[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPROVING AND REFORMING OUR NATION'S
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS:
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA, FIELD HEARING
WITH ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS FROM A JOINT
SENATE AND HOUSE FIELD HEARING AND
NINE LISTENING SESSIONS
=======================================================================
(112-9)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
FEBRUARY 24, 2011
----------
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
IMPROVING AND REFORMING OUR NATION'S SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAMS: OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA, FIELD HEARING WITH ADDITIONAL
SUBMISSIONS FROM A JOINT SENATE AND HOUSE FIELD HEARING AND
NINE LISTENING SESSIONS
IMPROVING AND REFORMING OUR NATION'S
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS:
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA, FIELD HEARING
WITH ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS FROM A JOINT
SENATE AND HOUSE FIELD HEARING AND
NINE LISTENING SESSIONS
=======================================================================
(112-9)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 24, 2011
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Available online at: http://www.fdsys.gov/
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-737 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)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ viii
TESTIMONY
Duit, James A., President, Duit Construction Company, Inc........ 12
Fallin, Hon. Mary, Governor, State of Oklahoma................... 5
Hietpas, Jerry, President, Action Safety Supply Company.......... 12
Lemon, Larry, Chairman, Haskell Lemon Construction Company....... 12
McCaleb, Neal A., President, Transportation Revenues Used
Strictly for Transportation (TRUST), Indian Reservation Roads
(IRR) in Non-Reservation States................................ 12
Ridley, Hon. Gary, Secretary of Transportation, State of Oklahoma 12
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Duit, James A.................................................... 32
Fallin, Hon. Mary................................................ 45
Hietpas, Jerry................................................... 50
Lemon, Larry..................................................... 53
McCaleb, Neal A.................................................. 58
Ridley, Hon. Gary................................................ 61
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Anoatubby, Hon. Bill, Governor, The Chickasaw Nation, testimony
for the record................................................. 76
Geary, B.A., resident of Tulsa, OK, testimony for the record..... 78
Kessler, Edwin, resident of Norman, OK, testimony for the record. 81
Oklahoma Bicycling Coalition:
Cash, Mary Ann, LAB LCI #1327, Cooper's Bicycle Center, written
statement.................................................... 97
Mussett, Dr. Kevin, Legislative Chairman and Past President,
written statement............................................ 101
Wathne, Leif G., P.E., Vice President--Highways and Federal
Affairs, American Concrete Pavement Association, testimony for
the record..................................................... 105
Wilburn, Linda, mother of truck crash victim, testimony for the
record......................................................... 110
----------
TESTIMONY FOR THE RECORD FROM JOINT FIELD HEARING, SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS AND HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND
INFRASTRUCTURE, LOS ANGELES, CA, AND NATIONAL LISTENING SESSIONS
During February and March 2011, the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure held a national series of field hearings and
listening sessions to gather information from State and local
officials and stakeholders on pending major surface
transportation legislation. Testimony from the joint Senate and
House field hearing held in Los Angeles, CA, as well as
testimony from the listening sessions, which did not have a
record, is included in this hearing.
Los Angeles, CA, Joint Field Hearing, Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works and House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Improving and Reforming Our
Nation's Surface Transportation Programs to Support Job
Creation and the Economy, February 23, 2011:
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Czyzyk, Joseph A., Chairman of the Board, Los Angeles Area
Chamber of Commerce, and CEO, Mercury Air Group, Inc........... 114
Heminger, Steve, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, San Francisco Bay Area............................. 116
Hunter, Robbie, Council Representative, Los Angeles/Orange County
Building Trades Council........................................ 121
Kempton, Will, Chief Executive Officer, Orange County
Transportation Authority....................................... 123
Knabe, Hon. Don, Chairman, Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority....................................... 133
Mayer, Anne, Executive Director, Riverside County Transportation
Commission..................................................... 137
McKim, Cindy, Director, California Department of Transportation.. 141
Phillips, Kathryn, Director, California Transportation and Air
Initiative, Environmental Defense Fund......................... 146
Villaraigosa, Hon. Antonio R., Mayor, city of Los Angeles........ 155
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Blackwell, Angela Glover, Founder and CEO, PolicyLink; Henderson,
Wade, President and CEO, The Leadership Conference on Civil and
Human Rights; Porchas, Francisca, Lead Organizer, Labor/
Community Strategy Center and Bus Riders Union; Saenz, Thomas
A., President and General Counsel, Mexican American Legal
Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF); Walton, Gloria,
Executive Director, Strategic Concepts in Organizing & Policy
Education (S.C.O.P.E.); Wang, Karin, Vice President of Programs
and Communications, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, a
member of Asian American Center for Advancing Justice;
statement for the record....................................... 160
----------
Indianapolis, IN, Listening Session, February 19, 2011, Testimony
for the Record:
Altman, Christine, President, Central Indiana Regional
Transportation Authority, Hamilton County Commissioner......... 168
Hoosier Heartland Industrial Corridor, Inc....................... 170
Irwin, Kim, Executive Director, Health by Design................. 173
Kahl, Charles V., President, Indiana Construction Association.... 174
Kitchin, Vicki, Executive Director, Build Indiana Council........ 176
Lochmueller, Keith, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer, Bernardin, Lochmueller & Associates, Inc.............. 178
O'Loughlin, Michael and Susan, residents of Indianapolis, IN..... 189
Pfisterer, Marilyn, Councillor, District 14, city of Indianapolis
and Marion County.............................................. 191
Stephens, Jeff, Executive Director, Consider Biking.............. 192
Terry, Michael A., President and CEO, Indianapolis Public
Transportation Corporation (IndyGo)............................ 199
----------
Dupage, IL, Listening Session, February 20, 2011, Testimony for
the Record:
Barsotti, Ed, Executive Director, League of Illinois Bicyclists.. 202
Blankenhorn, Randall S., Executive Director, Chicago Metropolitan
Agency for Planning............................................ 203
Brown, Kate, Truck Safety Coalition, mother of truck crash
survivor....................................................... 208
Campbell, Craig, Vice-President of Environment and Government
Affairs, Lafarge Cement Division; Master, Debbie, Vice-
President of Manufacturing, Lafarge Gypsum Division............ 212
Clifford, Alexander D., Executive Director/CEO, Metra............ 214
Commercial Vehicle Training Association, Inc..................... 217
Cullerton, Thomas, Village President, Village of Villa Park...... 221
Darch, Karen, President, Village of Barrington, IL and Co-Chair
of TRAC........................................................ 223
Darch, Karen, President, Village of Barrington, IL and Co-Chair
of TRAC; Weisner, Hon. Tom, Mayor, city of Aurora, and Co-Chair
of TRAC........................................................ 227
Freemire, Hon. Mike, Commission Chair, Bi-State Regional
Commission, and Mayor, city of Bettendorf; Welvaert, Hon. Don,
Chair, Transportation Policy Committee, Bi-State Regional
Commission, and Mayor, city of Moline.......................... 235
Greuling, John, President and CEO, Will County Center for
Economic Development........................................... 239
Hannig, Gary, Secretary, Illinois Department of Transportation... 241
Klaas, Fran, Kendall County engineer............................. 257
Kliewer, Laura, Director, Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail
Commission..................................................... 258
Michels, P. Sean, Village President, Village of Sugar Grove...... 260
Midwest Bus Corporation in conjunction with David Hillock of
Transit Associates............................................. 267
Raff, Brian, Marketing Director, National Steel Bridge Alliance.. 268
Schoedel, Carl, P.E., Director of Transportation/County Engineer,
Kane County Division of Transportation......................... 271
Skosey, Peter, Vice President, Metropolitan Planning Council..... 276
United Transportation Union...................................... 278
----------
Vancouver, WA, Listening Session, February 21, 2011, Testimony
for the Record:
Adams, Hon. Sam, Mayor, city of Portland......................... 280
Bricker, Scott, Director, Portland Office, America Walks......... 283
Brokaw, Wayne, Executive Director, Inland Northwest Associated
General Contractors of America................................. 287
Brown, Chandra, Vice President, Oregon Iron Works, Inc., and
President, United Streetcar, LLC............................... 289
Dean, Robert, President, Dean Surveying, Inc..................... 291
Dolgonas, Richard J., resident of Roseburg, OR................... 295
Douglas County Global Warming Coalition.......................... 300
Edgar, Paul, ``Are There Better Options and Alternatives Than
Replacing the I-5 Bridges?''................................... 302
Girard, Chris, President and CEO, Plaid Pantry Convenience Stores 306
Harvey, Stephen H., Director, Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Council of
Governments.................................................... 308
Hubbard, David S., Vice President, Legislative Affairs, Portland
Cement Association............................................. 310
Hughes, Tom, Council President, Oregon Metro Council............. 312
Jackson, Jeffrey A., bicyclist and walker........................ 315
Kloos, Jeanette B., President, Friends of the Historic Columbia
River Highway.................................................. 316
Lavelle, Jenn, Field Associate, OSPIRG (Oregon State Public
Interest Research Group)....................................... 318
Lee, Timothy, Lakeside Industries, Inc........................... 321
Statement regarding North Spokane Corridor....................... 325
Parker, Terry, resident.......................................... 327
Spokane Regional Transportation Council.......................... 328
Vine, Loren T., Member, All Aboard Washington and the National
Association of Rail Passengers................................. 331
Wagner, Don, Washington Director for the Columbia River Crossing
Project........................................................ 335
Winiecki, Tad, Higherway Transport Research...................... 337
----------
Fresno, CA, Listening Session, February 22, 2011, Testimony for
the Record:
California League of Food Processors............................. 344
Cohen, Laura, Western Regional Director, Rails-to-Trails
Conservancy.................................................... 346
Fresno Works:
Anderson, Susan B., Co-Chair, and Fresno County Supervisor; and
Perea, Henry R., Co-Chair, and Fresno County Supervisor...... 348
Perea, Henry R., Co-Chair, and Fresno County Supervisor........ 349
Hanson, Matt, President, Professional Engineers in California
Government..................................................... 352
----------
Jonesboro, AR, Listening Session, February 24, 2011, Testimony
for the Record:
Broadaway, Sally, President, Northeast Arkansas Bicycle Coalition 358
Caulk, Robert, Chairman, Fayetteville Natural Heritage
Association.................................................... 360
Evans, Steven R., Director, United Transportation Union.......... 367
Griffin, Robert, Independence County Judge....................... 380
Jonesboro Regional Chamber of Commerce:
Cameron, Mike.................................................. 382
Owens, Ben, Chairman, Transportation Committee................. 433
Laggan, Charles, Vice President and General Manager, Arkansas
Midland Railroad Co., Inc., Prescott and Northwestern Railroad
Co., Warren & Saline River Railroad Co., Railroad Distribution
Services, Inc., Pinsly Railroad Companies...................... 434
Marzewski, Jane, resident of Jonesboro, AR....................... 437
Perrin, Hon. Harold, Mayor, city of Jonesboro.................... 438
Projects including pedestrian and bicycle facilities; landscaping
and scenic beautification; rehabilitation and operation of
historic transportation buildings, structures or facilities;
scenic or historic highway programs including tourist and
welcome centers, etc........................................... 447
Woltjen, Duane W., resident of Fayetteville, AR.................. 464
----------
Cortland, NY, Listening Session, March 24, 2011, Testimony for
the Record:
Klemm, Bill and Cindy, small business owner operators and OOIDA
members........................................................ 468
Morrison, Karen, P.E., Vice President, Transportation & Technical
Services, Associated General Contractors of New York State, LLC 471
Pizzola, Frances A., Access to Independence of Cortland County,
Inc............................................................ 472
Reinemann, Teri, Finger Lakes Independence Center................ 474
Roberts, Larry, resident of Tompkins County...................... 475
Shumaker, Linda, President, Shumaker Consulting Engineering &
Land Surveying, P.C., on behalf of American Council of
Engineering Companies.......................................... 476
Suits, Frank, Jr., President & CEO, Suit-Kote Corporation........ 480
Transportation Advocacy Group (TAG).............................. 482
----------
Rochester, NY, Listening Session, March 24, 2011, Testimony for
the Record:
Aesch, Mark, Chief Executive Officer, Rochester Genesee Regional
Transportation Authority....................................... 488
New York State Transportation Equity Alliance.................... 494
Rice, Terrence J., P.E., Director, Monroe County Department of
Transportation................................................. 496
Wright, William C., Ontario County Commissioner of Public Works;
Vice President, New York State County Highway Superintendent
Association; and Member, New York Chapter American Public Works
Association.................................................... 497
----------
Philadelphia, PA, Listening Session, March 25, 2011, Testimony
for the Record:
Campbell Soup Company............................................ 502
McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP Attorneys at Law..................... 504
Meddin, Russell, Bike Share Philadelphia......................... 506
Pennsylvania Transportation Center for Digital Technology
Innovation & Deployment, a partnership of Carnegie Mellon
University and the University of Pennsylvania.................. 507
----------
Scranton, PA, Listening Session, March 25, 2011, Testimony for
the Record:
Pietrucha, Dr. Martin T., P.E., F.ASCE, F.ITE, Director, The
Thomas D. Larson Pennsylvania Transportation Institute, and
Professor of Civil Engineering, Pennsylvania State University.. 510
Williams, Keith, Community Organizer, Northeast Center for
Independent Living............................................. 511
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
IMPROVING AND REFORMING OUR
NATION'S SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
PROGRAMS: OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA,
FIELD HEARING WITH ADDITIONAL
SUBMISSIONS FROM A JOINT SENATE
AND HOUSE FIELD HEARING AND NINE
LISTENING SESSIONS
----------
Thursday, February 24, 2011
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in Union
Rooms 1 and 2, Oklahoma City Community College, 7777 South May
Avenue, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Hon. John L. Mica [chairman of
the committee] presiding.
