[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE COST OF DOING NOTHING: WHY INVESTING IN OUR NATION'S INFRASTRUCTURE
CANNOT WAIT
=======================================================================
(116-1)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 7, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
35-066 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
SAM GRAVES, Missouri ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
DON YOUNG, Alaska District of Columbia
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
BOB GIBBS, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida RICK LARSEN, Washington
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
ROB WOODALL, Georgia JOHN GARAMENDI, California
JOHN KATKO, New York HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
BRIAN BABIN, Texas Georgia
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina DINA TITUS, Nevada
MIKE BOST, Illinois SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas JARED HUFFMAN, California
DOUG LaMALFA, California JULIA BROWNLEY, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida MARK DeSAULNIER, California
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California,
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Vice Chair
Puerto Rico ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
ROSS SPANO, Florida TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota GREG STANTON, Arizona
CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida
GREG PENCE, Indiana LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa
JESUS G. GARCIA, Illinois
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
HARLEY ROUDA, California
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure:
Opening statement............................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure:
Opening statement............................................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Angie Craig, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Minnesota, opening statement................................... 8
Hon. Grace F. Napolitano, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, opening statement......................... 9
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, prepared statement................................. 171
Hon. Colin Z. Allred, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Texas, prepared statement................................... 173
WITNESSES
Panel 1
Hon. Tim Walz, Governor, State of Minnesota, on behalf of the
National Governors Association
Oral statement............................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Hon. Eric Garcetti, Mayor, City of Los Angeles, California, on
behalf of the United States Conference of Mayors
Oral statement............................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Hon. Ray LaHood, Cochair, Building America's Future, Former
Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation
Oral statement............................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Panel 2
Richard Anderson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Amtrak
Oral statement............................................... 81
Prepared statement........................................... 82
Hon. Eric K. Fanning, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Aerospace Industries Association
Oral statement............................................... 95
Prepared statement........................................... 97
Lawrence J. Krauter, A.A.E., AICP, Chief Executive Officer,
Spokane International Airport
Oral statement............................................... 103
Prepared statement........................................... 105
Angela Lee, Director, Charlotte Water, on behalf of the Water
Environment Federation and the National Association of Clean
Water Agencies
Oral statement............................................... 113
Prepared statement........................................... 115
Rich McArdle, President, UPS Freight, on behalf of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce
Oral statement............................................... 120
Prepared statement........................................... 122
Kristin Meira, Executive Director, Pacific Northwest Waterways
Association (PNWA)
Oral statement............................................... 126
Prepared statement........................................... 128
Larry I. Willis, President, Transportation Trades Department,
AFL-CIO
Oral statement............................................... 131
Prepared statement........................................... 133
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Letter of February 6, 2019, from ACI-NA et al., submitted for the
record by Mr. DeFazio.......................................... 27
Statement of the Airports Council International--North America,
submitted for the record by Mr. DeFazio........................ 174
Letter of February 6, 2019, from Catherine Chase, President,
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, et al., submitted for
the record by Mr. DeFazio...................................... 176
Letter of January 10, 2019, from Agribusiness & Water Council of
Arizona et al., submitted for the record by Mr. DeFazio........ 179
Statement of Mr. Jason Hartke, President, The Alliance to Save
Energy, submitted for the record by Mr. DeFazio................ 182
Statement of the American Association of Port Authorities,
submitted for the record by Mr. DeFazio........................ 183
Statement of Mr. David Lawry, President, and Mr. Scott Grayson,
Executive Director, American Public Works Association,
submitted for the record by Mr. DeFazio........................ 188
Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers, submitted
for the record by Mr. DeFazio.................................. 190
Statement of Mr. Juan Arvizu, Chairman of the Board, American
Traffic Safety Services Association, submitted for the record
by Mr. DeFazio................................................. 194
Statement of Mr. Chris Spear, President and Chief Executive
Officer, American Trucking Associations, submitted for the
record by Mr. DeFazio.......................................... 196
Statement of the Association of American Railroads, submitted for
the record by Mr. Graves of Missouri........................... 207
Statement of the Beyond the Runway Coalition, submitted for the
record by Mr. DeFazio.......................................... 212
Statement of the Bluegreen Alliance, submitted for the record by
Mr. DeFazio.................................................... 213
Statement of Ms. Roberta L. Larson, Executive Director,
California Association of Sanitation Agencies, submitted for
the record by Mr. DeFazio...................................... 214
Letter of January 28, 2019, from the Clean Water Council,
submitted for the record by Mr. DeFazio........................ 218
Letter of February 21, 2019, from the Corps Network, submitted
for the record by Mr. DeFazio.................................. 219
Statement of GPS Innovation Alliance and CompTIA Space Enterprise
Council, submitted for the record by Mr. DeFazio............... 225
Letter of February 5, 2019, from the Great Lakes Metro Chambers
Coalition, submitted for the record by Mr. DeFazio............. 226
Letter of February 6, 2019, from Chad Lord, Policy Director,
Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition, submitted for the
record by Mr. DeFazio.......................................... 227
``Water Infrastructure in the Great Lakes Region,'' from Healing
Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition, submitted for the record by
Mr. DeFazio.................................................... 228
Statement of the National Association of Small Trucking
Companies, submitted for the record by Mr. Babin............... 231
Letter of January 28, 2019, from the National League of Cities,
submitted for the record by Mr. DeFazio........................ 233
Statement of the National Parks Second Century Action Coalition,
submitted for the record by Mr. DeFazio........................ 234
Statement of the North American Concrete Alliance, submitted for
the record by Mr. DeFazio...................................... 236
Statement from the Office of Hon. Eric Garcetti, Mayor, City of
Los Angeles, California, Efforts on Resilient Infrastructure,
submitted for the record by Mr. DeFazio........................ 239
Statement of The Pew Charitable Trusts, submitted for the record
by Mr. DeFazio................................................. 241
Statement of the Resilient Navigation and Timing Foundation,
submitted for the record by Mr. DeFazio........................ 246
Letter of February 7, 2019, from Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill,
submitted for the record by Mr. DeFazio........................ 247
Letter of February 21, 2019, from the Southern Environmental Law
Center, submitted for the record by Mr. DeFazio................ 247
Letter of February 7, 2019, from the Technology Association of
Oregon, submitted for the record by Mr. DeFazio................ 248
APPENDIX
Questions from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Hon. Tim
Walz........................................................... 251
Question from Hon. Pete Stauber for Hon. Tim Walz................ 252
Questions from Hon. Alan S. Lowenthal for Richard Anderson....... 252
Question from Hon. Scott Perry for Richard Anderson.............. 253
Question from Hon. Scott Perry for Hon. Eric K. Fanning.......... 253
Question from Hon. Scott Perry for Angela Lee.................... 254
Questions from Hon. David Rouzer for Angela Lee.................. 254
Questions from Hon. Scott Perry for Rich McArdle................. 255
Questions from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Larry I.
Willis......................................................... 255
Question from Hon. Scott Perry for Larry I. Willis............... 256
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
February 1, 2019
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: LMembers, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure
FROM: LStaff, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure
RE: LFull Committee Hearing on ``The Cost of Doing
Nothing: Why Investing in Our Nation's Infrastructure Cannot
Wait''
_______________________________________________________________________
PURPOSE
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will
meet on Thursday, February 7, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. in HVC 210,
Capitol Visitor Center, to receive testimony related to ``The
Cost of Doing Nothing: Why Investing in Our Nation's
Infrastructure Cannot Wait.'' The purpose of this hearing is to
examine the current State of our roads, bridges, transit
systems, clean water systems, ports and inland waterways, and
airports; and receive testimony on what will happen if we do
not begin to address the backlog of infrastructure needs. The
Committee will hear from the Governor of Minnesota, the Mayor
of Los Angeles, a former Secretary of Transportation, and
representatives of Amtrak, the Aerospace Industries
Association, Spokane International Airport, Charlotte Water,
UPS Freight, Pacific Northwest Waterways Association, and the
Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO.
BACKGROUND
THE IMPORTANCE OF INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT
America's infrastructure network is essential to the
quality of life of our citizens and the productivity of the
nation's economy. This expansive national network provides all
Americans--from those living in the largest cities to the
smallest towns--with extraordinary freedom of mobility and
unprecedented opportunity. Infrastructure provides the backbone
of the U.S. economy that facilitates economic growth, ensures
global competitiveness, and creates family supporting American
jobs.
Our infrastructure, once the envy of the world, is losing
its battle against time, growth, weather, and wear. It is
suffering from decades of underinvestment, and the costs are
staggering: according to the American Society of Civil
Engineers, we face an approximate $2 trillion investment gap
over the next 10 years to fix the infrastructure we have, meet
future needs, and restore our global competitiveness.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), ``Infrastructure
Report Card,'' 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the coming decades, the Nation's infrastructure will
continue to be under immense pressure and face significant
challenges. America's population is expected to grow to
approximately 400 million by 2050.\2\ Freight volumes will
continue to soar as freight movements are expected to increase
by 40 percent over the next 30 years.\3\ Infrastructure will
also need to be modernized in order to meet current and future
needs, to be stronger and more resilient to withstand natural
disasters and other catastrophic events, and to incorporate
technology and innovation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Census Bureau, ``Projections of the Size and Composition
of the U.S. Population: 2014 to 2060,'' 2015.
\3\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation
Statistics, ``DOT Releases 30-Year Freight Projections,'' 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVIATION
U.S. airports have an estimated total of $100 billion in
infrastructure needs to keep up with current demand and plan
for passenger growth between 2017 and 2021 (or $20 billion per
year), based on the Airports Council International-North
America's infrastructure needs survey. This amount far exceeds
current Federal funding for airport improvement projects. U.S.
airports are concerned that without an increase in airport
infrastructure investment, they will not be able to accommodate
passenger growth expected in the coming years. This will have
ripple effects throughout the aviation industry, which supports
more than $1 trillion in economic activity.
U.S. Airports: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
has identified 3,321 airports as public-use facilities that are
important to national air transportation and consequently
qualify for Federal assistance through Airport Improvement
Program (AIP) grants.
Capital Needs: The U.S. air transportation system
transported 965 million passengers in 2017. The FAA notes that
the majority of U.S. airports now have sufficient airfield
capacity for current traffic levels. However, the agency also
notes there are a small number of the largest airports that are
capacity constrained with chronic delays. Such delays regularly
occur with cascading effects on the entire air transportation
system. The FAA has continued efforts to enhance airport
capacity and reduce delays through infrastructure development
and technological advancements. During the next decade, the FAA
forecasts that passengers on U.S. airlines alone will increase
to more than one billion annually.
Airport capital needs are growing and significantly exceed
available Federal funding. The FAA estimates that between 2019
and 2023, AIP-eligible projects will total $35.1 billion (or $7
billion per year), an increase of $2.6 billion over the FAA's
last estimate for 2017-2021. This annual figure is more than
the $3.35 billion per year that Congress will provide over that
same period (2019-2023), despite a one-time increase in AIP
funding of $1 billion for certain small airport projects
enacted last year. When combining both AIP-eligible and non-
AIP-eligible projects, the total infrastructure need for U.S.
airports increases to $100 billion between 2017 and 2021,
according to an industry survey by the Airports Council
International-North America.
Airport Funding: Airports cover operating expenses and pay
for improvement projects from four funding sources, listed in
order of 2016 revenue totals (largest to smallest):
aeronautical revenue, including gate leases and other airfield
charges to airlines or general aviation ($11.4 billion);
nonaeronautical revenue, including parking and concessions
revenue, State or local grants, and interest revenue ($9.7
billion); AIP grants disbursed by the FAA ($3.2 billion); and
revenue from passenger facility charges (PFCs) ($3.2 billion).
Airports also use different financing mechanisms for capital
needs, including using tax-exempt municipal bonds backed by
airport revenues or different types of public-private
partnership agreements.
AIP: The AIP was established by the Airport and Airway
Improvement Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248). Funds obligated for the
AIP are drawn from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which is
primarily funded from excise taxes imposed on domestic airline
tickets, cargo waybills, and aviation fuel sales. The AIP
generally funds projects that are needed to enhance airport
safety, capacity, security, and noise mitigation. Congress has
maintained level AIP funding of $3.35 billion annually for the
past 7 years, and the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (P.L.
115-254) continues the same funding level through fiscal year
2023. The Federal Government has maintained flat airport
funding for 12 years.
Passenger Facility Charge: To provide additional resources
for airport improvements, the Aviation Safety and Capacity
Expansion Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-508) permitted airports to
assess a charge on enplaning passengers called the passenger
facility charge (PFC). The PFC is a federally authorized user
fee that an airport sponsor, subject to FAA-approval, may
choose to levy on most enplaned passengers. Three hundred
sixty-one airports currently collect PFCs, including 98 of the
busiest 100 airports. PFC revenues may be used for a wider
variety of projects than AIP grants; most notably, PFC revenues
are commonly used for terminal development projects that are
unlikely to be funded through the AIP because AIP grants are
typically used for higher priority airside projects. PFC
revenue is also used to secure municipal bonds for airport
projects and may be used to make principal and interest
payments on the debt.
Airports may impose a maximum $4.50 PFC on enplaning
passengers, up to a maximum of $18 on a roundtrip ticket. The
PFC is not indexed to the cost of inflation, and Congress has
not increased the cap on the PFC since 2000, when the Wendell
H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century
(P.L. 106-181) increased the original PFC from $3 to $4.50.
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
HIGHWAY TRUST FUND
Federal highway, transit, and highway safety programs are
administered by the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal
Transit Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. While these agencies provide financial and
technical assistance and administer programs at the Federal
level, States and local governments select projects, enter into
contracts, oversee construction, and carry out the programs.
Federal surface transportation programs are currently
authorized by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act
(FAST Act) (P.L 114-94). Enacted on December 4, 2015, the FAST
Act provided $281 billion in funding for highway, transit, and
highway safety programs and reauthorized Federal programs for 5
years. The FAST Act is set to expire on September 30, 2020.
Federal surface transportation investments are funded
through Federal excise taxes levied on motor fuels and on
related products such as tires, which are deposited into the
Highway Trust Fund (HTF). Congress has not adjusted the motor
fuel excise taxes since 1993, and the purchasing power of these
taxes have fallen over 40 percent in the last 25 years.
Improved vehicle fuel efficiency has further eroded Federal
revenues. As a result, revenues coming into the HTF have not
kept pace with expenditures from authorized programs. Congress
has had to transfer $144 billion from the General Fund and
other funds to keep the HTF solvent since 2008. The
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that over the next
10 years, the HTF will fall $159 billion short based on
continuing currently authorized highway, transit, and safety
program levels. An additional $5 billion is necessary to ensure
that there is a prudent balance in the HTF, which brings the
shortfall to $164 billion. This does not include any higher
investment levels to meet growing surface transportation needs.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT NEEDS
Federal investment has not kept pace with surface
transportation needs in recent years. One in three interState
U.S. bridges have repair needs and nearly 10 percent of the
nation's bridges are structurally deficient.\4\ One out of
every five miles of highway pavement is in poor condition
nationwide, and more than two out of every five miles of
America's urban interStates are congested.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ARTBA Bridge Report, 2018.
\5\ ASCE Report Card, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT)
2015 Conditions & Performance Report, there is an $836 billion
backlog of unmet capital investment needs for highways and
bridges. DOT estimates that all levels of government need to
invest approximately $143 billion per year to improve the
conditions and performance of our roads and bridges. We
currently underinvest in highways by $37.3 billion per year at
all levels of government. The cost of bringing the Nation's
rail and bus transit systems into a State of good repair is
estimated at $90 billion, and we would need to invest a minimum
of $26.4 billion per year on maintenance and to accommodate
future transit ridership growth. We currently underinvest by
approximately $9.5 billion per year at all levels of government
on transit capital investments.
This underinvestment is taking its toll on commuters and
the economy. In 2017, congestion, directly and indirectly, cost
drivers $305 billion, or an average of $1,445 per driver, and
motorists spent an average of 41 hours a year in traffic during
peak hours.\6\ Driving on roads in need of repair costs
motorists $130 billion in extra vehicle operating costs--or
$599 per driver.\7\ The American Society of Civil Engineers
estimates that if we continue status quo funding, each American
household will lose $3,400 each year in disposable income due
to poor infrastructure.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ INRIX 2017 Global Traffic Scorecard.
\7\ TRIP, ``Bumpy Road Ahead: America's Roughest Rides and
Strategies to Make our Roads Smoother,'' October 2018.
\8\ ASCE, ``Failure to Act,'' 2016 report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RAILROADS
Amtrak Authorization: Amtrak was authorized through fiscal
year 2020 as part of the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation (FAST) Act, which was signed into law on
December 4, 2015. The bill authorized a total of $1.7 billion
for Amtrak in fiscal year 2019 and $1.8 billion for Amtrak in
fiscal year 2020.
Northeast Corridor: The Northeast Corridor (NEC) is 457
miles of rail line extending from Washington, DC, to Boston,
MA, and runs through eight States and the District of Columbia
with 260 million people traveling the corridor per year.\9\
Taken as a whole, the NEC region is the fifth largest economy
in the world with a GDP of $3 trillion.\10\ Amtrak owns and
controls 363 miles of this track, with States controlling
portions of the route north of New York City. Each weekday, the
NEC carries nearly 2,000 commuter trains, 60 freight trains,
and 148 Amtrak trains, including the Acela Express, which
operates at speeds up to 150 miles per hour and is the only
high-speed train in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://nec.amtrak.com/about-the-nec/
\10\ https://nec-commission.com/app/uploads/2018/04/NEC-American-
Economy-Final.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This heavy usage, combined with the age of bridges and
tunnels--many of which date back to the period between the
Civil War and the New Deal--has led to major needs in
maintenance and capital infrastructure improvements to remove
bottlenecks and increase capacity along the corridor. As of
July 2018, the Northeast Corridor Commission estimates that
nearly $24 billion remains unfunded for major rail
infrastructure projects along the NEC alone. Some of these
projects include: the Baltimore & Potomac Tunnel ($4.3 billion
project, with $4.25 billion unfunded), which was built in 1873
and requires replacing the Civil-War era tunnel with a newer
curve-moderated tunnel; replacement of the swing-span Portal
North Bridge ($1.6 billion project, with $953 million unfunded)
over the Hackensack River; and replacement of the Susquehanna
River Bridge ($1.7 billion project, with $1.6 billion
unfunded).\11\ The Northeast Corridor Commission estimates that
service disruptions caused by infrastructure failures, rail
traffic congestion, and other factors costs the U.S. economy
$500 million per year in lost productivity, and that a loss of
all NEC services for just 1 day would cost the economy an
estimated $100 million.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ http://nec-commission.com/app/uploads/2018/04/NEC-Capital-
Investment-Plan-19-23.pdf
\12\ https://nec-commission.com/app/uploads/2018/10/NEC-One-Year-
Plan-FY19.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Network \13\: Amtrak's 15 long-distance routes and
the 29 State-supported routes comprise the National Network.
Outside of the NEC, Amtrak operates on tracks owned,
maintained, and dispatched by various host freight and commuter
railroads and pays host railroads over $142 million annually
for use of these tracks.\14\ The Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) required that all stations in the intercity rail
transportation system be made accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities no later than 2010.\15\ Amtrak
has sole or shared financial responsibility to bring 383
stations into compliance with ADA requirements and estimates
that it will over $1 billion to complete this work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The National Network includes long-distance and state-
supported routes.
\14\ https://media.amtrak.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Amtrak-
Host-Railroad-Report-Card--FAQ--Route-Detail-2018-10-15.pdf. This
compensation is for the incremental cost (rather than a negotiated
market cost) associated with operating intercity passenger services
over freight railroad tracks.
\15\ 42 U.S. Code Sec. 12162.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grants: The FAST Act authorized three rail infrastructure
grant programs through fiscal year 2020 that are administered
by the Federal Rail Administration:
LThe Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety
Improvements (CRISI) program supports projects that improve the
safety, efficiency, and reliability of passenger and freight
rail. CRISI is funded at $592.547 million total in fiscal year
2018 omnibus. In response to the July 2018 notice of funding
opportunity for $318 million in fiscal year 2018 funds, FRA
received applications for 109 projects totaling more than $913
million. FRA is currently reviewing applications.
LFederal-State Partnership for State of Good
Repair discretionary grants support capital projects that
repair, replace, or rehabilitate qualified railroad assets to
reduce the State of good repair backlog and improve intercity
passenger rail performance. The program is funded at $250
million in the fiscal year 2018 omnibus. FRA issued a notice of
funding opportunity for fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2018
money totaling $272.25 million on Nov. 16, 2018. Applications
for funding are due March 18, 2019.
LRestoration and Enhancement grants fund operating
assistance grants for initiating, restoring, or enhancing
intercity rail passenger transportation. The program is funded
at $20 million in the fiscal year 2018 omnibus.
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
CLEAN WATER INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
America's water infrastructure is in need of renewed
Federal investment. According to the American Society of Civil
Engineers 2017 Infrastructure Report Card, America's wastewater
treatment infrastructure receives a grade of D+, which is only
a slight improvement from its previous grade of D in the 2013
Report Card.
Currently, municipalities face a backlog of more than $40
billion in clean water infrastructure projects and, according
to the Environmental Protection Agency, these communities need
at least $271 billion of investment over the next 20 years \16\
to bring their systems to a State of good repair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ https://www.epa.gov/cwns/clean-watersheds-needs-survey-cwns-
2012-report-and-data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The need for greater Federal investment in our Nation's
water infrastructure is clear, and the benefits are numerous.
Investing in clean water creates thousands of domestic jobs in
the construction industry and reduces the overall costs of
operating and maintaining that infrastructure. According to the
National Utility Contractors Association, every $1 billion
invested in our Nation's water infrastructure creates or
sustains 27,000 jobs in communities across America, while
improving public health and the environment at the same time.
FEDERAL CLEAN WATER INVESTMENT: CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND
For close to 80 years, Congress has provided Federal funds
to municipalities to address local water quality challenges,
including sewage treatment needs. Initially, this assistance
was provided as direct grants to municipalities (covering 55 to
75 percent of the total costs of the projects). However, in
1987, Congress converted the direct grant program to a Clean
Water State Revolving Fund (``Clean Water SRF'') authority that
provides funding directly to States which, in turn, provide
below-market rate loans to communities to finance local
wastewater infrastructure needs (required to be fully repaid
over a 30 year term).
Although the authorization of appropriations for the Clean
Water SRF expired after 1994, Congress continues to fund this
critical investment in our Nation's wastewater infrastructure--
providing more than $43 billion in Federal capitalization
assistance to States since 1987. In turn, this infusion of
Federal capital to State revolving funds has leveraged over
$120 billion in direct assistance to communities over this
period.
Over the past few Congresses, legislation has been
introduced to reauthorize and increase Federal appropriations
for the Clean Water SRF program, as well as address the cost of
wastewater service to low-income customers and households. In
January 2019, a coalition of 91 utility, engineering,
contractors, and conservation groups cosigned a letter \17\ to
Congress urging that water infrastructure be included as part
of any infrastructure package approved in the 116th Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ https://www.wef.org/globalassets/assets-wef/5---advocacy/
legislation-and-regulation/legislative-and-regulatory-affairs/water-
sector-letter-to-congress-on-infastructrure-package-jan2019.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HARBOR MAINTENANCE NEEDS
According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps),
fully dredged navigation channels at our Nation's busiest 59
ports are available less than 35 percent of the time--and the
conditions of our midsize and emerging harbors are far worse.
With the opening of the expanded Panama Canal in June 2016,
larger container ships will increasingly call on East and Gulf
Coast ports, and the dredging needs of our ports will continue
to grow.
In January 2017, the Corps estimated the total cost to
achieve and maintain constructed widths and depths of all
Federal navigation projects is $20.3 billion over the next
decade. This estimate includes:
L$11.0 billion--to achieve full dimensions in the
next 5 years ($2.2 billion annually); and
L$9.3 billion--to maintain these dimensions for an
additional 5 years ($1.9 billion annually).
Moreover, total navigation needs are likely higher. The
Corps' $20.3 billion estimate includes additional expenses
related to navigation (e.g., construction of dredged material
placement facilities). However, this estimate does not likely
include all necessary jetty and breakwater work or other needs
identified by ports to maintain and expand harbor use
nationwide.
THE HARBOR MAINTENANCE TAX AND TRUST FUND
In 1986, Congress enacted the Harbor Maintenance Tax to
recover the operation and maintenance dredging costs for
commercial ports from maritime shippers. The Harbor Maintenance
Tax is directly levied on importers and domestic shippers using
coastal or inland ports as a 0.125 percent ad valorem tax on
the value of imported cargo (e.g., $1.25 per $1,000 value)\18\
and is typically passed along to U.S. taxpayers on the purchase
of imported goods or services. These revenues are deposited
into a Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund within the U.S. Treasury
from which Congress currently appropriates funds to the Corps
for harbor maintenance dredging.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The Harbor Maintenance Tax initially applied to both imported
and exported goods; however, in 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court
unanimously held that imposition of the tax on exported goods was a
violation of the U.S. Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund collects far more
revenues from shippers than Congress has appropriated to the
Corps to maintain our harbors, with approximately $9 billion in
already collected revenues sitting idle in the U.S. Treasury.
As a result, shippers continue to honor their commitment to pay
for promised maintenance activities that the Federal Government
then has not carried out. To be clear, there are sufficient
funds in the Trust Fund to meet the maintenance dredging needs
of all federally authorized ports. The Water Resources Reform
and Development Act of 2014 (WRRDA14) (P.L. 113-121) created
discretionary appropriations targets for expenditures from the
Trust Fund, increasing each year, so that by fiscal year 2025
and beyond, 100 percent of the funds collected for harbor
maintenance purposes go toward required operation and
maintenance activities. In recent fiscal years, appropriations
from the Trust Fund have exceeded the discretionary targets
outlined in WRRDA14; however, the Congress has not yet achieved
the goal of full-utilization of Trust Fund collections.
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, on a
bipartisan basis, has twice approved legislation \19\ to fully
utilize Harbor Maintenance Tax collections for the intended
purpose of maintenance dredging; yet this provision has yet to
be enacted into law. Enactment of such a provision honors our
long-term commitment to U.S. shippers and taxpayers, maintains
and improves the competitiveness of U.S. businesses and
industry, and creates and sustains thousands of additional
construction jobs and jobs dependent on a vibrant and efficient
marine transportation system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Section 108 of H.R. 5303, the Water Resources Development Act
of 2016 (RH), and Section 102 of H.R. 8, the Water Resources
Development Act of 2018 (RH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WITNESSES
PANEL I
LThe Honorable Tim Walz, Governor, State of
Minnesota, on behalf of the National Governors Association
LThe Honorable Eric Garcetti, Mayor, city of Los
Angeles, on behalf of the United States Conference of Mayors
LThe Honorable Ray LaHood, Cochair, Building
America's Future, Former Secretary, United States Department of
Transportation
PANEL II
LMr. Richard Anderson, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Amtrak
LThe Honorable Eric K. Fanning, President and
Chief Executive Officer, Aerospace Industries Association
LMr. Larry Krauter, Chief Executive Officer,
Spokane International Airport
LMs. Angela Lee, Director, Charlotte Water
LMr. Rich McArdle, President, UPS Freight, on
behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
LMs. Kristin Meira, Executive Director, Pacific
Northwest Waterways Association (PNWA)
LMr. Larry Willis, President, Transportation
Trades Department, AFL-CIO
THE COST OF DOING NOTHING: WHY INVESTING IN OUR NATION'S INFRASTRUCTURE
CANNOT WAIT
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2019
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:53 a.m. in HVC
210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Peter A. DeFazio (Chair of
the committee) presiding.
Mr. DeFazio. Now, finally, we will move on to substance.
Please stay in your seats, so to speak.
Oh, wait a minute. I have to recognize--I hate scripts--
Rep. Carbajal for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I ask unanimous consent
to authorize the chairman to declare recess during today's
meeting.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, the committee will come to order, and we
will begin the hearing momentarily, as soon as we do this.
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Mr. DeFazio. OK, that is enough. Don't--it is not an
evacuation drill. That is the alarm sounding for America's
infrastructure.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DeFazio. So today we are holding the first hearing.
And, you know, we are starting off by, I think, really having a
four-alarm situation in front of us.
For years we have held hearings on, you know, why it is
important. We have had a lot of expert witnesses that would
come in and talk about the deterioration documented year after
year after year. And you know, we now have run up a bill that
the investment gap over the next 10 years, according to the
American Society of Civil Engineers, is two trillion--T,
trillion--dollars.
The surface gap alone is over $1 trillion. Water, port, and
related infrastructure, $249 billion. For airports, ACI
estimates over the next 5 years they will require an investment
of $100 billion, more than $20 billion a year.
But highlighting these needs has not spurred action by
Congress. So I am going to focus on the cost of inaction. It
has incredibly serious consequences that far, far exceed the
cost, were we to belly up and suck it up a little bit and put
up the money we need and put in place the policies we need to
bring things up to a state of good repair and begin to build
out a 21st-century infrastructure.
The more we defer, the more it costs. A Cornell University
study says if we see maintenance that is needed today on a
bridge, if we defer it, it costs an extra $4 or $5 4 to 5 years
down the road, five times the cost. So prudent people a lot
talk about let's run the Government like a business. Well, I
don't think businesses would run things to the point of failure
and increase the costs so dramatically, nor should we.
You know, if you look around the country, there are
critical projects like the Brent Spence Bridge between Ohio and
Kentucky. Every year we delay that project, the price tag,
which is about $2.6 billion--it is a big and critical project--
goes up about $100 million a year.
If the tunnels under the Hudson River were to fail--and
they came close to failure during Hurricane Sandy. They are
tremendously deteriorated. We are going to take a committee
trip up there. Amtrak has a neat little glass car, we can go
through the tunnel and you can actually see it. I mean you
might want to wear your life jacket, but it is a mess.
And if those tunnels would fail, it will cost the economy
of the United States of America $100 million a day, by
conservative estimates. That is $36-$37 billion a year if we
let that go to failure. It costs $11 billion. That is a lot of
money. But probably, on an emergency basis, it would take us 5
years to build a tunnel. So just multiply 5 times 37. You are
up to $180 billion. So why aren't we making these investments?
We have to make them.
You know, the Business Roundtable says inadequate
infrastructure costs U.S. businesses $27 billion per year in
extra transportation costs. The estimates are we will lose $4
trillion in GDP between 2016 and 2025 without upgrading our
infrastructure. Families lose $3,400 a year, according to the
American Society of Civil Engineers.
You know, we are wasting 3.1 billion gallons of fuel,
idling in congestion, because we have a system that is
congested, inadequate, and stupid. It doesn't incorporate
smart, new, and 21st-century technology.
The U.S. Travel Association says that soon the traffic
volumes we have seen on Labor Day--think of some of your great
family vacations on Labor Day. I have had some of those, and
you are sitting there, and kids in the back seat aren't too
happy. That will become a daily occurrence for 60 percent of
Americans within 10 years if we fail to act.
Congestion is affecting air travel. U.S. airports have more
than $10 billion in unmet infrastructure needs. All of you here
and all of you in the audience have had the experience of the
pilot saying, ``Great news. We are here early. Bad news, we are
waiting for a gate.'' Or, ``we are here on time, but we have
got to wait for a gate.''
Many airports--and we will hear from this in further
hearings--are bonded out. We haven't allowed an increase in the
passenger facility charge in 20 years. It is time to act there.
And then, of course, the Federal investment overall in
infrastructure has declined steadily over 15 years. Gas and
diesel taxes have been stagnant since 1993--I was going to say
2003--which means that they have about 40 percent of the buying
power they had back then, maybe less.
A lot of States and localities have bellied up to the bar
to attempt to--so, anyway, they have done it. And I just want
to let everybody know there have been no political
consequences. No one has lost their election in an all-red
State when they raised the gas tax. In fact, the only two
senators in New Jersey to lose were Republicans who voted
against the gas tax increase. Probably coincidental, but they
were the only two who lost. And, you know, Minority Leader
McCarthy put a referendum on the ballot in California to repeal
their gas tax. It was going to be a great strategy, and it
backfired. And Californians overwhelmingly rejected it. There
is not a danger in increasing the user fee for the first time
in 26 years.
If anyone has got a better alternative, let me know. But we
have to make these investments. The Federal Government has to
become a better partner. You can't have a coordinated national
system in the 21st century and say the States are going to do
it, as was proposed in DJ Gribbin's plan for President Trump
last year. We cannot devolve the duty to have a modern, 21st-
century, resilient transportation system that can compete in
the world economy and move people and goods more effectively on
a State-by-State basis. We have to be there with them, and
coordinate it, and invest in it.
So, you know, there is incredible innovation out there. We
will get into this in future hearings. Every subcommittee will
hold a hearing looking at climate change resilience, their mode
of transportation and what we can do to make it less fossil
fuel dependent.
What can we apply to the existing system now to mitigate
congestion? I had a company in my office the other week who has
invented smart traffic lights. Guess what? So you won't be
sitting there cursing at the red light while no one is going
the other way for 2 minutes. How much would that help with
congestion and mobility?
As we rebuild the Eisenhower legacy system we have got to
build it to accommodate the coming of autonomous vehicles and/
or driver-assisted vehicles. I think we should also build it to
accommodate an electric backbone, because I think the future of
surface transportation--for both passenger and freight--is
going to be in electric. I have seen the Tesla truck, it is
phenomenal. We need better batteries, you know, and--but this
is something that is coming. So we have to be able to try and
anticipate those things.
We don't get to generate the revenues on this committee for
ways and means, but we have to make the case in a way that it
is irrefutable to all our colleagues and the American people
that if we don't make these investments we are going to pay a
heck of a lot more down the road.
That is it, bottom line.
[Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]
Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure
Today, we hold the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's
first hearing of the 116th Congress. We are starting off by sounding
the alarm bells--investing in America's infrastructure cannot wait.
For years, we have held hearings on why infrastructure investment
is important. We have rationally made the case about why roads,
bridges, public transportation, airports, water and sewer systems
cannot be left to crumble. We have shown how infrastructure keeps the
economy humming, creates jobs, connects communities, moves people and
goods, and ensures reliable access to clean water.
We know that our infrastructure investment needs are massive:
according to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), we have an
investment gap of $2 trillion over 10 years to fix what we have, meet
future needs, and restore our global competitiveness. The investment
gap in surface transportation alone is over $1 trillion. The gap for
water, port, and related infrastructure is $249 billion. Further, the
latest capital needs survey by the Airports Council International (ACI)
estimates that, over the next 5 years, airports will require total
investment of $100 billion--more than $20 billion a year.
Unfortunately, highlighting needs has not spurred Congress to
action. So let me be clear that the question is not whether we will
need to invest, but when we will invest. Inaction has serious
consequences and the cost of delay is high.
Every day that we ignore our ballooning infrastructure deficit, the
problem becomes more expensive to fix and more pronounced; our
constituents lose time and money; and we increase the risk of failure
of these increasingly fragile systems. We must also act now to mitigate
the effects of climate change, and build stronger, more resilient
infrastructure that will withstand extreme weather events.
Deferring projects increases costs:
Maintaining infrastructure now saves money down the line.
According to a Cornell University study, every $1 of deferred
maintenance on roads and bridges costs an additional $4-$5 in future
repair needs. Not keeping our assets in good repair in all modes of
infrastructure increases the total cost to taxpayers down the line.
Delaying the known replacement of an asset adds further
cost. As an example, for the $2.6 billion Brent Spence bridge project,
every year the start of construction is delayed means $75 to $85
million per year in additional costs due to inflation alone.
The economic effects of infrastructure failure are significant:
When infrastructure assets fail, the impacts to the
economy and mobility can be staggering. The Northeast Corridor
Commission estimates that a shutdown of the Northeast Corridor would
paralyze the region and have an economic impact of $100 million per
day. If either the Hudson River tunnels or the Portal Bridge failed, it
would shut down the Northeast Corridor. These two critical assets as
part of the Gateway project cost $14.6 billion to replace; but doing
nothing would result in $36.5 billion per year in economic losses if
these assets fail.
Poor infrastructure is costing our citizens and businesses money:
According to the Business Roundtable, inadequate
infrastructure costs U.S. businesses $27 billion per year in extra
transportation costs.
Between 2016-2025, the economy will lose almost $4
trillion in GDP if we do not upgrade our infrastructure, resulting in a
loss of 2.5 million jobs, according to ASCE. American families will
lose $3,400 each year in disposable income due to the infrastructure
deficit if we do nothing.
According to INRIX, in 2017, congestion cost drivers $305
billion, or an average of $1,445 per driver. Motorists spent an average
of 41 hours a year in traffic during peak hours.
The Texas Transportation Institute's 2015 Urban Mobility
Scorecard found that congestion caused urban Americans to travel an
extra 6.9 billion hours and purchase an extra 3.1 billion gallons of
fuel in 2014. The same study found that wasted fuel will increase to
3.8 billion gallons in 2020.
Crippling congestion is becoming the norm and affecting travel:
According to the U.S. Travel Association, traffic volumes
seen on Labor Day will become the norm on the average day on certain
corridors, and nearly 60 percent of Americans say they would
significantly alter their travel habits if that were the case. If
travelers eliminate an average of one automobile trip per year, the
U.S. economy would lose $23 billion.
This congestion is affecting the air travel experience as
well. ACI reports that U.S. airports now have more than $10 billion
each year in unmet infrastructure needs. Passenger terminals across the
United States, many of which were constructed in the 1960s or 1970s,
are outdated and cannot accommodate expected passenger growth; and
airports do not have the gates necessary to accommodate current airline
departures and arrivals, let alone for welcoming new service for
communities. This often means passengers go outside onto the tarmac to
board their aircraft, or sit on the tarmac upon landing until a gate is
available. U.S. airports are doing the best they can to find ways to
meet their ballooning infrastructure needs, but this leads to local
communities paying twice as much and waiting twice as long for
upgrades.
How did we get to this point? Federal investment in infrastructure,
as a share of total investment, has steadily declined in the last 15
years. In some cases, we have not adjusted user fees for far too long.
Gas and diesel taxes that fuel the Highway Trust Fund have been
stagnant for 25 years, causing purchasing power for road, bridge, and
transit projects to fall by over 40 percent. The Passenger Facility
Charge--a local fee assessed on passengers for airport projects has
been capped for 20 years. In other cases, we have let user fees we have
collected be directed away from their intended uses, as with the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund.
Declining Federal funding has forced States and localities to raise
more revenue locally in an attempt to meet their growing infrastructure
needs. In the last two election cycles, localities passed ballot
measures to raise more than $240 billion in transportation funds with a
passage rate above 70 percent. Despite their efforts, the U.S.
continues to experience a degradation of infrastructure.
Congress must act to provide significant Federal dollars to invest
in U.S. infrastructure. Raising revenues is the only sustainable way to
increase infrastructure investment. We must answer the tough question
of how to sustain investments for future generations and to dig out
from the effects of this chronic underinvestment.
America's infrastructure is at a crossroads. We need a
reinvigorated Federal role and a commitment to public infrastructure,
and a 21st-century vision for transportation policy that will meet the
needs of the next generation of Americans and vehicles. We can't just
maintain what we have, we also need to modernize how we plan and build
transportation projects. We have a tremendous opportunity to complete
critical projects, create family wage jobs here in the U.S., and
support U.S. industry.
We are in a time of unprecedented acceleration in innovation, and
we must harness the power of technology to reduce congestion and
emissions, and increase safety. Infrastructure we build today must be
able to integrate technological advances, such as autonomous vehicles,
as they become a reality. We must also take steps to increase the use
of electric vehicles, build an electric backbone for our highway system
to move people and goods, and invest in resilient infrastructure, to
respond to climate change.
But all of this will only become a reality if we get serious about
finding the money. I am open to any sustainable revenue solution, and
will work closely with our colleagues on the Committee on Ways and
Means, as well as the President. However, I have proposed three bills
that provide real investment as a starting point in the discussion:
``A Penny for Progress'' provides approximately $500
billion for infrastructure investment to put our Nation's highways,
bridges, and public transit systems on a path to good repair. We can
achieve this level of investment by indexing the gas and diesel tax and
bonding off the indexation revenues and bringing those revenues
forward. We are also exploring ways to take into account growing
electric vehicle use in the future.
``Unlocking the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund'' by
amending current budgetary controls to allow the Army Corps of
Engineers to spend the funds collected in the Trust Fund each year,
thereby providing more than $18 billion for our Nation's coastal and
inland harbors over the next decade without raising taxes or increasing
the deficit.
``Rebuilding America's Airport Infrastructure'' will
generate billions of dollars each year to help our airports rebuild and
rehabilitate aging terminals, runways, and taxiways and keep pace with
increasing demand in the 21st century--without raising taxes--by
eliminating or raising the cap on the passenger facility charge (PFC).
As you will hear from today's witnesses, the costs of doing nothing
are far too great. It is long past time for Congress to step up to the
plate and make significant investment in our Nation's infrastructure.
Mr. DeFazio. With that, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I would yield to the ranking member.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio. I want
to reiterate that I am looking forward to working with you and
all the members of the committee to provide America with the
modern infrastructure needs in our growing economy.
In recent years our two sides have worked closely to pass
important legislation, which included the FAST Act, FAA
reauthorization, and disaster program reform law, multiple WRDA
and Coast Guard laws, pipeline safety, passenger rail laws, and
many more things, and I am optimistic that we can carry on that
tradition, a results-driven tradition of our committee to
develop an infrastructure package, a surface transportation
reauthorization, the next WRDA, and other bills.
And you and I have already had good conversations about
working together. It is extremely encouraging that after
Tuesday's State of the Union Address we know infrastructure is
a priority of the President's. Republicans and Democrats in
both House and Senate want to get something done, and the
President's leadership and eagerness for bipartisanship on this
effort gives us a green light to move forward. And I have to
stress that we can't waste this opportunity.
Today's hearing on infrastructure investment is a very good
place to start. Before we get underway I want to raise a few
key points.
First of all, we can't address our long-term funding issues
without finally fixing the Highway Trust Fund. We have kicked
this can down the road so many times already that pretty soon
we are going to kick it right off the map. Congress is going to
consider a number of options to address the problem.
I believe the only viable future lies in a transition to
VMT, or vehicle miles traveled. I see this as the best way to
ensure that everyone contributes--everyone contributes--to the
trust fund, and helps maintain and improve our surface
transportation system. VMT is already being applied at the
State level, and it is time to pursue this solution nationally.
And I want to point out that we are not talking about the
Government tracking our every move. Protecting Americans'
privacy is critical, and we can do a VMT program without
intruding upon people's privacy.
Another key to investing in our infrastructure for the long
term is continuing to look for ways to carry out projects more
efficiently. Time is money, and so any delay in a project
delivery process consumes valuable and limited resources that
could be used for other potential improvements. Streamlining
project delivery, while continuing to protect the environment,
is a priority for the administration. It is going to continue
to be a priority for me.
And finally, I want to stress that America will never have
the infrastructure system it needs and deserves if we don't do
a better job of incorporating technology. Compared to other
countries, our infrastructure is falling behind. And in some
cases it is simply falling apart.
Technology is rapidly developing, but our infrastructure
doesn't always reflect many of those advancements, and that has
to change. There is a tremendous potential for technology to
make our infrastructure safer and less costly, to reduce
congestion, improve the efficiency of the entire network, and
even alleviate the growing demands of our infrastructure.
In his address on Tuesday I was happy to hear the President
recognize the necessity for technology to be a part of our
long-term infrastructure solution. However, as we look to
integrate technology, safety has to remain the top priority.
And, as we know, an accident or set-back opens the door for
Federal Government to come in and, with the heavy hand of
regulation, potentially stifle all of those innovations that we
talk about. We have to strike the right balance between
private-sector ingenuity and safety regulation.
Fundamentally, we can't overlook the importance of
technology in the context of an infrastructure package or any
other legislation, for that matter. And I agree with Chairman
DeFazio that we can't afford to do nothing. But we also can't
afford to miss this opportunity to enlist innovation in a way
that can slingshot our infrastructure and our economy into the
future.
We have a number of witnesses here today, and they
represent the traditional infrastructure stakeholder community.
And I am interested to hear all of their viewpoints.
I have one request as we start this discussion. Let's not
be shortsighted in the solutions that we propose. With any
legislation that comes out of Congress, whether it is an
infrastructure package, a surface transportation
reauthorization, or other bills, we just can't think of it as
business as usual.
Some of our Federal infrastructure programs do work very
well. But in others we have clearly fallen behind. And it is
time to be transformative in our approach, because the future
of the infrastructure simply depends on it.
[Mr. Graves's prepared statement follows:]
Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure
Thank you, Chairman DeFazio. I want to reiterate that I'm looking
forward to working with you and all the members of the committee to
provide America with the modern infrastructure it needs for our growing
economy.
In recent years, our two sides have worked closely to pass
important legislation, including the FAST Act, an FAA reauthorization
and disaster program reform law, multiple WRDA and Coast Guard laws,
pipeline safety and passenger rail laws, and more.
I'm optimistic that we can carry on the bipartisan, results-driven
tradition of our committee to develop an infrastructure package, a
surface transportation reauthorization, the next WRDA, and other bills.
You and I have already had good conversations about working together.
It's also extremely encouraging that, after Tuesday's State of the
Union Address, we know infrastructure is a priority for the President.
Republicans and Democrats in both the House and the Senate want to get
something done, and the President's leadership and eagerness for
bipartisanship on this effort gives us the green light to move forward.
I must stress that we can't waste this opportunity.
Today's hearing on infrastructure investment is good place to start
our work. Before we get underway, I want to raise several key points.
First of all, we can't address our long-term funding issues without
finally fixing the Highway Trust Fund.
We've kicked this can down the road so many times already, pretty
soon we're going to kick it completely off the map.
Congress is going to consider a number of options to address this
problem, but I believe that the only viable future lies in a transition
to a Vehicle Miles Traveled (or VMT) program.
I see this as the best way to ensure that everyone contributes to
the Trust Fund and helps maintain and improve our surface
transportation system. VMT is already being applied at the State level,
and it's time to pursue this solution nationally.
I want to point out that we're not talking about Big Brother
tracking our every move. Protecting Americans' privacy is critical, and
we can absolutely do a VMT program without intruding upon people's
privacy.
Another key to investing in our infrastructure for the long term is
continuing to look for ways to carry out projects more efficiently.
Time is money, so any delay in the project delivery process
consumes valuable and limited resources that could be used for other
potential improvements. Streamlining project delivery--while continuing
to protect the environment--is a priority for the administration, and
it will continue to be a priority for me.
Finally, I want to stress that America will never have the
infrastructure system it needs and deserves if we don't do a better job
of incorporating technology. Compared to other countries, our
infrastructure is falling behind, and in some cases falling apart.
Technology is rapidly developing, but our infrastructure doesn't
always reflect those advancements. That needs to change.
There is tremendous potential for technology to make our
infrastructure safer and less costly, reduce congestion, improve the
efficiency of the entire network, and even alleviate the growing
demands on our infrastructure.
In his address on Tuesday, I was happy to hear the President
recognize the necessity for technology to be part of our long-term
infrastructure solution.
However, as we look to integrate technology, safety has to remain
the top priority. As we know, an accident or setback opens the door for
the Federal Government to come in with the heavy hand of regulation--
potentially stifling innovation. We have to strike the right balance
between private-sector ingenuity and safety regulation.
Fundamentally, we can't overlook the importance of technology in
the context of an infrastructure package or any other legislation.
I agree with Chairman DeFazio that we can't afford to do nothing.
But we also can't afford to miss this opportunity to unleash innovation
in a way that can slingshot our infrastructure, and our economy, into
the future.
We have a number of witnesses here today that represent the
traditional infrastructure stakeholder community, and I'm interested to
hear their input.
I have one request as we start this discussion--let's not be
shortsighted in the solutions we propose. With any legislation that
comes out of Congress--whether that's an infrastructure package, a
surface transportation reauthorization, or other bills--we can't just
think of it as ``business as usual.'' Some of our Federal
infrastructure programs do work well, but in others we've clearly
fallen behind.
It's time to be transformative in our approach, because the future
of our infrastructure depends on it.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. With that, I yield back. I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman for his statement. I
would now like to welcome the witnesses, first panel. The
Honorable Tim Walz, Governor, State of Minnesota, on behalf of
the National Governors Association, also a former esteemed
colleague. The Honorable--yes, let's give Tim a hand.
[Applause.]
Mr. DeFazio. Congratulations, Tim.
The Honorable Eric Garcetti, mayor, city of Los Angeles, on
behalf of the United States Conference of Mayors.
The Honorable Ray LaHood, cochair, Building America's
Future, former Secretary, United States Department of
Transportation.
Thanks to you all for being here today. We look forward to
your testimony. Without objection, your full statements will be
in the record.
But before we hear from the witnesses, I recognize Rep.
Craig to introduce her fellow Minnesotan, Governor Walz.
Mrs. Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am so honored to be
given the privilege today to introduce the first member of our
panel, first of all my friend, former congressman, and new
Minnesota Governor, Tim Walz.
Not too long ago, Governor Walz was right here, looking out
for the transportation needs of his expansive First
Congressional District, and also a congressional district that
is pretty rural. The work he did here in Congress to replace
the Winona I-90 Interstate bridge is a perfect example of why
we are so proud of him, and why I think he is an ideal panelist
for today.
You know, the mayor of Winona said that that work set an
example of how Government can work collaboratively to get
things done, and the importance of investing in infrastructure.
Governor Walz, thank you so much for taking the time to
come to Washington to share your priorities and testify before
this committee. I look forward to hearing your testimony,
working with you, as well as my colleagues here today on this
important issue. Thank you, Governor Walz.
Mr. DeFazio. And with that we would now have Rep.
Napolitano introduce Mayor Garcetti.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome to
our House, Mayor.
Mr. Chairman, I am very honored to introduce my old friend,
Mayor Garcetti of the great city of Los Angeles, and also
happens to be the son of my old friend, Gil Garcetti.
Mayor Garcetti has been a forward-looking mayor and great
champion of infrastructure, not only for his city, but for the
Greater Los Angeles County and for southern California in
transportation, having supported Measure M, Measure R, and
doing a great job of it, so we were able to successfully pass
it.
He has also led efforts to pass major infrastructure in
transportation and initiatives in Los Angeles County, invested
billions of dollars in modernization of Los Angeles Airport
with the new terminals--thank you, they are very nice--and
surface transportation improvements, and supported the
returning of Ontario Airport to local control, and has improved
operations at one of the most productive ports in the Port of
Los Angeles, which, by the way, provides multimodal freight
benefits for the entire country.
Mayor Garcetti, welcome. Thank you for being here, and
thank you for all you do for our area. And I look forward to
your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Representative. As I said earlier,
without objection, their full statements are in the record.
Your written statements are a part of the record. I have
actually read them; I assume some other Members have, too.
So, if you can summarize your most cogent and interesting
points in 5 minutes and get everybody's attention, that would
be great.
I had a question about what this is [indicating document].
This is failed--everybody has got this handout. This was in
Mayor Garcetti's testimony. Unfortunately, the AV system here
is not working. We will see if they can fix that before the
next hearing. So that answers that question.
And with that, I believe that Governor Walz is the first
witness.
TESTIMONY OF HON. TIM WALZ, GOVERNOR, STATE OF MINNESOTA, ON
BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION; HON. ERIC
GARCETTI, MAYOR, CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, ON BEHALF OF
THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS; AND HON. RAY LAHOOD,
COCHAIR, BUILDING AMERICA'S FUTURE, FORMER SECRETARY, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Walz. Well, thank you, Chairman DeFazio and Ranking
Member Graves, and all the members of this great committee.
Congresswoman Craig, thank you for the kind introduction.
As many of you know, I served on this committee for a
number of years. But today I am here as a representative of the
National Governors Association. This Nation's 50 States and 5
Territories, the Governors have made infrastructure their top
priority.
On February 23rd, all of those Governors will gather here
in DC for a roundtable focusing on infrastructure. It is the
foundation that the States are built on. Governors have taken
action to enhance infrastructure, including creating new and
increasing existing funding streams, addressing regulatory
delays, improving transparency, and promoting innovation.
I would like to highlight just a couple of things for you
today.
Governors understand that no single stream of revenue or
approach to financing will address all the gaps. States need a
comprehensive approach that allows for leveraging a variety of
funding sources and the flexibility to match the right tool
with each project. States succeed when there is certainty and
stability in long-term Federal resources, ensuring workforce
and economic vitality.
We need to fix and expand existing infrastructure, invest
in resiliency for security and climate change. We must build a
robust, multimodal system to fit our growing populations. We
must attend to needs across our rural, urban, and suburban
areas.
Infrastructure encompasses more than roads and bridges, as
you well know. It includes everything from sea ports and
airports to the Upper Mississippi River locks and dams, biking
trails, and, in our State, investments in electric vehicle
charging networks. We have to see how all these pieces fit
together.
A few weeks ago I was in Hallock, Minnesota. That is on the
northwest frontier of Minnesota. You might be familiar with it,
because it was near a place that reached 70 degrees below zero
last week, and caught a lot of people's attention. That is not
only hard on people, it is hard on infrastructure.
But also there are resilient people doing great things that
understand how infrastructure improves their lives. Sitting
outside of Hallock is a really successful liquor distillery
called Far North Spirits. And it sits on a gravel road. It has
spotty internet service. The owner of that says, ``Better
infrastructure means I can get folks to and from this, and the
ability to be able to communicate makes us so that we are more
competitive.''
But she also mentioned the need to invest in transit, like
light rail in Minneapolis and St. Paul, where 97 percent of her
product is sold, and people need to move. So, as Hallock goes,
so does Minneapolis-St. Paul. And as Minnesota goes, so does
the rest of the country. Governors understand that our
interconnectedness and our thoughtfulness of providing those
opportunities is what grows our economy.
This hearing was titled, ``The Cost of Doing Nothing,'' and
you heard Chairman DeFazio talk about what happens in idling,
what happens in repair bills, what happens when we can't get
products moved to us and that cost is passed down to consumers.
Sometimes it comes a lot faster than that, and sometimes it
comes tragically.
Many of you on this committee were sitting here on a hot
August day in 2007, while in Minneapolis 111 cars sat in
traffic on the I-35W bridge across the Mississippi River during
rush hour. Filled with people going about their business, they
were headed to a Twins game, they were picking their kids up
for soccer. There were several buses bringing kids from a field
trip. They weren't thinking about infrastructure, because they
don't want to have to think about infrastructure. But at 6:05
p.m. their lives changed forever when our inability to keep up
with infrastructure needs resulted in the catastrophic failure
of that bridge: 13 people lost their lives and 145 more were
seriously injured.
Minnesota has the fifth-largest road system in the United
States, although we have 22nd in population. Connecting people
in rural areas as well as urban areas is something we pride
ourselves on, because it builds resiliency into our economy. It
also gives people the opportunity to choose where they want to
live.
But Minnesota's roads need investment. Our State's most
recent State highway improvement plan identified $18 billion in
shortfalls over the next 24 years, just to maintain what we
have. That doesn't include all the other modes of
transportation.
Minnesotans are willing to pay their fair share, when they
know it is going to good use, like roads, bridges, transit. And
for all of you in here, there are many different funding
streams, but it must be dependable. It must be there.
And one of the things is--and for better or worse--the gas
tax and the Highway Trust Fund is the way we did that. So I
made no bones about it. I don't know for--each of you have all
run for office. It is usually pretty good advice, don't run on
raising people's taxes, except in the instance of
infrastructure. We ran a campaign talking about investing in
that. We ran about telling them that we needed to have those
dedicated funding. And not only did they respond to that, they
responded overwhelmingly that this is something they believed
in.
In a few weeks myself and Governors across this Nation will
be introducing their budgets. In Minnesota we will propose a
comprehensive transportation package addressing all modes of
transportation to improve the lives of Minnesotans.
Now, I want to be clear. Not all Governors in the NGA agree
on a gas tax. But all of those Governors agree that if we
choose to not invest, the cost will go up, the safety needs of
our citizens will be put at risk, and we will continue to fall
further and further behind in trying to move forward into the
21st century.
I look forward to your questions, and thank you for the
time.
[Mr. Walz's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Walz, Governor of Minnesota, testifying
on behalf of the National Governors Association
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, thank you for inviting
me to testify today on behalf of the National Governors Association
(NGA) and the people of Minnesota. I had the privilege of serving on
this committee for years.
Governors made investing in our Nation's infrastructure a top
priority in 2019 and for the 116th Congress.
Infrastructure is the foundation States are built upon. It impacts
everything from economic development and global competitiveness, to our
quality of life, safety, environment and resiliency. Governors have
taken action to enhance infrastructure, including creating new and
increasing existing funding streams, advancing public-private
partnerships, addressing regulatory delays, improving transparency and
promoting innovation.
I'd like to highlight several important points this morning:
No single stream of revenue or approach to financing will
address all the gaps. States need a comprehensive approach that allows
for leveraging a variety of funding sources and flexibility to match
the right tool with each project. States succeed when there is
certainty and stability in long-term Federal resources ensuring
workforce and economic vitality.
We must fix and expand existing infrastructure and invest
in resiliency and security to modernize it for future generations. We
must attend to needs across our rural, urban and suburban areas.
Infrastructure encompasses more than roads and bridges. It also
includes city and community development, transit, seaports and
airports, inland waterways and electric vehicle charging networks. It
involves water and wastewater, the energy system, electricity grid and
power plants, public buildings and advanced communications networks.
Investments in projects of regional and national significance advance
overall global competitiveness.
We must recognize how all these pieces fit together. I
was in Hallock a few weeks ago--a town of less than 1,000 people in the
far northwest corner of Minnesota. In the middle of a field off a dirt
road, there is something you wouldn't expect to see: a liquor
distillery. The owner of this distillery talked to me about the
importance of repairing roads and bridges in her area, but also about
the need for good transit in the cities for her urban customers to buy
her product. She knows that when the Twin Cities thrive, Hallock
thrives, and when Hallock thrives, the Twin Cities thrive.
Governors support Federal actions that streamline project
delivery, reduce approval and completion times, and increase
transparency, but also achieve the intent that underlies critical
environmental, planning, design, and procurement reviews. States
believe that Federal infrastructure program reforms are the most
effective when they promote State flexibility by omitting unnecessary
Federal requirements.
Governors believe that innovative technologies should be
embraced to achieve resiliency, security and efficiency. Infrastructure
should incorporate new capabilities related to increasing connectivity,
autonomy, digital information and electrification. States are leading
the way in embracing new practices and technologies that provide
innovative solutions to traditional infrastructure needs; Federal
investments should be integrated and reward positive, evidence-based
outcomes.
I am here today to highlight needs and planning efforts
that we have underway in Minnesota, and to ask Congress to pass an
infrastructure package that provides States with the certainty needed
to budget and plan for the future. We also ask that Congress provide
States with the flexibility needed to determine how best to use the
Federal dollars that we receive.
the state of infrastructure in minnesota
transportation
On August 1, 2007, 111 cars sat in traffic on the I-35W bridge over
the Mississippi River in Minneapolis during the evening rush hour. They
were filled with people going about their everyday lives, unconcerned
about the infrastructure surrounding them. They were headed out for a
night of fun at a Minnesota Twins game; they were schoolkids returning
from a summer field trip; they were folks just trying to get home from
work.
At 6:05 p.m., their lives changed forever when our inability to
keep up with our infrastructure needs resulted in the catastrophic
collapse of the bridge. Thirteen people lost their lives that day, and
145 more were injured.
Despite this highly visible, utterly obvious signal that we needed
to do something to repair and replace our transportation
infrastructure, it took a veto override from the legislature to pass a
5-cent State gas tax increase the following year. It was nonsensical
then, and it shouldn't take another tragedy for us to take care of our
infrastructure needs now.
Minnesota has the fifth largest road system in the United States,
despite being ranked 22nd in population. We pride ourselves on our wide
expanses of wilderness, farmland, our regional centers, and our
metropolitan area--but there's a lot of roads connecting everything
that makes Minnesota great.
But Minnesota's roads are in rough shape. Our most recent State
Highway Improvement Plan identified billions of dollars in needs--Over
the next 20 years, Minnesotans will need to come up with $13.44 billion
to maintain our pavements; $2.65 billion to maintain our bridges and
$3.35 billion for all the culverts, drainage ditches and signage that
make our transportation system work. That doesn't even consider all
modes of transportation--our transit, bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure that's growing in need.
Minnesotans are willing to pay their fair share when they know it
is going to good use--like their roads, bridges, and transit. I saw it
over the past 2 years while working to win Minnesotans' trust and
become Governor. I unapologetically told Minnesotans over and over that
we need to raise the gas tax, and that it would be a top priority for
me if I took office.
In a few weeks when I unveil my budget as other Governors will
also, I will propose a comprehensive transportation finance package,
addressing all modes of transportation, and improving the lives of all
Minnesotans. We'll spend that increased revenue responsibly--benefiting
the greatest number of people while keeping an eye on how efficiently
we maximize our resources, and constantly looking for innovative ways
to improve our infrastructure as we move toward new ways of financing
our transportation system.
Minnesotans know they get what they pay for, and I am confident
they will support this measure to improve our roads, ensure businesses
can get their goods to market, and prevent a tragedy like the 35W
Bridge collapse from ever happening again.
the costs of doing nothing and a path forward
While not all of my perspectives are universally shared by all the
Nation's Governors, we do all agree that the Federal Government can be
a great partner, especially when it comes to efficiencies and
innovation. Federal programs and funding should provide maximum
flexibility to the States for implementation and innovation because of
our diversity of geography, population and priorities.
The National Governors Association looks forward to continuing to
engage with our Federal partners and will be highlighting the need for
infrastructure investment throughout the year. In fact, later this
month on February 23, we will be hosting a roundtable discussion on
infrastructure during our annual Winter Meeting, which brings together
the Nation's 55 Governors to discuss the most pressing issues facing
the States and Territories.
On behalf of the Nation's Governors and the people of Minnesota,
thank you for the opportunity to testify.
I would be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you for observing the time limits, and
good statement.
Mayor Garcetti?
Mr. Garcetti. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member, and thank you so much to Grace Napolitano for the kind
introduction and the friendship over many years. Great to be
with so many friends, new and old, that are here.
I wear two hats today, both as mayor of a great American
city, Los Angeles, but also as chair of the U.S. Conference of
Mayors Task Force on Infrastructure, and a member of the
National League of Cities, here with a clear message from
America's local communities that it is time to pass an
infrastructure package, comprehensive and now.
I think for most people this isn't about miles paved, this
isn't about statistics. This is about stories, and lives, how
much time we spend with our children, whether or not we can
drink clean water from our taps, whether we have a smooth
commute to work. And this Congress has an amazing chance to
make history, to be able to reignite homegrown industries here,
and also create great middle-class jobs we can't export away
from this country.
Two years ago we heard two Presidential candidates talk
about hundreds of billions of dollars of infrastructure
investment, and America is still waiting. But the same night
that we elected a new President, America's cities passed $230
billion of voter-approved measures from Georgia to Ohio to
Washington State, including $120 billion in my own city, my own
county, Los Angeles, which was the largest measure times two in
American history, one that also creates 787,000 jobs for
Americans, building that middle class.
No matter where we live, no matter who we are, Americans
feel very clear that it is time to improve our communities. And
that is why, a year and a half ago, I formed with a group of
State leaders, local leaders, business leaders, and labor
leaders a group called Accelerated for America. It is a
nonprofit that is keeping infrastructure moving in this
country.
And what you have on your tables is a bipartisan poll that
we conducted at the end of the year, and it showed that the top
two issues that Americans want this Congress to work on were
health care and then infrastructure. That was above
immigration, climate change, even jobs and the economy. Number
two was infrastructure.
So, in 2019, believe it or not, 80 percent of Americans
agree on something, and that is the need to move forward with
infrastructure. Fifty years from now I want to look back on
this Congress and this committee and say that you were the ones
who brought about that turning point. This Congress transformed
the foundation upon which this country is built. And our
country needs you.
Nations across the world are planning for 50- and 100-year
plans for infrastructure, while we are limping forward with 2-
and 5-year Band-Aids. It is time for us to think about that
long term to win that future. And that is why I am submitting
in today's testimony a plan that the U.S. Conference of Mayors
has approved for a $1 trillion infrastructure plan supported by
our local communities, urban and rural, north, south, east,
west, red and blue. And $612 billion of those dollars are
directly under the jurisdiction of this committee.
So today let me ask you to consider three things as you
look at infrastructure: one, encourage leverage; two, reward
innovation; and three, consider the long-term maintenance of
our infrastructure.
First, leverage. Leverage local government, leverage State
government. And yes, leverage the private sector with P3s that
we are showing in Los Angeles work without giving away public
assets, but that accelerate how quickly and how cheaply we can
get infrastructure built.
Second, reward innovation. When you consider the needs of
our roads and our bridges, our railway, and our airports, ask
that you can look at the speed at which we are innovating. In
L.A., which is known as America's car capital, we are the
headquarters of Hyperloop, home to the electric scooter
revolution; a new boring company; new technologies that are
excavating tunnels faster than ever; electric cars that are
reducing emissions. And we want these things not to just be
invented in America, but exported from America.
As we redo our port in Los Angeles, we don't have a single
American company that re-does port equipment. We don't have a
single American company that does rail equipment. So that
requires flexibility from Federal Government to look not only
at technologies today, but to put in this legislation
technologies that will evolve tomorrow.
And third, consider maintenance. We tend to fixate on
future projects that we can get in the ground. But at a time
when people died on the DC Metro, when New York subways don't
run on time, when passengers had to kick their way out of
smoking cars in Boston, we need to look at lasting revenue
streams without sacrificing social service programs, so we can
maintain infrastructure.
Our program in Los Angeles is an evergreen tax. To your
point, I ran 3 months later and got 81 percent reelection. This
is something voters want, and you can take the risk of putting
something permanently forward. Twenty-seven States have passed
a gas tax to preserve roads and fix crumbling bridges, and our
measure will never sunset in Los Angeles because we know after
it is built it needs to be maintained.
Americans want the peace of mind of the history that you
will make in this committee, and we are there behind you. We
are there to run ads, to help campaign for the passage. Our
nonprofit will make sure that that moves forward.
So, on behalf of local communities across America we are
here to tell you we will do everything in our power to help you
make that history and to write a great chapter for this
country. The time is now.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[Mr. Garcetti's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eric Garcetti, Mayor, City of Los Angeles,
California, testifying on behalf of the United States Conference of
Mayors
Chair DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the
committee--my name is Eric Garcetti, and I serve as mayor of Los
Angeles and as chair of the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Infrastructure
Task Force.
I am honored to appear before you and this committee on behalf of
my city and the Greater Los Angeles region--a true infrastructure
capital in America--home to the biggest port complex in the Western
Hemisphere, the country's busiest origin and destination airport, and
the largest local transportation investment in U.S. history, times two.
In L.A., we understand that our infrastructure is the foundation for
not only how we move goods, cars, and families, but for the long-term
strength of our economy.
I am proud to add my perspective as a mayor, as a representative of
local leaders who live where we work; who see the impact of our
policies and our actions in our own neighborhoods every day; who deal
with the current state of America's infrastructure on our own streets--
whether that means filling potholes, repairing bridges, expanding mass
transit, or securing a clean and reliable water supply. Mayors are
responsible for all of it, and we are willing and eager to be your
partners in realizing our shared vision.
We come together this morning at an exciting moment for
infrastructure. Fifty years from now, when we look back on what we did
and achieved for our constituents, I truly believe we will remember
this time as a turning point, and this Congress as the body that
finally set us on course to developing the 21st-century infrastructure
our Nation needs and our people deserve.
But we also have to recognize that seizing this moment is about
more than roads, bridges, trains, pipes, broadband, and treatment
systems. It is about building our physical infrastructure while giving
birth to homegrown industries and creating well-paid, middle-class jobs
that don't require an advanced degree, can't be outsourced, and don't
disappear in the event of a recession or economic downturn.
And if we want to do this right, there are clear ways to maximize
our resources and meet our common goals. Congress should reward
innovation, ensuring new technologies for reducing traffic, cutting
emissions, improving goods delivery, facilitating the arrival of
scooters, boring tunnels, and bringing electric and autonomous vehicles
to our streets are all developed here in the United States.
The Federal Government should leverage its sizable role in the
marketplace and in infrastructure development, utilizing local dollars
and engaging private-sector partners, to extend our investments in
urban and rural areas nationwide.
What's more, every one of us in public life--in the U.S. Capitol
and the White House, in State legislatures, and in city halls--must
never lose sight of the long haul. That means focusing on immediate
maintenance of our subways, rail lines, pipelines, and more, while
keeping a keen eye on how we can establish steady, lasting revenue
streams so our infrastructure does not fall into dire disrepair in the
future, with no rapid way to fix it.
Los Angeles and cities in nearly every region have started to take
this approach, looking not at 1- or 2-year projects, but 50- or 100-
year timelines in how we address our transportation needs.
Many of us are a part of the nonprofit Accelerator for America, an
outfit that brings local innovators, businesses, and unions together
around smart ideas to strengthen people's economic security and foster
infrastructure development. This organization recently surveyed 1,000
Americans and found that infrastructure ranks third in importance
behind health care and job creation, and it moves up to second among
problems the public wants us to solve together, Democrat and
Republican, in a bipartisan way.
All of us are prepared to be this committee's best allies in making
this a national cause, so we can strengthen our middle class, ensure
better and faster goods movement, and improve the quality of life for
all Americans.
the need for action--and the consequences of delay
Our task should begin with the creation of a National
Infrastructure Program, which would help usher in a new era of
prosperity, innovation, and economic health for our Nation. And it
would ensure the United States of America retains its economic
leadership and prosperity in the 21st century.
Failing to make long-term investments has serious consequences. A
recent assessment by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority showed that a 1-year delay results in cost increases of at
least 3.5 percent for capital projects. That translates to $35 million
of increased costs for every billion in planned spending for highway
and transit projects. The Los Angeles Metro's Fiscal Year 2019 Budget
includes over $2 billion in capital funds for transit expansion,
regional rail, and highway projects. If there was even a 1-year delay
on these projects, it could increase costs by $70 million.
At the end of the day, that is $70 million that Federal and local
taxpayer dollars will have to make up--one way or the other. The bottom
line is this: once a project is shovel-ready--having cleared all local,
State, and Federal rules and regulations--the key decision is how
rapidly we can move these projects into their construction phase. The
more these projects are delayed, the more they will cost.
The financial implications of delays are not the only risk.
Throughout the West, we face rising temperatures, longer and more
frequent droughts, and more intense wildfires in the wildland-urban
interface. We see the impacts of climate change firsthand and know that
innovative infrastructure investment will help us mitigate and adapt.
Our water, housing, and energy futures demand it.
This is why many of America's cities are already taking action.
In Los Angeles, we are accelerating our transportation
infrastructure with Twenty-Eight by '28, an initiative to deliver 28
major transportation projects by the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Twenty-Eight by '28 is about building a countywide transportation
network that includes subway, light rail, bike facilities, and highway
bottleneck improvements. We will need the Federal Government to partner
with us so we can deliver all these projects by 2028. This will require
securing Federal New Starts grants, low-interest loans like TIFIA, and
other financing strategies that have proven to be effective. But we
will not ask for Federal construction with an empty hat. We will bring
money to the table to help leverage every Federal penny to maximize the
Twenty-Eight by '28 program.
Los Angeles is also investing $2.6 billion to upgrade its port's
infrastructure to accommodate new and larger classes of container
ships, and to accommodate increased cargo volumes. But our port, the
Nation's largest, is part of an intricate, national supply chain and
freight system--which needs access to a robust, dedicated funding
program. The case for Federal investment here is clear: U.S. global
competitiveness requires sustained investment in an efficient and
reliable multimodal freight system that connects our Nation's
production centers, both urban and rural, to markets around the globe.
But our freight system is underfunded. In the southern California
region, there is a $2 billion-a-year freight infrastructure funding
gap. The American Association of Port Authorities estimates $66 billion
in unmet port land-side and water-side infrastructure needs nationwide.
The costs of ignoring investment in our ports and freight system are
increased congestion, declining productivity, and lost jobs.
A strong Federal partnership can address much of this.
Discretionary programs like BUILD and INFRA are well spent on our
maritime gateways because of their national economic impact and ability
to attract non-Federal investment. We also know that full and strategic
use of funding sources like the Harbor Maintenance Tax can unlock the
potential of the Nation's ports, both large and small, donor ports and
traditional dredge ports.
In my city, the Port of Los Angeles is spending aggressively on a
multimodal transportation and digital infrastructure, using a
combination of private and State funding, as well as its own shipping
revenues. A strong Federal partnership can leverage more investment in
these areas and ensure our ports continue to operate efficiently with
minimal environmental impact.
We are investing more than $14 billion at LAX to upgrade every
terminal and to completely reconfigure access to our airport, which
will include a seamless connection to our Metro Rail system. Still
there is more that we can do to ensure LAX is ready to welcome the
World to the 2028 Olympics. Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) are
extremely flexible and versatile, and they can be used to fund
airfield, terminal, and ground access projects. A $4 PFC increase would
provide for $1.5 billion in additional capital development projects at
LAX, such as reducing aircraft taxi times and thus reducing emissions.
We are already extended on our collection of PFC's through 2046 for
projects that have already been completed or are underway. We urge
Congress to approve a reasonable increase in the PFC cap now.
L.A. will invest $15 billion in the next 10 years in water
treatment, storage, and distribution. We will clean up our groundwater,
build out our recycled water systems, and provide incentives for
businesses and residents to capture and reuse. By 2035, 50 percent of
L.A.'s water will be local. If you know anything about California water
politics and conveyances, you know this is an ambitious and necessary
directive--one that will increase L.A.'s resilience to climate change
and earthquakes.
Angelenos and Americans across the country recognize that clean and
reliable water is a top priority. This past November, the residents of
L.A. County voted to support Measure W--a parcel tax which will raise
$300 million a year for local water projects that capture stormwater,
clean up rivers, and green our communities.
And we are already at work executing our $120 billion
infrastructure plan--to create a truly comprehensive rail network, ease
congestion on our freeways, and fix our local roads.
This kind of Nation-leading investment isn't just happening in L.A.
In 2016, voters in Austin, Texas, passed ``Proposition 1'' to
upgrade their transportation system. Charleston County in South
Carolina gave their ``transportation initiative'' a green light, and
voters approved the ``Sound Transit 3'' ballot measure in Seattle,
Washington.
In 2018, according to the Eno Center for Transportation, voters
considered at least 314 transportation-related measures totaling $50
billion in transportation investments for roads, bridges, transit,
airports, seaports, cycling, and pedestrian paths. The biggest were in
Broward County, Florida, which approved a 30-year, $16 billion measure
to support road, bus, and rail upgrades, and Hillsborough County,
Florida, which approved a $9 billion package for transit.
Altogether, since 2016, cities, regions, and States have voted to
invest nearly $250 billion to modernize their infrastructure. Some say
that this is evidence the Federal Government does not need to play a
role--that cities and regions are just fine on their own. That
conclusion is misguided. This local investment means that there has
never been a better time for Federal partners to take action on
nationally significant projects. Matching those local dollars with an
increased Federal investment and creating an environment for public-
private partnerships will ensure that we can reach our goals and
reverse the decline that has plagued us for too many years.
But there are cities across America that still rely on decades-old
infrastructure that was wholly or substantially funded by the Federal
Government through initiatives like the Works Progress Administration
and the Interstate Highway System. We know this infrastructure, which
fueled decades of growth, is aging and requires drastic improvement.
As we seek to upgrade this infrastructure, we should also seek to
create a new model for Federal infrastructure spending that
incentivizes local and regional funding commitments, invests in the
future, and fosters innovative new approaches. I call this ``I-3''--
incentivize, invest, and innovate.
I-3 is one viable path to achieving a truly robust national
infrastructure program. This is something that every American can rally
around, and will benefit from--including urban, suburban, and rural
areas.
First, we must incentivize.
Existing Federal programs such as New Starts and INFRA are already
combining with local funding streams to build, accelerate, and expand
projects. These programs prove that the local-Federal partnership model
can be successful, and must be maintained. They are the foundation upon
which a national infrastructure policy must be built.
We must also expand direct Federal infrastructure funding.
Local entities cannot do this critical work of expanding access to
mass transit and upgrading our Nation's roads, freeways, and bridges on
our own. A national infrastructure package can further incentivize
local entities to generate more of their own revenue--and not just for
the sake of spending the way that we've funded infrastructure for the
last 50 years.
Second, we must invest to build our projects so they perform in the
long term.
Too often we only care about ribbon-cuttings and groundbreakings.
The Federal Government should reward States and cities for ensuring
their assets perform to the level that the public expects--focusing on
longer term lifecycle needs, and using innovation and new technology to
deliver results whenever possible.
Last, we must innovate.
Public-private partnerships, in many cases, are a particularly good
way to deliver ongoing performance, and they also allow the public
sector to leverage private funding to help deliver projects sooner and
more efficiently with performance guarantees. Project delivery
approaches such as design-build-operate-maintain and CM/GC can reduce
costs and deliver projects faster, while public tools like TIFIA and
RIFF will be critical to many P3 projects.
While P3s will not be a viable delivery strategy for many projects,
a National Infrastructure Program must not be too prescriptive; rather,
it should help cities and regions take innovative approaches.
I look forward to working with this committee to help deliver that
future for the American people, and cities across this country.
measure m--an unprecedented transportation infrastructure program
Measure M is the largest transportation initiative in the history
of the United States--times two. Measure M is expected to generate $860
million a year in 2017 dollars. It will help expand our rail and rapid
bus transit system, accelerate rail construction, and improve our
system connectivity throughout the County of Los Angeles. It will
stitch together the rail network needed to connect every resident in
the L.A. area. A total of 15 rail and bus rapid transit projects will
be built under Measure M. These projects include the acceleration and
completion of our Purple Line subway extension, light rail connections
in the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys, and the vital connection
to LAX. The Purple Line extension would connect the two largest job
centers in the State of California, downtown Los Angeles to the UCLA/
Westwood area, and the project will be ready by 2027, a year before the
arrival of the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
Measure M also funds projects to build and fix 14 major highway
projects. It aims to tackle some of the most congested corridors and
roadway bottlenecks in the Nation. For example, the measure will help
modernize Interstate 710 Long Beach Freeway, a vital transportation
artery that links the Ports of San Pedro Bay to major distribution
centers. Thousands of trucks use this corridor every single day. The
construction of this project will improve air quality, enhance traffic
safety, and accommodate future economic growth to address our Nation's
freight movement needs.
Another important feature of the Measure M program is the local
return program. Local return pays back all 88 cities in the county so
streets are repaved, potholes are repaired, and traffic signals are
modernized through synchronization. When designing the program, it was
important to us that neighborhood streets and intersections would
benefit.
But Measure M is not just about infrastructure transportation
improvements. Measure M will add 466,000 new jobs across the entire Los
Angeles County region. These are high-level and well-paying
construction and technical jobs. I want to point out that these are not
one-off gigs; they're career jobs that can support a family.
Local ballot measures are critical, but cannot meet our needs
alone. A National Infrastructure Plan only works when the Federal
Government is at the table.
measure w
Measure W, a countywide stormwater measure, passed in November 2018
with 69.5 percent of the vote. It is a parcel tax based on square
footage of impervious surface that will raise $300 million per year.
Half the funds will be distributed to large, regional multi-benefit
projects that can demonstrate a water quality, water supply, and
community benefit. Forty percent of funds will be distributed to cities
in the same proportion generated for water quality projects aimed to
assist with Federal Clean Water Act municipal stormwater requirements.
The remaining 10 percent is intended for administration, oversight, and
technical support. The Measure was championed by L.A. County and the
city of Los Angeles.
keeping existing federal programs and maximizing direct federal funding
Both the FAST ACT and MAP-21 have been incredible resources for
both highway and transit projects for many cities and jurisdictions
around the country. And we should keep all the current funding programs
in place.
The Los Angeles County Transportation Authority, also known as
Metro, has benefited from the Federal Transit Administration's Capital
Investment Grant Program, also known as New Starts. Over the last 5
years, we have matched over $3 billion in Federal New Starts grants
with an equal amount of local Los Angeles County taxpayer dollars to
build effective and efficient rail projects. The Federal Government
should continue to support and fully fund the New Starts program--which
has proven to be an outstanding steward of the American tax dollars. In
my considered opinion, any effort to block future New Starts grants
would be misguided and compromise a program that has proven its
effectiveness over the last decade.
Los Angeles Metro has used nearly $2 billion in TIFIA loans to
leverage Los Angeles County taxpayer dollars to finance four major
transit projects over the past 5 years. The TIFIA program--which costs
the Federal Government very little to maintain--has been essential in
helping Metro and other transportation agencies across the Nation take
highway and transit projects from the drawing board to their
construction phases.
Metro has been a national leader in matching TIGER grant funds with
local dollars in order to maximize the impact of these valuable Federal
funds. Whether it was Metro's Rosa Parks Blue Line Transit Station--
which secured a $10.2 million TIGER grant or the $15 million TIGER
grant Metro recently secured to fix one of the most dangerous grade
crossing projects in California (Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation
Project)--the TIGER grant program is a great example of how Federal
funds can be used to leverage local and State dollars. Congress would
be wise to continue funding the TIGER grant program--which has
benefitted both rural and urban cities across the Nation since it was
first authorized in 2009.
These programs have worked well in Los Angeles and many cities
across the U.S. Do no harm is what I call it, meaning, it is essential
that existing sources and uses of funds are not changed or eliminated.
This means building on what we have and using the tools we have
available. And, for many cities and their regions, the Surface
Transportation Block Grant is vital to an expanded Federal-local
partnership going forward, delivering even more resources directly to
Metropolitan Planning Organizations and regional planning agencies to
advance necessary highway improvements benefiting cities and their
regional economies.
next steps to craft a national infrastructure program
Undoubtedly, all Americans share the view that we must upgrade our
Nation's infrastructure and that we must build and maintain projects
on-time and on-budget. We agree that cutting red tape and streamlining
projects is good to bring benefits to the public sooner. But for the
U.S. to have the robust infrastructure we all envision and to be
competitive at the global stage, a significant amount of new Federal
funding is necessary. That is why Congress should identify and allocate
new Federal funds to yield greater returns and outcomes.
Los Angeles is not coming to the table empty-handed. We are
fronting our own funding and asking for a stronger Federal partnership.
A program that incentivizes localities across the country to pass their
own bonds and/or funding efforts, in the way L.A. and other cities have
done, will create an incredible catalyst for a major infrastructure
program. This means creating significant leverage by incentivizing
infrastructure owners to secure and commit to their own revenue
measures, bond programs, and other financing sources that will go well
beyond traditional Federal-State funding splits.
As mentioned before, there are tools that can help stretch every
Federal program, such as the Build America Bonds, TIFIA, and even a
National Infrastructure Bank, which offer complementary frameworks.
However, cities and States can do more with innovative public-private
partnerships, and we welcome opportunities for us to partner with the
Federal Government to leverage what localities are doing.
So as Congress gets closer to finalizing our funding strategy, we
look forward to working with you to forge a new Federal-local
partnership that will create jobs, improve commute times, and build
livable communities.
conclusion
As I stated at the outset, this is a remarkable time for the cause
of transportation and infrastructure. And as women and men who feel the
impact of our investments firsthand, you can count on America's mayors
to rally and campaign for whatever this country demands now and into
the future. We will continue to stand united, across party lines,
across State boundaries, across the business community and labor
unions, around what is needed to get us over the finish line and toward
an era of modern infrastructure.
Thank you once again, Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves
for allowing me to be here today. I look forward to working with you to
identify innovative ways to address our Nation's infrastructure needs.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you for excellent and, again, on-time
testimony, Mayor.
Now we will turn to Secretary LaHood.
Ray, go right ahead.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First let me offer my
congratulations to you. For those of you on the committee, when
I started my career in Congress in 1995 I started on this
committee. And it only took Peter 30 years to become chair of
the committee.
[Laughter.]
Mr. LaHood. So Mr. Pence, there is hope. And I recognize
you, sir, because I sat in the chair that you sat in when I
first joined the committee in 1995. And this is a great
committee, because it is a bipartisan committee.
And to the ranking member, congratulations. I think it only
took you 20 years to reach where you are. But it is because
people want to be on this committee and serve on this
committee, because it is so bipartisan.
I think the timing is absolutely perfect. I think the stars
are aligned for a big infrastructure bill. It has got to be
big, and it has got to be bold. It can't be chintzy. The
American people are waiting. And I know that just about every
one of you that ran for office ran on the idea that you were
going to do something about fixing infrastructure in your
communities. I watched your campaigns, and I know that when
many of you were elected--you now have to go back home and
explain to people what you are doing to fix infrastructure in
your communities. And so I think the timing is perfect, and
this is the committee that can do it.
When we served--I served for 6 years on Transportation and
Infrastructure with Peter and others. We passed two 6-year
bills. We had 75 members on the committee. All 75 members voted
for those bills. We had extraordinary leadership from then-
Chairman Bud Shuster, and we made it happen. This committee can
do that, and I think you will.
Everybody knows what the problem is. America is one big
pothole. My home State is Illinois, and we have had another
brutal winter. And all over Illinois there are potholes. All
over America there are potholes. And you can only do so much by
continuing to fill potholes year in and year out. The
interstates are crumbling. Today there are now 60,000
structurally deficient bridges all over America. And those have
been designated by engineers. So you know what the problems
are.
You come from the communities, you come from the States.
And the issue is not knowing what to do, the issue is how do we
pay for it. Why hasn't Congress passed a transportation bill?
Because we can't come to grips with the idea of how to pay for
it.
And I want to suggest to you today that you raise the gas
tax, you put a big, bold plan out there, give it to the Ways
and Means Committee, and ask them to raise the gas tax. I say
10 cents a gallon. I know there is a plan out there for more. I
heard President Trump one time in the Oval Office say 25 cents
a gallon. Hooray, do it. And when you do it, index it to the
cost of living. In 1993, if Congress had indexed the gas tax to
the cost of living, we wouldn't have this debate. We would have
the resources.
But I say couple it with public-private partnerships. I say
couple it with tolling. I say couple it with vehicles miles
traveled, which I know the ranking member is very excited
about. You can't fix America's problems with infrastructure
with just tolling, with just VMTs, with just public-private
partnerships. You have to create a big pot of money.
We have the best interstate system in the world, and it was
funded through the Highway Trust Fund. That fund is depleted,
it is broke. And that is why America now looks like a third-
world country when it comes to infrastructure. So you got to
come to grips with this.
Now, I will tell you this. Fourteen States are this year
considering an increase in the gas tax. Twenty-six States since
2013 raised their gas tax, and not one politician got thrown
out of office. Not one. They did it because they stopped
waiting for Washington to act. And they needed money.
And so you don't need to worry about the threat of some
kind of a reverberation from your constituents if you raise the
gas tax. For every $1 billion increase in Federal investment in
transportation, 27,800 jobs are created. Think of this as a
jobs bill. This money doesn't stay in Washington. Where does it
go? It goes to your friends and neighbors, who engineer roads,
who build roads, who work on the roads, who fix the roads up.
The money goes back to your communities. It goes back to your
States. This clearly is a jobs bill. This clearly will get
America moving again.
And it is just absolutely so critical. You put together a
bold plan, give it to the Ways and Means Committee, raise the
gas tax, couple it with VMTs, tolling, vehicle miles traveled,
boom, America is back in the transportation business again. And
we haven't been in it for a long, long time.
Finally, let me say this. Safety is very important. One of
the things we emphasized, and one of the things that Chairman
Shuster emphasized when he was chair is safety. And Chairman
Young did too, when he was chair. Our roads are not safe today.
The death rate on roads today is up. Why? Because they are not
safe.
So make safety a part of whatever big, bold plan you put
together. If you build new roads, if you reconstruct roads,
safety has to be one of the top priorities. And I think that is
something we emphasized while we were at DOT. It is emphasized
in the States. And I think you send a good message if you
emphasize it in whatever program you put together.
Thank you for including me, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be
back to the committee.
[Mr. LaHood's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ray LaHood, Cochair, Building America's
Future, Former Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves and members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you on the
importance of America's infrastructure and how the lack of investment
is impacting the country's economic growth and quality of life.
I appear before you today as a former U.S. Secretary of
Transportation, a current cochair of Building America's Future (BAF)
and a senior advisor at DLA Piper. BAF is a bipartisan organization
cofounded by former Governors Ed Rendell and Arnold Schwarzenegger and
former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg. We represent a diverse coalition
of State and local elected officials working to advance smart
infrastructure investment to promote economic growth, global
competitiveness and better quality of life for all Americans.
We are two decades into the 21st century and America's
infrastructure is falling apart and our Nation's economic
competitiveness is falling behind. Decades of neglect and paltry
investment has dropped the economic competitiveness of our
transportation infrastructure to number nine in the world. In 2005 we
were ranked number one. But the travails of our ailing infrastructure
are not a recent development. It has gradually happened over time.
In the 1930s, 4.2 percent of the Nation's GDP was spent on
infrastructure investment. But by 2016 the number fell to 1.5 percent
of GDP. When it comes to investment in transportation infrastructure
the picture is even more dismal with the U.S. spending 0.6 percent of
GDP--less than nearly all of the G7 nations according to the OECD. Of
those nations, Australia has the highest investment rate at 1.4 percent
of its GDP. Put another way, the Congressional Budget Office reports
that U.S. public spending on infrastructure fell by 8 percent between
2003 and 2017.
We are here today to examine the impact of inaction due to lack of
infrastructure investment. The consequences of inaction to Americans'
daily lives may be slow to develop but the evidence shows the impacts
are as real as they are costly.
Our roads and bridges are struggling to accommodate the growing
volume of traffic. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics shows that
from 2000 to 2015, road infrastructure increased 5.2 percent while
traffic volume increased 14 percent.
Potholes abound on our streets and the cost to drivers is real when
tires are blown out or a vehicle is knocked out of alignment. The
disrepair of our roads costs the average driver $599 in extra vehicle
repairs. But in some areas the costs are even higher with drivers in
Jackson, MS, paying $944 and drivers in Cleveland paying $887.
Americans are wasting more time and fuel sitting in traffic. Rising
from 16 hours in 1982 to 42 hours in 2014 at a cost of $960 per driver.
This will only get worse in the coming years as the number of miles
driven by cars and trucks will continue to increase.
The U.S. Travel Association reports that within the next 5 years,
Labor Day-like traffic will plague our roadways on a daily basis. A
survey conducted by the group showed that 38 percent of travelers would
avoid between one and five trips per year if congestion continues to
grow at its current pace. If travelers avoided just one auto trip per
year, the impact to the U.S. economy would be $23 billion in lost
spending that would directly support 208,000 jobs.
Consumers increasingly expect same day deliveries which could
become more difficult to achieve with rising traffic volumes. The
Federal Highway Administration reports that 947,000 hours of vehicle
delay can be attributed to delivery trucks double parked in dense urban
areas. Trying to drive in any major city is almost like navigating an
obstacle course with delivery trucks and other vehicles double parked
on both sides of the street. Our city streets have almost become
impassable.
