[Senate Hearing 115-480]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-480
ADDRESSING AMERICA'S SURFACE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 28, 2018
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
35-123 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware,
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia Ranking Member
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
JERRY MORAN, Kansas JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
JONI ERNST, Iowa CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
Mary Frances Repko, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
NOVEMBER 28, 2018
OPENING STATEMENTS
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 1
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 3
WITNESSES
Braceras, Carlos M., P.E., President at American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, and Executive
Director, Utah Department of Transportation.................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Barrasso......................................... 19
Senator Carper........................................... 22
Senator Boozman.......................................... 26
Senator Duckworth........................................ 28
Response to an additional question from Senator Fischer...... 30
Lanham, Robert, Vice President, Associated General Contractors of
America........................................................ 31
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Barrasso......................................... 43
Senator Carper........................................... 45
Senator Boozman.......................................... 46
Corless, James, Executive Director, Sacramento Area Council of
Governments.................................................... 48
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Barrasso......................................... 60
Senator Carper........................................... 61
Response to an additional question from Senator Duckworth.... 66
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Testimony by American Association of Port Authorities............ 86
Statement for the Record of The American Society of Civil
Engineers...................................................... 88
Letter to Senators Barrasso and Carper from the Intelligent
Transportation Society of America (ITS America), November 28,
2018........................................................... 92
ADDRESSING AMERICA'S SURFACE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2018
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Capito,
Boozman, Wicker, Fischer, Moran, Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan,
Cardin, Gillibrand, Markey, and Van Hollen.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Good morning.
Today we will discuss the need to address and modernize our
Nation's surface transportation infrastructure.
This Committee has historically taken the bipartisan lead
on infrastructure issues in the Senate; 2018 is a good example.
It has been a banner year for moving infrastructure legislation
forward. In March of this year President Trump signed into law
legislation from this Committee to reauthorize and enhance the
EPA's Brownfields Program. This legislation is going to help
clean up contaminated sites for reuse. It will spur much needed
infrastructure development on abandoned industrial sites.
In October President Trump signed America's Water
Infrastructure Act. As the most significant water
infrastructure bill passed in decades, the America's Water
Infrastructure Act is going to grow the economy, cut Washington
red tape, and keep communities safe.
America's Water Infrastructure Act will upgrade and
maintain aging dams and irrigation systems, increase water
storage, and deepen nationally significant ports. It authorizes
funds to repair aging drinking water systems so that
communities across America have access to clean drinking water.
It authorizes important projects. It will create jobs and grow
our economy. It will benefit Americans for years to come.
I believe the bipartisan successes on water infrastructure
and brownfields cleanup can be replicated for America's surface
transportation infrastructure as well.
Our surface transportation infrastructure drives the
health, the well being, and the prosperity of the Nation. We
depend on highways, roads, and bridges to move people and
goods, to get to our jobs, and to visit our loved ones. Simply
put, surface transportation infrastructure connects all of us.
But for far too long we have not prioritized the needs of
these vital infrastructure systems. New funding is needed to
keep pace with the demands, and burdensome Federal regulations
have slowed efforts to spend money efficiently. The time has
come to cut red tape and make significant investments in our
roads and bridges, investment necessary to keep the Highway
Trust Fund solvent.
In a hearing last year in this Committee, Wyoming
Department of Transportation Director Bill Panos stated in
written testimony that ``Using the current predominantly
formula based FAST Act approach to distribution would ensure
both rural and urban States participate in the initiative.'' He
said, ``It will also help push the benefits of any new
infrastructure initiative out to the public promptly.''
Now, I agree. Using the formula based approach will
expedite the delivery of future infrastructure spending.
Existing formula funding systems allow flexibility for both
rural and urban States to use Federal money to its best
advantage. What works in Los Angeles or Chicago may not work
for smaller communities like Cody or Riverton, Wyoming.
We also need to update the law to allow our States to build
faster, better, cheaper, and smarter. When we make significant
investments in our Nation's infrastructure, we need to be sure
that money is being used as effectively and efficiently as
possible.
By cutting Washington's red tape, we can ensure that better
roads and bridges can be delivered faster. As States, counties,
and towns wait to obtain permits from Washington, costs for
projects rise, and time is wasted. It shouldn't take a decade
to permit a project that only takes months to build. We need to
speed up project delivery, and I believe it can be done without
sacrificing environmental safeguards.
We also should explore new technology both in how we build
and how we drive can reduce costs, can improve safety, and can
increase the longevity of our roads and bridges. Better roads
and bridges across America help all of us. Everyone benefits
from safer highways, well maintained roads, and resilient
bridges.
America prides itself on its ingenuity and commitment to
provide infrastructure that meets the needs of its people, and
I know that my good friend, Senator Carper, agrees that it is
up to our Committee, working together as we did on water
infrastructure, working with the Administration to move forward
with legislation to improve our highways, our roads, and
bridges well into the future.
We are a Committee that gets things done. We want to
continue on that road and get a highway infrastructure bill
passed next year.
I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Carper for his
remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to our witnesses, our guests, colleagues. I want to
thank our Chairman for pulling us together this morning for
signaling a clear interest in working seriously toward long
term surface transportation reauthorization not at the middle
of next year, not at the end of next year, starting right from
the get-go.
I have long believed that transportation infrastructure is
an area where our Committee can again lead in a bipartisan
fashion. The Chairman has mentioned the Water Resources
Development Act.
Ben Cardin has slipped off to another hearing in Foreign
Relations, and Jim Inhofe has done the same thing in the Armed
Services, but I just want to say to them and their staffs,
everybody on the Committee and our staffs, Democrat and
Republican, how proud I am of all of our collective efforts and
grateful for our Chairman's leadership.
I believe that next year we are going to have another
opportunity to work on legislation that improves the state of
our Nation's infrastructure. I focus hugely on what is a major
role of Government. Lincoln used to say the role of Government
is to do for the people what they cannot do for themselves. I
would put a finer point on that and say a major role of
Government is to help create a nurturing environment for job
creation and job preservation.
That is a big part of what we are responsible for, and
roads, highways, bridges, rail, airports, ports, you name it, a
big part of that nurturing environment. It is hugely important,
and fortunately, this Committee has a lot of jurisdiction over,
so we are going have fun working on this.
Our Committee's minority members, our staffs are ready to
go to work with our Republican colleagues when the new Congress
convenes in a little more than a month. I say that knowing we
face significant challenges in reauthorizing our surface
transportation programs, the most important of which is the
need to identify sustainable sources of funding to address the
growing deficit in the Highway Trust Fund. This, my friends, is
always the 800 pound gorilla in the room, as we know.
In the last decade Congress had to transfer more than $140
billion into the Highway Trust Fund because the Trust Fund
revenues were insufficient to meet our investment needs.
Additionally, Congress resorted to passing more than a dozen
short term extensions of the transportation program the past
decade, which created significant uncertainty for State and
local agencies, and not uncommonly, added cost, significant
cost because of that uncertainty to these projects.
Funding uncertainty leads States to stop or slow down many
projects. If highway authorization expires or funding runs out,
the Federal Highway Administration is unable to reimburse
States for Federal aid projects already underway and make it
impossible to approve new projects.
As we begin work on a new authorization of the Federal
programs, one of our primary goals should be to avoid another
series of short term extensions going forward, and that means
having a bill passed before our current authorization expires
in 2020.
Albert Einstein once said, ``In adversity lies
opportunity.'' That has been one of my guiding principles for
as long as I can remember. I think it probably is for a lot of
us. I believe that the opportunities to improve our
transportation programs in the next few years are great,
despite the challenges, the adversity that we are going to face
along the way.
New technology, new data are going to enable us to
modernize how we plan, how we build, how we operate and use our
infrastructure. We ought to look for ways to ensure that
Federal programs support innovations that improve mobility,
improve safety, air quality, and other goals as well.
We can't have a conversation about surface transportation,
though, without talking about climate change and the
increasingly extreme weather that accompanies it. Our
transportation sector is a major contributor to climate change,
and our roads, bridges, railways are also extremely vulnerable
to the effects of extreme weather fueled by climate change.
According to the National Climate Assessment Report
released last week by 13 Federal agencies, ``Expected increases
in the severity and frequency of heavy precipitation events
will affect inland infrastructure in every region, including
access to roads, the viability of bridges, and the safety of
pipelines.'' Our next infrastructure bill must respond to this
threat by focusing on a more resilient and sustainable
transportation sector to protect communities nationwide.