Mr. Mica. Good morning. I'm Congressman John Mica. I chair
the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and I'd
like to call this meeting of the committee to order.
This today is a field hearing and public input session
regarding provisions that will be included in a new Federal
transportation legislation and reauthorization.
I'm delighted to be here today at the invitation of your
Congressman, Mr. Lankford, the gentleman from Oklahoma, in his
district. And also, let me explain, first of all, what we're
doing and then the order of business before the committee
today.
As you know, everyone here I think knows that Congress must
adopt a long-term authorization, which sets forth all of the
Federal policy, the projects and the financing formulas for all
of the transportation, major transportation countries for the
Nation, in legislation.
The current legislation that we are working under expired,
actually, in September of 2009, we're on the sixth extension,
Congress must extend the law in order to authorize the programs
and even the existence of department--Federal Department of
Transportation.
We are going to, next week, when we return pass the seventh
extension, and I hope that will be the last extension. That
extension will go through the 30th of September of this year. I
would rather have a shorter term extension, but because of the
requirement, and the needs of the local and State government to
have some definition as to what the Federal Government's
partnership, funding, arrangement and rules of the game, so to
speak, will be in place, and we have to do something for some
definite period of time, rather than these short pickup kinds
of extensions that have taken place today. So that will take us
through the fiscal year, and it's my hope that when we finish
these hearings and field listening sessions, that we can return
to Congress.
Now, what you're seeing here today is part of a national
listening and hearing session. We started after votes last
Saturday morning, which ended at 4:30 in the morning, flew to
Columbus, Ohio, the State capital there, began these sessions.
We've been in Indianapolis, we've been in Chicago, flew to
Portland and Vancouver, Washington, Fresno, Los Angeles, here
today, tonight we'll be in Jonesboro, Arkansas, and then we'll
be up in Memphis, then I'm going back to Florida. We'll have
additional sessions in New York, Pennsylvania, probably two or
three other locations.
The hope is to have that hearing process, what you're
involved in here today, completed sometime in March, and then
I've offered to host a pizza, diet Pepsi, I was going to say
beer, and sit down with the members and look at all the input
that we've received and try to start drafting and finalizing
legislation that would be our--a six-year transportation bill.
So, that's the reason we're here, that's the order that we'll
follow.
The committee took up this week that extension of the
transportation bill, which will be considered by the house,
tentatively the word I got yesterday afternoon is Wednesday
afternoon, some of you are interested, because the current
extension, the sixth extension, it expires on the 4th of March,
along with a CR. And we're not sure what's going to happen with
a continuing resolution, if you've watched some of that debate,
but we have to make certain that transportation is not left
behind. So that's the reason we're taking it in that order.
Additionally, I'd just comment that the FAA
reauthorization, which I helped to draft the last law in 2003
with Mr. Duncan and others that were there, that expired in
2007, we've done 17 extensions, and we've not had Federal
policy law, authorization in place, only 17 extensions of the
law. Next week, when we return, one of our first orders of
business, after passing last week the House version of the FAA
reauthorization, will be to try to get that on the floor as
soon as possible. The Senate has passed their version,
conferenced it, and the FAA, 17th extension runs out March
31st, and it's my fervent prayer that we do not have an 18th
extension, that we have a four-year bill in place.
So that's the reason we're here, and let me say also that
we wouldn't be here if we didn't have one of the leaders of
this--the new generation of Members of Congress, who obtained--
actually competed for a seat on the Transportation
Infrastructure Committee, but we're delighted to be here at his
request. He follows in the footsteps of your Governor who was
on the committee, and we are just delighted, again, to come
across the country and listen to folks and their
recommendations on what we need as far as positive improvements
in the current Federal law relating to transportation policy.
The order of business is I'll yield first to Mr. Lankford,
then I'll yield to Mr. Duncan for opening statements, and then
we'll get to our panel of participants and witnesses today.
So with that, thank you, again, for hosting us. Let me
recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lankford.
Mr. Lankford. Thank you. It is a joy to be able to have the
chairman here and to have the field hearing, to have a chance
to listen to the ideas that are coming from Oklahoma, we have a
lot of great ideas. I'm looking forward to sharing these ideas
and other ideas that will be coming from individuals.
Let me recognize a couple of people. I know the chairman
will be recognizing the people on the panel itself, but Dr.
Paul Secrest is the President of OCCC, and I wanted to get a
chance to recognize him and say thank you. And Dr. Jerry
Steward is also the Executive Vice President, thank you so much
for doing this. I know Gina put in a lot of work, where is she?
There you are, OK, put in a ton of work to be able to pull this
together. Thank you for doing that.
On my own staff, Brittnee Preston is here probably
somewhere, and worked very hard from the D.C. side as well as
here, and Mona Taylor and Holly Isch and all the rest of the
staff that's here in Oklahoma City for our Congressional office
put in a lot of work on this. Thank you for doing that.
This is the crossroads of America, as we who live here in
central Oklahoma understand well, three major highways come
right through the middle of us. And if there are products and
goods and services just about anywhere in the southern part of
the United States, they came through Oklahoma City at some
point, whether that be by rail or whether that be by water,
through the Port of Catoosa or whether that be by coming across
on our highways.
I'll put out we're also the pipeline crossroads of America.
We have a lot going on. Today we're talking about surface
transportation specifically, but this is a major topic for us
in Oklahoma. We've seen it both in the I-40 and what's
happening on the crosstown, we've seen it all across our major
highways and our own bridges, we've gone through a long journey
on this.
Oklahoma City has seen quite a resurgence in the past
fifteen years. And we've seen a revitalization of the city
itself that we're sitting in, as well as the state and what's
going on in so many ways.
So I loved telling the story and getting a chance to say
come and see what's going on in Oklahoma City and the
resurgence that we have experienced here, but also get a chance
to come and hear the ideas. As we have talked about often,
ideas don't come just from Washington, D.C. They come from
individuals who live and breathe these issues and these ideas
and we're looking forward to getting a chance to hear these
issues and ideas today.
For others that want to submit thoughts and suggestions,
they are obviously welcome to be in the conversation. So, thank
you for coming, for holding this field hearing here and looking
forward to getting a chance to hear the testimony.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Lankford. And let me turn now to
the chair of the Highway Subcommittee. We have six
subcommittees under our full committee, and one of the leaders
in transportation and also the chair of that important
subcommittee, who will be helping craft this legislation, the
gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan. Mr. Duncan, you are
recognized.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for allowing me to be part of this nationwide tour of these
hearings and this listening session. This is my 23rd year on
this committee, and I've served in that time, I was just
sitting here thinking, under six other chairman, there's never
been another chairman who has gone as many places as you have
in such a short time, and I think that's great for the very
reason that Congressman Lankford just said, that all the ideas,
in fact, sometimes the worst ideas come from Washington and the
best ideas come from the local folks right here.
And I said driving over with your Governor a few minutes
ago, I think the people of Oklahoma are just almost identical
or exactly like the people in Tennessee where I'm from. I'm
from the Knoxville area, which is a very fast growing part of
our United States. But I had the privilege about three years
ago of coming with Congressman Jerry Costello, a Democrat from
Illinois, and Jimmie Fellow, one of our top staff members from
the Transportation Committee at the request of then your
Congresswoman, Mary Fallin, and now you're Governor.
And let me say, first of all, she was a very hard worker in
the Congress and made a great impression on both Democrats and
Republicans alike, and I am convinced that she will be an
outstanding Governor for your state. And Congressman Lankford,
in his short time in the Congress is getting off, I think, to a
great start. We're trying to come up with ideas for the highway
bill. I've had the privilege of chairing the Aviation
Subcommittee, we have a six-year limit on chairmanships on the
Republican side, and, I chaired the Aviation Subcommittee for
six years and chaired the Water Resources and Environment
Subcommittee for six years, and now have the privilege, thanks
to Chairman Mica, chairing the Highway and Transit
Subcommittee.
We've been told in hearings in all of those subcommittees
that it takes on average about three times as long to do an
airport project, a water project, a highway project, and about
three to four times as much cost to do those types of projects
as it does in any other developed nation. We've got to change
that, we've got to speed that up, because common sense would
tell you, if we can even cut that project delivery time in
half, that we could do two projects where we have been doing
one.
Chairman Mica sometimes gets embarrassed when I say this,
but we need to get the environmental radicals under control,
that's the problem in this country, in my opinion. If we don't
do some more domestic energy production, yesterday USA Today on
the front page said gas prices are going to go to $5 a gallon.
