[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
MEETING THE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF
RURAL AMERICA
=======================================================================
(114-24)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 24, 2015
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
____________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
95-231 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Vice Chair Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BOB GIBBS, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
JEFF DENHAM, California JOHN GARAMENDI, California
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JANICE HAHN, California
TOM RICE, South Carolina RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania DINA TITUS, Nevada
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
ROB WOODALL, Georgia LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
TODD ROKITA, Indiana CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
JOHN KATKO, New York JARED HUFFMAN, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas JULIA BROWNLEY, California
CRESENT HARDY, Nevada
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
MIMI WALTERS, California
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
CARLOS CURBELO, Florida
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York
(ii)
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
SAM GRAVES, Missouri, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee Columbia
JOHN L. MICA, Florida JERROLD NADLER, New York
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DUNCAN HUNTER, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas JANICE HAHN, California
BOB GIBBS, Ohio RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida DINA TITUS, Nevada
JEFF DENHAM, California SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
TOM RICE, South Carolina CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina JARED HUFFMAN, California
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania JULIA BROWNLEY, California
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
ROB WOODALL, Georgia GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
JOHN KATKO, New York CORRINE BROWN, Florida
BRIAN BABIN, Texas DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
CRESENT HARDY, Nevada PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania Officio)
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
MIMI WALTERS, California
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
WITNESSES
Hon. Paul Trombino III, P.E., Director, Iowa Department of
Transportation, on behalf of the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Elizabeth H.
Esty, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Connecticut................................................ 45
Hon. Bob Fox, Commissioner, Renville County, Minnesota, on behalf
of the National Association of Counties:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Responses to questions for the record from Hon. Rodney Davis,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois.... 55
Mike Steenhoek, Executive Director, Soy Transportation Coalition:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 59
Steve Woelfel, President, Jefferson Lines, on behalf of the
American Bus Association:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Post-hearing expansion of remarks............................ 33
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Charles L. ``Shorty'' Whittington, President, Grammer Industries,
Inc., on behalf of The Fertilizer Institute:
Testimony.................................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 82
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Agricultural Retailers Association, written statement of Richard
Gupton, Senior Vice President for Public Policy and Counsel,
and ``Interested Parties for Hazardous Materials Transportation
Priority Issues Justification''................................ 85
American Association of Private Railroad Car Owners, written
statement of Larry Milsow, President........................... 117
Institute of Makers of Explosives, written statement of Cynthia
Hilton, Executive Vice President............................... 122
National Congress of American Indians, written statement......... 126
Rural County Representatives of California, written statement of
Paul A. Smith, Senior Legislative Advocate..................... 133
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
MEETING THE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF RURAL AMERICA
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:29 p.m., in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sam Graves
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. We will call this subcommittee
hearing to order. And I want to say good afternoon to everybody
attending this hearing, which is going to focus on the
transportation needs of rural America.
And I want to let everybody know that it is possible we may
have a vote during this hearing. So I would ask unanimous
consent that the subcommittee be permitted to declare a recess
subject to the call of the chair during today's hearing. And,
without objection, that is so ordered.
Rural roads are rarely in the spotlight, and they generally
don't command the attention because they don't suffer from the
severe congestion that we see in our cities and the suburbs,
and they are often not in the limelight for flashy ribbon
cuttings. But rural roads and bridges are what knit our
highways together into an interconnected national system that
make it possible for freight to move seamlessly throughout the
country and for tourists to enjoy road trips at low cost and
allow other motorists to travel conveniently on short trips or
long distances.
Even today, 71 percent of all lane miles of public roads
and 73 percent of all the Nation's bridges are located in the
rural areas. In my home State of Missouri, the role of rural
roads is even more pronounced. Eighty-two percent of the public
roads and 81 percent of the bridges are in rural areas, and
these roads carry 40 percent of the travel in our State.
Missouri farmers and ranchers depend heavily on these roads
to get their products to market domestically and
internationally because local and rural roads often provide the
critical last-mile connection to rail facilities, our inland
waterways, and our ports. And they provide the infrastructure
for the only form of public transportation most rural
communities have, and that is local or intercity bus service.
I think our rural roads and bridges demonstrate why we need
a strong Federal highways program. A network of efficient,
interconnected roads is critical to moving people and goods
around this country.
Also, and importantly, rural States tend to be more
dependent on Federal highway programs because many rural roads
are lightly traveled or used predominantly by cars and trucks
merely passing through the State. Without the Federal program,
rural States would not fund highway and bridge projects that
are important to the Nation, but which are not a State or local
priority.
Finally, safety is a significant problem on rural roads,
where over half of our fatalities occur. And I fully support
MAP-21's trigger for higher investments on rural roads if the
fatality rate increases 2 years in a row.
I continue to work with Chairman Shuster on achieving a
long-term surface transportation reauthorization bill that will
provide reliable funding to all of our States. And I know the
chairman is talking to the Ways and Means Committee, Paul Ryan,
about that even as we speak. And while we need to pass another
short-term extension by the end of July, I am hopeful that we
are going to be able to pass a long-term bill later this year.
And, in the meantime, this committee is going to continue
to work on a bipartisan basis on the policy provisions for the
reauthorization bill. State and local governments are very
dependent on us to remain a strong partner in delivering
transportation projects, providing funding certainty for the
first time in a decade.
I want to welcome all of our witnesses here today. I know
some of you have traveled a long way, and I look forward to
your testimony.
And I now turn to Ranking Member Norton for her opening
statement.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Chairman Graves, for holding this
hearing on the transportation needs of rural America.
I believe there is an important shared community of
interest between rural and urban America that I think many
Members are unaware of and I want to address in at least part
of my opening remarks.
Nearly three-quarters of all bridges and lane miles of
public road are located in rural areas. One-third of all
vehicle miles traveled in this country occur in rural areas.
Freight traverses these roads and bridges every day as goods
move from our Nation's ports, manufacturing centers, and
distribution hubs, eventually to reach consumers.
Our national parks, national forests, wildlife refuge and
recreation areas are largely located in rural areas. These
roads and bridges must be 100 percent funded by the Federal
Government.
Economic activity from these Federal lands of which I
speak, most of them in rural areas that hold these resources,
add significantly to local economies. In 2013, visitors to our
national parks spent $14.6 billion in communities within 60
miles of a park.
One of my top priorities in this reauthorization bill is
boosting funding for the Federal Lands Transportation Program,
which I believe will have a disproportionately positive effect
on rural areas, which are disproportionately dependent on these
100 percent federally financed roads and bridges.
MAP-21 made some significant policy changes that affect
infrastructure in rural areas. As we will hear in testimony
today, MAP-21 shifted funding from locally owned infrastructure
eligible for Federal aid. Commissioner Fox's testimony cites
that MAP-21 actually reduced funding available to locally owned
highways and bridges by an astounding 30 percent.
So, while I appreciate the need to focus on meeting the
transportation needs of rural America, this Congress must move
beyond simply talking about needs and start coming up with
solutions. And time is running out on us. The July 31 deadline
looms before us when highway and transit program authorizations
expire and the Highway Trust Fund is set to fall to dangerously
low levels. We now have just 18 days left before the deadline
to pass an extension and find new revenues to shore up the
trust fund.
There is no excuse for why, yet again, we have come down to
the wire on this. In May, Congress wasted the opportunity to
act. Now we are running through another construction season on
fumes. Without certainty over the future of highway
transportation funding, States and local governments have
slowed and delayed projects, delayed signing contracts, and
delayed hiring workers.
We have known for years that we need a sustainable solution
to shore up the Highway Trust Fund. The shortfall is $92
billion over the next 6 years just to maintain current funding
levels. The longer we wait to fix this problem, the more
expensive it will become to preserve our infrastructure.
In May, when the House was asked to vote on the last
extension, I noted that the real test will be how quickly
Congress moves after we pass an extension to develop a funding
plan for a long-term bill.
The Senate has now given us a start we cannot afford to
miss. This morning, the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee agreed to the highway title of a bipartisan 6-year
surface transportation bill. The bill provides $278 billion for
highway programs through 2021, which includes modest increases
for core programs as well as funding for a new freight program
and new assistance for major projects.
We are now just 18 days away from the deadline to
reauthorize and fund our Nation's roads, bridges, and transit
systems. If Congress does not identify additional revenues for
the Highway Trust Fund by July 31, the Department of
Transportation will have to delay or deny reimbursements to
States at the height of the construction season.
I know that our subcommittee chairman and Chairman Shuster
stand firm in wanting our committee to move a robust long-term
bill. Leadership and the tax-writing committees must now reveal
their plan to resolve this crisis so that Members on both sides
of the aisle can consider it in the light of day before they
are asked to pass yet another patch.
I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you very much.
Now I would like to welcome our panelists; we have five
today: the Honorable Paul Trombino III, who is the director of
the Iowa Department of Transportation. He is testifying on
behalf of the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials. We have the Honorable Bob Fox, who is
commissioner of Renville County, Minnesota, who is testifying
on behalf of the National Association of Counties; Mr. Michael
Steenhoek, who is the executive director of the Soy
Transportation Coalition; Mr. Steven Woelfel, who is president
of Jefferson Lines, which provides service in my district and
in areas like Bethany, Maryville, and St. Joseph. Mr. Woelfel
will be testifying on behalf of the American Bus Association.
And we also have Mr. Charles ``Shorty'' Whittington, who is the
president of Grammer Industries, Incorporated, and he is
testifying on behalf of The Fertilizer Institute.
I would ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full
statements be included in the record. And, without objection,
that is so ordered.
And since your entire written testimony is going to be
included in the record, we would request that you limit
testimony to 5 minutes.
And, with that, we will start with Director Trombino. Thank
you for being here.
TESTIMONY OF HON. PAUL TROMBINO III, P.E., DIRECTOR, IOWA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS; HON.
BOB FOX, COMMISSIONER, RENVILLE COUNTY, MINNESOTA, ON BEHALF OF
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES; MIKE STEENHOEK, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, SOY TRANSPORTATION COALITION; STEVE WOELFEL,
PRESIDENT, JEFFERSON LINES, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN BUS
ASSOCIATION; AND CHARLES L. ``SHORTY'' WHITTINGTON, PRESIDENT,
GRAMMER INDUSTRIES, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE
Mr. Trombino. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Graves,
Ranking Member Norton, and members of the subcommittee. Thank
you for the opportunity to provide input on the transportation
needs facing rural communities throughout the country.
Again, my name is Paul Trombino. I serve as the director of
the Iowa Department of Transportation, and I am currently the
vice president of the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials.