Safety is another area which demands our close attention.
Motor vehicle crashes have consistently been the leading cause
of preventable deaths in our country, overtaken only recently
by the opioid epidemic. More than 37,000 people are killed on
our roadways each year. We can't continue to just accept this
level of loss. Safety must be a top priority, and our
investment decisions must reflect that prioritization.
In closing, let me reiterate that I am encouraged by the
bipartisan consensus on the need to invest in our
infrastructure, particularly transportation. I truly hope that
this will be the first of many opportunities to engage in a
bipartisan discussion, in this room and outside of this room,
to identify areas of agreement where we can work together,
which, as we all know, is a primary reason our constituents
sent us here in the first place, to work together and get some
things done, like we did last year. Actually, like we did in
the last week with the Coast Guard reauthorization bill. I
thank those on this Committee who played a role in developing
compromise there on ballast water and VIDA Blue.
I want to welcome each of our witnesses, and thank you all
again for joining us today, for our conversation. We look
forward to learning and to hearing from you in just a minute.
Thank you so much.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Senator
Carper.
We are now going to hear from our three witnesses today.
First, we are going to hear from Carlos Braceras, who is
President of the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, AASHTO, and Executive Director of the
Utah Department of Transportation. We will also hear from
Robert Lanham, who is the Vice President at the Associated
General Contractors of America; and James Corless, Executive
Director for the Sacramento Area Council of Governments.
I would like to remind the witnesses that your full written
testimony will be included as part of the official hearing
record, so please try to keep your statements to 5 minutes so
we will have time for questions. I look forward to hearing the
testimony from each of you.
Let us begin with Mr. Braceras.
STATEMENT OF CARLOS M. BRACERAS, P.E., PRESIDENT AT AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS, AND
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Braceras. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member
Carper, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear today and address the surface
transportation investment needs faced by our country.
My name is Carlos Braceras, and I serve as the Executive
Director of the Utah Department of Transportation and as the
President of the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, AASHTO. It is my honor today to
represent both the great State of Utah and AASHTO, which
represents all 50 States plus the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico.
State DOTs have the utmost appreciation for your
Committee's leadership to shepherd the FAST Act in December
2015. This legislation has ensured stability in the federally
supported passenger rail, freight, safety, highway, and transit
programs through 2020.
To further build on the Federal surface transportation
solid foundation, we believe that it is now time for all
transportation stakeholders, led by Congress and the President,
to begin work on reauthorizing the FAST Act and to ensure a
smooth transition to the next long term bill without the need
for disrupted extensions.
AASHTO has already initiated, earlier this year, an
extensive 18 month effort to develop and present our
reauthorization policy recommendations this next October. As
the FAST Act reauthorization gets underway, we recommend that
Federal funds continue being provided through the existing
formula based structure directly to States, rather than looking
at untested approaches that will require more time and
oversight.
Building on the federally funded State administered highway
program established over a century ago, Federal investment in
all modes of transportation have allowed States and their local
partners to fund a wide range of projects that serve the
interest of the Nation as a whole. Formula funds work because
they serve all corners of our country, improving mobility and
the quality of life in urban, suburban, and rural areas.
Even with the FAST Act, however, the investment backlog for
transportation infrastructure continues to increase, reaching
$836 billion for highways and bridges, $122 billion for
transit. The percentage of Federal investment in transportation
and water infrastructure has declined substantially from almost
6 percent of total Federal spending in the 1960s to only 2.5
percent by 2017.
While Federal investment has lagged, States have stepped up
in the meantime to fill the gap, with 31 States successfully
enacting State level transportation packages since 2012. In
Utah, our legislature recently adopted a State fuel tax and
indexed both the fuel tax and registration fee to keep pace
with inflation. Also, we are going to be the second State in
the Nation to implement a road usage charge program.
But efforts by Utah and other States to fund the system
ourselves are not enough. The Federal Government must step up
its share of investment, and it will not be easy. Just to keep
our current FAST Act funding levels, Congress has to find $90
billion in additional revenue for a 5 year bill or $114 billion
for a 6 year bill.
At the same time, the purchasing power of the Trust Fund
revenues has declined substantially due to the flat per gallon
motor fuel taxes that have not been adjusted since 1993, losing
half of their value over the last quarter-century. That means
the Federal highway programs are expected to experience a 51
percent drop after the FAST Act in 2021, and the Federal
transit programs would have to be zeroed out in 2021 and 2022.
In the past, similar shortfall situations have led to cuts
in Federal reimbursements to States on existing obligations,
leading to serious cash flow problems for States and resulting
in project delays. Simply put, this is a devastating scenario
that we must do all we can to avoid.
In addition, the FAST Act included a $7.6 billion
rescission of unobligated highway contract authority to take
place in 2020. This is a budget artifice that disrupts
transportation planning and timely delivery of projects. The
cumulative effect of rescissions with over $22 billion enacted
since 2002 can wipe out the entire balance of contract
authority held by States, which will lead to hard funding cuts
to dollars promised under the FAST Act.
We must take advantage of the short window that we have
right now to head off the dual threat of a funding cliff and a
rescission in 2020. If we miss this opportunity for action, the
extremely costly and disruptive scenario for transportation
programs around the country will become all but inevitable.
State DOTs remain committed to assisting Congress in the
development of policies that will ensure long term economic
growth and enhance quality of life. You can be fully assured
that AASHTO and the State DOTs will continue advocating for the
reaffirmation of a strong Federal-State partnership to address
our surface transportation investment needs.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today,
and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Braceras follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[[Page 30]]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[[Page 31]]
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much for sharing
your best thoughts. We appreciate your comments.
Now, Mr. Lanham.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT LANHAM, VICE PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATED GENERAL
CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA
Mr. Lanham. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and
distinguished Committee members, thank you for convening
today's hearing.
My name is Bob Lanham. I am a highway and bridge builder
from Houston, Texas. I have the pleasure this year of serving
as vice president of AGC. AGC is a national organization of
26,500 businesses that are involved in every aspect of the
construction business in all 50 States, Puerto Rico, and
Washington, DC. AGC members build the Nation's infrastructure;
its highways, bridges, airports, transit systems, rail
facilities, and other transportation projects that keep America
moving.
Mr. Chairman, in my written testimony I stress several
themes. The main overarching theme is that the time for
infrastructure investment is now.
As the Committee knows, there has been much talk at the
White House and on Capitol Hill over the last 2 years about
investing in and upgrading the Nation's infrastructure. While
the Congress has moved infrastructure authorizations and
provided new investment for current Federal infrastructure
programs, more needs to be done.
The American people, President Trump, bipartisan Members of
Congress, and those of us in the stakeholder community have all
expressed support and the need for a bold and robust
infrastructure vision. There is no reason not to invest in our
infrastructure now.
AGC has long recognized and advocated for the need to
invest in more types of infrastructure, from highways, roads,
and bridges, to runways and water systems. As such, we have
recommended to the Congress and the Administration that any new
infrastructure plan should be broad based. However, we should
caution that any new proposal must not ignore one of the
gravest threats to the transportation investment in this
Nation: the long term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund.
Shortly after the FAST Act expires in September 2020,
additional revenue of some $20 billion per year will be needed
just to maintain current funding levels. Failing to address the
Fund's solvency ongoing revenue shortfall leaves open the
possibility of disruption and uncertainty for States, as well
as the construction industry. AGC urges the Congress and the
Administration to act sooner, rather than later.
In the past funding uncertainties and short term extensions
have led to project delays, cancellations, higher costs, delays
of improvements that affect safety, efficiency, and economic
development. If in fact the Congress acts on a broad based
infrastructure bill, and we hope you do, failure to address the
structural flaws in the Highway Trust Fund will undermine any
potential benefits from such bill.
[[Page 32]]
Increasing the motor fuels tax is the simplest and most
effective way to achieve this goal, but several other viable
revenue alternatives exist. We believe the Highway Trust Fund
revenue construct must include three things: one, a reliable,
dedicated, and sustainable revenue source derived from the
users and the beneficiaries of our surface transportation
system; two, resources sufficient to end the chronic shortfalls
and support increased investment; and three, be dedicated
solely to surface transportation improvements.
Adhering to these principles would assure the States and
the Federal Government that we will continue to be a reliable
partner with the States and local governments in the funding
and delivering of a safe transportation network that meets our
Nation's needs, both economic and growth.
