    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

      ALIGNING FEDERAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY TO MEET 21ST-CENTURY
                                     NEEDS

    =======================================================================

                                    (116-7)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                              HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 13, 2019

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

    [GRAPHICS 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
    35-675 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2019

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, po@custhelp.com.

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                        PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair

    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,               SAM GRAVES, Missouri
      District of Columbia               DON YOUNG, Alaska
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
    ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland         Arkansas
    RICK LARSEN, Washington              BOB GIBBS, Ohio
    GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California      DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey              SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
    JOHN GARAMENDI, California           RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
    HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,      ROB WOODALL, Georgia
    Georgia                              JOHN KATKO, New York
    ANDRE CARSON, Indiana                BRIAN BABIN, Texas
    DINA TITUS, Nevada                   GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
    SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York       DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
    JARED HUFFMAN, California            MIKE BOST, Illinois
    JULIA BROWNLEY, California           RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas
    FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida         DOUG LaMALFA, California
    DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey     BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
    ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California        LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania
    MARK DeSAULNIER, California          PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan
    STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands   BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
    STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts      MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
    SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California, Vice  GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
    Chair                                BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
    ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland           JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,
    ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York            Puerto Rico
    TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey           TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
    GREG STANTON, Arizona                ROSS SPANO, Florida
    DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida      PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
    LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas               CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia
    COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas               GREG PENCE, Indiana
    SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
    ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa
    JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
    ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
    CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
    ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
    HARLEY ROUDA, California

                                      (ii)

                      Subcommittee on Highways and Transit

               ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chair

    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               DON YOUNG, Alaska
    JOHN GARAMENDI, California           ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
    HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,      Arkansas
    Georgia                              BOB GIBBS, Ohio
    JARED HUFFMAN, California            DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
    JULIA BROWNLEY, California           THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
    FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida         MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
    ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California        ROB WOODALL, Georgia
    MARK DeSAULNIER, California          JOHN KATKO, New York
    SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California        BRIAN BABIN, Texas
    ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland           DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
    ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York          MIKE BOST, Illinois
    TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey           DOUG LaMALFA, California
    GREG STANTON, Arizona                BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
    COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas               LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania
    SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas               PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan
    ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa                MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
    JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois   GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
    ANTONIO DELGADO, New York            BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
    CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire          TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
    ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota               ROSS SPANO, Florida
    HARLEY ROUDA, California             PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
    GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California      CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey              GREG PENCE, Indiana
    SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York       SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio)
    DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    DINA TITUS, Nevada
    STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
    PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
    Officio)

                                     (iii)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................   vii

                       STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the
      District of Columbia, and Chair, Subcommittee on Highways and
      Transit:

        Opening statement............................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Illinois, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and
      Transit:

        Opening statement............................................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................     5
    Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on Transportation and
      Infrastructure:

        Opening statement............................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     7

                                   WITNESSES

    Hon. Ron Nirenberg, Mayor, City of San Antonio, Texas, on behalf
      of the National League of Cities:

        Oral statement...............................................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    11
    Roger Millar, PE, FASCE, FAICP, Secretary, Washington State
      Department of Transportation, on behalf of the American
      Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials:

        Oral statement...............................................    13
        Prepared statement...........................................    15
    Darran Anderson, Director of Strategy and Innovation, Texas
      Department of Transportation, on behalf of the Texas Innovation
      Alliance:

        Oral statement...............................................    23
        Prepared statement...........................................    25
    John Kevin ``Jack'' Clark, Executive Director, Transportation
      Learning Center:

        Oral statement...............................................    27
        Prepared statement...........................................    29
    Therese W. McMillan, Executive Director, Metropolitan
      Transportation Commission, on behalf of the Association of
      Metropolitan Planning Organizations:

        Oral statement...............................................    36
        Prepared statement...........................................    38
    Al Stanley, Vice President, Stanley Construction Company, Inc.,
      on behalf of The Associated General Contractors of America:

        Oral statement...............................................    42
        Prepared statement...........................................    44
    Michael Terry, President and CEO, Indianapolis Public
      Transportation Corporation (IndyGo), on behalf of the American
      Public Transportation Association (APTA):

        Oral statement...............................................    50
        Prepared statement...........................................    52

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Report, ``A Preventable Crisis: The Costs of a Hudson River Rail
      Tunnel Shutdown,'' submitted for the record by Hon. Espaillat..    78
    Report, ``Planning Ahead: County Planning, Land Use and Zoning
      Strategies for Affordable Housing,'' submitted for the record
      by Hon. Garcia.................................................    81
    Letter of February 1, 2019, from Mark W. Mitchell, Mayor, City of
      Tempe, AZ, et al., submitted for the record by Hon. Stanton....    95
    Letter of March 13, 2019, from Shailen P. Bhatt, President and
      CEO, Intelligent Transportation Society of America, submitted
      for the record by Hon. Norton..................................   101
    Letter of March 11, 2019, from James D. Ogsbury, Executive
      Director, Western Governors' Association, submitted for the
      record by Hon. Norton..........................................   103
    Letter of May 7, 2019, and Congestion Maps, from Tori Emerson
      Barnes, Executive Vice President, Public Affairs and Policy,
      U.S. Travel Association, submitted for the record by Hon.
      Norton.........................................................   107

                                    APPENDIX

    Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Hon. Ron Nirenberg......   113
    Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Roger Millar, PE, FASCE,
      FAICP..........................................................   114
    Questions from Hon. Mark Meadows for Roger Millar, PE, FASCE,
      FAICP..........................................................   118
    Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Darran Anderson.........   118
    Questions from Hon. Mark Meadows for Darran Anderson.............   121
    Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for John Kevin ``Jack''
      Clark..........................................................   122
    Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Therese W. McMillan.....   126
    Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Al Stanley..............   128
    Questions from Hon. Mark Meadows for Al Stanley..................   128
    Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Mike Terry..............   132
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 March 8, 2019

        SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

        TO:       Members, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
        FROM:   Staff, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
        RE:       Subcommittee Hearing on ``Aligning Federal

    Surface Transportation Policy to Meet 21st Century Needs''

                                    PURPOSE

        The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit will meet on
    Wednesday, March 13, 2019, at 10 a.m. in HVC 210, Capitol
    Visitor Center, to receive testimony on ``Aligning Federal
    Surface Transportation Policy to Meet 21st Century Needs.'' The
    purpose of the hearing is to examine if and how Federal-aid
    highway and Federal transit programs and policies need to
    change in order to meet current and future transportation
    challenges. The Subcommittee will hear from representatives of
    the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
    Officials, the National League of Cities, the American Public
    Transportation Association, the Association of Metropolitan
    Planning Organizations, the Associated General Contractors of
    America, the Transportation Learning Center, and the Texas
    Innovation Alliance.

                                   BACKGROUND

    THE FEDERAL ROLE IN SURFACE TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT

        The Federal Government has continued its strong role in
    surface transportation investment, in partnership with States,
    since the 1916 Federal Aid Roads Act. The enactment of the
    landmark Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 (1956 Act) (P.L. 84-
    627) made significant Federal investment in America's system of
    roads and bridges. This Act established formula grant programs
    to distribute Federal surface transportation funds to States
    through specific eligible categories. The 1956 Act also
    established a dedicated funding mechanism through the Highway
    Trust Fund (HTF). Secure funding, along with a long-term 13-
    year authorization, gave States the certainty and continuity
    needed to develop and begin construction on the Interstate
    System and other surface transportation projects.
        Congress has enacted a number of authorization bills in the
    decades following the passage of the 1956 Act to modify the
    Federal-aid highway program, create the Federal transit
    program, provide ongoing funding to States for the construction
    and maintenance of the Nation's surface transportation network,
    and extend the highway-related taxes deposited into the HTF.
    Congress has sustained the pattern of long-term, multi-year
    authorization bills to continue steady, predictable funding
    levels to facilitate project planning and construction. Since
    1991, major authorization bills include: the Intermodal Surface
    Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) (P.L. 102-240)
    enacted in 1991, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
    Century (TEA-21) (P.L 105-178) enacted in 1998, the Safe,
    Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
    Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (P.L. 109-59) enacted in 2005,
    and the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-
    21) (P.L. 112-141) enacted in 2012.
        Most recently, Congress enacted the Fixing America's
    Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) (P.L 114-94), on December
    4, 2015. The FAST Act provided $281 billion in funding for
    highway, transit, and highway safety programs and reauthorized
    those programs for 5 years. The FAST Act is set to expire on
    September 30, 2020. In the 116th Congress, a priority for the
    Subcommittee on Highways and Transit is developing and enacting
    a bill to reauthorize Federal highway, public transit, and
    highway safety programs.

    HIGHWAY TRUST FUND SOLVENCY

        Federal surface transportation investments are funded
    through Federal excise taxes levied on motor fuels and on
    related products such as tires and freight trucks, which are
    deposited into the 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.
    Without a solvent HTF, Congress cannot enact a long-term,
    multi-year authorization bill.

    CONDITION OF OUR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION NETWORK

        According to Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data, from
    2003 to 2017 Federal spending on infrastructure, including
    surface transportation programs, decreased by nearly 20
    percent, adjusted for inflation.\1\ This reduction has resulted
    in a growing backlog of investment needs. One in three
    interstate bridges have repair needs, and nearly 9 percent of
    the Nation's bridges are structurally deficient.\2\ 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.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ CBO report, ``Public Spending on Transportation and Water
    Infrastructure, 1956 to 2017'' October 2018.
        \2\ ARTBA Bridge Report, 2018.
        \3\ ASCE Report Card, 2017.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has
    identified a more than $1 trillion gap in current surface
    transportation funding in order to fix what we have, meet
    future needs, and restore our global competitiveness.
    Similarly, 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 need to
    invest $37.3 billion per year at all levels of government to
    improve the conditions and performance of all roads. 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 $26.4 billion per year to accommodate the high-
    growth scenario of future transit ridership. We currently
    underinvest by approximately $9.5 billion per year at all
    levels of government on transit capital investments.

    MEETING 21ST CENTURY CHALLENGES

        The next surface transportation reauthorization bill will
    only continue to facilitate economic growth, ensure global
    competitiveness, and create jobs, including family supporting
    jobs, if Congress makes the necessary investments in the
    Nation's surface transportation system. Congress will also need
    to ensure that Federal surface transportation programs can
    address current and future challenges. In the coming decades,
    our transportation system will come under immense pressure and
    face significant challenges. America's population is expected
    to grow to approximately 400 million by 2051.\4\ Freight
    volumes will continue to soar as freight tons are expected to
    increase by 40 percent over the next 30 years.\5\ The
    Transportation Research Board's recent report on the future of
    the Interstate System concluded that the Interstate System must
    be preserved and rehabilitated, while also renewed and
    modernized to adapt to the Nation's changing demographic,
    economic, climate, and technological landscape.\6\ This hearing
    is the Subcommittee's first step of its process to develop a
    long-term surface transportation reauthorization bill. The
    hearing will provide an opportunity for Members to consider
    potential changes to Federal surface transportation policies
    and programs in order to address current and future challenges.
    Witness testimony is likely to touch on the following areas:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ U.S. Census Bureau, ``Projections of the Size and Composition
    of the U.S. Population: 2014 to 2060,'' 2015.
        \5\ U.S. DOT, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, ``DOT Releases
    30-Year Freight Projections,'' 2016.
        \6\ Transportation Research Board, ``Renewing the National
    Commitment to the Interstate Highway System: A Foundation for the
    Future,'' 2018.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Strengthening the model of a Federal, State, and
    local partnership,
          Improving roads, bridges, and public transit
    systems,
          Moving people and goods safely and more
    efficiently and reducing congestion,
          Harnessing innovation and incorporating
    technology to improve mobility,
          Ensuring a qualified transportation workforce,
          Building stronger and more resilient
    infrastructure, and
          Improving project delivery and protecting the
    environment.

                                  WITNESS LIST

          The Honorable Ron Nirenberg, Mayor, city of San
    Antonio, on behalf of the National League of Cities
          Mr. Roger Millar, Secretary, Washington State
    Department of Transportation, on behalf of the American
    Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
          Mr. Darran Anderson, Director of Strategy and
    Innovation, Texas Department of Transportation, on behalf of
    the Texas Innovation Alliance
          Mr. Jack Clark, Executive Director,
    Transportation Learning Center
          Ms. Therese W. McMillan, Executive Director,
    Metropolitan Transportation Commission, on behalf of the
    Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations
          Mr. Al Stanley, Vice President, Stanley
    Construction Company, Inc., on behalf of the Associated General
    Contractors of America
          Mr. Michael Terry, President and CEO, IndyGo--
    Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation, on behalf of
    the American Public Transportation Association

      ALIGNING FEDERAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY TO MEET 21ST-CENTURY
                                     NEEDS

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2019

                      House of Representatives,
                  Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
    room HVC-210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Eleanor Holmes
    Norton (Chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Ms. Norton. It is time for us to come to order and begin.
        I ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
    subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
    today's hearing and ask questions.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        Finally, we are having the first hearing of our
    Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. I particularly look
    forward to collaborating with my good friend, the ranking
    member, Mr. Davis, and with Members on both sides of the aisle.
        Bear in mind that this subcommittee and full committee have
    the reputation for being the most bipartisan in the Congress.
    There is a reason for that. We are dealing with what everybody
    wants.
        The enthusiasm about our subcommittee is clear. This
    subcommittee is larger than almost all of the other full
    committees in the House. Everybody wanted to get on board. I
    think what that does is signal the importance of the underlying
    subject matter.
        We, of course, are at the end--at least by 2020--of the
    FAST Act. The FAST Act was written by all of us. I was very
    pleased to work with Mr. Graves and with Mr. Shuster. I intend
    to run this subcommittee in the same bipartisan way. We need
    everybody.
        The FAST Act was a significant achievement because it was
    the first full authorization act in 10 years. The chief problem
    for us--and perhaps it remains a problem--is that we had to do
    a 6-year bill in 5 years, because there was no increase in
    funding.
        We have a tall and very different order this time.
    Obviously, we have got to maintain what we have, and we have
    not done a good job of doing that. But at the same time, we
    have got to modernize our entire system. And there are entirely
    new--at least for the subcommittee--issues: climate change, you
    can't build roads or transit the way you used to, with climate
    change bearing upon us.
        So we regard this as a transformational moment in our work,
    as we try to figure out how do you move people and goods, in
    what amounts to a new era for transportation and infrastructure
    than even a few years ago.
        The challenge is huge, and it means that infrastructure at
    every level and all modes of transportation have to be looked
    at anew, and not in the way we looked at it even at the last
    reauthorization.
        The importance of this bill, I supposed, is seen by the
    priority it has been given. It is H.R. 2. You know, there is
    H.R. 1 and there is H.R. 2. It means that this bill is
    important to the entire country.
        We will not be able to do a bill worthy of the American
    people if we think the way we did last time, or if we pit one
    mode against another. What we need now is adaptable
    infrastructure that has to work together, particularly to avoid
    congestion.
        This committee has to lead in accommodating one mode of
    transportation that will get people from one place to another,
    and they then may need another mode of transportation. So we
    will be depending not only on the usual modes of
    transportation--transit and autos--driving, that is--but we
    will be looking closely at biking and expediting walking, and
    even scooting, which I love to talk about.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Norton. Would love to do.
        Indeed, while this hearing is important, I am very
    interested in holding subcommittee hearings on these
    alternative modes of travel.
        Transit investment is indeed a more critical part than it
    was at the last reauthorization. The Committee on Ways and
    Means has already begun leading. Some on the other side of
    their aisle talked about something I thought we had laid to
    rest some time ago, and that is that we are to stop funding
    transit with Federal dollars. Are they crazy? We need more
    transit. That is clean energy. I can't imagine it, and we are
    not going to go down that road again. It shut down this
    committee the last time it was raised.
        The future of the Highway Trust Fund cannot be avoided. But
    when we talked about transit--before I get to that, when we
    talked about transit I recalled that from the last--from one of
    the last hearings we had people from rural areas--I remember
    the director of the Tennessee Department of Transportation
    indicated how important transit was to all the counties of
    Tennessee, and we better not just talk about that as an urban
    matter.
        In the last authorization--technology was a very small part
    of our bill, or even our discussion. It is a major part of what
    we have to do if we are serious about our crippled congestion,
    and if we are serious about doing something about it. There are
    troubling signs of slippage in the skill of our labor pool. We
    will be having hearings on that matter.
        The Committee on Ways and Means has already met to discuss
    the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund. I won't get into that.
        The debate goes on, but whatever happens with funding, we
    must do our work to get a bill by 2020 for the American people.
        [Ms. Norton's prepared statement follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in
      Congress from the District of Columbia, and Chair, Subcommittee on
                              Highways and Transit
        Welcome to the first hearing of the Subcommittee on Highways and
    Transit. I look forward to collaborating with my Ranking Member, Mr.
    Davis, and Members on both sides of the aisle.
        Our Subcommittee, at 56 Members, is larger than almost all (18 of
    21) full Committees in Congress. It is good that we have so much
    interest--because we have a hefty agenda. Moving a surface
    transportation authorization bill is the top priority of the
    Subcommittee this Congress. The FAST Act expires at the end of
    September 2020, and the Members of this Subcommittee are responsible
    for developing the next bill.
        Today's hearing is the first step in the authorization process. We
    will hear from stakeholders at different levels of government and the
    private sector who will advise us on which areas of Federal highway and
    transit policy warrant a fresh look.
        In this authorization, we need to restore and maintain the roads,
    bridges, and transit systems we have, particularly at a time when the
    changing climate threatens the longevity of these assets. We need to
    modernize so that transportation policy evolves and reaps the benefits
    of technology. We must also transform our transportation network to
    move people and goods more safely and efficiently.
        I represent the District of Columbia, a densely populated city
    that--along with Maryland, Virginia, and the Federal government--
    provides a transportation system for over six million people.
    Congestion, transit woes, and deteriorating bridges are challenges my
    region faces on a daily basis. These same challenges are found across
    the country.
        Today, we have with us the Mayor of the nation's fastest growing
    city--San Antonio, Texas, who will share his story of tackling
    congestion and delivering mobility.
        We can't achieve these goals if we continue to think in outdated
    ways, by pitting one mode against another. We will need adaptable
    infrastructure that can accommodate any mode of transportation that
    will get a person from here to there--driving, transit, biking,
    walking, even scooting. We must direct investment to the most efficient
    and effective solutions.
        Transit investment is a crucial part of this equation. At last
    week's infrastructure hearing before the Committee on Ways and Means,
    some Members on the other side of the aisle raised the tired argument
    that we should stop funding transit with Federal dollars. We have heard
    the argument that transit funding only helps urban areas. Access to
    transit is critical for every American--including in rural areas. For
    colleagues new to the Subcommittee, allow me to quote from testimony we
    heard in two hearings last Congress.
        In a hearing on the future of the Highway Trust Fund, Mr. Jack
    Schroerer, the Director of the Tennessee DOT stressed the critical role
    transit plays in providing accessibility in rural areas. He stated:
    ``In Tennessee, we fund transit in all 95 counties . . . it is an
    integral part of our rural areas to get people to the doctor and
    hospitals . . . Almost all that money is Federal dollars, comes from
    FTA, and we put it to good use, and people in our rural counties use it
    a lot.''
        At a separate hearing, we heard Julia Castillo, head of the Heart
    of Iowa Regional Transit Agency testify on the importance of public
    transit options in rural Iowa. Ms. Castillo stated in her testimony:
    ``People who live in more rural areas need the same types of services
    as those in urban areas and even though it may be more challenging and
    sometimes more expensive, we need to find ways in which to efficiently
    meet those needs so their independence, freedom, quality of life and
    ability to grow and prosper where they live is not compromised.''
        In the next authorization, we must also harness technology and
    innovation. Innovation has the power to address crippling congestion
    problems. It has the promise of saving lives and ushering in dramatic
    safety gains. And it has the ability to seamlessly connect people to a
    choice of transportation options. But these gains can only be realized
    if we find the right balance in public policy to protect consumers,
    workers, and taxpayers while spurring innovation. This Committee must
    play a strong role in finding and supporting that balance.
        We must also ensure that we have a skilled labor pool to take on
    the challenge of building 21st-century infrastructure. In a long-term
    reauthorization bill, we must prioritize investing in human capital and
    worker training. We must also ensure a level playing field for women
    and minority contractors. I'm pleased to welcome Al Stanley who is here
    today on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of America. Mr.
    Stanley, we welcome your insight into industry needs and best practices
    on workforce development. Thank you for being here today.
        Of course, our Subcommittee cannot get a bill to the President's
    desk without finding the means to pay for these investments. For that,
    we need the Committee on Ways and Means to act to raise Federal
    revenue. It is time for Congress to step up and address the solvency of
    the Highway Trust Fund. I am pleased that the Ways and Means Committee
    took the first step and held a hearing on this pressing issue last
    week.
        As the funding debate goes on, we must do our work on this
    Subcommittee and develop a sound plan that directs investment to
    projects and priorities that will move our country forward. Thank you
    to the witnesses for sharing your ideas on that front this morning. I
    look forward to your testimony.

        Ms. Norton. Now I am going to ask the ranking member to
    make his opening statement at this time.
        Mr. Davis. Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and it is a
    pleasure to be able to have this opportunity to work with you.
    I am very thankful to our leader, Ranking Member Graves, for
    giving me this opportunity to chair this--to be the ranking
    member of this subcommittee. Sorry about that. Sometimes old
    habits are hard to break.
        I really want to thank, too, my good friend and the
    chairman of the full committee, Peter DeFazio. I have got a
    great working relationship with the chairman, and our years
    that we have served together on this committee.
        And he is--he and also Chair--Madam Chairman Holmes Norton,
    they want to work with us. They want to get things done. And
    that is really where I think this committee can rise above, and
    this subcommittee can rise above the partisan politics that we
    see kind of take over what is happening here in Washington.
        You know, you mention the size of this subcommittee. It is
    actually six times the size of the full committee I serve on
    that I am the full committee ranking member of, the Committee
    on House Administration. But it also shows the importance of
    where we are as a nation, when it comes to reinvesting and
    rebuilding our crumbling roads and infrastructure. And if this
    subcommittee is any indication, this will be where that
    bipartisan agreement comes from.
        As everyone here knows, the FAST Act that provided $281
    billion for Federal surface transportation programs expires at
    the end of September of 2020. Madam Chair and I, along with
    Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves, we will work
    together to develop a long-term strategy on how to address our
    Nation's infrastructure needs. But it has got to be a
    bipartisan bill to put a reauthorization forward.
        With this being our first hearing on reauthorization, I
    think it is important to note how critical this bill is to
    ensuring a good quality of life for all Americans, and to
    supporting our economy.
        This bill, surface reauthorization bill, will allow the
    Federal Government to continue its longstanding role in
    infrastructure investment. But we have got some big challenges
    and some opportunities before us. Now let me highlight a few of
    them.
        First, the Highway Trust Fund is not able to meet our
    surface transportation needs as they stand today, let alone our
    future needs. Congress and the administration must come
    together and find a way to shore up the Highway Trust Fund,
    providing sustainable funding for our Nation's infrastructure
    needs.
        Second, while our current system has significant needs, we
    must also begin to prepare for the future. Underinvestment has
    taken its toll on the system's ability to move people and also
    freight. We face increasing congestion, delays, and safety
    issues. Not only is adequate infrastructure investment
    important to mobility, it also creates jobs and allows our
    economy to prosper.
        Third, as this process moves forward, it is essential we
    find ways to build more efficiently so we can stretch the
    Federal dollar. We need to identify and attack hidden project
    costs by streamlining the project delivery process and reducing
    burdensome regulations. And this committee has a history of
    doing so.
        And lastly, by incorporating technologies and other
    innovations, we have the opportunity to increase safety and
    efficiency in our entire surface transportation system.
        I believe we can look forward to and I believe we can do
    these things and come to an agreement. And I look forward to
    working with my colleagues on these very important issues.
        And I want to take an opportunity to say thank you to each
    of the witnesses that are here today, too. And I look forward
    to your testimony.
        [Mr. Davis's prepared statement follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress
        from the State of Illinois, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
                              Highways and Transit
        As everyone here knows, the FAST Act, which provided $281 billion
    for federal surface transportation programs, expires on September 30,
    2020. Chairwoman Norton and I, along with Chairman DeFazio and Ranking
    Member Graves, will work together to develop a long-term, bipartisan
    bill to reauthorize surface transportation programs.
        With this being our first hearing on reauthorization, it is
    important to note how critical this bill is to ensuring a good quality
    of life for all Americans and to supporting the U.S. economy. The
    surface transportation reauthorization bill will allow the federal
    government to continue its long-standing role in infrastructure
    investment. But we have some big challenges and opportunities before
    us. Let me highlight a few of them.
        First, the Highway Trust Fund is not able to meet our surface
    transportation needs as they stand today, let alone our future needs.
    Congress and the Administration must come together and find a way to
    shore-up the Highway Trust Fund, providing sustainable funding for our
    Nation's surface transportation programs.
        Second, while our current surface transportation system has
    significant needs, we must also begin to prepare for the future.
    Underinvestment has taken its toll on the system's ability to move
    people and freight--we face increasing congestion, delays, and safety
    issues. Not only is adequate infrastructure investment important to
    mobility, it also creates jobs and allows our economy to prosper.
        Third, as the reauthorization process moves forward, it is
    essential that we find ways to build more efficiently--to stretch the
    federal dollar. We need to identify and attack hidden project costs by
    streamlining the project delivery process and reducing burdensome
    regulations.
        And lastly, by incorporating technologies and other innovations, we
    have the opportunity to increase safety and efficiency in our surface
    transportation system.
        In closing, to quote the greatest band of the 90's and 2000's, ``if
    today was your last day, and tomorrow was too late,'' can we reach an
    agreement on reauthorization? I believe we can and look forward to
    working with my colleagues this Congress to achieve this goal.

        Mr. Davis. And I yield back.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. I am going to go to the--

        Mr. DeFazio. No, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Norton. I am going to go to----
        Mr. DeFazio. Thanks.
        Ms. Norton. If he will let me.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Norton. To the chairman of the full committee, Mr.
    DeFazio.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. First, I would like to give you
    this, Eleanor [giving a box to Ms. Norton]. I am a bit pressed
    for time, and I will miss some of your testimony because I have
    to have my third call in 3 days with the FAA about 737s.
        So just briefly, we have a little cognitive dissonance this
    week. We have the President's budget, which again proposes, you
    know, cuts pretty much across the board in transportation, on
    one hand, but then talks about the fairy dust of leveraging
    $200 billion of Federal money into $1 trillion of investment,
    something we all know is impossible. It was part of the plan
    last year by D.J. Gribbin, which I am not aware of a single
    Member of Congress supporting, because it was so fanciful. It
    was based in so-called asset recycling, privatization, tolling,
    whatever.
        We need to do something real, and it is long overdue. We
    held the first hearing in the full committee on the cost of
    inaction, doing nothing. And now we are going to start talking
    about how we fund and move forward with the longer term bill.
        You know, CRs hurt, in terms of construction. States will
    delay major projects if we are in CR mode, because they don't
    know what the long-term prospect is for a major project. I was
    one of the few Democrats to vote against the so-called Recovery
    Act, because it was all based in shovel-ready projects, running
    out and putting down pavement on top of pavement, as opposed to
    addressing some of the major deficiencies in the system, the
    bridges, or whatever you wanted to address with real
    investment, where you get secondary and tertiary employment
    effects. Contractors didn't buy any new equipment, because they
    knew it was a 1-year thing to go out and put down a little bit
    of pavement. So the manufacturers of equipment didn't get the
    orders, and so on and so on, down the line.
        We need a long-term vision. We need long-term funding. The
    Committee on Ways and Means did hold a hearing last week, the
    first hearing, substantive hearing, by that committee on
    infrastructure funding, in almost a decade. So that is
    progress.
        But again, people wanted to fall to easy solutions. Oh, all
    we need is an investment bank. Or, oh, let's go to vehicle
    miles traveled tomorrow. We can't and we won't. As far as a
    private investment bank goes, we have already got TIFIA. Yes,
    if you want to have a private investment bank, that is great.
    But you are still competing for the same 12 percent of the
    projects that can fund a revenue stream to repay those
    projects. That means we have got another 88 percent of need
    here.
        There is no transit system in the world that makes money.
    So we can't pretend that we are going to suddenly have massive
    private investment in rebuilding the $100 billion of deficit we
    need just to bring existing transit up to a state of good
    repair, which would attract a lot more riders, let alone
    building out new transit options for people.
        So, you know, we are here to make the case. We know the
    policies we need, we know we need more investment. We have to
    make the case to America, we have to make the case to this
    administration, we have to make the case to some of our
    colleagues here in Congress, that you can't just paper this
    over again.
        The FAST Act papered it over. They pretended to, you know,
    create money. We are actually borrowing money to put in the
    trust fund right now. We are not admitting it because we had
    illusory phoney pay-fors that the Republicans stuck in the
    bill. But it was status quo funding. That was not adequate.
        I did, after a long battle, get a provision in the bill
    that says any additional real funds allocated by Congress will
    immediately flow through the policies in this bill. So we don't
    have to have a lengthy authorization fight to get some money
    out there soon.
        We are, at the same time, working on a long-term
    reauthorization, which, as Eleanor said, will be iterative. It
    is going to be the first 21st-century authorization, and it
    will be different than the repetitive things we have done,
    building on the Eisenhower legacy, which was a great legacy.
    But it is time to move on to more progressive things.
        [Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
          Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chair, Committee on
                       Transportation and Infrastructure
        Thank you, Chair Norton and Ranking Member Davis, for holding this
    hearing. Without question, the most imperative work this Subcommittee
    will undertake in the 116th Congress is crafting a surface
    transportation authorization bill.
        Although the deadline when highway and transit programs expire--
    September 2020--may seem a comfortable distance on the Congressional
    calendar, we don't have time to spare. We must find a solution
    immediately to a very real and very looming funding crisis in order to
    make reauthorization possible.
        We are just one week away from the official start of spring--and
    the start of the construction season in many parts of the country.
    Thanks to the FAST Act, States and local governments go into this
    construction season with certainty when it comes to highway and transit
    investments. That will not be the case for much longer. Planning
    projects, signing contracts, and hiring workers will all grind to a
    halt next year if Congress fails to enact a reauthorization bill.
        When we get too close to the wire on passing an authorization--or
    when the amount or availability of Federal funding becomes uncertain
    with Continuing Resolutions and government shutdowns--it has real
    effects on stalling highway and transit projects. Earlier this year, we
    saw evidence of this, when Oklahoma announced that 45 projects were
    being delayed due to the government shutdown. In the spring of 2015, as
    Congress was beginning its process to develop the FAST Act, several
    States announced they would delay the start of projects over
    uncertainty about whether and when Federal funds would come.
        Last week, the Committee on Ways and Means held a hearing on
    finding a sustainable solution to highway and transit funding. The
    hearing demonstrated once again that there is near unanimous support
    among stakeholders for finding real revenues. The U.S. Chamber of
    Commerce, the AFL-CIO, and the American Trucking Associations were all
    in firm agreement that the cost of inaction to businesses, workers, and
    the economy is real. Even more importantly, the unequivocal willingness
    of the business community to pay higher user fees in order to have
    better infrastructure is equally real. This is consistent with the
    message this Committee has heard from stakeholders for years.
        It is time for this clear willingness to translate into action by
    Congress to do the right thing and raise real revenues. At the hearing,
    many Republican members of the Committee advocated for private
    investment, pushing State and local governments to do more on their
    own, and stripping transit out of the Highway Trust Fund. Let me be
    clear--this is the opposite of raising real revenue. This lowest-
    common-denominator mentality does nothing to address structurally
    deficient bridges, crippling congestion, or the need to build more
    resilient infrastructure. In fact, it does the opposite by cementing
    underinvestment as a strategy.
        I see plenty of opportunity in the upcoming surface transportation
    bill to improve highway and transit programs. We can save time and
    money in project delivery through smarter design, increased
    accountability, and tougher procurement rules. We can learn from and
    reward State innovation, and we can provide more local control over
    transportation dollars. We can harness the power of technologies to
    reduce congestion and increase safety. We can invest in electrification
    and other strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And with every
    dollar, we can create and sustain more good-paying American jobs and
    support U.S. manufacturing.
        But all of that will only become a reality if we get serious about
    finding the money and come to agreement that there is no time to wait.
    Thank you, Madam Chair, and I look forward to the testimony.

        Mr. DeFazio. So, with that, I have to go take a call from
    the Administrator, but I will be back. Thank you very much, I
    appreciate it.
        Ms. Norton. I want to thank our distinguished chairman for
    giving me a gavel. There is nothing more precious than having
    your own gavel. And it even has my name on it. So I appreciate
    that very much, sir.
        [Applause.]
        Ms. Norton. As I think was mentioned, this hearing is being
    held here. This is not our hearing room. Our hearing room will
    be available in May. Therefore, you will see our Members having
    to come all the way over from, usually, Rayburn.
        For example, I have another very important committee
    meeting going on right now. I just can't go, so I regret that.
    But Members will come in when they can, and we understand.
        We really have here a cross-section of witnesses to open
    today's hearing, so that we begin to get the lay of the land.
        We have the mayor of the city of San Antonio--the fastest
    growing city, I believe, in the United States--Mayor Ron
    Nirenberg.
        Mr. Roger Millar, who is the secretary of the Washington
    State Department of Transportation, is here on behalf of the
    American Association of State Highway and Transportation
    Officials.
        We have Darran Anderson, the director of strategy and
    innovation at the Texas Department of Transportation, but he is
    here on behalf of the Texas Innovation Alliance--a very
    important new area for us.
        Jack Clark, the executive director of the Transportation
    Learning Center.
        Therese McMillan, executive director of the Metropolitan
    Transportation Commission on behalf of the Association of
    Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
        Al Stanley, vice president of Stanley Construction Company
    on behalf of Associated General Contractors of America.
        And Michael Terry, who is president and CEO of IndyGo,
    Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation, here on behalf
    of the American Public Transportation Association.
        So we will start with Mr. Nirenberg. But before we begin,
    we would like Mr. Carson, my good friend from Indianapolis, to
    introduce Mr. Terry, who is a constituent from his own
    district.
        Mr. Carson. Thank you, your excellency, Chairwoman Norton,
    and to Ranking Member Davis, for allowing me to speak today. I
    am going to have to leave. I know this isn't my committee, but
    I have another commitment.
        I am honored to introduce a friend and fellow Hoosier, Mike
    Terry. Congressman Pence knows Mr. Terry, as well.
        IndyGo is the Indianapolis Public Transportation
    Corporation. It is our largest transportation provider in the
    great Hoosier State, and it has been led by Mike Terry since
    2009. And Madam Chair, under his great leadership, IndyGo was
    awarded funding under the Obama administration to build the
    first green bus rapid transit program in the country.
        Despite the current administration's recommendations to
    terminate this funding, Mike's steady leadership helped win a
    voter initiative that added State funding to this transit
    program, and he worked with our congressional delegation to
    secure the appropriations needed to build an innovative system
    that we believe will be a smart model for other mid-sized
    cities.
        Mr. Terry, thank you for your leadership and for testifying
    today to share your thoughts with my colleagues.
        I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Carson.
        Without objection, our witnesses' full statements will be
    included in the record.
        Since your testimony, your entire testimony, will be made a
    part of the record, we ask that you limit your oral testimony
    to 5 minutes.
        Mayor Nirenberg, you may proceed.