That's going to hurt a lot of people if that happens. So we
need to do some things in this country. We need to not be
afraid to let our free market, free enterprise system work, and
we need to kind of get out of the way and let things--let
things--let progress take place.
And that's why we're here today, to get your ideas and
suggestions, and I'm honored to be here with you. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Gentlemen. And a little housekeeping
and ask you now to consent that all of the witnesses' testimony
be included in the record today, and also for the listening
sessions that we had in Indianapolis, Chicago, Vancouver, Los
Angeles was a joint House and Senate hearing, and for today's
hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
Let me also say at this point, that--and Mr. Lankford will
move that we keep the record from this hearing open for two
weeks.
Mr. Lankford. Yes, so moved.
Mr. Mica. So moved without objection. Now, we could only
have a limited number of panelists today. And everyone couldn't
participate on the panel, otherwise, we would never get done
with our work. But what I do want to announce is that we will
keep the record open with the past request by the gentleman
from Oklahoma. We'll keep the record open for a period of two
weeks.
So if you don't get an opportunity to be heard, again, in a
formal manner today, we invite you to submit, and I would
prefer through your representative, you can also do that to any
Member of the Committee, but we will attempt to include all of
that information, and then we'll use your suggestions as we
consider it, again, completing the final bill in legislation.
So, again, that's an open invitation, some folks sometimes
are reluctant, will try to stay a couple of minutes afterwards
and heard from a few folks last night on ideas, but we want you
to know you can have an important role and you can participate
in this process.
With that being said, we'll move now to our panel of
witnesses. We're going to do a little bit different order
today, because we're honored to have the Governor with us, and
she has another commitment and then I'm rejoining her on a trek
across part of Oklahoma, anyway, to Tulsa after this hearing.
But we are delighted to have our former colleague, Mr. Duncan
and I, and your friend, Mr. Lankford, the very distinguished
Governor. I can tell you having known the Governor in her
former capacity, you couldn't have a more dedicated public
servant. No one who would be more aggressive on behalf of
positive outcomes for the state and their former district.
She's just a tireless, energized individual, 24-7.
I was just telling Mr. Lankford this morning, the problem
is she also has my cell phone number. But we are, again,
delighted to be here at Mr. Lankford's request, but also the
Governor's request.
But I will recognize her first, and we're just delighted to
have you, and thank you for your past friendship and now your
leadership and also for your hospitality during our visit.
Welcome, my former colleague and now Governor, and you're
recognized.
TESTIMONY OF MARY FALLIN, GOVERNOR, STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Governor Fallin. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman, and
let me just first of all say, welcome to Oklahoma, it's great
to have you, Mr. Chairman, here in our great state. It's
certainly good to see you, Subcommittee Chairman Duncan, and we
appreciate your second visit to our state to see our
infrastructure systems. And we're very proud of Congressman
Lankford and his new service to this committee, and he's
certainly going to do a great job and he's off to a wonderful
start, so we are thrilled to have you back in our great state
for such an important hearing and to be able to meet with our
local officials.
You have two cabinet secretaries here, our current
Secretary of Transportation, our former Secretary of
Transportation, and other people who are in the industry
represented in this room. So we are thrilled to have you here
for this testimony.
I want to tell you I really appreciate you making the trip
to Oklahoma, because as you told us last night at our lovely
reception, you've been to many states on a very fast paced
track during this time, listening to ideas from across the
Nation on so many important issues, and I appreciate the time
you've taken today to let us visit with you about our issues.
I know you're going to hear about the I-40 crosstown,
you're going to make a trip later today to see the Inner
Dispersal loop in Tulsa, so, thank you for taking that time.
And I know that we're going to be able to make some good
presentations here today with all of the people who are
represented.
Let me just, first of all, say, that I want to brag for a
few moments about our Secretary of Transportation, Gary Ridley.
As you might remember, Mr. Chairman, and our colleagues here,
Secretary Ridley came to Washington many times on behalf of the
transportation committee to testify on behalf of how important
it is that we get our transportation plan passed in our Nation,
and we certainly support your efforts in getting through all
the extensions and just getting a permanent transportation bill
passed out of Congress.
It's not only important for the state of Oklahoma, it's
important for our state budget, it's important for our people
who are in the road construction industry and bridge
construction industry to have some certainty in knowing what
the budget's going to be and to knowing how much money will be
available.
So I want to brag upon our Secretary of Transportation Gary
Ridley for being what we believed in our transportation
committee, to be one of the first states in the Nation to have
shovel ready projects when we had a bill a couple of years ago
putting more money towards transportation and infrastructure.
So, thank you, Secretary Ridley, for all of your great work.
We are here to discuss the urgency of building our Nation's
transportation infrastructure, as well as the need for our
state and the Federal Government to work together and
effectively as partners in this process. Building our road and
our bridges is essentially to the economic wellbeing of our
state and our Nation, it represents an important investment in
the future of our country.
There was a bipartisan interest in ensuring that goods can
be moved quickly and efficiently across state lines and
throughout our country, and that we have safe roads and safe
bridges with minimum congestion. Mr. Chairman was talking to me
a little bit about our congestion in Oklahoma City last night.
It's because we've got a lot of good construction going on.
We're fixing those roads and bridges in our state.
Mr. Mica. We ran into all of it.
Governor Fallin. He gave me a lecture on it last night, and
I said, well, we're repairing our roads and our bridges as we
need to be. I know that Chairman Mica and the committee members
are well-versed on the importance of maintaining and expanding
our transportation infrastructure. I'd like to real briefly go
over the economic impact as Governor of our state that it has
upon Oklahoma's economy.
According to the U.S. Census, there have been 2,630
transportation and warehousing establishments that exist in our
state, and that employs over 64,000 Oklahomans or 3 percent of
Oklahoma's work force. The total quantity of freight that moves
across our Interstate and our road systems, moving in and out
through Oklahoma on all modes of transportation, totals more
than 945 million tons with a value of $624 million--$624
billion, Congressman Lankford, in Oklahoma's economy.
And so transportation infrastructure-related issues are big
business, it's very important to Oklahoma's economy in moving
the goods and services in transportation. Over 115 million tons
of goods are shipped from Oklahoma to states and countries
beyond our state's borders, and that number is actually
expected to increase from 155 million tons--to another 155
million tons by 2035. So I appreciate your mention of our port,
we have the most inland port in the Nation in our state, too.
Oklahoma's central location makes it very ideal for a
location for warehousing and distribution of a diverse array of
products and services and goods, and so improving our
transportation infrastructure is a very important step in
supporting our massive distribution networks, as well as our
various industries that are in our state.
Agriculture and livestock production, for example, account
for a significant portion of Oklahoma's exports, and we stand
to benefit from improved rail services, and something Secretary
Ridley and Congressman and I talk about a lot is the need to
have efficient, effective rail systems in Oklahoma.
Aerospace is certainly a growing industry in Oklahoma that
requires not only good airports, but it requires reliable and
expansive highway and airport networks to solidify our position
as a state, as a national supplier, even in the military
defense industry.
So as you can see, transportation has a huge impact upon
Oklahoma's economy, on the jobs, on the goods and services that
come through our Nation and, of course, across our state.
So as a former Congresswoman on the transportation
committee and now Governor, it is my great hope that the State
of Oklahoma can continue to be a partner with U.S.
Transportation Committee, certainly with Congress, and that we
can both together seek ways to improve our Nation's
infrastructure and transportation system.
The Director Ridley will tell us in a few moments that
there is a backlog of transportation needs in Oklahoma and it's
large and it must have a consistent long-term Federal
investment strategy for our state. And it is my hope that such
a strategy will include flexible Federal spending, we've talked
about that many times. We want to be free from Federal unfunded
mandates or a rigid one size fits all policy for our state.
Such mandates and regulations can be seen in a couple of
examples I'd like to share with you.
While a member of the transportation committee, one of the
issues that we worked on on behalf of Oklahoma was private farm
vehicles that come under increased scrutiny from local and
state law enforcement in regards to Interstate commercial motor
vehicle standards. And as you're aware, the Federal law allows
each state to determine their own classification for commercial
motor vehicles, for trucks with gross vehicle weight ratings of
less than 26,000 pounds while traveling within our Oklahoma
borders.
However, the Federal standards mandates of those trucks
traveling across state lines with a gross vehicle rate rating
of more than 10,000 pounds are considered to be commercial
motor vehicles.
So the discrepancy between these two standards forces our
farmers with heavy pickup trucks who cross state lines to
acquire additional licenses, creates a cumbersome burden upon
our farmers and our ranchers who sell across state lines to
support their households and their families. So farmers and
ranchers in Oklahoma and across the country have been seriously
inhibited by these regulations that were never intended, I
think, to apply to them.
You might remember I wrote a piece of legislation, along
with Congressman Boren, to address this issue and to make
changes on the Federal standards for the mandate for commercial
motor vehicles, and I would certainly continue to urge Congress
to pass similar legislation to help our rural farmers, not only
in Oklahoma, but certainly, throughout our Nation.
Another issue I'd like to visit with you about is the
National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, and it offers another
illustration of burdensome Federal regulations under NEPA
states are subject to extensive Federal regulations in order to
make even the most basic improvements to infrastructures within
transportation right-of-ways.
In order to repave an existing stretch of roads, states
should not have to acquire a new right-of-way or undergo a full
environmental review and be subject to such added expenses.
These projects within existing corridors should be exempt from
NEPA regulations so that progress may continue to be made
without delay.
Regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency,
there's another way that we have increasing concern. I'm proud
to say that under the Clean Air Act, Oklahoma's air quality has
been in containment for over a decade and continues to improve,
however, if the EPA continues to impose even more stringent air
quality targets, after only three years of lowering our
previous target levels, major areas in Oklahoma's metro will
risk nonattainment, which would effectively bring a halt to
continued growth of Oklahoma's economic development centers,
and that will be unacceptable, especially a time when we are
trying to recover from a recession.
The final example I'd like to make is the undue Federal
regulation that can be seen in Davis Bacon, and I know our
contractors here will stand by me with this. The state is
currently divided into four territories with approximately 22
job classifications. The current system has proven to be fair
and effective for all parties involved. In fact, there were
generally never problems with meeting Davis Bacon mandated
wages because of the market driven wages in Oklahoma are
frankly just higher.
However, the U.S. Department of Labor has conducted an
evaluation of Oklahoma's wages and has now proposed dividing
Oklahoma into 66 territories with 36 different job
classifications. And this is problematic, because if a road
happens to cross a county line, an employee could make a
certain wage one day in one area, he could cross that county
line and make a different wage in a different area the next
day. So Department of Labor has allowed other states that have
found themselves in the same position to conduct their own
labor studies in partnership with the contractors, Department
of Transportation, Department of Labor, and this would allow
state departments involved with--with contractors to work
together to serve by payrolls in an appropriate manner, and it
could be evaluated for a few years, we would ask to ensure that
fairness.