Further, as the Congress potentially considers a
comprehensive infrastructure proposal, it is important to
recognize that two previous authorizations, the FAST Act and
its predecessor, MAP-21, both reformed the Federal surface
transportation programs in a manner that emphasized meeting
national goals, while providing States flexibility. Given this
admirable policy achievement, we do not need to create new
programs or add additional procedures to deliver additional
surface transportation investments as a part of any
infrastructure initiative.
To quite simply put it, our recommendation is for the
Congress and the Administration to take this generational
opportunity that presents itself in a broad, robust
infrastructure bill to once and for all end the cycle of short
term extensions and provide growing revenue to address our
needs. This newfound certainty and the additional investments
should allow for the reauthorization of the FAST Act prior to
its expiration in 2020.
Unfortunately, none of the themes in my testimony are new.
I imagine that you have heard them before, time and time again.
But what is different today is leaders on both ends of the
spectrum are supportive of such a proposal, and this Committee
and its leaders are an essential component in making this
happen.
I am thankful for the opportunity to testify today and look
forward to any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lanham follows:]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[[Page 48]]
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you so very much for your
thoughts and your testimony. I appreciate it.
Mr. Corless.
STATEMENT OF JAMES CORLESS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SACRAMENTO AREA
COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Corless. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and
members of the Committee, I am James Corless, Executive
Director of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, and I
am honored to be here today representing our Council, which
represents 22 cities and 6 counties in the greater Sacramento
region.
As you know, I am from California, but I am also from the
heartland of California. Our region is not coastal in
California; we are central and inland. We are not deep blue; we
are a patchwork of reds, blues, and purples; and 85 percent of
our land in our region is rural. We are truly a microcosm of
America.
Senator Carper, you like to quote Einstein. I like to quote
my 13-year-old daughter, who says, ``Daddy, Sacramento, we've
got some problems and challenges, but we're real, we're
genuine, and we've tackled them head on.'' In that spirit, I am
here this morning to talk about four major points that we
really think you need to address in the next authorization
bill: funding, innovation, long term planning, and bridging the
urban-rural divide.
On funding, my two colleagues here have said much that I
would agree with, and I am not going to repeat that, but I will
say one thing. We are going to have to come up with a successor
to the gas tax sooner or later, whether it is sooner or later.
I think there were comments in the media this morning that
seemed to suggest, perhaps, that I was against a miles-traveled
fee, and I want to just correct that for the record. I am not
against a miles-traveled fee in terms of something that will
replace the gas tax, but hear me out on this. This is very
important that we address it.
Twenty miles traveled on a two-lane rural road is not the
same as 20 miles traveled on an urban interstate at 9 a.m. at
peak hour, rush hour traffic congestion. They exact different
costs. The urban interstate is going to require us to build
billions of new infrastructure, so we want to manage that
demand. We can manage that demand through effective pricing. It
is not just about the miles you travel; it is about when you
travel; it is about how you travel.
So, in the next authorization bill we want more pilot
programs. We want to be able to be more creative. We want to
test pricing schemes much like the utility sector now prices
utilities. Most things in the private sector are priced by time
of day, by peak travel. We do not do this in the transportation
sector, and we need to correct that.
Second point on innovation. New technology innovation--you
all know this--is coming faster than we know it. Now, we made
advances in MAP-21 and the FAST Act, but we are falling further
behind in terms of the speed of technology and things that are
transforming our sector. From the local level, as important as
the Federal program is, it seems out of touch, given where
technology is.
[[Page 49]]
In the Sacramento region, we have started a program called
Civic Lab. This was a really interesting idea. We took 20
teams, cities, counties, and transit agencies, and we
challenged them to come up and solve their transportation
challenges with a couple of rules: you can't spend a lot of
money, you have to use technology, you have to use creative
problem solving, and must partner with the private sector. We
did an umbrella procurement. We allowed them to pull off our
umbrella procurements so they didn't have to go through their
own procurements to partner with private sector companies.
The projects that came out were truly inspirational. A low
income project to move youth to summer construction jobs so low
income youth could actually show up on time, at 7 a.m. every
day, through a shuttle service; on-demand transit for a rural
community where you couldn't make fixed route public transit
work to get folks to work and to jobs on time; a new traffic
management program that can help one of our more popular rural
farm areas deal with peak hour congestion during harvest
season.
But here is the rub: we can't take our Federal funds and
actually use them to fund these projects. We don't have that
eligibility and that flexibility, and we need that. If you want
to embrace innovation, we have to do that.
USDOT made a huge stride with its Smart Cities Challenge,
and I say recreate that, but do it for communities of all
sizes, urban, rural, and suburban, and even State level
programs that would be State versions of a challenge for
communities to use technology and innovation to come up with
quick and effective low cost solutions.
In terms of the planning process, it is too slow, it is too
cumbersome. We have too much to do. It is too much of a check-
box exercise. The future is changing rapidly, and we need our
planning process to be quicker, easier, more meaningful, and
more data driven. USDOT can do a lot in this regard. We
actually are using one of its datasets that it procured for the
entire Nation. It is a great use of its economy of scale. We
also need USDOT to help build the capacity of our agencies.
Finally, bridging the urban-rural divide, we have had a
program now for 10 years that we call the Rural-Urban
Connection Strategy, and we learned, first and foremost in that
program, that broadband and high speed communications are seen
as a form of transportation for our rural communities. We need
eligibility in our Federal funds to allow those kinds of
communication networks and broadband to be funded right along
transportation; it is equal to or greater than in terms of the
need of rural communities, as it is as mobility and roads and
highways.
With that, I would be happy to answer any questions, and
thank you again for the invitation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Corless follows:]
[[Page 50]]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[[Page 67]]
Senator Barrasso. Well, we appreciate the testimony of all
of you. We are going to start with some questions.
I want to start, Mr. Braceras, if I could, with you. Utah,
Wyoming, Senator Fischer, who is on this Committee from
Nebraska, when she was in the State senate she chaired the
transportation committee in the State for Nebraska; I chaired
the transportation committee in the State of Wyoming.
We have a poster board here we are going to pull up that
just kind of shows the bottom part, the orange I-80 heading to
Utah, Wyoming, and then to Nebraska. The orange is where we are
today. The green is where we are going to be in the next decade
or so, with expanded amounts of traffic going back and forth.
Clearly, that is where all the action is traffic-wise in
Wyoming. Lots of the State doesn't have that kind of traffic,
but we see it there, and then going down to Denver, Colorado.
The Congressional Research Service has come up with this
map about freight traffic specifically. As you know, for every
one of the big trucks, that is like 4,000 cars in terms of the
impact on the roads, so we are going to see that.
What can be done, do you think, to help ensure that
interstates in rural States like ours in many ways, as well as
Nebraska, can keep pace with the increasing interstate
commerce, as well as the commuting that goes along?
Mr. Braceras. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. It
is interesting how connected we are as a Nation and how our
transportation system is really providing that connection.
When there is a big snowstorm in Wyoming and I-80 shuts
down----
Senator Barrasso. Like it did on Sunday.
Mr. Braceras [continuing]. The trucks back up into Utah,
and we, on our variable message signs, are indicating the
conditions of what I-80 is looking like in Wyoming, and
truckers are making a decision of where they are going to spend
their time because their hours of service are limited.
I think the point that our Nation depends on a connected
transportation system, and it needs to function, and it needs
to be reliable and dependable for this to work. When you think
about the purpose of a transportation system, every single
transportation system in the world was created around the
fundamental purpose of growing an economy and improving quality
of life. It is as simple as that. And if our system is not
functioning well, it impacts our entire country.
So, I tell people in the State of Utah that I need a
Federal transportation program, I need a Federal transportation
vision because I need the roads to function in Nebraska, in
Wyoming, in California in order for my Utah companies to be
successful.
So, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that for us to
recognize that even though we are connected with the
transportation system, that every State is unique, and regions
within States are unique, and it is important for us at the
Federal level to recognize that they are different. Most
solutions are best done when they are done with locals and
being done together, so if the Federal Government could work
with States and with regions to be able to provide the
flexibility to find the solutions that work for that region,
then we
[[Page 68]]
can start to address the transportation system for the entire
country.
Senator Barrasso. You still believe--I think it was in
testimony that was given by your organization in the House--
that using the highway formula funding, as opposed to trying to
recreate something, is the way to go?
