[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPROVING AND REFORMING THE NATION'S
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
(112-19)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
MARCH 29 AND 30, 2011
----------
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
IMPROVING AND REFORMING THE NATION'S
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS
IMPROVING AND REFORMING THE NATION'S
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
(112-19)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 29 AND 30, 2011
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-478 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey Columbia
GARY G. MILLER, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri BOB FILNER, California
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
TOM REED, New York MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
BILLY LONG, Missouri STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
BOB GIBBS, Ohio LAURA RICHARDSON, California
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee
JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana
STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida
JEFF DENHAM, California
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
(ii)
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin JERROLD NADLER, New York
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina BOB FILNER, California
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
GARY G. MILLER, California TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
SAM GRAVES, Missouri MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington LAURA RICHARDSON, California
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
BILLY LONG, Missouri NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BOB GIBBS, Ohio (Ex Officio)
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York, Vice
Chair
STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida
JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 2011
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ ix
TESTIMONY
Betkey, Vernon F., Jr., Director, Maryland Highway Safety Office,
on behalf of the Governors Highway Safety Association.......... 4
Byrd, LaMont, Director, Safety and Health Department,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters......................... 4
Dexter, Jennifer, Assistant Vice President, Government Relations,
Easter Seals................................................... 4
Dowling, Captain Steve, California Highway Patrol, on behalf of
the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance......................... 4
Downey, Mortimer L., III, Senior Advisor, Parsons Brinckerhoff,
on behalf of the Coalition for America's Gateways and Trade
Corridors...................................................... 4
Hanley, Larry, International President, Amalgamated Transit Union 4
Johnson, Wayne, Manager, Global Carrier Relations, Owens Corning,
on behalf of The National Industrial Transportation League..... 4
Kane, Kristopher, Professional Truck Driver, Quality Carriers, on
behalf of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association... 4
Leach, Dave, President and CEO, Greyhound Lines, Inc............. 4
Letourneau, Robert, Motorcycle Rider Education Specialist, New
Hampshire Department of Safety, on behalf of the Motorcycle
Riders Foundation.............................................. 4
Marsico, Dale J., Executive Director, Community Transportation
Association of America......................................... 4
Martz, Jon, Vice President, Government Relations, VPSI, Inc., on
behalf of the Association for Commuter Transportation.......... 4
McBride, Robert, Operator, Metro Taxi, on behalf of the Taxicab,
Limousine & Paratransit Association............................ 4
Millar, William, President, American Public Transportation
Association.................................................... 4
Mullings, Lisa J., President and CEO, NATSO, Inc. (National
Association of Truck Stop Operators)........................... 4
Nagle, Kurt J., President and CEO, American Association of Port
Authorities.................................................... 4
Pantuso, Peter J., President and CEO, American Bus Association... 4
Stone, Judith Lee, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety......................................................... 4
Windsor, Barbara, President and CEO, Hahn Transportation, Inc.,
on behalf of American Trucking Associations.................... 4
Withers, Jan, Member, National Board of Directors, Mothers
Against Drunk Driving.......................................... 4
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Duncan, Hon. John J., Jr., of Tennessee.......................... 44
Richardson, Hon. Laura, of California............................ 45
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Betkey, Vernon F., Jr............................................ 50
Byrd, LaMont..................................................... 59
Dexter, Jennifer................................................. 73
Dowling, Captain Steve........................................... 91
Downey, Mortimer L., III......................................... 108
Hanley, Larry.................................................... 118
Johnson, Wayne................................................... 146
Kane, Kristopher................................................. 156
Leach, Dave...................................................... 166
Letourneau, Robert............................................... 171
Marsico, Dale J.................................................. 177
Martz, Jon....................................................... 197
McBride, Robert.................................................. 203
Millar, William.................................................. 211
Mullings, Lisa J................................................. 235
Nagle, Kurt J.................................................... 241
Pantuso, Peter J................................................. 245
Stone, Judith Lee................................................ 265
Windsor, Barbara................................................. 285
Withers, Jan..................................................... 308
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Betkey, Vernon F., Jr., Director, Maryland Highway Safety Office,
on behalf of the Governors Highway Safety Association, response
to question.................................................... 57
Dowling, Captain Steve, California Highway Patrol, on behalf of
the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, response to question... 101
Downey, Mortimer L., III, Senior Advisor, Parsons Brinckerhoff,
on behalf of the Coalition for America's Gateways and Trade
Corridors, responses to questions.............................. 114
Hanley, Larry, International President, Amalgamated Transit
Union, responses to questions.................................. 144
Kane, Kristopher, Professional Truck Driver, Quality Carriers, on
behalf of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association,
response to question........................................... 165
Millar, William, President, American Public Transportation
Association, responses to questions............................ 229
Stone, Judith Lee, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety, response to question................................... 282
Windsor, Barbara, President and CEO, Hahn Transportation, Inc.,
on behalf of American Trucking Associations, responses to
questions...................................................... 303
Withers, Jan, Member, National Board of Directors, Mothers
Against Drunk Driving, request to include Washington Post
editorial, ``Plastered''....................................... 316
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2011
TESTIMONY
Belcher, Scott, President and CEO, Intelligent Transportation
Society of America............................................. 321
Boehlert, Hon. Sherwood, on behalf of the Bipartisan Policy
Center......................................................... 321
Burke, John, CEO, Trek Bicycle Corporation, on behalf of the
Bikes Belong Coalition......................................... 321
Caldwell, Kathy J., P.E., F.ASCE, President, American Society of
Civil Engineers................................................ 321
Calvert, Sharon, Co-Founder, Florida Alliance.................... 321
Cohen, Gregory M., President and CEO, American Highway Users
Alliance....................................................... 321
Cox, William G., President, Corman Construction, Inc., on behalf
of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association..... 321
Diederich, Paul, President, Industrial Builders, Inc., on behalf
of The Associated General Contractors of America............... 321
Grote, Bryan, Principal, Mercator Advisors LLC, and Member,
National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing
Commission..................................................... 321
Jeffrey, Joe, President, Road-Tech Safety Services, on behalf of
the American Traffic Safety Services Association............... 321
Johnson, Ashby, AICP, Deputy Director of Transportation, Houston-
Galveston Area Council, on behalf of the Association of
Metropolitan Planning Organizations............................ 321
Lovaas, Deron, Federal Transportation Policy Director, Natural
Resources Defense Council...................................... 321
McCartney, Frank, Executive Director, Delaware River Joint Toll
Bridge Commission, on behalf of the International Bridge,
Tunnel and Turnpike Association................................ 321
Moore, Adrian, Vice President, Reason Foundation, and Member,
National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing
Commission..................................................... 321
Njord, John R., P.E., Executive Director, Utah Department of
Transportation................................................. 321
Poupore, Raymond J., Executive Vice President, National
Construction Alliance II....................................... 321
Smith, John Robert, President and CEO, Reconnecting America...... 321
Stump, Jerry, Executive Vice President and COO, Wilbur Smith
Associates, on behalf of the American Council of Engineering
Companies...................................................... 321
Thomey, David R., Executive Vice President, Maryland Materials,
Inc., on behalf of the National Stone, Sand & Gravel
Association.................................................... 321
Ware, Timothy, Executive Director, Mid-East Commission, on behalf
of the National Association of Development Organizations....... 321
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Belcher, Scott................................................... 363
Boehlert, Hon. Sherwood.......................................... 375
Burke, John...................................................... 384
Caldwell, Kathy J., P.E., F.ASCE................................. 391
Calvert, Sharon.................................................. 403
Cohen, Gregory M................................................. 414
Cox, William G................................................... 424
Diederich, Paul.................................................. 437
Grote, Bryan..................................................... 452
Jeffrey, Joe..................................................... 460
Johnson, Ashby, AICP............................................. 490
Lovaas, Deron.................................................... 497
McCartney, Frank................................................. 513
Moore, Adrian.................................................... 521
Njord, John R., P.E.............................................. 524
Poupore, Raymond J............................................... 531
Smith, John Robert............................................... 540
Stump, Jerry..................................................... 552
Thomey, David R.................................................. 557
Ware, Timothy.................................................... 562
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Boehlert, Hon. Sherwood, on behalf of the Bipartisan Policy
Center, response to question................................... 382
Burke, John, CEO, Trek Bicycle Corporation, on behalf of the
Bikes Belong Coalition, response to question................... 390
Caldwell, Kathy J., P.E., F.ASCE, President, American Society of
Civil Engineers, responses to questions........................ 399
Cohen, Gregory M., President and CEO, American Highway Users
Alliance, response to question................................. 422
Cox, William G., President, Corman Construction, Inc., on behalf
of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association,
responses to questions......................................... 434
Diederich, Paul, President, Industrial Builders, Inc., on behalf
of The Associated General Contractors of America, responses to
questions...................................................... 449
Grote, Bryan, Principal, Mercator Advisors LLC, and Member,
National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing
Commission, responses to questions............................. 457
Jeffrey, Joe, President, Road-Tech Safety Services, on behalf of
the American Traffic Safety Services Association:
Responses to questions......................................... 468
Request to include ``Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
Obligations and Fatalities on U.S. Highways: Final Report,''
June 29, 2010, prepared by Science Applications International
Corporation (SAIC)........................................... 471
Johnson, Ashby, AICP, Deputy Director of Transportation, Houston-
Galveston Area Council, on behalf of the Association of
Metropolitan Planning Organizations, responses to questions.... 494
Njord, John R., P.E., Executive Director, Utah Department of
Transportation, responses to questions......................... 530
Poupore, Raymond J., Executive Vice President, National
Construction Alliance II, responses to questions............... 534
Smith, John Robert, President and CEO, Reconnecting America,
response to question........................................... 549
Ware, Timothy, Executive Director, Mid-East Commission, on behalf
of the National Association of Development Organizations,
responses to questions......................................... 571
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD FOR MARCH 29 AND MARCH 30, 2011
Alliance for Biking and Walking; Alternatives for Community &
Environment; Amalgamated Transit Union; America Bikes; Apollo
Alliance; Association of Programs for Rural Independent Living;
Campaign for Community Change; Change to Win; CLASP; Kirwan
Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity; Local
Initiatives Support Corporation; NAACP; NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, Inc., National Coalition for Asian Pacific
American Community Development; National Complete Streets
Coalition; National Council of La Raza; National Housing
Conference; National Housing Trust; National Low Income Housing
Coalition; Partnership for Working Families; PolicyLink;
Poverty & Race Research Action Council; Public Advocates;
Reconnecting America; Safe Routes to School National
Partnership; The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights; The National Alliance of Community Economic Development
Associations; Transit Riders for Public Transportation;
Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO; Trust for
America's Health; and the William C. Velasquez Institute;
written testimony.............................................. 573
Alliance for Safe, Efficient and Competitive Truck
Transportation, written statement.............................. 579
America Bikes, written testimony................................. 583
Andrew J. Warcaba & Associates, Inc., Andy Warcaba, President,
written statement.............................................. 585
Apollo Alliance, written statement............................... 588
International Downtown Association, James A. Cloar, Interim
President, written testimony................................... 596
National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (n4a), Sandy
Markwood, CEO, written statement............................... 601
National Association of Home Builders, written statement......... 605
National Association of Realtors, written statement............. 608
National Complete Streets Coalition, written testimony........... 610
National Congress of American Indians, written testimony......... 613
National Steel Bridge Alliance, Roger Ferch, Executive Director,
written statement.............................................. 619
Safe Routes to School National Partnership, Deborah A. Hubsmith,
Director, written testimony.................................... 625
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Wade
Henderson, President and CEO, written testimony................ 634
Transportation Departments of Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South
Dakota, and Wyoming, written statement......................... 640
United Motorcoach Association, written testimony................. 652
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
IMPROVING AND REFORMING
THE NATION'S SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:30 p.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John J. Duncan,
Jr., (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Duncan. The subcommittee will come to order.
Today the subcommittee is convening a 2-day hearing to
receive testimony from the Transportation Committee on their
ideas for the reauthorization of the Federal surface
transportation programs.
This reauthorization of the highway, transit, and highway
safety programs will be more challenging than probably any
other in recent memory. Fiscal constraints and calls for
Congress to redefine the Federal role in surface transportation
will require us to consider dramatic changes to these programs.
One of the key initiatives that the subcommittee will focus
on is streamlining the project delivery process. Time delays
and inefficiencies in project delivery not only postpone needed
improvements in our Nation's transportation infrastructure but
also result in increases in the cost of the project.
The subcommittee will also be looking at innovative
financing. Bonding, loan programs, and public-private
partnerships are just some of the innovative financing
techniques that the subcommittee can utilize to leverage the
Nation's limited Highway Trust Fund dollars.
Additionally, the subcommittee must take a hard look at the
number of Federal surface transportation programs. Today, there
are more than 100 highway, transit, and highway safety
programs. We don't need that many. We should consolidate
duplicative Federal programs to eliminate waste and eliminate
programs that do not serve a national need.
I am pleased that we have the Ranking Member of the full
committee, Mr. Rahall. I was told that Ms. Richardson was on
the way, and I was going to wait on her, but Ranking Member
Rahall told us to go ahead.
We are doing this a little differently than we have done
before. We have had a few days of Member requests in which we
had a great number of witnesses, but we have never had quite
this many witnesses for another type of hearing, so we are sort
of experimenting here today. I understand that all the
witnesses have been told that the goal is to try to limit their
statements to 4 minutes each. We realize that we will not be
able to exactly do that.
But, at this point, I would like to welcome, as the Ranking
Member of the subcommittee for the day, the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Richardson.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Only for today?
Mr. Duncan. As long as you want.
Ms. Richardson. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for
convening this hearing to discuss our surface transportation
programs.
Our Nation's infrastructure is falling further and further
into a state of disrepair every day, and it is our duty as
being members of this committee to address it and to get a
long-term bill done.