There has been much hype in recent years about driverless cars and
how they may eventually replace car ownership for significant portions
of the population. Attention is mostly focused on the new opportunities
this can bring but this can only be possible if our transportation
infrastructure is in a good state of repair. For AVs to be successful,
roads must be properly marked and free of potholes. ITS technologies
must be deployed so that vehicles can communicate with each other and
their surrounding infrastructure. The investment in these key parts of
infrastructure are sorely lacking.
Almost 40 percent of our bridges were built over 50 years ago when
traffic volumes were less. There over 54,000 structurally deficient
bridges in the U.S. and if placed end to end, the length of them would
stretch 1,216 miles or nearly the distance between Miami and New York
City. While progress has been made in recent years reducing the number
of structurally deficient bridges, that gives little comfort if you are
one of the 174 million daily trips across one of the these bridges.
It's not just our surface transportation network that is being
challenged with lack of investment. It is our ports--both sea and air.
The economy heavily relies upon ports and the network of
infrastructure that serves the ports. Every day $6 billion worth of
goods and materials move through America's ports and U.S. port
activities generate $4.6 trillion in economic activity annually as well
as support 23 millions jobs. However, the lack of infrastructure
investment in America's ports could result in $4 trillion in potential
GDP loss by 2025 and $575 billion in costs to businesses and households
by 2025.
With the expansion of the Panama Canal completed in 2016, it is
forecasted that post-panamax vessels will comprise 62 percent of total
container ship capacity by 2030. Yet only four east coast ports are
dredged deep enough to accommodate this new reality. While Baltimore is
one of those ports, it is struggling with its landside infrastructure
and a nearly 125-year-old rail tunnel that is not tall enough to allow
trains double-stacked with containers to pass through creating a cargo
bottleneck and impacting the efficiency of the port.
The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund's purpose is to support harbor
maintenance such as dredging by the Army Corps of Engineers. Since
2003, the HMTF has collected more in revenue that it expends and has
accumulated a roughly $9 billion surplus. Despite the need to address
the backlog in port dredging projects, Congress has chosen to limit
annual appropriations from the HMTF so that the Trust Fund can help to
mask the Federal deficit. Without adequate investment, the American
Association of Port Authorities estimates $14 billion in added costs of
traded products due to shallow harbors by 2040. It is time to ensure
that the HMTF's revenues are used for their intended purposes.
When it comes to air travel, our skies are approaching gridlock and
our World War II-era air traffic control system can't keep pace with
the demand. According to the U.S. Travel Association, within the next
decade, 25 of the Nation's top 30 airports will suffer the same level
of congestion as the day before Thanksgiving at least 2 days each week.
Last year, 1.7 billion passengers arrived at or departed from U.S.
airports. This number will only grow in the coming years which means
that unless it's addressed, the cost of congestion at our airports will
rise from $24 billion in 2012 to $63 billion by 2040.
The passenger experience at airports can vary widely as some
airports have been able to better modernize their facilities and expand
their capacity but others are struggling to keep up. The Airports
Council International--North America has estimated that the total
capital development needs of U.S. airports are nearly $130 billion
through 2023. This is a 28-percent increase over the 2017 estimate and
a 70-percent increase in 4 years. The American Society of Civil
Engineers reports that by 2020, unmet airport needs would result in
cumulative losses from our economy of $54 billion in export value and
$580 billion in overall business sales. With the Passenger Facility
Charge having remained capped for nearly 20 years, its purchasing power
has decreased by 50 percent. It's time to modernize this important
financing tool.
While Washington remains mired in dysfunction, State and local
officials have stepped up and made the hard choices by proposing
legislation to increase the fuel tax, replacing the gas tax with a
sales tax on fuels, or ballot initiatives seeking to raise revenue.
Since 2013, 26 States have increased their gas taxes. This has occurred
in red, blue and purple States. The electoral impacts of these actions
were minimal as a vast majority of them have won their reelection
races. According to ARTBA, voters in 12 States reelected 93 percent of
the 530 State lawmakers who supported a gas tax increase between 2015
and 2018 and ran for reelection in 2018.
However, when it comes to the gas tax, it is clear that as a long-
term solution, it is not a sustainable source of revenue and other
options must be further explored and tested. A number of States--most
notably Oregon, California, Colorado and Washington--have moved forward
with pilot programs to test the feasibility of replacing the gas tax
with a charge based on the mileage. The FAST Act included a $95 million
program that has also provided grants to other States examining this
concept. If it has not been already, legislation will soon be
reintroduced to increase the gas tax and then transition to mileage-
based system.
The success rate for ballot initiatives seeking to raise revenue
for transportation from 2009 to 2018 is 78 percent. This tracks well
with the 79-percent success rate of such initiatives during 2018. A
critical reason for the high success rate is that voters were clearly
informed about which projects would be built should the ballot
initiative be approved.
Addressing our infrastructure challenges can seem daunting. But it
is not impossible. It will take all of us working together--Republicans
with Democrats, the House with the Senate, and both ends of
Pennsylvania Avenue. It will take a commitment of funding from all
levels of Government and the private sector.
Americans have grown impatient waiting for our Nation's
policymakers to stop the bickering and address the challenges facing
our Nation. A majority of voters--68 percent--say that infrastructure
investment was an important factor in deciding who to vote for in the
2018 midterm elections.
According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the continued
failure to act will result in American families losing $3,400 in
disposable income each year--or $9 each day--due to our infrastructure
inadequacies. Further, the cost to our economy will be the loss of $4
trillion in GDP and 2.5 million jobs in 2025. The cost of inaction is
simply unacceptable.
Let's go big and bold. Building America's Future calls on Congress
and the Trump administration to put forth and approve a robust and
comprehensive infrastructure package that includes sustainable funding
to get America's infrastructure back to that number-one ranking. This
package should be bipartisan and something that can receive support in
the Senate and the White House. A great place to start is to find a
sustainable solution for the Highway Trust Fund, Modernize the
Passenger Facility Charge and address the limitations on the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund.
It's time. The future can't wait--it's time to build.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to answering the
committee's questions.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate your
remarks.
In fact, I will begin my questions and I am going to--
everyone will get 5 minutes. And I recognize myself, and I will
stick to the 5 minutes. You run the clock, please. I am not
taking that prerogative, because a lot of people want to ask
questions.
With the first to Governor Walz, on just--can we just go
back one more time? Because I am trying to overcome inertia
around here.
You actually campaigned for Governor advocating an increase
in the gas tax?
Mr. Walz. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. And my thinking
was on this is if you are going to propose and tell people,
they know what is aging, they know what needs to be done. They
are stuck, and we have the data on congestion in the Twin
Cities. We understand about--especially down to our township
bridges--in a very rural State, as I said, we have the fifth
highest amount of road miles of any place in the country--that
we had to do that.
And I thought it was disingenuous not to do that, so I ran
on this. And, ironically enough--well, I guess maybe not
ironically enough. Pretty predictably enough--the irony came in
this--the attack ads running against me were that I was going
to raise the gas tax. My numbers went up as those ads were
running, because the public was saying, ``Do something. Come up
with a plan.''
And I think the ranking member said it, you said it, Mr.
Chairman. You heard the mayor and the Secretary say it. We are
open for anything that is out there. But this stumbling along
time to time makes planning impossible.
And I don't care what you call it, we are seeing changes in
storms, flooding, intense cold that is adding to the cost of
the maintenance of these roads and the building of it, at the
same time we are trying to figure out--and the States--again, I
ask you, give us the flexibility to innovate as we move towards
renewables and plug-in vehicles.
But there is no--nobody out there is thinking that we can
do this without investing. And nobody has put a plan forward
who said, ``Well, there is plenty of money out there, you are
just spending it in the wrong place.'' That is fundamentally
untrue, especially in the States. And the Governor's budgets
will reflect that.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Tim.
Mayor, you mentioned a number of tragic and difficult
instances with transit. This is a point I would just like to
emphasize because, with a $106 billion backlog to bring
existing transit up to a state of good repair, let alone the
new transit you are building in L.A., I think this is critical.
Because if things break down, people can't be at work at times,
their lives are actually endangered, they are not using it.
Mr. Garcetti. Absolutely, Mr. Chair. And I think lots of
times people think about cities as places they don't represent.
When, in reality, we know, for instance, in Long Beach, Mr.
Lowenthal's district, and Los Angeles, 43 percent of the goods
that come into America to every single one of your districts
comes through those ports. Same thing with making sure that New
York functions and Boston functions and that the Washington
area functions.
When Washington's Metro system was breaking down,
Accelerated for America came in, helped the three jurisdictions
of Virginia, Maryland, and the District get something done. But
it is a tougher thing to go to voters later and say, ``Hey, we
want you to raise taxes'' to maintain something. We expect we
should have already been doing that. And that is why it is so
critical the Federal Government be that place that we can also
come to and partner with.
We have stepped up. We are not coming here with empty hats
in hand. They are at least half filled. We are asking you to
fill it up to the top.
Mr. DeFazio. All right. And Secretary LaHood, you were very
impassioned about the need for additional funding. I appreciate
that.
But you made the point about all the people who--all the
local jurisdictions and States have raised it, and have pending
raises. So does the Fed really need to do anything, if all
those States are doing it? Can't they just do it on their own?
Mr. LaHood. Well, of course not. And the idea that the
Federal Government is going to get out of the business of
building roads and bridges goes against the issue that I raised
about safety. We have to have high--good safety standards.
And we also have to have a commitment--when people go to
Europe and ride the trains, they come back scratching their
head. Why don't we have this in America? Because the Federal--
Europe invested in trains. What did we do?
Eisenhower had a vision. Connect America. And what
happened? He signed the interstate bill. Fifty years later we
have the best interstate system in the world because the
Federal Government made the investment. Let's don't let that
deteriorate to the point where--and the States don't have any
money. I am--my home State is Illinois. We are broke. We are
broke. And a lot of States are struggling. And then
infrastructure just takes a much lower level.
We set the standard here in Washington, and we set the
standard for safety, and we set the standard for funding. Let's
get back into that business again.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, Mr. Secretary, my time has expired. I
yield to Ranking Member Graves.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want
to welcome all the panelists here. Mayor, thanks for being
here. My two former colleagues--Governor Walz, Tim,
congratulations. It is good to have you here. And really, my
question is for another one of my former colleagues, Secretary
LaHood.
I very much appreciated the opportunity yesterday to catch
up with you and our mutual friend, Tom Oakley. And I would like
to take just a minute to acknowledge Tom Oakley's work on
infrastructure matters over the years, as you are well aware,
including as the leader of the Tri-State Development Summit. A
lot of what we are discussing today stems from those
conversations, Tom. You and I have worked together and I have
always appreciated your counsel. And thank you for being here
today.
With that, Mr. Secretary, just a real quick question. Given
the fact that you have sat both in the House and as Secretary
of Transportation, I would just ask what advice you would have
for us when it comes to reaching a bipartisan agreement that
the House can agree on, the Senate can agree on, and the
President will sign.
Mr. LaHood. I think try and get--try and really get a
message. Try and get a signal from the White House, what they
would be agreeable to.
Mr. Ranking Member, I would say this. You can have all the
big, bold plans you want. But if you don't have the White House
on board--because I think this. I think the House has the
ability to pass a big, bold plan. I think the Ways and Means
Committee will try and find the money for you. But if President
Trump is not with you on this, then it is going to be very
difficult to pass in the Senate. If he is with you, you pass
the bill, Ways and Means comes up with the money, President
Trump is on board. I believe he will help sell it in the
Senate. And if that happens, boom, America is back in the
business of building roads and bridges. So I think you need a
good signal from the White House.
And I think the relationship that you and the chairman have
is extraordinary. What a way to start off the year. And you
know, I don't think it is just talk. I think the two of you
have a good relationship. If you two continue to talk to one
another, and he incorporates--I know you are very big on
vehicle miles traveled. And I think it is a good program. And I
think Peter is willing to listen to you on that. If the two of
you continue to talk, get a signal from the White House, boom.
I think something is going to happen.
But we have a very short window here. This is it. If it
doesn't happen this year, folks, it is not going to happen
until another Presidential campaign takes place.
Mr. Graves of Missouri. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. I think we are going to move on. But first I
am going to ask unanimous consent--there was a letter received
yesterday addressed to Senator McConnell, Senator Schumer,
Representative Pelosi, and Representative McCarthy from 150
groups talking about the urgency for the need of the Federal
Government to enhance investment in infrastructure. And it is
quite a diverse grouping of associations, and obviously
includes labor and others.
Without objection, that will be part of the record.
[The letter follows:]
Letter from ACI-NA et al. Submitted for the Record by Mr. DeFazio
February 6, 2019.
Hon. Mitch McConnell
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate
Hon. Charles Schumer
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate
Hon. Nancy Pelosi
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives
Hon. Kevin McCarthy
Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Speaker Pelosi, and Minority
Leaders Schumer and McCarthy:
We are a broad coalition of associations and organizations working
with all levels of government to address our nation's long-standing
infrastructure deficit. As this challenge persists and worsens, we
encourage you to develop and advance a bipartisan infrastructure
investment package that will improve the safety, reliability and
efficiency of our nation's infrastructure.
Substantial and long-term investments in all kinds of
infrastructure are needed to expand our economy, grow jobs and compete
globally. We appreciate strong bipartisan support for various
infrastructure initiatives over the years--including in the past
Congress--and hope this momentum can lead to a more substantial
commitment this year to meet the growing needs of our economy.
During this period of divided government, we urge Republicans and
Democrats to unite to develop and pass a bipartisan infrastructure bill
that addresses these key priorities:
Significantly increases direct federal investments in a
broad range of infrastructure sectors,
Fixes chronic challenges and addresses reoccurring
shortages in key federal infrastructure accounts such as the Highway
Trust Fund,
Complements and strengthens existing tools, such as
municipal bonds, that successfully deliver infrastructure investments
at the federal, state and local levels,
Facilitates opportunities for private investment in U.S.
infrastructure,
Creates efficiencies such as accelerating the federal
permitting process, while continuing to provide environmental
protections, and;
Encourages active participation among all levels of
government and between public and private sectors without shifting
federal responsibilities because no single partner can deliver a well-
functioning, national U.S. infrastructure network driven by a long-term
vision and funding stability.
The time is now to pass a bipartisan, comprehensive package that
transforms U.S. infrastructure systems beyond the status quo and
maintains U.S. competitiveness in a 21st century economy. We urge you
to work across the aisle to develop a proposal that ensures U.S.
infrastructure is second to none.
Sincerely,
ACI-NA
Aerospace Industries Association
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute
Aluminum Association
American Apparel & Footwear Association
American Association of Port Authorities
American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials
American Petroleum Institute
American Bakers Association
American Beverage Association
American Coatings Association, Inc.
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
American Composites Manufacturers Association
American Concrete Pavement Association
American Concrete Pipe Association
American Council of Engineering Companies
American Farm Bureau Federation
American Forest & Paper Association
American Foundry Society
American Frozen Food Institute
American Gas Association
American Highway Users Alliance
American Home Furnishings Alliance
American Institute of Architects
American Investment Council
American Iron and Steel Institute
American Planning Association
American Public Power Association
American Public Transportation Association
American Public Works Association (APWA)
American Road & Transportation Builders Association
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Soybean Association
American Supply Association
American Traffic Safety Services Association
American Wind Energy Association
American Wire Producers Association
American Wood Council
AMT-The Association For Manufacturing Technology
Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association
Associated Equipment Distributors
Associated General Contractors of America
Association for the Improvement of American
Infrastructure (AIAI)
Association of Equipment Manufacturers
Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations
Bakery Equipment Manufacturers & Allieds (BEMA)
Bond Dealers of America
BPC Action
Brick Industry Association
Building America's Future
Coalition for America's Gateways & Trade Corridors
Common Good
Composite Panel Association
Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute
Construction Management Association of America
Copper & Brass Fabricators Council
Council on Federal Procurement of Architectural and
Engineering Services (COFPAES)
Fabricators and Manufacturers Association,
International
Geosynthetic Materials Association
Global Cold Chain Alliance
Government Finance Officers Association
Hydraulic Institute
INDA, The Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics
Industry
Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association
Industrial Fasteners Institute
Industrial Minerals Association-North America
Institute of Makers of Explosives
Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc.
Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute
International Association of Fire Chiefs
International Association of Plastics Distribution
International Bottled Water Association
International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike
Association (IBTTA)
International Housewares Association
International Union of Operating Engineers
Irrigation Association
Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association
Laborers Int. Union of North America (LIUNA)
League of American Bicyclists
Metal Powder Industries Federation (MPIF)
Metal Treating Institute
Metals Service Center Institute
National Association of Bond Lawyers
National Association of Clean Water Agencies
(NACWA)
National Association of Counties
National Association of County Engineers
National Association of Manufacturers
National Association of Regional Councils
National Association of Trailer Manufacturers
National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors
National Concrete Masonry Association
National Corn Growers Association
National Electrical Contractors Association
National Grain and Feed Association
National Ground Water Association
National Hispanic Construction Association (NHCA)
National League of Cities
National Lime Association
National Lumber and Building Material Dealers
Association
National Marine Manufacturers Association
National Mining Association
National Oilseed Processors Association
National Precast Concrete Association
National Railroad Construction & Maintenance
Association (NRC)
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA)
National Retail Federation
National Society of Professional Surveyors
National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association
National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc.
National Utility Contractors Association
National Waste & Recycling Association
National Wooden Pallet and Container Association
Non-Ferrous Founders' Society
North American Association of Food Equipment
Manufacturers (NAFEM)
North America's Building Trades Unions
Outdoor Power Equipment Institute
Plastic Pipe and Fittings Association
Plastics Industry Association
Plastics Pipe Institute
Plumbing Manufacturers International
Portland Cement Association
Power Transmission Distributors Association
Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute
Rail Passengers Association
Railway Engineering-Maintenance Suppliers
Association (REMSA)
Railway Supply Institute
Railway Tie Association
Resilient Floor Covering Institute
Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA)
RV Industry Association
Security Industry Association
Security Industry/Financial Market Association
(SIFMA)
Steel Manufacturers Association
STI/SPFA (Steel Tank Institute/Steel Plate
Fabricators Association)
The Adhesive and Sealant Council
The Design-Build Institute of America
The Fertilizer Institute
The Linen, Uniform, and Facility Services
Association (TRSA)
The United States Conference of Mayors
Travel Goods Association (TGA)
Treated Wood Council
U.S. Tire Manufacturers Association
U.S. Travel Association
US Water Alliance
Valve Manufacturers Association
Vinyl Institute
Water Infrastructure Network (WIN)
Waterways Council, Inc.
Wood Machinery Manufacturers of America
Mr. DeFazio. And at this point we are--Ms. Norton is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think you have
made the theme of this hearing exactly how we need to open this
session of our committee.
The theme of my questions really goes to the elephant in
the room, the one that has been discussed by all of you, to one
extent or the other, and that is the failure since 1993 to
raise the gas tax.
At the end of this session, when even at this opening
hearing we have laid out what amounts to an emergency and needs
for infrastructure, at the end of this session, if we haven't
gotten over this hurdle, we will simply be repeating ourselves
yet again.
Look, the cost of gas has gone down for the American people
when they go to the pump.
I guess I am going to ask you, Mr. LaHood, because you
focused on how you think the time has come. What makes you
believe that if--the only people I know that don't get--believe
the time has come sit in this Congress. What makes you believe
that Americans are so ready for an increase at the pump that we
could convince Members of this Congress to increase the gas
tax? What is there about the American people, which must be who
they are afraid of?
Mr. LaHood. Thank you, Ms. Norton. I think because we just
had an election, and it looks to me like everybody that ran for
election, particularly a lot of the new Members, ran on fixing
infrastructure. And the Governor just said he ran on it, had
ads run against him on it, and he still won. He told me back
when we were sitting back in the anteroom there that as they
ran more ads against him, his poll numbers went up. You know
why? Because people are sick and tired of lousy roads, unsafe
bridges, and they want more.
Ms. Norton. Well, actually, I am going to ask both
Governors to comment on this.
Now, of course, Mr. Garcetti has recent experience, because
apparently there was a proposition to keep you from raising the
gas tax. And I would like both of you to describe how you were
able to overcome that so Members who sit here, where the gas
tax has to be raised, would understand there is nothing to be
afraid of.
Mr. Garcetti. Well, there really is nothing. Voters in
California rejected it by almost 60 percent, just under 60
percent, a rolling back of what the legislature had done.
As I mentioned, in the city of L.A. we passed--it is a full
cent sales tax that was--I am not suggesting at the national
level----
Ms. Norton. Well, what were the salient--for both of you,
what were the salient arguments used against it that had to be
overcome?
Mr. Garcetti. Sure. I will let the Governor continue, but
we made it about human beings. People know how long they wait
to see their kids, and whether they can tuck them into bed.
They know they have to draw a line in my city around the radius
that they think they can go on a date, so their dating pool
either contracts or expands, based on the traffic. They know
that the jobs they can consider are based on the commute that
they have. They know this in human terms, and we always said
that.
And secondly, we said it about the jobs. I loved what
Secretary LaHood said: This is a jobs program. Here, let me
restate the numbers: 787,000 jobs in one American county,
787,000 middle-class jobs. And these are not just one-off jobs
for a couple years. This is a career, now, that we are aligning
our community colleges with, that we are training people for.
You don't need a degree. They might have put bombers together
on the assembly lines in South L.A. in the past to win World
War II after the Cold War was over. Now they are able to put
together trains on those assembly lines, dig those tunnels, do
things that give them a pension and a decent quality of life.
So--and a note of personal privilege here. My grand-nephew
is going to be at my house, Meredith's son, in about 2 days. So
much love from him, as well.
Ms. Norton. Yes. And Governor Walz?
Mr. Walz. Yes?
Ms. Norton. You too seemed to have run on raising the gas
tax. I am interested in you Governors who run on raising the
gas tax, get elected, and the message doesn't get here to the
Members here in the Congress of the United States.
Mr. Walz. Voters are smart. And to be clear about this,
people are not begging you to raise their taxes, but the way I
framed it was what is your alternative? It is not as if not
raising their taxes gives them extra money in their pocket,
because they know they are spending it anyway. And they look
out and see a crumbling infrastructure. And my frame was--is--
and I am open to this--what is another alternative?
And I want to be clear. As we move to electrification, as
CAF standards go up, the gas tax doesn't hold as big a punch.
I also want to be clear--is we are trying to adjust for it
in working family tax credit, because it is regressive to
families. So that is a part of this conversation.
But the--I think, listening to the Secretary tell you this,
the country--you know this, you just ran--the country is ready
for that bold take. It is not the gas tax alone. But I will
tell you, as a Governor, the gas tax is a reliable funding
stream that allows us to plan and get things done. But all of
your other bold ideas of moving out, we should be thinking
about them.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. The gentlelady's time is expired.
Representative Gibbs?
Well, that is--I don't know, Don. They give me--I don't
know why they gave me that. What happened to Don?
[Laughter.]
Mr. DeFazio. Sorry, Don, they just didn't notice you. You
have only been here for 45 years.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DeFazio. Sorry. I would go to the Dean of the House of
Representatives, the esteemed and good-natured Don Young from
Alaska.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is indeed a
pleasure. This is one of the bright spots of this Congress, is
this committee. As you know, I was chairman of this committee,
and what I am hearing is what we heard when I was chairman. We
did a little better. We did get--George Bush offered $216
billion.
I wanted to raise the tax 5 cents on the gas and index it.
Gas was $1.39 then, and I got shot down by the President and,
very frankly, by our leadership. But I got $285 billion for the
system. If they had done what I wanted to do at that time, we
would never have had a recession, we would have infrastructure
in place because we would have indexed it. An 18.5-cent buying
power in 1992 or 1993 is now 8 cents. So that is our big
challenge.
And this Congress has to rise to that occasion. And I
happen to agree with the Governor--welcome back--that the
public will pay for it if they know it is going into highways
and transportation. Let's face it, we want to move products and
people efficiently, and make us not a nation that has come to a
grinding halt. So I know this committee can do it, I expect to
work with you, Mr. Chairman.
There is a dispute about the gas tax. I am a big supporter
of the gas tax, but I am also a supporter of a mileage fee
because we are successful. We have got about 3 million electric
cars on the highway today not paying their share. And I think
they ought to pay their share. That could be the mileage fee.
Combine them all. And when people get into, like you said, the
private-public partnership, fine. But this is the best
committee to actually have a good, sound piece of realistic
legislation, Mr. Chairman. And with the ranking member I am
confident we can do it.
So it is not--this has never been a partisan committee, and
I hope it doesn't start now. I want us to understand this is an
issue for America, and we can solve that issue together, as
one. That is my goal, to work with you and with the ranking
member and other Members to try to achieve that goal to make
sure we leave the legacy behind.
I had--the TEALU was a good bill, did a lot of work. It
just didn't go far enough because they wouldn't let me raise
the tax 5 cents. I am glad you say 10 cents. I might go 15
cents, just as long as it goes into the highways.
And I want to thank the panel. You did well. And I am here
to work, buddy. And I will do it.
[Applause.]
Mr. Young. All right. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. DeFazio. All those years, and he has still got it.
I will say that the list we got was passed over from the
Republican side. We can perhaps do handwriting analysis and
find out who wrote it and why you were omitted.
Mr. Young. Don't worry about it. It just is--that was a--I
know why it happened, it won't happen again. Thank you very
much.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DeFazio. With that, I would recognize the gentlelady
from Texas, Eddie Bernice Johnson.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And let me say good morning and thank you to all of the
witnesses that have come.
I have been perplexed and frustrated that we have not been
able to get the money we need for the infrastructure throughout
the Nation. And I have heard conversation about public-private
partnerships.
Now, I am from a city in Dallas that--we have a lot of
public and private partnerships, but not for highways and water
systems and all of the other public uses. And yet I keep
hearing about some type of private investment. What is the
likelihood--we have been talking about this, but I haven't seen
anything structurally done in legislation. What do you feel is
the likelihood that we will have private dollars going into the
infrastructure, crumbling infrastructure throughout this
Nation, or crumbling water systems for drinking water?
All of you.
Mr. Garcetti. Sure, I will start with that. Thank you very
much, Madam Representative. P3s, let's be clear what they do
and what they don't do, and how you should and shouldn't do
them. At their best, they do leverage dollars that come in,
accelerate, and can sometimes cheapen the cost of
infrastructure, but usually in transportation. You asked about
water, and I think America's cities are very clear that there
is very little capital for water projects from the P3s. So
let's not expect that to step up.
Second, I say with P3s there is D4: Don't Do Dumb Deals.
And we have seen a lot of them. We have seen folks who have, in
Chicago, leveraged their future parking meters, and they have
to raise parking rates, and people taking baseball bats to
those parking meters because they have to meet Wall Street's
expectations for a deal that the last administration did before
a new mayor came in. We have seen toll roads that are highly
unpopular.
But where we put things forward, we have--the director of
our L.A. Metro system, a man named Phil Washington, used to run
Denver's program. That train that now takes folks from downtown
Denver to the airport was a P3, one of the first successful
ones in the country that lessened by about 25 percent the
amount of time, and reduced the cost in about half of that
system getting built.
As we look at 15 rapid transit lines getting ready for the
2028 Olympics coming to Los Angeles, we are seeing a lot of
interest and a lot of people willing to put capital, while we
retain the ownership of what that asset will be.
When it comes to water, though, this is something that the
Government is going to have to step up and do, because there
simply isn't the marketplace to make water clean in America's
cities to do stormwater, et cetera. So P3s are primarily in
transportation, and not in the water space.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you.
Mr. LaHood. Let me--there is a lot of money that is waiting
to be invested in public-private partnerships. The classic
public-private partnership that has been very successful here
in Washington, DC, is the finishing of the Metro system, the
silver line, which will deliver people from downtown Washington
along a corridor into northern Virginia to Dulles Airport. It
is a classic public-private partnership. While I was at DOT we
put some money in, but there is a lot of private investment in
that. And it is very successful.
Almost all of them are successful. There are a lot of
investors waiting for a signal for projects that they can
invest in. And they are primarily transit projects, and they
are primarily projects that don't involve highways, although
some have. The mayor mentioned some toll roads. Some have
worked and some haven't.
But the truth is there is a lot of money waiting to be
invested. What the investors want is a signal from Congress
that you are serious about infrastructure, that you are going
to put your share in, that there is going to be a big, bold
plan that they can then begin to invest in.
The tunnels between New York and New Jersey, that can turn
out to be a fabulous model for public-private partnership, but
it has got to have the investment of the national Government.
This is a national project. It is not just for New York and New
Jersey.
And you know, the truth is there is a lot of money, and the
investors are waiting for Congress.
Mr. Walz. I would echo the sentiments that were said. And I
especially appreciate the mayor talking about the State
revolving fund on these--water infrastructure. This is a huge
bill that is coming due. The States need to be there.
Again, our State prides itself on a very high credit
rating, fiscal stability. Investors, as the Secretary said, are
waiting for that. But I can't tell you again I--this is my
shameless plug to all of you. Let's don't get into a shutdown
situation, because the crisis gets so tight on the States--and
I am going to make the case on this--especially in
infrastructure.
In our indigenous--we have 11 sovereign nations of
indigenous people in our State. That pain was really real, and
it went right--they were laying off people on infrastructure
projects right and left.
So there are possibilities here, but it is that no one is
going to invest unless they see the stability. But I think
water is the future for us, certainly, as some of these P3s.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very--expired?
Mr. DeFazio. Oops, pushed the wrong button. It said
private. OK, I am not used to this side.
Now, we would turn to the esteemed Representative Gibbs, in
proper order.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I can feel your
pain, because my first year in Congress I was a subcommittee
chair on this committee, and I inadvertently overpassed the
chairman--the distinguished chairman emeritus, and never--it
will never happen again.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Gibbs. He is right about that.
Congratulations, Governor Walz. It was a pleasure working
with you. I think we were both on the Committee on Agriculture
and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
together. I appreciate that.
You know, we do have a big issue here, we all know that and
you see that. And I just want to emphasize a little bit more a
year from this September, September 2020, the FAST Act, the
current highway bill, runs out of funding. During a
Presidential year that would be an interesting discourse, I
think.
But there is no doubt, you know, that the gas tax, the gas
user fee has been declining because cars are more efficient and
less cars don't run on that. And I do believe, whatever we do
short term, that is probably the best option. But I think we
have to somehow couple something else, because we have too many
vehicles not paying their share, then. So it is an inequity. It
is a fairness issue.
And another thing I was just thinking here, sitting here,
we are talking about public-private partnerships, and we talk
about other infrastructure, water. You know, these things I
have talked about in the past, there is lots of things we can
do. And I know in highways we always say that might be a tough
thing, but I got thinking about this. Technology, the
Government, we are so far--we are light years behind the
private sector when it comes to technology.
You know, I see what is going on in some--Amazon and some
of these companies, the retail sector, what they are doing,
where you can go in and check out of a store without even
checking in, essentially. You know, we probably ought to be
building partnerships, Mr. Chairman, with some in the private
sector, where the technology is, when we move forward.
But I guess a question is--I guess the--Governor Walz,
since he is representing the National Governors Association, if
we move forward with a VMT or whatever that program is, a pilot
program maybe on the commercial vehicles first, and move
forward, what do you see the States doing? Do you see some
States moving forward now? Or do you see States--if the Federal
Government moves forward, what are the States going to do?
Because, you know, we have the one system, they collect
money through the same system we do, Federal and State. And so
can you maybe give us your thoughts about what would happen?
Mr. Walz. No, thank you, Mr. Gibbs. Well, again, I--what
the States are asking for, too, in the National Governors
Association--give us the flexibility and give us the ability to
innovate. States are looking at this. We are looking at ways to
do that. We are going to build out our recharging stations and
our electrification systems, but we understand that, too, that
you got a lot of folks on the road that should be paying their
fair share. And I think States are willing to innovate with it.
The thing is, if you do it and you go big, it sends such a
strong signal. It lets us move forward. It gives us the
capacity to do it. Because the States are going to innovate. We
are going to invest. But I think, like Secretary LaHood said,
is the bulk of our funding, a big chunk of it--because these
are still federally funded--that federally funded, State-
administered attitude worked really well, and States are
stepping up.
So I do see them doing that. We would really like you to
leave us that room to innovate, but send some signals that the
help is going to be there, there is some consistency there, and
that we can plan on the future of it being there.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. Mr. LaHood, did you want to comment on what
you see? Because you are representing the--cochair of--Building
America's Future. Do you see that the best option is to address
the gas user fee, and then, at the same time, put something in
motion moving forward? Because I think, long term, you know,
that has to go away at some point.
Mr. LaHood. I think it has to be a package of many
different alternatives: tolling, VMTs.
Expanding VMTs, there are some pilot programs going on now,
and I think they have been successful. The thing about VMTs,
you are going to have to put some language in the bill, and
hopefully that language will incorporate that you are going
to--be a lot of cooperation with the States, who are going to
have to implement this, and collect whatever fees are going to
be collected from the VMTs. So that is going to require some
significant language to make that happen.
And looking at the pilot programs, and then public-private
partnership, it needs to be a combination. But without a big
pot of money, with the Highway Trust Fund going broke, there is
no confidence that the Federal Government is going to uphold
its responsibility to take care of the interstate system and to
fix 60,000 structurally deficient bridges.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. With that we turn to
Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To Mayor Garcetti, there was a list of infrastructure
needs, and I am talking about water. Americans rank
infrastructure as the most important investment, since water is
part of a great need that we have.
What does investment in water infrastructure for the city
of Los Angeles and for the Nation--what does it mean, investing
more in a--looking out, trying to build up the infrastructure
that has long been decaying, and be able to help small
communities deal with--especially State revolving fund?
Mr. Garcetti. It was interesting. When we did the poll that
we shared with you--and I am happy to share the whole poll with
the committee, we can submit that.
Mrs. Napolitano. For the record?
Mr. Garcetti. When it was put forward and people said,
``What in infrastructure do you want Congress to work on
first?'' the thing that, by far, was number one was clean
water.
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes.
Mr. Garcetti. People get this at a visceral level, even
deeper than a pothole that they drive over. They really get it.
In the city of Los Angeles, we passed the stormwater bond
that was the largest in the country about a decade ago that I
authored, and we just passed in the county the largest one, as
well. So again, we are coming having done work--States have
done that, too--but we have mandates that literally can take so
much out of our general fund that they can bankrupt cities and
States today without any help and any money from the Federal
Government.
We have been looking at the Los Angeles River. You have
been a great help to that. The Army Corps of Engineers, we have
authorization for $375 million, but no plan really to ever have
that money allocated right now. So we are stepping up spending,
literally, hundreds of millions of our own dollars to do the
work, hoping that the Federal Government will be there.
But that--everybody knows that whiskey is for drinking and
water is for fighting out in California. We have all sorts of
controversy around water. We have plenty of water. We need help
to reengineer water, to recycle----
Mrs. Napolitano. Recycle.
Mr. Garcetti [continuing]. To reuse. And that is what we
are going to do to capture that water when it is there, to put
it back into the ground, to reinfiltrate it, and to use less of
that.
But, you know, the Federal Government stepping up to do
that would be immensely helpful to us.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, and that leads to the State
revolving fund, which hasn't been reauthorized for 32 years.
Unfortunately, our communities, we are almost--the full cost of
cleaning the water.
Mr. Garcetti. Yes.
Mrs. Napolitano. How important is it to the communities
that SRF be reauthorized? And what more can Congress do to
assist?
Mr. Garcetti. Without that reauthorization, we will not
have clean water in America. You will have certain cities that
can step up and do part of that, like in cities like Los
Angeles. But there--it isn't just Flint. We have hundreds of
American communities that have contaminated water in America in
2019.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, and now that one of our partners
here mentioned the three Ps, public-private partnership----
Mr. Garcetti. Yes.
Mrs. Napolitano [continuing]. Why is water not being
included?
Mr. Garcetti. There is really no revenue stream back to the
private sector, oftentimes, for P3s. This is a public health
issue, more than anything else. Unless we are going to
privatize our water system and see water rates go way up, it is
a very difficult thing for the private sector to put any
private monies in.
That is why I think the leverage here isn't between public
and private partnerships; it is really between local, State,
and Federal Government. I think there is occasional places
where the private sector will step in with dollars. But
primarily, we have seen the National League of Cities, U.S.
Conference of Mayors--we are usually spending, on average,
about 89 percent of all the water money expenditures by
Government in America.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, one of the other things that I would
like to press upon you is the passenger facility charge.
Mr. Garcetti. Yes.
Mrs. Napolitano. Can you discuss the need to increase it in
Los Angeles, and why is it important for the growth of Los
Angeles Airport?
Mr. Garcetti. Well, we are spending the most on LAX of any
airport in America right now, $14 billion, and we will probably
add two more terminals on top of that, bringing public
transportation, creating tens of thousands of jobs.
This is a great thing for Congress, because you are not
asking to raise any tax, you are just allowing us to have a
user fee that goes up--again, never been indexed for inflation.
It would allow us to make that passenger experience and the
safety--right now, the safety of passengers around American--
not just LAX is endangered if we can't spend money in our
airports, and raising that would allow us to do that.
We strongly support that, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and
National League of Cities. We have waited a long time for that.
And anybody who has been to LAX recently knows you will have a
better experience flying through if we are able to spend that
money.
Mrs. Napolitano. Governor Walz?
Mr. Walz. Well, I would come back on this issue of water.
And again, you hear that cities like L.A. can do it. The real
crisis is in rural America. It is too difficult for small
towns. They cannot raise property taxes high enough to take
care of these water treatment plans.
We in Minnesota, this is--we are--see ourselves as stewards
of 20 percent of the world's freshwater, of drinking water.
And so communities care deeply about this. Businesses care
deeply about getting it. But the infrastructure has fallen
behind. We had a big boom in the 1970s, where we were able to
build these up. They are simply aging out. Smaller communities
have a low tax base. These are expensive propositions.
What I would ask is give us the certainty, but give us the
stability to implement these rules, set the standards where you
need to set them, but let the States find the way to get to
them.
But again, I think the mayor is exactly right, and we have
looked at this. It is very difficult, and--nor do I believe--
and this is philosophical--nor do I believe water should be
privately traded, where some people get it and some don't. But
the fact of the matter is now, depending on where your zip code
is, water is different, and quality of it is different.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. I would yield back.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlelady. With that, Mr.
Webster?
Mr. Webster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations to
you.
And, let's see, Secretary LaHood. I have a question about
maybe the quality of the roads that are constructed. Does your
group that you represent consider resiliency as an important
part of the construction standards for roads?
Mr. LaHood. Yes, sir.
Mr. Webster. In what way?
[Laughter.]
Mr. LaHood. Well, when----
Mr. Webster. We just had the Governor say that it was 70
below. That same day in my area it was 70 degrees. So a little
bit different. But in some places there is going to be a need
for some kind of resiliency. In Florida it is a little
different. We can get away with things maybe and the Northeast
can't.
So anyway, that would be my question.
Mr. LaHood. Well, for example, when there are national
disasters and roads need to be rebuilt, we want them built to
the highest possible standards and to some kind of resiliency
so that if another hurricane or tornado or national calamity
happens, they can withstand that. And that wasn't the case with
some of these roads that were built 50 years ago.
Mr. Webster. Well, it seems like----
Mr. LaHood. And that goes to the whole issue of----
Mr. Webster. We wanted to build more, not necessarily the
most long term and expensive, but the short-term inexpensive.
It seems like that. And I just wondered if there is a push to
move to a standard that is higher.
Mr. LaHood. Absolutely.
Mr. Garcetti. May I jump in on this?
Mr. Webster. Yes.
Mr. Garcetti. Thank you, sir. One of the things we
experienced in America's cities is we have very little money.
You pave it with something cheap. You slurry seal, you might do
the pothole repair, but you can't do the fundamental
reconstruction of main roads and highways without the proper
funding in place. So resilience really comes from how much
money you put forward.
Second, resilience is many different things. The heat
island effect in our cities right now is part of what is
happening with climate change. Literally, the most calls I get
on anything we have ever done in Los Angeles from other cities
is we are testing a white pavement that isn't concrete, it is
asphalt. But it is--the private sector has brought new stuff,
and we get calls from cities around the world because it
reduces the temperature by about 10 degrees in our cities. So
that resilience of using technology is very important.
Third point, I have spoken to President Trump about this,
personally. As somebody who has been involved in construction,
and as a developer, he is actually very keyed in on that
question. And we spent a good deal of time talking about that,
having to do with the freeways in my city, and he is talking
about the concrete grade, and how we can really invest in the
better stuff that will last longer. So I think you can engage
the White House on this issue of resilience, as well.
Mr. Webster. Since you are talking about it, is there a
safety issue there, too? I mean is the road temperature a
factor?
Mr. Garcetti. Absolutely. It can be, and especially in our
hotter cities, when it gets so hot that it is not only a health
issue for the people that are around there, seniors and others,
but for the cars themselves, and what it does when those
streets are too hot. Absolutely.
Mr. Walz. Congressman Webster, your question is really
good. And from the Governors' perspective on this, you are
hitting on something of--it is not always one size fits all.
There needs to be a standard, as the Secretary talked about.
But giving us the ability to be able to innovate in those
extreme climates, be able to innovate as we look at these
issues come together--one of the issues we have in Minnesota
is, because of the ice on our roads, we have to use a lot of
salt to remove them. Then that becomes a water quality issue.
It becomes everything else.
So by giving us some flexibility in some of the planning
money or some of the ability to allow folks to innovate into--
we now use bio-based, corn-based products on the roads before
it snows--that makes sure that the----
Mr. Webster. Can you do that now?
Mr. Walz. Yes, yes, to a certain degree. But one of the
things, as you are moving forward and we think about what does
this modern infrastructure look like, how much flexibility
needs to be there, I think you should hold us, as States, to
the high standard that--expectations where it should be, but
give enough flexibility in there that States in--the roads in
Florida are going to look different than they do in Hallock,
Minnesota.
Mr. Webster. Yes. So, well, let me ask you a question. Do
you use--extensively do you use toll roads, or you don't use
them at all, or--is there----
Mr. Walz. We don't. We use HOV lanes that are metered, but
we don't in Minnesota.
Mr. Webster. Secretary LaHood, just real quick here, this
just popped into my mind. Are there any prohibitions about
using tolled new lanes on interstate highways anywhere?
Mr. LaHood. Yes, of course. And while I was Secretary we
received some proposals to do that very thing. And there are
prohibitions, yes.
Mr. Webster. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
Mr. Sires?
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor, nice to see you. We came to Congress together,
and we always appreciate your hard work that you did here,
especially for veterans. Thank you very much. And I know that
you will serve Minnesota well.
Mayor, nice to have you here. My daughter and her husband
voted for you. They live in Los Angeles.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Sires. And Secretary LaHood, I want to thank you for
being here. When you were Secretary you were very fair. It
wasn't easy. You were in many projects in my district, and I
always appreciated the fact that you were a very fair Secretary
of Transportation. So thank you for being here.
You know, we have three very experienced individuals here.
I come from a district that is one big transportation hub.
I represent New Jersey's Eighth Congressional District, which
represents the Lincoln Tunnel, the Holland Tunnel, the Bayonne
Bridge, and obviously, the ports and part of the airport. I
mean, transportation, it is big.
It is probably the most densely populated, per square mile
in the country. The town that I live in is 1 square mile and it
has 52,000 people in it. Hoboken, New Jersey, another square
mile, has 52,000 people. And many of those people work in the
city. So going into the city is very important.
This project, the Gateway Tunnel, it is key to the survival
of the Northeast. When you look at 200,000 commuters travel
this route daily back and forth, this accounts--this whole
region accounts for 20 percent of America's GDP in this area.
So--this Northeast Corridor. So you can imagine how important
this project is, the Gateway Tunnel.
The other day the Governor took us on the train ride into
this tunnel. And what happens is, if you have a piece of cement
that falls off and goes on the track, they stop the train and
they have to remove the cement. So it backs everything up.
And when we talk about funding, New Jersey, under Governor
Christie raised the gas tax 23 cents. Governor Murphy raised it
4 cents. So we have done our share, and we have committed
almost $7 billion to this project. But sometimes partisanship
gets in the way of some of these projects.
I remember last year, when the President wanted to kill the
TIGER grants. Luckily, you know, the Congress put it back. I
remember how hard--had to fight to get some money for this
project.
We just have to come together. There are many ways to fund
projects, whether it is private partnership, public
partnerships, but we have to get this mentality that we are
doing the right thing for America. And yes, so far this project
is very important to me. But I am sure there are other projects
in other parts of the country that we could be working on if we
ever come together on a funding and stop this nonsense that we
just can't seem to work together.
You know, I have been in this committee now 10 years. And I
have been working on this tunnel for all this time, and--but,
you know, I don't know what it is going to take. And we don't
seem to be coming together, quite frankly. Everybody talks
about how important it is. I sat here many times, and everybody
talks how important it is that we fund this, that we fund that,
that America--that we should be embarrassed how America is
falling behind other countries. But yet we don't take the step
of working together.
So we can come up with many ways of trying the funding,
whether it is a gas tax or mileage tax or whatever. But, hey,
the real problem here is trying to get everybody to work
together. You know--and Governor?
Mr. Walz. Well, if I could comment, and thank you,
Congressman, here is what I would say. And I think you see the
cities, the mayors coming together.
Speaking on behalf of the National Governors Association,
this is the bipartisan side of things. We have our Republican
Governors Association and Democratic Governors Association.
This is all of us together. I can tell you that we speak as--as
the Governor of Minnesota, I support the project in New Jersey,
because I know it is good for my economy, too. I know it builds
the State.
And that is what we are asking for. If we can get us
together here to give us some of that certainty, you will see
us work together on this.
And I think your point is well taken. We have got to start
seeing--``Oh, I got money for my project, that is good
enough.'' If that tunnel doesn't work, our economy will be
slowed down. So we stand with you, and the NGA stands with you
as partners.
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Mr. Sires. My time has run out. Thank you very much,
Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. With that, we would turn to
Representative Meadows.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
you and Ranking Member Graves for your willingness to work in a
bipartisan manner to, hopefully, tackle this big problem.
Governor Walz, you know, it is great to see you.
Congratulations. I was mystified by you saying that you got
elected because of running on taxes. You told me if I didn't
endorse you, you guaranteed that you could get elected. And I
held true to that. You got elected in spite of our friendship.
I want to say congratulations.
Here is what I--we are talking about doing anything bold
and making sure we have a plan. I don't know that a gas tax is
bold, because, quite frankly, it is a short-term solution. We
all know it. Every one of you at the table, you know that a gas
tax is a short-term solution.
Now, I am willing to look at--I am willing to put in the
political capital to make sure that we have proper funding. But
what we have to do is do something that is truly bold.
I can tell you my voters in North Carolina could care less
whether he has a tunnel in New Jersey, and that is the sad
truth about it. So we have to come up with something that works
for both rural and urban areas, where--the other thing that we
have to do--and this is where I would ask your help--the only
thing long term about this particular topic is not the funding
source, it is the permitting process. And we have to make sure
that we streamline the process so we are actually building
roads and bridges and the infrastructure that we talked about.
You--I am willing to take a tough vote, but if I take a
tough vote and a bridge gets built 15 years from now, one, it
is hard to do that.
And so I guess, Governor, here is what I would ask from
you, from the National Governors Association. How many of your
Governors are in favor of increasing the gas tax? We need to
know that. I mean truly, we--if you can report back to this
committee, are you willing to do that?
Mr. Walz. Yes, Congressman. And I want to make sure that--I
don't speak for all of them, but what I can tell you is that we
are in agreement with you on this. We are looking, too, for
streamlining of the process. We are not looking to cut corners,
but we are in agreement it should not take that long to deliver
it. That is added cost and added frustration. So we will report
back to you those numbers.
They have not taken a position on it, but we have taken the
position that one funding stream alone will not do it. And I
don't disagree with you on this, that this is not the overall
long-term solution. But when you are out in the States, this is
the one we have, and this is the one that makes a difference as
we start to--I think you are right--think bolder. But we will
get back to you.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Governor.
And I guess, Secretary LaHood, you know, when you come and
say, well, let's put all these things together, you know, gas
tax, toll roads, those kinds of--let me just tell you. It is
nails on the chalkboard to a lot of folks when you say that.
I would rather take one tough vote now to do--and fix this
long term. And I guess what I would ask is, from your group, if
you would come up with something that is long term, whether it
is miles-driven, which has inherent problems, as well--you
know, I know the chairman wants a carbon tax. All of--there is
only about five different funding mechanisms.
But we have to come to a solution on any bold
transportation measure that does that. I am willing to do that,
I am willing to invest. But I also agree with you. If we don't
do it in the next 6 months, it isn't going to get done under
this administration. And yet this President, I think, is
committed to doing something bold and big on infrastructure.
And so can you get back to this committee on what an ultimate
solution might be for a long-term funding stream?
Mr. LaHood. Yes, sir.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. DeFazio. Just to correct the record, I am not aware
that I am a sponsor of a carbon tax.
Mr. Meadows. No, I am--you were more--your side was more
open to that. I didn't mean the chairman, personally.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, I would relate that our former
colleague, Jay Inslee, the Governor of Washington, has had some
extensive experience with carbon tax. It has failed twice in
Washington. Jay is greener than anybody I know, and he is
saying it is time to move on because it is not going to happen
if it can't happen in Washington State. But anyway, that is
just a comment.
With that, I would turn to Mr. Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would love to
continue the discussion about taxes, but let's not.
Mr. Garcetti, Mayor, welcome. Sorry I missed your earlier
testimony. But I do have a question for you. We seem to have
many folks, some of whom are in this room and others who are
not, that seem to want to ignore the issue of manmade climate
change. And really, it is my view--and perhaps it is yours--our
Nation cannot wait to address this critical challenge.
The recent fires in California, including the campfire
which was the deadliest up in the Paradise area and very near
my congressional district, we have seen firsthand that. We have
seen it in your community. Well, just outside your community.
So my question, Mr. Mayor, is would you please speak to how
your city and the municipalities across California are making
investments in more resilient infrastructure, and how important
this is for the municipal and county governments to have a
Federal Government as a real partner in that process of
creating resiliency in the area of climate crisis?
Mr. Garcetti. Absolutely. There is no question that, from
Houston to the Florida Panhandle, California, we are seeing
that impact. I mean I always say forget what your ideological
perspectives are, talk to a firefighter about whether climate
change is actually happening. Talk to a rescue worker about
whether it is happening. Something is happening out there with
extreme weather. I think we know the science. But that said, we
have had firefighters die in the line. We have had roads that
are inadequate access.
We have rethought infrastructure in California--certainly
Los Angeles. We use now resilience not just as an issue area
for a few specialists, but really a prism for all of our
infrastructure. When we repave a street, it is a complete
street. We think about the water drainage, we think about the
trees that we are going to plant and the heat island effect and
what sort of tree canopy we are going to have. We think about
the color of the streets, we think about the long-term
maintenance of that street. We think about the emergency
access. And to the chairman's point, what lights we are going
to put on and how smart they are going to be to get emergency
vehicles in and out quickly.
It has fundamentally made us rethink everything, because
the loss of life and the loss of property makes human beings do
that.
And I think we have a pretty good package that we can share
with the committee of some of those elements of how we look at
infrastructure in a resilient way.
And when I said that second piece of innovation, I would
also look at in this legislation what can you do to reward
innovation and resilience in infrastructure. Even if it is a
very small piece to carve out, I think that the technology is
changing enough and the appetite is there, as well as the real
innovation in States and the local governments, which are the
laboratories of democracy.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
Mr. LaHood, Mr. Secretary, I enjoyed our time together when
you were on that side of the table. I guess I am still on this
side.
Something that I have dealt with over my career, half of
the National Park Service's deferred maintenance backlog, some
$6 billion, is in the transportation and infrastructure
projects. The last major transportation bill, the 2015 FAST Act
passed by Congress, funded the Federal Lands Transportation
Program for national parks and all Federal public lands at
about $300 million. In California alone our national park
transportation infrastructure backlog exceeds $800 million.
So, Mr. Secretary, while we ponder transportation funding
here, why is that funding so critical in our national parks?
And if it is, should it be included in legislation?
Mr. LaHood. Well, it is critical because of the fact that
so many of our citizens use the national parks. And they are
very important to the people of America who want to enjoy those
parks. And it is a Federal responsibility, should be. And
obviously, the money to keep up our national parks should be
included in the program.
Mr. Garamendi. Excuse me for interrupting, but having spent
a wonderful 10-day period in the parks in the Southwest I would
also suggest, from my own personal experience, it is a
significant economic engine for those regions.
Mr. LaHood. Totally.
Mr. Garamendi. And so that is another piece of that puzzle.
Mr. LaHood. Right.
Mr. Garamendi. Beyond----
Mr. LaHood. Right.
Mr. Garamendi [continuing]. Protecting these very special
assets.
Mr. LaHood. Right.
Mr. Garamendi. I want to call you my colleague, Tim,
Governor. Would you like to comment on either of these two
questions in the remaining 13 seconds?
Mr. Walz. Well, I would go on the park piece, and I would--
it is an economic driver. And this is another one where there
is some great bipartisanship available. We all care about these
resources.
Cynthia Lummis, the former congresswoman from Wyoming, and
I did the National Park Stewardship Act that did some public-
private partnerships to bring in and make some capacity to do
that. We know the backlog is huge. We have to tackle it. When
we do that, we increase our quality of life, we increase our
economic growth.
So we are supportive. States would welcome that, those who
are home to national parks.
Mr. Garamendi. With that I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. With that I turn to Mr.
Babin.
And I do note that Secretary LaHood previously informed us
that he would have to leave at 11:30. So if he leaves, it is
not because your question insulted him.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Babin. Did he call on me?
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Babin?
Dr. Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
it very much.
And thank you, you expert witnesses. And thank you for your
service and throughout your careers, all three of you.
Mr. LaHood--Secretary LaHood, I should say--your written
testimony noted that we have a sustainable source of revenue
over the long term to successfully address our infrastructure
needs. And you have elaborated a little bit on that, as--the
other two gentlemen have, as well--and options that we have for
raising funds. And Mr. Meadows had mentioned it, as well, and I
think everybody up there, including both sides of the aisle
here.
But I would ask that--my district, 36 in Texas, we have had
a number of disasters that have really harmed our
infrastructure: highways, rails, you name it. The fact that the
North American rainfall record is in my district, 52 inches of
rain in one event with some unofficial records of--or
measurements of over 60 in mine and also in my colleague, Randy
Weber's district, amazing amounts of rainfall. And yet, after
every storm we always seem to have to reinvent the wheel to get
these funding streams to get back and start fixing our
infrastructure back from the damages.
And we would like to have a simplified--in some way--
simplified funding stream so that we don't have to address each
storm, each event, each disaster in a unique fashion. We ought
to have it set, a set way to do these things, whether it be a
fire or hurricane or an earthquake, or whatever, depending on
where we are in the country.
Do you have any suggestions? And I am going to ask you
other two gentlemen the same thing about how we can address
this terrible problem, because we still have people living in
temporary housing in my district for a hurricane that is almost
2 years ago, Hurricane Harvey.
Mr. LaHood. Yes, sir. I think one of the advantages serving
on this committee that certainly I found when I served on it,
and others have, too, is issues like this can be addressed in a
transportation bill.
Dr. Babin. Right.
Mr. LaHood. Language can be included to streamline whatever
rules and regulations are hampering the ability of a community
to have access to Federal resources or expertise. And while we
were at DOT we streamlined permitting, and we took our lumps
for it. But we did it in response to the idea that some of
these things take too long.
My suggestion to you, sir, is when this bill is written,
work with the ranking member and his staff to include language
that will help accommodate your ability to get the resources so
that people don't have to wait 5 years in order to get a road
back in place, or whatever it might be.
Dr. Babin. You mentioned the bridge collapse in Minnesota,
you know. I think it was 2007. You know, we have--Texas is
actually in pretty good shape, compared to many other States.
We are not broke, like--like you said--Illinois was. But we
have got our share of problems. We got bridges that need to be
fixed. And, you know, some of them are in pretty bad shape.
And so I would hope that I could work with the ranking
member and the chairman, as well, so that we could simplify,
streamline, and eliminate this problem, where we have to
reinvent the wheel after every single event that hits us.
Thank you very much.
And Mayor, how about--or Governor, you go next.
Mr. Walz. I was just going to respond, Congressman, and you
are absolutely right. Every Member of Congress who has been
through a disaster knows how this goes. And you have a
constituent that it breaks your heart, you are trying to get
things done. We know those things were put in place to prevent
fraud, waste, and abuse, but many times those things make what
happens worse than the fraud, waste, and abuse, if it is
possible.
But I do want to give that bridge as an example. Some of
you here remember this. We were on the floor within 2 weeks,
voted for the money. That bridge was up within 9 months. Gone
through here, passed the bill, went through Ways and Means, was
appropriated, was built, the contractor was there, came in
under time, was done, and it is standing today and done right.
This can be done, if we choose to do it.
Dr. Babin. All right, thank you.
Mayor?
Mr. Garcetti. I would echo that, too, and thank you for the
question. I mean, a Republican is just a Democrat who hasn't
been through the NEPA process.
Dr. Babin. Yes.
Mr. Garcetti. All of us, as mayors, know, whether it is
CEQA, which is California's Environmental Quality Act, when I
was trying to redo the airport and we had to choose--is it FAA,
FTA? There are two different agencies, just to get a train into
the airport, and we had to kind of simplify which one. This
would be music to our ears.
And remember the 1994 earthquake in Los Angeles?
Dr. Babin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Garcetti. We had to rebuild the collapsed freeway in a
matter of months, something that would have taken years. So the
human being is absolutely capable of this. Enabling language
especially after disasters would be welcome to us, especially
after the fires and stuff that Mr. Garamendi spoke about.
Dr. Babin. Thank you very much. As a former mayor, I
appreciate what you said. Yes, sir.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
Ms. Titus?
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I am honored
to be chairing the subcommittee that oversees FEMA. And if ever
there was an example of the cost of doing nothing, it is in the
case of resiliency. So it is great for me to hear, especially
from my colleagues across the aisle, this recognition of the
dangers and the damages caused by climate change, and the need
to address that, moving forward. So we will be working together
on those issues, thank you.
My question to this very distinguished panel--and I thank
you all for being here--has to do with priorities. As we have
heard among the questions, everybody has got a project they
really care about, whether it is a tunnel or a bridge or a
water project or responding to some kind of disaster. In Nevada
it is the highways, I-15. It is like a parking lot from my
district to yours, Mayor. The extension of I-11 from Las Vegas
to Phoenix.
We have seen a number of studies that show that if we don't
do something about expanding access, those roads are going to
be like Labor Day every day. And if they are, people are going
to travel less, which will affect the economy, which will hurt
jobs, and will certainly hurt Las Vegas that depends on that
kind of travel for our tourism economy.
We don't have earmarks, unfortunately. I wish we did. You
might want to comment on that, too. But then, because of that,
we are going to have to set some priorities in this committee.
Now, the Building America's Future has a call for a
national infrastructure strategy. We have a national strategy
for moving freight, for a highway program. Would it be a good
idea to have a national strategy that looks at perhaps by State
projects, maybe priorities some of those so that they will
maybe move up the list for things that should be built, and can
be more competitive for funding, and will put us with a more
national reach, rather than just having to compete for little
pieces? Would you address that, Mr. Secretary, and all of you?
How could we come up with a strategy that makes this work?
When we have the money, where do we put it, and when do we put
it?
Mr. LaHood. I think you can put language in the bill that
is not earmarked language, but is language that gives priority
to projects where there is intergovernmental cooperation, where
there is interstate cooperation, where there is opportunities
for States to cooperate, cities to cooperate. You could
certainly make that a priority and include that as language.
I just want to say this about earmarks, and I am sorry to
take the time to do it. One of the reasons I left the
Transportation Committee and got on the Appropriations
Committee is so that I could help my district out. I never
dreamed up one earmark on my own. All the earmarks that I ever
got from my district came from constituents who came to me and
said, ``Hey, we need a new health clinic,'' or, ``We need
this,'' or, ``We need that.'' This idea that these things are
dreamed up in Washington is nonsense.
And if you don't have earmarks, then you are going to have
bureaucrats or people running these departments deciding where
the money goes unless you put language in the bill that says
where there is cooperation, where there is collaboration, maybe
they ought to have a higher priority for funding.
Ms. Titus. Thank you. I am glad to hear you say that.
Mr. Garcetti. I think America's mayors would support that,
as well as earmarks, because we know the democratic process by
which they come up. But absolutely, think about across State
borders and think about regions, because oftentimes there are
small towns that are part of larger regional cities and
counties. When they work together--we see this in Minnesota--we
got that passed when we did the Los Angeles County measure that
I mentioned. I think there should be some sort of reward on
that leverage piece.
And three or four Members have now said it: let's not be
parochial. Let's care about that bridge, you know, that is in
somebody else's district. We in Long Beach and L.A. have a port
that is important for America. And, you know, we spent--we get
about $200 million that we generate from that Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund, and we get about $4 million back. So we
are contributing greatly to all--every other harbor inland, on
the coast, et cetera. So when we stop being parochial, we
actually will move America forward because we are intertwined
with each other.
Mr. Walz. Well, the National Governors Association shares
that. I can't speak for all of them on earmarks. I can speak
from being there. And what the Secretary said is, ``I put them
all online. I had requests from city managers, and a very
conservative newspaper said, 'Well, we are usually against
earmarks, except for these, because they are really good,'
because local community put them in.''
I trust you to make the decisions. You are the
professionals. Go to your mayors, as I know you do. Bring those
things forward.
And then all of us have the courage here--we have in States
where we prioritize projects. You can do that, too. If I were
asking for money from my congressional district, and New Jersey
made the case and it was a stronger one, maybe I am on next
year.
But I think Governors are already collaborative, working
together. We are prioritizing projects. Those locks and dams on
the Upper Mississippi River carry the bulk of this Nation's
agricultural product. It is in all of our best interests that
we are investing. That is not a Minnesota, a Wisconsin,
Illinois project. It is a U.S. project.
So I agree with you on that. I wish you would have the
conversation about how do you make sure you are overseeing this
money in a smart way. Certainly, as a Governor, I want to come
to Congressman Stauber and ask him about the Twin Ports
Interchange and why we need to get that done, and how that
impacts this Nation's economy. That is a better way to do
business.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Rouzer?
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am very
appreciative to have such a distinguished group of--or two fine
gentlemen here before us. And unfortunately, I see we lost our
Secretary.
But I have got a question for you, and I am searching for
answers. And this ties into infrastructure and what we do as a
Congress as we move forward. You have a tremendous amount of
population shift from the Northeast into the Southeast, for
example.
I represent southeastern North Carolina. Of course,
southeastern North Carolina, if you will recall, during the
fall we had Hurricane Florence, which ripped right through the
middle of my district. I have nine counties. All nine were
federally declared disasters. Eight of the nine were under
water and in some areas, in some places still under water,
tremendous devastation. And, of course, a flood takes a long,
long time to recover from. Folks lose everything. And soon,
many people have their entire life savings, all their wealth
creation in their house. And when they lose it, it is gone. It
is a very, very sad situation for many.
Well, in these States where you have such a huge increase
in the population growth, you have extra roads, new bypasses.
As part of an infrastructure package you will be having a lot
of repair. New interstates, designated interstates, et cetera.
And then, on top of that, you got all these new homes that
are built. And many of them today are built, literally, where
you would take one hand and you would touch one, and the other
hand you can touch the other. I mean hardly 6 feet between the
homes. And now, when it rains, all that rain hits those homes,
it hits that surface, that hard surface, goes straight into the
river.
And we are approaching a point in North Carolina where, if
you have a 5-inch rain in Raleigh, you are going to end up
having the magnitude of a Hurricane Matthew or Hurricane
Florence flood further east.
So my question to you, and what I am searching for, are
what are the things that are being done nationwide in various
parts to mitigate flooding of that nature, just because of the
sheer population growth that you have.
North Carolina, as everybody knows, has really grown
tremendously in the last 20 years. It is going to continue to
grow tremendously in terms of population growth. So I would
like to know if you have some examples of what has been done
around the country to help mitigate this really, really
tremendous problem.
Mr. Walz. Well, I will speak on one in Minnesota/North
Dakota, the Red River diversion project. Many of you have
probably seen on TV where it is hard to imagine a flatter area
where the flooding comes from. Those are the areas where it is
the worst.
And what I can tell you on this, Congressman, is these are
emotional issues because of the reasons you stated. They are
also emotional because, many times, the mitigation impacts
others. So in the case of the Fargo-Moorhead diversion, we are
going to route that river around the cities, which is, of
course, going to flood farm land of families that were never
impacted by flooding that may be now. And these are hard
decisions we are going to have to make, as 500-year floods now
become, as you said, 5-year floods.
And I think, as a Nation, we are going to have to have this
conversation about how do we send resources equitably. I say
this as a State, that Minnesota is 47th in the return of
Federal dollars. We spend, of--our tax dollars go out more than
almost any other State, then come back to us. But our
recognition is if that is going to States to improve the life
and quality of North Carolina, as long as there is a
recognition back with us--I think we have to think
collaboratively on this, and cooperative in a way we haven't,
because the real challenge for me is you are right, where you
have more people and more concentration, there is going to be
more infrastructure.
What happens on that final mile? This is the reason that I
don't have broadband in many parts of my State, because the
private sector does a wonderful job of providing it out until
that final mile, where there is no economy of scale and no
return.
So I think a new way of approaching this, a new way of
looking at it, a new way of mitigating--but understand the
mitigations are going to come with their own problems. They are
going to come with the political problems, they are going to
come with are you--every flood wall we build to protect floods
the city downrange, downstream. And that becomes an issue.
Mr. Garcetti. Thank you for the question, Congressman. And
people don't think of Los Angeles as flooding, but we do. It is
the reason the river--if you have ever seen Terminator 2 or
Greased Lightning, it is actually a concrete channel, because
it used to kill people whenever--it follows half the distance
of the Mississippi in 51 miles that the Mississippi takes 2,000
miles. So it is a very violent river.
We changed our ordinances to look at something called low-
impact development of requiring permeable surfaces. So to your
point of when you have--put more concrete down and it creates
more flooding, you can actually change how homes are built. And
you could put something in legislation that looks at that.
Second, the zoning. This comes to Mr. Garamendi's questions
on fires, too. We have let developers build right by fire
areas, and--because they are going to make their buck, they are
going to be gone. Same thing happening right now in flood-prone
areas. We saw that in Houston. And I think the Federal
Government can play a role saying no, there are certain places
homes shouldn't be built, because we all, as taxpayers, wind up
spending hundreds of billions of dollars mitigating what
happens afterwards. Instead, encourage density where it should
be, and reward that perhaps in some of the legislation.
Mr. Rouzer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. We now go to Ms. Brownley.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to Governor
Walz, congratulations. It was an honor to serve with you over
the last 6 years. And I know the Minnesotans were absolutely
right in electing you Governor. So job well done.
And Mayor Garcetti, I want to thank you for your bold
leadership, really, at the national level on the issue of
climate change. And I know your Mayors National Climate Action
Agenda has really set a very high bar for others to follow, in
terms of making Los Angeles a leading city, globally, on the
issue of climate action and climate change.
So, as you know, the State of California has passed
legislation to require that, beginning in 2029, all new buses
must be clean, green, zero-emission buses. So my question is a
little bit more specific than some of the previous questions.
But can you tell us what you think Congress and the Federal
Government can do to help you with these goals? And do you
think California's law would be a good law, nationally, as
well?
Mr. Garcetti. Absolutely. You know that half of the world's
buses will be electric in the next decade. That is not driven
by the United States of America right now, it is driven by
China. And they have shown within a year or two, completely
electrifying certain cities' bus fleets. The technology is
there. I would like to see this be an American industry,
because much of the technology on batteries and even some of
the vehicles has been innovated here, even though it is being
applied in other countries much more aggressively.
In Metro, the system that I am a part of in Los Angeles
County, we have made that pledge to, hopefully, by the time the
Olympics come back to America in 2028, to be 100 percent
electric. We said 2030, but I think we are going to rewind that
a couple years by the time we do this.
Where we need Federal help is on financing, quite frankly.
I was an electric vehicle driver from 1997. I saved money in my
pocket after the first 6 months. And we know that we can
amortize this quickly, but it is a huge infrastructure build on
the upfront piece. So what we need is a financing mechanism.
This is one place where we don't need just grants, but we would
love to see that in R&D, and keep that industry growing here.
We could flip probably the entire system in a matter of 3
or 4 years--maybe 5, because it is America and we move a little
slower than other places. But we could do that within half a
decade if we had the financing.
And so, rewarding that--so both the electric grid, the
charger infrastructure, and then the loans for the buses--we,
as an agency, would pay that back 100 percent. I am 100 percent
sure of that. Private companies are offering that to us right
now. We would rather do it, I think, through Federal Government
because the companies may be around or may not be around. Some
of them are foreign companies, some of them are domestic. But
we would get electric buses in L.A. in a matter of 5 years, I
think.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you for that. And another question that
I wanted to ask, as well, is you have been doing a lot of work
on workforce development and manufacturing. You have made
reference to that earlier in your testimony.
Can you tell the committee more about these economic
development initiatives, and how you think they tie into our
transportation future?
Mr. Garcetti. Yes, it is great. I mean we have seen a
hollowing out of the middle class in much of America, in
American cities. We see this as kind of the come-back, the
central pillar of that.
When I said the 787,000 jobs that are created by one
measure alone, we didn't want to just say that it is going to
happen passively. We don't want them to just come from other
places. We are now putting our community college district in
line to do that training with our unions and some of our
contractors.
We are inviting folks--we are starting the first school,
the high school, for kids that will be transportation careers,
a public high school in Los Angeles, based on one that exists
in New York City right now. So we really could see this as not
only just expanding that infrastructure, but the human
infrastructure and the way we benefit from this.
Congresswoman Bass's legislation to hire locally, which I
know can be controversial, but you see a subway coming through
your area and nobody from your neighborhood working on it, that
is a problem. We should be able to reward that, especially in
cities where you have the pipeline for just as good workers as
anywhere else.
We have seen folks who are ex-offenders--I told this story
in my State of the City Address of a woman who was arrested
when she was young for a drug charge. She came out, she was
trained. She is an African-American woman, there is not many in
the building trades. She is now working on the Crenshaw line in
South Los Angeles, and her son gets to visit Mom three blocks
from where they live, working and building a great thing that
will make her proud for the rest of her life.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And again, thank you
for your leadership. And Governor, thank you for yours. And I
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
Mr. Westerman?
Mr. Westerman. Well, technical difficulties down here, but
thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you also for such a great
title for today's hearing. I think maybe, instead of just the
statement, the cost of doing nothing, it is more of a question
to us, is what is the cost of doing nothing, because we all
know there is a cost to doing nothing.
Being a professional engineer and having done many projects
in life, we never looked at an alternative project where we
didn't first evaluate the cost of doing nothing. And there
always is a cost of doing nothing. And we are seeing the cost
of that in our infrastructure across the country.
Now, I appreciate the gentleman from California, Mr.
Garamendi, mentioning the forest. I think that is a great
parallel to what we are seeing with infrastructure across our
country. If we let our forests continue to grow and
overpopulate, eventually there is going to be a day of
reckoning when the forest catches on fire. We can apply sound
scientific principles to that forest, and we can manage it, and
we can make it more resilient, and life is better when we do
that.
But as we look at infrastructure and we think about this
cost of doing nothing, I have a couple of areas I want to focus
on, on the water side of things.
First off, I want to go back to clean water. We have talked
about that a little bit. And as I understood your testimony and
understand the way the process works, with large cities and
larger urban areas, with municipal bonds you can pretty much
handle those projects. We see that where I live in Arkansas. I
know it is all across the country.
But also in my district I have a lot of rural areas. And
you mentioned even with the fund to help give below-market
loans for those projects, it sounds like there still needs to
be more done to help these rural areas that just don't have the
tax base to put clean water systems in.
Could you elaborate a little bit more on what else needs to
be done on top of the revolving fund?
Mr. Walz. Yes, thank you, Congressman. And again, we see
this more and more every year. And it is like many of them are
reaching their life expectancy at about the same time.
And you are exactly right where the problem is. And we do
bond for it. We are talking about it, and we do some of this
State bonding. But then it becomes the picking winners and
losers amongst a--numerous small municipalities. It is just
having more into that fund, I believe, the capacity to do it.
It is us understanding that this is going to take a pretty big
investment.
And this is that hidden infrastructure that you don't see.
But for example, a small town that--maybe their entire city
budget is $10 to $12 million, the replacement of one of these
water treatment plants is now $15 million. And there is just
simply no way property taxes quadruple overnight.
So in the State we are looking at ways we can be of
assistance. I think the revolving fund--of making sure it is
there, making sure there is some flexibility for us--again, I
think that came up in numerous conversations.
I don't think there is a lot of disagreement across
political spectrum on this. There needs to be standards to do
these things, but some of that flexibility helps us out. So
some of these things are it takes too long to build them, they
become a little more expensive, and having access to those
funds. But in many cases we are going to have to do more than
just loans to these, because these communities don't have the
capacity to pay them back.
Mr. Westerman. And on the water thing, but shifting gears a
little bit, Minnesota, you utilize the navigational waterways,
inland waterway systems, quite a bit. I have been doing a lot
of indepth study on that. And there is billions of dollars of
work that need to be done on those systems. They are out of
mind, out of sight.
Mr. Walz. That is right.
Mr. Westerman. I think I have got a lot of them in my
district, and I don't know that people even realize they are
there a lot of times. But if one of those locks and dams fails,
people will realize very quickly when they see all the
additional trucks on the interstates.
We move a tremendous amount of ag products down the
Mississippi River through our inland waterways. It is the
cheapest mode of transportation. It takes less fuel per mile
than any other mode of transportation. It gives us a
competitive advantage in rural areas for our ag products.
These investments and these projects have returns of 10 to
16 to 1, is what the literature says. So even if you went into
debt to fix these inland waterways, you would be money ahead in
the long run. And in 10 seconds would you like to comment on
that?
Mr. Walz. I will say amen on that, and the national debt
matters. When I bought my home as a teacher, I was making
$40,000 a year. I bought a $120,000 home. I was 300 percent of
GDP in debt and it was the best investment I ever made. In this
country--what Congressman Westerman said--is our infrastructure
on the locks and dams, we are one accident away at that lock.
That 75-year-old lock at St. Louis will shut down 83 percent of
the exports of this country.
This is not Mark Twain's Mississippi. This is hundreds of
times more important even than it was then for the moving of
products. And this is a crisis situation.
Along with that we talked WRDA for many years here. Big
WRDA. If you can do it, go for it.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank----
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. Thanks for raising that issue. We
are not just here for surface today, so there are other areas
that need critical investment.
And with that, Representative Payne.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Governor, it is good to see you back here. We miss you
already. The people of Minnesota were very bright to bring you
back home full-time.
You know, I just want to echo something that you said, and
I think we have the same philosophy on it. Getting into the
specific projects that are important to our districts--and we
are here to support our constituents and our areas, but we are
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee of the United
States of America. So we have to have a broader outlook on
other projects that don't necessarily always just pertain to
our districts.
And so I feel it is very shortsighted of some of our
colleagues at times to make a statement, just, well, my--the
people in my district could care less about a tunnel in New
York and New Jersey. Well, that may be very well and true, but
it is--I feel it is part of your job to articulate and bring
understanding to why it is important to the Nation.
If that tunnel crumbles, transportation on the eastern
seaboard is shut down between Boston and Washington, DC. And I
can remember being in New York with the Member from North
Carolina, and I am sure he took the train through that tunnel
to get from North Carolina to that meeting we were in in New
York. So it has an impact.
And so, as you said that you were 47th in your return on
those monies, and--but you understand how important it is. So I
wanted to thank you for that.
And Mr. Mayor, in your testimony you discuss some of the
investments and changes that have improved the Port of Los
Angeles. You also mentioned investments that need to be made at
ports across the Nation. I represent the Port of Newark, which
is part of Port of New York and New Jersey and it is the
busiest container port on the eastern seaboard.
Could you unpack some of the technologies and investments
that need to be made at our major ports across the country, and
speak about how Congress can make sure our ports continue to be
productive, while creating good-paying jobs?
Mr. Garcetti. Well, thank you, and thank you for your
leadership in Newark and for the Nation, because we know even
in Los Angeles, Newark is an important port for us, and vice
versa.
You know, we need full utilization of, I think, a fair and
equitable framework that takes care of our ports as a system,
because they really are tied together. And I support--there is
an approach that has been put forward by the American
Association of Port Authorities--both of our cities are members
of--that looks at funding for each region of the country, but
also looking at small, emerging harbors. So it is not an
either-or, it is a both, and for donor and energy transfer
ports.
As I mentioned before, we collect about $200 million from
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund each year, the Port of L.A.
And about $3 to $5 million of that is returned. Think about
that for a second: $200 million we collect, $3 to $5 million
returned. And yet, what we are doing there, together with Long
Beach, 40-plus percent of the goods that come into America come
through those ports.
We are looking at a zero-emissions port, because usually
communities of color live right by there, and they have the
worst air quality. People forget one of those huge ships is the
equivalent of tens of thousands of cars. So as we look at
resilience and climate change, that is a great place to make an
impact. And we take a very bold step in Long Beach and L.A.
saying we will be the first zero-emission port not in the
United States, but in the world. We are going to need some help
on the technologies. We are working with private sector, those
trucks, everything like that.
Second, we are looking at new technologies. It is a great
American export. Working with GE Capital, for instance, to
predict which containers are coming in, match them up with the
trucks before they get there, and now we are licensing that to
other ports around the world, taking a cut of that, bringing it
back to America. That is like American know-how.
So again, the innovation around ports on logistics, on
rail, on-dock rail, new generation of electric locomotives so
that we can have zero-emission locomotives for those
communities of color and those communities that are around
ports, all of those things would be great to see, and a more
equitable use.
I hear loud and clear what Mr. Westerman said. I would love
to see us take those harbor funds and help the entire system
that ties together. We already do that. I would be willing to
share some of that. But we need to get back more than 1 or 2
percent of what we generate to do the good things for America
and to make it work.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
Mr. Gallagher?
Mr. Gallagher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Governor Walz, you mentioned electric vehicle charging
networks, ports, locks, dams, water systems, and other
infrastructure. The modern versions of this would, in many
cases, be equipped with smart technology, meaning internet
connectivity, in many cases.
What guidance exists in your State to protect smart
infrastructure, new infrastructure from cyber attacks?
Mr. Walz. Well, thank you for the question, Congressman. In
fact, my second Executive order was issued yesterday, forming a
blue ribbon panel on this very issue, on looking at over-the-
horizon technology challenges, making sure--and we saw it this
week--when temperatures--the things I was monitoring on a
minute-by-minute basis--when temperatures get to 70 below, an
interruption in power generation or gas delivery is life and
death. And so, when we had blitz and seeing things on the map
going red, meaning we were losing some of that, trying to
understand where it was. Some of those were switching issues,
some of them were small issues. And the good news was it all
came back up.
But it highlighted the fact, again, that a sure way to
attack this country at a time--is to attack infrastructure. And
so we are starting to think forward. We are bringing in all the
folks who are cutting edge on the front end of this, but
thinking of where we haven't been yet.
Because, again, if we move to autonomous vehicles, which we
are trying to do some of these test projects, how protected are
they? Because the havoc that can be caused by cyber terrorism,
whatever it might be, as well as just an outage. So we are
thinking about it, we have raised it to that level of
importance that it will permeate all the decisions we make. And
I think many of the States are looking for that again.
This is one of those cases where I think the States are
great innovators. We are looking at other States that have
moved ahead--protecting the Port of Los Angeles I am sure the
mayor will talk about--but we are going to need some help doing
it, because we see it as a threat.
Mr. Gallagher. And a similar question to Mayor Garcetti,
but maybe comment specifically on whether cities are aware of
the cyber vulnerabilities posed by Chinese technology
companies, particularly Huawei and ZTE, and whether there is
extant guidance about purchasing technology that could wind up
in smart technology in the future from those companies.
Mr. Garcetti. Yes. So we established the Los Angeles Cyber
Lab. We think it is probably the best of any municipality in
the country. It is now 4 years old. DoD, DOJ, HSD are involved
in it.
We have the busiest port in the Americas, the number-two
airport in the country, and the largest utility owned by any
municipality. So we have got vulnerabilities many, many places.
We have also brought in the private sector with this, as
well. Remember when the hack happened to Sony? The rest of the
companies were like, phew, I am glad that didn't happen to me.
Our enemies collaborate to share how they are going to attack
us. But we, as friends, never share, especially in the private
sector, because we see each other as competitors. We are
breaking that down in Los Angeles.
So we are--essentially, we have formed something from the
smallest business that is vulnerable to the biggest company in
our own enterprises to share that information right away, and
to give patches and fixes in real time that we get from one
company giving to another one. So people are signing up, and we
would love to share that with you.
In terms of the Chinese technology and other technologies,
that is a part of what we talk about. Maybe we can talk about
that a little bit more offline. But that is absolutely a piece
of what we keep our eyes on.
Mr. Gallagher. I would love to. And I just--for either of
you or both, I mean, are States or municipalities aware of how
much Huawei and ZTE products--they may have already purchased,
or may be on----
Mr. Garcetti. We don't purchase either of them.
Mr. Gallagher. Any of them? Yes.
Mr. Walz. At this time I don't know, Congressman. We need
to--our cities and the larger cities--on how those purchases
were made. That is one of the reasons why forming this task
force, so there is an alignment of both goals and protections
that go into it, because I think a lot of it is what you are
asking. We don't talk to one another, and we may not know.
Mr. Gallagher. Sure. And my simple concern is that, as we
contemplate spending potentially $1 billion of Federal money on
smart infrastructure, we want to make sure we are not building
back doors into which our enemies could disrupt us in the
future.
And the final thing I would say for Governor Walz is go,
Packers.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
Mr. Lowenthal?
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, my--
both our witnesses, my former colleague and dear friend, Tim
Walz, and the great mayor of the city of Los Angeles, who I
have great respect for. And I will come back and ask you a
question in just a second.
But I really want to preface my statement by, all of you,
we have talked about the funding gap and what we need. But I
don't think we have really spent enough time on the overall
freight situation, and what we are talking about, in terms of
freight.
You mentioned, Mayor Garcetti, in your written testimony
that we have over $2 billion in a freight funding deficit. That
means more congestion, more emissions in our local communities.
But it also means a delay in goods that really impacts both
consumers and the manufacturers getting there. And as you
pointed out, 43 percent of these goods come through the--our
joint ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.
Soon I am going to--this is my public, you know, statement.
I am going to be reintroducing my National Multimodal and
Sustainable Freight Infrastructure Act, which I have introduced
before, have had a lot of support. It is a bipartisan
legislation which creates a dedicated revenue stream to
specifically finance sorely needed freight improvements, from
the ports to wherever they are going, throughout the Nation.
And so I really think in part--it is important because, as
has been pointed out by all of you, we are not going to have a
single funding source. But the Federal Government needs to come
up with creative sources. And I think creatively also in terms
of targeting certain needs, and making sure that those, as we
have learned with the highway gas tax, that we protect those
monies.
Especially I want to point out--I want to thank Chair
DeFazio, Representative Napolitano, who is the chair of our
Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, for their
leadership in making sure that we spend all the Harbor
Maintenance Fund, and also that we then also begin to look at
the relationship between the donor ports and the other ports.
I think those are--because, as we pointed out, ports across
the country--as my colleague, Mr. Payne, has pointed out--need
to build the infrastructure that connects the maritime
transportation system to the surface transportation system, and
it is one real system. Even though we frequently think of them
as separate, we are really talking about one system.
And I hope we make tremendous--in the next 7 months--
improvements in those areas.
But Mayor Garcetti, I want to ask you a question I think
that Representative Brownley talked about, and my preface to
that is that, you know, we talk a lot about infrastructure
investments that create good family jobs and sustainable jobs.
But it often takes an extra effort to make sure those
investments benefit the local communities. And you talked about
that, how the city of L.A. and L.A. Metro have set ambitious
local hiring goals, and you took advantage of, as you pointed
out, this Federal pilot project to allow for local hires that
was put into our federally funded projects.
You mentioned a little bit--I would like--there are three
parts to this question. I would like you to spend a little
time, if you can--whatever is left--what was your own
experience with this? And maybe, more importantly, what
happened as a result of DOT's decision not to continue? And
what would you like this committee to do? That is the most
important about this issue.
Mr. Garcetti. Well, thank you so much, Congressman, for the
question. I mean what Member of Congress doesn't want to
deliver jobs back to his or her own district----
Dr. Lowenthal. Right.
Mr. Garcetti [continuing]. For his or her own constituents?
I mean it is a question, I think, that has an easy answer.
Now, in the past there has been those who say, well, we
don't have enough of a workforce here, we have to bring them in
from other places, other States, even. In Los Angeles we have
people coming in from Ms. Titus's district and other places.
Shame on us. Those are great workers, but shame on us for not
growing them up.
And the companies get a little bit lazy about just saying,
well, we don't want to do it. We should be offering help to
partner and pay for their trainee costs with our WIOA dollars.
We have done that in Los Angeles, and the pilot was extremely
successful. We have a generation of people now growing up that
will have lifelong employment in the building trades and do
significant things that they will look back on with their kids
and their grandchildren and say Mom or Dad built that.
Second, though, in a way we suddenly went back to companies
saying, ``Hey, we don't have to do this,'' and these programs
started to have problems. Now, we have so much infrastructure
going, we can control that--at the airport, we are doing things
on our Los Angeles River, the ports, et cetera, that we can put
some of those folks to work.
But I think it would be a real legacy of this committee and
of this Congress to say not only are we going to put that in
place, we are going to think through how training occurs, work
with our community colleges, work with our unions and our
trades to be able to put that forward.
And for a Congress that just adopted historic criminal
justice reforms, it is a great place to put people to work who
are not going to go back to school and get a degree, but who do
want to be contributing members of American society. And we had
a huge percentage--I would say about 40 percent of the folks
that are working now at the airport, on Metro, came out of
serving some time, and this has changed their lives.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
Mr. Garcetti. Thank you.
Dr. Lowenthal. And I yield back.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
Mr. Davis?
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your
friendship, your leadership on this committee. I look forward
to working with you.
And I also want to thank my leader, our Republican leader,
Mr. Graves, for in a weak moment naming me the ranking member
on the Highways and Transit Subcommittee. I don't think many
people in this room know what you were thinking there, but
thanks, buddy, I appreciate it.
And hello, Governor. Good to see you again. Football
meeting, the congressional football game is next week. We hope
that you plan on coming to play again, even in your new
capacity. Absolutely, we need you. We will beat the guards this
time.
And Mayor, great to see you again. I am a little
disappointed that you did not nudge Secretary LaHood like I
texted you to do earlier in this hearing. And I am sorry I
missed my good friend, Secretary LaHood, because I had some
questions for him.
But all three of you, I think, bring a unique perspective.
And we all see the need, Republicans and Democrats, to figure
out how to pass an infrastructure bill. This can be the
committee of bipartisanship. And many of the comments that each
of you have made as I have been in and out of the hearing are
very appropriate to our concerns.
We have to have revenue. I am for diversification. How in
the world do we create a 401(k) of funding sources to lower the
volatility of just--like we currently have just one source now?
Those are the debates that we should have in this room. But the
cost of doing nothing actually also includes the regulatory
environment.
Now, as the Governor of a State, mayor of one of our
largest cities, what can we do in this committee to reduce the
cost of infrastructure investment on the regulatory side that
you may not have addressed already? I will start with either
one of you, whoever wants to go first.
Mr. Walz. Well, I will get on this. This is a place of, I
think, great collaboration that can happen in here that--none
of us are saying that--of unfunded mandates that end up on the
States, of regulatory burdens, as we were discussing earlier.
We know that this can be done.
The mayor talked about a freeway that was reconstructed
after an earthquake. I talked about the I-35W bridge that was
debated, voted on, funded, and built, and the ribbon cut within
a matter of months. That is out there. I think it is working
together to make the case.
When people say that they are worried about a regulatory
burden, not assuming that means they want to get out of
something to make more money or to not follow the rules, it
means that they see it as a regulatory burden. And those who
say, ``But we are not willing to put people at risk,'' I think
we can come to some common ground.
The Governors, the National Governors Association, would
welcome anything that you would do to help us be able to speed
those things. Set the standard for us, keep it there, but give
us at least enough flexibility that, in these changing
circumstances, we are able to reach our goals, but not
undermine or add costs to it.
So we are in agreement with you, Mr. Davis. And I think
this is the perfect time to do it. As you are talking revenues,
ask for those changes that make this easier, and you will find
support amongst the National Governors Association for it.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, my friend. Great to see you again,
too, Tim.
Mr. Garcetti. Great to see you, Congressman. And, don't
worry, Secretary LaHood is coming out to L.A., so I will give
him a punch for you when he comes out next week.
A couple specifics to answer. One is I would give
incentives for how quickly people get things done. Because not
just Federal regulation, sometimes State and local. And
everybody loves a deadline.
So if there is a piece of this funding that says it has
deadlines that are shortened, trust me, States and local
government will adjust. Those bureaucrats that work for us will
say, OK, I got 30 days now to do it, and we will find a way to
get to yes, instead of just slow it down to no. So that is one
suggestion.
Second is I think that we all want the truly environmental
protections to be there. But what now is called environmental
law is so often a way for people who are NIMBYs to slow things
down, full stop. We know that, and this unifies us, whether we
are Democrats or Republicans. There is--you know, sometimes
unions will do it, sometimes businesses will do it, sometimes
residents will do it.
And people should have a way to petition their Government,
but it all should be narrow windows, the cost of doing that
should be at least something that people can't just, for a
nickel, put in endless appeals. And where the Federal
Government, again, either requires that States and localities
align their laws to be that way, or if you have jurisdiction to
put that down in these, that would be helpful.
So those are two concrete suggestions, I guess pun
intended, that we could get this stuff moving forward.
Mr. Davis. I appreciate both of your comments. And we want
to get things done here to make it easier for States and
localities to be able to invest in the infrastructure
improvements that we want to partner with you on.
I wish Secretary LaHood was still here. He and I have
talked about this before. The biggest impediment that I see for
infrastructure investment is the discussion of impeaching the
President. Ray LaHood has a unique perspective on the last
impeachment proceedings that took place in the 1990s. He was in
the chair of those proceedings. And I asked him at an event
recently how many bipartisan agreements did you pass in
Congress during the impeachment of President Clinton? Zero.
We have got to come together as a Congress in a bipartisan
way to put infrastructure on the forefront. I am glad Chairman
DeFazio is doing it today, and I thank you for your time.
And I have no time to yield back.
Mr. DeFazio. Representative Lynch?
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just as far
as the previous comments go, I think Congress can do a couple
things at once, if we need to.
But Governor, Mr. Mayor, we appreciate your testimony, as
well as Secretary LaHood. You do have a great perspective. Good
to see you back, Tim. We miss you. But you are in a good place.
We are in a very important juncture right now, and it is a
great opportunity, because, while Chairman DeFazio is trying to
cobble together, you know, a major infrastructure bill, we are
also on the Committee on Financial Services, where we are
trying to address the next iteration of our National Flood
Insurance Program. And both of those, Chairwoman Napolitano and
the flood insurance effort, really look at climate change and
the impacts it is having on our communities.
