[Senate Hearing 111-1232]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-1232
MOBILITY AND CONGESTION IN URBAN
AND RURAL AMERICA
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 18, 2010
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
21-635 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Bettina Poirier, Staff Director
Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MARCH 18, 2010
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 2
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 4
WITNESSES
Lomax, Tim, Research Engineer, Texas Transportation Institute;
Researcher, University Transportation Center for Mobility;
Regents Fellow, Texas A&M University........................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 22
Senator Inhofe........................................... 25
Response to an additional question from:
Senator Voinovich........................................ 28
Senator Vitter........................................... 29
Haggerty, Hon. Scott, Supervisor, Alameda County, California;
Chairman, Transportation Steering Committee, National
Association of Counties; Chairman, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission..................................................... 33
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 40
Senator Inhofe........................................... 41
Response to an additional question from Senator Vitter....... 44
Townsend, Hon. James, Judge Executive, Webster County, Kentucky;
President-Elect, National Association of Regional Councils..... 45
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Marlatt, Hon. Bryce, Oklahoma State Senator; Vice Chairman,
Oklahoma State Senate Committee on Transportation.............. 66
Prepared statement........................................... 69
Smith, Hon. John Robert, Former Mayor, Meridian, Mississippi; Co-
Chair, Transportation for America; President, Reconnecting
America........................................................ 74
Prepared statement........................................... 76
Responses to additional questions from:
Senators Boxer and Carper................................81, 84
Senators Boxer and Lautenberg............................81, 83
Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer........ 81
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 85
Response to an additional question from Senator Vitter....... 86
MOBILITY AND CONGESTION IN URBAN
AND RURAL AMERICA
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The full Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
(Chairman of the full Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Barrasso, Sanders, Carper,
and Udall.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. The meeting will come to order. I am very
pleased to call our Full Committee Hearing on Mobility and
Congestion in Urban and Rural America to order.
For me today is great day because yesterday, in a
bipartisan vote, 68 to 29, the Senate passed the HIRE Act, and
it includes an extension of all of our transportation funding
for the Highway Trust Fund through the end of this year. The
President will be signing this bill into law this morning, so I
will be heading out to be there because I want to make sure
that we really got it done.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. It was a very big fight, and it should not
have been.
But here is the great news. One million American workers,
including 100,000 in my State, will have confidence in knowing
that their jobs are secure because we have renewed that bill.
This is the first part of our Jobs Agenda. The Tourism Bill
also will create about 160,000 jobs. So, we are moving toward
that moment when we know that things have righted themselves.
The other thing is that this extension--or I would say
reauthorization, really--until the end of the year allows us to
focus on moving forward with our own Transportation Bill here
in this Committee. And this hearing that we are having today on
mobility and congestion in urban and rural areas is an
opportunity to examine these issues as we continue our work on
the bill.
According to the Texas Transportation Institute's recent
Urban Mobility Report Americans in urban areas lost 4.2 billion
hours traveling and burned an extra 2.8 billion gallons of fuel
due to traffic congestion. They calculate that the cost to
America's families and businesses is $87.2 billion, and that is
up more than 50 percent over the previous decade.
So, we know we have got this congestion. We know it is not
good for our people. It is not good for our businesses. It is
not good for our health. And I know that it is not just the
urban and suburban areas. Rural areas have their share of
issues when it comes to mobility, including safety concerns.
The fatality rate is 2.5 times higher in rural areas than in
urban areas according to the Federal Highway Administration.
And while there are programs that provide funding to help
address transportation needs in rural areas there are currently
no targeted initiatives focused on the need of rural America in
the Federal Highway Program. This is something we will be
working on as we reauthorize a bill.
Today's witnesses will discuss the mobility issues that
both rural and urban areas face, provide examples of how we can
ensure that both their needs are being met when it comes to
congestion and safety. So, I do look forward to hearing from
our panel.
And in the nick of time comes our Ranking Member, Senator
Inhofe. Welcome.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I welcome
all you guys here.
Confession is good for the soul, I say, Madam Chairman, and
one of our witnesses, Bryce Marlatt, used to work for me. He
had western Oklahoma and did a great job, and now he decided
that he wanted to get personally involved so he ran for the
State Senate. He is a good friend. He has got a great handle on
what needs are out in rural areas.
So, Madam Chairman, I think this is a significant hearing.
It is another one where you and I will get along and come to,
probably, the same conclusions. And I am very glad to welcome
Senator Marlatt here as we make decisions for the next Surface
Transportation Bill.
We need to keep asking ourselves what is the Federal role.
This Nation's needs far exceed the available funding. That is
the big problem that we have. And I think all of our panelists
know this, that we have said since we were together back in the
2005 Reauthorization Bill--while that was a huge bill, and we
were criticized for the size of it, that did not do any more
than maintain what we have today.
So, this is the problem that we are faced with now. I think
the purpose or one of the purposes of this hearing is to talk
about how the needs may be different from the most populous
areas and the urban areas and the rural areas. Certainly with
Senator Marlatt here, he and I have traveled extensively in
western Oklahoma, an area that is not very highly populated,
and their needs are different from others.
So, along the same lines the next Transportation Bill has
got to continue to recognize that transportation needs for
rural Oklahoma, though different in many ways, are just as real
as those in urban areas. I think that a number of the proposals
we have seen so far have ignored this fact. So, I am
particularly pleased that this hearing will focus on both urban
and renewal in rural areas.
Obviously the Oklahoma Panhandle does not have the
congestion problems of New York City or of San Francisco. In
the Panhandle the important issues are connectivity, businesses
and mobility of citizens, though we must remember that not all
rural communities have the same specific concerns.
One of the things that surprised you, Madam Chairman, is
that if I were to take you in my airplane out to western
Oklahoma, the area that he represents, you would see at any one
time 500 of the windmills going around. One of the problems--I
think it is going to come, at least I have heard, and I hope
you address it in your opening statement--is that you have to
transfer these blades there, and it requires more lanes than
would normally be there.
So, let us get on with the hearing. I am looking forward to
hearing from our witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for calling this hearing, and
thank you to all our witnesses for joining us today. I'd like
to extend a special welcome to Oklahoma State Senator Bryce
Marlatt, who represents the northwest area of the State. I know
he has a great interest in transportation issues, and I look
forward to hearing his comments.
As we make decisions for the next surface transportation
bill we will need to keep asking ourselves, ``What is the
Federal role?'' This Nation's needs far exceed the available
funding, so we must focus Federal funds on addressing areas
that have a defined Federal responsibility with national
benefits.
Over the past year or so many organizations have offered
ideas for the next transportation bill, including on congestion
and other mobility issues in metropolitan areas. The problems
are real and documented, as the Texas Transportation Institute
(TTI) will detail in testimony for us. The solutions are less
clear but certainly are not the same in all areas.
Any emphasis on addressing metropolitan congestion problems
must be based on the recognition that Washington does not
understand the unique problems or the best solutions to those
problems in individual areas. I think the Chairman would agree
with me that what works in Tulsa may not work in Los Angeles.
The strategies implemented in Portland may not be workable in
Missoula. Any Federal efforts in this area should be structured
to provide Federal assistance for Federal responsibilities
while not attempting to force all areas to fit within any
particular approach.
Along the same lines the next transportation bill must
continue to recognize that the transportation needs of rural
America, though different in many ways, are just as real as
those of our urban areas. I think a number of the proposals
we've seen so far have ignored this fact, so I am particularly
pleased that this hearing will focus on both urban and rural
transportation needs.