     TESTIMONY OF HON. RON NIRENBERG, MAYOR, CITY OF SAN ANTONIO,
       TEXAS, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES; ROGER
         MILLAR, PE, FASCE, FAICP, SECRETARY, WASHINGTON STATE
        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
      ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS;
      DARRAN ANDERSON, DIRECTOR OF STRATEGY AND INNOVATION, TEXAS
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ON BEHALF OF THE TEXAS INNOVATION
       ALLIANCE; JOHN KEVIN ``JACK'' CLARK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
    TRANSPORTATION LEARNING CENTER; THERESE W. MCMILLAN, EXECUTIVE
    DIRECTOR, METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, ON BEHALF OF
      THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS; AL
    STANLEY, VICE PRESIDENT, STANLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., ON
     BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA; AND
         MICHAEL TERRY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INDIANAPOLIS PUBLIC
    TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION (INDYGO), ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
                PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION (APTA)

        Mr. Nirenberg. Good morning, Chair Norton, Ranking Member
    Davis, and members of the subcommittee. I am Ron Nirenberg, the
    mayor of San Antonio, Texas, the Nation's seventh largest and
    fastest growing city in the United States. I am honored to be
    here today on behalf of the residents of San Antonio and also
    the National League of Cities, the Nation's oldest and largest
    network of cities, towns, and villages across America.
        Right now there are over 2,000 local officials here in DC
    meeting with their Members of Congress to emphasize a simple
    message: Invest in America's infrastructure.
        America's cities and local leaders are ready to work with
    this committee to reauthorize our essential transportation
    programs. We believe that investing in infrastructure should be
    Congress' top priority this year.
        As mayors, we are tasked with fixing everything under the
    sun, from street maintenance and congestion to air quality and
    pollution. And as fellow Texan, President Lyndon B. Johnson,
    once remarked, ``When the burdens of the Presidency seem
    unusually heavy, I always remind myself it could be worse. I
    could be a mayor.''
        The challenges that cities and towns must confront are
    great and growing, but so are the opportunities for investment
    and innovation. We believe that the greatest opportunity in
    front of this committee is to partner and to collaborate with
    America's mayors and the National League of Cities to address
    our shared infrastructure priorities. We believe that Congress
    should focus on three key areas: modern mobility, regional
    connectivity, and safety.
        Cities believe the mobility of our citizens should be the
    new measure of success in the next reauthorization. This focus
    on mobility is to move people in the most efficient, effective,
    and safest way possible. Today the transportation marketplace
    is undergoing a technological revolution. It is unmistakable.
    From ridesharing to e-scooters, entrepreneurs are innovating to
    meet the demand for more and better transit options. We believe
    in supporting innovation with responsible rules of the road,
    and by investing in infrastructure that is durable and
    adaptable to the future.
        In San Antonio we are working on a framework for modern
    mobility called ConnectSA. This initiative builds off past
    community planning efforts around land use, buses, bikes, and
    roads. The goal is to integrate all of our infrastructure
    investments to achieve a more efficient transportation network
    that moves people more safely and more effectively. ConnectSA
    will leverage first- and last-mile technology, build an
    advanced rapid transit network over 500 square miles on
    dedicated lanes, and improve the bus system for more frequent
    ridership. We have a menu of local revenue options to fund this
    investment, but a Federal partnership is absolutely necessary
    for success.
        Our cities are rapidly growing, and we have to provide more
    transit choices to alleviate traffic congestion and to grow our
    economy. The U.S. is now the most congested developed nation in
    the world, with Americans spending an entire workweek each year
    stuck in traffic. And San Antonio, by 2040, will add another
    million more people. And with the additional cars we will lose
    yet another workweek in traffic. We have to be proactive in
    addressing this challenge.
        The fastest growing region in the Nation is the 74-mile
    corridor anchored by Austin and San Antonio. Achieving the full
    economic potential of this mega-region requires investing in
    regional connectivity and reducing congestion. Current
    congestion risks this growth coming to a grinding halt. By 2040
    the Interstate 35 corridor between San Antonio and Austin will
    exceed or rival Dallas-Fort Worth. We are working with our
    metropolitan planning organizations to expand capacity and
    utilize technology, and a regional rail line continues to hold
    enormous promise. We need a Federal partner that invests in
    regional connectivity to expand our economy.
        Finally, a transportation system is only as effective as it
    is safe. In addition to modern mobility and regional
    connectivity, safety is a top priority for our cities. This is
    an ongoing crisis that deserves more attention. Cities--along
    with our health professionals, safety workers, transportation
    leaders--believe that zero is the only acceptable number of
    deaths on our roads. So we are all working towards Vision Zero
    efforts. Saving lives on our Nation's roads is a shared
    priority.
        Additional funding for safety nets that are both data-
    driven and evidence-based would make our transportation system
    much safer. The cities and mayors of America are here to be
    your partners on progress for surface transportation. We urge
    you to make investing and infrastructure, modern mobility,
    regional connectivity, and safety your top priority. America's
    economy will only move as well as its transportation system.
    And our children and grandchildren's quality of life depends on
    us making bold decisions together.
        Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions.
        [Mr. Nirenberg's prepared statement follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Ron Nirenberg, Mayor, City of San Antonio,
               Texas, on behalf of the National League of Cities
        Good morning, Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis and Members of the
    Subcommittee:
        I am Ron Nirenberg, Mayor of San Antonio, Texas, the nation's
    seventh largest city and the fastest growing city in the U.S. I am
    honored to be here today on behalf of the city of San Antonio and the
    National League of Cities (NLC), the nation's oldest and largest
    network of cities, towns and villages across America.
                        rebuild america's infrastructure
        Cities are ready to work with this Committee to increase
    infrastructure investment and to reauthorize our essential
    transportation programs. In fact, right now there are over 2,000 local
    officials in D.C. here to meet with their Members of Congress to
    reiterate that infrastructure must be Congress' top priority this year.
    We ask that this Committee work with local leaders to forge a
    bipartisan path forward.
        Local leaders want to play a larger role in rebuilding America's
    infrastructure in collaboration with our Federal and state partners.
    Every day, city leaders hear from our citizens, and they're quick to
    tell us--they want modern mobility options that are efficient,
    reliable, cost-effective, and safe. From budget commitments to bonding
    to ballot initiatives, local officials have shown that when given the
    opportunity to leverage Federal investments in our regions and give our
    citizens the mobility they want, we will follow through.
        Today, you have asked for our feedback on aligning our
    transportation policy to meet cities' needs across the country. We
    believe strongly the U.S. needs to shape its transportation approach
    for the future with both our growing megaregions and our small towns in
    mind. Cities like San Antonio are growing rapidly along with congestion
    that demands new approaches, not just more lanes. We should all be
    equally invested in bridging the urban-rural divide in our country
    because investing in what connects every American is a predictor of
    success for both rural and urban areas. To accomplish this, local
    leaders encourage Congress to focus on three key areas: investing in
    mobility, regional connectivity, and data-driven safety programs.
                          invest in citizens' mobility
        Cities believe the mobility of our citizens should be our new
    measure of success in the next reauthorization. Cities of all sizes are
    not only piloting technology-driven solutions with their partners but
    are harnessing new mobility options in their existing pain points and
    throughout their regions. Without a doubt, we also acknowledge these
    new mobility options are not replacing our existing strategic
    transportation investments. In fact, they are more important than ever
    because innovators are leveraging them. Ride hailing use our roads and
    curb space. Rapid buses move on dedicated road lanes. Bikeshare and
    scooters use bike lanes and transit exchange points. Traffic management
    solutions leverage our city signs, lights and broadband. Investing in
    mobility is about committing to innovation and building off our
    strategic assets.
        In San Antonio, we are embracing this strategy. We are building a
    framework for modern mobility called ConnectSA. We are focused on
    better access for all our citizens by leveraging innovative transit
    options and improving traffic flow through our city. Our goal is to
    seamlessly integrate last-mile options like scooters and bikes and to
    invest in reliable and frequent buses for an advanced rapid transit
    network while we manage congestion to accommodate our future growth.
        Local officials also recognize that innovation is currently not
    equally distributed. However, if Congress could right-sized Federal
    programs for urban, growing and small communities, new mobility models
    could move more quickly into small and medium communities. Communities
    of all sizes see tremendous value in right-sizing technology and
    mobility models to allow greater on-demand service for both seniors,
    workers heading to major employers, and for late-shift workers to have
    a dependable ride home. Investing in mobility like this could change
    the lives of so many of our residents at home.
                        invest in regional connectivity
        The U.S. is now the most congested developed country in the world,
    with Americans spending an entire work week each year stuck in traffic.
    More than two out of every five miles of the nation's urban interstates
    are congested, and most of them flow straight through our major urban
    cores. Creating and sustaining a transportation network that works--a
    platform for commerce and human interaction--is one of the oldest and
    most important functions of government.
        The fastest growing region in the Nation is the 74-mile corridor
    anchored by San Antonio and Austin. This is the western half of the
    Texas Triangle, and America's next great metropolis. We have all the
    elements of a successful metro economy: world-class universities, an
    educated and expanding workforce, a burgeoning tech community,
    relatively affordable land and a business friendly environment.
    Achieving the full economic potential of this San Antonio-Austin mega-
    region requires investing in connectivity to reduce congestion. Current
    congestion risks this growth coming to a grinding halt. By 2040, the
    Interstate 35 coordinator population will rival the Dallas-Fort Worth
    area's current size. We are working with our metropolitan planning
    organizations to expand capacity and utilize technology, and a regional
    rail line continues to hold enormous promise.
        We need a Federal partner that invests in the essential
    connectivity options that will keep our regions growing. A regionally
    driven strategy can build partnerships and bold solutions that fit each
    area's needs. One size will not fit all, but no one is better equipped
    to evaluate and prioritize than those on the ground at the local and
    regional level. New programs, Federal Surface Transportation Block
    Grants, Transit New Starts, Transportation Alternatives, multimodal
    Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) and
    Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) grants,
    and smaller grants like Mobility on Demand will all be critical to a
    future of innovative mobility and regional cooperation.
        Demand for these grants far exceeds the amount of available funds.
    Each year, USDOT sees many times more applications for BUILD grants
    than they have funds available which should be a startling statistic if
    we are committed to meeting America's intermodal needs for the future.
                          invest in data-driven safety
        In the U.S., crashes and collisions on the roadways are the leading
    cause of death for people between the ages of 5 and 24 and the cause of
    over 2.5 million injuries. Cities--along with our health professionals,
    our public safety workers, our transportation leaders--believe that
    zero is the only acceptable number of deaths on our roads. In the Road
    to Zero coalition, we are proud to be joined by over 900 partners to:
          Double down on what works through proven, evidence-based
    strategies
          Advance life-saving technology in vehicles and
    infrastructure
          Prioritize safety by adopting a safe-systems approach and
    creating a positive safety culture
        Cites, like San Antonio, are leading Vision Zero efforts, but
    saving lives on the nation's roads is a joint responsibility.
    Additional funding to safety efforts that are both data-driven and
    corridor-driven, taking systems-based approaches, and deploying
    technical experts across regions could drive results.
                                   conclusion
        In closing, this reauthorization's transportation investment could
    bring new mobility, connectivity and safety to our hometowns. Cities
    believe that Congress must continue to be a steady Federal investment
    partner in infrastructure through the Highway Trust Fund, and it has
    become an economic and safety risk to not adequately fund a multimodal
    transportation system. We encourage Congress to set a new revenue
    course for the future that also course corrects our policies to
    leverage the innovation happening in transportation and invest in the
    mobility for our citizens.
        Cities are ready to step up and be a true partner in these efforts.
    I look forward to any questions you might have.

        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mayor Nirenberg.
        Mr. Millar, secretary of the Washington State Department of
    Transportation, on behalf of the American Association of State
    Highway and Transportation Officials, you may proceed for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Millar. Thank you, Chair Norton and Ranking Member
    Davis, for inviting me to participate in this hearing. I am
    Roger Millar, the secretary of the Washington State Department
    of Transportation.
        Today it is my honor, on behalf of the State of Washington
    and AASHTO, which represents the transportation departments of
    all 50 States, Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico--so it is my
    honor to present on their behalf.
        I am going to focus my comments today on strengthening the
    Federal-State-local partnership model, improving the delivery
    of projects to save time and money, utilizing innovation to
    address mobility challenges, including safety, state of good
    repair, congestion, and universal access, and supporting good
    jobs in a qualified transportation workforce.
        As the Congress considers FAST Act reauthorization, AASHTO
    urges that you retain the current highway and transit program
    framework. This includes retaining the current mass transit
    account within the Highway Trust Fund and retaining relative
    distributions. Additionally, we strongly recommend that Federal
    funds continue to be provided through the existing formula-
    based structure directly to the States. And we urge Congress to
    enact a revenue solution for the Highway Trust Fund, and to
    address the $7.6 billion rescission of unobligated contract
    authority that is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2020.
        States are eager to find ways to improve the delivery of
    projects to save time and money, while properly engaging
    diverse stakeholders and protecting the environment. Over the
    past several decades, significant progress has been made
    towards the goal of improving project delivery, including
    through provisions in SAFETEA-LU, MAP-21, and the FAST Act.
        As you all know, NEPA is not a permit you apply for. It is,
    rather, a broad, transparent environmental review and
    decisionmaking process.
        In Washington State, 90 percent of our projects in our last
    three major transportation packages since 2005 have been
    delivered on or ahead of schedule and on or under budget. So
    project delivery has not been a problem in Washington State.
        In Washington State, 94 percent of our projects are already
    excluded from NEPA through the use of categorical exclusions.
    The project types that we invest in have been proven to not
    negatively impact communities or the environment.
        For our large projects that require detailed NEPA
    documents, we find that the robust community and agency
    involvement we participate in and lead upfront leads to better
    outcomes, adherence to budget and schedule, and broad
    acceptance and support for the projects.
        Each State DOT has its own experience. Speaking on behalf
    of all the AASHTO members I can tell you that some of our
    States believe the NEPA process still takes too long and is too
    costly.
        Federal programs should support State DOTs that take
    innovative approaches to improving mobility. We continue to
    evolve from highway builders of the last century to stewards of
    the 21st-century multimodal transportation system.
        At WSDOT we recognize that we can't build our way out of
    congestion, and so we are instead focused on an actionable path
    forward in a congested world with limited resources. We are
    working on innovative approaches that encompass cooperative,
    automated transportation, mobility on demand, transportation
    system management and operations, transportation demand
    management, addressing the complex relationship between
    transportation and land use, providing a more complete suite of
    multimodal transportation choices, and making targeted
    investments in roadway capacity.
        We are using managed lanes and congestion pricing, where
    appropriate, to improve mobility and move more people on the
    infrastructure we have in place. We are making investments in
    items like ramp meters and variable speeds message signs to
    improve our capacities.
        We are expanding our nationally recognized commute trip
    reduction program to address travel modes other than the
    commute, because we find that today only 16 percent of our
    total traffic is commute traffic. The rest of it is people
    going about their business in different ways.
        Finally, State DOTs need a well-trained and diverse
    workforce to deliver 21st-century transportation programs. The
    Washington State DOT expects to lose a significant number of
    our employees through retirement in the next 5 years, including
    31 percent of our maintenance staff and 41 percent of our
    engineers. If you look at our Washington State ferries, the men
    and women who drive our boats, 75 percent of them are eligible
    to retire in the next 5 years. And that is not a license you
    pick up down at the DMV.
        We also have significant gaps in our available workforce
    for our contractor and consulting partners. State DOTs can't
    deliver our programs without qualified personnel. So Congress
    should continue to support important programs like STEM
    education, on-the-job training, supportive services, and
    disadvantaged business enterprise supportive services to help
    us bring the people we need to the workforce to deliver the
    program.
        In conclusion, we remain committed to assisting Congress in
    the development of strategies to ensure long-term economic
    growth, and enhance quality of life through robust, multimodal
    transportation investments.
        Thank you again for the honor and the opportunity to
    testify today.
        [Mr. Millar's prepared statement follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Roger Millar, PE, FASCE, FAICP, Secretary,
        Washington State Department of Transportation, on behalf of the
       American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
                                  introduction
        Chairman Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the perspective
    of the nation's state departments of transportation on aligning Federal
    surface transportation policy to meet twenty-first century needs.
        My name is Roger Millar, and I serve as Secretary of the Washington
    State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and as a member of the
    Board of Directors and Chair of the Council on Public Transportation of
    the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
    (AASHTO). Today it is my honor to testify on behalf of the great State
    of Washington and AASHTO, which represents the transportation
    departments of all 50 States, Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico.
        I joined WSDOT as Deputy Secretary in October 2015 and was
    appointed Secretary of Transportation in August 2016. I've spent over
    40 years working in the transportation industry at the local and state
    level and in the private sector. The prominent theme that has run
    through my career has been planning and implementing transportation
    systems that are not ends unto themselves; but rather the means toward
    economic vitality, environmental stewardship, social equity, public
    health, and aesthetic quality.
        I oversee an agency that is the steward of Washington State's
    multimodal transportation system and responsible for ensuring that
    people and goods move safely and efficiently. In addition to building,
    maintaining, and operating the state highway system, WSDOT operates the
    largest ferry system in the Nation, sponsors the Amtrak Cascades
    intercity passenger rail service, owns and operates 16 airports, and
    owns a 300-mile short-line freight rail system. We work in partnership
    with others to maintain and improve local roads, railroads and
    airports, as well as to support mobility options such as public
    transportation, bicycle, and pedestrian programs.
        Having this important conversation on the future direction of
    Federal surface transportation policy could not be timelier in light of
    the discussion around an infrastructure package and pending
    reauthorization of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST)
    Act. Given the ever-increasing pace of change in our world--through
    technological advances, workforce challenges, demographic changes,
    environmental instability, and economic uncertainty--there is
    tremendous opportunity to make Federal policy more proactive, flexible,
    and adaptable.
        State DOTs have already taken signification action in modernizing
    our policy and technical development at AASHTO, with our Board of
    Directors approving a reorganization of the AASHTO committee structure
    in 2016. This was the culmination of an 18-month effort led by a
    committee of state DOT CEOs and senior DOT officials. This modernized
    committee structure is inclusive of all disciplines, addresses state-
    identified priorities and emerging issues, and is intended to be more
    efficient and nimbler in its decisionmaking.
        Perhaps the hallmark of this change is putting all modes of
    transportation on equal footing when it comes to policymaking. AASHTO
    now formulates transportation policy through its six modal councils--
    active transportation, aviation, highways and streets, public
    transportation that I now chair, rail transportation, and water
    transportation--plus a special committee on freight, which I chaired
    until recently, all of which support the new AASHTO Transportation
    Policy Forum as the holistic policymaking body for the Association.
        My remarks today center around the following key points:
          Strengthening the Federal/State/local partnership model
            The current Federal program structure for highway and
    transit programs must be preserved.
            Congress needs to enact a permanent revenue solution
    for the Highway Trust Fund.
          Improving the delivery of projects to save time and money
            States are eager to find ways to improve the delivery
    of projects to save time and money, while properly engaging diverse
    stakeholders in program and project development, upholding
    environmental safeguards and providing resiliency.
          Utilizing innovation to address mobility challenges,
    including safety, state of good repair, congestion, and universal
    access
            Federal programs should support state DOTs that take
    innovative approaches to transportation system management, demand
    management, and improved mobility.
            The Federal program must support and provide sufficient
    flexibility to allow state DOTs to harness innovation and technology.
          Supporting good jobs and a qualified transportation
    workforce
            Congress should continue to fund programs that support
    the development of a diverse and robust workforce suitable for staffing
    the development and delivery of twenty-first century transportation
    programs.
        As you examine what works well and what doesn't, I urge you to make
    sure that policies that work effectively are not discarded or nullified
    in the name of major reform.
            strengthening the federal/state/local partnership model
    The current Federal program structure for highway and transit programs
            must be preserved.
        The state DOTs have the utmost appreciation for your Subcommittee's
    leadership, along with your House and Senate peers in partner
    committees to shepherd the FAST Act in December 2015. This legislation
    has ensured much-needed funding stability in the federally supported
    passenger rail, freight, safety, highway, and transit programs through
    2020.
        To further build on the Federal surface transportation's solid
    foundation, we believe that it is time for all transportation
    stakeholders--led by Congress and the President--to begin work on
    reauthorizing the FAST Act now. We are extremely grateful for the work
    of this Subcommittee in that regard. We need to ensure a smooth
    transition upon the FAST Act's expiration on September 30, 2020,
    without the need for disruptive extensions of the program.
        As part of the work of AASHTO's Transportation Policy Forum, we are
    currently in the process of gathering expert input from our wide range
    of technical and modal committees comprising leaders from all state
    DOTs. We're also seeking our industry partners' input during this
    process prior to our formal adoption later next year, in order to
    maximize the inclusivity of perspectives in our policy recommendations
    to come.
        As FAST Act reauthorization gets under way, AASHTO urges Congress
    to retain the current highway and transit program framework as the core
    foundation on which modernizing policy improvements can be made. This
    means not only retaining the current Mass Transit Account within the
    Highway Trust Fund (HTF) and their relative distributions of receipts
    in place since 1983, but also maintaining the current maximum non-
    Federal match ratios for both highway and transit programs.
    Furthermore, we strongly recommend that Federal funds continue to be
    provided through the existing formula-based program structure directly
    to states rather than looking at untested new approaches that will
    require more time and oversight.
        For over one hundred years, we as a nation have enjoyed the fruits
    of the Federal Government's highly successful partnership with state
    DOTs to build and maintain our surface transportation system. Beginning
    with the Federal-aid Road Act of 1916 establishing the foundation of a
    federally funded, state-administered highway program that has been
    well-suited to a growing and geographically diverse nation like ours,
    Federal investment in all modes of transportation have allowed states
    and their local partners to fund a wide range of projects that serve
    the interest of the Nation as a whole.
        The Federal surface transportation program's inherent flexibility
    defers project selection and investment decisionmaking to state and
    local governments. And these important decisions are based on extensive
    public input from local communities and businesses to address their
    unique needs and ensure goods get access to a larger market than ever
    before. Formula programs remain the optimal approach to serve all
    corners of our country, improving mobility and quality of life in
    urban, suburban, and rural areas.
    Congress needs to enact a permanent revenue solution for the Highway
            Trust Fund.
        I'm sure you have already heard these numbers, but they bear
    repeating. The investment backlog for transportation infrastructure
    continues to increase--reaching $836 billion for highways and bridges
    and $122 billion for transit according to the US Department of
    Transportation's (USDOT) 2015 Conditions and Performance report.
    Similarly, the American Society of Civil Engineers, upon whose Board of
    Direction I sit, has identified a $1.1 trillion funding gap for surface
    transportation between 2016 and 2025. It is also telling to look where
    our nation stands relative to global peers in infrastructure quality
    and economic competitiveness. The 2018 Global Competitiveness Report
    rankings from the World Economic Forum on infrastructure quality has
    listed the United States at just ninth place overall.
        Yet at the same time, in order to simply maintain the current HTF
    spending levels adjusted for inflation after the FAST Act, Congress
    will need to identify $114 billion in additional HTF receipts to
    support a 6-year bill through 2026. All the while the purchasing power
    of HTF revenues has declined substantially mainly due to the flat, per-
    gallon motor fuel taxes that have not been adjusted since 1993, losing
    over half of its value in the last quarter century. Doubling the
    Federal gas tax today would bring us back the purchasing power of that
    tax in 1993. Catching up to late-twentieth century Federal investment
    levels will not keep the United States competitive moving forward into
    the twenty-first century.
        These dire trends mean that absent a revenue fix by 2020, the HTF
    is expected to experience a significant cash shortfall leading to an
    estimated 51 percent drop in Federal highway obligations from the year
    before, or from $47 billion to $23 billion, and a zeroing out of
    Federal obligations from the Mass Transit Account in 2021 and 2022. In
    the past, such similar shortfall situations have led to the possibility
    of a reduction in Federal reimbursements to states on existing
    obligations, leading to serious cash-flow problems for states and
    project delays. Simply put, this is a devastating scenario that we must
    do all we can to avoid.
        In addition to the massive cash shortfall issue facing the HTF, the
    FAST Act included a $7.6 billion rescission of unobligated highway
    contract authority to take effect on July 1, 2020, as a means to bring
    the spending baseline back to the 2015 level on paper. Unfortunately,
    the contract authority rescission is a budgetary artifice that at best
    impedes the flexibility of state DOTs to meet their individual
    infrastructure needs by disrupting transportation planning and timely
    delivery of projects; and at worst, the cumulative effect of
    rescissions--with over $22 billion enacted since 2002--can wipe out the
    entire balance of contract authority held by states which will lead to
    hard funding cuts to Federal dollars authorized under the FAST Act.
        We in the transportation industry do everything in our power to
    build important projects as fast as possible, but due to the nature of
    large capital programs, the lack of stable, predictable funding from
    the HTF makes it nearly impossible for state DOTs to plan for large
    projects that need a reliable flow of funding over multiple years.
    Transportation projects large and small around the country will be put
    at risk near the expiration of the FAST Act if Congress fails to
    address both the impending HTF shortfall and repeal of the FAST Act
    rescission.
        Such delays have serious economic consequences both in the short-
    and long-term, as these projects employ thousands of companies and
    hundreds of thousands of workers every year. More importantly, these
    projects are what connect the traveling public to the many facets of
    their lives. Once completed, they help stimulate economic growth and
    improve quality of life in every community where they are built.
        Federal funding currently covers approximately 20 percent of
    WSDOT's budget. We use the vast majority of our Federal funds to
    preserve the National Highway System. While the Federal fuel tax has
    not been raised since 1993, Washington state has increased its Motor
    Vehicle Fuel Tax by over 26 cents since 2003 to a total of 49.4 cents.
    While our state legislature has stepped up to the plate to address the
    need for transportation investment in Washington, those investments
    have not adequately provided for the preservation of our roads,
    bridges, ferries, train sets, and aviation infrastructure. Our current
    annual unfunded preservation need is approximately $700 million.
        Predictable funding from the Federal Government to maintain the
    National Highway System in a state of good repair is necessary if we
    are to compete effectively in a global economy. Washington is one of
    the most trade-centric states in the Nation, with almost $600 billion
    in annual trade-related economic activity. Preserving our
    transportation system in a state of good repair and managing the
    capacity of that system effectively are essential to moving products to
    market. In the next decade, with current funding levels, we are likely
    to see bridges closed, speed limits reduced, and routes not adequately
    preserved, significantly impacting the ability of businesses to compete
    globally.
        Based on FY 2018 ending balances, the Federal Highway
    Administration (FHWA) projects Washington State will be faced with a
    $117 million rescission in 2020. If rescinded, we would be left with no
    apportionment balances at the end of the FAST Act.
        We must take advantage of the short window of time we have right
    now to head off the dual threat of a HTF funding cliff and a large
    rescission in 2020. If we miss this opportunity for action, the
    extremely costly and disruptive scenario for transportation programs
    all around the country will become all but inevitable.
           improving the delivery of projects to save time and money
    States are eager to find ways to improve the delivery of projects to
            save time and money, while properly engaging diverse
            stakeholders in program and project development, upholding
            environmental safeguards and providing resiliency.
        Over the past several decades, significant progress has been made
    toward the goal of improving the delivery of transportation projects.
    This progress has been spurred by streamlining measures enacted in the
    Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
    Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st
    Century Act (MAP-21), and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation
    (FAST) Act.
        Several of the streamlining measures involve the National
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and project delivery. Successful
    measures that WSDOT uses every day:
          New and revised NEPA categorical exclusions (CEs) to
    expedite routine activities and projects that don't impact the
    environment;
          Expanded programmatic agreements with FHWA; and
          Combined documents that all Federal agencies can use for
    their decisionmaking.
        In Washington, we've benefited from each of these improvements.
    Because the NEPA process is scalable, the vast majority (94 percent) of
    work in our state is excluded from NEPA through the use of CEs. Since
    2005, approximately 90 percent of WSDOT capital projects have been
    delivered on or ahead of schedule and on or under budget.
        As you know, NEPA is not a permit; rather it is a broad,
    transparent environmental review and decisionmaking process. Our
    biggest multimodal projects do require detailed analysis under NEPA.
    Even for these large projects, we find the robust community and agency
    involvement up front leads to better outcomes, adherence to budget and
    schedule, and broader acceptance and support.
        Each state DOT has its own experience. Speaking on behalf of all
    AASHTO members, I can tell you that even with the improvements to
    USDOT's NEPA processes, many feel it still takes too long and is too
    costly.
        AASHTO has outlined the following ideas for future streamlining:
          Continue to expand programmatic agreements within USDOT
    and with the Federal resource and regulatory agencies;
          Extend the use of USDOT agency NEPA CE's to other Federal
    agencies when they are engaged in transportation related activities;
    and
          Make the current NEPA assignment more efficient for those
    states who are able to use that option.
        Multiple laws and regulations are considered in the NEPA process,
    or as we say they fall ``under the NEPA umbrella.'' To achieve further
    streamlining, focus must be paid to not only making continued
    improvement in the NEPA process itself, but also in making the NEPA
    process work more efficiently with other Federal requirements, all
    while remaining responsible stewards of taxpayer resources and both
    human and natural environments.
        To make the NEPA process work more smoothly with other substantive
    environmental requirements, USDOT and state DOTs should work with
    Federal environmental agencies to develop programmatic approaches to
    streamline environmental processes.
        In Washington, we have a great example of approach. In January of
    this year, we started implementing a new programmatic agreement for
    Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Our partners on
    this are FHWA and its Western Federal Lands office, Federal Transit
    Administration (FTA), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,
    and the state historic preservation office in consultation with 34
    federally recognized tribes. As a result, my staff is able to undertake
    Section 106 compliance on behalf of FHWA and FTA.
        Programmatic agreements greatly reduce the time and cost needed to
    meet environmental requirements, while maintaining resource protection
    and consultation. But development of these agreements requires time and
    resources. To ensure success in developing programmatic agreements, it
    is essential that adequate Federal resources be dedicated to this
    effort, both within the USDOT and within Federal resource agency
    budgets.
        Under current NEPA regulations, each Federal agency adopts its own
    list of CEs applicable to actions that the agency carries out. If
    multiple Federal agency approvals are needed for the same project, and
    only one agency has an applicable CE, then that agency can issue a CE,
    but the other Federal agencies must prepare an Environmental
    Assessment, slowing down the process unnecessarily. While an existing
    law allows any USDOT agency to use any other USDOT's agency's CE, this
    authority has two important limitations: (1) applies only to USDOT
    multimodal projects, and (2) it does not apply to agencies outside the
    USDOT. Allowing CEs to be interchangeable between Federal agencies
    could significantly streamline projects. I have two scenarios where
    this would expedite and simplify approvals while still protecting the
    environment.
          First scenario: If the US Army Corps of Engineers is the
    only Federal agency involved in a state funded transportation project
    (bridge replacement), allow the Corps to apply a CE from FHWA's CE
    list.
          Another scenario: If there are multiple Federal approvals
    needed for a project, allow the other agencies to defer to the NEPA
    lead. At present, if a roadway project requires a new lease or land
    purchase from a Federal land management agency (National Park Service,
    US Forest Service, BLM), that agency can't use FHWA's CEs. Instead,
    they have to do an environmental assessment for the property action.
        Regarding the formal assignment of NEPA, I need to point out that
    this voluntary program is not an option for all state DOTS. This is due
    to state laws and/or different experiences in each state DOT. That
    said, AASHTO members support the effort to improve the program for
    those states that both desire them and are willing to be held
    responsible for Federal authorities.
        Currently, Alaska, California, Florida, Ohio, Texas, and Utah are
    participating in the NEPA assignment program made available to all
    states in MAP-21. Based on their collective experience, specific
    changes that will make this program both more efficient and attractive
    to interested states include:
          Simplifying the assignment application and audit
    processes;
          Allowing states to assume all of the responsibilities of
    the USDOT with respect to engineering and other activities related to
    environmental review, consultation, permitting or other action required
    under any Federal environmental law for project review or approval;
          Allowing states in this program to be solely responsible
    for the development of their policies, guidance and procedures so long
    as Federal laws and the USDOT requirements and guidance are met;
          Removing the pre-condition for a state to have taken on
    NEPA assignment for highways prior to being able to take on NEPA
    assignment for rail and transit projects; and
          Adding NEPA assignment authority to Title 49 to allow
    states to assume the Federal NEPA responsibilities of any USDOT modal
    administration.
        For state DOT's without NEPA assignment, like WSDOT, we have
    successfully negotiated programmatic NEPA agreements. These agreements
    allow the state DOT to carry out routine interagency coordination
    tasks, while maintaining regular communication with USDOT. USDOT
    retains responsibility for all final decisions. Often these
    programmatic agreements eliminate confusion, redundancy and frees up
    USDOT's limited staff resources. We view this as a model for other FHWA
    approvals.
        AASHTO has identified a number of areas where Congress could
    provide states with additional assignment authority to make
    determinations in lieu of seeking FHWA approval. Examples include
    Federal funds obligation management, project agreements, right-of-way
    acquisition, preventive maintenance, repayment of preliminary
    engineering and right-of-way costs, and credits toward non-Federal
    share, among many other possible areas of current Federal oversight.
    This kind of authority would reduce time-consuming processes while
    preserving the intent and integrity of Federal policy.
        To foster the development and testing of new, innovative practices
    and approaches aimed at expediting project delivery while maintaining
    environmental protections, we ask Congress to consider establishing a
    project delivery innovation program.
        Thanks to the states' partnership with FHWA, we're currently
    working on a limited version of such an innovation program through
    Special Experimental Project--or SEP-16. Under this initiative which in
    the past has yielded innovations in contracting and public-private
    partnerships, FHWA is soliciting proposals for delegation of various
    FHWA responsibilities directly to States. There is a wide range of
    potential applications if SEP-16 criteria can be met. Some possible
    examples include:
          States approving modifications to Stewardship and
    Oversight agreements without preapproval by FHWA, subject to FHWA's
    ongoing oversight of the State's compliance with Federal requirements;
          States taking the full responsibility for approving a new
    or modified access point on the Interstate System; and
          States developing a definition for ``high-risk''
    Interstate projects that allows States to assume the full range of
    responsibilities for these efforts.
        Another innovative practices example WSDOT has embraced is the
    design-build project delivery method as a ``tool in the toolbox.'' For
    some projects, design-build can bring innovations to solve challenges
    more quickly and more cost-effectively. WSDOT is one of many state DOTs
    that are using design-build more often. We have learned a lot since our
    first design-build project in 2001, and we've had some great successes.
    Last year, we used design-build to replace the Wildcat Bridge on U.S.
    12 in Yakima County. By using design-build, the creativity the private-
    sector designer brought to the table resulted in the project being
    completed with just 17 days of substantial construction, over 13 months
    ahead of schedule and saved the Department a third of the budgeted cost
    ($3.7 million of $12 million budgeted).
        In addition to efficiently delivering our projects, we need
    resources to build more resilient infrastructure. Many of our existing
    assets were not designed to meet today's needs, or to withstand the
    changes we expect in the future. In addition, we know more today than
    we did in the 1950's and 1960's when much of the national
    transportation network was completed. We need to retrofit and we need
    to build in resilience. We're also working to manage stormwater so that
    our communities are protected from flood events and water-borne
    pollutants.
        In Washington, we're burdened with thousands of undersized
    culverts, built to the Federal standard at the time of construction,
    that prevent adult salmon from reaching upstream habitat and/or prevent
    juvenile salmon from migrating downstream. Our culverts contribute to
    the decline of salmon runs--which in turn, impacts the economy and
    cultural heritage of the Pacific Northwest. In response to longstanding
    obligations under treaties between the Federal Government and Pacific
    Northwest Native American tribes, we are now under a Federal court
    order to fix enough culverts to open up 90 percent of the blocked
    habitat by 2030 at an estimated cost of over $3 billion.
    utilizing innovation to address mobility challenges, including safety,
             state of good repair, congestion, and universal access
    Federal programs should support state DOTs that take innovative
            approaches to transportation system management, demand
            management, and improved mobility.
        At WSDOT, we are focused on an actionable path forward in a
    congested world with limited resources. The Practical Solutions Goal in
    our Strategic Plan calls for collaborating with our partners to address
    transportation problems/ opportunities within available resources,
    making the right investments in the right locations at the right time.
    It acknowledges that we are stewards of a complex transportation system
    with a route network that is essentially complete. We have an
    obligation to the people we serve to bring our multimodal
    transportation system to a state of good repair, to make sure that it
    operates safely, that it moves people, goods, and services as
    efficiently as possible, that we manage demand for limited and
    expensive system capacity, and that we, at times, add capacity to the
    system.
        WSDOT recently completed a high-level analysis of what highway lane
    capacity would be required for a person to be able to drive the posted
    speed limits, at all times, on the Interstates through the three most
    congested areas of the state (The Central Puget Sound, Vancouver, and
    Spokane). We determined that it would require an additional 451 lane
    miles of highway at an estimated cost of approximately $115 billion.
    Funding the construction of these facilities over a twenty-year period
    would require a $2.25 to $2.50 per gallon increase in the state gas
    tax. This analysis assumed no growth in population and employment and
    no induced demand and did not include the cost of accommodating the
    resulting increased traffic on other state highways and local roadways
    or of mitigating the environmental consequences of the investment.
        While additional capacity is sometimes the answer in specific
    locations, we acknowledge based upon the evidence above and the
    preponderance of data from other states that we cannot build our way
    out of congestion. We are instead working on innovative approaches to
    move forward in a congested environment that encompass transportation
    system management and operations, transportation demand management,
    addressing the relationships between transportation and land use,
    providing a more complete suite of multimodal transportation choices,
    and making targeted investments in roadway capacity. To make these
    changes requires a coordinated and leveraged approach. Flexibility and
    predictability in funding to develop and implement these programs will
    be more important to our success in the twenty-first century than
    capital investment made project-by-project without accompanying robust
    investment in the life cycle stewardship of the transportation system.
        Transportation system management and operation projects can be
    coordinated with transportation demand and active transportation
    projects to eliminate or at least delay the need for major system
    expansion. Funding from the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
    (CMAQ) program has been helpful to our efforts to support
    transportation demands management with innovative local projects. We
    are transitioning from 25 years of focus on employment at large
    worksites--our nationally recognized Commute Trip Reduction (CTR)
    program--to add smaller employers and other trips, including off peak
    trips. In addition, transportation system management and operation
    investments like transportation management centers, ramp meters, active
    transportation management systems, and variable speed limits signs can
    be used to improve the efficiency of our existing roadways and prepare
    us for the capabilities of new technology coming our way.
        We are also using managed lanes and congestion pricing where
    appropriate to improve mobility and move more people on the
    infrastructure we have in place. WSDOT has taken advantage of funding
    from past and current Federal programs including the 2007 USDOT
    Congestion Initiative and its Urban Partnership Agreements and the
    Value Pricing Pilot Program to help us explore and test these concepts.
    With our Interstate 405 Express Toll Lanes, launched in 2015, we are
    able to move 35 percent more vehicles in the peak hour when compared to
    a similar number of lanes and daily travel volumes on Interstate 5.
    These managed lanes also provide an attractive corridor for bus rapid
    transit systems and other public transportation investment.
    The Federal program must support and provide sufficient flexibility to
            allow state DOTs to harness innovation and technology.
        We are at a global inflection point in the transportation arena
    that is as significant as when the engine replaced the horse and buggy
    and Eisenhower's initiation of the National System of Interstate and
    Defense Highways. Today, there is dramatic change underway as the
    development and deployment of new technologies are resetting the
    relationships between the vehicles that transport people and goods and
    our multimodal transportation infrastructure. Our transportation
    systems are also responding to societal change, including a reduction
    in home-based commute trips as a percentage of the total demand on the
    system, a rapidly growing cohort of our population that do not possess
    driver's licenses, the urbanization of our metropolitan regions with an
    increased demand for walkable neighborhoods, a desire to maintain and
    enhance mobility in rural America, and an increased reliance on our
    transportation system for home delivery of retail goods and services.
    These and other factors are fundamentally changing the ways we move
    goods, services and people on our transportation system.
        Concrete, asphalt, and steel are no longer the only important
    materials for transportation agencies. They have been augmented by data
    as the new asset that will save lives, provide transportation choice
    and improved mobility to all of our citizens, enhance program and
    operational efficiency, protect our environment, and create jobs. It is
    important now, more than ever, that we not only optimize relationships
    at local, tribal, state and Federal levels to ensure our transportation
    system is a steward and not a bottleneck of continued innovation, but
    expand out partnerships with the private sector, who's value to
    shareholders and the public is also dependent upon a sustainable,
    efficient, and reliable transportation system.
        Technology creates new capabilities for transportation agencies to
    effectively manage and operate our roadways. The key to harnessing
    approaching technology is positioning and funding transportation
    agencies to leverage new technological opportunities.
        State DOTs continue to evolve from highway builders of the last
    century to stewards of multimodal twenty-first century transportation
    systems, and we see technological innovation as an important new tool
    in our nation's transportation toolbox as we strive to provide safe
    mobility and access to everyone.
        To better prepare for and leverage emerging technologies, AASHTO
    has recently established the Cooperative Automated Transportation (CAT)
    coalition, of which I serve as co-chair. The goals of this effort
    include creating a clearinghouse of connected and automated vehicle
    policy frameworks, bringing new multimodal mobility tools to our
    nation's communities, identifying funding opportunities and financing
    models to enable near-term investments, and developing model
    regulations that will facilitate near-term pilots and deployments.
        As the owners and operators of a significant portion of the
    multimodal transportation infrastructure throughout the country, state
    DOTs are at the forefront of preparing for deployment of new
    transportation technologies, including connected and automated vehicles
    (CAVs) and Mobility on Demand (MOD).
        Maintaining and preserving the current infrastructure in a state of
    good repair that meets the needs of current system users, while
    preparing for the benefits of the transformative technologies that are
    being introduced almost daily has given new meaning to workforce
    development and inclusionary collaboration within and between agencies.
    In response, many state DOTs are reorganizing or refocusing their
    project development and business processes to include preparing for
    multimodal trip planning and ticketing systems, vehicles equipped with
    Automated Driving System (ADS), and other innovations with the
    increasing ability to connect vehicles to each other and the
    infrastructure.
        While encouraging consistency in traditional roadway design and
    traffic control device investments can assist in deployment of new
    technologies, taking steps to improve roadway pavement markings and
    signage and protecting the 5.9 GHz spectrum currently reserved for
    transportation safety and connectivity purposes will have lasting near
    and long-term benefits for both CAV and MOD.
        State, tribal, and local governments remain the primary authority
    concerning operational safety of our transportation system, regardless
    of the technologies involved. For CAV this includes regulating the
    operation of motor vehicles after such vehicles have been constructed,
    the operators of those motor vehicles, as well as establishing the
    rules of the road on how motor vehicles can be safely operated on
    public roadways. I say this because your Subcommittee's assistance in
    helping to clarify Federal and non-Federal authority over motor vehicle
    ``performance'' as Congress deliberates on nationwide CAV policy will
    be crucial to state, tribal, and local governments.
        For MOD this state, tribal, and local government role will
    encompass new protocols for partnerships between public infrastructure
    owners and operators and their counterparts in the private sector to
    ensure that all Americans benefit equally from MOD, that data is shared
    transparently between service providers, and that public investment in
    multimodal transportation infrastructure and services is optimized.
        Beyond the national-level efforts by AASHTO and its members,
    Washington State has also placed the development of an enabling,
    cooperative automated transportation policy at the forefront. Beginning
    with a Governor's Executive Order and followed by Legislative action,
    public and private sector decisionmakers and stakeholders from every
    corner of the state have partnered together to engage in spirited
    discussion that will impact all aspects of our profession, from
    redefining long-range planning policies to revisiting and realigning
    near-term project priorities. WSDOT is an active partner and leader in
    this effort while emphasizing an inclusive, multi-modal and integrated
    approach to automation and connectivity.
        For example, some of WSDOT's near-term priorities include:
          increased use of public rights of way for telecom
    partnerships;
          infrastructure investments in roadway pavement markings
    and signing;
          supporting our local transit systems and private partners
    in providing first and last mile connections to transit; and
          expanding infrastructure investments to enable use of the
    5.9 Ghz spectrum in a technology neutral manner.
         supporting good jobs and a qualified transportation workforce
    Congress should continue to fund programs that support the development
            of a diverse and robust workforce suitable for staffing the
            development and delivery of twenty-first century transportation
            programs.
        Inclusion and workforce development are two of the three goal areas
    of the WSDOT Strategic Plan. Like many states, Washington has an
    increasingly diverse population. By 2050 there will be no majority
    ethnic group in our state. We approach this demographic reality as an
    opportunity. A workforce with diverse backgrounds and perspectives to
    draw from will make Washington more competitive in the twenty-first
    century global marketplace. Through Inclusion, WSDOT is strengthening
    our commitment to diversity and engagement in all WSDOT business
    processes, functions and services to ensure every voice is heard. This
    goal has both an internal and an external focus to assure that we have
    an inclusive and diverse workforce while at the same time, meeting our
    Disadvantaged Business Enterprise goals and creating opportunities for
    underrepresented populations to do business with us.
        Like other AASHTO members, workforce development is a priority in
    Washington State. WSDOT expects to lose a significant number of our
    employees through retirement in the next 5 years, including 31 percent
    of our maintenance staff and 41 percent of our engineers. We also have
    a significant gap in the available workforce for our contractor and
    consultant partners. State DOTs can't deliver our programs without
    qualified personnel. WSDOT wants to be an employer of choice and is
    creating a modern work environment. We're proactively working to find
    the best possible talent for the agency, while taking steps to retain
    our quality workforce. As part of our Workforce Development goal, we
    listen and act on employee feedback and we provide training and other
    opportunities for development. At the same time, we evaluate systems to
    achieve and maintain competitive compensation.
        WSDOT and other AASHTO members appreciate Federal interest in and
    support for our inclusion and workforce development efforts.
    Initiatives that would benefit from increased Federal support include:
          Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Math (STEAM)
    programs, including internships for high school and college students at
    state DOTs;
          On the Job Training Supportive Services (OJT/SS) programs
    to provide support (day care, transit fare, lunch money, etc.) to
    people seeking training to enter into apprenticeships in the
    transportation construction trades;
          Capacity Building Mentorship programs sponsored by State
    DOTs, the contracting community, and other agencies to bring
    disadvantaged business enterprises into the transportation sector;
          Programs like the Sustainability in Prisons Project that
    provide offenders the skills to work with state DOTs when they return
    to the community;
          Environmental Justice and Cultural Competency training
    for state DOT employees, managers, consultants, local agency partners,
    and others; and
          Flexible schedule and open office environment initiatives
    that improve state DOT employee work environments.
                                   conclusion
        State DOTs remain committed to assisting Congress in the
    development of strategies to ensure long-term economic growth and
    enhanced quality of life through robust multimodal transportation
    investments. Just last month, hundreds of state DOT leaders from all
    corners of our country were only a few blocks away attending AASHTO's
    2019 Washington Briefing.
        Over 4 days of productive discussions, many of my colleagues were
    on Capitol Hill meeting with their respective congressional
    delegations. As they did then, and as I do again now, AASHTO and the
    State DOTs will continue advocating for the reaffirmation of a strong
    Federal-state partnership to address our surface transportation
    investment needs.
        Thank you again for the honor and opportunity to testify today, and
    I am happy to answer any questions.