Los Angeles has a similar profile as Boston does, in my
district. But there is a disconnect. There is a disconnect.
I am a former iron worker. I was an iron worker for almost
20 years. Strapped on a pair of work boots every day. Built
bridges, basically. And high-rise towers. And right now, in my
State, I have 483 bridges that are deficient. And that is a
disgrace, to me, as an iron worker, you know? And you worry
about your families traveling over those bridges, the ones that
are still open.
In my role as a Member of Congress, I talk to my Governor.
He is a Republican, Charlie Baker. I ask him what his
priorities are. I go to my mayors, Marty Walsh, Joe Sullivan,
Tom Koch, Bob Hedlund, and I say, ``What are your priorities,
as mayors,'' because they are on the ground. They have a real
keen sense of what the priorities should be, and where the
money would do the most good.
I honestly think that the big question here is going to be
on how do we get people behind the funding issue, if it is for
raising the gas tax or whatever it is. And I think the way to
link that up and to win the campaign for an increase in
funding, you know, to put the trust back in to the Highway
Trust Fund, is really to link those up. I would support a
proposal that said earmarks are not going to come from Congress
any more. Earmarks have to come from my board of selectmen, my
town manager, my mayor, my Governor, my State reps and
senators. It has to come from the local community.
And then, of course, we have competing needs in all our
communities, they have to come--those requests have to come to
Congress and, obviously, would have to be the arbiter of what
gets funded, in terms of need and the priorities that come from
the States and local governments.
So, you know, I just--is that a way--I would like to have
your thoughts, because you are sort of at the so-called tip of
the spear on all of this. You are hearing the complaints, you
are dealing with this stuff. You know, if a bridge has got to
be closed down for one lane because it can't handle the weight
of two lanes of traffic, you know, it is the Governor and the
mayor that are dealing with that.
I would just like to hear your thoughts on trying to
reconfigure what we are doing here, so that we take the
distaste away from earmarks and restore, as I said, you know,
that trust that I think has been lost because of some of these
other projects that have, you know, been talked about in the
press extensively about the misuse of power and resources.
Mr. Walz. Well, I share your approach, Congressman. I trust
mayors. They know best. They bring you these projects.
We did something--some of you weren't here long enough--we
used to have these Member-directed projects, earmarks. And one
of the things that cleaned up a lot of this was just put them
on the internet, put them out there, show who requested it, and
allow for citizen comments.
You can do these things, we can prioritize these things,
and then come up with a way to deliver it. It is just a way, I
think, of better accountability. I think it brings faith back
into the system. People will--if they see where their tax
dollars are going, it makes a big difference. And I think you
have to bring faith back into it. And that does start to get at
this funding piece on how you get there. And I think it starts
by--you listening to your mayors makes a difference. That is
who I listen to.
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Garcetti. I think it is a wonderful idea. I think that
you got to trust democracy. It is either--small d, democrats,
all of us are not. You think that people know what is best on
their block and in their community.
And using, I think, elected bodies at the State and local
level are proof that Washington trusts democracy across
America. It would be, I think, a big show of faith. So I think
that would be a great way to do it. We would love to work with
you at the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and maybe see about how
that could be done, and how--you know, there is always going to
be some cases in which, well, maybe my local body completely
disagrees with me. But I think there are ways to work that, so
you have multiple----
Mr. Lynch. Yes.
Mr. Garcetti [continuing]. Ways to input that.
But, you know, specific projects get done. The American
people need to know that specific projects get done. Who do you
want deciding that, somebody who is not elected, who is a
selected bureaucrat, or somebody who is an elected
Representative? I think that is an easy answer.
And I appreciate your restraint in not talking about
football. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Lynch. I yield back my time.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
Mr. Balderson?
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would first like
to begin this afternoon, now, by thanking Chairman DeFazio and
Ranking Member Graves for holding this important hearing.
It is critical that we invest in transportation and
infrastructure today so Americans can prosper tomorrow. I am
really excited about being on this committee and having the
opportunity to work in a bipartisan manner and get something
done.
I am particularly excited to sit on this committee during a
period in which it will likely consider a comprehensive
infrastructure plan, as the President mentioned in his State of
the Union Address just this week.
I will move forward with my questions. And I, like several
others here, I am sorry to see Secretary LaHood leave. But
Governor, thank you for being here today, and these questions
are directed to you.
Having come from a perspective of being at the Federal
Government and then going down to the States, where a lot of
work does get done--and having served in the State legislature,
I know that we move forward with a lot of projects. But I would
like your insight on how Congress can expand and promote the
development of the public-private partnerships, so that States
can enhance this innovation.
Mr. Walz. Well, thank you, Congressman. Congratulations for
being here. And you are right, you are on the right committee
here. And we do trust you. This entire conversation is about
building the trust it is going to take to get this done.
One of the things is--and you heard the mayor talk about
that--a lot of those public-private partnerships, and
rightfully so, are predicated on how safe they are, the return
on investments that they make. So it is important for us to
know that our Federal partner is there.
I can't stress enough, again, just--so in the State of
Minnesota, when the shutdown happened, we have a revolving fund
where we pay our contractors forward and you reimburse us for
it. The State of Minnesota is $120 million that we had floated,
with no idea where we are getting it. We were losing our
partners who wanted to work with us, because they didn't know
how we were going to be able to do that.
So one of the things is give us that consistency, give us
some of the capacity to innovate and build and experiment. If
you truly trust the States as laboratories of democracy, give
us that capacity to do that. You hear the mayor talking about
amazing things they are doing at the Port of Los Angeles. The
States can do the same things. And then give us that ability to
work across jurisdictions with other States a little bit to get
some of those things done.
Again, the stable funding stream, can't stress it enough;
some capacity to be flexible and make sure that we are not
having unfunded mandates. Let us be able to show our private-
sector partners that we are good operators in this, and we can
get this done.
And the mayor did bring up something important. Some of
those--the carrot works a lot better than the stick a lot of
times. Get this project done in this amount of time, and there
will be a bonus for you. Give us some flexibility to be able to
do that.
I am not asking you to capitulate all your oversight, I am
not asking you to block grant everything to us. But I am asking
you to trust us as partners to deliver for you. And when you
can go back to your constituents and say, ``You know what? We
allocated this money, and not only did I get a good project in
my State, I got one in Mr. Stauber's district,'' and that would
be helpful.
Mr. Balderson. OK, thank you. The next question I have for
you, Governor, is my district contains urban and suburban
areas. It also encompasses a very vast rural area. How do you
ensure communication between your office, the Minnesota
Department of Transportation, and rural areas to make sure that
your constituent needs are being met?
Mr. Walz. Well, this was central to my campaign for
Governor. I ran on an idea of one Minnesota. I am the first
Governor in over 30 years that comes from what we call Greater
Minnesota, the rural areas of the State. But I think the way we
facilitate it is that understanding of much of the conversation
we are having here, we are in this together.
As the Port of Los Angeles goes, so goes the Port of
Duluth. As Mankato, Minnesota goes, so goes Marquette. Wherever
it might be, making sure that we understand our
interconnectedness, we are making sure to be very clear about
this.
One of the things that we are talking about is how we fund
a little differently our rural communities, with an
understanding--I talked about this. I was a high school teacher
before I came to Congress. Fair isn't always equal. And for us
to have that very difficult conversation, it doesn't mean
dollar for dollar in some places. It is more difficult in some
places. That means that there is going to be issues that take a
broader investment in an urban core, because of density, and it
also means sometimes it takes a broader investment to get up to
Hallock, Minnesota.
And I think, again, what you can help us--is to be good
stewards of those taxpayer dollars, but give Governors the
flexibility to be able to adjust to those differing needs
between rural, urban.
And I think the thing that gets forgotten in here--and I
hear this a lot--that is suburban. And when I go to folks in
Minnesota, when I got out to Hallock, they say there is urban,
there is suburban, there is exurban, there is rural, and then
there is frontier. We are the frontier. That is a different
thing. And they were not even, you know, facetiously saying
that; it is true.
So I think what you can do is help us see that overall
picture, give us that consistency, but then allow us to build
those coalitions that show that it matters.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you. And thank you both for being
here. I appreciate your time.
Mr. Walz. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. DeFazio. I would now recognize the vice chair, OK,
Representative Carbajal.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio.
And welcome to both of you, former colleague Walz and Mayor
Garcetti, who I had the privilege of serving with on President
Obama's climate action task force.
I come from local government. I served as the county
supervisor for many years. So I come with that perspective.
Mayor Garcetti, as you know, 45 percent of the Nation's
transportation infrastructure is owned by local governments.
Today, in Santa Barbara County, in my district, we have a
pavement condition index of 57 out of 100. And in San Luis
Obispo County, which is the other major part of my district, it
is 64 PCI. Just a decade ago, the PCI in Santa Barbara County
was 70.
But I know we are not alone in this accelerated degradation
of our infrastructure and our roads. Local governments across
the Nation experience this same challenge, and will continue to
experience it in the future.
How can we better partner with local governments to
maintain a good state of repair of our Nation's infrastructure,
one?
And two, what are the advantages and disadvantages of
creating a dedicated funding source to directly allocate
resources to local governments for the improvement and
maintenance of local roads and bridge infrastructure in
America?
And I ask that from your service as a local elected
official, more than anything.
Mr. Garcetti. Absolutely. Let me start with the second one.
And great to see you, Congressman, and thank you for your
amazing service here to the country and to California.
You know, it always drove me crazy--I work now with Chair
Waters--when CDBG grant dollars went out there. That is Federal
dollars, but I always said thanks to the Councilman Blank and
Mayor Blank. And we changed in Los Angeles the policy so it
actually thanks the Member of Congress now, because those funds
come from all of you. They come from the American people first,
but you enable them.
And I think, you know, the idea of this road funded by the
Federal Government--and it is a road that people are going to
use 90 percent of the time more than an interstate highway--is
a beautiful idea, and one that would be embraced, and one
that--there should be some sort of leverage to encourage local
governments.
Accelerated for America, the 501(c)(3) that I mentioned, we
are on the ground helping folks from Florida to Ohio, Texas,
Washington pass local infrastructure packages on
transportation. At least half of that is always for road
paving. So we are stepping up to do that, and we would love to
see Federal Government, because that network doesn't work if we
don't have the feeder, first mile/last mile roads, into there.
And I think there has always been this strange disconnect.
Why is that not Federal? And why, vice versa, do we have no
responsibilities for the highways that go straight through our
cities, where we could put cleaning crews, we could help folks
there, we could take care of graffiti. It is kind of like,
``Don't touch that, that is either State or Federal; local
government does that stuff over there.''
So I think we would be very interested in a dedicated
funding resource that came to local governments, and it would
be spent well. We know how to do that. And I know my number,
too--because we went down every year until we were 61 when I
became mayor. Now we are at 68. For the first time in decades
we are going up. We have paved enough to go halfway around the
world. I got 4 years left. I said I want to pave the equivalent
of a street all the way around the world by the time I leave,
as mayor. So I think that that would be very well received.
And then how we can do this together, it is going to be
very important for, I think, cities to be at the table, and
States. Some cities are the size of States. But for us to have
that, and writing this together--and the chairman has been
really wonderful, and inviting us to be a part of that through
the National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of
Mayors.
But I think that we are going to need to see--looking at
streets, not just as a place that you drive over them. There
are people who--there are electric scooters now, there are
people who walk on them. There is heat that comes off of them,
there is water that goes through them. There are street trees
that are important, there are curbs that are important. That is
part of American infrastructure working.
So we welcome the opportunity to help you cowrite that, and
really value your perspective as a former local official in
making that happen.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mayor. To conclude, I wanted to
ask if you feel that the Federal Government incentivizes or
recognizes self-help municipalities who have taxed themselves
and gone out on a limb. Residents have identified these types
of measures as a top priority. Does the Federal Government, in
your opinion, recognize that enough?
Mr. Garcetti. If I can quote the Governor, he said no, we
punish that. And it is quite the opposite actually, where we
step up--and I get it. There are certain places that can't help
themselves on things like water. But when people say, well,
L.A. is a rich town, you can do that, we have 24 percent
poverty. It is actually a high poverty town, too. Poor people
are voting to tax themselves to get this stuff done. So let's
erase that.
No, we get punished for it, not helped. We should get
rewarded. Not 100 percent, because you can't leave certain
places behind. But there absolutely should be.
The one place where there has been good, and I hope that we
can, in the legislation, move forward is New Starts, because
there has kind of been a walking away in the administration
from New Starts. It is critically important. And there is
almost a punishment, well, you are already paying for it. If we
want those subways to be open by the Olympics in 2028, when we
show America off to the world, we are going to need to continue
that. We expect that. We budgeted that. We are always told
that. But we need to ensure it.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mayor. I yield back my time.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. We move now to Representative
Spano.
Mr. Spano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I very much look
forward to serving under your leadership, so thank you for
having me. And to the ranking member, thank you, as well, for
your leadership.
Thank you so much for being here, Governor and Mayor, we
appreciate your time and your expertise. I represent a district
that runs from East Tampa to west of Orlando. So, as you can
probably imagine, that is a very, very rapidly growing area of
the country. As a matter of fact, by some estimates, the most
rapidly growing area in the country in the next 20 years. So
obviously, infrastructure and transportation issues are very,
very important to us and to my constituents.
I have a couple questions, if I have time. First of all, I
understand it has been referenced here--I think on at least a
few occasions--the need for long-range, proactive-type
planning, as it regards infrastructure and transportation. And
what I think about, however, is the rapidly changing pace of
technology, right?
So you have those two things on either side. So talk about
balancing the need for proactive, long-range planning with the
need to be light on our feet, and nimble, and to be able to
respond and react with new technologies that come on board.
Mr. Garcetti. So that is a wonderful question. It gets to
the heart of what I talked about at the beginning, in terms of
rewarding innovation. Don't pass a 20th-century package here
for the 21st century. You should be thinking beyond that.
And we have tried to make Los Angeles a platform for
innovation. A company comes in with a new product, somebody has
an idea inside one of our departments or bureaucracies, we say
yes, let's try it. Instead of being future-phobic, instead of
being future-resistant or future-passive, we try to be future-
guiding.
And when I gave you that list, like, Hyperloop may move
goods before it moves people. I don't know if people want to
get in the tube and go 800 miles an hour, but I bet goods have
no problem with that. Moving that from a port to get to a
district like Ms. Titus's and other places, to move more
quickly, we need to have funds that can help innovate and move
that forward.
The Boring Company that Mr. Musk is doing, we have, you
know, a gondola that is going to go up to Dodger Stadium, the
most popular place to watch sports in the world, in terms of
numbers of fans that go there each year. Scooters that we
didn't even know about--if we were doing this a year ago, even
here, we would be like, ``What is an electric scooter?'' Now
they are everything. Some think they are the scourge, some
think they are the answer.
But we need to create an America that is a platform for
innovation, and legislation that says if you are willing to
innovate we are going to let you test, try, and then scale up
what works. Right now we have old categories of things.
We are very protective. Federal Government says let the
local governments try it first. Local governments say, ``I
don't want to be first, let that city figure it out before I
do.'' In L.A., when we put ourselves at the front of the line,
we have really reaped the bounty. When I talk about that GE
Capital project, for instance, we are earning money off of
containers being moved in other ports in other countries now
that we can put back into our port.
So I think that that is a great piece: reward the
innovation, the research behind that, and people are willing to
take a risk.
Mr. Walz. Yes, thank you, Congressman. It is a great
question. My brother is a constituent, by the way.
The Governors--when I first got in this and started looking
at it, one of the people I went to--this seemed very odd, but
there is a school of thought out there--the futurists, and
asked them to think about this as we started to go.
One of the problems we all know is you want us to be really
good stewards of taxpayer dollars, just like you are. We are so
risk averse that, in business, you know, the old adage for a
generation now is fail fast, but innovate on that and those
things are going to happen. We are so risk averse and so, I
think, brow beaten. If we take a risk and make a mistake we are
punished for that.
I am not advocating, you know, risky behavior to the edge
with taxpayer dollars, but there has got to be some incentive
for us to try some of these pilot projects for us to do
autonomous vehicles to run from Rochester to the Twin Cities,
where we have massive amounts of freight and people come in.
We have got a town in southern Minnesota that is 100,000
that is home to the Mayo Clinic that 2\1/2\ million people come
to, and FedEx flies hundreds of thousands of packages to every
day. You have got to give us some capacity, and we, as the
States, have to be able to innovate to make sure we are
thinking the way you are talking about. Because when folks come
to me asking for money in our public sector, or our--in our
safety sides of things, they are coming and asking for
technology upgrades for fingerprint readers.
I don't know at this point in time if fingerprint readers
are even going to be around with facial recognition technology.
Who is making those big decisions here? Who is thinking about
that? And who is talking about making sure, if Hyperloop is
working there, how are we going to be able to try and do some
of that?
So your question is right. I think it comes with
flexibility, it comes with allowing us to take some risk, and
it comes with having a little bit of patience with us to try
and get there. And I think you will get some of these
breakthroughs.
Mr. Spano. Thank you both. I only have 15 seconds left, but
I will ask this, and if you have time to answer it, great.
If not, I understand, Mr. Chairman.
But you mentioned resilient infrastructure, right? I mean
give me, like, a practical example of what that is. I
understand the concept, but give me a practical example of it.
And are there any estimates that have been done, in terms
of what the additional cost would be, right, over and above the
traditional infrastructure approach that we can be looking at,
if we want to pursue that direction?
Mr. Garcetti. Sure. I mentioned white pavement before,
because of heat. Plastic pipes, a lot of places you can't do
plastic pipes. We have earthquakes and stuff like that. There
are great American manufacturers of them, but they are usually
banned because of old regulations. There is all sorts of stuff
on resilience, whether it is earthquakes, whether it is floods.
The zoning, you know, that is not a requirement, but it is
more of a zoning thing where you say we shouldn't be building
in certain places where we are all going to pay the price. I
think those are ways to make resilience a central prism for
everything you refract in this bill.
Mr. DeFazio. OK? Do you have a quick one, Tim, or do you--
--
Mr. Walz. No----
Mr. DeFazio. OK, OK, good. All right.
Representative Brown, Maryland.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is a real
privilege and honor to be able to serve with you and our
colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
during the 116th Congress.
I want to return to public-private partnerships, or--I like
to refer to them as private investments in public
infrastructure, with the emphasis on public infrastructure. But
also let me start by thanking both of you for being here, and
thanks for your service in State and local government.
In Maryland we have a number of examples of successful
public-private partnerships. I agree with, you know, that
school of thought, that you can't use P3s to finance every
infrastructure project. Where you have revenue generating
facilities, it is probably more likely that you will have a
successful project.
We have, for example, on I-95 travel plazas, and the
revenue is the retail sales that support the lease payments
made by the vendors at those plazas. We have also had
successful public-private partnerships at the Port of
Baltimore, and the user fees that support the port operators
and their lease payments to the State. So that has been a
successful one.
And while Secretary LaHood mentioned the silver line to
Dulles, we have got the purple line in Maryland, which we
think--the jury is still out, but that should be a successful
public-private partnership. And there, that is an example--and
I know, Mayor, you suggested that water infrastructure may not
be a candidate for public-private partnership, but I would
suggest that it probably is, because as long as there are rates
and there are some infrastructure facilities where user fees
and rates don't cover the cost of operating that--that is true
for transit, for example, fare box ratios rarely cover the
cost--then there is some public subsidy, and availability
payment can be made. And that is what we are doing on the
purple line.
But my question is--and it may be a followup to one of the
questions that was already asked--is there more that the
Federal Government can do and should do to really encourage
public-private partnerships where they make sense?
Most States, not all, have set up a public-private
partnership statutory regime, where the private sector has
confidence to make the investments, the public has confidence
that there is transparency and accountability, but not every
State has. Is there more that the Federal Government can do to
encourage States?
And the final part of that question is--and I will just--
Mayor, I notice there is something called the West Coast
Infrastructure Exchange, a consortium, California, Oregon,
Washington, and British Columbia, and are, like, encouraging
things like those regional exchanges.
So what do you think we could do better or more of?
Mr. Garcetti. Absolutely. Starting at the end, that has
been a very successful forum to bring best practices together
and to come up with the governance models for this stuff. And
it has helped to really accelerate the Western United States as
becoming kind of the P3 capital of America, that we want to see
that happen in other places, too.
You know, it is funny that we talk about P3s like it is
something new. The New York subway system was not even P3, it
was P1, because they were private when they started, and they
became public later because the maintenance piece became too
expensive for the private sector, so the public bought them.
And I think there is a lesson there to be learned of how we can
share that over the long term.
In transit it is the ripest place to do this, especially
where the Federal Government--your question was can you do
more. Yes, you can write into, I think, this bill allowing it
in a protective way that would still keep these public assets,
ways that there is some sort of reward for at least having that
as an option. I don't think you want to reward P3s over non-
P3s, because that is going to be a decision locally. But places
that don't even entertain that are missing at least the options
on the table.
We have two lines right now that we have had, you know,
about 10 different companies come forward to bid on. Some of
them want to design it, some of them want to maintain it, some
of them want to fund it, some of them want to operate. And as
much of those as they can have, the cheaper they can make it,
they say.
On the flip side, some people worry, well, if you are
operating and maintaining it, is that loss of union jobs? Does
that mean, you know, we don't get to build it? So there is real
tough political things to wrestle with. But I think at least
mandating that folks that are applying for New Starts in
transit should have a P3 office is a great way to start that,
and to push that forward and give that.
Second, TIFIA loans and the loan piece, as interest rates
go up, we will look back at how we are going to finance this.
And if we can be cheaper than the private sector, that is
another place I think the Federal Government, without losing
money, but, you know, loaning it, can be helpful in
accelerating P3s.
Mr. Walz. Well, the mayor's example--and I think giving us
the capacity--and the National Governors Association, trying to
find creative ways, the Upper Midwest, the Great Lakes regions,
of making sure anything you do statutorily allows us to be able
to use some of these funds across State lines, working
together, beyond the typical ones that are intercity passenger
rail, things we are trying to enhance.
But there is a lot of border areas that we share on
infrastructure that I think States--again, going back to the
question Mr. Carbajal had, I think it is a really, really
important one.
The Federal highway system, interstate system, State
highways, the bulk of my folks on the roads are out there clear
down to the township levels. And their ability to be able to
participate is hard. And that is where I don't know at that
point.
I think your question is really good. How do we use public-
private partnerships in some of these things that aren't these
big marquee projects, but they are more things that we need to
get done?
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. With that, I would turn to
Representative Pence.
Mr. Pence. Chairman DeFazio and Republican Leader Graves,
it is an honor to serve alongside you here on the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. It is why I came
here and ran for office.
Governor Walz and Mayor Garcetti, thank you for being here
today. I am grateful for your time.
I am a businessman by background, and I came to Congress to
address the challenges facing our critical infrastructure, both
in the short term and the long term.
Indiana is proud to be known as the crossroads of America.
The infrastructure in our State has contributed to the
prosperity of not only Hoosiers, but, as was mentioned by the
Governor, all Americans benefit from this.
In Indiana we recognize the importance of modernizing and
investing in our aging infrastructure, and we have made
progress that we are very proud of. At home we are hoping to
build a new shipping port on the Ohio River near Lawrenceburg,
Indiana, which will be our State's fourth port. If we are to
remain a logistics and manufacturing and transportation hub, we
must make infrastructure investment a top priority. We must
strengthen existing partnerships with the private sector,
reduce the regulatory burden, and give States the flexibility
to address the unique needs of their communities.
As members of this committee, I am looking forward to
embracing technology and innovation, as you mentioned, Mayor,
to address some of our infrastructure challenges. I am
optimistic that we can work across the aisle to craft a bill
that uses Federal dollars as a hand up instead of a hand out,
giving more flexibility to State and local governments.
I have traveled Interstate I-70 my entire life, and just as
soon as I cross the State line there is a world of difference
in the quality of roads. It is no secret that some States have
prioritized their infrastructure needs better than others. And
I believe there is a role to be played by the Federal
Government to encourage States to make these long-term
investments that are so desperately needed. We must ensure that
we are rewarding forward-thinking States like Indiana, who
continue to be judicious when spending Federal tax dollars.
To the Governor and the mayor, I ask how can we better not
punish, as you just mentioned, and encourage and reward States
like Indiana, who continue to think strategically and made
long-term investments in their infrastructure, versus States
that did not?
Mr. Walz. Well, thank you, Congressman. And I appreciate
your passion for the issue, and understand how it does impact
our States.
I think we have to do a better job in the States--and I
think you see Governors across this Nation doing that--of
providing measurable feedback, and in terms of metrics on when
we are doing things. This is across the board, whether it is in
human services or whether it is in transportation. Things that
the public can see, things where they can have dashboards of
seeing how much mileage are we getting out of this road, what
is the life expectancy on it, how was the planning done, and
show that.
Because, again, people want to be reassured that their tax
dollars are being spent wisely. We need to do a better job of
showing that. And I think the mayor brought up a really good
point--is reward innovation. Reward folks who are getting it
done in a timely manner. Reward folks who are coming up with
new ways of planning this, that are showing good project
management, that you can measure those things.
Some States are--not all States are created equal. Some do
it better than others, as you stated. Make sure you are
rewarding those folks, but at the same time helping those
States understand what they can do better to get it up. Because
again, it does us no good--and I know it is a--Governors do
this all the time, we rank ourselves against others. It does me
no good to say I am ranked here, and to heck with what is
happening down here, trying to lift everyone up. But it should
be done on the merits of how well we are doing, what are the
results we are getting for, and can that be replicated
elsewhere.
And then learning. I know, as a Governor of this, my first
thought is when my folks come to me with a plan--is somebody
else doing this right now? And who is doing it better? Go learn
from them.
Mr. Garcetti. Thank you, Congressman Pence. I am proudly
married to a Hoosier, and it is my probably second State, so I
think I have some in-laws that are in your district, and glad
to answer your question and to be here.
I would say three things. One is put some shared funds
aside. This is a pool that mandates that it be shared between
local, State, and the Federal Government.
Second is make sure it is a fair match. I think previously
we had a plan that was going to put a 20/80 match, so 80
percent from local or State, and 20 percent from Federal
Government. That was just a dog that won't hunt, it won't go
anywhere. We are not going to be able to see that leverage. It
has to be a fair match of something, whether that is 50/50 or
not.
And then third, don't grandfather people out who have
already stepped up to pass local and State measures, because
that is going to be very important. Don't make the poor poorer
and the rich richer, but don't also punish those. So whatever
legislation, don't just encourage people to pass it in the
future. Make sure they are not grandfathered out if they have
done it in the recent past.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you.
Mr. Pence. Thank you. I yield my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. Great. Thank you. And now the Representative
from New York, Representative Espaillat.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As this is the
first opportunity I get to speak before the committee, I want
to thank you. I look forward to working with all the Members on
these very pressing issues.
Governor, Mayor, welcome, and thank you for your testimony.
First I want to say that, as New York City's only member in
this committee, we have great needs in the city of New York for
infrastructure and transportation projects. I represent Harlem,
East Harlem, Northern Manhattan, and the Northwest Bronx. And I
like to take this time to highlight some of those priorities.
First and most importantly, the mass transportation system.
As you know, New York City's mass transportation system is
really the heart, the engine of economic activity in the city,
including our financial services community, which is, I think,
in many ways the heart and soul of our revenue-producing
machinery in the State.
And so, in order for us to remain competitive, in order for
the city of New York to continue to be a leading city in many
sectors of our national economy, we must have a state of the
art--we must have a reliable and competitive transportation
system.
And, of course, much has been said about our airports. We
all know the line from Vice President Biden, when he landed at
LaGuardia Airport. He thought he landed in some other country.
And of course, Penn Station is a living nightmare.
I happen to be pushing for the extension of the Second
Avenue subway, which is a transit desert in my part of the
district in East Harlem. We already have the first phase. That
is a project that has been around for 100--literally, 100
years. We were able to do this before, but now, all the sudden,
we are wrestling with how to do it. And obviously, it is all
about the money. So that is why I am happy to be part of this
committee and advocate for the Second Avenue subway, for
additional funding for the MTA, and the subway system.
The subway system is, in many ways, a wear-and-tear system
and a deep pocket issue. It is like your brake pads, you know?
You can't drive your car for 100,000 miles and think that you
are never going to have to change your brake pads. You have to.
And if you don't, guess what? You have to pay for it, right?
Because you are going to lose your front end, right?
And so this is important. Penn Station, as I said. The
Gateway project is an important one, not only for New York
City, but for the region. And so these are some real challenges
in infrastructure and transportation. I dare to say that we got
to be bold and creative when we talk about infrastructure and
transportation.
Infrastructure is also a public housing system, because we
are the landlords, right? Infrastructure is also a broadband
and 5G. And if we are really going to build infrastructure, we
are going to do this major infrastructure bill with $1
trillion. I Googled trillion, and I didn't get anything back
that I could understand.
But we got to do it green. It is not just about doing it.
How could we do it and we could feel proud about it in the rest
of the world? You have all traveled across the world. It is
kind of scary and sorry, you know, what we have in our country.
We are no longer the leaders in infrastructure. We got to be
the leaders. And in order for us to be the leaders, we not only
got to build, we not only got to pass the infrastructure bill,
but we got to do it the right way. And the green way is the
right way. And it will provide jobs, opportunities, and it will
be resilient, as well.
So I think these are the things that we are going to have
to debate in this committee, obviously. And how do we get the
money, I think, is the bottom line.
But I thank you, and I have some questions, but I think I--
New York, we all know how--you know, leave it to a New Yorker,
we will overextend ourselves. I won't have much to say, but
that I am the Mariano Rivera of this committee. I will probably
be the last one, but I will close the game down if you give me
an opportunity. All right, thank you so much for your
testimony.
Mr. Garcetti. Could I say one quick thing in the 30
seconds?
Mr. DeFazio. OK.
Mr. Garcetti. Link housing dollars to transportation
dollars. Our Governor just did that, and he said, ``You are not
going to get transportation dollars in our State if you are not
building the housing that is required,'' because we know when
housing isn't close, that is what causes traffic, and it is the
wear and tear on infrastructure. So anything you do to put that
message through would be very forward-thinking.
Mr. Espaillat. Thank you. Thank you both.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. Making an announcement here, the
mayor has to leave at 1 o'clock. There are a number of Members
that have been waiting to ask questions. If you don't get to
ask a question of this panel, you will be first on the next
panel. By--you know, in lieu of having been inconvenienced.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DeFazio. So, with that, I would move on quickly to
Representative Katko.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for this
hearing today. It has been terrific.
And Governor, it is nice to see you again. We have had a
lot of conversations in the locker room over the years, and it
is--I miss those, and I congratulate you on your new position.
And thank you, as well, Mr. Mayor. You have both been terrific
witnesses. As you can see, this is a gigantic committee. And
the way you have hung in there and been very professional and
thorough in your answers is greatly appreciated.
The conversation today makes it clear to me that
infrastructure is badly needed, infrastructure reform, and
sweeping infrastructure reform. It is also clear to me that it
is going to take political courage from both sides of the
aisle. So I challenge my colleagues to do just that in the next
few months, and to get something done and get something really
done for the American people.
Last term, Governor and Mr. Mayor, myself and Elizabeth
Esty, the former congresswoman from Connecticut, drafted a
thorough report from the Problem Solvers Caucus, which is an
equal number of Democrats and Republicans--which I think is
exactly what this is going to be about, bipartisanship--about
infrastructure reform. And it really had three buckets to it.
One was streamlining the administrative processes and the
funding processes that are so costly and ridiculously
burdensome to Governors and local municipalities.
The second thing was to have reform within the highway
bill, the highway fund.
And then it touched on the other things, such as the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund, the airport fund, rural broadband, and
all those things that need to be done. One of the overarching
themes of that is that if you have a fund, it should be a fund
that is not raided. If you have a fund, it should be a stand-
alone fund.
But with all those things, I think it is apparent to me
that the highway fund is where you start. And with the highway
fund we are plugging huge deficits that are getting bigger
every year, because we have not properly funded it for decades.
So that is where I want to focus on today.
And in my report--and I commend it to both of you, and I
ask you to take a look at it--and I commend to all my
colleagues, by the way--in that report we look at three things
within the highway fund: number one is the adequacy of the
current gas tax; number two are there alternatives to look at
for the vehicles on the road, such as, you know, trucks and
freight, and how that should be handled; and, number three, the
hybrid issue and now the emerging electric issue, with vehicles
that are going to be riding the roads and not paying anything
if they are not gasoline powered.
So I guess my question to you is we all agree--and we have
been dancing around the elephant in the room--is tell us what
it is that you would suggest if you could wave a wand and say,
``Here is how I would fix the highway fund.'' Tell me what you
would do with some specificity on how to fund it. We all know
we need it. Tell us how you would fund it.
Mr. Garcetti. I think I would--I don't speak for every
mayor, other--the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National
League of Cities, I believe, as well, has endorsed the gas tax.
We would--I would put in a gas tax, find a formula to get a
pilot in for vehicle miles traveled, and then wean from the
first to the second over time, as we electrify every vehicle in
this country, which is going to happen. I mean I think there
will be some niche, other vehicles, but 20 years from now we
will say, ``Huh? What were we thinking?'' Everything is going
to be moving towards that, I believe.
I would also then--one thing I would add to that, too, is I
would start--I think as has been discussed--who are the willing
partners on vehicle miles traveled? I think that is in the
private sector. I think that is with the trucking industry and
others, who are saying that they would be willing to do that.
And then, as we wean, I think it will be, at the same time,
the technology changes, as well. So probably, you know, a good
5 to 10 years of continuing gas tax, but have a formula that
really looks at how much do we want to have, and works
backwards, and allows you to have the triggers to move more
quickly if the technology is moving, or to slow it down if it
is not.
Mr. Katko. And I will just reinforce what you are saying.
When we were formulating our report I was stunned by talking--
we talked to hundreds of stakeholders in all different areas.
And the trucking industry in particular is the biggest advocate
for that, because they have done studies which show if we pay
more--but it would be offset by the monies saved from the
maintenance and wear and tear on our vehicles. So you are right
about that.
Mr. Walz. Well, Congressman, thank you for doing the
report, and thank--you have got a long-time reputation here of
trying to find solutions, rather than find the divisions. And I
am grateful for that.
This is one example of that. I think the mayor laid this
out. The National Governors Association doesn't have a hard
position on this. Their position is there are multiple funding
streams, asking these questions you are asking.
As a Governor of Minnesota, gas tax is a piece of it. I
think the momentum of moving towards electric vehicles, we are
looking at it. And, you know, one of the things was we wanted
to encourage people to buy electric vehicles, so we used to
give tax rebates and some of the offsets. Now we are thinking
about do we charge them more when we register their vehicle?
That is a good thing, because we have evolved where there is
more on the road.
But I think your approach to this, and the way you are all
thinking about it is this is going to be multifaceted. It needs
to be fair, and it needs to be forward-looking.
What I will say on this is that this is going to take us
time to get to that point. The gas tax is still fundamental and
core at this point. It won't be in the future, but it has to be
part of this discussion.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
Representative Stanton?
Mr. Stanton. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I
am excited to serve on this committee. The work of this
committee is going to be incredibly important. Passing an
infrastructure bill, investing in America's infrastructure is
critical to cities and communities all across the country. And
we can't accomplish our goals as a country, we can't accomplish
our goals in terms of job creation, economic development, we
can't accomplish our goals when it comes to climate change and
fighting the impacts of climate change, and climate change
adaptation unless this committee successfully does its work and
reaches bipartisan agreement in passing a significant
infrastructure bill.
You know, before I was elected to Congress just a few
months ago I served as a mayor. I was a big-city mayor, mayor
of Phoenix, Arizona, the fifth largest city in America. And I
had the honor to work closely with Mayor Garcetti in the U.S.
Conference of Mayors. And I can tell you, just as he has shown
off today as he always does, he is one of the most well-
respected mayors in the United States of America, a leader
among the mayors.
So, Mayor, thank you for being here and all you do to
support cities like Phoenix across America with your great
work.
In the city of Phoenix we understand this concept, that it
is tough to go it alone. The Federal Government in the last few
years has not been supportive of cities and communities. We had
to go it alone. As mayor I put on the ballot a significant
infrastructure investment, 35-year, $32 billion investment in
light rail and road improvements, in dial-a-ride, in buses, and
walkability and bikeability, without the expectation of Federal
support.
Mayor Garcetti did come and visit me in Phoenix when we
opened our northwest extension of our light rail line, which is
a great extension. Not a single Federal dollar in that line.
The reality is that is good, but not good enough. Federal
Government needs to be a partner with our local governments if
we are truly going to be successful. A city like Arizona--
Phoenix in Arizona, the fourth fastest growing State, we need
that Federal partnership.
And, of course, when it comes to water and water
infrastructure, we are in a drought. It is a significant
drought. And the ability to move water more efficiently is
critically important. We are going to need Federal partnership
to get her done. So I can't wait to work in a bipartisan way to
get it done. It will not be easy. It will not be inexpensive.
So, Mayor, I want to ask you. You know, U.S. Conference of
Mayors, you personally have been involved in helping to build
support. But I still think we haven't done a good-enough job of
making the case to the American public as to why this
investment is so important. Advise about how you and other
mayors in particular--because mayors are still the most well-
respected level of Government, cities and mayors--what they can
do to help kind of build the case with the American people to
support the work that this committee is going to do.
Mr. Garcetti. Well, thank you. And you look great up here,
Greg. It is great to see you, Congressman. It has been so much
fun serving with you as a mayor, and I am so excited we have
one of America's great mayors now serving in this United States
House of Representatives.
I also want to give my apologies to the front three here,
Ms. Davids, Mr. Garcia, Mr. Rouda, because I have to meet
with--my great other passion on homelessness--with Chairwoman
Waters, which is why I am going to be--unfortunately, have to
leave a little early, before your questions. But if you didn't
hear, you are going to be first on the queue for the next ones,
if not.
Make it visceral is the answer. I will tell you a quick
story with Measure M. We raised $10 million to run a campaign
to pass this transportation infrastructure initiative in Los
Angeles. We ran 2 weeks of ads. We need two-thirds vote in
California. You might think of us as a liberal State, but we
are very conservative when it comes to passing taxes; you need
a two-thirds vote. And we were polling at about 63, 64, 65
percent, so we knew it was going to be a tough lift.
We ran 2 weeks of ads that were the typical infrastructure
ads. Look at all these people paving streets, moving. Look at
all the jobs. We are going to reduce your commute. Trains,
roads, all that stuff. And 2 weeks into spending $5 million, we
went down to 61 percent. And I said, ``Oh, no. This thing is
going down.'' Put all my political capital on the line, built
that up for 4 years, raised more money, called in every favor
from everybody I ever knew.
And my campaign consultant said, ``Let's try this
differently. Let's get in your car and just drive. No script,
and I will just film you.''
And there we were, on Saturday afternoon in Los Angeles,
and I said, ``Here we are in rush hour traffic,'' and I turned
the camera. It was stopped traffic. The only problem is it is
Saturday afternoon. And everybody in Los Angeles got that. It
wasn't about the politician saying trust us, this miles, this
much, it was like they got being stuck in traffic.
And what I said when I opened I will close with, as well.
We offer help on this. We are raising also hundreds of
thousands. It will be in the millions of dollars to help
support you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, this entire
committee, get the message out throughout America in districts.
America's mayors are ready to do that. Accelerated for America,
which is State, local officials, it is the private sector, it
is Republicans, it is Democrats, it is labor, we will get this
done.
So whatever you put out there, we are going to be some wind
behind those sails. But keep it visceral, keep it human. Don't
talk about policies and statistics. Get those done in here. But
when we start selling this, make it a human issue.
Mr. Walz. If I could, Mr. Chairman, I would echo that, too,
Congressman. Leverage us. This Nation's 55 mayors of the States
and Territories will be here on the 23rd of February at a
roundtable with the sole purpose of saying we are ready for you
to do this, we are there to get your back, we are there to
cover it and take the message. So we can do this.
Now is your time. I think I heard it in here. Be great. You
have got the opportunity to do it.
Mr. DeFazio. Tim, thanks. I am going to interrupt, because
we are going to have one more question from that side.
Mr. Graves?
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good to see you. Did you get your miles in this morning?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Graves of Louisiana. Oh, gosh, sorry about that. All
right. Well, congratulations and welcome, Mayor. Thank you for
being here.
I wanted to bring up three topics and just ask you to
respond whichever you feel you have the most expertise.
Number one, the Federal Government today, we have
infrastructure programs related to drinking water, wastewater,
internet and broadband, housing programs, energy programs,
disaster response, navigation, roads and bridges, you name it.
We have an infrastructure program for everything. And the
reality is that we come to the table and we prioritize in a
very dynamic manner.
You may have an administration that likes something one
year, you may have a Congress that likes something the next. It
changes. We are not a reliable Federal infrastructure partner,
because we have so many programs.
So first question is do you believe that we should look at
which programs truly have a Federal nexus, prioritize those,
divest ourselves of some of the others and perhaps let States
and local governments be the reliable partner, reliable leader
on those other things?
Second issue is oftentimes, as this hearing notes, we
believe that money is the solution to problems. And in some
cases, it is. But in other cases--Mayor, as you have done a
great job discussing--you have regulatory processes, you have
planning processes.
Our project development and delivery process is flawed at
the Federal level, and we spend an awful lot of money going
through that, and it doesn't ultimately deliver projects. In
many cases, we are working on projects now that were conceived
in the 1970s and 1980s. We are building projects--we are
building solutions for the 1980s. You both talked about how we
need to be looking forward, not looking backwards.
And we are not taking advantage of maximizing the
efficiency of existing infrastructure, and using the smartest
planning mechanisms.
Number three, the idea here is that there is a cost of
inaction. And so, presumably, there would be a return on
investment for action. You have both made reference to P3s. And
how do we best allow for monetizing the investments, monetizing
that success to where we can expand upon or incentivize P3s to
be a complementary partner to the Federal Government in the
projects that we build?
Mayor, you and I served on a panel on infrastructure last
year some time, and I made a statement there and I am going to
say it again: Good projects are already paid for. And what I
mean by that is that we are spending money that could be
building the projects, but oftentimes the money is being spent
on inefficiency, on waste, higher fuel cost, as Mr. Katko
noted, maintenance, and other things. So----
Mr. Garcetti. A few things. One, the categories, yes.
Streamline them. Everybody is for that until you take their
category away.
Now, the reality is there is a lot of stuff that already is
devolved to State and local government. Water, as we talked
about, is one of those things. We are overwhelmingly--I think
it might even be higher than 89 percent. Most of that is just
done at the local, the State level, already.
When it comes to transportation, I always worry a little
bit about that, because it is like, well, maybe transit we
shouldn't be in the business of, but the reality is in
America's big cities we won't get transit done without that
Federal match staying in there, and New Starts, and other
things.
So, in general, yes to the first piece. But specifically,
we would have to look at that. And if you have proposals, we
are more than happy to give you that feedback. There are
probably some things we could kill off to add more to other
places, especially as technology has changed.
Secondly, we have said it and we will say it again and
again. Whatever you can do to streamline processes, absolutely.
That time is money. Anybody in the construction trades knows
that that is probably the single biggest factor that is in our
control. Other things, like the state of the economy, how much
we have to pay our workers, all that, is really not always in
our control. But our bureaucracy and our processes are. So I
think both those are very important.
Third, with the P3s, I would say that you are right, good
projects attract a lot of attention. But the way we have made
it work is we have tried to make sure that we have an honest
and sober approach. We know there are certain lines and things
that we are doing that are very attractive to the private
sector. They love to run or own airports. They love to do
certain transit lines when they know that there is a match. And
there are other things that they won't touch, because they
think it is the wrong neighborhood, or it is the wrong mode, or
it is too rural, or it is too urban, or whatever it is.
So I think as long as we have it as one of the arrows in
our quiver, and we really expand--that we need every
municipality, every State to have an office that can do P3s,
that is the right thing to put out there, rather than mandating
certain modes always need to be P3s, or we need to look at
those first. Giving us that flexibility, but mandating
potentially that we all have to have that somewhere in our
arsenal is probably the best way forward.
Mr. Walz. I will just add one closing thought, Congressman.
And again, the--yes on the streamline. Yes, make it easier.
The mayor said something really profound when he was
talking about housing and transportation. One of the things
about being a Governor is you get to do the budget. And the
other thing is it has to be balanced. So you get to be really
smart, and you can't silo up. So I asked my education
department here if I can't spend any more money I can't have
kids coming to school who sleep in cars, 17 percent of them,
the night before. So how does our housing budget impact our
education budget? How does our education budget impact our
corrections budget? And start thinking across the lines like
that.
So you are right on this. All those funding streams, I
think, could--again, if we take it away from--what I want is
one thing. But if it works holistically, do it that way. Saves
time. You came here to make a big difference. You have an
opportunity in this transportation bill to do it.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, I thank the panel. Thank you, Mayor. Thank
you, Governor. I appreciate it. I appreciate you staying a few
minutes over to accommodate some complaints from the other
side.
We will stand in recess for 5 minutes while the next panel
assembles.
[Recess.]
Mr. DeFazio. The committee will come back to order. And we
want to expedite things for this panel, so we want to get
going.
I want to thank you for coming to testify. I have on this
next panel Mr. Richard Anderson, president and CEO of Amtrak;
the Honorable Eric K. Fanning, president and chief executive
officer, Aerospace Industries Association; Mr. Lawrence J.
Krauter, chief executive officer, Spokane International
Airport; Ms. Angela Lee, director, Charlotte Water, on behalf
of the Water Environment Federation and the National
Association of Clean Water Agencies; Mr. Rich McArdle,
president, UPS Freight, on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce; Ms. Kristin Meira, the executive director of the
Pacific Northwest Waterways Association; and, last but not
least, Mr. Larry I. Willis, president of the Transportation
Trades Department of the AFL-CIO.
With that, the first witness, which is Mr. Anderson, would
be recognized.
TESTIMONY OF RICHARD ANDERSON, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, AMTRAK; HON. ERIC K. FANNING, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION; LAWRENCE
J. KRAUTER, A.A.E., AICP, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SPOKANE
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT; ANGELA LEE, DIRECTOR, CHARLOTTE WATER,
ON BEHALF OF THE WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION AND THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN WATER AGENCIES; RICH McARDLE, PRESIDENT,
UPS FREIGHT, ON BEHALF OF THE U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; KRISTIN
MEIRA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PACIFIC NORTHWEST WATERWAYS
ASSOCIATION (PNWA); AND LARRY I. WILLIS, PRESIDENT,
TRANSPORTATION TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO
Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member
Graves, and all the members of the committee. I am Richard
Anderson. I have the privilege of serving as the CEO of Amtrak.
I am here on behalf of about 32 million people that use Amtrak
every year, and 20,000 employees.
Obviously, infrastructure investment is core to the Federal
Government and its role in our constitutional system, so we
appreciate your leadership.
Amtrak provides vital infrastructure services. We own, on
behalf of the Federal Government, the Northeast Corridor, the
railroad from Washington, DC, to Boston and out to Springfield.
We also own and operate critical rail infrastructure around the
United States.
On the Northeast Corridor we serve 8 commuter agencies,
from Virginia up to Massachusetts, that support 800,000 trips a
day, people going to work, visiting their families, and
otherwise supporting 20 percent of the GDP of the United States
up and down the corridor.
In addition, Amtrak, we think of ourselves as the vascular
system of rail transportation in America. If you look at all
the services and infrastructure we provide around the United
States, we support 300 million intercity and commuter rail
customers in 46 States, and serve 500 cities across the Nation.
We cover about 95 percent of our operating costs--probably
the most efficient passenger railroad in the world--with the
goal of becoming break-even on operating income in the next 2
years. But we must have investment on parity with other
transportation modes in the United States for rail
infrastructure.
Investment in intercity passenger rail infrastructure is
really going to become--it already is in many places, like San
Diego to L.A. and New York to Washington, but it is going to
play a greater and more critical role in solving the congestion
problems in major metropolitan areas. If you look at the
demographics of America, our preferences are changing. Ninety
percent of millennials live in 11 megaregions of the United
States, and they use ride sharing and mass transit, not
individual cars. We see this when we see Amazon picking its
headquarters in locations where there is significant commuter
rail. That is because it is the most efficient and
environmentally sensitive way to move people in dense urban
areas.
We are already seeing these changes: 85 percent of our
ridership is in dense metropolitan areas. And our highway
system cannot and will not support the 100 million additional
people that will live in the United States by 2050. We have
57,000 miles of interstate highway and, over time, we can't
really add to corridors like I-95, I-90, and I-5.
So the bottom line is, along with the infrastructure
investment in surface transportation, we must include rail,
because we are the most efficient way, in partnership with
cities and States, for trips around 150 to 300 miles.
We serve multiple stations, as we do up and down the
corridor, and as we do in dense corridors like Milwaukee to
Chicago, San Diego to Los Angeles, where, because of traffic
congestion, we have become the preferred mode of
transportation. The best example of that is New York City to
Washington, where our market share versus air has grown from 37
to 76 percent of the combined market.
So the bottom line is we urge you, as part of your
deliberations, to include passenger rail on parity with the
other surface transportation investments, as we are the most
efficient way to really provide efficient transportation in the
100- to 300-mile megaregions around the United States.
In fiscal year 2018 we made about $1.4 billion in capital
investments. But the biggest infrastructure need on our network
is the Northeast Corridor. We have approximately $30 billion of
backlog of investment. Our youngest major asset on the
Northeast Corridor is the Bush River Bridge, and we put it in
operation in 1913. We have gotten our money's worth out of all
these assets, and it is critical that we now undertake the
major investments to replace the Hudson River Tunnels and the
important bridges up and down the Northeast Corridor.
We need a new paradigm for Federal investment
infrastructure with our host railroads and our partners in
State and local governments.
And, most importantly, please ride Amtrak. Thank you.
[Mr. Anderson's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard Anderson, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Amtrak
introduction
Good morning, and thank you Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member
Graves, and all of the members of this committee for holding this
important hearing to discuss the urgent need to invest in our Nation's
infrastructure.
My name is Richard Anderson, and I serve as the president and chief
executive officer of Amtrak. I started as CEO in 2017 and prior to that
I served as the CEO for Delta Air Lines, CEO for Northwest Airlines,
and the president of Commercial Business at United Health Group. It is
my pleasure to testify before you today on behalf of our 20,000
dedicated employees.
Today, I am going to discuss why we should not delay investment in
intercity passenger rail and the consequences if we do wait; I will
describe some of the major infrastructure, equipment, and stations
projects Amtrak plans to advance over the next 5 years; and I will
provide context for why intercity passenger rail has a bright future if
we make smart investments and decisions as we prepare for the next
generation.
the cost of doing nothing
Unseen by many, and unconsidered by most, the structures and assets
that make up America's infrastructure lie at the heart of our economy
and enable every one of us to live our lives in safety and comfort.
Without our transportation, energy, and communication networks, we
would not enjoy the freedom and convenience to raise our families,
conduct our businesses, and live our lives as we do.
We owe a great debt to generations past for making significant
investments of time, talent, and treasure to build these networks.
Americans across the country are relying on Federal leaders in
Washington to help maintain and, where necessary, expand these networks
to protect and improve the Nation's economic and social health and our
collective defense. Generations to come are depending on us to be
careful stewards of these assets.
As the American Society of Civil Engineers observed in its last
report card, passenger rail service, like nearly all modes of
transportation, depends on some portion Government funding for its
capital needs. As an asset-intensive industry with long-lived
infrastructure, capital funding is the key ingredient for reliable
service and effective networks. Yet, steady, reliable capital funding
is precisely what America's intercity passenger rail network does not
have, and that shortcoming is at the root of the problems I plan to
cover in remarks today.
Without this sort of reliable funding over the five decades of
Amtrak's existence, significant portions of our infrastructure,
stations, and rolling stock have become outdated and aged beyond their
useful lives. At the same time, the network's assets are now being
asked to accommodate far more traffic than they were designed to
handle, making it more difficult to ensure safe, reliable, on time
service.
In an era where perpetual highway congestion and environmental
concerns highlight rail's compelling advantages, we should be
discussing the significant upgrades to achieve speeds and levels of
service found around the world today. To do that, we need adequate and
stable funding to address our insufficient and outdated passenger car
fleet and the railroad bridges, tunnels, and supporting systems that
date back to the 1930s, the 1910s, or even 1873 and are in clear need
of replacement.
Every day that goes by without a funded plan to address these
projects brings us 1 day closer to a having an irrelevant
transportation system stymied by unreliable structures creating reduced
speeds and capacities, resulting in prolonged commute times and travel
delays. These disruptions will impose significant costs--to
individuals, to neighborhoods and cities, and to the Nation--all when
the use of intercity passenger rail should be increasing across our
country.
The Northeast Corridor (NEC) is a prime example of the benefits of
intercity passenger rail, as well as illustrate why delayed investment
can have a profoundly negative impact to the region. The NEC rail
network between Washington, DC, and Boston, Massachusetts is an engine
of economic activity for the United States in the delivery of workers
to jobs, businesses to clients, goods to market, and people to their
friends, family, and leisure activities. The NEC region is home to more
than 51 million people and four of the ten largest metropolitan areas
in the country. The NEC connects interdependent markets that
collectively are a national and global force. Its economy is the fifth
largest in the world, ahead of France and just behind Germany. Its
commuter rail and Amtrak intercity services provide 820,000 trips each
day, moving a workforce that contributes more than $50 billion annually
to the national economy. Job density is even greater around the NEC's
rail stations. Within 1 mile of the NEC stations, the average
employment density is 680 times higher than the U.S. average. Rail
connections not only provide residents of outlying communities with
access to a broader range of jobs, but it also provides them with
access to better paying jobs. Commuter rail riders on the NEC earn, on
average, approximately twice the national average.
Passenger rail is a vital artery for this region. Amtrak carries
more intercity passengers within the Northeast than all airlines
combined. Service disruptions on the NEC caused by infrastructure
failures, rail traffic congestion, and other factors already cost $500
million per year in lost productivity. Without higher levels of capital
investment, those losses are likely to grow. An unexpected loss of the
NEC for 1 day alone could cost the Nation nearly $100 million in
transportation-related impacts and productivity losses, roughly the
daily economic output of cities like Winston-Salem, North Carolina,
Portland, Maine, or Boulder, Colorado. Expert analysis suggests that
should the NEC not receive the necessary investments to accommodate
anticipated growth by 2025, the country will bear an annual $1.2
billion cost in additional costs for the highway and aviation systems.
If long-term, sustained, NEC investments are made, they will repay us
with an annual $8.2 billion gained by 2040 in savings for the highway
and aviation systems.
All one needs to do is visit New York Penn Station, Chicago Union
Station, or Los Angeles Union Station at rush hour to see how
infrastructure enables careers, fuels businesses, and fosters
opportunity. Yet at the same time, we have seen how an infrastructure
failure can dramatically impact these major centers of economic
activity. For example, a 2017 track failure in New York Penn Station
caused a low-speed derailment, and subsequent investigation led Amtrak
to launch a significant work program. For decades, Amtrak has
maintained and repaired this aging infrastructure, some of which dates
to the 1970s, while the demands placed on it have grown significantly.
The 2017 examinations made it clear that full replacement was required.
During the summer of 2017, Amtrak kicked off its Infrastructure Renewal
at New York Penn Station, and continues it to this day. The
Infrastructure Renewal program is one element of Amtrak's plan to
modernize stations, infrastructure, and equipment on the NEC. I am
proud to say Amtrak completed this work so far on schedule, on budget,
and with no significant injuries.
As important as the NEC is for Amtrak, the hub for our national
network is Chicago, which is our fourth busiest station, with 3.3
million boardings and alighting in FY2018. Eight of our 15 Long
Distance routes and nine of our 29 State-Supported routes start or end
in Chicago. Combined, this represents about 55 trains per day there and
these trains carried 5.2 million people in FY2018. These customers are
dependent on the smooth functioning of our facilities in Chicago,
whether or not they actually travel in or out of the station.
Intercity passenger rail delivers many similar benefits to cities
outside of the NEC, too. Turning to Chicago, where Amtrak has joined
with the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), the State of
Illinois, the city of Chicago, Metra, and the Nation's freight
railroads to form a first-of-its-kind partnership: the Chicago Region
Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program (CREATE). Since
2003, the CREATE Partners have worked to enhance the quality of life
for Chicago area residents and the economic health of the Nation by
investing in critically needed improvements to improve the efficiency
of the region's commuter, passenger and freight rail infrastructure
while mitigating community impacts. CREATE calls for $4.4 billion in
infrastructure investment that over a 30-year period will generate an
estimated $31.5 billion in economic benefits. Some of these benefits
are already being realized with the projects constructed to date.
Further west, rail has become an increasingly integral part of
California's transportation system and will play a key role in
accommodating the required growth in the coming years. Amtrak operates
more than 70 intercity passenger trains per day in California, serving
5.6 million boardings annually, up from 3.6 million a decade ago and
now starting to approach our Northeast Regional service passenger
counts. Additionally, California commuter rail ridership, some of which
is operated by Amtrak, grew to nearly 33 million trips in 2016, up more
than 50 percent from 21.6 million trips a decade earlier. These rail
services connect to California's urban transit systems, which provided
1.5 billion trips in 2014.
To gain a sense of the scope and importance of our State supported
trains, it is worth remembering that Amtrak partners with 21 agencies
in 18 States to operate 29 State supported routes. In 2008, Section 209
of PRIIA (spell out if necessary, depending on where this goes)
required States to fund all routes less than 750 miles in length using
a single, jointly developed, standardized cost-sharing methodology.
This methodology became effective in October 2013. Together, State
supported carry 15 million passengers annually, almost half of all our
customers. This number has grown by two-thirds over the last 20 years,
and this growth shows every sign of continuing.
The trains that we operate under these agreements can be found
across the country, from west coast where you can find the Cascades
service in Oregon and Washington, and in California the Capitol
Corridor, Pacific Surfliner, and San Joaquins. In the Midwest, Illinois
and Wisconsin support the Hiawatha, Illinois and Missouri support the
Lincoln Service, Illinois operates the Carl Sandburg, Illini, Illinois
Zephyr, and the Saluki, Indiana supports the Hoosier State, Michigan
supports the Blue Water, Pere Marquette, and Wolverine, and Missouri
runs the Missouri River Runner. Further south, Oklahoma and Texas
combine to run the Heartland Flyer.
In the Northeast, the Downeaster runs from Maine down to Boston,
Vermont and Massachusetts support the Vermonter, Vermont and New York
run the Ethan Allen Express, Massachusetts and Connecticut cooperate on
service to Springfield, and New York operates the Adirondack, Empire
Service, and Maple Leaf. Moving south, Pennsylvania operates the
Pennsylvanian and the Keystone Corridor, Virginia supports trains that
run from DC down to Newport News, Norfolk, Richmond, and Roanoke.
Finally, North Carolina supports both the Carolinian and the Piedmont.
This growing network has seen recent extensions in Virginia and
increased frequencies in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and North
Carolina. Additional growth in 2019 is planned in California,
Massachusetts, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington. A little further out,
we anticipate expanding in Illinois, Kansas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
Texas, Vermont, and Wisconsin, and restoring service to the gulf coast
between Mobile and New Orleans.
Beyond that, there are numerous markets where either the
introduction or expansion of service makes sense and significant local
interest has been expressed. Examples include Coachella Valley, the
Front Range, Illinois's Quad Cities, the Twin Cities, Indiana, and
south of Richmond to Raleigh.
planning for the future
In addition to the infrastructure challenges discussed today, our
transportation system is facing unprecedented strains from several
other important factors, including: population growth and urbanization,
changing travel habits and demand, technological disruption, limited
capacity, and network inefficiencies. Amtrak and intercity passenger
rail can help, but to do so, Amtrak must modernize our passenger
equipment, update our products, and expand our network. With a stronger
foundation, we can provide more value to the Nation.
If you look at today's Amtrak route map, it looks eerily similar to
the one created in 1971. Yet, this Nation has grown and changed during
this time period, and this is expected to continue, and in fact
accelerate, for several reasons. Population and economic growth, and
the continuous trend over the last 20 years towards urbanization, are
driving congestion and demand in major metropolitan areas and the
corridors that connect them. In particular, the millennial generation,
set to become the majority of the U.S. population this year, is
changing the overall travel landscape with their preference for
flexibility, constant connectedness, and affordability. While highways
and air capacity is limited and performance is likely to get worse for
these modes, intercity passenger rail can help provide a solution for
these future travel demands. This pressure appears to be inevitable.
It is projected that the Nation's population will grow to between
400 million and 450 million by 2050. It is anticipated that much of
this growth will be in urban areas. We have already seen this growth
trend begin in the 20th century; for example, the population of rural
America has stayed relatively flat, but the urban population has
exploded during this same, increasing as a percentage of the total
population from 45.6 percent in 1910 to 80.7 percent in 2010. To be
clear, this urban growth is not limited to the Northeast; it is
actually happening at higher rates in metro areas outside the Northeast
like the South, Mountain West and West.
Unfortunately, many of these ``megaregions'' are underserved by
intercity passenger rail. Just look at a map and you can see glaring
gaps in Amtrak service to cities like Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Orlando
and Tampa, Denver, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Nashville,
Austin, Cincinnati, New Orleans, and Birmingham. While some of cities
are served by Amtrak, they only receive daily or tri-weekly service as
part of our Long Distance network. These trains can only provide
limited utility connecting such major population centers to adjacent
cities and towns within intercity passenger rail's ``sweet spot'' of
400-mile corridors or less because of the limited frequencies, often
uncompetitive trips time, and very poor on-time performance, which only
average 50 percent, owning to poor performance over many of our host
freight railroads. The demand is clearly there for additional short
corridor service throughout the U.S, which includes both additional
frequencies for existing routes and establishing new routes between
city pairs.
This is reinforced when you look at where Amtrak is most successful
today. Approximately 85 percent of Amtrak's ridership comes from the
top 100 metro areas. Further, approximately 96 percent of Amtrak trips
are less than 750 miles in length. In fact, the vast majority of our
riders' trips are less than 250 miles. The present network simply does
not fit the future.
I mention this because in order for Amtrak to grow corridor service
and better serve the Nation, we must confront several challenges head
on. First, investment in infrastructure, equipment, and stations,
similar to what has been discussed today, is critical to growth of
intercity passenger rail. Second, the current process of negotiation
with our host railroads has often made it very difficult for Amtrak to
add frequencies and new routes; this too must be addressed if passenger
rail is to respond to the growing demand. The reauthorization of the
Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act creates both the
opportunity and the necessity to rethink the role of intercity
passenger rail in the national network. We want a strong partnership
with Congress and other stakeholders and later this year Amtrak plans
to propose a comprehensive reauthorization proposal for your committee
to consider. Together, there is a bright future ahead for intercity
passenger rail in the United States.
Now, as America needs more from its rails than ever before, I need
you to consider these structures, to grasp their necessity, to learn
their limitations, and to work with us to envision a new generation of
infrastructure that will serve the country for future generations.
Having tried to convey the importance of this topic, let me shift
to a review of the sorts of assets Amtrak requires to fulfill its
mission. When railroaders speak of infrastructure, we usually include
three categories in that term: fixed assets like bridges, tunnels, and
our rights of way; rolling stock made up of our locomotives, passenger
cars, and trainsets; and our stations. For many outside of our
industry, fixed assets are the most easily understood category, so I
will start there.
fixed-asset infrastructure
Amtrak owns and/or manages infrastructure nationwide with an
estimated replacement value of $75.6 billion. Amtrak owns and operates
363 route-miles (or 1,169 ``track-miles'') of main line infrastructure
on the NEC main line connecting Washington, DC; Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; New York, New York; and up to the Massachusetts/Rhode
Island border. Amtrak also owns branch lines of the NEC, is the
responsible infrastructure manager for long-term leased infrastructure
on the Empire Line, and Amtrak is also responsible for track
infrastructure assets nationwide, including the segment between Porter,
Indiana and Kalamazoo, Michigan; in Hialeah, Florida, and yard tracks
and sidings in cities across the country.
This portfolio of assets has served the region and the country
well. Nonetheless, Amtrak's funding levels over the years has never
been sufficient to address all of the capital needs that come along
with a physical plant that is in many places at or beyond its useful
economic life. Congress took an important step in addressing this
chronic shortfall with the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement
Act of 2008 (PRIIA). Section 212 of that legislation established the
Northeast Corridor Commission and charged it with developing a formula
to allocate NEC capital and operating costs based on usage, making
recommendations to Congress, and facilitating collaborative planning.
The Commission is made up of 18 members, including representatives from
each of the eight NEC States, the District of Columbia, Amtrak, and the
USDOT. Amtrak, States, and commuter railroads will contribute
approximately $3.1 billion over the next 5 years through the NEC
Commuter and Intercity Rail Cost Allocation Policy, helping create a
reliable source of funding for the capital renewal of basic
infrastructure assets. The NEC has hundreds of miles of aging track
bed, hundreds of century-old small bridges, over a dozen century-old
major bridges and tunnels, and power supply and signal systems that
still rely on 1930s technology.
Unfortunately, Amtrak and the States alone do not have the funds to
reduce the NEC state of good repair (SOGR) backlog, let alone address
many of the major projects that are so critical to the region and the
Nation. Simply put, these infrastructure projects are perfect examples
of why we cannot wait to invest in our infrastructure.
Portal North Bridge
The century-old Portal Bridge is a two-track swing bridge over the
Hackensack River in New Jersey that rotates open for maritime traffic
several times per month. 450 trains cross the bridge as they travel
between Newark, New Jersey, and New York Penn Station every day. The
bridge is a major bottleneck and source of delay for Amtrak and NJ
Transit (NJT) trains--the aging mechanical and electrical components
sometimes malfunction while opening and closing, causing a cascade of
delays. It carries more passenger trains than any other rail bridge in
the Western Hemisphere.
The Pennsylvania Railroad constructed Portal Bridge in 1907 and
began revenue operations in November 1910. The bridge earned the name
``Portal,'' because it leads the NEC rail line to the ``portal'' of the
North River Tunnel, located just 3 miles away. It consists of seven
spans and totals 960 feet in length. The middle span is 300 feet long
and pivots to open for marine traffic.
The swing span and special ``miter rail'' configuration pose
maintenance and operational challenges. Due to age and fragility,
trains are restricted to a maximum of 60 miles per hour over the
bridge. Only 23 feet of clearance separate the Hackensack River and the
bottom of the bridge.
Fully designed and permitted, early construction work on this
project began in the summer of 2017. This work is funded by a
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant to
NJT and includes the realignment of two 138kV transmission poles, the
installation of new fiber optic cable poles, the installation of a
construction access structure known as a finger pier, a steel bridge
structure over the Jersey City Municipal Utility Authority water main,
and a retaining wall just west of the Frank R. Lautenberg Station at
Secaucus Junction.
Funding for approximately 50 percent of the estimated project cost
has been committed by funding partners Amtrak and NJT including up to
$600 million of bond proceeds by the State of New Jersey. The project
was accepted into the Federal Transit Administration's Capital
Investment Grant (CIG) Project Development pipeline in July 2016.
Construction of this nationally significant project can start as soon
as a Federal financial commitment is in place. The new Portal North
Bridge is estimated to cost approximately $1.6 billion. A financial
plan and request to enter the next phase of the CIG process have been
submitted to the U.S. Department of Transportation, so construction can
proceed as soon as possible.
Hudson Tunnel Project
The Hudson Tunnel Project is intended to preserve the current
functionality of Amtrak's NEC service and NJT's commuter rail service
between New Jersey and New York Penn Station by repairing the existing
North River Tunnel. It will also strengthen the NEC's resiliency and
ability to support reliable service by providing redundant capacity
under the Hudson River for Amtrak and NJT trains. These improvements
must be achieved while maintaining uninterrupted commuter and intercity
rail service and by optimizing the use of existing infrastructure. The
project involves design and construction of a new rail tunnel under the
Hudson River as well as the rehabilitation and modernization of the
existing 108-year-old North River Tunnel.
The roughly 10-mile section of the NEC between Newark, New Jersey,
and New York Penn Station is the busiest stretch of railroad in North
America. Every day, 450 trains carry passengers making 200,000
intercity and commuter rail trips over just two tracks that cross the
century-old Portal Bridge and traverse the North River Tunnel en route
to a space-constrained New York Penn Station. In October 2012, Super
Storm Sandy significantly damaged the North River Tunnel when both
tubes (each containing one track) were inundated with millions of
gallons of brackish sea water. The water was pumped out, but salts and
chemicals left behind continue to degrade systems including the track
structure and the concrete bench walls that line both sides of the
tunnels. Through these bench walls pass critical high-voltage cables
and other infrastructure that powers NEC trains and the New York Penn
Station terminal complex.
While the existing tunnel is safe for use, certain elements of
tunnel infrastructure remain in poor condition as a result of the storm
damage and have required emergency maintenance that disrupts service
for hundreds of thousands of rail passengers throughout the region.
Despite ongoing maintenance, the damage can only be addressed through a
comprehensive reconstruction of the tunnel.
The benefits of completing this project are immense--it will
preserve existing NEC service, improve reliability, add resiliency and
system redundancy, and offer substantial environmental benefits. Not
tackling this project invites disaster. A closure of just one tube of
the North River Tunnel could reduce capacity by as much as 75 percent
and force tens of thousands of commuters and travelers onto already
congested bridges, tunnels, and highways in both New York City and New
Jersey. The resulting congestion would lead to degradation of air
quality throughout the region. The movement of people and goods to and
from the Nation's largest regional economy would be severely
constrained, putting 10 percent of America's gross domestic product at
risk.
Prior to issuing funding for the Hudson Tunnel Project, the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) must consider the environmental effects
of the Project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). On behalf of the local partners, NJT prepared and submitted an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the Hudson Tunnel
Project. Amtrak, in partnership with the PANYNJ, is conducting the
preliminary engineering.
Work on the EIS was completed by the local partners on an
accelerated 24-month schedule, roughly half the time a project of this
magnitude would normally require. The EIS has been under review by FRA
and USDOT since February 2018. A Record of Decision (ROD) is required
to move the project forward and meet the project schedule.
In June 2018, as the 24-month period for advancing through the
Project Development phase of the CIG process was ending, the PANYNJ
transmitted a letter to the Federal Transit Agency (FTA) in which it
reaffirmed the $5.5 billion in financial commitments by the Project
Partners and assumed the role of NEPA Project Sponsor. The Final EIS/
ROD is the next needed element to advance through the CIG process.
While it was originally on track for completion in March 2018, it is
currently still pending. An updated draft of the Final EIS was
transmitted to FRA in December 2018 and remains under review with no
additional timeline given.
East River Tunnel
The East River Tunnel (ERT) is actually made up of four single-
track tubes that extend from the eastern end of New York Penn Station
under 32nd and 33rd Streets in Manhattan and cross the East River to
Long Island City in Queens. The tracks carry Long Island Rail Road
(LIRR), which make up 72 percent of the 810 trains that move through
them daily, Amtrak trains travelling to and from New York Penn Station
and points to the north and east (17 percent), and out-of-service NJT
trains moving to and from Sunnyside Yard (11 percent).
Following the inundation caused by Hurricane Sandy, Amtrak has
conducted through analyses to ascertain the tunnels' conditions. While
some cracks predated the storm, the urgency has accelerated post-Sandy
as corrosion (and the associated steel expansion) likely increased due
to saturation of various structural elements. Accordingly, the Final
Design phase includes a specific Task for the prioritization and design
of intermediate repairs that can be implemented as needed between now
and the full reconstruction outages to maintain safe operating
conditions within the tunnels. The FRA and Amtrak inspection personnel
are eager to resolve the spalling concrete, leaks, and deflecting
splice chambers within the ERT, which are in all likelihood
contributing to increased electrical or signal system faults.
The scope of the full reconstruction will include demolishing all
interior components and systems of ERT 1 and 2 down to the concrete
liner and rebuilding with modern electric traction, signals, and
security systems, Direct Fixation Track, improved drainage, and a one-
high-one-low benchwall layout for improved egress and equipment access.
This approach will improve safety, reliability, and resiliency by
creating a modernized egress path, maintaining dryer conditions within
the trackbed, and moving critical equipment out of the tunnels.
Preliminary Design was initiated in Spring 2015 and culminated in a
30-percent Design Milestone in November 2016. The Final Design Notice
to Proceed (NTP) was issued on July 31, 2017, and design will continue
into early 2020, contingent upon receiving the important required
outages for engineering observations, geodetic survey, LiDAR 3D-
scanning, and material sampling that are essential to enable the design
to progress. While tunnel track and station outages are always in
demand for ongoing inspections, regular and emergency maintenance, and
an increasing number of impacting projects and development, this
project is a high priority for Amtrak and the region. Intermediate
deliverables have already begun with a Value Engineering Workshop and
Report. A Draft Repair Prioritization Report is expected in October to
guide Amtrak on the priority and design of near-term repairs that can
be implemented on an as-needed basis up to the time of full
reconstruction. The cost of Final Design is approximately $20 million,
in addition to the $3.25 million that has already been spent to date on
Preliminary Engineering.
The timing for these critical full-tunnel outages is under study by
a Tri-Venture group consisting of Amtrak, LIRR, and NJT. Operations
analyses are ongoing to evaluate the required level of schedule
modifications for each carrier under various scenarios that mostly
involve interaction with the East Side Access Project. Outage durations
for ERT 1 and 2 are estimated at roughly 2 years each, excluding
preparatory work.
The latest cost estimate for the tunnel repair project is over $1
billion, depending on a variety of factors including when the project
commences.
Baltimore & Potomac Tunnel Replacement
The Baltimore & Potomac (B&P) Tunnel is a two-track railroad tunnel
running beneath central Baltimore City between Baltimore Penn Station
and the West Baltimore Maryland Area Regional Commuter (MARC) station.
This busy section of the NEC is used by Amtrak and MARC passenger
trains, as well as Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) freight trains.
Built just after the Civil War in 1873, the B&P Tunnel is among the
oldest infrastructure along the NEC. Due to its age, the tunnel is
approaching the end of its useful life. Its obsolete design creates a
low-speed bottleneck on this high traffic section of the NEC. Both the
constriction of tunnel volume from four tracks to two tracks, as well
as the tunnel's tight curvature, require trains to reduce speeds to 30
miles per hour, placing limitations on all train traffic. The tunnel
requires replacement or will have to be taken out of service for
significant rehabilitation to extend its useful life. Any closure of
the tunnel will greatly jeopardize the intercity, commuter and freight
rail traffic that relies upon the tunnel to move people and goods
throughout the region.
The B&P Tunnel system is approximately 1.4 miles long and is
comprised of three shorter tunnels: the John Street Tunnel, the Wilson
Street Tunnel; and the Gilmor Street Tunnel. The narrow, single-bored,
double-track tunnel was originally constructed out of brick and stone
masonry, though repairs have added additional building materials over
time. Electrification was added in the 1930s, and the tunnel was
rehabilitated in the 1980s. That work was not intended as a permanent
fix and continuously increasing maintenance is required to address
water infiltration and masonry repairs on the aging structure.
The B&P Tunnel Project will improve service reliability and help
make Amtrak and MARC less susceptible to maintenance-related delays.
Its aging condition has resulted in increased maintenance needs. One
such example is the high saturation of water in the soil beneath the
tunnel; this causes the tunnel's aging floor slabs to slowly sink,
forcing Amtrak to make repeated repairs. Amtrak performs thorough
inspections and vigilant maintenance to ensure ongoing safety
standards.
The existing tunnel does not provide sufficient capacity to meet
projected passenger and freight rail demand through 2040 and beyond.
When completed, this project will create new capacity to support
additional Amtrak, MARC, and freight operations. New tunnels could free
the existing tunnels for renewal and other uses.
The existing tunnel is not suited for modern high-speed train
operations due to tight clearances and sharp curves, which limit train
speeds. Replacement of the B&P Tunnel will allow for increased speeds
through the Baltimore region. This improvement would contribute to
unlocking the current bottleneck which now impedes operations along the
most heavily traveled rail line in the country.
The FRA, Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), city of
Baltimore and Amtrak have cooperated on an EIS for a replacement tunnel
as required by the NEPA.
Funding is now needed to refine and finish design and start
construction of the approximately $5 billion new tunnel system. Funding
will be pursued through a combination of USDOT grant programs, funding
for Amtrak, and local matches.
Susquehanna River Bridge
Amtrak's existing two-track Susquehanna River Bridge crosses the
Susquehanna River between the city of Havre de Grace and the Town of
Perryville in Maryland--roughly mid-way between Wilmington, Delaware
and Baltimore, Maryland. The highly used bridge serves Amtrak, MARC,
and NS to carry passenger and freight trains across the Susquehanna
River.
Owned by Amtrak, the Susquehanna River Bridge is the longest
moveable bridge on the NEC and is a critical link for intercity,
commuter, and freight connectivity in the Mid-Atlantic. Built in 1906,
the bridge is approaching the end of its service life and will need to
be replaced with a new structure to maintain future rail services
across the Susquehanna River. The age of the bridge and its
constriction from four to two tracks limits the speed and number of
trains that can use the bridge. The replacement of the Susquehanna
River Bridge is necessary to preserve reliability and allow the future
expansion of both commuter and intercity service. The project will also
significantly improve the navigation channel for maritime users.
The Susquehanna River Bridge was constructed in 1906 as a 4,000-
foot multi-span truss bridge. The limited number of tracks across the
river, combined with the wide variety of trains utilizing the bridge
and the need for continual maintenance, results in tightly managed and
restrictive operations. While regular, major repairs have occurred on
the bridge since the 1960s, few repairs and/or inspections can be made
without disrupting rail operations. The existing bridge's movable swing
span causes train delays when opening is required for marine traffic,
and large crews are needed to operate the span because work must be
done quickly. Each bridge opening introduces risks of significant train
delays if a breakdown of the operating mechanisms were to occur.
In addition to passenger rail, the bridge provides critical freight
connectivity to the Ports of Baltimore, Maryland and Wilmington,
Delaware, moving manufacturing, agricultural and raw materials
throughout the region, Nation and around the globe.
The benefits of pursuing this project are similar to the other
projects discussed today--more reliable, flexible, and faster service,
expansion of future freight, commuter, intercity, and high-speed rail
operations, improved maritime navigation and safety, and enhanced trade
connectivity for economic growth.
With significant growth in passenger and freight rail service
expected by 2040, the replacement bridge is being designed to
accommodate future capacity needs. The new bridge design includes two
new high-level, fixed bridges with a total of four tracks--doubling
capacity compared to the current two tracks.
One of the new bridges would be built primarily to serve high-speed
trains operating at speeds up to 160 miles per hour. With 60 feet of
vertical clearance, the new fixed bridges will support better maritime
uses along the river by maintaining navigation and eliminating the need
to open and close for tall vessels.
Amtrak, the FRA, and MDOT have cooperated on an Environmental
Assessment (EA) for a new replacement bridge, as required by the NEPA.
Funding is now needed to finish design and construct the estimated
$1.7 billion new bridge. Funding will be pursued through a combination
of Federal grant programs, funding from Amtrak, and other State and
local matches.
rolling stock
Amtrak's equipment includes the railroad's fleet of passenger
locomotives, railcars, and trainsets. The equipment is used to carry
customers on the railroad's three intercity rail passenger service
lines: Northeast Corridor, State Supported, and Long Distance. A
significant portion of Amtrak's fleet is at or nearing the end of its
useful service life.
As of late 2018, the active fleet includes some 262 road diesel
locomotives, 66 electric locomotives, 1,408 passenger cars, and 20
high-speed trainsets. Additionally, Amtrak and various State partners
own fleets of seven Talgo trainsets and 49 Alstom Surfliner railcars,
with Amtrak owning 29 Talgo car equivalents and 39 Surfliner cars.
Amtrak operates an additional 196 locomotives and railcars owned wholly
by State partners.
With the railcar fleet averaging nearly 33 years of age, diesel
locomotives averaging nearly 21 years of age, and a long lead-time to
procure any replacement units, Amtrak is focused on the continued
modernization of its passenger car, locomotive, and trainset fleets.
Railcars in North American mainline passenger service typically have a
service life between 30 to 50 years. Road diesel locomotives typically
have a shorter lifespan than railcars, as do high-speed trainsets.
Where exceptions to such average lifespans exist, it is because
equipment is rebuilt at considerable expense and/or the equipment
accrues fewer annual miles than most Amtrak equipment.
Amtrak plans to build upon our recent refleeting efforts to launch
and/or complete nine major fleet initiatives to modernize Amtrak's
passenger car, trainset, and locomotive fleets, which will largely
feature replacement of most locomotives and railcars in Amtrak service
today. Descriptions of each of the efforts follow, although more
detailed explanations of all of them can be found in Amtrak's 5-Year
Equipment Asset Line Plan.
New Acela Trainsets
First, as Acela Express nears its twentieth anniversary of service,
replacement has become necessary for the fleet. Worldwide, high-speed
trainset fleets typically have shorter service lives than conventional
equipment. Further compounding the need for replacement is the
insufficient capacity available on Acela Express on peak trips. In
FY2016 Amtrak placed an order with Alstom for 28 Avelia Liberty
trainsets to replace the existing Acela Express fleet while expanding
capacity to meet future demand. Twenty Acela Express trainsets with 304
seats each will be retired when the 28 new trainsets with 380 seats
each arrive, most in FY2021-FY2022. The additional sets allow for
additional frequencies, including hourly New York-Boston service and
half-hourly New York-Washington service during peak periods. The Alstom
Avelia platform is a proven design currently operating in France and
Italy, among other countries.
New Diesel Locomotives
Second, Amtrak's fleet of 200 P40 and P42 locomotives, currently
used on all Long Distance routes and most State-Supported routes, is
rapidly approaching the end of its useful life. Additionally, the units
were ordered before the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) impose'd
locomotive emissions standards and are noncompliant with modern
emissions standards. Amtrak has launched its own process for acquiring
new diesel locomotives to replace the P40/P42 fleet and following a
request for proposal (RFP), on December 20, 2018, announced the
contract award to Siemens for a base order of 75 Charger locomotives
for Long Distance routes, plus additional options to permit order
growth to address the long-term needs of the network pending Congress'
reauthorization of Amtrak in FY2020 and the completion of the Amfleet I
procurements described below, which could influence locomotive quantity
requirements. Factors that will impact the specific quantity of
locomotives required are discussed in more detail in our 5-year
Equipment Asset Line Plan.
Replacement of Amfleet I
Third, Amtrak's 457 active Amfleet I cars and 16 ex-Metroliner cab
control coaches that support our Northeast Regional trains and many
State Supported services are at the end of their commercial and useful
service lives. In FY2018 Amtrak launched an Amfleet replacement RFI. To
survey the greatest possible number of qualified vendors, technologies,
and products in the global marketplace, Amtrak has expressed interest
in solutions including, dual-powered, diesel or electric multiple units
(MUs), unpowered trainsets, and single cars. While Amtrak's current
fleet is mostly made up of individual railcars today, the global
marketplace for intercity corridor rail passenger equipment since the
1970s has shifted towards trainsets with cabs at both ends, which
eliminate the need to loop or wye equipment between trips. Amtrak's RFI
was designed to determine how the railroad can best tap into this
global marketplace of products and expertise. Amtrak issued an RFP for
Amfleet I replacement equipment on January 18, 2019, using information
learned from the RFI process and a performance-based specification
developed by Amtrak and other stakeholders. Amtrak plans to make a
contract award for base orders of one or more equipment solutions to
replace Amfleet I and ex-Metroliner equipment, with options for
additional fleet expansion in FY2019. Deliveries of Amfleet I
replacement units will likely occur during the early-to-mid 2020s,
following deliveries of Avelia Liberty high-speed trainsets. As part of
this procurement, one of the most significant service improvements that
Amtrak is seeking from refleeting is the elimination of engine changes
for trains which travel on both the NEC and State-Supported routes.
Should Amtrak obtain a dual-power capability for through trains between
the NEC and State corridors, Amtrak would realize several benefits,
including scheduled trip times reductions of 15 to 30 minutes (a
reduction that would cost billions to achieve through right-of-way
improvements), a decrease in locomotive movements and platform capacity
utilization in busy terminals, an increase in on-time performance as
the delay risk of locomotive changes was eliminated, and passengers
would not lose lighting, climate control, or working toilets during
engine changes. This more attractive service would be less labor-
intensive, needing less mechanical and yard-to-station transportation
work and less total travel time which train crews must work to complete
a given trip. At this time, some 20 train consists switch between
diesel and electric power each day on the affected routes, which
translates into a need for approximately 25 new trainsets or dual power
locomotives (including spare ratios) to convert existing through trains
to dual power. The plans of Amtrak's State partners Virginia and North
Carolina to expand through service from the NEC to their respective
State corridors would benefit from additional dual power consists. The
dual power method chosen, and base and options quantities of dual
powered equipment purchases, will be determined during FY2019 as part
of Amtrak's review of Amfleet replacement RFP responses and selection
of a technology, and with the concurrence of relevant State partners.
Dual power operations may commence by the mid-2020s along the affected
routes.
Multilevel Fleet
Fourth, Amtrak currently operates a multilevel fleet of 242
Superliner I railcars built in 1979-1981 and 184 Superliner II cars
built in the mid-1990s. These cars are used primarily on western Long
Distance trains and on a few State corridors. Additionally, Amtrak
operates a fleet of 49 Surfliner cars built around 2000 that is jointly
owned by Amtrak and Caltrans and used exclusively on the Pacific
Surfliner. Amtrak's California State partners also own 78 California I
and II railcars that were built between 1993 and 2001; these cars are
used exclusively on California State corridors. As this fleet is
insufficient for current services, let alone future growth, Amtrak
Superliners, Horizon/Amfleet equipment, and Comet IB railcars Caltrans
acquired from NJT are also currently used to meet California State
corridor service needs. California has seven Siemens Viaggio trainsets
on order for use on the San Joaquin corridor but will need additional
equipment to meet planned California State corridor growth in the
coming decade. As a result of the age profile of Amtrak and
California's multilevel fleets, a ``sweet spot'' appears between FY2026
and FY2031 for an optimally timed multilevel railcar replacement
acquisition to standardize, modernize, and expand equipment on current
multilevel routes. Such a procurement process would need to be begun
early in the next decade and a key topic for the next Federal
reauthorization of Amtrak is the future of the Long Distance routes
that use this equipment. Congress will need to make decisions about the
long-term prospects of these routes and provide sufficient associated
funding levels so that Amtrak can procure appropriate types and
quantities of this custom rolling stock.
Single-Level Long Distance Coaches
Fifth, while the current acquisition process focuses initially on
the replacement of the Amfleet I and ex-Metroliner car fleets, Amtrak
also has a smaller fleet of 139 active Amfleet II railcars that is also
approaching the end of its useful service life. Built in the early
1980s, Amfleet II railcars are primarily used on Long Distance routes
originating at clearance-constrained New York Penn Station and also on
a few State corridor routes. Amfleet II replacements may either be
procured as options to the Amfleet I replacement procurement, or as a
later separate procurement, depending on the Amfleet I replacement
product chosen.
Refresh and Reconfiguration
Sixth, Amtrak moved rapidly in FY2018 to refresh its Amfleet I and
Acela Express fleets with new seat cushions, carpeting, lighting, and
other passenger-facing features to help modernize passengers'
experiences on board. Even with the significant and wholesale
replacements of many car fleets recommended in this plan, equipment in
additional car fleets will require refresh, and some car fleets will
require a more comprehensive reconfiguration in order to provide a
consistent, modern passenger experience. Amtrak intends that such
refresh and reconfiguration work will continue, particularly for the
following fleets: Amfleet II coaches to be refreshed in a manner
similar to Amfleet I upgrades; Superliner I and II coaches and sleeping
cars need refreshed passenger seating, light emitting diode (LED)
lighting, and surfaces, while restrooms and plumbing systems may
require more substantial work; and Horizon cars in a program similar in
scope to Amfleet I, with a focus on carpet and seat appearance.
Mechanical Facilities
Seventh, in the 35-40 years since Amfleets and Superliners were
procured, many global rolling stock manufacturers have entered the
market to service and maintain their manufactured fleets. Amtrak has
taken advantage of original equipment manufacturer (OEM) expertise in
the maintenance of Acela Express and has expanded the use of such
capabilities to the ACS-64 and forthcoming Siemens Charger locomotives
through Technical Services and Spares Supply Agreements (TSSSAs). In
addition, Amtrak has signed a contract with OEM General Electric to
replace most overhauls with Lifecycle Preventive Maintenance (LCPM) on
the P40/P42 locomotive fleets. Further fleet procurements will likely
continue this trend. As Amtrak moves further away from traditional
heavy overhauls and towards smaller, more frequent component changes
with increased vendor participation in maintenance, Amtrak's needs
regarding back shops and terminal facilities will change. Amtrak
currently operates three major back shops where heavy overhauls and
restoration of damaged equipment occur: Wilmington, Delaware, which
specializes in locomotives; Bear, Delaware, which specializes in
Amfleet equipment; and Beech Grove, Indiana, which specializes in off-
NEC equipment. With the wholesale refleeting of Amtrak over the next
decade, a cross-functional team will examine Amtrak's future mechanical
facility and terminal needs following refleeting and the expanded use
of TSSSAs and LCPM.
The cost of outstanding fleet acquisitions will be significant and
could approach some $3.5 billion through FY2024. This figure includes
both Amtrak's cost of acquisitions and the full anticipated costs
allocable to State partners under the PRIIA 209 Methodology that
governs Amtrak and State cost sharing on State-Supported routes. It
also includes some $525.1 million in nonpassenger fleet acquisition
expenses, such as track inspection and maintenance equipment.
In addition, Amtrak must secure funding to pay for its upcoming
orders of locomotive options, Amfleet I replacement equipment, and
single- and multi-level State Supported and Long Distance fleet
replacement. While the exact quantities and product types chosen for
Amfleet I and multi-level refleeting are still under development,
Amtrak believes that the replacement of existing Amfleet equipment
alone could approach some $1.4 billion through FY2024. Amtrak expects
that a significant portion, to be determined, of the cost of the
Amfleet I replacement equipment will be reimbursed to Amtrak by its
State partners.
Beyond FY2024, Amtrak estimates that an additional $1.0-$1.5
billion may be necessary to complete the replacement of Amfleet I and
Superliner I equipment and any related diesel locomotive options
necessary to support such procurements, with costs to be allocated
between Amtrak and its State partners. The costs of work necessary to
convert mechanical facilities to support trainsets; replace Amfleet II
and Superliner II fleets; and acquire additional equipment in to-be-
determined quantities for service expansion have not yet been
determined but will be included in future 5-year plans.
Amtrak must also continue to perform necessary work on its existing
fleet of locomotives and railcars until they are retired. To that end,
Amtrak anticipates completing some 2,089 car and locomotive unit
overhauls through the end of FY2024, at an estimated cost of some
$1.380 billion; a large portion of which will be reimbursed by Amtrak
State partners under the PRIIA 209 Equipment Capital Use Charge.
stations
The Amtrak network is currently made up of over 500 stations across
46 States, the District of Columbia, and three Canadian provinces. Each
station is unique to the community served, spanning small towns to the
Nation's largest metropolitan areas, and provides the point of entry,
resources and support to Amtrak's Northeast Corridor and National
Network services, along with other transportation service. Amtrak is
investing in critical projects that will enhance the passenger
experience, sustain the national passenger network, provide much-needed
additional capacity and improve reliability and safety.