Obviously, the Oklahoma Panhandle does not have the
congestion problems of New York City. In the Panhandle the
important issues are connectivity of businesses and mobility of
its citizens. Here, too, though, we must remember that not all
rural communities have the same specific concerns. As with our
urban areas, we must not try to force Washington so-called
solutions on all rural communities without regard to their
specific situations. We must focus Federal investment on
Federal responsibilities while not making the mistake of
assuming that solutions to urban problems are needed or
appropriate in our rural communities.
The Administration has been pushing a transportation and
housing initiative called ``livability,'' which I believe is
nothing more than code for transit oriented development. While
details of the proposed program are still lacking, what I have
heard so far makes me believe that the goal of this program is
to move people to urban centers where transit options will
negate the need to own a car. This is exactly the type of
centralized decisionmaking and land use planning that I oppose.
The Federal Government should not be trying to tell communities
what transportation solutions they need or should want.
Again, I thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding this
hearing focusing on both urban and rural transportation needs.
I look forward to discussing these issues with our witnesses.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator.
Senator Barrasso.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman and
Senator Inhofe, for holding this hearing today.
The next Highway Bill must ensure equity in mobility,
flexibility and connectivity. This bill should not assume or
mandate that people in Wyoming and other rural States are going
to get out of their vehicles. That is not going to happen.
Taking a train, riding a bike to work in Wyoming or Montana is
geographically and climatically prohibitive. Metro mobility
concepts can work in urban areas, but it is just not feasible
in our many rural States and any new program outside of the
traditional formulas must include a rural component.
Wyoming, like many other low populated States, has needs,
but they are very different than the cities like New York or
Los Angeles. I mean the needs are significantly different. In
order to meet the highway system's national needs rural States
must have the flexibility to use Federal dollars that serve the
national interest. And I have full faith that the Wyoming
Department of Transportation will continue to [unclear] Federal
resources that will keep our highway system whole.
The rural component of our interstate and national highway
system is critical to keeping our Nation connected. Growing the
Highway Program in one area by taking from another is going to
leave gaps in our national highway system for years to come.
Due to inflationary pressures on highway construction many of
these holes in the system may never be filled. We cannot grow
the program in urban areas while ignoring the rural highway
component of this.
The Interstate 80 Corridor is a critical link for moving
commerce from the west coastal ports, including those is
California and in Washington State and Oregon, to cities
throughout the United States. I-80 captures over 60 percent of
the truck traffic that is going with international commerce
that does not originate or terminate in Wyoming. But is passes
through our State.
According to the Federal Highway Administration truck
traffic on I-80 is going to double over the next 20 years. The
Highway Program is already complicated enough. As we work
through these issues we must keep in mind the fact that this is
not all about congestion. Congress must not lose sight of the
importance of a national, interconnected system of highways
that includes access for rural America.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for your leadership in holding
today's hearing.
Senator Boxer. Yes. And Senator, let me just assure you.
Take my State. I have got more rural areas than you can
imagine, swaths of them, with just little tiny towns and just
miles in between. So, I do not look at rewriting this bill as
rural versus urban. We do not need to pick fights. I think we
have got to look at all of the needs and meet them. So, I am
with you, absolutely, on that point because we do not have a
good bill if it does not address all of America. And that is a
fact.
So, we look forward to working with you. And that is why we
have included the rural issues here today because we know they
are key. And the last Highway Bill, we really did not have a
title that dealt with it. So, let us work together on that.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Now we are pleased to turn to our terrific panel. We will
start off with Mr. Tim Lomax, Research Engineer, Texas
Transportation Institute. And I quote you so often, your
Institute, it such a proven leader on this. I am very glad you
are here.
STATEMENT OF TIM LOMAX, RESEARCH ENGINEER, TEXAS TRANSPORTATION
INSTITUTE; RESEARCHER, UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION CENTER FOR
MOBILITY; REGENTS FELLOW, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
Mr. Lomax. Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope that I live up
your trust and do not make an Aggie of myself.
Madam Chair and distinguished Members of the Committee,
thank you very much for the opportunity to talk about
congestion. I am completely with you that there are a lot of
problems and issues that you all face. I think congestion is
certainly one of them. It is something that we have seen
affecting not just citizens but the freight shippers, the
businesses and the manufacturers. So, I think it is a broad
issue.
I also think there are some solutions, and I hope that we
get a chance to talk about those, too. But I am here to talk
about the problem. I think we really have several congestion
problems. We have got an urban congestion problem that is going
to face our metro and urban regions for a while. There are
going to be long travel delays. There are going to be
unpredictable travel times. There are going to be problems for
both people and freight. It is also going to be a problem in
small and medium sized cities. This is not just a Los Angeles,
San Francisco, Washington, DC, New York kind of problem.
Congestion in rural areas looks different, but it is no
less a problem. More often it is related to crashes, stalled
vehicles, tourism, other special events. And it is easy for big
city residents to dismiss that. But then they are stopped for a
couple of hours on a highway behind a crash and the congestion
problem comes home to them. And safety and congestion problems
are not different. In many cases, they are solved by the same
strategy or the same issue.
So, we should really think about these problems and
opportunities as sort of niche markets or a series of niche
markets. Some problems have a clear technology or an
infrastructure fix. Some of them are really only solved with
better information. Some of them are better addressed by
different policies or programs or incentives or perhaps
different institutional relationships. Some of them require big
solutions. Some of them require small solutions.
And many of these congestion points or routes can be
improved with relatively low cost strategies. So we are not
talking about solutions that only require a lot of money.
Simple ideas are often the ones that we should look at first
because they not only solve part of the problem, but they also
build trust with the public that the money that we are spending
is returning good value, good return on their investment. It
gives them some trust, gives the whole process a sense of
transparency and accountability.
So, I think the couple of problems that you spoke about,
Madam Chairman, the wasted time, up from 2.7 billion hours to
4.2 billion hours in the last 10 or 12 years, fuel consumption
up to 2.8 billion gallons, it costs $87 billion. That is a
congestion tax, if you will, of $750 per traveler in the urban
areas that we look at across the country. If you live and work
in a busy corridor, a big metro region, your time penalties and
costs could be two or three times that.
Over the last 29 months, however, there has been some good
news on congestion. Unfortunately, for your job, that good news
is related to the economic recession and high gas prices. I do
not think that anybody is suggesting that an economic recession
and high gas prices are a good solution to congestion. However
2008 and 2009 showed lower congestion levels than in 2007.
You could think of a trip that might take you 30 minutes in
a free flowing time, say Huntington to downtown DC or
Alexandria to downtown DC, something like that. It would take
you 36 minutes on an average day. But take that same trip and
turn it into one that has a weather problem or there is a crash
or a stalled vehicle or something like that, it might take you
something more like 47 minutes. So, this difference between an
average problem and a reliability or unreliability problem is
one that I think some programs should look at.
I think that it is clear that the goals for cities and
towns and rural areas are similar. We want better quality of
life, better livability. But I think the programs, projects and
policies that each city, county and State uses to solve those
problems and to achieve those goals are going to be different.
I think that is a reflection of the creativity and the
diversity that we have in our cities and towns, and I think
that it should be rewarded.
Thank you very much for your time, and I hope to be able to
answer some questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lomax follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Mr. Lomax.
I am so happy I have the chance to introduce Hon. Scott
Haggerty who is the Supervisor for my home State, the Alameda
County Board of Supervisors. He is speaking on behalf of the
National Association of Counties.