So I hope Oklahoma will be able to do the same, rather than
fall, once again, under the same one size fits all Federal
regulations. I know our director will talk to you about some of
our infrastructure needs in other projects, so I'd like to
conclude these comments now. You have a lot of great people
here that are going to give some testimony, but once again,
Chairman Mica, Committee Chairman Duncan, and certainly
Congressman Lankford and your staff that are visiting here in
Oklahoma, today, thank you for taking time to listen to the
ideas that will be presented so we can continue to improve the
infrastructure in our state.
And I just want to let you know that we stand with you,
ready to work with you in helping you pass not only a six-year
transportation bill, but also to work on the FAA
reauthorization. That's important to our state. Thank you so
much and welcome to Oklahoma.
Mr. Mica. Thank you again, Governor, and thank you for
being with us. And we're going to take the Governor out of
order for questions and then we'll go to the remainder of those
on the panel, because she does have some other commitments, and
we're just really pleased that you would even take the time
today to join us with your busy commitment schedule.
Let me yield first to Mr. Lankford to see if he has any
questions for the witness.
Mr. Lankford. I do. Thank you for being here. I know you
have a busy schedule as well, and I know that you know what
it's like to be on both sides of this desk, so thanks for
taking the time to be here.
Can you spend a little more time talking about the flexible
Federal mandates and how that would help Oklahoma and just to
give Oklahoma, I guess, more permission, is what it sounds like
you're asking for to be able to make a decision locally, rather
than somebody in Washington D.C. Making those decisions?
Governor Fallin. Absolutely, Congressman Lankford. You
know, we believe that we know our needs in our state and our
funding needs, our priorities as far as what's the most
important project that needs our attention, what would help in
the transportation of goods and services across our state. We
believe that we know where our bridge deficiencies are and
where the money needs to be spent, and I'm proud to say
Oklahoma's lowered our bridge deficiency by 30 percent, I read
in an article in the paper last week, so we've done a good job
in having an eight-year plan in Oklahoma.
We fund our plan based upon priorities, based upon needs,
not based upon politics, which I think is very important. And
we have a great team of people, a great Department of
Transportation staff that is leading our state and working with
our communities. And so we'd like to have more flexibility in
deciding what our priorities are and we would like to have more
flexibility in even being able to be process those contracts in
a more timely way.
Congressman Duncan mentioned how time delays drive up
costs. We had a bridge that you might remember that collapsed
many years ago in Oklahoma, was very effective and efficient in
bringing that bridge back up through some creative work with--
incentivizing a faster pace in completing that bridge.
And so we believe there are great solutions in our state,
and we hope that we can have more flexibility to share those
ideas. I know that Secretary Ridley and I'm sure Secretary
McCaleb has testified many times about innovative solutions and
how--allowing us just to be able to have that flexibility can
make our dollars go far and be more efficient.
Mr. Lankford. Perfect. By the way, I do look forward to
picking up that same piece of legislation that's unfinished on
the commercial vehicle ratings for agricultural vehicles. It's
still sitting out there and our staff has been looking at it to
see if we can finish the job on that, so thanks for getting it
started and we hope to get it finished, that would be a tag
team experience to get that thing done.
Governor Fallin. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Lankford. I yield back.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Duncan, you're recognized.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I don't know that I
have any questions. I'll just say that I agree with everything
the Governor has said in her testimony, you know, there's an
important national role in these projects, because people in
Ohio sometimes use the roads in Tennessee and vice versa, and
people in New York sometimes use the airports in Texas and vice
versa, and so you can go on and on.
Interstate 40 runs right through Knoxville as well as here.
So I appreciate that you're telling us about this Department of
Labor situation, and that's ridiculous to do that, and--most of
these delays are environmental delays, so I'm well aware with
the NEPA situation.
It's our goal, Chairman Mica, and my goal, to get a six-
year bill, and we'd like to do it this year, but at least
hopefully do it in this Congress. And I believe we will, they
tried to do it in the last Congress and didn't come close for
various reasons.
But thank you very much, this work needs to be a
partnership of Federal, state and local. And we don't need the
Federal people dictating everything, and the mandates you're
talking about, that's a problem that's been going on for years,
and we need to work on that as well. But thank you very much
for your testimony here this morning.
Governor Fallin. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Just again, you said that two areas
that do drive your costs up or delay--well, also the NEPA
process that delays your project, any estimate as to what you
could do, what kind of money you would save, both in a
restructuring, realignment of the NEPA process? We've had some
suggestions, too, for certain levels of exemption, and also
consolidating some of the process for NEPA.
And then Davis-Bacon, maybe you have some more specific or
when we get to Secretary Ridley, maybe he could tell us the
exact difference in costs that the state incurs because of the
current Federal regulations.
Governor Fallin. Absolutely, absolutely. Well, in
committee, when I was there over the last couple of years, we
debated Davis-Bacon and prevailing wage many, many times, and
the added costs it can add upon our construction projects, and
what we typically find is that the market force is driven, will
actually set the wages within the market itself and a free
enterprise, free competitive system itself, and as my testimony
just said, we pay on the average more than what the prevailing
wage might be just because of the market itself.
And certainly, after we went through the stimulus funding
and the different road projects that we had in our state, I
think there was some pretty good work that was had out in our
road contractors and bridge contractors, so, you know, we just
believe that the market prices are the best way to set our
pricing and we know, and I think Secretary Ridley can give some
specifics on this, on costs to his department, but it does
increase costs on our road projects, and we have a certain
amount of money that we may let or plan for in our eight-year
budget and then all of a sudden, the estimates may come in a
lot higher than that, and that gives us less money to put
towards our important projects of our state. So I know our
secretary will be able to give you some more specifics on how
it impacts his budget, in particular, but we hope that you'll
just consider that as you look for it in legislation.
Mr. Mica. I want to thank you for coming out today and
taking time out of your busy schedule to be with us. We look
forward to being with you shortly in Tulsa. I might say, too,
when I was driving in from the airport and I saw all the
construction underway, I thought, and this is, again, knowing
your Governor and working with her, and seeing her tenacity on
different projects, I couldn't help but think that some of that
construction that was underway was her handiwork, as she never
stopped in her efforts, again, to try to assist her entire
state and the Nation with the projects moving forward. So I'm
sure you had something to do with them.
Some of the delays that probably will expedite people's
travel in the future, hopefully we can do more with you in the
future, I know we will be able to. We appreciate you taking
time to be with us today.
Any other questions for the Governor? And we may have some
that we'll submit, along with additional questions in writing,
to witnesses. So, at this time, I'll just excuse the Governor,
and let you----
Governor Fallin. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you, Congressmen.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. We'll now turn to the panel and thank
everyone again for coming out today. We're very privileged to
have the distinguished participants, and among them, an
individual I've had the opportunity to work with in the past
and highly respected among the leaders of transportation across
the Nation, is your director, we call them the Head of
Transportation for the State of Oklahoma, Mr. Gary Ridley.
We're pleased to have you, you're recognized.
And let me say, I know all of you probably have formal
written statements, and they will be included without objection
into the record. What I'd like to do for the remainder of the
time is have you informally give us your recommendations, your
ideas of what specific things, I think maybe two or three
things, one, two or three things that we could put in law that
would make this process work better for you, bring projects in
faster, lower the costs, financing will be a key, we need ideas
on creative financing, leveraging and then speeding up the
process, doing more with less, because, of course, we face an
incredible financial crisis at the Federal level, as everyone
knows.
So with that, Mr. Ridley, you're recognized and again,
welcome.
TESTIMONY OF GARY RIDLEY, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, STATE OF
OKLAHOMA; NEAL A. McCALEB, PRESIDENT, TRANSPORTATION REVENUES
USED STRICTLY FOR TRANSPORTATION (TRUST), INDIAN RESERVATION
ROADS (IRR) IN NON-RESERVATION STATES; JAMES A. DUIT,
PRESIDENT, DUIT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., EDMOND, OKLAHOMA;
JERRY HIETPAS, PRESIDENT, ACTION SAFETY SUPPLY COMPANY; AND
LARRY LEMON, CHAIRMAN, HASKELL LEMON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Mr. Ridley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee, Congressman Lankford. The Governor said it very
well. If we're going to look at specific things, and knowing
full well that it will be difficult, if almost impossible, to
increase the Federal budget when concerning surface
transportation, that we have to look at things that will not
only improve the process, expedite the process, but certainly
take the bureaucracy out of the things that we do.
I happen to be a long-term bureaucrat that really hates
bureaucracy. If there's a way that we can manage that system,
we think that there are some things that could be done in the
new highway bill. One of them was brought out, we think could
be very significant that Governor Fallin mentioned, and that's
working within existing rights-of-way. As we have to rebuild
our Interstate system across the country, not only in Oklahoma,
but across the country, we have existing rights-of-way, and in
order to rebuild our Interstate system, whether it's rebuilding
bridges that are currently within those existing rights-of-way
or replace the roadway section because it has outlived its
useful life, we ought to be able to do that without the double
jeopardy of having to go back and reopen an environmental
document.
We shouldn't have to go back through the 4-F process, the
NEPA document, the Corps of Engineers, all of the whistles and
bells that has to be done by our state and other states just to
keep things in a state of good repair. Whenever we're able to
work on the--on the roadways within those existing rights-of-
way, we ought to have the freedom to be able to do that, do it
quickly and efficiently.
The bridge that the Governor had made mention that we
worked on that had been knocked down on Interstate 40 many
years ago, and the lessons learned from that, we spent almost
$30 million in 64 days, two hours and 40 minutes that the
bridge was down. We ought to be able to take those lessons
learned and put them to use on our routine, regular projects.
There should be no reason why we can't expedite the process and
be able to do them quickly.
We certainly have problems with the Davis-Bacon Act. The
idea that the Department of Labor wants to make 66 separate
categories, just thinking about that is a nightmare for the
state and the cost that that will be able to administer and
administer fairly, one would have to believe it would be many
times over what the labor costs would be today.
The idea of mandates, whether it is the enhancement project
mandate that's mandated in the statute, safe routes to schools,
those all may be and probably are worthwhile activities,
however, the states ought to be permissive to be able to spend
funds on that.
Where our Nation's infrastructure is in so critical and
disrepair, the idea of setting aside monies that would
rehabilitate old buildings or provide trails, to unnecessarily
pull money out of us being able to replace bridges.
The idea that--that the ADA, the American Disabilities Act,
that forces states to rebuild sidewalks, wheelchair ramps and
put things in ADA compliance, when all we're doing is simply
trying to resurface a city street, is really somewhat
ridiculous.
If we're going to rebuild the section, then certainly, we
have to look at how we can improve the accessibility for people
that need additional help for access, that certainly needs to
be done. But states, counties, cities, should be able to have
the ability to be able to do routine maintenance effort on
their streets and on the highways without having to completely
rebuild the sidewalks and the other portions of in compliance
with the ADA Act.
Mr. Chairman, I'll be glad to answer any questions.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. What we'll do is withhold all the
questions until we're finished, now we have another leader in
transportation here in Oklahoma, Mr. McCaleb, and he's
president of a TRUST where he could probably tell us what that
is, and we look forward to your testimony and you're
recognized.