Amtrak is the owner and manager of a nationwide portfolio of assets
including over 8 million square feet of station and maintenance
facilities and five of our top 10 busiest stations. The asset portfolio
is aging, suffers from decades of deterioration and needs modernization
to meet growing demands. Despite these challenges, Amtrak's stations
are community hubs and the surrounding markets present opportunities to
extract value from our assets from commercial real estate development
or partnerships with area institutions and the private sector.
At the five Amtrak-owned stations with the highest ridership (Major
Stations)--New York Penn Station (No. 1 in ridership), Washington Union
Station (No. 2), Philadelphia William H. Gray III 30th Street Station
(No. 3) (Philadelphia 30th Street Station), Chicago Union Station (No.
4), and Baltimore Penn Station (No. 8), Amtrak has commenced Major
Station Asset Development Programs. In these major urban markets, the
challenges and opportunities facing Amtrak's asset portfolio are
heightened. Projected ridership growth and regional economic growth
create a substantial and increasing demand on Amtrak's Major Stations
that will only exacerbate SOGR needs. However, there is high potential
to attract investment for transit-oriented development that enhances
intermodal connections and integrates stations with surrounding
neighborhoods to create an exceptional station experience, one which
will retain and grow a loyal customer base.
Between now and FY2024, we plan to spend more than $1.8 billion on
stations. This includes safety and mandates ($554.3 million),
normalized replacement ($277.4 million), major backlog ($86.7 million),
and improvements ($953.9 million). A large portion of the capital
investments are directed towards major facilities that Amtrak owns.
Work at many stations and facilities falls within more than one of
these categories. While Amtrak is making good progress and has a strong
5-year plan to invest in its stations, the needs far outweigh the
available resources. Let me describe some of the major projects Amtrak
is working to advance.
New York Penn Station
New York Penn Station is the busiest rail station in America and by
far the most important in Amtrak's national intercity network. Amtrak
leases space in the station to the LIRR and NJT, two of the Nation's
busiest commuter rail systems for which this facility is also the most
important station. It serves more than 10 million Amtrak passenger
trips annually, as well as over 100 million LIRR and NJT passenger
trips. New York Penn Station accounts for more than $1 billion annually
in Amtrak passenger revenue. These revenue and ridership totals are
double those of any other station in the Amtrak network.
New York Penn Station's physical plant sees very heavy utilization,
hosting about 1,300 daily trains between the three railroads and about
650,000 daily rail and subway passenger trips. Yet the station's
passenger amenities, core capacity, track, platform, and vertical
circulation were not designed for these high volumes and have not been
substantially expanded as volumes have increased over the years. Its
limited capacity and lack of long-term strategic planning and
investment have limited Amtrak's opportunities to sustain ridership and
revenue growth and has left key components of New York Penn Station's
infrastructure in a state of disrepair.
Even with today's crowded conditions, New York Penn Station
ridership is increasing and is projected to expand substantially by
2040. Increased passenger volumes will further stress the station's
inadequate capacity on concourses and for customer circulation, retail,
and back-of-house facilities. Amtrak is continuing a series of short-
term, customer-focused capital improvements; beginning the
transformation of station facilities related to the relocation of major
Amtrak passenger-facing and back-of-house services to the Moynihan
Train Hall, opening in 2021; and preparing for an expected master
developer solicitation for Penn Station.
Longer term, New York Penn Station must be expanded to provide
additional tracks and platforms. The track and platform expansion is
included in the Gateway Program's terminal expansion phase.
Baltimore Penn Station
The multiyear development and SOGR program addresses critical
structural and building system repairs (including roof and building
envelope); improves the customer experience with improvements to
amenities, better ADA access and security; ensure capacity for
ridership growth; and facilitates development of Amtrak-owned real
estate assets at and near the station. Amtrak designated Penn Station
Partners (PSP) in November 2017 as its master developer partner to
implement the program. The scope of the master development project
includes the creation of a master plan, critical SOGR of the historic
headhouse, commercial development of the upper vacant floors of the
headhouse, station expansion needed to meet passenger growth, a mixed-
use development of adjacent Amtrak-owned parcels, and ongoing life
cycle and asset preservation maintenance of the headhouse and station
expansion areas.
Philadelphia William H. Gray 30th Street Station
The development and SOGR program at Philadelphia 30th Street
Station will improve the customer experience and make the station
future-ready by addressing station modernization and infrastructure
needs while facilitating redevelopment of valuable assets at the
station, including the retail concourse and office towers. In June
2016, Amtrak completed a master plan known as the 30th Street Station
District Plan which envisions station improvements that will double its
capacity and improve station amenities and develop 10 million square
feet at the station and above the adjacent rail yards. Amtrak initiated
a search for a master developer partner to undertake redevelopment of
the station with the release of a request for quotation (RFQ) on May 1,
2018. The master development project, as defined in the RFQ, includes
Station modernization and SOGR improvements, ongoing life cycle and
asset preservation maintenance of the station building, office
redevelopment, retail renovation, and operations and maintenance (O&M)
management as near-term priorities, with concourse expansion and plaza
improvements as potential future phases.
Chicago Union Station Master Plan
The purpose of the multiyear Chicago Union Station Master Plan
program (Program) is to advance near-term improvements to address the
most demanding of station capacity, accessibility, service, and safety
issues. This Program is informed by the Chicago Union Station Master
Plan, led by Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT) in 2012 and
was developed further under the Master Plan Phase 1A work led by
Amtrak, with support from CDOT, Metra, and the Regional Transportation
Authority (RTA) (Project Partners) that has advanced preliminary design
and planning across a suite of projects. The Project Partners are
currently working together to establish a cost-sharing methodology and
to identify funding to advance the program to final design.
Washington Union Station
The Washington Union Station Second Century Program will improve
SOGR, increase passenger and rail capacity, improve the passenger
experience to sustain a loyal, existing customer base and attract new
riders, create a safe and secure facility for all users, and integrate
a new air rights development above the rail terminal at Amtrak's second
busiest station. At Washington Union Station, Amtrak owns the tracks,
platforms, and related infrastructure north of the station while the
USDOT is the owner of the station and parking garage, which is managed
by the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation (USRC). Amtrak has a
sublease for space in the Claytor Concourse.
In the near term (FY2019 to FY2026), the Second Century Program
will redesign and expand passenger concourses, increase capacity, and
improve operations in the station. Specifically, the near-term work
will deliver a modernized and reconfigured concourse, improved station
support spaces, as well as address key life safety issues. It will also
advance construction of improvements to tracks and associated
infrastructure and support facilities in the rail terminal such as a
new crew base and satellite commissary.
In the longer term (FY2026 and beyond), the Second Century Program
will provide for new tracks and platforms integrated into an expanded
station with development above to accommodate future demand and capture
associated ticket revenues, while also addressing SOGR, accessibility,
and life safety issues. Currently the long-term program is advancing
the ongoing Union Station Expansion Project EIS in coordination with
the project sponsor, USRC, as well as related studies for the long-term
expansion and reconstruction of the station.
Moynihan Train Hall
The Moynihan Train Hall expands the Nation's busiest train station,
New York Penn Station, across 8th Avenue into the historic James A.
Farley Post Office Building, the major component of a mixed-use
redevelopment of the entire block. The Moynihan Train Hall will offer
enhanced passenger facilities for Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, State-
Supported, and Long Distance travelers in a grand concourse featuring a
dramatic sky lit atrium.
Amtrak's Train Hall program goal is to reinvent the station
experience to offer the best in customer amenities, technology, and
operational efficiency. Amtrak's program includes several major
initiatives: platform ventilation, back of house, ticketed waiting
room, Metropolitan Lounge, subbasement improvements, construction
support, and implementation. Several work streams have been formed to
advance implementation planning including addressing agreements,
wayfinding and customer information, security and policing, concourse
and operations, engineering, communications and marketing and
information technology.
The Moynihan program requires extensive daily collaboration with a
broad set of both internal and external stakeholders across a variety
of disciplines on dozens of related initiatives. Amtrak is providing
for the needs of Acela 2021 customers in New York City, Amtrak's most
important market, while assuring pleasant, reliable, and efficient
operations for all customers and employees. Capital improvements for
Moynihan Station are included in the Acela 21 program described in the
following section.
Among the challenges in developing a plan to manage Amtrak's
station assets are: working with other stakeholders, such as States,
cities and host railroads that own many of the stations we utilize, and
State DOTs and commuter agencies that either own or utilize stations
served by Amtrak and have their own service goals; making improvements
that align with new Amtrak guidelines for station aspects such as
branding and signage so as to provide consistent and recognizable
products and services; managing station roll-outs of technological
updates such as ticketing and baggage handling upgrades; and
coordinating Amtrak station management plans with our asset development
and monetization initiatives.
conclusion
As I hope my testimony makes clear, the United States cannot wait
any longer to invest in intercity passenger rail; the cost of doing
nothing is simply too great for this Nation to bear.
Amtrak's mission, given to us by Congress, is to provide efficient
and effective intercity passenger rail mobility consisting of high-
quality service that is trip-time competitive with other travel
options. Our mission is consistent with, and is ultimately dependent
upon, sufficient investment in our Nation's infrastructure. Therefore,
Amtrak cannot do it on its own; we need Congress to take action,
whether it is through an ``infrastructure bill'' that increases Federal
funding into existing authorized programs or by establishing new
Federal policies and grant programs through the forthcoming
reauthorization of surface transportation programs. If Congress tackles
the challenges I outlined today, I am confident Amtrak will provide
safe, reliable, convenient, and comfortable service that will be a
``game changer'' for Americans across the Nation.
I look forward to working with each of you. While the challenges
described today are difficult, they can be overcome. At Amtrak, we owe
our customers, and your constituents, nothing less.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I
welcome your questions.
Mr. Carbajal [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Anderson.
We will proceed next with Secretary Fanning.
Mr. Fanning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Graves, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity
to be here. I am Eric Fanning, president and CEO of the
Aerospace Industries Association, representing a workforce of
2.4 million people and an annual economic output of $865
billion.
AIA is celebrating its 100th year as not only the voice for
America's aerospace and defense industry, but also a bipartisan
convener, where people can come together to get things done on
important topics, like infrastructure.
Before I begin, I wanted to assure everyone here that,
despite our name, our industry relies on everything my fellow
panelists are advocating for today. We know the importance of
investing in our infrastructure.
We also know that our Nation's infrastructure is outdated.
Congestion is at record highs, and environmental concerns are
growing as people spend more time in their vehicles than ever
before.
While we recognize the need to address these issues, we
also have a vision for the future that will change how we
conceptualize infrastructure. Part of this involves unmanned
aircraft systems, UAS, or drones. But the other part is
rethinking the way people move through urban air mobility, or
UAM.
UAM is a concept that will change the way people connect
with each other and travel through on-demand passenger
transportation services. Imagine how much simpler a daily
commute would be if you could bypass traffic, potholes, and
construction by flying over them. And imagine how many more
options those who are elderly or disabled would have with this
new technology. The benefits are not only evident, but
expansive, improving the lives of millions.
UAM will also supplement existing transportation, giving
urban areas another option to help ease congestion, reduce
infrastructure strain, and provide environmental benefits.
Last year the average commuter in DC spent 82 hours in
traffic, and our national roads and bridges wore down even
more. They now need about $800 billion in repairs and then
another $150 billion per year for upkeep. What if a
considerable amount of traffic was lifted up into the sky? That
is the potential relief UAM could provide to our infrastructure
and the amount we spend to maintain it.
UAM is not a new concept. Over the decades the technology
has advanced through cooperation between industry and
Government. Congress has played an important role, passing the
longest FAA reauthorization in recent history, and working with
the FAA on the rewrite of part 23, which modernized how
aircraft can be certified. And future UAS rulemaking will pave
the way for safe aerospace integration of technologies like
UAM.
Today more than 70 companies have alone begun work in this
area, and over $1 billion was invested in 2018. And we are
seeing the results. Last month Bell Helicopter released its
design concept for their new tilt-rotor Nexus air taxi. Boeing
also made headlines this year with their first public-announced
UAM test flight. Embraer released a concept for an electric air
taxi capable of rooftop service during the 2018 Uber Elevate
Summit.
There are many other examples, and not just in the U.S. In
the competitive global aviation market, other nations from
Saudi Arabia to Brazil are investing to gain the technological
and market advantage in this emerging sector. The European
Aviation Safety Agency has already released a draft special
condition for a path to aircraft certification for vertical
takeoff and landing. Unless we act, the Europeans could define
the regulations the world follows, not the U.S.
Now is the time to ensure UAM becomes a reality with
America leading the way. But there are major steps needed to
get there. I have included many more in my written testimony,
but I will focus on three here.
First, we must continue to work on a regulatory path
forward for UAM. AIA applauds efforts to ease the regulatory
burden on businesses, but the so-called one-in, two-out rule
makes it difficult for any agency to release new regulations,
even if they are needed to usher new technology into the
marketplace, or help address the Nation's surface
transportation gridlock.
Second, future standards should be performance-based,
establishing a level of performance achieved through the
aircraft's design for both the aircraft operations and design.
This would keep industry innovating without feeling constrained
by regulations in place.
Finally, we must integrate unmanned aircraft system traffic
management, which covers airspace under 400 feet, with air
traffic management, which covers above 400 feet. There is only
one airspace to share, regardless of the height at which an
aircraft, manned or unmanned, operates. Full integration of the
two systems is the only way to ensure safety.
These are urgent recommendations, because the future of
American infrastructure is coming. Whether through urban air
mobility or any of the other incredible innovations coming from
our industry, we look forward to not only continuing our
partnership, but strengthening it over the next 100 years and
beyond. Thank you.
[Mr. Fanning's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eric K. Fanning, President and Chief
Executive Officer, Aerospace Industries Association
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and the rest of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I am Eric
Fanning, president and CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association
(AIA).
AIA represents the dynamic aerospace and defense (A&D) industry
that keeps our Nation secure and has been moving, connecting, and
inspiring people for over a century. It's an industry that brings
different interests together, fostering the bipartisanship that leads
to real action. Like you, we understand that aerospace and defense is
at the heart of the American economy, generating $865 billion in sales
and a trade surplus of $86 billion in 2017--the largest of any U.S.
exporting sector. Moreover, our industry is supported by 2.4 million
dedicated employees--representing nearly 20 percent of the Nation's
manufacturing workforce--who are responsible for the continuous stream
of innovations that improve American lives. We're proud that modern
life is and will always be shaped by the innovation we create.
introduction
AIA is celebrating its 100th year as not only the voice for
America's aerospace and defense, but also a bipartisan convener where
people--from different regions, backgrounds, and yes, even political
parties--can come together to get things done on a number of important
topics, including today's focus on infrastructure.
It is no secret that our Nation's infrastructure is outdated. In
2017 the American Society of Civil Engineers gave America's roads a D,
bridges a C+, and infrastructure overall a D+.\1\ Congestion is at
record highs. Environmental concerns are growing with the record number
of cars and trucks idling and with people spending more time in their
vehicles than ever. Our infrastructure is failing our Nation's
citizens, so I applaud the committee for taking on this essential
issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``America's Grades.'' ASCE's 2017 Infrastructure Report Card,
American Society of Civil Engineers, www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
americas-grades/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As all of today's panelists know, we need to redouble our
investments in traditional infrastructure. While some may not expect
aerospace to be a voice for this investment, our industry also relies
on roads, rail, airports and bridges every day. We know the importance
of building and maintaining our traditional infrastructure networks.
But we also have a vision for the future that will change the way
people will move--and change how we conceptualize infrastructure. Going
forward, the definition of infrastructure must extend beyond roads,
rail, airports and waterways to include our National Airspace System
(NAS)--to include the skies above us.
We have considered aviation infrastructure before, but historically
it has been limited to improving airports, creating and implementing
systems like NextGen, and modernizing air traffic control systems
generally. These are critical to keeping planes on time and our
airspace safe. But the next innovation in the way goods and people move
through the air has been in the works for years and is now edging
toward reality.
As you know, part of this involves Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(UAS)--or drones--which will soon be integrated into the NAS. We are
already using drones in a number of ways, from news imagery to
responding to forest fires. But companies are on the cusp of the next
step of this new technology, and in the coming years, it will be
commonplace to use drones for delivering goods, maintaining and
repairing pipelines, and surveying damage during natural disasters.
But the not-so-far-off future will also require us to rethink the
way that people move as well, and that is what I will focus my
testimony on today.
Urban Air Mobility (UAM) is a concept that will change the way
people connect with each other and travel through on-demand passenger
transportation services. Imagine how much simpler a daily commute could
be if you could bypass traffic, potholes, and construction by flying
over them. Now imagine how many more options those who are elderly or
disabled will have with this new technology. The benefits are not only
evident, but expansive--improving the lives of millions.
In addition to the benefit of increased mobility for its users, UAM
will also supplement our existing mode of surface transportation and
provide urban areas an important option that will help ease congestion
on our roadways (which costs more than 1 percent of GDP globally) \2\,
reduce strain on existing public transportation networks, and provide
environmental benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Bouton, Shannon, et al. ``Infrastructure for the Evolution of
Urban Mobility.'' McKinsey & Company, www.mckinsey.com/business-
functions/sustainability-and-resource-productivity/our-insights/
infrastructure-for-the-evolution-of-urban-mobility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last year, the average commuter in Washington, DC, spent 82 hours
sitting in traffic.\3\ During that same time, our roads and bridges
became more worn down. As this committee well knows, the U.S.
Department of Transportation estimates that our roads and bridges need
an estimated $800 billion in repairs and then an additional $150
billion per year for upkeep.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Anderson, Tom. ``Endless Commutes Cost You $960 a Year.'' CNBC,
10 Aug. 2016, www.cnbc.com/2016/08/09/commuters-waste-a-full-week-in-
traffic-each-year.html.
\4\ ``The State of U.S. Infrastructure.'' Council on Foreign
Relations, www.cfr.org/backgrounder/State-us-infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now what if a considerable amount of traffic was lifted, literally,
up into the sky. That's the potential relief UAM can mean for our
infrastructure, not to mention the amount we spend on upkeep. So while
UAM will not replace traditional means of transportation it will serve
to complement it in highly congested urban areas.
how did we get here?
UAM is not a new concept, and the technology to allow for it has
slowly advanced--through cooperation between industry and Government--
over the decades.
In 1941, the helicopter hit full scale production. This technology
revolutionized the concept of '`Vertical Takeoff and Landing'' or VTOL.
In the 1950s, the U.S. began to implement the most complex air
traffic control system in the world, now known as Air Traffic
Management (ATM). This system measured all aerospace above 400 feet and
changed the way people were able to move around the country. It still
allows the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to safely handle over
43,000 flights per day \5\ and means more new technologies can be
safely tested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``Air Traffic By The Numbers.'' FAA Seal, 26 Nov. 2018,
www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since then, industry has embraced the challenge of making UAM a
reality, and today more than 70 companies worldwide are working on it.
More recently, NASA and the FAA have laid the ground work for an
air traffic system under 400 feet with the Unmanned Aircraft System
Traffic Management concept (UTM). The FAA built on this work with the
Low Altitude Authorization and Notification Capability (LAANC) system,
making the approval process easier for airspace authorizations on
unmanned systems. These two systems--working together with the ATM--
will ensure that all aircraft are managed safely and efficiently. This
is an example of agencies seeing the need before the technology was
available and then starting the work to get us there--it's that kind of
drive that defines American ingenuity and success.
Congress has played an important role, working with the FAA on the
rewrite of regulations under CFR part 23. The part 23 rewrite means
that manufacturers of aircraft could use consensus standards to meet
airworthiness standards, ensuring that certification will not only be
cheaper, but also possible for new types of aircraft. In addition,
while the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 may not have addressed UAM
specifically, it did address critical topics like integration of new
technologies into the NAS, push DOT forward with regulations on systems
for UTM, and begin to look at new regulatory concepts for emerging
technology.
Future UAS rulemakings will also pave the way for safe airspace
integration of emerging technologies like UAS and UAM. New rulemaking
on ``Remote ID'' will allow UAS to be tracked in real time. Rules on
``Operations Over People'' and ``Beyond Visual Line of Sight'' are also
critical to ensuring that UAS--and eventually UAM--will be fully
integrated into the NAS and able to operate freely, safely, and
securely.
All of these partners working together have laid the groundwork for
this new addition to aviation.
what is happening today?
Today, many regions of the world--facing surface congestion and
infrastructure strain--are focused on making UAM a reality. As
mentioned above, more than 70 companies have begun work in this area,
with newer startups joining traditional aviation companies--like Bell
Helicopter, Boeing, and Embraer \6\--to push the boundaries of what is
possible. In 2018, over $1 billion was invested in UAM \7\, and
companies have announced partnerships with various cities and States
around the world. While there are differences among various business
models, they are all focused on getting this technology operational as
soon as safely possible, and as soon as the regulatory environment
allows them to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See example photos attached to this statement.
\7\ Wolfe, Frank. ``Vertical Flight Society: More Than $1 Billion
Already Invested in EVTOL Companies.'' Rotor & Wing International, 3
Jan. 2019, www.rotorandwing.com/2019/01/03/vertical-flight-society-1-
billion-already-invested-evtol-companies/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every day there seems to be another exciting news story on the
topic. For example, last month, Bell Helicopter released its design
concept for their new tilt-rotor ``Nexus'' air taxi.\8\ It features six
tilting rotors to take off and carry it through the air. Bell hopes to
have this design in place for widespread release to the public by the
mid-2020s. Boeing also made headlines this year with their first public
unmanned UAM test flight. Their all-electric aircraft has a range of 50
miles.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Lavars, Nick. ``Bell Bounces into CES with a Tilt-Rotor Air
Taxi Concept.'' New Atlas--New Technology & Science News, 8 Jan. 2019,
newatlas.com/bell-nexus-tilt-rotor-air-taxi/57921/.
\9\ Banse, Tom. ``Boeing Subsidiary's Self-Flying Air Taxi Makes
First Flight.'' Oregon Public Broadcasting, Boise State Public Radio/
Idaho Public Television, 28 Jan. 2019, www.opb.org/news/article/self-
flying-taxi-boeing-company-aurora-flight-sciences/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While these are just two recent examples, there are many more just
like them--and not just in the U.S. In the incredibly competitive
global aviation market, other nations and their industries are
investing time, resources, and money to gain the technological and
market advantage in this emerging sector of aviation.
Unfortunately, right now the United States is lagging behind much
of the world. For example, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
has already released a draft ``special condition'' for a path to
aircraft certification for eVTOL.\10\ Unless we take action, it could
be the Europeans defining the regulations the world follows, not the
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ``Proposed Special Condition for VTOL.'' EASA,
www.easa.europa.eu/document-library/product-certification-
consultations/proposed-special-condition-vtol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are also many companies currently conducting test flights
throughout Europe and partnering with cities through the European
Union's UAM Initiative of the European Innovation Partnership on Smart
Cities and Communities (EIP-SCC).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Butterworth-Hayes, Philip. ``Urban Air Mobility Takes off in
64 Towns and Cities Worldwide.'' Unmanned Airspace, 17 Dec. 2018,
www.unmannedairspace.info/urban-air-mobility/urban-air-mobility-takes-
off-63-towns-cities-worldwide/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starting in 2017, Dubai tested both UAS flights beyond visual line
of sight and even Aerial Taxi flights.\12\ They're working to roll out
UAM by 2020.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Butterworth-Hayes, Philip. ``Roland Berger: `Close to 100,000
Passenger Drones Flying by 2050.' '' Unmanned Airspace, 23 Nov. 2018,
www.unmannedairspace.info/urban-air-mobility/roland-berger-close-
100000-passenger-drones-flying-2050/.
\13\ Butterworth-Hayes, Philip. ``Urban Air Mobility Takes off in
64 Towns and Cities Worldwide.'' Unmanned Airspace, 17 Dec. 2018,
www.unmannedairspace.info/urban-air-mobility/urban-air-mobility-takes-
off-63-towns-cities-worldwide/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Singapore is also recognizing the potential benefits of UAM. In
March 2017, their Ministry of Transport revealed that they would begin
conducting test flights with the hope of having them ready by 2030.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Amour-Levar, Christine. How Airbus' Flying Taxis Could Be The
Next Great Idea For Singapore's Congested Roads. Forbes Magazine, 5
Feb. 2018, www.forbes.com/sites/christineamourlevar/2018/02/04/
singapore-air-show-airbus-flying-taxi/#7848ce0a1bd2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And in 2017, Brazil launched an on-demand helicopter pilot program
to test the demand and promise of UAM.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Fuller, S.L., and S.L. Fuller. Brazilians Might Soon Hail a
Helicopter Like an Uber With New Airbus Start-Up. Rotor & Wing
International, 24 Aug. 2017, www.rotorandwing.com/2017/04/06/airbus-a3-
launches-beta-urban-air-mobility-helo-service-brazil/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are just a few examples of the many nations taking a forward
leaning approach toward this new technology.
In the United States, companies have conducted many test flights,
and multiple cities have announced plans to partner with companies to
facilitate a UAM roll out in the near future. These cities have also
begun to study and invest in infrastructure improvements that will
allow UAM operations to take place. Various companies have also
announced aggressive timelines showing when they expect to roll out the
technology to consumers.
These announcements are exciting, but there is still no national
regulatory framework in place for UAM operations. While the United
States may be taking a more calculated approach to certification and
integration of UAM into the NAS, moving too slow risks other nations
staking claim to global leadership in this area.
As I mentioned before, industry and Government have worked together
as partners to lay the groundwork for advancement in this area. For
example, AIA and the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA)
have worked closely with the FAA to build on the agency's current work
on UAS. We believe U.S. industry and Government are up to the task and
will continue to work together on crafting technology-based standards
on UAM. But now is the time to take the next step and ensure UAM
becomes a reality with America leading the way.
how do we get there?
Full integration of UAM is not an ``if,'' but a ``when.'' There are
still some major steps needed to get there, particularly if we intend
to continue leading the world.
First, it is essential that we continue to modernize the airspace's
critical infrastructure, along with roads, transit systems, airports
and waterways.
Second, we need to continue to work on a regulatory path forward
for UAM. As I've mentioned, there is no framework currently in place.
This will take collaboration between industry and all levels of
Government. Today's regulatory environment is also a challenge. AIA
applauds efforts to ease the regulatory burden on businesses, but the
so-called ``one in, two out'' rule \16\ makes it difficult for any
agency to release new regulations, even if they are needed to usher new
technology into the marketplace or assist in addressing the Nation's
surface transportation gridlock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ``Presidential Executive Order on Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs.'' The White House, The U.S. Government,
www.whitehouse.gov/Presidential-actions/Presidential-executive-order-
reducing-regulation-controlling-regulatory-costs/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, we must also ensure that technology is not stifled by
regulations. Any future standards should be performance-based--
establishing a level of performance that must be achieved through the
airplane's design--for both the operations of the aircraft and the
design. This would allow industry to continue to innovate, without
being unnecessarily constrained by regulations.
The FAA's aviation standards were developed before UAM was even an
idea, which is why it is hard to fit UAM into any specific FAA box as
it exists today. There are also many unanswered questions that must be
addressed. For example, how will these aircraft be categorized--will
they be rotorcraft, fixed-wing aircraft, or something else? What
performance standards will they need to be considered certified? These
are just two examples, but they underscore the need for the strong
partnership between the Government and industry to continue this
discussion and reach proper decisions.
Future UAS rulemakings will be critical to ensuring operations of
UAM as well, especially the rules on ``Remote ID,'' ``Operations Over
People,'' and ``Beyond Visual line of Sight.'' These will set standards
that enable UAS and UAM to operate as safely and securely as possible.
AIA urges this committee to carefully monitor the status of these
rulemakings and ensure the administration moves swiftly forward with
the rules to enhance operations of these emerging technologies in the
NAS.
Fourth, integration among UTM and ATM systems is needed. There is
only one airspace to share, regardless of the height at which an
aircraft--manned or unmanned--operates. Once UAM is fully operational,
aircraft will need to constantly broach the airspace dividing line
between UTM and ATM control systems (currently 400 feet altitude). Full
integration of the two systems is the only way to ensure the safety of
the aerospace, pilots, and passengers.
Fifth, industry also needs certainty when it comes to spectrum
allocations. Regardless of the design or external features, these
aircraft will require spectrum to operate--not to mention some form of
traditional aviation safety equipment. The aviation industry is excited
about the promise of 5G, but it must be rolled out in a safe way for
both traditional and emerging forms of aviation.
For example, AIA and our members are concerned with the possibility
of the 3.7-4.2 GHz spectrum band being reallocated for 5G, because of
the high potential for interference with aircraft radio altimeters.
This critical aviation system, that operates in the adjacent 4.2-4.4
GHz frequency band, is vital to providing altitude data for safe
landings not only for every commercial aircraft, but also for many
helicopters and private aircraft. Prior to any reallocation of
spectrum, the FCC and industry must work together to test the impacts
of the new devices on both that specific band as well as any adjacent
spectrum band.
Finally, there must be collaboration between all levels of
Government for UAM to succeed. Industry will continue to work with the
Federal Government to set the standards and rules that will govern
operations. However, local governments and their partners also have a
key role in that process. Cities and States will need to update their
infrastructure to allow for takeoffs and landings of the aircraft.
Buildings, parking garages, and other surfaces could be repurposed to
allow for UAM operations, but only with the active involvement of local
governments. Before there is widescale operational use of UAM, cities
will also need to work with industry and focus on developing emergency
landing sites and other safety procedures. To take advantage of these
emerging technologies, we ask States, cities, and counties to begin
these analyses in their local areas. While widespread UAM flights may
be a few years away, cities and States must begin preparing for them
now.
Because the future of American infrastructure is coming--and sooner
than you think--through airbuses that provide an alternative to our
commuter rails and rush hour drives; the new line of ambulances that
arrive faster and more safely because they can fly over traffic; and
the long-distance air transportation that connects rural and urban
communities like never before.
conclusion
The aviation industry is on the verge of a technological innovation
that will revolutionize the way we move goods and people. Much like
Henry Ford did with the Model T and the Wright Brothers did with the
first flight, UAM technologies will change people's lives--and our
world--for the better.
And UAM is just part of this new world. I've already mentioned the
role UAS and drones will play, but there are so many other new
innovations with their own impact, from the supersonic planes that will
be managed by new and improved air traffic systems to the commercial
space flights that will make us rethink airports around the world--and
beyond.
This vision is not theoretical; it will happen. But in order for
America to be the leader that gets us there, we must recommit to our
partnership between industry and Government, including of course, the
U.S. Congress.
Industry and Congress have a historic relationship based in
bipartisan cooperation. Just look to the formation of NASA's precursor,
the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. Created in 1915 by an
act of Congress, the committee worked with industry leaders--like
Orville Wright, a founding member--toward achieving one shared mission:
the advancement of aerospace science, an innovation to benefit our
country.
Over 100 years later, we have a new Congress and new industry
leaders, but our mission is still the same: to imagine, to innovate,
and to create the next generation of aerospace technology that will
build a better world for the American people. Whether through Urban Air
Mobility or any of the other incredible innovations coming from our
industry, we look forward to not only continuing our partnership, but
strengthening it over the next 100 years and beyond.
Thank you.
example photos:
Bell Helicopter Nexus Air Taxi
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Boeing Passenger Air Vehicle
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Embraer Air Taxi
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Secretary Fanning.
Mr. Krauter, you may proceed.
Mr. Krauter. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman DeFazio,
Ranking Member Graves, and members of the committee.
Spokane International Airport is the primary commercial
service airport for the intermountain Northwest. We are proud
to serve approximately 4 million passengers a year who come to
us across the State of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and
several Canadian provinces. It is my privilege to appear before
you today to explain what the cost of doing nothing looks like
for my airport and others like it across the country.
I want to emphasize three key points from my written
testimony for your consideration.
The first is the overwhelming need for investment in our
Nation's airport infrastructure. In Spokane our main terminal
building dates back to the 1960s. Some of our baggage handling
machines are so outdated that our maintenance team has to
fabricate replacement parts from scratch. You literally can't
buy them anymore.
Our facilities are operating beyond capacity, even as our
passengers and freight volumes continue to grow. We reached an
all-time record level of passenger traffic in 2018, and have
seen passenger activity increase 37 percent since 2013, with 23
percent of that growth occurring in the last 2 years.
The airport is an engine of economic growth for our
surrounding region, but the reality is that it is an engine in
need of repair. We are taking this on through a challenge
project we call our terminal renovation and expansion program,
or TREX. My written testimony details the full scope of the
TREX project, but the primary elements are captured in a
graphic that I have placed in front of you.
Additional gate capacity is one of the primary tasks of
TREX, as well as expanded modernized security screening and
baggage claim facilities, all designed to meet demand. There is
no question that our airport urgently needs this project. The
only question is about the most fiscally responsible way to pay
for it.
That leads me to my second point, which is that the status
quo is not working when it comes to funding airport
infrastructure. There are two main sources of funding for
airports.
The Federal Government makes grants through the Airport
Improvement Program, or AIP, but AIP funding has essentially
been flat for many years. In addition, AIP funds are typically
directed to air-side projects, runways and taxiways, not
terminal buildings or other types of improvements that are more
urgently needed right now.
In 1990 this committee's forerunner wisely equipped
airports with another capital development tool by authorizing a
passenger facility charge, or PFC, on each enplaning passenger
to fund terminal and other improvements. But the $4.50 cap on
the PFC has not been adjusted since 2000, meaning that its
purchasing power in today's dollars is about half of what it
once was.
Many airports, including ours, have increasingly used PFCs
as a crutch to make up for flat AIP and its declining
purchasing power. Even so, together, AIP and PFCs are only
generating about one-third of the annual funding needed to
maintain and expand our country's airport system.
Flat AIP funding and a cap on PFCs that has not been
adjusted in almost 20 years has created a cascading series of
consequences for our airport. We have been forced to delay or
restructure projects that ultimately result in greater cost and
complexity. And limited funding strains our cash resources and
threatens to require us to take on unsustainable levels of debt
in order to make critical improvements.
The situation underscores my final point, which is to
strongly urge Congress to increase the PFC cap. This would
provide immediate support for capital projects at the airports
across the country, and it would ultimately save money for the
traveling public. Let me explain using our TREX project as an
example, and a graphic that is placed in front of you.
The current PFC cap forces us to finance investments over a
longer period of time, meaning that we ultimately pay almost as
much in interest as we do for the project itself. If you look
at the chart you will see that our TREX project is estimated at
$191 million, and the interest associated with that is $151
million. So this limited funding really does strain our
resources and our ability to deliver other projects that would
otherwise be funded.
If you move down this table, you can see that just a modest
increase in the PFC to $6.50 or $8.50 considerably reduces that
interest, that interest burden, which means that we can go
towards funding additional projects, and further improve the
customer experience, and not pay all that interest to the bank
with this locally directed user fee.
If we go up to $8.50, and a combination of pay-go and bond
financing, our interest costs could only amount to $18.7
million over the term of the financing, or roughly one-quarter
of what they would equal with the current cap.
As airport operators we have to ask ourselves why our
passengers should pay double the actual cost of the TREX
improvements, when a modest increase in the PFC could
significantly reduce our total costs. Why should PFC funds go
towards projects that could have been funded with AIP, had its
funding level kept up? Why should a PFC that has not been
adjusted for nearly two decades force us to take on an
unnecessary level of debt? These are questions that airport
operators should not have to ask, not when the answer is so
clear.
Increasing the PFC cap is a fiscally prudent way to start
improving our airports now. TREX is very important to our
community, but small and mid-sized airports across the country,
very likely in communities represented by Members who are here
today, are working to plan, design, and build similar projects.
I respectfully ask you to provide the resources we need to make
these projects a reality.
I strongly urge the committee to consider increasing the
PFC cap, and I welcome your questions. Thank you.
[Mr. Krauter's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lawrence J. Krauter, A.A.E., AICP, Chief
Executive Officer, Spokane International Airport
introduction
Good morning Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members
of the committee. My name is Larry Krauter and I am the CEO of Spokane
International Airport. It is my privilege to appear before you today to
explain what the ``cost of doing nothing'' looks like for my airport
and others like it across the country. Like many airports, Spokane
faces an overwhelming need for investment to maintain and improve our
service to the public. Current funding availability is simply not
sufficient to meet this need.
At the outset, I would like to thank the committee for your work on
the recent FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, which responded to a number
of issues of importance to us, such as: the certainty of a 5-year
authorization, the contract tower program, the contract weather
observer program, and prioritization of grants to northern tier
airports with short construction seasons. We are eager for the
committee to build on the bipartisan, commonsense approach reflected in
the reauthorization to address our country's critical infrastructure
funding needs.
As members of this committee begin considering proposals to enhance
our Nation's infrastructure, I urge you to adopt provisions that would
help airports repair aging facilities and build critical infrastructure
projects. Toward that goal, I urge you to adjust the outdated Federal
cap on local Passenger Facility Charges (``PFCs'')--a move that would
allow airports to finance a greater share of their projects with local
revenue. I also urge you to reexamine the FAA reauthorization bill and
consider increasing funding for the Airport Improvement Program
(``AIP'') account. Adjusting the PFC cap and increasing AIP funding
would help Spokane International Airport and airports around the
country keep up with rising demand and increasing construction needs.
about spokane international airport
Spokane is the largest city between Seattle and Minneapolis as well
as between Calgary and Salt Lake City. Accordingly, we are a regional
center for education, food and entertainment, finance, retail,
medicine, manufacturing, transportation, and logistics for a vast area
of small and rural communities. In addition, we are a popular year-
round leisure destination.
Spokane International Airport is the primary commercial service
airport for this region. Our market area includes eastern Washington
State, northeast Oregon, north Idaho, western Montana, and the southern
parts of the Canadian provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. In
2018, we handled just under 4 million total passengers, which beat our
all-time high record set in 2017 and represents an increase of
approximately 37 percent since 2013. In the past 2 years, our passenger
activity has increased nearly 23 percent. Freight activity has
increased a little over 10 percent since 2013.
Our airport is served by Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, Delta
Air Lines, Frontier Airlines, Southwest Airlines, and United Airlines,
which together operate approximately 60 flights per day to 16 nonstop
destinations. Scheduled cargo service is provided by FedEx and UPS.
Empire Airlines provides cargo service to smaller communities in the
region and feeds into FedEx at Spokane International Airport.
On the passenger side, our physical infrastructure consists of two
terminal buildings: the original terminal building constructed in 1965,
which has 11 loading bridge gates, and a second terminal constructed in
1999, which has three loading bridge gates and four ground-loading
positions. Together, the terminals offer a total of 14 gates and four
ground-loading positions.
The airport is owned jointly by the city of Spokane and Spokane
County and operated by the Spokane Airport Board. In 2019, our
operating budget is approximately $43 million and our capital budget is
approximately $51 million. We have approximately 100 full-time
employees and 50 part-time employees. We do not receive general fund
support from our owners and therefore rely on revenues generated by
leases, fees, and concession agreements to fund our operations and
capital expenditures. Consequently, PFCs are crucial element of our
fiscal self-sufficiency.
our airport's capital improvement needs
After 20 years without any gate capacity improvements, Spokane
International Airport has reached a point of full saturation on both
the landside and airside of the terminal facilities. On the airside, we
have no additional gate space to offer existing airline partners for
new service and no gates available for new entrants, particularly if
they want to fly at peak times. For example, Alaska Airlines recently
added new nonstop service to San Diego. Due to lack of gate
availability, the new route uses one of the ground-loading positions,
which forces customers to go outside in all weather conditions to board
the aircraft. This boarding method is both dangerous and uncomfortable
and does not provide the kind of customer experience that we are
striving for. The lack of gate space also requires Alaska Airlines to
remote park two Q400 turbo-prop aircraft, creating additional
inconvenience and inefficiencies. When I recently returned to Spokane
on an Alaska Airlines flight, we had to wait on the taxilane while they
pushed back an empty aircraft off of the ground-loading gate to allow
us to taxi in and deplane.
Our landside facilities are equally saturated. We have a passenger-
screening checkpoint in each of the terminal buildings. Both
checkpoints are severely constrained as they were jammed into existing
space in the terminal buildings that were not designed for the
extensive physical space needed to carry out passenger screening in the
post 9/11 era. Some of our baggage-claim devices are original
equipment, and our maintenance staff is required to machine replacement
parts from scratch in order to keep them operational. The baggage
carousel that serves United Airlines dates back to the 1970s. Our
legacy HVAC system is just as aged, and we have trouble keeping our
passengers and workers comfortable, as our system struggles to keep up
with the heating or cooling loads during peak hours of activity.
We have done an amazing job to extend the life of the terminal
buildings and to make them work as best as they can; however, we now
find ourselves up against both the age and capacity limits of the
facility. If we do not invest now, the ability of the airport to
facilitate continued economic growth of our region will be harmed.
Spokane is not alone. Airports around the country are reaching their
age and capacity limits. That is why it is so critical that Congress
raise the Federal cap on local PFCs and provide airports with more
Federal AIP funding.
spokane's terminal renovation and expansion project (``trex'') plan
Following an extensive planning process, we launched design of the
TREX project to address the capacity and infrastructure issues
described above. TREX is a $190 million capital improvement project
focused on our most urgent needs, including security screening
checkpoint capacity and configuration, baggage claim, gate capacity,
legacy HVAC, IT and security systems, as well as adequate public
circulation space and areas for proper configuration of law
enforcement, dispatch, operations, and administrative functions. The
core components of the TREX project are outlined in Exhibit A.
TREX will connect our two existing terminals with a new space that
also provides a consolidated baggage-claim area and a new consolidated
passenger-screening checkpoint. Elevated walkways will connect the two
terminal buildings beyond screening in the secure area, which is
something that our customers have been asking for over many years so
that they do not have to exit one terminal and go through the screening
process at the other terminal. An expansion of up to six loading bridge
gate positions on the C Concourse is under discussion with our airline
partners as part of the current preliminary design process. TREX will
also create new concession space to consolidate services to second-
level boarding areas that should lower costs, increase revenues, and
provide a higher level of customer service. A curbside overhead canopy
will also be added to provide better safety, four-season comfort for
loading/unloading, and to tie the buildings together architecturally.
The architectural rendering included in Exhibit A provides a
perspective of the central baggage-claim hall and passenger security
screening mezzanine.
On the airside, TREX will add a new dual taxilane to accommodate
the extension of the C gates and ensure that aircraft can circulate
without being trapped in the alleyway. Finally, a new skybridge will
connect the terminal to the parking garage to improve passenger
movement, efficiency, and safety.
The cost of the TREX project is currently estimated at
approximately $191 million as shown in Exhibit A (in 2018 dollars). We
anticipate that TREX can be constructed from 2020-2023 or later
depending on project financing.
TREX represents a responsible and measured approach to resolving
the issues created when aging airport terminal area infrastructure
collides with growth. Coming out of the Great Recession and our Master
Plan Update in 2012, we could see that our terminal buildings would
need to be improved and expanded even under the most conservative
growth forecast. Our two disparate terminal buildings (constructed in
the 1960s and the 1990s, respectively, and in both cases before 9/11)
created unique burdens both from an age and operational perspective.
Ideally, an airport in a community the size of Spokane would have one
terminal building instead of two. As a result of our two-terminal
structure, concession operators struggle with costs as they are
required to adapt to spaces that were not designed for the post-9/11
environment and split operations across two terminal buildings. The
configuration also requires the airport to operate two parking garages
and maintain an extensive curbside.
Because of these challenges, the Master Plan concluded that in the
long-range plan it would be better to go to a new greenfield site and
build the correct configuration of a unified terminal building that
offered substantial flexibility. The problem with that solution was the
price tag of $400 million-$500 million and, at that time, a slow
economic recovery combined with volatility in air service decisions and
a slow return of capacity that was removed by the airlines during the
Great Recession.
As a result, we decided to take a more conservative approach and
make ``lemonade'' out of the existing terminal complex and figure out a
way to renovate and expand the buildings to accommodate projected
growth--the solution reflected in the TREX project. This conservative
approach required us to think about ways to make the terminal buildings
work better together through a series of projects that would have
independent utility but would be functionally related to the whole
program. Our concern was that our air service environment had been
volatile and as a result we did not want to overextend our building
program and end up highly leveraged in the event that we continued to
experience a slow economic recovery or that the airlines did not
respond to the demand in our market with sufficient seat capacity and
destinations.
There are many airports across the country that are pursuing TREX-
like projects that can run anywhere between $50 million or greater
depending on the scope of the needed improvements. A nearby example of
that is in Missoula, Montana, which is pursuing a terminal renovation
and expansion project that is estimated to cost in the $100 million
range. To provide a comparison, Missoula handled over 848,000
passengers in 2018, where Spokane handled nearly 4 million total
passengers. I use this to illustrate that there is a common need for
airports to renovate and expand terminal facilities in response to
growth and the costs of these projects for smaller airports are in a
consistent range.
funding for trex: the cost of doing nothing
TREX is crucial to the future of our airport and our region.
However, current Federal policy with respect to AIP and PFCs creates an
extremely challenging funding environment for airport development
projects like this, one that unduly constrains our fiscally prudent
financing options. The follow sections discuss the challenges created
by each funding mechanism in turn.
airport improvement program
AIP provides grant funding for certain airport capital projects,
mainly related to airfield improvements. Although the FAA
reauthorization bill signed into law last year was helpful in restoring
stability and predictability to aviation policy, the law fell short in
maintaining level funding for AIP at $3.35 billion annually. Of that
amount, airports will receive approximately $3.2 billion each year
after appropriations are taken to fund FAA administration, research and
development, and small community programs. This amounts to less than
half of the $7 billion each year through 2023 that the FAA's own 2019
National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (``NPIAS'') says is needed
for AIP-eligible projects. Even then, as discussed below, the NPIAS
estimate does not reflect the complete capital needs of airports, which
also include projects that do not qualify for AIP funding.
As AIP funding has remained flat over the past 12 years, its
effective buying power in current dollars has declined to an effective
$1.8 billion. In turn, the $5 million Spokane receives annually in AIP
formula funds based on passenger and cargo activity for use on eligible
projects has effectively declined in value to $2.25 million. The amount
of this formula funding is often insufficient to address the total cost
of an eligible project, so we must compete with other airports for
discretionary funding from the FAA or divide a project into multiple
phases, which is inefficient and costs more. We also find ourselves
having to bid projects in multiple schedules to match funding
constraints and ask the contractors to hold their prices from one year
to the next, which is risky for them.
An example of our situation is a current grant request that we have
submitted to the FAA for reconstruction work on our runway intersection
related to pavement rehabilitation, paved shoulders, drainage, and
signage. Our total project request for the Runway 8-26 Improvements
Project is $21 million, with $18.6 million from the FAA and $2 million
from the airport in matching funds (which is, in itself, considerable).
If this project were funded entirely through entitlement formula, we
would be looking at obligating approximately 4 years of funding to pay
for the project. As a result, we have requested discretionary funding
from the FAA. At the same time, we have a need to realign our terminal
building access road and prefer to use our entitlement funding for that
project. If the FAA cannot come through with discretionary funding, we
will have to substantially modify the runway project and/or jump over
it and prioritize the roadway realignment project. This could create a
considerable disruption to our Airport Capital Improvement Program that
we have worked out with the FAA. Had our AIP funding been able to keep
up with need, we would be able to pursue both projects without tying up
our funding for several years or introducing a disruption into our
capital program.
Because AIP cannot meet our funding needs for eligible projects, it
causes a cascading impact of phasing or deferral of airfield projects
that ultimately results in greater cost and complexity. Another example
is our project to relocate a road around the end of our primary runway
that is currently within the Runway Protection Zone--one of the most
critical safety areas that we are charged with protecting. This project
is estimated to cost upwards of $20 million and we have been seeking
funding partners at the State, metropolitan planning organization, and
local level to help us leverage the relatively small amount of FAA
funding that we can bring to the project. We prepared an application
for a BUILD grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation for this
project; however, off-airport needs in our region caused us to withdraw
our application in favor of another project that was critically
important to the community. This is an illustration of the way in which
the diminished purchasing power of AIP funding causes airports to go in
search of other sources and increases pressure on overall
transportation funding sources, which are struggling to keep up with
demand in their own right.
passenger facility charges
Airports also have considerable capital needs for projects that do
not qualify for AIP, especially terminal construction and maintenance
projects. PFCs are a crucial source of support for these projects,
because their proceeds may be used for a broader range of airport
development projects than AIP grants and can be bonded to finance
large, multiyear projects.
Congress imposes a $4.50 per passenger per enplanement cap on PFCs,
which is not indexed for inflation and has not been increased since
2000. As with AIP grants, because the PFC cap has not been adjusted
since 2000, the purchasing power in today's dollars is about half of
what it was. Most airports today collect the maximum PFC amount because
of the need to fund terminal infrastructure projects as well as the
impact of construction inflation on project costs. While this effect
varies by region, it is safe to say that average construction costs
have increased considerably since 2000 when Congress last adjusted the
PFC cap.
In many circumstances, including Spokane's, the PFC is serving as
an offset to the stagnation of AIP funding and the erosion of its
purchasing power. In fact, a quick look at our PFC programs since 1993
show approximately 11 airfield-related projects totaling a little over
$37 million that would have been AIP eligible had AIP been able to keep
up with need. We can throw in another $54.8 million in snow removal
equipment and a snow removal equipment storage building. Over 26 years,
this locally directed user fee has effectively acted as supplement to
stagnated AIP funding in the amount of nearly $92 million or roughly
$3.54 million on average each year. Overall, the PFC has funded nearly
$150 million of projects in Spokane that would otherwise have had to
compete, wait, or be cancelled due to a lack of AIP funding or would
have had to have been debt financed or paid directly by the airlines.
the bottom line
The airport industry trade associations, the American Association
of Airport Executives and Airports Council International--North America
(``ACI-NA''), routinely survey airports to assess their total capital
needs. ACI-NA's most recent survey data indicates that annualized
capital needs between 2017 and 2021 are approximately $20 billion. It
is my understanding that this number will increase when the survey is
next updated.
Airports collect about $3.3 billion annually in PFC revenue. Add to
that the AIP funding level of $3.35 billion and we are only generating
about one-third of the annual funding needed to maintain and expand our
airport system. This gap acts as a significant constraint on the
funding and financing options available to airports like Spokane. Could
you imagine what we could do if our AIP entitlement funding was nearly
doubled annually and the amount of PFC capacity that could be freed up
as a result?
funding for trex: the urgent need for a pfc increase
Spokane needs additional PFC funding capacity now more than ever as
we head into the construction of the TREX project. This would help
narrow the funding gap described above, and it would ultimately save
money for the traveling public. Let me explain using the graphic in
Exhibit A, which outlines our current and potential financing options
for TREX.
Here's how a higher PFC cap would help us reduce time and costs in
Spokane: The lower right quadrant of Exhibit A illustrates concepts of
how the airport can fund the TREX project through the traditional
``bond it all and build it'' method and another method that we call
``pay-go/borrow/bond and build.'' We have simplified the math to show
the broad concept of the costs of doing nothing with the PFC cap and
the benefits of increasing the PFC and using methods to reduce our
interest costs.
If we take the current estimated cost of the TREX project at nearly
$191 million and go the traditional route of bonding the full amount,
the airport and its local users effectively end up paying twice for the
same thing as the total project cost becomes nearly $342 million. Just
for purposes of illustration, at the current PFC level of $4.50 and not
counting for inflation, that would straight line to 38 years of PFC
obligation if we stayed at 2 million enplaned passengers a year. And
this is a current problem today for many airports that are extended
decades out on their PFC obligation, paying off projects that they have
already built so there is no capacity to fund new projects.
Moving down the table, we show the simplified effect of an increase
of the PFC from $4.50 to $6.50, which reduces interest and brings down
the PFC collection period from 30-plus years to 22 years. Then, on the
bottom table, we show the impact of an $8.50 PFC level, which brings
down the PFC collection period to 14 years. The reduced time that a
higher PFC would create is relevant since the TREX improvements will
likely have 15-20 years of life cycle before reinvestment. A higher PFC
would also allow us to reduce our interest costs. Under this model, an
$8.50 PFC would also allow us to reduce our interest costs from $151.2
million to $66.3 million. In other words, an $8.50 PFC would allow us
to save approximately $85 million in interest costs.
The tables on the lower right of the quadrant on Exhibit A show an
even better outcome if we collect an increased PFC for a short period
of time and then use a combination of pay-go and debt financing (maybe
even other than Airport Revenue Bonds if alternatives are attractive),
and again we show these scenarios in increments of the current rate of
$4.50 and a conceptual increase of the PFC to $6.50 or $8.50 per
enplaned passenger. In that scenario, an $8.50 PFC would allow us to
reduce our interest costs from $73.4 million to $18.7 million--a $54.7
million savings. An $8.50 PFC would also allow us to reduce the payoff
for the debt financing from 20 years to just 7 years.
These tables are a simplified way to express the practical impact
of a PFC increase as related to reduction in total project cost. Our
example includes a small escalation factor in the 2018 costs. By far,
the largest impact on the project cost will be the bidding environment
that exists at the time. We also used a bond amortization rate of 4.25
percent. With regard to present value impact, we assume that annual
bond payments are fixed at debt issuance, discounted through interest
rates at the time, and paid back with funds accumulated in future years
at the fixed amount regardless of diminution due to inflation of the
value of a dollar in a future year.
As airport operators, we have to ask ourselves why should our
passengers pay twice for a project like TREX when a modest increase in
the PFC can substantially reduce that liability? Why should the PFC
continue to make up for a stagnated AIP funding level that has not kept
pace with demonstrated need? Why should a PFC that has not been
adjusted for nearly two decades force us into an unnecessary level of
debt that we would otherwise prefer not to take on? What are the
impacts of losing all of our PFC capacity for decades in terms of
deferred and cancelled projects? What are the impacts to our non-grant
or PFC-funded capital program that is already underfunded by about $5
million a year?
Spokane's overall financial situation provides additional context
for the discussion above. Spokane International Airport is currently
mostly debt free with the exception of some modest very low-interest
loans that we accepted from the State to construct hangars. While this
is an enviable position, we were able to get there by changing our
financial models to be more business-like and entrepreneurial, but we
also deferred non-grant funded capital investment. Our goal was to
build up our capacity in the worst-case scenario of having to go the
traditional route of bonding all of the TREX project costs and paying
them off over 25-30 years, as well as be able to fund other projects
that are approaching that will not be PFC- or AIP-eligible, such as
expanding our parking garage.
We believe that it is in the best interest of the airport to avoid
debt to the greatest possible extent, and when we need to use it, to
limit it. I think we can all agree that this is a good way to operate
just about any organization.
Because we have a fully residual rates and charges agreement with
the airlines, they also benefit by not having to support substantial
levels of debt service as part of their costs. As a result of a
combination of factors, our cost-per-enplanement (``CPE'') ratio in
Spokane is low and fluctuates between $5.00-$6.00 per passenger. This
places us in the lowest quartile of airports based on CPE. Much of our
financial planning in terms of the impact of decisions on our operating
and capital budgets is based on the impact to our CPE and our desire to
remain within a reasonable CPE range.
Given our financial discipline and policy choice to avoid debt, the
airport uses its unrestricted cash to pay for capital improvement
projects that are not eligible for grant or PFC funds and, in some
circumstances, to advance fund planning, environmental, or design
efforts needed to keep AIP or future PFC projects on schedule. It is
important to point out, however, that ``unrestricted'' does not mean
``available.'' Reserves are not included in the restricted definition.
We look to maintain an Operations and Maintenance Reserve and Self-
Insurance Reserve (Other Post-Employment Benefits, Environmental
Liability, etc.) in addition to funding the aforementioned capital
projects. For accounting purposes, we define available cash as that
which is on hand after reserves. At this point, I must address a
popular misconception. Many groups rely on FAA Form 127 to assess
airport cash balances. We believe this is an error because unrestricted
cash is defined as ``not restricted.'' This can provide an inaccurate
picture of cash available for use. In reality, much smaller amounts of
cash are available and in the control of management. For example, in
Spokane, the FAA Form 127 indicates that the 2018 forecast amount of
Days Cash On Hand (``DCOH'') is approximately 385 days. In reality, the
number of DCOH is 198 when reserves are applied. The reality is that
the revenue we raise goes to fund our operating expenses and about $6
million-$10 million to invest in non-grant funded projects and to match
AIP projects (recall the $2 million match I referred to for the Runway
8-26 Improvements earlier in my testimony).
We are not sitting on piles of cash in Spokane with 6 to 8 months
of available cash, but the good news is that we are not sitting on
piles of debt, either. We have managed to this objective by limiting
our non-grant and PFC-funded capital program, which is not in the long-
term best interest of the facility. Airports across the country
reported almost $92 billion in debt in 2017, which is more than six
times the amount of unrestricted cash that they reported that year.
In our community, we would much prefer using a locally directed
user fee to pay for projects than to incur debt that has the potential
to stop us from being able to move forward on other important
infrastructure projects that are not grant or PFC eligible or just
saddles us with costs that drive up our CPE to unacceptably high
levels.
Finally, I would point out that as a practical matter, our airline
partners do not want to tie up their capital investment dollars in a
place like Spokane and in the vast majority of smaller communities. We
do not see that as a negative. I think that the airlines are pleased
that we have kept our PFC capacity available to take on the cost of the
TREX project. We are good partners and understand their corporate
objectives and how their investments in other types of infrastructure
benefits our community. We are realists, and we embrace the
responsibility to develop our airport terminal facilities by using the
best self-help mechanism available: the PFC. I ask this committee to
provide communities with the best possible means by which to fund
airport infrastructure by supporting an increase to the PFC as part of
an infrastructure bill or other legislation.
conclusion
I am very encouraged that Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member
Graves are holding this hearing today to lead our country forward on
addressing its infrastructure needs. Clearly, the cost of doing nothing
is high, and we are already paying for it at the risk of harming the
economic well-being of our community airports by underfunding AIP and
artificially limiting their ability to deliver modern and efficient
facilities as a result of an outdated cap on a locally directed user
fee that has proven to enhance safety, efficiency, capacity,
competition, and the customer experience. I strongly encourage you to
consider raising this gap to provide airports like Spokane with the
broadest range of funding and financing support as we work to deliver
the 21st-century infrastructure that the American people deserve. I
look forward to working with members of this committee as you put
together an infrastructure package and future infrastructure
legislation.
exhibit a: terminal renovation and expansion (``trex'') with
consolidated checkpoint project
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate Construction
Description Area (sf) Costs (2018 $)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Bag Claim (Ground Level-Five 70,000 $33,950,000
Devices)...............................
Consolidated Checkpoint (Upper Level)... 55,000 $26,675,000
Basement Under Bag Claim (Half of Ground 35,000 $3,500,000
Level Area)............................
Terminal A/B Remodel (Old Bag Claim and 17,500 $3,062,500
SSCP)..................................
Terminal C Ticketing remodel (Old SSCP). 4,000 $700,000
Concourse C West Extension (Three Gates 50,000 $26,250,000
at End of Concourse)...................
Concourse C West Extension (Ramp Level). 50,000 $6,250,000
Concourse C Central (East) Expansion 12,500 $7,500,000
(Three Gates Above Ground Boarding)....
Concourse C Central (East) Expansion 12,500 $1,562,500
(Ramp Level)...........................
Concourse Connectors.................... 17,000 $10,200,000
Curbside Canopies....................... ........... $7,647,000
Apron For Concourse C Extension......... 174,700 $12,229,000
Dual Taxiline........................... 148,500 $10,395,000
Passenger Boarding Bridges.............. 6 $4,500,000
Skybridge from Terminal to Parking...... 9,750 $5,850,000
Landside Curbside Improvements.......... ........... $3,500,000
Mechanical and Electrical Upgrades...... ........... $15,000,000
Airport Operations Center............... 38,000 $12,160,000
------------------
Total.............................................. $190,931,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Krauter.
Next we have Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Good afternoon, Chairman DeFazio--thank you. Good
afternoon, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members
of the committee. I am Angela Lee, director of Charlotte Water,
the drinking water and wastewater utility serving the city of
Charlotte and the Greater Charlotte region in North Carolina.
It is my honor to appear before the committee today to discuss
the importance of the Federal role and funding and financing
wastewater and stormwater infrastructure.
In addition to speaking on behalf of Charlotte Water, I am
also representing the Water Environment Federation, which is
the technical and professional association of clean water and
stormwater professionals, and the National Association of Clean
Water Agencies, the association representing clean water and
stormwater agencies before Congress in the Federal Government.
Charlotte Water maintains more than 8,600 miles of water
and wastewater pipeline, with nearly 280,000 active
connections, countywide. We employ over 950 people, with an
operating budget of over $460 million. We have a 5-year
community investment program of $1.5 billion. We are not only a
provider of vital services for 1.2 million people, we are also
an important provider and driver of economic prosperity for our
region.
Each member of this committee has at least one municipal
wastewater utility in their congressional district. And many of
you probably have several that are providing vital clean water
services to your constituents and businesses. There are over
15,000 wastewater utilities in the United States, with 75
percent of the population, 244 million Americans, relying on
well-built and maintained wastewater systems that treat 32
billion gallons--that is 32 billion gallons--of wastewater
daily.
In fact, many of us washed, brushed, and flushed this
morning, and it was a wastewater utility that took care of it.
Without water utilities, businesses would not thrive, public
health would be at risk, and our rivers and lakes and oceans
would be in ruins.
I urge each member of this committee to reach out to your
local water and wastewater utility and take a tour of our
operations and learn how we are protecting your communities,
our communities, and helping them prosper.
I respectfully urge you to read my full testimony. But for
the purposes of this hearing I would like to focus on the
challenges water utilities are having, and the importance
Federal funding plays in helping us address them.
As a member of the Water Environment Federation and the
National Association of Clean Water Agencies, I can speak for
my municipal water sector colleagues and communities across
this Nation, that we support improving upon and increasing
funding for existing water infrastructure programs and, when
appropriate, developing new funding tools. Congress has made
important strides in recent years to elevate water
infrastructure as a national priority. But more needs to be
done to ensure the Federal Government prioritizes investments
to support a strong, modern water infrastructure network, as it
does for other sectors.
In 1977 Federal funding provided 63 percent of water
infrastructure funding. Today only about 9 percent comes from
Federal funding. There is strong support for increasing Federal
funding for water infrastructure, as noted in a recent poll by
the Value of Water campaign, which found that 78 percent of
Americans said it is extremely important--extremely or very
important that Congress develop a plan to rebuild America's
water infrastructure, and that 88 percent of Americans agree
that an increase in Federal funding is needed to rebuild water
infrastructure.
Actions this committee and Congress should take?
Reauthorize the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, and increase
funding for that program. Reauthorize WIFIA and increase
funding for it. Create or reestablish some target Federal
programs to aid lower income ratepayers' stormwater
infrastructure and workforce sustainability.
North, south, east, and west of this country, water
utilities are united in protecting the environment of the
communities we all serve. We all depend on water infrastructure
to be dependable and operable. For without clean water, there
would not be any public health, good public health. There would
not be economic development and prosperity. And, most
importantly, without clean water there would not be life.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
water sector and this committee's interest in supporting
increased funding for water infrastructure. I look forward to
answering your questions.
[Ms. Lee's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Angela Lee, Director, Charlotte Water, North
Carolina, on behalf of the Water Environment Federation and the
National Association of Clean Water Agencies
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the
committee:
It is my honor to appear before the committee today on behalf of
Charlotte Water, in partnership with the Water Environment Federation
(WEF) \1\ and the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA)
\2\, to discuss the importance of the Federal role in funding and
financing wastewater and stormwater infrastructure. I am Angela Lee,
director of Charlotte Water \3\, the drinking water and wastewater
utility serving the city of Charlotte and the Greater Charlotte region
in North Carolina. My testimony will focus upon three significant
issues affecting wastewater and stormwater infrastructure:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Water Environment Federation (WEF) is a not-for-profit
technical and educational organization of 35,000 individual members and
75 affiliated Member Associations representing water quality
professionals around the world. Since 1928 WEF and its members have
protected public health and the environment. As a global water sector
leader, WEF's mission is to connect water professionals; enrich the
expertise of water professionals; increase the awareness of the impact
and value of water; and provide a platform for water sector innovation.
\2\ The National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA)
represents public wastewater and stormwater agencies of all sizes
nationwide, with more than 325 public agency members. NACWA has been
the Nation's recognized leader in legislative, regulatory and legal
advocacy on the full spectrum of clean water issues, as well as a top
technical resource for water management, sustainability and ecosystem
protection interests. The Association's unique and growing network
strengthens the advocacy voice for all member utilities, and ensures
they have the tools necessary to provide affordable and sustainable
clean water for all.
\3\ Angela Lee is the director of Charlotte Water. Lee, who
previously served as the chief of operations and division manager for
Charlotte Water since 2004, stepped into her new role in January 2018.
She has been a city of Charlotte employee since 1988. As director, Lee
is responsible for the countywide water treatment and distribution,
wastewater treatment and collection, and utilities planning and
management activities. Lee holds a Master of Public Administration
degree from UNC Charlotte and a Bachelor of Science degree in
Industrial Engineering from North Carolina State University. She was
the 2017 chair of the North Carolina American Water Works Association
and North Carolina Water Environment Association (NC AWWA-WEA) and is a
Grade A water distribution operator. Angela has been given many water
industry awards including the prestigious Warren G. Fuller Award and
the Arthur Sidney Bedell Award.
Federal Funding of Water Infrastructure--Congress should
provide robust support for existing and proposed Federal funding and
financing programs, ensuring water infrastructure is a national
priority on part with other vital infrastructure sectors.
Benefits of Funding--community prosperity, public health,
and environmental protection all benefit from Federal funding.
Risks of Not Funding--without appropriate investment,
ratepayers, businesses, and job growth are negatively impacted and
environmental quality and public health are put at risk.
introduction
Charlotte Water maintains more than 8,600 miles of water and sewer
pipeline, with nearly 280,000 active water connections countywide.
Charlotte Water employs more than 950 people with an operating budget
of over $460 million, and a 5-year Community Investment Program budget
of $1.5 billion. We are not only a provider of vital services, we are
also an important provider and driver of economic prosperity for our
region.
Funding our extensive infrastructure is one of our greatest
challenges as a utility. Like clean water agencies around the country,
Charlotte Water has many competing pressures--including the need to
reinvest in aging infrastructure, maintain and upgrade treatment
processes, comply with Clean Water Act rules and regulations, make
strategic long-term investments, and help support a high quality of
life in our community while addressing household affordability
constraints. Underlying all these challenges is the ongoing obligation
to optimize our infrastructure and our performance for the protection
of the public health and the environment.
In making operational and investment decisions we also need to
account for changing conditions--such as precipitation patterns that
affect the volume and intensity of flows through our system. As an
example, during Hurricane Florence in September 2018 and its aftermath,
in some communities millions of gallons of untreated or partially
treated wastewater were discharged into our waterways across North
Carolina; drinking water systems were overwhelmed as well. As an
agency, we strive to make every effort to protect our community and our
environment. Environmental circumstances like the weather are outside
our agency's control but are something to which we must adapt. The
water services we provide are vitally important and depend in large
part on having adequate funding and financing resources at our
disposal. The funding challenge for water infrastructure investments is
not only an issue for Charlotte Water--it's a national challenge that
warrants national attention and support.
The need for greater investment in our Nation's infrastructure,
including wastewater and stormwater, is well known. This committee and
congressional leaders were sent a letter on January 10, 2019, cosigned
by 91 national, regional, and State organizations including WEF and
NACWA urging Congress to include funding and financing for water
infrastructure in the proposed major infrastructure package. The
cosigners represent a wide diversity of larger, medium and small
stakeholder organizations representing citizens from every corner of
our Nation.
Nationally, clean water infrastructure has received a D+ grade from
the American Society of Civil Engineers' infrastructure report card,
and the U.S. EPA calculates national investment needs just to fully
comply with the Clean Water Act under current conditions at
approximately $271 billion over the next 20 years. Some important facts
about our Nation's water infrastructure system and its needs include:
There are an estimated 15,000 Water Resource Recovery
Facilities \4\ (a.k.a. Publicly Owned Treatment Works) in the U.S.,
with 75 percent of the US population--244 million Americans--relying
upon well-built and maintained systems that treat 32 billion gallons of
wastewater daily;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Several years back WEF, NACWA and other organizations
recognized that the staid model for treating wastewater did not reflect
the tremendous opportunity that utilizing more advanced treatment
processes has for recovering and using the energy, nutrients, and water
resources available in wastewater. For this reason, the sector has
renamed wastewater treatment facilities Water Resource Recovery
Facilities (WRRFs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are approximately 800,000 miles of wastewater
collection and conveyance pipes in the U.S., many of which were built
soon after WWII to help fuel our Nation's growth and have far exceeded
their 50-year design life;
According to the most recent U.S. EPA Clean Watersheds
Needs Survey conducted in 2012, the capital investment need for
wastewater for the Nation will need $271 billion over the next 20
years. Further, the report states that the data underestimates
stormwater infrastructure needs by roughly $100 billion;
There are 6,500 communities with Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer Systems (MS4) permits, covering more than 80 percent of the U.S.
population. Of these, only approximately 1,500 have a dedicated revenue
source for stormwater infrastructure investments, a growing cost to
communities;
Looking collectively at drinking water, wastewater and
stormwater infrastructure, the U.S. needs to invest a total of $123
billion per year above current spending levels over the next 10 years
to bring systems to a state of good repair;
While Federal contributions to transportation
infrastructure have stayed constant at approximately half of total
transportation capital spending, Federal investment in water
infrastructure has declined from 63 percent to 9 percent of total
capital spending since 1977. Today, more than 90 percent of all
investments in water and wastewater in our country come from States and
local ratepayers;
The combined Federal, State and local spending on water
infrastructure equals about $41 billion per year, which means our
national water infrastructure investment gap is $82 billion per year.
If current needs are left unaddressed, the annual gap is projected to
rise to $109 billion by 2026 and $153 billion by 2040, as needs from
prior years accumulate.
federal funding of water infrastructure
Despite many of these challenges, as a Nation we are fortunate to
have the drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater systems that we
have. We sometimes forget that many countries would love to have the
water systems we enjoy. We established these systems many years ago to
protect our people from outbreaks of cholera and other waterborne
diseases. The result has been economic prosperity, public health
benefits, and environmental restoration. It has been 50 years since the
infamous 1969 fire on the Cuyahoga River that lead to making
environmental protection of our waters a high priority through passage
of the Clean Water Act in 1972. The environmental gains since then have
been significant, but they were made through strong, consistent Federal
support of funding and financing of water infrastructure.
As a member of WEF and NACWA, I can speak for my municipal water
sector colleagues in communities across the Nation that we support
improving upon and increasing funding for existing water infrastructure
funding programs and, when appropriate, developing new funding tools.
Congress has made important strides in recent years to elevate water
infrastructure as a national priority--but more needs to be done to
ensure the Federal Government prioritizes investments to support a
strong, modern water infrastructure network--as it does for other
sectors. This strong support for increasing Federal funding for water
infrastructure is a widely held position by a large majority of
Americans, as demonstrated in a recent poll by the Value of Water
Campaign \5\ that found that 78 percent of respondents said it's
``extremely or very important'' that the President and Congress develop
a plan to rebuild America's water infrastructure. The same poll found
that 88 percent of Americans agreed that increased Federal funding is
needed to rebuild water infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://thevalueofwater.org/resources
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated above, Federal investment in water infrastructure has
declined from 63 percent to 9 percent since 1977. This decrease is
partially due to the replacement of the Construction Grants Program
with the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF). The Clean Water SRF
program is one of the most successful Federal infrastructure funding
programs ever, and it is now critical that Congress reauthorize it and
increase the authorized fund levels to help address our national needs.
The last three fiscal years, Charlotte Water has obtained over $84
million in low-interest loans through the North Carolina SRF loan
program. Below market interest rate loans help make sewer rates more
affordable for our ratepayers, many of whom are low-income.
The Clean Water SRF loans are administered through State
infrastructure financing agencies, which is meant to ensure that
funding is going to the most critical projects in a State. Generally,
this approach has worked, but there are several ways that the loans can
be delivered more effectively and the Federal capitalization grant to
State-run SRF programs could be maximized better. As the committee
develops an infrastructure package, WEF and NACWA encourage the
committee to further explore some of these approaches to improve the
SRF program. WEF and NACWA also urge the committee to look hard at how
the SRF, as well as other current and potential Federal funding
programs, can provide more funding for stormwater infrastructure and
water reuse and recycling projects.
I would also like to thank this committee and Congress for
reauthorizing the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
(WIFIA) and authorizing the program to receive $50 million for each of
the next two fiscal years, which is estimated to provide approximately
$5 billion in Federal low-interest loans per year. The strong interest
and support for the WIFIA program is evidenced by the fact that in 2018
the program received 62 letters of interest from utilities worth $9.1
billion in requests for Federal loans. Congress should continue to
fully fund the WIFIA program and reauthorize it before its current
authorization expires after fiscal year 2021.
While low-interest loans through the SRF and WIFIA have proven to
be a practical and costeffective approach for the Federal Government,
Congress needs to restore some targeted grant programs to help in
several key areas, which include, but are not limited to:
Resilience--Resilience is not just building infrastructure designed
to withstand the physical impacts of climate change, it also involves
financial resilience, workforce resilience, technology resilience and
long-term planning resilience. No other form of infrastructure will be
impacted by the need for resilience more than wastewater and stormwater
infrastructure--from extreme weather to population shifts to economic
swings to regulatory changes. With over 17,000 wastewater utilities and
6,500 community MS4 permit holders, they must make their systems more
resilient to withstand short-term and long-term challenges. Technical
and funding assistance to utilities, particularly medium and smaller
ones, would be Federal dollars well spent now rather than in the future
in response to a disaster or crisis.
Stormwater--Communities need to make stormwater infrastructure
investments in the next decade to ensure public safety and meet the
requirements of the Clean Water Act. Date out of the most recent EPA
Clean Watershed Needs Survey, which used 2012 data, projects a national
need of $150 billion over the next 20 years for stormwater and Combined
Sewer Overflow (CSO) infrastructure for communities to remain in
compliance with the Clean Water Act. Communities are moving
deliberately to secure sources of funding for stormwater and green
infrastructure upgrades but lack funding sources and a comprehensive
set of tools to construct and maintain the required improvements.
Federal loans and grants for communities can help them pursue
approaches to financing the required infrastructure.
Workforce Sustainability--The Brookings Institution report--
Renewing the Water Workforce--estimates the entire water sector employs
1.7 million people when accounting for utility staff, consultants,
manufacturing and other jobs directly associated with the water sector.
A 2010 report by the Water Research Foundation found an estimated that
30 percent-50 percent of water utility workers will retire over the
next decade. Just as with physical infrastructure, human infrastructure
is a critical part of water infrastructure investment. Jobs in water
utilities are local, career-long, green jobs that pay family-sustaining
wages with a position for everyone from a GED to a PhD. At Charlotte
Water, we have initiated a workforce development program this year to
grow the pool of available water sector candidates. Participants serve
under experienced water and wastewater professionals, learning
important career skills and transferring institutional knowledge.
Increased funding for water infrastructure investments by communities
will help utilities find, train and retain the next generation of water
professionals helping communities to prosper and have a clean
environment.
Affordability--For most communities, the most restrictive component
to a utility increasing rates to pay for necessary infrastructure
investments is the desire and responsibility of the utility not to
overburden their lower income rate payers. Utilities in cities and
rural areas with low-income populations, elderly and fixed-income
populations, and jurisdictions with declining populations struggle to
keep water affordable, while funding infrastructure needs to protect
public health and comply with regulations. In many communities the
lowest 20 percent of earners pay almost one-fifth of their income
towards their water bill. Charlotte Water serves just over 285,000
accounts but provided 58,636 payment arrangements in 2018. Public
Utilities may be forced to delay much needed projects to avoid
overburdening customers. The committee should explore approaches to
help utilities address these burdens on lower income ratepayers. The
committee is commended for its important work passing legislation last
Congress to codify Integrated Planning for clean water obligations, an
approach through which utilities can more strategically plan their
clean water investments. Policy changes such as this will play a role
in helping address affordability alongside funding.
benefits of funding
Strong Federal investment in clean water infrastructure is
paramount as cities and communities across North Carolina and the
Nation work to meet the needs of their residents and support business
growth. In my community, Charlotte Water is keenly aware of the impact
our utility has on growth of the region. With the influx of new
businesses, multi-family units and growth in industries like healthcare
and craft brewing, my utility must keep up with providing water and
wastewater infrastructure for the Charlotte business region to thrive.
Without adequate wastewater infrastructure in the right place, at the
right time, and in adequate condition, economic development stalls,
developers seek other locations to invest and create jobs.
Innovation and investments in sanitation in our country have been
crucial to protecting public health by reducing the prevalence of
waterborne diseases, allowing our communities to thrive and population
to grow. Clean water investments not only largely eradicated life-
threatening diseases from the United States, they have helped protect
and restore our lakes, rivers, and coastlines--giving children the
opportunity to swim outdoors, fisherman to consume their catch,
ecosystems to improve and new businesses to flourish. The protection
and provision of water services is a core part of the public's trust in
all levels of Government, and there is a local, State, and national
imperative to helping ensure these life-saving and quality-of-life
services remain strong.
Having robust sources of Federal funding and financing do more than
help communities make the important capital investments they need
today. Reliable funding sources also help communities look to the
future and do more to stretch limited dollars by investing more
strategically. For example, as communities develop and implement long-
term plans not only for water and wastewater but also for roads,
telecom, and other utilities, communities may find opportunities for
pairing various projects (the ``dig once'' approach) and for phasing
investments strategically over time. Communities may also be better
able to adapt to changing environmental conditions to ensure that
investments made today will be resilient in the future. In many cases
upfront investments can save long-term costs, but without access to
affordable long-term funding many communities on the ground find they
do not have the luxury of planning as far ahead as they may like. For
example, in Charlotte, having access to various funding options
provides Charlotte Water flexibility to efficiently coordinate
infrastructure improvements with the local stormwater utility, transit
system, State transportation department and energy providers. Right
now, we are working on a project in an area where the water and
wastewater infrastructure is about 70 years old that will improve
water, wastewater, stormwater and pedestrian infrastructure. Several
agencies are coordinating to improve the quality of life in this
neighborhood and impact the residents there only once through creative
construction planning. Federal funding can also help support creative
solutions with multiple long-term benefits and challenge communities to
innovate.
Additionally, as a sector, we are striving to make resource
recovery a core element of treatment and modernization of wastewater
infrastructure. Without investing in innovative and modern treatment
technologies, valuable and money-saving resources such as energy,
nutrients, and water recycling are being lost. Recovering these
resources ensures communities are maximizing their current
infrastructure investments, as well as planning for their future needs.
This approach is captured in the Water Resources Utility of the Future,
A Blueprint for Action \6\ guide that WEF, NACWA and other water
associations developed. Charlotte Water for the last 2 years has been
honored by Utility of the Future Today Recognition Program for our
innovative and sustainable approaches to wastewater resources recovery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.wef.org/globalassets/assets-wef/direct-download-
library/public/03---resources/
waterresourcesutilityofthefuture_blueprintforaction_final.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
risks of not funding
Reliable and affordable clean water infrastructure is the backbone
of our communities, both large and small, as they develop and grow
economically. Families, businesses, schools, and hospitals need these
essential clean water services to live, operate and continue to thrive.
Public utilities are leaning more and more on ratepayers every year to
meet these growing demands, placing strain on lower income households.
The Federal Government can be an important partner in providing low-
cost financing tools and funding to help ensure that protections are in
place to ensure households are not at risk of losing these vital
services due to cost.
Water affordability is one of the most vexing challenges facing the
water sector. Nationally, the cost of clean water services has
increased faster than the rate of inflation for 15 consecutive years,
and these trends are anticipated to continue as infrastructure ages,
communities work to address compliance obligations and new challenges
emerge. For households with low or stagnant incomes, the amount they
are spending on water often exceeds what EPA considers affordable.
Municipalities also face significant pressure to set rates that are
attainable for the often-growing percentages of low-income households
in their service area--even if it means deferring investments.
Federal investment in clean water can be a major economic driver
for communities in meeting their growth potential. Those investments
are wise economically for communities and the Nation--every $1 million
invested in drinking water and wastewater infrastructure increases
long-term GDP by $6.35, creates 16,000 new jobs, and provides $23.00 in
public health-related benefits.\7\ Studies also show that the US
economy would stand to gain over $200 billion in annual economic
activity and 1.3 million jobs over a 10-year period by meeting its
current water infrastructure needs. Without these investments,
breakdowns in water supply, treatment and wastewater capacity are
projected to cost manufacturers and other businesses over $7.5 trillion
in lost sales and $4.1 trillion in lost GDP from 2011 to 2040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ http://thevalueofwater.org/sites/default/files/
Economic%20Impact%20of%20Investing%20in
%20Water%20Infrastructure_VOW_FINAL_pages.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, Federal investment is needed for communities to continue
making the water quality gains they have made over the past several
decades under the Clean Water Act. As communities deal with aging
infrastructure and increasing water quality challenges, Federal
resources are important in helping public utilities meet these
challenges head on and ensuring residents have the clean and safe water
services they deserve. We cannot risk the incredible progress on
environmental and water quality gains that have been made under the
Clean Water Act due to stagnant Federal investment. And we also need to
pay close attention to the real health and environmental risks
associated with water services becoming too costly for households to
afford.
conclusion
This testimony has touched upon just a few of the water
infrastructure challenges we at the local government level are faced
with, and some of the remedies we believe will help lessen the
financial impact on our citizens, particularly those who have so little
income to spare. More Federal funding through existing programs and
potential new programs will help us begin to make headway towards
addressing in our wastewater and stormwater infrastructure needs. The
return to the Nation for increased Federal funding will be
environmental, public health and economic benefits critical to the
health and safety of our country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member and committee members,
for your kind attention. I would be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Ms. Lee.
Mr. McArdle, you may proceed.
Mr. McArdle. Well, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Graves, and to all the members of the committee. And,
first of all, thank you all for your public service.
My name is Rich McArdle. I am the president of UPS Freight,
which is based in Richmond, Virginia. I am here today
representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest
business federation.
For the past 37 years I have worked for UPS, a company you
to know--or one extent or another, are very familiar with. We
have employees, buildings, a variety of trucks, perhaps even
airplanes, back office operations, UPS stores, or other
multimodal operations in every single one of your congressional
districts. We probably have delivered a package to your home
some time this week or some time last month.
This year represents our 112th as a company. My career
parallels that of many of our senior leaders. I started loading
delivery vehicles in Louisville as a part-time employee, a job
that I assumed would last only until I graduated from college.
One thing led to another, and I began a series of operational
assignments with increasing responsibility. It led me from
Kentucky to Colorado to California to South Carolina to
Washington, DC, to Pennsylvania, and now down to Richmond.
I personally have experienced congestion all over the
country.
As an integrated multimodal service provider, UPS engages
in the movement of goods with every transportation mode
represented here today. And that is why I want to thank you for
the opportunity to testify.
I won't spend any more time on UPS. Rather, I would like to
emphasize a perspective we share with the U.S. Chamber, the
American Trucking Associations, and many Americans. And that
perspective--there is a cost of not addressing the
infrastructure investment issue. As was mentioned many times
this morning, that has already been pointed out. The cost of
doing nothing is truly more than the cost of doing something.
And that is what I want to discuss.
For UPS and our customers, transportation infrastructure
means something very different than an ongoing discussion about
small government versus big government, devolution, long-term
funding solutions, or any other term that seems to avoid the
real action that needs to be taken. Transportation bottlenecks,
including potholes, harm all of us, all of our businesses, as
well as individual commuters. They compromise our ability to
serve our customers, impede our ability to grow, and cost
commuters at least 42 hours a year, on average, across the
country.
At UPS we pride ourselves on efficiency. However, today, in
order to meet our service commitments, we may have to dispatch
additional vehicles to mitigate the time spent in congestion.
In doing so, like other transportation service providers, we
are adding to the congestion problem.
The problem is very simple. The primary funding mechanism
for the surface transportation infrastructure, the Highway
Trust Fund, is underfunded and does not provide the necessary
resource to maintain and keep the network in a state of good
repair, let alone provide the resources we have talked about
this morning--we have heard--to modernize and incorporate
technology, improve the fluidity, the velocity, and, most
importantly, the safety of our networks.
The annual shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund, $144
billion since 2008, is being covered by the general fund. The
majority of Americans across all parties will support an
increase in the Federal gas tax to pay for roads, if that means
less Government borrowing, which will reduce the burden of debt
on future generations.
We have to modernize our infrastructure. However, today we
struggle to keep up with what we already have. Do you realize
that 7 cents out of every dime is spent maintaining existing
roads, 2 cents are spent adding capacity to the additional
thoroughfares, and just one penny out of every dime is spent on
brandnew roads?
Congress can help us. We need an infrastructure
modernization plan to encourage innovation, give States and
cities who manage the highway network the flexibility to
incorporate technology into our highways, and to support and
improve mobility, whether that is autonomous vehicles,
intelligent transportation systems, connectivity among other
modes of transportation, they all need to be included as we
move forward.
In my written testimony I mention both the Chamber's plan
and the American Trucking Associations' Build America Fund.
Both staffs from both organizations are ready to go into detail
of those plans with you. I think that you will find that they
address innovation, they address ideas of how funds can be
dedicated.
And one other thing I will mention is that later this week
or next week the American Transportation Research Institute
will be releasing its next updated list of the top 100
bottlenecks in America. I encourage you to take a look at that
report when it comes out.
I would like to conclude, hopefully, by conveying a sense
of urgency. Will this be the Congress that stabilizes the
Highway Trust Fund, which has been underfunded for more than a
decade? Or will the can be kicked down the road one more time?
From what I heard this morning, I know that is not the intent.
Let's not allow our infrastructure that has long been the
catalyst of our country's prosperity to deteriorate any
further. The UPS, the Chamber, the ATA, along with other
business leaders stand by ready to work with Congress to enact
an infrastructure modernization bill this year.
Remember, the cost of doing nothing is more than the cost
of doing something.
Thank you for your opportunity to speak with you today, and
I look forward to your questions.
[Mr. McArdle's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rich McArdle, President, UPS Freight, on behalf
of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
The Impact of Inaction on an Infrastructure Modernization Plan
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business
federation representing the interests of more than 3 million businesses
of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as State and local chambers
and industry associations. The Chamber is dedicated to promoting,
protecting, and defending America's free enterprise system.
More than 96 percent of Chamber member companies have fewer than
100 employees, and many of the Nation's largest companies are also
active members. We are therefore cognizant not only of the challenges
facing smaller businesses, but also those facing the business community
at large.
Besides representing a cross-section of the American business
community with respect to the number of employees, major
classifications of American business--e.g., manufacturing, retailing,
services, construction, wholesalers, and finance--are represented. The
Chamber has membership in all 50 States.
The Chamber's international reach is substantial as well. We
believe that global interdependence provides opportunities, not
threats. In addition to the American Chambers of Commerce abroad, an
increasing number of our members engage in the export and import of
both goods and services and have ongoing investment activities. The
Chamber favors strengthened international competitiveness and opposes
artificial U.S. and foreign barriers to international business.
__________
introduction
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the
committee--thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony before
the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on a policy issue
of the utmost importance to our Nation. My name is Rich McArdle, and I
currently serve as the president of UPS Freight. I submit these written
comments, and appear personally before the committee, representing the
United States Chamber of Commerce.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business
federation. The organization represent the interests of over 3 million
businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as State and
local chambers and industry associations.
the importance of america's transportation infrastructure
America's transportation network is a vast and complex system that
connects people and places, moves goods, boosts our economy, enhances
safety, and improves our daily quality of life. The country's
transportation system is comprised of roads, bridges, public transit,
airports, railroads, seaports, and interchanges affecting thousands of
communities, multiple industries, and virtually all job sectors.
Without question, this system serves as the backbone of the Nation's
economy.
The current assets that make up our Nation's transportation network
include:
4.1 million miles of public highways
600,000 bridges
11,300 miles of public transit
25,000 miles of navigable waterways
114,600 miles of rail
250 water ports
19,500 airports
Source: 2019 Bureau of Transportation Statistics Pocket Guide
By any objective measure, America's transportation infrastructure
has been the envy of the world. From the transcontinental railroad to
electric streetcars, from subways to the Interstate Highway System,
freight rail connections to the world's most advanced aviation system,
our Nation's history of providing state-of-the art transportation
infrastructure is impressive, and continues to evolve.
As this committee knows, most of this system was built 60-150 years
ago. The Chamber, and UPS, believe the time has come to enact a Federal
infrastructure modernization plan to provide every American a 21st-
century system.
the importance of networks to freight movement
The Nation's goods movement and freight networks continue to
experience significant strain. In 2016, our Nation's transportation
system moved 17.6 billion tons of goods, worth $18.1 trillion,
according to the U.S. Department of Transportation. Source: USDOT 2019
Bureau of Transportation Statistics Pocket Guide
The Nation's supply chain is also adapting to the rapidly advancing
e-commerce environment. Supply-chain fulfillment operations, including
thousands that we interact with at UPS, have transitioned from an
inventory based ``manufacture-to-supply'' model to a ``manufacture-to-
order'' model. In fact, many of these orders are shipped directly to
the end consumer. Emerging technologies such as vehicle-to-vehicle and
vehicle-to-infrastructure communications and autonomous vehicles
require modern infrastructure to allow these innovations to achieve the
desired effects of maximizing the efficiency of the transportation
network, while increasing safety for transportation workers.
the current impact of congestion
According to the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI),
congestion on the Interstate Highway System alone costs the trucking
industry nearly $74.5 billion in 2016 and wasted more than 1.2 billion
hours. This number, from 3 years ago, equates to 425,000 drivers
sitting idle for a full working year. Today, the situation has
deteriorated even further. Source: ATRI Cost of Congestion to the
Trucking Industry 2018 Update
For UPS, this impact is real--if every UPS vehicle is delayed due
to congestion 5 minutes a day, every day, it costs our enterprise $114
million annually.
For a company like UPS, this scenario has a legitimate, dramatic
and daily impact, as we operate approximately 120,000 commercial
vehicles and travel 2.9 billion miles in the United States each year.
Ultimately, congestion requires UPS to build in operational
redundancies to meet service commitments to our customers.
Practically speaking, this means that every day we have to dispatch
more tractor-trailers and delivery vehicles than necessary to complete
our work under optimum conditions--therefore, and ironically, adding to
congestion.
A snapshot of UPS operations in the New York City metropolitan area
may provide some insight into today's challenges. On average, UPS
delivery drivers in New York City and northern New Jersey are delayed
16 minutes per day due to traffic congestion. Since 2011, UPS has had
to dispatch an additional 62 delivery drivers, every day, to meet
customer service obligations in this geographic area due to gridlock.