Iowa's location near the center of the country affords both
opportunities and challenges. The State features a diverse
range of surface transportation options, including highways,
freight rail lines, waterways, public transit, all of which
contribute to its economy and provide essential services to its
citizens.
This infrastructure is also the focus of heavy demand from
both domestic and international traffic, creating repair and
capacity needs throughout the system. To meet this challenge,
we are continually making improvements while prioritizing
safety and mobility.
My main message this morning is to share with you the
experience of State DOTs, including my State of Iowa. As
traditional sponsors of transportation projects, State DOTs
possess the unique expertise and familiarity with Federal
statutory and regulatory requirements associated with project
design, procurement, and construction in rural communities.
I urge prompt action on a well-funded, long-term surface
transportation bill that clearly reflects and serves the
national interests in rural parts of the country as well as in
our urban centers.
No matter the geographic region, the simple unifying fact
is that America needs a Federal transportation program that
provides robust investment levels coupled with long-term
funding stability that serves our national priorities.
Furthermore, the Federal program should continue to provide
States with flexibility by streamlining regulations and program
requirements while not diminishing the percentage of funds
distributed by formula.
Transportation powers the creation of wealth in our Nation
and all States, unleashing the opportunity for economic
activity. Iowa's economy is dependent on a robust and diverse
transportation system that moves products to the global
marketplace. Iowa's transportation system has long provided our
State's businesses a competitive advantage, and that remains
true today in a global economy.
State DOTs play a critical role in ensuring that we have a
safe, reliable, efficient transportation network. In fact, this
past February, my Governor, Governor Terry Branstad, signed
into law a 10-cent increase in the State fuel tax, passed by
Iowa's House and Senate with bipartisan support. Supported by
the counties, business associations and organizations, groups
like the Iowa Farm Bureau and Association of Business and
Industry, this action will raise an estimated $215 million in
additional resources per year to invest in our State roads and
bridges.
States are also actively involved in assisting transit
service, particularly in rural areas and for seniors and
special-needs individuals. Of the 35 public transit systems in
Iowa, 16 serve the rural region areas of our State, making Iowa
one of only a few States offering public transit service in
every county.
By its very nature, there are many challenges to providing
adequate rural transit services that meet the growing demands
for access to medical care, employment, education, shopping,
and recreation. Rural regions and communities across the United
States have urgent infrastructure needs, as economic and
recreational demands increase.
Given this reality, we cannot address our Nation's 21st-
century surface transportation investment needs without
reaffirming the strong partnerships that form the bedrock of
the national transportation program. State DOTs are using their
inherent position between the Federal Government and local
entities to effectively coordinate funds while working to meet
national goals and performance standards required by MAP-21.
My State of Iowa continues to ascertain what amongst our
current transportation system is most affordable and how our
agency can improve these elements to optimize our value and
efficiency for customers and residents. Keeping Federal program
prescription to a minimum amount will allow State DOTs to
continue pursuing innovative approaches to meet system-specific
challenges. Committing to these principles will continue to
provide much-needed benefits to those in Iowa and elsewhere
throughout the country.
I want to thank you again for the opportunity to testify
today, and I am happy to respond to any questions that you may
have.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Fox.
Mr. Fox. Thank you.
Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Norton, and distinguished
members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding today's
hearing on the transportation needs of rural America and also
for inviting me to testify on behalf of the National
Association of Counties.
NACo is the only association representing the Nation's
3,069 counties, which own 39 percent of the national bridge
inventory and 45 percent of the Nation's roads, including 28
percent of the Federal-aid highway system. Most of these roads
and bridges can be found in rural America, where transportation
infrastructure serves as a lifeline for our citizens and plays
a critical role in the movement of goods to market.
My name is Bob Fox. I am a county commissioner in Renville
County, Minnesota. Renville County is a rural county with a
population of 15,000 located approximately 100 miles west of
the Minneapolis-Saint Paul metropolitan area.
Roughly two-thirds of the Nation's counties are considered
rural, with a combined population of 60 million. Unfortunately,
rural counties face a number of challenges in providing
adequate transportation infrastructure to meet the needs of our
communities, region, and national economy.
Today I would like to highlight some of these challenges
and provide recommendations for ways Congress can support rural
America in the reauthorization of MAP-21.
First, America's rural counties are experiencing declining
populations, which reduce our tax base and, in turn, affect our
ability to fund transportation projects. Counties rely on local
revenue sources, such as property taxes and local option sales
taxes, to make infrastructure investments. In the case of
Renville County, most of our local funding for highways is
derived through a local tax levy. However, most States limit
counties' ability to raise revenue for capital projects, with
43 States having some type of limitation on property taxes
collected by counties.
Second, rural counties are experiencing increasing and
shifting demands on their transportation infrastructure. Rural
counties' economies are often built on a foundation of
agriculture and natural resources, industries that rely heavily
on truck transport. In the 50 to 60 years since my county's
infrastructure was built, there have been substantial changes
in the agriculture sector that have resulted in high
productivity and the use of larger and heavier machinery.
Third, rural counties are facing rising costs for
transportation projects. My county has seen a dramatic increase
in the cost of projects. Just a few years ago, we would budget
for road construction projects at less than $300,000 per mile.
Today, the same project will cost nearly $1 million per mile.
These problems are only compounded by the state of the
Highway Trust Fund and short-term funding extensions. The
longer we wait, the more damage our infrastructure sustains and
the more expensive projects become, which rural counties simply
cannot afford.
As a result of the challenges I have mentioned, rural
counties need a strong Federal partner and a surface
transportation program that supports the needs of rural
America. There are several ways that Congress can better
support rural transportation.
First, Congress should make more Federal highway dollars
available for locally owned infrastructure. While MAP-21 made
meaningful reforms in many areas, it unfortunately shifted
funding away from the types of locally owned infrastructure
that are eligible for Federal aid by an estimated 30 percent.
Second, Congress should restore funding to bridges off the
National Highway System. While we are grateful that Congress
continued the set-aside for off-system bridges and urge you to
maintain this set-aside, we are concerned over a major funding
gap that was created for highway bridges, or on-system bridges,
that are not on the designated National Highway System.
And, third, Congress should better address the safety on
high-risk rural roads in the reauthorization of MAP-21. Road
safety is one of the greatest concerns for rural counties, with
a fatality rate on rural roads about 2\1/2\ times higher than
urban roads.
And, finally, we urge Congress to increase the role of
counties in statewide planning processes. We are keenly aware
of the investments needed and would like to be a partner in
addressing the mobility, safety, and economic needs of our
communities and the infrastructure we own.
Ultimately, the quality of rural transportation is critical
to the vitality of our national economy. Therefore, we urge you
to consider the unique challenges facing rural counties and the
recommendations we have made for you today.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and I
would be pleased to answer any questions.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Commissioner Fox.
Mr. Steenhoek.
Mr. Steenhoek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Norton, and members of the subcommittee.
I think agriculture can accurately be described as trying
to attach a garden hose to a fire hydrant. The good news is
that U.S. farmers are producing more and they are more
efficient at doing so.
And the good news is also that we have more and more people
from more and more countries demanding what U.S. farmers are
producing. To use the example of the soybean industry, when you
look at a field of soybeans in the United States, you can
assume that half of what you are looking at will be consumed
outside this country. One-quarter alone will be consumed in
China.
So, while we have increased supply trying to satisfy
increased demand, the concern is that we do not have increased
connectivity between supply and demand, and transportation is
that connectivity. For agriculture, it is that system of roads
and bridges, highways and interstates, our rail infrastructure,
our inland waterway system, and our ports. You could argue that
agriculture has the most diverse and elongated supply chain of
any industry in existence.
So, since our transportation system is not keeping pace
with increased supply and demand, you can accurately say that
we are trying to attach a garden hose to a fire hydrant.
One of the key areas of focus for this subcommittee is our
Nation's system of roads, bridges, highways, and interstates.
Much attention, and rightly so, has been devoted to exploring
approaches to providing sufficient revenue for our surface
transportation system.
In my opinion, the fundamental flaw of how we try to
finance our surface transportation system is that we have a
fixed source of revenue trying to meet the needs of an
escalating cost. Everyone can concede, regardless of your
political persuasion, that the cost of building and maintaining
roads and bridges goes up over time. Yet we have an 18.4-cent
tax per gallon of gasoline, 24.4 cents per gallon of diesel
fuel.
So it may be unintentional, but it is inevitable that when
you have such a fixed source of revenue trying to meet the
needs of an escalating cost, funding gaps will materialize with
time. The current estimate is that we have a $15 billion annual
shortfall each year.
According to research funded by the Soy Transportation
Coalition and conducted by Indiana University, if we would have
indexed the fuel tax in 1993, the last time the fuel tax was
adjusted, we would have an additional $133 billion at our
disposal to improve our transportation system.
When it comes to transportation, predictability of funding
is almost as important as volume of funding. The current
approach unfortunately employed by Congress of addressing this
long-term need via unpredictable short-term legislative actions
is having a punitive effect on our transportation system.
It is the hope of many that Congress will not only provide
increased funding but also provide that funding in a multiyear
format. To be honest, when it comes to transportation, I would
rather have the Federal Government be predictably good than
sporadically great.
While more funding and more predictable funding are
important, we need to embrace opportunities to get more out of
the transportation system we have while also practicing better
stewardship of the taxpayer dollars that are currently being
deployed.
A couple examples: We think expanding semi weight limits on
the Federal interstate and highway system from a 5-axle,
80,000-pound configuration to a 6-axle, 97,000-pound
configuration would not only enhance freight movement, it would
also have a beneficial impact on motor safety and
infrastructure wear and tear.
Another example: We think more widespread use of technology
for evaluating rural bridges would allow us to better diagnosis
the problem, reducing unnecessary closures and restrictions
while also making taxpayer dollars stretch further.
A final thought. I think it is healthy for policymakers and
the broader public to ask the question, do we want our Nation
to consume from the rest of the world, or do we want to be a
Nation that produces for the rest of the world? And I would
think most Americans, whether you have ever met a farmer,
whether you have any touchpoint with agriculture, whether you
have any knowledge of agriculture, still aspires for the United
States to be a country that still produces and makes things.
And I would argue that agriculture is one of those
industries, perhaps the best example of an industry that can
provide sustained competitive advantage not only for rural
America but for the broader economy. But it will never become
realized if we don't have a transportation system equal to that
task.
Thank you, and I look forward to questions.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Steenhoek.
Mr. Woelfel.
Mr. Woelfel. Good afternoon, Chairman Graves, Ranking
Member Norton, and members of the subcommittee.
I am here today from Jefferson Lines in Minneapolis,
Minnesota, representing the members of the American Bus
Association. I am truly appreciative of the opportunity to
testify on the transportation and connectivity needs of rural
America.