Mr. McCaleb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to
you and Members of the Committee. TRUST stands for
Transportation Revenues Used Strictly for Transportation.
Mr. Lankford. Could I ask you could you pull the
microphone? Thank you.
Mr. McCaleb. TRUST stands for Transportation Revenues Used
Strictly for Transportation and we are, as the name implies, a
highway advocacy group, for the use of revenues raised from
road users. I'm going to make a point this morning, and welcome
to you to Oklahoma, also. Oklahoma, by the way, is a Choctaw
word, which means land of the red man. And Oklahoma is unique
in that we have 39 federally recognized tribes and that our
state is the second most populous state in Native Americans in
the United States. That is significant in my testimony because
I want to talk about the Indian Reservation Roads program. The
name sort of implies it's restricted to reservation states,
which Oklahoma is not. We have no surface reservations in
Oklahoma, notwithstanding the large populations that I just
mentioned.
So my remarks this morning will be threefold. One, the
justification, the justifiable application of the program to
nonreservation tribes, not only in Oklahoma, but across the
United States.
Secondly, the efficacy of the use of these funds to empower
Indian tribes and local government officials in the development
and improvement of roads serve not only Native Americans, but
the population at large.
And thirdly, the threat that we have to the current status
of the application of these funds and the formulas that are
applied by administrative fiat, and I'll explain that a little
bit later.
My comments are going to focus on Oklahoma, my personal
perspective through my service at ODOT and the U.S. Department
of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. The IRR, and I'll use
the letters, instead of going through the words every time,
program was intended to enhance the opportunities and safety of
Native Americans throughout America, providing for their safety
and also access to economic opportunities. Although the title
indicates it's for reservations, the law specifically says it's
for nonreservation tribal areas within the boundaries, the
historic boundaries of those tribes, and specifically
identifies Oklahoma in some of the past legislation.
There are more Native Americans living off reservation in
the United States than there are on reservations. So for this
bill to serve its intent, it needs to be applied as intended.
And pursuant to that objective, the provisions of SAFETEA-LU
require that there would be established a mechanism to get
tribal input to establish what the rules and regulations and
formulas were to be in the allocations of these funds that were
authorized and ultimately appropriated by Congress.
That was establishing a group called negotiated rulemaking
process, and it involved tribes from all over the Nation that
were nominated that came together. They were to determine what
these formulas, what these regulations and eligibility were. It
took a long time, over four years to get the tribes together.
But finally, they reached a consensus and developed a
workable program for those allocations and eligibility
requirements. That was accomplished in 2004, as published by
the Department of Interior in the Federal Register, it became
an adopted regulation.
Unfortunately, since that has happened, there has been a
movement by administrative forces within the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal lands area, and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs to change those formulas and rules in direct conflict
with the intent of Congress.
The application, now, how effective have these funds been,
in Oklahoma, they've been tremendously effective. One of our
underfunded elements of government is the role of government in
county roles in particular. We have 14,882 structurally
deficient or obsolete, functionally obsolete bridges. We happen
to be the second highest in the Nation for that dubious honor.
We're making progress on that, but it's going to be eroded
by the fact that if these rules are changed, notwithstanding
Congressional intent, they are doing it under the presentation
that it's a clarification and not a rule change, but it
operates to change the allocation of the formula.
My request is that the committee include language in the
reauthorization bill to instruct all effective parties to
respect the provisions of the negotiated rulemaking committee
until it is changed by the appropriate mechanism representing
all tribes.
Thank you so much. I'll answer questions at the appropriate
time.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, and we'll get into some questions. Now
we've got Mr. Jim Duit, President of Duit Construction.
Welcome, sir, and you're recognized.
Mr. Duit. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished
guests. I'm pleased to be here to report on, perhaps, three
strategic ways that we can improve the surface transportation
issue. The first one is a system that is already in place, and
it's been in place in the SAFETEA-LU and the TEA-21 program,
and it is a collaborative effort for research and development
on technological advancements in the highway paving industry.
And I was fortunate enough in my career to work on several
of these advancements, but the one that's most important to our
industry is a pavement research overlay system, where we put
concrete pavement over the old system, the old pavement
systems. And this is, again, developed collaboratively with
many academia and Federal highway and whatever.
It has been a tremendous--a tremendous value and an
extremely high leverage asset. For example, on an Interstate
highway system, by using this overlay system, we can save
approximately $800,000 a center line mile. And it's very
significant and it's been used here in Oklahoma for many, many
years, been very successful.
So I ask that you, perhaps, keep the provisions of the--the
research and development. That is only one small example, there
are hundreds of them, all industries participated in it, and it
has a great success story and a great leverage of the U.S.
Taxpayers' money.
Streamlining project delivery systems. We need to look at,
again, as you said, the must-haves versus the nice to have in
our programs. One of the aspects that come to mind in our
highway industry is the architectural designs that are
beautiful and on our roadways and our retaining walls and on
our bridges, but they come at a large cost to the taxpayer.
Perhaps this isn't the time that we continue that. I think we
can develop and design these architectural designs to be
applied at a later date when the economy might be better.
I think that would be--it would work out just fine, but
some of these designs have as much as a 20 percent cost to add
these to the projects. And obviously it will help streamline,
shorten the project duration.
Partnering. One of the--in my career, one of the biggest
things that I've noticed with DOT's that have great success,
I've been in this business 43 years, is the ability to partner
with the DOT's, and work out our problems. In some states,
however, it's not that easy. Oklahoma, for example, has had for
years, under the direct leadership of Gary Ridley, a quality
initiative task force.
And it's for all the divisions, it's the bridge division,
asphalt paving, concrete paving division, where we come
together with all the stakeholders and we talk about the issues
and design changes and adding new technology, so we can talk
about the pros and cons together, and we can come out with a
decision that that leverages our taxpayers' money, has been
extremely successful, something that could be used in other
states to leverage the taxpayers' money.
One issue under the new design processes where we're
entering into a computer aid design, it would be nice if we
could get the engineering design files so we can take the
geometric designs and put them directly onto our GPS equipment,
and we can actually go out and build the roads probably a
little more cost effectively.
Utility relocation is also another issue that we have that
costs time and money, and perhaps there can be a more efficient
way of relocating it, utilities, or perhaps put those
particular utility locations in the contract to help streamline
the process.
One other issue we need to look at in our highways, and our
DOT's are doing very well at looking forward, looking at life
cycle costs of our pavements and bridges. One thing the
Europeans do very well is they have a long-term look at their
pavements and their bridges, instead of a 20- or 30-year
design, they are looking at a 40- or 50-year design.
And technology has shown us that we can actually start
predicting these life cycle costs with some of the new
technology that is available. We need to look at these on a--
instead of a cradle to grave concept, maybe a cradle to cradle.
In other words, what materials we put in our roadways and
bridges now, make sure they are recyclable and reused in the
future, and make sure whatever we put into those roadways can
allow for the next generation to recycle.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my comments, thank you for the
time.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, we'll get back for questions. Mr.
Jerry Hietpas, welcome and you are recognized. You are
President of Action Safety Supply Company. Thank you.
Mr. Hietpas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, honored members of
the panel. It is certainly an honor to be able to visit with
you today, and, of course, a great responsibility as well. As I
chatted with you and other members last night, I came to
realize how very similar we are. The gentlemen that are seated
to either side of me, when I go to visit their offices, one of
the first things that you'll note is the awards for quality of
construction that are hanging on their wall. It's some of the
most prominent features. That's what the industry is driven by
is a desire to do quality work.
I was visiting with a former chairman of the Oklahoma
legislature that was talking about a funding bill that he had
written over five years ago that is still as a matter of law
today and it continues to fund Oklahoma's roads. He was talking
about that with a lot of pride in his voice, because it was
something of a quality piece that he's done. And after visiting
with you and listening to the great pains that you're going
through in order to write a quality bill, I recognize that you,
like us, are driven more about quality than about just getting
another piece of work done and off the table so you can move on
to something else. It--it's really a privilege to be able to
connect with you on that level, and to be able to be a part of
the team that's helping you write this legislation.
Some of the things that--by the time it gets to my level,
we're in the road construction and traffic control services
business, and when it gets to my level, all the red tape has
basically been cut, the rules and regulations are in place and
all we have to do is comply.
Do we know what kind of impact it has on us or what could
happen if the process was streamlined? For 36 years, we've done
it this way, we don't have a clue how much better it can be.
What we do know is that changing things like the wage rules and
breaking it off into these smaller pieces would cost us one
whole heck of a lot of money. We do know that programs with
words like safe routes to schools sound absolutely wonderful on
the outside, but I have been involved in some of these projects
in part of the road construction work that we've done, and I've
witnessed putting in--the cost to put in the measures in some
of these towns where there isn't two kids riding a bike or
walking to school because of the logistics. But because of the
fact that it was a Federal mandate project, one size fits all,
the thing has to be in place.
We have struggled with the disadvantaged business program
and the process that the Department of Transportation has to go
through in order to put that into the--into the--into the
method. The ADA requirements that Secretary Ridley visited with
a little bit about, and our Governor, that when we go through
just to simply maintain a roadway, we have to now, if we spend
too much money in maintaining, to do an asphalt overlay in a
particular project, we have to go through and upgrade all of
these intersections with wheelchair ramps, even though just
immediately adjacent to that is a vacant field, there aren't
sidewalks in these little towns anywhere near.
So it becomes a one size fits all solution, which is really
easy to write on one end, but it costs so much money on the
other end. So I encourage you just to continue to do what you
can to make this more of a user friendly bill, rather than just
a highway user bill.
And on the last perspective, I know we don't want to have
to pay any more money or have any more things charged against
us in order to fund our roads and our bridges. But we don't
have any kind of a problem if we choose to go see a movie, to
pay the ticket and then walk inside the theater and enjoy the
experience. That's a user fee.
What we need to do is seriously take a look at user fees
being associated with the funding of our highway program, be
it--right now it's gasoline and diesel fuel taxes, but we've
got a lot of vehicles coming up, the electric vehicles and
those kinds of things that are going to be riding on the exact
same roads and contributing to the exact same kind of
congestion that you were visiting about earlier. We have to be
able to find a way to get a reasonable user fee from those
vehicles as well, so that they can enjoy the same benefits that
we do.
I thank you for your time today.
Mr. Mica. Thank you for your testimony. And we'll turn now
to Mr. Larry Lemon, he's Chairman of the Board of Haskell Lemon
Construction. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Lemon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Larry Lemon,
I'm chairman of Haskell Lemon Construction Company. We are a
three generation, family-owned paving business and we've
specialized in building roads and highways here in the state of
Oklahoma for over 60 years. I really want to thank Chairman
Mica and Congressman Duncan and Congressman Lankford for coming
today and having these field hearings, thank you for being in
our state.
I also come before you today not only as a practitioner for
highways and roads, but this past year, I had the honor to
serve as chairman of the National Asphalt Pavement Association
and we're also members of the Associated General Contractors.
