirt roads do not stand
    between an American Indian child and an education . Increase annual
    authorized funding level to $3 million in fiscal years 2004 and 2005;
    $4 million in fiscal years 2006 and 2007; and $5 million in fiscal
    years 2008 and 2009.

    7. Reaffirm Funding Distribution Formula
          Maintain the Relative Needs Formula that was being used
    during the ISTEA authorization years at 100 percent application with no
    minimum amount per Region. 23 U.S.C. Section 202 (d) requires the IRR
    Program to distribute program funding based on a negotiated rulemaking
    process, which has thus far produced only disagreement.

    8. Prohibit the Funding of Ghost Miles
          Require both Secretary of Interior and Secretary of
    Transportation to verify the existence of roads that are part of the
    Indian Reservation Roads Program to ensure that the distribution of
    funds to an Indian Tribe is fair, equitable, and based on valid
    transportation needs.
          Distribute funds based on the existence of those roads.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Roads, bridges and transit are lifelines of any community. For
    tribes, they are crucial and vastly unmet needs, without which economic
    development is nearly impossible. The Navajo Nation respectfully urges
    the U.S. Congress to support the Reauthorization of the Transportation
    Equity Act of the 21st Century with the above recommendations. It is
    time for ``equity'' to mean something in Tribal transportation funding.
    It is time, in this 21st century, for opportunity to be able to travel
    safely down Indian Reservation Roads, to connect the commerce and
    culture of tribal and non-tribal communities.

                             TEA-21 REATHORIZATION

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, AUGUST 20, 2002

                                           U.S. Senate,
                   Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                   Montpelier, Vermont.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o'clock a.m.
    in room 10, The State House, Montpelier, Vermont, Hon. James M.
    Jeffords [chairman of the committee] presiding.

                      TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF SMALL TOWNS
                               AND RURAL AMERICA

        Present: Senator Jeffords.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT

        Senator Jeffords. Well, I want to welcome you all here this
    morning to the Vermont field hearing of the Committee on
    Environment and Public Works. I especially want to thank Deputy
    Secretary Jackson from the United States Department of
    Transportation for being here. Pleasure to have you here, and I
    hope that you'll find it a very worthwhile morning.
        Mr. Jackson. I'm certain I will.
        Senator Jeffords. Together, the united forces of our
    communications and transportation system are dynamic elements
    in the very name we bear: The United States. Without them, we
    would be a mere alliance of many separate parts.
        With these words, President Eisenhower announced a massive
    effort in the 1950's to modernize America's highways, as
    necessary for our defense as it is to our national economy and
    personal safety.
        The committee I chair will craft a national transportation
    bill next year, for the next generation of Americans. In 1819,
    the Congress created the Select Committee for Public Buildings,
    which became this Committee on the Environment and Public
    Works, with authority over major issues including the
    environment, roads, rivers, harbors, the Coast Guard, water and
    air pollution, and the transportation bill.
        Past members of the committee include two presidents, Harry
    S. Truman and Andrew Jackson, and five vice presidents of the
    United States. Two of my best friends have served on the
    committee as chairmen: Vermont Senator Bob Stafford and Rhode
    Island Senator John Chafee, whose son now also serves on the
    Environment and Public Works Committee.
        I am thrilled to be back in Vermont in this House. I have
    very fond memories of working in these rooms and for the State
    all these years. I'm here today to learn from Vermont.
        While the next transportation bill will be national in
    scope, it will be driven by local impact. This transportation
    bill will not just be about paving new roads. Under my
    chairmanship, it will also be making America stronger, helping
    rural communities, protecting the environment, creating
    thousands of good jobs, making commerce flow, keeping families
    safer, and enhancing rural economic growth.
        In the process, I will not forget the special needs of our
    senior citizens, nor will I forget our younger citizens.
    Parents should not have to worry whether the school bus will
    make it to school, and children should not have to worry
    whether their parents will make it home from work.
        Three million highway injuries a year, including over
    40,000 deaths, is unacceptable. The total economic cost of
    motor vehicle crashes in the year 2000 was $230 billion, five
    times the cost of the whole Eisenhower project.
        There are no complete guarantees in life, but I assure you
    that I will work toward passing the most safety-conscious and
    the most environmentally sensitive transportation bill ever.
    Much needs to be done in Vermont. We have 15,000 miles of
    public roads and over 2,000 bridges that must be properly
    maintained. We need to support commerce. Nationwide, the
    percentage of freight carried by trucks is projected to
    increase by at least 45 percent by the year 2010. An improved
    rail system in Vermont would help to prevent that truck
    congestion.
        I will look to protect our New England heritage and
    communities. I want to do what is right for the Nation, but
    through local decisionmaking process. I am interested in
    harnessing new technologies and creative ideas to get Americans
    safely on the move.
        The events of 9/11 have raised the ante as we work to
    better safeguard Americans in transit, whether it is families
    driving across bridges or fully loaded passenger trains.
    Worldwide, roughly one-third of terrorist attacks target
    transportation systems.
        Another challenge will be our aging population. The
    population aged 85 and older will increase 20 percent in the
    next 6 years.
        On a separate front, emissions from vehicles include lead,
    sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and other harmful pollutants,
    and air particles which expose us to health problems, including
    cancer. This is hardly what parents want their children to
    inhale while playing in the backyard.
        Scott Johnson, the head of Vermont's Agency of Natural
    Resources, testified down in Washington, DC, just a few weeks
    ago. He said that surface transportation remains the largest
    in-State source of air pollution in Vermont. Traffic pollution
    is also a major cause of greenhouse gas emissions, and we must
    act now to protect the whole planet.
        One of my top priorities will be to spend wisely. A recent
    report showed that every dollar spent on road maintenance,
    while the roads were still in good condition, saved up to ten
    dollars in costs to repair the road once the road fell into
    poor condition.
        While the transportation bill presents many challenges,
    some of which I have just mentioned, it also offers us good
    opportunities. For example, each $1 billion spent in a
    transportation bill can create 44,000 full-time jobs.
        My goals for this bill include a cleaner environment, a
    strong Vermont economy, safer families and healthier
    communities, creating good Vermont jobs, and a transportation
    system for Vermont, based upon Vermont's needs.
        I am very pleased that we will be hearing from a number of
    witnesses today, including Secretary Jackson. I look forward to
    working with him on this major effort. Also, we will hear from
    Brian Searles, Secretary of the Vermont Agency of
    Transportation; Ray Burton, Executive Councilor from New
    Hampshire; Chairman Richard Pembroke of the Vermont House
    Committee on Transportation; Chairman Richard Mazza of the
    Vermont Senate Committee on Transportation; Dr. Thomas Adler of
    the Northeast Transportation Institute and Museum in White
    River Junction, Vermont; Debra Ricker, Associate General
    Contractors of Vermont; Paul Bruhn, Preservation Trust of
    Vermont; Matthew Sternberg, Executive Director of the Rutland
    Redevelopment Authority.
        I also want to invite anyone from the audience to submit
    written testimony to me by sending it to the Committee on
    Environment and Public Works at Room 410, Dirksen Senate Office
    Building, Washington, DC, 20510. Please send your ideas to me,
    though, by September 5, so that we can make sure that we have
    input into this bill.
        I now want to move forward to listen to our witnesses. Our
    first panel is the Honorable Michael Jackson, Deputy Secretary
    of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. Thank
    you, and I understand you have a prepared testimony.

       STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL JACKSON, DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S.
              DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Jackson. I do, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much
    for the opportunity to speak today before you and also to
    listen and learn from the distinguished panels that you have
    brought forward to learn about the issue on the table today. I
    would like to introduce Emil Frankel. Emil comes by being in
    this part of the woods in a natural way. He was the former
    Commissioner in Connecticut, and has been brought by the
    Secretary of the Department, and his responsibilities has had a
    substantial amount of oversight for our work in developing
    these recommendations for you, sir, in our reauthorization to
    date, so he will work with you on this important task.
        I just want to say that Vermont is lucky, sir, to have your
    chairmanmanship and your experience and your focus on this
    important national priority, and indeed the country is, to have
    someone with your focus and experience leading this important
    committee. And Secretary Mineta sends his regards and his
    pledge to work closely with you.
        Senator Jeffords. Well, I've worked closely with him for
    many, many years. We came into Congress in the same year, back
    in that time when Republicans didn't do very well, but I
    think--in fact, I think there were only a dozen or so of us
    Republicans out of the massive change, but anyway, Norm and I
    have been friends all these years, and look forward to working
    with him.
        Mr. Jackson. I will try, Mr. Chairman, with your
    forbearance, to summarize my prepared remarks and go about not
    only the rural transportation issues set within the context of
    the reauthorization task that we have before us. And the
    Secretary has, when he appeared before your committee, outlined
    six key principles that will guide our work in the
    Administration in working on this set of issues, and I'd like
    to just summarize those, and then talk about a little bit about
    how some of those apply to the rural transportation issues in
    particular, and then happy to answer any questions you might
    have.
        The six principles that we start with, first is to ensure
    an adequate and stable source of funding. At the end of the
    day, of course, this issue of a stable and adequate source of
    funding is the touchstone issue in the transportation world. We
    have seen that the RABA mechanism for Revenue Aligned Budget
    Authority needs a new look. Your work in trying to help
    provide, in the Senate, some additional funds this year, above
    what the formula generated, has been embraced by the
    Administration, and we will look into reauthorization to try to
    stabilize the ups and downs of the funding sources that are
    available. And so that adequate, predictable funding is an
    important principle.
        Second, preserving flexibility, and this is a cornerstone
    principle that will help us address fairly not only rural
    needs, but the whole spectrum of which is to allow States to
    spend their money the way they need to spend it, and that's
    been a cornerstone, and the Administration certainly
    anticipates strongly supporting the continued focus on
    flexibility in the new reauthorization.
        Third, expanding and improving innovative financing. I want
    to talk about that in a few minutes ahead, but we need to
    figure out how to stretch our dollars and stretch our
    investments further, and this is something that we are very
    interested in working with you further on.
        Fourth, accessibility. The rural community has very, very
    strong and pronounced needs to access transportation in this
    country. 21 percent of the population lives in rural
    communities, and 18 percent of the jobs, and many of those
    people don't have access to transportation to get to their jobs
    when they must leave their home.
        Fifth, making substantial improvements in the safety of
    surface transportation projects is a cornerstone. That's really
    the beginning and the end of our work and our thinking, and
    finally, to wrap it up, we are committed and know that we can
    do this in an environmentally sensitive way, as your opening
    remarks indicated. There does not have to be a disjunction
    between moving forward, building strong, effective
    transportation networks, and doing it in an environmentally
    sound and effective fashion.
        So those are our six touchstones, and when we begin to look
    at the transportation reauthorization and think about the rural
    needs in that context, it seems that those first two
    principles, of adequate funding and flexible financing, are the
    cornerstones, really, for us of dealing with rural needs.
        If we have adequate funds and we give the States, who know
    best how to spend the money, the flexibility to do that, then
    we think that those two key principles that have been in the
    existing legislation will serve us well in the new legislation,
    so in many ways we want to come back through the discussion of
    how to restructure the reorganization and hit those two
    touchstones and figure out how to do it.
        If we can adequately provide for the whole country, the
    rural issues will be addressed, but I would like to delve,
    then, into specific programs and focal points for us in rural
    needs. There are obviously core programs which will help
    address the rural communities' needs, but I think TEA-21 wisely
    created a series of programs which we at the Department have
    been aggressively supporting, and in fact innovating, to add
    to, to help focus needs on the rural communities. Also on urban
    communities with urban-targeted programs.
        So to unpack the rural part of it, we have created a rural
    capacity building initiative at the Department which brings
    together FHWA and FTA and also brings in other safety agencies,
    such as NTSA, to take a look at how we are focusing on rural
    communities. And we start by saying that we're going to provide
    funds with rural focus and rural-specific programs, and
    Congress has done that, and we will support, in the
    reauthorization, the capacity to flow funds directly to people
    in rural communities in a meaningful way.
        And so I'll just mention a few of these: The Federal
    Transit Rural Program, the so-called Section 5311 program. In
    fiscal year 1902, it's a $226 million program for capital,
    administrative and operating needs. I think this is a
    terrifically important type of program, in that it floats funds
    to over 1,200 separate organizations, State organizations,
    nonprofit organizations, people who are able to bring to the
    table in the State a proposal to try to meet these
    transportation needs.
        A second program that we think is a very important and
    effective is Rural Transit Assistance. It's a smaller program,
    but it provides funding and R & D and planning money on a
    flexible basis to try to help organize the community in a way
    to present itself effectively to the larger capital and
    infrastructure grants that they might apply for.
        The Federal Transit Administration Program on Elderly
    Persons with Disabilities is an $85 million program which we
    think again takes money and flows it directly into rural
    communities to help people who have disabilities and need to
    get to a job, need to get to a doctor's appointment, the chance
    to do that.
        The Job Access Revenue Program also provides the same
    service, but the former is an $85 million program, the latter a
    $125 million program, 21 percent of which is earmarked for
    rural communities. And Central Vermont Council on Aging, for
    example, has used this first program in a very effective way.
    They're growing. Their service base, the people that they are
    helping, is anticipated to grow strongly.
        So this is the type of targeted resources that local
    communities are taking on board, opening their arms and opening
    their hearts and doing good things with.
        On the Federal highway side, we've focused on safety, set
    aside money in rural communities, a billion and a half dollars
    in 1999 and 2000, on rail crossings, hazardous intersection
    mitigation, and other efforts.
        45 percent of that program is focused on rural communities
    in our distributions. So without trying to unpack the big book
    of the Federal program, I think it is fair to say that as we
    come to you and come to the Congress broadly with
    recommendations, that will be an area where we'll want to focus
    specific programs on the rural community.
        Finally, I would like to say that there are three ways that
    we think we can extend our highway investment and make better
    use of it. First is innovation in financing. We've talked about
    the TIFIA program before your committee before. We've talked
    about State bank moneys, and other tools like this. I think
    that as we operate in a constrained financial environment to
    try to meet our needs, that this will be an important set of
    things for us to focus on.
        Second of the three ways to extend our dollars is
    technology. We have, not only in the ICS program, but in our R
    & D program, we have to use our money more effectively to
    stretch the dollars. Actually, this program at the department
    has focused a considerable number of programs on the rural
    committee. There are issues related to snowplows on urban roads
    that are very safety sensitive and appropriate things for us to
    put technology against to try to mitigate accidents, and there
    is a substantial body--and I'd be happy to share with the
    audience anyone who has an interest in these particular ICS
    planning tools that help us to focus technology on urban and
    rural communities.
        And finally, I would like to lay on the table for us to
    talk about, in the coming months, a topic that extends our
    money and uses it more wisely, which is really how to use
    procurement tools that stretch our dollars to get Federal value
    from them. Those are oftentimes State laws and procurement laws
    that mandate and govern how to use these funds, but there is a
    set of issues that I think we can, with our State colleagues,
    unpack and understand a little bit better about how to use
    procurement tools that are innovative and that allow us to
    stretch our government dollars further.
        There are two things that I would say in closing that I
    won't try to talk about in great detail, but which I will just
    lay on the table. First is you, sir, have mentioned the safety
    focus that we have and the security focus that we have after 9/
    11. It has changed the world, really, for transportation, and
    in looking at all of our programs, not just in urban areas, but
    around the country, we find in rural communities very important
    installations relative to national security that are somewhat
    remote and yet have specific needs. Whether it's a nuclear
    power plant, a military facility, a research center, there are
    specific needs that we will need to look through and understand
    better as we plan our security.
        Obviously with the Congress' direction, we've undertaken a
    massive deployment on the aviation side to bring a Federal
    workforce and transportation security. I'm happy to report that
    today in Burlington we're bringing our Federal workforce team
    to Burlington and beginning the deployment of Federal workers
    there, but as we go forward in this organization, it will have
    to be adjusted and addressed in our bill.
        And that leads me to my concluding point, which was your
    beginning point and also our touchstone in life, which is
    safety.
        We know that there are significant safety problems and
    needs that we must address in the world community as well as
    across the country. The 41,000 lives that you mentioned are
    just an unacceptably large toll, and we pledge to work that
    very, very strongly. I would like to ask your help in thinking
    how we can launch one very simple crusade--a moral crusade,
    really--on getting seatbelt use up. If we could raise the
    seatbelt usage rate to 90 percent, which is where it is in
    California and several other States, we could save 9,500 lives
    a year and we could save untold thousands of injuries and
    billions of dollars of cost to the economy.
        So there's a simple, I think moral imperative, for us to
    work closely, and I'm not here today to propose a penalty for
    not doing this, I'm here to propose that we somehow build a
    crusade to do this and persuade people that it is the right
    thing to do and educate them well. So on the safety front,
    we'll have many, many areas to discuss. On the highway safety,
    you will hear us, I think, the Administration under Senator
    Mineta's direction, really trying to focus in the coming year.
        Senator Jeffords. What is the average usage? You say 90
    percent in California. How are the rest of us doing?
        Mr. Jackson. Well, it varies widely. I was in Texas this
    week, and they had moved from 76 percent to 81 percent. Around
    the country we have States as low as in the low 50's and mid
    50's and as high as 90 percent, and the two keys that have made
    it so effective is first, a primary seatbelt law, and second,
    to enforce a partnership in the State. Tools like advertising
    and the like help, but there's that range, really, around the
    States, so you see, in a large State like Texas, there are
    literally thousands of lives that could be saved over a
    relatively short span if they could get that seatbelt usage up.
        So., Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would ask that
    my formal remarks be included in the record and conclude, with
    my thanks to you for allowing me to be here.
        Senator Jeffords. Well, thank you very much. I was going to
    ask you to join me later, but I'm going to ask you some
    questions first.
        Vermont has an interesting history, and it's an interesting
    history relative to railroads. That's why I have substantial
    interest in railroads, as well. In fact, Billings, Montana, you
    may not realize, was named after a Vermonter who started the
    Great Northern Railroads out there. And we had 44 operating
    railroads in this State at one point, so we love the railroads,
    and I am deeply concerned about Amtrak and the future of
    Amtrak, and can you bring me a status and update on where we
    are there? As all of us know, we've had some scares lately, in
    the inability to have confidence in whether it's going to
    operate.
        Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, I served on the board
    of Amtrak as the secretary designee--Secretary is appointed by
    the President, and I serve as his designee. Amtrak is a
    troubled institution, but inner-city passenger rail is--and I
    will tell you on the issue about the Acela train, repairs are
    under way now. I spoke yesterday to the president of Amtrak,
    and he was able to report that they're actually making very
    good progress, better than they had anticipated, in repairing
    the suspension problem that had been identified a week ago. And
    they were able yesterday to get 60 percent of the Acela trains
    back in service.
        The FIA, they had bolt cracks in an assembly that prevents
    a yaw going in the train and lateral movement, so they had a
    temporary fix with a stronger plate, and they're going to look
    at that in a going-forward way to engineer a sound solution for
    a longer-term fix, but they are expecting to get back to basic
    service here this week.
        The larger problem, of course, is that Amtrak is a troubled
    institution. It has a significant financial set of problems
    that it faces. It's not just about throwing more money at
    Amtrak, I think, although this Administration will support more
    funds for any inner-city passenger rail. We've tried to lay out
    a vision of how competition and reform and financial discipline
    can be brought to Amtrak, and we think that in a
    reauthorization, that we'll have a good chance to talk with
    Congress in a very realistic way on how that can transform.
        It won't be an overnight thing. They can't just transform
    it. We believe the States should have financial contribution to
    that future, but we know that the States cannot just be asked
    overnight to shift from no--a little funding to greater
    funding. We have to have a pathway over the entire period of
    the authorization to get us from a broken system to get us to a
    well sustained system by the end of the authorization.
        Senator Jeffords. There seems to be, in your statement and
    in the policy, the expectation that somehow Amtrak could make
    money and live on its own. There's no country that has a
    railroad transportation system that is not supported by outside
    funds, and it seems to me, if we go forward on the presumption
    that somehow we're going to get it to break even or make money,
    that it just isn't going to work, and I think I want to work
    with the Administration to find out the ultimate solution where
    we have safe railroad transportation with the means to do it
    that won't require the expectation that is really not doable.
        Mr. Jackson. I think that you have pointed to a very
    important point. The last reauthorization set Amtrak on a
    course and said by the end of the 5-year authorization,
    December of this coming year, of this year, that they must be
    operationally self-sufficient, and it was a faulty program.
    It's easy, in retrospect, to understand that. It was perhaps
    hard to understand that at the beginning. They just were never
    going to get there. And they were leasing equipment, selling
    assets, doing short-term financial deals to take their assets
    and turn them into operating capital.
        We recognize that there needs to be infrastructure
    investment and capital investment, but we do believe that a
    reformed Amtrak, with competition and with some strong
    financial control, run like a--with the best financial
    discipline of a well-oiled corporation, can bring greater
    discipline and cost-effectiveness into it.
        So I think that it will be a spirited debate on how to get
    that done, but I don't say that we shouldn't invest, and the
    Administration is not holding that position, but it does say
    that we have to restructure so that our investment is well
    used, and we need our partners in the States to help us
    prioritize this.
        Senator Jeffords. Well, are you looking for the States to
    do the subsidization, if it's necessary, rather than the
    Federal Government? Is that your point?
        Mr. Jackson. Well, I think that one of the things that
    we've looked at in Amtrak is to look at the Federal Transit
    Administration Program as a rough guide. The Federal Government
    puts very significant capital investment in infrastructure, and
    States provide operating subsidies, and so the Federal
    Government has invested many, many billions of dollars in
    keeping Amtrak going, but we still have a large capital backlog
    in the Amtrak system, so we recognize that investment in
    capital is an appropriate role. We want to figure out with the
    States what we can afford and how to do it. By having a stake
    in this game, the States right now just take whatever we give
    them, and it's hard politically to bring discipline to the
    right decisions, and we're trying to get the States to be
    partners in this, just like they are in the FDA process, where
    they have to put some money up front, they have to prioritize
    this as an expenditure that is meaningful to the State, and
    then the Federal Government is a partner in that.
        Senator Jeffords. Well, thank you very much. Now, as you
    know, I sponsored the Highway Restoration Act to address the
    RABA problem for fiscal year 2003. In my view, we cannot saddle
    the States with the dramatic Federal funding cuts when States
    are under such financial stress themselves. My bill enjoys 74
    cosponsors. Can I expect the Administration to support an
    increase in the highway program above the President's initial
    recommendation?
        Mr. Jackson. Yes, we have been working to try to find a
    really structured mechanism, and in principle we have indicated
    that we support funds above the level of the President's
    initial mark, which was $4.4 billion off, as you know, the
    target. So we're prepared to do that. We'd like to make sure
    that it's an effectively structured mechanism, and we would
    certainly work with you in that.
        Senator Jeffords. Well, that's good news. I appreciate
    hearing that. Vermont has a very active and extensive border
    with Canada.
        Mr. Jackson. Yes, sir.
        Senator Jeffords. Thus, how will the Department balance
    efficiencies that we need for cross-border transportation,
    where our national interest is enhanced security? Can we
    combine the two objectives?
        Mr. Jackson. I think we can. It's one, to do a better job
    of integrating safety and customer service. We do a tremendous
    amount of trade across your border with Canada, and it's
    absolutely indispensable to the national economy, not just
    Vermont's economy, as you know, to make that work effectively.
    So I believe that we can balance world-class security and
    world-class customer service. We can use technology to make
    trucks and trains move more effectively across our land
    borders, we can bring tools to make our airports, where cargo
    and passengers move through on international arrivals, operate
    more effectively. As you know, I'm working with the
    Transportation Security Administration with these twin goals,
    as well.
        We can do better and we should do better, and I think one
    of the things the President is focused on, in listening to him
    talk about this proposal, was trying to have one person doing
    multiple tasks rather than a serial set of different agency
    people dealing with the truckers trying to pass across a
    border. So there is that efficiency focus very much imbedded in
    the President's----
        Senator Jeffords. Yes, because we get some terrible messes
    in our border here in New York and on our side. So that's a
    critical problem. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Are there any
    matters that you would wish to address and to make us aware of
    at this time?
        Mr. Jackson. I think not. I'm just grateful to have a
    chance to get in and listen to the testimony, and so I just--
    but thanks for letting me be here, and Emil may want to join me
    in this process.
        Mr. Frankel. I appreciate being here. It's nice to be back
    in New England on an official basis, and Vermont, I might say,
    is showing the way, particularly in terms of inner-city
    passenger rail in terms of what this State is willing to do,
    and I think is a model for the sort of thing the secretary has
    in mind when he was trying to articulate a vision for what the
    future of inner-city rail should be.
        Senator Jeffords. Thank you, and Mr. Secretary if you would
    join me, I'd appreciate it.
        Now, if I could have my good Vermonters come forward and
    take their seats, I'd appreciate it.
        Secretary Brian Searles, if you would lead off for us,
    please.

     STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SEARLES, SECRETARY, VERMONT AGENCY OF
                  TRANSPORTATION, MONTPELIER, VERMONT

        Mr. Searles. I'd be happy to, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
    For the record, my name's Brian Searles; I'm secretary of the
    Agency of Transportation here in Vermont. I will begin by
    thanking you for holding this hearing in Vermont. We very much
    appreciate the opportunity to talk about challenges and
    opportunities unique to rural transportation. Let me also
    extend a welcome to Secretary Jackson and Emil Frankel, very
    glad that you're here to listen to issues of rural States. I'd
    like to personally thank also you, Senator Jeffords and Senator
    Smith, for being here with us for your efforts in restoring
    funding related to the RABA issue this year.
        Also like to welcome Mr. Ray Burton, on my left, a member
    of the Governor's Executive Council of New Hampshire, who will
    testify on behalf of that State. Welcome, Ray.
        Mr. John Horsley, the Executive Director of the American
    Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, was
    unable to attend today's hearing and asked me to make a few
    brief comments on behalf of AASHTO and its member States across
    the country.
        Were he able to be here today, Mr. Horsley would say that
    rural two-lane safety is a concern for AASHTO members. The
    General Accounting Office recently reported that although 40
    percent of all vehicle miles are traveled on rural roads, 60
    percent of traffic fatalities in 1999 occurred on rural roads.
    Funding should be increased to improve safety of rural roads,
    both State and local. AASHTO urges that the highway program be
    increased over 6 years to $41 billion annually. From this, an
    additional $1 billion annually should be dedicated to safety.
        On the issue of rural transit, AASHTO's Bottom Line Report
    documents the need to double the current investment in rural
    transit, especially to meet the needs of the growing number of
    elderly residents who can no longer drive, but still need
    access to health care and other services.
        On the transportation enhancement program, AASHTO supports
    the continued dedication of 10 percent set-aside of STP funds
    to support transportation enhancements, which so far have
    benefited over 14,000 communities nationwide. We urge further
    simplification of the program to make it easier for local
    governments to apply and advance payment rather than cost
    reimbursement as the basis for conveying funds to local
    governments.
        In terms of the diverse needs of the States, the needs of
    Vermont are important and special to us, but perhaps different
    than those in New Hampshire and other States. AASHTO believes
    that the national program should be crafted in a way that
    respects the diversity of various States and allow them to
    define proposes that best suit their needs.
        And last, AASHTO believes we must grow program. To meet the
    nation's safety and capacity needs for highway and transit will
    require significant increase in resources. We urge the Senate
    to take a close look at the financing proposal AASHTO has made,
    which outlines a way of making it possible to fund a highway
    program which increases from 34 billion to 41 billion from
    fiscal year 2004 through 2009, and a transit program which
    increases from seven and a half billion to ten billion in that
    same period.
        That concludes the remarks on behalf of Mr. Horsley. I'd
    refer to my own testimony now.
        By many he shall measures, Vermont is the most rural State
    in the Nation, a collection of 251 cities, towns and
    unorganized gores that dot the hillsides and valleys of this
    mountainous State. We occupy an area larger than New Jersey
    with a population that is smaller than many mid-sized cities,
    about 608,000.
        We have 15,262 miles of public roads, 57 percent of which
    are unpaved. And I mention these facts, because transportation
    management in rural States is different than in urban areas,
    and while we have a strong interest in all modes of
    transportation, our topography and population distribution
    often limit our opportunities.
        Vermont and other rural areas across the northeast are
    heavily dependent on travel and tourism, and because Vermont is
    located within a few hours' drive of 50 million people, the
    region's highway system is an important conduit for what
    amounts to about 25 percent of the State's overall economy.
        During the past few years, new information has emerged from
    several studies describing travel patterns and freight-flows to
    and from rural New England. These studies, and I will provide
    copies of them, Mr. Chairman----
        Senator Jeffords. They'll be made part of the record, thank
    you.
        Mr. Searles [continuing]. Show heavy flows of traffic
    between rural areas and adjacent metro areas and have provided
    us with a new understanding of the interdependence of rural and
    metropolitan areas in the northeast.
        We know that rural travelers are much more dependent on
    highways than other modes of transportation, and as a result,
    transportation management is different. Where urban
    transportation issues generally relate to congestion
    management, short trips to work, shopping or amenities, in
    rural areas the percentage of long distance trips is higher,
    congestion is spotty, and providing accurate and timely
    traveler information is often more important than congestion
    management.
        While it is true that we are a very rural State and much of
    our travel is by single-occupancy vehicle, we also have
    continuing needs for effective public transit. Admittedly, our
    public transit delivery systems look very different than those
    in more urban areas. We do have traditional fixed-route bus
    systems in our urban areas and even a commuter rail system in
    Chittenden County. However, our much of our public transit
    service is provided by less traditional means, such as deviated
    routes and demand-responsive operations. Indeed, a significant
    need for rural mobility is served in Vermont by a network of
    volunteer drivers providing these essential services to members
    of the community. The need for these services will likely
    explode in all areas as the baby boom generation ages. In my
    judgment, attention needs to be focused on the administrative
    operations surrounding the delivery of these programs, as well.
        Safety considerations are different in rural areas than
    urban areas. You've heard this referenced in earlier testimony,
    and as Mr. Horsley noted, 60 percent of all fatal crashes occur
    in rural areas, where it is much more difficult to get crash
    victims emergency care within the golden hour due to sparse
    communication infrastructure and more dispersed emergency
    responders. A new source of funding is needed across the board
    to help address safety issues on rural roads. Weather sometimes
    has an increased significance in rural areas, because severe
    weather can close down rural routes or cause significant
    delays. Rural agencies must keep many miles of transportation
    infrastructure functioning with comparatively thin-spread
    resources.
        Here in Vermont, the environment is an important aspect of
    the quality of our life. We must continue to work together--the
    States, the USDOT, and the Congress--to improve the stewardship
    of our environment. We must also look at ways to continue to
    speed up project work. I believe the environmental process can
    be made better with better results for our environment and for
    project schedules.
        I mention these points because of the fact that the
    majority of land area in Vermont and in the northeast is rural.
    72 percent of the land area in the northeast has no
    metropolitan population areas of more than 250,000 people. Yet
    28 percent of the population in the northeast lives in rural
    areas.
        As I said, Vermont is a small State with limited resources.
    The State owns and operates 10 small regional airports, and
    owns about half of the 740 miles of railroad that crisscrosses
    the State. We believe rail will play an increasing role in or
    transportation future, both in the movement of passengers and
    freight.
        If we are to grow our rail program, we must deal with the
    problem of rail highway crossings. Grade separation is key in
    order to achieve higher-speed rail and safety. However, grade
    separation is costly, and here in Vermont, beyond our reach
    without Federal assistance.
        Our ability to raise revenues for transportation projects
    is limited by our population and commercial base, and
    consequently we rely heavily on Federal funding sources.
        Our total transportation budget for fiscal year 2003 is
    $332.2 million, of which is $156.3 million is Federal dollars.
    Consequently, flexibility is important to us, because it allows
    us to move funds to match our transportation needs.
        Our mission is to maintain a transportation system that
    allows for the safe movement of people and goods in a cost-
    efficient, environmentally sensitive, and timely manner. Our
    ability to fulfill that mission is being impacted by several
    large projects. These large projects are necessary, but they
    are draining our resources, and in the process, forcing us to
    delay projects that are essential to that mission. The result
    is that we have $109 million worth of projects that are
    permitted, ready for construction, but sitting on the shelf,
    because we have not been able to identify a source of funds.
    Now, while $109 million may not seem like a lot of money at the
    national level, remember that our total transportation budget
    is just over $330 million, and I might add that in Vermont, the
    definition of ``large'' or ``mega'' is not the Big Dig and it's
    not the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. We're talking about $42 million
    for our largest bridge project between Alburg and Swanton, over
    the Missisquoi Bay, $100 million for the Bennington bypass, and
    $80 million for the next two phases of the Chittenden County
    Circumferential Highway.
        Moving to our interstate system, parts of our interstate
    system are 40 years old and need repair. A recent needs
    assessment of Vermont's 320 miles of Eisenhower Interstate
    System showed that an investment of $74 million was needed just
    to bring the system up to Federal standards. Simply put, we
    cannot afford that kind of investment and meet our other
    commitments/needs on our national highway systems and State
    highway systems.
        And Vermont is not alone. Other States have similar
    interstate problems and needs. In my judgment, the time has
    come for the Congress to make another significant investment to
    repair and upgrade the interstate system, similar to the
    investment that was made in the 1950's, 1960's, and 1970's, to
    build those interstates.
        As Congress works toward reauthorization of TEA-21, I hope
    you maintain the course set by ISTEA and sustained in TEA-21 by
    continuing to recognize that all States are different, that it
    is the diversity of the States viewed as a whole that makes our
    country great.
        I urge you to retain the existing structure of TEA-21.
    Although improvements can be made, the fundamental structure is
    sound and should be preserved. Flexibility is important to us.
    As I said, Vermont's smallness provides us with some unique
    opportunities to do things that larger States might not be able
    to accomplish. Funding is still the key, and I would urge you
    to authorize the maximum level of Federal investment possible.
    Funding mechanisms should be continued to achieve congressional
    intent that all available funds be invested in transportation
    improvements.
        Just as ISTEA and TEA-21 have made significant strides in
    growing this program, the next surface transportation bill must
    provide new sources of revenue, so that we can jointly meet the
    challenges facing the State and the Nation. Thank you again for
    the opportunity to address you.
        Senator Jeffords. Well, thank you for very, very helpful
    testimony. I now turn to Mr. Burton from New Hampshire. I just
    want to thank you for coming, and we have a great advantage in
    this situation right now, with Bob Smith being the ranking
    member and myself, so we look forward to working together, as
    we always do, in New Hampshire, and I'd appreciate hearing your
    views on the situation with respect to our sister State and how
    we can work together.

    STATEMENT OF RAYMOND S. BURTON, EXECUTIVE COUNCILOR, WOODVILLE,
                             NEW HAMPSHIRE

        Mr. Burton. Thank you, Senator Jeffords, and pleasure to
    appear here this morning on behalf of my elected office in the
    State of New Hampshire. I represent the State of New Hampshire.
    And at the end of this term I will have been there 24 years,
    and hopefully a few more terms down the road, representing a
    whole wide variety of interests and concerns, and most of them
    are hitched to transportation.
        The interstate literally opened up, if you will, northern
    New Hampshire and northern Vermont and New England, and has
    brought growth to places like Littleton, along with Plymouth,
    and again, our I-93 corridor. The Executive Council is five in
    number. The council has been developing what we call the 10-
    year highway plan, and I brought along a copy which I'd like to
    submit for the record.
        Senator Jeffords. It will be made a part of the record.
        Mr. Burton. If you would be so kind, Senator. The Executive
    Council is very much like a Board of Directors. Governors come
    and go, but some of us stick around for a while. The
    Commissioner of Transportation, Carol Murray, also is aware of
    my appearance here today, although I'm speaking for myself. She
    obviously wanted to be noted, and appreciates the fine
    cooperation that she's had over the years with the State of
    Vermont, particularly Brian and the Secretary of Transportation
    in the State of Maine. Megan Stanley and Jeff Rogues are here
    from Senator Smith's office.
        Senator Jeffords. Please stand and be acknowledged.
        Mr. Burton. Yes, I wish they would. They've helped me a
    lot, and both of them have worked very closely with Carol
    Murray and her staff in making sure that we address those needs
    in air, rail, highway and public transportation. Second point
    I'd make is that I would hope that the U.S. Congress would make
    sure that we keep the level of funding at the full level of
    $31.8 billion. Our 10-year highway program cannot move forward
    unless that Federal--Senator Jeffords. If you got more, would
    that be all right? Mr. Burton. We always enjoy more. Speaking
    as an elected official, and an elected Republican official,
    I've never been embarrassed to put the Federal money at the
    local level for the people that some of us represent out there,
    and flexibility--got to have some wiggle room for this Federal
    money as it comes along--and would register that point.
        We've got another situation developing, and that is keeping
    too many historic bridges. On Route 302, between Woodville and
    Shelburne, New Hampshire, which is of course right across the
    top, we've got about five bridges. Two of them don't go
    anywhere anymore. They're not even on the snowmobile or ATV
    trail or even a foot path. Somehow or another, I would like to
    urge you and your committee to allow each State, after a
    hearing process, to determine which ones they want to keep for
    historic preservation, tourist attractions, future engineers to
    come look at and study. We're required to still keep them, keep
    them in repair.
        Recently Carol Murray, Commissioner of Transportation, had
    to spend about $30,000 on an abutment of a bridge in the town
    of Landaff on Route 302. The bridge does nothing. It just sits
    there. I would hope that that would be a part of your
    consideration, that you work with Senator Smith and others on
    your committee.
        Demonstration projects have been extremely valuable,
    particularly to the rural areas. Sometimes for all kinds of
    reasons, those projects that are wanted by the local officials
    just never get into the State budget or the 10-year practice
    plan for all kinds of reasons, and I would hope that you and
    your committee members would never be embarrassed to, if the
    people want something back home, put it in as a demonstration
    project. Those are needed. Over the years, it's been my
    pleasure to work with Senator Rob Ide, where I work part-time
    at Springfield College, and working on river projects up and
    down the Connecticut River.
        The final point I'd make is in support of the Northeast
    Border Corridor Comprehensive Study, and Secretary Mineta was
    sent a letter signed by Olympia Snowe, Hillary Clinton, and Mr.
    Schumer from New York, and Senator Bob Smith wrote last year in
    support of this same Northeast Corridor Study with our
    neighbors to the North, Canadian Provinces, and we encourage
    that study to move forward, particularly as we look at Route 2
    and also Route 26.
        That concludes my testimony, Mr. Senator, and would thank
    you again for the courtesy of being here to represent my State
    of New Hampshire, and as an American I'm very proud to do that.
        Senator Jeffords. Well, thank you very much for very
    helpful testimony. I now turn to my good friends who I've
    worked with over the years and who I deeply respect for the
    contribution they've made to this state and this area, and I
    start first with Representative Richard Pembroke.

      STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD PEMBROKE, CHAIRMAN, VERMONT HOUSE
            COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, BENNINGTON, VERMONT

        Mr. Pembroke. Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to
    testify before your committee today, and especially you,
    Secretary Jackson, for traveling to Vermont to hear about the
    challenges that we face. My name is Dick Pembroke, and I am the
    Corporate Founder of Pembroke Landscaping Company in
    Bennington, Vermont.
        For the past 16 years, I have also represented Bennington
    in the Vermont legislature from a district that comprises a
    constituency of two incorporated villages within the town of
    Bennington who have the same infrastructure needs. I have been
    a member of the House Transportation Committee through that
    time, serving as chairman since 1993, and at the request the
    leadership from both sides of the aisle.
        The toughest part of my job as chairman is distributing
    dollars among the many competing transportation needs in
    Vermont. Looking back, I think that we have been able to do
    that in a fair and a productive way, and we have used the
    planning provisions of the Federal law to get the job done. The
    direction of the law to emphasize planning from the bottom up
    has definitely been the right decision.
        Of course, there has never been enough money. Recognizing
    this, we set out early in my tenure to eliminate low-priority
    projects. This was a painful process. Every project has a
    champion. But we were able to these choices by working through
    Vermont's network of regional planning commissions and advisory
    committees. They were the key then, and they continue to be
    central to our efforts today.
        Even with this pruning of low-priority projects, our needs
    still far exceed our available funding. As a result of the
    success of the project manager system which we directed the
    agency to institute, and taking advantage of the advanced
    construction provisions of the Federal law, I leave my
    chairmanship with enough shelf projects to consume a year's
    worth of Vermont Federal appropriation.
        Each year we must decide on the allocation of
    transportation dollars, both Federal and State, among the
    various modes, and between maintenance operations, system
    preservation and expansion. I have used the agency's long-range
    transportation plan to guide this effort.
        In my part of the State, the Bennington area in
    southwestern Vermont, we have nearly completed the first phase
    of what will become the Bennington bypass, rerouting two
    national highway system roads out of our city center, improving
    traffic flow, and relieving unbearable congestion from the
    downtown.
        After many years of planning and design, we have also begun
    critical safety improvements on the main east-west highway
    through southern Vermont. This project will save lives and
    improve commerce. We have improved a key segment of rail line,
    linking the area to the highly active rail corridor serving
    Albany, New York, and the nation's rail network. We are now
    working with Amtrak and our New York neighbors to secure
    service to the Bennington and the Manchester area. Our long-
    term goal is to improve both the freight and the passenger rail
    up and down the western side of the State.
        We have also used the generous provisions of the Federal
    highway bills to expand public transportation. In my tenure, we
    have established a seamless interconnecting route that goes
    from the Massachusetts line in Pownal to Rutland and points
    north. Several other routes statewide have been established or
    are about to be.
        I would encourage you, as you prepare to put together the
    reauthorization bill, that you garner every possible dollar
    that is entitled to transportation in order that Vermont and
    its fellow States have the opportunity to attempt to bring our
    infrastructure up to par.
        I do not have to tell you that our interstate system, as
    well as nationwide, is forty-plus years old and needs major
    attention. I ask you to refrain from ancillary programs and
    concentrate on making it affordable and less restrictive as
    possible. Our local communities are in the same predicament and
    look for State help. More Federal authorization would
    accommodate our ability to offer them some assistance.
        Ultimately, our goal in the legislature, and the agency's
    goal, is to get things done for Vermont, delivering projects
    that respect neighboring property owners, businesses, local
    communities and the environment. This has been a challenge.
    We've had success by bringing all of the players together and
    focusing on what's good for Vermont.
        A few weeks ago, I announced my intent to retire from the
    Vermont legislature. I do so with a sense of accomplishment and
    in the knowledge that many important transportation
    improvements are under way. And I thank you, Senator Jeffords,
    for those kind words you entered into the congressional record
    on my behalf at the announcement.
        New commuter air routes have been established not only at
    the Burlington International, but Rutland, as well, the State's
    second largest city, and major improvements in various other
    State airports that contribute to much-needed economic
    development.
        My work on transportation has been among the most
    satisfying experiences I have ever had. Without the Federal
    partnership, we could not have made the progress that I have
    described.
        I'm going to now, with your permission, Mr. Chairman,
    deviate from my prepared remarks to delve on a subject that I
    was elbow-to-elbow with Mr. Frankel in Buffalo, New York, a
    couple of weekends ago, and along with the Honorable Jack
    Quinn, who chairs the Subcommittee on Railroads in the house,
    and I was afforded testimony by a Dr. Anthony Pearl, visiting
    from CUNY Institute for Urban Systems in New York. I'd like at
    this time to just quote from his testimony. It's an item that
    is dear to my heart, rail.
        A few States due to vote some plannings and efforts to
    inner-city passenger trains, but they get almost no credit for
    this in the funding formulas that drive Washington's
    transportation spending. No wonder that Amtrak is regarded as a
    charity case by many of the policy. Changing the funding
    arrangement for rail was long overdue.
        He further goes on to say that back in 1970, America's
    freight railroads were provided with the option of acquiring
    stock in Amtrak in return for their startup contribution to the
    fledgling passenger operator. Four railroads actually did
    obtain stock and three took up seats on Amtrak's Board of
    Directors during its early years. The seeds of an innovative
    joint venture, public/private partnership in today's parlance,
    were thus sown in Amtrak's creation, but this potential for a
    new relationship was never realized. It was frustrated, at
    least in part, because Amtrak turned out to have little to
    offer these shareholders, or indeed any other partners
    interested in making money.
        The conference that Mr. Frankel and I were at in Buffalo
    was the New England Conference of State Legislators, and I was
    on a panel with him, and I was encouraged to hear from his
    remarks that we need to consider our friends in the freight
    business on the rail.
        So I believe all of the above might be the missing link.
    Mr. Senator, I am glad that you have been able to hear from
    Vermonters today about the challenges we face, and I do not
    envy your challenge as you fight for scarce dollars. In
    closing, I would emphasize that if you feel I can be of
    assistance at any time, do not hesitate to call me.
    Paraphrasing General MacArthur's comments, ``Old soldiers never
    die, they just fade away''--I do not intend to die, and I
    surely am not going to fade away. Thank you again for giving me
    this opportunity.
        Senator Jeffords. I have no fear. I am sure of that, and
    the time that we have spent together, both of you--perhaps
    Representative Mazza, as well--I know that you will continue to
    let us know, and we shall pay careful attention to them,
    because you've been right every time. Well, as far as I know.
    As far as I know.

       STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD MAZZA, CHAIRMAN, VERMONT SENATE
            COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, COLCHESTER, VERMONT

        Mr. Mazza. Thank you, Senator Jeffords, for inviting me to
    testify here today. And welcome to Vermont, Secretary Jackson.
    You have given us a wonderful opportunity to describe the
    challenge of providing transportation in a rural State.
        My name is Dick Mazza. I own and operate Mazza's General
    Store, a market that has been in business in Colchester,
    Vermont, for 48 years. Since 1984, I have also represented
    Chittenden and Grand Isle County in the Vermont State Senate. I
    have been a member of the Senate Transportation Committee
    throughout that time, serving as chairman for the last 12
    years.
        As you know, Senator Jeffords, the State of Vermont has
    entered a difficult financial period. We are facing a budget
    deficit of some $39 million. This is a significant amount for a
    State of our size. And I know that other States, and the Nation
    as a whole, are experiencing similar problems.
        I raise this because it places our transportation issues in
    an important context. Vermont's revenues are directly tied to
    the strength of its economy. And our economy--our businesses,
    my business--is directly reliant on our transportation system.
    But when times are tough, and when human needs are greatest, it
    is tempting to cut back on transportation spending.
        This year in the legislature, we reduced our paving program
    by half from last year's. Just this week, a joint legislative
    fiscal committee considered additional transportation cuts.
    Interstate rest areas, public transportation routes and town
    highway grants are all on the chopping block.
        We all know that transportation investments create jobs. We
    can see the paving crews on our highways and the driver on the
    bus. But beyond these direct benefits, improved transportation
    moves the people and goods that power our economy. The State's
    leading private employer is IBM. Access to their facility in
    Chittenden County today leaves much to be desired. We have both
    highway and rail improvements programmed to improve the
    situation, but at great cost. Yet, this investment in our
    economic future is vital to our State.
        Our economy relies heavily on interstate trade and travel.
    Interstate 89 and 91 are the lifeline for much of the State. We
    face enormous reconstruction and repair costs on our
    interstate. Vermont's northern border with Canada has felt the
    effects of NAFTA and its attendant growth in freight movement.
    International freight also moves through Vermont from
    neighboring New York. Replacement of the Missisquoi Bridge, at
    a staggering cost by Vermont standards, is essential to support
    our international trade.
        Perhaps the most difficult investment challenge in these
    tight times is a renewal of Vermont's railroads. I like to
    think of the nation's great achievement, the Interstate Highway
    System, as our model for rail development. We built the
    Interstate in segments, but with a fully developed system as
    our ultimate goal. In Vermont, we have taken a similar approach
    with rail. And Senator Jeffords, you have been very helpful in
    our rail programs throughout the State.
        But we need a Federal partner in this major undertaking. We
    need to see continued support for a national passenger rail
    network. Vermont will do its part, and we need the freedom to
    use our Federal transportation dollars to revitalize rail.
        To Secretary Jackson, and through you to Secretary Norman
    Mineta, I appreciate your efforts to manage our nation's
    transportation program in the face of the financial and
    security problems that confront us all.
        And finally, Senator Jeffords, let me thank you again for
    your years of service to our State. It gives me great
    confidence to know that you are at the helm in Washington.
        Senator Jeffords. Well, thank you all. I appreciate those
    remarks. I'd like to give a little history of Vermont and New
    Hampshire. We're working together very well right now, but
    there was a period in time in ancient history where we wanted
    very much to give away part of our State to the State of New
    Hampshire, and we went to the United States Supreme Court to do
    that. And you might wonder why. Well, the question was, who's
    going to pay for the bridges? And by successfully giving away
    the river down to the low water mark--the other way around--but
    successfully giving away up to the high water mark, the State
    didn't have to build the bridges, and so from that point on,
    we've had somewhat of an unusual situation, but New Hampshire
    has accepted it over the years. I just wanted to publicly thank
    you for not raising the issue again.
        All right, let us proceed with some questions, then. The
    theme of our hearing on authorization this year have been
    lessons learned from 10 years of ISTEA and the TEA-21 program.
    This panel has extensive experience. I wonder what lessons you
    think should guide us to in reviewing the program.
        Mr. Searles. I'd be happy to offer one, Mr. Chairman, and
    that's the lesson that comes from the emphasis on local
    planning. Chairman Pembroke mentioned it. It is, in fact, the
    success we've had in Vermont in planning projects that has
    really done the most, I think, to get us where we are now,
    which is so many millions of dollars worth of projects on the
    shelf. So really one has led--one issue has led to what I
    hesitate to call a problem--it's really a success--of the local
    planning effort that we have so many very popular projects
    ready to go and the need for resources.
        Senator Jeffords. Ray?
        Mr. Burton. All comes down to money. You know, in the
    executive branch, we've got to see how much does it cost, who
    does the voting, and can you get the votes? We on the executive
    branch in New Hampshire State government, we carry out the
    wishes of the lawmaking branch, the House and the Senate, and
    I'd say flexibility and more money.
        Senator Jeffords. Dick?
        Mr. Pembroke. I would echo that, Senator. I know it's
    nationwide, the increase on mobilization on the highways is
    just--I mean you see it every time you hit the road yourself,
    and the traffic is just getting unbelievable, so it's you've
    got to be able to maintain what we've got and we don't have the
    resources now to do that, even. And so this is--it all boils
    down to money. And I know it's an easy way out, but we have--in
    Vermont, we have the infrastructure, we have the strategy
    within the agency to get the projects out and get them done,
    but like Senator Mazza referred to with the budget-cutting that
    we're going through now, I get letters from these communities
    that have received letters from the agency saying we've had to
    postpone your project. Projects that have been on the drawing
    board for several, several years, and ones that the legislature
    has worked hard to get there.
        A good example, Senator, is Route 2/302 out here. We just
    got notification that that one has been put back on hold again,
    and we really struggled hard, when we were deciding our pruning
    process, to keep that alive, because you know the traffic that
    that highway consumes out there, so it sounds like an easy
    solution, but all we need to do is to find the money, but the
    money isn't flowing.
        Senator Jeffords. Dick?
        Mr. Mazza. Just a couple of quick things. One is the
    secretary mentioned something about our interstate system, and
    I think we need that shot of cash up front, because they're
    getting old and tired, and I think we need to put some major
    investment that we're trying to do now, but we had some extra
    finances for that, and the other thing I think is flexibility.

        I think we know best where we can spend our money wisely,
    and it's also helpful. We've made a lot of progress on that
    issue, but I think there's a ways to go. Any time that we can
    redirect our funds, I think we can do it in a wise manner. So
    those are the two issues I would speak of. Thank you.
        Senator Jeffords. Brian, you have a tough job, there's no
    question about that. Are there aspects of the program where
    greater flexibility would help you get more done for Vermont?
    Can you delineate some of those for us?
        Mr. Searles. Well, there certainly are; particularly the
    flexibility of forged partnerships. And I would point to our
    programmatic agreement on historic preservation as an example
    of the sorts of things that ISTEA and TEA-21 have allowed us to
    do, and I know that you will hear phrases like environmental
    streamlining and environmental stewardship, and stewardship is
    the word that I prefer, and I think that if the--if the next
    reauthorization bill can emphasize the opportunity and perhaps
    provide, on both Federal and State level, an opportunity to
    partner around the environmental issues, we can, in fact, have
    a better result for the environment. And the second piece of
    the environmental equation is transit. We are going to need
    more emphasis on public transportation if we're going to
    protect the environment.
        Senator Jeffords. Dick, I wanted--yes, go ahead, please.
        Mr. Pembroke. I'd like to ask Mike Jackson, Mike, how much
    would one cent in the Federal gas tax, an increase in one cent
    Federal gas tax, yield to satisfy some of these needs? In New
    Hampshire, if we--and I have always advocated user fees, if we
    would raise one cent on the gas tax in New Hampshire, brings
    about five to six million dollars every month. Is there
    anything on a national basis?
        Mr. Jackson. If I give it to you, it's going to be wrong.
    I'll send it to you.
        Mr. Pembroke. It would be in the billions.
        Mr. Jackson. It's a large number, yes, sir.
        Mr. Pembroke. Well, I'd like to be on the record as
    suggesting, Senator Jeffords, that the committee think about
    it.
        Senator Jeffords. Don't worry, we will. And I know you and
    Bob will make sure we do, anyway. But no, and I enjoy working
    with New Hampshire. That's one of the benefits we have in the
    present situation is being able to work together.
        Well, I want to thank all of you for your help and
    testimony. I think I may have a--if I have any other questions,
    I should--I think that pretty much does it. I just want to
    thank you again. I can't tell you how important an issue it's--
    --
        Mr. Pembroke. I'm not going anywhere.
        Senator Jeffords. It's been a wonderful time, and I know
    you'll be there anyway, whether or not you're there in the
    present capacity and it's been an opportunity to--and also for
    you, Senator Mazza--we've got some things to do, and I can
    assure you we're going to be working very closely with you.
        Well, thank you very much. I want to thank our next panel,
    and I'll introduce each of them. Dr. Thomas Adler, Northeast
    Transportation Institute and Museum; Deborah Ricker, Associated
    General Contractors of Vermont; and Paul Bruhn, Preservation
    Trust of Vermont. Good to see you here. I missed you in
    Shrewsbury I think, whenever it was, yesterday.
        Mr. Bruhn. Were you there Sunday for the event?
        Senator Jeffords. I had to miss it. My wife was there,
    though. And Matthew Sternberg, Executive Director of the
    Rutland Redevelopment Authority. Nice to have you all here. And
    we will start with Dr. Adler.

     STATEMENT OF THOMAS ADLER, NORTHEAST TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE
               AND MUSEUM, WHITE RIVER JUNCTION, VERMONT

        Mr. Adler. Thank you very much. Good morning, and thank you
    for the opportunity to testify about rural transportation
    issues. My name is Thomas Adler. I've lived in Norwich,
    Vermont, for 25 years, and am currently President of Resource
    Systems Group, a transportation and environmental consulting
    firm with a national practice headquartered in White River
    Junction, Vermont. For 10 years I was a professor at Dartmouth
    College, director of its graduate program in transportation and
    its research program, which included projects addressing the
    transportation needs of rural areas.
        I am testifying today as a board member of the New England
    Transportation Institute and Museum and as acting director of
    the institute's programs, which include the Rural
    Transportation Learning Center. This morning I would like to
    describe why, from a national perspective, rural transportation
    issues and priorities are, in many important ways, different
    from the transportation issues that face major metropolitan
    areas.
        As a Nation, we simply haven't examined the needs of our
    rural citizens as extensively as we have the needs of the
    citizens of the major metropolitan areas. But we do know some
    basic facts about transportation problems in the rural areas of
    this country. In the 13 northeastern States, we see that our
    rural citizens have significantly lower levels of household
    income than in those in the more urbanized regions. But, at the
    same time, we observe that the rate of auto ownership is
    significantly higher in the rural areas.
        We know also that our rural citizens have to make longer
    trips, and in fact, travel about 30 percent more miles than
    their urban counterparts. This translates into the fact that
    our rural citizens spend a far greater proportion of their
    total income on basic transportation, and it means they have
    less money to spend on other necessities such as housing, food,
    or education. On the other hand, we also know that work-
    commuting distances are shorter than the national average among
    residents of the small towns within rural regions, and that
    focusing rural development around those traditional town
    centers reduces dependence on automobile travel.
        And there's so much we don't know. We haven't properly
    examined the problems of limited mobility among important
    segments of the rural population, particularly as experienced
    by older citizens, and those who do not have access to a car.
    As the population ages, this will become an even more pressing
    issue for the rural regions. Just as railroads and automobiles
    have had profound impacts on the shape of rural communities,
    new information and communication technologies will also
    significantly affect the ways in which these communities
    develop in the future. We have already seen new types of
    economic clusters forming in rural New England around
    information-oriented businesses. These businesses in turn have
    new and very different transportation needs. Our region is
    fortunate to have intercity rail, bus and air services that
    connect our rural areas to the major metropolitan areas. But
    planning a trip by a combination of bus, rail and even air
    simply cannot be accomplished at any one location.
        One important strategy to deal with rural mobility is to
    help travelers understand just what combinations of services
    are currently available. Every major nation in Europe has a
    program to help its citizens plan rural trips by modes other
    than the private auto. From a technical point of view, it would
    be easy to apply this technology to our rural areas. In
    general, complementary investments in a multimodal
    transportation network and in technologies to provide
    information to the users of that network will greatly
    facilitate new economic activities as well as tourism and the
    other traditional parts of northern New England's rural
    economy. These are just a few of the issues that affect rural
    areas to a greater degree than metropolitan areas.
        The primary goal of the Rural Transportation Learning
    Center is to heighten the level of policy, technical, and
    cultural learning relating to these and other transportation
    issues and their impact on communities. This center is a
    program for the New England Transportation Institute and
    Museum, which is located in historic downtown White River
    Junction, Vermont. Our focus is both regional and national, as
    we aim to explore our region's past, present, and future as a
    means to inform the national understanding on rural
    transportation and its relationship to the nation's economic,
    social and environmental goals.
        Our organization has grown rapidly into a bi-State project
    that has involved the unusually large population of
    transportation professionals from New Hampshire and Vermont.
    With the interest and commitment of nationally known
    professionals, such as Thomas Horan and Matthew Coogan who
    participated in the preparation of this testimony, it is now
    growing into a national resource. We have attached to our
    written testimony a more detailed description of the Learning
    Center and its research agenda.
        I'll close by thanking you for holding this hearing in
    Vermont and for focusing attention on the Federal Government's
    policy opportunity to address the unique needs of the country's
    rural regions. The coming surface transportation
    reauthorization represents a unique opportunity to ensure that
    transportation policy enhances rural communities, and the
    committee's interest in this topic is most appreciated. We look
    forward to working with you, the others here today, and the
    community of national transportation professionals to ensure
    that transportation issues in rural areas are more fully
    understood and addressed.
        Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
        Deborah?

     STATEMENT OF DEBRA RICKER, ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF
                        VERMONT, BARRE, VERMONT

        Ms. Ricker. My name's Debbie Ricker, and I'd like to start
    by thanking you, Senator, for inviting us to participate. I am
    one of the owners and founders of L & D Safety Marking and
    Worksafe Traffic Control Industries. Our company provides
    pavement markings and highway sign services. We employ 35-45
    people. Our corporate office is located here in Berlin, Vermont
    and we have divisions in Berlin, Vermont; Bow, New Hampshire;
    and Augusta, Maine. We are a small, family owned business, and
    some of us are in our second and third generation, so we have a
    very strong commitment and deep roots in this beautiful State.
        While accounting practices for private corporations may be
    the topic of concern in Congress today, the accounting
    practices for State and local governments will inevitably be
    the focus in the future as governmental accounting standards
    require more accountability in the condition of, and the
    maintenance of, roads, bridges, and other public assets that
    taxpayers have invested billions of dollars in over the years.
        I specifically refer to the Government Accounting Standards
    Board, Rule 34, that defines generally accepted accounting
    principles for State and local governments. GASB 34 requires
    governments to include long-lived infrastructure assets in
    their annual financial statements starting with fiscal year
    2002.
        To properly account for infrastructure assets, governments
    must develop an asset management plan which at a minimum should
    identify the condition of pavements, structures, and
    facilities. That plan should include deterioration rates for
    those assets so that a determination can be made for the annual
    funds necessary to maintain those assets at a recommended level
    of performance. This whole issue of asset management is
    important to getting the optimum level of results from our
    expenditures while maintaining our infrastructure. In short,
    getting the biggest bang for the buck.
        This has been a critical issue in government, more so than
    business, because of the tendency to balance the budget by
    deferring essential maintenance, since State and local
    governments are very infrastructure-intensive. Here in Vermont,
    because we are a small State with limited resources, we have
    relied very heavily on Federal funds to meet our needs.
    However, because we are a State with an aging infrastructure in
    a cold climate, our needs are greater than both existing
    Federal and State resources are available, so asset management
    is really critical to us in getting the dollars applied
    properly to our infrastructure. But more dollars, both State
    and Federal, are needed to keep up with this.
        As for our aging infrastructure, former Governor Madeline
    Kunin initiated Bridge 2000 in 1988 to repair and replace 454
    structurally deficient bridges. We have approximately 2,700
    bridges in Vermont. In 1988 the Vermont Agency of
    Transportation estimated that it would cost 1.6 billion dollars
    over a 10-year period to repair those 454 bridges.
        Today, we have more than 550 structurally deficient bridges
    in Vermont. The cost, including inflation, will more than
    double in that area alone.
        In addition, the Interstate Highway System in Vermont which
    is well over 30 years old is now in need of rebuilding in many
    sections. Bridge replacements need to be constructed and over
    $100 million in culvert repairs necessary on the Interstate
    alone. That's not including the estimated eight to ten thousand
    or more culverts on the State and local systems that will
    eventually need replacement.
        A report authored by the FHWA and VT AOT recently cited the
    need to spend $74 million annually on the interstate in
    Vermont. Vermont is only funding $20 million on those repairs,
    clearly one fourth of what is required. It has gotten so bad on
    the Interstate that one of our AGC member companies doing a
    basic culvert repair recently discovered a seven-cubic-yard
    void directly under the travel pavement of Interstate 89 in
    Williston. This area of the interstate is a heavily traveled
    thoroughfare, and a pavement collapse would have caused serious
    injury and perhaps even death, which brings me to the issue of
    safety on our roadways.
        Tragically, more than 41,000 Americans die and 3.5 million
    are injured in motor vehicle accidents on our highways each
    year. If the average U.S. crash rate remains unchanged, one
    child out of every 84 born today will die violently in a motor
    vehicle crash. As more people travel more miles on the highways
    and as the aging demographics of our driving populations
    change, significant improvements in safe roads are essential to
    continue our progress in reducing highway fatality rates and
    injuries.
        In July of this year, the GAO released a report that showed
    that although 40 percent of all vehicle miles are traveled on
    rural roads, about 60 percent of the accidents occur on those
    rural roads. When adjusted for vehicle miles traveled, the
    fatalities from accidents on rural roads is nearly 2.5 times
    greater than the fatalities from accidents on urban roads.
        Vermont faces a major decision: Invest in repairs and
    rehabilitation of the existing infrastructure on an annual
    basis or replace major parts of the system at a much greater
    cost in years to come. So a properly planned asset management
    program will help set priorities. Adequate funding of Vermont
    infrastructure will do much to improve safety for our traveling
    public and will have a positive effect on Vermont's economy as
    well.
        Senator Jeffords. Thank you very much.

        STATEMENT OF PAUL BRUHN, PRESERVATION TRUST OF VERMONT,
                          BURLINGTON, VERMONT

        Mr. Bruhn. It's a great privilege and pleasure to be here
    today, especially because Federal and State transportation
    policy has made great progress in terms of its recognition of
    the impact our transportation dollars have on the vitality of
    our communities. This new approach has meant that many new
    voices are included in the decisionmaking process.
        Before discussing some specific thoughts, I'd like to
    emphasize how important the enactment of ISTEA has been in
    encouraging a real transformation within State agencies of
    transportation nationwide. There's been a broadening of their
    admission from the important one of building roads for safe and
    efficient movement of cars and trucks to acknowledging the
    significant impact that transportation projects have on people
    and communities. This culture shift was due in no small part to
    the enhancements program. It is important that the enhancements
    program be continued and strengthened in Vermont and can still
    remain one of the primary focuses of the agency, but it is now
    balanced with the knowledge of the critical role transportation
    projects play in defining where we live and work and what the
    Vermont landscape looks like.
        I'm going to chat about several specific subjects. The
    first is the new design standards which were enabled by this
    new policy within the new Federal policy that allowed the
    States to develop new design standards. We've done that here in
    Vermont; it's been very successful. It hasn't solved all of our
    problems or all of the concerns, but it's provided a vehicle
    for a flexible system for providing transportation, meeting
    community needs, and not overwhelming some of our communities.
        The enhancements program I mentioned earlier. It's been one
    of ISTEA's truly outstanding success stores. To make use of the
    program's 12 activities to improve the esthetics and amenities
    associated with travel on the highways and also to build new
    and better partnerships with State transportation agencies.
        Vermont and several other States have excelled in taking
    advantage of these 12 activities, especially the ones that
    relate to historic preservation and the revitalization of
    streetscapes and downtowns. Traffic and big trucks on the
    national highway system are a big problem here in Vermont, and
    we've had very tough debates, sometimes pitting one community
    against another community. I think that there's an
    understanding that we need truck transportation in this State
    to maintain our commerce and vitality. On the other hand, we do
    need a balance. One thing I think we probably will agree on is
    that we don't need bigger trucks, and would encourage the
    committee to think about supporting H.R. 3122, the Safe
    Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act, which would limit
    the size of truck length and weight on the national highway
    system with the same standards that exist on the interstate
    system.
        We are struggling with sprawl in this State, as you know.
    It's been a big interest of yours, and lots of our people. The
    enhancements program could be a real asset in this process of
    protecting development around interstate interchanges. There
    are some glitches and difficulties within the enhancement
    program that make it a little bit difficult to use the
    enhancement program for land acquisition and easement
    acquisition. It has to do with the timing of appraisals and
    making firm offers on the property, and my testimony written
    testimony includes some information about that, and would
    respectfully ask that you have a look at that.
        Senator Jeffords. It will be made a part of the record and
    we'll read it.
        Mr. Bruhn. Yes, great. We are dead set against removing the
    protection process, because we think that it's worked. We think
    the values that the 46789F are used in the process are
    important ones, and important ones to take into consideration
    as transportation projects move forward. There's a section here
    on highway bridges which I'll leave for the written testimony.
    I also want to say that I realize I'm going over my minute, I'm
    sorry.
        Senator Jeffords. Go right ahead.
        Mr. Bruhn. I'm serve on the Vermont transportation
    authority and we have some responsibility for overseeing
    working with passenger rail, developing passenger rail in the
    State, and we believe that 25 to 50 years from now we're going
    to really need a strong passenger rail system in this State and
    we're not going to build our roads to meet the demands of
    increased traffic, and both from a freight standpoint and from
    passengers' standpoint, having a strong rail system will be
    very important to us in the future, and we hope that the
    Federal Government will continue to be a real ally that
    process.
        One specific challenge that we have that we would love some
    help with is the insurance problem. We pay, as Chairman
    Pembroke knows, we pay a lot of money every year, about
    $700,000 this year for insurance on the Charlotte Commuter
    line. It's a big problem. It's over 25 percent of our budget.
    Crazy. And some help in the insurance area would be enormously
    useful to us as we go forward and try to provide increased
    passenger rail service here in this State. And I'll stop there.
        Senator Jeffords. Thank you.