The SAFETEA-LU created commissions that studied the
Nation's need to invest in our infrastructure specifically for
the purpose of forming on the decision that we are talking
about now. Through this process, the National Surface
Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission concluded
that we must invest $225 billion annually from all sources to
bring our infrastructure up to a state of good repair.
While the Federal Government is clearly not the sole source
and we will be exploring private-public partnerships, one of
many, we all know that it is the primary source. And, thus, our
investment must be up to scale to meet the Commission's--the
charter that they have given us.
Congestion is crippling our major cities. The quality of
our transportation system is deteriorating. Almost 61,000
miles, 37 percent of our roads, are in poor or fair condition,
and 152,000 bridges are 25 percent structurally deficient. When
you consider all of these things, unfortunately the Highway
Trust Fund is not collecting a sufficient amount of receipts to
be able to enable us to make the repairs that are necessary.
The President has laid out a good start of his bill
proposal of $556 billion over 6 years. He also has included in
that a national infrastructure bank and other innovative
financing ideas to help bring this sort of investment to
fruition. We saw with the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act that, through the $64.1 billion, it created 1.8 million
jobs and $323 billion in economic activity.
We must think of additional creative ways. I have suggested
several that I believe the Chairman and our Ranking Member are
both aware of. I won't go too much into detail with them.
However, I will say one thing I think is absolutely
necessary, and that is a goods movement trust fund. We have
suggested on the table a 12 percent increase, a diesel tax,
that has been supported by the industry itself. There are other
things that we should consider, such as a TIFIA enhancement,
which would enable better financing, and also considering
making environmental changes, as well.
Because I do know you, Mr. Duncan, I have actually cut my
comments by about 20 percent of what I had here, because I know
he likes us to keep it brief. But it would suffice to say, we
are looking forward to working in a bipartisan fashion.
However, we hope that you will be open to consider innovative
financing as a part of that proposal.
I yield back and submit my final statement for the record.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you very much, Ms. Richardson. You
know you are one of my favorite Members, so I appreciate that.
And we will now hear from our distinguished Ranking Member,
the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Rahall.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have no prepared statement, only to commend you for
conducting these hearings today.
And I commend all the witnesses, many of whom have traveled
from far away to be here. Others, as I recognize, are right
here in DC. So, welcome.
I have no further comments.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Boswell?
Mr. Boswell. No comment.
Mr. Duncan. All right.
Another way we are experimenting here today, we have 20
witnesses today and I guess another 20 tomorrow, and then we
have other groups that have requested--we had additional
witnesses who wanted to testify. We wanted to give everybody a
chance to have their say and put their statements in the record
and so forth. We will let additional groups put their
statements into the record, but we have sort of hit a limit on
the number of witnesses that we could accommodate.
But we have asked that the witnesses remain. And if there
are any Members present at the end, we will hold questions
until the end.
And I ask unanimous consent that members of the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure who are not on the
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit be permitted to sit with
the subcommittee at today's hearing, offer testimony and ask
questions. Are there any objections?
Hearing none, it will be so ordered.
All right. The first witness will be Mr. William Millar,
president of the American Public Transportation Association.
Mr. Millar?
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM MILLAR, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION; LARRY HANLEY, INTERNATIONAL
PRESIDENT, AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION; DALE J. MARSICO,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF
AMERICA; JON MARTZ, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, VPSI,
INC., ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUTER TRANSPORTATION;
ROBERT MCBRIDE, OPERATOR, METRO TAXI, ON BEHALF OF THE TAXICAB,
LIMOUSINE & PARATRANSIT ASSOCIATION; JENNIFER DEXTER, ASSISTANT
VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, EASTER SEALS; BARBARA
WINDSOR, PRESIDENT AND CEO, HAHN TRANSPORTATION, INC., ON
BEHALF OF AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS; KRISTOPHER KANE,
PROFESSIONAL TRUCK DRIVER, QUALITY CARRIERS, ON BEHALF OF THE
OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION; LAMONT BYRD,
DIRECTOR, SAFETY AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS; DAVE LEACH, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
GREYHOUND LINES, INC.; PETER J. PANTUSO, PRESIDENT AND CEO,
AMERICAN BUS ASSOCIATION; CAPTAIN STEVE DOWLING, CALIFORNIA
HIGHWAY PATROL, ON BEHALF OF THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SAFETY
ALLIANCE; VERNON F. BETKEY, JR., DIRECTOR, MARYLAND HIGHWAY
SAFETY OFFICE, ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNORS HIGHWAY SAFETY
ASSOCIATION; JUDITH LEE STONE, PRESIDENT, ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY
AND AUTO SAFETY; JAN WITHERS, MEMBER, NATIONAL BOARD OF
DIRECTORS, MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING; ROBERT LETOURNEAU,
MOTORCYCLE RIDER EDUCATION SPECIALIST, NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT
OF SAFETY, ON BEHALF OF THE MOTORCYCLE RIDERS FOUNDATION;
MORTIMER L. DOWNEY III, SENIOR ADVISOR, PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF,
ON BEHALF OF THE COALITION FOR AMERICA'S GATEWAYS AND TRADE
CORRIDORS; KURT J. NAGLE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF PORT AUTHORITIES; WAYNE JOHNSON, MANAGER, GLOBAL
CARRIER RELATIONS, OWENS CORNING, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL
INDUSTRIAL TRANSPORTATION LEAGUE; LISA J. MULLINGS, PRESIDENT
AND CEO, NATSO, INC. (NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TRUCK STOP
OPERATORS)
Mr. Millar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
testify today.
APTA's 1,500 public and private members provide 90 percent
of the Nation's 35 million daily transit trips.
Enacting a well-funded, 6-year, multimodal surface
transportation bill is one of the most important actions
Congress can take to put our Nation's economic engine into
higher gear and prepare the Nation for future population and
economic growth. Conversely, further delay in passing a bill
will have the opposite effect, forcing businesses to lay off
employees and invest overseas, while our Nation's transit
systems fall further behind.
In many ways, the current Federal program works well.
President Reagan and the Congress created the Mass Transit
Account within the Highway Trust Fund in 1983. The steady,
predictable funding provided by the trust fund has been
essential to the success of the program.
But due to underfunding, problems are becoming evident in
deferred maintenance, overage vehicles, and more Americans
without service. The U.S. Department of Transportation
estimates that more than $78 billion is required to bring
transit infrastructure up to a state of good repair, and much
more investment is needed on an annual basis to accommodate the
growth of the industry. We are pleased that the President's
budget proposal begins to address these growing transit needs.
When I talk about new ridership, I am talking not about the
far-off future; it is happening today. If regular gas prices
average $4 a gallon this year, as many predict, some 2 million
new trips per day can be expected on our systems. If pump
prices jump to $5 a gallon, at least 5 million more trips per
day can be expected, as motorists seek to beat the high cost of
gasoline.
Now, turning to our ideas for improving the Federal transit
program, let's begin with the New Starts program. New Starts is
the main construction program for bus rapid transit, subways,
light rail, and new commuter rail systems. But developing a
project can take 12 years. We suggest eliminating the
duplicative alternatives analysis stage of the program, and
about 2 years can be saved. We also propose that the Federal
Transit Administration reduce the number of approvals needed
for each project. Each pause for Federal approval adds many
months to the project schedule.
On the formula side of the law, APTA proposes changes to
the bus program, simplifying the Fixed Guideway Modernization
Program, and consolidating three existing programs into a
simplified coordinated mobility program that would allow
communities to continue to carry out existing services or make
changes they desire but consolidate the administrative and
grant-making processes and costs.
Finally, I want to speak about innovative finance. Relying
on alternative financing mechanisms to leverage Federal
investments makes a great deal of sense to speed up projects,
as long as we understand that financing does not replace the
need for expanded investment. Our experience is that current
financing programs just don't work well for transit projects,
but there are ideas to change that.
APTA supports growing the TIFIA program, allowing it to
finance a suite of multimodal projects in a region and
modifying the so-called ``springing lien'' provision, which
unnecessarily limits some sources of revenue to finance
projects.
Now, I don't have time in the short time allotted to go
into the details of many of our other proposals, but my written
testimony includes many suggestions, including some computer
links to very detailed ideas.
APTA certainly looks forward to working with the committee
as you wrestle with the issues needed to put together a brand-
new, multimodal, 6-year, well-funded surface transportation
program.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Millar.
Good suggestions.
And all of the full statements of all the witnesses will be
placed in the record and reviewed by the committee leadership
and staff.
Our next witness is Mr. Larry Hanley, the international
president of the Amalgamated Transit Union.
Mr. Hanley?
Mr. Hanley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity.
Our union represents 190,000 members in 46 States and in 9
provinces in Canada.
We are here today, first of all, to agree with much of what
Bill Millar said, but also to point out that America is
suffering from a transit crisis that is largely being ignored.
This is a crisis throughout urban America, where service has
been cut, fares have been increased, at a time when the Federal
Government has spent more money in the last year on transit
than any year in history.
We have experienced not only layoffs of our members but the
diminishing of service in cities throughout the country. In
Chicago, the Transit Authority has cut 18 percent of its bus
service and 9 percent of its rail service. In Cleveland, 12
percent of the service has been cut. Detroit has lost 25
percent of its transit service, while, 2 days ago, in
Pittsburgh, despite the fact that there appears to be adequate
local funding, the system voted to shut down 15 percent of its
transit service.
This comes at a time when we have wars going on around the
world in order for us to secure more oil. And we are ignoring--
despite the investment we have made, we are ignoring the fact
that transit needs operating aid and it needs it now. At a time
when local budgets are under strain because of falling tax
revenues, we believe the Federal Government should step up and
allow flexibility in its funding programs so that our systems
can continue to operate.
In my home city of New York, we have seen services that ran
for the last 100 years being eliminated on weekends and at
nights because of the current funding crisis, despite the fact
that there are currently projects going on to build systems
even in New York City that won't be available for 5 or 10 years
to our riders. This is a short-sighted view that we believe
Congress has, and we hope that you will consider taking another
look at it.
Additionally, though, you should know that, in the coming
days, Tacoma, Washington, is facing a 15 percent cut in
service. In Birmingham, Alabama, and Long Island, New York,
there are cuts on the table of 50 percent of the bus service
that currently operates.
This has to be recognized by Congress as a national crisis.
It is not something that is restricted to one local area. And
we call upon you to act to allow more flexibility in the
existing program so that transit systems can survive this
economic crisis.
Additionally, though, I could not speak to a Member of
Congress without addressing the fact that there was an
accident--there were actually two accidents in New York and New
Jersey in the last month involving fatalities in the intercity
bus industry. And this is a problem that has come about because
of a lack of regulation and also, significantly, a lack of
enforcement in the intercity bus industry.
More people are dying every month in America as a
consequence of the Federal Government turning a blind eye to
fierce, unregulated competition in that industry. And we call
upon Congress to act to try and remedy that, and we certainly
believe that it is within your reach.
Finally, we have, our workers, America's workers, the
people that populate the labor movement and the people that
make this country run, have been told over and over again in
the last 3 or 4 months that everything we have, everything we
bargained for is unsustainable. And this comes at a time when
Congress has approved over $1 trillion to be spent in wars in
foreign countries.
And I could not sit before a committee of Congress and not
raise the specter of that, having heard how limited funding is
available to keep our country alive, to keep our country
moving, to keep our country working, while we squander our
resources, our treasure, and our children on foreign wars.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much.
Ms. Richardson. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Duncan. Yes?
Ms. Richardson. Could I just clarify what is going to be
the process for questions?
Mr. Duncan. Earlier, we told all the witnesses that we
would hold the questions until all the witnesses have had a
chance to testify.
Ms. Richardson. So they are all going to stay even though
they will be changing places?
Mr. Duncan. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Richardson. OK. And then could I just ask a
clarification, as people say they want flexibility in funding,
could they give us a specific example of what do they mean by
that, because several----
Mr. Duncan. Sure.
Ms. Richardson [continuing]. Are on the table, since we are
not going to have an opportunity to interact as they are going
through?
Mr. Duncan. OK. All right. Thank you very much.
The next witness will be Mr. Dale Marsico, the executive
director of the Community Transportation Association of
America.
Mr. Marsico. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
for this opportunity to be here to speak on behalf of the 4,000
members of our association who provide and support mobility
across our country.
In my written testimony, I have addressed our goals for
reauthorization using four important areas that include: the
need for improvements in rural transit, the need for new
efforts in our urban transit systems, the need to create a
national strategy based on connecting communities, and the need
to explore new and innovative instruments for investment in
public transit.
Since SAFETEA-LU was enacted, public and community
transportation have created an outstanding record of success in
responding to our Nation's mobility needs during one of the
most challenging economic periods in our Nation's history. Our
progress has been built on the unique and historic partnership
for transit investment, where Federal, State, and local
communities come together to make our dreams and visions for
mobility a reality.
Despite our record, our continued progress is threatened by
the profound difficulties created by the economic situation
that has weakened our traditional partners at the State and
local level. Knowing that we face similar challenges at the
Federal level, we must explore new ways to help transit during
this period of uncertainty.
The challenges that all transit providers face can best be
met by allowing these operators greater flexibility to meet the
needs for continuing services in the communities and for the
passengers they serve.
In urbanized communities, we believe the use of transit
funds must be flexible enough to include emergency operating
assistance if necessary, to avoid service cuts and fare
increases that reduce access to jobs at the time we need that
access as part of any economic recovery. As the committee
knows, service cuts have dire consequences for people with
disabilities and low-income working families, who use transit
as their primary means of mobility.
For rural transit, enhanced flexibility is needed to
stretch every single State and local dollar in the face of
these significant budget challenges.
In both cases, we support providing this help, not as a
major change to the existing formula programs, but by waivers
made possible by economic triggers to help transit through
these difficult times.