The two main concerns I would like to raise the awareness of
today is the unpredictability of funding that is making it
extremely difficult for our State Transportation Department and
our construction companies to prepare for this construction
season, and also the diversion of monies from the Highway Trust
Fund for nonhighway uses.
With the Federal program currently operating under a series
of short-term extensions, the government funding reductions in
the maintenance and construction of highways has a very
uncertain impact on both our state DOT and on our construction
companies, and that is uncertainty for our employees.
We support the priority Congress and the American people
have identified in reducing the national debt and balancing our
Federal budget. This also means aligning the spending of the
Highway Trust Fund with the revenues going into the trust fund.
I hope that you will draft a reauthorization bill based on our
current revenues going in the trust fund, and as part of that
legislative process, consider proposals to consolidate the
trust fund programs.
Our programs now are fractured into so many different
programs, that, really, we don't have enough money to fund the
core issues of what the highway system is really needed. We
need to reestablish this core purpose and fund only those
activities related to our highways and bridges. When President
Eisenhower proposed our great highway system, he proposed a
user fee of three cents a gallon on gasoline and diesel for all
the construction and maintenance. The user fee is a good
concept and it's worked well for our American citizens. Today
the user fee is 18.3 cents on our gallon of gasoline, which
really has not kept up with inflation, and the purchasing power
of our Highway Trust Fund is substantially diminished.
It's interesting to note that in 1955 at the time of this
new three cent user fee, the cost of a stamp was also three
cents and now the cost of a stamp is 44 cents. What a
difference our Highway Trust Fund would be in if it could have
been given the same priority as our postage system. The vehicle
user fee concept continues to be a very effective way to pay
for our highway needs and keep them in the first-class
condition. We suggest that this transportation bill have a
comparable user fee for electric vehicles, for natural gas
vehicles, hybrid, really any and all alternative fuel vehicles,
because each vehicle needs to have a uniformed user fee and
that will enhance our Highway Trust Fund and allow us to build
more and better roads.
With the Highway Trust Fund receiving a full user fee from
each vehicle, we'll build more roads and pay for them out of
the trust fund. Mr. Chairman, we recognize the current
condition of our infrastructure, we absolutely must include all
vehicles, maximize the effectiveness and priorities of the
Highway Trust Fund. American needs to grow and modernize its
highway system. Our Nation's standard of living and our
security depend on it. The construction industry of Oklahoma
pledges to help you meet your metrics of doing more with less.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Mica. Thank you and thank all of our witnesses. And now
we'll turn to questions and I'll turn to and recognize Mr.
Lankford first.
Mr. Lankford. Thank you. Thank you all for coming and
preparing your statements. We have an extensive written
statement you've also submitted on that and I appreciate that
with a lot of other details on it.
Gary Ridley, can you tell us a little bit more about what
we learned from the Webbers Falls bridge incident and
rebuilding that in 64 days? Give us a guideline here. That was
redone in 64 days, take all the changes and exemptions that
were given during that time period, what would a bridge like
that typically mean as far as time to rebuild it?
Mr. Ridley. Mr. Chairman, if you are looking at a bridge
that's some 526 foot long, an Interstate bridge, from the time
that you would conceive that you would have to replace it until
the time the actual construction was completed, given all the
problems associated with the NEPA documents and everything that
would go with that, assuming you would stay on existing right-
of-ways, that bridge was done on a state existing right-of-way,
and the bridge that would cost with detour, somewhere around
$30 million, one would imagine that would be probably a three,
maybe four-year process at best.
Mr. Lankford. So we took a three-year process and did it in
64 days.
Mr. Ridley. Uh-huh.
Mr. Lankford. What were the things that you would say these
are lessons learned from that, here's how we contracted all the
time and the permissions and exemptions we were given to get it
done, can you give us a couple of examples?
Mr. Ridley. Congressman, government can do some good things
if government gets out of the way and allows its private sector
to do their business. We were allowed to turn loose the
innovativeness of not only our staff, but also the private
sector in order to rebuild that bridge. Things were done
simultaneously, rather than going end to end.
When the head of the Federal Highway Administration came
here, Senator Inhofe as well, then Lieutenant Governor Fallin
said, ``Build it, build it quickly'', and just turned us loose
and we did. Again, I think that the gentlemen at the far end of
the table know how to do their job, certainly our staff knows
how to do theirs, but we can do it quickly, again, if
government can stay out of the way.
Mr. Lankford. Those are things that can be documented and
say, here are ideas, we'd very much like to have those ideas in
writing, say, here are three or four things we've learned on
that and we'd like to be able to present those on and continue
moving, because obviously you lose money as you lose time on
all of these, if we can accelerate the process, then it saves
us a lot of money as well.
Obviously, people aren't wading around barrels in
construction, coming in from out of town to try to figure out
where our construction lies, because we can get it done and get
it turned around.
We have something very unique in Oklahoma, we have an
eight-year plan, that's already been referenced as well. That
is a great piece of legislation that was done in 2005. Talk to
us a little bit about and catch the Chairman up some on this
eight-year plan and how we function as a state and do our
organization and planning.
Mr. Ridley. Mr. Chairman, if I may, the eight-year plan is
put together, and it's financially constraint. I know the
Congress is wrestling with how much money we will have toward
the end of this fiscal year. Yet we estimate what our dollars
will be for the next six, seven, eight years, both at the
Federal level and at the state level. We take a very
conservative approach on what those revenues will be.
We also look at our critical needs, these are not
politically motivated projects. We do not look at any political
subdivision to make determinations as to what projects we will
do. They are all totally based on critical need.
My office, for two months out of the year, looks like a war
room in that we look at all the data, it is data driven. The
eight-year plan has forced us to sit down and work on those
critical projects, we rely on good estimates, we reevaluate
that once a year. We deliver on those projects. About 80, 85
percent of the projects are delivered in the year we say we're
going to do them in. Again, we take the political process out
of there, therefore, it doesn't change as members might change
or whether in the House or Senate or even in the Governor's
office.
Governor Fallin has been extremely supportive of that, and
she has been associated with that for the last ten years and it
has worked very well. Again, we are able to deliver on the
things we say we're going to do when we say we're going to do
them.
Mr. Lankford. That's terrific. Mr. Duit, I want to ask you
a specific question on it as well. And that is, you and I have
talked about before about things and you had mentioned to me
offhand one day that we seem to try to save a few dollars now
and it costs us a lot more later. Can you emphasize some of
those things or give us specific examples you've experienced as
a company.
Mr. Duit. Well, I can, and this happened again when money
from the Federal Government was very scarce. It was about 20
years ago and we were invited or we bid an eight-mile section
of pavement in the Oklahoma area, and there was an alternate
bid in that section, which allowed for some additional
reinforcing steel to be placed in that concrete pavement.
That alternate bid or add to that bid would have been
approximately $500,000 for those eight miles of pavement.
Fifteen years after the project was done--and it was elected
not to do that, the alternate.
And fifteen years after that was done, there was a contract
let for $4.7 million to put steel back into that pavement, and
retrofit that pavement. And my concern is, when money gets
tight that we have to get from point A to point B, some of
these accessories are left out.
Now, I will say, also, that in the last fifteen years we
have not done any paving without that. There was technology at
that time that suggested that might be--might be able to work,
it didn't. It not only happened in Oklahoma, it happened in
every state of the union, it happened in Europe, it happened
all over. So, again, when money's tight, we need to make sure
we spend it on the functional products.
Mr. Lankford. Sure. Do either of you gentlemen have
examples like that as far as decisions that are made and how
the bidding process goes out in trying to save money now
actually costs us a lot more later.
Mr. Lemon. I think that building a pavement that will last
for future generations is a wise value of our money, and both
the asphalt and the concrete pavement industry has terms called
perpetual pavement and permanent pavement.
And if we will build the structure right one time, it's a
great benefit to the next generation of engineers and
contractors and our citizens that the surface can be renewed in
offpeak times into the future, and this is real value for the
taxpayer.
Mr. Hietpas. I also have an example that ties on to that in
a very small way. My company does the pavement markings and as
you have driven some of the Interstates as you headed here, you
saw the black and white stripes out on the Interstate system.
These are indicative of a multi polymer pavement marking,
which was tested in Oklahoma almost 11 years ago now, on a
section of I-44 between I-40 and the 39th Street Expressway.
Had one of the highest ADT's of over 265,000 vehicles per day.
And that pavement marking material was installed and remained
in place and serviceable over those entire ten years. It was
just very recently replaced. And, of course, now you see it all
over the place.
What the state has been forced to take a look at is do they
spend a little bit more money and invest in a pavement marking
that will last ten years under those kind of conditions or are
they forced with replacing pavement markings that are missing
or completely functionally obsolete because of the snow removal
seasons and that kind of stuff. So they are torn between
spending a little bit more money and getting a really durable
product or stretching those dollars using a less durable
product and covering all the places where the pavement markings
are missing. So that's one of the things they run into, and
with the kind of--with the kind of money we could get, we could
make those improvements one time and last for a long time.
Mr. Lankford. Two more quick questions, if that's OK. One
is to both of the former lead people in transportation in our
state and that is dealing with truck weights, there's a lot of
conversation now about truck weights and how to handle that,
obviously they do a lot more damage to pavement as they travel.
There's some conversation about adding additional axle to
increase the weight of the truck, that would reduce the number
of trucks on the road, but increases the actual weight and
distributes it on another axle. Just give me your perspective
on that.
Mr. Ridley. If we're talking about the truck weights on the
Interstate system where we have an 80,000 pound GPW, the
Interstate pavement, as well as the bridges, were designed for
that 80,000 pound load. As you know, the truck weights have
increased over time. The axle loads that you have on a truck
contribute to the detriment mainly on the pavement itself,
pavements are designed based on axle loads.
Bridges are designed, for the most part, for the weight of
the vehicle itself. So the span bridges that--if you increase
the truck weights on span bridges, I would imagine that that
will decrease the life of those bridges, simply because of the
life that's in the steel, for sure, of the fatigue life that's
in the steel beams in how they were originally designed. I
think that we need to be very cautious about increasing the
truck weights on the Interstate in excess of where they are at
today.
I think that there needs to be a lot of good dialogue first
before someone will pull the trigger on that. Certainly, it may
reduce the number of trucks, but it also may increase the
damage, certainly on our bridges.
Mr. Lankford. OK. Thank you.
Mr. McCaleb. I agree with Secretary Ridley. I just make one
further explanation. You know, if you increase the number of
axles and keep the axle weights the same, theoretically, you're
not increasing the stress in the particular area, and you can
do that with triples and long combination vehicles and a number
of other ways. You cannot reduce the increased stress on bridge
beams, as Secretary Ridley said, because that's a function of
the bending moment and the stress at the critical point in the
middle of the span, no matter how many axles you put under that
essential point loading will increase the stress repetition and
the rate of stress repetition and will reduce the life of the
bridge.
Mr. Lankford. So is it better to have, say, one truck with
additional axles or to do one truck that is actually doubled
up, if they are carrying, you know, a double vehicle is going
to carry more weight than a single with an additional axle,
which one--I mean, it's a guess, we're going to have to look at
it through engineering, but give me just your perspective on
that.