In addition, in the same New York-New Jersey area, congestion has
forced UPS to dispatch an additional 21 tractor-trailer combinations
(to handle the same amount of package volume moving between UPS
facilities).
Put simply--these additional vehicles only make a bad situation
worse, let alone further negatively impacting the local communities in
which we provide service. The average commuting time in the United
States, at 48 minutes per day, is well above that of its peers due to
congestion and inadequate public transit; it is 38 minutes in the
United Kingdom and 31 minutes in Italy. Source: Council on Foreign
Relations 2018 State of U.S. Infrastructure Report In addition,
inadequate infrastructure also leads to vehicle damage. According to
The Road Information Program, the average American experiences on
average $599 of damage to their vehicle each year due to inadequate
road conditions. Furthermore, congestion costs the average American an
additional $960 annually meaning that the cost to the average commuter
of doing nothing is over $1,500. Source: Texas A&M Transportation
Institute (TTI) 2015 Urban Mobility Scorecard
investment not meeting infrastructure needs
Both the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 2017
Infrastructure Report Card and the latest Department of Transportation
Conditions and Performance (C&P) Report show current investment levels
are not even maintaining the current infrastructure network, much less
making improvements.
The 2015 USDOT C&P report highlighted the current state of good
repair needed for highways and bridges at an estimated $830 billion. Of
the total backlog, $156.8 billion is required for the Interstate
System; $394.9 billion for the National Highway System, and $644.8
billion for Federal-aid highways. The USDOT C&P report also stated the
current state of good repair needs for public transit at $89.8 billion.
The ASCE Report chart below shows the estimated investment gaps for
several types of infrastructure over the next 10- and 20-year periods:
Estimated Changes in U.S. Infrastructure Sector Investment Gaps and Aggregate Investment Gap\\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative Gap Estimate Cumulative Gap Estimate
in 2016 Failure to Act Calculated for 2011-2012
Analysis (Billions Failure to Act Analysis
2015$) (Adjusted from Billions
-------------------------- 2010$ to Billions 2015$)
-------------------------
2016-2025 2016-2040 2016-2025 2016-2040
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface Transportation...................................... $1,101 $4,334 $908 $3,931
Water & Wastewater.......................................... $105 $152 $113 $163
Electricity................................................. $177 $565 $212 $743
Aviation.................................................... $42 $88 $46 $82
Ports & Inland Waterways.................................... $15 $43 $18 $42
---------------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... $1,440 $5,182 $1,297 $4,961\\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\\ Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding.\\
\\ Source: Failure to Act: Closing the Infrastructure Investment Gap for America's Economic Future, American
Society of Civil Engineers
efforts laying the groundwork for broader infrastructure modernization
debate
The Trump administration has been vocal about the need to rebuild
and vastly improve our infrastructure, and Congress, on a bipartisan
basis, has also indicated its willingness to work on solutions. This
committee is taking a leadership role on this issue and should be
commended. This written, we should not confuse activity with
accomplishment on this vital policy initiative. The time is now for
elected officials in Washington to take charge and tackle the problem
with both adequate funding and a long-term plan.
For years, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has supported meaningful
action to reinforce our once-unequalled infrastructure, and we've
continued to offer a slate of potential solutions to prove it.
Last year, the Chamber laid out four pillars that the
administration and Congress should consider including in the
infrastructure modernization debate:
Increasing the Federal fuel user fee by 5 cents a year
for the next 5 years for surface transportation projects.
Implementing a multifaceted approach for leveraging more
public and private resources.
Streamlining the permitting process at the Federal,
State, and local level.
Expanding the American workforce through work-based
learning and immigration reform.
The Chamber is urging Congress to utilize all user fee revenue in
the Airport and Airway, Inland Waterway, and Harbor Maintenance Trust
Funds to invest in much needed airport and water infrastructure
projects.
The Chamber is also open to other ideas to provide a long-term
vision for transportation infrastructure and address the funding needs.
At present, the Chamber is holding a competition offering cash prizes
for ideas other than an increase in the fuel tax for surface
transportation from everyone--students, academics, business leaders,
the builders of the system, and the users of the system--to submit the
best, most viable ideas for a long-term sustainable funding source. The
Chamber will consolidate and publish all of the good ideas they
receive, and has recently started publicly discussing these matters as
on Tuesday of this week we hosted a signature thought leadership summit
event: ``America's Infrastructure: Time to Invest.''
highway trust fund issues
As has been discussed before the committee in the past, the Federal
Highway Trust Fund (HTF) will run out of money shortly after the Fixing
America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act expires in 2020. The
primary reason we are underfunding our highways and transit systems is
that the HTF is experiencing an annual deficit of $11.8 billion in
2018--spending $55.2 billion while only taking in $43.4 billion--which,
according to the Congressional Budget Office, will increase to $25
billion in 2029. Source: Congressional Budget Office The Budget and
Economic Outlook: 2019 to 2029
Congress has made up for this funding shortfall in two ways. First,
it has transferred $144 billion into the trust fund since 2008 to
prevent insolvency. Second, it has delayed and underfunded the
maintenance of the country's roads, bridges and mass transit systems.
The Congressional Budget Office further estimates the trust fund
will need up to $150 billion infusion to enact a 6-year reauthorization
that merely maintains current spending levels.
With a growing Federal deficit, the ability for Congress to
continue to inject General Fund revenue into the HTF is limited. This
is one major reason the Chamber supports the budget-neutral mechanism
of adjusting the Federal fuel user fee to address this issue and
provide long-term stability for our highway and transit programs.
how to increase investment in surface transportation
To rebuild and expand our roads, bridges, and transit systems, the
Chamber believes it is time for a modest increase in the Federal motor
vehicle fuel user fee. The user fee was last raised in 1993. Since
then, inflation has eroded over 40 percent of the value of the fee. In
addition, vehicles are significantly more fuel-efficient than they were
25 years ago. As a result, motorists use less fuel to drive the same
number of miles, generating significantly less revenue to maintain the
roads upon which they drive.
The Chamber is calling for increasing the gas and diesel taxes by 5
cents a year in each of the next 5 years for a total of 25 cents. The
proposal would include indexing the tax for inflation and for future
increases in fuel economy, so there would be no need to revisit this
issue in the future.
The proposal would raise $394 billion over the next 10 years, which
would be invested in our highways, bridges, and transit systems in a
fiscally responsible fashion. When combined with State, local, and
private-sector funds, this would go a long way towards modernizing the
Nation's once-great interstate system.
In addition to my responsibilities at UPS Freight, I also have the
pleasure of serving as a cochair of the American Trucking Associations
(ATA) Infrastructure Task Force, which has explored various ways to pay
for increased highway investment. Like the Chamber, ATA believes that
an adjustment in the Federal fuel tax is the most efficient, equitable,
and logical manner to increase transportation infrastructure investment
in a budget-neutral fashion.
The ATA proposal, the Build America Fund plan, calls for a Federal
fuel usage fee built into the price of wholesale transportation fuels
collected at the terminal rack, phased in at a nickel per year over 4
years. The fee would be indexed to both inflation and improvements in
fuel efficiency, with a 5-percent annual cap.
conclusion
The bottom line is that the time to make important infrastructure
investments is NOW. Delaying action only makes the decisions more
difficult and projects costlier. From the business community's
perspective, the question is not if we need to make these decisions,
but when.
The Chamber strongly supports modernizing the Nation's
infrastructure. We need a fluid, efficient multimodal national
transportation network that will support the transportation needs of
businesses from origin to destination across the globe, and from the
factory to the corporate headquarters, to main street retailers to
medical centers, to everywhere in between.
There is no single funding solution that will solve all of our
surface transportation infrastructure problems. The Chamber believes
communities should have a large toolkit of funding and financing
options available that can be utilized to provide the infrastructure
needed, not just to succeed, but to lead the world in providing
economic and social mobility. Improving our current infrastructure is a
necessary component of economic development for our country.
Here's the bottom line: A robust, long-term Federal infrastructure
modernization program, combined with greater investment by State, local
and private stakeholders, can engender the partnership necessary to
ensure our Nation has a 21st-century infrastructure network. But
without a serious commitment from Federal lawmakers, our Nation will
not make the kind of progress demanded by the challenges we'refacing.
Enacting an infrastructure modernization plan this year would
directly add demand and employment, as some 14 million workers, or 11
percent of the total U.S. labor force, are currently employed in
infrastructure-related sectors, according to the Brookings Institution.
Source: ``Beyond Shovel-Ready: The Extent and Impact of U.S.
Infrastructure Jobs.''
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding this
timely and important issue. The Chamber and all UPSers look forward to
working with this committee, the administration, and Congress to
support this critical effort to provide the tools necessary to
modernize America's highway and public transportation network,
stabilize the Highway Trust Fund, and grow investment in the Nation's
transportation infrastructure so each State and region can get out of
the system what they need to be successful--whether that is moving
goods or individuals.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. McArdle.
Ms. Meira, you may proceed.
Ms. Meira. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Graves, members of the committee. Good afternoon. I
represent the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association, and we
thank you for tackling one of the most challenging issues in
our country today, and that is the status of our
infrastructure. I am honored to share with you some
perspectives from the ports and navigation sector.
And the Northwest region that I represent is truly a
microcosm of the diverse national ports portfolio. We have big
import centers, like the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma, which,
together, is the third largest container gateway in the
country. We have export gateways, like the Lower Columbia
River, where over half of the Nation's wheat exports move out
to feed the world. And we have a network of smaller ports on
the Oregon and Washington coasts, which serve as commercial and
recreational fishing hubs, and they home port critical Coast
Guard operations. And that is just the view from the Northwest.
Across the U.S. ports generate trillions of dollars in
economic activity, and support millions of American jobs. And
our prosperity depends on the efficiency of our ports, and
infrastructure is key.
When we think about the infrastructure needs of our coastal
ports, an issue top of mind is the Harbor Maintenance Tax, or
HMT. I heard it mentioned a number of times this morning at
panel one, and you will hear about it a bit more from me.
The HMT is collected mostly on imported waterborne cargo.
It is intended to pay for 100 percent of the operations and
maintenance needs of our coastal ports and harbors. But since
2003, HMT collections have far exceeded the funds that have
been passed along to the Corps of Engineers for harbor
maintenance. So we now have a surplus that has grown to over $9
billion. So, rather than being fully used for critical
maintenance, that money has been held back to help balance the
Federal budget.
Now, our ports community has been working for years to
support comprehensive HMT reform. The past few WRDA bills--and
we have to say thank you for this--they had very important
steps forward, including setting targets to get on the path
toward full use of HMT revenues, a 10-percent set-aside for our
Nation's smaller ports, and authorizing funding for donor and
energy transfer ports.
As we look ahead, we continue to advocate for full use of
all HMT monies collected. In our region alone, HMT dollars
helped to maintain places like Grays Harbor in Washington,
where traffic has increased over 400 percent in the last 15
years; Everett, Washington, where nearly $30 billion worth of
U.S. goods are exported annually; and Newport, Oregon, which is
the home port for NOAA's Pacific fleet.
And this fund is also important to our Nation's small
coastal ports. Just one example in our region are the Ports of
Ilwaco and Chinook in Pacific County, Washington. Combined,
they bring in a total of 16 million pounds of fish valued at
$22 million for a county of just 22,000 people. And without
basic maintenance dredging, Federal dredging, the life blood of
that entire community would evaporate.
We also have a significant backlog of deferred maintenance
for structures like jetties, pile dikes, breakwaters, and more.
And unlocking the HMT is key.
Our association also supports a broader conversation about
the HMT. I mentioned earlier the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma.
They are naturally deep import centers, where significant
amounts of HMT are collected, yet relatively little maintenance
activity is required.
And for ports that are close to a border, that can also
play a role in their competitiveness. So we support an ongoing
dialogue about how to support all U.S. ports, including small
and donor ports.
And as we think about a broader infrastructure package
beyond navigation, our ports want to be a part of that
conversation, too. With the committee looking to build upon
improvements made in the FAST Act, we encourage development of
specific freight element in that new legislation, with programs
that are truly multimodal.
Our Nation's ports also support funding for first and last
mile road and rail projects to expand capacity and efficiently
connect our ports to surface transportation systems. We look to
continue to build on programs like BUILD, INFRA, RRIF, and
others for facilitating port improvements. And for ports which
operate airports, I would be remiss if I did not mention the
need to increase that PFC that Mr. Krauter mentioned before.
Allowing an increase in that fee will allow for critical
investments at our Nation's airports.
And woven into all these priorities is the need for
resiliency planning, and I hope to talk about that more during
the Q&A session.
Thanks for the opportunity to share our views. We look
forward to partnering with you as you get to work on
modernizing our U.S. infrastructure. Thank you.
[Ms. Meira's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kristin Meira, Executive Director, Pacific
Northwest Waterways Association
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, members of the committee:
Good morning. My name is Kristin Meira, and I am the executive
director of the Pacific Northwest Waterways Association, or PNWA. PNWA
is a nonprofit trade association that advocates for Federal policies
and funding in support of regional economic development. Our membership
includes over 140 public ports, navigation, transportation, trade,
tourism, agriculture, forest products, energy and local government
interests in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.
Thank you for holding this important hearing. I am honored to be
here today to represent ports and navigation.
ports drive the economy
The Northwest region I represent is truly a microcosm of the
national ports community. We have significant import load centers like
the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma, which together serve as the third
largest container gateway in the Nation. We have export gateways like
the Lower Columbia River, which ships over half of the Nation's wheat
to overseas markets. And we have our smaller coastal ports, the
commercial and recreational fishing hubs that provide critical access
to the open ocean and house Coast Guard facilities needed to ensure the
safety of all mariners.
That is just the view from the Northwest. Across the U.S., ports
and harbors are the economic drivers for their local communities, their
States, regions, and the Nation. Seaports account for over a quarter of
the U.S. economy and generate trillions of dollars in economic
activity. Cargo handling at America's seaports support more than 23
million American jobs and generate over $320 billion in annual Federal,
State and local taxes. In addition, all but 1 percent of the Nation's
overseas trade moves through maritime facilities. Clearly, our Nation's
prosperity depends on the efficiency of our ports.
Infrastructure is key when it comes to the continued viability of
our Nation's ports. Ports are often where all modes of transportation
come together to provide efficient, reliable and safe movement of goods
and people. Whether you are talking about highways, rail, bridges,
waterways or aviation, funding port infrastructure is a smart
investment and keeps America's economy moving.
unlocking the harbor maintenance tax is vital to keeping ports open for
business
When we think about the needs of our coastal ports and harbors, an
issue top of mind is the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT). The HMT was
established in the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to help pay
for Corps of Engineers maintenance needs at coastal and deep draft
harbors. At the time it was established, the HMT was levied on the
value of imported, exported and domestic cargo. But in 1998, the U.S.
Supreme Court found that taxing exported goods was unconstitutional.
Today, the HMT is levied primarily on imported waterborne cargo, and is
intended to provide for 100 percent of the operations and maintenance
(O&M) needs of deep draft and coastal waterways throughout the U.S.
However, since 2003, HMT collections have far exceeded funds
appropriated for harbor maintenance, with a surplus that has grown to
over $9 billion. Rather than being used for critical channel
maintenance, HMT revenues have been used to help balance the Federal
budget.
The ports and navigation community has been working to support
comprehensive HMT reform for a number of years. One of the key pieces
of legislation in support of this effort was the Water Resources Reform
and Development Act of 2014. WRRDA 2014 set important goals for the
full use of Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) revenues each year. It
also provided a 10-percent set aside for our Nation's small ports and
authorized $50 million annually for donor and energy transfer ports.
Because of the work of this committee, further HMT improvements were
made in the Water Resources Development Act of 2016 and today coastal
maintenance spending is at nearly 91 percent of HMT collections.
We continue to advocate for full use of all HMT monies collected.
Full spending of the trust fund is vital to ensuring that our ports and
harbors remain competitive players in the global marketplace. The
monies provided to the Corps through the HMTF are critical to address
annual dredging needs throughout the country. In our region alone, HMTF
dollars maintain gateways like Grays Harbor, WA, where traffic has
increased over 400 percent in the last 15 years, in Everett, WA, where
nearly $30 billion worth of U.S. goods are exported annually and at
Newport, OR, which homeports NOAA's Pacific fleet tasked with critical
data collection activities to protect marine mammals, manage commercial
fish stocks, and keep mariners safe.
HMTF dollars also fund maintenance of our small coastal ports.
These ports are home to fishing fleets, marinas and recreational
facilities, and they are critical to the economic survival of their
communities. Each year, millions of pounds of fish cross the docks of
small ports, bringing billions of dollars to the national economy. Just
one example in our region are the Ports of Ilwaco and Chinook in
Pacific County, Washington. Combined, they bring in a total of 16
million pounds of fish valued at $22 million. Think about the direct
and indirect benefit that has on a county of just 22,000. Without basic
maintenance dredging, the economic lifeblood of this community would be
at risk. Many of these projects also have breaking bars, serve as
Harbors of Refuge for commercial and recreational fishing vessels, and
provide critical access for Coast Guard Search and Rescue missions.
And it is not just dredging needs that we see on the horizon. There
are other elements of navigation infrastructure that often go unfunded
for years, like jetties, pile dikes, breakwaters, and more. It is in
the best interest of the Federal Government to take care of these
repairs now, rather than add to the already significant backlog and
deferred maintenance of the Corps of Engineers.
Our association also supports a broader conversation about the
HMTF, to address the concerns of ports which may not need typical
dredging or other maintenance, but who have other needs in order to be
efficient. In the Northwest, the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma are like
other naturally deep import load centers where a significant amount of
HMT is collected, yet relatively little maintenance activity is
required. For U.S. ports that are close to a border, this can also play
a role in their competitiveness. We support the ongoing dialogue about
how to support all U.S. ports, including our naturally deep water
import centers.
navigation infrastructure investments in the northwest
In the Pacific Northwest, we've seen what happens when our Federal
Government takes a proactive approach to infrastructure.
Early in the last decade, our colleagues at the Portland and Walla
Walla Districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recognized that our
aging locks would require strategic repairs to remain operational and
reliable. Our group worked with the Corps to advocate for a strategy
that would have the least impact to our regional and national economy.
It is important to remember the scale of our navigation
infrastructure projects. A catastrophic failure of one of our lock
gates would translate to at least a 1-year closure of that project.
That is how long it takes to design, fabricate, and install a lock gate
of that size. We do not have back-up locks at our projects. Allowing
our locks to degrade to the point of failure simply is not an option. A
closure of one of our projects creates a bottleneck for the entire
system.
Beginning in 2006, the Portland and Walla Walla Districts,
Northwestern Division, and PNWA partnered to discuss the highest
priority repairs, funding estimates, and proposed timeline. The result
of those partnering efforts was a 2007 plan for how repairs would be
pursued. The goal: minimize planned and unplanned system closures.
The Corps began working with stakeholders to prepare for new
downstream gates at three of our projects, and major repairs at three
other locks. A tremendous amount of coordination went into what
eventually was a 15-week complete closure of our inland navigation
system. This type of long-term planned closure had never been done on
any inland waterway in the United States.
We worked closely with the Corps for over a year to prepare
growers, shippers, ports, towboaters, steamship operators, fuel
companies, media, legislators, and the States of Oregon, Washington,
and Idaho for this unprecedented closure. Special emphasis was placed
on outreach to grain buyers overseas who were accustomed to sourcing
U.S. wheat from the historically reliable Columbia Snake River System.
Every moment of the 14 months leading up to the closure was necessary
to ensure that both domestic and international stakeholders were
prepared for the shutdown of our system.
I'm pleased to say that this effort was a complete success, and a
project of which the Corps, stakeholders, and Congress can truly be
proud. Because of the outstanding partnership between the Corps and its
customers, impacts to our regional and national economy were minimized.
The lock maintenance closure demonstrated how the Corps can efficiently
deliver projects while having a minimal impact on the economy. The
approach was so successful, a similar planned closure for additional
repairs was carried out 6 years later. This is a great example of
targeted investments which protect the continued efficiency and
reliability of a navigation system.
We have also seen how navigation construction projects can lead to
increased capacity and efficiency. In 2010, the region celebrated the
completion of the Columbia River Channel Improvement Project. The
Federal Government, the States of Oregon and Washington, and ports on
the Lower Columbia River invested over $183 million to deepen the
Columbia River navigation channel to 43 feet. Channel deepening
solidified the Columbia Snake River System's position as one of the
Nation's leading international trade gateways. Ports, grain terminals,
rail lines and towboat companies up and down the Columbia/Snake made
significant private investments to capitalize on the successful Federal
project. The result is an increase in tonnage on the system from 44
million tons of cargo in 2010 to over 50 million tons in 2016.
Grays Harbor on the coast of Washington is another example of the
benefits to the U.S. economy as a result of infrastructure investment.
The Port of Grays Harbor is a deep water port with a strategic coastal
location, making it one of the most important international shipping
hubs in the Northwest. Marine activity at the Port includes deepwater
ship and barge transfer of products from local and national
manufacturers to domestic and foreign markets. More than 90 percent of
Grays Harbor's shipping activity is related to exports, with more than
80 percent of their cargo arriving by rail from the Midwest and
Intermountain region.
Like most ports, the Port of Grays Harbor has had a number of
deepening projects over the years. The most recent Corps of Engineers
deepening program commenced at the Port in October 2016. The project
was completed in December 2018 and is already seeing ships loaded with
10 percent more cargo at the Port's Terminal 2, the largest soymeal
export facility on west coast. The deepening, as well as continued
maintenance of the Federal navigation channel, has resulted in recent
private investment of more than $220M at Port terminals.
The Northwest Seaport Alliance, a marine cargo partnership between
the ports of Seattle and Tacoma, is also planning for the future. As
many of you know, the container business is extremely competitive and
transportation costs can be the deciding factor in where to ship and
source goods. We need to do everything we can to be efficient, and
being ``big ship ready'' is key. Seattle is at the forefront of these
efforts as one of the first projects in the Nation to complete the 3 x
3 x 3 planning process, culminating in a WRDA 2018 authorization for
their deepening project. Tacoma also recently began planning for their
deepening study this past year. Both ports are already making landside
infrastructure investments to complement this effort. These deepening
projects will ensure that we grow both our import and export capacity,
increase the number of ships calling on U.S. ports, maintain U.S. jobs,
and serve our farmers and manufacturers who depend on these ports to
get their goods to market.
These are just a few examples of the ways our economy benefits when
we focus on navigation infrastructure and the supply chains they serve
throughout our Nation. We know there are similar success stories and
similar needs all around the United States, and we can't wait to make
these investments. The competitiveness of U.S. growers, manufacturers
and countless industries relies on the efficiency of our ports.
port infrastructure--beyond the water
As we think about a broader infrastructure package beyond dredging
and other navigation maintenance, our ports want to be part of the
conversation. As the committee works to build on improvements made in
the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, we would like
to highlight the desire for a specific freight element in any new
transportation initiative. In particular, we would like to see freight
funding programs that are truly multimodal. Freight funding programs
created in the FAST Act have limitations on non-highway projects. New
programs that raise or eliminate caps on existing programs for
multimodal projects would be helpful to our ports sector.
Our Nation's ports also support funding for first- and last-mile
road and rail projects to expand capacity and efficiently connect our
ports to surface transportation systems. These investments are needed
to truly modernize port infrastructure and keep our Nation competitive
well into the future. Our members are very appreciative of the work
done by this committee in the past, to ensure that programs are in
place to provide infrastructure investments. Programs like BUILD,
INFRA, RRIF, and others are critical to facilitating port improvements,
and we encourage the committee to build on these programs in the next
infrastructure bill.
For ports which operate airports, we would be remiss if we did not
mention the need to increase the passenger facility charge (PFC).
Increasing this user fee could help offset the cost of building and
modernizing airport infrastructure, and support much needed
improvements to aviation facilities, technology and equipment. This
will allow airports to better meet current air traffic demands and
prepare for the future needs of the Nation's aviation transportation
network.
Woven into all of these priorities is the need for resiliency
planning. Investing in resilient port infrastructure should be a
priority as Congress looks at not only current operations, but the
ability of our ports and harbors to continue operating in the face of
earthquakes, extreme weather, and other natural or manmade disasters.
In the Northwest, experts have predicted the possibility of a 9.0
Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake and tsunami along the Washington
and Oregon coasts. This would devastate our entire region, wipe out
portions of our coastlines, and require years, if not decades of
rebuilding. With ports on the front lines of search and rescue
operations, recovery efforts, and the ability to bring in medical and
rebuilding equipment, it is even more important for their
infrastructure to be ready when disaster strikes rather than seek
relief after a catastrophic event. While we anticipate that this will
be an ongoing collaboration among Federal, State and local governments,
we recommend that resiliency planning be a priority as the committee
evaluates infrastructure in the coming year.
As you plan your priorities for the coming year, please note that
ports and navigation stakeholders in the Northwest and throughout the
Nation stand ready to help in your efforts. Our ports, roads, rails and
airports need to be at the forefront of conversations this year and
well into the future, as we seek to modernize U.S. infrastructure and
ensure our Nation remains a global leader in reliable, safe and
efficient goods movement.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our views. I welcome any
questions you may have.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Ms. Meira.
Mr. Willis, you may proceed.
Mr. Willis. Thank you. Good afternoon. First of all, it
really is an honor to be here at the first hearing of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I know he stepped
out, but I have to mark the chairmanship of Mr. DeFazio and Mr.
Graves becoming ranking member. I am really looking forward to
working with both of you. And congratulations to the new and
returning members of this committee. You are on an important
committee for, really, you know, critical issues for our
country and for front-line workers that I am proud to
represent, as the president of the Transportation Trades
Department of the AFL-CIO.
In fact, more often than not, this committee has
demonstrated to the American people that party affiliation in
Washington can represent a wealth of good ideas, and not just
lines in the sand. Your willingness to work across those lines
has been proven through the recent passage of the FAA
reauthorization bill, water resources, and, of course, surface
transportation.
And while these were all good pieces of legislation that
the labor movement was proud to support, they are simply not
enough. They are not enough to meet the demands of our
transportation system today. They are not enough to meet the
needs of our transportation system in 10 years. And they are
nowhere near enough to what we need to leave: a legacy of
economic stability and world-class infrastructure for our
children, the way that our parents and grandparents did for us.
Past generations, they did more than just build the
Interstate Highway System, rail lines that connected New York
to California and every State in between, and an aviation
system that sets the global standard. They also created the
middle class by ensuring that those who built this country and
contributed to this economy enjoyed the benefits of a strong
union contract. Sadly, today, we are well past the point where
we run the risk of letting these legacies crumble away.
We know failure by the Federal Government to invest in the
infrastructure hurts working families. We know that it hurts
our economy and leaves good union jobs on the table. And that
is why today I want to take you past GDP indicators, past the
report card scores, and past the dizzying array of numbers that
any of us can point to, and instead briefly focus on the ways
that failing to invest in infrastructure takes a toll on
individuals.
The people that I am talking about are front-line
transportation workers who want to build and operate a first-
class system. They are Americans from all walks of life and all
corners of our country, who depend on safe and efficient
transportation.
I am talking about office workers who miss out on time with
their families because they are stuck in hour-long commutes to
or from work; the family in Des Moines, Iowa, who cannot afford
a car lives in part of the community where bus lines don't run,
and must walk 2 miles just to get to the grocery store;
employers in South Carolina, employers who are desperate for
better transportation options so that their employees can get
to work; truck drivers right here in the Port of Virginia who
regularly lose out on pay because they are stuck, sometimes for
hours on end, in traffic jams caused by outdated infrastructure
that cannot keep up with demand; air traffic controllers, FAA
inspectors and technicians, pilots, mechanics, flight
attendants, transportation security agents, our aviation system
that are forced to do more with less every day; the
disadvantaged youth of Chicago and Minneapolis who want to
work, who are qualified to work, but who have no way of getting
to where the jobs are actually located.
You know, we used to pride ourselves in being a Nation that
dug deeper, built higher, and went faster. But now we are
holding our economy and working families hostage by failing to
fund our most important projects, like Gateway in the
Northeast, Soo locks in the Midwest, and jeopardizing still too
often California high-speed rail.
Let me be very clear. Our members stand ready, willing, and
able to drive the buses, build the roads, move freight, fly
planes, and dare to dream big on projects like Gateway. The
policy solutions we have talked about them already, and they
are not complicated. We need to stabilize the Highway Trust
Fund. That includes looking at a gas tax and VMT. We must
return the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund to its intended
purposes. And Federal infrastructure investments must be paired
with strong labor policies and Buy America rules, so that
taxpayer dollars will be used to create good, middle-class jobs
that we can be proud of.
Finally, if we want to improve transportation and
infrastructure in this country, we have got to stop shutting
down the Federal Government. It is embarrassing, it is
counterproductive, and it is the political equivalent of
shooting yourself in the foot and then wondering why you are
bleeding.
By showing the courage that this crisis, our infrastructure
crisis, deserves, we can leave behind a legacy better than
crumbling roads, bridges, and struggling transit systems,
better than congested ports and airports. Working families are
ready. It is now your turn to show America that you are ready
to meet this challenge head on. Thank you.
[Mr. Willis's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Larry I. Willis, President, Transportation Trades
Department, AFL-CIO
On behalf of the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO
and our 32 affiliated unions, I want to first thank Chairman DeFazio
and Ranking Member Graves for inviting me to testify before you today.
And let me offer my congratulations to the new and returning members of
this committee.
Each of you asked to serve on this committee because you recognize
the incredible and important role our transportation network plays in
creating and sustaining good paying jobs and facilitating the world's
most advanced economy.
And, more often than not, this committee demonstrates to the
American people that party affiliations in Washington, DC, can
represent a wealth of good ideas, and not just lines in the sand.
Your willingness to work across those lines, which too often divide
us as a country, was evident last year when you passed a long-term
reauthorization of our Nation's air transportation programs and when
you continued the committee's tradition of funding our water resources
projects. It was also evident 3 years ago when you passed a 5-year
reauthorization of our transit, highway, and rail programs.
These were not easy jobs. Nonetheless, many of you here today
worked together to get them done.
Let me be clear, though: while these were all good pieces of
legislation that included hard-fought provisions for America's working
families, I am sad to say, they simply are not anywhere near enough.
They are not enough to meet the demands that we place on our
transportation system today. They are certainly not enough to meet the
demands that are going to be placed on it in 10 years. And they are
nowhere near what we need to leave a legacy for our children, the way
our parents and grandparents did when they had the courage to build
something as impossible-seeming as the Interstate Highway System and
world-class urban and rural transit systems in every part of our
country. Rail lines that connected New York to California and nearly
every State in between. A network of more than 900 ports through which
99 percent of overseas trade passes. And an aviation system that set
the global standard for moving people and goods safely and efficiently
across our skies.
Yes, past generations built a system of transportation
infrastructure that inspired a Nation. But they did more than that. By
demanding that working people have a voice on the job and earn living
wages, our parents and grandparents helped define the American Dream.
They created an economic system that allowed a middle class to grow and
thrive by ensuring those who built this country and contributed to its
economy enjoyed the protections and benefits of a strong union
contract.
Sadly, today we are well past the point where we run the risk of
letting those legacies quite literally crumble away.
We know that it hurts working families when the Federal Government
fails to invest in infrastructure.
We know it hurts our economy.
We know that when the Federal Government fails to invest in
infrastructure it leaves good union jobs on the table and delays the
ability of goods and services to get to American manufacturers,
business owners, and household consumers.
That is why, today, I want to take you past GDP indicators, past
the report card scores, past the dizzying array of numbers any of us
can point to, and instead, focus on the ways failing to invest in
infrastructure takes a toll on working families. I am talking about the
young adult who is ready and willing to work, but cannot find decent
full-time employment. The single parent who burns the candle at both
ends and is still barely able to scrape by. The office workers who want
to spend more time with the people they love, but are held hostage by
hours-long work commutes. The transit operators who, in city after
city, wonder when, not if, backlogs of deferred maintenance will lead
to another tragic incident. All because of our failure to invest.
The people I am describing are real people. They are the frontline
transportation workers who want to operate and build a world-class
system. They are the nurses, teachers, veterans, Government employees,
and business professionals who depend on a safe, efficient
transportation network. They are your constituents back home. And the
impacts they feel today are only going to get worse if we decide that
current Federal measures are simply good enough.
Take for example, an Iowa family who lives in an isolated corner of
Des Moines. Like many Americans, they are struggling just to make ends
meet, and cannot afford a car. A lack of public transit options means
this family is forced to walk for 2 miles along the shoulder of a busy
highway, often in poor weather conditions and feet from speeding cars
and trucks, just to get groceries. Sadly, many of their neighbors face
the same problem. The local transit authority is looking at options,
but tight budgets mean the authority is already struggling with
existing routes.
Federal investment here could mean a safer, more reliable commute
for the families of Des Moines, and the creation of good operating and
maintenance jobs for the community.
Lack of reliable, affordable public transportation is not lost on
business leaders, either. In Greenville, South Carolina, employers
representing more than 1,000 businesses in the area called on the
county and the city to come together and identify solutions to provide
better public transportation. Without it, they simply will not be able
to access enough workers to meet the needs of rapid economic growth in
their city. Put simply: a lack of resources to provide transportation
options may stifle what should otherwise be a model success story for
economic growth in a small American city.
Down the road in Fort Mill, employers have hired thousands of
workers across multiple sectors. But highways that are in desperate
need of expansion have left commuters facing traffic headaches and
safety issues so serious that they are beginning to look for work
elsewhere--leaving County officials worried that the rapid growth they
have enjoyed could be brought to a grinding halt.
Underinvestment is harming Americans in small and large cities
alike, and takes a particular toll on those who are already underserved
in so many other areas of their lives. Take, for example, Chicago,
where young black adults face an unemployment crisis of startling
proportions. Unemployment in Illinois is at 4.3 percent, yet 60 percent
of black 20- to 24-year-old Chicago residents do not have jobs. A
recent study identified lack of public transportation options as a
primary reason for that. The majority of jobs in Chicago are located
downtown and on the city's Northwest Side, far from Chicago's
traditionally black neighborhoods. This is the very definition of what
it means to be disadvantaged. The same thing is happening in
Minnesota's Twin Cities, where researchers noted that disadvantaged
jobs seekers are often qualified for entry-level positions located in
the suburbs, but have no way of actually getting to those jobs.
Failing to invest in transportation infrastructure goes well beyond
getting people to and from jobs that allow them to support their
families. Just ask truck drivers at the Port of Virginia, who come face
to face with America's lack of infrastructure investment on a regular
basis. Surges in containers from increasingly large ships regularly put
the port over capacity, creating traffic jams that can be 13-lanes
wide, 10-trucks deep, and take eight hours to clear. Port congestion
not only means truck drivers lose out on pay, lessening their
purchasing power and placing a strain on their communities, but it
means the shipment of goods and raw materials to retailers, small
businesses, and farmers is severely delayed.
At our Nation's airports, the situation is not much better. At LAX,
the fourth busiest airport in the world, air traffic controllers
regularly work overtime because of severe staffing shortages, raising
concerns about fatigue, traffic volumes, and basic quality of life.
Sadly, the issues found in the LAX control tower are just the tip of
the iceberg. Across the aviation system, frontline workers, including
those in other types of safety sensitive positions like systems
specialists and transportation security agents, are increasingly
required to do more with less because of America's failure to invest.
In fact, air and ground congestion at major airports has been
identified as the biggest economic threat to our aviation industry, yet
inconsistent funding, sequestration, and Government shutdowns have
hobbled efforts designed to increase capacity.
We used to be a Nation that was not afraid to dig deeper, build
higher, or go faster. But today, we have turned a blind eye to projects
that will make us better. By failing to tackle some of our Nation's
largest and most pressing needs, we are putting our country's entire
economy on the line.
Consider the Gateway Tunnel on the Northeast Corridor. The
Northeast accounts for 30 percent of all jobs in the U.S. and
contributes $3 trillion annually to the U.S. economy. It is home to 51
million people--one in seven Americans--a figure expected to hit 58
million by 2040. Yet, in the busiest rail corridor in the country, we
continue to move people and goods at maximum capacity through a 100-
year-old tunnel that has been in dire need of expansion and
modernization for the past 25 years.
At the Soo locks in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, only one lock--the
Poe lock, built in 1896--is capable of handling the large lake
freighters used on the upper Great Lakes. One hundred percent of the
iron ore mined in the United States comes through this one lock. If it
were to fail for 6 months or longer, the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security estimates that it would have a $1.1 trillion dollar economic
impact on our country and cause 11 million jobs to be lost. Yet this
project is still waiting on crucial Federal funding for the
construction of a second lock.
Meanwhile, America's first truly high-speed rail project, which
will lead to an estimated $7.6 billion in new business sales and $3
billion in new wages, faces continuous threats by Congress.
This is what good enough looks like.
Our members stand ready, willing, and able to drive those buses in
Des Moines and Chicago, to build those roads in Fort Mill, to modernize
and move freight in and out of our ports, to make the most advanced
aviation system in the world even more efficient, to build the
infrastructure we need today for the electric vehicles that are coming
tomorrow, and to dare to dream big with you on projects like the
Gateway Tunnel and California High-Speed Rail.
And yet we sit here today, still trying to pay for a 21st-century
transportation network on a 1993 budget. Still seemingly unwilling to
make the difficult political choices that, frankly, we do not think are
all that difficult.
The policy solutions are no great mystery.
We know that a user-fee supported system works when it generates
enough revenue to meet our needs. But that is simply no longer
happening with the Highway Trust Fund. Since 2008, Congress has
transferred $140 billion into the Highway Trust Fund from the general
treasury, and even then, it is just barely enough money to keep pace
with current spending levels. Spending levels that do not even begin to
address the larger investment gaps I have discussed today. Spending
levels that we know must be dramatically increased if we are to compete
in the world economy and provide mobility options that working families
are calling for.
We have long supported efforts for a modest increase in the Federal
gas tax, which remains the most efficient and reliable means to raise
revenue for our surface transportation network. Yes, an extra 25 cents
per gallon at the pump will increase costs for some consumers by
roughly $100 per year. But this calculation overlooks the fact that
investing in American infrastructure will raise household income, by a
recent estimate, to the tune of $1,400 per year.
We would also support any serious effort in this Congress to lay
the groundwork for a transition to a mileage based user fee. As
gasoline powered vehicles become more efficient and electric vehicles
become more prevalent, contributions to the Highway Trust Fund will
continue to dry up, leaving us back in the same position we are today.
At a minimum, Congress should spearhead an immediate effort to
dramatically expand the testing of a mileage-based fee.
We should take the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund off budget and
stop raiding it to pay for other priorities. America--not one of our
competitors--should be home to the best ports the world has ever known.
What's more, when Congress cannot show responsibility with the money
they collect for our trust funds, it harms the public's faith in your
work. In a very real way, this is about the health of our democracy. I
applaud Chairman DeFazio's tireless efforts to see that this happens.
I should note that if we fix our Highway Trust Fund and if we
utilize the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for its intended purposes, it
will free up limited Federal dollars for transportation needs that do
not currently have access to a trust fund or user fee revenue.
We know that jobs created by smart investments in transportation
and infrastructure are good jobs that people can raise families on. In
part, this is because of high union density is some of these sectors
and in part because of the Federal policies that have been associated
with these investments. In particular, labor standards specific to
construction and transportation have been included in past
infrastructure investment statutes and together have resulted in a
high-road labor model and ensured a skilled workforce is utilized.
These standards and other employee protections should be expanded and
applied to future investments considered by the committee. In addition,
Buy America rules should be aggressively applied to Federal
infrastructure programs so that we can grow our manufacturing base as
we seek to reverse decades of under-investment. It would be a grave
mistake for the health of our Nation to use an infrastructure bill to
attack these important laws or to undercut collective bargaining rights
that are essential to the good jobs that can and should be created in
this space.
Finally, we are here today to talk about our Nation's
infrastructure and what happens if we don't invest. But there is
another piece of the puzzle that must be stated clearly and loudly: we
have to stop shutting down the Federal Government. During the last
shutdown--the longest in U.S. history--two agencies vital to our
transportation system, the U.S. Department of Transportation and U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, went unfunded for 35 days. Grant money
was not awarded to transit authorities. Accident investigators stayed
home. And critical frontline transportation workers, including air
traffic controllers, FAA inspectors and technicians and transportation
security officers, were forced to perform safety-sensitive work without
pay, or in some cases, not come to work at all. If we want to improve
transportation infrastructure in this country, the very least we can do
is put a stop to needless, self-inflicted wounds by way of Government
shutdowns.
By taking these steps today, we can leave behind a legacy better
than crumbling roads and insufficient transit. Better than seaports
that no longer compete with our neighbors to the north and to the
south. Better than airports where we ask our workforce to do more with
less every single day. Better than an economy where the ultra-wealthy
only get richer at the expense of everyone else.
It is your turn in Congress, now, to show America's working
families that you are ready to meet this challenge. To show our
children the kind of courage and leadership that our parents dared to
show us. The kind of leadership that inspired a Nation to invest in the
economic wellbeing of its people by building the Hoover Dam, the Panama
Canal, the Interstate Highway System, and countless other projects
named after great Americans who dared to dream bigger than we seem
capable of today.
We must not find ourselves back at this table in 10 or 30 years
asking what went wrong. Why nobody rose to meet the challenge. And so I
challenge each of you and all of us to seize the opportunity before us.
With that, I am happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Willis. And now we will
proceed with questions from Members. Each Member will have 5
minutes, and we will start with the Members who were not able
to ask questions, but were here for the previous panel.
And we will commence with Representative Davids. You have 5
minutes.
Ms. Davids. From the great State of Kansas, thank you all
for being here today. I really appreciate hearing from all of
you. And I am going to start off just kind of--Mr. Willis, I
will probably direct the only question I get to to you.
One, I am coming from a State where we just elected a new
Governor in Laura Kelly, who, in our State of the State, came
out immediately with her priority of investing in
infrastructure, whether it is roads, bridges, our air system.
And the Highway Trust Fund is something that, literally,
everybody on the last panel talked about. It is prevalent in
all of the testimony. So I appreciate all of you continuing to
bring that up. I think that it is going to be important as we
move forward here.
One of the things, though, that I want to kind of shift
to--although in the Kansas City metro area, in my district, in
Johnson County and Wyandotte County, we have the U.S. 69
corridor, which is definitely in need. Secretary Chao came out
and looked at that. We have got a north loop project in
Wyandotte County. And all of these things will benefit from us
addressing the Highway Trust Fund issues.
But you literally just touched on the thing that I have
been thinking a lot about, which is the effects of the
shutdown, and what it brought to light, in terms of what we
need to be thinking about and investing in. Particularly, I am
concerned about the air traffic controllers. I went out to--we
have the--in Olathe we have a regional air traffic control
center. And I am particularly concerned about our pipeline of
an ability to not only attract, but retain and maintain a
workforce.
And can you talk a little bit about the importance of--the
air traffic controllers are organized, and I would love to hear
a bit from you about the importance that you see there, and how
that is going to help us attract and maintain people, as we
move forward.
Mr. Willis. Well, thank you, and it is a great question.
The staffing crisis that air traffic controllers are facing
was really exacerbated by the shutdown and the fact that the
training facility, you know, went dark for 35 days. Right now,
across the country, 18 percent of certified air traffic
controllers are eligible for retirement. That number goes up
considerably when you look at some of the high-traffic areas in
New York and elsewhere.
So, you know, you start shutting down the Government, you
start withholding pay from these workers, it gives them a real
added incentive to walk out the door. So you have a staffing
crisis today, you see those people hit the--you know, the
retired button, and you have got a real problem.
And, by the way--and it is not just limited for
controllers. We have FAA inspectors, which is a critical
component of the FAA. These are the people that go out, inspect
airlines, pilots, aircraft repair stations both in this country
and abroad. They have a staffing crisis, as well.
And, of course, screeners we saw, you know, by some
estimates, 1,800 people leave during the shutdown. And, quite
frankly, they have got trouble staffing up on normal days. So
it really set us back on those categories and other--that
problem would exist in any event. But again, the shutdown
really highlighted it and exacerbated it.
Ms. Davids. As a followup, can you talk a little bit about
whether--I suppose the importance of having an association
being able to be organized and attracting or maintaining
employees, losing 1,800 people that quickly--and that is just
one sector that you were talking about--can you talk a little
bit more about that?
Mr. Willis. Sure. Just to be clear, the 1,800 was the
screeners, represented by--you are right, the air traffic
controllers are represented by NATCA, and the FAA inspectors by
another union called PASS. But yes, NATCA is very active in
trying to recruit air traffic controllers, trying to work with
the FAA to make sure that that training program gets back up
and running. That is, you know, probably their number-one
focus, in addition to making sure that their members are
getting paid.
So yes, the union is very involved in making sure that we
have a steady stream of qualified controllers going through the
school or otherwise getting into those positions, because it
can take a long time, not only for the training, but for the
high-traffic places you can't just go in there from the
schools. You have to have experience elsewhere. So it is a
process that the unions are very involved with.
Ms. Davids. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio [presiding]. Mr. Smucker?
Mr. Smucker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
holding this hearing as our first hearing of this session.
You know, I certainly agree that there is an opportunity
cost here if we do not make the decisions that need to be in
regards to investing our infrastructure. And I believe that it
is an opportunity. We have an opportunity right now, this
session, to get that done. This is one area where I think we
can work together on a bipartisan basis.
We know we have a President in office who has made
infrastructure a priority, and would be willing to, I think,
sign a bill that would include additional investment in our
infrastructure system. So, you know, I hope this is the start
to what will be a good outcome out of this committee. So thank
you for scheduling this.
I wanted to share just a little of experience that I have
had in regards to infrastructure, passage of an infrastructure
bill in the Pennsylvania Legislature when I was there in the
State senate. We passed Act 89. Now, this is Highway Trust
Fund. And in my district, when we talk infrastructure, it is
roads and bridges, primarily, being in Pennsylvania.
But you know, the earlier panel--and I didn't get to ask a
question from the earlier panel--I just wanted to point
something out, pushing back a little on what the earlier panel
had said. They said no member of any legislature had ever lost
an election because they voted for infrastructure. That is not
true.
In fact, in Pennsylvania, after I voted for an
infrastructure package, it did become an issue in my campaign,
and there was at least one State senator who lost an election
primarily because he had voted for a transportation bill.
Now, I mention that not because I do not support investment
in infrastructure, but the importance of convincing the
American public of the need for this investment. People
understand, when you talk to them about it, that
infrastructure--everything from highways to ports to air--is
absolutely critical for a growing economy. Everyone here
understands that. We have talked about it.
But they also want to understand that their dollars are
being spent efficiently and effectively, and they need to
believe that the dollars that will be raised from additional
revenue will be put to use, not only to improve the
infrastructure system, but will improve the infrastructure
system in their area, and will benefit them.
And what we went through in Pennsylvania was a strong
effort by the administration at the time, by the secretary of
transportation, by the industry, and by legislators, I should
say--who believed in this, who went out and talked to the
public about the importance of additional investment. That is
what we need now, here, to generate this support.
And nobody should think this is an easy vote. And you know,
people are here to do the right thing, but at the end of the
day they are going to represent the will of the people in the
district that they represent. So it is important that we think
about and build the support for the kind of investment that we
all need. People will respond when we talk to them about the
need, and share with them how it will benefit them.
So, having gone off on that for a little while, I do have a
question. You know, I understand the Chamber idea--and, Mr.
McArdle, this will be a question for you--I understand the
Chamber idea on a gas tax. It is obviously a declining source
of revenue, but potentially for 5 years you do something in
that regard.
There is another proposal out there that you may have
referred to, but I wanted to get your thought on it,
particularly from UPS, and that would be something called the
BOLD Act, which included, essentially, a highway transportation
services tax, or a tax on freight, if you will. And then also
a--I think a--like a Federal registration on electric vehicles
that are not paying into the system at all, if it is all based
on the gas tax.
I just wanted to get your comments on whether you would
support something like this. My understanding is that truckers
association potentially is supporting that, and wondering
whether you would.
Mr. McArdle. Well, I will tell you. Let me--to the--
regarding the BOLD Act, I am not as familiar with that. I can't
get too deep with you on that.
But what I can tell you, that--the first reaction would be
that we have to make sure it is equitable. And any time I hear
targeted towards freight, my radar goes up on that, and we
would have to look at that a little bit closer.
But I would like to comment about the electric vehicles and
the tax and the--how does a highway tax incorporate electric
vehicles? Probably the first thing to let you know is that I
think we are one of the largest, if not the largest, private
holder of your alternate fleet, the private company that has
got the largest alternate fleet out there. We are looking
heavily at electric vehicles, as well, not just for the final
mile, but we have also got 125 Tesla trucks on order that
should be out here in 2020.
So looking at all that is available is important to us. But
when you get to the question--I think there is about 20 States
that have put a registration fee on electric vehicles. I think
that one of the things that can be looked at relatively quickly
is looking at a Federal registration fee on electric vehicles,
perhaps even a battery fee. Batteries are going to be charging
electric vehicles.
But you are right, there--you know, that is a gap that is
only going to grow. I think about 1\1/2\ to 2 percent of the
vehicles, registered vehicles, right now are electric. But that
number will grow.
So it is--it becomes part of--I think I heard earlier this
morning a 401(k) portfolio of how are we going to fund our
highways. That has got to be looked at, as well.
Mr. Smucker. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. Next, Ms. Finkenauer, Representative
Finkenauer.
Ms. Finkenauer. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio, and thanks to
all those on the panel, and also the panelists earlier, as
well. I am happy to be here and work on this issue that I know
we have been talking a lot about the last couple of years.
And I hope we--I am sure this joke has already been made
today, but I hope we finally get Infrastructure Week. I know
that is something that is incredibly important in my State of
Iowa, in particular, given that we have got the most
structurally deficient bridges in the entire country.
And I know Chairman DeFazio mentioned earlier that I sat on
the Transportation Committee in the State house for 3 years,
and I know worked a lot on these issues, and understand not
only the need for investment in infrastructure, but
specifically the fact that we also have a workforce issue.
And Mr. Willis, I would like to address this question to
you, given, you know, your work, obviously, on this topic. You
know, right now, specifically in Iowa, we need a lot of truck
drivers and building trades workers, and I am concerned about
the workforce shortages and making sure we have enough quality
apprenticeships and training programs in place to meet future
workforce needs, not to mention the bigger retirements we are
seeing today, as well.
Mr. Willis, given the work you have been doing by
representing transportation workers at the AFL-CIO, can you
tell me how important workforce development is when thinking
about infrastructure, from trucking to construction to water,
and what you would like to see on a Federal level for
investment in this area? And what is working now that we could
expand? And what would you like to see?
Mr. Willis. Well, thank you. So, obviously, workforce is a
huge component of this. You know, the building trades are well
known for the tremendous apprenticeship programs that they
provide, and opportunities for workers that, quite frankly,
wouldn't exist but for the programs that they have. And they
can come in and talk to you in more detail about that.
I will say, you know, at a transit level, I think that is a
part that often gets missed. There are significant training
needs on the bus and rail side, both, you know, mechanics and
operator, elevator, escalator, you know, there is a lot that
goes into these systems that I think gets lost.
And, you know, to your point, there are opportunities--you
know, and this was included in the FAST Act--you know, money
for front-line training for apprenticeship programs on transit.
I think, quite frankly, those should be expanded. And we are
part of a specific labor management program that we are very
proud of, again, both management and labor at the table,
figuring out these training programs and how to get them
implemented.
So I think looking for funding opportunities in the
context, whether it is an infrastructure bill or
reauthorization, is definitely something that needs to be done.
Ms. Finkenauer. Thank you. And I would like to open this
question up, too, to anyone else on the panel who would like to
answer. How are your industries working to attract and retain
the transportation workforce of tomorrow? And how can the
Federal Government be a partner in those efforts?
Mr. McArdle. Congresswoman, I would be glad to--you know,
from the trucking industry viewpoint, one of the challenges we
are worried about is the retiring workforce, as well, as the
need for drivers continues to grow.
Not known by many people is that the operator of a tractor
trailer, class A vehicle, within States can get that license at
about 18 years of age.
Ms. Finkenauer. Yes.
Mr. McArdle. To cross State lines you are going to have to
be 21 years of age. And we lose quite a heck of a population in
there. Now, we are not encouraging that it is completely open
to 18-year-olds without some rigorous testing.
What we would like to see is--and we have worked, you know,
with legislators--that if--looked at--or they are putting
together some proposals of how we can pull together some really
qualified trainers, trainers with 2 or 3 years of experience
under their belt with impeccable safety records, and they can
begin to mentor the employees that work for us at that young
age, to get them into the seats and to fill the jobs that we do
have.
The other thing that we are encouraged about is the
technology that is coming to the cab is attracting folks more
so than just shifting the gears and getting on down the road.
There is--you know, our objective is to look for folks entering
our workforce as they are coming out of high school, before
they get into a first trade or a second trade, and then they
turn to the trucking industry.
Ms. Finkenauer. Great, thank you.
Ms. Meira. And Congresswoman, I can echo that from the
ports industry. I can speak to the Northwest, where our ports,
our towboat companies, our other folks who care very much about
a working waterfront and protecting that, they are getting out
to the high schools to let folks know, to let these young
people know that we have family-wage jobs that are there,
waiting for them.
And it is largely an unseen industry at times. You don't
drive on it, you don't see it sometimes, but the ports are
there. And so we are working hard to get to the high schools.
Ms. Finkenauer. Great. Thank you.
Thank you, and I yield back my time.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. And now we turn to Representative
Stauber.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Ranking
Member Graves. It is a privilege to be serving with you. I am
really excited that we are going to have the opportunity to put
an infrastructure bill that is going to help the entire
country.
Just a couple of questions that I have, and my colleague
from Iowa just talked--questioned Mr. Willis about the
workforce. If this country--and I hope we do put--puts together
an infrastructure package, do you think we will have the
workforce, the blue collar union workforce, to build it in a
timely fashion?
Mr. Willis. You know, absolutely. And I think that, again,
the apprenticeships program on the construction side that I
mentioned is a key component of it.
And, look, one of the reasons that we invest in
infrastructure, A, the needs are crazy. But the other good
reason, they create really good jobs, not only on the
construction side, but they leave great operating jobs behind
and you are moving goods to market faster. And so our
manufacturing unions care about it. And if you do Buy America
right, you again make the manufacturing employers much busier.
So there is a lot of different components of how these good
jobs get created. From a construction perspective, the workers
will definitely be there. But I think it is more than that.
So----
Mr. Stauber. Thank you. And the reason I ask that question
is the prior session we talked about getting the
infrastructure, the appropriations, out to the communities, out
to the States in a timely fashion. So hopefully, if there is
appropriations, it is not 9 or 10 years before the community
sees that Federal project. Historically, it has been that way.
So I am glad to hear your answer, that we are ready for that.
And then I just have a comment to Mr. Krauter on the
airports. I am very excited to be on the Aviation Subcommittee.
And aviation, it is a sector that is growing. We have--in
Duluth, Minnesota, Cirrus Aircraft is the biggest seller of
piston-driven airplanes in the world. And they need to expand,
so they are working on expanding in our airport.
And I am looking forward to helping communities across this
Nation with the airport concerns and issues, because that is a
growing industry. And I think that, as we look forward to, you
know, how we are going to fund it, et cetera, when you have the
projects ready and some of the funding, we can package it
together, not only from local, but State and some of the
Federal dollars.
So I think I heard my colleagues talk earlier in the
session, and they talked about putting projects forward that
have the collaboration with the communities, because I think
that is where we are going. And so it sounds like you are set
for that.
Mr. Krauter. Thank you, Congressman Stauber. I have had the
pleasure to fly in a Cirrus some days ago. Fantastic airplane,
one of the safest airplanes manufactured in the world for
general aviation.
I think the takeaway also with regard to that is that
increasing the PFC will actually help general aviation in
general aviation airports. We commonly flex AIP money from our
airport, the international airport, over to our general
aviation reliever airport, which I am very proud of, it is a
world-class facility. So I do think that your comments are
consistent and aligned with where we want to go with the PFC
increase, as well. Thank you.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I yield back my time.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. Thanks for those questions. Now we
got Representative Garcia.
And after his questions are concluded, the committee will
recess for votes on the floor. There are four votes, and so it
will probably be a half hour or so, the way this place works.
So Representative Garcia?
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Graves, for organizing this most important hearing. And, of
course, thanks to all of the panelists before us this
afternoon.
I come from Chicago, and I represent a district that is
both city and suburban. And as all of you know, Chicago is part
of the Nation's transportation networks, including rail,
highways, waterways, and also home to two major airports,
including one of the Nation's busiest. At its root, good
transportation and urban planning means access to good jobs,
access to health care, and access to school and job training.
I would also like to shed light and shift some focus within
this committee to the needs of those too often overlooked in
our urban planning and policymaking processes. I represent a
district that has many foreign-born individuals like myself,
and majority Latino. And I know all too well that, for too
long, people of color in immigrant communities have not been
given a seat at the table.
And surprisingly, urban planning--and I will confess I am
an urban planner from the University of Illinois at Chicago--
and transportation policies frequently fail to adequately
address the needs of working-class and minority populations.
I am only one of two Members of color on this panel who
hail from the Midwest, and the only one of Hispanic descent. I
pledge to my constituents back home and to those without a seat
at the table that I intend to be a voice for those communities
that have been adversely affected by this lack of
representation.
Studies from the Transportation Research Board confirm that
immigrants in general and Hispanics and Asians are the fastest-
growing users of public transit in the country. The gentleman
from Amtrak, of course, knows this.
In Chicago, inadequate investment in Latino and African-
American communities has led to people moving out. A
neighborhood in my district, Logan Square, for example, has
lost over 23,000 long-term Hispanic and African-American
residents due to rising home costs, increasing problems in
transit, frequency, and reliability, and increasing congestion.
The lack of inaction not only hurts us as a Nation, but the
impacts to communities of color and working-class families are
profound and lasting.
So I would ask any of the panelists who could address this
to talk about how we ensure, if we do an infrastructure bill--
and I, of course, am very enthusiastic about it--how do we
address those inequities? How should we begin to think about
them? I think that is an important lens to introduce into the
conversation.
And lastly, how do we ensure that we do projects like
transit-oriented development that in Chicago, for the most
part, have contributed to gentrifying communities, as opposed
to being inclusive in helping create more livable working-class
and lower income communities?
Mr. Willis. Well, let me take a stab at that. In part,
Congressman--because I am from outside Chicago, and have family
there, so I understand exactly the issues that you are talking
about. And we talked about this in my written statement.
Chicago is a perfect example of where there are jobs in the
area, there is no doubt about that, but we have trouble
connecting the right communities to those jobs. And, obviously,
it starts with transit, but it starts really drilling down at
looking at those transit programs to figure out, you know,
where those bus lines are going to go.
And quite frankly, while money doesn't solve all problems,
and you can't just throw money at this problem, money is a big
part of this. So if we do a big infrastructure bill, we run it
through the existing transit programs, maybe refine them. I
think that we can help solve that problem, because that is why
we are here at the table. That is why the labor movement--we
care about this issue for a lot of different reasons, but that
is a big part of it.
So we are committed to figuring out how to deal with those
issues, because we know there is a real disparity there on
connecting those people to those jobs.
Mr. McArdle. Mr. Congressman, real quickly, from the
American Trucking Associations workforce development committee
that we are looking at, as well, we are just--have just
initially started to have conversations where we can do things
in the city of Baltimore.
There are folks inside the cities that really do not know
what the opportunities are within our industry. That is clearly
understood. And now we are taking a look to see how we can
penetrate to be able to look to make those--make our industry
available to those folks that really don't have an idea of,
really, all the careers and the high-paying jobs that could be
reached in our industry.
Mr. DeFazio. With that, the committee will be in recess
until the conclusion of the votes.
[Recess.]
Mr. DeFazio. With that I would recognize Representative
Gibbs.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the panel
for enduring all this activity all day long.
Mr. Anderson--yeah, right? On your testimony--I was reading
through your testimony that--it must have been the Hackensack
River Bridge in New Jersey there is your youngest asset? I
think I heard you say, built in the early 1900s. I see in your
testimony 450 trains cross that bridge every day. In a 24-hour
period that comes out to about a train every 3 minutes.
I got to ask you. With that kind of utilization, how did
Amtrak let an asset like that get depleted--such a situation,
that many years old, and didn't take care of it, or didn't, you
know, put a new bridge in? I mean----
Mr. Anderson. Well, we own it on behalf of the Federal
Government.
Mr. Gibbs. What was that?
Mr. Anderson. Excuse me. We own it on behalf of the Federal
Government. And there has never been an appetite to provide the
proper funding to invest in the infrastructure up and down the
Northeast Corridor.
So when you look at the asset base we have, the winner is
the tunnel in Baltimore that was dedicated by General Grant,
President Grant at the time, in 1873. And that is typical of
what we see in the corridor, which is the busiest railroad in
America, which is the spine to the economic development in the
Northeast. And we just haven't, as a country, had the appetite
to make the kind of investments that I think the people that
live up and down the corridor expect.
Mr. Gibbs. Yes. I mean just kind of blows me away, the
asset is that old, and that kind of utilization. You know, it
really addresses the question, you know, what Amtrak has been
doing. They can blame it on the Federal Government, that is
fine, but that is multiple Congresses, multiple
administrations. It just raises a red flag with me. So I just
want to highlight that, OK?
Mr. Anderson. No, it is----
Mr. Gibbs. I am not trying to be disrespectful to you, or
anything like that.
Mr. Anderson. No, it is a good question. I will say that we
do and the people at Amtrak do a very good job maintaining a
railroad that was built by the Penn Central Railroad at the
turn of the century. And our people do a very good job----
Mr. Gibbs. Yes, the last century, right?
Mr. Anderson. Yes. Yes, that is true. Got to get my
centuries right.
Mr. Gibbs. Well, I think, you know, we look at the private-
sector railroads, you know, especially the ones out West. They
seem to be doing pretty well.
So I got to move on because I only got a couple minutes
left and I want to get to Mr. Fanning--Fanning is how you say
it?
Mr. Fanning. Fanning, yes.
Mr. Gibbs. I am really kind of intrigued here. You talk
about the urban air mobility, UAM. And I was reading through
your testimony. I don't think I am living--I think I understood
this right. You could have passenger vehicles, cars, that could
actually go airborne and--we actually had a hearing last
Congress, recently, where they said we are not that far away
from--``The Jetsons,'' you know? I asked the question, ``Are we
getting close to where we are coming back to `The Jetsons'?''
And the person said yes. Do you remember that, Chairman?
Mr. DeFazio. I remember.
Mr. Gibbs. It just, like, kind of blew me away. So can you
maybe talk a little bit about that?
And I think I heard in your testimony you talked about 400-
foot level.
And then also, of course, with the interaction with drones,
too, because we see all this stuff happening with--Amazon is
talking about drone deliveries, et cetera, et cetera. So----
Mr. Fanning. So we already have vehicles in testing, and
there are some photographs that we submitted from member
companies who have developed and are testing things. There are
vertical takeoff and landing vehicles. I actually took a
reference to ``The Jetsons'' out of my testimony because people
come up with it on their own.
So those vehicles do exist. The issue is the technology is
not mature yet, battery capability, the power of those electric
engines for that takeoff and landing. So there is still some
more work that needs to be done on that. And----
Mr. Gibbs. I would assume the technology, too, would
include anticollision technology, right?
Mr. Fanning. Well, that is a part of what industry and
Government are working on right now, exactly, to make sure that
we have the proper systems, framework, and processes, and
regulation in place to make sure of that. And that is that
cutoff at 400 feet, the different airspaces. But it needs to be
thought of as one airspace when all this is up and flying.
But absolutely, there has to be a regulatory regime in
place, and systems in place, much like we have now, to make
sure----
Mr. Gibbs. So----
Mr. Fanning [continuing]. We don't have those kind of----
Mr. Gibbs. I only got 30 seconds, but interaction with
drones?
Mr. Fanning. So some people call these drones, too.
Mr. Gibbs. Oh, OK.
Mr. Fanning. That is a part of what--that is a part of the
framework that is being developed right now, thought through
right now, which would lead to something like the air traffic
management system we have now, or an extension of that, to
track and cover everything that is in that airspace below 400
feet.
Mr. Gibbs. Interesting. Well, future society. Thank you. I
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
Representative Carson?
Mr. Carson. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio. The importance of
completing the Gateway program cannot be overstated. I think we
know that. The Hudson River Tunnels and the Portal Bridge move
about 200,000 commuters every day. These tunnels are also a
part of the larger Northeast Corridor, or the NEC, which
carries 800,000 passengers every day and contributes $3
trillion to the national GDP.
The 10-mile stretch of the NEC is the focus of the Gateway
program, which includes vital infrastructure that is more than
a century old, and was badly damaged by Superstorm Sandy.
Given the significance of this corridor, can you describe--
Mr. Anderson, you can take the lead, or anyone else--the
regional and national impacts of failing to complete the
desperately needed infrastructure upgrades called for in the
Gateway program and along the NEC?
Mr. Anderson. We did. The Northeast Corridor Commission,
which was put together by section 212 of PRIIA, which are all
the States up and down the corridor that contribute to the
operation of the corridor. They did a study in 2016 and
estimated that if the Northeast Corridor were out of commission
for 1 day, it is $100 million a day in economic impact.
I would actually submit that if you did not have the Hudson
Tunnels and you had everyone trying to get over to Manhattan,
it would basically ensnare the whole region into gridlock. And
the follow-on effects of that would be so significant that I
think--we shouldn't get to the point where we think that is
what it is going to take for us to prioritize this as an
investment.
If the President has said the money has been set aside for
Gateway and Hudson Tunnel funding, we are ready with the Portal
Bridge. We have done the design, the design is complete. We
have gotten all the environmental approvals. We are ready right
now and, in fact, have some preliminary construction underway
on the first piece of that that is really important. But in our
view, this is the most critical piece of transportation
infrastructure in America today.
Mr. Carson. In addition to that, Mr. Anderson, I represent
the largest passenger rail maintenance facility in the country
in Beech Grove, Indiana. The work done at this facility is
critically important--I think you know that--to the safe and
efficient operation of our passenger rail system.
I have heard numerous concerns that there may be plans to
cut back on the operations and possibly personnel at the
maintenance facility. Is this true? And if so, please explain
what you all are planning.
Considering the short time here, I am going to ask you for
a separate briefing on any plans to significantly change or
reduce the work performed at the maintenance facilities.
Mr. Anderson. Right, and I would welcome the chance to come
by your office----
Mr. Carson. Sure.
Mr. Anderson [continuing]. And sit down and talk through
where we are.
The--we are refleeting the--both the locomotion on Amtrak,
so we just placed an order to replace the P42 fleet, because it
was in violation of EPA regulations, about 30 years old. That
fleet is maintained in Beech Grove. Over time we are--we have
to refleet the Amtrak rolling stock.
In the current plans, current budget, there are no plans to
close Beech Grove. We have been bringing down some of the work
there. And I think, over the longer term, we have a much bigger
effort underway to figure out where we are going to do our
maintenance work.
We have two big construction projects underway right now at
Amtrak to build maintenance facilities in Seattle and Oakland.
And we have major work on the east coast on the--in Brooklyn
and in Sunnyside Yard, and down here, in DC, in Ivy City.
So we have four big construction projects underway to
expand our maintenance capability, but I think that footprint
is going to change over time, because we are moving to much
more modern equipment. And I will be glad to come by your
office and sit with you and talk about what it means.
Mr. Carson. Does that change equate to significant layoffs
or a complete shutdown?
Mr. Anderson. No, it doesn't to layoffs at all. Because as
we have to morph how we do business at Amtrak, we can't do it
on the backs of labor. It has to be in a way where we mediate
the issues in a way that doesn't impact people, because there
are changes that we need to make in our network and changes in
the way we do business to modernize from a 1970s railroad to a
railroad that will meet the demand of millennials today. But as
we go down that process, we have to be very mindful of its
impact on our people.
Mr. Carson. I look forward to speaking with you in the
future. Thank you, Mr. Anderson.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Massie?
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Audio malfunction in hearing room]--allowing airports like
yours to--more flexibility to set their own passenger facility
charge is that you won't spend the money responsibly.
Is it true that you are going to build an amusement park
ride with the extra PFC money you might generate?
Mr. Krauter. No, sir. It is not.
Mr. Massie. Can you tell us how PFCs would allow you to
improve your airport, and what type of improvements those would
be?
Mr. Krauter. Thank you, Representative Massie. I really
appreciate the question. Our terminal renovation and expansion
project is really a very conservative project. As I pointed out
in the graphic, it is effectively making lemonade out of a
1960s terminal building and a 1999 terminal building, both
built, obviously, before the--post-9/11 environment, and both
very, very difficult to figure out how to make as efficient as
possible.
Alternatives to that could have been going out into the
greenfield and building the perfect terminal building, but that
would have been $400 to $500 million, and we said that is just
not going to be the right approach for our community. And so we
looked at a more conservative approach, and that is how we
developed the terminal renovation and expansion program.
It is about a $191 million program, and that will give us,
probably, some functional life--15 years, potentially more--and
some much-needed gate capacity, a consolidated passenger
screening checkpoint, a consolidated baggage claim area. These
are not things that are unnecessary or could be, I think, in
any way, shape, or form defined as being frivolous or
irresponsible in terms of a capital improvement program.
Mr. Massie. So it would cost $190 million, and how many
passengers do you accommodate every year?
Mr. Krauter. Right now just under 2 million.
Mr. Massie. So one of the other arguments I hear about--
against giving airports more flexibility to set their own PFCs,
passenger facility charges, is that you will set them
astronomically high. Would you--you know, how much would you
have to raise your passenger facility charge to finance a
project like that over, say, 15 years, or----
Mr. Krauter. I think we would end up somewhere in the $7 to
$7.50 range if we wanted to, say, get somewhere between a 12-
to 15-year payback on that.
But I would also like to point out----
Mr. Massie. Is that $7.50 in addition to $4.50?
Mr. Krauter. No, sir.
Mr. Massie. OK.
Mr. Krauter. It is $7.50, total.
Mr. Massie. So $3 extra passenger facility charge lets you
build this facility?
Mr. Krauter. Yes, sir.
Mr. Massie. OK.
Mr. Krauter. And the other thing I would like to point out,
too, is that the idea that we would be in a position where we
would just set a passenger facility charge at a very high rate
doesn't really make sense, because we are trying to manage to
an objective in our industry. And managing to that objective is
the cost per enplaned passenger.
We are very aware of the impact of our capital program on
the cost per enplaned passenger to the airlines. And so it
would not make any sense for us to price ourselves out of a
market, of a competitive market, by having a very high CPE. So
keeping that CPE competitive in a--you know, amongst our peers,
is very important. So I think that that serves as a market
regulatory function for all airports that are looking at how
they are going to finance their capital programs.
Mr. Massie. So what do airlines charge to check a bag now
at your airport?
Mr. Krauter. Up to $30.
Mr. Massie. Up to $30. And what are you allowed to charge
for the use of your airport to a passenger?
Mr. Krauter. On the PFC, a maximum of $4.50, which I get
$4.39 back.
Mr. Massie. So $4.50. So, like, one-sixth of what they are
charging to check a bag, you--to use a bag. You get to charge
to use an entire airport.
Mr. Krauter. For capital improvements. Yes, sir.
Mr. Massie. Right, for capital improvements. So if there--
if, like, the bag fees and those sorts of things have such an
effect on the price of a ticket, and you would be able to
improve with just $3 extra on your passenger facility charge
your facility, why do you think airlines are opposed to
modernizing airports using PFCs?
Mr. Krauter. I am not sure it--that they are entirely
opposed. I think in small airports in particular, where they
don't have the concentration in their market to warrant their
personal corporate investment in facilities--I think at smaller
airports I think they like the fact that there is PFC capacity,
because they don't have the corporate interest necessarily in
coming in and building their own specific facilities.
So I think that in my case, in Spokane, I think the
airlines are delighted that we have been very fiscally
responsible and have significant PFC capacity available to
build the TREX project.
Mr. Massie. Well, I hope you appreciate I am playing
devil's advocate here a little bit. I support giving airports
the flexibility to set their own passenger facility charges,
and so do a lot of conservative organizations and a lot of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I
agree there is a big cost to doing nothing or being stuck 20
years prior in history. We haven't adjusted the passenger
facility charge cap in a long time. So I support that, and I
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. And now we would--what we are doing
is that we had to abbreviate the first hearing, and I said at
that time anyone who was here at the end and had been waiting
would get to go first. And then, after that, we would go to
other people who didn't have an opportunity during the first
panel, but you weren't here at the end. So this--that is how
this order was established.
So, Representative Larsen is up next.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Krauter, I guess without going into too much detail,
what do you collect in revenues per year, and how much goes to
operation, and how much goes to reserves and borrowing costs
and so on? What are you left with? And I am getting at the
question of why don't airports just finance terminal
construction themselves.
Mr. Krauter. Thank you, Representative Larsen. Basically, I
think what you--what we are getting at is how much unrestricted
cash does my airport generate, and how much unrestricted cash
do I have available for capital improvements.
So I am just going to talk a little bit very quickly about
what unrestricted means, because it means different things to
different people, the way it is defined. But to us it does not
mean available, because we define available cash as that which
is on hand after reserves. And we maintain a number of
reserves, such as operations and maintenance reserve, other
post-employee benefits reserve, environmental liability
reserve, et cetera.
So after all of that, what we have available in funding of
a $4 million to $6 million a year, non-grant-funded capital
program is 6 to 8 months of cash on hand.
Mr. Larsen. And can you build a terminal in a timely manner
with that?
Mr. Krauter. I cannot build a terminal in a timely manner.
We are good at--really good at what we do, sir, but we are not
that good.
Mr. Larsen. Well, you are pretty good in Spokane. You are
pretty good.
Mr. Krauter. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Larsen. I want you to go home and say that, that I said
it. They will never believe it.
On your chart I think it is important to point out--well, I
would like you to explain. You have the chart, you got the
blues and the reds, and this is the chart that you handed out
beforehand. Is the interest cost strictly based on the payoff
that you have chosen? Or is it a combination of factors?
Mr. Krauter. The interest cost, really, is running at--on
its own there. It is--if you look at the upper left corner of
the graphic, you see the actual cost of TREX at $191 million,
and then another $151 million, give or take, in interest over
the course of the bonds. And you can see we have effectively
figured that we would have general airport revenue bonds that
would probably be 25 to 30 years, plus payoffs.
And so we go down from the top of the graphic to a scenario
of what would that interest break decrease to, or interest
total decrease to if we were able to charge a higher PFC. And
we picked $6.50 in this particular example. You can see the
interest beginning to disappear. And then, at $8.50 you can see
that the interest goes from $151 million a--in the total
project cost down to $66 million.
Mr. Larsen. So in your world who pays that red bar?
Mr. Krauter. The passengers.
Mr. Larsen. The passengers pay that interest?
Mr. Krauter. Yes, sir.
Mr. Larsen. Do the general taxpayers at all pay that?
Mr. Krauter. No, sir. It is the users of the airport that
pay for it. We do not rely on any taxpayer assistance to run
our airport system.
Mr. Larsen. This is how that works, OK.
Why is the AIP a less attractive method to pay for terminal
improvements? Or is it an option at all?
Mr. Krauter. A couple reasons. First is that AIP has been
flat for a very long time. And if you look at its purchasing
power--we have talked about the decrease in the purchasing
power of the PFC. But AIP has also had a corresponding decrease
in its purchasing power. So the $3.35 billion per year after
the FAA takes out what it needs to manage the program is $3.2
billion. But effectively, it is about worth $1.8 billion.
And so most AIP is actually--71 percent of AIP is directed
towards air field projects only. And on top of that, we can't
bond off of AIP.
Mr. Larsen. You can't bond off AIP, all right. I want to
switch gears a little bit with Mr. Fanning.
What is the single most--what is the one thing that FAA can
do, from a regulatory perspective, to address or to advance the
UAM?
Mr. Fanning. Well, first of all, it is getting the right
regulation in time. Other countries are focused on this. And if
we don't have the regulatory schemes in place in time for the
realization of this technology, other countries will get there
first. So it is not just a matter of slowing down the United
States, it is ceding that market to other countries.
But what is also important--and Congress has taken
leadership on this--is making sure it is the right regulation,
that these are performance-based regulations, because these
companies are approaching this in different ways, and this
technology is very iterative. And so, if we use old,
prescriptive regulation, it will slow down the advancement and
utilization of this technology.
Mr. Larsen. OK. And the other part of your answer is get
the remote ID rule done?
Mr. Fanning. Get the remote ID rule done, yes.
Mr. Larsen. That is what I thought you were going to say
next.
Mr. Fanning. There are a number of things in the framework
that--operations over people, operations beyond the line of
sight--that we have got to figure out. But remote ID is
definitely part of that.
Mr. Larsen. Got it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Representative Balderson?
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question
is directed to Mr. Krauter. And thank you so much for being
here. It is quite a privilege to have a fellow Ohioan, O-H----.
Mr. Krauter. I-O.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Balderson [continuing]. Here this afternoon. I recently
had the privilege of touring the air traffic control facility
at the John Glenn Columbus International Airport, and I believe
Congress must ensure that our air traffic controllers have
access to necessary tools and the resources to keep us safe.
Earlier this afternoon I agreed with concerns shared today
about how Government shutdowns impact the FAA and the aviation
workforce, which is a major reason I, along with another fellow
Ohioan, introduced a piece of legislation called End the
Government Shutdown Act here.
But prior to the shutdown, the partial shutdown that we
just had, there already was a shortage of qualified air traffic
controllers in this country. And right now there is only one
training facility for air traffic controllers in the United
States. Do you believe it is important to increase the number
of such training facilities?
Mr. Krauter. First of all, I started my career at Port
Columbus, Representative Balderson, so I know the airport very
well. And I do believe that there should be a number of
different approaches taken to try and increase the controller
workforce. I do think that regionalization of that training
curriculum would be very helpful. We have had similar
conversations, actually, with other Government agencies, like
the TSA, in similar fashion.
I think we need to also recognize the importance of the
United States contract tower program, which serves as a
training ground for many controllers across the country. The
U.S. contract tower program is 253 towers out of the 513 towers
in our country. And it is a meaningful and important incubator
for our future controllers.
Mr. Balderson. A followup to that would be are there other
ways that we can expand and recruit folks out there to get
involved in this industry, and encourage them, and encourage
students to invest their future in this industry?
Mr. Krauter. There are. There are many ways. And there are
many different organizations that are on the oars, trying to
get that done. Even at the local level we have engagement with
the Experimental Aircraft Association, with Aircraft Owners and
Pilots Association, with our State aviation associations, with
our Federal associations like the American Association of
Airport Executives, in particular. And also with our DOT and
FAA partners. I think everybody is really trying to look at
ways to fill that pipeline of future aviation workforce.
I think one of the things we need to do a better job of is
coordination of all of it. And I do think that Congress can
play a meaningful role in helping us do a better job of
coordination. And I think the infrastructure bill might be an
opportunity for us to look at that--you know, that--methods
that we are using right now to try to increase workforce.
Mr. Balderson. OK, thank you. One last question. Can you
discuss the difficulty small- and medium-hub airports may have
receiving the same tolls as the larger commercial airports?
Mr. Krauter. Absolutely. There is definitely an emphasis
being placed on equipage of larger airports. And I am concerned
about that, coming from a smaller airport, also an airport that
operates a general aviation reliever facility with a contract
tower.
And so, to me, I do think that it would be more helpful in
the future if we could see a strategy pursued by the FAA, in
which they are equipping the system, both from the top down and
the bottom up. And--because I don't think it is right that you
have to fly through time when you fly from a large community to
a smaller community.
Mr. Balderson. I agree. Thank you. My last question is for
Mr. McArdle, with UPS.
Sir, could you speak on how UPS is utilizing the drone
technology to help alleviate some of your traffic congestion?
Mr. McArdle. Thank you for the question. UPS is--we have
looked at drones for quite some time. And right now we do find
a practical use where we are helping with humanitary needs
across the world, not just--as a matter of fact, not within the
U.S., but outside of the U.S. Certainly you can imagine when
there are needs when it is very tough to get to wherever blood
or wherever medicine is needed, drones are a perfect way to do
that. So through our foundation we partnered with that.
When it comes to the commercial use of drones, we have
looked at it, we have tested it. We continue to look at it and
test it. We stay active in--where, you know, the--where the
space is going to go, and we are at the table with it. But it
is certainly something that looks like it could be promising
for extreme rural-type deliveries.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank all the
witnesses for their patience being here today.
We are working on an infrastructure bill, we are here
talking about that. We also--part of that also is we want to
make sure that this is going to be a green infrastructure
bill--that is, the transportation infrastructure that we help
out and choose we make more green. And certainly rail is more
green of a way to move both freight and also move people.
Passenger rail is the greenest intercity and probably also for
intracity.
So Mr. Anderson, I happened to have an opportunity to speak
with you yesterday. I am glad we--yesterday we talked in my
office about labor issues. I am glad that when we were talking
about what--earlier you had mentioned in terms of work that you
are doing to, say, streamline Amtrak, that you said we can't do
it on the back of labor, and I am very happy that you said
that. And we have to make sure that that is the way things move
forward.
But I wanted to ask you, Mr. Anderson, about--you know, I
am, obviously, as everyone knows, from Chicago. I have worked
on CREATE since I have been here. We have made a tremendous
amount of progress on CREATE. But there is still more work to
do, as you told me yesterday about the issues of Amtrak getting
into Chicago.
So I want you to--I want to ask how important is it in
doing an infrastructure bill, if we are going to help passenger
rail--not just Amtrak, it would also help, you know, the
commuter rail. It would help also move freight in Chicago. How
important is it that we, in this infrastructure bill, put more
money into the Chicago rail system?
Mr. Anderson. Look, it is really important, not just for
intercity passenger rail, but for Metra and for freight rail.
When you come from Indiana and you get outside of Chicago, it
is just a whole series of interlockings and a lot of delay and
congestion. And so Amtrak has provided letters of support and
matching funding for various aspects of the CREATE project, so
we are supporters of it.
I would note for you that for intercity passenger rail we
would like to build a direct line that is passenger-only from
Indiana straight into Union Station, as being the long-term
best solution to separating the freight traffic from the
passenger traffic.
But in summary, we are big supporters. We have done matches
when the local community has asked us to. We filed letters of
support. And we think it would go a long way, not just for
Amtrak, but for Metra and the freights.
Mr. Lipinski. And also important, as we had discussed
yesterday about Union Station and work on Union Station making
sure that the track areas get the work, the update that they
need. And I want to make sure we continue to be focused on
that, and I know--with anything else that may be moving forward
with Union Station in redevelopment.
So I want to turn to Mr. McArdle. We have talked about--a
little different issue here--we have talked about how we are
going to pay for--what we are going to do for the Highway Trust
Fund. And I just wanted to ask what your thoughts were.
I know that, for example, Germany has a VMT for heavy
trucks. We have talked about moving to a VMT, but it seems like
it would be easier than for cars and light trucks right now to
move more quickly to VMT for heavy trucks. And I was just
wondering what your thoughts were on that.
Mr. McArdle. Well, Congressman, thank you for the question.
I am not sure why it would or would not be any easier. I think
VMT is certainly one of those programs that needs to be tested.
We encourage pilots, true pilots, proof-of-concept pilots,
pilots that will test the--you know, the personal security
behind VMT, pilots that are going to test the--you know, the
evasion rates behind VMT-type models. Who are those that are
going to try to avoid it? Pilots are going to really understand
what the true costs are with the VMT program.
Mr. Lipinski. But that would be easier for--right now, to
do it for the heavy trucks, rather than--I mean easier than for
passenger vehicles, though, because we already do some tracking
of miles for trucks, right?
Mr. McArdle. We do. And then it gets into the equitable
side with the VMT. We want to make sure that--when you look
at--between passenger cars and vehicles, that the right
approach is taken.
Just one other comment on the VMT. I think it does need to
be evaluated and looked at, but when you take a look at the
number of registered cars out there--there are, you know, what,
close to 280 million registered vehicles out there--that we are
going to have to make sure that we have a good handle on what
we will be doing when it comes to the VMT.
So I think I heard it mentioned earlier today. It is the
transition to the future, but I think the bridge to the future
right now is still the Highway Trust Fund.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
Representative Westerman?
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
the witnesses for being here today. I appreciate Mr. Lipinski
talking about efficient green modes of transportation.
You know, the one that comes to my mind is on our inland
waterways, where it is our most green mode of transportation,
it is the lowest cost and one of the highest efficient ways to
move material where those waterways are available. But like all
infrastructure in our country, it is facing its challenges, as
well.
Ms. Meira, when you look at deepening projects and other
authorized but not yet initiated or completed projects, what
economic benefits are being forgone on the inland waterways
that we could be realizing if those projects were done?
Ms. Meira. Thank you, Congressman. So out in our part of
the country we have our own inland waterway. We have the inland
Columbia-Snake River System. So once you leave the Portland,
Oregon, area, you go 365 miles east, all the way to Lewiston,
Idaho, and that is a 14-foot-deep barging channel between,
again, Portland, Oregon, and Lewiston, Idaho. You go past eight
navigation locks, four on the Columbia, four on the Snake. And
these are the highest lift locks in the United States. So over
100 feet of lift at each of those locks. And we have one lock
at each of those dams. So we have one chance to get it right.
And so, when you have infrastructure that is that massive
as those projects are, you think long and hard about what their
needs are, what components are reaching the ends of their
design lives, what your plans are for repair, replacement.
And we have got, really, a wonderful story to tell out in
the Northwest. We have had two extended lock maintenance
closures. We learned from the Corps of Engineers that if we
were to have a failure of one of our lock gates, it would take
a year to design, fabricate, and then install one of those
gates. So the idea of our system being down for a year was
unacceptable.
So we worked with the Corps in a proactive way to get after
those needs, and plan for them. And we had two extended lock
maintenance closures, 15 weeks each, where we took the entire
river system down. And it was well broadcast with all of our
growers, our shippers, even our overseas buyers of soft white
wheat, one of our main products we ship. It was a total success
story. That is the way to do it, not to wait for a failure.
Mr. Westerman. Not to do it on an unplanned basis.
Ms. Meira. Absolutely.
Mr. Westerman. So, you know, as we look in other places
around the world, we know that the Panama Canal project, it was
conceived, designed, implemented, operational in a 10-year
timeframe. Sometimes it takes twice that long just to do a
feasibility study to see if we want to do a project in our
country.
What do you think could be changed to make that process
much more effective?
Ms. Meira. Well, the Corps of Engineers and the ports
community, they have gotten to work on something called the 3 x
3 x 3 initiative, meaning that studies should take no more than
3 years, $3 million, and three levels of review. So let's get
through the study and planning process faster so we can get to
an authorized and then a constructed project and get those
benefits out to the U.S. taxpayer. That is the way we should be
building and doing these channel deepening projects.
Out our way we have had a successful--one already go
through that 3 x 3 x 3. That is the Port of Seattle. They are
ready to deepen. They are ready to go to 56 feet. The Port of
Tacoma is just behind them. They are getting ready to go into
the study process.
Contrast that with one of our more recent deepenings, one
that concluded in 2010. That is the Columbia River Channel
deepening. That project took 20 years, 20 years to get through
studies, planning, the inevitable litigation, and then finally
to authorization and appropriations and actually deepening.
Mr. Westerman. But you finally got there.
Ms. Meira. We sure did.
Mr. Westerman. So, yes, I personally understand why we need
ports. You mentioned the port and the deepening project. But
what would you tell people in other parts of the country who
may be far away from a port why that port is important to them,
even though it is on the west coast and they are living in the
middle of the country?
Ms. Meira. Well, and first we have to say thank you to this
committee for raising awareness over the past 6 or so years
about the importance of WRDA and how everybody is connected
here to ports. So whether you are growing and making things and
you want to be part of the export community, you want to get
your goods out overseas, ports are important to you. Or if you
are going to the shelves and picking something up for your
family, ports are important to you. It is the key to our
everyday life here.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. At this point now we are--
Representative Pappas?
Mr. Pappas. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is great to be with
you all. Thank you to the panel for being here. It is exciting
to be in a room of folks that are so excited about
transportation and infrastructure they can talk about it all
day, literally. And that is what we have been doing here today.
So I really appreciate you being part of this.
You know, one of the exciting things of being a new Member
of Congress is connecting with constituents. I have been doing
that over the last several weeks, holding town halls, getting
out there to local communities. And without fail, if I am
visiting with a town manager, a city council, a mayor in a city
mid-size or a real small community, they always bring up
infrastructure as their top concern: they have a bridge that is
not open, they have a culvert that is inadequate, they have a
rail project that needs to be worked on.
So I think the folks around the country are really looking
to this committee and the work that we are going to be doing to
help advance the discussion over this in a way that is going to
produce benefits at the local level.
What we have seen, as the chairman said in his
introduction, over the past 10 years or so, was a 19-percent
decrease in the Federal share of transportation investment. And
we have a multibillion-dollar backlog that exists.
At the State level I have worked on developing our State's
10-year transportation plan. Always more needs than we have
resources available. But we felt the pinch of the decreasing
share of Federal investment, and it has resulted in more
deficient bridges at the end of the 10 years than we have at
the beginning, not keeping up with the paving, not to mention
all the other investments in ports and water systems and things
like that, that we are not able to adequately address.
So one of the bigger picture questions I had for the panel
is this. You know, we talk about investment and funding streams
that are available. We can also talk about financing projects.
And I am wondering if you could all assess sort of what works
best for your interests. Is it financing some of these large-
scale projects over time? Or is it funding streams that could
ensure that we don't crowd out future priorities?
I am thinking in particular of water infrastructure. I
don't know if, Ms. Lee, you might be able to address that
first.
Ms. Lee. Thank you for the question, Congressman. What
works well for Charlotte Water is when we can get those State
revolving loans in terms of funding and financing. The last 3
years, Charlotte Water has gotten $83 million from our State
revolving loan fund. And what that does for us is that that
allows us to manage our rates for our ratepayers.
So when you--you know, you think in terms of water and
wastewater systems. It is really the ratepayers who are funding
and, you know, who support our systems. And so just having
financing available where we can get grants for the smaller
systems and zero- to low-interest financing for the large
systems like Charlotte, it really is very helpful and helps us
maintain the infrastructure that we have.
Mr. Pappas. Well, thank you for that. And certainly the
backlog is great.
And I am interested in hearing from Ms. Meira. I have an
issue in my district. I have the 18 miles of New Hampshire's
coastline in my district. There is a harbor that has some real
serious shoaling going on to the point where there are many
hours of the day where boats can't come in and out. I am
wondering if you support fully utilizing the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund to deal with the backlog that exists of about $2.3
billion of projects.
Ms. Meira. Absolutely. We have examples like that all
around the country, where we are just not getting the funding
out there that is required to do basic maintenance dredging of
these Federal channels. All these channels were constructed for
a reason in these communities. They are providing value. We
should be out there maintaining them so they can continue
supporting the communities, their regions, their States.
We have got so many examples back where we live, and it is
not just the channels. The dredging ends up being a Band-Aid
sometimes because we never get enough funding to take care of
the structures that would, in some cases, help reduce the
amount of dredging needed.