Connecting America to jobs and health care is contributing
to the growth of transit and transit demand in every community
of every size. Connectivity between communities is essential to
meeting these transportation challenges, especially for our
growing senior populations who must travel greater and greater
distances for health care.
To address this challenge, we must begin linking together
urban and rural transit today in a cohesive regional and
national structure of intercity connections to have the
services we need for tomorrow. We think that our Nation's rural
transit providers and our colleagues in the intercity bus
industry are a cost-effective means of resolving these issues.
Like it or not, we live in a time when investments are
necessary for us. By new tools, we need to attract new
investment, especially from the private sector. And we support
your efforts to make the private sector part of that
traditional partnership of Federal, State, and local investment
that has made our efforts successful. Our testimony includes
ideas about this, ranging from tax credits to other kinds of
leveraged investments.
In closing, let me say that the transportation industry
owes much of our success to the vision and work of this
subcommittee. Based on that history, we know that you will
continue to do all that you can to help us move the Nation
forward. So I want to thank you for our opportunity to be here
today, and I look forward to answering questions but, more
importantly, working with you as we continue the progress we
have made in this committee, in this Nation, for transit.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you.
And, as I earlier stated, we are doing this in a little
different way. We are trying to accommodate as many different
groups and witnesses as we can, and so we were going to run
through all these witnesses and then get to questions at the
end.
But we have been joined by several different Members here.
We have been joined by Ms. Napolitano, also Mr. Farenthold, Mr.
Barletta, Mr. LoBiondo, and Mr. Bucshon, Dr. Harris. And if any
of you have a brief 2-minute opening statement you would like
to make, I will be glad to call on you at this time, if any of
you wish to say something.
Ms. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you for
hosting this hearing. I am glad to hear from all the witnesses.
We have great issues in our respective districts in regard
to transportation funding. The more the delay, the more impact
it has on communities, whether it is job creation or
infrastructure repair. So it is critical that we continue
moving the TEA-LU bill and being able to understand how
critical this is to our Nation's economy and to all the
transportation issues.
So thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you.
Anybody on the Republican side wish to say anything at this
point?
All right, thank you. Thank you very much.
Our next witness will be Mr. Jon Martz, the vice president
of government relations for VPSI, Incorporated, on behalf of
the Association for Commuter Transportation.
Mr. Martz?
Mr. Martz. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I want to extend my
gratitude to the committee for the opportunity to speak with
you this afternoon.
ACT is an association dedicated to providing commuters with
options by engaging in public-private partnerships to encourage
carpooling, vanpooling, telework, and transit use. Our members
consist of private-sector employers, transportation agencies,
transportation management organizations, and universities from
across the country.
First, I want to start by thanking you for your commitment
to complete a transportation bill this year. Little is more
important to our economy than the completion of a 6-year
transportation bill.
ACT would also like to commend the Chairman for the goals
it has laid out in advance of a transportation bill. We are
glad to see the committee recognizes that we must get the most
out of our system by doing more with less and that we need to
leverage funding from as many sources as possible. And these
points form the basis of ACT's reauthorization proposal.
For the purposes of this hearing, I would like to focus on
congestion and a handful of simple policy solutions ACT would
like to recommend.
According to Inrix, a leading provider of real-time traffic
information, a 3 percent drop in vehicle miles traveled
resulted in a 30 percent drop in peak period congestion in
2008. Now, a recession is not the way we would like to see
demand managed, of course. But the experience shows that a
small shift in the number of solo commuters during peak periods
can provide a notable reduction in congestion.
A survey conducted by Business Week in 2007 found that when
commuters were provided with employer-based transportation
options such as vanpooling, transit benefits, alternative work
hours, and telework, one in five workers chose an option other
than a solo commute during rush hour.
We believe that the Washington State Commute Trip Reduction
Program is an excellent model. This statewide program puts the
onus on local transportation agencies to work with regional
employers to create, manage, and market commute transportation
options. Employers in the region have minimal requirements
placed on them, such as posting information, and their
participation is broadly voluntary. But through this
partnership, the program is responsible for taking 28,000
vehicles off the road each day during peak commuting hours, a
reduction of 12,900 hours of delay in the Central Puget Sound
region in 2009, and saves $99 million for the region in
congestion costs due to lost time and wasted fuel.
This program has also leveraged private investment in
transportation, as employers voluntarily invested $49.4 million
in the Commute Trip Reduction Program--more than $18 for every
dollar provided by the State. This is remarkable, considering
the State's biennial financial commitment to this program is
just $6.3 million.
We believe that the Washington State Commute Trip Reduction
Program should serve as a model for Federal policy. And, as
such, we support legislation introduced by Congressman Sires
called ``Commute LESS.'' It is H.R. 260. This legislation would
amend the planning process and help regional agencies develop
employer-based commute relief programs. The legislation would
accomplish this without adding any mandates to employers and
does not require any additional revenue.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention legislation
introduced by Congressmen Rogers of Michigan, Young, and
Carnahan, H.R. 596. This legislation would tweak a provision in
Title 49, making it easier for public-sector agencies to
partner with private providers of public transportation.
When gas prices hit $4 a gallon a few years ago, our
company's business grew by 37 percent across 40 cities across
the U.S., compared to a more traditional public transit growth
of 4 percent, which in itself was remarkable. Private providers
of public vanpool services like my company, VPSI, and
Enterprise stand ready to bear more of the capital investment
burden. VPSI already has over $150 million in rolling stock in
service, and, with the passage of this legislation, we are
willing to do more.
It should also be noted that the vehicles used in this
service are only produced by American auto manufacturers. We
estimate passage of this provision would generate nearly a
thousand manufacturing jobs.
ACT recognizes the policies we mention here are not a
silver bullet and that for many Americans driving alone is the
most sensible option. But we believe these suggestions will
help provide more options for commuters, will leverage public-
private partnerships, and will improve our transportation
system in a responsible, efficient, and sensible manner.
Thank you for the opportunity, and we will be ready to do
questions later on.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Martz.
The next witness will be Mr. Robert McBride, the operator
of the Metro Taxi company in Denver, Colorado, testifying on
behalf of the Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit Association.
Mr. McBride?
Mr. McBride. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of
the committee. As you said, my name is Robert McBride, and I am
also the president of the Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit
Association. Our over 1,000 member companies operate over
100,000 passenger vehicles, transport over 2 million passengers
each day and over 900 million passengers each year. And, as you
said, I am also the owner of Metro Taxi in Denver, Colorado.
The following is a summary of five of our major issues we
would like you to consider in the next Federal transportation
reauthorization bill.
Private Operator Rights: We urge you to continue to support
all current provisions of the Federal Transit Act pertaining to
the rights of private operators to participate to the maximum
extent feasible in the planning and provision of public transit
services.
Private transportation companies, like my taxicab service
in Denver, often provide the first and last segments of a
passenger trip, whether it is to or from the nearest transit
terminal or airport. I am pleased to report to you that,
increasingly, our industry is contracting with public transit
authorities to provide cost-effective complimentary ADA
paratransit services. This partnership between public and
private providers needs to be improved and expanded so that,
collectively, we can afford to enhance the general public's
mobility options.
Program Consolidation: We support the consolidation of the
Elderly and Disabled Specialized Transit Program, the Job
Access and Reverse Commute, and the New Freedom Program into
the Coordinated Mobility Initiative while maintaining current
law pertaining to each program in regard to the funding
eligibility, labor protection, and private operator
subrecipient eligibility.
The New Freedom Program has been exceptionally valuable for
getting wheelchair-accessible vehicles into taxicab fleets.
Without this Federal support for these much more costly
vehicles, this level of new paratransit taxicab service would
not exist today.
Distracted-Driver Legislation: We urge the committee to
explicitly recognize in the legislation that State or locally
licensed commercial drivers providing for-hire passenger
transportation services may continue to have access to their
dispatch communication service that is necessary for the
ordinary conduct of their business, as DOT has already done for
federally licensed drivers or commercial motor vehicles.
RIDE Act Amendment: We request the committee support
modifying the law such that an operator of a transportation
terminal who is the recipient of Federal funds may not charge a
fee to any provider or prearranged transportation service
except for a fee that is charged to the general public or a fee
that is determined by a DOT rulemaking for the availability of
ancillary facilities at the transportation terminal, such as
restrooms or vending machines made available to the drivers.
Repeal of Federal Labor Protections: In 1964, Congress
enacted Section 13(c), the transit labor protection provision
of the Federal Transit Act to maintain employee rights,
privileges, and benefits as they existed in the private sector
prior to Federal/State assistance and to protect employees
against any adverse effects that might result from the initial
provision of Federal assistance to public transit.
The goal of Congress in enacting Section 13(c), which is
now Section 5333(b), was to protect the rights, privileges, and
benefits of employees as they existed prior to receipt of
Federal funds, not to create a new series of employee rights,
privileges, and benefits. These labor protections are no longer
needed and intrude into local decisionmaking and collective
bargaining. In nearly every other industry where such labor
protections existed, they have been eliminated. It is estimated
that transit operating costs would be reduced by hundreds of
millions of dollars if this provision is repealed. Section
5333(b) is an unfunded mandate that is too intrusive and too
expensive to keep on the books.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, the committee, thank you
very much, for letting us present our views today.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. McBride.
Our next witness is Ms. Jennifer Dexter, assistant vice
president for government relations for the Easter Seals
Society.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Dexter. Thank you, Chairman Duncan and members of the
subcommittee. We really appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you today.
In addition to my role at Easter Seals, I serve as the co-
chair of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities
Transportation Task Force as well as the Senior Transportation
Task Force.
Easter Seals is very proud of our long history working to
increase the mobility of people with disabilities and older
adults. For many years, we have operated a federally funded
Project ACTION, as well as the National Center on Senior
Transportation that we operate in cooperation with the National
Association of Area Agencies on Aging, both through cooperative
agreements with the Federal Transit Administration.
Too often, people with disabilities of all ages lack access
to affordable, accessible, and reliable transportation options.
The 2010 Harris Poll, funded by the National Organization on
Disability, estimated that 34 percent of people with
disabilities report having inadequate access to transportation.
This is compared to only 16 percent of the general public.
Our specific recommendations are covered in depth in my
written testimony, but they include: increasing overall funding
for transit and population-specific programs, such as 5310,
JARC, and New Freedom, and allowing 5310 funds to be used for
operating assistance; making sure that there are protections in
place to assure that the needs of specific populations and
providers are protected in program consolidation efforts;
increasing the input, involvement, and DOT monitoring of
stakeholder input into all transportation planning processes;
creating a dedicated resource to increase access to mobility
management services; and continuing and increasing existing
targeted technical assistance and education efforts.
In the short amount of time I have remaining, I would like
to provide you with a very brief example of how a relatively
small Federal investment can help increase the ability of
someone with a disability or an older adult to live, learn,
work, and play in their community.
One of the common complaints that people with disabilities
and older adults have is that, for some people, the best and
often only way to get around during their daily routines if
they can no longer drive is a taxi. However, many taxi drivers
don't have the awareness that is needed of how to best serve
someone with a disability and are either reluctant to pick
somebody up or make avoidable mistakes that are detrimental to
the rider in some way.
This is exactly the kind of issue that Project ACTION likes
to address. In response to this issue, we developed a small
pocket guide for drivers. It is designed to be kept on the
visor with all the other materials that the driver might need.
It has simple guidance on good customer service for someone who
needs assistance. We developed it in partnership with our
friends, the taxi operators, and made it so it met their needs.
With this simple guide, we have taken the burden off of the
individual driver to be an expert on serving people with
disabilities and made it easy for them to get the information
they need and increase the mobility of people with
disabilities. This piece is available for free through our
clearinghouse, and we have shipped out thousands of them.
We knew the piece was useful and successful when our CEO
heard back from our affiliate in Australia that they had seen
the piece in use in taxis over there.
For those who want more guidance, it is part of a full-
scale Taxi Toolkit that has all sorts of resources available.
And it has also been replicated for both transit providers and
motorcoach operators.
I mention this not only because it is a product we are very
proud of, which we are, but because it is a great example of
where having resources available to help public-private
partnerships develop and find solutions on their own, with all
of the stakeholders participating, can pay great dividends. It
is a process that has been replicated daily in communities
throughout the country for a variety of mobility issues.
Addressing our recommendations in the reauthorization will
help to assure that resources are available and programs have
sufficient flexibility to continue to respond to real people's
mobility needs and new approaches can be formulated to meet
changing needs.
Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to
continuing this dialogue.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Ms. Dexter.
We have now been joined by three additional Members: Mr.
Nadler, Mr. Sires, and Mr. Crawford.
Do any of you wish to make any 2-minute statement at this
time?
All right. Thank you very much.
Our next witness is Ms. Barbara Windsor, the president and
CEO of Hahn Transportation, Incorporated, testifying on behalf
of the American Trucking Associations. And Ms. Richardson
pointed out to me that Ms. Windsor is the first woman who has
ever been the chairman of the American Trucking Associations.
So, certainly, congratulations are in order. And we are pleased
to have you with us today.
You may begin your testimony.
Ms. Windsor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member Rahall, and members of
the subcommittee, thank you so much for inviting me to testify
on behalf of the American Trucking Associations. I am Barbara
Windsor, president and CEO of Hahn Transportation, based in New
Market, Maryland, and I do serve as the ATA chairman, the first
female in 77 years.
Mr. Chairman, a safe and efficient system of highways is
essential to our country's economic well-being, security, and
overall quality of life. Your predecessors recognized this
reality by creating the Interstate Highway System, which has
served our country well. Every day, freight flows through our
ports, across our borders, and on our rail, highway, air, and
water systems as part of a global, multimodal transportation
logistics system.