Mr. McCaleb. On the pavement section, the longer vehicle, I
think, is more desirable. On the bridges, I don't think it
makes a lot of difference. I'm an advocate of heavier loads,
but you have to design for those heavier loads. You can't just
superimpose those heavier loads on a system that was designed--
wasn't designed for them.
Mr. Lankford. Perspective the same on that, Mr. Ridley.
Mr. Ridley. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lankford. One last question on this. Mr. McCaleb, talk
to us a little bit more, give you an additional moment on this,
in dealing with the--all the different tribes and investing on
what they do into Indian country in so many ways. Obviously
that is not an Interstate, typically, but sometimes it's access
to an Interstate, a lot of us work with county leadership into
Indian country areas. What impact does that have on the change
and form that's Oklahoma specific.
Mr. McCaleb. Thank you, Congressman. It has a tremendous
impact on what's proposed. Most of the Indian Reservation Roads
that are on the transportation inventory plan, TIP, are rural
roads, because that's where the majority of the population is,
and that's where the need is with the counties, because they
are underfunded.
A lot of counties earlier couldn't utilize their dedicated
off system bridge money because they didn't have the 20 percent
local match. The tribes came and provided that 20 percent local
match with IRR funds, and that accrued to the safety and the
benefit of population at large, as well as the Native Americans
living in the area. That's one example.
And one of the things that this proposed for change or
clarification, as they say, would do, would restrict the use of
those funds and eligibility for county collector rolls, which
is where the traffic is.
Mr. Lankford. OK. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mica. Very good questions. You helped two senior
members have a sort of an enlightened side bar discussion on
this weight issue, which you two shed some interesting points.
Thank you so much.
Mr. Duncan, I'll recognize you.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very
brief, and Congressman Lankford did ask a really key question
about the increased truck weights, because I've had two groups
come and visit me just in the last couple of weeks to their
request of increases. And I think that's going to be a really
key question in our legislation, and it's good to hear your
testimony. In fact, I appreciate the testimony of all the
witnesses, if I had to sum it up or summarize it, I would say
it just boils down to common sense. We've had a very common
sense panel here.
But we talked about the fast bridge projects. It seems
these groups that impose all of these highway projects won't
oppose these bridge collapses because they know that the public
would just be outraged about that. But we had--just last week
we had the administrator of the Federal Highway Administration
testify that the average highway project now takes 13 years
from conception to completion, and actually he's fairly new on
the job and there was a fairly recent study from his own
agency, which said 15 years.
And the example I used a lot of times when I chaired the
aviation subcommittee, they told us at a hearing one time that
the newest runway at the Atlanta Airport, which is several
years old now, but it took 14 years from conception to
completion, it took only 99 construction days, and they were so
relieved to get all the--all the delays, practically, were
environmental.
And they finally were so relieved to get all of those
approvals, they did 24 hour construction days and built it in
33 days. I mean, that's amazing, what's going on. But I
appreciate, Secretary Ridley, your statement that you were--
you're a bureaucrat that's frustrated by bureaucratic delays,
and it is frustrating to a lot of the good people in Congress.
We sometimes talk about incentives and penalties for
private companies, and I think there is an important place for
incentives--incentive payments when work is done quicker and so
forth and penalties for delays. Maybe we should try to figure
out some way to incentivize and penalize these bureaucracies,
especially the Federal bureaucracies when they delay a project
for a long time. And maybe try to limit in some respects the
groups that could file these lawsuits that tie things up,
because that's a problem, too. Sometimes these delays are tied
up in the courts.
I think, Mr. Duit, you made a good suggestion to delay some
of these architectural frills and so forth, because that does
make some sense. We all hope the economy is going to improve.
And I appreciated the testimony about the electric
vehicles, because if we're going to have more and more and more
of those, we're going to have to find a way that they need to
pay their share as well, too.
I'm a very conservative Republican, but I also am an
American first conservative, and I think we've got to stop
these endless, I think, unnecessary foreign wars and stop
spending hundreds of billions to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan
and all these other countries and start rebuilding some things
in this country.
And anyway, but I do appreciate the work that you all are
doing, and it's a--it's very, very important to this country.
And not only is it important to us economically, but it saves
lives. I mean, when we can take a two lane highway that is a
death trap, I can give you a lot of examples, and turn it into
a four lane, maybe with a center turn lane, you save lives.
And when you delay these projects and make them 13 years
when they could do them in three or four years, you're really--
you're really killing people. I mean, you're causing lives to
be lost that shouldn't be lost. And so I'm willing--I'm willing
to do good things for the environment and I don't want to pave
over all the green areas, I don't want to do that. But we need
a good highway system in this country and we need to keep it in
good repair as well.
But I thank you for your testimony, you've been a very
helpful panel.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. And let me just to direct
a couple of questions here first to Mr. Ridley. You were
talking about using existing rights-of-way, and I've been a
strong advocate of that, in fact, ordered some studies to see
what we can do when we built the Interstates years ago. We had
the luxury of wide swaths of land, and we have some extra
safety lanes and measures, and valuable access, sometimes
right-of-way that can be utilized.
One of the things--your statements was to not go back to
further NEPA review when you made improvements. Now, one of the
issues that you have, and your testimony made me think about
this. I'm a strong advocate, too, of condensing or not going
back to NEPA where you don't have to. But if we take, say, some
of that right-of-way and we actually increase the amount of
traffic on that, that does have some environmental
implications.
When the original design of NEPA was done, and I don't know
this and maybe staff can help me, too, is the traffic count
calculated for just the construction or for future
construction, and utilization of additional capacity? Do you
understand what I mean? And if we don't, maybe we should
require that so we're not coming back and doing--reinventing
the wheel the second time. Maybe you could enlighten us on that
point.
Mr. Ridley. Mr. Chairman, you're absolutely right. Today
when we clear a corridor, because a process takes so long, we
will clear that corridor, if we know that fifteen, twenty years
from now, that we may have to add capacity over and above what
we're doing today, we would clear the corridor for a more
multi-lane facility, even though we may not build it.
Mr. Mica. So in your current plans and review and
environmental, you are actually submitting a document and
statement that would indicate a capacity beyond what you're
building for, is that current law or requirement.
Let me ask counsel, Mr. Tymon.
Again, the current law requires that they submit for
approval under NEPA the absolute potential utilization of----
Mr. Tymon. There is a projection timeframe for the NEPA
analysis. I don't believe it exceeds twenty years, though.
Mr. Mica. So that's what you're submitting and it's being
reviewed.
Mr. Ridley. That's correct, Mr. Chairman, an example might
be, you have a narrow, two-lane road that you were speaking of
earlier with no shoulders, poor horizontal, vertical sight
distance, you know at some point in time you're going to have
to make that a multi-lane facility, but you would certainly
like to make the improvements to that two lane now, put
shoulders on it, improve sight distance, satisfy clear zone
requirements so that an errant vehicle could gain recovery if
they lost a vehicle.
Mr. Mica. Well, let me give you a specific, like in central
Florida, we had an inside safety lane and a barrier and then we
had the outside safety lane, and then two traffic lanes and
duplicated in both directions, and we convinced them to take
the inside safety lane and convert it to a passenger lane, it
increased our capacity by, what, 25, 30 percent, and with it,
and it was very cost effective.
So we increased our capacity, we eliminated that inside
lane, which we found--and I also found driving in here that the
inside lane doesn't do much good, because there was an accident
and it was all messed up anyways. But, again, I want to have--I
want to see if we need to adjust the law to give you the right
of using every inch of usable space, you know, you just can't
continue to pave over Florida and Oklahoma and every state. And
we just came from California, and I asked one of the aids, I
said, help me count the lanes, because we got to eight on one
side and then there were some coming in from one side, so they
had maybe 20 lanes going in. And they didn't have an inch of
safety right-of-way left in that.
Well, the other thing, too, if you would review, please,
the current law and how it might need to be modified to achieve
what you're talking about, because what we want to do is make
certain that we--nobody wants to roll over the environment. We
want to make certain that any negative impact is accounted for
and considered. So that is one of my questions.
The other question on NEPA, again, I think we seem to be
going back to that process, is, you were able to condense some
of the timeframe, and do some things concurrently, rather than
consecutively. Now, if we made that sort of the law of the land
for all projects, and specifically where could we--where do you
think we could save some time? You're very familiar with the
process.
Mr. Ridley. Well, certainly, as we start the NEPA process
on adding additional right-of-way, needing additional right-of-
way, you could certainly do things at the same time, if allowed
to by the Federal Highway Administration. But the real key is,
I think, for the future, is that we are not going to be
acquiring new rights-of-way in the future. I think the
alignments that we have across the country, certainly, the ones
in Oklahoma, will--for the most part, will stay in existing
alignment, we'll probably use the existing right-of-way in most
cases, and I think if the focus of the new legislation would
allow us to be able to rebuild that system without having to go
through that NEPA process.
And let me just give a short example. If we decide to go
out and resurface, just resurface an Interstate section, we
have to go through the complete NEPA process if we're using
complete Federal funds before we'll get approval from Federal
Highway just to resurface, which if we put new guardrail on
bridges, you have to go through the NEPA process in order to be
able to do that, which, certainly, we could all agree----
Mr. Mica. That there could be elimination of a whole host
of activities that should not--that you would recommend not be
subject to recasting.
Mr. Ridley. Certainly, as you described a minute ago, when
you increase capacity, you may have to look at some things,
certainly by notice abatement or other things. But one good
thing that we could all agree if you are not at your capacity,
if you're just keeping things in a state of good repair----
Mr. Mica. In the same footprint.
Mr. Ridley. Exactly, sir.
Mr. Mica. Now, this might be a little controversial, I hope
I don't get in too much trouble here, I did hear a lot of
public private partnerships, most of those are raised on
private firms coming in and operating either some of the toll
roads that Mr. Daniels, Governor Daniels put the 150 miles of
the state's toll up for lease and received, I think, about $3.8
billion, which he's reinvested into various projects. We heard
about that in Indiana when we were there.
I'd like to get your take on that. I'm pretty hardnosed on
not tolling the existing capacity of the Interstate, and maybe
I should ask these in reverse, this deals with right-of-way
first, very hardnosed about that, because I think then you just
end up with a series of toll roads and destroy the free
Interstate that I had hoped that we would always have access
to.
But we do have existing right-of-way and sometimes we don't
have the money, the folks here were talking about the
challenges we face there, and Mr. Duit was talking about saving
money and recycling and things of that sort. What is your take
on some sort of toll or fee in the additional right-of-way, and
leaving the existing capacity free on the--on your Interstate?
Sorry, Ridley, that I did that to you, but----
Mr. Ridley. Public-private partnerships come in a lot of
forms. Oklahoma has some 600 miles of toll roads, which are a
public private partnership, bond--people that buy the bonds are
private entities or private individuals.
Mr. Mica. But they are not--they haven't been turned over
to a lessee, that's state operated, all of the----
Mr. Ridley. That's correct. But it is somewhat a quasi
public, again, it comes in several different forms, from the
private investors actually operating the toll facility and
determining what the charges will be on those toll roads in
order to get a return on their investment. So it can come in a
lot of different forms in the public private partnerships.