Mr. Braceras. Mr. Chairman, absolutely. As I stated in my
oral testimony as well, it is a tried and proven method of
delivering the highway program. We have been doing this now for
about 100 years. We can make sure that we deliver the
appropriate program, essentially the right project at the right
time for the right region in the most efficient and effective
way with the existing Federal funding formula program that is
in place today.
Senator Barrasso. This is for you, Mr. Lanham. We had a
hearing earlier about ocean plastic and the oceans that are
affecting plastics and what could be used, how plastics could
better be used. This was a hearing that we had on plastics, and
it was interesting, the Washington Post had an article last
month headlined Plastic Bottles May Become Part of Roads
Surface, trying to find what we could do with all of the
plastics that are out there.
The article explains that using recycled plastics in road
and highway construction can make our roads and highways
actually more resilient, that is what they are claiming there.
In other words, using plastic waste can make our roads last
longer, save taxpayer money.
What do you think about the idea of actually using
innovative materials, or others, about recycled tires and
things to use in road building, and is there a future in that?
Mr. Lanham. Mr. Chairman, we are big supporters of it and
have been doing it for a very, very long time as a company.
Williams Brothers Construction Company, we constructed 24 miles
of Interstate 10 west of downtown Houston. The existing
roadway, every piece of that was recycled and reintegrated back
into the construction of the new freeway; nothing was thrown
away. So, though that is not new materials, we didn't have to
go to the quarries to obtain aggregates recently mined; we were
able to reuse the materials and integrate.
I think other products are out there. We have used ground
tires in asphalt pavements. There are opportunities, I think,
out there to continue that innovation. What needs to understand
is how the business works in construction with regards to
economic drivers and costs, and how it ends up affecting the
State in the price of their projects.
We look at things in mass and volume. If I have a project,
and I need 100,000 tons of aggregate to produce the pavements
for this job, somebody asked me can I use some crushed
porcelain in there, I say, what is the volume available? A
thousand tons. OK, it has become a nuisance for business, as
opposed to being an actual commodity throughput.
So, those are the kinds of things that need to be weighed
in the discussion, but it has been proven, we can effectively
recycle and maintain quality product for the taxpayer.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Senator Carper.
[[Page 69]]
Senator Carper. I was looking forward to this hearing when
I saw who was going to testify, and you have exceeded my
expectations. This like a smorgasbord of good ideas and good
advice, so thank you for all of it.
I had a visit a month or so ago in my office from folks
from Hyundai who have a couple of plants in this country, a
Korean company, and we were talking about fuel efficiency for
the vehicles that they are going to be building in the future.
I remember being at the Detroit Auto Show about 10 years ago.
The car of the year that year was the Chevrolet Volt. It was a
hybrid combination battery and regular gasoline driven engine.
It got about 38 miles on a charge. This last year the car of
the year at the Detroit Auto Show was the Chevrolet Bolt. It is
just a straight electric vehicle, battery, and it gets about
140 miles to the charge.
Folks from Hyundai came by and they told me that about in a
year or so they are going to be launching some new model
vehicles that will be all electric and that will get, I think
they said, about 250 miles to the charge. They are not going to
buy any gasoline; they are not going to buy any diesel.
We have some States that are showing us the way of how to
make sure that the folks that are not contributing through
traditional user fees to the building and maintenance of our
roads, while actually contributing to reducing the threat of
climate change and extreme weather that we are seeing
everywhere almost every week.
A couple of us on this Committee, including our Chair and
Senator Inhofe and I, I think Senator Cardin as well, met with
the President several months ago. He brought us in to talk
about transportation infrastructure. I was surprised; I
expected him to basically talk for an hour and then say we were
finished, but he talked for a few minutes and then said what do
you all think. I shared with him an idea that George Voinovich
and I suggested to Bo Simpson almost 10 years ago, and the idea
was to restore the purchasing power of the traditional user
fees, gas and diesel, 4 cents a year for 4 years, and then to
index going forward.
I suggested to the President that that might be a good
idea, and he cut me off. He cut me off, and he said, that's not
enough. He said it ought to be 25 cents a gallon, and it should
be now. He said, I know there will be a lot of political
pushback on that, but he said, I will take the heat for that.
Later in the day I talked to Elaine Chao, our Secretary of
Transportation, and I said, was he serious, did he really mean
that? She said, he has been talking about it every week for
weeks.
So I think, as a former Governor, the key in getting stuff
done on the financing side is leadership, whether you are the
Governor for your State or you happen to be President of the
United States. If the President will show that kind of
leadership, we can make a whole lot of progress.
We have provided under previous legislation, as you know, a
national pilot for about a dozen States for road user fees. How
is that going? Any ideas? Any thoughts?
Go ahead.
Mr. Braceras. Yes. Thank you, Senator, for that question.
There are a couple activities taking place. There is a
coalition of 14 west
[[Page 70]]
ern States that are involved in what we call RUC West, Road
Usage Charge West, and we have been working together for----
Senator Carper. I call that rock and roll.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Braceras. It is almost that cool. My wife rolls her
eyes.
But we got together, and what we are doing is, we are
trying to learn even the questions to ask on what it takes to
implement a road usage charge. So the State of Utah has been
participating in this for the last 6 years, and what we do is
we provide funding and we do little projects, all working
together to be able to start to move this idea forward.
This last legislative session we brought this to our
legislature, and we had this discussion about it, and we
thought they would maybe sponsor a small pilot program on their
own. Instead, they passed legislation instructing us to
actually implement a voluntary program for road usage charge
for alternative fuel vehicles, essentially the electric
vehicles, because they see very much this transition that is
happening. It is clearly an inflexion point in the technology
for automobiles where it is going to be electric vehicles, and
it is going to happen faster than most people think.
So, by January 2020 we have to have a program turned on to
actually have an implemented program. So, we are going to learn
from this, and expectations are that we are going to expand
this as we become more comfortable with how to do this.
The importance in transportation--and Bob mentioned this in
his testimony--the connection between the use and how much you
pay for that usage or how much impact you make on that system,
that connection is an important one, and a road usage charge, I
believe, provides the ability to make that connection, and it
also provides the opportunity to price appropriately. As Mr.
Corless said in his testimony, it is important to recognize
that 5 miles in rural Utah is quite different than 5 miles in
urban Utah, and one of the points that we have been selling to
our--not selling--excuse me. One of the points, as we have been
working with the Farm Bureau in Utah and the rural members of
our State, is that it will give us the ability to not charge on
non-public roads. So, if you are running on a private road, you
won't be charged for that usage, and that is something that is
becoming attractive.
So I think there are ways to be able to implement a program
that will help us carry the transportation forward. But I don't
think this is something that happens in the next 5 years; I
think it is important to look at the gas tax. That is going to
be the way we fund transportation, I believe, for the next 20
or so years, but we need to recognize a transition is taking
place.
Senator Carper. All right.
My time has expired. Let me just ask Mr. Lanham and Mr.
Corless, do you approve this message?
Mr. Lanham. Yes, sir.
Senator Carper. Mr. Corless.
Mr. Corless. Senator Carper, I think the Federal Government
will only follow the States on the next system of pricing. I
think we have 5 to 10 years to get more than 25 States to
really implement what Utah is doing and other States, so we
have to get on with it. We have a short term problem and a long
term problem,
[[Page 71]]
but that long term problem is going to come at us very quickly,
and I think we need a majority of the States to be out there
deploying so the Feds can pick up the best ideas coming from
the States and localities.
Senator Carper. Good.
All right, thank you very, very much. Thanks for your
example in Utah, especially.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me, real quickly, try to get three things in, crowded,
just so I can get your comments, and if there isn't time to do
it, we can do this for the record. This will be for all three
of you. Those three things would be work force development, our
freight program, which we have included in the past, and then
also the project delivery problem.
Starting off with the work force development, I am very
proud, and I think you know this, Mr. Lanham, because you have
a lot of good members in Oklahoma. You have probably heard me
say this before, but we had a Governor once named Bartlett. He
and I, when I was in the State senate--and we are talking about
way back, before most of you guys up here were even born. Back
in the 1960s we started that program. We started that for
Oklahoma. It has been a leader for a long period of time. In
fact, we have recently extended that.
One of the problems we have in work force development--and
I want to get comments from each one of you on that issue--is
one that is across the board. When we did the FAA
reauthorization bill, I put an amendment on there that you had
experimental pilot programs to develop work force development
program in the FAA reauthorization bill.
Anyone want to comment on that issue, work force
development? Now, you are doing a good job. I know that you
guys put forth programs where you can hire people right out of
these technical programs, and that has been very, very
effective in Oklahoma.