Highways are the key to this system. Trucks move 70 percent
of our Nation's freight tonnage and earn 82 percent of freight
revenue. Unfortunately, our current highway system no longer
meets our needs. In 2009, drivers in metropolitan areas wasted
4.8 billion hours sitting in traffic and burning 3.9 billion
gallons of excess fuel at a cost of $115 billion. The cost to
the trucking industry was $33 billion.
Mr. Chairman, incremental solutions will not allow us to
meet the Nation's current and future transportation
requirements. While we know that Congress is not receptive to a
fuel tax increase, we would like the record to reflect that the
trucking industry is willing to accept a fuel tax increase to
help fund infrastructure.
Tolls on existing non-tolled Interstate Highways are not
the answer. Tolls are a very inefficient means of revenue
collection, and they cause diversion of traffic to alternate
routes which are usually less safe.
In addition to more revenue, the Federal surface
transportation program must be fundamentally reformed to
maximize available resources. ATA supports a consolidated
highway program with eligibility limited to the National
Highway System and other highways with significant passenger
and freight traffic.
Funding should also be dedicated toward addressing critical
bottlenecks on heavily traveled freight corridors. Furthermore,
programs with eligibilities which are clearly not in the
national interest must be eliminated or paid for by other
sources.
In addition, ATA supports a moratorium on highway earmarks.
Project selection must be based on sound economic analysis. We
also need to cut government red tape and streamline the project
delivery process by reforming rules that extend the timeline
for project delivery by 7 to 10 years.
Mr. Chairman, we can also more effectively utilize our
highways through the use of more productive trucks. A new
Federal-State partnership is necessary to promote truck size
and weight reforms that improve safety, lower freight costs,
reduce emissions, and protect public investment in our highway
infrastructure.
Now, turning to safety, the trucking industry is the safest
it has ever been and continues to get even safer. However, we
believe that we can do better if we recognize that truck safety
is about more than just regulation; it is about understanding
the factors that increase crash risk and behaviors and events
that cause crashes. Future FMCSA rules and programs will only
succeed to the degree that they truly address crash risk and
causation.
The most innovative and effective future oversight programs
will be those which provide carriers with the tools to support
carrier-based safety improvements. Our written statement
includes recommendations addressing fatigue, a drug and alcohol
clearinghouse, speed, and, perhaps most importantly, active
safety technologies that lower risk and prevent crashes. We
also have included several hazardous materials program
recommendations for the committee's consideration.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to offer our
views on how, collectively, we can improve truck and highway
mobility and safety.
Mr. Duncan. Well, good job. Thank you very much, Ms.
Windsor.
And next we are honored to have Mr. Kristopher Kane, a
truck driver for Quality Carriers, who is testifying on behalf
of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association.
Mr. Kane. Thank you. And I want to clarify that I am not
here representing Quality Carriers; I am here representing
OOIDA.
My name, once again, is Kristopher Kane. I am involved in
the trucking industry now for 25 years, as both an owner-
operator as well as a company driver. OOIDA represents the
interest of small-business trucking professionals and
professional truck drivers.
I will keep my comments brief and sum up our written
testimony. In short, truckers are one of the largest
contributors to the Highway Trust Fund of our Nation's highway
system. Every time we fuel, buy new trucks, trailers, tires,
and write a check out for the annual highway heavy-vehicle
usage tax, we contribute to that fund. In fact, while heavy-
duty trucks only account for 7 percent of our highway's
traffic, OOIDA members and other truck companies contribute
more than 36 percent of the money going into the Highway Trust
Fund each year.
Despite this investment, we continue to see efforts to
divert the trust fund dollars away from highways and toward
other programs that have little or no connection to improving
the flow of interstate commerce. The next highway bill
represents an opportunity to halt those diversions and refocus
the trust fund investments toward their original purpose:
highways.
We are willing to entertain a variety of funding mechanisms
to replenish the Highway Trust Fund, providing that those funds
are used to maintain our highway infrastructure as well as make
the improvements on our Nation's roads and bridges.
As far as improving other programs, we believe the safest
trucks on the road are those driven by well-trained,
experienced drivers who have the ability to travel at the same
rate of speed and traffic flow. In addition, OOIDA does not
support any mandates which unfairly burden truckers and
compromise their privacy, such as on-board electronic
recorders, or EOBRs.
Furthermore, OOIDA believes the most pervasive problem in
the trucking industry's impact on drivers' efficiency is
excessive detention time. That is long, unpredictable, and
often uncompensated time that truck drivers spend on the dock
waiting to be loaded and unloaded. Detention time is more than
just a mere inconvenience problem for the truckers. We deal
with it on a daily basis, and it costs society an estimated
$6.5 billion a year.
I personally have been subjected to this detention time
throughout my career. One example was one time I was hauling
frozen turkeys from Pennsylvania to New Jersey. I arrived at
the warehouse for a scheduled appointment on a Wednesday only
to find out there was a computer glitch and I had to wait until
Friday evening to unload the trailer. I sat there for 3 days
and 2 nights.
Because of the warehouse mistake, I wasted time, fuel, and
the opportunity to be with my family. I was not compensated for
their mistake. The mistake did not cost the warehouse anything.
In fact, it worked to their benefit because we were able to
keep their product on my refrigerated trailer until they were
ready to receive it.
Unfortunately, this example is not an uncommon experience
for truck drivers, who are regularly detained by shippers in
receivement for hours and even days at a time, essentially
because the driver's time is not accounted for in the supply
chain. Congress has an opportunity to address this issue. I
would like to thank Congressman DeFazio for introducing this
bill on this issue.
Thank you.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Kane.
Our next witness is Mr. LaMont Byrd, the director of the
Safety and Health Department for the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters.
Mr. Byrd?
Mr. Byrd. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear here
today to convey our views on issues that we feel will improve
our surface transportation programs, especially those related
to motor carrier safety.
While time permits me to discuss only a few of our issues,
our written testimony provides a more comprehensive overview.
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters represents
approximately 600,000 commercial drivers who are among the
safest and most experienced drivers on our Nation's roads.
Truck drivers deserve to have a workplace, our Nation's roads,
that is as safe as any factory floor. Unfortunately, that is
just not the case.
While there appears to be a downward trend in fatalities
and injuries involving large trucks during the last few years,
it is difficult to determine the exact reasons for these
reductions. Certainly, increased roadside inspections,
compliance reviews, and enforcement activities and initiatives
by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration played a
role, but external factors like the recession and the
likelihood that there has been a significant reduction in
vehicle miles traveled also contributed. Nevertheless, 3,380
fatalities and crashes involving large trucks in 2009 is just
unacceptable.
Many trucks operated by teamster members are equipped with
speed limiters, and our drivers report no significant problems
or safety hazardous as a result of using these devices. Based
on our experience, the teamsters could support the use of
speed-limiting devices industrywide, provided that these
devices allow trucks to attain sufficient speeds to safely
merge on to highways, pass slow-moving vehicles, and maintain a
safe speed while traveling uphill.
While the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
issued a final rule that requires the use of electronic onboard
recorders for motor carriers that have had a history of serious
noncompliance with the hours-of-service rule, there have been
several legislative proposals introduced that will require the
use of EOBRs in all interstate commercial motor vehicles.
The teamsters union believes that EOBR technology may be
useful in helping to enforce compliance with the hours-of-
service regulation, but it does not guarantee compliance with
the rule. Drivers will still have to manually input data
concerning time spent on duty not driving; thus, cheaters will
still have the opportunity to cheat.
We also think that EOBRs must be tamperproof and have the
capability to accurately identify drivers who are operating a
specific piece of equipment.
We strongly recommend that, as legislation moves forward
mandating the use of EOBRs, that they be used only for
compliance for hours of service and not to monitor the
productivity of drivers.
The teamsters union has a long history of being proactive
in deterring the abuse of drugs and alcohol in the trucking
industry. For well over 2 decades, the union has negotiated
drug and alcohol testing programs with many of our employers in
the trucking industry. That said, we are aware of several
legislative proposals calling for a national clearinghouse for
drug and alcohol testing records.
While we have significant concerns about the creation of a
clearinghouse with respect to driver privacy issues, we would
prefer a national clearinghouse operated by the Federal
Government rather than a database where information is
collected on a State-by-State basis and managed by the States.
The clearinghouse must be able to: one, protect the
driver's confidentiality; two, provide a reasonable mechanism
for drivers to learn of and correct reporting errors; and,
three, create a uniform and fair method for expunging the
records of drivers who have been successfully rehabbed.
In closing, none of this safety agenda can be accomplished
without dedicated resources. The prospect of looming budget
cuts with no real increase in the revenue stream may put the
United States even further behind other nations in developing a
transportation system that allows us to compete in a global
market.
Thank you. And I will remain available for any questions
that you may have.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Byrd.
Our next witness is Mr. Dave Leach, president and CEO of
Greyhound Bus Lines, Incorporated.
Mr. Leach?
Mr. Leach. Chairman Duncan and members of the subcommittee,
I am pleased to present Greyhound's views on the vital role
intercity buses can play in bringing cost-effective
improvements to the Nation's surface transportation programs.
Intercity buses are the most energy-efficient,
environmentally clean, cost-effective, and flexible passenger
transportation mode, yet they are largely off the grid when it
comes to Federal, State, and local planning. It is a rare day
when intercity buses are integrated into transportation
planning in a meaningful way, and far less than 1 percent of
Federal public and intercity transportation funding goes to
intercity buses.
Here are six steps we recommend that the subcommittee take
to enable intercity buses to help meet its objectives of better
utilization of underutilized assets, doing more with less,
streamlining delivery, and developing public-private
partnerships.
Number one, give States more flexibility in implementing
the Section 5311(f) intercity bus program by making the FTA's
private match pilot program permanent. By allowing States to
use all of a private operator's unsubsidized costs as a private
match and by letting States use the match for any Section 5311
project, in the pilot program's 3 years, States have been able
to provide new intercity service to 240 communities nationwide
without a dime of extra Federal expense.
Number two, assuming there is going to be an intercity
component to reauthorization, give States the flexibility to
provide capital for the development of intercity bus networks.
These can provide attractive alternatives to the private auto
at a tiny fraction of the capital costs of intercity rail and
with no subsidized operating costs. Services like Greyhound's
Bolt Bus and Greyhound's Express have demonstrated the
popularity of bus services. The industry's problem is a lack of
capital for new equipment. In the last 12 years, the annual
number of motorcoaches in our industry has fallen by 65
percent.
Number three, continue the Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility
Program to help Greyhound and others to meet the continuing
Federal mandate for a wheelchair lift on every fixed-route bus
it acquires. This mandate adds almost 10 percent to the cost of
a new bus. Without this program, Greyhound will have to reduce
its bus purchases by 10 percent. A reduction in fleet will mean
less or no service on routes with low ridership.
Number four, integrate intercity buses into Federal, State,
and local planning so that their transportation and
environmental benefits are fully utilized.
Number five, ensure that local and State officials treat
privately operated intercity buses the same as public transit
buses with regard to access to and charges paid for federally
funded HOV and HOT lanes and tolled facilities.
And last but not least, provide incentives for intermodal
projects including intercity buses and make those projects
easier to plan, fund, and implement.
Greyhound believes that these steps will enable privately
operated intercity buses to play a substantial role in creating
an improved and more cost-effective surface transportation
system.
Thank you.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Leach.
The next witness is Mr. Peter Pantuso, president and CEO of
the American Bus Association. Mr. Pantuso?
Mr. Pantuso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ABA is the trade association for the private motorcoach
over-the-road industry as well as for the tour and travel
industry, all of whom have a deep interest in transportation
reauthorization. Our motorcoach members represent nearly 60
percent of all motorcoaches on the road today and provide a
variety of expanding transportation services to more than 760
million passengers annually.
The private motorcoach industry, which operates with
virtually no subsidy, is looking less for funding than it is
for opportunities--opportunities to access existing programs
and existing funding sources. A full presentation of our
reauthorization proposals is appended to my testimony.
Our first proposal is that the private bus industry be
fully involved in the planning process. A letter that was
recently sent by our vice chairman cites an example in
Allentown, Pennsylvania. And it reads, ``The city of Allentown
Parking Authority planned and built the Allentown
Transportation Center, an intermodal facility. Then it asked
our company and other bus operators to move into it only after
it was built. However, it was in the wrong location, without
accommodations needed for intercity regular route service
operations and for our passengers. We have seen this happen
repeatedly and believe the consultation requirement that
currently exists for these projects should be enforced.''
We also suggest that a staff position in the Office of the
Secretary be created that provides support to and reduces
obstacles for private bus transportation service and all
private providers. The conversation about public-private
partnerships, to date, has focused mostly on construction. We
believe that should be expanded so that the dialogue also
includes passenger transportation.
Our second proposal is to reverse the trend of rural
communities losing their intercity bus service by continuing
the rural intercity program that Mr. Leach mentioned, the
5311(f) program, and the private match pilot program.
Third, ABA proposes an Essential Bus Service. The current
Essential Air Service program is continually shrinking, yet its
costs continue to expand. Congress should require the U.S.
Department of Transportation to fund a pilot Essential Bus
Service program that also gives operators meaningful access to
existing hub airports and ground transportation facilities.
Our fourth proposal is the continuation of the ADA grant
program providing wheelchair-lift assistance to comply with the
1998 requirements for intercity coaches. Grants available under
the SAFETEA-LU for ADA compliance have been less than one-
fourth of the total cost, which, estimated by the
Transportation Research Board, exceeds $40 million annually.
And, finally, there is a need for capital to revitalize the
industry. Due in part to continuing Federal mandates, the
average purchase price of a coach has increased from $340,000
in 2000 to $500,000 today. New safety mandates coming from
Congress and from NHTSA will easily increase the cost another
$60,000 to $75,000 per coach. Increased costs have driven up
the average age of the fleet by nearly 40 percent. And if that
continues, we will see a greater loss of these small
businesses, our domestic motorcoach manufacturing base, local
tourism dollars, and we will see increased congestion as people
move from buses to cars. Financial assistance could come
through a combination of tax credits, grants, low-interest
loans, access to TIFIA funds, and capital under the
infrastructure bank.
Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, ABA believes our
proposals are workable, reasonable, and necessary to ensure
that our transportation system continues to serve our 760
million passengers annually.
Thank you.
Mr. Duncan. We are always honored to be joined by the
former Chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from
Alaska, Mr. Young.
Do you have my statements you wish to make at this time?
Mr. Young. No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for asking, but let
us hear the witnesses, and I may have a couple questions later
on.
Mr. Duncan. Thanks very much.
Our next witness is Captain Steve Dowling of the California
Highway Patrol on behalf of the Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance.
Captain Dowling.
Mr. Dowling. Thank you.
Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member Richardson, and members of
the subcommittee, I am Steve Dowling. I am president of the
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, and I appreciate the
privilege of addressing you this afternoon.
CVSA is an organization of State and provincial officials
that are responsible for the administration and enforcement of
commercial motor vehicle safety laws for the United States and
Mexico.
Our written statement addresses six issues that we
submitted, and those include carrier exemptions to the
regulations, investment in safety technologies, and
registration credentialing and data integrity.
But today I would like to address three of the other topics
that were submitted, and the first is the Motor Carrier Safety
Grant Program. The core State safety grant program is the Motor
Carrier Safety Assistance Program, and since its inception,
this program has maintained the same general structure while
the approach to enforcement has evolved. CVSA believes that
each of the current grant programs contributes to the mission
of reducing truck and bus fatalities and collisions, but we
also believe that there is a better way to align these programs
to allow the States more flexibility in allocating grant moneys
to achieve the desired results.
CVSA supports the designation of three umbrella grants
identified in FMCSA's fiscal year 2012 budget proposal. We
particularly like the idea of the Compliant Safety and
Accountability, or CSA, umbrella grant as it allows data to be
used for targeted enforcement of motor carriers that have
serious safety issues. However, CSA and its implementation has
greatly increased data challenges that must be adjudicated by
the States. And therefore, when this committee looks at the
level of funding, we would request that this issue be taken
into consideration.
With respect to the maintenance of effort, or MOE,
requirements in the MCSAP, the current method of shifting the
time period for which MOE formula is based has become a serious
burden for the States. CVSA recommends the MOE formula be tied
to a stationary period, specifically the three fiscal periods
preceding the enactment of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement
Act of 1999, and then indexed for inflation.
As evidenced by FMCSA's intervention model results, there
is a direct correlation between enforcement and safety.
Therefore, we urge the committee to, at a minimum, sustain
funding of State programs at current authorization levels.
Next I would like to discuss bus safety.
DOT is making reasonable progress, but more needs to be
done. One specific step would be to restore the States' ability
to conduct en-route bus inspections. Restrictions in the
current authorization prohibit en-route bus inspections except
in the case of imminent hazard. The same legislation encourages
roadside inspection for vehicles carrying freight. CVSA
believes this contradiction must be corrected by placing a
priority on passenger transportation and lifting the en-route
inspection prohibition on buses.
Advancement in crashworthiness and passenger protection
systems need to be accelerated into the market. Proven
solutions do not need further studies, and seatbelts should be
mandatory.
My final topic is truck size and weight. We realize there
is an interest in improving truck productivity, and CVSA
believes the first step in this process is to conduct a
comprehensive truck size and weight study, and safety must be
in the forefront of all discussions and analysis. Specifically,
performance testing of various vehicle configurations should be
conducted to ensure increasing productivity does not come at
the expense of safety and bridge and highway infrastructure
protection.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to share our
recommendations to further improve highway safety.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much.
I am so pleased that all of the witnesses thus far have
said a lot in a short amount of time, and we are moving this
hearing along much better than I expected.
Our next witness is Mr. Vernon Betkey, the director of the
Maryland Highway Safety Office, testifying on behalf of the
Governors Highway Safety Association.
Mr. Betkey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, for this opportunity to testify today.
The members of the Governors Highway Safety Association are
responsible for administering the State highway safety
behavioral programs, and they do this with one formula grant
program, seven incentive grant programs, and two penalty
transfer programs.
In the past these programs have been authorized in a
piecemeal fashion without an overall National Strategic Highway
Safety Plan with national goals. The association, along with
many of its highway safety partners, is developing a national
plan. The vision for this plan is zero motor vehicle
fatalities, with an interim goal of halving fatalities by 2030.
GHSA recommends that the vision and the goal be incorporated
into the next authorization and encourages the States to work
toward this goal in their Strategic Highway Safety Plans.
The association recommends a streamlined approach to the
behavioral highway safety funds. We support a single behavioral
safety program, excluding the data program, with earmarks for
impaired driving, occupant protection and motorcycle safety.
The association strongly recommends a single application and a
single application deadline, with all funds allocated by
October 1. This would make for a more efficient planning
process in the States.
GHSA worked with the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration to identify a set of 15 performance measures
that States are using right now in their highway safety plans
and programs.
The GHSA supports this performance-based approach for
behavioral funds and recommends that the reauthorization
legislation focus on the most important measures, which is
total fatalities, fatality rates, total serious injuries, and
using that on a 5-year moving average. In addition, we would
recommend a more standardized definition for ``serious
injuries.''
The collection and analysis of data is extremely important
to State planning and evaluation, and GHSA recommends an
increase in the Section 408 Data Improvement Program. The
association supports the requirements for States to develop a
Strategic Highway Safety Plan under Section 148 Highway Safety
Improvement Program. The process has helped our members
strengthen the relationships with other partners in their
States and also in local agencies involved in highway safety,
and with a more focus on limited resources. GHSA recommends
updates to the SHSP at least once between authorizations.
When it comes to the carrot and the stick, the association
fully supports the carrot approach and adamantly opposes new
sanctions, as States already are sanctioned for failure to
enact seven different highway safety laws, and the States are
making a lot of progress in some of the other areas such as
high BAC laws, texting laws, graduated driver's license laws.
And we discourage taking away the Federal funds that could
possibly create more jobs.
In summary, GHSA recommends the consolidated and
streamlining of the grant process, a National Strategic Highway
Safety Plan, and a continuation of the State strategic highway
safety planning requirements, more emphasis on performance-
based planning, a greater emphasis in data collection and
analysis, and no sanctions.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and we will
be available for questions.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Betkey.
Our next witness is Ms. Judith Lee Stone, president of the
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety.
Ms. Stone.
Ms. Stone. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today.
Last year, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety celebrated
its 20th anniversary. As we have done in the past 2 decades, we
want to make sure that the transportation reauthorization bill
enacted in Congress this year has a strong safety component.
SAFETEA-LU, enacted in 2005, has resulted in the largest
surface transportation and infrastructure investment in our
Nation's history. Yet during just this authorization timeframe,
over 200,000 people will have been killed on our roads and
highways and more than 10 million injured, at an economic cost
to society of well over $1 trillion.
Let me briefly recommend some key areas where there are
tremendous opportunities for safety.
Without adoption of the safety provisions, the next 5 years
will likely result in another 200,000 people dying on our
highways and millions more injured at a numbing human and
economic cost. We can't let this happen, and we don't have to
let this happen.
One of the most significant obstacles in reducing highway
deaths and injuries is the lack of uniform traffic safety laws
among States. Included in my statement are several maps showing
that too many States lack some of the most fundamental safety
laws. This is where Federal leadership is crucial.
In the past 20 years, when Congress reinforced the need for
States to pass life-saving laws by invoking sanctions, States
promptly acted. This has been successful in achieving uniform
State adoption of a national 21 drinking age, minimum standards
for licensing commercial drivers, a zero tolerance law to
combat underage drinking and driving, and a .08 BAC law.
It is important to note that every time Congress used a
sanction, every State adopted the law. Not one State lost a
single dollar of Federal highway funds, and many thousands of
lives have been saved.
It is even more important to realize, especially in these
days, that highway safety sanctions do not cost any money to
implement. States pass the laws, sanctions are not applied, and
everyone walks away a winner. It is time for Congress to use
this approach to encourage State action on several essential
and life-saving laws.
Every State needs a strong and comprehensive teen driving
law. Motor vehicle crashes remain the leading cause of death
for teenagers in every State. Since 2003, more than 53,000
deaths occurred in motor vehicle crashes involving young
drivers. There is a patchwork quilt of teen driving laws across
the country that jeopardizes the safety of our children. It
makes no sense to allow a system where teens in some States are
better protected than in others.
Advocates support the Safe Teen and Uniform Driver
Protection, or STANDUP, Act, setting minimum standards for
State teen driving laws. The requirements in the bill are based
on recommendations by the NTSB, the American Academy of
Pediatrics, safety experts, and extensive research and studies.
Any doubts about public support for getting these laws on the
books in every State are put to rest by recent scientific
surveys saying that in large percentages parents want licensing
rules that go beyond the STANDUP Act, and 74 percent of teens
themselves approve of a single comprehensive law that
incorporates the key elements of improved teen driving laws.
Every State needs a primary enforcement seatbelt law. Last
year about half of those killed in crashes were unbelted. In
SAFETEA-LU, Congress provided $500 million in incentive grant
funds to encourage State adoption of more effective belt laws.
Only 10 States acted these past 5 years. In fact, in 2010, only
one State adopted a primary enforcement seatbelt law, and 19
States still need it.
Every State needs an ignition interlock law to curb drunk
driving, and this is an important measure to get tougher on
drunk driving, and these devices keep impaired drivers off the
road, including first-time offenders.
Every State needs to be ban texting while driving. In 2009,
there were an estimated 5,474 fatalities and nearly half a
million injuries and crashes where driver distraction was a
factor. Adoption of these laws for all drivers sends a message
to the public that text messaging while driving is unsafe and
illegal.
Every State needs an all-rider motorcycle helmet law.
Motorcycling deaths have doubled in recent years. In 2009, over
4,000 motorcyclists were killed and 90,000 were injured. Before
2009, motorcycle fatalities increased every year for more than
a decade.
Research conclusively and convincingly shows that all-rider
helmet laws save lives, prevent disabling brain injuries and
reduce medical costs, but currently only 20 States and DC
require all motorcyclists to use a helmet, and these laws are
under attack. Last year more laws were introduced in State
legislatures to repeal all-rider helmet laws rather than to
enact them.
And finally, we need to stop increases in truck sizes and
weights. In the decade from 2000 to 2009, an average of over
4,000 people died in truck crashes each year, and more than 1.1
million suffered costly injuries. Oversized, overweight trucks
are dangerous and destructive. As trucks get bigger and
heavier, they have longer stopping distances, they are more
difficult to maneuver in the traffic stream, they have an
increased risk of rollover, and they destroy roads and bridges.
Unfortunately, trucking and shipping interests are already
prodding Congress to increase Federal truck size and weight
laws, to relax the 1991 freeze on large double and triple
trailer trucks, to set up pilot programs and give special
weight exemptions and options to States. It is time to stop
this deadly race, and we are in support of enacting the Safe
Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act.
I just want to close by saying that the quality of life for
all Americans depends on a safe and reliable, economical and
environmentally sound surface transportation system. There are
no acceptable excuses for putting the brakes on adopting proven
safety measures that will significantly reduce our Nation's
death and injury toll and health care costs as well.
Thank you.
Mr. Duncan. Very good suggestions, Ms. Stone, particularly
on the texting while driving. I don't know, it is awfully hard
to stop, I suppose, but certainly people shouldn't be doing
that.
Our next witness is Ms. Jan Withers, a member of the
national board of directors of the Mothers Against Drunk
Driving, and is here to testify on their behalf.
Ms. Withers.
Ms. Withers. Thank you, Chairman Duncan and Ranking Member
Richardson, for allowing me the opportunity to speak on behalf
of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
Drunk driving continues to be the leading cause of death on
our Nation's roads. In 2009, 10,839 people were killed in drunk
driving crashes. As a Nation, we should find these numbers
inexcusable.
The statistics we hear are not just numbers to me. My 15-
year-old daughter Alisa was killed by a drunk driver. She was
my child, not a number. And she is why I am here representing
MADD today.in 2006, following research and strategies proven to
work, MADD announced its Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving,
which, first, supports more resources for high-visibility law
enforcement; second, requires all convicted drunk drivers to
install an ignition interlock device; and lastly, turns cars
into the cure through the development of advanced in-vehicle
technology.
An ignition interlock is a breath-test device linked to the
vehicle's ignition system. The interlock allows a DUI offender
to continue to drive wherever they need to go. They just can't
drive drunk. The research on interlocks is crystal clear. Since
New Mexico and Arizona have implemented all offender interlock
laws, DUI fatalities in those States have been reduced by over
30 and 40 percent respectively.
But MADD is now hitting roadblocks from the alcohol
industry and DUI defense attorneys as we try to pass this law
in State legislatures. In my own home State of Maryland, we
have one particular DUI defense attorney who chairs the
Judiciary Committee, where for the last 3 years he has refused
to hold a vote on meaningful ignition interlock legislation. I
have submitted a Washington Post editorial on the subject for
the record. We need this committee's help to work to find ways
in the reauthorization bill to increase the number of DUI
offenders required to use the ignition interlock device.
While interlocks are currently the most proven technology
available to stop drunk driving, a program is under way to
provide an advanced in-vehicle option for consumers, which
could potentially eliminate drunk driving.
The Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety, or DADSS,
is a result of a research agreement between NHTSA and many of
the world's leading auto manufacturers. The purpose of this
project is to research, develop and demonstrate noninvasive in-
vehicle alcohol detection technologies that can very quickly
and accurately measure the driver's blood alcohol content. If a
driver's BAC is at or about the illegal limit of .08, the car
will not start. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
estimates that over 8,000 lives could be saved if the
technology is widely deployed in the U.S.