        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
        Next is Mr. Darran Anderson, director of strategy and
    innovation at the Texas Department of Transportation, who is
    testifying on behalf of the Texas Innovation Alliance.
        You may proceed, Mr. Anderson.
        Mr. Anderson. Chairwoman Norton and Ranking Member Davis,
    thank you again for inviting me to be here today. Again, my
    name is Darran Anderson. I am the director of strategy and
    innovation at the Texas Department of Transportation, and I am
    speaking on behalf of the Texas Innovation Alliance today. I
    appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony before the
    subcommittee and to share our experience with the alliance.
        In short, the Texas Innovation Alliance is an action
    network of local, regional, and State agencies as well as
    research institutions who are galvanized to be a capability
    multiplier for mobility innovation. The mission of the
    alliance, which includes cities and regions across the State,
    is to strategically develop, launch, and sustain a portfolio of
    advanced mobility projects across the State of Texas to improve
    the lives, safety, and economic prospects of Texans.
        As Texas continues to grow, the alliance proactively
    develops tools beyond traditional infrastructure, including
    innovative technologies, policies, and processes. The alliance
    partners include our largest cities: Houston, Dallas, San
    Antonio, rapidly growing cities such as Fort Worth, Austin, El
    Paso, Arlington, and Frisco, and regional partners such as
    Bryan-College Station and the Coastal Bend area. The alliance
    is open to any Texas locality or region that is interested in
    pursuing mobility solutions, as well as our research
    institutions.
        Individually, communities have limited capacity and
    capability to develop mobility solutions and to prepare our
    infrastructure for the coming transformations. But together we
    have the ability to leverage our resources and our expertise
    and share across those cities and regions.
        Texas is at a pivotal moment, where the rate of population
    growth, infrastructure needs, and technological advancement are
    challenging our ability to provide quality mobility services.
    Texas population is expected to nearly double by the year 2050.
    It is critical that we manage this disruption proactively,
    rather than allow rapid urbanization to stifle our State's
    economy and reduce our quality of life.
        While the alliance is working well, the Federal Government
    continues to play a critical role in allowing for new
    technologies. We thank this committee for your work on MAP-21
    and the FAST Act to streamline programs and gain efficiencies
    at the Federal level. Texas has realized time and cost savings
    because of the flexibility afforded by converting 70 funding
    silos into today's 6 Federal highway programs, and by providing
    States the opportunity to assume responsibilities under the
    National Environmental Policy Act.
        The alliance is seeking to mirror those successes by not
    duplicating each other's initial innovation efforts, through
    sharing best practices between the alliance members, and
    through fostering an open exchange of what has and hasn't
    worked in their communities. The alliance partner members have
    demonstrated that local and regional governments are a key
    enabler to achieving our mobility goals, but the Federal
    authority to resource new technology in our core funding areas
    is critical.
        To help enable the best use of technology to improve
    transportation mobility, we offer these suggested improvements
    for consideration in reauthorizing the FAST Act.
        First, make technology eligible for Federal funding across
    all USDOT programs.
        Second, clarify that infrastructure-based ITS capital
    improvements equipment required for the implementation of
    Vehicle-to-Everything, or V2X, as well as advanced mobility
    improvements are eligible uses under the State transportation
    block grant program.
        And finally, when a public entity applies for
    transportation innovation grants with private-sector partners,
    we would like to have our proposal partners recognized by USDOT
    as sole-source contractors for the purposes of the grant, if
    awarded, rather than having to later need to also competitively
    bid to be part of that project after award, when they were part
    of the initial proposal.
        The current approach stymies, rather than promotes the use
    of public-private partnerships. I have included more details on
    these items in my written testimony.
        In 2017, Governor Greg Abbott signed the senate bill 2205
    in Texas, which cleared the way for driverless vehicles to
    legally operate on Texas roadways. Laws such as senate bill
    2205 encourage safe technology innovation in Texas.
        Additionally, TxDOT has coordinated programs that identify,
    research, review, and test emerging technologies, and those
    inform the focus of the Texas Innovation Alliance.
        As we usher in the next generation of technologies, an
    entrepreneurial approach is needed for States to take a
    leadership position, also to advance safety and the quality of
    life, to enable support for a 21st-century workforce, and to
    continue attracting and growing business.
        On behalf of the alliance I thank the committee for the
    opportunity to testify today regarding the work we are doing in
    Texas.
        [Mr. Anderson's prepared statement follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Darran Anderson, Director of Strategy and
    Innovation, Texas Department of Transportation, on behalf of the Texas
                              Innovation Alliance
                                  introduction
        Chairwoman Norton and Ranking Member Davis, thank you for inviting
    me to be here today. My name is Darran Anderson and I am the Director
    of Strategy and Innovation at the Texas Department of Transportation
    (TxDOT) and am here on behalf of the Texas Innovation Alliance
    (Alliance). I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony before
    the subcommittee today, and to share our experience creating and
    organizing the Texas Innovation Alliance.
        In short, the Texas Innovation Alliance is an action network of
    local, regional, and state agencies, as well as research institutions
    who are galvanized to be a capability multiplier for mobility
    innovation. The mission of the Alliance is to strategically develop,
    launch, and sustain a portfolio of advanced mobility projects across
    the State of Texas, to improve the lives, safety, and economic
    prospects of Texans.
                       texas innovation alliance overview
        Building upon the momentum of the USDOT Smart City Challenge, the
    Texas Department of Transportation and the city of Austin issued a call
    to action in 2016. Metropolitan regions from around the state stepped
    forward, uniting as the Texas Innovation Alliance to address the
    state's most pressing mobility challenges.
        As Texas continues to grow, the Alliance proactively develops tools
    beyond traditional infrastructure, including innovative technologies,
    policies, and processes. Alliance partners include our largest cities--
    Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio; small, but rapidly growing cities,
    such as Frisco; and regional partners, such as Bryan-College Station,
    and the Coastal Bend area. The Alliance is open to any Texas locality
    or region that is interested in pursuing mobility solutions (see
    Appendix A).
        Individually, communities have limited capacity and capability to
    develop mobility solutions and prepare our infrastructure for the
    coming transformations. Together, we have the ability to leverage our
    resources and expertise. In fact, as I speak the Alliance is working on
    submission of an application for the Federal Highway Administration's
    Automated Driving Systems Demonstration Grant. Texas partners within
    the Alliance are taking a collaborative approach in offering a robust
    and diverse set of data, use cases, and deployments to help guide
    national Automated Vehicle guidance and rulemaking.
        The Texas Innovation Alliance uniquely allows for this
    individualized problem identification and shared solutions. This
    enables Texas' cities and regions to connect with public and private
    sector partners; leverage investment to maximize impact at a lower
    cost; enable rapid deployment and sustainable solutions; develop best
    practices and lessons learned; and, build awareness and create unified
    communications.
        Texas is at a pivotal moment--where the rate of population growth,
    infrastructure needs, and technological advancement are challenging our
    ability to provide quality mobility services. With five of the nation's
    15 fastest growing cities located in Texas and the population expected
    to nearly double by the year 2050, it is critical that we manage this
    disruption proactively rather than allow rapid urbanization to stifle
    our state's economy.
                             how congress can help
        While the Alliance is working well from a grass roots basis with
    state assistance and the resources of our research partners, the
    Federal Government continues to play a critical role in allowing for
    new technologies. We thank this committee for your work on MAP-21 and
    the FAST Act to streamline programs and gain efficiencies at the
    Federal level. Texas has realized time and cost savings because of the
    flexibility afforded by converting 70 funding silos into today's six
    Federal highway programs, and by providing states the opportunity to
    assume responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act.
    The Alliance is seeking to mirror those successes by not duplicating
    efforts, through sharing best practices, and through fostering an open
    exchange of what has and hasn't worked in their communities.
        To help enable not only the Alliance's efforts, but for all cities,
    regions, and states seeking how to best use technology to improve
    transportation mobility, we offer these suggested improvements for
    consideration when reauthorizing the FAST Act:
          Make technology eligible for Federal funding across all
    USDOT programs.
          Clarify that infrastructure-based ITS capital
    improvements equipment required for the implementation of Vehicle-to-
    Everything or V2X are an eligible use under the State Transportation
    Block Grant Program (STBGP). This would include:
            Data collection and analysis;
            Maintenance;
            Integration;
            Fiber and the data ecosystems to manage transportation
    operations; and,
            The costs associated with systems, software, and
    equipment required for V2X implementation.
          We also support policy under the State Transportation
    Block Grant Program (STBGP) that would provide funding eligibility for
    advanced mobility improvements to include data infrastructure and
    analysis, smart mobility improvements such as smart truck parking,
    smart work zones, smart pavements, mobility-on-demand platforms, smart
    fleet, and alternative vehicle charging infrastructure.
          Finally, when a public entity applies for discretionary
    grants, such as the Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management
    Technology Development grant with private sector partners, we would
    like to have our partners recognized by the Federal Highway
    Administration as sole source contractors for the purposes of the
    grant, if awarded. It is extremely difficult to bring in a private
    partner during the application process if they will later need to
    competitively bid to be part of the project. The current approach
    stymies, rather than promotes the use of Public-Private Partnerships.
      the nexus of txdot, its research partners, and the texas innovation
                                    alliance
        In 2017, Governor Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 2205 which cleared
    the way for driverless vehicles to legally operate on Texas roadways.
    Laws such as SB 2205 ensure that rapidly evolving technology on the
    whole spectrum of operation remains safe on Texas roadways. To that
    end, TxDOT has a coordinated effort to research, review, and test
    emerging technologies that will someday have a great impact on the
    transportation network, thereby informing the focus of the Texas
    Innovation Alliance. This effort includes reliance on some of our other
    state technology leaders, such as:

             The Texas Connected and Automated Vehicle (CAV) Task Force was
    created in January by Governor Greg Abbott and is led by TxDOT. This
    task force will serve as a repository of information for all on-going
    Connected and Automated Vehicle projects in Texas and will facilitate
    progress in advancing CAV technology through hosting industry forums
    and reporting lessons learned through public and private entities'
    efforts to implement CAV technology.

             For example, the Southwest Research Institute, located in San
    Antonio, is working with other academic partners in Texas to
    collaborate with Texas' new CAV Task Force. The Institute is a leader
    in Connected and Automated Vehicle (CAV) research and technologies and
    has worked with USDOT and Texas universities to provide a full-service
    test track for these technologies.

             The State Transportation Innovation Council (STIC) along with
    TxDOT's Research Program contributes valued and innovative research
    ideas with the potential to bring solutions and opportunities to Texas.
    Areas of focus such as resiliency, improved traffic management systems,
    predictive analytics, as well as emerging technologies such as the
    impacts of artificial intelligence to TxDOT operations, and physical
    innovations or changes needed to accommodate autonomous and connected
    vehicles on our system are all research areas that inform the Alliance.

             The STIC also facilitates the rapid implementation of
    innovative technology and shares its deployment outcomes at all levels
    of state government and throughout the private and non-profit sector,
    including the Alliance, to ensure smart, efficient investment in Texas
    highway and transportation infrastructure.

             The Texas Technology Task Force is directed by the Texas State
    Legislature to explore all types of emerging technologies, including
    automated and connected vehicle technologies, and recommend those
    technologies on which TxDOT should concentrate for future use in Texas'
    infrastructure.
                                   conclusion
        As we usher in the next generation of technologies, a paradigm
    shift has already begun in transportation. An entrepreneurial approach
    is needed for Texas to take a leadership position, enabling our state
    to support a 21st century workforce and to continue attracting and
    growing businesses.
        It is worthy to note that local leadership from the Alliance's
    regional team partners, including mayors, councilmembers, Metropolitan
    Planning Organization board members, and transit board members, have
    all emphasized that the local and regional governments are a key
    enabler to achieving our mobility goals, but that Federal authority to
    resource new technology in our core funding is extremely important.
        Additionally, our research partners such as those in the Texas
    Innovation Alliance, including the Southwest Research Institute, the
    Center for Transportation Research at the University of Texas at
    Austin, and the Texas A&M Transportation Institute are also key in
    identifying those technologies that will cause disruption and rapidly
    change our landscape.
        On behalf of the Texas Innovation Alliance, I thank the Committee
    for the opportunity to testify today regarding the work we are doing in
    Texas not only to explore technology and innovation to enhance
    mobility, but to bring them to fruition. With a people-first, problem-
    based approach partners of the Texas Innovation Alliance are committed
    to working together to align local, regional, and state priorities for
    the benefit of our communities. Recognizing the value of collaboration,
    the Alliance stands together in pursuit of innovation and applies an
    entrepreneurial approach to be the leading model in developing new
    mobility solutions.
                                   appendix a
        [Appendix A is retained in committee files and is available at
    http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/fed/federal-surface-
    transportation.pdf, pages 6-7.]

        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Anderson. I know that
    two of our witnesses already have been from Texas. I don't know
    what you are trying to tell us here.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Norton. But we are listening.
        Next I am pleased to welcome Jack Clark, who is the
    executive director of the Transportation Learning Center.
        Mr. Clark?
        Mr. Clark. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank
    you, Ranking Member Davis, for the opportunity to be here
    today.
        As indicated, my name is Jack Clark. I represent the
    Transportation Learning Center. You have background on me and
    the organization in your written materials. I look forward to
    sharing more on that in the question period. But right now I
    want to focus on the core problem I am here to address, and the
    committee, I believe, needs to address, as well: the workforce
    crisis in public transportation.
        Approximately 400,000 people work in public transportation;
    90 percent of them are moving vehicles or maintaining those
    vehicles and the systems required to keep transit running.
        In every transit agency large and small, new technologies
    are changing the way work needs to be done. I share a small but
    revealing story from several years back when I was dealing with
    a general manager in a medium-sized transit agency completing a
    bus purchase. He heard from the vendor asking, ``How many
    laptops would you like,'' and he initially thought this was
    some kind of bonus for his office staff, until he realized that
    those laptops were key, essential tools for his bus mechanics.
    Those laptops diagnose and keep track of all sorts of problems
    in the engine, and they also keep track of advanced electronic
    and multiplex systems that have been common in buses for more
    than a decade.
        The skills needed for people maintaining railcars,
    signaling, electrical power systems, and other systems are even
    more advanced than what bus mechanics need to know. In the face
    of all those challenges, both the age and the skill mix,
    transit spends far too little on training.
        Taking a look simply at the percentage of payroll devoted
    to training, the Paris Metro, which is a one-to-one comparison,
    spends about 8 percent of its payroll. The Federal Highway
    Administration sets a goal of 3 percent of its payroll for its
    contractors should go to training. The average transit agency
    spends between 0.66 and 0.88 percent of its payroll on
    training.
        There are some bright spots. My organization works a lot to
    develop registered apprenticeship as a solution to the transit
    skills crisis. We think it makes a lot of sense. There is a lot
    of support for apprenticeship across both aisles in Congress,
    and now across two administrations. There is also a lot of
    support for apprenticeship around the world. It is simply a
    commonsense solution, which says there is technical training
    you can learn in a classroom and a lot you can learn in a very
    highly structured, on-the-job learning environment.
        And we are seeing some progress in some areas in developing
    those apprenticeship programs. We are also seeing some
    obstacles.
        I would note, just in passing, that while we are talking
    about a transit skills crisis here--and I note Associated
    General Contractors of America is also on this panel--we won't
    be hearing about a similar skills crisis on the highway
    construction side because registered apprenticeship works
    there. It is a system that the organized building trades and
    the contractors have developed for over a century, and it
    delivers a skilled workforce. It also delivers very highly
    developed pre-apprenticeship programs that allow opportunities
    for underrepresented populations to come into the workforce and
    into highly skilled jobs. Transit, and its apprenticeship
    programs, need to develop similar programs.
        The profile of the skilled worker in transit is still older
    white males. And it is both a moral imperative and a practical
    necessity that transit develop a more diverse workforce in its
    skilled ranks.
        I would note that the transit--the--other people noted
    this--the transit workforce is much older than the average
    workforce. The average transit worker is almost 51, compared to
    the average worker across all industries being about 40, 41,
    42. That means that the skill--the demographic crisis is quite
    severe.
        Thank you for your time. I have more in my written
    testimony. I would ask that you include human capital and
    specific metrics in human capital in reauthorization, authorize
    a national transit front-line workforce resource that could
    function like the National Transit Institute, and that the
    mandate that FTA work closely with other Federal agencies,
    particularly Department of Labor and Office of Career,
    Technical, and Adult Education, on workforce issues.
        And in all the work the Congress is doing, remember that
    workforce is a key part of what needs to happen in
    infrastructure. It is not going to happen without a skilled
    workforce. Thank you very much.
        [Mr. Clark's prepared statement follows:]

     Prepared Statement of John Kevin ``Jack'' Clark, Executive Director,
                         Transportation Learning Center
        Good morning. My name is Jack Clark. I serve as Executive Director
    of the Transportation Learning Center (the Center), a not for profit
    organization with offices in Silver Spring Maryland that does national
    work in transportation with a particular emphasis on the public
    transportation sector. The Center focuses its efforts on the challenge
    of improving training for frontline workers in public transit, the
    drivers, mechanics, technicians, cleaners and helpers who comprise 90
    percent of the transit workforce. Members of our Board of Directors
    include leaders in management and labor and some major advocates.
    Amalgamated Transit Union International President Larry Hanley serves
    as Chair of our Board. American Public Transportation Association
    President Paul Skoutelas and Community Transportation Association
    Executive Director Scott Bogren also serve on the Board.
        The Center practices labor-management partnership in its daily
    work. None of us involved in this work is naive. Labor and management
    do have and will continue to have major differences and conflicting
    interests, particularly on zero-sum issues such as how resources are
    distributed between hourly wages and other priorities an agency might
    have. Those conflicts are not going away; nor should they. Unions
    represent a very large share of public transit workers, and workers
    through their unions can, do and should pursue collective bargaining to
    advance their interests. Likewise, managers can, do and should use the
    process to assert their rights and interests.
        While recognizing the inevitable areas of conflict, the Center has
    benefited from an insight that former US Secretary of Labor Ray
    Marshall offered to its Board more than a decade ago. Dr. Marshall
    noted that in the broad picture of interactions between labor and
    management, conflict, particularly zero-sum conflict, comprises a small
    fraction of how the two sides can interact. In areas like safety for
    the riding public and for the workforce, labor and management should
    have common interests. Similarly, workers and managers share an
    interest in improving the overall quality of the riders' experience in
    transit; both want a strong and reliable system that serves the public
    well and can count on needed public support for ongoing and expanded
    funding.
        Dr. Marshall knows that even in those areas of shared interest,
    sharp conflict can and does arise. He was positing, and the Center's
    Board has generally accepted the concept that common interests do exist
    between labor and management. Building on those common interests can
    result in better outcomes for all.
        The Center bases its work on just such a common interest: training
    for the frontline workforce. A more skilled workforce clearly benefits
    managers. More skilled workers can get the job done faster and better.
    Improved training offers transit workers opportunities for upward
    mobility in their careers. Cleaners or helpers, for example, can become
    skilled mechanics. Training can also enhance skills, knowledge and
    abilities of highly experienced transit workers who need to learn how
    advancing technologies affect how they do their jobs. When really
    excellent training, developed and executed on a partnership basis, is
    implemented, the performance of the whole organization improves and the
    workplace moves to a new culture that values life-long learning.
        That ideal picture does occur occasionally. If that dynamic were
    the rule rather than the exception in public transit, the work of the
    Transportation Learning Center might not be needed.
        Sadly, adequate training for the frontline workforce remains rare
    in transit.
        One might posit that training does not occur because there is not a
    great need. To the contrary, transit is suffering through a skills
    crisis that will only become worse.
        Start by looking at just a simple and easily understood metric: the
    age of the workforce.
        For the economy as a whole, everyone comments on the problem of our
    aging workforce. Retirements of the baby boom generation no longer loom
    as a future issue to be confronted. It is happening now across the
    economy. Finding both the sheer number of workers required and filling
    the gap left by retirement of skilled workers concerns all employers.
        Consider, though, that for all occupations and industries in the
    US, the median age of workers is 42 years of age. In transportation and
    warehousing, the median age is over 44. The median age in bus service
    and urban transit is nearly 51.
    Figure 1--Median Age of Workers for Selected Transportation Sectors
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        We see that the aging workforce issue, widely understood as a
    crisis for the overall economy, stands as an even larger challenge for
    transit.
        Looking at only the age distribution understates the workforce
    challenge for transit. About 400,000 people work in public
    transportation now. Of that figure, 90 percent currently work in the
    frontline occupations I referenced earlier. Because of retirements and
    other exits from transit employment, transit has a very large number of
    jobs to fill. In 2015, the Center helped research a major study for the
    US Department of Transportation, the US Department of Labor and the US
    Department of Education on the future of the transportation workforce.
    Based on data through 2014, the best estimate at that time was that
    transit needed to hire, train and retain approximately 126 percent of
    its current workforce over a 10-year period. No one has done the
    research to update those estimates, and we are halfway through the 10
    years. The Center works closely with a large number of transit
    locations. We know from daily experience in work with those locations
    that hiring and training a sufficient number of people provides a
    continuing challenge.
        Most of my testimony will address issues around technical training
    for skilled maintenance work, but I want to take a moment to address
    the issue of exits from transit employment other than retirements. In
    general, transit maintenance workers, particularly skilled maintenance
    staff, tend to stay in their jobs for a long time. For bus drivers, the
    picture is more complex.
        Hiring and retaining bus drivers poses a major challenge for the
    industry. Wages certainly are part of the problem. As the ``Fight for
    $15'' movement makes further gains, driving a bus at a starting wage of
    $15 per hour looks less attractive. Operator assaults, widely
    publicized in the areas where they happen, certainly discourage
    potential applicants from applying in the first place. I wish to state
    my strong support for H.R. 1139, legislation sponsored by
    Representative Napolitano and supported by transit labor. This
    legislation does not mandate any particular remedy for the problem of
    assault beyond identifying whether there is a need to address the
    problem, and if there is, bringing together workers and managers to
    develop a plan. H.R. 1139 also requires that data be collected and
    analyzed on a national level so that policymakers know what the scope
    of the problem is. Good data can drive good policy. Lack of data leads
    to bad guesses.
        I will return to the issue of operator training and retention in
    the context of national work the Center is doing on apprenticeship.
        As Members of Congress know, in a number of areas, transit service
    is expanding. That adds to the workforce challenge. In every transit
    agency, large and small, new technologies are changing the way work
    needs to be done. I share an amusing but revealing story from a
    conversation several years ago with a General Manager at a medium-sized
    agency. He was completing a procurement for a major bus purchase. In
    the final negotiations to close the deal, the bus vendor asked how many
    laptop computers the agency wanted to include. Delighted by this
    question, the General Manager thought he was getting some kind of bonus
    for his office staff until he realized that the laptops were a required
    tool for bus mechanics.
        Those laptop computers provide the basic diagnostic tool for bus
    maintenance. Complex electrical, electronic and multiplexing systems
    have been commonplace on transit buses for well more than a decade.
    Buses have hybrid systems that require training on high voltage
    electricity. Fully electric buses provide a growing proportion of bus
    purchases.
        For railcars, signaling, wayside and power equipment, even higher
    levels of skill are required to maintain systems properly.
        In some locations, training to deal with these advanced
    technologies occurs regularly and is done well. Sadly, once again, that
    is the exception, not the rule.
        A reasonable measure of the commitment to training by any employer
    is the percentage of payroll devoted to training. The Federal Highway
    Administration seeks a minimum of 3 percent of payroll devoted to
    training for projects it funds. High performance US firms often spend
    4-5 percent of payroll on training. In a direct transit comparison, the
    Paris Metro spends a bit more than 8 percent of payroll. A careful
    analysis in a study overseen by the Transit Cooperative Research
    Program shows that the average US transit agency spends between 0.66
    and 0.88 percent of payroll on training.
    Figure 2--Public Transportation Training Investment
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Look at Federal funding for transit. Nearly all the money goes to
    physical capital while scant resources are devoted to the building the
    skills of people who will maintain that infrastructure.
    Figure 3--Annual Federal Investment in Transit
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Note: Physical Capital Investment is based on the 2016 Federal capital
    funds from the 2018 APTA Fact Book. Human Capital Investment includes
    annualized funding for the 2015 FTA Innovative Workforce Development
    programs ($9.5 million over 2 years) and $5 million a year for the
    National Transit Institute in the FAST Act.