I just have such fond memories of being a County Supervisor
all those years ago. And I know that is where the rubber meets
the road absolutely, whether you are talking about highways or
anything else. You are really there with the constituency.
So, we really look forward to your testimony, and when you
are completed I am going to leave to go over for the signing,
and I am going to hand the gavel over to Senator Sanders.
Please proceed, Supervisor.
STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT HAGGERTY, SUPERVISOR, ALAMEDA COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA; CHAIRMAN, TRANSPORTATION STEERING COMMITTEE,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES; CHAIRMAN, METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Mr. Haggerty. Thank you very much for those kind words.
Good morning, Madam Chair, and Members of the Committee. My
name is Scott Haggerty, and I am a member of the Board of
Supervisors in Alameda County, California. I also serve as the
Chair of the Transportation Steering Committee for the National
Association of Counties. I am also the Chairman of the San
Francisco Bay Areas Metropolitan Transportation Commission
which covers nine counties in the Bay Area with a total
population of over 7 million citizens.
Madam Chair, before I get started with my prepared remarks
I would like to thank you for your leadership in getting the
bill and going over to see--or to make sure--that the bill gets
signed this morning that extends the Surface Transportation
Program and affords $20 billion to the end of the year. It is a
great achievement, and we certainly thank you for that.
NACo's view is that congestion in the metropolitan areas is
an important issue in America's transportation today. In many
of the metropolitan areas we have constrained mobility and
increasing congestion. We know that many commuters and freight
carriers traveling in or through our metro regions do not know
how long it will take to reach their destinations. We know that
the delays in these trips are costly, they harm the
environment, hurt America's commerce, and seem to get longer
each year.
County governments understand congestion and recognize that
it is a big problem. Counties are increasingly very large
jurisdictions. There are 34 counties with populations in excess
of 1 million. Seven of the top 20 mega-counties are in
California. Another 76 counties have between 500,000 and 1
million constituents. We estimate that 120 million people live
in these 120 large jurisdictions. Approximately 85 percent of
all congestion, traffic congestion, transit ridership, and auto
related air pollution are in metro areas.
No place in America better reflects the challenges of
mobility and congestion in both rural and urban America than
Alameda County. It is home to more than 1.5 million people and
to large cities such as Berkeley, Oakland and Fremont. It is
home to one of America's busiest international seaports, the
Port of Oakland, and to major transit agencies such as BART and
AC Transit.
Alameda County suffers from the worst highway congestion in
the Bay Area, which in turn is the second most congested
metropolitan region in the country behind only Los Angeles.
This is a problem that we quite literally cannot afford to
ignore.
Yet my county is also home to vast ranches, orchards and
vineyards. Alameda County is not only the gateway to San
Francisco but to the high tech world of Silicon Valley and the
agricultural bounty of the San Joaquin Valley as well.
NACo strongly urges the reauthorization of the Federal
Surface Transportation Program to include the creation of the
Metro Mobility Program and that these regions with populations
of 500,000 or more be eligible.
We are pleased to see that this concept was included in the
House Reauthorization Bill. The goal of this program would be
to reduce and/or better manage congestion. Local government
officials sitting on the Metropolitan Planning Organization
would select projects for funding and a broad based congestion
plan that would be required in each metro area and that
includes a plan to better manage freight as well as commuter
traffic.
While there are a variety of strategies for reducing
congestion that could be funded under this new program, a Metro
Mobility Program needs to include capacity improvements as an
eligible activity. However before any projects are funded there
should be a clear statement with supporting data demonstrating
how the project will address congestion and improve mobility.
Give that breakdowns and accidents are responsible for an
estimated 50 percent of congestion, incident management should
be considered as a priority in the new reauthorization. An
incentive grant program should be created which funds counties/
metropolitan areas that implement a comprehensive incident
management plan. This could lead to improved cooperation among
State, county and city governments in developing agreements and
strategies to quickly identify and to act to remove vehicles
from the roadways. This is an essential and often less
expensive approach to congestion mitigation.
We still need improvements in the transportation planning
process, even if it requires more capacity and more planning
funds. MPOs should have the authority to program all Federal
highway and transit funds coming into a metro area, not just
the Surface Transportation Program funds and the Transit
Program funds.
While the EPW Committee does not have jurisdiction NACo
wants to be clear that it supports a robust transit program
that improves mobility, reduces congestion, conserves energy
resources, limits greenhouse gases and serves the needs of our
underserved population. We cannot fail to mention the nexus
between transit and highways since thousands of buses do travel
on roadways that are funded with programs that this Committee
authorizes.
This would not be a NACo statement if I did not touch on
rural issues. We strongly urge this Committee to retain both
the Federal Highway Bridge Program and the Off-System Bridge
set aside. Without these programs there is no assurance that
there would be an adequate investment by States and local
governments in our rural transportation infrastructure.
We also recommend the expansion of the High Risk Rural Road
Safety Program and an enhanced rural planning process. Finally,
we must improve project delivery, particularly for many less
complicated and smaller projects, through a streamlined process
that does not unacceptably stretch out environmental review of
the permitting process. The 90 percent of Federal highway
projects that receive categorical exemptions should have a
faster and easier path to project approval and completion.
We are a decade into the 21st century, and despite all
efforts by all levels of government congestion and mobility
solutions continue to challenge us. We cannot afford to
continue the status quo.
This completes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer
any questions from members of the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Haggerty follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Well, thank you so much. As I go off for the
signing of this reauthorization of the Trust Fund I do want to
thank Senator Inhofe. He has been a really good supporter of
transit, highways, of our Highway Trust Fund, and I just wanted
to note that. And of course colleagues here at the table who
helped us.
John--before you leave. Senator. I wanted you to just hear
this just because it interested me when I said we had so many
rural roads. We called the Federal Highway Administration--just
so you know that I was not just being rhetorical. We have
89,000 miles of urban roads in California and 83,000 miles of
rural roads. So, we are together. We are going to work together
because we all have common interests. I just want to make sure
you knew that.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. With that, I am going to hand off the baton,
as it were, to Bernie Sanders and thank my colleagues.
Senator Sanders [presiding]. Thank you, Madam Chair.
We are next going to hear from Hon. James Townsend, Webster
County Judge Executive from Kentucky on behalf of the National
Association of Regional Councils.
Thanks for being with us, Mr. Townsend.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES TOWNSEND, JUDGE EXECUTIVE, WEBSTER
COUNTY, KENTUCKY; PRESIDENT-ELECT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
REGIONAL COUNCILS
Mr. Townsend. Thank you very much.
Good morning, Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe and
other members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to
testify and ask that my written statement be submitted for the
record.
Senator Sanders. Without objection.
Mr. Townsend. As said, my name is Jim Townsend. I am County
Judge Executive of Webster County, Kentucky, in the western
part of the State. And we are very rural. Also, I am President-
Elect of the National Association of Regional Councils, and I
also serve on the Executive Committee of my regional planning
organization, which is the Green River Area Development
District.
Today I will address the needs and opportunities in
America's regions, particularly rural America. My comments will
cover four main areas and will highlight the important role
regional planning organizations have in delivering
transportation and services to localities.
America's rural regions can be best served in the next
Federal Transportation Bill by providing local involvement in
safety, robust investment in both urban and rural regions,
opportunities for livability through comprehensive planning,
and a strong role for rural, local elected officials through
their regional transportation planning organizations.
Locally elected officials are very aware of the safety
needs in our communities. Rural areas have more than half the
highway deaths and twice as many serious injuries. This is
unacceptable to us. NARC recommends strengthening urban and
rural regional planning to develop the plans and programs
necessary to address this problem. Education and enforcement
through regional planning organizations are key to improving
safety.