The ABA represents some 3,500 member organizations,
encompassing the entire motorcoach group travel industry,
including bus operators like Jefferson Lines, tour companies,
hotels, restaurants, and destinations. In total, the motorcoach
travel and tourism industry provided over 600 million passenger
trips in 2013, it supported 1.4 million American jobs, and it
produced over $175 billion in economic impact. Simply put,
motorcoach transportation serves more communities in America
than any other mode of transportation.
The company that I work for, Jefferson Lines, is a 96-year-
old, third-generation company that employees over 225 people,
and annually we serve over 600,000 passengers in 13 States
throughout America's heartland.
Jefferson Lines has always been a pioneer in partnering
with States, communities, and public transit to provide rural
connectivity. We led the way in 1980 when we developed probably
one of the Nation's first interline transit feeder programs in
central Iowa. And we continue to build on that success by
expanding service through cooperative agreements, such as
reestablishing intercity bus service from Kansas City to
Branson, Missouri, so that today we provide service to 18
different communities across the State of Missouri, including
Cameron, Bethany, Maryville, and St. Joseph in northern
Missouri. In Minnesota, we serve more than 65 rural
communities, with approximately 90 percent of the population of
that State being within a 25-mile radius of a Jefferson Lines
location.
The challenge within our industry is that these examples
are unique rather than the norm, and if our national goals are
to ensure intermodal connectivity, reduce taxpayer burden, and
improve efficiency, then we need to expand the public-private
partnership initiatives beyond mere transportation finance
concepts and better work together to connect rather than to
compete.
Today, the request is that you consider the following three
initiatives to maximize the use of tax dollars through better
integration of public and private systems.
First, with surface reauthorization, we ask that you
integrate private intercity bus networks in the transportation
planning and facility development process. Include us upfront
in the development of transportation improvement planning. And
if Federal dollars are applied to multimodal transportation
facilities, those facilities should be designed and operated in
consultation with local private bus operators in order to
expand access and improve connectivity.
Secondly, we would ask that you improve the access of
intercity bus networks to airport facilities and introduce a
new pilot program to the Essential Air Service program.
Unfortunately, there are still too many cases where private
carriers are prevented from connecting passengers to airports.
In some cases, there is an outright ban on operations. On
others, it is accomplished through the application of excessive
fees.
We feel a multimode approach can transform how rural
communities access both large- and medium-hub airports since
motorcoach transportation is generally less expensive, more
environmentally efficient, and, in many instances, time-
competitive to Essential Air Service. So we would like the
Essential Air Service reform to include a new pilot program
which transforms a segment of today's EAS program into an
Essential Transportation Program, providing motorcoach service
connections to large- and medium-hub airports.
Finally, the ABA requests the committee's reauthorization
bill contain language explicitly stating that all costs of
connecting unsubsidized intercity bus service can be used by
States as in-kind match for section 5311(f)-supported bus
service.
The in-kind match program started in 2007 as a pilot
program, and today there are 22 States that use this program to
connect more than 400 communities. Because of its success,
Congress permanently authorized the program in MAP-21 and
expanded the eligible in-kind match to include all costs of the
unsubsidized connecting intercity bus service.
Despite this authorization by Congress and a letter from
this committee's bipartisan leadership making clear that
Congress intended that all costs of a connecting service be
available as an in-kind match, unfortunately the FTA chooses to
continue to limit the in-kind match to only capital costs.
Therefore, further congressional action is necessary on this
point.
As we look towards the next surface transportation
reauthorization, we have an opportunity to expand the
transportation network in a very cost-effective way by
incorporating private motorcoach operators from the very
beginning of the planning process rather than in ad hoc and
one-off projects and by joining the public and private networks
together, including air service, as a way to add connectivity,
expand service, and maximize public investment in passenger
transportation.
I thank you very much for the opportunity to testify before
the committee today.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you.
Mr. Whittington.
Mr. Whittington. Good afternoon, Chairman Graves, Ranking
Member Norton, and members of the subcommittee. My name is
Charles ``Shorty'' Whittington. I am the president of Grammer
Industries, Incorporated. We are a leading trucking firm in the
Midwest and the Southeast. We are headquartered in Grammer,
Indiana.
When I founded the company in 1968, we had a staff of 4
people, and we have grown to over 150 employees today. We are
among the leading trucking firms for the fertilizer industry
specifically transporting anhydrous ammonia fertilizer.
Anhydrous ammonia is the leading nitrogen fertilizer.
I am proud of the employees at Grammer Industries and proud
to serve rural America to do our part and to help feed the
world.
I am here today on behalf of The Fertilizer Industry, which
is a national trade association representing the fertilizer
industry. TFI represents companies that are engaged in all
aspects of the fertilizer supply chain. This includes
fertilizer manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, brokers,
and retailers.
TFI's members play a key role in producing and distributing
vital crop nutrients, such as nitrogen, phosphorous, and
potassium. These products are used to replenish soils
throughout the United States and elsewhere to facilitate the
production of healthy and adequate supplies of food, fiber, and
fuel.
Fertilizers make it possible for farmers to grow enough
food to feed the world's more than 7 billion people. Research
has confirmed that 40 to 60 percent of the crop yields are
attributed to the use of commercial fertilizers.
The fertilizer industry depends on a safe and efficient
transportation network to deliver its products. While
fertilizer shippers utilize waterways and rail to move their
products, all fertilizer shipped in the United States travels
on the roadways at some point between the production and the
ultimate application by the farmer.
In 2011 and 2012, 61 million tons of fertilizer products
were sold in the United States. The delivery of fertilizer
products in a timely manner is critical to farmers. There is
only a narrow window of opportunity to apply the right
fertilizer source at the right rate at the right time and the
right place. Limited nutrient access during key utilization
periods reduces crop yields, which means lower production and
potentially higher food prices for consumers.
Grammer Industries works closely with the fertilizer
industry, often as one of the last legs of the distribution
network.
In recent years, rail marketplace congestion, rising rail
and shipping rates, and service issues have made roadways more
important than ever. For many rural areas, the Federal highway
system provides essential connections to terminals, warehouses,
and intermodal hubs. This is vital to farmers and for those who
serve them and, ultimately, the consumers who rely upon a
stable supply of affordable food.
The Federal highway system is one of the reasons American
farmers are so successful in feeding the Nation and the world.
In 2014, U.S. agricultural production accounted for $43.3
billion of trade surplus. This doesn't happen without an
efficient, balanced transportation network.
Specific to roadways, efficient interstate connections are
essential. For example, the Brent Spence Bridge crosses the
Ohio River between Cincinnati, Ohio, and northern Kentucky,
carrying both Interstates 75 and 71. The value of the freight
crossing the bridge is estimated to be 3 percent of the
Nation's gross domestic product. Maintaining the integrity of
these types of interstate connections should be a priority.
One issue of concern for me and many in the trucking
industry is that, over the years, it has become increasingly
difficult to recruit and retain commercial vehicle drivers. The
American Trucking Associations estimates the driver shortage
between 35,000 and 40,000 drivers annually.
Roadway congestion is another issue. The American
Transportation Research Institute estimates that congestion
costs in the trucking industry were more than $9 billion in
2013. I would encourage members of the subcommittee to focus on
congestion, bottlenecks, pavement methodologies, all of which
can maximize limited resources for long-term investment and
network efficiency.
Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not thank you, Chairman
Graves, for all your help in clarifying the hours-of-service
requirements for farmers and their suppliers in MAP-21. Your
efforts on this and everything else to help the transportation
of agricultural commodities and the agricultural exemption are
greatly appreciated and have made a very positive difference.
Thank you, Chairman Graves and Ranking Member Norton, for
this subcommittee and this opportunity to testify on behalf of
TFI.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Whittington.
And now we will move to Member questions, and we will start
with Mr. Crawford.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a question I want to direct to two of the panelists,
Mr. Steenhoek and Mr. Whittington.
And I will start with you, Mr. Steenhoek.
As you know, there is a driver shortage in rural America,
and it has had a big impact on many companies that ship goods
in many regions of the country. The FMCSA [Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration] requires a short-haul truck
driver that crosses State lines to be at least 21 years of age,
even if the CDL [Commercial Driver's License] minimum age in
two adjoining States is 18 years of age.
For example, a 20-year-old trucker for an implement dealer
in Missouri would not be able to deliver a tractor to an
Arkansas farm because of those Federal rules. I live in
Arkansas; Chairman Graves lives in Missouri. So, you know, we
have that obstacle to overcome.
Do you believe that a reciprocity rule between States would
be a better policy and perhaps alleviate some of the problems
related to those driver shortages?
Mr. Steenhoek. Well, thank you for the question,
Congressman.
I think that that does make a lot of sense.
And I think you identified one of the real dilemmas facing
our surface transportation system. It would be convenient if
the choices before us were more trucks or fewer trucks. Really,
the question before us is, what degree of density or congestion
of trucks are we going to be realizing in the future?
And the unfortunate fact is that, whether you are bullish
or bearish on the U.S. economy, the projected demand for
trucking is going up over time. Our estimations show a 50-
percent increase in demand for trucking between now and the
year 2040. So the question is, how are we going to respond to
that?
If you respond with the status quo, that certainly is
available to us, but that will result in a greater density,
which we believe will result in a higher probability of
accidents and casualties. Or you can do things like, you know,
some of these reciprocal arrangements that you just cited. We
talked about expanding semi weight limits.
The fact is supply of trucking services is not keeping pace
with demand for trucking services, and what is going to yield?
And what are the commonsense approaches to address it? And I
think you just cited one of them.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you.
Mr. Whittington, your comments?
Mr. Whittington. Yes. I certainly appreciate the question.
This is a really big deal in the trucking industry today. I
stated we are probably 40,000 drivers short today. We need
somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 new drivers every day.
The 18-year-old in the State of Indiana can drive within
the State of Indiana, but he cannot cross the line, like in
your situation in Arkansas or Missouri. I think that there is a
movement afoot possibly to help develop a pilot program and a
reciprocity with the different States. That may be a 150-, 200-
mile radius, would be a program that would be very helpful.
The industry really has a problem in the fact that, if you
have an 18-year-old and we got to wait until he is 21 to cross
a State line, his opportunity for other employment is coming at
him. And I don't know of any young man that is going to wait 3
years to wait to drive a truck across a State line.
So we certainly need Congress' help to do that. I think the
insurance industry had a problem with it for a while, but I
think with the new technology that is out there, the cameras,
the training techniques, and just the technology that is in
these trucks today makes it an opportunity that we can monitor
that driver in a proper manner. But we will need help to cross
a State line. Very good idea to do.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you.