        Before closing out this testimony, I will review this discrepancy
    between physical and human capital and recommend action in the
    reauthorization of the FAST Act.
        Having cited multiple problems and shortcomings in transit
    training, I will highlight an approach that already shows great promise
    and can deliver sustainable results for training transit workers:
    registered apprenticeship.
        Quite simply, apprenticeship combines classroom instruction with
    on-the-job learning. Most workers learn most of their skills in
    practical application. For the highly technical aspects of maintenance,
    learning basic and advanced principles of electricity, for example,
    cannot be optional. Applying that learning under the guidance of more
    experienced workers reinforces and strengthens the apprentice's
    comprehension of the principles.
        The Center, under a grant from the US Department of Labor, is
    working to develop individual apprenticeship programs in a number of
    transit agencies. More broadly, the Center endeavors to make
    registered, joint labor-management apprenticeship programs the new norm
    for how the transit industry addresses the workforce and skills crisis.
        In the rest of the advanced industrial world, apprenticeship has
    established itself as the norm for training. Germany, which enjoys a
    substantial trade surplus in manufactured goods, relies heavily on
    apprenticeship to fill the ranks of its highly skilled workforce. In
    the US, apprenticeship has enjoyed bipartisan support from successive
    Administrations and from both parties in Congress.
        Specific to this subcommittee's jurisdiction, on the highway
    construction side, we are not seeing the dire skills shortages spelled
    out here for the transit workforce. Construction unions have more than
    a century of experience with joint apprenticeship programs, and those
    programs work well to address ongoing and future needs. Like all
    sectors of the economy, construction does face issues with an aging
    workforce as well as a need to diversify the pool of candidates
    qualifying for journey level jobs. There, too, the building trades
    joint apprenticeship programs are demonstrating the capacity to respond
    to the challenge. The Multi-Craft Core Curriculum (MC3), developed by
    the building trades apprenticeship directors, serves as a model for
    effective pre-apprenticeship training.
        Apprenticeship for skilled maintenance work in transit clearly
    makes sense. Well-structured apprenticeship with good mentoring and
    possibly with some pre-apprenticeship options can also help transit
    address some glaring problems in its workforce profile. Simply put, the
    skilled maintenance workforce in transit remains overwhelmingly male
    and nearly as overwhelmingly white. Transit cannot adequately address
    its workforce shortages unless it reaches out to the entire workforce.
    More inclusive outreach and training for the well-paid jobs the transit
    industry offers is a moral imperative; it is also a practical
    necessity.
    Figure 4--Percentage of Women in the Workforce
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Figure 5--Employment in Transportation Jobs by Race
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Figure 6--Employment in Transportation Jobs by Ethnicity
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Source (Figure 4-6): Data Report on Transportation Workforce Needs by
    the U.S. Departments of Education, Transportation and Labor.

        Having identified apprenticeship as a promising approach, we return
    to the hard reality that training never rises to a priority level for
    transit. Bus maintenance is by far the largest maintenance craft. On
    the bus maintenance side, the Center has identified several small to
    midsize agencies that have a sincere interest in establishing an
    apprenticeship program but are severely handicapped because they do not
    have the time or resources to implement such a program. These agencies
    typically do not have a training department or have limited training
    staff barely able to keep pace with refresher and new technology
    training. Providing classroom instruction to apprentices, which
    constitutes about one-third of the program, becomes extremely difficult
    with such limited resources. Making matters worse is that nearly all
    agencies, large, medium and small, are lacking technicians, putting
    increased pressure on them to make buses road ready for revenue
    service. This pervasive condition makes it extremely difficult to spare
    senior technicians as mentors needed to provide apprentices with on the
    job training, which makes up the remaining and essential apprenticeship
    activity.
        The Center also works on developing apprenticeship for bus drivers
    (or as some locations call them, transit coach operators). That may
    seem counter-intuitive. After all, bus operators do not need to learn
    advanced electronics or similar technical material. Earlier in the
    testimony, I referred to high turnover among bus drivers. As noted,
    operator assaults play a role there. So does the ordinary and grinding
    routine of driving a bus. New hires work the least desirable shifts in
    the worst neighborhoods. Training focuses on earning the Commercial
    Driver's License and on how to handle a large vehicle in traffic. The
    larger challenge for people aspiring to be bus drivers is how to deal
    with the public. Turnover among new hires can be very high. One large
    city gave me an estimate that 50 percent of new hires were still
    driving a bus a year after completing training. Another city, which has
    paid a lot of attention to operator training, has about 60 percent
    retention over that 1-year period. These are not sustainable numbers.
        Operator apprenticeship started at Valley Transit Authority (VTA)
    in San Jose, California. The Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 265
    initiated the program, and its members played a large role in making it
    work. Mentors, selected by the union and approved by management,
    volunteer to work with new drivers. They offer their insights and
    experience, sometimes riding with the new driver, often by phone, a few
    times every year in a conference setting. By chance, VTA launched its
    pilot apprenticeship program at the same time as it ran a traditional
    class. Union and management agreed that the new program required
    additional resources so that only one cohort would benefit. Eighteen
    months later, VTA looked at the two cohorts. VTA does a lot better than
    most on retention as a general rule. More than 70 percent of driver
    trainees who started in the traditional class were still driving a bus
    for VTA. For the cohort that went through the full mentoring and
    apprenticeship, nearly 100 percent were driving a bus 18 months later.
        VTA also saw a rise in customer satisfaction, a drop in absenteeism
    and improved safety. Those are results we want to replicate across the
    transit industry. VTA and ATU Local 265 created a Joint Workforce
    Initiative (JWI) to oversee apprenticeship and training across all
    occupations. Once again, San Jose provides a model that should be
    replicated.
        By definition, apprenticeship takes places at the local level.
    Sharing across locations can help people learn and improve what they
    are doing. The Center has taken that cross-location learning a major
    step further. Bringing together subject matter experts from both labor
    and management and from different locations, the Center has developed
    Consortium work for delivery of instructor-ready courseware for rail
    car technicians, signals maintainers and transit elevator-escalator
    mechanics. Agencies, even large agencies, often lack the capacity to
    develop new and up-to-date courses on their own. Consortium material
    enhances the training department's ability to deliver courses.
        To recap, we have seen some data on the skills crisis facing public
    transit. Neither the transit agencies nor the Federal Government is
    addressing the need for training adequately.
        What, if any relevance, does all of this have for reauthorization.
        I would advance several recommendations:
        1.  Make human capital count by counting human capital. The FAST
    Act could require more attention to human capital. Dr. Beverly Scott,
    an experienced General Manager at several agencies and a major industry
    leader on workforce issues, proposes that the National Transit Data
    base be required to include basic workforce measures. She proposed this
    as part of rulemaking process on Transit Asset Management arguing that
    human capital needs to be assessed as much as physical capital. She
    notes that GAO as early as 2001 cited lack of a strategic approach to
    workforce as a major problem across all public sector entities. If
    agencies are required to report on human capital and know that it is a
    responsibility funders take seriously, then human capital will become a
    higher management priority. Elements of human capital she proposed to
    include in the National Transit Data Base:
          a.  Total Labor Cost (payroll, contingent and contract worker
    pay, benefits excluding consultants); % of Operating Expense;
          b.  Workforce Profile--# Total Employees (Full-Time/Part-Time),
    Major Job Classifications, ``Key Positions'' (industry-wide by mode),
    Average Age, Tenure, EEO Profile and Underutilization Target Groups--
    annual progress;
          c.  Total # Annual Vacancies/3-Year Average (``new'' positions;
    attrition/turnover rates (including promotions)); by ``Key positions'';
          d.  5-Year Hire and Retirement Projections (Retirement
    ``Eligibility'' and ``Likelihood'' based on historical agency
    experience);
          e.  Average Time to Fill Positions--``Key Positions'', by Major
    Job Classification;
          f.  Annual Absenteeism Data by Major Job Classification/Total and
    Agency Cost;
          g.  Total Training, Apprenticeship & Employee Development
    Investment; % of Budget;
          h.  Mandatory Employee Training/Completion Rates;
          i.  Annual Safety Training/Certification Completion Rates;
          j.  Employee/Passenger Injury Data (Human Factors primary;
    contributing factor);
          k.  Prepare a H.R. Risk Registry (5-Year Planning Horizon), which
    identifies major workforce challenges (current, emerging, and future)
    and plans to address.
        2.  Authorize funding (the Secretary shall, not the Secretary may)
    for a national resource center for frontline workforce training at a
    level equal to current funding for the National Transit Institute.
    Naturally, I propose that the Transportation Learning Center play that
    role. So long as the national workforce center must reflect both labor
    and management interests, must address diversity of the incoming
    technical workforce, must focus on apprenticeship, then the Center can
    compete for the designation. Win or lose, we will know that the issues
    that need to be addressed are addressed.
        3.  Require that USDOT coordinate workforce efforts with other
    Federal entities, particularly the US Department of Labor's National
    Office of Apprenticeship and the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult
    Education at the US Department of Education. In numerous instances,
    particularly at the state level, transit is excluded from Federal
    training funds because funds are reserved for private sector employers.
    As documented here, transit under-invests in training, largely because
    transit is underfunded. The jobs in transit offer career ladders and
    family sustaining wages. DOT should advocate with other Federal funders
    to maximize the opportunity for transit agencies to benefit from
    workforce funds.
        4.  This subcommittee and its members will help shape any Federal
    infrastructure package that may go well beyond the scope of the FAST
    Act and will almost certainly include funding for upgrading transit
    infrastructure. I am not addressing in this testimony how
    infrastructure will be financed, but I do want to emphasize that while
    infrastructure spending can and will create jobs, there needs to be
    corresponding increases in workforce funding to prepare people for
    those jobs.
        Thank you.

        Ms. Norton. I thank you for that reminder. There was a time
    when we thought these people just floated into this industry.
    That is not the case today.
        Next is Therese McMillan, executive director of the
    Metropolitan Transportation Commission on behalf of the
    Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
        Ms. McMillan?
        Ms. McMillan. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, my name
    is Therese McMillan. I am the executive director of the
    Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the federally
    designated MPO for the nine-county San Francisco Bay area. And
    in that role we not only conduct long-range planning and
    project prioritization for the bay area's 7 million residents,
    we also are the recipient of the Federal Transit Administration
    formula and Federal Highway Administration funds.
        Put simply, a strong Federal role in our Nation's
    multimodal transportation system has been essential for the
    entirety of our Nation's history. But transportation is not
    just about moving people and goods, as was noted. It is about
    access to opportunity and quality of life, and we believe it is
    time for the Federal Government to do more.
        We at MTC and the Nation's other MPOs look forward to
    working with you to reauthorize the FAST Act, to strengthen our
    economy, and create new opportunities for well-paying jobs that
    can rebuild our Nation's ailing transportation infrastructure,
    while continually striving to make travel both safer and more
    reliable within and across the Nation's diverse communities.
        The local State-Federal partnership model enshrined in the
    FAST Act is a model that works. In the bay area our local
    commitment to this model includes over $1.5 billion annually of
    sales tax and toll dollars dedicated to our multimodal
    transportation system. All are voter-approved. Even still, our
    residents recognize that more needs to be done as they continue
    to experience daily our congested roadways and increasingly
    aging and crowded transit systems.
        In 2017 our State legislature, committed to holding up its
    end of the partnership bargain, voting by a two-thirds majority
    a historic transportation funding package comprised of a wide
    array of user fees that generates over $5 billion annually.
    These funds are solely dedicated to rebuilding and improving
    California's streets, highways, and bridges, and public transit
    systems. And the cornerstone of that bill was restoring the gas
    tax to its purchasing power in 1994 and indexing it into the
    future.
        Providing for continued growth in the U.S. economy demands
    a much larger Federal commitment to the local-State-Federal
    partnership. As a member of the family of MPOs, we especially
    call upon Congress to expand the share of funds that are
    invested in the Nation's metropolitan areas, the engines of our
    Nation's economy. Two programs in particular have been vital to
    regions' ability to create solutions to challenges we face at
    the local level across the country.
        Specifically, the surface transportation block grant
    program, which we continue to call STP, and the congestion
    mitigation and air quality, or CMAQ program, enable the
    flexibility that creative solutions demand across very
    different communities.
        As an example, in the bay area we are now using this
    flexibility to direct STP and CMAQ dollars to cities and
    counties as an incentive to build more housing at or near
    existing transit stops and other transportation services. This
    strategy leverages Federal funds by enhancing significantly a
    transportation project's mobility and access benefits,
    encouraging those who can now live closer to transit and those
    projects to actually use it, which in turn helps to curb
    congestion and reduces longer auto trips and carbon emissions.
        Importantly, STP and CMAQ programs deliver funds to an
    array of projects that improve people's lives at a very local
    level, giving taxpayers more confidence and visible certainty
    about how Federal money is being spent and invested in their
    communities.
        Therefore, we urge you to invest more funds in STP, and to
    directly allocate those block grants to MPOs nationwide, so
    that their residents can benefit from projects selected at the
    regional level, consistent with priorities developed in the
    regional transportation plans.
        In addition we would ask you to restore the local
    distributed share of STP to a historic level of 62.5 percent,
    if not higher. Directing more dollars to metropolitan areas
    serves all of our interests. The bay area and other metro areas
    continue to drive national economic output, and in these areas
    new innovations are most often made and new technologies are
    being developed and deployed.
        As we look to the future, the field of transportation may
    be poised to undergo as much change in the next decade as any
    time since the automotive age. For those of us that have been
    in the transportation field our entire career, the pace of this
    change is astounding. Overnight, cities are finding their
    streets and sidewalks teeming with new e-bikes, or e-scooters,
    deployed by the latest shared mobility startups. In my home in
    the San Francisco Bay area, we are seeing these changes up
    close with the likes of Tesla, Uber, Lyft, Google's Waymo,
    Apple Car, Cruise Automation, and dozens more.
        And as with all technological breakthroughs, there are
    risks as well as benefits. Building the highway and
    communications platform necessary for a connected and
    autonomous future is a fundamental Federal responsibility we
    would urge this committee to take up.
        In addition to the technological change, we are preparing
    ourselves in the bay area region to be more resilient in the
    face of a changing climate and, in particular, sea level rise.
    One visible local example is State Highway 37, which travels
    through Marin, Solano, Napa, and Sonoma Counties in the north
    of our region. This 20-mile corridor is regularly backed up
    with traffic and too often shut down due to flooding during the
    winter season, including twice in the last few weeks. What is
    more, it is also highly vulnerable to complete inundation, due
    to sea level rise 30 years from now.
        Improvements for the project are designed to improve
    ecological enhancements upfront, in tandem with reducing the
    roadway flooding vulnerability. As this committee considers the
    future of the Federal transportation program, I would encourage
    you to prioritize projects like this that will help communities
    across the Nation adjust to a changing climate.
        In conclusion, Madam Chair and committee members, America's
    diverse metropolitan areas are prime to tackle the myriad
    mobility and related access challenges of the future, be they
    technical, financial, environmental, or societal in nature. We
    seek and ask a strong Federal partnership to help support the
    solutions to address those challenges. And in doing so, to
    seize the opportunities this country should extend to all of
    its people.
        Thank you for having me here today.
        [Ms. McMillan's prepared statement follows:]

        Prepared Statement of Therese W. McMillan, Executive Director,
    Metropolitan Transportation Commission, on behalf of the Association of
                      Metropolitan Planning Organizations
                                  introduction
        Good morning. My name is Therese McMillan. I am the Executive
    Director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the
    federally-designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the
    nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. In that role, we not only conduct
    long-range planning and project prioritization for the Bay Area's 7
    million residents, we also are the recipient of Federal Transit
    Administration formula and Federal Highway Administration funds.
        Put simply, a strong federal role in our nation's multimodal
    transportation system has been essential for the entirety of our
    nation's history. It is a core federal responsibility. But
    transportation is not just about moving people and goods around. It is
    about access to opportunity and quality of life and we believe it is
    time for the federal government to do more, much more.
        We at MTC and the nation's other MPOs look forward to working with
    Congress to reauthorize the Fixing America's Surface Transportation
    (FAST) Act--to strengthen our economy, to create new opportunities for
    well-paying jobs that can rebuild our nation's ailing transportation
    infrastructure, while continually striving to make travel both safer
    and more reliable within and across all of the nation's diverse
    communities.
                              bay area perspective
        With hundreds of miles of interstate freeway and rail lines,
    thousands of buses and rail cars, three international airports, a major
    West Coast seaport and a freight railhead that serves both urban and
    rural America, the Bay Area serves as a complex, multimodal hub, as
    well as a destination. Providing adequate funding to maintain, operate
    and expand this transportation system to meet the needs of today and
    tomorrow is an endless challenge. Local voters have contributed
    enormously to that endeavor, but we also depend greatly on
    contributions from our state and federal partners.
        The local/state/federal partnership model enshrined in the FAST Act
    is a model that works. In the Bay Area, our local commitment to this
    model includes over $1.5 billion annually of sales tax and toll dollars
    dedicated to our multi-modal transportation system--all voter-approved.
    Even still, our residents recognize that more resources are needed, as
    they continue to experience daily our congested roadways, and
    increasingly aging and crowded transit systems.
        In 2017 the California Legislature committed to holding up its end
    of the partnership bargain, voting to support--by a two-thirds
    majority--a historic transportation funding package comprised of a wide
    array of user fees that generates over $5 billion annually statewide.
    These funds are solely dedicated to rebuilding and improving
    California's streets, highways and bridges, and public transit systems.
    The cornerstone of the bill was restoring the gas tax to its purchasing
    power in 1994 and indexing it into the future.
        Though federal dollars account for only 10 percent of the Bay
    Area's total transportation investments--or $29 billion through 2040--
    they are critical to delivering major projects that will improve
    connectivity between the region's population and job centers, and that
    will continue our outsized contribution to the nation's economic
    growth. Seven of the Bay Area's 10 largest transportation investments
    through 2040 have received or anticipate receiving billions in federal
    transit capital grants primarily from the FAST Act's Capital Investment
    Grant (CIG) program.\1\ Given the scope of these major projects, even
    with significant state and local matching funds, it is impossible to
    conceive of how these projects can be built without CIG funds. In
    addition, Bay Area transit operators are forecast to receive
    approximately $2.6 billion in FAST Act core formula funding through
    2020, which is prioritized for vitally-needed state of good repair
    projects. Additionally, as described in the next section, flexible FAST
    Act highway funding allows Bay Area cities and counties to invest in
    local transportation priorities that improve safety, spur economic
    development, encourage construction of affordable housing, and help the
    region meet climate change and air quality improvement goals.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ For the project list, see the ``Top 10'' Plan Bay Area Capital
    Projects graphic on page 4 of MTC and ABAG's 2019 Report to Congress
    (https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019_Report_to_Congress-MTC-
    ABAG.pdf)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Accordingly, we recommend that the FAST Act reauthorization grow
    the core highway and transit programs that have proven effective in
    delivering essential funds for states and regions to address their
    pressing capital investment and state of good repair needs.
      case for a bigger federal program/(flexible investment capacity for
                 regions and capital investment grant program)
    Flexible Investment Capacity for Regions
        Providing for continued growth in the U.S. economy demands a much
    larger federal commitment to the local-state-federal partnership. As a
    member of the family of MPOs, we especially call upon Congress to
    increase federal investment flexibility directly available to the
    nation's metropolitan areas for local mobility needs, an investment
    strategy that serves all our interests.
        The Bay Area and other metro areas continue to drive national
    economic output, and it is in these areas where new innovations are
    most often made, and where new technologies are being developed and
    deployed. Flexible, metro-level funding allows for regions to implement
    creative solutions to address the myriad challenges that confront
    different communities across the nation. Two programs in particular
    have been vital to MTC's ability to create solutions to challenges we
    face at the local level. Specifically, the Surface Transportation Block
    Grant Program, which we continue to call STP, and the Congestion
    Mitigation and Air Quality--or CMAQ program, provide the flexibility
    that creative solutions demand across very different communities.
        As an example, in the Bay Area, where our housing crisis is
    contributing to record levels of traffic congestion, we are using this
    flexibility to direct STP and CMAQ dollars to cities and counties as an
    incentive to build more housing at or near existing transit stops and
    job centers. Cities and counties that approve new housing construction
    and adopt housing-supportive local plans are rewarded with additional
    federal funds that they may direct to a wide range of transportation
    projects, from Vision Zero safety improvements to local street and road
    maintenance. This strategy supports the Bay Area in making progress
    toward a number of our performance goals: transit and job center-
    oriented development helps curb congestion and reduce longer auto trips
    to minimize on-road mobile source emissions and pavement wear and tear.
        Two unique elements of the STP and CMAQ programs enable MTC to
    effectively leverage these federal dollars. First, the programs' broad
    project eligibility helps these funds serve as an effective incentive,
    as locals are able to direct the funds to their highest priority
    projects. Second, because the funds are distributed at the metro area
    level, MPOs are able to invest these funds to provide innovative
    regional solutions that span jurisdictional boundaries. Projects such
    as the Clipper card (our multi-operator transit-fare payment card) or
    our regional bikeshare program are harder to pay for with funds that
    are awarded to specific transit operators or local jurisdictions for
    specific projects (if voter approved) or for mode-siloed investments.
        Importantly, the STP and CMAQ programs deliver funds to an array of
    projects that improve people's lives at a very local level--giving
    taxpayers more confidence and certainty about how federal money is
    being spent and invested in their communities. This combination of
    flexibility and accountability is the right way to meet the challenges
    before us now, and to adapt to the uncertain and rapid change we
    anticipate ahead.
        Therefore, we urge Congress to invest more funds in STP and to
    directly allocate these block grants to MPOs nationwide so that
    residents living outside of California--where suballocation is provided
    for in state law--can also benefit from projects selected at the
    regional level, consistent with the priorities developed in the
    regional transportation plans. In addition, we would ask you to restore
    the local distributed share of STP to its historic level of 62.5
    percent, if not higher.
    Capital Investment Grant Program
        The Bay Area has developed an aggressive $26 billion investment
    plan to improve transit connectivity between the region's population
    and job centers. CIG funding--matched 2-to-1 by state and local
    dollars--is key to advancing priorities that will not only address
    critical regional core capacity and expansion needs, but will
    contribute to the nation's economic growth. For example, Caltrain, a
    vital link in the Bay Area's transportation network connecting San
    Francisco to San Jose and to the nation's most high-profile tech
    companies, secured a $647 million full funding grant agreement in 2017,
    accelerating an electrification project (PCEP) that has been in the
    works for more than two decades. PCEP will help create over $2.5
    billion in economic value and address one of the Bay Area's principal
    barriers to economic growth by relieving traffic on the increasingly
    congested Interstate 280 and U.S. Route 101 corridors. Modernizing
    Caltrain will put Americans to work and significantly increase rail
    commuting capacity to Silicon Valley, one of the most economically
    productive areas in the United States. In the coming years, Bay Area
    transit operators will be seeking more than $3 billion in new CIG
    commitments for the region's next generation of transit capacity
    projects, including Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Silicon Valley Phase
    II, Caltrain Downtown Extension and BART Transbay Corridor Core
    Capacity.
         change is coming (planning for uncertainty and investing in a
              transformative and adaptive transportation network)
        As we look to the future, the field of transportation may be poised
    to undergo as much change in the next decade as it has at any time
    since the dawn of the automotive age. For those of us who have been in
    the transportation field our entire career, the pace of change is
    astounding. Overnight, cities find their streets and sidewalks teeming
    with new e-bikes or e-scooters deployed by the latest shared mobility
    start-up. In my home in the San Francisco Bay Area we are seeing these
    changes up close, with the likes of Tesla, Uber, Lyft, Google's Waymo,
    Apple Car, Cruise Automation and dozens more. And as with all
    technological breakthroughs, there are risks as well as benefits.
    Building the highway and communications platform necessary for a
    connected and autonomous future is a fundamental federal responsibility
    we would urge this committee to embrace.
        In addition to technological change, we are preparing ourselves in
    the region to be more resilient in the face of a changing climate, and
    in particular, sea-level rise. One visible local example is State
    Highway 37, which travels through Marin, Solano, Napa, and Sonoma
    counties. This 20-mile corridor is regularly backed up with traffic and
    too often shut down due to flooding during the winter season, including
    twice in the last few weeks. What's more, it is also highly vulnerable
    to complete inundation due to sea-level rise 30 years from now.
    Improvement projects are designed to provide ecological enhancements up
    front in tandem with reducing the roadway flooding vulnerability.
        As this committee considers the future of the federal
    transportation program, I would encourage you to support communities
    across the nation in making our transportation networks responsive to
    the technology-fueled transformation in how people and goods move, and
    to the changing climate.
    Planning for an Uncertain Future
        New technologies are expected to transform how people will connect,
    travel and transport freight. Extreme weather and rising sea levels
    challenge us to adapt and develop more resilient infrastructure. Like
    states and regions throughout the nation, the Bay Area is grappling
    with how to best incorporate the uncertainties posed by climate change
    and transformative transportation technologies into our planning and
    near-term investment decisions.
        MTC has recently undertaken Horizon, a new effort to plan for--and
    help shape--a range of possible futures. By expanding beyond
    traditional long-range scenario planning, which holds fixed certain
    transportation and land-use assumptions, Horizon will help inform big
    questions facing the transportation industry, such as:
          How might automation help solve the first-mile/last-mile
    transit challenge, reducing barriers to transit ridership? What type of
    investments are needed to get us there?
          What roadway investments could maximize the opportunities
    associated with the shift to connected and autonomous vehicles, and
    expedite short-term safety benefits?
          How do we prepare or adapt our transportation systems to
    be resilient against rising sea levels?
        Ultimately, this effort is designed to enable planners to analyze a
    potential project's performance across a range of different futures and
    lead to better decision-making by policy makers with regard to project
    prioritization. Though the benefits may be significant, this planning
    effort requires substantial time and resources. Because it is a break
    from traditional planning, Horizon is a wholly separate effort that MTC
    will complete in advance of developing the region's federally mandated
    Metropolitan Transportation Plan update.
        This committee could consider expanding the scope of the long-range
    planning process to include new mobility-related technology
    considerations, and increase planning funds to help regions and states
    better address complexities around transformative transportation
    technologies and climate change. Increased planning funding will also
    support states and MPOs in fulfilling current performance-based
    planning mandates, which were added in the 2012 transportation
    authorization without a commensurate increase in planning resources.
    Importantly, we recommend retaining existing flexibility for planners
    to innovate, specifically in how they incorporate new mobility-related
    technology considerations into the planning process.
        The committee could also consider creating a pilot program to
    generate best practices for states and MPOs to be responsive to a new
    mobility paradigm and to uncertainties posed by climate change. The
    United States Department of Transportation could provide state and
    regional pilot program participants with tools (e.g., data sets and
    case studies) to incorporate the transportation system impacts of
    mobility-related technologies and to incorporate climate change
    considerations into transportation system performance evaluations.
    Investing in a 21st Century Transportation Network
        Metro areas drive the nation's economy, house much of the nation's
    critical infrastructure and will be the test beds of large-scale
    deployment of new mobility-related technologies that are expected to
    transform how people and goods travel. These areas will require
    substantial investment to adapt our infrastructure to be resilient to a
    changing climate and to be responsive to a new mobility paradigm.
    Federally supported, near-term infrastructure improvements will provide
    the dual benefit of immediately mitigating carbon-emitting congestion
    while preparing our nation for the future. For example, a high-speed
    communications infrastructure backbone would support near-term
    congestion-reduction and air quality improvement strategies like smart
    traffic signal operations while laying the foundation for future
    vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications.
        The committee should consider creating a new flexible program to
    make our transportation networks more resilient in the face of a
    changing climate and more responsive to the technology-fueled
    transformation in how people and goods move. To be most effective, the
    program should be highly flexible, mode-neutral and include formula and
    discretionary components. Eligible projects should include capital and
    operational investments that improve both near-term and long-term
    system safety and performance. Examples include programs to support
    deployment of autonomous vehicles, including vehicle-to-vehicle,
    vehicle-to-infrastructure and vehicle-to-everything (V2X)
    communications technologies; priced managed lanes; transportation
    demand management programs; strategic micro-transit investments;
    advanced parking freight delivery and incident management systems;
    alternative fuel charging infrastructure and other advanced
    technologies to support a clean transportation system; and climate
    mitigation/resiliency improvements. The formula component of the
    program should be allocated to large metropolitan planning
    organizations (MPOs), the nation's population and job centers with the
    most immediate needs. Discretionary grant funding should additionally
    support states, local governments, transit agencies and ports in
    efforts to upgrade freight corridors and other critical infrastructure.
    The discretionary component should have a rural set-aside to ensure
    such communities also have access to program funds.
        In lieu of a new program, the committee could also consider
    providing resources for 21st century transportation investments through
    existing FAST Act programs, including STP, a revised Nationally
    Significant Freight and Highway Projects program, and a significantly
    expanded and revised Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management
    Technologies Deployment program by expanding project eligibility within
    these programs.
        In conclusion, Madam Chair and Committee members, America's diverse
    metropolitan areas are primed to tackle the myriad mobility and related
    access challenges of the future--be they technical, financial,
    environmental or societal in nature. We ask for a strong federal
    partnership to help support the solutions required to address them--and
    in doing so, to seize the opportunities in this country that should
    extend to all of its people.
        Thank you.