In transportation policy many are focused on urban needs
and the effects on congestion. While NARC supports this
discussion we stress the importance of addressing rural
congestion and mobility challenges that we have. NARC
recommends that the Federal Government strengthen the rural
planning process and actively include the concerns of rural
communities. Rural, local elected officials stand ready to
communicate local needs and implement the Federal vision.
We applaud the Federal focus on livability and strongly
support including both urban and rural planning and
implementation. The National Association of Regional Councils
recommends including local governments through our regional
planning organizations to identify on-the-ground livability
needs and implementation strategies, taking into account the
rural ties to the Department of Agricultural and to the
Economic Development Administration.
As you are aware, regional planning organizations are
governed by local officials. They are elected. The relationship
between localities and regional cooperation is a very effective
mechanism for developing consensus and solutions. NARC
recommends that MPOs retain their current regional
decisionmaking processes and that rural planning organizations
are given authority to implement the Federal and State visions.
We thank this Committee for their continued support of
regionally important programs that get to heart of the local
problems and the local needs.
Again, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be
here today. Please use NARC as a resource for any Committee
activities. I welcome any questions, and look forward to
working together.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Townsend follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sanders. Thank you very much, Mr. Townsend.
The Honorable Bryce Marlatt is the Vice Chairman of the
Oklahoma Senate Committee on Transportation. Thanks for being
with us.
Mr. Marlatt.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRYCE MARLATT, OKLAHOMA STATE SENATOR; VICE
CHAIRMAN, OKLAHOMA STATE SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Marlatt. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you Ranking Member Inhofe. I really appreciate the opportunity
to testify before this Committee.
As you said, I serve in the Oklahoma State Senate, Senate
District 27, and also serve as Vice Chairman on the
Transportation Committee. Senate District 27----
Senator Inhofe. Let me interrupt. Tell the panel what your
district is like.
Mr. Marlatt. Senate District 27 is the largest Senate
district in the State of Oklahoma and the entire legislature.
It encompasses the entire Panhandle of Oklahoma and all of the
northwest part of the State. It is about 320 miles across, so
we have got a lot of ground to cover, obviously.
Anyway, I really appreciate the opportunity to be here, and
we encompass a lot of obvious U.S. Federal highways and
highways on the national system, and I am continually working
on transportation needs in the State of Oklahoma.
Approximately 60 million people--21 percent of the
population--live in rural communities in the United States.
This is an increase of about 11 percent since the 1990s.
Millions of Americans travel on rural, county and State road
systems every day. Rural roads are vast throughout the country
and have significant needs.
The county highway system in Oklahoma is comprised of
85,000 miles. Oklahoma's rural nature and historically ag and
energy based economy have witnessed a conversion of many farm-
to-market roads into highways. While these roads were ideal for
transporting livestock and crops to market they are less than
adequate when supporting the daily needs of transportation.
In fact based on the evaluation of safety features such as
passing opportunities, adequate sight distance, the existence
of paved shoulders, recovery areas for errant vehicles and the
severity of hills, 24 percent of our over 12,000 miles of rural
highways alone rate as critical or inadequate.
Over 4,700 miles of Oklahoma highways are two-lane roads
without shoulders, and this lack of adequate capacity for
Oklahoma rural highways prevents rural Oklahoma from
participating fully in the State and national economy. We will
never have the jobs and economic development that we need in
rural Oklahoma or rural America if we do not address
infrastructure.
Rural roads also pose unique challenges. For example,
generally speaking rural roads have a greater rate of traffic
fatalities than urban roads. Rural accidents occur at an
alarming rate, and the severity of the collisions is
significant. When specifically considering the accidents that
occur in Oklahoma's critical or inadequate highways, 86 percent
happen on rural two-lane roads. However many of these critical,
needed highway safety improvements that could prevent property
damage, personal injury or the tragic loss of life remain
unattended due to the lack of funding.
In particular I have been working to upgrade U.S. Highway
270, which stretches from the west part of Oklahoma City
through northwestern Oklahoma and all throughout the Panhandle.
Currently, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation has plans
for each section of the crucial corridor through 2017. These
upgrades are planned in each county from Canadian through
Woodward and on throughout the Panhandle. It is extremely
important for me, from the perspective of safety, jobs and
participating in the Oklahoma national economy, for this 270
corridor to be completely modernized.
The Nation's rural bridges have unique needs. For example
Oklahoma has over 14,000 bridges, 5,600 of them are on rural
highways. When considering the 6,700 highway bridges, over
1,400 are either too narrow to support daily traffic or have
structural deficiencies or both. More than 1,100 of the 1,400
bridges, or 78 percent, exist in rural areas, and in addition
rural commerce can be severely impacted by bridges with
restricted load limits as detours can add many miles to the
price paid for the transportation needs in fuel and time.
It is imperative for the rural highways and bridges to be
returned to and kept in a state of good repair. These highways
move entire sectors of our economy including ag, energy,
forestry and tourism, to mention a few. Steady, predictable and
increasing funding sources are necessary because funding allows
our transportation professionals to plan our progress and
affords the opportunity for our contractors to develop their
work forces and construct our roads and bridges as efficiently
as possible.
States and local units of government cannot alone finance,
construct and maintain national systems of highways. A strong
Federal commitment is necessary to ensure the continuity and
viability of our transportation infrastructure far into the
future.
Since the current Federal Highway Authorization Bill
expired on September 30, 2009, States have been operating under
a string of continuing resolutions which cost Oklahoma about
$15 million a month. Congress' recent action to extend the
Federal Highway Program through the end of the year is
significant and will help while a new reauthorization bill is
under development.
And Oklahoma is consistently proud of the work of our
Senior Senator, Senator Inhofe, and I am proud to say that I
have worked for you, and thank you very much for the
reauthorization bill that you worked on.
The States want to do our part to find new funding
solutions to our Nation's transportation needs. Over the last 3
years, there has been approximately a 5 percent decline in
Oklahoma motor fuel tax due to less demand and increased fuel
efficiencies. This has resulted in a $30 million loss in
revenues for my State's roads and bridges.
As Vice Chairman of the Oklahoma Transportation Committee,
I offered Senate Bill 1941 to create an Innovative Funding Task
Force for the purpose of studying and evaluating innovations,
technologies and new methods being employed nationally and by
other States to more adequate and equitably fund roads and
bridges and infrastructure, including both new construction and
maintenance. This legislation passed the Oklahoma Senate on
March 1st, and I would expect quick consideration in the House
of Representatives.
Currently, the funding sources of fuel and gross production
tax fluctuate a great deal. The Federal fuel tax is----
Senator Sanders. If you could wind it up, Mr. Marlatt,
please.
Mr. Marlatt. Oh, OK. We have made great strides in
investing in the infrastructure and reversing the tide of
declining funding in Oklahoma. And I appreciate your support
and your work on the new authorization bill and would yield for
questions as you see fit.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marlatt follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sanders. Thank you very much.
Our next panelist is Hon. John Robert Smith. He is the
former Mayor of Meridian, Mississippi. He is the Co-Chair of
Transportation for America and President of Reconnecting
America. And Senator Carper wanted to say a few words of
introduction.
Senator.
Senator Carper. I just wanted to welcome Mayor Smith to
join us. I was privileged to serve on the Amtrak Board when I
was Governor of Delaware, and our terms did not overlap. When I
stepped down he was joining the Amtrak Board, and he went on to
become Chairman of the Amtrak Board. I think he may have
succeeded Tommy Thompson, if I am not mistaken, as the Chair
and was appointed by President Clinton and I think recommended
by Trent Lott.