Mr. Lanham. Part of what we call our OJT, on the job
training, program where we liaison with the technical schools
or can work with the vocational training out of the high
schools, but yes, sir, works well. It is a major emphasis and
focus for AGC of America. We are partnering with AASHTO,
Federal highways. We have a pilot program trying to go. We have
five States that have signed on that are working with a test
project on how to integrate work force development.
We are battling a lot of cultural stigma with regards to
most of our challenges. It is not with professional trades,
engineers; it is with the construction trades, the carpenters.
And that is not a college bound career. We are offering
alternatives to young people and well paying careers, and how
do we reach through that bias that seems to be out there.
Senator Inhofe. Well, thank you. Is it fair to say that you
have had comparable success in other States that you have had
in Oklahoma? Because you have had success in Oklahoma.
Mr. Lanham. We have, yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. That is good.
[[Page 72]]
On the issue of the freight program that we had, Mr.
Braceras, I notice you made a comment in your written testimony
on an Oklahoma company, an Enid, Oklahoma, company, so you are
familiar with the problem.
I was chair of this Committee when we did the FAST Act, and
we developed a program for the first time, a freight program.
Any comments to how that seems to be working right now or areas
for improvement on that?
Mr. Braceras. Thank you, Senator. That program is working
very well for the State of Utah. To me, the freight program was
a clear recognition by this Committee and Congress of the
importance that the transportation system serves for freight.
When you think about it, the freight is that connection for
people. Even if you are not out there using the roadways, you
depend on the freight that is being moved by the highway system
and the rail system. So I consider the freight program one of
the really good additions that came about. And we are doing
projects right now that we could not have gotten to and would
not have been able to prioritize but for the freight program,
so thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Well, good.
Mr. Lanham, it was an off the record comment that you made
in response to something Senator Barrasso stated. The Federal
formula program has worked. That is one of the few things in
government that seems to be working. It does take into
consideration the needs of various States; they have a lot of
input. When you come up with a formula, and you introduce a
comprehensive bill, and everyone is mad about it at this table
over here, you have done a good job.
Any other comments on the two subjects that I brought up on
this?
All right, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank all three
of our witnesses.
I live in Baltimore and commute to Washington, so I have a
vested interest in us getting this right. Tomorrow, Senator Van
Hollen and I have a breakfast meeting in Montgomery County. It
is about 40 miles from my house, and where the meeting is is
about 10 miles from the Capitol, and I will be commuting about
3 hours tomorrow morning. We have a challenge in this region,
and we have a challenge in this country, so this issue is
critically important to all of us.
The FAST Act passed in 2015. We hailed it as a major
accomplishment, and it did give us predictability through
September 30th, 2020. This Congress should have dealt with
infrastructure. We were not able to deal with the
transportation infrastructure; we did do it with water, and I
agree with the assessment of that being a great accomplishment.
But we are going to have to deal with it in the next Congress.
It has to be done.
What I would like to just get your views on is that
legislation we passed in 2015, it had acceptable balance
between highways and transit; it dealt with major projects of
national significance; it continued creative financing through
the TIFIA program, provided
[[Page 73]]
local flexibilities. We have already talked about that,
including the transportation alternative programs. Dealt with
the regulatory system; tried to streamline that process.
Senator Inhofe mentioned some of the other areas in dealing
with freight.
Now, I would like to just get your view as to what area of
change would you like to see most as Congress looks at a
multiyear reauthorization of our transportation infrastructure.
I would illuminate that I hope we would all agree is our No. 1
priority, that is, the size of the program, making it as large
as possible, obviously requiring revenues; and then, second,
making it as long multiyear as we possibly can because of the
predictability of these projects having a longer lead time, the
more aggressive we can be on infrastructure in this country.
So, recognizing we want a robust program, we want it
adequately funded. Some of us do serve on the Finance
Committee, so we are going to have to deal with that issue. But
the EPW Committee is the principal committee on this issue, and
I would just welcome your thoughts as to where you would like
to see improvement on the FAST Act as it relates to the issues
that are under our Committee's jurisdiction.
Mr. Braceras. Thank you, Senator, for that question. We
have made significant progress over the last, I would say, 15
to 20 years in how the program is being delivered right now.
There has been a lot of work done in streamlining the project
delivery.
And when I use that word streamlining, I hope it is not
looked at in an offensive way. The flexibility that Congress
has given to State DOTs, we have assumed NEPA, the
environmental process. The State of Utah has taken over that
responsibility, and it clearly has allowed us to do the right
thing at the right time for our citizens. We are the biggest
champions of the environment in Utah; that is where we live,
that is what we love, and our citizens hold us accountable for
that, so I thank you for that flexibility in that area.
I would ask that we continue to look at options for
providing additional flexibility for how we use the funding
that we have available to us. One of the things that we do
aggressively is we exchange Federal money for State money for
our locals. Our locals don't do as many Federal projects as we
do, and they struggle with the process. So, they line up, and
we exchange at 85 cents on the dollar, and we give them State
money that gives them the flexibility to deliver the projects
that they need for their citizens, and they can deliver it more
effectively and efficiently, and we then manage the Federal
program because we do it every day.
So, I think that is an example of how the Federal money
brings some restrictions with how we deliver these projects,
and it doesn't have to be as complicated as it is. If Congress
and the Administration can focus and be partners on the
outcomes of what we are trying to achieve. We are trying to
save lives, we are trying to lower the total cost of ownership
of our infrastructure by doing the right project at the right
time. And we are trying to improve mobility so you don't have
to spend 3 hours commuting to a meeting that probably shouldn't
take that long. This is all about quality of life and our
economies, so if we could focus on those outcomes more, provide
[[Page 74]]
flexibility for States and locals to be able to deliver the
program, I believe we can make another step forward.
Mr. Corless. Senator Cardin, three things quickly. First is
innovation and technology. I think we do have some programs in
the current FAST Act, but we have to make it real. We have to
go beyond just sort of eligibility. We have to really push a
whole different thought process around ITS, innovation
technology, and really imbedding those in how we operate the
transportation system, No. 1.
Two, I think we have to strengthen regional planning, rural
planning, build capacity among organizations like mine.
Then finally, I think--I credit Utah for this but also the
State of Virginia--doing a lot of very quantitative data driven
project selection using data. We have to basically re-instill
trust among the public that those investments, limited dollars,
are getting the biggest bang for the buck. I think Virginia has
gone from zero to 60 with its SMART SCALE process. It did that
after it passed a major revenue increase at the State level. It
is transparent. People understand what benefits they get from
those projects.
We have to get into that across all the States and all the
regions in the country, and I think the USDOT can have a strong
role in helping build that capacity for us on the data side.
Mr. Lanham. Senator, I would just add two more things that
have been discussed. One is backup on work force development. I
think there is an opportunity to provide for work force
development encouragement in the next reauthorization. The
second is, continue to look for opportunities to add what I
would call contemporaneous reviews in the NEPA process and the
permitting process. There are still some opportunities where
those things can run concurrently instead of consecutively and
save some time, because we end up with a duplicate process, and
I think we have a hard time explaining that to the public, what
we do.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
Senator Wicker.
Senator Wicker. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, I have
to say that this has been a very disappointing hearing. I was
hoping you would choose some magicians to come in here, perhaps
some alchemist to tell us how to stir a pot of lead, get it to
the right temperature, and turn it into silver and gold, and we
wouldn't actually have to pay for infrastructure.
But here we have learned, and we are hearing it from both
sides of the aisle, presumably even from the President of the
United States, that if we want to build roads and bridges and
infrastructure, we have to come up with some revenue solutions
to actually pay for this. So, I am just heartsick and
disappointed that we are having to go down this path.
But since we are, Mr. Braceras, you are saying that the
Highway Trust Fund is a solid mechanism for delivering the
funds in the right way, is that correct?
Mr. Braceras. Yes, sir.
Senator Wicker. And you think for the next 10 to 20 years
the gasoline tax is going to be the way to put money into that
Trust Fund?
[[Page 75]]
Mr. Braceras. I believe so, yes, sir.
Senator Wicker. OK. Do you advocate or have you given any
thought to going from the per gallon to a percentage of the
price, as some States have done?
Mr. Braceras. Yes. In the State of Utah we haven't made
that jump, but we have indexed the gas tax, and the gas tax
rises based on CPI.