MADD asks this committee to authorize $10 million per year
to continue the existing DADSS research program. It is our hope
that one day consumers will be able to purchase this technology
as an option for their car.
Turning to the grant programs, it is critical that dollars
are spent on programs that work. SAFETEA-LU traffic safety
grants represent the majority of funds that States spend on
drunk driving prevention. You will note in my testimony
submitted for the record that MADD is offering more specific
recommendations regarding performance measures and
accountability.
With this committee's leadership, we will eliminate drunk
driving. MADD asks the committee to consider ways to make
ignition interlocks an important part of the next
reauthorization bill. We ask for the Congress to turn cars into
the cure for drunk driving by passing the ROADS SAFE Act. And
by revamping highway safety grants programs, changes can be
made to ensure States receive critical funding and spend it on
activities that will save the most lives and prevent the most
injuries.
Thank you for your leadership and having this hearing.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Ms. Withers.
Certainly the worst thing that can happen to anyone is to
outlive a child, and certainly you have the sympathy of all of
the Members in that regard.
I am told by staff that just last night you were elected as
the new incoming chairman or president of the Mothers Against
Drunk Driving, so congratulations, and we wish you the best in
that work, very important work.
Our next witness is Mr. Robert Letourneau of the New
Hampshire Motorcycle Education, a New Hampshire motorcycle
education specialist, who is here to testify on behalf of the
Motorcycle Riders Foundation.
Mr. Letourneau.
Mr. Letourneau. Thank you, Mr. Duncan, and Ms. Richardson
and members of the transit subcommittee. Thank you for inviting
me today to testify on behalf of American motorcyclists. My
name is Robert Letourneau, and I am here representing the
Motorcycle Riders Foundation, which is a coalition of State
motorcycle rights organizations and individual members
representing 275,000 motorcyclists.
I have served on the New Hampshire House Transportation for
8 years and chairman of the New Hampshire Senate Transportation
for three terms. Currently I am serving as a motorcycle rider
education specialist for the New Hampshire Department of
Safety, and additionally, I have been a motorcyclist myself for
34 years.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide your subcommittee
with some thoughts the MRF has on highway safety programs
administrated by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. The members of the MRF are appreciative that
SAFETEA-LU legislation section 2010 provided $25 million
specifically for motorcycle safety rider education and motorist
awareness of motorcycles. That program has reached 48 States
and has been extended for 2 years.
Funding shortfalls for motorcycle safety are present across
the country. During this time of economic challenge and budget
shortfalls, many Governors are raiding the dedicated safety
funds generated by licensing fees from motorcyclists to pay for
nontransportation programs. When States are running a deficit,
they turn to the motorcycle programs as a piggy bank. We pray
that the next reauthorization will not only keep the Federal
motorcycle safety grant program as a priority, but will also
keep in place the safeguards that protect those funds from
being used for any other purpose.
Many nonprofit State motorcycle rights organizations have
implemented ``share the road'' programs and impaired riding
reduction programs with private funding sources. These 2010
funds could be made available to the nonprofit world to help
them continue these life-saving endeavors.
It is important to note that, due in large part of this
program, motorcycle fatalities dropped for the first time in 11
years during the 2008-2009 time period. The decrease in
fatalities from 2008 and 2009 was by 10 percent. That same
report stated that an explosion of motorcycle sales, from
356,000 in 1997 to 1.1 million today, is crippling the rider
education programs across the country. Twenty-nine States have
capacity problems and often have waiting times for training for
over 12 weeks. This is another reason why Congress needs to
invest more money in motorcycle rider education via the 2010
funds.
We ask that Congress continue this process set in the
SAFETEA-LU legislation. Consider this: That under SAFETEA-LU
law the Federal Government spends $1 per motorcyclist per year,
and ask yourself if you think that is enough.
Lastly, as a personal observation from myself, who actually
sees how these grants positively impact the rider training
program in my State of New Hampshire, I can say categorically
that without these grants, it would not have been possible to
expand our program that will reach many more riders, and the
outcome will be lives saved because of proper training.
One area of concern that we are working on right now is--to
expand is the returning rider, the baby boomers, if you will.
Our data shows an increase in fatal crashes in this area, and
we are looking to create a new curriculum to address this
issue. With the regard of value for the rider education,
consider this example: During the first 10 years of our
motorcycle education program, having trained over 23,000
riders, only 1 of those riders was involved in a fatality, and
we believe that that rider had a medical event.
Education is the key to successfully reducing motorcycle
fatalities. Our experience is proof positive. On behalf of the
MRF and the American motorcyclists, I thank you for this
opportunity to present our concerns and views as you consider
safety issues and development of a new highway program. And I
will also stay to answer questions after the hearing. Thank
you.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Letourneau.
That is a fascinating statistic that 23,000 riders were
trained, and only 1 of those has been involved or has been
killed. That is amazing. That is great.
Our next witness is Mr. Mortimer L. Downey III, senior
adviser of Parsons Brinckerhoff, who is here to testify on
behalf of the Coalition for America's Gateways and Trade
Corridors.
I am going to turn the chair over to the Vice Chairman of
the subcommittee Mr. Hanna, who will preside from here on. And
I will be here a few minutes more, but I have some other
meetings. Mr. Downey, you may begin.
Mr. Downey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Richardson. It is
my privilege to be here to talk about the issue of goods
movement, which is the concern of our coalition. We think this
is a real opportunity as you are drafting the new legislation
to not only fulfill constitutional requirements with respect to
interstate commerce, but to make significant investments that
will pay off to the economy through the efficient, safe
movement of goods.
Our longer statement identifies a number of positions that
we believe would be useful in legislation, but let me just
touch on three key points.
First, we think you should create a new U.S. Department of
Transportation Office of Multimodal Freight. Such an office
could really be the focal point within the Department on an
unbiased basis to develop the data, the policies, and the
strategies that are really needed to tune up our freight system
and make it an efficient part of the economy.
Second, we believe that in addition to freight-friendly
positions throughout all elements of the bill, that there
should be a dedicated freight program to make investments that
are national in scope and nature, that can be very beneficial
to the operation of the system, that should be selected on an
objective and merit-based set of criteria, and that can be
developed in a partnership with the private sector. Those are
the kinds of projects that have been done in the past. There
have been some real success stories, the Alameda Corridor in
California being one of them. But there are many other such
opportunities, and we should provide the basis by which those
can be moved forward.
Finally, I believe there should be in the bill and on the
freight side a real opportunity for partnership with the
private sector. There are private operators throughout the
system; the truckers, the railroads, the barge operators. There
are private beneficiaries in the movement of freight. They are
looking for bottom-line improvements to their businesses. We
have even heard today that some of them are willing to pay to
see those bottom-line improvements be put into place. They are
willing to be participants in the financing of projects, but
they like to be part of the process in identifying the system
that works and identifying the projects that make sense.
To achieve that, there needs to be an ongoing dialogue with
these private-sector companies on how the program works, on how
the system is developing, and we believe there should be a
private-sector freight advisory committee for the Department of
Transportation to provide input on their strategic planning, to
help in the criteria for project selection, but primarily to be
a forum on how we make the system work better and how we create
the data that will be needed to make good decisions within that
system.
So we look forward to working with you on the committee as
legislation is drafted, and certainly we will be here to answer
any questions this afternoon. But we will be ready to work with
you throughout the year on this very important effort.
Mr. Hanna. [presiding.] Thank you very much.
Our next witness, Mr. Kirk Nagle, CEO and president of the
American Association of Port Authorities. You are recognized,
sir.
Mr. Nagle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Richardson, for the opportunity to testify before your
subcommittee this afternoon.
The American Association of Port Authorities, representing
our U.S. public port agencies, has submitted a number of policy
recommendations for reauthorization with our written testimony.
I would like to touch on just several of those issues of
particular importance to ports in my oral testimony this
afternoon.
In these challenging Federal budget times, it is
particularly important to focus and prioritize on core Federal
missions and which have a sizable impact on our economy,
employment, and our international competitiveness.
Transportation infrastructure, particularly that connecting the
U.S. to the world, has consistently been identified as strongly
in the Federal interests since our Nation's founding. This
infrastructure is even more important than ever with over 25
percent of our Nation's gross domestic product accounted for by
international trade.
America's ports are doing their share. They are investing
over $2 billion a year in their infrastructure to accommodate
increases in trade. However, the constraints and bottlenecks
are often on the connections to our ports on both the land and
the water side.
AAPA believes that it is important in this reauthorization
to elevate freight transportation, including the connections
into and out of intermodal facilities like ports, to a higher
level of focus and priority.
Among our specific recommendations: to reform and
consolidate the over 100 existing programs, Mr. Chairman, that
you mentioned in your opening remarks with one of those
consolidated programs focusing on freight transportation; as
well as the multimodal freight office that Mr. Downey
referenced in his testimony for CAGTC. We think it is very
important to implement a national freight policy with funding
targeted at both the Federal and State levels to freight,
including projects in corridors of regional and national
significance. These multistate projects now are difficult to
advance when much of the cost may be in one State and/or in
multistate or multijurisdictions, but the benefits are widely
disbursed both regionally and ultimately nationally.
We also think it is vital that the intermodal connections
into and out of ports, the so-called last, or, we think, more
appropriately, first mile, are absolutely critical links. And
this is often where we see bottlenecks when goods are either
moving to or away from our America's ports. A Federal Highway
Administration study found these intermodal connectors to be in
worse condition and received less funding than their other
counterparts in the National Highway System.
Currently it is difficult for these projects to compete in
the local planning process, which is most often focused more on
moving people, automobiles, rather than freight. But these are
absolutely vital to our economy, they are vital to employment,
and they are vital to our international competitiveness.
In addition, AAPA urges that in reauthorization there be an
authorization for a National Infrastructure Investments style
program, as there is no other general funding source right now
for port infrastructure.
And we believe that there should be incentives to encourage
more short sea shipping and marine highway-type utilization to
better utilize our Nation's water assets. We have the benefit
of being a maritime Nation and having water essentially on all
four of our coasts, including the Great Lakes, and we think we
should look and incentivize ways of better utilizing that to
lessen the pressure on our highway system.
Finally, we endorsed the other notion that you mentioned in
your opening, Mr. Chairman, about the desire to improve project
delivery and the permitting process. We support Chairman Mica's
437-day plan to eliminate redundancies, provide concurrent
rather than consecutive reviews, streamline processes, and
delegate NEPA responsibility where appropriate to appropriate
State agencies.
Again, I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify
and would be happy to answer questions at the proper time.
Thank you.
Mr. Hanna. Thank you Mr. Nagle.
Mr. Johnson, manager, carrier relations, Owens Corning, on
behalf of National Industrial Transportation League. You are
recognized, sir.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon. My name is Wayne Johnson. I am the manager
of global carrier relations at Owens Corning in Toledo, Ohio.
Today I am here representing the members of the National
Industrial Transportation League as its chairman of the
transportation committee itself. I appreciate the opportunity
to testify.
Like most of you, I drove to work today. And I am here
today to talk about industrial perspectives in the
transportation market.
Owens Corning depends heavily on transportation
infrastructure and moves over 570,000 loads a year using all
modes of transportation. Trucking represents 495,000 loads of
that total of shipments, and over 145 million highway miles
traveled every year on an annual basis at a cost of $345
million that we spend on transportation on the highway side
alone.
These are not trivial numbers, and we are only one company
out of the many members we have. Like so many businesses, we
depend upon a transportation system that allows us to reach
suppliers and customers in a timely and efficient manner.
Congestion on our highways and our ports, intermodal
connections creates inefficiencies, long transit times, missed
schedules, production interruptions. All of these are
uncompensated costs that harm profitability, inhibit our
ability to grow and add new workers.
Most of our witnesses are probably in broad agreement with
the nature of this problem. It is time for solutions, and we
are enlightened by Chairman Mica's statement there will be no
more short-term extensions of the surface transportation
authorization.
America is underinvesting in our freight transportation
system. We are failing to recognize how it supports our economy
interests and creates an environment for sustained economic
growth. Further delay in enacting a new authorization and
continued neglect of our existing highway investments will
compromise American industrial competitiveness. Companies that
export, like Owens Corning, will fall behind overseas
competitors. The competition is global and relentless. For
major importers and retailers, it will mean the costs will soar
on consumers. And for exporters, importers, and companies that
do all of their business in the United States, the result is
the same: We will not be able to add jobs.
The great recession masked the problems that we have seen
in the full recovery takes place, but they will come again. The
chokepoints, backups, delays, and other indicators of
deteriorating freight transportation systems that were cited
daily before the recession will abate somewhat, but as we
resume normal production and consumption cycles, the underlying
problems of infrastructure neglect and deferred investments
will again make themselves known.
For all of our past efforts, we have never seriously
considered or attempted to put in place the national
transportation system policy. I recognize the full integrated
system, comprehensive, multiyear surface transportation
authorization bill is imperative, and we need it now.
There are some proposals now in the line with the Highway
Transportation Fund into a transportation trust fund. Without
more details, especially on funding, we will reserve judgment.
However, we are concerned in that the attempt to address many
shortcomings of our transportation system, there will be
unwarranted claims on this fund for purposes unrelated to
transportation. Users of Federal highways should see their
taxes, tolls, and other fees paid for maintaining and improving
and expanding capacity on their highways and bridges and system
connections and not for nontransportation purposes. The
industry understands that difficulties in advancing this in the
fiscal year and political environment that we are in today.
We strongly support the use of--reform of vehicle weight
limits and trucks to give the States an option to allow six-
axle tractors weighing up to 97,000 pounds on interstate
highways as one solution. These six-axle vehicles will, of
course, be required to meet the safety concerns of lighter
trucks today.
We respectfully urge the committee to identify and promote
incentives for moving traffic in off-peak times. It is not easy
to accomplish, but we think it can be accomplished by this
committee.