But he is a real good, common sense guy and he understands
transportation well. And a pretty good mayor, too. So it is
very nice to see you again. Welcome.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ROBERT SMITH, FORMER MAYOR, MERIDIAN,
MISSISSIPPI; CO-CHAIR, TRANSPORTATION FOR AMERICA; PRESIDENT,
RECONNECTING AMERICA
Mr. Smith. Chairman Boxer, Senator Inhofe, esteemed members
of the Committee, I am John Robert Smith. I am the President of
Reconnecting America and a founding partner of Transportation
for America Coalition, which we call T for America.
I want to thank the Committee for holding this hearing to
discuss the transportation challenges facing small towns and
rural America. I know those issues firsthand for I served for
16 years as the Mayor of my home town of Meridian, Mississippi,
a small city of 40,000 people.
Transportation challenges facing small town America are not
those of congestion only but of access. Long commutes, volatile
energy prices and shifting demographics all impact the
prosperity of these communities. Many small towns and rural
areas lack the financial resources, the planning capacity, and
the authority to implement solutions to their transportation
needs. I think a bold new policy is needed on a Federal level
to address those needs.
Last year the T for America Campaign hosted a series of
roundtable discussions with transportation practitioners, non-
profit advocates, service providers and elected officials. This
working group identified the barriers to accessible
transportation in non-metropolitan areas and prepared six
principles of reform. Those ideas are summarized in a white
paper that we will release later today entitled Principles for
Improving Transportation Options in Rural and Small
Communities. You will find them as an appendix to my written
testimony.
First, we must empower local communities through
institutional reforms. You have heard that from other speakers.
The residents and leaders of small towns and rural communities
have the responsibility for key elements of the transportation
system that connect their towns to other areas. They know best
the local transportation needs and challenges, and they just
want to be a part of the decisionmaking process in finding
those solutions.
Second, it is imperative that America improve the condition
and safety of its transportation system. The poor condition of
many of our roads and bridges has reached a crisis point,
threatening lives in this economy. Let me share a couple of
statistics.
More than 450,000 rural bridges, almost half of the bridges
of more than 20 feet in length in this country, are
structurally deficient. Fifty-eight percent of highway
fatalities occur on rural roads, a rate twice that of urban
roads. We must find highway design solutions and commit funding
to reverse these dangerous conditions that threaten the lives
of our people.
Third, there must be adequate investment in public transit.
The demand for transportation options is growing in rural
America. Aging baby boomers like me in many small rural towns
are increasingly relying on local transit providers. When gas
prices spike in my home town of Meridian people must depend on
public transit just to see the doctor, go to the grocery store
or get to their jobs.
Fourth, there is a desire among those who live in rural
America to preserve and create livable communities. Now, some
think that livable communities is a catch phrase only applied
to large metropolitan areas. I can tell you that is not the
case. Sprawling development patterns have damaged the historic
character and the heritage of many small towns.
In my own home town through investment in our downtown and
the creation of a transportation hub we bolstered the local
economy and reversed the decline of our historic buildings in
our city center. Other communities can do likewise if this
country will commit the resources needed to enhance the
economic competitiveness of existing communities.
Fifth, investment in intercity transportation networks will
allow us to link public transit to passenger rail to high speed
rail to commercial air service and intercity buses. This is the
key to mobility in rural America--connectivity.
Our decision in Meridian to invest in the revitalization of
our historic train station as a multi-modal center proved to be
a catalyst for transforming our main street, increasing public
transportation ridership and helping to generate millions of
dollars of private sector development in surrounding
neighborhoods.
Expanding and funding eligibility of intercity
transportation facilities and intercity rail and bus service
are critical in rural America.
Finally, we must renew our focus on the movement of goods,
particularly through rural America. State and local governments
need the flexibility to invest in multi-modal infrastructure
like rail, inter-modal transfer points and inland waterways.
Multi-modal freight solutions are required to ensure that rural
America can be competitive in this 21st century global economy.
In conclusion, a safe, strong and efficient transportation
system in our small towns, rural areas and metropolitan cities
is necessary if we are going to continue to grow our economy
and provide the American dream to everyone.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sanders. Thank you very much.
Well, let me begin the questioning, then we will go to Mr.
Inhofe.
I heard Mr. Marlatt and Mr. Smith, among others, and I came
a little bit late, talking about among other things the
deterioration of our roads and our bridges. In terms of full
disclosure I come from Vermont, one of the most rural States in
the country, and we have exactly those problems as well. We
just tore down a major bridge going between New York State and
Vermont. It could not be repaired, at great economic loss to
those communities.
In addition, we are in the midst of a major recession with
massive unemployment. From your testimony, what I hear, are you
supportive of a massive infusion of Federal funds into
rebuilding our infrastructure?
Mr. Lomax.
Mr. Lomax. Yes.
Senator Sanders. Mr. Haggerty.
Mr. Haggerty. Yes, definitely.
Senator Sanders. Mr. Townsend.
Mr. Townsend. Yes, sir.
Senator Sanders. Mr. Marlatt.
Mr. Marlatt. Yes.
Senator Sanders. Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir, very much.
Senator Sanders. All right.
We also have a $12.5 trillion national debt. Can I have
some suggestions--and I happen to agree with you, I think, in
terms of infrastructure, our roads and bridges are not getting
better when we neglect them. Right? So, if we are going to be a
strong, competitive Nation economically, we are going to have
to adjust this problem at one point or another. We may as well
do it now and create jobs.
Do you have suggestions as to how we might pay for the
improvement of our infrastructure? Anybody who has ideas, I
would like to hear them.
Mr. Haggerty.
Mr. Haggerty. Thank you very much. Well, first of all, I
think the National Association of Counties clearly supports
increasing the gas tax. It also wholeheartedly supports the
inclusion--or actually making sure that we index it so we do
not have to continue to go through this problem of trying to
figure out if we can get the gas tax raised at any given time.
I think that it is also important that we look at other
ways to put taxes on the user fee, especially as vehicles
become more efficient. I will say this to you, though, Senator.
You know when some of the counties come to you, we have come to
you as self-help counties. We are actually doing what we can
also to raise funds through maybe a half-cent sales tax
measure, or you know, we have a fee on our bridges. If you have
an access to the bridge, there is a fee on that.
And we will also be moving on, in Alameda County and
actually the MTC planning area, the regional HOT lane, actually
regional HOV network, where some of these lanes will convert to
HOT lanes and will help not only to reduce congestion in these
areas because as we move to a congestion pricing on the Bay
Bridge, for example, on July 1st, we estimate that there will
be 23 percent reduction in congestion at that time.
So, those are just a few examples.
Senator Sanders. OK. Other thoughts about how we could----
Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir, Senator. T for America is on record as
supporting a 20 cent increase in the gas tax indexed to
inflation, a 2.5 percent sales tax on motor fuels, and an $8
per barrel surcharge on oil. Each one of these would leverage
$250 billion in additional resources for transportation
solutions.
We wanted to find out what the public thought about this so
we did some polling with Democrat and Republican pollsters, and
we will release that poll later this month. But the poll does
show that there is public support for additional resources if
the transportation decisions are transparent and those who make
the decisions----
Senator Sanders. So, do you have a number in the back of
your head about if we were to adequately fund our
infrastructure needs? We are not even here talking about water
and other infrastructure, just roads and bridges, for example.
How much would we as a Nation need to be spending?