If I understand what you're asking on additional capacity
on existing Interstates where you add additional lanes, is
there a possibility of having those lanes possibly tolled in
order to pay for those lanes and that expansion. I think that
that needs to be a tool in a toolbox of states. States ought to
have the ability and the right to be able to do that, if
necessary. Certainly, we're going to have to deal with freight
movements across this country.
At some point in time, there needs to be a hard look at
having freight corridors or freight lanes that would allow the
free movement of the trucking industry, to be able to
transverse the country and provide goods.
Mr. Mica. So basically you're not opposed and you wouldn't
oppose if we take some of the right-of-way, and, again, I'm
pretty hardnosed on the existing capacity. But that's your take
on that.
Now, let's go to the second part of the question, which I
had asked first was on the NEPA. Again, speeding up that
timeline.
Mr. Ridley. I think that, again, if you can put in
legislation that would free the process up on existing right-
of-way, you shouldn't have to go through the same procedures on
existing right-of-way that you do on new alignment and new
right-of-way. It will force our engineers to develop plans that
we use existing right-of-way.
Mr. Mica. Now, but when you did the project that you
described for Mr. Lankford, he asked you about how--you did
things concurrently, rather than consecutively, which is--is
not the normal procedure, and you're saying we could make that
the normal procedure.
Mr. Ridley. That's correct, sir, the Minnesota bridge class
is another kind of----
Mr. Mica. I've often used that, yeah.
Mr. Ridley. It----
Mr. Mica. 437 days, your example was even more dramatic,
and I never mentioned the fire power of Senator Inhofe and he
is actually the leader, the Republican leader of the committee
of jurisdiction in the Senate, and I had extensive discussions,
conversations with him already and already about my being here,
and he has an aid here, I met. Where is his aid? Stand up and
introduce yourself, what's your name.
Mr. Herrgott. Alex Herrgott, professional staff for Senator
Inhofe.
Mr. Mica. He agreed with me, I mean, I didn't even have my
foot on the ground. But Senator Inhofe is our go-to guy in the
Senate and he will have a great deal of say, he's already begun
discussions trying--as I'm trying to work with Senator Boxer,
who is the chair of that. He's the Republican leader of the
U.S. Senate on that issue. So he actually, I'm sure, was very
helpful in that 34th or whatever the number of limited days
process. And so we're hoping, also, to gain, you know, his--his
assistance. And I have to have it to move forward, period.
Anything else then that you want to raise before the
committee?
Mr. Ridley. I certainly think that we really appreciate
what you're trying to do and really streamlining the process
and not just say it, but really do it. And I can't tell you how
much we appreciate the committee's willingness to look at--
looking at things a little bit differently than we have in the
past. We've had this process in place since 1969, certainly, we
ought to be able to do better.
Mr. Mica. Mr. McCaleb, what about the idea of turning some
of these--you used to head up the Turnpike Authority. What
about turning some of these operations over to private entities
for operation.
Mr. McCaleb. Well, I'm reluctant to do that because you
lose control of the pricing.
Mr. Mica. If you could put--I mean, you have to write a
good contract, and you have to have some terms, if you could
get a handle on that, would you be more likely.
Mr. McCaleb. Yes, structuring the agreement where price
increases met certain criteria.
Mr. Mica. There is a manner in which it could be done. What
about just getting--well, I guess the states have the right to
do that anyway, but in our jurisdiction it's pretty much
limited to the Interstate, which we had that discussion. I
can't--we can't force and I wouldn't force the states to do
anything, but so many states come to me and ask me for millions
and billions and a lot of them--you have 600 miles of Turnpike?
Mr. McCaleb. Over 600 miles.
Mr. Mica. Just a suggestion on--I may not be invited back
after a suggestion.
Mr. McCaleb. I would say, notwithstanding your reservations
about putting tolling on existing Interstate, that the states
might consider giving the states the authority to toll the
Interstates in certain areas and that becomes kind of a----
Mr. Mica. Again, you have your opinion on the Turnpike and
turning that over, I have my opinion on not tolling the
existing capacity, which will prevail, by the way.
Mr. McCaleb. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. But, again, it's not ask what your Federal
Government can do for you. Let's all see what this states and
other entities again. Thank you again. And, Mr. Duit, savings
and you talked about recycling. Now, would you mandate some of
your recommendations in law or how could we do some of the
things you're talking about, without, you know, that the heavy
hand of the Federal Government. Incentivize?
Mr. Duit. It could be incentivize.
Mr. Mica. Everybody wants the green, they like the green
they have. The green, the--you can't appreciate this, Mr.
Lankford, agreeing to all of it, the tableware at the--in the
cafeteria in the House office building, they green the whole
thing, add a half a million dollars in cost and the spoons
melt. It's sort of a joke, the payoff was like in three
generations out. But again, how do we do what you're talking
about.
Mr. Duit. Well, I had the opportunity twice to go to Europe
with the Federal Highway on a scan tower in 1992 and again in
2006. And that was one of the things we really looked at over
there. Austria, for example, mandates every Interstate highway
that 100--100 percent of the product needs to be recycled
somewhere back in that highway. Now, from a cost standpoint in
areas where we're close to natural aggregates, it's not cost
effective, but it's becoming more and more cost effective as
we're developing more equipment, more machines to do this
efficiently.
So I guess the answer is, it would certainly be, if you
could certainly encourage it, rather than take up the old
highway and put it in some rancher's field, certainly, it can
be used back in the highway in some form.
Mr. Mica. How much of yours is done, Ridley, in recycling
in the state of Oklahoma.
Mr. Ridley. Quite a bit, Mr. Chairman, we recycle quite a
bit, not only of our asphalt pavements, but also our concrete
pavements. Mr. Duit is working on a project on Interstate 40
over in the eastern part of the state where he's recycling the
concrete pavement.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Lemon, you wanted to comment.
Mr. Lemon. Mr. Chairman, I think you could help from the
Federal standpoint to encourage the implementation of new
technology to the construction industry and the private
community is developing new products and new specifications,
and if the FHWA and the state DOT's were allowed to accept them
more rapidly as proven technology, this gets cost savings and
speeds up the construction with the new methods.
Mr. Mica. Good suggestion. And we have several--we support
a number of research projects and designates some
transportation institutes, to some of their findings and all,
it seems like they end up on the shelf or the technology, and
new approaches are not readily adaptability or acceptable.
Any other comments from any other panelist, anything you
felt that we--that you would like to contribute as far as,
again, specific recommendations you want to see in the law, out
of the law, considered? Mr. Lemon?
Mr. Lemon. I would like to just follow up on Congressman
Duncan's common sense for environmental rules. The construction
industry supports the environment and we want to leave the
place better for the next generation than we have it. And we're
not at odds, we can have both. We can build high production,
high quality, award winning projects and we can manage the
water and manage the air and manage the environment while we do
it. I think the key word is common sense, and together we can
move forward.
Mr. Mica. I think that's a very positive note. Let me see
if Mr. Lankford, first, has any final questions.
Mr. Lankford. I'd like to make a final comment, if I could.
Mr. Mica. Well, we'll save your final for the final word of
the committee hearing. Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. No, I will say this, Senator Inhofe is a former
member of our committee in the House and he is really helpful.
I was with him about three weeks ago in a small group and he's
really good on these. I don't have any problems about private
companies getting involved in these highways and so forth like
in Indiana, but I do have this concern that we don't want to
let some Governor or mayor get all of this big, huge money on
the front end and then a company go under 15 or 20 or 25 years
from now, and then the taxpayers are left holding the bag, so
to speak.
Mr. Mica. Good point.
Mr. Duncan. So those precautions need to be built into
whatever agreements are made. But that's all I have.
Mr. Mica. Excellent point. Well, let me just say before I
yield to close to Mr. Lankford, we do appreciate your coming
out today, your testimony. If you come up with any other ideas
or as we proceed, you see we're going down the wrong path, I'd
sure like to know about it.
We intend to move in an expedited fashion and finish these
series of hearings and listening sessions across the country.
And then at least from the House side, as I said, my intent is
to try to get a bill, beginning drafting by the end of March
and something on the floor in late April. I have to consult
with the leadership before I get to put anything before the
entire House, but we are willing to work at any point, and the
best ideas, as Mr. Duncan said, usually come from outside
Washington.
And I think Mr. Lankford is refreshing in his--again, not
being part of the--Mr. Duncan and I together have been there,
what, almost, I don't know, a good part of 40-some years, if
you add it up, but the new ideas are what we need, new
approaches, and then building a consensus and moving forward.
And you're fortunate to have a Governor, great partner and
very knowledgeable and very aggressive, and Mr. Inhofe is
perfectly placed, and now to have Mr. Lankford on the
committee, you've got a triple hitter, and you're in very good
position to help us draft this legislation. So without--let me
yield for any closing statements, Mr. Lankford.
Mr. Lankford. Thank you.
Mr. Mica. And thank you again for hosting us today.
Mr. Lankford. Thank you. It's an honor that everybody can
get a chance to come and be able to hear what's going on. I
think you've heard the priorities and what we're talking about
and that is we don't have additional dollars. It's well known
and well stated, and turn on the TV any particular day, there
are not extra Federal dollars that are laying around.
We've got to find ways to be more efficient with both the
time that's required on construction and the dollars. If there
are places where the Federal structure, we're making it more
expensive and take longer, we need to correct those things and
get that out of the way.
I'd like to get more miles out of the dollars that we have,
rather than continue to add additional Federal regulations, get
fewer and fewer miles, and so we are dependent on more dollars
that are not there.
So hopefully some of the ideas that you have submitted
today can help us get towards that, simple things to give more
states more flexibility in changing words in the Federal law
from ``must'' to ``may'' to a state would make a dramatic
difference, and saying to a state, if you choose to do this,
that's terrific, but you're not required to do this, so you
look at your bridges and see if they are falling apart first
before you are required to be able to put a piece of art on
another bridge to make it more beautiful when this one is about
to fall apart.
So shifting some of those priorities, giving more state
control to that would be a terrific asset, and hopefully, we'll
be able to integrate that as well.
And I really am honored that you all took the time, it was
a significant amount of time to be able to write up a written
statement, give a chunk of your day here to be able to be a
part of this. I think you exemplify very well the Oklahoma
attitude, which is, we don't complain about problems, we fix
problems. So you all did not come with complaints, you came
with solutions, and I appreciate that a great deal, and
hopefully we can integrate these things into it and you
represent our state extremely well. And honored, Gentlemen,
with that yield back.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Gentlemen, and, again, thank everyone
for participating. And as I did announce, we have a unanimous
consent agreement to leave the record open for a period of two
weeks, that's fine with you, and that motion passed, and that
will give you an opportunity to submit through your
representative here today, and also Mr. Inhofe's suggestions,
recommendations, but to be part of this hearing again, we ask
that you go through one of our committee members or Mr.
Lankford.
There being no further business before the House Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure, this committee meeting is
adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, the committee was adjourned.]