So it is not the most cost-effective way forward, and we
are shortchanging ourselves in the long run. So yes, we need to
spend that HMT.
Mr. Pappas. Thanks. I hope so.
And just for the entire panel--we just have a few seconds
left here--I am wondering if anyone on the panel is earning the
same amount of money that they did in 1993. And if you are,
could you please raise your hand? That was the last time, of
course--oh.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Anderson. I am not paid.
Mr. Pappas. Well, Amtrak is benefitting as a result. But
thank you for your service. And how about since 2000? Anyone
had a stagnant pay since 2000 on the panel?
Well, thanks. I look forward to the increased investment,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. Mrs. Miller?
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for
being here today to share your expertise with us. Chairman
DeFazio, thank you for the opportunity to come together to
discuss the many opportunities to rebuild and improve our
Nation's infrastructure. I think the panels that you have
assembled have a wealth of experience to share with us.
My home State of West Virginia is at a critical juncture.
We have land that is abundant in resources and natural beauty,
but we do not have the infrastructure to match. Much of my
district lacks easy access to highways and interstates. This
makes it difficult for my constituents in the rural parts of
West Virginia to access services only available in more
populous areas, such as health care, groceries, and other
necessities.
The King Coal Highway, Route 2, Route 10, and the
Coalfields Expressway are critical access points for my
district, and need to be completed. I recognize the need to
maintain and improve these roadways, while also working to
improve safety and access for my constituents. These roads
transport coal and energy and facilitate economic development
for us.
My home town of Huntington is the home of the Port of
Huntington Tri-State, which is one of the largest inland water
ports in the United States. This port brings important commerce
to West Virginia, and lets us share the bounties of our State
with the entire Nation and world. I am proud to have this port
in my home town, and I am excited to work in this community to
improve our Nation's waterway.
Finally, rebuilding our infrastructure means jobs. These
jobs can breathe new life into our communities, and give our
constituents new opportunity. The aspect of improving West
Virginia's infrastructure is very exciting to me. This means
connecting our most urban and most rural areas, bettering our
clean water access, revamping our rail, and enhancing our
ports.
My first question is to Ms. Lee. In West Virginia the water
infrastructure in our rural communities is aging and out of
date. What are the best practices on the Federal level for
working with our localities to improve our water
infrastructure?
Ms. Lee. One of the best practices is to reauthorize the
State revolving loan program. To pass funds from the Federal
through the States to the local utilities, it is much needed.
Aging infrastructure is an issue across this country.
As I stated before, we have gone from, in 1977, from 63
percent of water infrastructure being funded federally down to
9 percent. And so, ideally, that trend needs to change for the
water and wastewater utilities in the country.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
Mr. McArdle, as you are likely aware, West Virginia is an
incredibly mountainous State, which poses safety issues for
freight transportation. In your testimony you mention the
importance of technology to improve safety for drivers and
others on the road. Could you elaborate on this?
Mr. McArdle. Yes, and thank you, Congresswoman. The
technology that we are speaking about is making sure that, as
we look forward in the future, we leverage not only the virtual
technology, the vehicle-to-vehicle, the vehicle-to-
infrastructure, the vehicle-to-pedestrian, but also at the same
time to making sure that, you know, our roadways are designed
to handle the traffic they have now, to make sure that crashes
that could be avoided, the types of crashes along the roadway
sides, that vehicles and tractors and commuters could be
protected. There is infrastructure that is in front of us every
single day that could be improved to improve the safety of the
roadways.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you so much.
And to the panel as a whole, in my district I have a bridge
to nowhere, nowhere. It just stopped. We have 3.8 miles of road
that never were completed. How can we better facilitate
coordinating and completing projects?
[No response.]
Mrs. Miller. You look as dumbfounded as I feel.
Mr. Krauter. I will take a shot at that, Congresswoman.
Mrs. Miller. OK.
Mr. Krauter. Having served on metropolitan planning
organizations for many, many years, I do think that that tells
me that we have some opportunities to do a better job in our
planning process, and to make sure that when we are
anticipating a project, that it has a rational nexus, it is
going to end up somewhere.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
I yield back my time.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. Now we would go to Representative
Craig.
Mrs. Craig. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. We started in
Minnesota with Governor Walz, back to Minnesota here for just a
moment.
As you may be aware, my congressional district is a mix of
really rural agricultural communities, as well as suburban
communities just outside the--south of the Twin Cities of
Minneapolis and Saint Paul.
So my question, really, to the panel--but perhaps we can
start with Mr. Willis--is how can we make sure that any
comprehensive infrastructure package that we come up with on
this committee will really strengthen our rural communities
throughout Minnesota's Second Congressional District and
communities like mine? I want to make sure that we understand
that America is a big place, and my towns and townships and
cities all are very important, and we need to make sure that is
represented in an infrastructure package.
Mr. Willis. Well, it has to be a priority. And I think one
of the issues that gets to it is the question that we were
discussing earlier: funding versus financing. And obviously,
both of those have a role to play in sort of figuring out how
you fund our Nation's infrastructure.
But I think especially in rural areas and what you are
talking about, you have to do the funding. You know, financing
can be a little tricky. You have got to find projects that are
going to have some toll or some return or some way to pay that
back. Again, there is a role there. But there is a lot of
projects--rural, some rail projects--that are going to need
direct funding from the Federal Government.
And that is why we are a big advocate of the gas tax to
stabilize the Highway Trust Fund. I think it is always great
when the labor movement and the AFL-CIO can agree on an issue,
and this is one we agree on.
So I think doing the funding right gets to your rural
issues quite well.
Mrs. Craig. Thank you so much. Anyone else have any
comments on how we make sure we prioritize the balance?
[No response.]
Mrs. Craig. Perhaps then my second question. You know,
importantly, we have talked about workforce development and
recruiting, and what can be done to make sure we have a
workforce to deliver on the infrastructure needs. What we
haven't talked about is the impact, more broadly, on those
working families across our Nation.
So again, Mr. Willis, I am going to pick on you in a very
good way today, because I think we haven't talked a lot about
the knock-on effect of just making sure we have that kind of
economic, robust growth plan for the country.
Mr. Willis. Well, you know, as we have discussed earlier in
the hearing, we are involved in these issues for a lot of
reasons. Obviously, you create jobs when you do these projects,
you have good operating jobs.
But we are also at the table because the labor movement
broadly represents workers that have to get to work every day.
And many of our members drive and take the bus and rail, and
there is a lot of multimodal needs out there. And there are a
lot of mobility problems in both cities and suburbs and rural
areas, where people have trouble getting to work. And
businesses are suffering, and we are hearing about it from our
members.
So it is not just--when we talk about this creates good
jobs, it is not just about the jobs it immediately creates and
people that work in the system, it is the ability to get people
to the jobs that we know are out there. So it is a big part of
why the labor movement participates in this debate.
Mrs. Craig. Thank you so much. And I was the former head of
HR--don't hold it against me--for a major Fortune 500 company
for a number of years in the Twin Cities. And, you know, my
observation was when we have public sector investment, that
certainly private-sector investment follows--if not
immediately, soon after.
So if I could ask, does anyone have any thoughts on just
what impact it would have on your organization--perhaps UPS or
others--if, in fact, that private-sector growth followed public
sector investment?
Mr. McArdle. Sure, Congresswoman, I would be glad to
comment on it.
Two programs that come to mind right off the top of my head
at UPS, one is in the Chicagoland area, The other one is in
Louisville. And we have found a way to where, when we need a
workforce, we are able to go into the community, provide
education assistance, if you would--meaning tuition, and it is
not so much a tuition reimbursement, it is actually helping
employees within the local colleges come together, create
programs, create criteria, curriculums that not only support
what we may need, but is important to the Chamber, the
businesses around our community in Louisville. We can support
in that fashion. We have a similar program in the Chicagoland
area.
I will tell you it works where there is a mass, and you
need the mass to make it work. But the--those are just two
examples, and we found those to be extremely successful
programs for both the community, as well as the company.
Mrs. Craig. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. We would turn to Mr. Rouda,
Representative Rouda.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hi, I am Harley Rouda from Orange County, California. My
district represents about 80 percent of the coastline there.
And what I want to talk about is the intersection of
infrastructure and climate change.
I talk a lot with my constituents about how climate change
is the greatest threat facing humankind. And I predicate that
on the fact that where we have built our homes, our cities, our
farms are all based on predictable weather patterns over the
last 1,000 years. And if you shift those predictable weather
patterns by changing the ambient temperatures of the atmosphere
in a matter of a few short generations, where we have built our
homes, our cities, and our farms have been built in the wrong
place. And we are talking about an infrastructure issue far
greater than the widening of the 405 in Orange County.
And I am hopeful that I can get from you maybe some ideas
where, in the infrastructure that you have participated in,
that you have built, that you can share with the committee
specific examples where you have used infrastructure as an
opportunity to address climate change. Please.
Mr. Anderson. As we have said earlier, and as I said
earlier in my remarks, passenger rail is the most efficient way
with the most minimal carbon footprint to move people through
urban areas.
So at Amtrak we have invested in a new Acela train set to
increase the capacity in the Northeast Corridor by 40 percent
over the next 8 years.
Second, we had the most foul diesel locomotives in our
national network. I think, but for being Amtrak, owned by the
Federal Government, we wouldn't have gotten a waiver from the
EPA. We marshaled our resources and just placed a large order
to buy tier 4, the most modern diesel-electric locomotives.
So I think we all have that same obligation to, in all of
our businesses, to face up to what global warming really means
in our businesses, and make real commitments.
In a prior life I was the chairman of the International Air
Transport Association, IATA, and we adopted the first global
framework around aviation to reduce aviation emissions 2
percent a year, ongoing from 2015, and to move to carbon
neutrality by 2050, but by 2025 to be on a reduction basis.
So I think that you can find many of those kinds of
concrete examples in industry.
Mr. Rouda. So in your planning process for any
infrastructure project--and, look, I know we have got extreme
overdue maintenance. The U.S. spends about 2.5 percent of our
GDP on infrastructure, which is about half of what the European
Union nations spend, and about one-third of what China spends.
What are you seeing, though, in the long-term planning in
these projects, taking into account the impact of climate
change and the fact that there are estimates of 200 million
climate change refugees by 2050, which will be impacting in so
many different ways?
Mr. Anderson. We do it from a macro perspective of
continuing to reduce Amtrak's carbon footprint by year, with a
goal across the top of the company. Our goal is to really
reduce our footprint and gain efficiencies of about 2 percent a
year. But that is going to need to accelerate, given the
statistics that you just gave us.
Mr. Rouda. Anybody else on the panel who would like to
weigh in? Please.
Ms. Meira. I know in the ports community the Corps of
Engineers in our ports think about climate change whenever they
are thinking about channels, about jetties, about the
structures and the things that are in and adjacent to the
water, which may have to survive higher wave heights, different
temperatures, et cetera.
And then, within the ports industry itself, there is a lot
of retrofitting of engines. The towboat community, they are
repowering their towboats to use cleaner, greener engines.
And then, in the Northwest, we have a big focus on
hydropower production. It is a green, renewable, outstanding
source of energy. We are blessed with it in the Northwest, and
we are always holding that up as a high priority to preserve.
Mr. Rouda. I can't let that moment go by to not point out
that if everybody would give up their cars and get on trains
and California high-speed rail in LOSSAN and the Capitol
Corridor, that is the biggest impact we can have on the carbon
footprint.
Mr. McArdle. Mr. Congressman, I--we don't build
infrastructure at UPS, but one of the things, certainly, our
investment in alternative fuel fleets has been significant. It
has been significant for the last 10 years. We have reduced our
carbon footprint by about 18 percent since 2007. We have got
close to 10,000 alternative fuel vehicles out there.
And speaking of the railroads, one of the things that is
not well known is that we probably move about 3,000 containers
a day on the rails. We have been one of the largest customers
of the rails. So rails are important to not just our company,
but to our industry, as well.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you for your comments.
And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. With that, we would
move to Representative Malinowski.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for your emphasis up front on the Gateway project, which is, of
course, extremely important to my constituents, as it is to the
whole country, and for your intention to take the committee to
take a closer look at that 10-mile stretch of the Northeast
Corridor.
I had a chance to do that a couple of weeks ago with some
members of our State delegation, and it was quite striking. I
had been through and over that infrastructure probably hundreds
of times in my life, but in the tunnel no one ever turned the
lights on before until we stopped in a special train, and
indeed turned the lights on. And you could see just what a 110-
year-old tunnel looks like, close up. You could see just how
close it is to, I think, what all of us would consider a
catastrophic failure.
And of course, Mr. Anderson, you know some 200,000 people
pass through and over that infrastructure every single day.
Many tracks narrow down to two tracks----
Mr. Anderson. Right.
Mr. Malinowski [continuing]. Over the Portal Bridge and
through the Hudson River Tunnel. And it is not just the
incredibly frustrated New Jersey and New York commuters. It is
all of the rail traffic in the Northeast Corridor.
And I wonder if you could maybe expound for us a little bit
on the importance of that 10-mile piece of transit
infrastructure to everything from North Carolina to New
England.
Mr. Anderson. We, actually, at Amtrak, think of the
Northeast Corridor as running from Maine down to North
Carolina, because we--when we sell tickets and people travel
across that infrastructure, it is connecting people all the way
down from North Carolina, even down into Florida, all the way
up through the east coast to Maine and into Canada. So it is
really an interconnected network, and we run that network on an
interconnected basis with all of our commuter partners.
So it is really pretty remarkable, when you think about it.
We run 24 trains an hour. And Amtrak maintains and dispatches
all of that traffic, because it is our railroad. But we take it
as our responsibility to make NJT, LIRR, VRE, SEPTA, all of our
partners, we have to do a really good job for them.
So when you think about that 24 trains an hour, if you had
one of those go down we would be running 6 trains an hour. And
at six trains an hour you would put New York City in gridlock,
and all those connections that we sell from down in North
Carolina and down in Florida up through the Northeast would all
be cut off.
And the impact would ripple all up and down the east coast,
because, when you think about it, all the big--New York is the
banking center of the world. Well, many of those banks have all
of their infrastructure and operations in New Jersey. And the
banking system relies upon--just like all the industry in New
York and the financial services industry--relies on Amtrak.
And there is no way that you can somehow or another put
that traffic over the George Washington Bridge or the Holland
Tunnel. It is just not enough capacity to be able to do it. So
in effect, you would shut down the economic activity in
Manhattan.
Mr. Malinowski. Exactly. Now, just this afternoon President
Trump, in an interview with Newsday, said that he is now open
to funding the Gateway project. I hope that is true. I would
certainly welcome it if it is true. He said we have the money
set aside, we haven't decided to use it yet, which is an
interesting statement.
I want to ask you about the next step in the process,
should the commitment be there. My understanding is that for
the Hudson River Tunnel, that would be getting the final
environmental impact statement done. Now, is that correct? And
you have submitted all the paperwork, all the reports necessary
for that.
Mr. Anderson. The--yes, we have.
Mr. Malinowski. OK.
Mr. Anderson. The first piece is the Portal Bridge, so
the----
Mr. Malinowski. Right. That is all ready, that is right----
Mr. Anderson. That is ready to go. And New Jersey has given
their half-a--you know, basically, a 50-percent match. And we
are ready to begin construction on the Portal Bridge
replacement. Everything is ready to go. The design is done,
NEPA is done, we are set.
The Hudson River Tunnel, we have continued at Amtrak--and
this is back to what we have been doing the last 3 years--we
have been trying to be really good stewards, so we have
continued the design process on the tunnels. In other words,
while we are restricted by our FRA grant from spending anything
on major construction, we are spending the money to do the
design and the engineering. And the environmental approval is
right now at DOT.
So the--and fortunately, the States of New York and New
Jersey are both in the process of passing legislation to create
the Gateway Development Corporation. We are fortunate at Amtrak
to have Tony Coscia, who--as our chairman, who was the former
chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. He
was in charge of building the tower. He is the chairman of the
Gateway Development Corporation. And Stephen Gardner, behind
me, who knows more about this project than anybody on earth,
are the leaders of that effort for Amtrak.
So we get that legislation passed, then we have a recipient
for the Federal funding. And you know, there is an
inevitability that this is going to get built. So why we spend
all this time gyrating around, it is not a Republican issue or
a Democratic issue. It is an American issue. And what we ought
to do is just fund it and get on with it, because a 1906 tunnel
under the Hudson River just doesn't get it done for this
country.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you so much.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. Now Representative Fletcher. Thanks
for your patience.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much, Chairman DeFazio. I want
to thank you and Ranking Member Graves for holding this
important hearing today, and I want to thank all the witnesses
for coming. Your testimony has been extremely helpful and
useful as we set about our work and think about the cost of
doing nothing.
I represent Texas's Seventh Congressional District in
Houston. And as many of you can probably imagine, I am very
interested in these issues. It is a big part of why I decided
to come to Washington.
Houston is a metropolitan area now of just under 7 million
people, ranking as the fourth largest in the Nation. More than
250 people move to Houston every single day. And our
infrastructure is feeling the challenge.
In particular, though, what we have talked about is the
incredible infrastructure need we have in our community
following Hurricane Harvey, which many of you will remember
from August of 2017. And so I want to focus my questions, for
the purpose of this hearing, on a concept that we have heard
from some of you about, but I want to specifically follow up
with Ms. Lee and Ms. Meira about: the conversation about
resiliency planning and what it looks like to plan a resilient
infrastructure.
I think not only for the Greater Houston area, which is on
the gulf coast, but for coastal communities across the country,
when we talk about rebuilding our infrastructure, we are
talking about rebuilding resilient infrastructure. And I think
we really need to understand what kinds of specific things that
you think, Ms. Meira, in terms of ports and, Ms. Lee, for you,
in terms of especially the stormwater conveyances and systems.
But the water systems in general, when we talk about what
would make these more resilient, what are the things that you
specifically would like to see? And how would you define that
resiliency, or the kinds of things we should be doing in our
ports and in our water systems?
Ms. Meira. Great. So I will start off, and I will tell you
that in our part of the world we worry about earthquakes. And
so we are actively planning for a 9.0 Cascadia subduction event
to happen somewhere in the Portland-Seattle area. We are part
of that ring of fire there. And so, when we have that
earthquake, there is a high likelihood that it will be
accompanied by a coastal tsunami.
So Portland is about 100 miles inland--river miles, at
least--from the Pacific Ocean. But out on the ocean side there
will likely be a tsunami that comes in and devastates our
coastal ports. So we will have two things to respond to. We
will have all of those folks in our metropolitan areas who will
be without all of the basic services, and we will have hurting
people out on the coast. And likely, all of the bridges down
between Portland and the coast.
Those are the things that the State of Oregon and the State
of Washington, our ports, the Federal--all of our Federal
partners, we are all thinking about that and planning for that
now, determining where we will actually shut down operations
and say those folks are going to have to concentrate on their
families, we are shifting the headquarters, whatever group it
is, inland hundreds of miles, because we know that the impacted
areas won't be able to respond.
So it is a combination of planning, but then also being
thoughtful about the infrastructure that comes after it.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you very much.
Ms. Lee?
Ms. Lee. Yes. I definitely echo her comments regarding
planning.
What we look for would be controllable and uncontrollable
impacts to our infrastructure. And the water sector is really
implementing and evaluating a number of strategies regarding
infrastructure resiliency. We are looking at our resource
recovery, we are looking at energy, we are looking at ways to
recycle our water and nutrients and nitrogen and phosphate. And
so, you know, we are looking at technologies that will allow us
to look at the controllable and the uncontrollable impacts.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you. I guess one question I have in
hearing about the ports, Ms. Meira, we experienced that same
concern about storm surge and coastal storm surge. Have you all
been working on plans, or do you have ideas about how we can
create physical infrastructure to address the storm surge
concerns?
Ms. Meira. Yes, absolutely. So our--the State of Oregon is
working with our ports, working with the Coast Guard, working
with the Corps of Engineers to understand exactly what our
coastal ports can currently withstand, as built, trying to get
a sense of what the tsunami will look like, and then trying to
determine what infrastructure will be left.
Will we be able to land any kind of vessels at those ports,
or will they have been essentially scrubbed clean? And then you
are looking at parking offshore assets, and helicoptering in
relief efforts. Those are the kinds of conversations we are
having. It is likely to be devastating, and to take not weeks
or months, but years to recover from.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. I thank the gentlelady. And now,
last and not least, Representative Mucarsel-Powell from
Florida.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The last one,
and the most interesting one. I can't tell you how excited I am
to finally ask.
I have 1,000 questions. I don't know if I can do all of
this in 5 minutes. But thank you so much for being here with us
this afternoon.
I represent south Florida, all of the Florida Keys, Monroe
County, and parts of Miami-Dade County. So, as you can imagine
my excitement when I was chosen to be a part of this committee,
because we definitely are ground zero for sea level rise, the
impacts of climate change, and our infrastructure is crumbling.
So you know, we have been hit by major hurricanes, floods,
and extreme weather events. In 2017, Hurricane Irma was the
strongest hurricane in history coming from the Atlantic Ocean.
We really saw there the cost of Federal inaction.
You can imagine how urgent it is for us to invest in
protecting--we have seven bridges that ties Monroe County, all
of the Florida Keys, to the mainland. One of them is the Card
Sound Road Bridge, which is right now in dire need of
investment and infrastructure. And I am wondering--and I--my
first question, because I do have several. I don't know who
would take this question, but you can tell me.
What do you think, with this bridge, which is only one of
two bridges that connects the northern part of the Keys to the
mainland, if we only have--if we were to invest in trying to
get that bridge up to par with where it needs to be, what would
that mean, if we only have one reliable means of evacuating to
the mainland in the event of an emergency? So you would only
have one road. Can you speak to us about the public safety
risks that this would possess?
Mr. McArdle. Congresswoman, I can just tell you that,
certainly from a transportation standpoint, motor carriers, a
service, a delivery service option, any way that--you know,
even to feed the goods and services to--or goods to the
businesses that are on the wrong side of that traffic jam, it
would be something to take a very, very long time to get
through. It is going to be very, very difficult.
And you know, and then it is just--it is going to compound
into what becomes the priority: evacuations, getting goods
delivered, the rebuild time. I can see it would be a heck of a
challenge for you, for all of us.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. And my community down in the Keys also
has really seen the cost of not really investing in our
infrastructure. Our local governments have fronted significant
funds toward the implementation of the Florida Keys water
quality improvement program. And, as a result, Keys residents
have footed a majority of the bill for the water treatment
system in the region.
We have also a very serious issue of leaky septic tanks in
the southern part of Miami-Dade County, as well. And we have
seen on a regular basis the consequences of having an
insufficient system.
So I wanted to ask, Director Lee, if you could talk about
the importance of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, and
building and maintaining a sufficient septic system. Because,
as you can imagine, it is unacceptable that in our country and
in south Florida we only have half of the septic tanks that
function during parts of the year. So, if you could, speak
about that.
Ms. Lee. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. That
fund is so important to utilities across the country, across
the Nation. And that is a vehicle for us to be able to fund the
infrastructure improvements that are needed. The cost is passed
on to our ratepayers.
And so the more funding we can get for utilities, then
there is a direct correlation to what our ratepayers will be
paying. We need the--we just need that local funding. We need
the State revolving loans. We need funds going down to the
public utilities across this country, because aging
infrastructure is an issue. It is not going away. Water and
wastewater services are basic to human life, and you have given
some examples of the impact of not being able to fund that
infrastructure appropriately.
So if I could leave you with something, really consider
reauthorizing State revolving funding, reauthorizing WIFIA in
fiscal year 2021, and ensuring that we have got funds that can
be passed down to the local level to take care of the basic
infrastructure that is really responsible for human life.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, do I have more time?
Mr. DeFazio. No, you don't.
Ms. Mucarsel-Powell. I have, like, 10 more questions. Yes.
Mr. DeFazio. You are over, sorry.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DeFazio. OK, this will be--I think I will be the last
one. I will go quickly.
And first, I wish to discuss the PFC. And I know that
important people are listening. And so here is the argument I
have been having for years with the airlines.
So if you put another dollar, $2 on the ticket, no one is
going to fly again. They are just going to walk away. And I
said, ``Well, what about bag fees?'' Well, that is part of the
passage and the ticket, and all that.
But to me, a big part of the experience is, when you walk
into the airport, is it properly configured for security so you
are not standing in these lines forever? You know, when we go
out, are the gates adequate for the number of people? Do you
have enough gates so you don't sit on the tarmac idling, and
wasting fuel, which is happening more and more and more and
more frequently for people.
So I think it is all part of the experience. It is one
experience. And I just quite can't get to the bottom of it. And
I want to ask this question.
So if I look at your option 1, the 30-year payoff full
bonding, there is $151 million of interest over 30 years. Now,
who is going to pay that?
Mr. Krauter. The users.
Mr. DeFazio. The users, OK. And that would be both the
airlines and their passengers, right? Because you are going to
get to renegotiate your gate contract somewhere in that 30--I
am sure you don't have longer than 30-year contracts, do you?
Mr. Krauter. No, sir.
Mr. DeFazio. So, one way or another, the airlines and/or
the passengers are going to pay for that.
Mr. Krauter. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. And so, if we look at your last--well, I won't
even be that extreme.
Go to your next-to-the-last option, we are at $34,200,000.
So we subtract that. So--OK, that takes us down to $117, $118
million of difference. So wouldn't it be prudent to do it now
and not waste $118 million, and send it to the banks, or Wall
Street, or wherever you borrowed the money?
Mr. Krauter. We believe that it would be prudent. We do not
want to take on unnecessary debt.
Mr. DeFazio. Right.
Mr. Krauter. And on top of that, we don't want to be
extended out 38 years on our passenger facility charge to pay
for all that.
Mr. DeFazio. Right.
Mr. Krauter. We have a lot of other projects that we would
like to build, instead of paying the banks the interest.
Mr. DeFazio. And you are not building a--you are not like
Singapore, wherever they are putting in the waterfalls and the
Taj Mahal, and the--all that stuff. I mean in the United States
we restrict how you can use the PFC money.
Mr. Krauter. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. We have a very
robust consultation process with our airline partners, and an
approval process with the FAA. Our terminal renovation and
expansion project is very modest, very lean, answering all
those issues that you pointed out at the beginning of your
question.
Mr. DeFazio. OK. And I would like Ms. Meira to answer just
one--I mean--how about, you know, we have shutdowns, we have--
you know, we don't know what is going to be in the President's
budget or what Congress is going to appropriate on an annual
basis, in terms of harbors, who is going to get dredged, who
isn't, whose jetty is on the, you know, very long list the
Corps has for reconstruction, and how much more will it fail
before we fix it.
Could you just address how important it would be to have
more predictability, let along more money being invested?
Ms. Meira. If we have both, if we have more consistent
funding--so more funding and more consistency--we would have
more efficient projects, and we would have better return on
investment for the U.S. taxpayer.
We have seen in the Northwest what it looks like when the
Corps is, at times, adequately funded for a particular project.
They are very efficient. They work very well with stakeholders.
We have got some great success stories. And I know that you are
aware of them. But we also have a lot of failures, and that is
because we are not funding the Corps the way we should.
And some of those failures, they lead to unsafe conditions.
And you are very aware of them on the southern Oregon coast,
some of the most challenging bar crossings in the United
States. They are, literally, a matter of life and death. That
dredging, those jetties, they matter, not just to the mariners
who are trying to get out to make a living at a commercial
fishery. But when they are put in harm's way, you have Coast
Guard personnel who are having to go out and make countless
more search and rescue missions, putting their lives at stake
and their assets at stake. It all adds up.
So if we can be more thoughtful in the way we fund the
Corps, have more predictability, it is better for the taxpayer,
it is better for everyone.
Mr. DeFazio. I think that is a great place to end. Thank
you very much.
Thanks to all of the panel. Wait, I am going to have to
say--I have to read something, but I want to first--before I
get to that part I want to thank you for your testimony. You
know, this is a really important issue confronting this
committee, and I think the things we heard today are going to
help us to come together in a bipartisan way, and make some of
the investments we need.
So I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's
hearing remain open to 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 any additional comments or information submitted by
Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's
hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I would like to thank our witnesses again, and I have
nothing to add.
Bob, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Gibbs. Well, I would like to say thank you to our
witnesses, too. And I just wanted to--just for the record on
the Army Corps stuff, it has been very bipartisan to get more
of that Harbor Maintenance Trust money where it is supposed to
go. And we did on the last couple WRDAs, the Inland Waterway
Trust Fund, we did increase that. And we got--kind of off
budget that saved a lot--brought a lot of money in.
So it has been very bipartisan. When we were in the
majority we worked very hard to make those improvements. So
that is bipartisan.
Mr. DeFazio. I agree. I started actually working on turning
that trust fund into a real trust fund with Bud Shuster in
1996. We are almost there.
With that, the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:26 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Washington
Thank you, Chair DeFazio for calling today's hearing on ``The Cost
of Doing Nothing: Why Investing in Our Nation's Infrastructure Cannot
Wait.''
This morning, we are here to discuss why the Federal Government
must invest now in the Nation's infrastructure and what is at risk if
we do not. You cannot have a big-league economy with little league
infrastructure. The backlog of infrastructure projects spans roads,
bridges, ports and airports across the country. If Congress does not
act and address these infrastructure needs, we not only risk the safety
of travel, but also the U.S. economy. Without a 21st-century
infrastructure network, our ability to move goods, engage in trade and
enjoy a robust economy will be impossible.
Robust infrastructure investment is especially important for my
home State of Washington, where transportation means jobs. According to
the Association of Washington Business, Washington State alone needs
$190 billion in infrastructure investment to help relieve congestion,
improve safety and build on the State's economic growth by putting
folks in the Pacific Northwest to work. Last year, I hosted a series of
roundtable discussions with transportation and infrastructure
stakeholders across Washington's Second District. During these
discussions, I heard about the need to invest in modernization and
maintenance of the regional highway system. Small and mid-size cities
play a critical role in powering Washington's economy, but you would
not know it based on how Federal transportation and infrastructure
funding is allocated.
My legislation, the TIGER CUBS Act--which I will reintroduce this
Congress--will help these cities earn their stripes as competitors for
Federal infrastructure dollars to restore local roads, bridges and
highways and creating good-paying jobs. Specifically, my bill would
set-aside 20 percent of the funds for smaller and medium-sized cities
made available through the popular Transportation Investment Generating
Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program, now known as BUILD.
According to a recent industry \1\ scorecard, U.S. drivers spend
more than 40 hours each year in traffic during peak hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ INRIX, INRIX 2017 Global Traffic Scorecard, http://inrix.com/
scorecard/ (last visited Aug. 29, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Everett, Washington, commuters spent more time stuck in traffic
than anyone else in 2017, with a congestion rate of 28 percent on
highways in and out of the city. Washingtonians travelling on the U.S.
2 trestle between Everett and Lake Stevens know this congestion and its
related safety concerns all too well. Although Washington State has
raised $1.8 million dollars in local funds to upgrade the U.S. 2
trestle, this allocation still does not cover its full design cost
projected at $15 million. As the State considers additional funding
options to complete the U.S.2 trestle project, either through an
increased gas tax or public-private partnerships, robust Federal
investment can play a key role in getting this project across the
finish line.
Local officials in my district have also told me that improving at-
grade rail crossings in Northwest Washington is critical for safety and
efficient traffic flow. For instance, in the city of Marysville in my
district, an overcrossing on Grove Street is needed to increase the
flow of east-west traffic through the downtown core, which is
significantly impeded by train traffic. Further, at-grade rail crossing
accidents and fatalities are on the rise and pose a significant barrier
to the region's transportation network. With a single at-grade crossing
project estimated to cost localities up to $30 million, increased
Federal investment is critical to making needed infrastructure
improvements that will save lives.
The Fiscal Year 2018 Omnibus provided a $525 million increase to
the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvement Grants
Program, also known as CRISI, which will help reduce rail congestion,
improve rail infrastructure and increase the deployment of safety
technology. However, more can be done to increase Federal funding for
rail safety. I am working to reintroduce legislation to enhance
eligibility and make a series of technical improvements to ensure
Federal funding for at-grade crossings and separations are more
accessible for States and localities.
The expansion of reliable and efficient transit options is vital
for commuters in Washington's Second District and across the Pacific
Northwest. Recently in my district, Community Transit secured a $43.2
million Federal Capital Investment Grant to support their Swift Green
Line bus rapid transit project. Without this Federal investment, this
long-awaited transportation project would not have made it across the
finish line. Investing in this project ensures commuters have safe,
reliable transit options to work, school and home.
Outside of investments in ground transit infrastructure, Federal
investment in the Nation's ports keeps the U.S. maritime system
competitive, encourages new, good-paying maritime jobs and helps to
ensure a healthy environment in the Pacific Northwest. According to
Washington's Department of Commerce, the State's maritime industry
contributes over $21 billion in gross business income and directly
employs more than 69,500 people. Small ports across the United States,
like the Ports of Skagit and Bellingham, drive economic activity across
various sectors from fishing and manufacturing, to shipbuilding and
recreation.
At the Port of Skagit, a new cycle of dredging is needed for the
Swinomish Channel and will cost an estimated $2.4 million.
Additionally, the preferred alternative to raise the Goat Island Jetty
to reduce sedimentation will cost $3.75 million. Despite a $172 million
increase for the Army Corps of Engineers in the recent Fiscal Year 2019
Energy and Water appropriations minibus, only $2,000 was allocated for
the Swinomish Channel project. Congress must work to fund small and
donor ports nationwide to ensure they are properly maintained.
Many often forget that infrastructure needs are not limited to the
ground. As Chair of the Aviation Subcommittee, I also look at
infrastructure investments through this lens. The Aviation Subcommittee
will have a forward-looking aviation and aerospace agenda. This
subcommittee will explore ensuring aviation safety, fostering
innovation in U.S. airspace, improving U.S. competitiveness in the
global marketplace; and enhancing the air travel experience for
passengers. To that end, I am pleased that we have two witnesses today
to speak strictly to what infrastructure investment means for the
aviation system.
I would like to personally introduce Larry Krauter, the CEO of
Spokane International Airport, from my home State of Washington. Mr.
Krauter will testify today from the perspective of a small hub airport
in Washington State about their capital needs, and how a simple change
to a local fee could have a dramatic impact on airports' ability to
maintain and modernize safe infrastructure, and plan for the future.
Without increasing investment to public-service airports, they will be
capacity constrained, unable to meet growing passenger demand and in
some cases, be forced to deny new service to local communities.
In other words, a failure to act may be tantamount to a reduction
in air service. Reducing air service hurts the traveling public and
local communities by reducing robust competition and preventing
regional economic growth. The United States has one of the most robust
commercial passenger air service markets in the world. Airports need an
influx of new capital to keep up with current capacity constraints and
to plan for and build to accommodate future passenger growth.
These investments are not just needed at large hub airports. The
U.S. aviation system is just that, a system that relies on large
airports like SeaTac in Seattle, to smaller hubs, like Skagit Regional
Airport or Paine Field in my district, all the way down to airports
that provide a lifeline to rural and remote communities. Congress has
an obligation to ensure Federal and local investments are in place to
maintain the incredible connectivity these airports provide to
communities across the U.S.
While I am proud of the passage of the recent Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act of 2018, there is one area
where the bill fell very short: addressing the growing capital needs of
airports. Despite many efforts, the bill holds flat Federal
infrastructure investment in airports for the next 5 years. In other
words, airports will receive the same Federal investment for 12 years
in a row, while their needs continue to grow every year.
From 2012 through 2023, the Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
grants will provide $3.35 billion annually to airports for critical
safety airside projects. According to a leading industry survey,
airports have capital needs over the next 10 years of $130 billion (or
$13 billion annually). Washington State alone is estimated to need
$12.6 billion in aviation infrastructure investment. You do not need to
be an economist to see the Federal infrastructure investment in
airports falls far short of meeting airports growing needs. However,
there is an easy solution to closing this gap.
The passenger facility charge (PFC), is a federally authorized
local charge that airports can collect on most passengers that travel
to and from their airports. Congress needs to lift the cap of what
airports can charge. This change does not even require Federal
investment. It simply requires Congress to allow local airports to work
with local communities to identify their needs and set fees
accordingly. Raising the cap on the PFC, which has not been raised in
almost 20 years, is a simple solution to a very big problem. And it
will not cost the Federal Government a dime.
The current cap on the PFC is $4.50. In 2000, the value of the
dollar went much further than a dollar goes today. Which is why this
outdated and artificial cap on what a local community can collect to
meet their needs should be updated, lifted, eliminated or simply
adjusted for inflation.
In today's dollars, the PFC adjusted to inflation would be $10.
This would double the amount of revenue airports could use to invest in
critical terminal and capacity projects. The time to act is now. This
decades-old fight must come to an end. The PFC is a local fee to help
local communities decide what type of air service they want to attract
and maintain.
I would like to also welcome Eric Fanning, CEO of the Aerospace
Industries Association, who will discuss a very different side of the
aviation system: the impact new technology can have on the Nation's
growing congestion problems. Passenger air vehicles (PAVs) are slated
to present a dramatic change in the transportation in and around urban
centers in the very near future. With recent advances in design and
technology, PAV concepts in development will have the ability to reduce
traffic congestion and the demand on our roads and bridges by carrying
everyday commuters through the air, at low altitudes, to work and other
nearby destinations.
Of course, before this occurs there are many questions that will
need to be answered to safely integrate them into complex airspace.
This effort will require the FAA to develop a comprehensive regulatory
framework to integrate these operations into U.S. airspace. As more
users enter the U.S. airspace, safety must be Congress' number one
priority.
Again, thank you Chair DeFazio for calling today's hearing.
And thank you to today's witnesses for being here to discuss this
important issue. I appreciate your work to develop innovative solutions
to address transportation and infrastructure needs across the country.
I look forward to this discussion.
Statement of Hon. Colin Z. Allred, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Texas
Good morning Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves. First, I
want to say how pleased I am to serve on this committee. I am
encouraged by the spirit of bipartisanship with which this committee
operates, and I look forward to working with all Members to deliver
solutions to the infrastructure challenges currently facing north
Texans and the American people.
I also would like to thank Chairman DeFazio for holding this very
important hearing to discuss the real consequences of our lack of
investment in infrastructure. Nationwide, we have seen a deterioration
of our airports, roads and bridges. Traffic congestion in cities across
the country are costing businesses billions of dollars a year in
revenue and productivity loss. This problem is all too real to the
constituents of Texas' 32nd Congressional District, where our region is
rapidly growing, and that growth is not going anywhere. According to
one study conducted by a transportation consulting firm, Dallas ranks
as the 10th most congested city in the United States and 22nd globally.
Every year, Dallas commuters spend an average of 54 hours in traffic
and incur traffic congestion costs of $1,654 per driver. I am committed
to pursuing innovative solutions to address these traffic congestion
challenges.
We must also place a greater focus on emerging transportation
technologies such as smart highways and high-speed rail projects and
develop new solutions for resilient infrastructure renewal. Doing so
will put thousands of Americans to work revolutionizing the way we
travel. In my home State of Texas, a network of local, regional, and
State agencies and research institutions is using collaboration and
innovative research to address mobility challenges and infrastructure
needs across the State. For example, the Center for Infrastructure
Renewal at Texas A&M University focuses on innovating new materials,
technologies and processes to create solutions that last longer, have
lower costs, and can be built in less time. Leveraging this type of
research will be vitally important as we seek to modernize our Nation's
infrastructure.
America deserves a competitive and modern transportation and
infrastructure system and I look forward to working with Members on
this committee to make that a reality.
Statement of the Airports Council International--North America
Submitted for the Record by Mr. DeFazio
Mr. Chairman, Airports Council International--North America (ACI-
NA)--the trade association representing local, regional, and State
governing bodies that own and operate commercial airports throughout
the United States--thanks you for holding this important hearing today.
The recent Federal-government shutdown highlighted the critical
role the aviation industry plays in our national economy. Federal
staffing and other resource shortfalls brought on by the shutdown
threatened air service to communities across the country, harming air
travelers, businesses, and regional economies all over America. The
shutdown also slowed progress on important infrastructure projects at
America's airports, investments we can ill-afford to put on the back
burner. We are grateful that the shutdown is over, but it revealed to
everyone the myriad of problems that could develop when the aviation
system is not properly maintained and funded.
While we look forward to a final resolution to the Fiscal Year 2019
appropriations bills that will provide the U.S. Department of
Transportation and U.S. Department of Homeland Security with the
funding they need to staff and oversee aviation operations, we know
that America's airports are falling further behind in their effort to
upgrade their facilities and improve the overall experience of their
customers. Airports strongly agree with you that the cost of doing
nothing is further paralysis of the aviation system, and we are eager
to work with you and this committee to advance a meaningful funding
plan that will finally address our country's growing infrastructure
needs.
airports are terminally challenged
America's airports are a fundamental component of our nation's
transportation infrastructure. In 2017, 1.8 billion passengers and 31.7
million metric tons of cargo traveled through U.S. airports. With a
national economic impact of $1.4 trillion, airports contribute more
than 7 percent to the U.S. gross domestic product and support over 11.5
million jobs around the country. To meet the capacity demands of the
future with safe, efficient, and modern facilities that passengers and
cargo shippers expect, airports need to make new investments to
maintain and modernize our nation's airport infrastructure.
While passenger and cargo traffic through airport facilities
continues to grow at a record pace, our outdated aviation
infrastructure is not keeping up with demand. As a result, far too many
airports around the country are overcrowded and cramped. ACI-NA's most
recent infrastructure-needs survey shows that America's airports
require more than $100 billion in infrastructure upgrades over a 5-year
period, with 60 percent of those needs coming within airport terminals.
Inadequate airport infrastructure that fails to meet the growing
needs of local businesses and tourists puts in jeopardy the continued
economic growth of American cities, States, and regions. From
established metropolitan areas to burgeoning growth regions to small
communities, sustained economic growth depends on the expansion of, and
investment in, local airports. As the U.S. economy has recovered from
the significant economic downturn experienced during the Great
Recession, the national unemployment rate has decreased and personal
discretionary spending has increased. As such, enplanements nationwide
have dramatically improved, growing at a compound annual growth rate of
3.8 percent between 2013 and 2017, putting further pressure on our
already overloaded airport facilities.
Airport investment also promotes much-needed competition in the
airline industry. New investments in airports can be valuable tools in
helping local communities attract new air carriers, which increases
competition and leads to lower airfares for passengers. Airports need
additional resources to build the terminals, gates, and ramps necessary
to attract new air carriers and entice existing ones to expand service.
The traveling public gets more choices and lower airfares when airports
can build the facilities that provide more airline options and more
service alternatives.
In addition to the impact on local economies, deferred airport
investment over the past two decades has challenged the ability of
airports to deal with the evolving threats posed to aviation security.
We live in vastly different times than when most U.S. airports were
built, and the airports we have today simply were not designed and
outfitted for a post-9/11 world that requires us to maximize both
efficiency and security.
addressing the infrastructure-funding shortfall
With America's airports facing over $100 billion in infrastructure
needs across the system, it is time to find the means to rebuild our
nation's aviation infrastructure and improve the passenger experience
for millions of air travelers.
It is a common misconception that airports are funded with taxpayer
dollars or a general tax on all citizens. In reality, though,
infrastructure projects at U.S. airports are funded primarily with
Federal grants through the FAA's Airport Improvement Program (AIP), a
local user-fee called the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC), and airport-
generated revenue from tenant rents and fees. Airports often turn to
private-capital markets to debt-finance projects, using both PFC-
revenue and airport-generated revenue to repay the bonds.
Traditionally AIP grants--which prioritize safety improvements--
have been used on airfield projects, while PFC user fees--with greater
funding flexibility--have gone toward terminal, ground-access, and
major-runway projects. Both are essentially reimbursement programs used
to pay for past or existing projects. In the case of PFCs, airports
often have committed this revenue-stream for years or decades into the
future to repay past projects, meaning they have no new money coming
into the system to fund future projects. Federal law requires airports
to be self-sustaining, yet it also artificially distorts and constrains
the very funding mechanisms designed to ensure market competition and
airport-infrastructure growth, as the Federal cap on the PFC has been
in place since 2000, and Federal grants through the AIP have remained
stagnant for over a decade.
Thus, under the industry's current financing-funding model airports
lack stable, predictable funding sources that keep pace with travel
growth, rising construction costs, and inflation for these intensive
capital projects. The PFC cap--last adjusted 20 years ago--has seen its
purchasing power eroded by 50 percent in the past two decades. And
Federal airport grants through the AIP have been stagnant for nearly a
decade, and will remain so for another 5 years under the recently
enacted FAA reauthorization legislation. Moreover, many airports--even
those with sterling credit ratings--have reached their debt capacity
and either cannot finance new projects or have had to phase in their
projects over a longer timeframe, increasing the costs and delaying the
benefits for passengers.
Fortunately, we can rebuild America's airports without raising
taxes or adding to deficit spending by modernizing the Federal cap on
the PFC. Modestly adjusting the anti-competitive Federal cap on local
PFCs would allow airports to take control of their own investment
decisions and become more financially self-sufficient. Airports could
build the appropriate facilities--terminals, gates, baggage systems,
security checkpoints, roadways, and runways--to meet the travel demands
and customer expectations of their community.
It is important to note that PFCs are not taxes--they are local
user fees determined locally and used locally to help defray the costs
of building airport infrastructure that benefits customers by improving
the passenger experience and spurring airline competition. PFCs are
imposed by States or units of local government; so they are not
collected by the Federal Government, not spent by the Federal
Government, and not deposited into the U.S. Treasury. Instead, PFCs go
directly to fund local airport projects approved by the FAA, with input
from airlines and local communities.
At a time of mounting pressure on our Federal budget, modernizing
the Federal Government's cap on the PFC is the simplest and most free-
market option for providing airports with the locally controlled self-
help they need to fund vital infrastructure projects. It would give
airports more flexibility to self-finance and leverage private
investment without the need for additional taxpayer dollars, thereby
allowing airports of all sizes to generate more local revenue for
terminals, gates, runways, and taxiways that would increase capacity,
stimulate competition, enhance safety and security, and improve the
overall passenger experience. Ultimately, modernizing the PFC is the
best way to meet the travel demands of today and challenges of
tomorrow.
Letter from Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety, et al., Submitted for the Record by Mr. DeFazio
February 6, 2019.
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
Chairman
Hon. Sam Graves
Ranking Member
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves:
As you prepare for tomorrow's hearing, ``The Cost of Doing Nothing:
Why Investing in Our Nation's Infrastructure Cannot Wait,'' we urge you
to prioritize safety as you consider the needs of America's roads and
highways. Each day on average, over 100 people are killed and 8,500
more are injured in motor vehicle crashes. This preventable toll also
comes with a serious financial burden. Annually, crashes impose
comprehensive costs of over $800 billion on society, $242 billion of
which are economic costs--amounting to a ``crash tax'' of $784 per
person each year. Yet, available solutions to the problems that
perpetuate crashes continue to languish. Moreover, year after year
proposals are considered to weaken or repeal the minimal safety
protections that do exist. We respectfully request your consideration
of our positions during the hearing and that this letter be included in
the hearing record.
This hearing is well-timed considering that just this week the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) released the 2019-2020 Most
Wanted List of safety improvements. The Most Wanted List calls
attention to several areas that are directly relevant to issues that
will likely come before the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
this Congress including: distraction; fatigue; alcohol and drug
impairment; collision avoidance technologies in highway vehicles;
speed; medical fitness, specifically obstructive sleep apnea; and,
occupant protection. We look forward to working with you to improve
safety on the nation's roads and to advance the improvements outlined
by the NTSB.
Truck crashes deaths continue to rise. In 2017, 4,761 people were
killed in crashes involving a large truck. This was a 9 percent
increase from the previous year and a staggering 41 percent increase
since a low in 2009. Additionally, in 2016, the latest year for which
full data are available, 145,000 people were injured in crashes
involving a large truck. Commercial motor vehicle (CMV) crashes
amounted to $134 billion in costs that same year. These grim statistics
are unacceptable and more must be done to prevent this needless
carnage.
Proven countermeasures that would bring about safer conditions for
both truck drivers and those with whom they share the road must be
implemented. Technologies including speed limiting devices, automatic
emergency braking (AEB), and comprehensive underride guards could be
saving lives now if they were fully deployed. Similarly, a required
minimum number of behind the wheel hours should be established as part
of entry level driver training. We urge Congress to take swift action
on legislation requiring these crucial upgrades.
We ask the Committee to also oppose efforts that would weaken or
repeal existing truck safety rules. In the last few years, special
interests have been relentless in their attempts to increase truck
driver hours of service and evade compliance with the electronic
logging device (ELD) rule, despite the known dangers associated with
``tired truckers.'' It is also alarming that efforts have been underway
to allow for ``teen truckers'' by lowering the age to obtain an
interState commercial driver's license (CDL) from 21 to 18. This ill-
conceived concept is especially egregious because truck drivers under
the age of 21 are anywhere from 4 to 6 times more likely to be in a
fatal crash, according to studies of intraState truck drivers. These
dangerous proposals pose a direct threat to the safety of all road
users and should be resoundingly rejected.
Bigger, heavier trucks would endanger all motorists and our
infrastructure. Congress should oppose all attempts to further degrade
safety by increasing truck size and weight limits. According to the
2017 Infrastructure Report Card from the American Society of Civil
Engineers, America's roads receive a grade of ``D'' and our bridges
were given a ``C+''. Nearly 40 percent of our 615,000 bridges in the
National Bridge Inventory are 50 years or older and one out of 11 is
structurally deficient. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study found that introducing double
33-foot trailer trucks, known as ``Double 33s,'' would be projected to
result in 2,478 bridges requiring strengthening or replacement at an
estimated one-time cost of $1.1 billion. This figure does not even
account for the additional, subsequent maintenance costs which will
result from longer, heavier trucks. In fact, increasing the weight of a
heavy truck by only 10 percent increases bridge damage by 33 percent.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) estimates that the investment
backlog for bridges, to address all cost-beneficial bridge needs, is
$123.1 billion. The U.S. would need to increase annual funding for
bridges by 20 percent over current spending levels to eliminate the
bridge backlog by 2032.
Longer trucks also come with operational difficulties such as
requiring more time to pass, having larger blind spots, crossing into
adjacent lanes, swinging into opposing lanes on curves and turns, and
taking a longer distance to adequately brake. And, not surprisingly,
trucks heavier than 80,000 pounds have a greater number of brake
violations, which are a major reason for out-of-service violations.
According to a North Carolina study by the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety (IIHS), trucks with out-of-service violations are 362
percent more likely to be involved in a crash. This is also troubling
considering that tractor-trailers moving at 60 mph are required to stop
in 310 feet--the length of a football field--once the brakes are
applied. Actual stopping distances are often much longer due to driver
response time before braking and the common problem that truck brakes
are often not in adequate working condition.
There is overwhelming opposition to any increases to truck size and
weight limits. The public, local government officials, safety, consumer
and public health groups, law enforcement and first responders, truck
drivers and labor representatives, families of truck crash victims and
survivors, and even Congress have all rejected attempts to increase
truck size and weight. It is clear that increasing truck size and
weight will exacerbate safety and infrastructure problems, negate
potential benefits from investments in roads and bridges, and divert
rail traffic from privately owned freight railroads to our already
overburdened public highways. Also, despite claims to the contrary,
bigger trucks will not result in fewer trucks. Following every past
increase to Federal truck size and weight, the number of trucks are on
our roads has gone up. Since 1982, when Congress last increased the
gross vehicle weight limit, truck registrations have more than doubled.
The U.S. DOT study also addressed this meritless assertion and found
that any potential mileage efficiencies from the use of heavier trucks
would be offset in just 1 year.
Motor vehicle crash deaths have stagnated despite available, proven
technology. Tremendous focus has been placed on the future potential of
autonomous vehicles (AVs), also known as driverless cars, to eliminate
crashes. While it is claimed that AVs may someday make meaningful
reductions in deaths and injuries, this promise is still likely decades
away. Further, at least three people have already been killed in
crashes involving vehicles equipped with self-driving technologies. The
real risks posed by experimental driverless cars must be addressed
through a strong Federal Government role--including safety standards
and oversight--before AVs are deployed on a large scale. However, a
number of proven technologies such as automatic emergency braking, lane
departure warning and blind spot detection should be made standard
equipment on all new vehicles now. We urge Congress to require the U.S.
DOT to establish minimum performance requirements for these lifesaving
technologies and require that all new vehicles be equipped with them.
Infrastructure upgrades will be critical as driverless cars are
deployed. As AVs are tested and eventually commercialized on our
nation's roads, it will be vital that infrastructure improvements be
made to ensure their safe operation. For example, research shows that
driverless vehicles can easily be confused by poor infrastructure
conditions leading to dangerous errors. In one experiment a standard
stop sign with only a few alterations was interpreted by a driverless
car as a 45 mph speed limit sign. The potential consequences of these
types of mistakes could be catastrophic. Substantial investments in our
infrastructure that benefit human drivers now and help to prepare our
roads for self-driving cars should occur before driverless vehicles are
ubiquitous on our streets. Additionally, despite claims that driverless
technology will improve our congested roads, transportation experts
have already found that the proliferation of mobility services like
Lyft and Uber (precursors for mass deployment of driverless vehicles)
have instead increased congestion and reduced mass transit use. In
addition, a recent study predicted that AVs could exacerbate clogged
arteries by constantly traveling at low speeds instead of parking while
waiting for their next trip. These, and numerous other, issues must be
comprehensively addressed before driverless vehicles are deployed on a
large scale. In order to realize the full potential of AVs to be a
catalyst for positive change, protections must be put in place to
ensure the safety of all road users.
As the title of this hearing aptly states, ``The Cost of Doing
Nothing'' and complacency with the status quo of high crash fatalities,
injuries and costs from crashes is unacceptable. Effective solutions
are readily available to save lives now. We look forward to working
with the Committee this Congress on passing important legislation that
will advance safety for everyone using our surface transportation
systems.
Sincerely,
Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway
and Auto Safety
Georges C. Benjamin, MD, Executive Director,
American Public Health Association
Harry Adler, Executive Director, Truck Safety
Coalition
Jason Levine, Executive Director, Center for Auto
Safety
Daphne Izer, Co-Founder, Parents Against Tired
Truckers (PATT)
Janette Fennell, Founder and President,
KidsAndCars.org
Dawn King, Davisburg, MI, President, Truck Safety
Coalition Board Member, CRASH Daughter of
Bill Badger Killed in truck crash 12/23/04
Jane Mathis, St. Augustine, FL, Vice President, TSC
Board Member, PATT Mother of David Mathis,
Mother-in-Law of Mary Kathryn Mathis,
Killed in a truck crash 3/25/04
Peter Malarczyk, Hastings-on-Hudson, NY, Volunteer,
Truck Safety Coalition Injured in a truck
crash 12/29/15, Son of Ryszard and Anita
Malarczyk, Killed in a truck crash 12/29/15
Santiago Calderon, Arcata, CA, Volunteer, Truck
Safety Coalition, Injured in a truck crash
4/10/14
Joan Claybrook, Chair, Citizens for Reliable and
Safe Highways (CRASH) and Former
Administrator, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration
Jack Gillis, Executive Director, Consumer
Federation of America
Steve Owings, Co-Founder and President, Road Safe
America
Stephen W. Hargarten, M.D., MPH, Society for the
Advancement of Violence and Injury Research
Sally Greenberg, Executive Director, National
Consumers League
Rosemary Shahan, President, Consumers for Auto
Reliability and Safety
Andrew McGuire, Executive Director, Trauma
Foundation
Jennifer Tierney, Board Member, Citizens for
Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH)
Foundation
Ron Wood, Washington, D.C., Volunteer, Truck Safety
Coalition, Son of Betsy Wood, Brother of
Lisa Wood Martin, Uncle of Chance, Brock,
and Reid Martin, Killed in a truck crash 9/
20/04
Kate Brown, Gurnee, IL, Volunteer, Truck Safety
Coalition, Mother of Graham Brown Injured
in a truck crash 5/2/05
Michelle Lemus, Los Angeles, CA , Volunteer, Truck
Safety Coalition, Injured in a truck crash
4/10/14
Tami Friedrich Trakh, Corona, CA, Board Member,
CRASH, Sister of Kris Mercurio, Sister-in-
Law of Alan Mercurio, Aunt of Brandie
Rooker & Anthony Mercurio, Killed in a
truck crash 12/27/89
Monica Malarczyk, Hastings-on-Hudson, NY,
Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition Injured
in a truck crash 12/29/15, Son of Ryszard
and Anita Malarczyk, Killed in a truck
crash 12/29/15
Beth Badger, Columbus, GA, Volunteer, Truck Safety
Coalition, Daughter of Bill Badger, Killed
in truck crash 12/23/04
Paul Badger, Davidson, NC, Volunteer, Truck Safety
Coalition, Son of Bill Badger, Killed in
truck crash 12/23/04
Gary Wilburn, Weatherford, OK, Volunteer, Truck
Safety Coalition, Father of Orbie Wilburn
Killed in a truck crash 9/2/02
Jackie Novak, Hendersonville, NC, Volunteer, Truck
Safety Coalition Mother of Charles
``Chuck'' Novak Killed in a truck crash 10/
24/10
Laurie Higginbotham, Memphis, TN, Volunteer, Truck
Safety Coalition Mother of Michael
Higginbotham Killed in a truck crash, 11/
18/14
Vickie Johnson, Hartwell, GA, Volunteer, Truck
Safety Coalition, Wife of Curt Johnson,
Step-mother of Crystal, Johnson, Killed in
a truck crash 10/1/2009
Debra Cruz, Harlingen, TX, Volunteer, Truck Safety
Coalition, Injured in a truck crash 8/8/
2008
Linda Wilburn Weatherford, Board Member, PATT,
Mother of Orbie Wilburn, Killed in a truck
crash 9/2/02
Vincent Laubach, Reno, NV, Volunteer, Truck Safety
Coalition, Truck Crash Survivor
Larry Liberatore, Severn, MD, Board Member, PATT
Father of Nick Liberatore Killed in a truck
crash 6/9/97
Christina Mahaney, Jackman, ME, Volunteer, Truck
Safety Coalition, Injured in a truck crash
7/19/2011, Mother of Liam Mahaney, Killed
in a truck crash 7/19/2011
Tina Silva, Ontario, CA, Volunteer, Truck Safety
Coalition, Sister of Kris Mercurio, Sister-
in-Law of Alan Mercurio, Aunt of Brandie
Rooker & Anthony Mercurio, Killed in a
truck crash 12/27/89
Kathleen Laubach, Reno, NV, Volunteer, Truck Safety
Coalition, Truck Crash Survivor
Bruce King, Davisburg, MI, Volunteer, Truck Safety
Coalition, Son-in-law of Bill Badger,
Killed in truck crash 12/23/04
Kim Telep, Harrisburg, PA, Volunteer, Truck Safety
Coalition, Wife of Bradley Telep, Killed in
a truck crash 8/29/12
Cindy Southern, Cleveland, TN, Volunteer, Truck
Safety Coalition Wife of James Whitaker,
sister-in-law Anthony Hixon and aunt of
Amber Hixon Killed in a truck crash 9/18/09
Marc Johnson, Hartwell, GA, Volunteer, Truck Safety
Coalition, Brother of Curt Johnson, Killed
in truck crash 10/1/2009
Morgan Lake, Sunderland, MD, Volunteer, Truck
Safety Coalition, Injured in a truck crash
7/19/13
Steve Izer, Lisbon, ME, Board Member, PATT Father
of Jeff Izer, Killed in a truck crash 10/
10/93
Sandra Lance, Chesterfield, VA, Volunteer, Truck
Safety Coalition, Mother of Kristen Belair,
Killed in a truck crash 8/26/2009
Bernadette Fox, Davis, CA, Volunteer, Truck Safety
Coalition Best friend of Daniel McGuire
Killed in a truck crash 7/10/2014
Julie Branon Magnan, South Burlington, VT,
Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition, Injured
in a truck crash 01/31/02, Wife of David
Magnan, Killed in a truck crash 01/31/02
Amy Fletcher, Perrysburg, OH, Volunteer, Truck
Safety Coalition, Wife of John Fletcher,
Killed in a truck crash 1/24/12
Alan Dana, Plattsburgh, NY, Volunteer, Truck Safety
Coalition, Son of Janet Dana, Uncle of
Caitlyn & Lauryn Dana, Brother-in-law of
Laurie Dana Killed in a truck crash 7/19/12
Nancy Meuleners, Bloomington, MN, Volunteer, Truck
Safety Coalition, Injured in a truck crash
12/19/89
Ashley McMillan, Memphis,TN, Volunteer, Truck
Safety Coalition Girlfriend of Michael
Higginbotham Killed in a truck crash, 11/
18/14
Marchelle Wood, Falls Church, VA, Volunteer, Truck
Safety Coalition, Mother of Dana Wood,
Killed in a truck crash 10/15/02
Melissa Gouge, Washington, D.C., Volunteer, Truck
Safety Coalition, Cousin of Amy Corbin,
Killed in a truck crash 8/18/97
Randall Higginbotham, Memphis, TN, Volunteer, Truck
Safety Coalition, Father of Michael
Higginbotham Killed in a truck crash, 11/
18/14
Frank Wood, Falls Church, VA, Volunteer, Truck
Safety Coalition, Father of Dana Wood,
Killed in a truck crash 10/15/02
Michelle Novak, Delevan, NY, Volunteer, Truck
Safety Coalition Aunt of Charles ``Chuck''
Novak, Killed in a truck crash 10/24/10
Ed Slattery, Lutherville, MD, Board Member, PATT,
Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition, Husband
of Susan Slattery, Killed in a truck crash
8/16/10, Sons Matthew & Peter Slattery
critically injured
Letter from Agribusiness & Water Council of Arizona et al. Submitted
for the Record by Mr. DeFazio
January 10, 2019.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy
Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles E. Schumer
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressional Leaders,
The undersigned organizations write to urge Congress to include
funding and financing for drinking water, wastewater, water reuse and
stormwater infrastructure in any infrastructure package considered
during the 116th Congress. Given the well-documented needs of our
nation's aging water infrastructure, an infrastructure package
represents an excellent opportunity to provide necessary resources to
meet long-term economic, public health and environmental goals.
The U.S. EPA estimates that America's water and wastewater
infrastructure requires nearly $750 billion worth of investment over
the next 20 years just to maintain current levels of service, and
independent estimates place this figure over $1 trillion. Local
ratepayers will shoulder much of this burden, but all levels of
government must be part of the solution.
Aging infrastructure replacement needs account for much of the
investment gap. In addition, federal regulatory requirements over the
last three decades have steadily grown to account for a significant
portion of the cost associated with investment needs. While federal
contributions to transportation infrastructure have stayed constant at
approximately half of total capital spending, federal investment in
water infrastructure has declined from 63 percent to 9 percent since
1977.
America's future economic strength depends on investments made
today in water infrastructure. These investments create jobs and
support the economy. Every $1 invested in drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure increases long-term GDP by $6.35, creates 1.6 new jobs,
and provides $23.00 in public health-related benefits. These new jobs
in the water sector are also high-paying ($64,000/year), skilled, and
largely recession proof since many are in municipal government. Studies
also show that the US economy would stand to gain over $200 billion in
annual economic activity and 1.3 million jobs over a 10-year period by
meeting its current water infrastructure needs. Without these
investments, breakdowns in water supply, treatment and wastewater
capacity are projected to cost manufacturers and other businesses over
$7.5 trillion in lost sales and $4.1 trillion in lost GDP from 2011 to
2040.
In a recent survey of American's opinions on the value of investing
in our water resources, 78 percent of respondents said it's ''extremely
or very important'' that the President and Congress develop a plan to
rebuild America's water infrastructure. The same survey found that 88
percent of respondents agreed that increased federal investment was
needed to rebuild water infrastructure.
As Congress develops a comprehensive infrastructure proposal, we
urge you to remember that water infrastructure is often co-located with
transportation infrastructure, such as roadways and bridges. When
roadways are dug up or bridges rebuilt, it would be less expensive to
rehabilitate water lines at that point in time instead of digging them
up again.
In addition, the cost of water service to low-income customers is
an increasing concern and the U.S. federal contributions to water
infrastructure finance help local utilities cushion the costs of water
service to customers.
Our nation has faced many challenges over the last two centuries,
but through collaboration and perseverance we have found solutions. Our
organizations applaud Congress for its past efforts to take action to
address the nation's infrastructure challenges. We strongly encourage
you to include water infrastructure as a major component of the
infrastructure package in 2019.
Sincerely,
Agribusiness & Water Council of Arizona
Alabama Water Environment Association
American Council of Engineering Companies
American Membrane Technology Association
American Public Works Association
American Rivers
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Sustainable Business Council
American Water Works Association
Arizona Water Association
Arkansas Water Environment Association
Association of California Water Agencies
Association of Clean Water Administrators
Associated General Contractors of America
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies
Association of Regional Water Organizations
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
California Association of Sanitation Agencies
California Water Environment Association
Central States Water Environment Association
Clean Water Action
Chesapeake Water Environment Association
Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania
Colorado Wastewater Utility Council
Connecticut Association of Water Pollution Control
Associations
Connecticut Water Pollution Abatement Association
Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities
Design-Build Institute of America
Endangered Habitats League
Florida Water Environment Association
Freshwater Future
Georgia Association of Water Professionals
Green Mountain Water Environment Association
Gulf Restoration Network
Hawaii Water Environment Association
Illinois Association of Wastewater Agencies
Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited
Illinois Water Environment Association
Indiana Water Environment Association
Iowa Water Environment Association
Kansas Water Environment Association
Kentucky-Tennessee Water Environment Association
Michigan Water Environment Association
Maine Water Environment Association
Mississippi Water Environment Association
Missouri Public Utility Alliance
Missouri Water Environment Association
Narragansett Water Pollution Control Association
National Association of Clean Water Agencies
National Association of Sewer Service Companies
National Association of Water Companies
National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of our low-
income clients
National Latino Farmers & Ranchers Trade
Association
Natural Resources Defense Council
National Rural Water Association
National Water Resources Association
Nebraska Water Environment Association
New England Water Environment Association
New York Water Environment Association
North Carolina AWWA-WEA
North Dakota Water Environment Association
Ohio Environmental Council
Ohio Water Environment Association
Oklahoma Municipal Utility Providers
Oklahoma Water Environment Association
Oregon Association of Clean Water Agencies
Pacific Northwest Clean Water Association
Passaic River Coalition
Pennsylvania Council of Churches
Pennsylvania Water Environment Association
Rural Coalition
Rural Community Assistance Partnership
Sierra Club
South Dakota Water Environment Association
Southeast Watershed Alliance of New Hampshire
Southern California Alliance of Publicly Owned
Treatment Works
Southern Environmental Law Center
Texas Association of Clean Water Agencies
The Sustainable Business Network of Greater
Philadelphia
Trout Unlimited
US Water Alliance
Vermont Rural Water Association
WE ACT for Environmental Justice
Water & Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers
Association
Water Environment Association of South Carolina
Water Environment Association of Texas
Water Environment Federation
WateReuse Association
WESTCAS
West Coast Infrastructure Exchange
West Virginia Water Environment Association
Statement of Mr. Jason Hartke, President, The Alliance to Save Energy,
Submitted for the Record by Mr. DeFazio
Thank you for the opportunity to submit a written statement
regarding the Committee's hearing titled, ``The Cost of Doing Nothing:
Why Investing in Our Nation's Infrastructure Cannot Wait.''
We look forward to working with you in the 116th Congress to
develop bipartisan policies for rebuilding American infrastructure, and
we submit this statement to highlight the role that energy efficiency
can play in sharply reducing both the costs and carbon footprint of
infrastructure projects.
Infrastructure, of course, is more than roads and bridges. It's the
foundation that determines where and how we fuel our vehicles, deliver
electricity and natural gas, and treat and distribute water. It's our
airports, seaports, transit hubs and other critical public buildings.
These facilities have an enormous impact on U.S. energy consumption,
and a nationwide infrastructure initiative presents an opportunity to
``get it right'' and save consumers and taxpayers decades of wasted
energy costs.
Transportation is now the greatest source of greenhouse gas
emissions in the United States and the second highest expense for
households. Exciting breakthroughs in electrified transit, efficient
alternative fuel vehicles, ridesharing, and other tools that have the
potential to enhance travel experience while reducing energy waste,
congestion and emissions.
Similar energy-saving opportunities exist across other
infrastructure sectors. Water treatment and distribution facilities,
for example, are typically the largest energy users in their local
communities, often accounting for a third or more of a municipality's
total energy consumption. Cutting their energy use by a modest 10
percent could save $400 million a year, according to the EPA. And,
there are enormous opportunities for savings in modernizing public
buildings. The Federal Government alone spends $6 billion annually on
energy for its buildings.
We must avoid the temptation to look only at short-term costs and
build a truly modern infrastructure network that locks in savings over
decades and lays the foundation for a more competitive and productive
economy. In some cases, infrastructure projects can pay for themselves
through public-private partnerships and innovative financing around
energy savings investments. Incorporating energy efficiency can also
provide a host of additional benefits, such as reducing harmful
emissions and improving power grid reliability and resilience--all
while creating good-paying jobs.
Already, energy efficiency supports more than 2.2 million U.S.
jobs, with an employment growth rate double the national average. Seven
in 10 of energy efficiency jobs are in construction and manufacturing.
We encourage you incorporate energy efficiency in any
infrastructure proposals from the start to make the best, most-
efficient use of taxpayer investments. The Alliance to Save Energy's
infrastructure priorities include:
Laying the foundation for an efficient transportation
sector. The transportation sector is undergoing rapid transformation
due to innovation in new technologies, business models and
connectivity. These new tools could enable a more efficient, effective,
clean, and affordable transportation system, but their success depends
heavily on effective infrastructure development. For example, for
emerging alternative vehicle markets, especially electric vehicles,
hydrogen fuel cell and renewable natural gas vehicles, the lack of such
infrastructure presents a market barrier to deployment for highly
efficient vehicles that have great potential to reduce energy waste and
climate emissions in light-, medium-and heavy-duty sectors. Stronger
transit systems have an outsized positive impact on the lives of low-
income, elderly, and disabled communities, which rely on these services
for mobility. Smarter traffic systems and system optimization at ports
and distribution centers can enhance the longevity of infrastructure by
controlling traffic congestion and optimizing the vehicles used,
reducing maintenance costs while enhancing safety. And autonomous
vehicles and ridesharing could change the shape of urban mobility.
Congress should pursue opportunities to support these emerging trends
to ensure that the infrastructure built today will be ready for
tomorrow's needs.
Promoting adoption of updated building energy codes,
high-performance buildings, and high-efficiency equipment. Buildings
account for roughly 40 percent of U.S. primary energy use and 76
percent of the electricity we use, and recent climate assessments and
reports consistently point to reducing building energy consumption as a
top solution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As we invest in
building and rebuilding the very places where people and commerce meet,
we should ensure these structures meet the highest standards for
efficiency. The latest model building energy codes deliver 30 percent
more efficiency than codes of just a decade ago, which will result in
more than $5 billion in annual savings for U.S. homes and businesses
from, for example, improved thermal envelopes and high-efficiency
heating and cooling equipment and lighting fixtures. Just as important,
the experiences of States and communities demonstrate that more
efficient buildings are key to enhancing energy system resilience in
the face of extreme weather events. Congress should ensure that any
infrastructure proposals encourage States and local governments to
adopt and enforce updated building energy codes and promote energy
efficiency retrofits of existing buildings that will deliver long-term
savings to homeowners, renters, and commercial building owners and
tenants and improve the health and resilience of communities. Energy
efficiency delivers savings to all households and consumers, including
those with limited incomes, and would ensure that the benefits of an
infrastructure package will help the Nation as a whole.
Expanding opportunities for public-private partnerships
to finance projects. The burden of paying for infrastructure does not
need to fall solely upon the shoulders of taxpayers through direct
appropriations. The Federal Government should show leadership by
addressing critical buildings and energy infrastructure upgrades
through public-private partnerships that leverage private funds to
implement resilience-enhancing energy-and water-conservation measures.
To address the backlog of $165 billion in deferred maintenance projects
in Federal facilities, any infrastructure package should encourage
performance contracting and other financing mechanisms at all levels of
government to install high-efficiency equipment and systems in
individual buildings and across campuses with little to zero upfront
cost to taxpayers and tremendous resilience benefits for mission-
critical public facilities.
Applying life-cycle cost-effectiveness analysis to all
appropriate projects. To deliver the best long-term return-on-
investment to taxpayers, Congress should avoid short-sighted decisions
based on incremental first-costs and instead take into account costs
and benefits over the expected lifetime of physical infrastructure.
This focus on lower up-front costs rather than lower operations and
maintenance costs tends to encourage an under-investment in energy-and
water-saving technologies that then saddle unsuspecting homeowners,
consumers, and businesses with an unpredictable burden of higher
utility bills. A missed opportunity now means future generations of
taxpayers will be paying for our mistake for decades to come.
We are eager to work with you and your colleagues to identify
specific programs, activities, and projects that can help achieve our
mutual goals and build a smarter, less expensive and more sustainable
infrastructure system.
about the alliance to save energy
Founded in 1977, the Alliance to Save Energy is a nonprofit,
bipartisan alliance of business, government, environmental and consumer
leaders working to expand the economy while using less energy. Our
mission is to promote energy productivity worldwide--including through
energy efficiency--to achieve a stronger economy, a cleaner environment
and greater energy security, affordability and reliability.
Statement of the American Association of Port Authorities Submitted for
the Record by Mr. DeFazio
Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves, thank you for allowing
the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) to submit testimony
to this timely hearing. AAPA looks forward to working with you both
throughout the 116th Congress.
It is a critical time for making needed Federal investments in the
nation's port-related infrastructure. Rising freight volumes on all
three coasts and the Great Lakes means we must upgrade our waterside
and landside infrastructure to accommodate larger ships and the
accompanying freight volume and passenger surges. AAPA members have
identified $66 billion in landside, waterside and inside the gate
funding needs over the next 10 years. We are submitting an overview and
breakdown of these needs for the record. AAPA is also submitting the
FAST Act Reauthorization Platform for the record.
Nowhere is there such a stark example of our country's
infrastructure needs and the failure to keep pace with our growing
economy than with freight- and port-related infrastructure investments.
To put our national state of freight into perspective, it's been
more than 60 years since President Eisenhower proposed and began
building out the Interstate Highway System in 1956. But until the FAST
Act, freight had not been fully considered or realized as a national
policy priority.
However, during the same 60-year period, there have been eight
evolutions of the containership, starting with vessel capacities of 500
twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs), evolving to ships with capacities
of 18,000 TEUs and beyond, which are as high as a New York skyscraper
and as wide as a 10-lane freeway. This means that that shipping
industry has reinvested in their ships eight times, while our country
has relied upon essentially the same infrastructure to accommodate and
facilitate an astronomical growth in freight volumes. While the ports
and private sector have been and continue to modernize and invest, it
has been the Federal investment in infrastructure and modernization
that's been lacking to fully connect and upgrade the connecting port
infrastructure to the surface transportation network.
Maritime cargo volumes have also seen marked increases over the
past six decades and have continuously impacted our freight
infrastructure. Total U.S. waterborne tonnage roughly doubled between
1956 and 2017, but this is due almost entirely to U.S. foreign trade
growth which has seen nearly a 500 percent increase during that
timeframe, based on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers data.
In the last 17 years alone, container volumes have increased by 71
percent, passengers through our cruise port terminals increased by 98
percent, and total foreign trade in short tons increased by 37 percent.
Ports are national resources and we must invest in them as a
Nation. Communities adjacent to ports and inland States rely on us for
jobs and to connect them to the global economy, as well as to the
occasional vacation aboard a cruise ship.
The infrastructure investments we make at ports, be it highway
connectors or rail access projects, directly impact our partners in the
rail and trucking industry. Just as important, targeted investments at
maritime facilities provide a level of certainty and efficiency to a
growing and interconnected supply chain.
Ports are the initiators and facilitators of the supply chain. Mega
shipping alliances, operating mega-large vessels, have a cascading
effect when their ships arrive at U.S. ports. This includes the need
for larger cranes to load-and off-load containers, additional port-
related labor, more chassis on which to move the containers in, out and
around the terminals, and adjusting truck gate times to address the
changing work load.
In 2015, America's seaports took a big step forward after passage
of the FAST Act. With the creation of two funding programs; Projects of
Highway and Freight Significance (discretionary) and National Highway
Freight Program (formula), the FAST Act provided a total of $11 billion
in dedicated freight funding over 5 years. However, of that total, only
$1.13 billion is multimodal eligible, far below what is needed to build
out a 21st century multimodal freight network. Only $200 million of
multimodal eligibility remain for the INFRA program.
Last year, in The State of Freight III report, AAPA members
identified more than $20 billion in multimodal funding needs for public
port authorities alone over the next decade. A top priority for the
port industry continues to be multimodal funding.
The immediate challenges confronting the freight programs are
funding levels and project eligibility. The current freight programs
are funded out of the Highway Trust Fund, which means that eligible
projects are primarily highway focused. Highways are important to our
freight network, but ports are multimodal facilitators, meaning trains,
trucks, ships and barges all need access to them.
To build off the work in the FAST Act, AAPA recommends that all
freight program funding should be 100 percent multimodal. A first step
in accomplishing this would be to lift the multimodal cap on the INFRA
grants and the formula program.
As Congress begins the process of reauthorizing the FAST Act, MARAD
has several freight infrastructure programs that are important tools to
be included and leveraged within the national freight portfolio.
Specifically, the America's Marine Highway and the Port Infrastructure
Development programs are currently authorized initiatives that will
need to be revised, updated and refocused to meet the evolving supply
chain needs of the multimodal freight network. AAPA is very supportive
and appreciative of the recently passed FY 19 THUD appropriations bill
which included $292.7 million in the Port Infrastructure Development
account. AAPA looks forward to continuing to work with both the
authorizing and appropriations committees during the reauthorization
process and during future appropriation cycles on this program.
As stated in the previous paragraph, AAPA strongly supports Senate
Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee Chairman Roger Wicker's
PORTS Act, which updates MARAD's Port Infrastructure Development
Program to provide resources to ports for first- and last-mile
multimodal projects that connect ports to the surface transportation
network. We would also like to work with the committee in updating
America's Marine Highway Program so that it can meet the needs of ports
and shippers and continue to be a viable supply chain tool. AAPA
recommends that Congress include these programs as a maritime supply
chain title in the next reauthorization bill.
Having additional maritime freight supply chain resources and
updating the existing authorizations will leverage existing resources
and programs, providing a more comprehensive approach to building out a
21st century freight network.
An example of refreshing prior authorizations from the last
reauthorization bill would be the inclusion and consolidation of the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) grant programs into the CRISI
program in the FAST Act. In this program, multimodal and port rail
access are eligible projects. In AAPA's The State of Freight III--Rail
Access and Port Multimodal Funding Needs Report, a third of ports
identified pressing rail project needs that will cost more than $50
million over the next decade. In fact, rail access is so important to
the port and supply chain industry that within this same timeframe, 77
percent of ports said they are planning on-dock, near-dock or rail
access projects.
Additionally, AAPA strongly supports the multimodal USDOT grant
programs such as BUILD, CRISI and INFRA grants. But the BUILD program,
and its TIGER predecessor, has been more than just a discretionary
program to the port industry. It was the first program that ports were
eligible for and is multimodal. It also brought ports into the surface
transportation fold, which meant that whether ports received a TIGER/
BUILD grant or not, they were encouraged to coordinate a project with
their State and local MPO before submitting it. That meant ports were
becoming part of the planning process and freight was beginning to get
a seat at the table.
Further, international trade through seaports accounts for over a
quarter of the U.S. GDP. At the center of trade and transportation are
America's seaports, which handle approximately $6 billion worth of
import and export goods daily, generate over 23 million jobs, and
provide more than $320 billion annually in Federal, State and local tax
revenues. Seaports also are projected to handle nearly 12 million
cruise passengers from around the country and around the world.
While highly supportive of the BUILD program, AAPA is concerned
that port States are penalized by the 10 percent maximum per State
called for in previous appropriation bills, as well as the set asides
for metropolitan and rural areas. Because seaports have such a national
and international reach--ports are national infrastructure resources
that support metropolitan and rural supply chains--that any port
project award should not count against a State, rural or metropolitan
cap.
Long-term, sustainable multimodal funding is critical, and we
encourage you to start looking at solutions. AAPA has endorsed the
concept of a 1-percent waybill fee as an equitable approach to provide
immediate and long-term funding for multimodal freight infrastructure
challenges. Additionally, AAPA supports a gas tax increase as well as a
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) program. With all increased funding, AAPA
recommends that any new funding be multimodal eligible. AAPA also
strongly supports Chairman Peter DeFazio's Penny for Progress
legislation and looks forward to working with him to get it enacted.
The Build America Transportation Investment Center, or BATIC, which
was codified in the FAST Act, can also be a tool for ports to explore
ways to access private capital in public-private partnership. The Rail
Rehabilitation Innovation Financing (RRIF) program has been in
existence since 2002, and only late last year did a port (Port of
Everett) receive a RRIF loan. One recommendation to make RRIF more
accessible to ports is to provide 100 percent financing. AAPA members
responded that there were potentially 75 BUILD/TIGER projects that
would become RRIF-financed projects if the financing fee was removed.
On the operational front, the Federal Government has a vital role
to play with freight flow performance. For our ports to perform
efficiently, CBP must be adequately funded and staffed. In 2015, the
last time CBP was funded to hire additional staff, only 20 of 2,000
staff were assigned to seaports. As an industry, with growing volumes
in freight and passengers, we would like to see, at a minimum, annual
hiring of CBP staff to 500 annually, over and above attrition. This may
sound like an appropriations or Homeland Security issue, but it is a
supply chain problem.
Another supply chain challenge is proper maintenance of Federal
navigation channels. AAPA has a legislative proposal to make full use
of Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) revenues, based on a fair and equitable
funding framework that was agreed to last year by the nation's public
ports. The current system to maintain Federal navigation channels to
our nation's ports is broken and must be fixed. A comprehensive
solution must provide both full use of the annual HMT revenues, as well
as address tax fairness and cargo diversion problems.
Last year, after years of debate, AAPA identified a comprehensive
proposal to fix the HMT problems. It calls for guaranteeing full use of
the annual revenues of the HMT and outlines a funding structure for HMT
spending that ports agreed would be fair and equitable. It makes
maintenance the highest priority, provides protections to address small
port and regional port needs, provides increasing equity to large HMT
donors that subsidize the system, and acknowledges Congress's priority
to provide support to energy transfer ports. AAPA urges this HMT
solution be enacted.
Finally, in response to the Administrations infrastructure
investment program, AAPA identified $66 billion in maritime
infrastructure needs, $34 billion on the waterside and $32 billion on
the landside of ports. The waterside includes full use of HMT revenues
over the next 10 years, estimated at $18.6 billion--use the $9 billion
HMT paid, but unappropriated funds to maintain Federal navigation
channels, $3.1 billion for congressionally authorized navigation
channel improvements passed in recent WRDA's and an additional $3.1
billion for projects currently under study to receive authorization
during this 10-year period. The landside includes $29 billion for vital
road and rail connectors to ports and $3.2 to improve port facility
infrastructure.
AAPA looks forward to working with you throughout the 116th
Congress.
aapa fast act reauthorization platform
Retained in the Committee files and available at: http://
aapa.files.cms-plus.com/PDFs/
AAPA%20FAST%20Act%20Reauthorization%20Platform.pdf
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Statement of Mr. David Lawry, President, and Mr. Scott Grayson,
Executive Director, American Public Works Association, Submitted for
the Record by Mr. DeFazio
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the
Committee, on behalf of the American Public Works Association (APWA),
we are honored to provide this testimony for the record.
APWA represents all aspects of public works--a fact that sets us
apart from other associations and makes our members an effective voice
for public works throughout North America. The hearing entitled ``Why
Investing in Our Nation's Infrastructure Cannot Wait'' could not come
at a more appropriate time. APWA appreciates this body's quick action
to hold a hearing on a subject that we can all agree needs immediate
action.
With a membership of more than 30,000, APWA includes not only
personnel from local, county, State/province, and Federal agencies, but
also private sector personnel who supply products and services to those
professionals. Although originally chartered in the United States in
1937, APWA has roots in two predecessor groups that reach back to 1894,
and has 63 chapters in North America, which includes eight chapters in
Canada. A 17-member Board of Directors, all of whom are elected by
Association members, governs APWA.
APWA appreciates this opportunity to submit testimony regarding the
importance of addressing the state of America's infrastructure. It is
certainly well known that our aging roads and bridges are
deteriorating, traffic is increasing, and deaths on our roads are
unacceptably high. Our nation cannot remain economically competitive if
our transportation network is not maintained and improved. APWA
professionals believe that continued investment in our country's
transportation infrastructure is needed now. As the members of this
Committee are keenly aware, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
estimates that every $1 billion invested in transportation creates
about 27,800 jobs and up to $6 billion in gross domestic product.
Additionally, our nation's water infrastructure is in dire need of
reinvestment. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated in
2018 that the nation's drinking water infrastructure needs nearly $500
billion of investment over the next 20 years. Meanwhile, the Agency's
2012 estimate of investment need for clean water infrastructure is
nearly $300 billion over the next 20 years. These needs are matched by
the economic benefits of such investments. The US Department of
Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) estimates that for every
dollar spent on water infrastructure, about $2.62 is generated in the
private economy. And for every job added in the water workforce, the
BEA estimates 3.68 jobs are added to the national economy.
APWA has identified three top policy priority areas which are
Transportation, Water Resiliency and Emergency Management and Response,
copies of which are included as attachments with this testimony. Please
find a brief mention of each of the priorities as follows:
Transportation: Supporting more fiscally viable methods of paying
for transportation systems such as increasing and indexing the Federal
motor fuel tax, and collecting revenue based on road usage such as
vehicle miles traveled, or similar fee, to ensure all road system users
pay their fair share. Additionally, APWA calls for continued investment
and support of programs like High Risk Rural Roads, Safe Routes to
Schools, Highway Safety Improvement Plan funds, and local bridges, as
well as strong support for utilizing technology to improve safety while
protecting users' privacy.
Water Resiliency: Providing robust funding for existing Federal
programs that support water and wastewater infrastructure, such as the
State Revolving Funds, Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act,
Rural Utilities Service, Public Water System Supervision grants, and
the Public Works and Economic Development program.
Emergency Management and Response: Promote and enhance
interoperable emergency communications systems to connect public works
agencies to other responders, including law enforcement, fire, and
emergency medical professionals during response and recovery
operations. Developing national cybersecurity guidelines/best practices
to significantly and constructively impact public works whose services
require a 24-hour a day, 365-day a year operation should be considered.
APWA applauds this Committee for holding such an important hearing
and we stand ready to work with and assist the Committee, and the other
Members of Congress as you outline and discuss proposals to best serve
the American people with the first-rate infrastructure they deserve and
require. The needs of the nation's users of our infrastructure continue
to evolve and we ask that you consider APWA a resource in your efforts
to upgrade our national infrastructure.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers Submitted for the
Record by Mr. DeFazio
introduction
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) \1\ appreciates the
opportunity to submit our position on the importance of long-term,
strategic investment in our nation's infrastructure systems. ASCE also
wants to thank the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure for holding a hearing on this
critical issue. ASCE is eager to work with the Committee in the 116th
Congress to find ways to further improve our nation's vital
infrastructure systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ASCE was founded in 1852 and is the country's oldest national
civil engineering organization. It represents more than 150,000 civil
engineers individually in private practice, government, industry, and
academia who are dedicated to the advancement of the science and
profession of civil engineering. ASCE is a non-profit educational and
professional society organized under Part 1.501(c) (3) of the Internal
Revenue Code. www.asce.org,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASCE has long been an advocate for maintaining and modernizing the
nation's infrastructure. ASCE's 2017 Infrastructure Report Card \2\
rated the overall condition of the nation's infrastructure a cumulative
grade of ``D+,'' with an investment gap of $2 trillion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historically, our nation invested in infrastructure projects with
long-term benefits, such as the Hoover Dam and Interstate Highway
System, that strengthened the economy while the project was being
designed and built, and for generations to come. ASCE has sought to
raise awareness of the United States' pressing infrastructure
challenges, and some incremental progress has been made since ASCE
released its first Infrastructure Report Card in 1998.
These past successes inform us that the next major investment in
American infrastructure will require bold vision coupled with
thoughtful planning. If we are to achieve lasting progress for our
infrastructure, the Federal Government must commit to not only
financing infrastructure programs but to funding them. This funding
must supplement--rather than replace--long-term solutions, regular
appropriations, and scheduled reauthorizations. Further, all levels of
government and the private sector must do their part to increase this
investment in order to restore America's world-class infrastructure.
failure to act: closing the infrastructure investment gap for america's
economic future
Infrastructure is the foundation that connects the nation's
businesses, communities, and people, serves as the backbone to the U.S.
economy, and is vital to the nation's public health and welfare.
In 2016, ASCE released Failure to Act: Closing the Infrastructure
Investment Gap for America's Economic Future \3\. This economic study
analyzed the impact of current infrastructure investment trends on
America's GDP, jobs, personal income, and businesses. The study
determined that the U.S. is on track to invest only half of what is
needed in infrastructure over the next decade. This underinvestment
will cause our infrastructure to further degrade, resulting in a loss
of 2.5 million jobs, $3.9 trillion in GDP, and $7 trillion in lost
business sales by 2025. In addition, poor infrastructure will cost each
American family $3,400 a year, which is $9 a day, in personal
disposable income. To catch up and fill in the investment gap, we must
invest an additional $144 billion each year, which is an average
investment of just $3 per day per household. This small investment
would put $3,400 back into the wallets of American families each year
for a three to one return.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Failure to Act: Closing the Infrastructure Investment Gap for
America's Economic Future. (2016) www.asce.org/failuretoact
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failure to Act found that our infrastructure challenges are
significant, but solvable. Surface transportation categories, including
roads, bridges, transit, and commuter rail, face the largest investment
gap. We must invest an additional $1 trillion throughout this network.
Airports require an additional $42 billion to close the funding gap,
and inland waterways and ports need $15 billion. It is time to invest
in our nation's infrastructure because the longer we wait, the more it
will cost.
Fundamental Criteria for Future Infrastructure Investment
ASCE believes that all infrastructure programs and projects
supported by infrastructure investment legislation must meet the
following fundamental criteria:
Investments must provide substantial, long-term benefits
to the public and the economy;
The cost of a project over its entire life span--
including designing, building, operating, and maintaining the
infrastructure--must be taken into account;
Projects should be built sustainably and resiliently; and
Federal investment should leverage State, local, and
private investment, not replace these other critical sources of
infrastructure funding.
ASCE urges the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
to focus first on prioritizing those aspects of our infrastructure most
in need of repair, replacement, and modernization, to sustain our
economy, public health, and safety.