Mr. Smith. Well, I think we are looking at $500 billion-
plus.
Senator Sanders. OK. Over what period of time?
Mr. Smith. Well, that $500 billion would be over a 6-year
authorization. You know, we are building a future for my
grandchildren.
Senator Sanders. Right.
Mr. Smith. President Reagan fought hard for a 5 cents per
gallon gas tax that included transit funding and he made a
promise to, then, my children, in 1983. What promise will we
make? My grandson is 4 years old and wants to have an
opportunity to live in Meridian and be accessible.
Senator Sanders. All right.
Other thoughts, briefly, on how we fund a massive
improvement in roads and bridges. Any other ideas out there?
Let me get Mr. Townsend.
Mr. Townsend. Yes, sir. NARC is right now working on a
regional infrastructure improvement zone concept that we are
working on to create financing of infrastructure, and we would
be happy to provide the Committee with detailed information on
that.
Senator Sanders. What I find interesting about this whole
discussion is not only are we obviously addressing a major
national issue; I do not think there is any debate, no matter
what your politics may be, progressive or conservative, bridges
falling down are bridges falling down. And it has to be
repaired. But also, I would reiterate that in the midst of a
recession we can create some pretty good jobs as we rebuild
this infrastructure.
So, thank you very much.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is one
of the few areas where we agree philosophically on anything.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. Well, that is true.
I have always said when I was first campaigning for this
job and the different times I have been elected, four times,
that we have some priorities. No. 1 has always been, in my
position, national defense. No. 2 is infrastructure.
Now, when Senator Marlatt was talking about the condition
of our bridges in Oklahoma I want all of you to know that we
are now ranked dead last in the condition of our bridges. And
it was not too long ago, Mr. Chairman, that we had a lady who
is the mother of two who, in driving under a bridge, about a
football size--it dropped on her and killed her. What we are
talking about are life and death issues. That is why the line
of questioning that the Chairman has put forth to you is very
significant.
There are two problems that I see with the Oberstar bill,
and I want to kind of get your reaction. I will, of course,
start with you, Bryce. He is focusing very heavily on the
transit bike paths and sidewalks.
Now, I would like to have you--you talked about State
Highway 270. I am very familiar with that, and before you got
here, in my opening statement, Mr. Chairman, I acknowledged
that if you get with me in my airplane, and you go through
there, you can see at any one time 500 of the wind generators
going at the same time. And one of the problems you have is
actually transporting the blades. I would like to have you
address that.
Anyway, I want you to get on record in terms of how you
feel about the amount or the percentage that is used for the
various transit bike paths and sidewalks as opposed to roads,
highways, bridges and so forth.
Mr. Marlatt. Thank you, Senator. I guess the concern with
Chairman Oberstar's bill is that it takes away the ability for
expansion on our traffic, and it takes away the ability for
rural America to be connected to the global economy.
My Senate district, as you well know, has a vast--we are
expanding dramatically in clean energy, compressed natural gas,
and we have got a huge influx of wind blades and turbines that
are coming in, over a $300 million investment alone in my
district. We have got the largest substation in the United
States----
Senator Sanders. Excuse me, a $300 million investment in
wind in your district?
Mr. Marlatt. In wind in my district, yes, sir. And that has
the opportunity to continue to expand if we have the ability to
stay connected. But one of the main concerns is the lack of
shoulders, the two-lane roads going in and out, and the ability
to transport the towers and the blades into my district.
The largest substation in the United States is being built
in the northwest part of the State of Oklahoma to disperse the
energy that we are producing, whether it be from natural gas,
oil or wind. So, I really feel like the fact that the
congestion issues are not going to be something that in rural
Oklahoma we need expansion of roads; we need expansion of
shoulders and highways so that we can continue to provide for
the United States.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. Bryce, the reason I bring this up
where there is a lot of talk about renewables and all that,
that presents other problems, as in his district, even getting
the blades there. These are things we have to consider. I know
we are going to have another round of questioning, but I want
to get to both Mr. Haggerty and Judge Townsend.
I mentioned there are two things I did not like
particularly about the Oberstar bill, and that was one we
already talked about, and the other is the expanded Federal
decisionmaking and control over issues traditionally handled at
the local and State levels. Examples include specific Federal
performance standards, Federal approvals of substance in
various State and local plans, Federal project selection, and
all that.
I would like to have the two of you respond to whether or
not you agree with my concern.
Mr. Townsend. Yes, sir, I do agree with your concern. We
feel that on the local level we should have more input into the
spending and where it needs to be spent. We have the same
problems in western Kentucky that are in Oklahoma. We have a
lot of traffic. We basically are a farm county, and western
Kentucky is basically farm country. We also have coal mines
there, and coal trucks run our highways, and it is very
difficult to keep those roads up and in condition from the
State level as well as the county level.
Senator Inhofe. So you think State, county and local
government probably knows more about your needs than the
Federal Government does?
Mr. Townsend. Yes, sir, I do.
Senator Inhofe. What do you think--the reason I singled out
the two of you is because you both are representing large areas
that transcend urban and rural areas.
Mr. Haggerty. We certainly agree with you, Senator. We
believe that at the local control we certainly go through a
very extensive planning process. You know, we do what we can to
work through the problems of what local constituents on the
ground are doing day to day, and we feel that we certainly have
a better understanding of what it is that the needs are.
We would want to make sure that, you know, as we move
forward with any plan, that it continues to work toward
reduction of congestion.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sanders. Mr. Carper, Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to turn to the issue of looking for opportunities to
find multi-modal solutions to our transportation challenges.
Some of you mentioned that in your testimony. I think certainly
Mayor Smith did.
I like to tell the story about once I was trying to get to
Mackinac Island near Michigan. I drove my car from my home in
Wilmington to a parking garage, and then I walked to the train
station. I took the train to BWI Airport and got off the train
and took a bus to the airport terminal, flew to Travers City,
Michigan, got off the airplane and had another bus to a ferry
which took us across the lake. We got off the ferry and got on
a horse drawn carriage which took us to our hotel. I love
thinking back about how that really met my--how all those
different solutions helped me get where I needed to go that day
in a pretty comfortable and interesting way.
Could you share with us some examples of multi-modal
solutions that you are aware of, that you have worked with, and
give us some ideas of how we could foster more of those from
where we sit?
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. Senator, your trip sounds not unlike
my honeymoon. We were married at a multi-modal transportation
center, we took the train to Washington, we flew to Knoxville,
and then we drove up into the Smoky Mountains.
Senator Carper. And then lived happily ever after?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Smith. Well, that is all I will share with you about
that trip.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Smith. But what we did in downtown Meridian, we took
the remnants of a historic train station, and this was with
ISTEA money, we invested $1.3 million of city funds, about $5
million in ISTEA funds, and we created the first multi-modal
transportation center in the South, one of the first in the
country, especially for a city of our size, where we brought
all modes of transportation together--the passenger rail
services, intercity bus service, city transit service, taxi
service, connections out to the airport.
What that $1.3 million did of city investment, it has
leveraged today $135 million of additional public-private
sector investment within three blocks of that station. It has
created transportation choices for people; people are living
back downtown for the first time in my lifetime. And I live in
the home my grandfather built. My grandson is the fifth
generation of our family to grow up in our house. Now, we are
seeing market rate apartments, condominiums, all connected into
the downtown living.