Senator Wicker. So it is the same result.
Mr. Braceras. It is close to the same result. The
legislature has put a cap, but it is a pretty high cap, on how
high that will continue to go, and every year our tax
commission makes that adjustment based on the cost.
Senator Wicker. When was the last per gallon enacted?
Mr. Braceras. In 2015.
Senator Wicker. OK. And what is it?
Mr. Braceras. Today, it is sitting at 29----
Senator Wicker. I am asking the Federal.
Mr. Braceras. The Federal rate is 18.4 on gas.
Senator Wicker. And when was that implemented?
Mr. Braceras. In 1993.
Senator Wicker. OK. What if we had indexed that back at
that point? Where would we be?
Mr. Braceras. We have lost about 50 percent of our
purchasing power, Senator, since that point. Now, based on what
you set as an index, I don't know if you would completely make
that up, but we would not be fighting. In my opinion, we are
fighting two battles: we are fighting the inflation battle that
is a pretty powerful one, and we are also fighting the fact
that we haven't made a change in so long.
Senator Wicker. So, if we had just kept it even with
inflation, we would be 50 percent better?
Mr. Braceras. Yes, sir.
Senator Wicker. Or words to that effect. Now, your
organization also has published a matrix of illustrative
surface transportation revenue options which would be ways, in
decades to come, to move to other forms. And then we have been
talking about this user fee or whatever the terms are, vehicles
per mile and things like that.
Let me ask you, Mr. Braceras, which of those options do you
think are the most viable going forward?
And then if Mr. Corless and Mr. Lanham could follow up and
explain exactly mechanically how this works and we
differentiate between rural roads and private roads and
interstate highways in our ability to collect the revenues, and
are there privacy concerns that you think are real in terms of
vehicle owners having to give out that information.
Mr. Braceras. Senator, I will speak for Carlos Braceras as
Executive Director of the Utah DOT in this response. Yes, I
think the gas tax is the way to go in the future. As an
association, we provided a menu of options, and over the next
18 months we want to home in on a better way of providing
advice to Congress on what options are available.
But as you have the challenge of getting all your members
on the same page, we have the same challenges, 52 members to
get on the same page as well. But I believe the gas tax is the
way to go in
[[Page 76]]
the near future, and I also believe that road usage charge,
which is the term we are using instead of VMT, but road usage
charge is the path forward for a longer term fix to this, and
we need to start transitioning in.
Senator Wicker. OK, so how hard is it to differentiate? How
do we do that, between the rural roads and the interstates and
private roads?
Mr. Lanham. Senator, you can differentiate, but it will
require technology that we have seen some pushback with GPS
tracking. Obviously, where you have driven has been an issue
for many groups with regards to privacy; on what road was I
driving at what time. But that is exactly the information we
need because engineers, the smart ones, that is exactly how
they design these roads, is what kind of traffic is going to be
on and when. So, I think it feeds to the managers of the system
how to better take care of the roads and design them better in
the future when we actually have better data in the entire
network.
Senator Wicker. How do we do it, Mr. Corless?
Mr. Corless. Well, Senator, either you do odometer
readings, which is very imprecise and every road is the same,
every mile is the same, or you do it with what is already the
technologies installed in most vehicles; you have a device
using GPS, it knows where you are going. There are definite
privacy concerns.
The good news about us having 5 to 7 years is I believe we
can work those out. But I think we have to be precise; we have
to use GPS, because there is a fairness issue that I brought
up, and I don't think every mile is the same if you travel
rural versus urban.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Wicker. Staff has been
instructed, based on your admonition, to make sure that for the
next Committee hearing we will have an authoritative, credible,
and accurate alchemist to make a presentation.
Senator Wicker. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
attending to that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Barrasso. Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for your testimony. I really want to pick up
on Senator Wicker's questions because I think we all recognize,
on a bipartisan basis, we have huge infrastructure needs in
many areas and obviously in surface transportation, and a big
gap between those needs and the resources available, and I
think the political stumbling block really has been identifying
a way that we can bring in those revenues.
As I understand the testimony of all of you, in the short
term, you believe some kind of increase in the Federal motor
fuels tax is the way to go. Is that correct for all three of
you?
Mr. Braceras. Yes.
Mr. Lanham. Yes.
Mr. Corless. Yes.
Senator Van Hollen. And just in terms of the politics of
this, as you look around the country now, that is still the
primary funding mechanism for States, is it not?
Mr. Braceras. Yes.
Mr. Lanham. Yes.
[[Page 77]]
Mr. Corless. Yes.
Senator Van Hollen. All right. And that is true in States
that are dominated by more Republican Governors and
legislatures, as well as Democratic Governors, right? And you
increased it in Utah in 2015 and a lot of other States in the
last 5 years increased their gas taxes?
Mr. Braceras. Thirty-one other States.
Senator Van Hollen. In the last?
Mr. Braceras. Thirty-one other States since 2012.
Senator Van Hollen. Since 2012. So I just think, as we look
at both the short term and then the longer term, it is
important to look at some of the State activity. And I agree,
as we look to the long term, the States are also sort of
examples of innovations that we should see how they test out
and whether we can adopt them.
In the absence of additional Federal funding, States, or
certainly localities that are able to do it based on the
concentration of populations, are moving forward more in the
area of public-private partnerships, is that right?
Mr. Braceras. Yes.
Senator Van Hollen. And can you talk about how that has
sort of picked up around the country? I know in Maryland, for
one of our major transit projects, the Purple Line, it is a
public-private partnership. So, can you talk about the examples
of where that has worked well, but also some of the potential
horror stories that people encounter with public-private
partnerships and where you see that fitting in to this
equation?
Mr. Braceras. I am not sure if I can come up with a horror
story, but I think the important thing on a public-private
partnership is, again, one size does not fit all in these
because we are not all the same. A public-private partnership,
I have characterized to our legislature before, is really
everything on the spectrum.
If you look at when we went into design build to deliver
projects, that is an increase in the public-private partnership
when you are working with the contractors and the consultants.
Or construction manager-general contractor, that is another
movement on the scale of a public-private partnership.
Maybe this is the horror story. We have evaluated doing
full tolling on a brand new freeway facility as a public-
private partnership, and the public pushback was tremendous
against that because there was a fear that they were going to
lose their ability to control; they were going to be one level
away from being able to control.
But we also do public-private partnerships right now in our
rest areas, where we work with private companies to provide
facilities and features in our rest areas that we couldn't have
done before. We do public-private partnerships with our Web
based applications, where we will provide advertising
opportunities. Our legislature is going to move a bill this
session.
We have talked about doing it with our IMTs, Incident
Management Teams, but our public safety officers did not want
to have commercialization of those Incident Management Teams,
but we are going to do courtesy patrols that will be public-
private partnerships.
[[Page 78]]
So the idea is, I think, a very important one that we need
to continue, and it is going to continue to evolve in the
country, and I believe there are opportunities for public-
private partnerships whether you are in a rural State or in an
urban area as well, so it is not one size fits all.
Senator Van Hollen. Got it.
Mr. Corless. Senator Van Hollen, I am a big fan of public-
private partnerships. In a small scale, with a Civil Lab
program, that is what we have been experimenting with in
Sacramento, California.
But I do want to say something that I think is very
important. I don't believe that a public-private partnership is
the way to generate revenue that is just sort of sitting out
there mythically waiting on the sidelines; it is a way to
manage risk. That is really the benefit of P3s, is that it
manages risk; it puts it in the private sector. In order to do
that well, we in the public sector have to be good dealmakers;
we have to understand actually how to make a deal and what the
private sector brings and what we need in terms of the public
interest.
But with a few exceptions, toll roads perhaps being one of
them, we are not making a profit in the transportation sector.
That is not what we are doing. We are moving people and goods
and bits of information. We decided long ago that movement was
a public good, so there is not, generally speaking, a profit
there. So we have to be careful that this is not some sort of a
recipe for them coming to save the Federal transportation
program. It is a tool which we should be using far more often.
Senator Van Hollen. And let me be clear. I think private-
public partnerships are an innovative way to try to leverage
some additional resources. As you say, the goal is not to make
a profit, and that is where public oversight is absolutely
essential, kind of a utility type model. There have been some
examples, like parking garages, where all of a sudden people
were paying a much bigger fee, and it was going into bank
accounts of some Wall Street banks.