The first step for the 116th Congress should be to address three
major infrastructure priorities at the Federal level: fixing the
Highway Trust Fund, increasing the cap on the Passenger Facility Charge
to modernize our nation's airports, and ensuring all funds in Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund are utilized.
highway trust fund
Fixing the Federal Highway Trust Fund (HTF) is a critical component
of any plan to rebuild and modernize our infrastructure. Presently,
many of our surface transportation system assets have reached the end
of their design life, and in ASCE's 2017 Infrastructure Report Card,
our bridges, rail, road, and transit received grades of ``C+,'' ``D,''
and ``D-,'' respectively. Despite these dismal grades, the Federal
motor fuels tax rate hasn't been raised since 1993, and inflation has
cut its real value by 40 percent. As a result of not increasing the
Federal motor fuels tax, HTF revenues are not keeping pace with demand.
By 2029, it is estimated that there will be a collective shortfall of
$159 billion.
Because of this long underinvestment and inadequate support for the
HTF, a large and growing investment gap of $1.1 trillion over the next
10 years has emerged. This gap must be closed if we hope to both repair
and modernize our surface transportation infrastructure systems to be
competitive in the 21st century. Our nation's surface transportation
investment gap and subpar grades are a result of our dated Federal
motor fuels tax and inability to properly fund the HTF and our current
transportation infrastructure needs.
Our nation's elected leaders need to act quickly to address the
ever-growing revenue gap. The Federal Government has historically been
the leader in strengthening our surface transportation network. Because
of this Federal leadership role, we urge Congress to:
Fix the HTF by increasing the Federal motor fuels tax by
5 cents a year for 5 years. The current user fee must be raised and
tied to inflation to restore its purchasing power. This idea has been
led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and would provide a much-needed
infusion of $394 billion over 10 years and combat the $1.1 trillion
investment gap of surface transportation capital needs.
Establish a broad pilot program to better understand how
a Mileage-Based User Fee (MBUF) could be implemented in the future.
Include a tax on electric vehicles that would account for
their presence on our nation's roads.
passenger facility charge
U.S. airports serve more than two million passengers every day. The
aviation industry is marked by technologically advanced and
economically efficient aircraft; however, the associated infrastructure
of airports and air traffic control systems is not keeping up.
Congestion at airports is growing; it is expected that 24 of the top 30
major airports may soon experience ``Thanksgiving-peak traffic volume''
at least 1 day every week. In ASCE's 2017 Infrastructure Report Card,
our nation's airports earned a ``D'' due to a lack of investment in our
aviation infrastructure assets.
Because of an outdated, federally mandated cap on how much airports
can charge passengers for facility expansion and renovation, airports
struggle to keep up with investment needs, creating a $42 billion 10-
year funding gap. Raising or eliminating the cap on the Passenger
Facility Charge (PFC) will allow airports a much-needed revenue boost
and the ability for long-term planning and modernizing of our aviation
system for the 21st century.
harbor maintenance trust fund
The nation's 926 ports support over 23.1 million jobs and are
responsible for $4.6 trillion in economic activity. Notably, our ports
serve as the gateway through which 99 percent of America's overseas
trade passes. To remain competitive in the global market and to
accommodate larger vessels, ports have been investing in their
facilities and plan to spend over $154 billion from 2016 to 2020 on
expansion, modernization, and repair. However, ports are contending
with larger container ships and do not always have adequate access to
the user-fee funded Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF), which would
help these facilities prepare for larger vessels. Underinvestment in
our nation's ports has resulted in, by some accounts, a 25 percent
decrease in port productivity in the past 10 years.
ASCE supported the provision in the Water Resources Reform &
Development Act (WRRDA) of 2014 designed to encourage the use of the
HMTF revenues for its designated purpose. The HMTF's balance currently
sits at over $9 billion, but full appropriations of these funds have
not yet occurred. Once fully funded, it will take 5 years of complete
HMTF funding to dredge and restore channel depths and widths. ASCE
urges the Committee to continue implementing the WRRDA 2014 agreement
and to increase expenditures accordingly.
In addition, ASCE recommends Congress increase funding for key
areas of infrastructure, such as:
Dams & Levees
Our nation's 90,580 dams and over 30,000 miles of levees are
critical components of risk reduction and protect communities, critical
infrastructure, and trillions of dollars in property. However, it is
estimated that $80 billion is needed in the next 10 years to maintain
and improve the nation's levees, while the Association of State Dam
Safety Officials estimates the cost of rehabilitating our nation's
Federal and non-Federal dams to exceed $64 billion. Included in this is
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (USACE) estimate that more than $25
billion will be required to address dam deficiencies for Corps-owned
dams; at the current rate of investment, these repairs would take over
50 years to complete. ASCE's 2017 Infrastructure Report Card gave our
nation's dams and levees each a grade of ``D.''
Investment is needed to rehabilitate deficient dams and to complete
the national inventory of levees outside of the USACE's authority. ASCE
supported the WRRDA 2014 reauthorization of the National Dam Safety
Program and the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN)
Act's authorization of the High Hazard Potential Dam Rehabilitation
Program. However, ASCE is concerned that the National Dam Safety
Program consistently receives only a portion of its annual $13.9
million appropriations, while the High Hazard Potential Dam
Rehabilitation Program has yet to receive any appropriations. Likewise,
WRRDA 2014 created a new National Levee Safety Program to promote
consistent safety standards, create levee safety guidelines, and
provide funding assistance to States for establishing participating
levee safety programs, yet it has received no funding other than
funding for the levee inventory.
Inland Waterways
The USACE operates and maintains a vast network of 25,000 miles of
inland waterways and 239 locks that support half a million jobs,
deliver more than 600 million tons of cargo annually, and are the
nation's connection to inland and ocean ports and international
markets. Barge transport is the most fuel-efficient mode of the
transportation of goods, but with a majority of locks and dams reaching
well beyond their 50-year design life and thus requiring frequent
shutdowns for maintenance and repairs, nearly half of all vessels
traveling through our inland waterways experience delays. ASCE's 2017
Infrastructure Report Card gave our nation's inland waterways a grade
of ``D.''
ASCE supported the 2015 increase of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund
user tax, and although recent increases in investment have resulted in
some improvement in the projected completion date of many inland
waterway lock and dam rehabilitation projects, funding must continue at
a higher and more consistent level to meet the large backlog of needs.
ASCE also championed Section 5014 of WRRDA 2014, which authorizes
the USACE to enter agreements with non-Federal interests, including
private entities, to finance construction of at least 15 authorized
water resources development projects. ASCE was pleased that President
Trump's infrastructure proposal included several provisions to remove
barriers to implementation of this program. Alternative financing and
delivery mechanisms are an important new resourcing tool that can help
the USACE meet the growing needs of our nation's inland waterways
infrastructure.
ASCE was grateful that WRRDA 2014 authorized a new water
infrastructure financing mechanism, the Water Infrastructure Finance
and Innovation Act (WIFIA), which will be administered by the USACE and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The WIFIA concept is
modeled after a similar transportation project assistance program, the
remarkably successful Transportation Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act (TIFIA). Under this program, the USACE is authorized to
provide WIFIA support for an array of projects, including environmental
damage reduction projects, hurricane and storm damage reduction
projects, flood damage reduction projects, coastal or inland harbor
navigation improvement projects, and/or inland and intracoastal
waterways navigation projects.
Drinking Water & Wastewater
Well-maintained public drinking water and wastewater infrastructure
systems are critical for public health, strong businesses, and clean
waters and aquifers. ASCE's 2017 Infrastructure Report Card gave the
nation's drinking water infrastructure a grade of ``D,'' compared to
the nation's wastewater infrastructure, which did not fare much better
with a grade of ``D+.'' Despite increased efficiency methods and
sustainable practices, there is a growing gap between the capital
needed to maintain drinking water and wastewater infrastructure and the
actual investments made. By 2025, the investment gap for drinking water
and wastewater infrastructure systems is estimated at $105 billion.
According to the American Water Works Association, $1 trillion will be
needed to maintain and expand drinking water service demands during the
next 25 years.
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and the Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) play a vital role in providing States and
localities with a critical source of funding for water infrastructure
project through low-interest loans. This funding has been provided
since their original authorizations in 1987 and 1996, respectively.
ASCE was pleased that the DWSRF was reauthorized at increasing funding
levels in the America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018. ASCE urges
the Committee to reauthorize the Clean Water State Revolving Fund at
increasing funding levels, as well.
The Securing Required Funding for Water Infrastructure Now (SRF
WIN) Act is an innovative new financing mechanism that blends the most
successful parts of the SRFs and WIFIA to create a program that gives
State Infrastructure Financing Authorities access to WIFIA loans for
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. Authorized in the
America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, this new and efficient tool
leverages limited Federal resources and stimulates additional
investment in our nation's infrastructure.
The projects funded by these programs have already proven
successful; providing more funding to existing programs rather than
creating new programs will reduce overhead costs and startup time while
still allowing for significant and noticeable improvements across all
sectors of U.S. infrastructure.
conclusion: a 21st century vision for america's infrastructure
ASCE thanks the Committee for holding this hearing on a topic that
affects the quality of life and livelihood of every American.
In the 21st century, we see an America that thrives because of high
quality infrastructure. Infrastructure is the foundation that connects
the nation's businesses, communities, and people--driving our economy
and improving our quality of life. For the U.S. economy to be the most
competitive country in the world, we must have a first-class
infrastructure system: transport systems that move people and goods
efficiently, at reasonable cost by land, water, and air; transmission
systems that deliver reliable, low-cost power from a wide range of
energy sources; and water systems that drive industrial processes as
well as the daily functions in our homes.
We must commit today to make our vision of the future a reality--an
American infrastructure system that is the source of our prosperity.
ASCE and its 150,000 members look forward to working with the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to improve America's
infrastructure so that every family, community, and business can
thrive.
Statement of Mr. Juan Arvizu, Chairman of the Board, American Traffic
Safety Services Association, Submitted for the Record by Mr. DeFazio
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony
today regarding the safety impacts of investing, or not investing, in
America's surface transportation network. My name is Juan Arvizu, and I
currently serve as Chairman of the Board of Directors for the American
Traffic Safety Services Association (ATSSA). ATSSA is a 1,500-member
international trade association which represents the manufacturers,
installers and distributors of roadway safety infrastructure devices
and services such as guardrail and cable barrier, traffic signs,
pavement markings, rumble strips, high friction surface treatments, and
work zone safety devices, among others. Our mission is to Advance
Roadway Safety and reduce fatalities and serious injuries on U.S. roads
toward zero.
I am also the Chief Operating Officer for Pavement Marking, Inc.
(PMI) based in Tempe, AZ and with branches in El Paso, TX and Humble,
TX. In fact, Rep. Stanton represents our headquarters office in Tempe,
and I would like to congratulate him on his assignment to the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. PMI was incorporated 28
years ago and is Arizona's oldest pavement marking company. We are a
striping contractor focused on installing and removing pavement
markings around the southwest, and we have extensive experience working
with design-build and construction management at risk (CMAR) projects.
Congratulations to both Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves
on your new leadership positions on the Committee, and thank you for
holding this hearing.
Policy-makers at all levels of government routinely list safety as
a top priority when it comes to infrastructure investments and surface
transportation policy. However, safety needs to be more than a talking
point. When we as a country do not robustly invest in proven, cost-
effective roadway safety infrastructure projects, we are missing a
significant opportunity to improve the lives of every American.
We know about the job creation impact from not investing in
infrastructure; we know about the economic impact to local communities
from not investing in infrastructure, and we know the impacts from
increased congestion from not investing in infrastructure. However,
arguably, the greatest impact of not investing in infrastructure is
having this country continue to see an increase in fatalities and
serious injuries on roadways in congressional districts across this
Nation.
It can be easy to take roadway safety infrastructure for granted.
But it is a critical component of a well-functioning transportation
system. Cost-effective roadway safety infrastructure comes in many
forms--including guardrails, cable barriers, pavement markings, highway
signs and so much more. And we see the impacts of these investments
every day.
For example, in a 2011 study analyzing work on Missouri roads,
traditional 4-inch wide pavement markings were replaced with wider 6-
inch wide markings on more than 1,000 miles of roadway.\1\ Analysis
indicates that there were significant reductions in fatal and serious
injury crashes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Innovative Safety Solutions with Pavement Markings and
Delineation'' https://www.atssa.com/
LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=m30RHMJESp4%3d&portalid=0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
46 percent reduction on rural, multilane undivided
highways
38 percent reduction on urban, two-lane highways
34 percent reduction on rural, multilane divided highways
21 percent reduction on rural freeways
For a moment, imagine the lives not saved without this cost-
effective safety improvement.
Let me provide another example. As we look to the future, we know
that connected and automated vehicles (CAVs) will become an increasing
presence on our roadways. Having the right pavement markings and
highway signs will play a critical role in the success--or failure--of
these new systems. In fact, at a February 2017 House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee hearing focused on building a 21st Century
infrastructure, President and CEO-North America of BMW was asked to
identify components of the transportation system that were needed to
successfully deploy CAVs--and he responded that clear lane markings
were critical.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.enotrans.org/article/two-decades-congress-still-
pushing-21st-century-infrastructure/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We know that some automakers require clear pavement markings and
signage for their CAVs to function properly, and we know that some
studies have found that wider pavement markings have a positive safety
benefit for drivers.\3\ But do wider markings have a positive benefit
for ``machine drivers'' or CAVs? The Texas A&M Transportation Institute
undertook a recent study to examine just that and found that under
certain conditions, wider pavement markings have a beneficial safety
impact on CAVs. This October 2018 study found that six-inch wide
pavement markings have a consistent positive impact for machine vision
detection under adverse visibility conditions, including: remnants of
previously removed markings, residual pavement scarring stemming from
marking removal, blackout markings, crack seal, pavement seams, and
glare, among other factors.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/
pavement_marking/ch3.cfm
\4\ October 2018 Texas A&M Transportation Institute ``Evaluation of
the Effects of Pavement Marking Width on Detectability by Machine
Vision: 4-Inch versus 6-Inch Markings'' Study
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, roadway safety infrastructure projects have a
positive impact on human driver behavior. When a drowsy driver begins
to drift out of his lane, a rumble strip will alert him to correct his
action. When coming into a sharp curve at too high a rate of speed,
high friction surface treatments help a vehicle's tires grip the road.
When a vehicle departs a highway and heads toward oncoming traffic,
median cable barrier or guardrail will stop that car from colliding
with oncoming traffic. Roadway safety infrastructure projects are an
integral piece to the overall safety of the American transportation
network.
Pavement markings are just one example of a roadway safety
infrastructure device that saves lives. As Congress looks to
reauthorize the FAST Act and pursue an infrastructure initiative,
investing in roadway safety infrastructure must be a priority. We
cannot allow a lack of investment to mean more lives lost on our
nation's roadways. We know what happens when we do not adequately
address safety issues and the costs associated with that lack of
investment. What is that cost? 37,133.\5\ The number of fatalities on
our roads in 2017. We can and must do better.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Number of traffic fatalities in 2017: https://
crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812603
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for allowing ATSSA to submit
testimony for the record. We stand ready to work with and the entire
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee as you develop surface
transportation legislation during this Congress.
Statement of Mr. Chris Spear, President and Chief Executive Officer,
American Trucking Associations, Submitted for the Record by Mr. DeFazio
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the
committee, the American Trucking Associations (ATA) \1\ is pleased to
submit testimony for the record on our nation's infrastructure needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ American Trucking Associations is the largest national trade
association for the trucking industry. Through a federation of 50
affiliated State trucking associations and industry-related conferences
and councils, ATA is the voice of the industry America depends on most
to move our nation's freight. Follow ATA on Twitter or on Facebook.
Trucking Moves America Forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trucking is the fulcrum point in the United States' supply chain.
This year, our industry will move 70 percent of the nation's freight
tonnage, and over the next decade will be tasked with moving nearly
three billion more tons of freight than it does today while continuing
to deliver the vast majority of goods.\2\ Trucks haul 83 percent of the
freight originating in Oregon and 81 percent of the freight delivered
from Missouri. In 2017, the goods moved by trucks were worth more than
$10 trillion.\3\ The trucking industry is also a significant source of
employment, with 7.7 million people working in various occupations,
accounting for every 1 in 18 jobs in the U.S.\4\ Furthermore, ``truck
driver'' is the top job in 29 States.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Freight Transportation Forecast 2018 to 2029. American Trucking
Associations, 2018.
\3\ 2017 Commodity Flow Survey Preliminary Report. U.S. Census
Bureau, Dec. 7, 2018.
\4\ American Trucking Trends 2018, American Trucking Associations.
\5\ https://www.marketwatch.com/story/keep-on-truckin-in-a-
majority-of-states-its-the-most-popular-job-2015-02-09
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Without trucks, our cities, towns and communities would lack key
necessities including food and drinking water; there would be no
clothes to purchase, and no parts to build automobiles or fuel to power
them. The rail, air and water intermodal sectors would not exist in
their current form without the trucking industry to support them.
Trucks are central to our nation's economy and our way of life, and
every time the government makes a decision that affects the trucking
industry, those impacts are also felt by individuals and by the
millions of businesses that could not exist without trucks.
Mr. Chairman, we are on the cusp of a transformation in the
movement of freight, one that you and your colleagues will greatly
influence. Radical technological change will, in the near future, allow
trucks to move more safely and efficiently, and with less impact on the
environment than we ever dared to imagine. Yet we are facing headwinds,
due almost entirely to government action or, in some cases inaction
that will slow or cancel out entirely the benefits of innovation.
Failure to maintain and improve the highway system that your
predecessors helped to create will destroy the efficiencies that have
enabled U.S. manufacturers and farmers to continue to compete with
countries that enjoy far lower labor and regulatory costs.
Mr. Chairman, we are at a critical point in our country's history,
and the decisions made by this committee over the next few months will
impact the safety and efficiency of freight transportation for
generations. ATA looks forward to working with you to develop and
implement sound policy that benefits the millions of Americans and U.S.
businesses that rely on a safe and efficient supply chain.
the cost of inaction
A well-maintained, reliable and efficient network of highways is
crucial to the delivery of the nation's freight, and vital to our
country's economic and social well-being. However, the road system is
rapidly deteriorating, and costs the average motorist nearly $1,600 a
year in higher maintenance and congestion expenses.\6\ Highway
congestion also adds nearly $75 billion to the cost of freight
transportation each year.\7\ In 2016, truck drivers sat in traffic for
nearly 1.2 billion hours, equivalent to more than 425,000 drivers
sitting idle for a year.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Bumpy Road Ahead: America's Roughest Rides and Strategies to
make our Roads Smoother, The Road Information Program, Oct. 2018; 2015
Urban Mobility Scorecard. Texas Transportation Institute, Aug. 2015.
\7\ Cost of Congestion to the Trucking Industry: 2018 Update.
American Transportation Research Institute, Oct. 2018.
\8\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the cost and scale of addressing highway improvement needs is
daunting, it is important to note that much of the congestion is
focused at a relatively small number of locations. Just 17 percent of
National Highway System (NHS) miles represents 87 percent of total
truck congestion costs nationwide.\9\ Many of these locations are at
highway bottlenecks that are identified annually by the American
Transportation Research Institute. ATRI just released its latest
freight bottlenecks report, which identifies the top 100 truck
bottlenecks around the country.\10\ The worst bottleneck was Interstate
95 at State Route 4 in Fort Lee, NJ. While most of the bottlenecks were
in large metropolitan areas, the report found trouble spots even in
smaller cities like Baton Rouge, LA, San Bernardino, CA, Birmingham,
AL, Chattanooga, TN, and Greenville, SC. ATA's highway funding
proposal, described below, would adopt a strategy for funding
improvements at these costly choke points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Ibid.
\10\ https://truckingresearch.org/2019/02/06/atri-2019-truck-
bottlenecks/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most troubling is the impact of underinvestment on highway safety.
In nearly 53 percent of highway fatalities, the condition of the
roadway is a contributing factor.\11\ In 2011, nearly 17,000 people
died in roadway departure crashes, over 50 percent of the total.\12\
Many of these fatalities result from collisions with roadside objects,
such as trees or poles located close to the roadway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Roadway Safety Guide. Roadway Safety Foundation, 2014.
\12\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Highway Trust Fund (HTF), the primary source of Federal revenue
for highway projects, safety programs and transit investments, is
projected to run short of the funds necessary to maintain current
spending levels by fiscal year 2021.\13\ While an average of
approximately $42 billion per year is expected to be collected from
highway users over the next decade, nearly $60 billion will be required
annually to prevent significant reductions in Federal aid for critical
projects and programs.\14\ It should be noted that a $60 billion annual
average Federal investment still falls well short of the resources
necessary to provide the Federal share of the expenditure needed to
address the nation's surface transportation safety, maintenance and
capacity needs.\15\ According to the American Society of Civil
Engineers, the U.S. spends less than half of what is necessary to
address these needs. As the investment gap continues to grow, so too
will the number of deficient bridges, miles of roads in poor condition,
number of highway bottlenecks and, most critically, the number of
crashes and fatalities attributable to inadequate roadways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Projections of Highway Trust Fund Accounts--CBO's January 2018
Baseline, Congressional Budget Office.
\14\ Ibid.
\15\ 2015 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit:
Conditions & Performance. USDOT, Dec. 2016; see also 2017
Infrastructure Report Card. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recently released report \16\ by the Transportation Research
Board (TRB) requested by Congress focused specifically on the current
state and future needs of the Interstate Highway System. This critical
network binds our nation together and reaps immeasurable economic and
national security benefits for the United States. Most importantly,
because interstates are far safer than surface roads, since 1967 it has
prevented nearly a quarter million people from losing their lives in
vehicular crashes.\17\ The Interstate Highway System accounts for about
one-quarter of all miles traveled by light-duty vehicles and 40 percent
of miles traveled by trucks.\18\ The TRB report estimates that
conservatively, the State and Federal investment necessary to address
the Interstate system's maintenance and capacity needs will need to
double or triple over today's expenditures in the next 20 years.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Renewing the National Commitment to the Interstate Highway
System: A Foundation for the Future (2018). Transportation Research
Board, National Academy of Sciences.
\17\ Ibid, p. 2-18
\18\ Ibid, p. 2-10.
\19\ Ibid, p. S-5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
build america fund
ATA's proposed solution to the highway funding crisis is the Build
America Fund. The BAF would be supported with a new 20 cent per gallon
fee built into the price of transportation fuels collected at the
terminal rack, to be phased in over 4 years. The fee will be indexed to
both inflation and improvements in fuel efficiency, with a 5 percent
annual cap. We estimate that the fee will generate nearly $340 billion
over the first 10 years. It will cost the average passenger vehicle
driver just over $100 per year once fully phased in.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2016, Table
VM-1. Average light-duty vehicle consumed 522 gallons of fuel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also support a new fee on hybrid and electric vehicles, which
underpay for their use of the highway system or do not contribute at
all. We look forward to working with Congress to identify the best
approach to achieve that goal. In addition, ATA supports repeal of the
Federal excise tax on trucking equipment, provided the revenue it
generates for the HTF is replaced. This antiquated 12 percent sales
tax, which was adopted during World War I, is a barrier to investment
in the cleanest, safest trucks available on the market.
Under the BAF proposal, the first tranche of revenue generated by
the new fee would be transferred to the HTF. Using a fiscal year 2020
baseline, existing HTF programs would be funded at authorized levels
sufficient to prevent a reduction in distributed funds, plus an annual
increase to account for inflation.
Second, a new National Priorities Program (NPP) would be funded
with an annual allocation of $5 billion, plus an annual increase
equivalent to the percentage increase in BAF revenue. Each year, the
U.S. Department of Transportation would determine the location of the
costliest highway bottlenecks in the Nation and publish the list.
Criteria could include the number of vehicles; amount of freight;
congestion levels; reliability; safety; or, air quality impacts. States
with identified bottlenecks could apply to USDOT for project funding
grants on a competitive basis. Locations could appear on the list over
multiple years until they are addressed.
The funds remaining following the transfer to the HTF and the NPP
would be placed into the Local Priorities Program (LPP). Funds would be
apportioned to the States according to the same formula established by
the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, including sub-
allocation to local agencies. Project eligibility would be the same as
the eligibility for the National Highway Freight Program or National
Highway Performance Program, for highway projects only.
This approach would give State and local transportation agencies
the long-term certainty and revenue stability they need to not only
maintain, but also begin to improve their surface transportation
systems. They should not be forced to resort to costly, inefficient
practices--such as deferred maintenance--necessitated by the
unpredictable Federal revenue streams that have become all too common
since 2008. Furthermore, while transportation investment has long-term
benefits that extend beyond the initial construction phase, it is
estimated that our proposal would add nearly half a million annual jobs
related to construction nationwide, including nearly 6,000 jobs in
Mississippi and more than 8,000 jobs in Washington State (see Appendix
A for a full list of State-specific employment figures).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ A Framework for Infrastructure Funding. American
Transportation Research Institute, Nov. 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fuel tax is the most immediate, cost-efficient and conservative
mechanism currently available for funding surface transportation
projects and programs. Collection costs are less than 1 percent of
revenue.\22\ Our proposal will not add to the Federal debt or force
States to resort to detrimental financing options that could jeopardize
their bond ratings. Unlike other approaches that simply pass the buck
to State and local governments by giving them additional ``tools'' to
debt-finance their infrastructure funding shortfalls for the few
projects that qualify, the BAF will generate real money that can be
utilized for any Federal-aid project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, while some have suggested that a fuel tax is
regressive, the economic harm of failing to enact our proposal will be
far more damaging to motorists. The $100 per year paid by the average
car driver under this proposal pales in comparison with the $1,600 they
are now forced to pay annually due to additional vehicle maintenance,
lost time, and wasted fuel that has resulted from underinvestment in
our infrastructure. Borrowing billions of dollars each year from China
to debt finance the HTF funding gap--a cost imposed on current and
future generations of Americans who will be forced to pay the
interest--is far more regressive than the modest fee needed to avoid
further blowing up our already massive national debt. Forcing States to
resort to tolls by starving them of Federal funds is far more
regressive than the $2.00 a week motorists would pay under our
proposal. One needs only look to I-66 in Northern Virginia, where tolls
average more than $12.00 per roundtrip and can sometimes exceed $46.00,
to understand the potential impacts on lower-or middle-income
Americans.\23\ To put this into perspective, even if motorists only
paid the average toll, the cost of a 10-mile trip over an 8-day period
on I-66 would be equivalent to their cost for an entire year under
ATA's BAF proposal for all roads and bridges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ http://www.66expresslanes.org/documents/
66_express_lanes_january_2018_
performance_ereport.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
alternative revenue sources
The fuel tax is the most fair and efficient method for funding
highways. Just 0.2 percent of fuel tax revenue goes to collection
costs.\24\ However, we are willing to consider other funding options,
provided they meet the following criteria:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be easy and inexpensive to pay and collect;
Have a low evasion rate;
Be tied to highway use; and
Avoid creating impediments to interstate commerce.
While ATA is open to supporting a wide range of funding and
financing options, we will oppose expansion of Interstate highway
tolling authority and highway ``asset recycling.'' Interstate tolls are
a highly inefficient method of funding highways. Tolling also forces
traffic onto secondary roads, which are weaker and less safe. Asset
recycling involves selling or leasing public assets to the private
sector. Where asset recycling has been utilized on toll roads in the
U.S., toll payers have seen their rates increased, only to subsidize
projects with little or no benefit to them. One need only consider the
recent 35 percent increase in truck toll rates on the Indiana Toll Road
for an example of these abusive practices. The State gets a single
tranche of money for road, broadband, airport and other projects that
have no direct benefit for toll road users, while the private operator
of the highway reaps the profits for the next six decades. Please note
that our position on asset recycling pertains only to the highway
sector.
ATA is aware of proposals to create a new fee that taxes the cost
of freight transportation services. While such a proposal is attractive
in concept, we have identified several issues that have yet to be
resolved to our satisfaction, and therefore we cannot support it at
this time. Our primary (though by no means only) concerns are: high
administrative costs; significant potential for evasion; and difficulty
imposing the fee on private carriers
future revenue sources
While ATA considers an increase in the fuel tax to be the best and
most immediate means for improving our nation's roads and bridges, we
also recognize that due to improvements in fuel efficiency and the
development of new technologies that avoid the need to purchase fossil
fuel altogether, the fuel tax is likely to be a diminishing source of
revenue for surface transportation improvements. We, therefore,
encourage Congress, in consultation with the executive branch, State
and local partners and the private sector, to continue to work toward
identifying future revenue sources.
The FAST Act created a new grant program designed to accomplish
this objective, and we hope that this research will continue. While
much work has already been accomplished in this regard, there is much
still to be done before these new revenue mechanisms are ready for
mainstream implementation. ATA encourages Congress to include in a
future infrastructure package or surface transportation reauthorization
bill a plan to bolster and, if necessary, ultimately replace current
highway funding mechanisms with new, more sustainable revenue sources.
We recommend a 10-year strategy that could include creation of a blue-
ribbon commission to explore the results of pilot programs already
completed or underway, with recommendations for either further research
or a proposal for Congress to adopt a new funding approach.
freight transportation improvement
While trucks move the vast majority of freight, it is important to
recognize the critical nature of the multimodal supply chain. The
seamless interchange of freight between trucks, trains, aircraft, ships
and waterways operators allows shippers to minimize costs and maximize
efficiencies. While carriers do what they can to make this process as
smooth as possible, some things are largely out of their hands and
require government action.
Importance of the Federal Role
The Federal Government has a critical role to play in the supply
chain. Freight knows no borders, and the constraints of trying to
improve the movement of freight without Federal funding and
coordination will create a drag on all freight providers' ability to
serve national and international needs. As the maps in Appendix B show,
trucks move products to and from all corners of the country, and serve
international markets as well.
These maps demonstrate that parochial debates over how much funding
each State receives is ultimately destructive to shippers no matter
where they are located. The cost of congestion for a truck that moves
freight from Kansas City to Chicago is no different whether that
congestion occurs in Kansas City or in Chicago. There is little
advantage to a truck moving a load of cars from the Port of Baltimore
to a dealership in Washington, DC. if roadway improvements are made
around the port, only to experience severe congestion in Washington.
The critical role that only the Federal Government can play is to look
at investment decisions in the context of national impacts and
determine which investments can produce the greatest economic benefits
regardless of jurisdictional considerations. Only the Federal
Government can break down the artificial constraints of geographic
boundaries that hamper sound investment in our nation's freight
networks. Only the Federal Government can provide the resources
necessary to fund projects whose benefits extend beyond State lines,
but are too expensive for State or local governments to justify
investments at the expense of local priorities.
Freight Intermodal Connectors
Freight intermodal connectors--those roads that connect ports, rail
yards, airports and other intermodal facilities to the National Highway
System--are publicly owned. And while they are an essential part of the
freight distribution system, many are neglected and are not given the
attention they deserve given their importance to the nation's economy.
Just 9 percent of connectors are in good or very good condition, 19
percent are in mediocre condition, and 37 percent are in poor
condition.\25\ Not only do poor roads damage both vehicles and the
freight they carry, but the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) found
a correlation between poor roads and vehicle speed. Average speed on a
connector in poor condition was 22 percent lower than on connectors in
fair or better condition.\26\ FHWA further found that congestion on
freight intermodal connectors causes 1,059,238 hours of truck delay
annually and 12,181,234 hours of automobile delay.\27\ Congestion on
freight intermodal connectors adds nearly $71 million to freight
transportation costs each year.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Freight Intermodal Connectors Study. Federal Highway
Administration, April 2017.
\26\ Ibid.
\27\ Ibid.
\28\ An Analysis of the Operational Costs of Trucking: 2018 Update.
American Transportation Research Institute, Oct. 2018. Estimates
average truck operational cost of $66.65 per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One possible reason connectors are neglected is that the vast
majority of these roads--70 percent--are under the jurisdiction of a
local or county government.\29\ Yet, these roads are serving critical
regional or national needs well beyond the geographic boundaries of the
jurisdictions that have responsibility for them, and these broader
benefits may not be factored into the local jurisdictions' spending
decisions. While connectors are eligible for Federal funding, it is
clear that this is simply not good enough. We urge Congress to set
aside adequate funding for freight intermodal connectors to ensure that
these critical arteries are given the attention and resources they
deserve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
truck driver parking shortage
Research and feedback from carriers and drivers suggest there is a
significant shortage of available parking for truck drivers in certain
parts of the country. Given the projected growth in demand for trucking
services, this problem will likely worsen. There are significant safety
benefits from investing in truck parking to ensure that trucks are not
parking in unsafe areas due to lack of space.
Funding for truck parking is available to States under the current
Federal-aid highway program, but truck parking has not been a priority
given a shortage of funds for essential highway projects. Therefore, we
support the creation of a new discretionary grant program with
dedicated funding from the Federal-aid highway program for truck
parking capital projects.
additional productivity impediments
It is helpful to understand the full range of productivity
constraints we are facing in the context of addressing infrastructure-
related impediments. There are a host of actions that Congress can take
to improve freight mobility without compromising important societal
goals such as safety and air quality.
While ATA supports State flexibility on certain matters, it should
be recognized that Congress has a Constitutionally mandated
responsibility to ensure the flow of interstate commerce. Where
appropriate, Federal preemption may be necessary. Unfortunately,
Federal avoidance of preemption in the name of States' rights or to
avoid controversy sometimes leads to a patchwork of State regulations
that creates significant inefficiencies. Where appropriate, the Federal
Government must act to protect the public interest from the parochial
demands of narrow constituencies.
Workforce Development
The trucking industry is facing a severe labor shortage that
threatens to increase the cost of moving freight and reduce supply
chain efficiencies. In 2017, for example, the industry was short 50,000
drivers, the highest level on record. If current trends hold, the
shortage could grow to more than 174,000 by 2026. Over the next decade,
the trucking industry will need to hire roughly 898,000 new drivers, or
an average of nearly 90,000 per year.
In recognition of challenges like these, at last March's
infrastructure hearing before this Committee, Labor Secretary Alex
Acosta specifically advocated for workforce development reforms to be
included in an infrastructure package. In particular, Secretary Acosta
testified in support of occupational licensing reform. As you may be
aware, reforming outdated occupational licensing requirements has been
a bipartisan priority of the past three administrations, and there is
broad bipartisan support for rolling back these unnecessary barriers
that hold back so many Americans, and which disproportionately affect
African-Americans, Hispanics, military spouses and veterans, returning
citizens, and the poor.
To help alleviate this problem in the trucking industry, ATA
supports a number of occupational licensing reforms. First, ATA
supports lowering the minimum age requirement for interstate truck
driving from 21 to 18, but only for qualified CDL-holding apprentices
that satisfy the safety, training, and technology requirements spelled
out in the DRIVE Safe Act (S. 3352 in the 115th Congress). Modern-day
vehicle safety technologies have advanced by several orders of
magnitude since the current minimum age requirement was promulgated
decades ago. Research shows that the technologies required by the DRIVE
Safe Act and endorsed by the NTSB--such as active braking, collision
avoidance, and event recorders--significantly improve safety
performance. Meanwhile, 6.4 million Opportunity Youth in this country
are neither employed, nor in school, even as the Nation is short 50,000
truck drivers. An update to the minimum age requirement is long over-
due.
Second, to better connect job-seekers to trucking careers that
offer a median salary of $54,585, health and retirement benefits, and
potentially thousands of dollars in signing bonuses, ATA supports
efforts to require States to better serve the growing number of truck
driver candidates who receive driver training outside their State of
domicile. Currently, out-of-State trainees have to travel back and
forth to their home State, every time they pass either the CDL
knowledge test or skills test, just to obtain the basic occupational
licenses necessary to launch their trucking career. This arrangement
imposes unnecessary financial burdens on those who can least afford it
and exposes them to skills degradation. This problem could be addressed
by requiring States receiving Federal funds for infrastructure projects
to allow such out-of-State trainees to (1) complete all training; (2)
take all necessary tests; and (3) obtain all necessary credentials in
the State in which they are receiving training--without having to
travel back to their home State.
As the Council of Economic Advisers has noted:
Because [occupational] licenses are largely granted by States
(rather than being nationally recognized), licensing inhibits
the free flow of licensed workers across State boundaries to
better match labor supply to labor demand. Unless the
geographic footprint and skill needs of expanded infrastructure
investments match the geographic distribution of currently
unemployed infrastructure workers, some reshuffling of workers
across State lines may be needed.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ The Council of Economic Advisers, ``The Economic Benefits and
Impacts of Expanded Infrastructure Investment,'' March 2018
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the trucking industry, the geographic distribution of currently
unemployed truck driver candidates does not match the geographic
footprint of Federal workforce development investments. Accordingly,
individuals aspiring to become truck drivers are crossing State lines
to obtain state-of-the-art training from motor carriers that have the
support of Federal workforce dollars and have been hiring minorities,
veterans, apprentices, and other underrepresented populations at
industry-leading rates.
To better facilitate and scale this innovative model of workforce
development, ATA supports efforts to require States of domicile to (1)
accept the results of an applicant's CDL knowledge test administered in
another State, and to (2) electronically transmit or deliver by mail
the relevant credential--be it a CLP or a CDL--to the applicant without
requiring him or her to physically come back to the State of domicile.
Infrastructure and Trucking Technology
ATA supports the development and deployment of automated vehicle
technology and connectivity for all vehicle types. The transportation
industry is in an era of technological evolution that can deliver
increased safety and efficiency for highway vehicles and vulnerable
road users. Automated driving systems and vehicle safety communications
are peaking in research and development, and are on the brink of market
utilization. We encourage Congress to adopt legislation that
facilitates the adoption of technology that improves safety, the
environment, traffic congestion, and energy efficiency. It is important
to ensure that all vehicles that share the road together, including
commercial vehicles, are included in legislation that governs and
facilitates these improvements. Furthermore, as you consider funding
for infrastructure investment generally, keep in mind that these
improvements are vital to the successful adoption of intelligent
transportation systems.
conclusion
Mr. Chairman, over the next decade, freight tonnage is projected to
grow by 30 percent.\31\ The trucking industry is expected to carry two-
thirds of the nation's freight in 2029 and it will be tasked with
hauling 2.6 billion more tons of freight than it moved this year.\32\
Without Federal support and cooperation, the industry will find it
extremely difficult to meet these demands at the price and service
levels that its customers--American businesses--need to compete
globally. It is imperative to our nation's economy and security that
Congress, working in concert with the Administration, invest in
critical highway freight infrastructure, and make the reforms necessary
to create an improved regulatory environment that fosters greater
safety and efficiency in our supply chain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Freight Transportation Forecast 2018-2029. IHS Global Insight,
2018.
\32\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The trucking industry, and especially truck drivers, understands
the importance of safe and efficient highways like nobody else. Roads
and bridges are our workplace, and we cannot properly serve the needs
of the Nation if elected officials continue to allow highways to fall
into greater neglect. The trucking industry already pays nearly half
the user fees into the HTF and we are willing to invest more. To us,
and most Americans, this is not an ideological debate. It is simply a
decision about whether we make the investments necessary to remain
competitive and prevent needless injuries and deaths, or continue on
the current path.
Mr. Chairman, on January 6, 1983, President Ronald Reagan, in
signing into law legislation that increased the Federal fuel tax, said:
Today . . . America ends a period of decline in her vast and
world-famous transportation system . . . . [We] can now ensure
for our children a special part of their heritage--a network of
highways and mass transit that has enabled our commerce to
thrive, our country to grow, and our people to roam freely and
easily to every corner of our land.
That bill was supported by 261 Members of the House, including a
majority of both Republicans and Democrats. Roads and bridges know no
political party; we all benefit from them. It is time for elected
officials to put aside partisan politics and regional differences and
fulfill the promise to the American people expressed so eloquently by
President Reagan.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your support and the support that both
House and Senate Leaders--Republican and Democrat--have given to
passage of an infrastructure bill this Congress. In his State of the
Union speech last week, President Trump called on Congress to work with
him to pass an infrastructure bill, and correctly stated that this is
not an option, it is a necessity. Congress has a unique opportunity
this year to show the American people that it is, once more, able to
work together, in partnership with the President, to pass bipartisan
legislation that will improve their daily lives, create good jobs and
grow the economy.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on this
important subject. We look forward to working with the committee to
advance legislation that enables the trucking industry to continue to
provide safe and efficient freight transportation services to the
American people.
appendix a: funding impact matrix--annual state-level job and revenue
increases resulting from federal fuel tax increases
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
appendix b: truck flows after 7 days from city of origin
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Statement of the Association of American Railroads Submitted for the
Record by Mr. Graves of Missouri
introduction
On behalf of the members of the Association of American Railroads
(AAR), thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony for
this hearing's record. First, I'd like to extend a special greeting to
the new members of this committee and offer my congratulations to
Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves. Please know that the rail
industry stands ready to work cooperatively with you, other members of
this committee, and other policymakers to help ensure our nation has
the freight transportation capability it needs to prosper in the
future.
AAR members account for the vast majority of U.S. freight rail
volume, employment, mileage, and revenue. When it comes to
transportation, we're all in this together. It's true that the various
modes of transportation compete fiercely against each other in
virtually every market they serve. This competition is healthy and
appropriate. At the same time, though, railroads, trucks, and barges
also cooperate extensively in countless markets. No country can be a
first-rate economic power without having first-rate logistics and
transportation capabilities across modes.
Today, there is a tremendous amount of strength and flexibility in
America's freight transportation systems. It's also clear, however,
that our nation faces significant challenges in maintaining our
existing freight-moving capability and in improving it to meet the
needs of tomorrow. While the railroad industry is overwhelmingly
privately funded, railroads have a strong vested interest that adequate
investments be made in public infrastructure like ports and highways to
ensure that the nation has a vibrant and integrated freight supply
chain. The cost of doing nothing is high. Our nation has come to rely
on an integrated network that will deliver goods rapidly and
efficiently to homes and customers at all hours of the day to
destinations far and wide. Deferring action to shore up needed
investment in public highway, bridge, port, and passenger and commuter
rail infrastructure will only cost American taxpayers more in the long
run. Railroads agree that America's transportation system should not be
run to the point of failure.
Examining solutions to transportation revenue shortages, railroads
believe that for reasons of economic efficiency and modal equity,
public infrastructure funding should adhere as closely as possible to
the principle of ``user pays.''
a transportation backbone
The more than 600 freight railroads that operate in the United
States together form the best freight rail network in the world. Their
global superiority is a direct result of a balanced regulatory system
that relies on market-based competition to establish rate and service
standards, with a regulatory safety net available to rail customers
when there is an absence of effective railroad competition.
Railroads move vast amounts of just about everything, connecting
businesses with each other across the continent and with markets
overseas over a rail network spanning nearly 140,000 miles. Rail
intermodal--the transport of shipping containers and truck trailers on
railroad flatcars--has grown tremendously over the past 25 years,
setting a record in 2018. Today, just about everything you find on a
retailer's shelves likely traveled on an intermodal train. Increasing
amounts of industrial goods are transported by intermodal trains as
well.
Given the volume of rail freight (close to two billion tons and 30
million carloads and intermodal units in a typical year) and the long
distances that freight moves by rail (nearly 1,000 miles, on average),
freight railroads' direct role in our economy is immense, but freight
railroads contribute to our nation in many other ways too:
America's freight railroads are overwhelmingly privately
owned and operate almost exclusively on infrastructure that they own,
build, maintain, and pay for themselves. Since 1980, freight railroads
have plowed more than $685 billion--of their own funds, not taxpayer
funds--on capital expenditures and maintenance expenses related to
locomotives, freight cars, tracks, bridges, tunnels and other
infrastructure and equipment. That's more than 40 cents out of every
revenue dollar, invested back into a rail network that keeps our
economy moving.
An October 2018 study from Towson University's Regional
Economic Studies Institute found that, in 2017 alone, the operations
and capital investment of America's major freight railroads supported
approximately 1.1 million jobs (nearly eight jobs for every railroad
job), $219 billion in economic output, and $71 billion in wages.
Railroads also generated nearly $26 billion in tax revenues.
Thanks to competitive rail rates--46 percent lower, on
average, in 2017 than in 1981 adjusted for inflation--freight railroads
save consumers billions of dollars every year. Millions of Americans
work in industries that are more competitive in the tough global
economy thanks to the affordability and productivity of America's
freight railroads.
In 2017, railroads moved a ton of freight an average of
479 miles per gallon of diesel fuel. That's roughly equivalent to
moving a ton from Jackson, MS to Springfield, MO, or Tacoma, WA to
Helena, MT, on a single gallon. On average, railroads are four times
more fuel efficient than trucks. That means moving freight by rail
helps our environment by reducing energy consumption, pollution, and
greenhouse gases.
Because a single train can carry the freight of several
hundred trucks, railroads cut highway gridlock and reduce the high
costs of highway construction and maintenance.
The approximately 167,000 freight railroad professionals
are among America's most highly compensated workers. In 2017, the
average U.S. Class I freight railroad employee earned total
compensation of $125,400. By contrast, the average wage per full-time
equivalent U.S. employee in domestic industries was $76,500, just 61
percent of the rail figure. Around 80 percent of the U.S. freight rail
workforce is unionized, compared with only around 6 percent of all
private sector workers.
Railroads are safe and constantly working to get even
safer. The train accident rate in 2017 was down 40 percent from 2000;
the employee injury rate in 2017 was down 43 percent from 2000; and the
grade crossing collision rate in 2017 was down 38 percent from 2000. By
all these measures, recent years have been the safest in history.
Railroads today have lower employee injury rates than most other major
industries, including trucking, airlines, agriculture, mining,
manufacturing, and construction--even lower than food stores.
Freight railroads are committed to safely implementing
positive train control (PTC) as quickly as feasible so that further
safety gains can be achieved. The seven Class I freight railroads all
met statutory requirements by having 100 percent of their required PTC-
related hardware installed, 100 percent of their PTC-related spectrum
in place, and 100 percent of their required employee training completed
by the end of 2018. In aggregate, Class I railroads had 83 percent of
required PTC route-miles in operation at the end of 2018, well above
the 50 percent required by statute. Each Class I railroad expects to be
operating trains in PTC mode on all their PTC routes no later than
2020, as required by statute. In the meantime, railroads are continuing
to test and validate their PTC systems thoroughly to ensure they work
as they should.
transportation capacity is key
The long-term demand for freight transportation in this country
will grow. The Federal Highway Administration forecasts that U.S.
freight tonnage will rise 37 percent by 2040. For railroads, meeting
this demand is all about having adequate capacity and using it well,
and that is what they focus on.
The requirement for capital in freight railroading is at or near
the top among all U.S. industries. In recent years, the average U.S.
manufacturer spent approximately three percent of revenue on capital
expenditures. The comparable figure for freight railroads is nearly 19
percent, or more than six times higher.
Thanks to their massive investments, freight railroad
infrastructure today is in its best overall condition ever. The
challenge for railroads, and for policymakers, is to ensure that the
current high quality of rail infrastructure is maintained, and that
adequate freight rail capacity exists to meet our nation's current and
future freight transportation needs. Policymakers can help by enacting
policies that promote safety and efficiency and by avoiding policies
that discourage private rail investment.
keep railroad rate and service regulation balanced
The current structure of rail regulation relies on competition and
market forces to determine rail rates and service standards in most
cases, with maximum rate and other protections available to rail
customers when there is an absence of effective competition. This
deregulatory structure has benefited railroads and their customers.
However, despite the severe harm caused by excessive railroad
regulation in years past and the substantial public benefits that have
accrued since the current less regulatory regime was put in place, some
want to again give government regulators control over crucial areas of
rail operations. That would be a profound mistake. It would prevent
America's railroads from making the massive investments a best-in-the-
world freight rail system requires. Policymakers should be taking
actions that enhance, rather than impair, railroads' ability and
willingness to make those investments.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
engage in public-private partnerships through projects and programs
Public-private partnerships--arrangements under which private
freight railroads and government entities both contribute resources to
a project--offer a mutually beneficial way to solve critical
transportation problems.
Without a partnership, many projects that promise substantial
public benefits (such as reduced highway congestion by taking trucks
off highways, or increased rail capacity for use by passenger trains)
in addition to private benefits (such as enabling more efficient
freight train operations) are likely to be delayed or never started at
all because neither side can justify the full investment needed to
complete them. Cooperation makes these projects feasible.
With public-private partnerships, the public entity devotes public
dollars to a project equivalent to the public benefits that will
accrue. Private railroads contribute resources commensurate with the
private gains expected to accrue. Thus, the universe of projects that
can be undertaken to the benefit of all parties is significantly
expanded.
The most well-known public-private partnership involving railroads
is the Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency
Program (CREATE), which has been underway for a number of years. CREATE
is a multi-billion-dollar program of capital improvements aimed at
increasing the efficiency of the region's rail and roadway
infrastructure. A partnership among various railroads, the city of
Chicago, the state of Illinois, the federal government, and Cook
County, CREATE comprises 70 projects, including 25 new roadway
overpasses or underpasses; six new rail overpasses or underpasses to
separate passenger and freight train tracks; 35 freight rail projects
including extensive upgrades of tracks, switches and signal systems;
viaduct improvement projects; grade crossing safety enhancements; and
the integration of information from the dispatch systems of all major
railroads in the region into a single display. To date, 29 projects
have been completed, six are under construction, and 16 are in various
stages of design.
The intersection of rail tracks and roadways is an important
element of rail infrastructure that often involves a public-private
cooperative approach. Under the federal ``Section 130'' program,
approximately $230 million in federal funds are allocated each year to
states for installing new active warning devices, upgrading existing
devices, and improving grade crossing surfaces. The program also allows
for funding to go towards highway-rail grade separation projects.
Without a budgetary set-aside like the Section 130 program, grade
crossing needs would fare poorly in competition with more traditional
highway needs such as highway construction and maintenance. Railroads
urge Congress to continue to support the Section 130 program.
Railroads also urge Congress to support a permanent extension of
the ``Section 45G'' short line tax credit program. Section 45G creates
a strong incentive for short line railroads to invest private sector
dollars on freight railroad track rehabilitation. Short line freight
rail connections are critical to preserving the first and last mile of
connectivity to factories, grain elevators, power plants, refineries,
and mines in rural America and elsewhere.
address modal inequities
As mentioned earlier, America's freight railroads operate
overwhelmingly on infrastructure that they own, build, maintain, and
pay for themselves. By contrast, trucks, airlines, and barges operate
on highways, airways, and waterways that are largely taxpayer funded.
No one, and certainly not railroads, disputes that other
transportation modes are crucial to our nation, and the infrastructure
they use should be world-class--just like U.S. freight railroad
infrastructure is world class. That said, public policies relating to
the funding of other modes have become misaligned.
With respect to federally funded capacity investments in public
road and bridge infrastructure, the United States has historically
relied upon a ``user pays'' system. Unfortunately, the user-pays model
has been eroded as Highway Trust Fund (HTF) revenues have not kept up
with HTF investment needs and so the user pay system has had to be
supplemented by general fund taxpayer dollars. Including general fund
transfers scheduled to be made in the next two years through provisions
of the FAST Act, general fund transfers to the HTF since 2008 have
totaled almost $144 billion, according to the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO). The CBO recently estimated that between 2020 and 2029,
the HTF will require $191 billion in additional payments to keep the
fund solvent.
Moving away from a user-pays system distorts the competitive
environment by making it appear that commercial trucking is less
expensive than it really is and puts other modes, especially rail, at a
disadvantage. This is especially problematic for railroads precisely
because they own, build, maintain, and pay for their infrastructure
themselves (including paying well over a billion dollars in property
taxes each year on that infrastructure).
Congress could help ameliorate this modal inequity by reaffirming
the ``user pays'' requirement. Through application of current
technology, the current fundamental imbalance could be rectified by
ensuring that commercial users of taxpayer-financed infrastructure pay
for their use.
This could be done through several different mechanisms. To its
credit, the American Trucking Associations (ATA), through its Build
America Fund proposal, is calling for a 20 cent per-gallon increase in
the fuel tax phased in over four years, a recognition by the ATA that
the current situation regarding the HTF is not tenable. Railroads
believe that an increase in the fuel tax could be helpful as a short-
term bridge to a longer-term future that, we think, should include a
vehicle miles traveled fee or a weight-distance fee.
A handful of states already impose weight-distance taxes on heavier
trucks, and others are engaged in pilot programs to assess the
feasibility of transitioning their state highway taxes from a per
gallon-based system to a mileage-based fee. In Oregon, for example,
heavy trucks are charged a weight-mile tax that is intended to capture
the full costs incurred by trucks relating to the state highway system.
first-mile and last-mile connections
One of the main reasons why the United States has the world's most
efficient total freight transportation system is the willingness and
ability of firms associated with various modes to work together in ways
that benefit their customers and the economy. Policymakers can help
this process by implementing programs that improve ``first mile'' and
``last mile'' connections where freight is handed off from one mode to
another--for example, at ports from ships to railroads or from ships to
trucks, or from railroads to trucks at intermodal terminals. These
connections are highly vulnerable to disruptions and improving them
would lead to especially large increases in efficiency and fluidity and
forge a stronger, more effective total transportation package.
Some multimodal connection infrastructure projects that are of
national and regional significance in terms of freight movement can be
too costly for a local government or state to fund. Consequently,
federal funding awarded through a competitive discretionary grant
process is an appropriate approach for these needs.
The Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER)
federal grant program; its replacement, the Better Utilizing
Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) Transportation grant
program; and the Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) grant
program are examples of approaches to help fund crucial multimodal
projects of national and regional significance.
Attention to first- and last-mile connections is a critical element
of both local and state freight planning and policy as well. At the
local level, land use planning has been largely inadequate in
accommodating the needs of freight. Freight movement--whether in rail
yards, intermodal facilities, ports, or regional distribution--must be
sufficiently considered when planning land uses such as residential
developments, schools, and recreational areas.
flexibility through regulatory and permitting reform
There is bipartisan agreement that America's regulatory and
permitting processes require reform and could more accurately reflect
rapid technological advancements. Federal regulations provide a
critical safety net to the American public, but rules borne from faulty
processes only deter economic growth without any corresponding public
benefits. Dictating the means to an end via overly prescriptive policy
increases compliance costs, can chill innovation and investment in new
technologies. and can slow, or defeat entirely, an outcome both
industry and government would view as a success.
Regulations should be based on a demonstrated need, as reflected in
current and complete data and sound science. Regulations should provide
benefits outweighing their costs and should take into consideration the
big picture view for industries and sectors--including market forces,
future offerings, and current regulations in place.
The freight rail industry believes policymakers should embrace
performance-based regulations, where appropriate, to foster and
facilitate technological advancement and achieve well-defined policy
goals. Defining the end goal, rather than narrow steps, will boost
citizen confidence in government, motivate U.S. industry to research
and innovate, and create new solutions. Outcome-based measures can
better avoid ``locking in'' existing technologies and processes so that
new innovations, including new technologies, that could improve safety
and improve efficiency, can flourish.
That's also why railroads respectfully urge policymakers to avoid
one-size-fits-all policies that hinder modernization of safety
practices and improvements to efficiency, such as policies that mandate
a specific crew size for rail operations. We all want railroad safety
and efficiency to continue to improve. Technological solutions are key
to making this happen, but that requires regulatory oversight not
prescriptive mandates.
As mentioned earlier, railroads are safe and getting safer, but
more can be done by railroads, their employees, the FRA, and others
working together to achieve the long-term goal of zero accidents.
Regulatory reform can be a key part of that effort. Railroads
respectfully urge this committee and others in Congress to encourage
the FRA to become more forward-looking in how it proposes and
promulgates new rules.
We also urge policymakers to streamline the permitting process to
spur infrastructure investment. Railroads have faced significant
permitting delays from federal agencies, which means that the amount of
time and energy it takes to get many rail infrastructure projects from
the drawing board to construction and completion has been growing
longer every day.
In the face of local opposition, railroads try to work with the
local community to find a mutually satisfactory arrangement, and these
efforts are usually successful. When agreement is not reached, however,
projects can face lawsuits, seemingly interminable delays, and sharply
higher costs. Rail capacity, and railroads' ability to provide the
transportation service upon which our nation depends, suffer
accordingly. Recent efforts by Congress and the Administration are
noteworthy and appreciated, but more must be done.
support commuter and passenger rail
Freight railroads agree that passenger railroads play a key role in
alleviating highway and airport congestion; decreasing dependence on
foreign oil; reducing pollution; and enhancing mobility, safety, and
economic development opportunities. In the United States, freight
railroads provide a crucial foundation for passenger rail: more than 70
percent of the miles traveled by Amtrak trains are on tracks owned by
other railroads--mainly freight railroads--and many commuter railroads
operate at least partially on freight-owned corridors.
Policymakers can help here too by recognizing that Amtrak should be
adequately funded so that its infrastructure can be improved to a state
of good repair. Commuter railroads too deserve this Committee's
support.
conclusion
Of the many different factors that affect how well a rail network
functions, the basic amount and quality of infrastructure is among the
most significant. That's why U.S. freight railroads have been
expending, and will continue to expend, enormous resources to
continuously improve safety and improve their asset base. Policymakers
too have a key role to play. Freight railroads look forward to working
with this Committee, others in Congress, and other appropriate parties
to develop and implement policies that best meet this country's
transportation needs.
Statement of the Beyond the Runway Coalition Submitted for the Record
by Mr. DeFazio
Mr. Chairman, the 92 members of the Beyond the Runway Coalition
would like to thank you for making infrastructure the topic of your
first hearing as chairman of this esteemed committee. We wholeheartedly
agree with you that investing in our nation's infrastructure cannot
wait any longer, as the poor condition of America's infrastructure is
having a negative effect on economic prosperity and job creation. It is
time to move forward with a robust investment plan to address our
country's growing infrastructure needs.
Our coalition has come together specifically to urge Congress to
make a true commitment to America's infrastructure improvement by
investing in our nation's airports. The industries, businesses, and
infrastructure groups represented in our coalition rely heavily on
aviation infrastructure to support economic growth. Providing airports
the opportunity to make new investments in their facilities in order to
meet growing demand would help our industries continue to invest, grow,
and create good jobs in our local communities.
America's airports are a fundamental component of our nation's
transportation infrastructure. In 2017, 1.8 billion passengers and 31.7
million metric tons of cargo traveled through U.S. airports. With a
national economic impact of $1.4 trillion, airports contribute more
than 7 percent to the U.S. gross domestic product and support over 11.5
million jobs around the country. To meet the capacity demands of the
future with safe, efficient, and modern facilities that passengers,
businesses, and cargo shippers expect airports need to make new
investments to maintain and modernize our nation's airport
infrastructure. Unfortunately, existing Federal law inhibits the
ability of airports to self-fund these important terminal, runway, and
ground-access projects.
While passenger and cargo traffic through airport facilities
continues to grow at a record pace, our outdated aviation
infrastructure is not keeping up with demand. As a result, far too many
airports around the country are overcrowded and cramped, which hinders
commerce and business opportunities for thousands of companies. In
fact, America's airports require well over $100 billion in
infrastructure upgrades over the next 5 years. Outdated airport
infrastructure that fails to meet the growing needs of local businesses
and tourists puts in jeopardy the continued economic growth of American
cities, States, and regions. From established metropolitan areas to new
growth centers to traditionally rural areas, sustained economic growth
depends on the expansion of, and investment in, local airports.
As you move forward with infrastructure legislation this year, we
ask that you take into account the urgent needs of U.S. airports, and
explore meaningful funding options to address the over $100 billion
backlog in critical infrastructure and security projects at America's
airports.
Statement of the Bluegreen Alliance Submitted for the Record by Mr.
DeFazio
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Statement of Ms. Roberta L. Larson, Executive Director, California
Association of Sanitation Agencies, Submitted for the Record by Mr.
DeFazio
The California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA), provides
the following statement as you conduct your February 7, 2019 hearing on
``The Cost of Doing Nothing: Why Investing in Our Nation's
Infrastructure Cannot Wait''. We request that this statement be made a
part of the formal record of the committee proceedings.
CASA strongly supports your priority to advance infrastructure
legislation without delay. For too many years, our nation's wastewater
infrastructure needs have gone unaddressed and have reached levels that
urgently demand a robust Federal commitment to support local community
needs. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) 2012 Clean
Water Survey of Needs revealed a $26 billion investment gap in
California alone for federally eligible projects. From a national
perspective, the American Society of Civil Engineers' infrastructure
report card gave wastewater infrastructure a D+ grade. The report noted
that over the next two decades more than 56 million additional users
will be making demands on this aging and under-capacity infrastructure.
USEPA, by its own analysis, has concluded that $271 billion in
wastewater investments will be required to address future demands and
construct required water quality infrastructure. This data illustrates
the absolute necessity of incorporating wastewater infrastructure in
any Federal infrastructure initiative. Without such commitment, the
ability to protect public health and improve our ecosystems will be
seriously compromised. CASA believes that any infrastructure package
should include, at a minimum, the following elements:
First, we ask Congress to recommit robust levels of Federal funding
for the existing wastewater infrastructure funding programs. CASA
strongly supports the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan
Program, Water Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act (WIFIA)
Program and other programs to provide Federal funds for clean water
infrastructure projects. The Clean Water SRF should be authorized at $6
billion annually. This level would represent a nearly sixfold increase
in the annual spending levels of recent years. However, this increased
amount is absolutely vital for States and localities to begin
addressing the significant needs that exist today, ranging from
traditional treatment requirements to those challenges created by
climate change, including drought, severe storm events and sea level
rise.
Second, we request that the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit terms be extended from five to up to
10 years. In addition to the need for financial assistance, there are
other ways to stretch limited public dollars while protecting the
public's health. Extending the length of NPDES permit terms up to 10
years is one important mechanism for ensuring that our limited dollars
are spent wisely. This change would significantly benefit local public
agencies by allowing for enhanced planning and efficient permitting of
facilities and give agencies the time needed to comply with existing
regulatory requirements before the imposition of new mandates. This
would also better reflect the technological and administrative
realities of the modern era. USEPA and delegated States would retain
their existing authority to reopen permits to address changed
circumstances.
Third, we request that Congress avoid inclusion of consolidation or
reorganization of local wastewater agencies as a criterion for Federal
funding assistance or ranking projects for funding. The impetus for
consolidation and reorganization of local agencies is fact and site
specific and must consider the purpose for which the agencies were
formed and the roles they serve in the community. CASA believes that
decisions to consolidate are best left to the communities that will be
impacted and local governance processes designed to drive and guide
such changes. In California, a comprehensive process to consider
consolidation already exists, and we believe that this structure could
be jeopardized by a top down approach that would determine eligibility
for Federal assistance.
Fourth, we ask that Congress to consider updating the allocation
formula that USEPA relies upon to provide States with capitalization
grants for their Clean Water SRFs in order to better reflect today's
realities. The formula has not been updated since 1987 and has not kept
pace with demographic shifts in the United States toward the West and
South. While California currently receives 7.2 percent of Federal SRF
capitalization grants, the State is home to 12 percent of the nation's
population. According to a USEPA report, California would be entitled
to between 15 and 24 percent of appropriated assistance if the formula
were to be updated to address population and needs. The Committee
received USEPA's Report to Congress: Review of the Allotment of the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (May 2016), documenting the challenges
created by the antiquated formula used to allocate SRF resources to
States. The opportunity to update this formula to reflect current
population and water quality needs of a State would ensure the delivery
of Federal resources to those areas most in need.
Fifth, CASA urges the committee to resist creating new set-asides
within the SRF program. If a compelling need exists, such as support
for disadvantaged communities, a program should be created to address
such needs through alternative mechanisms and avoid reducing the
purchasing power of the Clean Water SRF that is already oversubscribed.
water and wastewater infrastructure assistance: adequate and reliable
federal funding is essential
CASA supports a robust infrastructure funding partnership between
the Federal Government and local communities to protect the integrity
of our receiving waters, deliver safe and reliable drinking water and
enhance our ecosystems.
We recognize and thank the Committee for its decades of support of
the SRF Program. From its inception, the SRF program has proven to be
an effective and efficient means to help meet the significant needs of
local communities.
In California, the SRF programs provide vital support for a variety
of water infrastructure needs. We have used the programs to support
core water quality treatment functions, develop recycled water
capacity, build resilient water supplies and capture sustainable energy
from treatment processes. During the most recent stretch of
extraordinary drought conditions, the SRF served as a lifeline to
construct water recycling facilities and other critical infrastructure.
Without these funds, the impact of the already devastating drought
would have been significantly more severe.
California, along with much of the Nation, faces deteriorating
infrastructure, increased regulatory compliance costs, unpredictable
weather conditions and general population growth. At the same time,
financial support has declined for the key Federal partnership offering
direct assistance through the SRF programs, which CASA agencies have
relied on for decades. As noted above, in California alone, estimates
show a $26 billion need for new wastewater infrastructure over the next
20 years. This figure is in addition to the funding required to
continue operation and maintenance of existing facilities and programs.
CASA believes that the SRF program should continue to serve as the
backbone of water and wastewater infrastructure financing at the State
level and calls upon Congress to provide the programs with increased
funding. The loan program provides the most important and effective
infrastructure financing tool available today and should be viewed as
an investment in the nation's health and its economy. Loan payments
create the revolving aspect of the programs, meaning that outgoing
moneys come back to the States to be loaned again for additional
projects. The SRF program is the engine that allows CASA member
agencies to continue their mission of protecting human health and the
environment.
CASA also appreciates the continued development and implementation
of the WIFIA Program. Several of our members have submitted to USEPA
full applications for qualifying projects and are eager to utilize this
new water infrastructure financing tool. With its focus on large
projects, WIFIA complements the SRF program, particularly as USEPA
implements the new State finance authority focused WIFIA program. CASA
looks forward to working with the committee to ensure that this new
program is leveraged under any new infrastructure policy.
We also see an important role for direct grant assistance. In many
cases, smaller communities or segments of a service area lack the
resources necessary to secure loans. In these circumstances, we
strongly encourage Congress to authorize grants for such communities
and service areas to serve as a catalyst for long-term water quality
improvements. The financial commitment through grant assistance is a
significant component of maintaining publ ic investment to improve
public health and the environment.
the clean water srf allocation formula, unchanged since 1987, should be
updated
The Clean Water Act allocation formula determines the amount of SRF
capitalization grant assistance provided to each State. The formula,
which is based on a variety of factors including census population and
capital needs, has not been updated since 1987. Meanwhile, the
population in California and throughout the Nation has dramatically
changed. Additionally, water infrastructure needs have grown
substantially beyond the levels identified in 1987.
As part of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA)
of 2014, Congress directed the USEPA to conduct a study to examine the
allocation formula and identify options to more accurately address
current needs. In a May 2016 report (copy attached) ``Review of the
Allotment of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF): Report to
Congress'', the USEPA concluded, ``most States do not currently receive
appropriated funds in proportion to their reported needs or population,
which demonstrates the inadequacy of the current allotment.''
The Committee is commended for seeking the report, as it provides a
data-driven analysis of the current formula's impacts on States,
particularly how it disadvantages States where needs have grown since
1987. The report documents that the current 30-year-old allocation
formula fails to equitably address the clean water infrastructure needs
of today in an equitable State-by-State basis. Specifically, the
current allocation formula fails to provide adequate funding assistance
to the States based upon current water quality needs or population. For
example, the report illustrated that SRF allocations to California
should be significantly higher if they were based on a 2012 water
quality needs survey. Alternatively, if 2010 population data was used,
California's equitable share should also be significantly increased.
The report presented three options to more accurately gauge needs
and set allotments for the States in the future. In each instance,
California would gain significant allotment, increasing anywhere
between 14.7 percent to 24.9 percent, all well over its current 7.3
percent allotment. These percentage changes were based on the 2012
needs survey and 2010 census data, while applying constraints on the
maximum increase or decrease to States. CASA requests that Congress
update the Clean Water SRF allocation formula to reflect the findings
of the USEPA's May 2016 Report.
expanded private sector access to the srf program would be
counterproductive
In the past, proposals have been made to allow for private sector
use of Clean Water SRF resources. CASA strongly opposes any initiative
to open access to the SRF programs to the private sector for several
reasons. First, a source of tax-exempt financing for private sector
needs already exists in the form of private activity bonds (PABs).
Moreover, diluting the purchasing power of already oversubscribed
programs designed for the delivery of ``public works'' is
counterproductive. Public entities that rely on traditional public
financing for water infrastructure cannot afford the diversion of
limited resources to privatize systems that were constructed with
public moneys.
extension of npdes permit terms
The extension of NPDES permit terms from five to 10 years is our
top priority for any non-funding related infrastructure response.
Congress has an opportunity to modernize the Clean Water Act permitting
process to reflect the realities of today by making a straightforward
change to this important environmental statute.
The Clean Water Act requires publicly owned treatment works to
secure a new permit to discharge highly treated wastewater every 5
years. These relatively short permit terms were predicated on the
priority for agencies to upgrade treatment facilities to secondary
standards and conformed to technology lifecycles and infrastructure
expectations of the era. More than 40 years later, water quality needs
are increasingly complex and require new methods and technologies to
support innovation in making water quality improvements.
The existing 5-year renewal cycle results in unnecessary financial
and technical burdens on local agencies and the State permitting
authorities that must prepare and issue the permits. NPDES permits are
becoming increasingly complex and restrictive, and the treatment
technologies necessary to meet permit limits have become more expensive
and time intensive to implement. As a result, many local public
agencies have not completed the upgrades necessary to comply with their
prior permit when they are faced with negotiating new terms and
requirements. The 5-year term, established in 1972, does not reflect
the realities of addressing today's clean water challenges and
restricts State and local flexibility to address the highest clean
water priorities. Additionally, the short permit term does not
encourage long-term thinking that is essential to implement innovative
solutions that produce the greatest benefits.
Examples of the policy disconnect between the realities of today's
water treatment needs and an antiquated 5-year permitting cycle abound.
Project construction timelines can extend more than a decade, as public
agencies seek to implement very large clean water infrastructure
projects that must meet extensive environmental, tribal, historical and
antiquities reviews, not to mention considerations for labor
agreements, project design, scheduling and technology acquisition. This
means local agencies must expend time and money to prepare for permit
renewals even as they try to comply with existing permit requirements.
At the same time, State and Federal permitting agencies devote an
overwhelming amount of resources to the administrative reviews and
approvals necessitated by a constant treadmill of permit applications.
The work diverts limited resources away from more pressing issues, such
as non-point sources and other water quality improvement programs.
Further, the workload can create a permit backlog, leading to
administrative extensions that are discouraged by the USEPA and lack
certainty for the permitted entity and public alike.
Authority to provide up to 10-year permit terms would facilitate
the effective use of limited water quality resources, allowing local
agencies and permitting authorities to focus on and address today's
water quality needs, which have moved beyond the traditional point
sources that were the focus in 1972. This change would benefit local
public agencies, States and the public. Local water and wastewater
agencies would be afforded adequate time to comply with existing
regulatory requirements before the imposition of new ones and could
better plan and more efficiently construct new facilities using the
latest technology. States could direct more resources to non-point
sources and watershed-based solutions. Further, existing permit
reopener provisions currently provided for by law would allow new
conditions to be addressed in NPDES permits during the 10-year term, if
necessary, to protect water quality.
In closing, CASA strongly endorses the Committee's commitment to
develop a national infrastructure policy that will propel the Nation to
sustained economic growth and improved public health. We look forward
to working with the Committee in the coming months on this important
matter.
Letter from the Clean Water Council Submitted for the Record by Mr.
DeFazio
January 28, 2019.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell
Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy
Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles E. Schumer
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressional Leaders,
With the start of the 116th Congress, lawmakers have the
opportunity to make a historic investment to rebuild our nation's
infrastructure. At the Clean Water Council (CWC), we are a coalition of
national organizations representing underground utility construction
contractors, design professionals, manufacturers, suppliers, labor
representatives, construction materials, and other organizations
committed to ensuring a healthy quality of life through sound water
infrastructure. Members of the CWC are writing to highlight the
significant needs in our nation's underground water infrastructure and
to urge you to address these needs in any infrastructure package that
Congress considers.
Our nation's underground water infrastructure ensures that
Americans have access to clean drinking water, provides businesses with
the resources they need to keep our economy moving, and protects our
nation's waterways, beaches, and other recreational opportunities.
Taken together, well-functioning water infrastructure is indispensable
to the health of our country.
Unfortunately, this infrastructure is in serious need of repair.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) most recent
assessments, $472.6 billion is needed to maintain and improve drinking
water systems and $271 billion will be needed for wastewater and
stormwater treatment systems over the next twenty years. The American
Society of Civil Engineers' (ASCE) report card gives our nation's
drinking water and wastewater infrastructure a D and D+, respectively.
We see the evidence of these needs through daily stories of broken
water pipes and other critical infrastructure failures.
With a renewed interest in infrastructure, Congress has an
opportunity to address these challenges in a bipartisan way. Making
these investments and improvements to water utilities would have
multiple positive benefits.
First and foremost, addressing underground water infrastructure
will lead to better public health outcomes. Whether it is preventing
harmful pollution from entering our waterways, or protecting against
tragedies like lead poisoning, water infrastructure gets the job done.
To quantify these impacts, a recent study conducted by the College of
William & Mary's Public Policy Program found that a single dollar spent
on drinking water infrastructure generates hundreds of dollars in
public health benefits.
In addition to health benefits, drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure investments also generate economic activity and support
high-paying jobs. Sudden Impact, a study previously conducted by the
CWC, found that $1 billion invested in water infrastructure has the
potential to create 20,003 to 26,669 jobs. Furthermore, a study by the
Value of Water Campaign found that jobs and careers in the water
infrastructure sector offer an average wage of $63,000 per year, and
many of these opportunities are available to individuals with only a
high school diploma.
In the 116th Congress, the CWC will be working to highlight these
infrastructure needs and how lawmakers can address them. We urge you to
include investment in water infrastructure as part of any
infrastructure package.
Respectfully,
Members of the Clean Water Council
American Concrete Pavement Association
American Concrete Pipe Association
American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association
American Council of Engineering Companies
American Iron and Steel Institute
American Public Works Association
American Road & Transportation Builders Association
American Supply Association
Associated Equipment Distributors
Ductile Iron Pipe Research Association
Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute
International Union of Operating Engineers
National Association of Sewer Service Companies
National Precast Concrete Association
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association
National Utility Contractors Association
Nulca--representing utility locating professionals
Plastics Pipe Institute
Portland Cement Association
Water & Sewer Distributors of America
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association
Letter from the Corps Network Submitted for the Record by Mr. DeFazio
February 21, 2019.
Hon. Peter DeFazio
Chairman
Hon. Sam Graves
Ranking Member
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves,
On behalf of the Corps Network, I write with respect to the hearing
that occurred on February 7, ``The Cost of Doing Nothing: Why Investing
in Our Nation's Infrastructure Cannot Wait.'' Thank you for convening
the hearing with the sense of urgency the situation demands and for
allowing outside written testimony for the record. As Congress
continues researching the extent our national infrastructure needs and
works to identify cost-efficient and effective solutions, we ask the
Committee to consider the role and value brought forth by the nation's
Service and Conservation Corps (Corps).
Corps provide cost-effective project assistance to build and
maintain a wide array of natural resource, energy, water,
transportation and recreation infrastructure and public works while
developing the next generation workforce. With retirements looming in
heavy industries, and workforce shortages in these industries already,
Corps provide ready-to-work members with the 21st century job skills
needed to be successful in the workplace. Corps align with career
pathways and credentials in these industries and provide the in-demand
hard skills necessary to advance into more skilled careers. Corps are
not intended to displace or supplant contractors.
The 135 locally-based Corps of the Corps Network stand-ready to
help accomplish a variety of infrastructure projects and represent a
hire-American and buy-American philosophy by providing young adults and
veterans (Corpsmembers) the opportunity to serve their country through
national service and AmeriCorps, advance their education, and obtain
in-demand skills and credentials. Serving in crews and individual
placements, Corpsmembers perform conservation, infrastructure, wildfire
and invasive species remediation, disaster response, recreation, and
community development service projects on public lands and in rural and
urban communities.
More of these innovative public-private partnerships should be
developed, and taxpayer funds could be better leveraged, by
prioritizing the use of Corps in an infrastructure package using
existing funding to increase access, recreation opportunities,
productivity of fish and wildlife habitat, enhance multi-use trials,
and address wildfires, backlog maintenance, and historic preservation.
Corps already have authority in federal law for these partnerships with
DOI, USDA, DOT, and USACE and bring a significant match to these
projects as well, making limited federal funds go even further.
Congress has, on numerous occasions, recognized Corps' capacity to
prepare diverse youth to succeed in careers in transportation, water
and natural resource management, and other related infrastructure
fields. Federal precedent to engage Corps already exists:
33 U.S.C. 2339 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the
Nation Act: Section 1101--Youth Service & Conservation Corps
Organizations
PL 112-141 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Act (MAP-21): Section 1524--Use of Youth Service & Conservation Corps
42 U.S.C. 12656: Urban Youth Corps
16 U.S.C., Chapter 37, Subchapter II: Public Lands Corps
Federal transportation law exempts contracts and cooperative
agreements with Corps from Federal-aid highway program contracting
requirements under 23 U.S.C. 112. A State or regional transportation
planning agency may sole-source contracts and cooperative agreements to
Corps for work undertaken for byway, recreational trail, transportation
alternatives, bicycle and pedestrian, or Safe Routes to School
projects.
For example, the following activities and projects are performed by
Corpsmembers on transportation projects:
Trail construction and maintenance
Transit workforce development
CDL and forklift training
Signage and fencing installation, painting
Flagger Certification and site management;
Green Infrastructure installation and maintenance
Developing pedestrian and bicycle facilities including
ensuring compliance with accessibility requirements
Scenic turn-out and overlook construction
Trail conversion of abandoned railway corridors
Historic preservation and rehabilitation of historic
transportation facilities
Environmental mitigation
Restoration and/or maintainingwildlife connectivity
Landscaping and streetscaping to complete transportation
projects
Vegetation management
Through an infrastructure package, Corps can be utilized and
prioritized on a wide variety of projects sponsored by the following
federal agencies in order to better leverage limited taxpayer funds and
have the added benefits of developing the next generation
infrastructure workforce: Departments of Interior, Agriculture,
Transportation, Energy, Housing, and FEMA, US Army Corps of Engineers,
NOAA, EPA and the Corporation for National and Community Service.
As Congress considers the multitude of ways to modernize and
strengthen our infrastructure to meet the current and future needs, we
urge the Committee to consider prioritizing the following:
1. Use a broad definition of infrastructure to encompass natural
resources; lands and recreation; disaster resiliency; drought, drinking
and waste water; multi-use transportation; and energy efficiency.
2. Include a priority for the use of Corps as in past
infrastructure laws for workforce development, national service, and
work-based learning opportunities.
3. Include language amending existing agreement authority for
Corps to partner with more federal agencies on projects through
cooperative agreements (21CSC Act--S.1993 & HR 5114).
4. Ensure public-private partnerships (PPP's) are emphasized with
non-profits in addition to investors and businesses.
5. Include AmeriCorps Education Awards tied to infrastructure
projects as a method to further in-demand skills development.
As an infrastructure package develops, we respectfully urge you to
include Corps as a priority project partner and identify other
innovative ways for us to be engaged in improving our nation's
infrastructure for all Americans. Thank you for your time and
consideration of these issues.
Sincerely,
Mary Ellen Sprenkel
President & CEO
corps of the corps network
NATIONAL & REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS:
American Conservation Experience AmeriCorps NCCC
Community Training Works, Inc/YACC Conservation Legacy
Greening Youth Foundation
Student Conservation Association (SCA)
ALASKA
Anchorage Park Foundation/YEP
Student Conservation Association (Anchorage Office)
ARIZONA
American Conservation Experience
Arizona Conservation Corps (Flagstaff, Tucson)
Work in State: CCYC (UT); NWYC (OR), RMYC (NM)
ARKANSAS
Cass Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center
Ouachita Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center
CALIFORNIA
AmeriCorps NCCC (Pacific Region)
California Conservation Corps
Civicorps
Conservation Corps of Long Beach
Conservation Corps North Bay
Desert Restoration Corps (SCA)
Fresno EOC Local Conservation Corps
Greater Valley Conservation Corps
Kern Service and Conservation Corps
Los Angeles Conservation Corps
Orange County Conservation Corps
Sacramento Regional Conservation Corps
San Francisco Conservation Corps
San Gabriel Valley Conservation Corps
San Joaquin Regional Conservation Corps
San Jose Conservation Corps & Charter School
Sequoia Community Corps
Sonoma County Youth Ecology Corps
Student Conservation Association (Oakland)
Urban Conservation Corps /S.CA. Mtns Foundation
Urban Corps of San Diego County
Work in State: ACE (AZ); ACC (AZ); NCC (NV); NYC (OR)
COLORADO
AmeriCorps NCCC (Southwest Region)
Collbran Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center
Conservation Legacy (HQ)
Environment for the Americas
Serve Colorado
Larimer County Conservation Corps
Mile High Youth Corps
Rocky Mountain Conservancy
Rocky Mountain Youth Corps (Steamboat Springs)
Southwest Conservation Corps (Four Corners, Los Valles)
Western Colorado Conservation Corps
Work in State: CCYC (UT)
CONNECTICUT
Knox Parks Foundation - Green Crew
DELAWARE
Delaware State Parks Youth Conservation Corps
Delaware State Parks Veterans Conservation Corps
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps (HQ)
Student Conservation Association (Capital Region)
FLORIDA
Community Training Works, Inc. / Young American CC
Conservation Corps of the Forgotten Coast
Greater Miami Service Corps
GEORGIA
Greening Youth Foundation (HQ)
HAWAII
KUPU/Hawaii Youth Conservation Corps
IDAHO
Centennial Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center
Idaho Conservation Corps
SCA Idaho AmeriCorps
Work in State: MCC (MT); NCC (NV); NYC (OR)
ILLINOIS
Greencorps Chicago
Golconda Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center
Peoria Corps
Student Conservation Association (Chicago)
Youth Conservation Corps, Inc.
YouthBuild Lake County
IOWA
AmeriCorps NCCC (North Central Region)
Conservation Corps Minnesota & Iowa (Ames)
KENTUCKY
Frenchburg Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center
Great Onyx Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center
Pine Knot Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center
LOUISIANA
Limitless Vistas, Inc.
Work in State: AYW (TX)
MAINE
Maine Conservation Corps
MARYLAND
AmeriCorps NCCC (Southwest Region)
Civic Works
Maryland Conservation Corps
Montgomery County Conservation Corps
Work in State: CCCWV (WV)
MASSACHUSETTS
Massachusetts Corps (SCA)
MICHIGAN
Detroit Conservation Corps
Great Lakes Conservation Corps Michigan
Civilian Conservation Corps
Student Conservation Association (Detroit)
SEEDS Youth Conservation Corps
Work in State: CCMI (MN), GLCCC (WI)
MINNESOTA
Conservation Corps Minnesota & Iowa
MISSISSIPPI
CLIMB Community Development Corporation
MISSOURI
Mingo Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center
Work in State: CCMI (MN)
MONTANA
Anaconda Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center
Montana Conservation Corps
Trapper Creek Job Corps Civilian Conserv. Center
NEBRASKA
Pine Ridge Job Corps Civilian Conservation Corps
NEVADA
Nevada Conservation Corps (Great Basin Institute)
Work in State: ACC (AZ)
NEW HAMPSHIRE
New Hampshire Corps (SCA)
Work in State: GMC (VT)
NEW JERSEY
New Jersey Youth Corps of Atlantic Cape May
New Jersey Youth Corps of Camden/The Work Group
New Jersey Youth Corps of Elizabeth
New Jersey Youth Corps of Jersey City
New Jersey Youth Corps of Middlesex County
New Jersey Youth Corps of Monmouth County
New Jersey Youth Corps of Newark
New Jersey Youth Corps of Paterson
New Jersey Youth Corps of Phillipsburg
New Jersey Youth Corps of Trenton
New Jersey Youth Corps of Trenton Isles
New Jersey Youth Corps of Vineland
New York New Jersey Trail Conference
Student Conservation Association (New Jersey)
NEW MEXICO
EcoServants
Rocky Mountain Youth Corps (Taos)
Southwest Conservation Corps (Ancestral Lands)
YouthWorks Santa Fe
NEW YORK
Adirondack Corps (SCA)
Excelsior Conservation Corps Green City Force
Hudson Valley Corps (SCA)
New York City Justice Corps - Bronx
New York City Justice Corps - Brooklyn
New York City Justice Corps - Harlem
New York City Justice Corps - Queens
New York Restoration Project
Onondaga Earth Corps
Student Conservation Association (New York City)
The Place/Headwaters Youth Conservation Corps
The Service Collaborative of WNY, Inc.
Work in State: NYNJTC (NJ)
NORTH CAROLINA
American Conservation Experience
L.B. Johnson Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center
North Carolina Youth Conservation Corps
Northwest Piedmont Service Corps
Oconaluftee Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center
Schenk Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center
Work in State: VYCC (VT), ATCLC (WV)
NORTH DAKOTA
Work in State: CCMI (MN); MCC (MT)
OHIO
WSOS Community Action
OKLAHOMA
Work in State: AYW (TX)
OREGON
Angell Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center
Heart of Oregon
Northwest Youth Corps Oregon Volunteers
Timber Lake Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center
Wolf Creek Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center
PENNSYLVANIA
PowerCorpsPHL
Student Conservation Association (Pittsburg/Philadelphia)
SOUTH CAROLINA
Palmetto Conservation Corps
St. Bernard Project
The Sustainability Institute/Energy Conservation Corps
SOUTH DAKOTA
Boxelder Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center
Work in State: CCMI (MN); MCC (MT)
TENNESSEE
Jacobs Creek Job Corps Civilian Conserv. Center
Knox County CAC AmeriCorps
Southeast Youth Corps
TEXAS
American YouthWorks, incl. Texas Conservation Corps
Student Conservation Association (Houston)
Work in State: Southwest Conservation Corps (CO)
UTAH
American Conservation Experience
Canyon Country Youth Corps
Utah Conservation Corps
Weber Basin Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center
Work in State: ACC (AZ)
VERMONT
Green Mountain Club
Vermont Youth Conservation Corps
VIRGINIA
Flatwoods Job Corps Civilian Conservation Corps
SCA (Student Conservation Association) (HQ)
Virginia Service and Conservation Corps
Virginia State Parks Youth Conservation
Work in State: ATCLC (WV)
WASHINGTON
Columbia Basin Job Corps Civilian Conserv. Center
Curlew Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center
EarthCorps
Fort Simcoe Job Corps Conservation Center
Mt. Adams Institute
Northwest Youth Corps
Student Conservation Association (Seattle)
Washington Conservation Corps
Youth Green Corps - Seattle Parks & Recreation
WEST VIRGINIA
Appalachian Trail Conservancy Leadership Corps
Citizens Conservation Corps
Harpers Ferry Job Corps Civilian Conserv. Center
Stewards Individual Placement Program
WISCONSIN
Blackwell Job Corps Civilian Conservation Center
Fresh Start - ADVOCAP
Fresh Start - Renewal Unlimited, Inc.
Great Lakes Community Conservation Corps
Milwaukee Community Service Corps
Operation Fresh Start
Student Conservation Association (Milwaukee)
WisCorps / Wisconsin Conservation Corps
Work in State: CCMI (MN)
WYOMING
Wyoming Conservation Corps
Work in State: RMYC (CO); MCC (MT); UCC (UT)
Statement of GPS Innovation Alliance and CompTIA Space Enterprise
Council Submitted for the Record by Mr. DeFazio
The GPS Innovation Alliance (GPSIA) and the CompTIA Space
Enterprise Council jointly submit this statement in support of the
Committee's examination of our nation's infrastructure.
America has a history of creating infrastructure milestones that
have led to significant prosperity and national advantages. During the
1950s and 1960s, our nation was transformed by explosive growth in its
public infrastructure ecosystem. That ecosystem allowed America to
prosper by bridging communities and creating regional pockets of
innovation. Coupled with the Space Race with the Soviet Union, the 20th
century infrastructure ecosystem helped make America a technological
superpower.
Now we have the opportunity to create a 21st century national
infrastructure that will benefit all Americans. In almost every aspect
of our infrastructure ecosystem, the Global Positioning System (GPS), a
constellation of satellites located 12,500 miles above the earth, has
played an integral role. The three capabilities derived from the
constellation are Positioning, Navigation, and Timing. All three play
key roles in the infrastructure ecosystem. According to theDepartment
of Transportation, Positioning is the ability to accurately and
precisely determine one's location and orientation two-dimensionally
(or three-dimensionally when required), Navigation is the ability to
determine current and desired position (relative or absolute) and apply
corrections to course, orientation, and speed to attain a desired
position anywhere around the world, from sub-surface to surface and
from surface to space. Timing is the ability to acquire and maintain
accurate and precise time from a standard (Coordinated Universal Time,
or UTC), anywhere in the world and within user-defined timeliness
parameters. Similarly, communication satellites provide voice, video,
and data supporting aviation, defense, banking, and agriculture.
A 21st century infrastructure ecosystem includes transportation
(roads, bridges, ports, and airports), water (public utilities) and
energy (electric grid) that is layered by cross-cutting smart
technology and enabled by ubiquitous broadband connectivity and
sensors. Our infrastructure is urban, suburban, and rural, impacting
every single American.
As we invest in our infrastructure, we must take into account
emerging technologies for both the physical infrastructure (new durable
materials) and the digital tier that makes the physical infrastructure
smart. These technologies range from commercial earthmoving and grading
equipment that use GPS to digital 3D models that can help streamline
the construction process. When we utilize commercially-proven and
competitively acquired technologies, we can improve efficiency,
productivity and reduce delays associated with the engineering,
construction and operation of infrastructure projects. All of this
translates into substantial savings, both in terms of new and existing
spending.
Whether in the air or on the ground, it is imperative that we
invest the resources needed to build a 21st century infrastructure. The
status quo of aging bridges and not yet universal broadband
connectivity is simply unacceptable. We must aim for American
exceptionalism. Our GPS constellation will play a leading role in that
exceptionalism. GPSIA and the CompTIA Space Enterprise Council
appreciate the opportunity to share this perspective with the Committee
and stand ready to work with you on efforts to advance our nation's
infrastructure while promoting, protecting, and enhancing GPS and other
communication satellites.
Letter from the Great Lakes Metro Chambers Coalition Submitted for the
Record by Mr. DeFazio
February 5, 2019.
Hon. Peter DeFazio
Chairman, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Chairman DeFazio:
Congratulations on your critical leadership position. The work you
and the members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee will lead will set the stage for important policy discussions
regarding America's public transportation and infrastructure.
The Great Lakes Metro Chambers Coalition (GLMCC)--a collective of
chambers of commerce that jointly advocate on core Federal policies
that impact economic growth and job creation--represents more than
60,000 employers of all sizes. We have worked productively with
Administrations and congressional leaders for 10 years on a bi-partisan
policy agenda that supports the revitalization of the Great Lakes
region.
As your record in Congress demonstrates, business and economic
development efforts cannot succeed without a strong transportation and
infrastructure network. Our Coalition shares your view that investment
in public transportation pays significant economic and societal
benefits. Research from Transportation for America shows that every
dollar invested in public transportation generates a fourfold
multiplier in benefit. As the nation's manufacturing and logistics
powerhouse, these transportation investments are particularly important
to the Great Lakes region and directly impact the national economy.
The GLMCC shares the following priorities that are important for
the Great Lakes and have tremendous national impact:
Direct Federal spending for transformative infrastructure
and transportation projects across the Great Lakes region. This funding
should allow for innovation and flexibility in how regions deploy
transportation and infrastructure investments in order to advance
regional priorities.