        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Ms. McMillan.
        Al Stanley, vice president of the Stanley Construction
    Company, on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of
    America.
        You may proceed.
        Mr. Stanley. Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to be
    part of today's hearing. My name is Al Stanley, and I am a
    highway site work and civil construction builder from
    Huntsville, Alabama.
        Stanley Construction Company was established in 1961 by my
    father. At that time the major emphasis was on landscaping for
    residential and commercial clients, and there were only three
    employees. Today our company has grown into a diverse business
    enterprise, completing numerous commercial projects as well as
    State and Federal projects.
        I am here today representing the Associated General
    Contractors of America and currently serve on AGC's board of
    directors. I also served in 2009 as the president of Alabama
    AGC's State chapter. AGC is a national organization
    representing 26,000 businesses involved in every aspect of the
    construction industry.
        Madam Chairwoman, in AGC's written testimony we have
    pointed out the conditions and needs facing our Nation's
    transportation infrastructure, both urban and rural. As we
    approach the expiration of the FAST Act, Congress must address
    today's upkeep, maintenance, and expansion, while also looking
    to the transportation needs of the future.
        Choices must be made to advance transportation to the next
    level by modernizing the system by making the best use of
    available and upcoming technology. The transportation network
    is on the cusp of technological change that will impact how we
    plan, design, and build our projects; how we inventory and plan
    maintenance in our transportation assets; and how vehicles that
    use the system are driven, and how they interact with each
    other, with the infrastructure.
        Indeed, Madam Chairwoman, the future of transportation is
    exciting. However, nothing is guaranteed, and the gravest
    threat to the advancement of transportation infrastructure is
    the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund.
        Shortly after the FAST Act expires, additional revenue of
    some $18 billion per year will be needed just to maintain
    current funding levels. Failure to address the funding's
    ongoing revenue shortfall undermines the ability to advance our
    infrastructure to the next level.
        AGC believes the Highway Trust Fund revenue sources should
    be real, reliable, dedicated, sustainable, and derived from
    users and beneficiaries of our surface transportation system.
    They should be sufficient to end the chronic shortfalls, and
    support increased investment, and they should be dedicated
    solely to surface transportation improvements. Increasing the
    Federal motor fuels tax is the simplest and most effective way
    to achieve this goal, but several other viable options do
    exist.
        AGC is part of the Mileage-Based User Fee Alliance. We
    believe that user fees based on road usage in the future is the
    most fairest way of collecting the revenue needed for road
    improvements and transportation technology advances. We urge
    you to continue supporting the State pilot programs that were
    initiated in the FAST Act, and hope that you will also
    institute a national trial program to advance the concept from
    the beta stage to reality.
        While the Federal Government fails to act, States continue
    to make significant commitments to investment and
    transportation infrastructure. Currently, in my own State of
    Alabama, the Governor's Rebuild Alabama plan increases funding
    for roads and bridges by raising the State's gasoline tax 10
    cents per gallon. The Federal Government must do their fair
    share, as States rely on Federal aid funding for the majority
    of their capital improvements.
        While funding is critically important, AGC also believes
    this legislation should improve project delivery by removing
    impediments that slow down planning and design and construction
    of needed infrastructure.
        AGC is very appreciative for the work this committee has
    done in helping enact bipartisan environmental reforms in MAP-
    21 and in the FAST Act. But more can be done, and improvements
    upon those enacted reforms can be made. We have included some
    recommendations in our written testimony that has been
    submitted.
        In addition, we urge this committee to consider two issues
    that cause construction delays.
        First, transportation improvement projects that interface
    with railroad properties are often subject to significant
    restrictions and delays imposed by railroad owners. Obtaining
    fair and equitable railroad agreements, as well as ensuring
    that commitments are made in a timely manner are often a
    struggle, and add time and cost to transportation projects. My
    written testimony includes recommendations to improve this
    process.
        Second, relocating underground utilities and highway right-
    of-way continues to be one of the leading causes of delay in
    completing projects. Underground utilities that are incorrectly
    marked poses a significant safety risk to workers, and can
    impact third-party business operations. AGC participates in the
    Common Ground Alliance that grew out of a study directed in
    TEA-21 to look at the issue of utility relocation. AGC
    encourages the CGA best practices be used more universally.
        In conclusion, the needs of our transportation
    infrastructure are clear. Now is the time to act in a
    bipartisan way to provide a stable and growing revenue source
    for the Highway Trust Fund, while enacting a surface
    transportation reauthorization that meets the need of our
    growing economy and our growing population, as well.
        Thank you for this opportunity to present our position, and
    we look forward to questions. Thank you.
        [Mr. Stanley's prepared statement follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Al Stanley, Vice President, Stanley Construction
       Company, Inc., on behalf of The Associated General Contractors of
                                    America
        Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Davis and members of the House
    Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
    thank you for inviting me here today. My name is Al Stanley. I am a
    highway, site work and civil construction builder from Huntsville,
    Alabama. I am currently serving on the Board of Directors of the
    Associated General Contractors of America (AGC). AGC is a national
    organization representing 26,500 businesses involved in every aspect of
    construction activity in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and Washington, DC.
    AGC members build the highway, bridge, airports, transit systems, rail
    facilities and other transportation projects that keep America running.
        Infrastructure in general, and transportation infrastructure in
    particular, is an issue that has no partisan bounds. Transportation
    impacts our daily lives whether we live in rural American communities
    or in our great urban meccas. It impacts everything from our ability to
    get to work, the cost and availability of the products we rely on both
    in our personal lives and in our businesses, to the global
    competitiveness of our nation's economy.
              looking to the future while addressing today's needs
        The vision of transportation and political leaders in the mid-20th
    century to imagine and invest in the Interstate Highway System (IHS)
    has paid and will continue to pay significant benefits to generations
    of Americans. The IHS was the leading factor in America's growth since
    World War II and made the United States the world's economic leader
    that it is today. The IHS has grown to not only provide the primary
    corridors for passenger and freight movement within large urban centers
    and between metropolitan and rural areas but it also provides the
    necessary connections between state and local roads systems and other
    transportation modes including, railroads, marine ports, airports, and
    public transit.
        Today's transportation and political leaders are faced with new
    choices that can equally impact future generations. The first choice is
    to address the need for upkeep, maintenance and expansion of the
    existing transportation system to meet today's needs.
        But just as important, choices need to be made to advance
    transportation to the next level by modernizing the system making the
    best use of available and upcoming technology developments. The
    transportation network is on the cusp of technological change that will
    impact how we plan, design and build projects; how we inventory and
    maintain our transportation assets; and how vehicles that use the
    system are driven and how they interact with each other and with the
    infrastructure.
        Transportation investment drives these technology advances.
    Advances made in autonomous vehicle technology is driven by
    transportation needs and, once available commercially, will rely on a
    good transportation network to operate safely and efficiently.
        There has been a technology boom in transportation construction
    that is increasing productivity and enhancing quality. Contractors are
    making widespread use of drones, estimating and project management
    software, automated machine guidance systems on equipment, 3D modeling,
    paperless projects, e-construction, precast-slide in bridges and the
    list goes on. States are managing construction projects through e-
    construction and keeping track of asset conditions through electronic
    models. Most of this technology is developed and manufactured in the
    United States. New materials and treatments are being developed to
    lengthen the life of the infrastructure once put in place.
        In the longer-term, these improvements will enhance economic
    competitiveness and improve quality of life by reducing travel delays
    and transportation costs, improving access and mobility, improving
    safety, and stimulating sustained job growth.
        AGC commends Congress for its leadership in enacting into law the
    Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act in December 2015.
    The FAST Act provided 5 years of stability that our Federal-aid highway
    and transit programs had not seen since 2008. As we get closer to the
    expiration of the authorization, our nation's transportation
    infrastructure needs continue to grow. As a result of sustained
    economic growth, increased population, emerging technologies and aging
    infrastructure, it is critically important that the next
    reauthorization bill not only looks to the future but does not fail to
    address the needs that we are facing, and--in some cases--ignoring
    today.
    the u.s. transportation infrastructure system's needs cannot sustain a
                       status quo approach to investment
        Despite the importance of transportation investment to the U.S.
    economy, there remains a significant need for improvement and growth.
    The 2015 AASHTO Transportation Bottom Line Report found that annual
    investment in the nation's roads, highways and bridges needs to
    increase from $88 billion to $120 billion and from $17 billion to $43
    billion in the nation's public transit systems, to improve conditions
    and meet the nation's mobility needs. The investment backlog for
    transportation infrastructure continues to increase, reaching $836
    billion for highways and bridges and $122 billion for transit according
    to the U.S. Department of Transportation. The American Society of Civil
    Engineers (ASCE) has identified a $1.1 trillion funding gap for surface
    transportation between 2016 and 2025.
        The Road Information Program (TRIP) reports that increases in
    vehicle travel since 2000 have resulted in a significant increase in
    wear and tear on the nation's roads. Vehicle travel growth, which
    slowed significantly because of the Great Recession and the subsequent
    economic recovery, has since returned to pre-recession growth rates.
    From 2000 to 2016, vehicle travel in the U.S. increased by 16 percent.
    The rate of growth in vehicle miles of travel has accelerated since
    2013, increasing by 6 percent between 2013 and 2016. Travel by large
    commercial trucks, which place significant stress on paved road and
    highway surfaces, continues to increase at a rate approximately double
    the rate for all vehicles. And, it is anticipated to continue to grow
    at a significant rate through 2030. Travel by large commercial trucks
    in the U.S. increased by 29 percent from 2000 to 2016. The level of
    heavy truck travel nationally is anticipated to increase by
    approximately 56 percent from 2018 to 2045, putting greater stress on
    the nation's roadways.
        From coast to coast, major streets and freeways in most U.S.
    communities are showing significant signs of distress. Reports provided
    by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), based on data submitted
    annually by state departments of transportation on the condition of
    major state and locally maintained roads and highways show that forty-
    four percent of America's major roads are in poor or mediocre
    condition. One-third of the nation's major urban roadways--highways and
    major streets that are the main routes for commuters and commerce--are
    in poor condition. These critical links in the nation's transportation
    system carry 70 percent of the approximately 3.2 trillion miles driven
    annually in America. Forty-five percent of America's major urban
    interstates experience congestion during peak hours.
        Based on Texas Transportation Institute calculations, TRIP
    estimates that traffic congestion in the U.S. in 2017 resulted in 7.3
    billion hours of delays--an average of 45 hours annually per commuter--
    and costing the Nation $176 billion in the value of lost time and
    wasted fuel. The nation expects to add another 60 million people over
    the next 20 years. Meanwhile, the value of goods shipped annually (in
    inflation adjusted dollars) is expected to increase by 104 percent by
    2045--and by 91 percent for goods shipped by trucking. Without
    additional capacity, congestion can only be expected to increase.
    Americans rely heavily on motor vehicles for mobility. Travel in
    private vehicles accounts for 88 percent of all person miles of travel.
    Air travel accounts for 8 percent of all person miles of travel, while
    transit (including buses and trains) accounts for 1 percent.
        In fact, a 2017 global traffic congestion report by INRIX found
    that 16 out of the 100 most congested urban areas globally are in the
    U.S., with the most congested urban areas in order being Boston (8th),
    Washington, DC. (19th), Chicago (23d), New York (40th) and Los Angeles
    (47th).
        Driving on roads in need of repair costs U.S. motorists $130
    billion a year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs, amounting
    to $599 per motorist. Nine percent or 54,259 of America's bridges are
    structurally deficient, meaning there is significant deterioration to
    the major components of the bridge. And most troubling, we have seen a
    significant increase in traffic fatalities, which have gone up 14
    percent between 2014 and 2017 from 32,675 to 37,133. And the traffic
    fatality rate on the nation's non-Interstate rural roads is nearly two-
    and-a-half times higher than on all other roads.
        Our transportation infrastructure needs do not discriminate between
    rural and urban America. Many of the transportation challenges facing
    rural America are like those in urbanized areas. However, rural
    residents tend to be more heavily reliant on their limited
    transportation network--primarily rural roads and highways--than their
    counterparts in more urban areas. Residents of rural areas often must
    travel longer distances to access education, employment, retail
    locations, social opportunities and health services. America's rural
    heartland plays a vital role in our economy as home to a significant
    share of the nation's population, many of its natural resources, and
    popular tourist destinations. It is also the primary source of the
    energy, food and fiber that supports America's economy and way of life.
        US DOT reports that in 2015, 15 percent of the nation's major rural
    roads (arterials and collectors) were rated in poor condition, 21
    percent were rated in mediocre condition, 16 percent were rated in fair
    condition and 48 percent were rated in good condition. In 2016, 10
    percent of the nation's rural bridges were rated as structurally
    deficient.
        A concern in the rural areas of our country is motorist safety. As
    TRIP points out, ``The higher traffic fatality rate found on rural,
    non-Interstate routes is a result of multiple factors, including a lack
    of desirable roadway safety features, longer emergency vehicle response
    times, and the higher speeds traveled on rural roads compared to urban
    roads.'' Many of the safety deficiencies on rural roads can be fixed.
    These include narrow lanes, limited shoulders, sharp curves, exposed
    hazards, pavement drop-offs, steep slopes and limited clear zones along
    roadsides.
     the economic benefits of transportation infrastructure investment are
                                well-documented
        The positive relationship between transportation capital
    investment, economic output and private sector productivity has been
    well documented for decades by business analysts, economists and the
    research community. A safe, reliable and efficient transportation
    network helps businesses increase access to labor and materials,
    increase market share and expand their customer base, reduce production
    costs, access global markets and foster innovation. A 2017 study
    performed for NAIOP--the Commercial Real Estate Development
    Association--by Professor Stephen Fuller of George Mason University
    found the $1.16 trillion in construction spending in 2016:
          Contributed $3.4 trillion to U.S. GDP.
          Generated $1.1 trillion in new personal earnings.
          Supported a total of 23.8 million jobs throughout the
    U.S. economy
        Enhancing critical transportation assets will boost the economy in
    the short-term by creating jobs in construction and related fields. In
    the longer-term these improvements will enhance economic
    competitiveness and improve the quality of life by reducing travel
    delays and transportation costs, improving access and mobility,
    improving safety, and stimulating sustained job growth.
      a sustainable, long-term solution to funding the highway trust fund
                               must be a priority
        Prior to the expiration of the FAST Act next year, Congress must
    take the opportunity to fix the Highway Trust Fund and look at ways to
    enhance the existing Federal transportation infrastructure programs.
    While the FAST Act was a welcome reprieve from the uncertainty created
    by the many delays and short-term extensions of authorization that led
    up to its passage, it still left a great deal of uncertainty about
    future surface transportation investments. The FAST Act temporarily
    stabilized Federal highway and public transportation investment by
    transferring $70 billion from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury to
    supplement an estimated $208 billion in HTF revenue from existing
    sources over the 5-year duration of the bill.
        When the FAST Act expires, the Congressional Budget Office
    estimates that $159 billion in additional funding would be required to
    maintain current spending levels plus inflation from fiscal years 2022-
    2029. Failing to address the fund's ongoing revenue shortfall leaves
    open the possibility of disruptive uncertainty for states and the
    construction industry once the FAST Act expires. Without an extension
    and new revenue, AASHTO estimates that states will see about a 50
    percent reduction in highway funding from FY 2020 to the following year
    and $47 billion to $23 billion in FY 2021. We urge you to act sooner
    rather than later. In the past failure to meet the deadline resulted in
    numerous short-term extensions that caused project cancellations,
    higher costs and delay of improvements affecting safety, efficiency and
    economic development.
        With the hope that the legislation will not just keep the country
    treading water but will instead provide the kind of investment needed
    to propel our economy into the future, AGC urges you to provide real,
    reliable, dedicated and sustainable revenue sources derived from the
    users and beneficiaries of the system for the Highway Trust Fund that
    supports increased Federal surface transportation investments. AGC's
    preferred method to address the solvency of the trust fund is an
    increase in the Federal motor fuels tax--something that has not been
    done since 1993. Recognizing the growing number of electric and hybrid
    vehicles, we also recommend Congress consider imposing an annual
    registration on electric and hybrid vehicles.
        In 2009, the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure
    Commission concluded that the U.S. needs a new approach to
    transportation infrastructure financing, stating that ``Direct user
    charges are the most viable and sustainable long-term, user pay option
    for the Federal Government.'' The commission recommended moving to a
    vehicle mile traveled (VMT) fee or mileage-based user fee (MBUF). The
    VMT is a user charge based on miles driven in a specific vehicle as
    opposed to the current excise tax on fuel consumed. At its simplest,
    the fee would be cents per mile. A VMT would ensure that all users are
    paying their ``fair share'' to keep roads and bridges in a state of
    good repair regardless of the type of vehicle they drive.
        To make it work on a national scale, a VMT system needs to be
    tested, piloted and refined at the state and local level. In the FAST
    Act Congress provided some $95 million to states to undertake pilot
    programs to look at implementation of a VMT fee. Thus far, 11 states
    have been awarded funds to enter into pilots, with many more states
    exploring VMTs. Many lessons are being learned from these pilots
    including privacy protection, equity by income, geography and vehicle
    type, cost of administration and complexity of implementation. If we
    are to transition to a VMT as an eventual replacement for the motor
    fuels tax it is imperative that a robust national pilot program is
    included in a reauthorization bill.
        Public Private Partnerships (P3s) have been given much emphasis in
    the past few years. Clearly, there is a place for P3s in addressing
    current and future transportation needs. P3s bring additional financing
    options to the table to address transportation needs that would not be
    there without Federal encouragement. In addition, P3s shift risk away
    from state DOTs and bring new players into the operations and
    maintenance mix. However, P3s are not the universal answer to the
    funding shortfall. Only certain types of projects are attractive to P3
    development. These are primarily revenue generating projects and
    largely in dense urban areas. While encouragement for P3s should
    continue, it must be understood that they are an enhancement and not
    alone the solution to the funding shortfall.
       continued federal, state and local partnership is critical to the
                 success of our national transportation system
        The partnership between Federal, state and local governments is
    critical to our transportation infrastructure. This partnership is as
    important as ever and must be continued for our country to meet the
    transportation needs of our growing economy. As such, state and local
    governments have taken it upon themselves to raise revenue to
    supplement their respective programs.
        According to the USDOT's 2015 Conditions and Performance report,
    state and local governments provided 80 percent of $217 billion
    invested in state and local road-related programs and 74 percent of $43
    billion invested in transit-related programs compared to 20 percent and
    26 percent, respectively, contributed by the Federal Government. States
    continue to make significant commitments to invest in transportation
    infrastructure as evidenced by successful enactment of transportation
    revenue packages in 33 states since 2012. Unfortunately, the Federal
    Government has not kept up its end of the bargain by failing to adjust
    the user fees that provide funding for much of our Federal surface
    transportation investments.
        Federal leadership and commitment are crucial ingredients for
    ensuring the continued success of this long-standing partnership. The
    certainty of Federal investments help state departments of
    transportation (DOTs) make needed investments in the major freight
    corridors that drive national and regional economic growth. The 1
    million miles of roadways eligible for the Federal aid highway program
    account for 25 percent of total miles but carry 84 percent of all
    traffic. The 48,000 miles of the Interstate Highway System, which is
    the backbone of the U.S. economy, carries 25 percent of all traffic,
    including over half of the miles driven by freight trucks delivering
    goods across the country. Federal investment also accounts for 82
    percent of rural and 64 percent of urban transit agency capital
    outlays, in infrastructure and rolling stock. Federal-aid funding
    remains critical to state-level capital investment in highways and
    bridges, averaging 52 percent of that state investment in recent years.
        Highway accessibility was ranked the No. 1 site selection factor in
    a 2017 survey of corporate executives by Area Development Magazine.
    Labor costs and the availability of skilled labor, which are both
    impacted by a site's level of accessibility, were rated second and
    third, respectively. Seventy-three percent of the $27.7 trillion worth
    of commodities shipped to and from sites in the U.S. is transported by
    trucks on the nation's highways. An additional 14 percent is delivered
    by rail, water, parcel, U.S. Postal Service or courier, which use
    multiple modes, including highways.
        The formula-based distribution of funds through the Federal-aid
    highway program has worked well over the years and should be
    maintained. In order to have a strong national system, it is important
    that all segments of the system receive support. The formula-based
    funding also garners political and public support. Support for transit
    investment has also come from the Highway Trust Fund. With the growing
    use of transit in many communities, the traditional 80-20 share of
    Highway trust Fund revenue between these two transportation modes
    should be maintained. However, additional revenue sources must be found
    to support transit infrastructure needs.
       further improving the environmental review and permitting process
        AGC is very appreciative for the work this committee has undertaken
    in helping enact bipartisan environmental reforms in MAP-21 and the
    FAST Act. But more work can be done and improvements upon those enacted
    reforms can be made.
        AGC members have pointed to a host of technical and procedural
    problems that government agencies face, in general, during document
    preparation and interagency reviews: they inevitably lead to
    inconsistencies in the environmental approval process, schedule delays
    and costs overruns. Such uncertainty spurs legal challenges, which can
    ultimately threaten the viability of the project. AGC has worked
    closely with the administration and supports its efforts to further
    improve the environmental review and permitting process. Additionally,
    we have shared our extensive environmental recommendations to the House
    and Senate in testimony or statements for the record.
        Three of these reforms that would have substantial positive impacts
    are:
          First, require a merger of the National Environmental
    Policy Act and Clean Water Act 404 permitting processes with the U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers issuing permits at the end of the process,
    using the NEPA-generated information;
          Second, allow the monitoring, mitigation and other
    environmental planning work performed during the NEPA process, and
    included the final Environmental Impact Statement / Record of Decision,
    to satisfy Federal environmental permitting requirements, unless there
    is a material change in the project; and
          Third, develop a reasonable and measured approach to
    citizen suit reform to prevent misuse of environmental laws.
                   improving project delivery decreases costs
        Transportation improvement projects also face delays from a host of
    third-party impacts that occur leading up to or during construction.
    There is much room for improvement in this arena.
    Coordination with Railroads:
        Transportation construction projects that interface with railroad
    properties are often subject to significant restrictions and delays
    imposed by railroad owners. Obtaining fair and equitable railroad
    agreements as well as ensuring the commitments are made in a timely
    manner are often a struggle and add time and cost to transportation
    projects.
        AGC recommends that USDOT be authorized to establish consistent
    requirements, commitments, and timeframes with all public and private
    railroad owners to facilitate transportation work within and across
    railroad rights of way and provide USDOT the authority to enforce those
    provisions with the railroads. As such, we ask Congress to require
    USDOT to establish model agreements for standard activities conducted
    by the state DOTs in railroad right-of-way (and vice versa) and provide
    guidance on the establishment of agreements for special or more complex
    activities.
    Utility Relocation:
        Relocating underground utilities in highway right-of-way, while
    undertaking road improvement projects, continues to be one of the
    leading causes of delay in completing projects once the construction
    phase has started. Underground utilities that are unmarked or
    incorrectly marked pose a significant safety risk to the construction
    workforce, DOT employees and the public. Damage to utility facilities
    can be costly to all parties to the contract and negatively impact the
    collaborative spirit on jobs and lead to litigation. Current rules
    allow for states to be reimbursed with Federal funds when the state
    pays for utility relocations for project construction. The Common
    Ground Alliance (CGA) is an outgrowth of a study conducted by USDOT--as
    directed by Congress--that has best practices in place nationwide to
    address these concerns.
        AGC believes there are measures that can be taken to improve this
    situation including:
          Allow utility relocation to take place after a preferred
    alternative is identified but prior to NEPA completion with appropriate
    limitations to ensure the integrity of the NEPA process.
          Encourage state DOT involvement in efforts such as the
    CGA to promote shared responsibilities for utility protection and
    adopting their recommended best practices.
          Grant authority for state DOTs to participate in their
    local one-call systems or develop in-house capabilities to locate DOT
    owned facilities within the right-of-way (ROW).
          Look for ways to encourage that utilities located in
    highway ROW participate in preconstruction meeting with the DOT and
    contractor.
          Look at ways to maintain a repository of electronic ``as
    built'' 3D data of completed highway improvement projects to begin
    compiling an index of utility locations for future road improvement
    uses.
    Simplify Buy America Requirements:
        Buy America requirements have been part of the procurement process
    for construction projects funded through the Federal-aid highway and
    the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) grant program since the
    early eighties. FHWA has applied Buy America requirements to steel and
    iron products.
        Generally, Buy America regulations require a domestic manufacturing
    process for steel and iron materials that are permanently incorporated
    into a federally assisted construction project. The requirement
    interprets domestic manufacturing process to include melting, rolling,
    cutting, welding, fabrication, and the process of applying a coating.
        The FTA is also subject to Buy America and requires that for
    manufactured products, regardless of the material they are made from,
    the manufacturing processes must take place in the United States and
    all components of the product must be of U.S. origin regardless of the
    origin of its subcomponents.
        While the industry has been able to meet these requirements and
    produce high quality projects Buy America requirements can
    significantly delay projects and add to overall cost because of their
    complexities.
        AGC recommendations for Buy America implementation include:
          Manufactured products that consist of 90 percent or more
    of steel should be U.S. produced. Waivers should be available for
    commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) products with iron and
    steel components and manufactured products that contain a variety of
    different components made of a variety of different materials,
    including steel, and in different amounts.
          Small, incidental products such as bolts, screws,
    connectors, etc., should be considered de minimus and excluded from the
    requirements. The cost and time required to trace and document these
    products can far outweigh their de minimis financial impact to the
    project's total value.
          Allow for the minimum use exclusion as currently
    implemented by FHWA to increase from one tenth of 1 percent to 1
    percent or a ceiling of $20,000 from the current $2,500 limit.
          Buy America requirements should be limited to steel and
    iron products and not expanded to other construction products not
    generally manufactured, such as cement.
          The waiver application process with FHWA should be timely
    and should not become a barrier to efficient project delivery or
    related decisionmaking by the owner and contractor.
          Utility and railroad facilities relocated as part of a
    Federal-aid highway project should not be covered by the project.
          On FTA funded projects, the construction industry and
    grant recipients are looking for clearer and more consistent direction
    from the FTA. Clear cut guidance on how to categorize end products,
    components and subcomponents is needed. FTA needs to provide guidance
    clarifying how Buy America content in the end project, components,
    subcomponents and sub-sub components is to be determined. Directing FTA
    to develop a standardized audit or certification program for suppliers
    may help resolve these issues.
          A standardized template to assist suppliers in providing
    relevant product information and accurately calculating percentage
    costs might help, especially related to Rolling Stock materials.
                     building resilience in infrastructure
        In 2014, AGC was one of 21 building-related national organizations
    and professional societies to sign the Industry Statement on
    Resilience, which defines resilience based on National Research Council
    work as the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from, and
    more successfully adapt to adverse events. That group continues to look
    for ways to address the issue. But, simply put, in the design of
    infrastructure, resilience to natural disasters that hit in specific
    areas should be part of the design criteria. Retrofitting structures
    where possible should be considered. Resilient adaptation decisions for
    roadways can include elevation, decisions on bridge size and elevation,
    material choices, and drainage. Rebuilding substandard infrastructure
    is an opportunity to address resilience.
                                   workforce
        Workforce shortages have been a problem facing many industries and
    the construction industry, in particular. AGC worked with FHWA and
    AASHTO on a highway construction worker pilot program to identify,
    train and place workers in highway construction careers. The Department
    of Labor cooperated in encouraging local and state work force
    development boards to participate as well. For the pilot program the
    group identified 12 areas, six states and six urban areas where the
    state DOT, FHWA Division office and the AGC chapter can work with the
    local or state Workforce Investment Board to identify individuals with
    the interest and motivation to work in highway construction. FHWA has
    made grant funds available to support these pilots. Using the lessons
    learned from these pilots and providing additional grant funding to
    support the initiatives could pay big dividends for workers looking for
    well paying career as well as supporting the workforce needed to
    deliver the transportation infrastructure projects.
                                   conclusion
        Madam Chairperson, thank you again for convening today's hearing
    and for allowing AGC to participate. The role of our national
    transportation system in supporting U.S. competitiveness and our
    quality of life cannot be understated. Transportation impacts the daily
    lives of citizens and businesses in every state in the Union. The
    American public recognizes the need to improve our system and bring it
    back to world class status. A golden opportunity is before you. At a
    time when it seems there is little we all agree on infrastructure may
    prove to be the missing link. I urge you to take advantage of this
    opportunity.
        An important step Congress can take is to fix the Highway Trust
    Fund. Providing a reliable, dedicated and sustainable revenue source
    derived from the users and beneficiaries of the transportation system
    to not only address the annual shortage but allow for robust future
    investments is key. Please do not put off this debate until later. The
    longer you wait the more difficult the solution becomes. You have shown
    great leadership in not waiting until the new Congress convenes before
    holding this hearing. Continue that leadership and allow the
    legislation to move forward. Again, thank you for your time and
    consideration.

        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Stanley.
        And finally, Michael Terry, president and CEO of IndyGo,
    Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation, on behalf of
    the American Public Transportation Association.
        You may proceed, sir.
        Mr. Terry. Thank you. I first wanted to thank Congressman
    Carson for his very kind introduction earlier.
        Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Davis, members of the
    Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, I just thank you for this
    opportunity to testify on behalf of the American Public
    Transportation Association. My name is Mike Terry, I am
    president and chief executive officer of IndyGo, which is the
    Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation.
        IndyGo is the largest public transportation agency in the
    State of Indiana. Our service is 100 percent bus operations. As
    a county agency, we serve more than 820,000 people, operating
    approximately 160 vehicles over 400 square miles. Last year we
    invested in additional service frequency on our busiest routes,
    and we were able to increase monthly ridership by an average of
    4 percent.
        As this subcommittee considers what Federal policies should
    be modified in the next surface transportation authorization,
    APTA is in the process of consulting with its members and
    finalizing recommendations on how Federal public transportation
    policy can be enhanced to meet the needs of the 21st century.
        APTA's top legislative issue is ensuring the solvency of
    the Highway Trust Fund. We have long supported increased
    dedicated Federal revenues to the Highway Trust Fund. It has
    been more than 25 years since Congress last raised the Federal
    fuel taxes that primarily support the Highway Trust Fund, and
    the purchasing power of this revenue has decreased by more than
    40 percent over that time.
        APTA strongly supports the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's
    proposed plan of increasing the Federal motor vehicle fuel user
    fee by 5 cents per year for 5 years. We also support any other
    reasonable, bipartisan plan to increase dedicated revenues to
    the Highway Trust Fund, and we are ready to work with Congress
    to advance this critical priority.
        APTA continues to advocate for increased investment in
    public transportation from all levels of Government. But the
    Federal partnership remains absolutely critical. IndyGo can
    attest to the importance of ensuring a Federal role in public
    transportation. Our voters locally passed a local income tax
    referendum to support a transit plan that will provide expanded
    frequency of hours of service on our fixed-route bus network.
    Without a Federal partnership we would not be able to
    efficiently operate the increased local network in three rapid
    bus transit corridors. Several U.S. Department of
    Transportation grants have been critical in the success of this
    transit plan.
        The capital investment grants, the CIG, are vital public
    transportation investments for APTA members, including IndyGo.
    We received a Small Starts grant last year for our red line bus
    rapid transit, and we have two more projects in the CIG
    pipeline: our purple line and blue line BRTs. IndyGo is
    building an enhanced bus network that will upgrade to rapid
    service to ensure an even more seamless travel experience for
    our riders.
        The importance of public transportation capital program
    cannot be overemphasized. Unfortunately, the CIG program has
    shifted from an efficient public transportation capital program
    that can build good projects while protecting taxpayer dollars
    to a grant program that has requirements above and beyond that
    of comparable modes, such as highway grant programs.
        We believe Congress must change the program to make it more
    efficient. APTA anticipates endorsing a zero-base review of the
    CIG program to eliminate unnecessary statutory, regulatory, or
    policy requirements.
        APTA is leading the charge to support public transportation
    agencies' efforts to implement innovative mobility management
    strategies, including introducing cutting-edge technologies and
    integrating new service delivery approaches.
        At IndyGo we have embraced the new mobility paradigm. Many
    areas outside the core of Indianapolis are not developed in a
    way that is ideal for public transit. To better reach these
    sprawling neighborhoods, IndyGo is collaborating with the
    multisector collective to integrate multiple modes of transport
    to enhance access beyond where transit will be successful.
        We envision a connected, on-demand network of car-sharing,
    ride-hailing, bike-sharing, and other new mobility options to
    create first- and last-mile connections. Last year IndyGo
    partnered with Lyft and BlueIndy, which is an electric car-
    share program, on a program to incentivize Indianapolis
    residents to utilize several mobility options into their daily
    lives to a great success.
        As president and CEO of IndyGo for the past decade, I have
    seen tangible, equitable, and very real benefits that public
    transportation provides to residents, communities, and our
    Nation. It is imperative that a continued Federal partnership
    with a dedicated source of funding remain a core principle of
    the next surface transportation authorization.
        Thank you very much, Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member
    Davis, and other members of the committee. I look forward to
    answering your questions.
        [Mr. Terry's prepared statement follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Michael Terry, President and CEO, Indianapolis
     Public Transportation Corporation (IndyGo), on behalf of the American
                    Public Transportation Association (APTA)
                                  introduction
        Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and Members of the
    Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, on behalf of the American Public
    Transportation Association (APTA) and its more than 1,500 public- and
    private-sector member organizations, thank you for the opportunity to
    testify on Aligning Federal Surface Transportation Policy to Meet 21st
    Century Needs.
        My name is Michael Terry, and I am the President and Chief
    Executive Officer (CEO) of the Indianapolis Public Transportation
    Corporation, also known as IndyGo. I joined IndyGo in 2003 as the Vice
    President of Business Development and have served as President and CEO
    for more than a decade.
        IndyGo is the largest public transportation agency in the state of
    Indiana. Our service is 100 percent bus operations. As a county agency,
    we serve more than 820,000 people, operating approximately 160 vehicles
    over 400 square miles. Our paratransit service provides critical curb-
    to-curb service for residents with disabilities anywhere in the county.
    We leverage Federal and local dollars to enhance frequency and grow
    capacity, reliability, and efficiency. Last year, we invested in
    additional service frequency on our busiest routes, and were able to
    increase monthly ridership by an average of 4 percent. We are grateful
    for the Federal and local partnerships that are making IndyGo's
    expansion possible.
        Today, I would like to share with the Subcommittee some of the
    important concepts that APTA is considering as we look to the next
    surface transportation authorization that will succeed the Fixing
    America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) (P.L. 114-94). While
    APTA is still in the process of finalizing its recommendations, here
    are some important considerations for enhancing Federal public
    transportation policy:
    The Solvency of The Highway Trust Fund
        APTA's top legislative issue is ensuring the solvency of the
    Highway Trust Fund. The backlog of transit state-of-good-repair needs
    is more than $90 billion and growing. APTA has long supported increased
    dedicated Federal revenues to the Highway Trust Fund for programs that
    support the national transportation network, cost-effectively address
    the problem of deferred maintenance, and enable public transportation
    agencies to meet growing demands for increased mobility.
        It has been more than 25 years since Congress last raised the
    Federal fuel taxes that primarily support the Highway Trust Fund, and
    the purchasing power of this revenue has decreased by more than 40
    percent over that time. Current revenues deposited into the Highway
    Trust Fund are insufficient to support the existing Federal highway and
    public transportation programs without significant general fund
    contributions. This status quo is unsustainable and tough choices need
    to be made by Congress.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recognizes the urgency
    and critical importance of long-term, sustainable surface
    transportation funding. Last week, GAO noted, in its 2019 High-Risk
    Series report, that ``the nation's surface transportation system--
    including highways, transit, maritime ports, and rail systems that move
    both people and freight--is under growing strain . . . the cost to
    repair and upgrade the system to meet current and future demand is
    estimated in the hundreds of billions of dollars.'' \1\ Although
    funding the nation's surface transportation system has been on GAO's
    High-Risk list for more than a decade, Congress has not provided the
    necessary resources or dedicated funding to address these critical
    issues.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Government Accountability Office, HIGH-RISK SERIES: Substantial
    Efforts Needed to Achieve Greater Progress on High-Risk Areas, March 6,
    2019, 86-90.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In January 2018, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce proposed a plan to
    increase the Federal motor vehicle fuel user fee by five cents per year
    over 5 years (Total: 25-cent increase). APTA strongly supports this
    plan and our Board of Directors has specifically endorsed it. We also
    support any other reasonable, bipartisan plan to increase dedicated
    revenues to the Highway Trust Fund. Our most important issue continues
    to be the long-term solvency of the Highway Trust Fund, and we stand
    ready to work with Congress to advance this critical priority.
    Dedicated Federal Funding for Public Transportation
        Public transportation represents a $71 billion industry that
    directly employs 430,000 people and supports millions of private-sector
    jobs. Public transportation supports economic development, produces a
    safer, more efficient transportation system, connects people with jobs
    and employers with potential workers, and supports national priorities.
    APTA continues to advocate for increased investment in public
    transportation from all levels of government, but the Federal
    partnership remains absolutely critical. States and public
    transportation agencies need predictable Federal funding to support
    long-term planning and multi-year capital projects.
        Dedicated and sustained Federal funding for public transportation
    complements the unprecedented contributions already made by states and
    local governments to operate and maintain these services. In recent
    years, several states have raised motor fuel taxes and localities have
    raised other taxes that help pay for surface transportation, including
    public transportation. In 2018, voters approved 82 percent of transit
    ballot initiatives, which increased or secured revenues for public
    transit investment. However, the success of these local initiatives
    depends on a strong Federal partnership.
        IndyGo can attest to the importance of ensuring a Federal role in
    public transportation. In 2016, Marion County voters and leaders passed
    a local income tax referendum of 0.25 percent to support the
    implementation and operation of the Marion County Transit Plan (Transit
    Plan). The Transit Plan is transforming IndyGo by laying the foundation
    for expanded frequency and hours of service for our fixed-route local
    network, which will amount to a 70 percent increase in service. Without
    a Federal partner, we would not be able to effectively operate the
    increased local network and three rapid transit corridors that will
    provide this high-quality public transportation service. Several core
    capital improvements are necessary, and U.S. Department of
    Transportation grants have been critical to the success of our Transit
    Plan.
    Capital Investment Grants
        Capital Investment Grants (CIG) are a vital public transportation
    investment for APTA members, including IndyGo. The CIG program provides
    grants for fixed-guideway investments, such as new and expanded
    subways, light rail, commuter rail, streetcars, bus rapid transit
    (BRT), and ferries. We are extremely grateful for Congress' continued
    recognition of the importance of the CIG program by providing
    appropriations higher than the $2.3 billion provided in the FAST Act in
    each of the past three fiscal years (Fiscal Years 2017-2019).
        IndyGo has accessed the critical CIG program to build an enhanced
    bus network--the Red Line. The Red Line received a Small Start grant,
    one of four categories of projects in the CIG program, in May 2018.
    IndyGo will operate full battery-electric BRT vehicles on these
    critical, high-volume corridors. Further, IndyGo also has two BRT
    projects in the CIG pipeline--the Blue Line Rapid Transit and the
    Purple Line Rapid Transit. These projects are along two corridors that
    currently are among IndyGo's most productive, frequent, high ridership
    routes. The BRT projects will upgrade service on the corridors to rapid
    service to ensure an even more seamless travel experience for our
    riders.
        The importance of this public transportation capital program cannot
    be overemphasized. Unfortunately, the CIG program has shifted from an
    efficient public transportation capital program that can build good
    projects while protecting taxpayer dollars to a grant program that has
    requirements above and beyond that of comparable modes--such as highway
    grant programs.
        We believe Congress must change the program to make it more
    efficient. Currently, CIG project sponsors must navigate a bureaucratic
    maze over multiple years to receive a grant agreement. Beginning with
    enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA
    21) in 1998, both Congress and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
    have repeatedly layered additional requirements on the CIG program.
    APTA anticipates endorsing a zero-based review of the CIG program to
    eliminate unnecessary statutory, regulatory or policy requirements.
        We urge Congress to adopt provisions that will strengthen the CIG
    program and ensure that these critical public transportation projects
    across the country are delivered in a timely manner.
    Safety
        Safety is the public transportation industry's top priority.
    Research shows that modest increases in public transportation ridership
    in a metropolitan area can cut traffic fatalities by 40 percent. Today,
    traveling by public transportation is 10 times safer for passengers
    than traveling by car. Providing more and improved public
    transportation is one of the most powerful traffic safety tools that a
    community can employ to help reduce the more than 37,000 traffic deaths
    per year on our nation's roadways.
        Our members view safety as an essential and primary component to
    ensuring customer satisfaction and providing seamless service. The
    FTA's State Safety Oversight (SSO) Program outlines minimum safety
    requirements for passengers and agency employees. APTA is proud that 30
    states have achieved their SSO Program certifications well before the
    statutory deadline. The FTA is reviewing the final, multi-state
    certification (Metrorail Safety Commission) and we are very hopeful
    that the Commission will receive its certification prior to the April
    15, 2019 deadline.
        Moreover, our commuter railroads are committed to making rail
    travel even safer with full implementation of Positive Train Control
    (PTC). As a result of this commitment, some commuter railroads have
    completed PTC implementation and others are on the path to fully
    implement PTC by the end of 2020. While implementation of PTC is a
    critical safety overlay, the industry takes a comprehensive approach to
    safety that includes multiple essential safety countermeasures. Those
    measures include reducing operator fatigue, implementing new safety
    monitoring equipment like inward- and outward-facing cameras,
    addressing grade-crossing and trespassing incidents, and conducting
    rigorous safety audits.
        The public transportation industry has an incredibly strong safety
    record. We are grateful for the work that this Subcommittee has done to
    make our nation's surface transportation safer.
    The Evolving Mobility Landscape
        Advances in technology have allowed vehicles to operate with
    increased autonomy and efficiencies. Data capabilities have evolved and
    enable effortless trip planning and streamline information sharing, and
    new business platforms have supported the explosion of ride-hailing and
    bike-sharing services. According to a recent APTA study, The
    Transformation of the American Commuter, 77 percent of Americans say
    public transportation is the backbone of a multi-transit lifestyle.\2\
    APTA is leading the charge to support public transportation agencies'
    efforts to implement innovative mobility management strategies,
    including introducing cutting-edge technologies and integrating new
    service delivery approaches.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ American Public Transportation Association, The Transformation
    of the American Commuter, December 2018, 1-3.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        At IndyGo, we have embraced the new mobility paradigm. One of our
    core strategic principles is to advance mobility as a catalyst for
    success. Many areas outside the core of Indianapolis are not developed
    in a way that is ideal for public transit. Many suburban neighborhoods
    built in the 1960's through the 1990's are extremely car-centric in
    design--single family, detached homes on large lots in cul-de-sac
    developments. To better reach these sprawling neighborhoods, IndyGo is
    collaborating with a multi-sector collective to integrate multiple
    modes of transport to enhance access beyond where transit will be
    successful. We envision a connected, on-demand network of car sharing,
    ride hailing, bike sharing and other new mobility options to create
    first- and last-mile connections. For example, in fall 2018, IndyGo
    partnered with Lyft and BlueIndy (an electric car service) on a program
    to incentivize Indianapolis residents to utilize several mobility
    options into their daily lives. It was a great success. In addition,
    leveraging an FTA technical assistance grant, we are building a new
    account-based fare system, which in the future will serve as the
    financial infrastructure to facilitate seamless connections to other
    modes.
        IndyGo is an early adopter of electric bus technology. IndyGo has
    leveraged $10 million in Federal funding to acquire 21 fully electric
    vehicles, with operating costs one-fourth the amount of a traditional
    diesel bus. IndyGo plans to substantially upgrade its aging fleet (of
    which 44 percent have surpassed their useful life), replacing all of
    its diesel buses with electric vehicles by 2032. It will also install
    bus charging infrastructure along its routes. Another Federal grant was
    leveraged to install a solar array on the roof of its main garage. This
    solar infrastructure is generating enough power to offset the increased
    electric demand from charging requirements-13 of the existing 21
    electric bus fleet are being charged by the power generated by the
    solar array.
        Given the rapid changes in technology and mobility, public
    transportation has a key role in the transportation network. With an
    upcoming surface transportation authorization bill, Congress needs to
    ensure that public transportation agencies have the flexibility to meet
    changing mobility needs.
                                   conclusion
        As President and CEO of IndyGo for the past decade, I have seen the
    tangible and very real benefits that public transportation provides to
    residents, communities, and our Nation. Public transportation not only
    spurs economic growth, but reduces congestion, improves air quality,
    saves time and money, and advances an equitable and better quality of
    life for our communities. It is imperative that a continued Federal
    partnership with a dedicated source of funding remains a core principle
    of the next surface transportation authorization act.
        On behalf of APTA, thank you for including us in this important
    discussion as the Subcommittee begins developing the next surface
    transportation bill. As APTA continues to move forward with finalizing
    its surface transportation authorization proposal, we very much welcome
    the opportunity to continue the conversation and stand ready to assist
    in advancing our mutual objectives.