We were the last HOPE VI project awarded, or one of the
last in this country, totally lifted one whole historic sector
of Meridian, rebuilt real homes instead of housing projects to
warehouse human beings, with a sense of sidewalks and
landscaping and lighting. But it is connected by transit so
that those citizens who live there connect to their jobs, a lot
of them in the service sector, to the community college for
education and to the hospitals for healthcare. That has
leveraged other economic development.
Senator Carper. Our role--what can we do to foster that
sort of development? My question is what can we do at the
Federal level to help encourage and nurture and foster those
kinds of activities?
Mr. Smith. Well, to make those kinds of multi-modal hubs
applicable, especially under livability, and when you think
about livable communities, cities 50,000 and less need to be
eligible for those funds as well. Those are small city centers
that really lift regions. We support 350,000 people in rural
counties around us. So, making such facilities eligible and
allowing smaller cities to compete under what I think is a
pretty exciting livability agenda that the Administration has
rolled out.
Senator Carper. Any other thoughts on this?
Yes, sir, Mr. Haggerty.
Mr. Haggerty. Thanks, Senator. First of all, I would just
like to say that NACo strongly supports mass transit, which
includes rail bus, van transit ferries, and our urban, suburban
and rural member counties want to offer more transit.
I think the problem with transit from time to time becomes
we need to make it more convenient. And I think, now speaking
as a member of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, one
of the things that we have put in play is this 511.org. That is
simply a Web site that you can go to or even call on, and they
will do a trip planner for you.
For example, I am saying I am leaving my house in Dublin,
California--which I really do live in Dublin, I am not just
trying to be Irish--and then, you know, from Dublin,
California, and I need a trip planner via transit to get to San
Francisco on Van Ness Street. It will print that out for me, or
it will tell me verbally how to do it and which I can do.
That is the key. That is making transit convenient. That is
helping people. Because part of the problem is, most of the
people get out there and they say, I do not know how the heck
to do this, I do not know how to ride the local bus to BART and
then take BART, you know, to MUNI, and then get on the MUNI
train and get to my final destination.
Senator Carper. Well, that is great. That is great stuff.
Thank you.
If we have time? Mr. Lomax.
Mr. Lomax. One more story. Your multi-modal trip sounds
like one I took from London to Calais for lunch 1 day. It took
the whole day, but my family had a great time, and we got to
ride many different modes of transportation. They still
complain about my interest in transportation.
I think really your question, I would suggest, has an
answer in both answering Senator Sanders and Senator Inhofe.
You are really talking about local decisionmaking that comes
from a data driven process, an interest in attaining some
goals. So, I think there is a real connection here between the
local interests, and what you all can do is help foster some of
that data driven process. Some of the reporting requirements in
Senator Oberstar's bill could be reporting of metrics. It does
not have to be to standards that the Federal Government
suggests or mandates, but it could be to specify the measures
and compare them to local standards.
And then combine that with the support for the financing
that really only happens when people understand what the value
of the investment is. I think some of our lack of
transportation investment comes from the fact that people just
do not understand what they get.
Senator Sanders. OK. Thank you very much.
Senator Carper. I thank you as well.
Senator Sanders. Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and it is
good to see that we have some agreement here between our
Ranking Member and the Chairman on infrastructure issues. This
is a welcome development.
Clearly, doing infrastructure, we need to do
infrastructure, as I think most of you have emphasized in your
testimony, because it is an investment in the future. And in
this economic time we are in, it certainly creates jobs in both
rural and urban communities that we need created.
I wanted to focus a little bit on the rural part of this,
so any of you that can comment on this. You know,
transportation systems are critical for the economic health of
rural communities. We have--an example I want to give you, is
dairies in rural areas.
In Roosevelt County in New Mexico, it is a home to many
large dairies that rely on a transportation network to deliver
their milk, milk products, for processing and sale.
Unfortunately the roads serving the dairies are in such
disrepair that dairy owners must pay extra freight fees to
allow for the detours and the delays that the truckers
encounter.
It sounds like something that Mr. Marlatt mentioned in
terms of getting the renewable infrastructure, the turbines and
all of that, into the area to do your rural development.
So, what should be included in the reauthorization to
ensure that the condition of rural roads is also included as a
priority? Any of you, please go ahead.
Mr. Marlatt. Thank you, Senator. I think the main thing is
it is important to remember that we cannot divorce the fact
that we have to--we need to maintain the integrity of our roads
and bridges and provide the infrastructure to move products
from Point A to Point B.
As you well know, being from New Mexico, Texas County,
which is in my district, is the sixth largest ag producing
county in the Nation. There is a lot of product that moves
every day out of Texas County, out of my district, and is
disbursed to the rest of the United States. There is a lot of
energy in my district that is moved from Point A to Point B to
provide for the urban areas on a daily basis.
Well, we do not have a lot of rail or public transit. We do
have some horse drawn carriages in my district. But I think the
main thing that we need to look at is that we do not want to
take away from the ability to expand our lanes, to expand our
shoulders.
Transit, I do not feel like it is a great option in rural
America. I think that it causes expansion of our roads to stop
when we are investing in simply transit, and I really feel like
that type of problem is replicated all throughout rural
America. I think that maintaining and investing in the
integrity of our roads and bridges is something that we need to
do all we can to continue to fund.
Senator Udall. Thank you. Any of you, please, Mr. Haggerty.
Mr. Haggerty. Just talking about roads here for a second,
but another very vital part of roads is the Bridge Program and
eliminating the Federal Bridge Program, more particularly the
Federal Off-Road System Set Aside, would certainly be a
mistake.
The 15 percent set aside currently totals about $700
million per year and often goes to repairing our county owned
bridges and is often the only Federal Highway Funds received by
rural county governments.
We--the GAO has documented that the program has been
successful in decreasing the number of deficit off lying
bridges. It seems to us that if you think deficit bridges are a
national problem the best way to attack the problem is to
retain a dedicated funding stream, that is the existing
program, and not allow States to transfer bridge funds to other
categories.
Senator Udall. Great. Any other?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Senator Sanders. Mr. Smith, did you want to comment?
Mr. Smith. Yes, Senator, if I may. Our rural program
includes keeping national highway system and off system bridges
eligible. And in many rural areas they no longer are. But it is
also not a one size fits all. In New Mexico the Railrunner
Commuter Service links small towns between Albuquerque and
Santa Fe. In Mississippi it is the Amtrak Crescent through my
hometown of Meridian. We are looking for choices. It is about
choice, and people are looking for other options as a way to
stay connected and to get to the goods and services they need
for everyday life.
Senator Sanders. I am going to have to run and give the
Chair over to Senator Udall. Senator Inhofe, did you have
another question for----
Senator Inhofe. Yes, I did. I know that we are about out of
time here.
The big problem we have not devoted enough time to is how
we are going to pay for all this stuff. And we talked about,
you know, the different taxes. When we did--and I have been
around through TEA-21 in 1991 and then SAFETEA in 1998 and then
SAFETEA-LU, or whatever it was, in 2005. In fact, I was the
author of that bill.
We, at that time, recognized that we have been doing the
same funding types of sources since the Eisenhower
administration. And that is why I say that we need to get more
innovative than that.
I would like to direct this at you, Mr. Lomax, because
Texas does some innovative things. You know, people always say
they want change until there is change, and they do not want
change. And you know what I am talking about because you guys
went through it in Texas. And so they did in Indiana and
Virginia and other States that tried that. But you have been
very aggressive, and I applaud you for that.
Just briefly tell us some of the partnership types of
things that you have talked about in Texas, some of the
problems, the misrepresentations, the hysteria that has come
from that, and that might help us, direct us a little bit, on
what me might want to do. There has got to be a better way than
just continuing to do it as we have done in the past and still
meeting those.