In my submitted testimony I have also offered other
recommendations to improve the Nation's freight transportation
contained in a 10-point platform of principles developed by the
Freight Stakeholders Coalition, which the league is a member.
Mr. Chairman, I am here to answer any questions afterwards.
Mr. Hanna. Thank you very much.
Ms. Mullings, president and CEO, National Association of
Truck Stop Operators, you are recognized.
Ms. Mullings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee.
Today I respectfully urge Congress to reject any proposal
that would jeopardize the jobs of nearly 2 million Americans
who are employed by travel plazas, truck stops, restaurants,
and convenience stores located near interstate exits.
Some States want to lease out interstate rest areas so they
can collect fees from a vendor, who will in turn sell food and
gas to highway motorists. Federal law does not currently allow
these types of sales at any rest area built after January 1,
1960. If the law were to be changed, the State would save on
the maintenance fees, and the business would generate a profit.
It might seem odd that someone who represents business
could be opposed to this idea. After all, this sounds like a
great way to reduce the size of government by privatizing
government services. In fact, it does just the opposite. The
government is not in the business of selling food and fuel to
motorists. The private sector is already meeting the needs of
highway users at interchanges throughout this country. Allowing
commercial rest areas would actually expand the role and size
of government at a cost to businesses and the people who work
there.
We already have commercial rest areas in more than a dozen
States, and we can see for ourselves that they stifle
competition and business development. On the highways that have
commercial rest areas, there are 50 percent fewer businesses at
the interchanges than along highways with no commercial rest
areas.
Last year I received a call from NATSO member Roger Cole,
one of the owners of four travel plaza locations along the east
coast. He told me that one day he became puzzled by the sales
data from one of his travel center locations. He double-checked
the numbers with his accountant, who confirmed they were indeed
accurate.
Roger called the general manager of this particular travel
center, which is located in Maryland. He asked the general
manager of that location how his sales could have possibly
jumped this much. I mean, that would have been significant. A
30 percent increase is how it increased, and that would have
been significant under any sort of scenario, but this was in
the fall, or early fall, of 2009 at a time where businesses all
over the country were suffering from the effects of the
recession.
When Roger asked him what he had done, he said he was
stumped. After about a week of record sales numbers, however,
he realized something. Just across the Maryland-Delaware line,
there is a commercial rest area called the Delaware House, and
it was undergoing major reconstruction. The State rest area
located on the right-of-way of Interstate 95 closed on the very
day that Roger's numbers improved so dramatically. The Delaware
House sells food and fuel as well as convenience items to
interstate users. Months later the general manager's hunch was
indeed confirmed. On the day of the grand reopening of the
Delaware House, sales for the Maryland location dropped 30
percent, down to the same level where they were prior to the
closure of the Delaware House.
This is not a story of businesses fearing competition. Our
members face competition every hour of every day that they are
in operation. They face competition from those across the
street or next door to them. It is because of the rest areas'
ideal location on the shoulder or the median of the highway
that makes this a difficult proposition. A vendor can charge
virtually whatever they want to charge at this rest area
because they are operating as a monopoly.
For example, if you stop at the Delaware House, you can buy
a fast-food hamburger from HMSHost that leases and operates
franchise restaurants there. If you drive 6 miles down the
road, however, and get off at an exit, right there is a fast
food restaurant, the same fast food restaurant, and you can buy
that same exact hamburger for $1 less.
Part of that extra dollar goes to the State. It is
effectively a tax on the public. The remainder of the dollar
goes into the pocket of the business that was able to bid on
the rest area successfully and locate there.
Another one of my members told me that he will pay more
than $600,000 this year in taxes to Rockbridge County,
Virginia, where his business is located. If a commercial rest
area forces his business to close, more than 140 people will
lose their jobs there. The county will also lose their tax
revenue, and truckers will lose the hundreds of parking spaces
that he right now provides for free at his location.
During his State of the Union address earlier this year,
President Obama said American jobs created by transportation
projects, quote, ``didn't just come from laying down
infrastructure or pavement. They came from businesses that
opened near a town's new train station or the new off ramp.''
The competitive interstate business community owes its very
existence to the visionary leaders who enacted the Interstate
Highway Act. As you work to reauthorize the Federal
transportation program, we are looking forward to working with
you to continue this competitive environment.thank you for
allowing me to address you today.
Mr. Hanna. Thank you.
Now we are going to move to questions and answers. I will
recognize each Member for 5 minutes, starting with Mr. Young
from Alaska.
Mr. Young. I have only one question for Mr. Martz, Jon
Martz. Is he in the audience? Jon?
And I do apologize for not being here. I understand you
were supposed to mention my name in your testimony, and that
depends on what type question I ask you.
Mr. Martz. I did, and it was in a good context.
Mr. Young. OK. Good. Is this simple. Because car pooling
and van pooling and things, that is the thing that I am
interested in especially relieving traffic congestion.
Can you tell me about the market for van pools over the
past few years, the history, and the correlation between rising
fuel prices and the van pool usage?
Mr. Martz. Certainly.
First off, Chairman Young, let me start by thanking you for
your interest in this. You have been very involved in your
State in local van pool programs in both Anchorage and
Fairbanks, and I want to thank you for that and your leadership
over the years.
To answer your question directly, the demand for van
pooling nationwide has increased significantly. With $4-a-
gallon gasoline, our company alone grew by 37 percent 2 years
ago. We held, too. One of the things I remember hearing was
APTA touted that they grew by 4 percent during that time
period, but then when gas prices fell, their ridership dropped
quite a bit. We held, and we continued to grow.
Just since gas prices started increasing in rural and urban
areas both, we are getting calls from large generators, whether
they are military bases, nuclear power plants, things like that
that are kind of not-in-your-backyard type of facilities, that
they are concerned about how their employees are going to get
to and from work, and if gas prices continue. And accordingly,
we are ginning up some business.
The bad news is gas prices are going up, and it affects the
economy; the good news for our business is we are able to serve
more people because we are able to satisfy that demand. But
that is from Alaska, Idaho, New Mexico and growing metropolitan
areas like Honolulu, the space coast, and large metros like Los
Angeles, we are continuing to grow, and this demand could be
met even better by using Federal transit funds to leverage
private-sector investment in public transportation.
Van pooling is not a panacea. We are not a silver bullet,
but we do serve a certain market niche and very effectively.
Mr. Young. One of the things I know--you are right about
Alaska. In 2005, we had 24 van operations in Anchorage alone,
and now we have about, I believe, 57 vans. So it does work. We
are finding out--we pay--right now we are paying about $4.50 a
gallon in Alaska even with all of the oil we have. And for
those in the audience, we will hit $5 a gallon for gasoline
probably by the first of June. And this is going to affect the
economy. But more than that, just how do people make up for
their ability to go to work? They will be using pools, buses
and transit, which makes it work a lot better.
And for those in the audience, if you have got any
influence, we have to start producing our fuels in this Nation.
The idea we are going to buy them from Brazil just makes me
want to throw up. And I think I love this pooling because it
gets people off the road, and that is very, very important.
Mr. Martz, thank you, and again I am quite interested in
this program, and I hope people understand the importance of
it. And I do thank you for your testifying today.
And that is all the questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hanna. Thank you, Mr. Young.
I would like to recognize Ms. Richardson from California.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Windsor, Mr. Byrd, and Mr. Downey, if you could make
your way up to the front. I only have a few minutes, so I am
going to ask the questions quick, and hopefully I can get a
quick response.
Ms. Windsor, you talked about ATA and your willingness to
tax yourselves, basically the industry, under the commitment
that obviously that the funds would be utilized would be done
in an area to help you do your work better. Fuel tax hasn't
been increased since 1993, and, as you know, we have a bill
addressing that.
Could you just restate for the record why you have that
commitment, because it is very important.
Ms. Windsor. We believe that, yes, our Nation's highways
are offices. We do believe that it is time for a fuel tax
increase provided it is used for our Nation's highways. And
when we speak of fuel taxes, we speak of all fuel taxes. We are
paying a higher fuel tax for diesel federally than we do for
gasoline, but we believe as users of our Nation's highways we
should also invest in them. So, yes, we believe in the fuel tax
increase.
Ms. Richardson. And, Mr. Byrd, we have had--in the last
Congress we had several hearings about size and weight of
trucks as well as drug testing, and I found it was interesting
that you said that you--teamsters are open to nationwide
testing as long as it is a national program.
Do you want to allude further on that? And if you have any
thoughts about the size and weight.
Mr. Byrd. Talking about the national clearinghouse for
alcohol and drug testing results?
Ms. Richardson. Yes.
Mr. Byrd. Yes. We are open to establishment of that type of
clearing house. We would just prefer that it would be
maintained by the Federal Government rather than on a State-by-
State basis.
It is my understanding that a State like North Carolina
currently collects this type of data and has their own
database. We think it would be more efficient and it would be
more protective for our driver members if it was maintained--if
data were collected by the Federal Government and maintained by
the Federal Government.
Ms. Richardson. And your testimony for the most part was on
safety. Was there anything other that you wanted to share that
you didn't have an opportunity to cover?
Mr. Byrd. Basically I am a safety and health director, but,
yeah, in terms of size and weight, we have--the Teamsters Union
has opposed any increases in size and weight of commercial
motor vehicles because we don't think that the country's
infrastructure, the road infrastructure, is actually suitable
to accommodate the added weights.
Ms. Richardson. And, Mr. Downey, you brought up something
near and dear to my heart, which was freight planning, and it
is unfortunate that the actual chairman is not here present.
Could you just reiterate why you believe that an Office of
Freight Planning, or multimodal, I think, is the term that you
used--we have a bill that is really pushing that.
Mr. Downey. I am familiar with your bill, and there is a
lot in there that we think is important. I spent a number of
years at the Department of Transportation, and even today it
tends to be an organization of silos, some call them
``cylinders of excellence.'' But they keep people focused on
the mode of transportation and not the function, and I think in
terms of goods movement, it is the function that counts. Most
effective goods movement is, in fact, multimodal. Things come
off of the ships and containers; they go on to a rail line,
they go into trucks.
We really need to be looking at the most efficient way and
the facilities that will be needed to carry out that efficient
way of movement. We believe that could best be achieved with a
single office within DOT. At one time there was such an office,
it was called the intermodal office, reporting to the
Secretary. It has been pushed further down in the organization.
We would like to see something like that back in a prominent
role.
Ms. Richardson. And, Mr. Pantuso and Mr. McBride, if you
would hop up real quick. I have got 55 seconds.
Mr. Pantuso, there has been much discussion today about
transit. I found that that was pretty interesting. Other than
the grants and things that are in place, is there any other one
thing that you think would be so important that could help
transit to be able to survive, particularly in the rural
communities?
Mr. Pantuso. Well, again, we represent primarily the
private bus sector, and I think grants are certainly very, very
important, but not new moneys. Really access to existing funds
and existing information.
The motor coach industry is relatively small, but we are
very, very independent, small-minded businesses that move 760
million passengers. And just having access to some of the
available moneys that are currently in place for public
systems, I think a lot of our members can operate much more
efficiently and environmentally friendlier.
Ms. Richardson. And I apologize. As you can see, I have got
a binder this thick. Did you already tell us what specifically
those pools of funds were?
Mr. Pantuso. There are a number of resources. There are
certainly some existing transit funds. There is access to
funding through TIFIA, and then if there is a bank, if you
will, an infrastructure bank, access to those moneys as well.
Ms. Richardson. And then finally, Mr. McBride--and the
Chair has been kind enough to give me a few last seconds--it is
my understanding in working on some legislation with your
limousine folks that there are different rules for taxis versus
limousines, and access to airports and all of that. Is there
anything as we are looking at this overall bill that we could
do to help your particular industry?
Mr. McBride. The limousine and the taxi industry feel they
are being charged unfairly at airports when making pickups. We
are either a great resource to bring you to the airport or make
a pickup on the last leg of your trip, and we are being charged
fees by airport authorities that were paid to be built by
taxpayer dollars. And it is costing us a lot of grief and
affecting our bottom line to provide services.
Ms. Richardson. So you are talking about the queued area
where you are waiting?
Mr. McBride. Yes. Yes.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hanna. I would like to recognize Mr. Sires from New
Jersey.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Martz, would you please take the stand, please.Mr.
Martz, you mentioned that transportation management
associations are part of your organization. Can you just give
me an explanation of what they are, and how can this committee
be helpful to that association?
Mr. Martz. Transportation management associations, or TMAs,
are typically like small little chambers of commerce, business
service associations that focus on transportation issues for
the employees in a close geographic location. They work
together. They leverage their assets, their funds, to make more
things happen in their general area. New Jersey has a more of a
statewide network of that than probably any other State other
than maybe Washington, and it is a very effective one.
TMAs typically run things like last-mile shuttles. They may
provide collectively a way to administer the commute-to-work
benefit for transit and van pool purposes. They may provide
real-time transit information in the lobbies of their
businesses, things like that. And all these things focus on
ways to get their employees to and from work in a more
expedient and a more efficient manner.
Your bill, by the way, is an excellent example of how a
small amount of Federal dollars could leverage more private
investment to get them both at the planning table where the
funding decisions are made, where they are really not now, but
also to look at the market-driven approach that these employers
are more focused upon: How do we get these people to and from
work? And not necessarily how the planners think it should be
done. They are right on the ground. They are right in their
face.
So, yeah, we really appreciate your bill. We think it is a
great thing.
Mr. Sires. Mr. Martz, if you come from a district like I
come from, you realize why we have to do something soon,
because it is just impossible to get around some of the area.
We need to put something together to get these people back and
forth to work.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Hanley.
Mr. Hanley, I know that transit funding is very important
to Amalgamated Transit Unions, and it is very important to my
constituents in my district. So would you support a 6-year
authorization if there was a cut of 20 percent in transit
funding?