        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Terry. We are now
    going to move on to Members' questions, and each will have 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Terry, I got a hold of your testimony where you
    indicated that you have, by adding service frequency, been able
    to get a 4-percent increase in ridership. Now, we see ridership
    going down in transit in other cities. Just by having more
    frequent service you got an increase in transit ridership? Is
    that the problem?
        Mr. Terry. I think that is one of the problems. It is
    actually focusing on where mass transit has the highest and
    best use, the highest productivity. In our realignment that we
    are doing, incorporating rapid transit as well as our regular
    bus network, people want reliable, dedicated, and frequent
    service. And we are finding increasing that frequency and
    expansion of hours of service, where people can rely on that,
    is increasing ridership.
        Ms. Norton. So it is not just trains should run on time,
    there should be more frequent trains. And then people will get
    off the road and get on the train.
        Mr. Terry. Yes, ma'am. That is the way we feel.
        Ms. Norton. Well, this is very important information.
        Ms. McMillan, I am interested in your testimony that speaks
    about expanding the share of funds which go to what you call
    the Nation's metropolitan areas. So who would control these
    funds? How would that work? Would there be conflicts among the
    parts of the region?
        Ms. McMillan. Well, and certainly I can speak in the bay
    area, where the funds do come to the Metropolitan
    Transportation Commission, as the MPO. But we work extremely
    closely with a bottoms-up approach with our cities and counties
    to determine how those funds would then be distributed----
        Ms. Norton. So who does that?
        Ms. McMillan [continuing]. If we are talking about STP----
        Ms. Norton. Who controls that? Who do you talk to if you
    are working on an area-ride basis--perfectly understandable,
    because of the way people cross county lines just to get to
    work or to shop. But who is in charge of deciding where the
    funds go?
        Ms. McMillan. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission,
    within our region, as the MPO, would ultimately be the one that
    would make this--but I would stress that on our board is
    represented the local entities of the counties and cities. And
    so getting their input about what the needs are, and then
    working with us to determine how to distribute those funds to
    the relative needs in the different areas of this county is
    very important.
        So I think that cooperation among us to determine how
    investments should be made, and particularly in those areas
    where a problem is not located in one city or another, but does
    cross, you know, boundaries, we need to recognize that the
    riding public often doesn't recognize those boundaries, and we
    need to come up with a solution, collectively, to address their
    overall journey, wherever that may start or end.
        Ms. Norton. Well, I would really also like to ask Mr. Clark
    and then maybe others of you--Mr. Stanley--who could speak to
    this. Very concerned about the differences in how people now
    look at the workforce for transportation. Mr. Clark spoke about
    registered apprenticeship.
        Now, you know, young men whose fathers or grandfathers were
    in the industry, you know, sitting at computers, they don't
    even have to be very skilled to do that. Don't we need to do
    more than look at registered apprenticeship? Because they don't
    even get to the apprenticeship in the first place.
        How do we draw people to this very important industry to do
    the work that needs to be done?
        Both of you, I would like to hear what you have to say on
    that.
        Mr. Clark. I will start. I think one of the things--several
    things we need to do. One thing that we clearly need to do is
    talk differently about what the workforce looks like. Quite
    often, when we have discussions about the workforce--and I
    focused very much on the frontline workforce--and in rooms full
    of people, one of the things I often do is ask how many people
    here have a bachelor's degree or more. And usually in those
    discussions, almost all hands go up.
        Actually, only about one-third of adults have a bachelor's
    degree. And if we keep communicating to young people that the
    only way you get ahead is by getting a 4-year college
    education, it is a self-defeating strategy. The jobs, skilled
    jobs in transit, are good, family-supporting jobs. That is true
    of jobs in highway construction and a lot of others. They tend
    to be neglected, because people just don't think about them,
    they think they are going away.
        The same is true of a lot of high-tech manufacturing. We
    need to be communicating that there are abilities to get those
    jobs. We also need to be equipping people with the skills to
    function in those jobs. The jobs are no longer simply heavy
    lifting. They are extremely skilled jobs with a lot of
    diagnostic skills, a lot of mental work. People need to come in
    with strong math abilities.
        People have referred to STEM, career technical education,
    and I mentioned specific peer apprenticeship for people who are
    a little bit older and need to make up some skill deficits to
    make this work. But I think there are strategies that can get
    people there. We need to start rethinking about how we
    communicate to people about what the labor market actually
    looks like.
        Ms. Norton. Well, my time has expired, so thank you very
    much. I am going now to the ranking member, Mr. Davis, for his
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Mayor, the mayor of San Antonio, right? You served on
    the city council before that?
        Mr. Nirenberg. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Davis. Can you tell me how many times my colleague and
    good friend, Joaquin Castro, tried to sit in for his twin
    brother at city council meetings?
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Nirenberg. No, sir, I can't. He was busy up here.
        Mr. Davis. I will ask him about that. But thank you.
    Welcome, and thanks for being here.
        Mr. Millar, I pinch-hit for Leader Graves today at the ASCE
    event this morning just across town. They told me you were
    coming here on behalf of them, too, and to take it easy on you.
    But I will not do that today. I am going to start you with a
    question. Actually, it will be a question I think will provide
    a lot of us on this committee some information that expands a
    little bit on your opening statement.
        You mentioned expanding categorical exclusions across
    Federal agencies. Can you expand on that a little bit? And in
    particular, how do we make them more interchangeable?
        Mr. Millar. Yes. Again, as I mentioned in my opening
    remarks, about 94 percent of the work that we do happens
    through categorical exclusions. The categorical exclusions are
    a provision in the National Environmental Policy Act that allow
    for projects to move forward that have been demonstrated to
    have no significant impact on the environment--the environment
    being the economy, social and the natural environment.
        Different agencies have different rules for that. We found
    in the work that we do that the key to moving forward is making
    sure that the resource agencies are adequately funded to
    respond to our requests for, you know, permits, for approvals,
    for reviews and the like. That is what works for us.
        There are some in AASHTO that would like for
    transportation-related projects for other agencies to be able
    to use a list of categorical exclusions that the Department of
    Transportation, Federal Highway Administration has adopted. We
    don't have to do that in Washington State because, again, we
    find that by working with the resource agencies upfront, we
    don't have that problem.
        Mr. Davis. Well, thank you. My 6\1/2\ years on this
    committee, any chance we can reduce what I call the paperwork
    process to get to construction faster to make the Federal
    dollar stretch further, I am always interested in that. So
    thank you for your testimony and your responses.
        Mr. Stanley, thank you. Are you aware that your
    Representative on the Hill had his ribs broken in a
    congressional hockey game by our colleague on this committee,
    Mr. Katko?
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Stanley. I have heard rumors. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Davis. Have you? You may want to rethink your
    representation there.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Davis. Can you tell me, Mr. Stanley, how do we balance
    the surface transportation investments needs that we are
    experiencing today with what we may need in the future?
        Mr. Stanley. I think the balancing is a balancing act, as
    you said. The funding has got to be short-term and it has got
    to be long-term. A lot of your State DOTs don't do long-term
    projects because of short-term funding.
        So in the past, the continuing resolutions have delayed
    projects caused for cost increases and things like that. So we
    definitely need to look at the short-term needs, but then look
    further out in the future. Because as different types of
    transportation come online with automated cars, potentially,
    and things like that, we have all got to share the road.
        We have got more large trucks that are transporting more
    goods each year by year. So we have to work on multimodal
    corridors, as well. So basically, that money needs to be
    looking at a lot of different modes of transportation, as well
    as expanding capacity and advancing new technologies, as well.
        Mr. Davis. Great, thank you.
        Mr. Anderson, I know you represent the great State of
    Texas. Thank you for being here today. I ask you the same
    question.
        Mr. Anderson. Well, yes, in our priorities relative to the
    FAST Act we also echo stable, predictable, and sustainable
    funding streams. We ask for updated data relative to lane miles
    and census data as it relates to our core funding programs.
        But we are also very fortunate in Texas because we have
    passed prop 1 and prop 7, and our people then identified
    additional transportation needs that they wanted to have, and
    they looked at the State to provide funding for those. So we
    looked, you know, both at the Federal Government, but also to
    our State to identify ways to achieve better funding revenue,
    and then put that towards the priorities of our local and
    regional partners.
        Mr. Davis. Great. Well, thank you all for your time today.
    Thanks for your testimony and your responses. I look forward to
    hearing more.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.
        Chairman DeFazio?
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mayor Nirenberg, you talked here about ConnectSA. And I
    would be interested in hearing a brief description of how you
    are going to do that.
        Mr. Nirenberg. Yes. Well, we are working on an integrative
    strategy that takes all of the different planning elements in
    place, from our land use strategies to our bus routes, to our
    pedestrian pathways, even our linear creekway systems, and
    tries to create an effective and intermodal transportation
    system.
        On top of that we are looking at developing our first-ever
    advanced rapid transit system. And San Antonio is a 500-square-
    mile city, fast-growing city. We have an underfunded bus system
    that needs to increase frequency. And all the elements in place
    are the only way we believe we can keep our economic vibrancy
    and be able to meet the demands of moving San Antonians around
    inside of our city.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you.
        Secretary Millar, you talked about how you couldn't build
    your way out of it. So what are the tools that we should
    highlight, incentivize, or create in the next transportation
    bill that would give people what they need to look at more
    innovative ways to mitigate congestion?
        Mr. Millar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question. Yes,
    we can't build our way out of congestion. When I was first
    appointed secretary I got an email from a constituent,
    ``Congratulations. By the way, your speed limit signs say 60
    miles an hour. I can't drive 60 miles an hour on your freeways.
    Your agency is a failure.''
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Millar. I thanked that constituent and then I asked,
    ``What would it take to be able to drive 60 miles an hour all
    the time on our freeways?'' A $115 billion investment. Doing
    that over 20 years is a $2.50-a-gallon gas tax. And that did
    not accommodate any growth in our region, it didn't accommodate
    any growth in the local road system, and the like.
        The fact that we cannot build our way out of congestion is
    not a failure of Government, it is an economic and
    environmental and demographic reality. So we are talking about
    moving forward in a congested world, and that involves first
    taking care of the system we have in place. So preservation is
    hugely important to us.
        We have today in Washington State a $700 million-a-year
    unfunded preservation backlog.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK, basically state of good repair.
        Mr. Millar. State of good repair.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK.
        Mr. Millar. Then safety----
        Mr. DeFazio. OK.
        Mr. Millar. When you look at the $3.5 billion that is--
    impacts our economy, congestion costs our economy in Washington
    State about $3.5 billion. The deaths and serious injury
    accidents in Washington State cost our economy $8.5 billion. We
    talk about congestion all the time. We are not talking about
    the safety issues on our roadways. So making our transportation
    system safe is important.
        Transportation system management and operations,
    recognizing that if you think about the transportation system
    that is going to be in place 20 years from now, most of it is
    there today. But we need to get more throughput out of the
    system we have through things like express toll lanes, managed
    lanes, automated transportation management systems, investing
    in incident response to clear crashes and get roads back open.
    Investing in the relationships between land use and
    transportation, so we don't continue to make stupid decisions
    that necessitate investments that we can't afford to make any
    more.
        And then, as a last resort, targeted system expansion.
    Typically, in our world, you see a problem, the answer is
    ``more.'' That should be the last thing we do, not the first
    thing we do. And that is the progression of decisionmaking that
    we are making in Washington State.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you. Any suggestions any of you have
    that are specific to ways Federal funds are restricted that
    don't allow you to take reasonable steps to get better
    throughput on our existing infrastructure would be very welcome
    in this committee.
        And then I just want to observe, Mr. Terry--thanks for your
    testimony about Indianapolis. But when you talked about--and a
    number of other people have recommended the 55555. The fact is
    if we do 55555, it is 6\1/2\ years before we increase spending
    above the current levels, which I think is too long to wait. We
    need to be looking at leveraging whatever we do with gas and
    diesel tax with bonds, so that we get that money upfront more
    quickly.
        I would observe--and you probably--I don't know how old
    your bus fleet is, but part of the reason in some places people
    are abandoning transit is because it is not reliable because it
    is worn out. And just bringing transit up to a state of good
    repair, I believe would attract a lot of people back to the
    system. Do you agree?
        Mr. Terry. Very much so. The rider experience is very
    important. Our fleet is--44 percent is past its useful life. So
    you are exactly correct. State of good repair is extremely
    important.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you.
        Mr. Balderson?
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning,
    everyone, and thank you to the panel for being here this
    morning. My first question is for Mr. Anderson.
        Mr. Anderson, according to the most recent census data,
    Columbus is the fastest growing major city in the Midwest,
    which is in my district. As a result, Columbus has undertaken
    major initiatives to reduce such congestion, such as the CMAQ
    bus line, which I have gone and visited, which syncs buses with
    traffic signals to improve efficiency and reduce traffic.
        As the winner of the Department of Transportation's Smart
    City Challenge, Columbus is also implementing smart mobility
    hubs and state-of-the-art multimodal trip planning apps for
    residents. How has the Texas Department of Transportation
    collaborated with its colleagues in other States to share and
    build on emerging technologies and ideas?
        Mr. Anderson. Well, through a number of measures: the
    AASHTO committees, the transportation research board
    organization.
        We also--our Texas Innovation Alliance, along with a number
    of other smart cities, including Columbus, are in a larger
    smart city consortium. And those cities and regional partners
    are sharing the best practices and the capabilities that they
    are developing, real time. And it runs the gamut. It looks at
    data management, it looks at what is a better integrated
    traffic management system, what additional ITS sensors or
    technologies better enable them to manage that system or to
    provide information out to the public.
        And then in the case of multimodal, you mentioned, you
    know, multimodal integrated applications that make it easier
    for a person to move between modes and know what the optimum
    movement is for them. Those are all being shared across
    multiple cities, not only in Texas, but in a larger nationwide
    capability.
        Mr. Balderson. OK, thank you very much. My next question is
    for Ms. McMillan.
        Good morning, Ms. McMillan, thank you for being here today.
    Like most planning organizations, the Mid-Ohio Regional
    Planning Commission is currently working on their 2020 to 2050
    transportation plan to identify deficiencies, strategies, and
    projects the group will oversee for decades to come.
        In your experience, how does the uncertainty at the Federal
    level impact regional planning organizations when developing
    these long-term plans?
        Ms. McMillan. Well, I think you hit the nail on the head,
    that certainty of funding is critical when you are trying to
    anticipate very difficult resource choices. And with all
    sources of funding, you know, having some sense of what exists
    today and how it may be growing into the future as reliable--it
    is hard to do a 40-year plan when you are only looking at
    Federal funds in 6- or 5-year increments. And that puts you in
    a position of having to extrapolate some pretty significant
    assumptions with respect to that partnership.
        But I would add that, you know, another part of the funding
    picture there is knowing at the Federal level what
    flexibilities you have to use those dollars, knowing it is
    going to be a piece of a leverage package for almost any major
    infrastructure that is going to go forward.
        So some sense of where the dollars can be used, how they
    can be used, the timing that is available to them, the
    restrictions that may be attached. If we can build more
    flexibility into that, it also helps us in looking to those
    uncertain areas of where we might put them, and how they can be
    best leveraged with a State or Federal dollar.
        Mr. Balderson. Thank you very much.
        Madam Chair, I yield back the remaining time.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you.
        Mr. Lowenthal?
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Millar, I have a question for you. I represent the Long
    Beach side of the L.A.-Long Beach Port complex. And I am really
    pleased that you are here, because in many ways Washington is a
    great model for the country, in terms of the importance of
    strategic freight investment, and I really want to talk about
    freight.
        You have had in your State a freight investment program and
    a freight mobility strategic investment board to oversee these
    investments in freight, especially dealing with the linkages,
    the intermodal linkages. And as I understand, because of the
    coordination between all the freight stakeholders, your DOT,
    your local government, Washington has been able to leverage
    State investments in freight infrastructures by more than six
    to one. But that doesn't mean your State doesn't have major
    challenges.
        And so this is what I want to ask, also. You have
    identified Washington--a pipeline of highway, rail, grade
    crossings in congested corridors that are really going to need
    separation to manage the flow of people and goods. And your
    Northwest Seaport Alliance continues to set records for cargo
    volume being up, I believe, 27 percent, from January of 2018 to
    January of 2019. So this is going to stress any freight
    infrastructure, as it is.
        What I am getting to is I am going to be reintroducing my
    freight legislation that provides a dedicated revenue stream
    for needed freight improvements, and a yearly dedicated revenue
    stream that has both formula funding and also competitive
    funding. It makes critical multimodal and intermodal
    investments. Just in the formula funding, Washington State
    would get over somewhere between $120 and $150 million a year
    in just formula funding, and with great anticipation of that
    going up as freight volumes will continue to go up.
        What kind of investments, the question is, would your State
    be able to make if there were additional dedicated revenues for
    freight infrastructure? What would you need now to help
    accelerate your freight investments that are going on already
    in Washington?
        Mr. Millar. Thank you for that question. It is a great one.
    And I do sit on our Freight Mobility Strategic Investment
    Board. I am also--just stepped down as the chair of AASHTO's
    Special Committee on Freight. So these are issues that are
    important to States other than Washington.
        More money would be great. How would we spend it? First-
    last mile connections are hugely important, enhancing those.
    Changing the make-up of our fleet. One of our principal sources
    of greenhouse gas emissions in Washington State is the
    transportation industry. It is 40 percent plus. Our drayage.
    Converting it to something that was electric or alternative
    fuel would be a great enhancement to make.
        Grade crossings, we are a part of the Great Northern
    Corridor Coalition between the ports in Washington and Oregon
    and Chicago and all the States in between, working with
    Burlington Northern Railroad and others. Being able to move
    freight fast and safely on our system, those grade crossings
    are important.
        Preservation is hugely important. Interstate 90, Interstate
    5, if we have to low-grade bridges so that full trucks can't
    operate, we have got a problem. If we have to reduce speeds
    because pavement quality doesn't allow us to run that speed, we
    have got a problem. Those are things we are looking at.
        Truck parking is a huge issue. The safety of our citizens,
    the safety of our truckers, they are required to stop and
    sleep. They need a place to stop. There aren't in those places.
    And you mix that with our ports and warehousing and
    distribution facilities kind of working bankers hours, we have
    got all these trucks around the region waiting to come into
    town in the morning when the gates open with the commuters. So
    we need to work on that.
        We also need to work on the whole issue of freight
    logistics. Our departments typically do interchange-to-
    interchange planning for freight. And what we need to do is
    door-to-door and think about what is in those trucks.
        If I have 1,000 trucks leaving the Port of Seattle or the
    Port of Tacoma and all of them are half full, I have the
    opportunity to move that same freight with half the trucks, or
    move twice the freight. And so working with the private sector
    on optimizing freight logistics is something that Washington
    State DOT is looking at, and something that DOTs around the
    country are looking at.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. And I just--as I end, and just
    before I yield back, I would like to thank Ms. McMillan for
    really talking about the impact of climate change--and you
    talked about that.
        And any of our investments--those roads may not be there in
    30 years, and we--you were the first panelist to really
    identify that, and talk about that. And so at some point I
    would like to talk to you about--also, about more investments
    in this. But I don't think I have enough time, so I am going to
    yield back. Thank you.
        Ms. Norton. Good question.
        Mr. Pence?
        Mr. Pence. Thank you, Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis,
    and the panel, for being here today. The discussion of a
    surface transportation reauthorization bill can be sorted into
    two buckets: what the needs of the system are, and how the
    Nation will pay for them.
        It is no secret that our Nation's infrastructure is in
    critical need of repair, expansion, and modernization. However,
    in Indiana, the crossroads of America, we have always
    recognized the importance of modernizing and investing in our
    aging infrastructure, and we have made progress that we are
    proud of.
        For the most part, we can all agree on the needs of our
    transportation system. It is how our Nation will pay for them
    that Hoosiers are particularly concerned about. The National
    Academies committee estimates that renewing and modernizing the
    interstate will require doubling or tripling the amount of
    current spending on interstates. In Indiana we have used State
    and Federal dollars as seed money to encourage additional
    infrastructure investments by localities like IndyGo and
    private partners.
        I ask whoever wishes to comment on this. If we are to
    consider new sources of revenue, it is my fear that Hoosiers
    will not receive a fair share of funds, as Ms. McMillan stated.
    How can we ensure States like Indiana, who have been good
    stewards of Federal and State tax dollars, get their fair
    share, their fair slice of the pie?
        Mr. Nirenberg. I will go ahead and start. I would say that
    formula funding at the Federal level has, I think, justifiably
    encouraged infrastructure investment in the most populated
    centers. The most congested highway corridors in our Nation are
    located in population centers, and that is very much needed.
        I think we should continue to incentivize local communities
    and local decisionmaking, providing local investments, and that
    is what we have done in Texas with investments of local bond
    programs, for instance. We have passed sales tax revenue
    projects that fund transportation. But we need a balanced
    approach that has a Federal partner that makes long-term
    investments in our community.
        Mr. Millar. Congressman, I would add to that that the key
    to us is the flexibility of the program. It is a Federal
    program administered by the States. Whether it is a gas tax or
    a road user charge or some other means of funding the system,
    that funding needs to come to the States so that it can be
    allocated again between State needs, local needs, and the like,
    as we have done successfully in the past.
        So I would encourage the Congress, regardless of the
    mechanism of raising the funds, that we maintain the
    partnerships we have between the Federal Government, State
    government, and local governments moving forward.
        Mr. Terry. If I could add, too, thank you, Congressman
    Pence. And, as a Hoosier, I appreciate those comments.
        I think it does start with planning, too. But what is the
    highest and best use of the funds, how we can work
    collaboratively across all modes to make sure these are good
    plans. And also, land use. As Ms. McMillan had pointed out,
    that is very important.
        But I think we want to make an effective transportation
    network across all modes, and I think the formula grants that
    are going into the rule providers is of critical importance,
    and particularly in some of the areas that you represent. And
    in the urban areas, as well, how do we create the most
    effective transportation in multimodal?
        Mr. Pence. Thank you.
        I yield back, Madam Chairman.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you.
        Ms. Davids?
        Ms. Davids. Thank you, Madam Chair. I represent the Kansas
    Third Congressional District, which has a lot of--we are the
    heartland for a lot of reasons. One of those is that we are a
    major hub for transportation of goods, particularly, across the
    country.
        And Mayor, I thank you for making sure to acknowledge the
    National League of Cities is going on. I have had the chance,
    not just because of that, but over the course of the couple of
    months I have been serving I have had the chance to meet with a
    lot of the local county and city officials because I think it
    is really, really important to have those voices involved, as
    we are here making decisions about funding--and hopefully we
    will make some decisions about funding.
        You know, I can tell you that the folks from Kansas City,
    Kansas and Olathe and Lenexa and Shawnee, I mean, everybody is
    coming in, as soon as they sit down, ``Infrastructure.'' First
    thing they say. And, you know, it is because we have a lot of
    needs.
        And I read through everyone's testimony. I appreciated the
    fact that, you know, we have to acknowledge that we have got to
    be investing in infrastructure, and we have got to do it now.
        So putting--taking the view of--actually, Ms. McMillan, I
    appreciated the comments you were making earlier about
    addressing the disconnect between having to make these long-
    term, 10-, 20-, 30-year plans on infrastructure when we, as a
    body, are providing, you know, 5-year authorizations and
    shorter appropriations than that.
        So you brought up flexibility. And then, Mr. Millar, I
    would like to come to you after this. Can you talk a little bit
    about what does that flexibility look like, and how do we make
    sure that the local and State-level governments are giving us
    the information we need to make it as flexible as possible?
        Ms. McMillan. Thank you so much for the question. You know,
    in representing the metropolitan planning organizations around
    the country, there are 408 of them. And I think the one thing
    we can say is that each one of them is different.
        And so a core part of the flexibility is recognizing that
    you first start with--at least, you know, in the metropolitan
    planning partnership model--you work with your cities and
    counties, and you come up with a plan that deals not only with
    very localized impacts and needs, but also those that, again,
    cross across those boundaries and impact the regional economy
    that is going to lift everyone, if it is well invested in. And
    so that is really the beginning of that.
        But once you have the plan, if the funding sources aren't
    flexible enough to invest in the solutions you have identified,
    then it makes it really difficult to actually take a plan into
    implementation and do improvements on the ground.
        So the notion of the flexibility is not only multimodal
    going across, you know, the different investments--you may need
    transit heavily in a particular area, you may want to invest in
    bike and pedestrian in another. Freight, of course, in your,
    you know, arena is incredibly important. But I think it is also
    necessary to be flexible enough to adapt to changes as they
    happen.
        So, taking a look, as some of the speakers pointed out, is
    the regulatory framework that wraps around those needs--you
    want things in place to make things as safe as possible, for
    example, all the time. But then there is under areas where
    perhaps we need to think about the dollars being flexible
    enough and nimble enough to invest in something that wasn't
    evidenced 5 years ago. And I think we are seeing those kinds of
    technological and other changes happening that quickly.
        Ms. Davids. OK, thank you.
        And then, Mr. Millar, you mentioned flexibility. And you
    also, I--in the testimony, when I was reading through it, one
    of the things that popped into my mind, partly because Mr.
    Clark's testimony included a listing of metrics that we could
    be thinking about, and I think that is a place where we miss
    out and could figure out ways to be more flexible--do you have
    any kind of ideas or thoughts on metrics that we should be
    thinking about that can help us move toward a more flexible
    system?
        Mr. Millar. This is a great question. And I think the
    metrics that have been put in place with MAP-21 and the FAST
    Act have just been put in place. The rulemaking has just been
    completed. And we need a little time to work with those rules
    before we look at changing them.
        Something that I look at in Washington State, the Federal
    funding that comes to our State makes up approximately 20
    percent of our State transportation budget. And it goes
    primarily to preservation, because that is not a particularly
    flexible source of funding. We allocate the Federal funding
    that comes to the State--to our organization and the cities and
    counties.
        Something that we are looking at--you know, we talk about
    trucks, and trucks--you know, freight is really important to
    your community. We anticipate we are going to have 30 percent
    more truck traffic in Washington State in the next 20 years. We
    are not going to have 30 percent more places to put those
    trucks.
        So we are thinking about it kind of like the energy
    industry thinks about it. What is the best source of power to
    sell to industry? Well, power that residential customers don't
    use. So how do we come up with a transportation equivalent of
    CFLs and low-flow shower heads to encourage people to try
    something different?
        And to have funding coming from the Federal Government that
    could be used for stuff other than the good old-fashioned
    adding capacity to the system, to be used on transportation
    system management and operations, to be used on demand
    management, to be flexed, as we do today, to other modes when
    that makes more sense--if you think about most of the trips
    that people take today, 40 percent of the trips that
    Washingtonians take are less than 1 mile in length. Of those
    trips that are less than 1 mile in length, 60 percent of them
    are taken driving a car. And the reason people drive a car is
    it is the only safe way they can make that trip, because we
    haven't invested in the pedestrian infrastructure, we haven't
    invested in the bicycle infrastructure, we haven't invested in
    the transit infrastructure to make that possible.
        So I can't tell you how many people jump on the freeway for
    one exit, because we haven't made the investment in other ways
    to get around that don't involve getting behind the car seat
    and turning the key. That kind of flexibility would be very
    helpful to us.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Davids. Thank you, I yield back.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Gallagher?
        Mr. Gallagher. Thank you. I think there is a shared sense
    on the committee that we need to do more to invest in our
    infrastructure. There is disagreements about how we pay for it,
    dramatic disagreements at times.
        I tend to think one of the fundamental divides that I am
    trying to wrap my head around is how we incentivize or get the
    balance right between new projects versus maintenance of
    existing projects. And CBO suggests that 73 percent of Federal
    spending goes towards new projects, and a lot of maintenance
    over time is left to State and local governments.
        So if our infrastructure is crumbling right now, which we
    all seem to agree upon, and the Highway Trust Fund is
    insolvent, what can we do to get this balance right? How should
    the Federal Government think about incentivizing new projects
    versus maintenance of existing projects?
        And I just would love the local and State perspective on
    that question. I don't even know where to begin, though. So any
    takers?
        No one wants to be the first student to raise their hand?
        Mr. Millar. I will start----
        Mr. Gallagher. Sir, I appreciate that.
        Mr. Millar [continuing]. Congressman. I think you have to
    start with good data. I mean the performance measures that were
    put in place, again, in MAP-21 and in the FAST Act are just now
    coming into place. We are going to be reporting for the first
    time, many of us, on those measures.
        So knowing what is actually happening out there, knowing
    what the condition of our National Highway System is, the
    condition of our bridges, we have some of that. We need to keep
    reporting that. Rather than directly connecting performance to
    funding, though, for us in Washington State we are making the
    decisions that make sense for our State, our economy, our
    community, our geographic uniqueness.
        I wouldn't want to see Federal money tied strictly to
    performance. I think, though, having those performance measures
    gives us the data we need to make those smart decisions.
        As I indicated, most of our Federal money goes into
    preservation. And where we add to the system, we are adding to
    the system with State dollars. And that preservation investment
    is hugely important to us. If the Federal Government were to
    double the gas tax today, we would have the purchasing power we
    had with that gas tax in 1993.
        So we would love to see significantly more investment, we
    would love to see it come to the States through the formula
    program. And each of us has unique situations that we would not
    want to have a one-size-fits-all, you know, Federal
    prescription get in the way of.
        Mr. Gallagher. Sure. Ms. McMillan and then Mayor Nirenberg
    was--quickly, because I am going to run out of time, but----
        Ms. McMillan. Yes, just very quickly, the only thing I
    would add there is that we also need to think about not just
    how the Federal money gets split, but the capacity of States
    and locals to partner to bring additional money to the table to
    put together what needs to be delivered.
        So, in that case, that capability may also dictate--it
    could be very different in California than it might be, say, in
    Minnesota. And so thinking about how the Federal dollar could
    also respond to helping in combination with other sources----
        Mr. Gallagher. Sure.
        Ms. McMillan [continuing]. To bundle together to deal with
    that could be one way of thinking about a way forward.
        Mr. Gallagher. Thank you.
        Mayor Nirenberg?
        Mr. Nirenberg. Diversify the revenue streams, allow for
    local options, and also encourage and build in resiliency as we
    move forward. That is the reason why many urban communities
    like ours, which is 300 years old, are emphasizing transit.
        Mr. Gallagher. I appreciate that. And I think the bottom-up
    perspective is critical as we consider big action here at the
    Federal level.
        I confess, I am still trying to wrap my head around this
    and get the balance correct. I understand the outcry at the
    local and the State level in the White House's plan, which
    should increase the financial burden on States and local
    governments, but I also think the intent behind it is one that
    we shouldn't reject out of hand, right?
        To the extent I understand it--and I don't speak for the
    White House--it was to force us at the State and local level to
    prioritize projects and think on a 30-year time horizon about
    how we maintain projects effectively, or fix the projects that
    are crumbling right now.
        And so I really appreciate your perspective. Thank you for
    being here.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Pappas?
        Mr. Pappas. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you
    to our panel for the expertise that you provided for us all
    today. And I think you all see a broad commitment in this
    committee to getting something done this year.
        One of my concerns--and we heard this at an earlier hearing
    as we talked about the cost of doing nothing--is the incredible
    downshifting that we have seen from the Federal Government to
    States and municipalities when it comes to transportation
    spending over the last many years. We have seen a 19-percent
    decrease in the Federal share of transportation investment
    since the early 2000s, and I think that is alarming. So I think
    we have got to make sure we create some predictability, and
    make sure that the Federal Government has some more skin in the
    game here.
        I am wondering, as I talk to regional planning commissions,
    my own State DOT, I hear concern about how they are going to be
    able to plan for the future in fiscal year 2021 and beyond. I
    am wondering, at the State level for those States that are
    represented here, how you are handling this. How are you
    handling the uncertainty of what will happen beyond the FAST
    Act?
        We are all assuming something is going to get done here,
    but there is the reality that potentially there could be less
    money available from the Federal Government for States, going
    forward.
        Mr. Anderson. I will answer for Texas. We work with our
    State comptroller, we work with all of our local and regional
    partners, and we talk about what is a reasonable projection. We
    don't want to be overly conservative, because then we find
    ourselves at times facing a huge need and not being prepared
    enough to deliver on a long-range transportation program.
        By the same token, we don't want to overplan and
    overpromise, and then find ourselves short. So it is an art,
    working with the comptroller and working with other elements of
    the State to actually look at what are all the funding sources
    that we have available to us currently, what is in the toolbox,
    and then which ones do we have most confidence in to the least
    confidence, and then establish projections for each one of
    those.
        Mr. Millar. And from Washington State's perspective, again,
    Federal funding is about 20 percent of our program. It is
    vitally important to us, but it is--most of the money that we
    are spending is generated right there in the State. And the
    State of Washington has stepped up. Our gas tax has gone from
    26 cents a gallon to 49.4 cents a gallon. And that has made a
    significant difference.
        For us, as we plan, you know, we look at these 6-year
    increments. The problem with the 6-year increments is more in
    the programming and the short-term spending of the money. We
    can look back 50 years at trend. In Washington State, when you
    look at our transit investment, the voters passed and we are
    building a $54 billion transit investment in the central Puget
    Sound area. During that same 30-year period where we are going
    to be spending that $54 billion, if historic trends play out,
    we are going to be spending $90 billion at the State level.
        What we are looking for from the Federal Government is,
    again, the strong Federal partnership that we had in the 1960s
    and the 1970s to give us the capacity to catch up with our
    economy and take our transportation system from where it is
    today to the 21st-century system that we need to really be
    globally competitive.
        Mr. Pappas. And if there is an increase, on the flip side,
    in State highway dollars, are there projects in the short term
    that are prepared to move more quickly and advance in the plan?
        Mr. Millar. Absolutely, absolutely.
        Mr. Pappas. Great. I don't see that is a problem anywhere I
    travel.
        One further question for Mr. Millar. I know that there will
    be a $7.6 billion rescission of unobligated highway contract
    authority on July 1, 2020. I have heard about this from my own
    State DOT, who tells me this is going to make their budgeting
    more difficult, reduce their ability to move money between
    accounts, as projects are ready between different pots of
    money.
        I am wondering if you can walk me through the real-world
    effects of these rescissions in your State, and how AASHTO
    feels about this.
        Mr. Millar. Well, the--not in--it would take the day to get
    through the details of that. And I think the folks on AASHTO's
    staff would be happy to meet with you and your team to get into
    the details of it.
        But basically, the concern we have is we are moving
    projects forward in a complicated world, and some projects
    advance and some don't. And at the end of the fiscal year, we
    have to balance the books. So the projects that advance, we are
    moving monies around. And it takes obligation authority to be
    able to do that.
        Rescission ties our hands. And what that can mean for us is
    that, even with the actual appropriation being available, we
    are not able to flex it and get work out the door. And what
    that means is projects don't get built. What that means is
    contractors don't get employed. What that means is that the
    people we serve don't see the benefits of the investments we
    are making.
        Mr. Pappas. Thank you very much.
        I yield back.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you.
        Mr. Woodall?
        Mr. Woodall. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all for
    being here. I represent the Metropolitan Atlanta area. We have
    been out to Texas more than once, Mr. Anderson, to check out
    the DART system, to see how it is we can build mass transit in
    the middle of an already-thriving metropolitan area.
        I want to pick up where Mr. Pappas left off on financing.
    New Hampshire is a donor State. Texas is the only true donor
    State in the transportation sense of the word, sending more
    transportation taxes than you get back in transportation
    dollars. But every single State represented here today is a
    donor State once you factor in the general fund revenues that
    are subsidizing the Highway Trust Fund. So it is a different
    conversation we have today than we did in the 1990s, because
    everybody is getting back more than they think that they are
    paying in, with the exception of Texas.
        I can't find an account that my local DOT or my local
    mayors or my local county commissioners tell me they receive
    from the Federal Government that they find easier to spend than
    those dollars that they raise locally. But I have got a very
    diverse panel here, so can someone tell me about a pot of money
    that you get from Washington that you find easier to spend than
    the matching funds that you are raising locally?
        And I only ask that because, since the Federal commitment
    hasn't increased since 1993, you have been doing more and more
    and more and more locally, and our estimation in Georgia is we
    are doing it better and better and better locally. We just
    passed a new transportation tax in Georgia, too, to the tune of
    about $1 billion a year. And we are succeeding in ways that the
    Federal Government would not have allowed us to succeed.
        And I ask that question--if nobody has got a particular
    pot, I ask that question to question the merit of raising the
    Federal commitment. If the only place I have to receive those
    Federal revenue dollars are from your citizens, and you are
    already raising taxes on your citizens--I heard it from
    Indiana, heard it from Alabama, heard it from Washington, heard
    it from Texas--you are already raising additional revenues from
    your citizens. What is the merit of me placing Federal burdens
    on them, only to give you your own money back again?
        I want to keep the Federal commitment that we have got. I
    don't want to weaken the Federal commitment at all. I want to
    be a partner, and a stable partner. But I want to understand
    the merit of taking money from your citizenry to return it to
    you.
        You said from Washington State's perspective, Mr. Millar,
    you are doing the same thing that Florida is doing and Georgia
    is now doing: committing those dollars to maintenance, because
    these are inflexible dollars you are getting back from
    Washington, and you are using them in the most efficient way
    that you can. But it might not be your first priority if you
    had more flexible dollars.
        Who can help me? Why should I take 20 more cents a gallon
    from your citizens to give it back to you is my question. I am
    happy to do it if you ask me to.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Millar. Well----
        Mr. Woodall. I just want to understand why it is
    meritorious.
        Mr. Millar. And, Congressman, I would ask you to do it.
        What we are looking at in our State is addressing our
    problems. But we got to also think about the Federal role in
    transportation. The Federal role in transportation from the
    1950s to, basically, today has been building out the Eisenhower
    Interstate System. We are done.
        Something that we need to think about as a people is what
    is the Federal role in surface transportation, moving forward.
    And for me, I look at the containers that come in to the Port
    of Seattle and the Port of Tacoma. Most of those are not going
    to Washington State. They are going somewhere else. But they
    are going somewhere else on an interstate highway that we
    operate and maintain and preserve.
        We need more capacity there. Moving that freight from our
    ports to other States may involve getting some of our citizens
    out of the way by incentivizing them to take transit or do
    something else. There is a key Federal role in this. And we
    need, one, the policy guidance from the Congress, and the
    revenue stream to keep that Federal role in play.
        Mr. Woodall. Yes, my experience is policy guidance is
    easier to provide than revenue stream. So let me commit to the
    first, and we are going to start working on the second.
        Mr. Nirenberg?
        Mr. Nirenberg. What I would say is it requires a
    partnership. It requires a partnership from the local level to
    the State level, from the State level to the Federal level. And
    I don't think that we are suggesting that anyone can do it
    alone.
        In fact, what we are providing is ways that we can do it
    better. It has been since----
        Mr. Woodall. Well, because----
        Mr. Nirenberg. Yes.
        Mr. Woodall [continuing]. You are so close, you are the
    closest to the people here----
        Mr. Nirenberg. Sure.
        Mr. Woodall [continuing]. Let me just drill down on that.
    We are going to raise more money for transportation, as a
    Nation.
        Mr. Nirenberg. Yes.
        Mr. Woodall. The Federal commitment to your community is
    rock solid. What is the merit of taking an additional dime from
    your city and bringing it to Washington before sending it back?
    Does that improve the plight?
        And if it does, I want to partner with you on that.
        Mr. Nirenberg. Well, if the dime that was taken out in 1993
    were worth the same amount that was taken out in 2019 I would
    say you are right. But the fact is that those revenue streams
    have not scaled up as time has gone on. So we have had to fill
    in the gaps. And we know that there is an extraordinary gap
    with the Highway Trust Fund.
        But that is not where it ends, either. We are suggesting
    also in local communities that we can't continue to do the same
    thing over and over again and get different results. What we
    are trying to focus on is now moving people in high-density,
    urban communities, which includes multiple modes: transit,
    bicycles, pedestrian pathways, and, of course, our roadways.
    And we have more and more infrastructure need, but less and
    less dollar power at the Federal level and the local level to
    deal with that.
        We have funding constraints at the local level, as well.
        Mr. Woodall. I will be interested to hear what those
    restraints are.
        Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you.
        Mrs. Craig?
        Mrs. Craig. Thank you so much, Madam Chairman. I wanted to
    start by just saying I represent a district that is probably
    one-third suburban, one-third exurban, and one-third rural,
    from a voter perspective, constituent perspective. But over
    half of my District in Minnesota's Second Congressional is
    rural.
        So I wanted to start with Mr. Stanley, and just ask you.
    You spoke in your testimony to higher highway fatalities on
    rural, non-interstate routes because of things like narrow
    lanes or limited shoulders, et cetera. How can Federal funding
    be structured to better target the needs of rural Americans?
        And how can we better consider small communities that often
    don't have the necessary resources or grant writers, or things
    like that to be as successful as other communities?
        Mr. Stanley. Excuse me. I think it is a partnership with
    the Federal level, as well, the planning organizations and
    things like that, to get those resources out to those
    communities that need them.
        The problems are readily identifiable, as we point out in
    our written testimony, that are causing the problems: narrow
    lanes, shoulder drop-offs, things that are easily rectified
    with proper finance and then proper design, and things like
    that. But too oftentimes those revenue dollars don't stream
    down to those communities for the reason that you provided.
        So I think that we, as a Nation, we just need to figure out
    how to disseminate those dollars down the pipeline, and then
    give them the tools they need, whether it is a Federal help
    center for smaller communities, or something like that, to
    actually help them see where the dollars are and address them
    to the specific issues. But that would be helpful.
        Mrs. Craig. Thank you very much. And I wanted to address my
    next question to Mr. Clark.
        So my background is in corporate HR. I spent 4 years as the
    head of HR for a major U.S. company. And I was interested in
    the section of your testimony that spoke to workplace training
    as a percentage of payroll. According to studies you cited,
    transit agencies spend significantly less than suggested.
        Can you speak to the efficiencies that could be created if
    transit had a better trained workforce and more opportunities?
    And what do you think the Federal Government should do to help?
        Mr. Clark. Thank you very much for that question. And I
    should have expanded on that more in my testimony. I think that
    there is substantial evidence that better training leads to
    better results, that more training leads to better on-time
    performance, fewer accidents.
        A lot of people have talked about state of good repair and
    the maintenance of the system. It is hard to keep all that
    stuff up if you don't have the skills of the workforce at the
    level you need to have them. And I actually have some data I
    could provide on that. There are some great anecdotes, but also
    some very solid data, in terms of Albany reducing its need for
    spare buses, for example, or SEPTA getting over 700 percent
    return on its investment over a 4-year period by increasing
    training. I think there are very, very substantial benefits
    there.
        And as I indicated, I think part of the Federal role here
    is that the Federal Government spends a lot on capital, but
    doesn't spend nearly as much as it needs to on human capital.
    Secretary Millar talked about metrics and people just starting
    to pay attention to them. In my testimony I said Dr. Beverly
    Scott, who is a former chair of APTA and a leader in the
    industry--and one of the mantras she often comes back to is if
    you are not measuring it and if you are not holding people
    accountable on it, it doesn't happen.
        So one of the things that the Federal Government clearly
    can do is say we want some good data on what is happening with
    your workforce. What are your projected retirements? How many
    people do you have in apprenticeship? What is the period of
    time it takes to get people trained? And getting--it is going
    to take some time for that data to accumulate and be a useful
    tool, but good data is a good tool.
        I would also urge that something--National Transit
    Institute does some very good work. By their own admission,
    they focus almost entirely on the white collar side of the
    workforce. I think some kind of Federal resource for the
    frontline workforce could make a big difference. Thank you.
        Mrs. Craig. Thank you so much. I couldn't agree with you
    more. I think as we are investing in the infrastructure in this
    country, part of that has got to be work skill development.
        And the apprenticeship institute idea and a partnership
    between the Government and the private sector is something that
    is very, very appealing to me, and long overdue. So thank you
    so much.
        Madam Chairwoman, I yield the remainder of my time.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Babin?
        Dr. Babin. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you,
    witnesses, as well.
        Mr. Terry, let me start off with a little history lesson.
    Almost 100 years ago most major cities began implementing
    motorized coach buses to provide their citizens with affordable
    and reliable public transportation. It worked like this. The
    rider pays a single flat fare to board a bus that goes around
    all day in a big loop, sometimes with 5 people aboard,
    sometimes overflowing with 50 or more. And to reach their final
    destination, riders have to either walk great distances or
    switch to another bus line, costing them time and productivity
    on a daily basis.
        Fast forward to today, and this model pretty much remains
    the very same. A number of cities and transit agencies are
    deploying new services powered by innovative technologies that
    hold the promise of improving economic mobility at a much lower
    cost to the American taxpayer than a traditional public
    transit.
        For example, in my home State of Texas, Arlington, Texas
    has become the first city in the country to run a transit
    service comprised exclusively of on-demand, dynamically routed
    shuttles, otherwise known as microtransit. According to the
    mayor in Arlington, the city has ``hit on something that is
    tremendously successful, that is getting the ridership that we
    have all been hoping for at a fraction of the cost of
    traditional transportation like buses or light rail.''
        Mr. Terry, how can the Federal Government encourage public-
    private partnerships to bring innovation to the public transit
    sector?
        Mr. Terry. I would say in Indianapolis, which is an urban
    area, densely populated, we are focusing on where mass transit
    is the highest and best use, the highest productivity. Sprawl
    can be a problem. We don't have the topography or geography
    that limits that.
        The microtransits are, I think, proving to be very
    successful. The ones I think would work very effectively
    integrated into a more robust regional transit plan, especially
    for our edge communities.
        I think the operating costs that we have now that are
    funded mostly on the local and State level, and the investments
    we are doing from mostly the Federal capital dollars that we
    are receiving are utilizing the technologies from fare
    modernization to make a more account-based system for
    multimodal use, integrating not just our transit system, but
    a--we have an electric car-share program, utilizing Ubers or
    Lyft, or bike-shares to maximize the mobility options for
    individuals, and not making mass transit a one-size-fits-all.
        Dr. Babin. Thank you very much.
        I would also like to welcome--we have two fellow Texans
    here, I see, Mr. Anderson and Mayor Nirenberg. Thank you for
    being here. Welcome to DC.
        But Mr. Anderson, you work for TxDOT. Thank you for being
    here. As you may know, my district, 36, I represent 9 counties,
    from Houston over to Louisiana. We suffered greatly from the
    devastation of Hurricane Harvey just a couple of years ago. All
    nine of my counties were Federal disaster zones.
        Are there ways that new and innovative transportation
    technologies can help during disasters like Hurricane Harvey?
        Mr. Anderson. Texas Innovation Alliance members, as well as
    TxDOT, have been working on a number of those, not only post-
    Harvey, but prior to that.
        And as an example, during the Hurricane Harvey event--we
    have a DriveTexas.org website that maintains our system that--
    you know, the part that TxDOT is responsible for, and the
    conditions on that system, be it construction or water on the
    road. And that map became the de facto map, the operational
    map, for the Federal agencies and for all the State agencies to
    bring logistics into the affected areas, as well as to evacuate
    across the entirety of that swath, which was roughly 300 miles
    wide and 150 miles deep.
        Dr. Babin. Right.
        Mr. Anderson. And that same tool, or the information that
    feeds that tool, we are looking to expand over the coming
    years, based upon lessons learned, to incorporate the State and
    city roads, and then bring that data and share it more broadly
    to other solutions, such as----
        Dr. Babin. OK. And then, to follow that up, what can
    Congress do to assist the State departments of transportation
    in preparing for extreme weather like we suffered during
    Hurricane Harvey?
        Mr. Anderson. They can work with us to examine what are the
    challenges that we most likely expect, especially at a regional
    and local level. What are the extreme weather events that are
    the ones that we are most concerned about, and then what are
    our plans to deal with those? And then, how can we work with
    them to develop a national strategy and address those within
    our formula funding?
        Dr. Babin. I am sure everybody out there on the panel could
    answer that in some form or fashion, but I am running out of
    time. So I need to yield back. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Congressman----
        Ms. Norton. Thank you.
        Ms. Titus?
        Ms. Titus. Thank you, Madam Chairman. As we look at surface
    transportation as an opportunity to see what we focused on in
    the past and what we need to focus on in the future, and one of
    the things that seems striking to me is that we have not paid
    much attention to the movement of people. And by people I mean
    tourists.
        We considered road miles, we have looked at population, we
    look at freight movement, all when we are considering resources
    or revenue, but not actually the movement of people. Now, this
    is important to me. I represent the heart of the Las Vegas
    Valley. We welcome over 42 million tourists every year. Now,
    some of them drive from Utah, Arizona, southern California.
    Some of them fly into McCarran, which is the seventh-busiest
    airport. Hopefully, some will be coming by speed train some
    time in the future.
        So we have to deal with getting them there, and then moving
    them around, once they get there. Our MPO and the Las Vegas
    Convention Authority RTC all work together to try to plan how
    to accommodate them. So it is part of our planning process, but
    we don't have the resources to take into account all these
    visitors.
        So I would ask Mayor Nirenberg and Ms. McMillan to address
    this. I know, Mayor, I have had the pleasure of welcoming the
    Visit San Antonio folks. They have come to my office. I cochair
    the Congressional Travel and Tourism Caucus. So they describe
    some of the same problems--I believe I saw you had 37 million
    visitors a year. And then San Francisco welcomes about 26
    million visitors a year, and that doesn't count Napa Valley. So
    again, you have some of the same kind of problems.
        So I would ask you two to talk a little bit about how you
    meet the needs of moving visitors around, and if you would
    support including visitors as a metric for determining funding.
    That is the first question.
        And then, question, what do you think about the possibility
    of having a national travel mobility program, kind of like we
    have the freight mobility program, that takes into account some
    alternative projects that enhance travel and moving tourists
    around, and look at connectivity among major tourist
    destinations?
        Mr. Nirenberg. Well, thank you very much for making that
    note. Visitors are--and the visitor industry, certainly, is a
    bedrock of San Antonio's economy, and will remain that way, and
    has impacts on our transportation system. I think that is an
    extension of how we are trying to build a multimodal
    transportation system for the future that actually--our vision
    for success is how we move people around and give consumers
    choice in how they move around.
        We are integrating last-mile transit, as the gentleman said
    earlier, from scooters to bike-share to other elements, and
    being able to build walkable communities and plan our land use
    around that. But we also have to give people options on how
    they can move from the main halls, whether it is via public
    transportation, transit lines, a rental car, Uber and Lyft
    rideshare types of modes. But we are trying to integrate
    everything. Our philosophy on transportation for the future,
    whether it is a visitor or resident, is all of the above.
        Ms. Titus. Well, you didn't answer my question, though.
    Would you support including visitors as part of a metric for
    funding?
        Mr. Nirenberg. Absolutely would. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Titus. And you think it is a good idea to have a
    national travel plan, as well as a freight plan?
        Mr. Nirenberg. Obviously, we would have to learn more about
    that, but it sounds good to me.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you.
        Ms. McMillan. You know, I agree with a lot of what was
    observed and said here. I think I would note that, actually,
    under the FAST Act, one of the things that changed under the
    planning rules was that we need to look at tourism----
        Ms. Titus. Yes.
        Ms. McMillan [continuing]. Part of the----
        Ms. Titus. That was part of my bill. I remember it very
    well.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. McMillan. Right, OK. Well, I am coming back to it, so I
    apologize, and give you----
        Ms. Titus. Glad you noticed.
        Ms. McMillan [continuing]. Kudos for adding that in. But I
    think one of the things that is--you know, that whole idea of
    choice is really important, particularly for tourists. Because,
    unlike the type of planning we would do when we can anticipate
    who has jobs, and where the jobs are located, at least to some
    degree have a predictability about where they want to go, I
    think with our tourist community that is really different.
        So things that we are beginning to tackle now, and have to
    think about how funding dollars can best accommodate it are the
    very information-driving improvements that we are thinking
    about. We have all these choices, but how do we get the
    information out to people to use it, in terms of the apps and
    the new technologies related to that?
        What--I am beginning to see, certainly when I was with FTA,
    is these new needs of how we use what we have differently, and
    particularly, again, the choices and availability and
    nimbleness to move or adjust them to peaks that might, you
    know, accommodate seasonal or tourist travel is something that
    is a very different funding source than building a lot of
    infrastructure. And sometimes our Federal, as well as State,
    you know, dollars have been designed on eligibilities that are
    linked to that more traditional infrastructure structure. And
    we have to rethink that, in terms of overlays on infrastructure
    that are much more nimble and fast-moving.
        So this is something I think, overall, we need to look to
    in our investment programs.
        Ms. Titus. Thank you, and I yield back.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you. Mr. Spano?
        Mr. Spano. Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and thank you
    for being here. We appreciate your presence and your expertise.
    You have been very helpful for us. I have a couple questions
    for Mr. Anderson, specifically.
        You all have really served as a model, I think, for the
    rest of the country. And we are grateful for that, number one.
    There are a couple programs you guys--and projects you guys
    have undertaken, and I would like you to just explain and tell
    me what benefits you have derived from those programs.
        The first is the Texas connected freight corridors project,
    and then the second would be the truck platooning
    demonstration. If you could, just detail those projects, and
    then maybe tell us how you think the rest of the country could
    benefit by implementing similar programs.
        Mr. Anderson. The connected vehicle freight program is
    actually an ATCMTD grant that we received about a year ago. And
    it is focused on what we call a Texas triangle, running from
    Houston up to Dallas and then back down to Austin, San Antonio,
    and on to Laredo, and then connecting over between San Antonio
    and Houston. And that is a preponderance of a lot of the
    freight movement in our State coming from both our land and
    gulf ports.
        And so the focus there is to enhance the movement of
    freight along those corridors, and then to expand those lessons
    learned to a lot of our east-west corridors, such as I-10 and
    I-20. And in doing that, we are going to look at different
    connected vehicle systems and the information it provides to
    freight that could help freight be more safe and to move more
    effectively and efficiently across the system. And then, as we
    find which ones are most successful, we are going to scale that
    across the State. And we begin to implement it, we are working
    with Federal highways on the project, and we believe we are
    going to have a lot of success with doing that.
        Related to that, then, we did do research on truck
    platooning. We maintained that for several years, looking at
    the capability of full 18-wheelers and their ability to platoon
    and, in some cases, to be automated and share operations
    between the two. And looking at the safety of that, and looking
    at the impacts as a passenger vehicle interacts with that. And
    all of those have been successful and have begun to feed the
    department--and not only our department, but agencies such as
    the DMV and the DPS, to inform them about how those might
    operate on the system.
        And recently, last session, the House passed a bill that
    allowed a certain version of truck platooning in the State. So
    the capability exists now, and a number of companies are
    looking to start doing that.
        Mr. Spano. And then I would also ask you if you could just
    give us your opinions on how other States might be able to
    replicate what the Texas Innovation Alliance is doing.
        Mr. Anderson. Well, I mentioned earlier the larger
    organization. It is called the Smart Cities Lab. And we teamed
    with a number of the other cities that applied for the smart
    cities grant back--almost 4 years ago now. And we share that
    information amongst each other as each city or region develops
    these smart technologies.
        And as I mentioned earlier, both the Texas Innovation
    Alliance, but with the Smart Cities Lab--and I think any other
    State could do this organically--I mean it was a grassroots
    effort. This is not something that was directed by the State.
    This followed the smart cities competition.
        And a number of the mayors said, you know, they had
    supported Austin's proposal, even though they weren't the
    winner. And following that, they said, ``You know, we had
    something really working well, in terms of teaming, and we want
    to continue that.'' So with their lead and with their staffs
    and combined with TxDOT and some of our research institutions,
    we agreed to just, you know, federate, essentially, and work on
    it together in a combined effort.
        And we have spread that to other States and talked to them.
    I believe Colorado actually announced last week that they have
    something similar to that. I think it is focused more in the
    Denver area. But I think it is replicable and it can be done
    not with a lot of top-driven demands, but more from a group
    effort.
        Mr. Spano. Thank you, Mr. Anderson.
        Madam Chair, I yield the remainder of my time.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Spano.
        Mr. Espaillat?
        Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, and thanks to the witnesses for
    being here. We have the opportunity today to have our first
    hearing on a major part of our infrastructure, just as the
    Trump administration released a budget that will divest the
    Federal Government from infrastructure.
        And, in fact, the administration had the gall to say that a
    major project of regional and national significance, and
    perhaps of even national security importance, such as the
    Gateway Project and the replacement of the Hudson River
    Tunnels, is a State issue. And, therefore, that the Federal
    Government should not be involved.
        Despite a chilling recent report by the Regional Plan
    Association showing that if the tunnels had to be shut down it
    would cost the Federal Government $1.5 billion in tax revenue,
    and it would rob the national economy of $16 billion.
        Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter the RPA
    report titled, ``A Preventable Crisis'' into the record.
        Ms. Norton. So ordered.
        [The information follows:]