      STATEMENT OF MATTHEW STERNBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RUTLAND
               REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, RUTLAND, VERMONT

        Mr. Sternberg. I want to thank Senator Jeffords and Senator
    Smith for coming to Vermont to hear about rural transportation
    issues. Particularly, I want to thank Senator Jeffords for his
    ongoing support of rail improvements that affect our economic
    development and quality of life.
        My name is Matthew Sternberg, and I am Executive Director
    of the Rutland Redevelopment Authority in Rutland, Vermont.
    Rutland is the second-largest incorporated city in Vermont and
    the commercial hub of the western side of the State. Our city
    has undertaken significant downtown revitalization, but now
    faces limits to economic growth, due, in part, to
    transportation access problems.
        Rutland City developed in the 19th Century around railroads
    that played a major role in regional freight and passenger
    service. As is the case in cities across the Nation, our rail
    infrastructure fell into disuse, being replaced by highways,
    except we didn't get the new highways. Truck traffic grew
    dramatically along U.S. Route 7, now a highway of the National
    Highway System, but in many places still a narrow, winding
    country road, complete with cattle crossings, ill-suited to the
    task of interstate commerce.
        We have a choice: Build new highways or redevelop the
    infrastructure we already have in place, including the rail
    line. A new interstate highway is not in the cards. If we don't
    improve rail, allowing the older industrial districts served by
    rail to be redeveloped, we only encourage greenfield
    development that must be served by Route 7. If we're going to
    apply Smart Growth principles in Vermont, we must acknowledge
    the role of rail.
        I would like to highlight three issues that have been
    central to our discussions of rail here in Vermont. First, the
    rail line and U.S Route 7 need a lot of work along the whole
    length of the State. This suggests a corridor strategy, what we
    would label a National Highway System/Railway Corridor, running
    from Bennington to Burlington. Looking at the highway and the
    rail as integral elements of a unified corridor, we better
    understand how to allocate resources.
        Rutland is working on a major plan to relocate our
    switching yard, a project that will have profound effects on
    the capacity of the entire State rail system. Looking at the
    Rutland yard as part of a corridor helps us understand this
    dynamic.
        Second, we must recognize that the corridor concept
    addresses both passenger and freight traffic. Historically we
    have been reluctant to invest public funds in railroads owned
    by private interests. The fact that the improvement would help
    the commercial concern was interpreted as a private benefit
    instead of a public benefit. In considering the objectives of
    smart growth, we must look beyond traditional definitions of
    benefit.
        A striking example is found along our corridor, where stone
    quarried in Middlebury is trucked to a processing plant in
    Florence. Because the trucks carrying the stone pass through
    downtown Brandon, the State has limited the number of trucks
    that can pass through that downtown each day. As a result, the
    company has an artificially imposed cap on its production
    capacity, and more than a hundred million dollars in capital
    investment that would have created jobs in Vermont has gone to
    plants in other States and Canada.
        An initiative is under way through a public/private
    partnership to build a siding from the quarry to the rail line,
    enabling the rock to be shipped by rail. This will reduce truck
    traffic in Brandon, while allowing the company to grow at its
    natural pace, creating jobs as it does so. Providing the
    transportation alternative for the company improves the quality
    of life in Brandon, and this constitutes a bona fide community
    benefit.
        In Rural areas, the NHS/Railway Corridor concept responds
    to the local needs of communities along the route. We need a
    model that will enable smaller scale, local improvements that,
    in the aggregate, will add up to a system that works. The NHS/
    Railway Corridor will do this, defining the big picture for the
    region while allowing each community to pursue the individual
    projects that are right for their situation.
        In their position on Smart Growth adopted in 2000, the
    American Economic Development Council states, ``Although smart
    growth is a national movement, in practice its implementation
    occurs only in local communities and jurisdictions. Local
    communities not only consist of a single jurisdiction, but
    include regions, as well.''
        Our corridor concept for western Vermont demonstrates the
    wisdom of this view. Our region's needs are best addressed by
    strengthening the National Highway System and the Railway
    Corridor together. I thank you for inviting me to address these
    issues today, and thank you again for coming to Vermont.
        Senator Jeffords. Well, thank you, and that's an excellent
    ending statement. I agree with you, and I can assure you that
    that's one of my top priorities, is to work along the way you
    discussed, and I also want to thank the others for their
    excellent statements. I agree with all of you. Michael?
        Mr. Jackson. I have to say that I, too, very much am
    grateful to have a chance to hear on a detailed level, rather
    than the wholesale level that I usually get, what people really
    need out of the reauthorization, so I'm grateful for the
    opportunity to visit and hear these comments. Thanks very much.
        Senator Jeffords. Well, I thank all of you. It's been a
    wonderful morning, and it's always good to see you anyway.
    Thank you, and with that, the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
    reconvene at the call of the chair.]
        [Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

    Statement of Hon. Michael Jackson, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of
                                 Transportation

        Mr. Chairman and Senator Smith, thank you for the opportunity to
    appear before the Committee to address the renewal of the
    Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and rural
    transportation issues. Your leadership in the reauthorization process
    has been and will continue to be crucial.
        Very few things have as great an impact on our economic
    development, growth patterns, and quality of life as transportation.
    Although the challenges are different, this is as true in rural areas
    as it is in urban areas. A safe and efficient transportation system is
    crucial to promoting community prosperity.
        With the enactment of TEA-21's predecessor, the Intermodal Surface
    Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), we established new
    principles in the implementation of the nation's surface transportation
    programs--building partnerships with local and State officials to
    advance the strategic goals for transportation capital investment.
        Those principles include: flexibility in the use of funds; a
    commitment to strengthening the intermodal connections of the nation's
    transportation system; expanded investment in, and deployment of, new
    information technologies for transportation services; and a heightened
    sensitivity to the impacts transportation has on our quality of life
    and on the shape and character of America's communities.
        TEA-21 built upon the programmatic initiatives of ISTEA and,
    through its financial provisions, provided State and local governments
    and other transportation providers with greater certainty and
    predictability in transportation funding. It achieved this by reforming
    the treatment of the Highway Trust Fund to ensure that, for the first
    time, spending from the Highway Trust Fund for infrastructure
    improvements would be linked to tax revenues.
        The programmatic and financial initiatives of these two historic
    surface transportation acts provide us with a solid and balanced
    structure around which we can shape this reauthorization legislation.
        In crafting a surface transportation reauthorization bill, we must
    maximize the safety and security of all Americans, even as we enhance
    their mobility, reduce congestion, and grow the economy. These are not
    incompatible goals; indeed, the lessons of TEA-21 demonstrate that
    these values reinforce each other: it is possible to have a
    transportation system that is safe and secure, efficient and
    productive.
        These are only a few of the issues that we must work together to
    address as we develop a successor to TEA-21. The Department of
    Transportation looks forward to working with both Houses of Congress,
    State and local officials, tribal governments, and stakeholders in
    shaping the surface transportation reauthorization legislation.
        In a hearing in front of this Committee in Washington earlier this
    year, Secretary Mineta set forth certain core principles and values
    that will inform the Department's reauthorization efforts:
          Assuring adequate and predictable funding for investment
    in the nation's transportation system.
          Preserving funding flexibility to allow the broadest
    application of funds to transportation solutions, as identified by
    State and local governments.
          Expanding and improving innovative financing programs to
    more effectively leverage Federal dollars and support intermodal
    investments.
          Increasing the accessibility of the transportation system
    so that all Americans can enjoy its benefits.
          Making substantial improvements in the safety of the
    Nation's surface transportation system.
          Ensuring an efficient infrastructure while retaining
    environmental protections that enhance our quality of life.
        My testimony today will focus on these core principles, all of
    which will benefit rural communities.

    Adequate and Predictable Funding
        The financial mechanisms of TEA-21--firewalls, Revenue Aligned
    Budget Authority (RABA), and minimum guarantees--provided greater
    equity among States in Federal funding and record levels of
    transportation investment. Although we will be proposing technical
    fixes to smooth out the wide RABA fluctuations we saw in TEA-21, the
    linking of highway spending to tax receipts is a sound principle and
    should be maintained.

    Funding Flexibility
        Equally important is funding flexibility, first allowed in ISTEA
    and continued in TEA-21. Flexible funding allows States and communities
    to tailor their transportation choices to meet their unique needs and
    has enabled State and local decisionmakers to consider all
    transportation options and their impacts on traffic congestion, air
    pollution, land use patterns, economic development, and quality of
    life. We will continue to support vigorously broad transferability of
    Federal funds within core program categories. As certain States and
    metropolitan areas have begun to focus more on the operations and
    management of their transportation systems, this flexibility has proven
    extremely valuable to them.

    Innovative Finance and Intermodalism
        ISTEA and TEA-21 were both landmark accomplishments in the history
    of American transportation. We should not forget, however, that the
    explosive growth in revenues into the Highway Trust Fund over the last
    6 years that yielded overall program growth of approximately 40 percent
    was not only caused by a growing economy. Two early 1990's gasoline tax
    increases that were re-directed from the General Fund into the Highway
    Trust Fund contributed significantly, as well. In today's constrained
    budget environment, therefore, we must look to innovative financing
    programs to play a much larger role.
        We can and must make the Federal dollar go farther by expanding
    infrastructure financing options and engaging the private sector. The
    United States lags behind many of its international counterparts in the
    implementation of successful public-private partnerships, especially
    with respect to large-scale intermodal projects. This reauthorization
    is an excellent opportunity to change that. We envision more projects
    like the recently completed Alameda Corridor in California that
    dramatically improves access in and out of the busy ports of Long Beach
    and Los Angeles. Rapidly developing freight bottlenecks will impact the
    entire country and must be addressed in reauthorization. A more
    efficient system of goods movement will benefit rural consumers and
    business as well as urban ones.
        One success story in the innovative finance arena is the
    Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)
    program created under TEA-21. TIFIA has already served an important
    role in the development of intermodal facilities, border crossing
    infrastructure, highway trade corridors, and transit and passenger
    rail. To date, 11 projects have been selected for TIFIA assistance. The
    Federal Government has provided $3.7 billion in credit assistance
    supporting transportation investments worth $15.7 billion. Expanding
    the eligibility of the TIFIA program to cover an even broader range of
    transportation infrastructure projects should increase its impact even
    more.
        Other financing tools such as State Infrastructure Banks (SIBs),
    GARVEE Bonds and traditional tax exempt financing will hopefully
    continue to grow in importance. We need to begin knocking down some of
    the barriers that currently diminish the willingness of States and the
    private sector to heavily invest in our country's infrastructure.

    Accessibility
        One of the great legacies of ISTEA that was continued in TEA-21 was
    to provide for an open, transparent and inclusive transportation
    planning process at both the State and metropolitan levels. Here in
    Vermont, State and metropolitan planners have done an excellent job in
    addressing the diverse transportation needs of its citizens, including
    rural residents.
        In the Hartford, Vermont, Hanover/Lebanon New Hampshire area, where
    the local economy is one of the most robust in New England, and growing
    traffic congestion and parking shortages are threatening to slow
    economic growth, the Advance Transit program has partnered with local
    communities and employers to provide free bus service on all of its
    routes and park and ride shuttles to encourage alternatives to single
    occupant vehicle use. The program has been a tremendous success.
    Ridership for 2002 is expected to exceed a half million passenger
    trips, nearly double what it was just 3 years ago. The benefits to low
    income riders have been recognized as well.
        TEA-21 also helped improve transportation for the rural elderly
    population. The Central Vermont Council on Aging (CVCOA) receives
    funding through a grant agreement with the Vermont Agency of
    Transportation. Funds were used to purchase three lift-equipped
    vehicles. Despite serving a geographically dispersed population, CVCOA
    experienced a 15 percent increase in unduplicated clients between State
    fiscal years 2001 and 2002, and is expecting a 34 percent increase
    between fiscal years 2002 and 2003.
        Initiatives such as these will prove increasingly important as our
    population ages and its health care needs increase. Today, the number
    of people age 85 and older is growing nearly four times faster than the
    general population. The disabled population is also growing at a rate
    nearly double that of the population as a whole. Without adequate
    transportation services, more and more rural elderly and disabled will
    be forced to lead restricted lives, without access to needed medical,
    work or recreational opportunities.
        To encourage States to address rural needs, the Department created
    the Rural Capacity Building Initiative (RCBI) as part of its three-
    pronged Institutional Capacity Building Program. The other elements are
    Metropolitan Capacity Building and statewide Capacity Building. The
    Initiative is providing training, technical assistance and outreach for
    rural transportation planners. In 1998 and 1999, the Federal Highway
    Administration (FHWA) initiated a series of 10 rural planning
    workshops, including one here in Vermont. The workshops gave State
    transportation officials the opportunity to swap success stories and
    lessons with their counterparts from other States, as well as borrow
    from the vast experience of our FHWA staff.
        Over the past year, the Department has significantly its increased
    focus on rural planning, with FTA and FHWA jointly sponsoring and
    distributing the July 2001 publication, ``Planning for Transportation
    in Rural Areas.'' In addition, in May 2002, FTA joined FHWA in holding
    a workshop focused on rural transportation issues and the benefits of
    participating in statewide planning processes. Today, I am proud to say
    that FTA and FHWA are engaging in a stronger partnership in advancing
    other statewide and Rural Capacity-Building initiatives, building upon
    successes achieved in the metropolitan arena.

    Technology
        Other rural initiatives include the Rural Intelligent
    Transportation Systems (ITS) Program established by the Department.
    This program focused on rural crash prevention, emergency services,
    tourism/traveler information, rural transit, rural traffic management,
    weather and operations and maintenance. For example, efforts underway
    have yielded significant benefits from the use of ITS for rural transit
    such as reductions in pickup times; reductions in passenger wait times;
    improved contractor monitoring and improved driver and passenger
    security.
        A coalition of eight States--including New Hampshire, Vermont and
    Maine--plan to have a 511 Traveler Information Telephone Number in
    operation by the end of 2002. The 511 number will allow the public to
    have easy access to information about travel conditions and options. In
    rural areas, this information will include weather-related roadway
    conditions, as well as major travel disruptions from work zones and
    traffic incidents.
        Weather and road information is critical to surface transportation
    operations, especially in northern States and rural areas. Technologies
    such as collision warning systems, sensors, GIS mapping, 360-degree
    radar obstacle detection devices, auditory warnings, and external light
    warning systems can significantly benefit drivers in low-visibility
    situations.

    Safety
        More than a quarter of a million people have been killed on
    America's roadways in the past 6 years, 41,000 deaths each year. There
    are also more than 3 million police-reported injuries annually. Fifty-
    eight percent of traffic fatalities occur on rural roads. The fatality
    rate per 100 million vehicles miles of travel in rural areas is more
    than twice that of urban areas. Adding to the rural safety problem,
    emergency response times in rural areas are 1.5 times those in urban
    areas.
        TEA-21 introduced new programs, greater flexibility and increased
    funding to meet these challenges. States were able to make badly needed
    safety improvements to their infrastructure using their Surface
    Transportation Program (STP), Interstate Maintenance, and National
    Highway System (NHS) funds. Safety concerns are now built into every
    interchange upgrade, intersection redesign, signing project and
    pavement improvement.
        In addition, since TEA-21's enactment, the Department has awarded a
    total of $729 million in State and community formula highway safety
    grants to encourage proper use of occupant protection devices; reduce
    alcohol and drug-impaired driving; reduce crashes between motorcycles
    and other vehicles; reduce school bus crashes; improve police traffic
    services; improve emergency medical services and trauma care systems;
    increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety; improve traffic record
    systems; and improve roadway safety.

    Quality of Life
        TEA-21 has given States and communities across America additional
    tools and opportunities to enhance the environment and quality of life
    for their residents. The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
    Improvement Program focuses on improving air quality. Under TEA-21, it
    provided more than $8 billion in funding for use by State and local
    partners to support traffic flow projects, cleaner fuels, improved
    transit services, and bicycle and pedestrian programs that reduce
    congestion and emissions and improve the quality of life.
        The National Park Service has purchased buses to reduce congestion
    in several major National Parks. The Federal Lands Highway Divisions
    are using context sensitive design techniques and new technology to
    reconstruct or improve roads through environmentally sensitive areas
    within National Parks, National Forests, and wildlife refuges.
        The National Scenic Byways program and the Transportation
    Enhancements program have helped States and communities improve the
    environment. Since the enactment of TEA-21, more than $1.4 billion in
    Transportation Enhancement funds have been obligated to local
    communities to implement community-focused, non-motorized activities
    that enhance transportation. Many more activities have been programmed
    and are awaiting implementation.
        TEA-21 directed the Department to streamline environmental reviews.
    It is a major priority for the Department to assist States and
    communities build infrastructure more efficiently, while retaining
    critical environmental protections. Successful environmental
    streamlining requires fostering good working relationships across a
    number of organizational lines. These relationships allow for the
    development and establishment of reasonable and realistic schedules for
    advancing major projects. Working together in partnerships, combining a
    full range of Federal, State, and local officials and interest groups,
    will lead to reasonable ways to meet the Nation's transportation needs,
    while being good stewards of the environment.
        Exemplary streamlining initiatives are well underway here in New
    England. Vermont has led the Nation in demonstrating the hallmark of
    flexibility in historic preservation compliance without compromising
    safeguards. Senator Smith's efforts initiated a successful partnering
    model in New Hampshire that has fostered the examination and
    exploration of improved and more efficient approaches to mitigation
    while adhering to deadlines.

    Conclusion
        This is a moment of great opportunity. As was true when Congress
    considered the landmark ISTEA and TEA-21 legislation, we have an
    opportunity to create our own legacy and to serve the needs of the
    American people in all regions. I am confident that, working together,
    the Department and Congress can preserve, enhance and establish surface
    transportation programs that will provide not only for a safer and more
    secure system, but one that is more efficient and productive and
    enhances the quality of life for every American.
        One other thing that I am pleased to announce is that we have
    launched a website to take public comments about the reauthorization
    bill at www.dot.gov. We encourage private citizens to share their
    thoughts about this important legislation with us.
        Again, thank you both for the opportunity to testify before you
    today. I look forward to responding to any questions you may have.

                                   __________

      Testimony of Brian R. Searles, Secretary of Transportation State of
                                    Vermont

        Good morning and welcome to Vermont.
        My name is Brian R. Searles and I am the Secretary of the Agency of
    Transportation for the State of Vermont. Let me begin by thanking; Sen.
    Jeffords for holding this committee hearing in Vermont and for the
    chance to talk about the challenges and opportunities that are unique
    to rural transportation.
        Let me also welcome Sen. Bob Smith, our neighbor from New
    Hampshire, and U.S. Department of Transportation Deputy Secretary
    Michael Jackson to our fine State, and thank them for their willingness
    to come to Vermont.
        I would like to personally thank both Sen. Jeffords and Sen. Smith
    for their efforts restoring BABA funding in the current budget process.
        I would also like to welcome Mr. Ray Burton, a member of the
    Governor's Executive Council, who will testify on behalf of the State
    of New Hampshire.
        Mr. John Horsley, the Executive Director of the American
    Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), was
    unable to attend today's hearing, and asked me to make a few brief
    comments on behalf of AASHTO and its member States across the country.
        Were he able to be here Mr. Horsley would say that rural two-lane
    safety is a concern for AASHTO members. The General Accounting Office
    recently reported that although 40 percent of all vehicle miles are
    traveled on rural roads, 60 per cent of traffic fatalities in 1999
    occurred on rural roads. Funding should be increased to improve safety
    of rural roads for both State and local roads. AASHTO urges that the
    highway program be increased over 6 years to $41 billion annually. From
    this an additional $1 billion annually should be dedicated to safety.
        Rural transit. AASHTO's Bottom Line Report documents the need to
    double the current investment in rural transit, especially to meet the
    needs of the growing number of elderly residents, who can no longer
    drive, but still need access to health care and other services.
        Transportation Enhancements. AASHTO supports the continued
    dedication of a 10 percent setaside of STP funds to support
    transportation enhancements, which so far have benefited over 14,000
    communities nationwide. We urge further simplification of the program
    to make it easier for local governments to apply and advance payment
    rather than cost reimbursement as the basis for conveying funds to
    local governments.
        Diversity. The needs of Vermont are important and special, but
    different from those in New Hampshire and those in other States. AASHTO
    believes the national program should be crafted in a way that respects
    the diversity of the various States and allows them to define
    approaches which best meet their needs.
        And last, AASHTO believes we must grow the program. To meet the
    nation's safety, security, preservation and capacity needs for highway
    and transit will require a significant increase in resources. We urge
    the Senate to take a close look at the financing proposal of AASHTO,
    which outlines a way making; it possible to fund a highway program
    which increases from $34 billion to $41 billion from fiscal year 2004
    to fiscal year 2009, and a transit program which increases from $7.5
    billion to $10 billion.
        That concludes the remarks on behalf of Mr. Horsley.
        Let me return to my own testimony.
        By many measures Vermont is the most rural State in the Nation, a
    collection of 251 cities, towns and unorganized gores that dot the
    hillsides and valleys of this mountainous State. We occupy an area
    larger than New Jersey with a population (608,827) that is smaller than
    many mid-sized cities across the Nation. We have about 15,262 miles of
    public roads, 57-percent of which are unpaved. I mention these facts
    because transportation management is different in rural areas than
    urban areas, and while we have a strong interest in all modes of
    transportation, our topography and population distribution often limit
    our opportunities.
        Vermont and other rural areas across the Northeast are heavily
    dependent on travel and tourism. Because Vermont is located within a
    few hours drive of about 50 million people, the regions highway system
    is an important conduit for what amounts to about 25 percent of the
    State's overall economy.
        During the past few years new information has emerged from several
    studies describing travel patterns and freight flow to and from rural
    New England. (These studies include the Vermont statewide Freight Study
    prepared by VTrans; Passenger Travel in the I-95 Corridor Coalition
    Region prepared by the Intermodal Program Track Committee of the I-95
    Coalition; Rural Mobility Issues--Understanding the 1-95 Coalition
    Region by Matt Coogan; and Truck Freight Crossing the Canada-U.S.
    Border, prepared by the Eastern Border Transportation Coalition.) The
    studies show heavy flows of traffic between rural areas and adjacent
    metro areas, and have provided us with a new understanding of the
    interdependence of rural and metropolitan areas in the northeast.
        We know that rural travelers are much more dependent on highways
    than other modes of transportation and as a result transportation
    management is different in rural areas than in urban areas. Where urban
    transportation issues generally relate to congestion management, short
    trips to work, shopping or amenities, in rural areas the percentage of
    long distance trips is higher, congestion is spotty, and providing
    accurate and timely traveler information is more important than
    congestion management.
        While it is true we are a very rural State and much of our travel
    is by single occupancy vehicle, we also have continuing needs for
    effective public transit. Admittedly, our public transit delivery
    systems look very different than those in more urban areas. We do have
    traditional fixed route bus systems in our ``urban'' areas and even a
    commuter rail system in Chittenden County. However, much of our public
    transit service is provided by less traditional means such as deviated
    route and demand responsive operations. Indeed, a significant need for
    rural mobility is served in Vermont by a network of volunteer drivers
    providing these essential services to members of the community. The
    need for these services will likely explode in all areas as the baby
    boom generation ages. In my judgment, attention needs to be focused on
    the administrative operations surrounding the delivery of these
    programs.
        Safety considerations are different in rural areas than urban
    areas. As John Horsley noted, about 60 percent of all fatal crashes
    occur in rural areas, where it is much more difficult to get crash
    victims to emergency care within the ``golden hour'' due to sparse
    communication infrastructure and a more dispersed emergency responders.
    A new source of funding is needed across the board to help address
    safety issues on rural roads. Weather sometimes has an increased
    significance in rural areas because severe weather can close down rural
    routes or cause significant delays. Rural agencies must keep many miles
    of transportation infrastructure functioning with comparatively thin-
    spread resources.
        Here in Vermont the environment is an important aspect of our
    quality of life. We must continue to work together--the States, the
    U.S. DOT, and the Congress--to improve the stewardship of our
    environment. We must continue to look at ways to continue to speed up
    projects. I believe the environmental process can be made better with
    better results for our environment and project schedules.
        I mention these points because the majority of the land area in
    Vermont and the northeast is rural--72 percent of the land area in the
    northeast has no metropolitan population areas of 250,000 or above. Yet
    28 percent of the population in the northeast live in rural areas.
        As I said earlier, Vermont is a small State with limited resources.
    The State owns and operates 10 small, regional airports, and owns about
    half of the 740 miles of railroad tracks that crisscross the State. We
    believe rail will play an increasing role in our transportation future,
    both in the movement of passengers and freight. If we are to grow our
    rail program we must deal with rail-highway crossings. Grade separation
    is key in order to achieve higher speed rail and safety. However, grade
    separation is costly and here in Vermont beyond our reach without
    Federal assistance.
        Our ability to raise revenues for transportation projects is
    limited by our population and commercial base, and consequently we rely
    heavily on Federal funding sources. Our total transportation budget for
    fiscal 2003 is $332.2 million, of which $156.3 million is in Federal
    dollars. Consequently, flexibility is important to us because it allows
    us to move funds to match our transportation needs.
        Our mission is: to maintain a transportation system that allows for
    the safe ' movement of people and goods in a cost-efficient,
    environmentally sensitive, and timely manner. Our ability to fulfill
    that mission is being impacted by several large projects. These
    ``large'' projects are necessary, but they are draining our resources
    and in the process forcing us to delay projects essential to our
    mission. As a result, we have about $109 million worth of projects that
    are permitted and ready for construction but are sitting on the
    ``shelf'' because we have not been able to identify a source of funds.
    While $109 million may not seem like a lot of money at the national
    level, remember our total transportation budget for fiscal 2003 is
    $332.3 million. And I might add that here in Vermont a large or
    ``mega'' project is NOT the Big Dig in Boston or the Woodrow Wilson
    Bridge. We are talking about $42 million for the Alburg-Swanton Bridge
    over Mississquoi Bay; $100 million for the Bennington by-pass; or $80
    million for the next two phases of the Chittenden County
    Circumferential Highway (Route 289).
        Parts of our Interstate system are over 40 years old and in need of
    repair. A recent needs assessment of Vermont's 320 miles of the
    Eisenhower Interstate System showed an investment of $74 million was
    needed just to bring the system up to Federal standards. Simply put, we
    cannot afford that kind of investment and meet our other commitments/
    needs on our.NHS and State highway, systems. Vermont is not alone.
    Other States have similar interstate problems and needs. In my
    judgment, the time has come for the Congress to make another
    significant investment; to repair and upgrade the Interstate system,
    similar to the investment that was made in the 50's, 60's, and 70's to
    build the Interstates.
        As the Congress works toward reauthorizatiion of TEA-21, I hope you
    will maintain the course set by ISTEA and sustained in TEA-21 by
    continuing to recognize that all States are different, that it is the
    diversity of the States viewed as a whole that makes our country so
    great. I urge you to retain the existing structure of TEA-2 1.
    Improvements can be made, but the fundamental structure is sound and
    should be preserved. Flexibility is important to us. Vermont's
    smallness provides us with some unique opportunities to do things that
    larger States might not be able to accomplish. Funding is still the
    key, and I would urge you to authorize the maximum level of Federal
    investment possible. Funding mechanisms, including guaranteed funding
    levels and annual adjustments to those levels, should be continued to
    achieve congressional intent that all available funds be invested in
    transportation improvements. Just as ISTEA and T'EA-21 made significant
    strides in growing the program, the next surface transportation bill
    must provide new sources of revenues so we can jointly meet the
    challenges facing the States and the Nation as a whole.