Mr. Hanley. Not only would we not support it, we think that
would be a criminal act against the people of our cities. You
know, most of the people in America live in cities, and urban
America is losing its mobility every day as a consequence of
some bad Federal policy that exists. But the notion that we
would, in the midst of this crisis, actually cut the funding to
the systems that move our people around our cities is
unconscionable.
Mr. Sires. Well, I couldn't agree with you more. You know,
my district is one of those districts where you have to move
people to work. Especially in New York City--I represent that
district that faces New York City, and we have to get people to
where the jobs are created. And New York City is really a job-
creating engine in the region. So to have a deduction of 20
percent, 30 percent, it would be devastating for areas like
that. And I am sure there are other areas like my area in the
country where it would be devastating. So----
Mr. Hanley. Well, Congressman, we have seen massive service
cuts--historic, by the way; more deep service cuts and fare
increases that at any time at least since World War II--over
the course of the last year and a half. And the consequences
are far-reaching. It is not just a matter of people who work in
transit being impacted, but our cities, as I said, are losing
mobility.
I was in Chicago recently speaking to some of the
representatives of the people who do building service in
Chicago. People from unions out there, SEIU in particular, who
told me in great detail about members of their unions who work
in building service who finish their jobs and have to stay in
the buildings that they clean for hours waiting for the next
bus to come, as a consequence of the bus cuts that have
happened in Chicago.
But also, you know, what happened in 2008 when fuel hit $4
a gallon was that ridership was higher than at any time, again,
since World War II on our transit systems. In places like
Chicago, the transit systems had no way to respond to that. Our
systems were strangling as a consequence of paying, themselves,
the higher cost of fuel and not having funding to pay for it.
And in Chicago the solution was to begin to rip out the seats
in subway cars to herd people on like cattle.
These are taxpayers, they are workers. They don't deserve
to be treated like that. And Federal policy has been blind over
the course of the last 2 years to that. And the notion that we
would then take this a step further and, you know, create a
further attack on the people who live in our cities who have to
get to work every day and cut the funding, the Federal funding,
that makes those systems run, that is just incredible. I can't
believe that anyone would suggest that.
Mr. Sires. In my district, we have the Lincoln Tunnel.
There is a billboard before you enter the Lincoln Tunnel. It
says, ``Lincoln: Great President, Lousy Tunnel,'' about moving
people around.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hanna. I would like to recognize Mr. Nadler from New
York.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
I would like to start by reminding Mr. Sires that the
Lincoln Tunnel is in my district, too.
Mr. Downey and Mr. Hanley--it connects us.
Mr. Downey, first of all, if projects of regional national
significance created by SAFETEA-LU were structured in a more
targeted, competitive program, as it was originally designed to
be in the original draft of the bill, could such a program, in
your opinion, sufficiently fund the large-scale national and
regional projects that our surface transportation system needs?
Mr. Downey. It could certainly make a good start at that if
it could be managed in a cost-effective way, in a merit-based
way. One of the failings within projects of regional and
national significance was more than half those projects never
got started, while others were ready to go and couldn't get the
funding they needed. So----
Mr. Nadler. As they said it in the original draft of the
bill----
Mr. Downey. I recall the original draft, yes.
Mr. Nadler. OK, thank you.
And secondly, some people have talked about having a
transit bill or, rather, a transportation bill coming in less
over a 6-period than SAFETEA-LU did, which would be the case if
we were limited to the existing gasoline tax, no other revenue
source and no increase in the gasoline tax. And they say we
should do more with less.
Do you believe we can keep pace and extend and maintain our
system by doing more with less? Can you think of any other
country where an underinvestment strategy has resulted in
economic growth? And what impact would such underinvestment
have on goods movement and economic competitiveness?
Mr. Downey. I think, across the board, if we do not keep
pace with needs, we will feel the impact of that, whether it is
moving people in public transport, whether it is the highway
system, or whether it is goods movement.
I think in goods movement there is a particular issue, that
a more efficient goods movement can, in fact, stimulate a more
effective economy, where actually it would be creating the
revenues that would pay for the investment.
So I don't think we should shortchange that element of the
system. I would be concerned about shortchanging any element of
the system. Where one doesn't invest, eventually you pay the
price, in terms of service declining, physical conditions
declining, safety declining.
You and I remember what the New York City Subway system
used to be like. And I now sit on the board of the Washington
Metro system, and we would not like to see that turn into what
New York had been. We would need to continue simply to maintain
the services we have effectively.
Mr. Nadler. Well, because we underinvested in New York, the
mean distance between failures in the late 1970s was 6,500
miles. It is now over 200,000 miles.
Mr. Hanley, some people have suggested that the trust fund
should be devoted only to highways, that transit should be
funded out of other mechanisms, such as general fund
appropriations.
What impact do you think solely funding transit out of the
general fund would have on transit agencies around the country?
Mr. Hanley. Well, without dedicated funding for transit, we
would likely have a continuation of the current crisis. It
might get worse.
But, also, you know, the notion that transit is somehow--
the impact of transit is not felt on our highways is
misconceived. The fact of the matter is that when we fund
adequately mass transit--and, also, by the way, intercity
transit is part of that notion--we get people out of their
cars, which helps free up the movement for efficient movement
of goods and efficient movement of people.
So the idea that we should somehow segregate transit and
say that it is not part of the solution to highway problems I
think is wrong. And I think that the Highway Trust Fund is an
appropriate vehicle for funding it, although we would welcome
additional funds from the general fund. And we do think it is
appropriate, at this time.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. So I assume that you would support
an increased Federal investment in transit as a way to help
people who are struggling with near-record-high gas prices.
Mr. Hanley. Well, I would. And I also want to point out
that for some strange reason in this country we feel that
foreign oil producers are the only people allowed to raise the
tax on our gas by raising the cost of oil. And that----
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Mr. Hanley [continuing]. Somehow it wouldn't be appropriate
for us, that is mindless.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
One final question for Mr. Downey. There has been a lot of
discussion about an infrastructure bank, which I think is
basically a good idea in many ways. But one of the arguments
for the infrastructure--or for some proponents of the
infrastructure bank is that some elite board of experts would
make all investment decisions based on some criteria rather
than having Congress make investment decisions. Because, after
all, Congress is political and might not use the criteria that
some elite board would use.
When we talked a moment ago about merit-based criteria in
the projects of national and regional significance section of a
bill, or, for that matter, in an infrastructure bank, do you
think that Congress cannot make such decisions, that only some
sort of elite board should make such decisions because,
otherwise, it cannot be merit-based?
Mr. Downey. It has been my experience that one can work
with the Congress in arriving at those merit-based decisions.
One of the models has been the New Starts program in
transit, where extensive study, sometimes too extensive, but
extensive, solid study arrives at a point where a
recommendation can be made. Congress' view is sought at that
point, in terms of moving the project forward. Once there is
agreement, then the project sponsors seek the funding through
an annual appropriations process. But the congressional
involvement, in that program at least, in my view, has been
very positive. And I would look for something similar to that
in any freight program.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Mr. Hanna. I would like to recognize Ms.--thank you for
your patience--Ms. Napolitano from California.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you so very much, sir.
I appreciate your time. I would also like to have Mr. Nagle
and Mr. Millar join you up at the desk.
But for Mr. Downey, should the bill create a freight
program to address thenegative impact that freight causes in
urban communities? Should there be a user fee attached to a
freight program? And do you have any recommendations?
This comes out of the fact that I have the whole Alameda
Corridor going through my district, and it impacts it, yet
railroads only put in 3 percent, maybe 2 percent, in kind for
the construction of a $50 million, $60 million, $80 million
project.
Mr. Downey. I think there is room--there should be room to
consider all of the impacts of goods movement and really
incorporate those externalities into the pricing in one way or
another.
The program, the concept that our coalition has put forward
has, in fact, been vetted with Environmental Defense Fund. And
we are very much in sync, in terms of how a good program could
work, not only for the benefit of freight efficiency but for
the communities that are involved.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, it is a corridor of national
significance that brings about 45, 55 percent of the Nation's
goods to this area--to the rest of the Nation, and yet we are
struggling to have some of those paid for.
One of the things to Captain Dowling, California Highway
Patrol--I have always been a strong supporter of the Highway
Patrol ever since I was in the statehouse. But would you please
talk to us about the importance of the grade crossing safety
programs and the construction of grade separation projects? Do
you think Congress should continue to fund railroad/highway
grade crossing safety programs? Most of the time, or at least
in this subcommittee when we have had the railroads testify,
they have indicated usually they are volunteer safety programs
from their end.
And should we allow an increase in truck size on the
freeways? And what impact would that have on the safety that
you see?
Mr. Dowling. Well, in regards to the railroad crossing, as
far as CVSA and us taking a particular position on that, we are
obviously concerned with the overall highway safety in that. I
don't know that we have really evaluated specifically the
funding and volunteer versus specific funding in that.
In regards to the truck size and weight, I think one of the
biggest concerns that we have is there really hasn't been
substantial studies that have looked at all the different
impacts that that could potentially have. For example, even
though there have been some advances in technology that may say
that stopping distances may only minimally be increased, one of
the concerns that we have is, what potential impact does that
increased size have in crush factors and collisions? And,
therefore, it may impact the amount of fatalities versus
injuries that would occur in a collision.
Those are the type of safety analysis that I think needs to
be done to make sure that whatever decisions are made, as we
try to become more productive and to balance that economics
versus safety, that we are truly having the safety conversation
involved in that discussion.
Mr. Nadler. Is anything being done at the State level?
Mr. Dowling. Yeah, actually, there are some analyses that
are going on, including that we are using some computer
modeling to try to determine some of this. We are hoping to be
able to bring that. And it is also something that our Size and
Weight Committee of CVSA is actively engaged in and that we
hope to have some more information----
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, I would hope that you would send
some of those findings to this subcommittee so that we have an
idea what some of that impact will be.
To Mr. Millar and Mr. Hanley, some of the witnesses are
testifying today and probably tomorrow calling for the mass
transit account to be removed from the Highway Trust, something
that Mr. Nadler just addressed. To me, in my area, we are 13
million people in L.A. County, and it takes mass transit. You
put a bus, there is a freeway accident, it gets hung up just
like anybody else.
What other mass transit--what is the impact it would have
on transit if we were to look for other alternatives? And, of
course, folding into that the public-private partnerships that
everybody is talking about, where we don't know how to find
them yet.
Mr. Millar. We would strongly oppose the separation of mass
transit from highways. We think President Reagan got it right
in 1983 when he agreed with the Congress to put them together.
We think it gives the Congress--and this committee is certainly
the evidence of it--it certainly gives the Congress to consider
the tradeoffs between highways and transit in a comprehensive
way. So we can see no good reason for taking public transit out
of there.
The number-two beneficiary of the transit investment in
America is the urban motorist, who, according to Texas A&M
University, receives over $19 billion a year benefit in reduced
urban congestion from the fact that transit operates in
America.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Mr. Hanley?
Mr. Hanley. Well, along the lines of the question about the
use of buses on highways that are already clogged, you know,
there is an innovation that has been used all around the
world--we are lagging behind many other countries, including in
Latin America--and that is using bus rapid transit, which
dedicates not only highway lanes but also gives a bus the
ability to change the signals along the way to move the buses
more quickly. There are many things that are also involved in
that, but that is something that we have fallen far behind the
rest of the world in.
We had a very slight experiment with this in my hometown,
in Staten Island, New York. The consequence of adding bus lanes
and getting bigger buses was that our ridership went up in a
year and a half about 120 percent on these routes. And, also,
the people not only got to work faster, in a more reliable
fashion, but the cost per rider goes down when you give buses
the right of way to move.
And, you know, certainly, you wouldn't allow a cow to sit
on the railroad tracks. And that is essentially what we are
doing with our bus system by not being more forward-thinking
and building more BRTs.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
With the indulgence of the Chair, Mr. Nagle, the port
congestion is a great issue for us. And it hurts our economy.
Like I said, a lot of it comes through my district. How can we
mitigate the congestion to create more rapid and efficient
goods and people movement throughout the country?
Mr. Nagle. I think one of the things that should be a focus
is the intermodal connector side of the national highway
system. A lot of the ports, whether it is southern California
or throughout the country, that bottleneck and where you see
the congestion are on those connections between the port
facility and the highway.
And so we think there should be a specific part of the
freight program that is addressing the intermodal connectors
that can help essentially that last-mile or first-mile
connection into and out of ports. We think that is an
absolutely critical link and is often where those bottlenecks
are.
I think it also can get toward some of the things you
raised with Captain Dowling, in terms of the grade separations,
et cetera. That can also help, and that can also then help in
terms of both the rail in and out of ports and also the truck
traffic in and out of ports.
Mrs. Napolitano. But you have also heard that sometimes
they build it and then they ask the partners to come in, which
may be deciding a problem. I know it happened in one of the
ports, I don't remember if it was in Long Beach or L.A. And so,
is that an issue also that should be addressed? In other words,
working with the partners prior to the construction of any of
those new systems.
Mr. Nagle. What our policy position states essentially is
that there should, in that type of a scenario, there should be
a public-private, essentially, partnership where the private
benefits are identified and, in that case, the private rail
company would pay for those aspects of the benefits, and then
the public benefits would be----
Mr. Nadler. But you don't want Congress mandating it.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Hanna. You are welcome.
I would like to thank everyone for their testimony today.
Your comments and insights have been very helpful. The
witnesses are dismissed.
I would like to thank the audience and everyone, all the
stakeholders and participants and citizens for being here.
If there are no Members that have anything to add, this
subcommittee stands in recess until tomorrow, Wednesday, March
30th, at 10:30 a.m. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:44 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at 10:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 30, 2011.]
[Prepared statements and submissions supplied for the
record follow:]