     a preventable crisis: the costs of a hudson river rail tunnel shutdown
        [The report is retained in committee files and is available at:
    http://library.rpa.org/pdf/RPA-HRT_Impact_Study_20190225.pdf]

        Mr. Espaillat. Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, this is just
    one area where the administration is failing to meet our
    infrastructure needs, but there are many more.
        For example, the Trump budget, again, calls for eliminating
    capital improvement grants. This program includes the New
    Starts and Small Starts, provides critical Federal funding to
    help get major local projects underway.
        In New York City, funding through the New Starts program is
    absolutely vital for extending the Second Avenue subway into my
    district in East Harlem. The project would tie a new line of
    the subway system into the Metro-North Commuter Rail,
    alleviating the long, overcrowded Lexington Avenue line, as
    well. It would also better connect the East Side to a direct
    bus to LaGuardia Airport. So the project has regional and
    multimodal significance, and it would eliminate a serious
    transit desert that has persisted in the Nation's largest city
    for decades.
        My question to the panel is how critical have the capital
    improvement grants such as New Starts and Small Starts been in
    making sure projects get off the ground, and in helping local
    governments cope with growing population?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Espaillat. Anybody from the panel? Yes?
        Mr. Terry. So--Mike Terry--yes, we have been awarded
    recently a CIG grant, and it is under the Small Starts, for our
    first electrification of a bus rapid transit corridor, it is 13
    miles. And it is the beginning of the spine for our whole
    transit system. We don't have subways, but this is as close as
    we are getting right now. And it is vital for the density, to
    support the density. It is already proven corridors.
        So, from the Federal Government's side, I think these are
    competitive grants going through a very rigorous and lengthy
    process. But it is vital to our success of our build-out of our
    transit system in Indianapolis.
        Mr. Espaillat. Additionally, these efforts are not only
    good for transportation and infrastructure, but they are also
    an important window of opportunity for economic development in
    our cities and across our country. And I have a question for
    Mr. Clark.
        I know that you have mentioned programs, training programs
    that you have seen work for--apprenticeship programs and also
    minority- and women-owned business opportunities. What model is
    there out there that we can rely on to ensure that folks would
    be ready at the starting line?
        I mean often what happens is these projects take off, and
    the local population is not ready to compete for these jobs. So
    what training programs will you advocate for that will help
    people be ready at the starting line?
        Mr. Clark. I think you start early, and the--working on
    career technical education and good contextual learning skills
    as early as middle school, and career arenas, and all that kind
    of stuff helps.
        I think there are some really good models. Los Angeles did
    some really dramatic work in increasing its transit capacity.
    And they did that some time ago. Using tools like the
    multicraft core curriculum that the building trades have
    developed, and working with organizations like the Los Angeles
    Alliance for a New Economy, there was really dramatic impact in
    terms of reaching impacted communities. There were tough
    targets to make sure that people from historically
    disadvantaged groups got represented. And it got down to zip
    code levels, in terms of trying to get people into those jobs.
    And there was great success.
        I think Los Angeles had some unique advantages in doing
    that, but I think there were a lot of elements of that that can
    be implemented nationally. And I think the building trades,
    nationally, I think, deserve a lot of credit for the multicraft
    core curriculum, which has been an extremely successful
    apprenticeship program. And I don't have the numbers at my
    fingertips, but a very large majority of the people graduating
    from those MC3 programs are women and people of color.
        Mr. Espaillat. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Espaillat.
        Mr. Garcia?
        Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair Norton and Ranking
    Member Davis, for organizing this hearing to begin the work of
    addressing our urgent surface transportation needs. And I want
    to thank all of the panelists who have presented this morning.
        As the testimony thus far has made clear, we need to
    establish a more stable, long-term, and sustainable revenue
    source to both meet the needs of our growing economy, adapt to
    the adoption of more energy-efficient vehicles, and close the
    growing funding gap to bring our current assets to a state of
    good repair.
        Madam Chair, as we endeavor to draft a FAST Act
    reauthorization, I look forward to working with you, Chairman
    DeFazio, and all the other colleagues to seek more equity for
    historically underserved communities and populations like the
    ones that I represent. To add to the testimony today I submit
    just some of those needs specific to the Chicago region.
        According to the Regional Transportation Authority, which
    oversees the Chicago land transit systems, we need an
    additional $32 billion just to bring our assets to a state of
    good repair. The Illinois Department of Transportation
    estimates that we will need another $30 billion, fully, to
    maintain our road and highway network.
        Today I would like to focus on two specific issues: one,
    the need for better transit-oriented development that breaks
    down the silos in which planning for transit and housing
    projects currently occur; and two, the need to address our
    transit workforce safety and training needs, and especially for
    front-line workers like the bus drivers for Pace and the
    Chicago Transit Authority in Chicago.
        Director McMillan, Director Anderson, and Secretary Millar
    or others, a neighborhood in my district, Logan Square, has
    lost over 23,000 long-term Hispanic and African-American
    residents, due to the rising home costs, increasing problems in
    transit access, and increasing congestion. Some of this is
    rooted in poor planning that ultimately results in
    gentrification, or displacement.
        The National Association of Counties--and mind you, I was a
    former county commissioner--produced a 2018 report entitled,
    ``Planning Ahead,'' and I would like to request unanimous
    consent to enter that report into the record.
        Madam Chair?
        Ms. Norton. So ordered.
        [The information follows:]

      planning ahead: county planning, land use and zoning strategies for
                               affordable housing
        [The report is retained in committee files and is available at:
    https://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/documents/Planning%20Ahead%20-
    %20County%20
    Planning%2C%20Land%20Use%20and%20Zoning%20Strategies%20for%20
    Affordable%20Housing.pdf.]