                                   __________
     Statement of Richard Pembroke, Chairman, Committee on Transportation,
                              Vermont Legislature

        Thank you, Senator Jeffords, for this opportunity to testify before
    your committee. And thank you, Secretary Jackson, for traveling to
    Vermont to hear about the challenges we face.
        My name is Dick Pembroke and I am the corporate founder of the
    Pembroke Landscaping Company in Bennington, Vermont. For the past 16
    years, I have also represented Bennington in the Vermont Legislature,
    from a district that comprises a constituency of two incorporated
    villages within the Town of Bennington who have the same infrastructure
    needs. I have been a member of the House Transportation Committee
    throughout that time, serving as chairman since 1993, and at the
    request of leadership from both sides of the aisle.
        The toughest part of my job as chairman is distributing dollars
    among the many competing transportation needs in Vermont. Looking back,
    I think that we have been able to do that in a fair and productive way,
    and we have used the planning provisions of the Federal law to get the
    job done. The direction of that law--to emphasizing planning from the
    bottom up--was definitely the right decision.
        Of course, there was never enough money. Recognizing this, we set
    out early in my tenure to eliminate low priority projects. This was a
    painful process. Every project has a champion. But we were able to make
    these choices by working through Vermont's network of regional planning
    commissions and advisory committees. They were the key then and they
    continue to be central to our efforts today.
        Even with this ``pruning'' of low priority projects our needs'
    still far exceed our available funding. As a result of this success of
    the project manager system which we directed the agency to institute,
    and taking advantage of the advanced construction provisions of the
    Federal law, I leave my chairmanship with enough ``shelf projects'' to
    consume a year's worth of Vermont Federal appropriation. Each year, we
    must decide on the allocation of transportation dollars--both Federal
    and State--among the various modes. Between maintenance operations,
    system preservation and expansion, I have used the agency's long-range
    Transportation Plan to guide this effort.
        In my part of the State, the Bennington area in Southwestern
    Vermont, we have nearly completed the first phase of what will become
    the Bennington Bypass. Re-routing two national highway system roads out
    of our City Center, improving traffic flow and relieving unbearable
    congestion from the downtown.
        After many years of planning and design, we have also begun
    critical safety improvements on the main east-west highway through
    Southern Vermont. This project will save lives and improve commerce.
        We have improved a key segment of rail line, linking the area to
    the highly active rail corridor serving Albany, New York and the
    nation's rail network. We are now working with Amtrack and our New York
    neighbors to secure service to the Bennington and Manchester area. Our
    long-term goal is to improve both freight and passenger rail up and
    down the west side of the State.
        We have also used the generous provisions of the Federal Highway
    bills to expand public transportation. In my tenure we have established
    seamless interconnecting routes that go from the Massachusetts Line in
    Pownal to Rutland and points north. Several other routes statewide have
    been established or are about to be.
        I would encourage you as you prepare to put together the re-
    authorization bill that you garner every possible dollar that is
    entitled to transportation in order that Vermont and its fellow States
    have the opportunity to attempt to bring our infrastructure up to par.
    I do not have to tell you that our interstate system as well as
    nationwide is 40-plus years old and needs major attention. I ask you to
    refrain from ancillary programs and concentrate on making it affordable
    and less restrictive as possible. Our local communities are in the same
    predicament and look for State help. More Federal authorization would
    accommodate our ability to offer them assistance.
        Ultimately, our goal in the Legislature, and the agency's goal, is
    to get things done for Vermont, delivering projects that respect
    neighboring property owners, businesses, local communities and the
    environment. This has been a challenge. We have had success by bringing
    all of the players together and focusing on what's good for Vermont.
        A few weeks ago, I announced my intent to retire from the Vermont
    Legislature. I do so with a sense of accomplishment and in the
    knowledge that many important transportation improvements are under
    way. I thank you Senator Jeffords for those kind words you entered into
    the congressional Record on my behalf on my announcement.
        New commuter air routes have been established not only at the
    Burlington International, but Rutland as well, the State's second
    largest city, and major improvements in various other State airports
    that contribute to much-needed economic development.
        My work on transportation has been among the most satisfying
    experiences I have ever had. Without the Federal partnership, we could
    not have made the progress that I have described. As for the future, we
    will need an increase in resources, from all sources, if we are able to
    meet our responsibilities to the traveling public.
        Senator Jeffords, you have been a great friend of transportation in
    this State. I am very encouraged to have you chairing the Environment
    and Public Works Committee for the reauthorization process. I know that
    you will advance Vermont's interests.
        Mr. Secretary, I am glad that you have been able to hear from
    Vermonters today about the challenges we face, and I do not envy your
    challenge as you fight for scarce dollars.
        In closing, I would emphasize that if you feel I can be of
    assistance at any time as you seek the prize, please do not hesitate to
    call. Paraphrasing General MacArthur's comments, ``Old soldiers never
    die; they just fade away,'' I do not intend to die and I surely am not
    going to fade away.
        Thank you for this opportunity to testify.

                                   __________

               Statement of Richard Mazza, Vermont State Senator

        Thank you, Senator Jeffords, for inviting me to testify here today.
        And, welcome to Vermont, Senator Smith and Secretary Jackson. You
    have given us a wonderful opportunity to describe the challenge of
    providing transportation services in a rural State.
        My name is Dick Mazza. I own and operate Mazza's General Store, a
    market that has been in business in Colchester, Vermont for 48 years.
        Since 1984, I have also represented Chittenden and Grand Isle
    County in the Vermont State Senate. I have been a member of the Senate
    Transportation Committee throughout that time, serving as Chairman for
    the last 12 years.
        As you know, Senator Jeffords, the State of Vermont has entered a
    difficult financial period. We are facing a budget deficit of some $39
    Million. This is a significant amount for a State of our size. And I
    know that other States, and the Nation as a whole, are experiencing
    similar problems.
        I raise this because it places our transportation issues in an
    important context. Vermont's revenues are directly tied to the strength
    of its economy. And our economy--our businesses, my business--is
    directly reliant on our transportation system.
        But when times are tough, and when human needs are greatest, it is
    tempting to cut back on transportation spending.
        This year in the legislature, we reduced our paving program by half
    from last year's. Just this week, a joint legislative fiscal committee
    considered additional transportation cuts. Interstate rest areas,
    public transit routes and town highway grants are all on the chopping
    block.
        We all know that a transportation investments create jobs. We can
    see the paving crews on our highways and the driver on the bus. But
    beyond these direct benefits, improved transportation moves the people
    and goods that power our economy.
        The State's leading private employer is IBM. Access to their
    facility in Chittenden County today leaves much to be desired. We have
    both highway and rail improvements programmed to improve the situation,
    but at great cost. Yet, this investment in our economic future is vital
    to our State.
        Our economy relies heavily on interstate trade and travel.
    Interstate 89 and 91 are the lifeline for much of the State. We face
    enormous reconstruction and repair costs on the Interstate.
        Vermont's northern border with Canada has felt the effects of NAFTA
    and its attendant growth in freight movement. International freight
    also moves through Vermont from neighboring New York. Replacement of
    the Mississquoi Bay Bridge, at a staggering cost by Vermont standards,
    is essential to support our international trade.
        Perhaps the most difficult investment challenge in these tight
    times is our renewal of Vermont's railroads.
        I like to think of the nation's great achievement--the Interstate
    Highway System--as our model for rail redevelopment. We built the
    Interstate in segments, but with a fully developed system as our
    ultimate goal. In Vermont, we have taken a similar approach with rail.
        But we need a Federal partner in this major undertaking. We need to
    see continued support for a national passenger rail network. Vermont
    will do its part. And we need the freedom to use our Federal
    transportation dollars to revitalize rail.
        Let me close by again thanking you, Senator Smith for taking time
    out of your campaign to join us here today. Vermont and New Hampshire
    really do have much in common.
        To Secretary Jackson, and through you to Secretary Norman Mineta, I
    appreciate your efforts to manage our nation's transportation program
    in the face of the financial and security problems that confront us
    all.
        And finally, Senator Jeffords, let me thank you again for your
    years of service to our State. It gives me great confidence to know
    that you are at the helm in Washington.

                                   __________

    Statement of Thomas Adler, Matthew Coogan, and Thomas Horan, on Behalf
          of New England Transportation Institute and Museum's Rural
                         Transportation Learning Center

    Background
        Beginning around 1850, rail transportation emerged as a dominant
    mode for both personal and freight transportation in rural New England.
    Railroads shaped rural centers such as White River Junction, Vermont,
    Lebanon, New Hampshire and many other communities throughout the
    region. Just as the railroads affected the development of rural
    communities, so too have automobiles and trucks. Trails and paths were
    widened and resurfaced to accommodate these new vehicles and a
    tremendous investment was made to construct new highways. As a result
    of that investment, Vermont and nine other rural States now comprise
    the top ten in paved roadway miles per capita. For many residents of
    these rural States, the roadways have provided increased mobility and
    that increased mobility has in turn caused profound changes in the
    physical and economic structure of rural communities.
        While this mobility created new economic opportunities for rural
    regions, it also resulted in growth and development spreading away from
    the compact town centers that had grown up around rail stations and,
    instead, along highways into the rural lands. And, our investment in
    highways and resulting shifts in development patterns has indirectly
    resulted in a significant reduction in the amount of public
    transportation service provided within rural regions and between those
    regions and the major metropolitan centers. For example, passenger rail
    service is now available to only a small fraction of the many train
    stations that once served rural communities.
        The landmark ISTEA and TEA-21 transportation authorizations
    recognized the need to develop and maintain transportation alternatives
    to the private automobile and rural regions have actively pursued these
    alternatives. Vermont has both maintained AMTRAK service in the State
    and has initiated a regional rail service in the Burlington area. New
    Hampshire and Maine have successfully restored Boston to Portland rail
    service. And, there are numerous rural transit services that provide
    both safety-net and general public transportation. ISTEA and TEA-21
    both funded the development of Intelligent Transportation Systems and
    rural areas have benefited from these technologies.

    Current Rural Transportation Issues
        While ISTEA and TEA-21 have brought benefits to many rural areas,
    it is fair to say that the majority of national research and policy-
    discussion about transportation and community development has focused
    on metropolitan areas. At one level, this is understandable given the
    high concentration of the nation's population in urban areas. At
    another level, however, it is an unfortunate oversight as rural areas
    play an important role in the overall economic, cultural, and
    environmental value of regions and our Nation. As a Nation, we simply
    have not examined the needs of our rural citizens as extensively as we
    have the needs of the citizens of the major metropolitan areas.
        But we do know some basic facts about transportation problems in
    the rural areas of this country. In the 13 Northeastern States, we see
    that our rural citizens have significantly lower levels of household
    income than in those in the more urbanized regions. But, at the same
    time we observe that the rate of auto ownership is significantly higher
    in the rural areas. We know also that our rural citizens have to make
    longer trips and in fact travel about 30 percent more miles than their
    urban counterparts. This translates into the fact that our rural
    citizens spend a far greater proportion of their total income on basic
    transportation and it means that they have less money to spend on other
    necessities such as housing, food, or education. On the other hand, we
    also know that work commuting distances are shorter than the national
    average among residents of the small towns within rural regions and
    that focusing rural development around these traditional town centers
    reduces dependence on automobile travel.
        And, there so much we do not know. We have not properly examined
    the problems of limited mobility among important segments of the rural
    population, particularly as experienced by older citizens, and those
    who do not have access to a car. As the population ages, this will
    become an even more pressing issue for the rural regions.
        Just as railroads and automobiles have had profound impacts on the
    shape of rural communities, new information and communication
    technologies will also significantly affect the ways in which these
    communities develop in the future. We have already seen new types of
    economic clusters forming in rural New England around information-
    oriented businesses. These businesses in turn have new and very
    different transportation needs.
        Our region is fortunate to have intercity rail, bus and air
    services that connect our rural areas to the major metropolitan areas.
    But, planning a trip by combinations of bus, rail, and even air simply
    cannot be accomplished at any one location. One important strategy to
    deal with rural mobility is to help travelers understand just what
    combinations of services are available. Every major Nation in Europe
    has a program to help its citizens plan rural trips by modes other than
    the private auto; from a technical point of view, it would be easy to
    apply this technology to our rural areas. In general, complementary
    investments in a multimodal transportation network and in technologies
    to provide information to the users of that network will greatly
    facilitate new economic activities as well as tourism and the other
    traditional parts of northern New England's rural economy.

    The Rural Transportation Learning Center
        The primary goal of the Rural Transportation Learning Center is
    heighten the level of policy, technical, and cultural learning relating
    to rural transportation and its impact on communities and regions. Its
    focus is both regional and national, aiming to explore our regional,
    past, present and future as a means to inform the national
    understanding on rural transportation and its relationship to national
    economic, social and environmental goals.
        The Center is achieving this vision through three spheres of
    activities that are organized around programs of the New England
    Transportation Institute and Museum (NETIM): first, the Museum, uses
    historical resources and scholarly study to understand how
    transportation has affected rural regions; second, the Institute
    conducts research to identify emerging trends and technologies and to
    explore ways of using transportation to facilitate the economic,
    cultural and environmental quality of rural communities, and, finally,
    the larger public is brought into the learning process through the
    Museum's many outreach programs and by its excursion railroad.
        Woven throughout these activities is the philosophy that history
    and research can inform our future. We can go ``back to the future'',
    by exploiting the best of our contemporary knowledge, technologies, and
    processes to create a rural transportation system that embodies the
    best of rural community history and character. As an example, the
    Center is especially interested in researching ways of using the new
    information infrastructure to enhance the use of our intermodal
    facilities as well as help grow local economies. In this research
    program, it will be working with several prominent researchers
    (including Thomas Horan, Lee Munnich and Mathew Coogan) to develop a
    national model for how information technologies can assist in making
    regional intermodal travel to and from our towns and recreational areas
    a seamless and safe experience. Moreover, it will be looking at
    extending this use of technology to encourage ``rural knowledge
    clusters'' of workers in rural areas through teleworking and other
    ``smart travel'' means. The Center will complement this research with
    reviews of how demographic and economic trends may affect future rural
    transportation programs.
        While the Center's research extends into the future, it continues
    down an aggressive path to preserve the past through plans to purchase
    historic transportation facilities in White River Junction. Our
    objective is to preserve the historical character of these facilities
    and environs, so that visitors can have a grounded experience on the
    vital role that transportation plays in communities. We expect NETIM to
    be visited by Vermonters, New Englanders, and national and
    international research guests. Our program encompasses exhibitions,
    seminar series and, in the future, summer institutes. This program is
    detailed in Attachment A.

                                  CONCLUSIONS

        The transportation needs of rural areas are different from those of
    urban areas and, in general, have not been studied to the same extent.
    The coming surface transportation re-authorization represents a unique
    opportunity to ensure that rural transportation needs are analyzed and
    addressed in ways that enhance the economic vitality, environmental
    quality and quality of life in rural communities.

                              SELECTED REFERENCES

        Matthew A. Coogan, ``Rural Mobility Issues: Dealing with Isolation
    through Passenger Information,'' ITS America Annual Meeting, Long Beach
    California, April 2002.
        Matthew A. Coogan ``Rural Mobility Issues, Understanding the
    Coalition Region'' Keynote Presentation at the Rural Exchange Forum,
    sponsored by the University of Massachusetts and the I-95 Corridor
    Coalition, Amherst, MA, March 2002.
        Lee Munnich and Greg Schrock, ``Rural Knowledge Clusters: The
    Challenge of Rural Economic Prosperity.'' SLPP Staff Working Paper
    (March 2002), forthcoming in Norman Walzer (editor), Managing Change
    During Transition: Issues Facing the Rural Midwest. University of
    Minnesota Press, 2002.
        Matthew A. Coogan, ``statewide Mobility Issues,'' Keynote
    Presentation, Vermont Mobility Summit, Vermont Commission on
    Rehabilitation, Montpelier, Vermont, December 2001.
        Matthew A. Coogan, ``Passenger Travel in the I-95 Corridor
    Coalition Region: Where do we travel? How do we travel? and Why?''
    Published on the Web by the I-95 Corridor Coalition, Intermodal Program
    Track Committee, October 2001.
        Thomas Horan, ``Rural Telematics: Opportunities and Challenges'',
    Presentation at 2001 Rural Advanced Technology and Transportation
    Systems Conference, Burlington, Vermont, August 25, 2001.
        Matthew A. Coogan, ``Beyond the MPO, Looking for Models of
    Collaboration'' Keynote Presentation at the Rural Advanced Technology
    and Transportation Systems Conference, Burlington, Vermont, August
    2001.
        Thomas Horan, Hank Dittmar, and Daniel Jordan, D. `` ISTEA and the
    New Era of Transportation Policy `` in D. Mazmanian and M. Kraft (EDS).
    Toward Sustainable Communities: Transitions and Transformations in
    Environmental Policy. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1999.
        Thomas J. Adler and Craig Leiner, ``Traffic Effects of Creating a
    City Center in a Suburban Community,'' in Proceedings of the Institute
    of Transportation Engineers Annual Meeting, ITE, Washington D. C.,
    1991.
        Thomas J. Adler, S. Tahmosh and M. Burton, ``Low Density Transit
    Planning Package,'' distributed by U.S. DOT, February 1984.
        Thomas J. Adler and Yorgos Stephanedes, ``Forecasting Experiments
    for Rural Transit Policymakers,'' Transportation Research Record #718,
    Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1979.

                                  ATTACHMENT A

    Summary
        The Rural Transportation Learning Center (RTLC) provides a
    comprehensive set of regional and national programs to examine past,
    current, and future trends in rural transportation especially as
    relates to improving community economic vitality. The demonstration
    component of the learning center includes establishment of an
    interactive and excursion center in White River Junction and
    surrounding Vermont and New Hampshire communities. The learning program
    includes seminars, summer institutes and outreach activities about
    rural transportation and community needs to learners of all ages. The
    research program examines demographic, economic and technological
    dimensions to rural travel and strategies for community development.
    RTLC is managed by the New England Transportation Institute and Museum
    (NETIM), a non-profit corporation.

    Mission
        The mission of the Rural Transportation Learning Center (RTLC) is
    to enhance regional and national understanding of the role of
    transportation in creating economically vibrant rural communities. RTLC
    aims to fill a critical void in national transportation policy by
    identifying major demographic, economic, and technology influences on
    transportation and rural communities. The center informs students,
    citizens, scholars, and policymakers through a range of learning
    programs, seminars, excursions, and research initiatives.

    Themes
        The mission of RTLC's is pursued through three programmatic themes:
    Learning From the Past, Understanding the Present, and Contributing to
    the Future.
        Learning from the Past: Befitting RTLC's location at the NETIM
    museum, a key feature of the learning center is to enhance the museum
    to provide a comprehensive, interactive set of exhibits, excursions and
    seminars on the historic role of transportation in the development or
    rural regions. A range of historical essays and multimedia projects
    will document historical elements for use in educational settings, from
    k-12 through universities.
        Understanding the Present: The changing economic and demographic
    landscape of rural regions has profound implications on the nature,
    form, possibility for rural transportation system to improve community
    and economic vitality. Recent U.S. Census (2000) and National Household
    Travel Survey (2002) data provide a timely opportunity to develop a
    comprehensive understanding of changes in rural-interregional travel,
    lifestyle trends, and economic developments. Changing demands and
    financing of various modal options (rail, transit, freight) provide a
    concurrent opportunity to analyze new forms of rural and interregional
    travel, including environmentally responsive developments. Community
    surveys provide telling insight to isolation concerns in rural areas
    and the importance of transportation services (e.g. for employment,
    health-care) in reducing a sense of isolation, especially among elderly
    residents.

    Contributing to the Future
        Recent small business and knowledge worker migrations provide new
    opportunities for ``rural economic clusters'' of firms and workers who
    want to engage in knowledge work while enjoying the quality of life in
    rural regions. Technologies such as wireless communication systems and
    intelligent transportation systems can enhance mobility and safety
    services if properly implemented and supported through community
    outreach. Research is needed to create innovative technological and
    community systems that can support rural access and viability within
    the unique fiscal constraints of rural regions. Similarly, new Advanced
    Traveler Information System technology, now commonly applied to urban
    areas, can be adapted to and applied to the needs of citizens of rural
    areas.