So I am just suggesting that if we don't get our act
together at the Federal level and increase the Federal funding
component of what we do here, you are going to see more
pressure for leveraging additional funds through public-private
partnerships. And while they may be available in both rural and
urban areas, they are going to be more available in urban
areas, so I am just encouraging everybody to come to the table
to come up with a solution for Federal revenue.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen.
We have a briefing with the Secretary of State and
Secretary of Defense coming up within about 25 minutes, so if
we could try to keep it to 5 minutes each.
Senator Rounds.
Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Corless, you indicated earlier that you really like the
idea of the options that are made available so that we can
address local needs based upon what the demands are in an urban
versus a rural area, and I got to thinking it sounds good
because in South Dakota we are rural, and to be able to do this
is helpful for us. Yet at the same time, one of the benefits of
having a Highway Trust
[[Page 79]]
Fund, and one that has stood the test of time over literally
decades, has been that this has been a Trust Fund for
infrastructure development, and we restrict it to that.
The more lenient we are in terms of what is included in
that means, then, that we risk the chance that the public will
see this as one more opportunity to tax them for those areas
that may be somewhat related to transportation, but not
necessarily for brick and steel and so forth, and asphalt.
Talk to me about how you view this in terms of the urban
challenges you face and how we still keep that sense of
confidence in the public that gas tax money is going to go to
roads and bridges, and not to other types of designs and
attempted changes of, as you say, moving people at the right
time of the day as opposed to actually building concrete roads.
Mr. Corless. It is a great question, Senator. Let me be
clear. I think to keep the trust in the Trust Fund we have to
keep it focused on transportation, on moving people, goods, and
information. I don't advocate for any more mission creep than
that.
However, I do think that we are at a point now in our
transportation system where we need to actually begin to
transition from constructing to operating. We have high poverty
in our rural areas. Moving people from point A to point B
sometimes takes operations funding.
To be clear, the Trust Fund was set up to build the
interstate system. It was set up as a construction program, so
it is a question in front of you in terms of how much you want
to allow some operations. There is some flexibility already. We
have the congestion mitigation air quality funds, CMAQ, the STP
block grant funds. We are able to use some eligibility in some
of those.
I don't think we should transition to an entirely
operational program, but I do think it is in the Federal
interest to basically be a seed investor to get some of the
best ideas out there going, but to limit it, say, for a 3 year
window on some of these more operational improvements. That is
how we use our CMAQ funds. I think we could actually extend
that into other sources of funds so that we can get the most
innovative projects possible.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
Mr. Braceras, your thoughts. Once again, I think this is
the biggest threat we have to being able to pass a long term
project, is making sure that we can find the appropriate split
between, as Mr. Corless has suggested, operational needs versus
construction and reconstruction needs.
Your comments?
Mr. Braceras. Yes. Thank you, Senator. I believe focus is
very important in what we do. That is how we are going to
develop the trust that we need from our citizens to be able to
deliver this program. In the State of Utah, maybe we are lucky
in this way. Our Federal money makes up about 20 percent of our
total program, so we have the gas tax that I talked about
earlier, but we also have just over 21 percent of the State-
wide sales tax that goes for capacity projects. So, we focus
our entire Federal program on the simplest maintenance projects
that we have on the State, so we are doing pavements and bridge
projects, and we can very clearly show
[[Page 80]]
what that program is delivering for our citizens, and it really
is that focus, I think, is important.
So, as you consider where you want to go with the next
reauthorization, I believe being very clear on what you are
trying to achieve with the Federal program is going to be
important. We are going to put a man on the moon type of thing.
But that is a very important part, I believe. We have to
provide that vision.
Senator Rounds. Mr. Lanham, we are going to run out of
money, according to the forecast right now; the Trust Fund is
there. What should be the focus of the Trust Fund resources we
have?
Mr. Lanham. Senator, I think we need to take a hard look at
what our mission is on the Federal level and what it is that we
need to be able to spend money on, and what should be the local
responsibility. I think we are at a point where I think do we
have the money? Can we afford it? If we can't, then what do we
need to be doing with it on a priority, and that is what we
need to focus on. I think we stretch too far with too little,
and we are not completing things.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Rounds.
For the Senators just arriving, we have a briefing with the
Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense in about 15
minutes, so I am going to ask that people try to stay within
the 5 minutes.
Senator Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso and
Ranking Member Carper, for holding this hearing today to
examine our Nation's transportation infrastructure needs.
In the Northeast, and in New York in particular, we are
faced with the challenge of aging infrastructure that has
outlived its useful life and needs repair or replacement. On
top of that, climate change fueled sea level rise and extreme
weather threaten to put our infrastructure at risk if we do not
rebuild it in a more resilient way.
Our rail infrastructure is literally crumbling. Our century
old Hudson Tunnel, used by Amtrak's Northeast Corridor and
hundreds of thousands of New Jersey transit commuters each day
are at serious risk of failure. This already aging tunnel has
been made worse by flooding and corrosion during Super Storm
Sandy. Closure of that tunnel would shut down Amtrak service
for people trying to get from New York, Boston, and Providence
on one side of the Hudson River to cities like Newark,
Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Washington, DC, on the other
side. It would be nothing short of a disaster, and an avoidable
one at that.
That is why I cannot talk about our infrastructure needs
without mentioning this fact: every day the current
Administration delays moving forward with the Gateway Program,
they are gambling not just with New York's economy, but the
economy of the entire Northeast region. The Administration
should stop stalling and work with New York and New Jersey in a
constructive way. They should begin by releasing the
environmental impact statement for the Hudson Tunnel so that we
can move this critical project forward.
[[Page 81]]
We also need to ensure that we are fully investing in our
subways, commuter railroads, bus services. At a minimum, we
need to protect the 20 percent set-aside for mass transit in
the Highway Trust Fund.
But we can be doing even more to deliver additional dollars
for transit capital and maintenance projects. Funding is
necessary to fix safety problems and expand capacity to keep up
with the demands of riders who will rely on public
transportation to get around. We shouldn't be waiting for
trains to break down or crash into platforms, or multi-hour
delays that are basically leaving our commuters stranded,
unable to get to work on time. There is such a sense of urgency
in our city right now that we have to do something to improve
our subways and commuter railroads, so we have to get serious
about the problem.
New York's infrastructure challenges are not limited to
just rail and transit. According to our most recent data, there
are more than 18,000 structurally deficient bridges in our
State, including the Brooklyn Bridge. We also need to think
about our roads and highways, and how to integrate technologies
like autonomous vehicles that have very different operational
requirements than existing vehicles, and that includes
everything from roadway signage to lane markings to pedestrian
safety. There are also many rural highways in upstate New York,
as there are across the country, that will prove challenging
for these vehicles to operate safely on.
I hope that Congress looks forward to the next surface
transportation reauthorization in 2020, as well as other
legislative priorities for infrastructure. We have to take a
comprehensive approach that provides funding necessities for
highways, bridges, railroads, safe and resilient investments
that meet our transportation and mobility needs.
Two questions with my minute and 40 remaining.
Mr. Corless, what more should Congress be doing to invest
in public transit and ensure that transit agencies have the
ability to maintain their existing infrastructure and meet the
current and future capacity needs of riders?
Mr. Corless. Senator Gillibrand, thank you for that
question. Even in Sacramento we are now having over 40 days a
year above 100 degrees. Our light rail system is breaking down
due to the heat, and we are stranding people, and they are
walking along the train tracks.
So whether it is the New York Metro region or a city like
Sacramento, here is the fact: we have aging mass transit
infrastructure that was funded federally in the last five
decades that is now actually about to fall apart, and you
cannot do that with just simple FTA formula funds, so we need
some sort of infusion, a pilot program, if you will, to rebuild
the transit systems big and small across the country, because
the formula funds are not going to do that, and it is getting
past the point of being unsafe.
Senator Gillibrand. And what would be the consequences for
transit riders if funding of the mass transit account of the
Highway Trust Fund was reduced or eliminated?
Mr. Corless. It would be pretty catastrophic, because I
think, again, you are already seeing--I don't have to tell you
about the New York subway and Amazon moving over to Long Island
City.
[[Page 82]]
You are having a hard enough problem as it is. So I think the
connection between transportation in general, transit in our
major metro areas and economic prosperity is strong, and we
can't lose it.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
Thank you, all of you, for participating.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand.