And you mentioned, the technology that we have in the cabs
of these trucks and the safety measures that have been taken, I
think, certainly bears reconsidering this approach.
Mr. Trombino, you are from Iowa. Maybe you would like to
weigh in on that issue.
Mr. Trombino. Thank you very much for the opportunity. I
was going to mention two things.
As I have had the opportunity to talk to the public and
especially commercial freight movement, I always ask the
question, what is the biggest impediment to commercial freight
movement in the United States, much less in our State? Is it
regulatory, or is it infrastructure? And I am not trying to say
there are not infrastructure issues. Typically, the answer is
it is regulatory issues. Those are a lot of challenges, the
differences between States. And those challenges create that
challenge for truck drivers and other things.
One of the areas that we have been focused on in our State
is driver training. As it stands right now, if a person is a
resident of another State, they can't take CDL driver training
a lot of times through a company and get their CDL license
either in our State or the other State. They actually have to
change their residency to do that. And that has created a huge
challenge for us in our State because we have a lot of large
trucking firms that are doing their own education, and then we
are helping them do the actual testing at the end.
And so that is one area that we would like to see
improvement on that I think also then--the more reciprocity,
the more movement, that you can see that we are all working
together to get people into the system to be drivers is a key
ingredient for us in the future.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you.
And, gentlemen, I appreciate all of you being here today.
I yield back.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you.
Ranking Member Norton?
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, by the way, Mr. Trombino, I have been working with the
trucking industry on the notion of training, as well. I would
like to see a minimum standard that all States could observe
that would really treat this like an interstate system.
But I notice that you, Mr. Trombino, and you, Mr. Fox, may
have somewhat different views, because one of you, Mr.
Trombino, represents State DOTs and Mr. Fox, counties. And
there is an old dialogue that goes on between local--I mean,
for that matter, cities as well, but certainly counties and
States.
And, Mr. Trombino, your testimony says that State DOTs have
a strong partnership with local governments in their respective
States. Mr. Fox, however, in his testimony, says local elected
officials should have an elevated degree of involvement in
decisionmaking processes.
So I wonder, since you are both at the same table, you
might want to comment on what improvements Congress could make
to whatever is the planning and project selection process,
understanding there are State priorities of course, to ensure
that local transportation priorities have at least a fair shot
of being funded, for example, at the county level while
maintaining the integrity of the State decisionmaking
authority.
Perhaps we could get some agreement right here.
Mr. Trombino. Thank you, Ranking Member Norton.
The first thing I would say is, I can only speak from my
experience, obviously, in our State, for number one. And the
States that I work with also and the people I communicate with,
we want to have a good working relationship. It is required for
us to have a very good working partnership to deliver
transportation improvement projects across our State. That
means having a good working relationship with MPOs
[metropolitan planning organizations], in our case a lot of
RPAs, regional planning affiliations, and counties and local
cities and communities.
It is one of the things that we strive for all the time,
because understanding their needs is a critical piece for us,
ultimately, as stewards of the system--as I like to say, we are
all stewards of the transportation system--and delivering the
system that meets all of those needs.
And one of my biggest things that I think is very important
at the Federal level is to provide the least amount of
prescription that is possible. In other words----
Ms. Norton. Well, let me ask Mr. Fox, then, because I want
to see what kind of understanding we can get.
You know, States get the money. This is the way our country
is structured. We are not trying to do anything different. And
there is the allegation that the States, therefore, favor State
roads and bridges.
You heard Mr. Trombino. I am sure you would agree, in large
part, with almost everything he said. Is there anything we
should be doing here to facilitate better understanding between
the counties and the States? Could we be helpful? Or are we
going to leave you all to fight it out in the next bill, as
well?
Mr. Fox. Congresswoman, thank you for the question and your
comments.
We do have a good working relationship, but I think, as
county officials, we think we can have a better working
relationship. And that is why we asked to be at the table as we
proceed forward.
My discussion--and from a rural county, where I come from,
is that I don't have the same problem as some regional center
has, maybe, with a rush hour. I have a rural rush hour in
October that is the biggest headache I have because I have semi
trailers of corn, soybeans, and sugar beets. And I think,
sometimes, at a local rural level, there are different ways to
look at things. You know, we can put a traffic counter out, but
that doesn't tell the whole story.
So I think we have to have an open dialogue, open
discussion, and we have to be at the table working together to
spend the Federal dollars so we get the most bang for our
dollar. And we can see, where we have spent dollars, there is
good economic development. So we want to spend our dollars
wisely.
Ms. Norton. It looks like what we should do is to perhaps
have some language that says there should be better
communication between counties and States. Because I can see
you have different interests but yet there is a desire on the
part of each of you to see the problem. And I have my own
version of the problem, or, at least, not the District, which
is a city and a State, but most cities would say the very same
thing.
We don't want to instruct you. We simply want to take note
of it and not wait until the next hearing to resolve views that
may not be on the same page as we find them today.
I see my time is up, Mr. Chairman, so I yield back.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Barletta?
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Steenhoek, with respect to your testimony regarding the
soybean industry's self-funded study about the benefits of
97,000-pound single-axle trucks, I don't doubt that these
heavier trucks would benefit your members, but at what cost to
the public is my question.
The U.S. Department of Transportation studied this issue
over the past 3 years and just issued a report where the
Department could not justify the very trucks you are asking us
to approve. While there wasn't enough data to come up with
national crash rates, they found shockingly higher crash rates
as well as more brake problems in the two States that they
studied that have these trucks today. In Idaho, for example,
the crash rates were 99 percent higher for these trucks, and in
Michigan the crash rates for these trucks were 400 percent
higher.
They also found over $2 billion in additional bridge costs,
and that cost doesn't even include the vast network of local
roads across the country.
Now, in light of this evidence, would you really suggest
that we bypass safety and bridge infrastructure to encourage
the spread of these heavier trucks?
Mr. Steenhoek. Congressman, thank you for the question.
And I think it is important to underscore that, when I had
a discussion with my board of directors--and these are soybean
farmers from throughout the United States--and we were
discussing whether or not to even visit this issue, one of the
common comments from my farmer directors was: The last thing we
want to promote is something that is going to endanger
ourselves, our kids, and our grandkids.
The reality is, when you live in a rural State, your
probability of encountering a semi traveling at a high rate of
speed is exponentially greater than those who live in urban
America. So that is the last thing that we would want to do.
So we took an approach of, let's not come to this with a
conclusion in search of evidence. Let's let the data speak to
us.
And you cited the DOT comprehensive size in truck study
that was just recently--some of the data that was just
released. Yes, the Department of Transportation did not--they
said, we need more information, we need more data in order to
make a prescriptive statement. But when you actually look
through the statistics, I found that to be quite compelling in
favor of expanding semi weight limits to a 6-axle, 97,000-pound
configuration.
One of things from a----
Mr. Barletta. Excuse me. You did, but the United States
Department of Transportation didn't.
Mr. Steenhoek. I am sorry?
Mr. Barletta. The U.S. DOT didn't find enough evidence to
say that they could recommend that.
Mr. Steenhoek. Right. They stated they needed more data in
order to make a prescriptive statement, in order to make some
kind of recommendation. Yes.
But what meant more to me was actually saying, well, what
does the data in the report say on these key performance
indicators, these things that matter most to us, motor safety
being number one. Number two is infrastructure wear and tear;
and, number three, what kind of cost savings----
Mr. Barletta. How about the crash test results in Idaho and
Michigan that were 99 percent--the two States they did study
that were 99 percent higher, and in Michigan, over 400 percent
higher? How would you relate to those?
Mr. Steenhoek. Well, I mean, I guess we can start arguing
over which data you are using, which data I am using. The data
that I have repeatedly seen over years is that motor safety is
more a function of the number of semis, less a function of the
weight of individual semis. And when you have that additional
axle, you provide additional braking friction so that stopping
distances are comparable to an 80,000-pound, 5-axle
configuration.
But I think this whole issue of----
Mr. Barletta. However, the extra axle wouldn't matter on a
structurally deficient bridge, though.
Mr. Steenhoek. Right. And----
Mr. Barletta. You could have 10 axles and----
Mr. Steenhoek. And I appreciate you making that comment,
because I think to have an intellectually honest discussion
about this--and we highlight this in our report and in our
marketing materials, is that the issue of bridges, that is the
most important.
I mean, there is widespread acknowledgment that with that
additional axle you are reducing the imprint on the road. If
you are comparing the 6-axle 97 to a 5-axle 80, it is about 35
pounds less on a road. Bridges, they don't really care about
the number of axles; they just care about the aggregate weight
that they are compelled to support.
And so we think that, if we were to proceed with this
proposal, if it were ever to be instituted, a component of that
should be, for those who are electing to load heavier, there
should be a fee associated with that, and the money of which
would be used for our bridges.
One, I think, of the benefits is that--you know, this is
not a hypothetical. You are citing examples; I can cite
examples, as well. This is not a hypothetical exercise. This is
something that we see, a lot of States, they have higher weight
limits, and they are individual States. Some States they have
grandfathered in prior to weight limits being frozen at that
80,000 pounds. And we can look at other countries, and we can
point to see is it actually working or not. We think the
evidence is compelling in support of it.
Mr. Barletta. Mr. Fox, would you be concerned about
possible increases of the truck size and weight, knowing that
they have never studied the impact on our local roads and
bridges?
Mr. Fox. Congressman, thank you for the question.
Yes, we are concerned, and our biggest concern is the point
you made about the bridges. That is the very biggest point. As
a county, in Renville County, we do have about 10 miles of
roads that we do allow in the wintertime 97,000 pounds, but on
those 10 miles of roads there are no bridges. And that is for
the sugar beet industry to move product.
But it is a concern, especially on the bridges and
especially as you get further out from the main roads. That is
really where the problem comes, because a farmer wants to fill
his truck when he leaves the field, and he might have to drive
on a township road which is gravel before he even gets to a
main artery. So it is a concern.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Ms. Johnson?
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member, for having this hearing.
And thanks to all of the witnesses that are here.
I am from the State of Texas and the city of Dallas. And we
are rural, and we are urban. One depends on the other. I have
all urban in my district, but I do have six interstates that
come through my district, and I think that we probably
experience every possible transportation issue there could be.
But I want to know from you, what is more important than
reauthorizing a highway bill?
Mr. Fox. Congresswoman, thank you for the question.
The most important thing I see with the authorization is
that we have certainty and we can start planning for the next 3
to 5 years.
And on top of that is economic development. If we have good
roads and good infrastructure, businesses will come and
businesses will build or a business that is there will expand.
And that is where it is for counties.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
I noticed that there were comments in some of the testimony
about having local input from cities or entities closer to the
issue. I am from a very large State, and we believe that, as
well.