    Program Organization
        The mission and themes of RTLC will be accomplished through a
    series of high priority programs. These programs encompass new
    demonstrations, learning experiences, and research programs.
          Demonstration Program: The demonstrationsite will be
    located in the historic railroad and commercial properties in the towns
    of White River Junction, Vermont and neighboring New Hampshire
    communities in the Upper Connecticut River Valley. This
    demonstrationsite will be restored to host a museum and excursion
    program that will promote community development in these historic towns
    in a way that: 1) preserves the historic integrity and character of
    these adjacent towns that have served together as a transportation and
    commercial center since the construction of the railroad in 1848, 2)
    takes advantage of the Upper Valley's rich educational environment and
    outstanding local museums and transportation experts, 3) provides an
    impetus for community and economic development by both using and
    learning about rural transportation and community challenges.
          Learning Program: The learning program will examine the
    history, contemporary and future trends of rural transportation using a
    variety of educational approaches targeted at a range of learners.
    Interactive exhibits will be established both at the demonstration
    project and online to support education on regional and natural
    transportation issues. A key element of the learning program will be
    seminars and summer institutes to bring together educators,
    policymakers and practitioners to discuss major transportation issues
    related to issues such as the environment, economics, and community
    development.
          Research Program: Underlying the demonstration and
    learning activities will by a dynamic research program. This national
    research program will investigate how community, economic, and
    technology trends are affecting rural communities. Research priorities
    will include a comprehensive assessment of how various transportation
    users (e.g. inter-regional traveler, transit-dependent worker, aging
    traveler) are creating new demands on the rural transportation systems;
    a integrative analysis of ``rural economic clusters'' and the role of
    transportation and telecommunications systems in encouraging this
    economic development; a comparative analysis of how innovative
    intermodal systems could provide seamless linkages between rail, bus
    and auto travel especially for inter-regional travel (including pre-
    trip planning capability), and a infrastructure analysis on the digital
    wireless and wireline infrastructure needed to support ubiquitous
    telework and mobile safety mayday services to residents in rural
    regions. The research program will include an early analysis of the
    results of the USDOT's new National Household Survey (2002) to provide
    a ``first cut'' review of differences between rural, and non-rural
    transportation behavior, emphasizing information newly available from
    the national survey, such as the interrelationship between walking
    patterns and household VMT consumption, particularly in small towns and
    rural areas. A web resource will be established to provide the research
    and policy community with data on rural transportation and related
    economic trends. Research seminar and summer institutes will be
    conducted to share findings of the center with other researchers from
    rural regions in the United States and abroad.

    Management
        RTLC is managed by the New England Transportation Institute and
    Museum (NETIM). NETIM is the successor to the Vermont Railroad Museum,
    which was founded in White River Junction in 1980 for the purpose of
    identifying, collecting, and archiving regional railroading artifacts
    and memorabilia. The Museum obtained and has preserved an historic
    steam engine and organized the annual Glory Days of the Railroad
    festival that draws over 12,000 visitors to White River Junction. Three
    years ago, several professionals in the Upper Valley region of Vermont
    and New Hampshire developed a new vision for the Museum and it was re-
    incorporated as the New England Transportation Institute and Museum
    (NETIM). NETIM's vision includes three components: a transportation
    museum, a transportation institute and a scenic excursion railroad.
        The Museum. The Museum celebrates the region's rich storehouse of
    river, rail, and road history. Its programs include exhibits
    illustrating more than 400 years of transportation history and
    perspectives on the importance of transportation to the region's
    future; displays of transportation memorabilia, artifacts art and
    restored equipment; and educational activities.
        The Institute. The Institute complements the museum's retrospective
    focus with an equally important prospective one, serving as a center to
    bring together the region's many nationally and internationally known
    experts on transportation policy and planning to promote awareness and
    discussion of contemporary transportation issues and influence public
    policy and debate through conferences, exhibits, publications,
    collaborative research and workshops.
        Excursion: The Scenic Excursion Railroad is an opportunity for
    educational experiences as well as a powerful tourist attraction-with
    views of New England's most beautiful river valley opened up to rail
    passengers again after nearly half a century. Its operations will give
    a vital impetus to, and enable public educational programs about, the
    restoration and maintenance of historic railroad engines and rolling
    stock.
        With support from a Fairchild Foundation grant, the Museum was
    opened about a year ago in the historic White River Junction train
    station, between the new Vermont Welcome Center and the AMTRAK
    terminal. Under the leadership of Dr. Norman Miller, an internationally
    renowned anthropologist, the museum has rapidly built its collection,
    has attracted over several thousand visitors and has conducted scores
    of educational programs.
        The Institute sponsors a series of seminars featuring nationally
    known transportation planning professionals. The seminars are attended
    by many of the 70 transportation consultants in this region as well as
    other professionals from throughout New Hampshire and Vermont. One of
    the first seminars was given by Prof. Thomas Horan from Claremont,
    California, a national expert on the effects of transportation and
    telecommunications on rural travel and development. In the roundtable
    discussion following his seminar, the unique transportation issues
    facing rural areas were discussed and the Rural Transportation Learning
    Center was launched as a formal program to address some of those
    issues.

                                   __________

      Statement of Debbie Ricker, L&D Safety Marking and Worksafe Traffic
                               Control Industries

        I'm Debbie Ricker and I am one of the owners and founders of L&D
    Safety Marking and Worksafe Traffic Control Industries with my sister
    and husband. We have been in the highway safety business since 1985.
    Our companies provide pavement markings and highway sign installation
    services as well as manufacture and sell signs, traffic safety
    equipment and supplies. We employ 35-45 people and pay livable wages
    with an extensive benefit package. Our corporate office in located in
    Berlin, Vermont and we have divisions in Bow, NH and Hallowell Maine.
    Our company like many other AGC member companies are small family owned
    business some in second and third generation so we have a very stong
    interest and roots in the wonderful State. I would like to start by
    thanking you Chairman Jeffords and the Committee for bringing their
    hearing to Vermont.
        While accounting practices for private corporations may be the
    topic of concern in Congress today, the accounting practices for State
    and local governments will inevitably be the focus in the future as
    Governmental Accounting Standards require more accountability for the
    condition of, and the maintenance of roads, bridges and other public
    assets that taxpayers have invested billions of dollars in over the
    years. I specifically refer to the Government Accounting Standards
    Board, Rule 34 that defines ``generally accepted accounting
    principles'' for State and local governments. GASB 34 requires
    governments to include long-lived infrastructure assets in their annual
    financial statements starting with fiscal year 2002.
        To properly account for infrastructure assets, governments must
    develop an asset management plan which at a minimum should identify the
    condition of pavements, structures, and facilities. That plan should
    include deterioration rates for those assets so that a determination
    can be made for the annual funds necessary to maintain those assets at
    a recommended level of performance.
        This whole issue of asset management is important to getting the
    optimum level of results from the expenditures we make in maintaining
    our infrastructure. In short ``Getting the Biggest Bang For The Buck''.
    This has been a critical issue in government, more so than business,
    because of the tendency to balance the budget by deferring essential
    maintenance since State and local governments are very infrastructure-
    intensive.
        Here in Vermont, because we are a small State with limited
    resources we have relied heavily on Federal funds to meet our
    infrastructure needs. However, because we are a State with an aging
    infrastructure in a cold climate our needs are greater than both
    existing Federal and State resources can satisfy, so asset management
    is all the more critical to us in getting the dollars applied properly
    to our infrastructure. But more dollars both State and Federal are
    needed to catch up to basic needs.
        As for our aging infrastructure: Former Governor Madeline Kunin
    initiated ``Bridge 2000'' in 1988 to repair and replace 454
    structurally deficient bridges identified at that time. We have
    approximately 2,700 bridge structures in Vermont. In 1988 The Vermont
    Agency of Transportation estimated that it would cost 1.6 billion
    dollars over a 10-year period to repair those 454 structurally
    deficient bridges. Today with more than 550 structurally deficient
    bridges in Vermont the cost (including inflation) will more than double
    in that area alone. In addition the Interstate Highway System in
    Vermont which is well over 30 years old is now in need of rebuilding in
    many sections. Bridge replacements need to be constructed and over 100
    million dollars in culvert work is required on the Interstate alone.
    That's not including the estimated eight to ten thousand or more
    culverts on the State and local systems that will eventually need
    replacement. A report jointly authored by the FHWA and VT AOT recently
    sited the need to spend 74 million dollars annually on maintenance and
    repair of the 320 mile interstate in VT. Vermont is only funding 20
    million dollars on those repairs, clearly one fourth of what is
    required. It has gotten so bad on the Interstate that one of our AGC
    member companies doing a basic culvert repair recently discovered a 7
    cubic yard void directly under the under the travel pavement of
    Interstate 89 in Williston. This area of the Interstate is a heavily
    traveled thoroughfare and a pavement collapse would have caused serious
    injury and perhaps death, which brings me to the issue of safety on our
    roadways.
        Tragically more than 41,000 Americans die and 3.5 million are
    injured in motor vehicle accidents on our highways each year. If the
    average U.S.-crash rate remains unchanged, one child out of every 84
    born today will die violently in a motor vehicle crash. 6 out of very
    10 children will be injured in a highway crash over a lifetime, many of
    them more than once.
        As more people travel more miles on the highways and as the aging
    demographics of our driving population change, significant improvements
    in safe roads are essential to continue our progress in reducing
    highway fatalities and injuries.
        In July of this year the GAO released a report that showed that
    although 40 percent of all vehicle miles are traveled on rural roads,
    about 60 percent of the traffic accident fatalities that occurred from
    1999-2001 took place on rural roads.
        When adjusted for vehicles miles traveled, the fatality form
    accidents on rural roads is nearly 2.5 times greater that the
    fatalities from accidents on urban roads.
        Some of the factors contributing to these statistics are driver
    impaired issues such as drivers under the influence, tourists or
    drivers not familiar with the area, parents with active children in the
    car, drivers on medication, fatigued drivers, emotionally stressed
    drivers, and the growing number of older drivers. In addition to these
    hazards Vermont has additional issues. Being a rural State Vermont has
    winding and narrow roadways with many seasonal and weather related
    hazards. In the winter we travel more night hours with reduced
    visibility from fog, rain, snow, and ice. These elements are very hard
    on our infrastructure and require higher cost maintenance.
        While national statistics show that the overall number of traffic
    fatalities has dropped by 9 percent overall due to safer cars, air bags
    and various other devices there are two areas showing increased
    fatalities. Those increases occurred in the over 65 aged population and
    in work zones. The number of fatalities in people over 70 has increased
    by 39 percent over the last 10 years. Nearly one in five drivers by
    2020 will be age 65 or older.
        In Vermont, The Road Informationsites the following statistics:

            TRIP Shows Vermont                 1989              19991

    Drivers 70 and above killed in                      6                  8
     traffic accidents................
    Drivers 70 and above involved in                    8                 11
     traffic accidents................

    Work zone Fatalities Statistics

               Total of 21 Vermont fatalities in the last 8 years

    2001...............................................  3
    2000...............................................  2
    1999...............................................  3
    1998...............................................  1
    1997...............................................  6
    1996...............................................  1
    1995...............................................  4
    1994...............................................  1

        As our nations population continues to age in the years ahead it
    will be increasingly important that we make the kind of roadway safety
    improvements that can help reduce accidents and save lives. While
    improved transit service has a role to play, it is important to focus
    on roadway safety improvements because 92 percent of all surface travel
    by older citizens takes place in motor vehicles. Highway travel by
    persons 70 and over is increasing at a faster rate than travel by other
    Americans.
        Other important points to note include:

          Fatalities in workzones have increased over 50 percent in
    recent years to reach an all time high of 1093 deaths in year 2000.
          77 percent of all fatalities occur on 2 lane roads. Poor
    roadway infrastructure is a factor in 30 percent of these fatalities.

        Which gets me back to the issue of funding and asset management.
        In a State with limited resources Vermont must make some tough
    decision when it comes to capital spending. The need to fix or repair
    what already exists in Vermont's infrastructure inventory is mind-
    boggling. With 1,000 dams statewide, over 324 public school buildings,
    15 technical centers, 2700 long bridges, 14,000 miles of roadway, 320
    miles of Interstate, 2,370 miles of State highway, 11,210 miles of
    municipal roads and 16 public use airports, it is easy to understand
    the extent of maintenance and repair required. Add to that list new
    initiatives of recent years in public transportation, recreation paths,
    rail freight and commuter rail and the enormity of the up-keep problem
    is compounded.
        Vermont faces a major decision: invest in repairs and
    rehabilitation of the existing infrastructure on an annual basis or
    replace major parts of the system at a much greater cost in the years
    to come. A properly planned ``Asset Management Program'' will help set
    priorities.
        Adequate annual funding of Vermont infrastructure will do much to
    improve safety for our traveling public and will have a positive effect
    on Vermont's economy as well.
        Transportation represents 11 percent of the American economy. As a
    share of the Gross Domestic Product, transportation has held study at
    just under 11 percent since 1989. Transportation construction is a $160
    billion a year industry that employs more than 1.6 million people.
    Every $1 billion invested in the nation's transportation infrastructure
    creates approximately 35,000 jobs. Public investment spurs private
    investment and in Vermont where we've lost over 8,000 jobs in the last
    year we will need all the help we can get.
        The U.S. Dept of Labor contends for every dollar spent on
    construction activity there will be a $2.75 return to the economy. The
    Council of State Governments states that every dollar invested in the
    highway system yields $2.60 in economic benefits with every billion
    invested producing 42,000 jobs. In short this means we can maintain
    what we have and fuel the economy so that resources are available for
    other non-construction related programs to benefit the society.
    Franklin Roosevelt recognized this economic reality when in the depth
    of the depression he created the WPA (Works Project Administration) and
    the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corp.) putting millions of unemployed
    Americans to work on public projects nationwide. He knew that
    construction drives the economy. And whether it is new construction in
    the fastest growing States of America or reconstruction and
    rehabilitation in less populated States like Vermont the result is the
    same. People are put to work, construction businesses are able to stay
    in business and both are able to pay their taxes necessary for
    government to provide for other needs in society. Jobs, safety,
    economic development are all a by-product of funding infrastructure
    improvements. Its an investment we need to continue .

                                   __________

      Statement of Paul Bruhn, Executive Director, Preservation Trust of
                                    Vermont

        It's a great privilege and pleasure to be here today, especially
    because Federal and State transportation policy has made great progress
    in terms of its recognition of the impact our transportation dollars
    have on the vitality of our communities. This new approach has meant
    that new voices are included in the decisionmaking process.
        I represent the Preservation Trust of Vermont, one of those new
    voices. Let me explain a bit about who we are and what we do.
        At the beginning of 2000, National Geographic's Traveler Magazine
    published a special Millennium issue . . . The World's 50 Greatest
    Destinations. It recognized the Grand Canyon, the Great Wall in China,
    Venice, and the Lake District in England as places of a lifetime . . .
    special places you wouldn't want to miss if you had the choice. In
    North America just nine places were designated . . . and Vermont was
    one of them.
        Living and working in one of the world's 50 best places is a great
    thing. We now have the challenge of making sure Vermont is still on the
    list 50 and 100 years from now. In sum, that's the work of the
    Preservation Trust. It's not about pickling the State. It is about
    growing and changing in ways that do not undermine the essential
    character of Vermont, our communities, and our landscape. We're
    passionate about building strong downtowns and community centers, and
    putting our rich collection of historic resources to good use. We
    appreciate the small-scale nature of Vermont, and understand that mega-
    sized solutions are often like fingernails scratching a chalkboard. We
    work collaboratively with community groups, local officials, other
    statewide organizations, State government, and national organizations
    like the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
        Before discussing some specific thoughts and suggestions, let me go
    back to my initial comments.
        The enactment of ISTEA in 1991 and TEA-21 in 1998 has encouraged an
    important transformation within State agencies of transportation
    nationwide. There has been a broadening of their mission from the
    important one of building roads for safe and efficient movement of cars
    and trucks to acknowledging the significant impact that transportation
    projects have on people and communities. This culture shift was due in
    no small part to the enhancements program and it is important that the
    enhancements program be continued and strengthened.
        In Vermont, building efficient and safe roads and highways still
    rightly remains the primary focus of the Vermont Agency of
    Transportation, but that is now balanced with an acknowledgement of the
    critical role transportation projects play in defining where we live
    and work and what the Vermont landscape looks like. Historically
    communities were built where the roads, navigable rivers or railroads
    went. And they have declined just as quickly when circumstances changed
    and that transportation mode or route was bypassed or discontinued. The
    link between how we build or modify our transportation infrastructure
    and the economic and social viability of our village centers and
    downtowns is just as strong today. ISTEA provided the opportunity for
    us to develop design standards that more closely relate to Vermont 's
    needs and scale. The Enhancement Program has supported community-
    created projects that have improved our special places for residents
    and visitors alike. Continued progress in transportation policy and
    implementation will help us ensure that Vermont is still on the 50
    Greatest Destinations list 50 years from now. And, it will help rural
    places and small communities in every State continue to be the special
    places they are.

    New Design Standards
        New transportation policy made it possible for us to develop our
    own design standards which help ensure that highway projects are
    compatible with their surroundings. The ``Vermont State Standards for
    the Design of Transportation Construction, Reconstruction, and
    Rehabilitation of Freeways, Roads, and Streets'' were developed in a
    partnership process by a committee of government transportation,
    environmental, and economic representatives and private design
    professionals. The Standards were adopted and made effective in
    November 1997.
        These State Standards encourage engineers to take more into
    consideration than just mobility and safety (which are the sole
    considerations in the AASHTO standards). There is substantial guidance
    in the Standards on what environmental, historic, and community factors
    to take into consideration in designing roads and improvements.
        The Standards make significant departures from the AASHTO Standards
    in the recommended design characteristics for all classes of highway
    without need of a design exception from FHWA. This has freed designers
    to deal more sensitively with historic buildings and environmentally
    sensitive areas. The Design Speed for a road may be the Posted Speed so
    that a road is not required to be designed much ``faster'' than the
    legal speed (AASHTO roads are regularly designed 10-20 miles per hour
    faster than posted speeds, encouraging traffic to greatly exceed posted
    speeds). Recommended roadway and bridge typicals are reduced for all
    roadway classes except freeways and principal arterials, allowing
    roads, shoulders, and clear zones to be smaller on all but the most
    traveled roads. Roads through Vermont's rural villages are allowed to
    be treated with ``Urban'' treatments, so that rather than dividing a
    village in two, a highway can be ``slower,'' more pedestrian friendly,
    and less disruptive of community life. On the least traveled roads
    (Collectors and Local Roads) historic bridges can be retained and
    rehabilitated or similarly scaled replacements built without
    substantial rebuilding and widening of the roadway and approaches.
        Although the new Standards have not eliminated all controversy
    about highway design, the majority of controversies now are about
    taking a tree rather than filling a wetland or demolishing a historic
    building, or are about new demands for environmental protection made
    since the Standards were adopted, such as increasing buffers near
    streams from 50' to 100'.

    Enhancements
        The transportation enhancements program has been one of ISTEA's
    truly outstanding success stories--one that has encouraged communities
    throughout America to make use of the program's 12 activities to
    improve the aesthetics and amenities associated with travel and with
    highways, and also to build new and better partnerships with State
    transportation agencies.
        We're eager to have the program reauthorized, essentially in its
    present form and strengthened. Vermont is one of those States that has
    done a truly outstanding job of making the most of its transportation
    enhancements dollars. Vermont has won accolades from the National Trust
    for Historic Preservation and a coveted award of excellence from the
    American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
        Vermont and several other States have particularly excelled in
    taking advantage of the 12 activities, especially the ones that relate
    to historic preservation and the revitalization of streetscapes and
    other transportation aspects of towns and villages. Unfortunately, many
    States still do not seem to appreciate the enormous good that it is
    possible to do for historic resources that are related to travel and
    transportation. I hope that the Environment and Public Works Committee
    can find ways to encourage these reluctant States to do more
    preservation work with their enhancement funds and to task the Federal
    Highway Administration to take steps to bring this about.
        Here's some specific information about the program's impact in
    Vermont. First and foremost, you should the fact that enhancements have
    been VERY popular in VT, both under ISTEA and now TEA-21. Initially all
    Enhancement funding was used for Bicycle Paths, but beginning in 1995 a
    selection process of applications from Municipalities and Non-Profits
    for all eligible categories was instituted. Since then over $23,000,000
    has been allocated to 172 local Enhancement projects. Included in this
    amount, the Vermont Legislature in 1999 mandated that an additional
    $2,000,000 in Federal funds (beyond the federally mandated 10 percent
    set aside for Enhancements) be awarded to projects, and in 2000 the
    Legislature mandated that an additional $1,000,000 in wholly State
    funds be dedicated to such projects.
        In Vermont Enhancement funds have been used to construct bike paths
    and new sidewalks, rehabilitate sidewalks and add pedestrian amenities
    in historic downtowns, purchase scenic farm easements, rehabilitate
    historic railroad stations, establish a historic bridge adaptive re-use
    program, rehabilitate covered bridges, conduct archeological studies,
    build visitors centers in small villages and at historic sites, plant
    street trees, erect roadside historic markers, and many other projects.
        The program also leverages greater investment by communities and
    organizations in these types of projects. Enhancement funds require a
    20 percent local match, but match rates overall are about 27 percent,
    and this figure does not include other Federal contributions to many of
    these projects.

    Big Trucks
        Traffic and Trucks on the National Highway system are a big issue
    for many of our communities that are working hard to revitalize their
    downtowns and town centers. Expanding truck traffic often adds to the
    difficult challenges they already face. This is not to say that we do
    not understand the need to move goods and services about. It's really
    about balance. We can't pit community against community in this debate.
    One key step Congress can take is to pass H.R. 3132, the Safe Highways
    and Infrastructure Preservation Act.
        This legislation will freeze truck length and weight on the
    National Highway System, and close loopholes in the law that allow
    overweight trucks. This is a safety issue, and it's about maintaining
    our highway system in a sound fiscal way. In rural places like Vermont,
    we can't afford to rebuild our existing system to accommodate larger
    and larger, and heavier and heavier trucks.