As I turn to Senator Capito, we are going to conclude the
hearing a few minutes before 11, so that gives time for 5
minutes for you and 5 minutes for Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank all of you for being here today. It has been an
interesting conversation. I am from a rural State, West
Virginia, and we would be benefit immensely from future
investments in surface transportation. Some people think
Senator Byrd has paved the entire State of West Virginia, but
we still have things like the King Coal Highway and Coalfields
Expressway and Corridor H that we are looking on, and they are
different highways to build because of our terrain. I am sure
Mr. Braceras can identify with that, being from a mountainous
State as well.
But just last year West Virginians voted via referendum to
approve a $1.6 billion in road bonds to fund projects across
the State. I talk about it quite a bit because our State is
known to not be one of the wealthier States, wealthier
citizens, but our citizens really sort of rose up and said this
is important to us. We use our roads frequently, we are rural,
we use them for everything, and crumbling bridges and potholes
and other things that are difficult for us are very important
to everyday lives of everybody citizens. So $1.6 billion is
quite a big stretch.
And you noted in your testimony, Mr. Braceras, that 33
other States have made other improvements, 31 States have
raised their gas tax, which we did that as well.
So, what I would like to see in a future infrastructure
package is a reward to the States that are really stepping up
and putting their bang for the buck by their States, and I
would like to know, if anybody would like to respond to that in
terms of how you think that the State really taking that
initiative.
You mentioned the Federal input into Idaho was only, what,
22 percent. That is pretty impressive. What would your comment
be on that?
Mr. Braceras. I think, recognizing that States are stepping
up and filling the needs, the citizens clearly need and want
transportation systems to work; they depend on it every single
day.
Senator Capito. And it is a political winner, too.
Mr. Braceras. I had a phone call from the Wall Street
Journal right after the legislature raised the gas tax in 2015,
and they said, well, isn't Utah a pretty red State? This is
unusual for a conservative State.
And I said, you know what, it is a conservative principle
to take care of what you have and have a lower cost of
ownership, and that is what our legislature saw, is that by
investing in infrastructure, they were actually saving the
taxpayers money in the long run; and that is difficult because
you are looking at a longer I call it political
[[Page 83]]
timeframe is not really the same as an engineering timeframe
sometimes, or economic timeframe, so it becomes difficult to
do, but you have to develop that trust.
So it is very critical, I believe, for this Nation to be
able to step up and develop what I call a world class
transportation system. If we are going to continue to be
leaders in this world, we need a world class transportation
system.
Senator Capito. Let me ask you, Mr. Lanham, a question. I
am a big proponent of expanding our broadband infrastructure,
which I think goes hand in hand with our surface
transportation. In your experience of building, what are you
seeing advances around the country in terms of dig once kind of
propositions where you are putting the infrastructure in for
fiber and other things at the same time you are doing
improvements to the road transportation or building a new road?
Mr. Lanham. Yes, ma'am, Senator. We see a lot happening in
that area. It is complicated, too, because there are so many
different entities that own these facilities to get them to
come to the table, because they are providing service for the
public, they are occupying the public right of way free of
charge, and yet they provide nothing but headaches to my
friends for trying to execute projects. But we are seeing come
and trench, where in one spot everybody goes in at the same
time; better engineering, better documentation about where they
are at.
So, what we see is then building a library of information
that we will be able to protect that asset in the future
because we know where it is at and what is actually there with
an accommodation for expansion.
Senator Capito. Well, thank you for that.
The other thing I would comment, one of the comments you
made about constructing a toll road in Idaho, we had a very
similar experience in West Virginia where it was simply a 30
mile four lane to make four lane, and the local folks just
really got very, very upset. I mean, it was going to be $4 both
ways. That is a lot of money.
So they were going to opt to go back down on that dangerous
two-lane, which defeats the purpose of building a safer
highway. So sometimes toll roads may be an answer in a lot of
cases, but in rural areas it is really, really tough to have
localities buy into that.
Thank you all very much.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Capito.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
I just want to say a word about smaller coastal communities
and the infrastructure needs that they have. I know Utah is not
very coastal, and even Sacramento isn't very coastal.
Mr. Corless. Not yet.
Senator Whitehouse. Yes, exactly.
[Laughter.]
Senator Whitehouse. We are working on it. Our problem in
Rhode Island is that by the time Sacramento gets coastal, there
is a hell of a lot less of Rhode Island, and we don't want that
to happen.
But we have, in my State, about 10 to 11 inches of sea
level rise since the hurricane of 1938, the really monster
storm that hit us
[[Page 84]]
back then. So not only do you stack up that extra sea level for
the next big one, but it is not that way just along the shore,
it is also that way all the way out to sea. So, when you are
dealing with storm surge, you have that whole higher heap of
ocean out there that is now surging ashore.
People aren't very expert yet on how you correlate
additional sea level rise to storm surge. You know it is at
least about 10 to 11 inches. It could be a lot more. So we have
communities who are facing this problem. We have communities
where, in a storm, you have to figure out where you pre-deploy
a fire truck.
Senator Gillibrand was here. One of her neighborhoods
burned in New York because the fire and the fire trucks were
separated by a flooded area. If that happens, it is a terrible
thing for folks.
So there is this whole new planning for increased sea level
risks, storm risks that coastal communities are facing, and
people are starting to get on their case. Moody's is starting
to judge their municipal bonds based on sea level rise storm
surge kind of risks and how ready they are for that. Freddie
Mac is warning of a property values collapse in coastal areas,
which would have a terrible effect, obviously, on the tax base
of those smaller communities, so there is a warning coming from
Freddie Mac along with the warning from Moody's.
And if they turn for help to FEMA and try to figure out
from FEMA maps what this risk looks like, they are being
misled, because our experience has been that FEMA maps are
spectacularly wrong. We have had to do State level and local
work in Rhode Island to do the coastal mapping, Mr. Chairman,
because FEMA is unreliable as a partner in terms of the
accuracy of its mapping.
And it is not just Rhode Island. When the big hurricane hit
Houston, there was a 50 percent error between what FEMA
predicted in terms of flooding and what flooding actually took
place.
So, if you are in a coastal community, you have your
municipal bond people looking at you with a glinty eye saying,
what is up, are you ready for this? You have Freddie Mac
saying, by the way, these property values you depend on to pay
for your municipality might collapse, so there is not just a
lot of money pouring in. The mapping that you have to rely on
to make these plans is not reliable. And there you are as a
town manager trying to figure out how the hell do I handle
this.
So I love the conversation that we are having about
infrastructure. I am all for very big investments in
infrastructure. But before you do the infrastructure, you have
to have the plan so that the community can get it right. And I
think we have a big gap right now in helping particularly
coastal communities plan for this. It may be that the weird
temperature considerations that you described in Sacramento,
Mr. Corless, are a similar kind of analogy, something new that
small communities have to deal with.
I know that Phoenix, Arizona, for instance, is having to
entirely figure out how it redoes its emergency response
staffing because it gets so hot for so long there that people
can't work out of doors in that heat; and if you are a
firefighter, you can't decide to work indoors that day, you
have to go where the fire is.
So they have to wholly redo how they staff, and they have
to have a whole extra team for cooling people down. It changes
the
[[Page 85]]
way they work. The airport had to be closed because the tarmac
was melting and the air was too thin for jets. So there are all
these problems that emerge, and it is really hard for local
communities faced with these problems to think their way
through them with no support in a very constrained municipal
budgetary environment.
So, any way in which you all working on this can help keep
your focus on this and your attention on this, I think it is
really, really important. Just going back and rebuilding in
place what we already built is probably not going to work. We
have to understand how dramatically the climate is changing.
And if we are going to build 30, 40, 50 year projects, we have
to be planning for the full lifecycle of those projects.
So my time is out, and I just urge you to think about that
as we work forward. Infrastructure is great, but these peculiar
and changing conditions that are driven by climate change and
carbon emissions absolutely need to be taken into account, and
we are leaving small communities stranded without the support
to help them work through a lot of new science and a lot of new
engineering.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Senator
Whitehouse.
Thank you to each of our witnesses who are here. We are
very grateful. We are going to leave the hearing record open
for 2 weeks in case others have questions. They may provide
written questions. We would appreciate your written responses.
I want to thank all of the members for attending, as well.
I especially want to thank our esteemed guests for their time.
Yes.
Senator Carper. All I want to say is we have a lot of
hearings in this Committee and other committees that we serve
on. Some of them are really good; some of them maybe less. This
was terrific. You all did a great job, and I just want to
applaud you and thank you for being here. It may serve as a
catalyst and give us some good ideas to work with. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you again.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:01 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[[Page 86]]
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]