I am trying to remember whose testimony it was that
mentioned that. Can somebody speak up?
You did?
Mr. Woelfel. Yes, Congresswoman Johnson, I think that that
was my testimony.
You know, one of the things that we were asking for was to
allow better collaboration between public and private entities
when it comes to transportation needs. We firmly believe that,
to expand opportunities for transportation, intermodal
facilities are required.
And we are not looking to compete with public entities. We
want to expand and cooperate with public entities. And all we
are really asking for is, perhaps, when you are doing the
planning either for a facility or doing the planning for a
transportation project, to include the private motorcoach
operator upfront in the planning. And perhaps we have a private
way to solve that issue as opposed to a public.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
Now, there was a mention of to expand the necessary
flexibility that has been mentioned.
I think, Mr. Trombino, you mentioned that in your
testimony. Could you elaborate on that a bit?
Mr. Trombino. Thank you. Thank you, Congresswoman.
On flexibility, I can't say enough. For us, as we work with
local cities, our regional areas, we want to allow--as we push
those dollars down to the local level, the more flexibility
that they have from an investment perspective, the key
ingredient is the less prescription there is in the program.
And so a lot of the good things that happened under MAP-21,
programs were consolidated. Eligibility still remained, which,
in our State, one of the things we did was we pushed a lot of
those dollars to the local level to allow them to really make
those decisions. Because, ultimately, they know what to do on
the local system. And the more that we have flexibility to do
that, I think, between the State and the local regional level,
even at the local city or county level, the more that
opportunity, where the dollars are coming, so that they have
flexibility to meet their needs--because the needs, as I say,
in the northwest part of the State versus the southeast part of
the State, they have different transportation needs. But if
those dollars come in and allow flexibility, they can meet
whether it is a bridge issue on one side or maybe it is an
enhancement type of transportation alternative project that
they would like to do, rather, for their communities.
So those types of things I think are the most important.
And at the State level what we want to do is get those dollars
to them and let them make that investment and get that turned
around as quickly as possible.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
My time is up.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Chairman.
Thanks for being here today, panelists.
And I appreciate the comments from the soybean industry and
the trucking industry, Mr. Whittington.
One point I want to make--I think you all agree with me--
why it is so important for agriculture, you know, in our global
marketplace. And if the transportation costs are higher because
our infrastructure can't get there, delays and times, that adds
to the bases and lower prices for farmers. They will end up
paying that price, the cost, and that--it really affects our
competitiveness in the global marketplace.
But, Mr. Trombino, I am just curious. You said that Iowa
just raised their gas user fee by 10 cents. What does that make
their State tax now, State user fee?
Mr. Trombino. On the gasoline?
Mr. Gibbs. Yeah.
Mr. Trombino. So the gasoline goes to about 30 cents a
gallon.
Mr. Gibbs. OK.
Mr. Trombino. Diesel, a couple of cents more than that,
about 32.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. Also, I hear from my State, Department of
Transportation and stuff, that trying to get permits for
construction and working through the permit process takes so
long, you know, Fish and Wildlife and other agencies.
You know, what are some of the obstacles you are facing
getting new construction permits filed and approved? And how
long is it taking?
Mr. Trombino. From our perspective, especially as we have
now ramped up our program, that was one of our biggest
concerns, is the permitting process itself does take time,
especially water quality issues. Those are usually the typical
things that we run into.
As you think of our State, we have a lot of tributaries, a
lot of riverways. So it is very rare that our projects wouldn't
touch at some point, water quality, wetland mitigation, all
those types of issues.
So that is one of the overriding challenges, is that now,
with the amount of work that we are going to expand--we have
added a little over $500 million to our 5-year program. That is
one of our overriding issues that we are trying to sit down
with, you know, those partner organization agencies----
Mr. Gibbs. You are talking about water quality. You know,
the EPA is just in the process of implementing a new expansion
of their jurisdiction of waters to the United States. Is that a
concern to you?
Mr. Trombino. Yes. It is a very large concern because of
the impact it could mean cost-wise, schedule-wise on our
projects.
Mr. Gibbs. And it----
Mr. Trombino. Plus on the agricultural----
Mr. Gibbs [continuing]. Would be a need for additional
permits from the Army Corps?
Mr. Trombino. Yes. So, again, all of that rolls together
because all those permits--I sort of view them as one.
Depending on the navigable water, Army Corps then falls into
that, which we have a lot of major projects in that.
Mr. Gibbs. Currently, even without that new rule in place,
when you start a construction project and you have got to get
through the permits and stuff, what would be the kind of
timeframe--you know, get the permits to actually turn the first
shovel of dirt and--you know, is it one-third of the total
process getting the permits or is it 20 percent? What kind of
timeframe were you looking at getting through all the----
Mr. Trombino. You know, again, if you--a lot of those start
early in the design process. But, overall, as you get towards
the end, it probably takes at least 3 to 6 months for sure just
at the end point for a construction perspective because there
is additional planning that we have to show that we are
actually needing the original permit that we have received.
Mr. Gibbs. I guess I have another question for you, too, or
maybe anybody might want to answer this question.
When we talk about the intermodal transportation system,
extremely important for agriculture and other industries, how
do you envision making that intermodal system work, you know,
between the water, rail, roads, without increasing the cost
dramatically of new construction? Go ahead.
Mr. Trombino. If I may, Congressman, one of the things that
we have done and I think is very unique is supply chain design
on our entire State. It gets to the global competitiveness that
you raised before.
As I like to say on the agricultural side, a 21st-century
farm-to-market system is a road, rail, and water system because
that is where our products are moving, much less our people,
also.
And we have taken a supply chain design that really exists
in the private practice and applied that across the State so we
can see and model and we actually know every commodity movement
in our State from one county to another and from one county to
another county in the United States and to 40 different
countries.
And what that does is it really allows us to look at the
movement of product and commodity flow, which I believe--and we
already have some analysis that shows--we can reduce costs in
not only the transportation investment, but actually the cost
to businesses and the agriculture industry in moving those
products.
And a lot of those investments aren't the true typical
investments that we think of in the transportation system.
There are connectivity issues. There are freight consolidation
issues. And those are the areas where we think we can lower the
overall transportation cost and lower business cost overall.
Mr. Gibbs. So I was actually tracking what, say,
agricultural commodities are leaving the State and how to get
to the best place with intermodal connections.
Mr. Trombino. Absolutely. And that is exactly what we have
done and what we are--we are actually working with eight
companies right now where we are doing supply chain design for
them because we think, in the end, we can lower their
transportation costs and make the right improvements in the
system that shows a real rate of return. We can calculate the
math, as I like to say, and show the rate of return.
Mr. Gibbs. That is great. Thank you.
And I am out of time. I yield back. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mrs. Kirkpatrick.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Norton.
You will notice that I have some pictures of my district up
on the screen. We should not forget that, along with States and
counties, Native American tribes represent another governmental
entity that is a part of a rural transportation system.
The Navaho Nation spans three States: Arizona, New Mexico,
and Utah. My district includes the Arizona portion of the
Navaho Nation. Because of its size, the Navaho's transportation
network provides a primary conduit for both Native Americans
and non-Natives traveling between these three States.
This winter Navaho children in just one school district
alone missed 10 days of school because the dirt road that is
their only route to school became impassable due to mud. The
photos provided on the screen here tell the story of this
problem far better than my words can.
What you see here is the reality for too many
schoolchildren on the Navaho Nation. School districts on the
Navaho Nation often wake up to these mud emergencies and, when
they do, they call their counties for help.
County public works are the boots on the ground, helping
repair and maintain tribal roads that are regional connector
roads for both tribal members and other county residents. I
would like to thank the counties in my district for stepping up
and doing, quite frankly, what the Federal Government is not
doing, even though it has primary responsibility for these
roads.
I am calling on this committee to join me in seeking a
Government accountability study to help us see how the
condition of tribal roads, especially the dirt roads, is
hurting the ability of students in our tribal communities to
get an education.
Thank you, staff, for working with me on getting these
pictures before the committee.
My question is for you, Mr. Fox. Does NACo work with the
tribal governments? And, if so, in what capacity?
Mr. Fox. Yes. We work with them more at home than run
through our association. But I believe there is a Commissioner
White from Arizona that I know is in that area that sits on our
rural action group, and we have discussed roads and
transportation.
I know back home we do not have a reservation in our
county, but we have reservations on two corners of our
counties. And I know that, in Minnesota, the county governments
work with those reservations on road projects and trying to do
projects maybe simultaneously or together.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. As you can see from the photos, it really
is a dire need in these communities and puts our children's
safety at risk.
Again, Mr. Fox, in your testimony, you raise the important
issue of safety of rural roads. Your testimony correctly notes
that MAP-21 reduced requirements that encouraged States to
invest in improving safety.
The $90 million that was previously set aside each year for
improvements on high-risk rural roads was eliminated and
replaced with a new rule that only has provided about $12
million in fiscal year 2015.
Is this reduced level of required funding adequate, in your
estimation?
Mr. Fox. Can you explain further? Is the number reduced?
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. The $90 million that was previously set
aside for improvements was eliminated and then it was replaced
with a new rule that provides only $12 million in 2015.
Mr. Fox. I guess I am really not in a place to answer the
exact number----
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. OK. Well, let me ask another question. My
time is running out.
But could you elaborate on NACo's proposal to help us
reduce deaths on rural roads?
Mr. Fox. Well, I guess it is a partnership. Again, we go
back to partnerships. Is it putting the rougher edges on roads
as we place them for safety? We have put up solar LED lights,
stop signs in certain places in our county for safety.
There are multiple things. I think it is kind of cafeteria
style. There are things we can do out there. We have to maybe
learn from other States, from other pieces of the puzzle here,
and put them together and make those rural roads safe.
I mean, there is so many times that rural roads--people get
on them and put the pedal down and let's go. They are not used
to a slow-moving vehicle, you know, a tractor pulling a large
implement that is only going 25 miles an hour and you are going
55 or 60 miles an hour. So----
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. My time is expired. But I appreciate the
attention to the rural safety issues. It think it is really
important.
I yield back.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Fox, you represent the counties. We worked on
the MAP-21 legislation and tried--you try to be fair in the
distribution between urban and rural areas. It is very
difficult.
Unfortunately, the divisions sometimes reflect the
representation in Congress that is very hard to change. You
have got urban members. They compose the bulk of the
membership, and they run away with the bulk of the money. It is
hard to overcome.