Maintain the Poe Lock and build a second Poe-sized lock
at the Soo Locks, the only channel for shipping commodities into and
out of Lake Superior.
Prioritize investments for the Great Lakes in the Water
Resources Development Act.
Mandate full use of the Harbor Maintenance Tax revenue
for the Army Corps of Engineers' operational and maintenance
activities. This is critically important for the Great Lakes as funds
support the dredging of harbors, maintenance of breakwaters and the
operation of the Soo Locks.
We also support several national policies that are important to
transportation and infrastructure. These include full funding for the
Capital Investment Grants (CIG) and Better Utilizing Investments to
Leverage Development (BUILD) programs; fixing the Highway Trust Fund, a
critically important program that is suffering from a structural
revenue deficit; and advancing critically needed legislation to support
the testing and development of autonomous vehicle technology and
``Smart Cities'' that will drive our economic future.
Thank you for your leadership on these important issues. We stand
ready to work with you and the Committee to make progress toward these
shared priorities.
Respectfully,
Dottie Gallagher,
President & CEO, Buffalo Niagara Partnership.
Joe Roman,
President & CEO, Greater Cleveland Partnership.
Sandy K. Baruah,
President & CEO, Detroit Regional Chamber.
Matt Smith,
President, Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce.
Letter from Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition Submitted for the
Record by Mr. DeFazio
February 6, 2018.
Hon. Peter DeFazio
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Sam Graves
Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S.
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves:
On behalf of the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition, I write
to thank you for holding a hearing on the impacts of not investing in
our nation's infrastructure. We appreciate the committee making this a
priority and support action for fixing our drinking water, wastewater,
and stormwater infrastructure.
Communities across the Great Lakes region continue to grapple with
crumbling, antiquated water infrastructure. A staggering $179 billion
over the next 20 years is needed in improvements, upgrades, and repairs
in the eight-state region of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. Federal programs provide
much-needed funding to help communities meet their clean water goals.
Congressional investment is vital so people in the Great Lakes do
not foot the entire bill for these expensive, but necessary, water
infrastructure upgrades. From 2010 to 2017, water costs increased 41
percent across the country. While water rates rise for consumers,
federal funding for water infrastructure has dropped significantly
since 1977. According to the U.S. Water Alliance, in that year
investments from the federal government made up 63 percent of total
spending on water infrastructure. By 2014, the federal government's
contribution dropped to 9 percent.
Some communities simply cannot afford to bear the full weight of
financing these expensive upgrades. Higher water rates, which are
frequently a solution to covering infrastructure improvements at the
local level, do not work for families that already cannot pay their
water bills and face water shutoffs that jeopardize their health and
the health of their children. Many communities, like Flint and
Milwaukee, are living with lead in their drinking water, while other
urban and rural communities are facing polluted farm runoff that
contaminates ground water. The cost of not fixing our water
infrastructure is being borne right now by people in communities around
the Great Lakes.
The federal government can help, which is why we support Congress
passing an infrastructure bill that includes robust support for fixing
our region's drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure.
We ask Congress to:
At least triple the funding for wastewater and stormwater
improvements through the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving
Funds, to at least $5.1 billion and at least $3.5 billion respectively.
Ensure that infrastructure funding supports nature-based
solutions such as restoring wetlands, building rain gardens, and
installing permeable roads and sidewalks-solutions that prevent
problems before they become more serious, while enhancing climate
resilience.
Incorporate measures to ensure people can afford their
water, such as providing more flexible financing options like grants
for disadvantaged communities; supporting and creating programs like
those in last year's Low Income Sewer and Water Assistance Program Act
that help low-income households pay their water bills; providing
incentives for utilities to adopt more equitable water and sewer rate
structures; and ensuring funding is invested in communities in ways
that empower and build those communities through job training and long-
term employment.
Preserve and strengthen source water protections that
also help reduce runoff, support fish and wildlife, and provide
recreational opportunities.
Ensure that infrastructure legislation does not undermine
or weaken environmental protections.
Investments in our region are paying off but there is much more to
be done. The federal government needs to be a partner with our
communities to help them meet their clean water goals. We have
solutions; it is time to use them. Delay will only make the problems
worse and costlier to solve.
Thank you again for your hearing highlighting an issue that affects
the drinking water for 35 million Americans in the Great Lakes region.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Chad Lord,
Policy Director.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Photo credit: Jim Wasley
Communities across Great Lakes region continue to grapple with
crumbling, antiquated drinking water and waste water infrastructure. A
staggering $179 billion over the next 20 years is needed in
improvements, upgrades, and repairs in the eight-state region of
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
and New York. Federal programs provide much needed funding to help
communities meet their clean water goals.
The Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition asks the U.S. Congress
to:
At least double the funding for wastewater, drinking
water, and stormwater infrastructure in rural, urban, and suburban
communities through the Clean Water or Drinking Water State Revolving
Funds and through new and innovative funding sources.
Ensure that infrastructure funding supports nature-based
solutions that prevent problems before they become more serious and
that enhance climate resilience. Funding should include a 15 percent
set-aside for projects that incorporate nature-based infrastructure.
Incorporate measures to ensure the affordability of clean
water, such as providing more flexible financing options like grants
for disadvantaged communities; support for programs like those in HR
2328, the Low Income Sewer and Water Assistance Program Act that help
low-income households pay their water bills; and provide incentives for
utilities to adopt more equitable water and sewer rate structures.
Ensure that infrastructure legislation does not undermine
or weaken environmental protections.
Preserve and strengthen source water protections that
also help reduce runoff, support fish and wildlife, and provide
recreational opportunities.
The Great Lakes provide drinking water for more than 30 million
people. They are the foundation of our economy and our way of life.
Unfortunately, the lakes face serious threats. Repairing old
infrastructure is a large undertaking--and expensive. Paying for these
projects often falls on communities that cannot afford it, underscoring
the importance of financial support from the federal government.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Photo credit: iStockPhoto
$179 billion over 20 years needed to fix water infrastructure
A survey of infrastructure investment needed in the nation shows
that the Great Lakes region alone requires $179 billion over the next
20 years to repair and replace our wastewater and drinking water
infrastructure. (Figure 1.)
crumbling infrastructure causes water rates to rise
People in the Great Lakes region must foot the bill for these
expensive, but necessary, water infrastructure upgrades. From 2010 to
2017, water costs increased 41 percent across the country.\1\ At the
same time, federalfunding for water infrastructure dropped
significantly since 1977. In that year, investments from the federal
government made up 63 percent of total spending on water
infrastructure. By 2014, the federal government's contribution had
dropped to 9 percent. In some communities, when individuals cannot pay
their water bills they face water shutoffs, which jeopardize their
health and the health of their children.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mack, E.A., and S. Wrase. ``A Burgeoning Crisis? A Nationwide
Assessment of the Geography of Water Affordability in the United
States.'' PLOS ONE. Jan 11, 2017.
\2\ U.S. Water Alliance. 2017. ``An Equitable Water Future: A
National Briefing Paper'' P. 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
threats to drinking water persist in communities
Old, leaky pipes waste 6 billion gallons of clean drinking water
every day at a time when many families are struggling to afford their
bills.\3\ Rural and urban communities still face threats: many
communities, including Flint, Milwaukee,\\ and others are living with
lead in their drinking water, and in many others polluted farm runoff
contaminates ground water.\\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ American Society of Civil Engineers 2017 ``Infrastructure
Report Card'' https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/01/Drinking-Water-Final.pdf
\4\ U.S. E.P.A. 2016. ``Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2012: Report
to Congress.'' Pp. A-1-A-2. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/
2015-12/documents/cwns_2012_report_to_
congress-508-opt.pdf
\5\ U.S. E.P.A. 2013. ``Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
and Assessment: Fifth Report to Congress.'' P. 19. https://www.epa.gov/
sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/epa816r13006.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1: Great Lakes Region Infrastructure Investment
Needs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wastewater Drinking Water
Infrastructure Need Infrastructure Need Total Infrastructure
over 20 Years \4\ over 20 Years \5\ Need over 20 Years
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois............................. $6.537 billion......... $18.985 billion........ $25.913 billion
Indiana.............................. $7.162 billion......... $6.547 billion......... $13.843 billion
Michigan............................. $2.077 billion......... $13.814 billion........ $16.175 billion
Minnesota............................ $2.389 billion......... $7.363 billion......... $9.903 billion
New York............................. $31.439 billion........ $22.041 billion........ $53.936 billion
Ohio................................. $14.587 billion........ $12.191 billion........ $27.030 billion
Pennsylvania......................... $6.950 billion......... $14.227 billion........ $21.471 billion
Wisconsin............................ $6.329 billion......... $7.141 billion......... $13.616 billion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Regional Need................ $77.470 billion........ $102.289 billion....... $179.759 billion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sewage pollutes the great lakes, harming our way of life
Sewage overflows during heavy rains are still a reality in the
Great Lakes region with tens of billions of gallons of sewage entering
the lakes each year. As a result, beaches are closed and public health
is threatened. Our quality of life is undermined when our Great Lakes
are polluted.
federal investments key to helping communities protect clean water
Sewage overflows can be prevented. Crumbling pipes can be replaced.
Outdated facilities can be updated. But each of these projects costs
money--often more money than communities alone can afford. Federal
programs like the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds
can help communities offset the cost of these needed investments in
wastewater and drinking water infrastructure. Both offer low-interest
loans to communities to address these costly infrastructure challenges.
Funding levels have not kept pace with need, and Congress should take
steps to make these investments a priority.
nature-based solutions can save communities money
Not all investments need to be in restoring traditional
infrastructure. Nature-based solutions including the construction of
rain gardens, planting of trees, and restoration of wetlands can help
absorb and filter rain water before it overwhelms outdated systems.
This reduces the burden on traditional water infrastructure and saves
communities money.
congress needs to act
Investments in the region are paying off--but much more needs to be
done. The U.S. Congress needs to do its fair share to help local
communities meet their clean water goals. We have solutions. It's time
to use them. Delay will only make the problems worse and more costly to
solve.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Photo credit: James M. Pease at commons.Wikimdia.org (Left) Cleveland
Metroparks (Right)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Photo credit: Kari Lydersen
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Photo credit: Donna Kert
the healing our waters--great lakes coalition
We are more than 150 local and national organizations representing
the interests of business, agriculture, and outdoor recreation; local
counties, cities, towns, and neighborhoods; and the environment, zoos,
aquariums, and museums. Learn more at healthylakes.org. Follow us on
Twitter @healthylakes.
Statement of the National Association of Small Trucking Companies
Submitted for the Record by Mr. Babin
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and members of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the National
Association of Small Trucking Companies (NASTC) appreciates the
committee's early focus on infrastructure. NASTC is pleased to share
our views on the subject of your February 7 hearing.
NASTC is a member-based organization whose more than 10,000 member
companies range from a single or two or three power units to more than
100 power units; however, our members average 16 power units. These
companies for the most part operate in the long-haul, over-the-road,
full-truckload, for-hire sector of interstate trucking. NASTC's members
come from the largest segment of America's long-haul trucking--they are
small motor carrier businesses. Thus, they are representative of the
vast majority of our nation's commercial motor carriers, the roughly
440,000 having fewer than 100 power units, in contrast to the 1,441
megafleet carriers with more than 100 units.
NASTC appreciates the need to fix, maintain, and build new highways
and bridges, and we acknowledge the logjam over how to fund this
undertaking. We confine our comments to surface transportation
infrastructure and the Highway Trust Fund, rather than speak to
aviation, water, and other types of infrastructure. NASTC is eager to
play a constructive role in efforts to achieve the best interests of
our country, the shipping and traveling public, and commercial motor
carriers.
To begin, NASTC believes that all Americans benefit from having
sound, safe roads and bridges. Assuring their maintenance is in the
public interest. Thus, all users of federal highways, including
electric and hybrid vehicles and bicycles, should help fund their
construction and upkeep.
The fact that the federal fuel tax has not risen in more than 25
years directly contributes to the state of our infrastructure and the
tenuous status of the Highway Trust Fund. The segments of highways and
bridges in need of repair have steadily grown, due both to increased
traffic volume and political failure to keep the ``trust'' in the trust
fund. The 1990s fuel tax level's inadequacy two decades into the 21st
century is compounded by allowing nonhighway use of HTF monies. It is
unfair to drain limited user fee revenues (i.e. fuel tax monies) for
superfluous uses that may be nice to have, but unrelated to ensuring
safe roads and bridges for their users. It is imperative first and
foremost to ensure that the Highway Trust Fund is solvent and that its
funds are not unduly diverted.
The straightforward solution would be to phase in an increase in
the federal fuel tax, along with indexing it for inflation. NASTC has
generally been willing to go along with a phased-in increase in the
federal fuel tax. However, we insist on certain conditions in exchange
for lending our support to a fuel tax increase. This is because higher
taxes hit small trucking hardest.
The first condition is ceasing to spend gas tax funds on things
other than highways and bridges. The user-fee model represented by the
federal fuel tax is the most efficient, fairest, and least costly to
administer approach. Congress should recommit to the user-fee nature of
the federal fuel tax.
Second, prioritization must become a top priority. Over time, HTF
monies have been tapped for noninfrastructure purposes, such as mass
transit, bike paths, and walking trails. These growing nonhighway uses
have bled 20 percent of trust fund monies. They are not necessarily
unworthy things, but they directly deprive core highway infrastructure
needs that directly bear upon road safety from being met. NASTC urges
that HTF priority return to federal roads and bridges, along with
prioritizing highway projects in the greatest need of repair.
Otherwise, lawmakers will owe an explanation to average truck drivers
why the higher fuel taxes they now pay go toward projects unrelated to
highways.
Third, any fuel tax increase must be fair to commercial carriers.
The combination of taxes and user fees at all levels of government are
borne most heavily by motor carriers. Commercial vehicles pay a much
higher tax per gallon than do private cars (one-third higher at the
federal level alone). Small trucking in particular is hardest hit by
these taxes, which hurt their ability to hire and retain experienced
drivers in rural areas. Thus, every dollar in taxes and fees undermines
small carriers' competitive advantage against large fleets that churn
through far less experienced drivers.
It would be unfair to raise fuel taxes and fees on commercial
carriers alone. Thus, equalizing and phasing in both gasoline and
diesel taxes by a few cents over a few years would achieve parity,
without inflicting undue hardship. In NASTC's view, all users of our
highways and roads should pay for their upkeep, and so any increase in
fuel taxes should be equally shared by all types of highway users--
including electric, LNG, and hybrid vehicles. A surcharge for vehicles
with alternative fuel sources would be equitable.
Fourth, a significant cost factor of highway construction and
maintenance comes from permitting and environmental review requirements
that can delay a decision on a project by several years. Streamlined
clearance and approvals would achieve significant savings and make our
roads and bridges safer. Such reasonable, responsible reforms must be
part of any infrastructure bill.
Fifth, NASTC opposes novel taxation methods. Taxpayers have paid
for federal highways already. The driving public, particularly
trucking, continues to pay for those roads' maintenance through fuel
taxes and should not be subjected to multiple means of taxation going
toward the same services. Inefficient, costly alternatives such as
tolls and VMT fall most onerously on small motor carriers and small
businesses, which is not only unfair but counterproductive to the
economy.
Vehicle-miles-traveled taxation lacks transparency and is unduly
intrusive, potentially encroaching on citizens' rights and enabling
abuse. In order to use VMT, the government would necessarily have to
track everyone's movement at all times, whether moving or stationary.
This degree of intrusion would very likely face constitutional
challenge.
Public-private partnerships for highways and infrastructure equate
to tolling. NASTC has long opposed tolling our highways, particularly
levying tolls on existing roadways. Tolling is often not cost-effective
and involves outsourcing taxation to private entities that are
unaccountable to those taxed. Thus, public officials are insulated,
taxpayers are subject to those they cannot hold to account, and private
entities, including foreign-based firms, gain undue, improper powers,
including the ability to tax and spend. PPPs must be limited to nonroad
projects and that minimize the above discussed risks.
Failure to put the Highway Trust Fund on solid footing would leave
the nation's ailing infrastructure in a precarious condition and
American drivers at greater risk to their safety. NASTC applauds
Congress's and the Trump administration's serious attention being paid
to highway infrastructure, and we look forward to participating in this
process.
Letter from the National League of Cities Submitted for the Record by
Mr. DeFazio
January 28, 2019.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy
Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Charles E. Schumer
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader
Schumer and Minority Leader McCarthy:
As we emerge from this extended shutdown and return to a working,
stable Federal Government, the National League of Cities is calling on
Congress to not repeat this crisis and to double-down on efforts to
address one of our country's most pressing challenges--rebuilding
America's infrastructure. For our economy and for our future, America's
cities, towns and villages call on our Federal leaders to come together
in a bipartisan way to pass comprehensive legislation that rebuilds and
reimagines America's infrastructure.
Infrastructure investments are the foundation that connects us as a
country, improves the quality of life for our residents, supports jobs
for thousands of workers, strengthens our nation's economic
competitiveness, and keeps our communities safe. Unfortunately, the
Federal partnership for infrastructure investments has eroded over the
last two decades, putting America at risk of falling behind on an ever-
increasing list of potential hazards that undermine our economy and
threaten our standard of living. Today, our transportation network is a
knot of congestion and disrepair, our broadband lags behind other
countries and families drink from bottled water in the absence of safe
tap water. Moving a bipartisan infrastructure package would demonstrate
to the country that Congress is focused on delivering results that will
improve the daily lives of our constituents.
Cities will continue doing our share, but it is time for Congress
to act and rebuild with us. Across the country, much of our
infrastructure is at a breaking point. We need a strong Federal-local
partnership to upgrade the 100-year old leaking pipes, to replace the
50-year old crumbling bridges and to install modern and resilient
solutions for the next 100 years.
Congress must prioritize a long-term infrastructure plan early in
2019 that will work holistically to improve our nation's water,
broadband, and transportation systems and create well-paying jobs for
our nation's workforce that will build and maintain these important
assets.
As leaders of our cities and the National League of Cities, we are
standing strong together with the 19,000 cities, towns and villages
across the country to ensure that the Federal Government understands
that infrastructure is our shared priority in 2019. We look forward to
working with Congress to quickly move beyond the shutdown and
prioritize crafting a comprehensive, bipartisan infrastructure plan
that partners with cities like ours and invests in our vision to
rebuild and reimagine our nation's infrastructure. We look forward to
meeting with you soon to discuss how we can work together.
Sincerely,
Karen Freeman-Wilson,
Mayor, Gary, IN,
President, National League of Cities.
Kathy Maness,
Councilmember, Lexington, SC,
Second Vice President, National League of Cities.
Clarence E. Anthony,
CEO and Executive Director, National League of Cities.
Joe Buscaino,
Councilmember, Los Angeles, CA,
First Vice President, National League of Cities.
Matt Zone,
Councilmember, Cleveland, OH,
Immediate Past President, National League of Cities.
Statement of the National Parks Second Century Action Coalition
Submitted for the Record by Mr. DeFazio
We, the members of the National Parks Second Century Action
Coalition \1\ request that the following statement be submitted to the
record for the hearing, The Cost of Doing Nothing, held on Thursday,
February 7, 2019
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The National Parks Second Century Action Coalition is made up
of organizations supporting conservation, recreation, outdoor industry,
travel and tourism and historic preservation that are dedicated to
promoting the protection, restoration, and enjoyment of the National
Park System for the long-term benefit it offers our nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more than a century, our national parks have remained America's
favorite places, important pieces of our natural, historical and
cultural heritage set aside for future generations to explore and
enjoy. But as record crowds enjoy our national parks, they find the
facilities in the parks have become worn and inadequate to meet the
demand.
The cost of doing nothing to update and maintain the infrastructure
at our national parks over the decades is now $11.6 billion and rising.
We are not talking about cyclical repairs that parks attend to
constantly, but the more serious repairs that have been awaiting action
for more than a year because of inadequate funding. The National Park
System is the poster child of what happens when nothing or not enough
is done to maintain infrastructure.
infrastructure repair challenges facing our national parks
Not surprisingly, the National Park System, second only to the
Department of Defense in the amount of federal infrastructure it
manages, is a microcosm of the larger infrastructure revitalization
challenge facing the U.S. Needed repairs range from deteriorating water
systems to crumbling roads and trails to antiquated visitor centers
that are in desperate need of updating.
In total, the agency is responsible for protecting and managing
over 75,000 assets which include roads and bridges, trails, historic
buildings, employee housing, wastewater and electrical systems,
military fortifications, monuments and memorials, and seawalls. Nearly
40% of the 10,000 miles of park roads are in poor to fair condition.
Some repairs would cost just a few thousand dollars to fix, while
others could cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The 11.6 billion
maintenance backlog has been summarized by the National Park Service in
the following chart.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ASSET INVENTORY\\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Critical Systems
Asset Category Number of Asset Deferred Deferred Current Replacement
Locations Maintenance\\ Maintenance\\ Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buildings 24,879 $680,836,286 $2,059,805,808 $22,777,514,643
Housing 3,870 $68,759,391 $181,619,412 $1,690,237,051
Campgrounds 1,388 $16,428,505 $75,771,964 $723,503,131
Trails 6,260 $222,521,243 $462,205,902 $4,860,375,991
Waste Water Systems 1,887 $159,431,258 $270,602,289 $2,036,481,323
Water Systems 1,529 $248,142,046 $420,456,287 $3,813,853,022
Unpaved Roads 5,534 $74,137,380 $209,115,006 $3,118,914,261
Paved Roads 11,978 N/A $5,900,394,123 $26,940,518,097
All Other 18,557 $1,114,081,046 $2,026,809,602 $90,255,127,651
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 75,882 $2,584,337,154 $11,606,780,393 $156,216,525,170
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\\ Critical Systems Deferred Maintenance--The cost of critical or serious deferred maintenance located in
critcal asset components. This figure is currently unavailable for the Paved Roads category.
\\ Deferred Maintenance--The cost of maintenance and repairs that were not performed when they should have been
or were scheduled to be and which are put off or delayed for a future period.
\\ Source: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/infrastructure/upload/FY17-asset-inventory-Summary-AIS-
Servicewide_Report_508-3.pdf
While not a specific category, the list of deferred maintenance
needs also includes the thousands of historic structures that tell the
stories of this country's cultural heritage. Whereas roads and water
systems can be replaced, other infrastructure like historical buildings
cannot. Thus, it is especially critical that any infrastructure
revitalization plan addresses the needs of these special facilities.
examples of deferred maintenance:
Mount Rainier National Park (Washington): Trails in Mount
Rainier National Park are heavily used by visitors and are in dire need
of upkeep. Without maintenance funding, the park uses recreation fees
to complete critical projects and address unexpected needs but is
unable to tackle the larger projects and complete critical assessments.
The price tag for trail rehabilitation totals more than $10 million for
the park.
Denali National Park Road (Alaska): Among Denali's most
pressing needs is maintenance on the 92-mile Denali Park Road that is
the only way to access the heart of the park. The park and preserve's
buildings also need repair, including the Denali Park Kennel, which
houses the only sled dogs in the National Park System. It is estimated
to cost $32 million for these repairs.
Mesa Verde National Park (Colorado): Over $6 million is
needed to rehabilitate historic buildings in the Chapin Mesa National
Historic Landmark District at Mesa Verde National Park.
Grand Canyon National Park (Arizona): At a stunning cost
of $120 million, the deferred costs of the Grand Canyon's drinking
water systems are a symbol of decaying national park infrastructure.
The Grand Canyon is in the middle of the desert, which required the
monumental project of the Trans-Canyon Pipeline to be built in the
1960's. However, the pipeline is well past its thirty-year design life,
has up to thirty leaks per year, and requires an entire replacement.
Along with this, a water reclamation system of over a million dollars
is needed.
Kalaupapa National Historical Park (Hawaii): Kalaupapa
National Historical Park tells the story of Hawaiians banished by King
Kamehameha V to the north shore of Molokai for contracting leprosy.
Over $7 million is needed to replace historic buildings.
Yellowstone National Park (Wyoming and Montana): For the
past three decades the National Park Service has been working to
upgrade the park's 254-mile Grand Loop and entrance roads from 1940's
standards that are woefully inadequate for modern day tour busses and
recreational vehicles. Due to insufficient funding, only half of the
loop and entrance roads have been reconstructed. To complete upgrading
of the remainder of the roads in the park will cost anywhere from $800
million to $1.2 billion because the most challenging stretches of road
remain to be rebuilt. At the current pace of funding it will take more
than 75 years to complete the work.
Yosemite National Park (California): Yosemite National
Park is home to some of our country's most breathtaking cliffs, domes
and waterfalls. However, the park suffers from $582 million in needed
repairs. For example, more than $20 million is needed to rehabilitate
trails including the Yosemite Bike Path, the Stubblefield Canyon Trail,
and the Clark Point Spur, a path that leads to the famous Vernal Fall.
Golden Gate National Recreation Area (California): Golden
Gate National Recreation Area will require $9.5 million in wastewater
treatment repairs to remedy all problems. The systems of the Marin
Headlands and Fort Mason are some of the most expensive projects to be
undertaken. Current repairs, such as the Muir Woods Water and
Wastewater Service Rehabilitation project, have been stuck in the
planning stage due to the lack of funding.
Appalachian National Scenic Trail (Maine to Georgia): The
world's longest contiguous footpath is conservatively estimated to have
a $20 million backlog. More than 6,000 volunteers currently maintain
the 2,200-mile Trail, contributing 250,000 annual hours of mostly
physical work, saving the U.S. government more $6 million each year.
Still, funding is needed to support volunteer work, complete major
deferred projects and cover expenses for materials.
fixing national park infrastructure is good for the economy
National parks are an important part of the tourism economy and
extremely popular with Americans. National parks received more than 331
million visits in 2017, that generated $35 billion for the U.S.
economy. For every dollar Congress invests in the National Park
Service, $10 is returned to the American economy, with much of that
money directly benefiting parks' gateway communities. With national
parks supporting nearly 300,000 private-sector jobs annually, these
economic engines are worthy of a robust infrastructure investment in
2019 and beyond. Facilities in good repair improve visitor safety and
are attractive to the public thus enhancing the economies of the many
local communities that surround them.
conclusion
For too long, the national parks have been undergoing
infrastructure decline. The cost of doing nothing to fix the
infrastructure in our national parks is the gradual loss of our natural
and cultural heritage and the ability of the American public to enjoy
and be inspired by it as preserved in our national parks. For much of
the infrastructure of the parks, however, it will not be enough to
restore it to its previous condition, but it will be important to make
park infrastructure resilient to a changing climate. In addition, the
NPS should continue to develop innovative, cost-effective and
sustainable strategies for managing its assets.
1882 Project Foundation
American Society of Landscape Architects
Appalachian Trail Conservancy
Chinese American Citizens Alliance DC
Coalition to Protect America's National Parks
Evangelical Environmental Network
Friends of Acadia
Friends of Dyke Marsh
Mount Rushmore Society
National Park Hospitality Association
National Parks Conservation Association
National Tour Association
RV Industry Association
St. Croix River Association
Scenic America
United States Tour Operators Association
Western States Tourism Policy Council
Statement of the North American Concrete Alliance Submitted for the
Record by Mr. DeFazio
Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and distinguished members
of House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, it is our
pleasure and privilege to present written testimony on the timely and
vitally important topic of investing in our nation's infrastructure.
The North American Concrete Alliance is a coalition of 12 concrete-
related national trade associations, including the American Concrete
Pavement Association, the American Concrete Pipe Association, the
American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association, the American Concrete
Pumping Association, the Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, the
Concrete Foundations Association, the National Concrete Masonry
Association, the National Precast Concrete Association, the National
Ready Mixed Concrete Association, the Portland Cement Association, the
Precast/Pre-stressed Concrete Institute, and the Tilt-Up Concrete
Association. Our members are involved in the construction of highways,
airports, bridges, buildings, and underground infrastructure.
Our testimony will focus on the needed investment in the Nation's
Federal-aid highways, airports, ports and water infrastructure, and the
growing need to prioritize the resiliency of our infrastructure.
Our Nation's infrastructure is the backbone of commerce; personal
mobility; and the safety, security and quality of life for our
citizens. Highways, airports, bridges, ports, and water infrastructure
do more than transporting people from one point to the next and
products from market to consumers. They also define us and all
developed nations in terms of our global competitiveness and our
standing on the world stage of macroeconomics, politics, and military
might. It is accurate to say that no civilization was ever built or
endured with failing infrastructure.
For many years, investment levels in our Nation's surface
transportation infrastructure have fallen short of the needs defined by
the Government Accountability Office, transportation and
transportation-construction advocacy groups and others. State highway
transportation agencies and communities across the county are
challenged to do more with less, and with inadequate funding available,
many local governments and agencies are left with few options other
than to ``band-aid'' existing highways, roads and bridges. Funding
challenges resulted in wide-spread reports of highways and bridges
falling into disrepair.
In response, many States raised excise taxes on fuel to cope with
the insufficient funding, 27 States have raised or reformed gas taxes
since 2013.\1\ This increase in funding at the State level has
ameliorated the situation somewhat, but funding levels are still
insufficient to meet the current needs, let alone meet the future
demands on our network of highways and bridges. We now stand at the
junction of the past, present, and future, and for those and many other
reasons, investment in America's infrastructure cannot wait. To meet
the current and future needs, we must invest now and we must invest
sufficiently to keep pace with the expected population increase of 70
million people expected by 2045.\2\ This is essential to meeting not
only the increase in population, but also the associated increase in
vehicle traffic, freight loadings, and the proliferation of
technologies either placed into pavements or on highway, bridge, and
airfield appurtenances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Most States Have Raised Gas Taxes in Recent Years,'' JUST
TAXES BLOG, The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, May 22,
2018. https://itep.org/most-states-have-raised-gas-taxes-in-recent-
years/.
\2\ ``Beyond Traffic: 2045 Final Report,'' U.S. Department of
Transportation, Washington, DC. https://www.transportation.gov/policy-
initiatives/beyond-traffic-2045-final-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to a recently published study \3\ commissioned by
Congress in the FAST Act, and sponsored by the National Academies of
Sciences (NAS) and Federal Highway Administration, our Nation has lived
off the fruits of previous investments made five to six decades ago.
``Many of the Interstate pavements built in the 1950's and 1960's were
designed for 20-year service lives but have been in use for more than
50 years without reconstruction of their foundations.'' The report
continues that ``even the majority of the newest Interstate segments,
constructed in the 1980's and 1990's, will need to be rebuilt in the
next 20 years.'' We must rebuild the system's pavements, bridges, and
other assets before they become unserviceable and less safe, the report
states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Renewing the National Commitment to the Interstate Highway
System: A Foundation for the Future,'' (TRB Special Report 329), 2019,
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. https://www.nap.edu/
catalog/25334/renewing-the-national-commitment-to-the-interstate-
highway-system-a-foundation-for-the-future
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We must be more open to funding alternatives to support adequate
investment. The NAS study says, ``Recent combined State and Federal
capital spending on the Interstates has been $20 to $25 billion
annually.'' The study says, ``The total State and Federal spending
needed to renew and modernize the Interstates over the next 20 years
averages $45 to $70 billion per year,'' or more than two-to three-times
current spending levels. Not factored into these estimates, the NAS
report says, are the critical needs to reconfigure and/or reconstruct
many of the system's approximately 15,000 interchanges; the critical
need to make the system more resilient to the effects of climate
change; expanding and allocating system capacity more efficiently in
and around metropolitan areas; and ``rightsizing'' the length and scope
of the systems through extensions and replacements of some
controversial urban segments that do not serve through-traffic.
Congress must take the important step of increasing Federal
investment in surface transportation. The 27 States that enacted gas
tax reforms have dispelled the long-standing myth that a gas tax
increase is a non-starter because of the possible political fallout. In
fact, user-based options are among those recommended by the NAS report
which cites three possible options:
Increasing motor fuel taxes and other existing Federal
user fees;
Allowing States and metro areas to toll existing general-
purpose Interstate highways; and
Instituting mileage-based user fees.
The vast network of highways and bridges are a national treasure,
but will only remain so if bold leadership, unwavering determination,
and true bipartisan support prevail. The status quo of deferring and
not prioritizing infrastructure investment; depleting the Highway Trust
Fund; and not implementing funding alternatives that are in lock-step
with technology and alternative fuels can no longer sustain the needs
of our transportation network.
Not only does the nation's surface transportation system face a
backlog in maintenance, America's airports have nearly $100 billion in
infrastructure needs to accommodate the anticipated growth in passenger
and cargo activity as well as to rehabilitate existing facilities. The
annualized needs of approximately $20 billion, over the 5-year
authorization of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) passed last
year, for the nation's airport is greater than the funding available
through airport generated net income, Airport Improvement Program
grants and passenger facility charge revenue. These funding options
have not been updated in 20 years. It is time to modernize the
passenger facility charge and continue a robust Airport Improvement
Program as a way to address the demands our airports are facing.
Updating airport-funding options will give airports and their
communities' access to the resources to address their unique needs.
It is also critical for an infrastructure bill to invest in our
water infrastructure, including ports, locks and dams, and wastewater
infrastructure. A critical part of ensuring the efficient movement of
goods is the efficient operation and maintenance of the Nation's ports.
At our 59 busiest ports, fully dredged navigation channels are
available less than 35 percent of the time. An important step that can
be taken to invest in the maintenance of ports across the country is
the full-utilization of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. NACA
supports passage of legislation to fully utilize the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund balance of $9 billion collected from the Harbor Maintenance
Tax.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates there is a $40
billion backlog in clean water infrastructure projects across the
country and communities need approximately $270 billion in investment
over the next 20 years to bring their systems into a state of good
repair. An investment in this infrastructure will not only bring it
into a state of good repair but improve public health.
As a nation we have been forced to invest a lot of disaster
recovery over recent years as a result of the number of hurricanes,
wildfires, and other severe weather-related events. This expenditure
demonstrates the importance of investing in pre-disaster mitigation
with resilient public infrastructure. NACA supports providing
communities with the resources and tools needed to enhance the
resilience of their infrastructure, including buildings, roads, and
water and sewer infrastructure to minimize damage, disaster response
time, and replacement costs, which translates into lower costs over
time due to of improved durability and a decreased need for
maintenance.
Without adequate, reliable, and long-term commitments of funding
and policy decisions to support infrastructure development, agencies
and local governments will fall farther behind in their goals of
upgrading, modernizing, and expanding the network and the industry will
continue to suffer from consolidation and attrition.
Without adequate and timely investment in our nation's
infrastructure, the legacy passed on to future generations will be
failing or even crumbling highways, bridges, airfields, locks and dams.
Along with that, the system will not keep pace with population
increases, vehicle loadings and traffic increases, and technology
advances, and increased freight movement through our ports and
highways. In contrast, if Congress rallies in support of the
infrastructure and works closely with the Administration and the
States, our Nation has a realistic opportunity to build on our existing
assets and transform our network of highways, bridges, airfields and
waterways to become the gold standard in transportation and technology
for all the world to follow.
Statement from the Office of Hon. Eric Garcetti, Mayor, City of Los
Angeles, California, Efforts on Resilient Infrastructure, submitted for
the record by Mr. DeFazio
Information about Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti's efforts on
resilient infrastructure is below. We have provided short summaries
about our Sustainable City pLAn and our Resilience Strategy which are
the guiding principles and goals for infrastructure work in the City.
With these principles in mind, the City launched the following two
comprehensive street infrastructure improvement programs: Complete
Streets (repaving/repair) and Great Streets (infrastructure
revitalization). Listed below is information highlighting the City's
approach to road repair, pedestrian safety, and environmental
resilience.
Sustainable City pLAn
In April 2015, Mayor Garcetti released the first-ever ``Sustainable
City pLAn'', a roadmap for Los Angeles that is environmentally healthy,
economically prosperous, and equitable in opportunity for all. The pLAn
focuses on short-term results and long term goals to transform our
city. L.A.'s Sustainable City pLAn connects the dots for Los Angeles by
building on the three pillars needed for any thriving city:
Environment, Economy and Equity. Details can be found at: http://
plan.lamayor.org/
Resilience Strategy
In March 2018, Mayor Garcetti launched Los Angeles' first citywide
Resilience Strategy with 15 goals and 96 actions for Angelenos,
neighborhoods, the City, and our city partners to prepare Los Angeles
in addressing current and future challenges. Details at https://
www.lamayor.org/Resilience
Complete Streets Program Overview
In June 2018, Mayor Eric Garcetti launched the Complete Streets
Program to repair the city's worst streets, based on traffic fatalities
and pavement conditions, and improve safety measures across Los
Angeles. It was the city's first proactive street reconstruction and
resurfacing program in a decade, funded by a combination of local bond
(Measure M) and state gas tax funding (SB1).
The key to the program is that the City makes street infrastructure
improvements holistically to achieve multiple goals simultaneously,
considering all opportunities for related improvements to maximize
efficiency. For example, to repair a road, the City looks beyond just
paving and evaluates public right-of-way, potential Vision Zero safety
enhancements, sidewalk repair, and green infrastructure elements such
as bioswales and dry wells to improve stormwater quality and local
water supply.
As another example, when the City reconstructs or resurfaces a
paved street, the City also integrates Vision Zero safety strategies
(such as left hand turn signals, pedestrian refuge islands, and lead
pedestrian intervals). Or, when the City of LA repairs sidewalks, other
upgrades may be completed to integrate bioswales to clean stormwater
runoff and increase groundwater infiltration. If adding a bike lane is
supported by the neighboring community, the City will also consider
other safety enhancements or infrastructure upgrades.
Multiple city departments work together to define the scope and
identify opportunities, including:
Pavement quality improvements, such as reconstruction and
resurfacing as well as concrete bus pads where necessary (City of Los
Angeles Street Services and LA Metro)
Street safety improvements, such as adding bump outs,
adjusting traffic lights, and marking crosswalks (City of Los Angeles
Department of Transportation)
Green infrastructure to improve water quality and
drainage and to allow for groundwater infiltration (City of LA-Bureau
of Sanitation and LA Department of Water and Power)
Bioswales and drywells are often incorporated at
locations with street or sidewalk reconstruction, reducing the costs of
rebuilding curb and gutters to divert stormwater runoff, and
Enhancing smart city infrastructure, such as adding
motion sensors to street lights in order to increase lighting when
sensing pedestrian motion, thereby increasing the visibility and safety
of pedestrians.
Status of Complete Streets Projects
In the first two years of this initiative, the City of Los Angeles
will deliver upgrades to six major corridors that have poor pavement
conditions and are on the City's High Injury Network. The City is
spending an estimated $79.8 million with $35 million for street
reconstruction, $25 million for sidewalk repairs, $15 million for
Vision Zero safety improvements, and $4.8 million on green
infrastructure.
Funding for these projects are allocated from Measure R, Measure M,
SB1, and the Street Damage Restoration Fee (SDRF). Four projects will
broke ground in 2018, and two are planned for 2019, with completion
dates expected between mid-2019 to the summer of 2020 for all six
projects.
Great Streets
The Great Streets initiative takes a community-based planning
approach to reimagining LA streets, the City's largest public spaces,
into safer, more livable, and sustainable places. Through the Great
Streets program, the City engages local residents, business owners, and
other stakeholders by seeking their feedback on infrastructure projects
to address challenges unique to their respective communities. Great
Streets takes a comprehensive approach to infrastructure development by
focusing on the following goals:
1. Increasing economic activity: Businesses cannot be successful
if the street infrastructure does not encourage consumer access.
Business owners are key players in our communities
and they have countless interactions with community members on
a daily basis which is why we engage them from the onset of our
projects to help identify specific infrastructure improvements
that would catalyze business growth.
The City also look at projects that encourage all
road users to conveniently access businesses that are on Great
Streets Corridors, which means installing elements such as
street furniture, facade improvements, better lighting, and
high quality sidewalks to improve economic activity.
We also work with the Economic Workforce Development
Department to include business development components such as
loans, help with leases, and marketing to help accomplish this
goal.
2. Improving Access and Mobility: Infrastructure must be designed
not only for vehicles, but for all users and all demographics in mind,
which is why in addition to studying the vehicular traffic, the City of
Los Angeles considers the number of neighborhood pedestrians and
cyclists. The City also considers neighborhood demographics, such as
age, ability, and gender when it helps communities identify
infrastructure-related solutions to meet its needs. The City then build
and maintains sidewalks that encourage pedestrian use of the corridors,
and also installs bike lanes and storage, where they are needed and
appropriate.
3. Enhancing Neighborhood Character: Infrastructure investments
should take into account the cultural and historical context of the
community in order to build a stronger connection between the built
environment of a neighborhood and the people that live, work, and play
there.
The City engages local artists to create art, such as
murals, on the Great Streets corridors.
Through the Department of Cultural Affairs, the City
of LA offers grants for arts projects and events, working with
artists local to the Great Streets corridors.
4. Great Community Engagement: Community planning led by local
residents, business owners and stakeholders is at the heart of the
Great Streets process. It is critical that community members are the
leaders in identifying solutions to their neighborhood's challenges.
The City begins by asking community partners to write
a challenge statement which expresses the community need. We
believe community members are experts on their community, have
ideas on how to address their challenges, and must be engaged
throughout infrastructure improvement projects.
Once the City of LA has the challenge statement, we
create a partnership between a community partner, technical
consultant and the City. A minimum of six months of outreach is
conducted and led by community partners to engage stakeholders
in order to clearly define problems in the community and
initiate ideas on how to address the problems.
Great Streets works with City departments, community
partners and the consultant to design infrastructure projects
based on community feedback collected during the outreach
process.
After every project is implemented, Great Streets
gathers feedback from the community to evaluate the project's
impact.
5. Improved Environmental Resilience and Sustainability: Building
infrastructure that is sustainable and environmentally resilient is a
critical component of a livable neighborhood.
Sustainability and resilience are at the center of
each project.
Great Streets projects include elements such as
stormwater capture, bioswales and dry wells based on
feasibility to help the City replenish our groundwater system,
and the LA River. Whenever possible, the City installs semi-
permeable sidewalks for water capture.
To address the major health concern of extreme heat,
the City of Los Angeles is leading the country in deploying
cool surfaces on our streets which can reduce the air surface
temperature by 10 degrees. The City also plants trees on all
Great Streets projects, particularly in areas identified as
heat islands. These deployments have many benefits, including
water capture, air quality improvement, shade for pedestrians,
and enhanced corridor beautification.
The City of LA also strives to install energy
efficient street lighting, electric vehicle (EV) chargers, and
has plans to install air quality monitors to help better track
air pollution.
When taking on construction projects, the City
strives for sustainability materials, and considers the supply
chain of materials. The City will include a greenhouse gas
metric for our materials procurement.
6. Safer and More Secure Communities--Safety is at the heart of
any infrastructure improvement, which is why the City of Los Angeles
designs infrastructure investments with seniors and school children in
mind since these two are the most vulnerable streets users.
The City of Los Angeles achieves this by
reconfiguring traffic signals to allow more time for cross;
installing speed limit signs that effectively communicate with
drivers; installing curb extensions to reduce vehicle speed.
Additionally, the City installs stop signs and speed humps when
necessary.
The City also includes better lighting to encourage
street usage at all times of the day.
Statement of The Pew Charitable Trusts Submitted for the Record by Mr.
DeFazio
The Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew) appreciates the opportunity to
submit testimony for the record of this hearing on America's
infrastructure needs and the cost of doing nothing. Pew has been
engaged for some time in highlighting the need for investment in our
country's infrastructure. In particular, Pew has two initiatives of
relevance to today's hearing: one to address the maintenance backlog in
our national parks, and a second on flood-related issues promoting
resilient infrastructure and investments in mitigation.
Pew applies a rigorous, analytical approach to improve public
policy, inform the public, and invigorate civic life. We appreciate the
opportunity to submit testimony in this first hearing of the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and look forward to working
with the Committee as it explores these issues in the future.
national park system infrastructure backlog
The National Park Service (NPS) manages more than 400 nationally
significant sites in all 50 States and several territories, which
encompass natural and historic sites that celebrate and commemorate the
remarkable people, heritage, and ongoing story of America. The Restore
America's Parks campaign at The Pew Charitable Trusts seeks to conserve
the natural and cultural assets of the National Park System by
providing common sense, long-term solutions to the infrastructure
backlog challenge facing the park service.
NPS maintains 10,000 miles of roads (over 5,000 of which are
paved); nearly 1,500 bridges and 60 tunnels; 18,000 miles of trails;
more than 24,000 buildings; and over 2,000 sewage systems, as well as
former military installations, parking lots, waterfronts, campgrounds,
electrical and water systems, interpretive facilities, and iconic
monuments and memorials. The NPS has estimated their backlog of
infrastructure repair needs at $11.6 billion (based on fiscal year 2017
data).
There are multiple costs of doing nothing to address this backlog,
including:
The increased monetary cost of repairs as they are
delayed and become more difficult and costly to fix.
The economic cost to communities resulting from fewer
visitors traveling to parks when public access is limited following
closures of roads and trails due to maintenance issues.
The unmeasurable costs to our nation's historic and
cultural resources, if NPS lacks adequate funds to protect and maintain
the sites and artifacts that document our collective heritage.
The cost to park visitors who are denied access to the
world class recreation, wildlife, and educational opportunities that
our National Park Service is known for.
What Is Deferred Maintenance?
National parks often have the same infrastructure as a city or
town, and as a result face the same deterioration and maintenance
needs. In total, the agency is responsible for protecting and managing
over 75,000 assets which include roads and bridges, trails, historic
buildings, employee housing, wastewater and electrical systems,
military fortifications, monuments and memorials, and seawalls.
Maintenance is required at regular intervals to ensure acceptable park
facility conditions; when this maintenance is delayed for more than a
year, it is considered ``deferred.''
Why Is There a Deferred Maintenance Backlog?
Aging infrastructure: many park facilities and systems
are 50-70 years old and need updating.
Record visitation causes wear and tear on resources: our
parks received approximately 330 million visitors in 2017.
Unreliable funding for deferred maintenance.
A diverse portfolio that includes cultural, natural, and
historical resources, many of them exposed to the elements.
The Path Forward
Preventing the escalation of the NPS maintenance backlog is not an
insurmountable feat. But Congress and the Administration must pursue
multiple approaches to ensure success. Focusing limited resources on
priority assets must continue to be part of common sense solutions. To
address the maintenance backlog at NPS sites across the country, Pew
recommends a multi-pronged approach that includes:
Congressional Appropriations. Reliable annual
appropriations for transportation needs and NPS park maintenance are
needed, as well as adequate staff capacity to implement projects.
Dedicated Annual Federal Funding. The establishment of a
dedicated Federal fund that would direct resources each year to
priority NPS repairs would help the agency begin to address the most
pressing, complex repairs.
Infrastructure Package. Any potential national
infrastructure package should include deferred maintenance provisions
specific to the parks, recognizing that national park buildings, roads,
trails, aging electrical and water systems, and monuments need
significant updating.
Policy Reforms. Enacting innovative policy reforms to
ensure that deferred maintenance does not escalate. Reforms should
consider innovative technologies to drive maintenance costs down and
save staff time, as well as opportunities to maximize revenue
generation at parks.
Why We Must Address Infrastructure the Backlog of Repairs and Restore
Our Parks
Restoring the infrastructure and physical integrity of our national
park assets is a common-sense investment:
Preservation. Our national park units document America's
history. If our historic and cultural resources are not maintained,
pieces of our nation's history will be lost to future generations.
Access. Without safe and reliable roads and facilities,
visitors cannot access and enjoy park resources.
Economics. Parks are proven economic engines and must be
maintained to ensure positive visitor experience and thriving local
communities. Based on fiscal year 2017 records, over 330 million park
visits translated to $18.2 billion in direct spending in gateway
communities, generating approximately $35.8 billion in national
economic output and 306,000 jobs.
Recreation. World class recreation opportunities in parks
are supported by trails, campgrounds, and water facilities. These
amenities need to be safe and updated to ensure a continued high-
quality, safe recreation experience.
Infrastructure-related jobs. Fully investing in the park
maintenance backlog has the potential to generate over 110,000
additional infrastructure-related jobs, based on a Pew-commissioned
analysis: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/
compass-points/2017/12/01/job-creation-potential-if-we-restore-our-
parks.
Cost-savings. Proactively addressing park maintenance
provide a cost-savings to taxpayers, as postponement of projects can
lead to increased deterioration, and more costly and extensive repairs.
Almost 3,000 organizations across the Nation recognize these
benefits and support directing more resources to restoring our parks.
These groups--counties and cities, local officials, businesses,
veterans, the hotel and restaurant industry, conservation groups,
unions, the recreation industry, infrastructure groups, State tourism
societies--can be viewed here: http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-
and-analysis/articles/2018/04/18/calls-mount-for-congress-to-fix-our-
parks.
ensuring federal investments in infrastructure are flood-ready
Flooding is the costliest \1\ and most common natural disaster \2\
in the United States, affecting every region. In addition to homes,
these coastal and inland floods damage infrastructure vital to
community preparedness and resilience such as roads, bridges, schools
and hospitals, costing billions to repair and rebuild. Since 2000, such
events have cost the Federal Government over $800 billion.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Billion-Dollar
Weather and Climate Disasters: Summary Stats, National Centers for
Environmental Information, (accessed February 5, 2019) available at
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/summary-stats (considering tropical
cyclone to be flood-related disasters).
\2\ Federal Emergency Management Agency, OpenFEMA Dataset: Disaster
Declarations Summaries--V1, (accessed January 22, 2019), available at
https://www.fema.gov/openfema-dataset-disaster-declarations-summaries-
v1.
\3\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Billion-Dollar
Weather and Climate Disasters: Table of Events, National Centers for
Environmental Information, (accessed February 5, 2019) available at
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events/US/1980-2018; Leslie Scism
and Erin AIlworth, Moody's Pegs Florence's Economic Cost at $38 Billion
to $50 Billion The Wall Street Journal (September 21, 2018), available
at https://www.wsj.com/articles/moodys-pegs-florences-economic-cost-at-
38-billion-to-50-billion-1537572161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite rising costs and risks, investments in resilient
infrastructure and mitigation activities have historically been
insufficient to a point where trillions of dollars in investments are
needed just to improve America's infrastructure to a state of ``good''
quality.\4\ And making investments before disasters strike has been
mostly ignored even when research shows every $1 invested in mitigation
saves society at least $6.\5\ Years of underinvesting have left much of
America's infrastructure dangerously close to failing, according to a
March 2017 report by the American Society of Civil Engineers.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017 Infrastructure Report
Card, https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/.
\5\ Laura Lightbody, Every $1 Invested in Disaster Mitigation Saves
$6, Pew Charitable Trusts, (January 11, 2018) https://
www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2018/01/11/every-
$1-invested-in-disaster-mitigation-saves-$6.
\6\ American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017 Infrastructure Report
Card, (accessed February 5, 2019) available at https://
www.infrastructurereportcard.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The challenge becomes how do we make much needed investments in
infrastructure while ensuring those assets are not washed away by the
next major flood? As Congress considers this conundrum, it is critical
that stronger flood safeguards and future risks be incorporated into
new infrastructure investments. In too many instances, federally backed
projects have been built or rebuilt without serious consideration of
future losses, leading to repeat flooding losses and a costly cycle of
damage and repair.
The vulnerability of the country's infrastructure to flooding is
too great to continue ignoring:
930 military sites across 48 States have been impacted by
floods over the past 30 years.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Department of Defense, Climate-Related Risk to DoD
Infrastructure Initial Vulnerability Assessment Survey (SVLAS) Report),
(January 2018) https://climateandsecurity.files.
wordpress.com/2018/01/tab-b-slvas-report-1-24-2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 2000, the Federal Government has provided tens of
billions of dollars in assistance for public infrastructure, such as
roads, bridges, and public buildings, in response to major flood
disasters.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Federal Emergency Management Agency, OpenFEMA Dataset: Public
Assistance Funded Projects Details--V1, accessed February 1, 2019,
available at https://www.fema.gov/openfema-dataset-public-assistance-
funded-projects-details-v1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As of 2016, 18,000 federally owned buildings are in a
100-year floodplain with a total replacement cost of $83 billion.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Laura Lightbody, 3 Reasons the U.S. Needs a Flood-Ready
Building Policy, Pew Charitable Trusts (January 30, 2018) https://
www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2018/01/30/3-
reasons-the-us-needs-a-flood-ready-building-policy.
Without comprehensive policy action to reduce the impact of flood-
disasters, the Nation will continue to pay to rebuild infrastructure
repeatedly after disasters and put assets in harm's way. We simply
cannot afford to allow this pattern to continue.
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee should
consider the following flood-ready solutions.
Update Flood-Ready Standards for Federally Funded Projects
Building smart, durable infrastructure in the first place is a
commonsense practice. Hundreds of localities and numerous States across
the Nation already have stronger infrastructure flood standards than
the Federal Government. We also know that it pays to prepare: according
to recent analysis by the National Institute of Building Sciences,
flood mitigation projects on infrastructure like roads, rails, and
wastewater treatment facilities produced positive benefit-cost
ratios.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Multihazard Mitigation Council, Natural Hazard Mitigation
Saves: 2018 Interim Report, National Institute of Building Science
(December 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building resilient infrastructure enjoys a wide margin of support:
A poll released in January 2018 by The Pew Charitable Trusts found that
89 percent of registered voters--across party lines--support requiring
that all federally funded infrastructure in flood-prone areas be
constructed to better withstand the impacts of flooding.\11\
Incorporating future risk into flood safeguards across the Federal
Government will limit damage, reduce the need to rebuild after floods
and save taxpayer dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Laura Lightbody, Poll Shows Nationwide Support for Feds to
Boost Rebuilding Standards, Pew Charitable Trusts (February 1, 2018)
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2018/02/01/
poll-shows-nationwide-support-for-feds-to-boost-rebuilding-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should ensure Federal assets located in a floodplain take
into consideration current and future flood risks.
Establish a Flood Mitigation State Revolving Loan Fund
As severe weather events have spiked in recent decades, it is clear
the Federal Government must break the cycle of paying to rebuild
properties in vulnerable areas that flood repeatedly. It can do so--
with a $6-to-$1 return on investment 2--by increasing
support for State disaster preparedness efforts, starting with a new
revolving loan fund program.
Current funding levels for mitigation are not sufficient to address
the nation's pressing need to prepare for floods. Of the $277.6 billion
that the Federal Government spent on disaster assistance from 2005 to
2014, very little went to mitigation. In fact, spending on Pre-Disaster
Mitigation (PDM) grants fell from $157 million in 2005 to $19 million
in 2014.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Government Accountability Office, ``Federal Disaster
Assistance: Federal Departments and Agencies Obligated at Least $277.6
Billion During Fiscal Years 2005 through 2014'' (Sept 2016), http://
www.gao.gov/assets/680/679977.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishing a flood mitigation State revolving loan fund would
enable more communities to take measures to reduce risk to structures
and infrastructure, such as elevating buildings, putting vents in the
lowest level of structures to reduce pressure on the walls and allow
floodwater to pass through, and fund larger-scale projects such as
improving stormwater management and building berms or flood walls.
State revolving loan funds have a successful track record:
Many States and municipalities have experience with
revolving loan funds. They have been used to support affordable
housing, renewable energy, clean water, energy efficiency, and other
community interests.
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund program, for
example, has financed improvements to wastewater infrastructure. From
its inception in 1987 through 2016, the program has leveraged $41
billion in Federal moneys for $118 billion worth of clean water
infrastructure.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Environmental Protection Agency, 2017 Annual Report: Clean
Water State Revolving Fund Programs (March 2018) https://nepis.epa.gov/
Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100UAGH.PDF?Dockey=
P100UAGH.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Established in 1996, the Drinking Water State Revolving
Loan Fund has used just over $19 billion in Federal assistance to
foster more than $32.5 billion in investments through 2016.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Environmental Protection Agency, 20th Anniversary Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund (2017) https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/2018-08/documents/20th_anniversary_
dwsrf_report_final_508.pdf.
Congress should establish and fund a revolving loan fund program
for flood mitigation to improve infrastructure resilience.
Establish a Federal-Aid Highway Pre-Disaster Infrastructure Program
Federal-aid highways and roads are the lifeblood of the nation's
economy. While accounting for only 25 percent of the nation's highway
network, they shoulder 85 percent of total miles travelled each
year.\15\ Their reliability is not only key for the everyday mobility
of Americans and transporting goods from coast to coast, but critical
to community vitality during natural disasters. The Federal Highway
Administration Emergency Relief (ER) program provides States and
localities with access to funding to support disaster recovery efforts,
but the reactive approach of the program does not do enough to ensure
communities are prepared the next time it floods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Federal Highway Administration, 2013 Status of the Nation's
Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2013cpr/es.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Growing risk to and impacts from flooding to our Federal-aid
highways are unsustainable:
More than 60,000 miles of U.S. roads and bridges are in
coastal floodplains, threatening supply chains and local economies.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ USGCRP, 2018: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United
States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume II [Reidmiller,
D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K.
Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program,
Washington, DC, USA, 1515 pp. doi: 10.7930/NCA4.2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2018, flooding from Hurricane Florence forced the
closure of more than 1,200 roads in North Carolina, cutting off the
access of numerous communities to emergency responders and critical
facilities, like hospitals and shelters.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ North Carolina Department of Public Safety, It Takes a
Village: Emergency Management Leads Response and Recovery to Hurricane
Florence (Oct. 12, 2018) https://www.ncdps.gov/blog/2018/10/12/it-
takes-village-emergency-management-leads-response-and-recovery-
hurricane-florence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 2000, flooding and other extreme events have
resulted in the FHWA ER program receiving nearly $15 billion in
supplemental appropriations. Without investments toward making our
transportation infrastructure more resilient to increasingly stronger
storms, the FHWA ER program will continue to be overburdened.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Congressional Research Service, Emergency Relief for Disaster-
Damaged Roads and Public Transportation Systems (August 2018) https://
fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45298.pdf.
Congress should establish a Federal Highway Administration Pre-
Disaster Infrastructure program for projects that address Federal-aid
roads, highways, and bridges.
Prioritize natural areas that benefit communities
Healthy wetlands, salt marshes, dunes, and free-flowing rivers can
act as holding basins for floodwaters, decreasing the effects of
flooding on people, homes, and businesses in adjacent communities while
providing habitat for fish and wildlife. Along the coasts, such natural
areas act as the first line of defense to reduce the effects of storm
surge.
The use of nature-based solutions--either as alternatives or
complements to grey infrastructure--can help achieve resilience to
extreme weather while supporting other objectives (i.e., ecosystem
restoration, recreational space, etc.). In managing risk to threats
like flooding, nature-based solutions can be more effective compared to
conventional approaches. Nature-based approaches are, in some cases,
more adaptable, easier to scale up, and can become stronger and offer
more resilience over time, compared to grey infrastructure, while grey
infrastructure tends to become less resilient as it ages.
Research has shown that using nature-based solutions to mitigate
the threats posed by severe weather can be both economical and long-
lasting:
Coastal ecosystems mitigate an estimated $23 billion each
year in storm damages along the Atlantic and Southern coastlines
alone.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Karen Thorne, et al., U.S. Pacific Coastal Wetland Resilience
and Vulnerability to Sea-Level Rise, Science Advances, Vol 4, no 2 (Feb
2018) http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/2/eaao3270.full.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Gund Institute for Environment, wetlands
and floodplains protected Middlebury, Vermont from as much as $1.8
million in flood damages during Tropical Storm Irene in 2011 and saved
the town an average of $450,000 each year through flood mitigation.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Keri B. Watson, et al., Quantifying Flood Mitigation Services:
The Economic Value of Otter Creek Wetlands and Floodplains to
Middlebury, VT, Ecological Economics Vol 130 (October 2016) https://
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180091630595X.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resources for the Future found that by not developing
roughly 9,000 acres of land but instead preserving the area as State
and local parks, the Meramec Greenway in St. Louis County, Missouri,
benefits from $7.7 million in avoided flood damages on average each
year.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Carolyn Kousky and Margaret Walls, Floodplain Conservation as
a Flood Mitigation Strategy Resources for the Future (July 2013) http:/
/www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-DP-13-22-REV.pdf.
Congress should require the consideration of nature-based solutions
as alternatives for grey infrastructure projects that involve investing
Federal dollars in floodplains.
In summary, The Pew Charitable Trusts thanks the committee for the
opportunity to submit this testimony and looks forward to working with
the committee on the important task of developing an infrastructure
package that addresses the critical issues facing our nation's parks
and communities at risk.
Statement of the Resilient Navigation and Timing Foundation Submitted
for the Record by Mr. DeFazio
When GPS signals are not available because of natural, accidental
or malicious interference, every mode of transportation slows down,
carries less capacity, and becomes more expensive and dangerous. First
responder communications and coordination systems are degraded. If the
disruption lasts long enough, networks of all kinds begin to fail.
For this reason, officials at the Department of Homeland Security
have called our nation's over-reliance on GPS ``a single point of
failure for critical infrastructure.'' This sentiment and concern has
been echoed by a wide range of engineers and technologists including
the National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing Advisory
Board, and the ``father of GPS,'' Dr. Bradford Parkinson.
The lack of a difficult to disrupt, terrestrial backup system for
GPS is a significant gap in our nation's infrastructure. It must be
filled to protect and enable current applications and allow development
of future transportation and IT systems.
Validating this shortfall, the National Institutes of Standards and
Technology has twice warned that our nation's wireless precise timing
architecture (almost entirely based on GPS signals) is insufficient to
support development of the internet of things (IOT). As another
example, further development of safe automated vehicles and intelligent
transportation systems of all kinds will be unwise without difficult-
to-disrupt, wide area location and timing signals to pair with the much
weaker signals from space (see our comment to the Department of
Transportation here: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-
2018-0149-0022).
Congress began to address this shortfall by passing the National
Timing Resilience and Security Act of 2018 which became law in
December. This act requires the Secretary of Transportation to
establish a terrestrial timing system as a backup for GPS by the end of
2020. Also, that this timing system be expandable to provide a backup
for GPS navigation. Separate legislation last year provided $15M for a
technology demonstration of GPS backup technology.
These initial steps are important but will not by themselves make
our nation safer. Sufficient funds must be made available to establish
the timing system, and the administration must be held accountable for
progress on all fronts.
The last two administrations promised to establish backup systems
for GPS, but never followed-through. And we have seen little action
from the current administration. For example, funds for the GPS backup
technology demonstration Congress mandated have been available for
almost a year. Yet we have seen no public evidence that the project has
even begun. This, despite Congress' mandate the demonstration be
complete by June 2019.
Our nation's infrastructure is much more than just roads and
waterworks. Our dependence upon wireless precise time and navigation
continues to increase. We must focus on ensuring America has the
positioning, navigation, and timing infrastructure it needs to be
secure today, and to prosper in the future.
We urge you to:
Support funding for the timing system mandated by the
National Timing Resilience and Security Act of 2018,
Encourage the Department of Transportation to actively
pursue its role as the Federal lead for civil positioning, navigation,
and timing issues,
Hold the administration accountable for complying with
congressional direction and intent, and
Identify a terrestrial, difficult-to-disrupt, terrestrial
navigation and timing system as an essential part of our nation's
infrastructure.
Letter from Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill Submitted for the Record by
Mr. DeFazio
February 7, 2019.
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman DeFazio,
I write in support of your hearing today to highlight ``the cost of
doing nothing'' and urge all members to consider the absolute urgency
of immediately investing in our nation's infrastructure. The people of
New Jersey know access to reliable trains, tunnels, and transit is
essential for a strong economy and a good quality of life for our
commuters.
There is no greater example of the urgent need for transportation
infrastructure investment than the Gateway Tunnel Project. The current
rail tunnel, built during the (Theodore) Roosevelt administration, is
decaying and seriously damaged from Superstorm Sandy. The tunnel is the
only passenger rail access point into Manhattan, serving 200,000 New
Jersey commuters as well as more than 700,000 passengers along the
Northeast Corridor. Needless delay threatens the national economy, with
estimates of $100 million in lost revenue each day if the existing
tunnel goes down.
We should be thrilled by the potential Gateway offers to our entire
nation, from jobs to economic growth.
Instead, partisan politics has put Gateway on ice. The economic and
environmental cost of doing nothing on Gateway is staggering: $1.6
billion lost for each year the project does not move forward, as well
as an additional 181,898 tons of harmful pollutants released into the
atmosphere from constant congestion on our roads. It jeopardizes the
safety of our commuters who pass under the Hudson River each day, and
erodes family time with each delayed or canceled train.
Our country is built on the ingenuity and tenacity of the American
people. We must address our long-term infrastructure needs, including
Gateway, with the same belief in America that first propelled our
country during the Roosevelt administration to get Americans to work
and create the original tunnel in 1904. We owe future generations no
less.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for taking up this national
priority. I look forward to working with you in this Congress to
getting this project done for the American people.
Sincerely,
Mikie Sherrill,
Member of Congress.
Letter from the Southern Environmental Law Center Submitted for the
Record by Mr. DeFazio
February 21, 2019.
Hon. Peter DeFazio
Chairman
Hon. Sam Graves
Ranking Member
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves:
The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) would like to thank
the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for
holding a hearing on ``The Cost of Doing Nothing: Why Investing in Our
Nation's Infrastructure Cannot Wait.'' SELC works on infrastructure
issues at the federal level and in six states to promote clean water
and healthy air, protect rural landscapes and natural areas, and
promote vibrant, sustainable communities.
The United States has enormous infrastructure needs, such as
building and repairing bridges, roads, transit and rail lines,
renewable energy facilities, and water and sewer systems. We agree that
investments to meet these needs cannot wait, and that substantial
investments are needed. However, those investments must be well thought
out and targeted toward improvements that strengthen all communities,
protect public health, build resiliency, cut pollution, and help
address the climate crisis.
For example, we should invest in cleaner transportation
infrastructure like mass transit and rail rather than add more highways
lanes that will soon become congested. We also should use taxpayer
dollars more efficiently by adopting a ``fix it first'' approach that
focuses on bringing existing infrastructure to a state of good repair.
And we need to fully implement environmental protections and public-
input requirements to ensure protection of our health, environment, and
communities.
Moreover, there needs to be substantial federal investment to
address our nation's pressing infrastructure needs, it is not
acceptable to put most of the burden for infrastructure funding on
states and localities, or to expect that private investment will solve
the problem.
We appreciate your consideration of these brief comments while you
continue your efforts to solve our infrastructure problems.
Sincerely,
Meghan Boian,
Legislative Associate.
Letter from the Technology Association of Oregon Submitted for the
Record by Mr. DeFazio
February 7, 2019.
Dear Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Grave, and Members of the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee:
I am writing on behalf of the Technology Association of Oregon
(``TAO'') to request that the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee include specific funding for smart technologies in any
Federal infrastructure package.
Many regional economies are increasingly dependent on a strong,
vibrant technology industry. The same is true in Oregon. The tech
industry in Oregon is a major driver for Statewide economic prosperity,
and continues to generate more jobs with higher-than-average wages that
directly benefit workers in Oregon. Since 2000, the industry has added
3,113 firms and 4,212 jobs. Year-over-year, the industry has grown by
5.67 percent, wages have increased by 10.65 percent, and the average
worker now earns $81,645 per year.
Tech companies and startups increasingly locate where there is
abundant, high-skilled talent and where infrastructure is in place that
supports a high quality of life. To compete globally, In addition to
investments in workforce and education programs, the United States must
invest in infrastructure.
In Oregon, as in other States, population growth is placing stress
on roads, utility grids, and public transportation systems, among other
critical infrastructure. To make matters worse, much of this
infrastructure has suffered from insufficient maintenance and lack of
upgrades over the years. Rather than starting from a position of
strength, many States across the United States are starting from a
deficit. As a country, we are falling behind our international
competition.
With a thoughtfully designed Federal infrastructure package that
includes smart technologies, we have an opportunity to recapture the
United States' position as a global leader in infrastructure
investment, providing the country and its constituent States with a
competitive advantage. In particular, we encourage members of the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to include specific funding
that would:
Increase broadband connectivity for purposes of
decreasing the digital divide.
Update and secure utility grid systems.
Deploy intelligent transportation management software and
roadway sensors to mitigate congestion and accidents as a means to
building smarter and safer communities.
With these investments, we are confident the United States can
regain its position as a leader in innovative infrastructure, creating
economic opportunity for U.S. companies in the process. For these
reasons, we respectfully request that the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee provide specific funding for smart
technologies as part of a Federal infrastructure package. Thank you for
your consideration.
about tao
The TAO aims to create an inclusive, innovation-based economy in
Oregon. We work with nearly 500 tech and tech-enabled companies in
Oregon, ranging from some of the largest technology companies in the
world to early stage startups. We have offices in Portland, Bend and
Eugene and offer services around the State. Our programs focus on
helping companies to grow and remain competitive, and we have a
particular emphasis on inputs to growth such as talent, capital, and
the business environment.
Sincerely,
Warren ``Skip'' Newberry,
TAO President.
Appendix
----------
Questions from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Hon. Tim Walz
Introduction to Questions 1-2: New technologies are transforming
the way we plan and build infrastructure and transportation. Data has
naturally become an essential element of such ingenuities.
Intelligent systems can track buses and rail cars in real time,
they can determine how many people are riding in a vehicle, and help
control subway trains and light rail.
Question 1. Governor Walz, are there overarching concerns about
cybersecurity and data collection that require Federal standards?
Answer. Our recent public survey report revealed the following
concerns across the general public/stakeholder/technical expert
spectrum with cybersecurity and data collection.
The general public identified a need for data privacy protections
that minimized government access to and storage of data. There is a
distinction between the public being able, and choosing, to provide
personally identifiable information versus a private industry or the
government collecting, storing and managing data. Many of these
concerns center around potential mis-use of data and disclosure of
personal information. This also includes a significant concern that
connected and automated vehicles could be at risk due to cyber security
attacks.
Eliminating the potential for hacking private data is something
that the general public sees as a governmental responsibility. In
response to this concern and government expectation, consistent cyber
security standards were identified as partial solutions, along with
additional consumer protection measures to ensure that personally
identifiable information is aggregated and anonymized if collected. The
2018 Connected and Automated Vehicles Executive Report [https://
urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
3A_www.dot.state.mn.us_automated_
docs_Governor-27s-2520Advisory-2520Council-2520Connected-2520and-2520
Automated-2520Vehicles-2520Executive-2520R....pdf&d=DwMFAg&c=
L93KkjKsAC98uTvC4KvQDdTDRzAeWDDRmG6S3YXllH0&r=
mITDqG1bdQRZYzzUDLOcYQgnIstpV63qWQAogJVZD5I&m=
dWmauySnZ3M0qnGRRJylYpw5Bii3LejSKh1Ff9cC5Ps&s=hT0C6E9ZUAzd3B
thoiiY7Qt1B8dwj9ih1Dz4_mzqLuU&e=] identified several recommendations
for the state of Minnesota to focus on developing systems to aggregate
and anonymize data to protect personally identifiable information and
to ensure that IT systems are developed with an eye for security at the
beginning of development (e.g. security by design) to ensure personal
information is protected and that products and systems cannot be
exposed to cyber security risks.
Question 2a. Governor Walz, what are some challenges that
transportation systems face regarding data breaches?
Question 2b. Are there systems in place to address the breach and
notify interested parties?
Answer (2a. and 2b.) The general public communicated fears of a
data breach affecting the mechanical operation of a vehicle in the
automated vehicle testing phase. The technological solution this group
identified includes data overrides and the ability to disconnect
systems to ensure there are redundancies within data systems to manage
and protect from data breaches that could ``hijack'' the vehicle during
full automated vehicle operations. Stakeholders proposed state and
federal policy solutions, such as the federal government requiring
manufacturers to obtain product security certifications to preserve
accountability and maintain control of the automated vehicle and its
related software.
There are redundant systems in place within MnDOT and MnIT to
address these concerns. The recommendations within Minnesota's CAV
Executive Report [https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
3A_www.dot.state.mn.us_
automated_docs_Governor-27s-2520Advisory-2520Council-2520Connected-
2520and-2520Automated-2520Vehicles-2520Executive-2520R....
pdf&d=DwMFAg&c=L93KkjKsAC98uTvC4KvQDdTDRzAeWDDRmG6S3YXllH0&r=
mITDqG1bdQRZYzzUDLOcYQgnIstpV63qWQAogJVZD5I&m=
dWmauySnZ3M0qnGRRJylYpw5Bii3LejSKh1Ff9cC5Ps&s=
hT0C6E9ZUAzd3BthoiiY7Qt1B8dwj9ih1Dz4_mzqLuU&e=] also addressed ensuring
data management and IT systems are programmed with security in mind
(e.g. secure-by-design) to ensure that redundant privacy and cyber
security systems are in place to respond to breaches if and when they
occur. In addition, it is important that government address the issues
of poor software design and user error as key factors in enabling
hacking attempts.
Question from Hon. Pete Stauber for Hon. Tim Walz
Question 1: In addition to highways, ports, airports, and railways,
I believe we also must ensure the timely and secure delivery of energy
to fuel our economies and to underpin these infrastructure projects we
want to pursue. The safe and reliable delivery of energy is a necessary
part of promoting critical infrastructure. We must modernize, and where
appropriate, replace our aging pipeline infrastructure in Minnesota and
across the nation to advance the more efficient and reliable delivery
of energy with enhanced environmental protections. What's more, these
private investments will have the added benefit of providing good
paying jobs and critical tax revenue for our local towns and
communities. Can you please comment on the importance of modernizing
our pipeline infrastructure specifically in Minnesota and provide us
with your thoughts on the benefits these energy infrastructure projects
can provide to the state?
Answer. As our state transitions to a clean-energy economy, it is
important for Minnesota to maintain safe and reliable energy
infrastructure that meets the current needs of our consumers and
businesses. Minnesota currently has numerous pipelines that transport
both oil and natural gas and exist as part of our energy
infrastructure. As we evaluate new projects that impact our
environment, energy supply, and economy, we must follow the process,
the law, and the science. It is critically important that pipelines are
built and maintained in a way that protect the environment and health
of surrounding communities. Our state has a process in place through
the Public Utilities Commission to evaluate new projects and ensure
that they meet the state's energy needs. Our process has a number of
checks and balances, which help ensure that major energy projects are
properly vetted. For example, our Department of Commerce's Division of
Energy Resources is responsible for representing the interest of
consumers during this process. Other state agencies like the Department
of Natural Resources and Pollution Control Agency are responsible for
permits, licenses, and other approvals in order to protect the state's
natural resources and environment. Because pipelines traverse our
state, we must work to ensure that state agencies engage in appropriate
consultation throughout the process with tribal representatives and
local government units.
Questions from Hon. Alan S. Lowenthal for Richard Anderson
Question 1: Mr. Anderson, I am very concerned with how employees
were treated during the closure of the Riverside, California, call
center in January. Specifically, it is my understanding that you
provided your 500+ employees and their union representatives with only
60 days to negotiate over relocation, severance, and job transfer
options. In addition, this 60-day window fell during the hectic holiday
season, further complicating negotiations and constraining the ability
of employees to make life-changing decisions. What was the impetus
behind this sudden announcement and why weren't employees given more
lead time than the WARN Act-required minimum?
Answer. The timing of our announcement was not just due to WARN
requirements, but also the requirements of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement with the Transportation Communications Union (TCU) which
provides for a 60-day notice. We worked as quickly as we could to reach
an agreement with the TCU so that the impacted employees at Riverside
and in the California seniority district knew their options upon
closure. Additionally, we continued to work with the TCU and employees
to address individual circumstances as we could upon closure. Amtrak
had 90 TCU-represented employees elect to relocate to the Philadelphia
facility from California.
When Amtrak informed the TCU of its plan to use a contractor to
handle overflow calls, there was no commitment made that the current
facilities in Philadelphia and, at that time, Riverside, would not be
consolidated. Rather, the response was that such a move was not part of
the plan at that time, but that we would continue to review our options
to maximize customer service and efficiencies.
Introduction to Question 2: Amtrak served the Transportation
Communications Union notice in February of 2018 that the company
intended to use a contractor in Florida to perform call center work,
but in talks with employees and union representatives your managers
assured them that neither of Amtrak's existing facilities would close.
Some of your supervisors were even sent to Florida to train their
replacements.
Question 2a. What--if anything--changed between February and
November of last year that prompted the closure, and could you have
provided employees with additional notice?
Answer. Amtrak is charged with being an efficient steward of public
funds and part of that responsibility compels us to look at what costs
(such as maintenance and operations of a facility) can be reduced. This
is what Congress has told us to work towards in our statutory mission
and goals. Coupled with the continued preference of our customers to
use self-service options such as Amtrak.com and our mobile app, the
consolidation of the two centers was deemed an excellent opportunity to
continue progress in the direction that Congress has mandated. Every
Riverside agreement employee was offered a position to relocate to
Philadelphia.
Question 2b. In general, not just regarding the Riverside facility,
is it your intention to circumvent unionized employees by shifting
their work to outside contractors?
Answer. Amtrak's use of contractors, in the past, present and
future, has never been to circumvent unionized employees. In fact, some
of our contractors also have unionized work forces. Rather, the use of
contractors is about efficiency--effective use of public monies--and
staying focused on our mission. For example, we are a service
transportation provider, not a catering company. We should leverage
experts in hospitality to improve our overall customer service.
Additionally, Amtrak will comply with the law--no employees are
furloughed as a result of contracting work.
Question from Hon. Scott Perry for Richard Anderson
Question 1. Another significant cost driver is federal requirements
that drive up labor costs. The prevailing wage law hasn't been changed
since 1935; the threshold is $2,000--since 1935. As a result of this
law, it is estimated that the average wage is 22 percent higher than
the actual market rate so the term ``prevailing'' is a bit of a
misnomer. Reasonable people can and do disagree on the extent of the
law's inflationary effect, but it's difficult to deny that the result
is above-market wage rates. After all, the purpose of the law is to
isolate labor costs from competition--the very mechanism that sets the
market price of any good or service--through the imposition of
government mandated wage rates; prohibiting those willing and able to
do the work for less from offering lower cost alternatives. Since labor
costs make up around 50 percent of total construction costs, the law's
requirements tend to inflate total project costs by anywhere from 7 to
nearly 10 percent. What role have these artificially inflated costs
played in the degradation of our infrastructure?
Answer. The degradation of infrastructure is a rapidly growing
problem in America, and while labor costs play a part in the increasing
funding required to address this issue, the growing cost of labor is
not a major factor. The larger issue is the fact that so much of our
transportation infrastructure was put in place during the same era, and
the useful live(s) are expiring near the same time. Additionally, with
so much work needing to be done in such a short period of time, the
prioritization of limited resources (financial resources and human
resources) will be a challenge.
Question from Hon. Scott Perry for Hon. Eric K. Fanning
Question 1. Another significant cost driver is federal requirements
that drive up labor costs. The prevailing wage law hasn't been changed
since 1935; the threshold is $2,000--since 1935. As a result of this
law, it is estimated that the average wage is 22 percent higher than
the actual market rate so the term ``prevailing'' is a bit of a
misnomer. Reasonable people can and do disagree on the extent of the
law's inflationary effect, but it's difficult to deny that the result
is above-market wage rates. After all, the purpose of the law is to
isolate labor costs from competition--the very mechanism that sets the
market price of any good or service--through the imposition of
government mandated wage rates; prohibiting those willing and able to
do the work for less from offering lower cost alternatives. Since labor
costs make up around 50 percent of total construction costs, the law's
requirements tend to inflate total project costs by anywhere from 7 to
nearly 10 percent. What role have these artificially inflated costs
played in the degradation of our infrastructure?
Answer. AIA can address the aerospace-related aspects of your
question. On average, a worker in the U.S. aerospace and defense
industry is paid 81% above the national average, or $91,500, which
includes wages and benefits paid out by employers. In total, the
aerospace and defense industry employed 2.4 million people in 2017,
mostly involved in the development and production of complex and
technologically challenging systems for commercial aviation, military,
and space requirements.
As your question notes, our nation's infrastructure is in
significant need of improvement. My written testimony references the
U.S. Academy of Civil Engineers' most recent report card, which gives
the U.S. a D+ rating overall and individual grades for infrastructure
components like roads and bridges. Unfortunately, there is not a
similar report for the entirety of our aviation infrastructure. As we
approach the integration of new technologies into our airspace, AIA
believes it is important to begin analyzing our long-term aviation
infrastructure needs. We are not aware of any specific data indicating
the role of federal prevailing wage laws and regulations on the cost of
aviation infrastructure or aerospace-related programs.
Question from Hon. Scott Perry for Angela Lee
Question 1. The Highway Trust Fund (HTF) is on a path to insolvency
because the money is being diverted from its core purpose--the
construction and maintenance of roads and bridges--not due to a lack of
revenue. The Government Accountability Office found that less than 50
percent of HTF expenditures go to actual highway construction and only
six percent goes to major construction, reconstruction, and
rehabilitation projects. Nearly 29 percent of the expenditures are
diverted away from highway construction and maintenance to a wide range
of projects including bureaucrats in regional planning agencies, bike
and pedestrian trails, vegetation management, historic preservation,
and transit. Ending this practice of diversions could make the HTF
solvent--tomorrow. It would provide an additional $132 billion for
investment over the next 10 years. The Chamber has come out in support
of increasing the gas tax. Does the Chamber support ending this
practice of diverting gas tax revenue to ensure the solvency of the
HTF?
Answer. Charlotte Water is not positioned to speak to the funding
of the Highway Trust Fund. Our core businesses are treatment of
drinking water and wastewater.
Questions from Hon. David Rouzer for Angela Lee
Question 1. Can you please discuss some of the challenges North
Carolina utilities face when extreme storms like Hurricane Florence
hit?
Answer. On Sunday, September 16, as Tropical Depression Florence
moved through the Charlotte metro area, Charlotte Water rapid response
crews responded to multiple locations for sanitary sewer overflows
(SSO). Heavy rains inundated the sanitary sewer system in eight
locations causing approximately 1.5 million gallons of wastewater to
escape the sanitary sewer collection system. The quick decisions and
experience by our plant operators and rapid response crews was really
on display. The plants handled hundreds of millions more gallons of
extra flow; more than 5 times the usual day's volumes. The plants
didn't flood, and they didn't spill. They treated the historic flow
without compromising water quality standards. Other utilities across
the state of NC were not nearly as fortunate.
Nationally, not all utilities are as prepared as Charlotte is to
withstand a threat like Florence. Water and wastewater utilities are on
the front lines of severe storms: these environmental conditions are
outside our control but can directly impact utilities' ability to
provide vital services. The water services utilities provide depend on
having adequate funding and financing resources. Existing estimates of
water and wastewater investment needs, such as EPA's Clean Watersheds
Needs Survey, consider the costs to maintain current states of good
repair--but changing conditions may drive even greater costs. Federal
funding and financing tools such as the State Revolving Funds, tax-
exempt municipal bonds, and other programs can help utilities make
these investments. Targeted grant programs, such as the 2018 America's
Water Infrastructure Act's authorization of resiliency grants for
drinking water utilities, can also help utilities prepare for the
challenges of extreme weather events or changing conditions, whether
that be a severe rain event, persistent drought, wildfires, or another
threat.
Question 2. While many communities are still focused on disaster
recovery and rebounding, are there efforts that utilities can take, or
are proactively taking, to help ensure vital services can face extreme
storms as much as possible?
Answer. When extreme storms hit Charlotte, our main goal is to
maintain essential water and wastewater services to our community. We
make sure that our infrastructure has built-in redundancy, that our
power systems are reliable and that our employees are skilled to make
good decisions quickly and efficiently. Our utility participates in
local All-Hazards Planning as well as regional crisis preparation
exercises. In NC, a network of water utilities has been set up called
NC WARN. The network creates an assistance structure for its members to
reach out during times of emergency for resources. Through the
partnership, agreements are pre-arranged so that resources can be
shared quickly and efficiently. It's reassuring to know this network
exists and has been very successful in NC. Charlotte Water has found
that advanced hazard planning and establishing partner networks in
advance of a crisis has provided Charlotte Water resiliency in the
event of a natural disaster.
Questions from Hon. Scott Perry for Rich McArdle
Question 1. Another significant cost driver is federal requirements
that drive up labor costs. The prevailing wage law hasn't been changed
since 1935; the threshold is $2,000--since 1935. As a result of this
law, it is estimated that the average wage is 22 percent higher than
the actual market rate so the term ``prevailing'' is a bit of a
misnomer. Reasonable people can and do disagree on the extent of the
law's inflationary effect, but it's difficult to deny that the result
is above-market wage rates. After all, the purpose of the law is to
isolate labor costs from competition--the very mechanism that sets the
market price of any good or service--through the imposition of
government mandated wage rates; prohibiting those willing and able to
do the work for less from offering lower cost alternatives. Since labor
costs make up around 50 percent of total construction costs, the law's
requirements tend to inflate total project costs by anywhere from 7 to
nearly 10 percent. What role have these artificially inflated costs
played in the degradation of our infrastructure?
Answer. The Chamber does not believe federal prevailing wage
requirements have significantly impacted the degradation of our
infrastructure. This is because in order to attract the high skilled
worker in many communities, private engineering and construction
companies provide compensation greater than any federal requirement may
require.
A deeper reason for the degradation of our infrastructure is the
inability of the federal government to adjust the federal motor fuel
user fee since 1993. Another cause for lack of investment include
vehicles which are significantly more fuel-efficient than they were 26
years ago. As a result, motorists use less fuel to drive the same
number of miles, and there is significantly less revenue to maintain
the roads upon which they drive.
Question 2. The Highway Trust Fund (HTF) is on a path to insolvency
because the money is being diverted from its core purpose--the
construction and maintenance of roads and bridges--not due to a lack of
revenue. The Government Accountability Office found that less than 50
percent of HTF expenditures go to actual highway construction and only
six percent goes to major construction, reconstruction, and
rehabilitation projects. Nearly 29 percent of the expenditures are
diverted away from highway construction and maintenance to a wide range
of projects including bureaucrats in regional planning agencies, bike
and pedestrian trails, vegetation management, historic preservation,
and transit. Ending this practice of diversions could make the HTF
solvent--tomorrow. It would provide an additional $132 billion for
investment over the next 10 years. The Chamber has come out in support
of increasing the gas tax. Does the Chamber support ending this
practice of diverting gas tax revenue to ensure the solvency of the
HTF?
Answer. The Chamber supports the current federal surface
transportation program. We supported changes made in both MAP-21 and
FAST Act to limit the federal programs HTF dollars are required to be
used for the activities you mentioned and provide flexibility for
states to make the best decisions for their communities.
While non-highways investment are part of this flexibility, the
Chamber has been a long-time supporter of the current percent of gas
tax revenue to be designated to the Mass Transit account of the HTF. We
believe this must be maintained moving forward.
Questions from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. for Larry I. Willis
Question 1. Minorities continue to be underrepresented in
transportation industries, such as aviation. In 2012, the U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics estimated that 93 percent of airline pilots and
flight engineers were white and 2.7 percent were black or African-
American.
Mr. Willis, what steps can we take to ensure that a transportation
and infrastructure package will bolster and include minority labor
participation, so they too can benefit from the opportunities?
Question 1a. Should enforcement of existing minority initiatives be
part of the conversation?
Question 2. Mr. Willis, do you see progress in the inclusion and
promotion of people of color in the transportation industries?
Question 2a. What about their inclusion in technology-driven jobs,
like coding, database management or electrical engineering?
Answer to questions 1-2. The labor movement, and TTD as labor's
unified voice for transportation workers, is committed to increasing
minority participation and the development and implementation of
pathways to transportation careers for minorities.
In the aviation industry, for example, our affiliated pilot union,
the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) engages in career development
opportunities through the Organization of Black Aerospace Professionals
(OBAP), National Gay Pilots Association, Women in Aviation, etc. ALPA
pilot volunteers visited more than 1,500 schools last year to educate
young people about careers as pilots. ALPA also promotes careers in
aviation for minorities, veterans, and young people at venues
throughout the country and through www.clearedtodream.org and
www.aviationworks4u.org.
Further, we were supportive of and pleased that last year's FAA
reauthorization bill included a new Women in Aviation initiative and
have been working closely with the U.S. Department of Transportation on
its Forces to Flyers initiative.
Other transportation sectors also have programs dedicated to
minority hiring. For instance, building and construction trade unions
run pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship readiness programs that feed
into their registered apprenticeship programs. These are designed to
introduce the trades and related careers to a diverse labor pool, with
a focus on outreach to women and minorities. North America's Building
Trades Unions' (NATBU) MC3 program begins this process in high school
with construction education for students.
Further, on the transportation manufacturing since, TTD and several
affiliated unions are active participants in the Jobs to Move America
Coalition, which promotes domestic job creation through government
procurement policies. In particular, JMA encourages government agencies
to include a U.S. Employment plan as part of its RFP process, with
bidding companies getting credit for jobs created, quality of jobs, and
for hiring in disadvantaged communities (minorities, veterans, women,
and others).
We believe in promoting an inclusive, diverse and skilled workforce
throughout the transportation sector, and firmly believe in the
enforcement of any existing minority initiatives enacted by Congress.
Question from Hon. Scott Perry for Larry I. Willis
Question 3. Another significant cost driver is federal requirements
that drive up labor costs. The prevailing wage law hasn't been changed
since 1935; the threshold is $2,000--since 1935. As a result of this
law, it is estimated that the average wage is 22 percent higher than
the actual market rate so the term ``prevailing'' is a bit of a
misnomer. Reasonable people can and do disagree on the extent of the
law's inflationary effect, but it's difficult to deny that the result
is above-market wage rates. After all, the purpose of the law is to
isolate labor costs from competition--the very mechanism that sets the
market price of any good or service--through the imposition of
government mandated wage rates; prohibiting those willing and able to
do the work for less from offering lower cost alternatives. Since labor
costs make up around 50 percent of total construction costs, the law's
requirements tend to inflate total project costs by anywhere from 7 to
nearly 10 percent. What role have these artificially inflated costs
played in the degradation of our infrastructure?
Answer. Davis-Bacon rates are based upon actual surveys of pay
rates in a local area which is the most effective way to accurately
determine market conditions. Thus the statement that Davis Bacon rates
are higher than ``actual market rates'' is false.
According to research by the Institute for Construction Labor
Research (ICERES), the preponderance of the peer reviewed academic
studies have found that prevailing wage has no impact on overall
construction costs. Higher wages on a Davis Bacon project are easily
offset by higher skill levels and productivity on the part of more
highly trained workers.
However, I am assuming that you may be referring to the model that
the Bureau of Labor Statics uses to compute their wage data. To assert
that a statistical model is more accurate than actual surveys is, on
its face, wrong.
Additionally, the BLS data only includes the wages that are ``on
the check'' and excludes any employee benefits like health insurance,
retirement security benefits, and other benefits that may be a part of
a workers total compensation package.
Also, I believe that the assertion that construction's labor costs
account for 50% of a project's total costs is wildly inflated. Most of
the figures I am aware of project that labor amounts to between 17-23%
of costs, which make the rest of the math incorrect.
Davis Bacon assures that infrastructure investments lift a local
community up by assuring that the workers are paid a wage that can
actually support themselves and their families. TTD proudly supports
the Davis Bacon Act and the policy behind it.