Before you came in, Mr. Chairman, I talked about it was
$286.4 billion, the 2005 bill. It was huge. But that did not
even pay for the maintenance of what we have. So, we have to
get more creative.
Mr. Lomax, would you share your thoughts with us and your
experiences in Texas?
Mr. Lomax. OK. I do not want to downplay the role of
hysteria, but I think one of the things that Texas has done is
to explore a bunch of options. I think some of those options
have not been well understood, and I would suggest that there
is a role for not just public information but public
involvement in any set of options.
I think one of the things that Texas is known for is trying
to get the private sector involved in transportation----
Senator Inhofe. Into partnerships.
Mr. Lomax. As a partnership with the public entities,
trying to get some more financial leverage, trying to find
people with creative ideas. I think that is probably the
cornerstone of what Texas has tried to do, is to get more money
but also more creativity on how to solve the problems.
Certainly the toll road projects are the ones that have
gotten the most attention. I think there are a variety of other
operating treatments. Just coordinating the traffic signals,
getting the crashes and stalled vehicles out of the roads.
Houston has essentially a contract with a bunch of
different tow companies where they are responsible for a 6-
minute response time. If there is a crash or stalled vehicle,
those tow companies have to respond immediately. We have seen a
10 to 12 percent reduction in crashes and about a $30 billion
savings in congestion just from that kind of a program. That is
about a $3 million or $4 million a year seeing a 10 to 1 return
rate on that.
So, I think a combination of big projects, the toll road
interests, as well as small projects.
Senator Inhofe. When you say toll roads, are you talking
about private toll roads?
Mr. Lomax. In some cases they are private toll roads. There
is a toll road that connects the Austin and San Antonio areas
on the east side that is going to be a privately operated toll
road.
Senator Inhofe. Now, on the innovation thing. Well, first
of all, Senator Marlatt, you said that you had some kind of
innovative funding mechanisms. Is there anything that is
consistent with our conversation now that you can share with us
that has come out of your study, I guess there on the State
level in Oklahoma?
Mr. Marlatt. It is an innovative funding task force that is
just being created that will look at all kinds of
opportunities, whether public or private, and on the public-
private partnership program. I think it is important--and you
know this well--I think it is important for the members of the
Committee to know that in Oklahoma, maybe not down the line as
funding mechanisms, but as far as stretching the dollar and
making the dollar go as far as possible, in Oklahoma we have an
interesting program where we actually allow the Department of
Transportation--the agency actually selects the process on a
critical needs basis.
We have taken the politics out of the development and are
actually addressing our needs on a critical needs basis. And
the agency then has a responsibility to report back to the
House and Senate and the Governor on the progress that they
have made and making sure that they are being responsible and
how they are spending the dollars. But it actually has given
the control on a local level and allowed them to address the
needs that they see fit.
Senator Inhofe. Any of the rest of you on this? Because
what Bryce is saying is true in Oklahoma. Of course, we are
blessed with probably the best Transportation Secretary of any
of the States. And we do it by needs by district, and we do not
come in and say, well, this is the area that I want to help. It
is not that type of thing. We spread those out.
Is there any other, anything particular in the way of an
innovative thing that you are aware of that has happened in
your States or areas that you would want to share with us?
Mr. Haggerty. Well, Senator, when you talk about
innovation, and I am now speaking as an MTC Commissioner for
the San Francisco Bay Area, we have seven of our nine counties,
which are MPOs, or Metropolitan Planning Organizations, that
are half-cent sales tax authority. What does that mean? That
means that every time you buy something, a half-cent goes to
transportation projects in Alameda County, for example. In
Alameda County prior to the recession we were raising
approximately $110 million a year that would go toward
transportation projects.
And we certainly believe that gives us a leg up and the
ability to do the necessary planning work to then come to the
Federal Government and say, here is a project, we have worked
it through, not only the locals, which we start down with the
cities and the counties, and then if filters up to the MPO, and
then MPO puts together a list of projects through, whether it
would be our 2035 Plan or whatever, that has a list of priority
projects, and then we move those up either to the State or the
Federal Government to implement them.
So, I mean, I think that is something that we have done
that is fairly innovative. We are starting to move some of our
HOV lanes to HOT lanes, as I had mentioned in my earlier
testimony. That money will be used to dedicate transit funding
in that corridor.
You know, we are doing everything we can. We were fortunate
to have Steve Heminger, who is our Executive Director of our
MPO, sit on a national commission that actually made
recommendations to Congress. And we actually are implementing a
lot of the stuff that came out of that process. For example,
congestion pricing, which I mentioned in my earlier testimony
also.
Senator Inhofe. Good. Well, let us do this. I know we have
gone beyond our timeframe. But I would like to have--when we
say for the record, we normally are asking you, after this
hearing is over, that you give us, share your experiences with
us on anything innovative that you have either tried and has
not worked. That is our big problem here. We have got to think
of a way to pay for all of this stuff.
When you said there is going to be, we are looking at a
$500 billion problem, I agree with you. But you have got to
come up with it. And I just think we are going to have to
deviate from our old 60-year-old behavioral patterns.
Mr. Townsend. May I have time here?
Senator Inhofe. Does he have time here? OK. Go ahead.
Mr. Townsend. We are working on regional infrastructure
improvement zones and trying to change the Federal Tax Code so
that we can have private and public partnerships in business
invest in the infrastructure improvements. NARC is working on
that right now.
Now, in the State of Kentucky, you mentioned the districts.
We have districts also, and the districts meet with the
counties, and we agree on what are the worst----
Senator Inhofe. You establish priorities.
Mr. Townsend. We set priorities, yes, sir. And then to go
one step farther, our regional--our ag district or our regional
cog, which is made up of seven counties and made up of judges
and mayors and individual representatives, we look at the whole
area to see what are the worst problem roads in the area. And
we feel--you brought up a very good question about how to fund
this. It is--one of the ways I think we are going to have to do
it is through private and public together.
Senator Inhofe. You said something there that really
sparked something in my mind. Now, Bryce, maybe the law has
changed since I was in the State legislature, but we used to
have assessment districts in Oklahoma. I assume we still do.
You were talking about that. That has never entered my mind.
Assessment districts would be a vehicle by which you could
exercise the local support for something. It is something to
think about.
Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. Senator, in Meridian a large part of
our success was by public-private partnerships, and we used tax
increment financing districts which you had run linear along a
transportation project to help fund that project.
Also, amending Federal tax laws so that new market tax
credits could support transit. Transit could be eligible for
new market tax credits. That would be helpful to the private
sector as they work with local units of government to provide
seamless transportation experiences once you get into their
downtowns.
Senator Inhofe. That is good. Let me say thank you to all
five of you and particularly, of course, Bryce, for coming up
here. It has been very helpful to us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. You
have finished your questioning? I think we are ready to wrap up
here. Great.
Let me also thank the witnesses in the panel today. Your
testimony has been very helpful. Certainly, your ideas and
recommendations are going to be taken into consideration in our
work here.
I would ask unanimous consent that the testimony from the
Transportation Departments of Idaho, Montana, North Dakota,
South Dakota and Wyoming be inserted in the record. Without
objection, so ordered.
[The referenced testimony follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. If you would expand that so that we keep
our books open for another 3 or 4 days so that if they wanted
to respond in writing to the challenges we have been talking
about, particularly unique funding mechanisms, they would be
able to do that?
Senator Udall. Without objection. That is so ordered. And
we would welcome that kind of participation.
With no further business, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.]
[all]