I have been screwed by the Democrats, and I have been
screwed by the Republicans in redistricting. And the last time
they gave me a rural district of 10 previous years--which is
kind of a good education because I had an urban corridor around
Orlando--I was stunned that the small counties I represented
at--getting this new perspective, when they didn't have the
capacity to participate, not even the people to even write the
damn grants, let alone administer the grants or compete in the
grants--so the people who need it the most are the least likely
to participate.
And most of this largesse from Washington is given out on a
political basis. It is administrative earmarks. We had a bill--
some of these guys won't remember. We had 1,199 earmarks, and
we had an impasse.
So it gave the Bush administration almost $1 billion in
those earmarks, and they went behind closed doors. They took
that in their discretionary money, and they divided it between
five urban areas. One happened to be Mr. Oberstar's area.
Another one, Ms. Pelosi.
I bitched about it. So I got $62 million of the $1 billion,
which we put on--they were into this market and tolls, and all
of those fell through. So the urban people rule even with my
party when we had control.
Devolution. OK. Iowa, you like devolution? We gave you a
lot of devolution. A lot of the States--California, Texas,
Florida--are starting to take up their own permitting and some
of those things that have delayed it.
What are you doing?
Mr. Trombino. Again, I would strongly encourage----
Mr. Mica. Are you doing it?
Mr. Trombino. Am I doing what?
Mr. Mica. Devolving. We gave authority in MAP-21 for you to
have more authority. Some States have taken it. Have you?
Mr. Trombino. We have taken--I would say we have taken a
little bit, not like California----
Mr. Mica. A little bit.
But, see, the intent was to give you the authority. You
come here complaining about from above, and I gave you the
authority and very few have used it. We also tried to limit--we
tried to--well, OK. I have a good one for you.
The guy sitting behind you worked with me on this. We
eliminated or consolidated 50 programs. I have had the dingdong
from DOT in here and said, ``Well, how many positions have been
eliminated?'' Because we eliminated or consolidated 50 out of
100-and-some.
We started with about four--was it, Jim?--or six basic
ones. And the dingdongs are all still there. They did not
eliminate one position.
I spoke about this this morning. The TIFIA program, which
we dramatically increased, ought to be a good one to take on
because it is a good program, not enough capacity.
I was on a plane the other day and I said, ``What are you
doing?''
He says, ``I am going back to Washington.''
``Why?''
He says, ``We have got a TIFIA project that I have to
finance in the private sector in 30 to 60 days.'' He says, ``I
have been a year coming to Washington to get the dummies to
approve the simplest thing.''
You guys don't complain about that?
Mr. Trombino. I----
Mr. Mica. Is it any better? Come on. Come on.
Mr. Trombino. Is it better? I would actually say yes.
Mr. Mica. OK.
Mr. Trombino. Under MAP-21, the programs are definitely
better.
Mr. Mica. A lot better.
Mr. Trombino. Yeah.
Mr. Mica. The bus guy, you were good. They should not spend
a damn penny of Federal money that doesn't welcome intermodal
bus service. Right?
This guy was very modest. They transport more people than
any other means of transportation with no subsidy programs.
Right? Speak the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Just
say yes or----
Mr. Woelfel. Well, there are some subsidy programs. But
yes.
Mr. Mica. Yeah. But they are--yeah.
Mr. Woelfel. But for the most part----
Mr. Mica. And for the most part, you are private sector.
Mr. Woelfel. Private sector.
Mr. Mica. You move people. You provide public
transportation. You make a profit. Many of you are listed----
Mr. Woelfel. Correct.
Mr. Mica [continuing]. Or privately owned. Most of you.
Right?
Mr. Woelfel. Yes.
Mr. Mica. OK. And you need to talk to some of the people on
the other side. They don't get it. And they are supposed to be
the champions of the poor, and those poor they leave at the end
of the town, not in a federally subsidized intermodal center
where somebody can connect to transportation.
In my own city of Orlando, they moved a Megabus out to the
end of town to an intermodal center. I got $28 million. It is a
great earmark, but they screwed over the poor people on it, and
Greyhound at the other end of town, people who would most
likely use the connection to public transportation. You guys
need to get on it and puff it up a little bit.
Have I got any more time, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Graves of Missouri. No.
Mr. Mica. Thank you. Just getting started.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Maloney.
Mr. Maloney. I thank the gentlemen for your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Ranking Member.
You know, I want to refocus your attention on bridges, if I
could.
Commissioner Fox, I was interested in your testimony in
this regard.
And, Director Trombino, maybe these are questions best
directed to you.
As I think you know, MAP-21 made significant changes to the
way we fund bridges. Prior to MAP-21, all bridges were eligible
for the Highway Bridge Program. That program was eliminated,
consolidated with four other programs into two new programs,
the National Highway Performance Program and the Surface
Transportation Program.
And here is where it gets a little confusing. But under the
new rules, two-thirds of the money goes to the program that
supports 23 percent of the bridges and one-third of the money
goes to the Surface Transportation Program that supports 77
percent of the bridges.
So the question is: How is that working for the counties?
And how is it working in States like Iowa? And I am working
right now on bipartisan legislation that would restore funding
eligibility to all the Nation's bridges, regardless of how they
are designated, and would also fix some of the funding levels.
But I am very interested in your thoughts on how the
funding of bridge repairs is being affected by these changes in
MAP-21 and what we should be doing about it.
Mr. Fox. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
On the county level, there is a problem. We have got too
many bridges that need repair. So, first of all, we need
reauthorization of MAP-21 and we need to find a way to fill
some of the funding gaps that were created with the last
program.
In my own county, we probably put four or five bridges in
the file waiting for a program to see if they qualify. So
everything is shovel-ready and, if the money comes, we have got
the project.
And so it is to come up with a system that we can get the
money out and get it to the counties.
Mr. Maloney. And is that because most of those bridges are
eligible only for funding under the Surface Transportation
Program, where there's fewer dollars and more competition for
those dollars?
Mr. Fox. Competition is the big thing.
Mr. Maloney. And is it therefore reasonable to think that,
if we restored the eligibility of those bridges to funding
under either program, you would get more bridges done?
Mr. Fox. We hope that would be the scenario. Yes.
Mr. Maloney. And, you know, I should say, in my own part of
the world in the Hudson Valley of New York, we have, I believe,
67 bridges that are structurally deficient. I have been to
these bridges. I have seen firsthand the frustration of the
local officials on this.
What does it mean to a State like Iowa, Director Trombino?
Mr. Trombino. Structurally deficient number of bridges, we
have a significant amount in our State. As I like to say, we
have 5,000 structurally deficient bridges out of 25,000. The
vast majority are on the local system. We only have 105 on the
entire State system.
So this is a predominant local issue, which is why, when we
saw MAP-21 and some of the flexibility dollars like TAP, we
passed all of those dollars to the locals. And that gave them
the flexibility to use those--because they could use it on
bridges, if they chose to--so to let them set that priority.
We thought it was very important that, in our case, the
Transportation Commission not set that priority. Pass that to
the locals, let them figure that out, and let them make those
decisions.
And we would also support--and I think AASHTO supports
that--for those bridges that aren't eligible. Again, let's let
the locals make that decision. They know which are the right
ones.
And, unfortunately--and this is the conversation we have
had in our State--all the bridges aren't affordable. I can't
fix the 25,000 bridges in our State. It is not affordable and,
honestly, we are not willing to pay for that. So we have to
figure out which are the right ones.
At the end of the day, we think the locals are the right
ones to make that decision on the local system. We want to work
with them to help them make those good decisions.
Mr. Maloney. And just so I'm clear for the record, so,
therefore, legislation like what I am proposing, again,
bipartisan legislation that would restore funding eligibility
to all these bridges regardless of designation and that would
fix them to funding levels in the NHPP program and Surface
Transportation Program, you would support that legislation?
Mr. Trombino. Yes.
Mr. Maloney. And just in the closing time I have, let's say
we do nothing on this and it is allowed to persist under the
current formulas.
What would the effect of that be in places likes Iowa, in
places like other rural counties you have been discussing, Mr.
Fox? Either one.
Mr. Fox. I guess, if we do nothing, the problem will only
get worse and the collapse that we witnessed in Minnesota back
in 2005, which was in a metropolitan area, someday will happen
in a rural area just as well.
It might not be with rush-hour traffic and busloads, but
there will be a semi load of grain or a large piece of
machinery. Because it is very important that we keep our
bridges up and our transportation put together, and that is why
we need the reauthorization of the MAP-21.
Mr. Trombino. What I was going to say is it is a severe
economic impact. When you look at the local system with
noncontiguous farming and the way the operations, especially in
the rural area, function, those bridges become major
impediments for them from a movement perspective, which add
costs to the products which likely, at some point, will make
them not competitive in a global marketplace.
So economics is the most important issue here. And I don't
think, from an economic perspective, we can afford for you not
to deal with the funding and move forward with the program.
Mr. Maloney. Thank you very much.
Yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Webster.
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Trombino, the committee here has done a lot of
discussion and hearings on public-private partnerships and
identifying the role of P3s in the development and delivery of
transportation systems.
What is the Department of Transportation in Iowa--what is
their experience with P3s? And, also, could you discuss the
challenges or maybe even opportunities for developing and
implementing P3s in connection with rural projects in rural
areas?
Mr. Trombino. From the State of Iowa, two things. The first
thing that I would point out is, one, we are a pay-as-you-go
State. We don't bond at all at the State level. We have no
bonding at all on the transportation system.
Mr. Webster. Do you have toll roads?
Mr. Trombino. No. We have no toll roads.
And so where we view P3s is the opportunity. A lot of times
there is a potential, I think, for us to do some things off-
system that could really help freight consolidation. Could be
cross-docking. Could be lots of intermodal things that really
enable and improve the efficiency of the system ultimately. And
those are the areas that we are specifically looking at from a
P3 perspective.
And I think the overriding challenge for us in our State on
the P3 side is exactly what I talked about. We don't have
tolling, and I don't really see tolling as an opportunity for
us in the future because of the way our system is set out, you
know, on a grid side. And so I don't really view that as a
long-term solution.
Where I do see that there is a public-private partnership
is off what I would call a highway system and railway system is
in the riverway system specifically. I really do view that
there is a strong opportunity to change the operation and make
significant improvement, which will enable significant freight
and commodity movement up and down both the Mississippi and the
Missouri.
Mr. Webster. The State I am from, Florida, and I know your
State are both one of the few States that have legislative-
approved coordinating councils especially in the area of
transportation disadvantaged.
Do you have any experience with transportation coordination
and maybe some unique things that have happened when you have
tried to do that in the rural areas?
Mr. Trombino. Thank you.
One of the, I think, unique things that we do in our State
especially is we have what we call our mobility managers. We
have mobility managers that cover all of the areas of the State
from a regional perspective to really help connect people with
transportation issues, especially what I would call
transportation challenges in getting to medical appointments
and other things like that.