    Interstate Interchanges
        Vermont, like the rest of this country, has been struggling to
    minimize sprawl development that undermines the strength and vitality
    of our downtowns and community centers. Where sprawl has occurred, we
    need to address the impacts of sprawl development attracted to
    interstate exits. We have classic examples occurring outside the
    Burlington area; Williston and Colchester are two examples, where
    traffic regularly backs up on the interstate at those exits. In order
    to protect the integrity of the interstate transportation corridor,
    Vermont has been implementing a unique interstate interchange program
    and policy to both assist towns with resources to manage the growth
    attracted there (such as through access permits, design guidelines and
    local zoning techniques) but also to gain scenic or conservation
    easements on key parcels where development will be problematic.
        The Enhancements Programs need to be an important source of funding
    to achieve the goals of this interchange program, but there are
    impediments in applying the funds for the acquisition of easements
    which make it virtually unworkable. For example: Prior to making
    application to the program, we are permitted only to negotiate an
    option to purchase at a value contingent on a State transportation
    agency-approved appraisal. We cannot negotiate a purchase price or
    conduct the appraisal prior to making application, but must wait until
    being awarded the Enhancements grant. This creates an awkward ``Catch
    22'' in the middle of high stakes real estate negotiation, with high
    values and highly experienced land investors. I hope you will consider
    providing a new approach in the reauthorization bill.
        I wish to close by urging you to strongly oppose any proposal to
    weaken the invaluable protections that section 4(f) of the Department
    of Transportation Act of 1966 provides. Section 4(f) protects historic
    sites from harmful road projects unless there is no prudent and
    feasible way to avoid the harm. Despite what you might hear from
    opponents of section 4(f), it works well in many States and has plenty
    of flexibility. The notion that historic preservation reviews of
    proposed road projects are major causes of delay is ludicrous. The
    Federal Highway Administration can take responsibility for a fair,
    unbiased and thorough review of the workings of historic preservation
    reviews, and all of the other environmental reviews as well. in an open
    and inclusive forum with a view toward discovering a consensus
    approach. Historic preservationists are dead set against going back to
    the days before section 4(f) when the twin terrors of unbridled urban
    renewal and road construction combined to destroy so much of the
    country's historic resources, especially in America's cities.

    Historic Bridges
        The Federal Highway Administration's Historic Bridge Program
    (Section 144(o)) has been on the books since 1987 and is greatly in
    need of revision and strengthening. First, the provision requiring
    States to do inventories of their historic bridges should also require
    that workable management plans for saving those bridges be adopted as
    well. The National Trust for Historic Preservation is estimating that
    half, perhaps more, of the inventoried historic bridges in America have
    already been destroyed. Regular maintenance can extend the useful life
    of many historic bridges and continue them in vehicular service, and
    flexibility with respect to weight, width and other geometric features
    can help as well, without any compromises with safety.
        I'd like to suggest two other specific ideas for the Historic
    Bridge Program. One, make retired historic bridges more readily
    available for pedestrians, hikers and bicyclists by doubling the
    estimated demolition costs that States can now contribute to new owners
    of these bridges and make it clear that the new owners may always be
    able to apply for transportation enhancements support. Two, I suggest
    that the Environment and Public Works Committee build on the popularity
    and success of the Jeffords' Historic Covered Bridge Program by
    creating a well-funded research and demonstration effort to find ways
    to save more of the nation's historic metal truss bridges that are
    being lost at an alarming rate.

    Passenger Rail
        One final subject I would like to mention is the development of
    passenger rail in Vermont. I serve on the Vermont Transportation
    Authority which increasing has a role in building a passenger rail
    system. We believe that 25 to 50 years from now, Vermonters are going
    to need and want a cost-efficient and usable passenger rail system.
    Without such a system, we will be faced with too much highway
    congestion from the driver's perspective, and communities that are
    overwhelmed by too many trucks and cars. Building passenger rail will
    be a long process with many small steps, and we will need your support
    as we go along. We hope it will be a good partnership.
        Thanks very much for providing me with this opportunity to be with
    you today.

                                   __________

        Statement of Matthew T. Sternberg, Executive Director, Rutland
                   Redevelopment Authority, Rutland, Vermont

    I. Introduction
        Tucked in the mountainous terrain of northern New England, Vermont
    has traditionally been home to rugged family farms, quarrying and
    manufacturing. And railroads. A principal corridor connecting Boston,
    Montreal and Chicago, the western side of Vermont saw significant
    freight and passenger service from the mid-19th to mid-20th century.
    This traffic was channeled through major switching yards in the cities
    of Rutland and Burlington.
        Vermont has seen its manufacturing base gradually replaced by
    service businesses, notably in tourism. This is logical but risky;
    tourism can fall prey to economic shifts, changes in customer
    preferences and, in the case of ski resorts, even the weather. The
    regional economy is healthier and more stable if it is not overly
    dependent on any single business sector, especially one as volatile as
    tourism. It is good policy to balance tourism jobs with industrial and
    commercial jobs.
        Industrial development requires good transportation infrastructure.
    As is the case in many rural States, Vermont faces the challenges of
    access and mobility. A key issue for western Vermont is lack of an
    interstate highway. Truck traffic is forced to use small State and NHS
    highways, which in Vermont still have cattle crossings. Small towns
    along the way--the very towns so important to tourism--suffer the
    congestion. Travel times and permit restrictions discourage many
    shippers from serving the State. As these problems grow, the State is
    rethinking the role of rail in the transportation mix.
        Western Vermont will never have an interstate highway. Instead, the
    economic future of the region depends on the creative enhancement of
    two existing transportation modes: the National Highway System (U.S.
    Route 7) and rail. The two run parallel for 150 miles from Bennington
    in the south to the Canadian border in the north. The rights-of-way for
    both rail and highway have existed for many generations. Towns and
    cities along the routes have developed in response to this
    infrastructure, so enhancement of the corridor for redevelopment
    purposes will naturally focus economic activity in these traditional
    business centers. This forms the basis for an effective smart growth
    strategy.

    II. Statement of Objective
        This testimony considers designation of National Highway System
    (NHS)/Railway Corridors as a tool to address transportation access and
    smart growth in rural areas not served by interstate highways.
        NHS/Railway Corridors are a cost effective, environmentally and
    socially responsible alternative to new highway construction in areas
    where such construction is not feasible.

    III. Rationale
        In rural areas, the NHS/Railway Corridor concept provides a model
    that accommodates smaller scale, local improvements that, in the
    aggregate, will add up to a system that works. The NHS/Railway Corridor
    helps define the big picture for a region while allowing each community
    to pursue the individual projects that are right for their situation.
        In their position on smart growth adopted in 2000\1\, the American
    Economic Development Council states:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \1\``Economic Development and ``Smart'' Growth; The AEDC
    Perspective on Smart Growth and Economic Development'', by the American
    Economic Development Council; Economic Development Review, Vol. 17,
    Issue 4, Fall 2001.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ``Although Smart Growth is a national movement, in practice its
    implementation occurs only in local communities and jurisdictions.
    Local communities not only consist of a single jurisdiction, but
    include regions as well.''
        The transportation needs in western Vermont demonstrate the wisdom
    of this view.
    IV. The Western Vermont Corridor
        The U.S. Route 7 highway/ rail corridor in western Vermont
    traverses Bennington, Rutland, Addison, Chittenden, Franklin and Grand
    Isle Counties, serving 334,257 Vermonters, 55 percent of the State's
    population\2\. Both of the State's largest incorporated cities--
    Burlington and Rutland--are situated along the route.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \2\U.S. Census 2000 figures reported on FedStats' online
    statistics clearinghouse, MapStats; www.fedstats.gov
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Initially, the Western Corridor is configured around several key
    projects:

          Amtrak service from Albany, NY to Burlington via
    Bennington and Rutland.
          Relocation of the Rutland and Burlington switching yards
    to allow expanded downtown development.
          A series of highway improvements along U.S. Rt. 7,
    including major projects in Brandon and Pittsford, and in Rutland City
    and Rutland Town.
          Construction of a rail siding in Middlebury to serve the
    calcium carbonate quarry and reduce truck traffic in Brandon and
    Pittsford.

        While these were initially pursued as individual projects, all
    share common themes and serve each other's purposes. Specifically, all
    are located along the corridor defined by U.S. Rt. 7 and the Vermont
    Railway line. All seek to improve existing infrastructure to offset the
    lack of interstate highway access. All seek to maximize creative
    redevelopment of traditional town centers and established industrial
    districts, serving the objectives of smart growth.
        By treating these projects as part of an integrated corridor
    instead of as competing ``stand alone'' improvements, we can better
    understand the contributions of each to the whole and more efficiently
    allocate resources.

    IV. Transportation Goals: Access and Mobility
        The corridor strategy encompasses two transportation modes with
    different but overlapping issues.
    Highways
          Roadway alignments that do not support the volume of
    traffic.
          Heavy traffic in pedestrian-oriented downtowns.
          Commercial access that is not competitive with other
    markets in the region.
    Railways
          Haz-mats shipped through and switched near population
    centers.
          Grade crossings.
          Old bridges with insufficient weight capacity and
    underpasses with insufficient clearance.
          Difficulty in limiting pedestrian and vehicular flow near
    switching operations located in population centers.
          Difficulty in guaranteeing speedy, reliable delivery
    times because of poor track conditions and inefficient switching.
        The following sections discuss how a corridor strategy could
    improve these conditions.

    Highways
        The course followed by U.S. Rt. 7 has been the main north-south
    highway corridor for the west side of the State since the area was
    first settled in the 18th century. Running along the valley floor west
    of the Green Mountains, the highway was the natural site for towns
    where mills could be established or east-west highways could cross
    through mountain passes.
        These towns remain the heart of Vermont's communities, and they are
    at risk from the increased use of the highway. The size of trucks
    passing through has become a contentious subject for smaller towns
    whose stock in trade is selling tourists a piece of Old Vermont.
        Local trucking is not the only concern. Interstate and
    international trucking from New York and Quebec place a heavy burden on
    Vermont highways while contributing little to the region's economy. As
    crossing the border has become more time consuming since the September
    11 terrorist attacks, Canadian trucks are detouring through Vermont's
    smaller border crossings and traveling south on U.S. Rts. 7 and 22.
    These interstate trucks are damaging foundations of historic buildings
    along the route and putting more wear on the highways that the State
    can afford to repair.
        Highway issues addressed by NHS/Railway Corridors include:

          Decreasing volumes of freight traffic through small towns
    and villages by transferring capacity to rail.
          Establishing convenient, cost effective opportunities to
    transfer freight from truck to rail by developing localized intermodal
    facilities.
          Improving safety by reducing congestion.
          Reducing the levels of nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide,
    volatile organic compounds and diesel particulates emitted during the
    transport of commercial goods.

    Railways
        The railways of western Vermont operate on rights-of-way
    established in the mid-19th century and have been used continuously
    since. While the routes exist, maintenance was deferred for decades as
    society debated whether or not it was worth investing in the future of
    rail. Today, concerns ranging from the cost of construction to
    containing sprawl lend new credence to the use of rail.
        Vermont showed an early commitment to this potential by purchasing
    the main rail line when the original private operator went out of
    business. With both the NHS highway and the rail line under State
    ownership, there is a clear channel for an integrated transportation
    plan.
        Rail issues addressed by the NHS/Railway Corridor include:

          Deteriorated rail beds and substandard rail will be
    upgraded.
          Bridges, some more than 100 years old, will be improved
    to bear the weight of modern freight cars.
          Low clearances on a handful of bridges and tunnels will
    be raised to accommodate double-stacked rail cars.
          Commercial and industrial customers along the line will
    build sidings.
          Obsolete switching facilities such as the Burlington and
    Rutland railyards will be moved and expanded to increase capacity and
    operating efficiencies.
          Inferior rail to truck intermodal facilities must be
    improved.

    V. Environmental Benefits and Energy Conservation
        The preceding sections have described the commercial benefits of
    nimbleness in the transportation system. However, there are also
    significant environmental and energy benefits to be drawn from
    increased use of rail. A report by Worldwatch Institute of Washington,
    DC cites two advantages of particular interest:\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \3\``Back on Track: The Global Rail Revival'', by Marcia D. Lowe;
    Worldwatch Paper 118, April 1994; Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC.

          An intercity passenger train is three times as energy-
    efficient as commercial air and six times as efficient as a car with
    one occupant.
          For every ton of goods moved one kilometer, freight rail
    emits one-third the nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide, and one-tenth
    the volatile organic compounds and diesel particulates emitted by heavy
    trucks.

        This proposal does not suggest that all freight can or should be
    moved to rail; that is not a realistic proposition. However, we do have
    multiple instances--individual localized needs--that point to an
    enhanced role for rail.
        In the near-term there will be no big multimodal facilities in this
    rural area of Vermont, just individual businesses and groups of
    businesses making localized use of the system. However, with the
    infrastructure available, the potential exists for future intermodal
    development. Improved switching yards in Burlington and Rutland will
    ensure that the corridor has sufficient capacity for growth.
        As a practical matter, policymakers must recognize that investing
    in rail infrastructure complements investments made in highways. Where
    no interstate highway exists, the combined improvement of both railways
    and highways in NHS/Railway Corridors is required to serve many rural
    areas with a competitive transportation system. This policy also
    emphasizes maximum use of the existing infrastructure in a way that
    generates significant environmental and energy conservation benefits.

    VI. Economic Development Goals
        A central mission of the transportation system is to facilitate
    trade. Tourism will certainly benefit from better accessibility by
    passenger rail, but the greatest potential for rail is in manufacturing
    and distribution. Many of Vermont's towns and cities grew up along rail
    lines, and their traditional commercial districts are oriented toward
    the tracks. Many of these parcels went fallow when rail declined in the
    mid 20th century, and are prime candidates for redevelopment as the
    NHS/Railway Corridors improve their access.
        Rail improvements serve two important statewide economic
    development objectives: industrial clustering and downtown
    revitalization. The rail lines provide an opportunity to tie together
    businesses located in traditional business districts while moderating
    the growth of traffic on the highway system. Since many of the region's
    commodities move by rail, it is practical to cluster related businesses
    along the same rail corridor. This is not intended to replace trucks
    but rather to reduce their impact by balancing the load between
    multiple modes.
        In the case of the quarry operation discussed above, purchasers of
    their product--crushed calcium carbonate--will be able to locate close
    to the source of the raw material, reducing shipping costs and highway
    congestion. Without proper transportation infrastructure, the value
    added benefit of the resource will be lost when the product leaves the
    State for further processing.
        In order to succeed in capturing the inherent value of native
    resources, economic developers must revitalize an infrastructure that
    has become materially obsolete. But it is not functionally obsolete.
    With proper upgrades and enhancements it can continue to serve the
    districts it was originally designed to serve.
    Public Benefit
        We must recognize that the corridor concept addresses both
    passenger and freight traffic. Historically we have been reluctant to
    invest public funds in freight railroads owned by private interests.
    The fact that the improvement would help the commercial concern was
    interpreted as a private benefit and not a public benefit. In
    considering the objectives of smart growth, we must look beyond
    traditional definitions of benefit.
        A striking example is found along our corridor, where stone
    quarried in Middlebury is trucked to a processing plant in Florence.
    Because trucks carrying the stone pass through downtown Brandon, the
    State has limited the number of trucks that can pass through that
    downtown each day. As a result, the company has an artificially imposed
    cap on its production capacity, and more than a hundred million dollars
    in capital investment that would have created jobs in Vermont has gone
    to plants in other States and Canada.
        An initiative is under way through a public/private partnership to
    build a siding from the quarry to the rail line, enabling the rock to
    be shipped by rail. This will reduce truck traffic in Brandon while
    allowing the company to grow at its natural pace, creating jobs as it
    does so. Providing the transportation alternative for the company
    improves the quality of life in Brandon. This constitutes a bona fide
    community benefit.

    VIII. Cost Benefits of NHS/Railway Corridors
        Transportation is expensive. Drawing exact comparisons between
    projects is difficult because unit costs vary greatly according to
    engineering requirements, acquisition and relocation costs, and a host
    of other factors.
        In Western Vermont figures do exist for two projects in the
    Bennington to Rutland NHS/Railway Corridor that indicate a significant
    cost benefit to upgrading the existing NHS and rail lines. A 1997 DEIS
    (Draft Environmental Impact Statement) evaluating the cost of building
    a bypass around Rutland City studied several alternate routes\4\. These
    ranged in cost from $49 million to $183.5 million. The alternative
    preferred by the City cost $61.5 million to construct 8.1 miles of
    highway for an average cost of $7.59 million per mile, exclusive of
    right-of-way acquisition and relocation costs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \4\See ``Rutland DEIS Summary'' FHWA-VT-EIS-97-01-D, Rutland FEGC
    419-3(44)-EIS, Vermont Agency of Transportation, December 1997.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The recent Amtrak analysis of upgrading the rail line from
    Glenville Jct., NY to Winooski, VT estimated the cost at $76.5 million
    dollars for approximately 166 miles of track, an average cost of
    $460,000 per mile\5\. As the rail right-of-way is already assembled,
    the cost estimates may be compared with the bypass estimates that do
    not include right-of-way acquisition.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \5\``Vermont Western Corridor Study, Final Report'' National
    Railroad Passenger Corporation, December 1, 2001
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additional corridor costs will be incurred for the Rutland railyard
    relocation and Middlebury spur (estimated $120 million) and other
    upgrades to U.S. Rt. 7 (say $50 million over time). Even with these
    added to the Amtrak estimate the corridor improvements would average
    $1.49 million per mile, compared with $7.59 million per mile to bypass
    a single community.
        While the DEIS indicated a high number of automobiles to be served
    by the bypass, it says nothing of how that traffic would get to the
    bypass--i.e. using the existing NHS highways. The improvement would
    reduce travel times in one segment of the corridor but would not serve
    to balance traffic between locations along the length of the corridor.
    It would not improve intermodal connectivity.

    IX. Examples of Corridor Projects in Action
    Rutland Railyard Relocation
        A 1999 study by the Vermont Agency of Transportation assessed
    possible relocationsites for both the Burlington and Rutland switching
    yards. In both cities, prime downtown properties are occupied by
    tracks, impeding development in the traditional growth centers. Also,
    the projected growth in freight traffic will soon surpass the capacity
    of the existing yards. A suitable site was identified in Rutland.
        Since 2000, conceptual design work and environmental assessments
    have been under way in Rutland. The new site promises many benefits:
    switching capacity will increase, the switching function will be
    removed from an older mixed use neighborhood near downtown, a new
    access road will reduce congestion on U.S. Route 7, a major gateway
    corridor into downtown Rutland will be improved, and multiple
    redevelopment sites will become available in the traditional business
    districts adjacent to downtown. Relocating the railyard will eliminate
    a major grade crossing that would limit Amtrak service. All in all,
    this is smart growth at its best.

    Passenger Rail Service
        While the interstate highways serve the eastern side of Vermont,
    most of the population centers are located in the west. Amtrak recently
    completed a study of the western corridor\6\ and recommended a route
    from Schenectady, NY serving Bennington, Manchester, Rutland,
    Middlebury and Burlington.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         \6\See ``Vermont Western Corridor Study, Final Report'' prepared
    by National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK), December 1, 2001.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The population centers and tourist destinations in Western Vermont
    are particularly vulnerable to competitive challenges from areas served
    by interstate highways. As the State's economy becomes increasingly
    dependent on tourism, ease of access becomes even more important. A
    skier in New York City can board an airplane and be in Utah in 5 hours.
    Unless that customer can reach Vermont resorts in a comparable
    timeframe, the business will go to Utah. As the State works to attract
    high tech, communication-driven businesses, travel time to the major
    regional markets becomes a key competitive issue.
        Amtrak service to New York will serve both purposes. With its
    potential for further connections into Canada, Vermont is, in
    actuality, a logical northern anchor for the northeast rail corridor.

    Highway Improvements
        The increased flow of interstate truck traffic is exacerbating
    already congested conditions in several smaller towns along the Rt. 7
    corridor, most notably Brandon, Pittsford and Middlebury. Accident--and
    fatality--rates are high in this area. A coalition of citizens, local
    elected officials, State legislators and the State transportation
    agency has proposed a program to upgrade selected sections of the
    highway and study the feasibility of local bypasses.
        Further south, Rutland City and Rutland Town have teamed up with
    the State to propose a series of upgrades to the Route 4 and 7
    corridors in the Rutland area. This project was undertaken when the
    State canceled a bypass proposal for cost and environmental
    considerations.
        In both projects the emphasis is on improving the existing highway
    in an area not served by an interstate. In Rutland the proposal
    highlights the relationship between the highway project and the rail
    improvement: the access road proposed to serve the new railyard will
    also divert significant truck traffic from the most congested segment
    of U.S. Rt. 7.

    Middlebury Spur
        This project clearly illustrates the intermodal potential of the
    corridor. In Middlebury, a major commercial shipper is stymied in
    achieving full production capacity because stone quarried at a site
    north of Brandon must be moved through the town by truck to reach the
    plant that processes it into calcium carbonate slurry. Citing
    aesthetics, State permits limit the shipper to 116 trucks per day on
    U.S. Rt. 7 through the town; the company's capacity is 175 trucks. Thus
    a significant amount of production--and the investment and jobs that go
    along with it--are lost to the community because of the condition of
    the highway.
        As a condition of the land use permit the parties formed a task
    force to work out a solution. Vermont Railway, the Vermont Agencies of
    Transportation and Natural Resources, the private corporation, and the
    Conservation Law Foundation, a leading environmental assess a proposed
    rail siding to be built by Vermont Railway (VTR) from the quarry to the
    main rail line that runs parallel to Rt. 7. This will allow VTR to
    accept shipments of stone for transfer to the processing plant while
    reducing the need to move 25,000 to 30,000 trucks per year through
    Brandon. Intermodal facilities installed at the processing plant will
    complete the connection. The private company has pledged to pay for
    intermodal facilities required to handle their project by rail. This is
    estimated at about one third of the total project cost.
        The success of this interdisciplinary planning effort illustrates
    the caliber of problem solving possible if the transportation system is
    viewed as a unified corridor.

                                   __________
                                   MEMORANDUM

        To: Senator James Jeffords, Chairman, Committee on Environment &
    Public Works, U.S. Senate

        From: Patricia Crocker, Executive Director, Vermont Public
    Transportation Association

        Date: August 19, 2002

        Subject: Testimony on Transportation Funding

        Attached is testimony that I would like to present on Wednesday,
    August 21, 2002 at the hearing in Vermont. Unfortunately, I received a
    copy of a letter to Rep. Pembroke third hand late on Thursday and did
    not receive any direct notice of the meeting; therefore, my testimony
    is of necessity brief.
        Thanks for the opportunity to present this information.
        We are very grateful for the interest and the other members of your
    committee have taken in rural public transportation.
        Across the Nation, the low level of Federal budgetary support for
    rural public transportation is an ongoing problem. Population-based
    Federal 5311 formula funds are minimal in Vermont. The lack of
    financial support is particularly acute in its impact on the disabled,
    low-wage workers (often single parents) who must not only seek job
    related transportation, but also work out the logistics of getting
    children to and from childcare, and our elder population who can no
    longer drive their own vehicles. Many of our citizens most in need of
    services and economic opportunities are dispersed into communities
    where housing costs are more affordable. Thus, the need for adequate
    transportation that provides mobility and access to goods and services
    is more acute in our rural areas yet this need is overlooked in favor
    of a strategy that is focused primary on alleviating congestion.
        In Vermont, the Job Access and Reverse Commute funding has provided
    the first opportunity for expansion of services in nearly 4 years. The
    funding that you have provided in an annual earmark has been central to
    providing community bus service to areas previously underserved and in
    some cases forms the locus of service for an entire community, i.e.
    Middlebury. Although this initiative has targeted a need for
    transportation for low wageworkers, it has provided additional and
    expanded service that has been of benefit to the entire community,
    including disabled and the independent elderly who choose not to be
    involved in ``programmatic services.'' The program has been successful
    in meeting these broad community needs.
        Vermont's Federal formula appropriation 5310 funding for
    transportation for the disabled and elderly persons is also minimal.
    The program, essentially a capital program is used in Vermont for both
    vehicle purchases and for the purchase of services through public
    transportation operations. Although the State Agency of Transportation
    has flexed a significant amount of funds to enhance the 5310 program,
    many needs continue to be unmet. And the opportunity to use funds for
    vehicle purchases is often passed over because neither human service
    nor non-profit transit organization can meet the requirement for 10
    percent match.
        Because the Federal formula provides so little funding, much of our
    additional revenue is obtained through the use of Federal STP funds.
    This puts all public transportation services in direct competition for
    the same funds that are used for roadway projects. The State public bus
    transportation budget for fiscal year 2003 is about $13 MM dollars.
    This represents just 4 percent of the entire State transportation
    budget.
        Solving the problem of inadequate public transportation in rural
    areas will require new funding and new rules that will enhance
    coordination of services to benefit the entire community and that will
    eliminate rules that arbitrarily restrict services by groups such as
    the elderly, the disabled or welfare-to-work clients, and school
    children. A funding program that offered the opportunity to serve a
    variety of community needs rather than discrete groups has the greatest
    potential for efficiently and effectively meeting the broad demand and
    to further the public policy objective of maximizing public investments
    in transportation systems.
        We understand that Senator Baucus has or will introduce a bill to
    provide a $5 million dollar State minimum for all 5311 programs, a $5
    million dollar minimum for small urban systems (50,000--200,000
    population) and a $1 million dollar minimum for the 5310 program and
    provisions that would allow the 5310 program funds to be used for
    operating expenses. This initiative holds the promise of some much
    needed Federal support for the initiates in rural States like Vermont
    and will greatly improve our situation as long as they are not used to
    supplant the limited State funding already committed to this activity.
        Finally, I want to thank you and the members of your committee for
    this opportunity and look forward to working with you as you proceed in
    the reauthorization process.
                Respectfully submitted,
                                           Patricia C. Crocker.