And that is really to help not only rural transit
providers, but, also, a broader understanding of opportunities
to connect people even from private ventures that also provide
those types of transit services.
So that is one of the things I would bring forward, is that
we have a pretty broad mobility manager program that we think
fits really well. It is one of the key linkages for us to have
transit coverage across all of our counties.
Mr. Webster. Does Medicaid drive most of that or----
Mr. Trombino. That has been one of the biggest challenges,
is that the way the Medicaid law change is is that that
availability to use dollars for transportation through Medicaid
is not available, as I understand it. So we have supplemented
that through our own State dollars trying to offset----
Mr. Webster. Just general revenue or transportation
dollars?
Mr. Trombino. Transportation dollars that we use for
transit. So we have tried to do it in that way as best we can,
but it is very limited dollars.
Mr. Webster. Thank you very much.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Woodall.
Mr. Woodall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am thinking about something Mr. Steenhoek said when he
began. He said, ``I would rather have the Federal Government be
predictably good than sporadically great.'' I sometimes have
that feeling myself around here.
Is that a universally shared view as we are talking about
grappling with these issues? Can I ask each? Would you rather
us be predictably good than sporadically great?
Mr. Trombino.
Mr. Trombino. Yes. I would actually say consistency, from a
program perspective, is the key ingredient. In transportation,
I have often subscribed to this at our State level when we
talked about it, is we just need predictable revenue over a
long period of time because the infrastructure--it is such a
capital level of work. The longer it is just this nice steady
flow over time--we don't need big jumps and gaps. I think that
is actually a bad investment strategy for the transportation
system.
Mr. Woodall. Mr. Fox, would you----
Mr. Fox. I will have to answer this as myself. And I would
say yes because I could not talk for 3,000 counties----
Mr. Woodall. Fair enough.
Mr. Fox [continuing]. In that question. But I agree that
predictability is the most important piece that we have.
Mr. Woodall. All right.
Mr. Woelfel.
Mr. Woelfel. I would agree. You know, we are looking from
the private sector at long-term capital investments. And in
order to make those investments, we would want some type of
consistency and predictability in being able to justify.
Mr. Woodall. Mr. Whittington.
Mr. Whittington. I would like to think of this as a
baseball player. There's not many baseball players that hit a
home run every time they bat. I would rather see a good 330
baseball hitter every day of the week.
And if I might have one comment for Ranking Member Norton
back there, a lot of the things that happen here that Congress
does--they do really great things, but when it gets down to the
State level or the county level, the interpretation changes so
much.
We had the same thing in the ag exemption. The Federal
agency decided to interpret what they thought you did. And you
did a great job, but interpretation is great----
Mr. Woodall. Well, let's talk about that a little bit.
Because my experience has been the opposite. I have seen a lot
of things that Congress has done well that the administration
has then taken and done something bad with. But, generally
speaking, I see Congress do something that is kind of mediocre
or pretty good, and my guys at the local level find a way to do
something amazing.
And I wanted to ask about that from a county perspective. I
represent one of the most conservative counties in Georgia.
They rejected a Federal gas tax increase. They rejected a
transportation special local option sales tax increase. But
they just did a $200 million bonding initiative to widen a
major State road going through their territory because it
matters to them.
Six months from the day of the vote to the letting of the
contract. It is going to be another 6 months until ground is
broken. Twelve months from the day of the vote to widen the
road to the day construction begins on that project. Find me a
Federal project that is moving that quickly. They can do it and
the taxpayer trusts them to do it in ways the taxpayer does not
trust me to raise those same dollars.
Given that, trying to be predictably good instead of
sporadically great, I wonder if we don't need to narrow the
focus of what the Federal highway system needs to be. Do we
need interstate highways connecting America? Of course we do.
Do we need major national freight carters to bring the products
to market that you all have talked about? Of course we do.
Do we need three different federally maintained highways
between Baltimore and Washington, DC, that are never more than
4.5 miles apart in U.S. 95, U.S. 1, the Baltimore-Washington
Parkway? I am not sure that we do. In fact, I would argue we
most certainly do not.
And if we are going to be predictably good, we are going to
have to find a way to take what has been an incredible erosion
of the buying power of the Federal gas tax dollar and claim
some success.
And if that means now you have counties doing things that
counties were not burdened by doing before, but they are
burdened to have to do now--when you tell me 43 States have
limitations on the kind of taxes that counties can raise, I
tell you that, in this new transportation funding economy, we
may have to go talk to those 43 States, that you may not get a
free pass to say, ``I hope Washington, DC, and those Federal
taxpayers will come through for me because I don't trust my
counties to get it done.''
I think we are in a different place today. I think we trust
our counties in ways we do not trust our Federal
representatives. I think we trust our States in ways that we do
not trust our Federal representatives.
And my great hope is, as we are trying to solve a problem,
we don't try to solve the ``How do we pump more Federal dollars
into a system that we know is not squeezing the maximum value
out of those dollars today?''
And my hope is we find those parts of the system that we
are squeezing the maximum value of the dollars out, we find
ways to give States and localities the flexibility to serve the
constituencies that each of you represent.
I am grateful to you all for being here, and I am grateful
to the example that each of your industries set for us. Thank
you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Massie.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Whittington, I appreciate that you mentioned the Brent
Spence Bridge and the fact it carries 3 percent of our domestic
product. For folks not familiar with that, that is I-71 and I-
75 come together and cross the same bridge. And that comes into
my district from Ohio.
And what troubles me--and this gets to the point Mr.
Woodall was making--I see projects in my State and projects at
the county level--in fact, I was a county executive--I see
projects there, yet I see the big projects not getting done.
And I see the small projects getting built without tolls,
yet the big projects, the ones that are true interstate
commerce, we are talking about, ``Well, these are the ones we
need to toll.''
But they wait until the need gets so great and there is so
much pressure that they can get that kind of a revenue-
generator on a project like that, yet they are doing internal
parkways. And I am not saying they are not important, but they
aren't what I would say constitutes interstate commerce
priorities.
Mr. Whittington, how do we get the Highway Trust Fund
focused back on interstate-type priorities with a Federal
nexus?
Mr. Whittington. Well, Congressman, I will try to attempt
that in a couple of different ways.
I think that the communication--and you have heard it here
today--between a county official and a State official and the
Federal officials is what is really important out there and
what are we going to get the bang for the buck from.
And I think that--and I agree, Congressman Woodall, with
what you are saying in the fact that the local people can seem
to get things done. But what does the big picture look like?
And if we can work some kind of a system that we have the
big picture out there and it doesn't have all kinds of redtape
and things to do that and we see--I am from Columbus, Indiana,
a great community where a leader 40 years ago had a vision that
has made that town unbelievable with all of the assets that it
has and the roadways that go through there.
But I think we have got to get back and we have got to get
the local people involved so that they can feel like they are
doing something and they are respected for doing that.
I get really mad. I talk to my friends and I say, ``You
have got to go talk to your congressman and get something going
that really works.''
``I am not going there. He won't listen to me. He doesn't
care.''
So we have got to reinvent the wheel on a lot of those
kinds of things. And I think--you know, you are from the
Cincinnati area there and northern Ohio.
You can go all the way around the river and you can go over
on the east side of town or you can go on the west side of
town, but I think it is--when we talk about congestion in the
world today and the number I threw out there at $9 billion, a
truck today is a dollar and a half a minute.
So every time you see a truck sitting in line out here at a
traffic accident or the bridge is closed and he has got to go
an extra 30 miles, you figure what that cost is, and it is
going to ultimately cost the consumer.
The numbers that I came to town with the other day was
talking about, if we could sell that every dollar that the
Government could spend on roads and bridges today will give $15
back to that community, do you think we could get the job done?
And I think there's numbers out there that can support those
kinds of things.
Mr. Massie. Well, in a lot of cases, to Mr. Woodall's
point, I would argue that is a great incentive for the
community to fund that project and we need to start making hard
decisions about what are Federal projects and what are local
projects and where that funding should come from.
I have sponsored a bill that would--instead of causing this
crisis every year where we have this $10 billion to $13 billion
shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund, it would take mass
transit, which I would say are local projects--sidewalks and
bike paths--put them in the general fund and let the Highway
Trust Fund be self-sustaining for projects like interstate
bridges.
That is not to say those other things aren't useful. But if
there is a $15 return for every dollar invested in the
community in mass transit, then let the community make the
investment. But I am concerned that the commerce of this
country, like you spoke about, is going to suffer if we don't
get to these projects.
And when I was a local county executive, if I could get
State money to build a bridge or Federal money to build a
bridge, I wanted the State money because the Federal money
required a hydrological study, an archeological study, a
historical study, and prevailing wages, you name it, and an
$80,000 project quickly became a $400,000 project. That is
another thing I think we need to look at.
And I thank the chairman. My time is expired.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Hardy.
Mr. Hardy. Thank you.
I come from a little place called Mesquite, Nevada. It is
about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas. Eighty-six percent of my
electorate is out of the urban area of Las Vegas.
There are 17 counties in Nevada, 6 of which I have are
rural counties, which equates to about 290 miles north to south
by about 500 miles east to west. So I have a large rural
district. Eighty-six percent of that is held by the Federal
Government.
So it is pretty easy to try to evaluate where the needs are
in the urban areas. As a matter of fact, the State legislature,
which I was part of the last time, created an indexing tax
which helps fund those projects within Clark County for the
next 3 years because we can't wait on the Federal Government
any longer.
I would like to ask each of you kind of a little different
question. Being a member of the Regional Transportation
Commission for over 14 years in the Clark County area myself
and being a past public works director for about 7 years, I
found that it is a lot easier to maintain than to reconstruct.
Have any of you got the same beliefs in that----
Mr. Fox. Congressman----
Mr. Hardy [continuing]. As far as maintaining highways
versus----
Mr. Fox. Congressman, thank you for the question.
Yes. Maintain is much simpler than starting construction
over. But the problem is, in some of our agriculture as in the
Midwest, we don't have wide enough shoulders on those roads for
the farm equipment of the 21st century. So we have to make some
decisions on which roads we are going to reconstruct and what
roads that we just overlay.
Mr. Hardy. The reason I ask the question is, you know, with
that 86 percent being held by the Federal Government, it is
hard for us to make a decision. Do we go out in the rurals and
try to upgrade our infrastructure out there that are basically
held by the Federal Government or the Interstate Highway
System, NDOT, so to speak, or do we try to do things at home?