                                   __________

       Statement of Stephanie Carter, Acting Commissioner of the Vermont
                      Department of Tourism and Marketing

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for holding this
    hearing in Vermont, especially with regard to the unique transportation
    needs of small towns and rural America.
        My name is Stephanie Carter and I am the Acting Commissioner of
    Tourism and Marketing for the State of Vermont.
        Vermont's rural landscape, steeped in history, rich with scenic
    beauty and alive with recreational activities, is also challenged in
    its ability to parlay information to the traveling public in a way that
    does not compromise these characteristics. Domestic visitors to Vermont
    spent $2.6 million in Vermont in 2000 and left an impact of $4.2
    billion on the Vermont economy. Tourist expenditures annually
    contribute 75,241 jobs and generate $1.4 billion in personal income for
    Vermonters.
        Vermont led the Nation in 1968 to address the proliferation of
    roadside billboards with the passage of a comprehensive travel
    information program, the twin goals of which were to preserve scenic
    beauty and to provide meaningful information to the traveling public.
    Many aspects of this program relied upon the construction of travel
    plazas and upon the erection of official business directory signs.
        As the end of the century approached, aspects of this program began
    to show signs of a need to renew the 30-year-old program. With the
    assistance of the Federal Highway Administration, we embarked on a
    comprehensive study of solutions. In the end, we largely concluded the
    solutions to effective travel information lie in new technology rather
    than the continued proliferation of road signs and travel plazas.
        It was by this process that Vermont entered the Rural ITS Program.
    With funding provided by the Federal Government, matched with State and
    local funding, the State of Vermont has implemented a comprehensive
    business registry data base consisting of the products and services
    offered by Vermont businesses; developed a website known as the Vermont
    Travel Planner; has developed electronic kiosks at a number of Vermont
    Welcome Centers; and has developed technology for en-route navigation.
    Within the development process, we have worked with transportation and
    tourism partners from New Hampshire and Maine to develop a regional
    tri-State system known as TRIO and have worked within Vermont to
    integrate the needs of our statewide and regional marketing partners.
    In other words, we have had much experience with the Rural ITS Program
    and we have been very happy with what we have been able to accomplish
    for the people of Vermont as well as our visitors, to date.
        I am here to today to suggest changes, based on our experience, to
    enhance the Rural ITS Program.

        1. Reconsider the 50/50 match requirement. In our experience as a
    small rural State with a relatively small budget, the 50/50 match
    requirement is becoming increasingly prohibitive as State budgetary
    pressures intensify. Progress on ITS will slow if the ratio is not
    brought in line with other federally funded projects. Frankly, this
    project competes within a budget against projects that receive 80/20
    funding and 90/10 funding, with predictable results. ITS can also
    represent significant cost savings through collaboration and sharing of
    best practices. We recommend that Federal funding of ITS projects be
    100 percent (based upon the cost saving potentials) or at least 90/10
    to enhance their competitive advantage with other programs.

        2. Continue and encourage regional control of ITS. Rural ITS is a
    regional solution, uniquely designed for the landscape in which it is
    to operate. We have a complex but excellently functioning regional
    project among three States that is working very well. Local Federal
    Highway Administrative support has been excellent, but it has often
    been hampered with delays and misunderstandings when headquarters
    becomes involved at the detail level. We recommend that project
    oversight remain with the District Offices and that there be less
    hands-on control by headquarters.

        3. Maintain the autonomy of the ITS program within FHWA. Civil
    engineering principles do not always translate to technology projects.
    ITS projects are, by definition, information technology rather than
    traditional technology used for transportation project construction.
    Due to the speed of technological change, with an average generation
    lifespan of 18 months, change, fast response, and agility are the rule.
    The ITS program needs to enhance its pool of technology experts within
    FHWA and to encourage training of ITS staff to insure that the program
    can remain contemporary.

        4. Remove the barrier to Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
    integration into a Rural ITS Project. When planning, designing and
    implementing comprehensive regional ITS solutions, the current rule
    that disallows Rural ITS implementation in an MPO jurisdiction leads to
    inefficiency. The MPO boundaries, particularly in rural States such as
    northern New England, are sometimes arbitrary and in fact include large
    amounts of essentially rural landscape. Rural ITS projects must often
    interrupt corridor-long deployment because of intervening MPOs, even
    when the lowest-cost option would be to pursue the deployment through
    the MPO region. Relief from this programmatic encumbrance would
    streamline project implementation and avoid artificial gaps that
    ``leapfrog'' MPO geography in primarily rural regions. We recommend,
    with appropriate review and approval, Rural ITS project deployment in
    an MPO when it can be demonstrated that a truly regional rural approach
    will suffer from MPO ``blackout''.
        Thank you for your consideration.

                                   __________

    Statement of Mary Tracy, Executive Director, Society Created to Reduce
                                  Urban Blight

        Mr. Chairman, I am Mary Tracy, executive director of SCRUB, Society
    Created to Reduce Urban Blight, a Philadelphia based non-profit
    organization dedicated to preserving Philadelphia's scenic environment.
    On behalf of our Board and members we appreciate the opportunity to
    present written testimony on the re-authorization of TEA-21. We thank
    Congress for having the foresight to establish TEA-21, which has
    benefited travelers, residents of communities large and small, and
    local businesses and ask that you re-authorize TEA 21.
        We urge Congress to preserve all categories of enhancement funding
    including funding of billboard removal and acquisition of scenic
    easements. SCRUB has worked with civic associations throughout the
    Philadelphia region and we know that municipalities are interested in
    improving important gateway areas in an effort to attract new business
    and residents to the region. Unfortunately, many of these areas lack a
    pleasing visual appearance sometimes as a result of the intrusion of
    billboards. This category of enhancement funding provides important
    resources for communities to visually enhance these gateway areas. We
    ask that you continue to provide funding for this need. We also ask
    that you resist any efforts by the billboard industry in TEA-21 re-
    authorization to further tamper with the Highway Beautification Act of
    1965 or the Bonus Act. These laws badly need to be overhauled, but they
    require a level of attention not possible or desirable in such a
    complex bill as TEA-21. We recommend a thorough congressional inquiry
    in 2004.
        ISTEA and TEA-21 have led to stronger communities; transportation
    systems that work with the land and a reawakening of a sense of place
    throughout both rural and urban America. As the chair of the Overbrook
    Train Station's Restoration Committee, I saw first-hand the positive
    effect of ISTEA enhancement funding. Residents welcomed the opportunity
    provided by the 1991 ISTEA to restore an important neighborhood
    landmark, which, though well used by commuters, had become an eyesore
    and a dismal reminder of the once glorious days of the railroad. ISTEA
    funding provided the seed money to launch the station's restoration and
    at the same time restored our community's pride in place.
        ISTEA and its successor, TEA-21 have enabled citizens to
    participate in local and regional transportation priorities on an
    important level and has improved the quality of life in communities
    throughout the country. We urge Congress to take steps to improve TEA-
    21 for the future and to continue to fully fund this vital, pro-citizen
    program.
        Thank you for your consideration,

                                   __________

              Statement of Meg Maguire, President, Scenic America

        Mr. Chairman, I am Meg Maguire, President of Scenic America. On
    behalf of our Board and members we appreciate the opportunity to
    present written testimony on the re-authorization of TEA-21. We are
    proud to have been associated with this legislation for the past 13
    years. Scenic America is a founding member of the Surface
    Transportation Policy Project, the coalition that helped gain new
    transportation solutions to benefit communities including the National
    Scenic Byways Program; Transportation Enhancements; and programs
    affecting air quality, land use planning, and much more. We thank
    Congress for these far-reaching programs which have benefited
    travelers, residents of communities large and small, and local
    businesses.
        Scenic America is a national, nonprofit organization that helps
    communities nationwide protect their scenic beauty and distinctive
    community character. We have 10 State affiliates and 15 associate
    organizations throughout the country. We are dedicated to the
    proposition that change is inevitable; ugliness is not.
        In re-authorization of TEA-21, Scenic America urges Congress to
    take the following steps:
          Increase and make entirely merit-based the funding for
    the National Scenic Byways Program; and continue eligibility for State
    scenic byways programs.
          Mandate that all federally funded highway projects be
    planned according to the simple and well-established principles of
    context-sensitive highway design (CSD) and that they promote physically
    active communities;
          Preserve all categories of enhancements funding including
    funding for billboard removal and acquisition of scenic easements;
          Approach environmental streamlining as an administrative
    issue rather than a legislative issue that would weaken the key
    environmental laws that now ensure citizen participation and expert
    study of proposed transportation projects; and
          Resist any efforts by the billboard industry in TEA-21
    re-authorization to further tamper with the Highway Beautification Act
    of 1965 or the Bonus Act. These laws badly need to be overhauled, but
    they require a level of attention not possible or desirable in such a
    complex bill as TEA-21. We recommend a thorough congressional inquiry
    in 2004.

    Scenic Byways
        The National Scenic Byways program works. The Program now boasts 75
    National Scenic Byways and 20 All American Roads. Communities come
    together to develop a corridor management plan to protect outstanding
    natural, historic, cultural and scenic resources; and to strengthen
    local businesses by promoting tourism. The Byways program is highly
    popular with the 46 participating States plus the District of
    Columbia--an ideal partnership between Federal, State and local
    governments, non-profit organizations, and the business community.
        Last December, at the10th Anniversary Celebration of the National
    Scenic Byways Program the byways community, primarily but not
    exclusively people from small towns and rural America, came together to
    share successes and plan for the future. The meeting affirmed the high
    performance we have witnessed in the program:

        1. Byways produce profits. Many small businesses have begun and
    flourished along scenic byways. In rural Arkansas along Crowley's
    Ridge, there are 17 new tourist-oriented businesses plus a new
    Hemingway-Pfeiffer Museum. In Vermont, the proprietor of the Strong
    House Inn testified to her direct profit from working with other
    business owners in New York and Vermont to promote the full length of
    the Lake Champlain Byway.

        2. Byway grants leverage significant funds from other sources. The
    San Juan Skyway in Colorado received a $6,800 scenic byways grant and
    additional funding to complete a $39,000 plan. To implement the plan,
    the participating counties, a college, several nonprofit organizations,
    the U.S. Forest Service, and the State of Colorado raised over $6
    million to preserve mining and railroad sites. And in Wisconsin, along
    the Great River Road, byways grants are helping leverage funds for 33
    interpretive kiosks and the Great River Road Scenic Byway Learning
    Center.

        3. Byways protect, market, and interpret six irreplaceable
    resources--scenic, historic, cultural, archaeological, natural, and
    recreational. Scenic easements and billboard removal funding has helped
    maintain beautiful views along a number of corridors. Byways
    communities are recognizing and restoring natural resources along byway
    corridors; and interpreting local history and culture along these
    regional corridors. Cyclists and hikers are finding new opportunities
    to enjoy recreation along the byways too.

        4. The National Scenic Byways Program is a bottom-up program in
    which designated roads are recognized and put forward by the States.
    The foundation of the national program is at the State level. All
    national scenic byways must first be part of a State scenic byways
    system (46 States participate including those represented by most
    members of this committee). That means that in States like Alaska,
    Wisconsin, Minnesota, and West Virginia significant resource protection
    and economic development are occurring as a direct result of the State
    initiated scenic byways. Therefore, in TEA-21 re-authorization, it is
    important that States continue to be eligible for grant support to
    build the programs within their States.
        I also want to commend the FHWA and America's Scenic Byways
    Resource Center in Duluth, MN for providing strong technical support
    and a fair process in running this program. We believe that the current
    administrative and assistance arrangement should continue and be
    strengthened in the years ahead. If all Federal programs could show
    beneficial results comparable to the National Scenic Byways Program,
    the American people would have much greater confidence in the use of
    their tax dollars.
        The National Scenic Byways Program merits substantially increased
    funding as it grows and continues to yield community benefits. Scenic
    America fully recognizes the tight financial constraints Congress faces
    in funding this bill. Our research included information from FHWA and
    several States to develop what we believe to be a conservative and
    defensible estimate of the increases in program re-authorization.
        Under ISTEA the program received a total authorization of $80
    million over 6 years. Under TEA-21, funding has been approximately $25
    million/year for a total $148 million over 6 years. Each year the FHWA
    rejects an average of 60 percent of total funding requests. According
    to officials in the FHWA and several States, there is an extensive
    screening program at the State level, so FHWA is truly picking the best
    of the best. Virtually all of the proposals should and would receive
    grants if funds were available. Our recommendations on funding levels
    take into account the following:

          current unmet demand;
          the recent addition of Mississippi to the prog;
          the increase of nationally designated byways to 95 in
    June 2002; and
          growing political pressure for State byways programs in
    Texas and Pennsylvania.

        Based on our research we believe that there is ample justification
    for an increase in funding beginning at $57 million in fiscal year
    2004, increasing by $2 million each year to account for inflation and
    modest new additions to the system up to $67 million in fiscal year
    2009. Over the 6 years of the bill the total authorization level would
    be $372 million.
        Finally, we must comment on an effort last year to transform the
    National Scenic Byways grant program from a purely merit-based program
    to an earmarked program, with all the funds going to congressionally
    selected projects in particular States. Cries of distress went up from
    many grant applicants who have played by the rules and were under
    consideration for funding. Was all of their painstaking work on
    corridor plans, leveraging of resources, and grant applications for
    naught? How was it possible for Congress to snatch away a merit-based
    program with such a fine record of achievement? Scenic America, the
    American Recreation Coalition and the National Trust for Historic
    Preservation vigorously opposed that effort. In the end, with $8.5
    million of the approximately $25 million in byways funding falling to
    earmarking, about $16.5 million was awarded to merit-based programs.
        We urge Congress to ensure that grants under the program, at
    whatever level of funding, remain based entirely on merit.
    Context-Sensitive Highway Design
        Context Sensitive Highway Design (CSD) should be required in
    planning all federally funded projects. CSD is a significant
    breakthrough in transportation policy and we thank Congress for its
    past wisdom in recognizing that roads need not destroy vital resources.
        Section 1016 (a) of ISTEA permitted the Secretary of DOT to approve
    projects designed to standards that allowed for the preservation of
    historic or scenic values. The National Highway System (NHS) Act of
    1995 strengthened this emphasis on context-sensitive highway design
    with a provision in Section 304 that states:
        A design for new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing . . .
    restoration or rehabilitation of a highway on the National Highway
    System (other than a highway also on the Interstate System) may take
    into account . . . (A) the constructed and natural environment of the
    area; (B) the environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, community,
    and preservation impacts of the activity; and (C) access for other
    modes of transportation.
        To take advantage of this progressive and visionary Federal
    language, five pilot States--Connecticut, Maryland, Kentucky, Minnesota
    and Utah--have adopted context-sensitive design, retrained their
    project managers and engineers, and sponsored region-wide training for
    other States. Vermont and New Jersey have legislation that sets new
    standards and criteria; California has issued administrative guidelines
    and several other States are seriously considering doing so. Some
    highway engineers are getting the message that people have a deep love
    of the places where they live and want road building to respect the
    assets of their communities. Federal legislation has helped
    immeasurably to bridge this understanding.
        The results are exciting. For example, in Maryland, local public
    officials report that the State Highway Administration is working with
    communities as never before to achieve new solutions that respect both
    needs for sound community transportation and resource conservation.
        In addition, CSD promotes active communities. The Centers for
    Disease Control have identified obesity as one of the greatest threats
    to public health. Conventional transportation design, with its emphasis
    on the automobile and diminished regard for bicycle and pedestrian
    safety, promotes a lack of physical activity and thereby contributes to
    obesity, while designing transportation systems to promote physical
    activity does the opposite. For example, surveys have shown that more
    than 60 percent of all adults say they would start walking or walk more
    often if they had access to safe and secure pedestrian pathways. CSD
    would provide that access.
        Today we request that you make two small changes to the language in
    the NHS:

        1. Change the words``. . . may take into account . . . '' to``. . .
    shall take into account.'' In drafting the National Highway System Act,
    the original context-sensitive design language under consideration by
    former Congressman Bud Shuster and this committee used the word
    ``shall,'' but this was changed at the last minute to ``may.'' Based on
    the evidence of the last 10 years showing greatly improved project
    results using context-sensitive design, we are convinced that no road
    should be built with Federal funding that does not incorporate context-
    sensitive design principles and standards. In TEA-21 re-authorization,
    we strongly urge Congress to go with its original instinct and require
    States to incorporate context-sensitive highway design into all
    federally funded projects.
        2. Amend Section (C) to read ``access for other modes of
    transportation including those that promote physically active
    communities.'' We also strongly urge Congress to respond to the intense
    national concerns voiced by the Centers for Disease Control on the need
    to create active communities to fight obesity and heart disease by
    requiring federally funded transportation projects to promote ``access
    for other modes of transportation, including those that promote
    physically active communities.'' We believe that this addition will
    encourage the integration of national public health objectives into
    transportation planning without being prescriptive about how that is
    done.

    Transportation Enhancements
        TEA-21's enormously popular Transportation Enhancements program has
    yielded benefits for thousands of communities, from small towns and
    rural counties to our nation's largest cities. Scenic America works
    with the Rails to Trails Conservancy, the American Recreation
    Coalition, and dozens of other groups to monitor and promote the
    program. Let me reinforce several recommendations from our coalition.
    We believe that Congress should:
        Protect the current funding level and allocation formula:

        I. Improve obligation rates in the States so that there is more
    timely expenditure of funds;

        II. Keep the current time-tested funding eligibility categories,
    including billboard removal and control and acquisition of scenic
    easements; and

        III. Do not open up this program to a variety of other uses not in
    line with the original intent of the program.

    Environmental Streamlining
        Recently there has been much blame for project delay placed on our
    environmental laws--the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the
    National Historic Preservation Act, particularly Section 106; and the
    Department of Transportation Act of 1966, particularly Section 4(f).
    These laws have ensured citizen participation and thorough study of
    projects before they take place. Further, independent study of project
    delay finds many other factors that contribute including lack of funds
    for personnel to conduct reviews and to build projects. We urge you in
    the strongest terms to approach the issue of environmental streamlining
    as an administrative and appropriations issue, not as a legislative
    issue in TEA-21. We offer to work with you to examine the kinds of
    projects now subject to intensive environmental review that might
    receive less intensive review; and to make funding available to the
    States so that they have adequate personnel to review complex projects.
    Through this process, we can achieve economies for the taxpayer, timely
    benefits for communities, opportunities for all stakeholders to
    participate in the planning and design process, and insurance that the
    study process preceding public investment is thorough and based on
    expert evaluation. Let's achieve all we can through administrative
    streamlining before we consider amending laws that have served our
    country well.

    Billboard Control
        Finally, we urge you to resist any efforts by the billboard
    industry or others to tamper with any aspects of current Federal
    billboard laws within TEA-21 re-authorization.
        This is not because we support current Federal law and
    administration of billboard control through the misnamed Highway
    Beautification Act (HBA) or the unfunded Bonus Act. The HBA is so bad
    and so distorted from Lady Bird Johnson's original intent that it needs
    its own studies, hearings, congressional review and new legislation.
    The billboard industry has made a joke of this law by thwarting
    communities from cleaning up their visual environment, eroding rural
    visual quality on our Federal highways, permitting cutting of public
    trees on public lands for private billboard visibility, and much more.
    I will submit for the record our 1997 report, The Highway
    Beautification Act: A Broken Law that documents the problems to which I
    have referred.
        Senator Jeffords introduced the last effort to reform the HBA in
    1997 and we are grateful for his interest in this issue. Vermont, one
    of four billboard free States, has been well-served by not having to
    deal with the billboard industry since 1978. We believe that the TEA-21
    re-authorization process is not the venue for making any changes to
    current billboard law. Instead, we hope that Congress will consider
    undertaking a thorough, fair, and open reexamination of Federal
    billboard control measures after TEA-21 re-authorization.

    Conclusion
        ISTEA and TEA-21 have led to stronger communities; transportation
    systems that work with the land, not against it; and a reawakening of a
    sense of place throughout both rural and urban America. We urge
    Congress to take those steps outlined at the beginning of this
    testimony as you improve TEA-21 for the future.
        I thank you for the opportunity to share Scenic America's views.

                                   __________

             Statement of Debbie Rohe, President, Scenic Michigan

        Mr. Chairman, I am Debbie Rohe, President of Scenic Michigan. On
    behalf of our Board and members we appreciate the opportunity to
    present written testimony on the re-authorization of TEA-21 Scenic
    Michigan is a nonprofit organization that helps communities in the
    State of Michigan protect their scenic beauty and distinctive community
    character. We have 700 members statewide. We are dedicated to the
    proposition from Scenic America that change is inevitable; ugliness is
    not.
        I want to share with you a story from one of our members, and one
    that we often hear.
        An elderly couple moves into a condominium complex in St. Clair
    Shores, Michigan and enjoy a view of the golf course and the night sky
    over their community. The couple lives in a seven-story condominium
    building. Over the next 3 years, 3 large billboards with high intensity
    lights are constructed facing their building. ``Who knows how many more
    are planned. Now we have to pull our drapes at night because the
    billboard lights are so intense. This is no way to live.''
        Communities don't have the deep pockets to fight the billboard
    companies in court, which leaves the community and it's residents with
    little power to fight this kind of blight. We know that property values
    go down when billboards go up.
        Help communities, counties and cities control the blight and the
    stray lighting that comes from billboards, with some tough legislation
    that we can use.
        Thank you.