So without having a funding bill in place, it leaves us to
try to determine do we fix the problems within the urban
corridors immediately because we need to make sure we have that
economic improvement because that is what attracts economics to
your community, is a good infrastructure, or do we let things
fall apart, which, you know, most of that--the interstate
system we have within Nevada goes across Federal lands, which I
think it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to
take care of that.
But, on the other hand, it is one of those corridors with--
it packs all the produce back and forth from California, clear
across the Midwest, which, in turn, comes back to the Midwest,
to the west coast, with grains and other.
So I guess what I am getting at is: Do you feel like we are
failing our job? Because we have got to do something quick, in
my opinion, because you can't plan down the road without a
long-term spending bill.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Steenhoek. Well, I think you are spot on. And for local
communities, whether it is a county or a State, they are trying
to determine, ``What do we need to do to maintain and improve
this system?''
But in order to decipher what you need to do, you need to
know what they are going to do. And ``they'' is the Federal
Government. And so, you know, it is back to at least be
predictable, you know, your whole point about maintaining the
system.
The nice thing about these assets is that they are not like
cell phones, what you purchased 10 years ago is obsolete today.
I mean, these are bridges and roads that, if you maintain them,
yes, eventually, they do need to be replaced, but you can
dramatically elongate the useful life of these assets if you do
preventative maintenance. And in many areas of the country we
have failed to do so.
Mr. Hardy. Mr. Trombino, in your testimony, I think you
were spot on with the Federal and States relationship and
having flexibility, and I think you said that Iowa was able to
be creative with folks that have no money, I guess, and with
our $18 trillion of debt, we need to be creative.
Could you kind of elaborate on some of that creativity that
you had?
Mr. Trombino. Yeah. A couple of things I want to say.
The first thing was stability in funding, that the most
important thing is for us to maintain the system. Right?
Because we want to extend life overall.
And I think this gets to Mr. Steenhoek and what he was
saying. From an asset perspective, managing the system, we have
things that are in good condition, we have things that are in
fair condition, we have things that are in poor condition.
If we chase the poor, we don't have enough money, and what
will happen is the good and fair will actually turn into poor.
And so that strategy is very important for us to focus on, the
good and fair, extend the life of that system long term. And,
ultimately, that will free up dollars.
And we have shown that by just making changes in the
amount--the types of treatments that we use to maintain the
system, to expand it. We were able to save $270 million over 10
years that will actually bend the life of the curve and allow
us to use it towards those poor infrastructures. So those are
the types of things that we are doing.
In addition, I would say our supply chain is really the key
ingredient because it is going to allow us to look at bridges
differently. Just as Commissioner Fox was talking about,
bridges with maybe 10 cars a day, but really intensive times of
the year, well, maybe we should really treat those differently,
and the supply chain will allow us to look at those things
differently in the future.
Mr. Hardy. Thank you.
And I yield back.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Mr. Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Woelfel, let me come to you. In your testimony, you
emphasize the need to expand intermodal connectivity with rural
transit services through more public-private partnerships
beyond just the traditional finance concept that we think of as
public-private partnerships.
In your opinion, on the Federal level, what would you think
is the greatest impediment to expanding the private sector role
in our transit systems?
Mr. Woelfel. I would think the biggest challenge with that
would be the third thing that I had asked this subcommittee to
consider, which is looking at the MAP-21 reauthorization where
you included total cost of operating and capital to be used as
a local match. That is 50 percent more funds that are available
from the private sector to work with intermodal and public
transit operators.
And I think, by not having that extra 50 percent--you know,
I think there is some private investment that is out there that
is looking at it saying, ``We are not going to participate in
that.''
[Mr. Woelfel has provided a post-hearing expansion of his
remarks below:]
Motorcoach transportation provided over 600 million passenger
trips in 2013 and is consistently cited as the fastest growing
mode of intercity transportation, yet our bus operators and
passengers continue to be treated as second-class citizens or
nonexistent in terms of Federal, State and local transportation
planning. The lack of integration or consideration of intercity
bus operations in the State and local planning processes, in
and of itself, represents the greatest impediment to creating
more public-private partnerships in passenger transportation.
A good place to start addressing this impediment would be
through simple policy changes to title 23. Requiring
consideration and inclusion of intercity bus systems in the
development of transportation plans by States and metropolitan
planning organizations, would increase the opportunities for
public-private collaboration.
If our national goal is to ensure intermodal connectivity,
reduction of taxpayer burden and improved efficiency, then we
need to expand public-private partnership initiatives beyond
transportation finance concepts. To be clear, we are not
proposing to replace public transportation systems; rather, we
are seeking to expand opportunities, through simple changes to
the transportation planning structure, so we can better connect
public and private systems for the benefit of all
transportation users. By integrating public and private assets,
transportation planners can maximize and focus the use of tax
dollars, while ensuring the transportation needs of the public
are met.
Mr. Meadows. So what existing regulations are there that
prevent private carriers from entering the marketplace and
receiving Federal transit dollars or are there any?
Mr. Woelfel. I am not aware of any. Obviously, anytime you
are looking at Federal funds, there are strings attached with
it. But, overall, there are no requirements that prevent that.
I think it is strictly--you should take a look at the total
cost of doing that, once again, 3,500 small businesses that are
predominantly working in this industry, looking at where to put
their funds. Jefferson Lines and a small group of carriers
choose to work in the fixed-route industry where we interline
and work with public transit officials.
But as costs go up, you know, we obviously, as private
entities, are looking at a long-term solution at, ``How do we
recover our investment?''
Mr. Meadows. Well, before I finish with you, you know, if
you go to the FMCSA Web site, you can go and they have devoted
an impressive amount of time to resources, for safety scores,
and, you know, a look before you book kind of trip planner.
They have got iPhone and Android safe bus apps, all of this so
that you can choose based on a safety score.
Now, I don't know about you. Normally, I don't do that. But
I wish we had somebody here testifying from them today. But the
GAO has indicated that those scores are inaccurate.
And so, instead of really spending time and effort to
improve safety, they are spending time and effort marketing the
scores that are inaccurate so that another app will get put on
an iPhone that perhaps doesn't get used.
So, with that being said, I mean, what would you do if we
did away with the CSA [Compliance, Safety, Accountability]
program? I mean, what would you replace it with?
Mr. Woelfel. Well, I think, as private operators, you know,
safety is always nonnegotiable. I think, as any private
operator, you are going to operate safe. If you don't operate
safe, you are not going to be in business.
I don't think we need a Federal app to put out scores that
perhaps--and you are correct. The Government Accountability
Office has said that there's some reliability issues with that.
You know, I think the private sector may----
Mr. Meadows. You are being gracious. Reliability issues.
They went a lot further than that, but go ahead.
Mr. Woelfel. You are correct. You are correct, Congressman
Meadows.
But I think, as a private industry, you know, we bring a
lot of good ideas. We know how to run a good business. We
obviously favor--those companies that are not operating safely,
we support them being put out of business.
It is those companies that operate safely continuing to get
challenged. For instance, Jefferson Lines, we get an audit
every year. We know that we operate safely.
Mr. Meadows. Right.
Mr. Woelfel. We are probably not the company that is
creating some problems. So there's other companies where you
want to emphasize or perhaps you want to spend your resources
to focus on safety.
There's other ones where, you know, you want that interset.
I think, Congressman Woodall, you had mentioned something
about, you know, perhaps instead of three roads, you only need
one or two roads.
I would offer the same thing from a safety standpoint.
Where are you going to allocate your resources to really focus
on safety and where--you know, or don't you? If you don't have
a problem, don't spend the money on the problem.
Mr. Meadows. I have got other questions, but I am out of
time. I will yield back. I will submit those for the record.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I had just one more question to ask, particularly in light
of Mr. Hardy's question and Mrs. Kirkpatrick's question.
Mr. Hardy said something that is quite amazing, that 86
percent--I think that is the figure you used--of your district
is essentially Federal land, and Mrs. Kirkpatrick talked about
Indian Country.
Now, both of those are funded by the Federal Government. In
other words, it doesn't come out of States allocation.
And I must tell you that, although I have some of these
Federal roads in my district, I didn't even know--and I have
been here quite a long time--I didn't even think about this
Federal part of the surface transportation bill.
I indicated some of the economic activity that occurs
within 60--I think within 60 miles of a park generates $15
billion in revenue.
Now, a lot of that is through rural country because it is
land adjacent to parks, which tend to be out and not really,
you know, in the cities or in the urban areas.
Because Congress, including me--I must tell you I paid
almost no attention to this Federal portion--does not realize
these agencies have separately an $11 billion backlog. And so I
asked, ``Well, what does that amount to a year?'' Eight hundred
fifty million dollars compared--we gave them $300 million in
MAP-21.
I have a bridge here. I have one bridge that the park
service just closed two lanes of, the Memorial Bridge, that
will cost $250 million to fix. And yet there is only $300
million for the entire country.
I guess I should ask first Mr. Fox because many of these
parks are adjacent to counties not near urban areas. Have you
looked into and do you agree that economic activities around
these Federal lands are crucial to local communities
surrounding these lands in terms of the revenue that was
generated?
I ask you that because I remember, when the Federal
Government closed down, the State of Utah actually funded its
parks because such an important portion of its funding came
from people who come to these parks and come across the roads
that I'm asking you about.
So have you noticed and have you had occasion to note the
economic activity that comes to your State or to the States and
counties from this Federal land portion funded by the Federal
Government?
Mr. Fox. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman.
The Federal Lands Access Program, known as FLAP--62 percent
of the colonies have Federal lands within their jurisdiction,
and FLAP has benefitted many counties that struggle to fund
projects within lieu of taxes.
But rural counties, in general, face a number of
challenges. And I do not have the economic numbers that you are
asking for. But the challenges require an adequate
transportation infrastructure just to meet the needs of the
community or that region.
And I think, as a county official, that is our job, to work
within our local area and our region and to work with the State
partners and the Federal partners to provide that
transportation infrastructure need.
Ms. Norton. Well, you do have these issues in your counties
and States, but they may not have obvious impact--well, unless
you get into the situation Mrs. Kirkpatrick got into where she
said that the children had missed 10 schooldays because the
Federal road was just closed down.
Unless we get more attention from the counties and the
States that are affected, I am not sure that we are going to be
able to do anything more for those Federal lands.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. With that, we just started a vote.
And so it is kind of perfect timing. But I would like to thank
each of our witnesses for being here today. Your testimony is
going to be very helpful as we move through this process.
And, with that, I would ask unanimous consent that the
record of today's hearing remain open until such time as our
witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may be
submitted to them in writing and unanimous consent that the
record remain open for 15 days for additional comments and
information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in
today's record.
Without objection, that is so ordered.
If no other Members have anything to add, this subcommittee
stands adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]