        Mr. Garcia. Thank you. The report describes many of the
    pressures that counties and local authorities face to attract
    higher tax bases to increase revenues. The result is higher
    home costs, rents, and gentrification. This unintended and
    sometimes intended consequence can be avoided by better land
    use planning.
        If affordable housing is an after-thought in transit-
    oriented development, cost per square foot increases and
    affordable housing construction can become cost-prohibitive. In
    title 23 of U.S. Code 134, and title 49 of the U.S. Code
    section 5303 MPOs are instructed to consult with various local
    agencies for responsible land use. Is there something that we
    can adjust to more explicitly require the consideration of low-
    income for affordable housing as part of the planning process?
        And a brief answer would be very welcome.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. McMillan. Well, I will be--maybe I can start
    representing the MPOs and the planning processes you just
    cited. And I think there--very briefly, a couple of things.
        One, we need to get much better in data, particularly in
    our underserved communities, understanding what is happening on
    the ground in those communities, in terms of socio-demographics
    and availability of--you know, housing vulnerability and those
    type of things is really important.
        I think we also need to work very closely on these
    intersecting issues. Transportation and housing, at least
    certainly in the bay area--and I would say across California--
    you can't solve one without the other at this point in our
    metro areas. And we are working very aggressively to do the
    type of coordinated planning and then coordinated investments--
    and this is where we could explore more of how Federal
    programs, for example, at HUD and Federal flexible
    transportation programs under USDOT can recognize joint
    criteria or performance metrics to allow those investments to
    work better together. That might be one area to explore.
        Mr. Garcia. Well, thank you.
        I am about to run out of time, so I will submit some
    additional questions for followup. I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Garcia.
        Mr. Carbajal?
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to all
    the witnesses today.
        Ms. McMillan, thank you for your testimony. As many of us
    are aware, the administration released their so-called
    infrastructure proposal last year. It would have required
    States and local governments to pay a larger share of the costs
    of infrastructure--80 percent, to be exact. However, States and
    local governments are already financing infrastructure projects
    at higher levels than the Federal Government. And, let's face
    it, if the locals had 80 percent of the funds, they would
    already be doing a lot more.
        As a matter of fact, when I served in local government in
    Santa Barbara County, county residents voted in support for
    renewing a self-help tax in order to finance larger regional
    infrastructure projects.
        So I have a couple questions: one, how can the Federal
    Government be a better partner for local governments to bring
    our infrastructure to a state of good repair; and two, what are
    the pros and cons for local governments to have access to
    different financing tools, such as the infrastructure bank or
    an infrastructure corporation?
        Ms. McMillan. Well, I would like to comment first--observe,
    Congressman, your observation that is really important. While
    State and local governments--I think particularly in our home
    State of California--have stepped up with a greater share of
    investment, it was never to replace the Federal dollar, it was
    to augment the Federal dollar in a continuing partnership. At
    no point have we ever, in stepping forward, not recognized that
    our Federal investment needs to remain and needs to remain
    robust.
        And so I think, you know, your observations there of
    partnership are so critical. And I think that theme needs to
    carry forward in whatever discussions we have associated with
    reauthorization.
        With respect to financing, I think we generally--given the
    complexity of the problems we have, maybe one overarching view
    is that the more tools we have, the more we are going to be
    able to apply them to whatever problems may arise--again,
    avoiding that one-fits-all scenario. Financing is incredibly
    important to deliver our projects faster and, you know, allow
    for improvements to get to the public more quickly.
        But financing is not funding. There always needs to be a
    revenue stream that is underlying whatever financing we do. And
    so I think that is a key reminder, as we talk about the value
    of those tools we would like to see in place.
        Mr. Carbajal. So a public infrastructure bank would be a
    good tool to have, nonetheless?
        Ms. McMillan. I think any amount of tools available to us
    is something we should explore. More tools are better than
    fewer.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you so much.
        Mayor Nirenberg, thank you for your service in local
    government, and thank you for being here on behalf of the
    National League of Cities. We all know that congestion is a
    huge issue for commuters, an issue I also experienced in my
    district. It takes a toll also on our economy.
        Our committee's website, under Chairman DeFazio's
    leadership, estimates that congestion has cost our economy over
    $342 billion since 2017. What are some of the ways that we can
    leverage different modes of transportation, such as regional
    rail, to minimize congestion?
        Mr. Nirenberg. Well, thank you very much for that question.
    I think you are absolutely right. We need to provide people
    options. Not everyone would choose to get behind a single-
    occupancy vehicle if they had other choices, which is why, in
    San Antonio, we are working on a comprehensive, multimodal
    strategy that allows people options from the first mile to the
    last mile, and everything in between.
        Many people will choose to continue to drive their own
    vehicle, but we need to make sure that we have a fully funded
    public transportation system for people who don't have the
    choice have now an option to get to and from work, get to and
    from school.
        And then, from a regional standpoint, providing, you know,
    ways to move around what is now the fastest growing corridor in
    the country, and probably the spark of Texas economy right now,
    which is the I-35 corridor. And largely, the Texas Triangle,
    which will be home to about 40 million people by 2050.
        So the bottom line for us is we need to provide options, we
    need them to be multimodal, and that requires a broad
    partnership with the Federal Government, the State government,
    and the local government to provide diverse revenue streams
    and, really, as many tools as possible to fund them.
        Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mayor.
        Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Ms. Norton. Mrs. Miller?
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton, and thank you
    all for being here today.
        Improving our Nation's roads and bridges is imperative to
    increasing safety, as well as connecting our Nation. My own
    district faces issues connecting our rural communities with
    larger, more populous areas. Good infrastructure helps us
    preserve the all-important rural way of life, while also
    ensuring my constituents in small towns can have easy access to
    goods and services in our larger cities. I believe, if we
    invest in our Nation's roads now, we will see long-term
    economic benefits, nationwide.
        The King Coal Highway and the Tolsia Highway in my district
    have been under construction since 1999, and are nowhere close
    to completion. Finishing this highway would increase safety and
    cut travel times in half in the mountainous southern West
    Virginia, and bring much-needed economic development to this
    region. For 20 years there has been talk of completing this
    project, but no action.
        I also have a bridge to nowhere in my district, where
    construction has been stalled since 2007. It is totally
    unacceptable that the bridge has been completed for over a
    decade, but is still wholly unusable, since there are no paved
    roads connecting it to my State's highway system. When
    completed, this bridge will be a shining example of
    infrastructure connecting communities. But until then it
    represents the millions of dollars wasted on incomplete
    projects across the country.
        Further, the Coalfields Expressway abruptly changes from a
    paved, four-laned highway to a dirt road. This is another
    example of a highway that has been in the works for far too
    long. Route 2 and Route 10 also need enhancement and
    modernization. These projects, when taken on, will breathe
    commerce, jobs, and economic growth into our southern counties,
    connecting West Virginia to Virginia and beyond.
        West Virginia is in dire need of infrastructure investment.
    I was sent here to Congress to improve the lives of my
    constituents in West Virginia who are forced to commute for
    hours on dangerous and damaged rural mountain roads, just to
    get to work in the nearest town. Building and maintaining our
    major road system is essential for exporting West Virginia's
    abundant resources, and encouraging economic prosperity. I do
    hope that this subcommittee is able to find solutions for the
    Highway Trust Fund in order to promote West Virginia's economic
    development.
        Mr. Millar, the Highway Trust Fund allocates billions of
    dollars every year. What kind of oversight does the Federal
    Government have over how money from the Highway Trust Fund is
    used to make sure it is not wasted?
        Mr. Millar. Congresswoman, that is a great question. In the
    State of Washington I work closely with the Division
    Administrator for the Washington division of the Federal
    Highway Administration, which provides oversight of everything
    we do with Federal highway dollars. I also work with the Region
    Administrator of the FTA region, region 10, on the transit
    dollars that get spent.
        The oversight is in place. I think the nature of our
    transportation investment, where you have a Federal program
    that is administered by the States, gives each of the States
    the individual authority to make decisions about how the
    Federal money that comes to that State gets spent.
        So in Washington State we have a great relationship with
    our Federal partners. The money comes to the State, the money
    gets spent, the projects get built, our people move.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you. With increased traffic volume
    overall, as well as increased ownership of high mileage and
    electric vehicles, what are we doing to properly fund the
    Highway Trust Fund? What more could we be doing? And please be
    as comprehensive as possible.
        Mr. Millar. Back at me, great.
        Mrs. Miller. Yes.
        Mr. Millar. Yes, Congresswoman. The way we are funding the
    Highway Trust Fund now is with fuel tax and our grandchildren's
    money. We are borrowing. The fuel tax, because of the more
    efficient vehicles we have because of alternative fuels coming
    on to the market, it is a flat funding source. And it does not
    have a sustainable future.
        The alternatives to the motor fuel tax are all unpopular.
    But how many popular taxes do you know of?
        Whether it is a road user charge or congestion pricing or
    some other way of funding the transportation system, I think
    what all of us agree on is that it should be user-based, it
    should be a fee for service. It should be--you know, that is
    the notion behind the fuel tax, it is the notion behind what we
    should do, going forward.
        We are testing these ideas around the country. I am the
    vice chair of the Western Road Usage Charge Alliance. States
    all over the American West are looking at how they would
    administer a road user charge, the mechanics of it. Taking this
    on nationally is something we are going to have to do at some
    point. We are looking forward to continuing the conversation.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Brown?
        Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is clear to me that
    the--and so many--that the Federal Government must invest in a
    resilient, modern infrastructure that communities around our
    country desperately need, and Congress needs to act.
        But additional investments, I believe, will be meaningless
    without a capable workforce prepared for tomorrow's shovel-
    ready projects. Congress has acknowledged our workforce
    challenges and the need for more apprenticeships, internships,
    and vocational training for our manufacturing and construction
    sectors.
        The private sector has struggle to provide the job training
    necessary, and we cannot depend solely on our high schools,
    community colleges, and universities to train and sustain a
    modern, competitive workforce. That is why we must bring both
    industry, labor, and education to the table and ensure that we
    are working hand in glove to meet the workforce demands of
    tomorrow.
        Mr. Clark, a question for you. In your testimony you talk
    about the value of registered apprenticeship. I have a bill
    called the Hard Hat Act that would require 20 percent of
    workers on a federally funded construction project to complete
    a registered apprenticeship program. You spoke about the idea
    of utilizing this model for maintenance and other skilled labor
    positions in the industry.
        Can you elaborate on your comments as to why it makes sense
    to have these high-standard, joint labor-management
    apprenticeship programs for all aspects within the transit
    industry? And what are some pre-apprenticeship options that can
    be used to help address workforce pipeline challenges?
        Mr. Clark. Thank you. You have answered much of your own
    question, but I welcome the opportunity.
        Mr. Brown. As long as it looks good on camera.
        Mr. Clark. It does.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Clark. The--apprenticeship really does involve--the
    technical learning needs to be there. You don't go out and deal
    with high-voltage electricity without learning something in the
    classroom about principles of electricity. But to work well in
    those blue collar settings--and, indeed, in most settings--
    people learn most of what they do by doing it, not by passively
    absorbing information.
        An apprenticeship takes that principle of learning and
    implements it fully. And that works very well. I think your
    bill is a great idea. We also have some experience starting
    these apprenticeship programs in some places in transit, and
    the results are phenomenal. People pick up the skills.
        And, as I indicated in my testimony, if you get to the
    highest end of this--and I think Southeastern Pennsylvania
    Transportation Authority in Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia, has
    reached some of this at times--we get engineers and front-line
    workers taking on a problem, seeing something, and saying, hey,
    we are paying a lot of money to get this particular element
    from a vendor. We can do that in-house if we re-jigger the
    systems a little bit.
        There are, really, a lot of benefits here, including the
    workforce becoming more engaged, people enjoying their jobs
    more, but also just delivering better, more efficient service.
        Mr. Brown. Thank you.
        Secretary Millar, in your testimony you talk about the need
    for Congress to support initiatives that create new
    opportunities for high school and college students, including
    internships in STEAM fields to ensure an adequate workforce
    pipeline. I have a bill that looks at dual enrollment programs
    with a focus on private-sector buy-in.
        How can we better prepare the high school junior and senior
    that is about to graduate for a family-supporting career in the
    transportation industry? And what are ways that State
    departments of transportation are engaged in the next
    generation of workers? And what can we learn from them?
        Mr. Millar. That is a great, great question, Congressman.
        We are doing a lot in Washington State. We could do more,
    if we were resourced to do more. We are reaching out in high
    schools and middle schools across the State to engage those
    children in thinking of the construction trades as a way
    forward. As we talked about earlier today, a lot of folks
    figure that 4-year degree is the way to go.
        I have a friend in the development industry that said,
    ``What I tell kids is go to community college, get some skills,
    go out, do an apprenticeship, learn a trade. By the time your
    friends graduate from college, you will be ready to hire them
    as employees.''
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Millar. So we require today 15 percent of our labor
    hours worked on our contracts be done by apprentices. We are at
    18.6 percent, as an agency. And 44 percent of those apprentice
    hours are worked by women and people of color.
        Providing a pipeline to that apprenticeship program through
    pre-apprenticeship support and on-the-job training is the place
    where we need help. We have a State-funded program--it started
    at $750,000, it is up to $3 million--that we are spending on
    things like daycare and lunch money and equipment, tools, so
    that young men and women can get into these apprenticeship
    programs.
        We are not doing that work, we are getting that money out
    to labor, to faith-based groups, to community groups to bring
    people from the community in.
        Another thing I am doing--to wrap this up--is working with
    the secretary of corrections in Washington State in the prison
    population to bring that same set of pre-apprenticeship skills
    together, so that people can leave the prison population--when
    they come back into their communities, they come back into the
    community with a full-time job with the Washington State DOT.
        Mr. Brown. Thank you to the panel. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
        Mr. Malinowski.
        Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Anderson, you mentioned in your testimony the
    experience of Texas with autonomous vehicles, the experiment
    that is just beginning. And I wanted to ask you to leap forward
    a bit and imagine the brave new world.
        Imagine a day, you know, a few years from now, when you and
    I own a vehicle that we can summon at any time, we can jump
    into it not having to drive it. We can read a book, watch a
    movie, eat a meal, take a nap. It can take us wherever we want
    to go. We don't have to worry about parking it, because we can
    let it circle the block or go somewhere else while we are doing
    our thing, and we can summon it back any time.
        In that world, what incentive do you and I have to take
    public transportation or get on a bike? And if I am right about
    the answer to that question, what is the impact on congestion?
    What is the impact on pollution, especially if some of these
    vehicles are not zero-emissions vehicles? What is the impact on
    some of the bigger challenges that we are already facing in our
    transportation system?
        Mr. Anderson. So we have talked a lot about this with both
    startup-level autonomous vehicle companies, as well as the OEMs
    and the transit community, as well, because they are looking at
    AV buses and other solutions similar to that--microtransit was
    mentioned earlier.
        I don't think it is a one-size-fits-all solution. There has
    been discussion of having services, almost like you have cable
    subscriptions. You subscribe to a particular manufacturer's
    vehicle, or its system and its service that it provides, and
    you don't own that car whatsoever. It shows up when you need
    it, and delivers you to where you want to go. But where you
    want to go may not be, you know, door to door. It may be door
    to a multimodal hub that might involve other transit services,
    as well.
        So the mix and the solutions that are being driven, you
    know, back to the Texas Innovation Alliance are locally
    identified. The problems that they have--and each region has
    disparate--you know, they have similar problems, but they have
    regional challenges that are different, and each transportation
    system is different. So they are looking at what fits best with
    what they project over the next 20, 30 years, what they
    currently have, and how they can get to that point. And a mix
    of those solutions, typically, is what they are seeing as the
    first best option, rather than trying to select what the only
    option is going to be in the near future.
        Mr. Malinowski. OK. So I am wrong to be worried about that?
        Mr. Anderson. I am not saying you are wrong to be worried.
    I think that there are a lot of people, including the mayor's
    team and others in the State--and I mentioned the Smart Cities
    Labs and a number across the Nation in ITS America, and AASHTO,
    and the Transportation Research Board have communal discussions
    on this on a regular basis, and are looking at what can be done
    to address that specific challenge, and what is the
    reliability, the safety, the security, the privacy, which are
    all concerns that we have, and that we communicate regularly to
    the industry that is developing it to make sure that all of
    those things are addressed, and deliver the quality of life
    that would be imagined in that kind of future.
        Mr. Malinowski. And what is--what do you see--and I will
    invite anybody to answer this question--is the Federal role in
    regulating, overseeing driverless vehicles with respect to the
    questions I raised: safety, privacy, other issues that you
    mentioned?
        Mr. Anderson. Well, the Federal Highway Administration has
    had a number of meetings, national-level dialogues, and they
    have published autonomous vehicle guidance over the past
    several years. And that has served as a catalyst and an enabler
    to the States, especially those States that have moved forward
    on passing autonomous vehicle and connected vehicle-related
    laws. And I think that that has been a positive and natural
    relationship between the two.
        And to date, the regulation hasn't been necessary. However,
    the work that was being done on the previous autonomous vehicle
    bill mirrored, in many cases, our State's laws, and Michigan
    DOT's State's laws, and several others. There were very common
    themes in those, and it seemed like that was going in the right
    direction before. That didn't make it through the last session.
        Mr. Millar. And Congressman, if I could add to it, I am on
    the board of the Intelligent Transportation Society of America.
    And at AASHTO I cochair with the secretary from Delaware, the
    Cooperative Automated Transportation Coalition Executive
    Committee, which is a joint effort of AASHTO, ITS America, the
    Institute of Transportation Engineers, and FHWA and FTA are at
    both of those tables.
        When you look at the automated vehicle, the SAE level 4,
    level 5 vehicle that is 99.9 percent of the way there, a
    colleague of mine from Germany points out that--imagine you are
    climbing Mount Everest. If you fly to New Delhi, you are 99
    percent of the way there. If you fly from there to Kathmandu,
    99.9 percent. Go to the base camp, you still have to climb the
    mountain.
        Something that we are looking at, in terms of mobility, is
    the notion of mobility on demand, and the ability to say I am
    here, I want to go there, what are my options? You have trip
    planning done for you, you pick the trip you want to take,
    knowing the cost, knowing the time, knowing perhaps the
    environmental consequences or the health benefits, what have
    you. And then that app does the transactions for you and gives
    you the permissions to go where you are going.
        ITS America is standing up a mobility on demand alliance
    next month--in Seattle, because I am cochairing that effort.
    That kind of work is going on, and the Federal Government has
    been a great partner in that and in developing policy. We are
    working together to determine what are the questions that need
    to be asked and answered.
        We are hearing a lot from our friends in industry that--you
    know, start with a light touch, and that is what we are doing.
        But the conversations are ongoing. The Federal role is much
    appreciated. The seed money, the mobility on demand sandbox and
    other things that agencies are doing are helping make our jobs
    easier as we enter into this brave new world.
        Mr. Malinowski. Thank you.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Payne?
        Mr. Payne. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Stanley, in your testimony you discuss the economic
    benefits of transportation infrastructure investment. How can
    we better ensure that infrastructure projects benefit local
    economies?
        You know, I would specifically like your opinion on how we
    can ensure the inclusion of minorities, women, veterans, and
    other small businesses, as primes or subcontractors on these
    infrastructure projects, thereby creating a more diverse
    workforce.
        Mr. Stanley. Thank you, sir. Transportation projects are
    often--if you look at the breakdown of our members as
    associated general contractors, we are made up of some large
    companies, but a lot of them are smaller, family-owned or
    individual-owned businesses. A lot of those businesses will go
    out and are investing in capital and infrastructure to actually
    get those projects done.
        There is structure in place in the Federal projects right
    now, as you are aware, with the DBE program for disadvantaged
    business enterprises, and that has tended to work well in some
    areas. There are some improvements that we think that can be
    made to make it more accessible to others.
        There are some issues with the registration and situation
    with the DBE program. The cost, if you are a startup company to
    go into the registration process and to get certified, some of
    those things tend to be cost-prohibitive to some of those
    communities, as well.
        The second thing that we think needs to be done is--and we
    definitely advocate, there is diversity and inclusion through
    all levels of the construction process, not only just in the
    prime contract or the subcontractor, but what we see and what
    is--my experience personally has been--is that a lot of your
    DBEs haven't experienced the mid-level and high-level jobs in
    your major corporations. A lot of construction companies are
    actually started by people who have worked for larger
    businesses for 5, 10 years, learned the planning, the financial
    expertise, the scheduling expertise that are needed to make the
    process and the job go smoothly.
        So when minorities and people that are disadvantaged aren't
    in those positions in majority corporations, when they go out
    to start new companies, a lot of those skills aren't there. So
    I think the DBE supports services--things that the--that are in
    the Federal program now need to be taken advantage of more to
    help people that start the businesses with the tools to be
    successful.
        But then I think the diversity inclusion, which--AGC has a
    document that our board of directors has voted on and approved
    that calls for diversity inclusion throughout the process, not
    just meeting our DBE goals, but let's diversify our companies.
    Let's get more disadvantaged people or constituents through all
    levels of the construction process, from engineers to
    architects to business owners to project managers. And I think
    that will help the program be more successful over the future.
        Mr. Payne. And how do we--you feel the Federal Government
    can bolster and support that effort to ensure that the
    disadvantaged can meet the criteria needed in order to compete?
        Mr. Stanley. Right. So I think the oversight that is being
    done now through the DBE program is a good starting point. I
    mean, obviously, you need to have certain financial stability,
    and things of that nature. So that would be one of my main
    ways, I think, that--I would suggest that.
        Mr. Payne. OK, thank you.
        And Ms. McMillan, given all the new technological advances
    in transportation, such as with ride-sharing companies, how do
    we balance the new technology with local community needs,
    specifically with the potential displacement of local
    workforces?
        Ms. McMillan. Yes, I think that is an excellent question,
    Congressman. And part of certainly what we are doing in the San
    Francisco Bay area is aggressively bringing that consideration
    of impact on our historically underserved communities at the
    forefront of our planning.
        One of the things that we have recently engaged in,
    importantly, was a very detailed, 10-point plan housing
    analysis. Referring back to what I observed before, that the
    housing and transportation demands in our communities are
    inextricably linked, including the challenge of gentrification
    or displacement around a new piece of transportation
    infrastructure that suddenly makes a neighborhood much more
    viable.
        One of the things included in there were tenant protections
    and policies to--you know, to specifically speak to that need.
    The idea of identifying and preserving naturally affordable
    housing and not seeing it flip, in terms of that--of
    development that is happening around the areas, ensuring that
    affordable housing is incorporated not, you know, as a target,
    but a requirement as part of the development that happens in
    the areas around our transit stations. All of those elements
    need to come into play, I think, importantly.
        We are also recognizing a one-size-fits-all doesn't really
    work in those circumstances, understanding each community. We
    are seeing higher levels of poverty in our suburban areas, as
    well as traditionally urbanized pockets of economic distress.
        So I think maybe the answer to your question is bringing
    this in at the front end of the planning process, not at the
    back end, is the best way of identifying the problems and
    coming up with the solutions, and bringing the tools to bear to
    solve them.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Payne. Thank you, I yield back.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Rouda?
        Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Hi, I am Harley Rouda, I am from Orange County,
    California's 48th District. And I appreciate all of you being
    here. And I also apologize that--we serve on multiple
    committees, so if I ask questions that have already been asked
    and answered, I apologize.
        I also want to thank Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member
    Graves for having this hearing, because I do believe that
    infrastructure is a key component in our ability to fight
    climate change, and having this hearing is so important.
        As I mentioned, I am from California. California is known
    for many things, including its traffic. In fact, 16.9 percent
    of California's roads are in poor condition, 6.2 percent of our
    bridges are deficient, 53 percent of our dams are at high risk.
    So we recognize how important it is to have the interaction of
    the Federal Government work with States and local
    municipalities in addressing these issues.
        I want to read a couple facts with you and then get into
    some questions.
        It is shown that personal cars are unused 95 percent of the
    time. So a wasting asset 95 percent of the time. In densely
    populated cities like Los Angeles, 15 percent of urban land is
    used for parking, yet estimates by 2035 is that parking spaces
    will decline by 5.7 million square meters. If we get to a point
    where we actually have 90 percent driverless cars, it would
    result in $447 billion in savings and productivity.
        So if we assume for a minute that we had level 5 auto
    automation, supporting high levels of autonomous vehicles, we
    had ride sharing, we had mobility on demand as you mentioned,
    Mr. Millar, how is that going to impact--this is an open
    question for all of you--infrastructure design?
        Because if population is expected to grow by--your
    respective cities--by 25 percent in the next 25 years, that
    doesn't mean we need 25 percent increase in the highways, and
    so on, if we have these. So I am just curious how you guys are
    working this into your long-term planning for infrastructure.
        Mr. Nirenberg. Well, we are considering--and actually have
    been implementing--flexible plans for some of that
    infrastructure. You know, it is my dream one day that we built
    our last structured parking garage at some point. But as we
    build those structures, we are also considering future use in
    them, knowing that there is some time off.
        But it also really depends. I mean--and there is a great
    potential for urban recapture. And we know we have a great need
    for housing and things like that in our urban communities. But
    how we build the transition phase between where we are today
    and a more multimodal and perhaps autonomous future is very
    much in the balance. And that is why we are working towards
    better land use, coordinated with housing and transportation,
    and also including public transportation.
        Mr. Millar. Just to add to that, one of the things that we
    are hoping to see is more flexibility in the funding that comes
    to us to allow us to adapt to these things.
        A specific example, we are building bus rapid transit on
    the east side of the central Puget Sound area. The suburban
    mayors along that route come to the Sound Transit board that I
    sit on and beg for more park-and-ride. ``Give us more park-and-
    ride, give us more park-and-ride.'' Fifty-thousand-plus a space
    to build those. The best park-and-ride is your own garage.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Millar. If we could invest money in working with the
    private sector, working with labor and public transit to get
    people from their home to the transit center----
        Mr. Rouda. Right.
        Mr. Millar [continuing]. And leave their car at home, we
    would be better off----
        Mr. Rouda. You would solve that problem.
        Mr. Millar. That land could be used for housing at the
    transit center, instead of parking cars.
        Mr. Rouda. And I know that is a whole other topic, and you
    started to touch on that, as well, the intersection of
    affordable housing and transportation.
        I also want to ask you, too, there is always a large debate
    about how to fund infrastructure needs, and whether it is a
    gasoline tax or miles traveled. And, you know, when we talked
    about miles traveled and congestion pricing, and with the
    growing use of ride-share ride apps and so on, don't we--there
    is always this question. Can we even measure miles traveled?
        And I believe we can, right now, to a large degree, with
    certain aspects of what we are seeing in these developing
    technologies and these ride-share techniques. Is that being
    discussed at your level on how to use those existing
    applications to help monitor miles traveled, and use that as a
    tax base?
        Mr. Millar. How to measure it is being discussed. A more
    interesting discussion is who measures it, and who shares it.
        We, as an agency--I have 9,000 sensors around Seattle alone
    measuring traffic volumes and traffic speeds. I know that data.
    We know that data--I don't have the technical experience--we
    know that data, we know how it has been generated, we know the
    problems with it. We have private-sector entities that are
    creating data from different places. We don't know as much
    about the black box that they use to turn that data into
    information.
        As this all evolves, a place where we could use some
    Federal guidance, some Federal support, is what are the
    relationships, what data gets shared, how does it get shared,
    how are trade secrets protected, how--if the public sector
    enables this to happen on its system, what do we get back from
    the private sector, in terms of the data streams that they
    collect?
        It is not just us at the DOT or the city or the county,
    there are lots of players in that. So what we measure is
    important, who measures it, and how we get access to that
    information is critically important.
        Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you.
        Mrs. Napolitano?
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to go
    on a different route.
        Mr. Clark, thank you for highlighting the issue on assault
    on bus drivers. My legislation with Mr. Katko, H.R. 1139, the
    Transit Worker and Pedestrian Protection Act, requiring transit
    agencies to work with labor on implementing safety plans to
    protect bus driver assault, and also requires the transit
    agencies and the USDOT to collect better data on this growing
    problem, which is inadequate at times.
        And as you point out, anecdotal data from newspaper stories
    every day show it is a growing problem. It is discouraging new
    bus driver applicants. Can you further discuss how assaults on
    bus drivers--and the deterrent to hiring new drivers,
    especially when the new bus drivers get the dregs?
        Mr. Clark. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes.
        I think, obviously, if the data is not collected
    nationally, obviously, it is known locally. And people--and
    stories spread. And you are right. You are absolutely right.
    Driving a bus is, under the best circumstances, a difficult
    job. And there used to be--if you are starting at $15 an hour
    20 years ago, that was an extraordinarily--that is about what
    the wage was 20 years ago, and that was an extraordinarily
    competitive wage in that labor market. It is much less so right
    now.
        And if the likely--if people--it is not likely,
    statistically it is not a likelihood. But if the specter of
    those attacks looms large, people will stay away.
        I applaud your bill because it--there may be barriers to
    the right answer, there may be other things with the right
    answer, but the Federal Government is not trying to mandate
    what the right answer is. The Federal Government is saying
    solve it at the level where you can solve it, and the
    represented workforce--or unrepresented workforce, as the case
    may be--and local management come together to plan around it.
    And I think that is a good model for training, that is a good
    model for labor relations in transit, that is a good model
    for--the safety management system that is being implemented
    rests on that involvement of that front-line workforce. And I
    think your bill addresses that well.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
        And Ms. McMillan, I recall meeting you when you were in
    Federal Transit Administration a while ago, and when you worked
    at the L.A. Metro. We will miss you in L.A., but
    congratulations, ma'am, for your new role. I want to ask you
    about the ability of local transportation agencies to hire
    local workers.
        The Trump administration budget calls for more State and
    local investment in transportation, but prohibits local
    governments from hiring local preference on infrastructure
    projects. Most taxpayers believe that when you are--they are
    paying for a public transportation project, they should be
    given a preference on jobs associated with that project.
        As a local transportation leader, do you believe that you
    and other local transportation agencies should be allowed to
    set a local hire preference for your citizens? And how can this
    Federal law hinder those local hiring?
        Ms. McMillan. I want to be careful, Congresswoman, to speak
    to my experience, where there was a very clear, you know,
    position there. But I think the intent behind it and the spirit
    behind it would extend to many other communities.
        As we build our infrastructure, it has impacts on the
    communities. It brings a lot of benefits, in terms of access to
    opportunities, and it also can have--at least certainly while
    it is happening--a major impact on the local businesses and a
    number of other things.
        One of the ways of giving back to the community and having
    them be able to own and buy into the entire life package of
    that project would be to have those employment opportunities
    offered to community members. And I think, in this case, we
    want the option to be available. For communities that want to
    do that, where they see a powerful benefit in giving back to
    their community in a number of different ways with these
    investments, that should be on the table. I think it is the
    option to have that available for communities that want to use
    it is where, I think, the core of certainly the pilot program
    that was done, you know, with FTA.
        And when I was with Los Angeles, that was something that
    was incredibly important to them, and they grabbed it. And so
    the option is the importance.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you very much.
        Anybody else?
        Ms. Norton. There is going to be a vote between 1 o'clock
    and 1:30, so I would like to get everybody in.
        Mr. Stanton?
        Mr. Stanton. Madam Chair, thank you for hosting this
    hearing, having these outstanding representatives from a broad
    range of industry on this important topic. And yes, I will try
    to keep it tight so we can get to our votes, which are very
    important.
        Before serving in Congress--I am a freshman Member--I was
    mayor of Phoenix, Arizona, one of the fastest growing cities in
    America, kind of like San Antonio. And so the dynamic in a lot
    of communities, where the urban center wants more money for
    transit, and the suburban communities want more money for roads
    and highways, that kind of gets turned on its head in a city
    like Phoenix, where, as a mayor, you got to be supportive of
    all of it, because we are over 500 square miles, but a growing
    center city.
        So we passed a major infrastructure investment plan that
    did have--tripling the amount of money for our light rail
    system, increasing support for our bus and bus rapid transit
    system, bikeability, walkability, and more money for roads on
    the more suburban parts of our community.
        And, Mayor, I am sure it is very similar to what is going
    on in San Antonio, also one of the fastest growing. So I want
    to get your thoughts, you know, as we make important decisions
    in this committee, about a transportation infrastructure
    investment plan for America. For a city like yours, thinking
    beyond roads and bridges, what kind of investments are you
    looking for?
        Mr. Nirenberg. Yes, well, I certainly appreciate your
    perspective, Congressman. And absolutely right. I think there
    is urban/rural issues at play here.
        But what we found--and there is a great study by the
    National League of Cities that shows that when we have a proper
    balance, the results create great synergies for everybody,
    including, you know, supply chains from the economic
    development side to more quality of life for those who seek to
    live inside or outside of the city.
        We are seeking a balanced approach to multiple modes of
    transportation, and sustainable sources of funding that
    recognize the local leveraging that is taking place already. We
    applaud the work of our Congress on many things, including
    fully funding transit projects in years past. We would like to
    see a return to that.
        We are also working on partnerships with regard to new
    technologies and how we regulate those technologies, and
    autonomous vehicles comes up, and making sure that we have
    respective local authorities when it comes to, you know,
    regulating the design and maintenance of traffic infrastructure
    and traffic management systems, and so forth.
        You have a partner in local governments, because we
    represent the same constituents who have the same concerns and
    who rely, from an equity standpoint, on an efficient
    transportation system.
        Mr. Stanton. I appreciate you saying that. You haven't had
    as good of a partner as cities deserve in the Federal
    Government over the last few decades, where the support for
    projects like what you described have been eroding. Both of our
    cities have grown so fast, but at a period of time when Federal
    support has been going in the opposite direction, which has
    forced cities like ours more and more to kind of go it alone.
        Phoenix first passed our transit election in the early
    2000s. We came to the table with 50 percent support for the
    project. When I was mayor just a few years ago we went to the
    voters to do that significant infrastructure investment. We
    calculated that we would only get a 30-percent match from the
    Federal Government, 70 percent for the local government. We are
    not going to keep up with infrastructure in America if the
    Federal Government doesn't up its game, if you will, and be a
    much better partner to local government. So I really appreciate
    your perspective.
        Mr. Nirenberg. Yes, and I would just add we are working on
    our first-ever rapid transit system. You had great city
    management there in Phoenix to bring that online. We do, too,
    here, in San Antonio. But we are working on our first-ever
    rapid transit system in San Antonio.
        I can tell you that my community will pass it. We are going
    to bring it to the ballot in 2020 if we can show that we have
    funding available long-term to make it happen. And that is only
    going to be--that can only happen if we have a partner in the
    Federal Government.
        Mr. Stanton. That is great. And one final question. I don't
    know if we have had a chance to talk about public-private
    partnerships. For a lot of mayors, sometimes the mirage of
    public-private partnerships versus the reality--so maybe, Mr.
    Stanley, you may be the best one on the panel to talk a little
    bit about--in addition to the funding that cities deserve from
    this Federal Government when it comes to major infrastructure
    and transportation projects, looking at also opportunities for
    public-private partnership. Because, as a practical matter,
    that is the only way we are going to get a bipartisan bill. And
    I think we need to get a bipartisan bill to make this happen.
        Mr. Stanley. Thank you, sir. So I think the issue of
    public-private partnerships is much like the other issues that
    have been discussed today. It should just be one of the tools
    in the toolbox.
        I think the outstanding and the ongoing commitment of the
    Federal Government to the highway program and transportation
    program is still the main key. But still, having the public-
    private partnerships is a tool to allow some private investment
    where it makes sense.
        And so, some of the issues you have with a public-private
    partnership are in some of the transportation modes in transit
    and things like that, that are not financially sustainable. You
    are not going to get public-private partnerships to take on
    those projects. So you are--still have to have that Federal
    investment. But there are some things--toll roads, toll
    bridges--where the public-private partnerships make sense. And
    so, allowing that to be a tool in the tool kit is important.
        Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much.
        Madam Chair----
        Ms. Norton. Thank you.
        Mr. Stanton [continuing]. I ask for consent to enter into
    the record a letter from my friend, the mayor of Tempe,
    Arizona, which is now in my district, as well, lamenting the
    lack of a strong Federal partner in public transportation, and
    we need more of it. So I would like to enter it into the
    record.
        Ms. Norton. So ordered.
        [The information follows:]

        Letter from Mark W. Mitchell, Mayor, City of Tempe, AZ, et al.,
                    Submitted for the Record by Hon. Stanton
                                                      February 1, 2019.
    Hon. Greg Stanton
    U.S. House of Representatives, 128 Cannon HOB, Washington, DC 20515
        Dear Representative Stanton:
        As leaders in the City of Tempe, Arizona and the National League of
    Cities, we are writing today to ask for your commitment to address one
    of our country's most pressing challenges--rebuilding America's
    infrastructure. As we emerge from an extended partial government
    shutdown and return to a working, stable federal government, we are
    joining leaders from the 19,000 cities, towns and villages across the
    country calling on our federal leaders to not repeat this crisis and to
    work in a bipartisan manner to pass comprehensive legislation that
    rebuilds and reimagines America's infrastructure in partnership with
    local governments.
        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 like ours 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.
        For our economy and for our future, addressing America's
    infrastructure challenges is a shared priority in 2019. We look forward
    to meeting with you soon to discuss how we can work together.
            Sincerely,
                        Mark W. Mitchell, Mayor
                        Robin Arredondo-Savage, Councilmember
                        Joel Navarro, Councilmember

        Ms. Norton. Ms. Finkenauer?
        Ms. Finkenauer. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all
    for being here today. This is, obviously, an incredibly
    important topic for States all over the country. And one of the
    things I want to touch on came up in my time as a State
    representative in Iowa.
        See, I sat on the transportation committee for 3 years in
    Iowa in my 4 years in the statehouse. And, you know, I remember
    looking back on 2016 and the idea that we heard from the
    administration, our current administration now, and Democrats,
    and Republicans all across the country talking about caring
    about the same things, like Made in America and making sure our
    workers are paid fair wages and we have opportunities for
    working-class families. We heard that again across all sides of
    the aisle.
        However, you can imagine my surprise, then, just a few
    months later, when I went back to the statehouse in early 2017
    and I was sitting on the transportation committee, and one of
    the first bills that gets brought up was H.F. 203. And it was a
    bill that would authorize the use of primary road funds for
    secondary road funds, and--I mean and municipal systems.
        So, basically, this was a tool to bring in the Federal
    dollars that would typically have gone just directly to our
    cities and our counties, which would have Davis-Bacon and Made
    in America attached to them, instead go through our State
    first--and I am from Iowa, where we do not have prevailing wage
    or Made in America provisions--and then those dollars would go
    out to our cities and our counties. You can imagine my concern,
    and the concern of a lot of the folks that I worked with in
    Iowa.
        Now, you know, I know one of the arguments was that our
    cities and our counties needed the help, especially with the
    paperwork and, you know, what comes with that for getting
    Federal dollars. And I want to make sure that we are addressing
    that, making that easier for our cities and our counties to be
    able to--regardless if you are in a big city or in a rural
    community--to access those dollars. And I want to know if there
    is anything that you guys are looking at to be able--so that we
    should be adding to this transportation bill to make sure that
    we do that.
        Secondly, I want to know if you have any ideas--
    specifically, Mr. Clark or Mr. Millar, I know this may be
    something that you have looked into a little bit--about how do
    we make sure that if we are making a very large investment in
    Federal dollars going out to our States, which I hope we are
    doing--we desperately need it--how do we make sure that those
    dollars are 100 percent then going with those Davis-Bacon
    provisions and also those Made in America provisions?
        Because, quite frankly, our economy depends on it. Our
    States depend on it. And I just want to make sure that we are
    doing this the right way.
        So if you all have any comments, I would appreciate that.
        Mr. Clark. I think that is an excellent question, thank
    you.
        Some of it is just insisting on things like Davis-Bacon.
    But I think there is a larger set of issues here. People have
    talked about ride-handling services a lot. There was a piece in
    the Washington Post op-ed page just a couple of days ago that
    was amusing, but also very instructive, written by--I think, I
    believe--by a writer from the Cato Institute, which is a fairly
    conservative group of people. And her point was--she told a
    story about people selling their cars because they are going to
    rely on the ride-handling services, saying that just isn't
    going to work.
        And her ultimate point was the ride-handling services are
    losing money hand over fist, and they are doing it because they
    have got deep venture capital pockets to support it. But in the
    meantime, they are depressing the wages of what traditionally
    were not great jobs, but decent jobs for taxi drivers and other
    kinds of people.
        I don't know what the answer is for the Federal
    Government's role there, but I think we have got to pay
    attention, because there--you are absolutely right, there are
    lots and lots of forces driving us to race to the bottom, in
    terms of working-class living standards.
        And transportation traditionally has been a sector where
    people make a decent living. And I think the Federal Government
    needs to look carefully at how we make sure transportation
    continues to provide decent livings for people, and it doesn't
    become how we play a beggar-thy-neighbor policy to drive
    working-class living standards down further and further to
    provide an inexpensive utility to middle-class people.
        Ms. Finkenauer. Thank you.
        And Mr. Millar, do you have anything to add, especially in
    regards to the State part of it?
        Mr. Millar. Well, I would, one, what Mr. Clark said.
        And I think what we look at--quite often we are asked by
    local governments, ``Would you take the Federal money that we
    get--because it is so difficult to administer, would you take
    it and spend it at the State level and send State money to
    us?'' The problem we have is that we need our State dollars to
    match the Federal dollars that comes to us. You know, it is--
    there--it is a very constrained pot of money.
        I think with--what comes to us from the Federal Government
    comes to us with Davis-Bacon, you know, Buy America. Those
    provisions are in it. The State money that we have--we have
    many of the same provisions. We don't have that particular
    issue.
        I think it is important that we are all contributing--
    again, the partnership, the Federal, the State, the local--and
    I would encourage you to look at it maintenance of effort. We
    are investing heavily, as the State. You know, our gas tax has
    gone up. We are making heavy investments. If more Federal money
    comes, that doesn't give us the ability--it shouldn't give us
    the ability to take our foot off the throttle. We need to be
    doing that, and the local government needs to be doing that, as
    well. We are today. Increased Federal investment should come
    with an assurance that State and local partnership is going to
    maintain its--be in place.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Finkenauer. Thank you, I appreciate it.
        Ms. Norton. Finally, Mr. Allred.
        Mr. Allred. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I guess we have
    saved the best for last.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Allred. I wanted to just begin by thanking my fellow
    Texans for being here. I have the honor of representing the
    only donor State to the highway fund, the great State of Texas,
    and Dallas, in particular.
        Mayor Nirenberg, I want to thank you for being here as a
    representative of the second best city in Texas.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Allred. I have questions for all of you, but we don't
    have enough time to get into it. And I want to thank you for
    your testimony. I have read through all of your written
    testimonies, and this has been a very informative hearing, and
    I think that it is an important one for us to talk about, where
    we are going from here.
        Dallas is, like San Antonio, one of the most rapidly
    growing cities in the country. We have all of the issues that
    have been talked about here today. We are urban, suburban, we
    have congestion. I think we are the seventh most contested city
    in the country now. We have some exciting things that are going
    on with DART, which is doing, I think, a very good job.
        And we also have, of course, TxDOT and the Texas Innovation
    Alliance, which has done some great work, Mr. Anderson, so
    thank you for all of your hard work.
        I wanted to quickly get into your written testimony, where
    you mentioned the Federal Highway Administration's automated
    driving systems demonstration grant program. And I just wanted
    to see if you could describe some of the projects that the
    alliance would like to pursue, if you are awarded that grant.
        Mr. Anderson. Well, I talked about, as a whole, the
    alliance has been working in addition to several other
    technologies, and relative to solutions or challenges that they
    had. But autonomous vehicles are a part of that.
        And across many of the cities in Texas--and, as I mentioned
    earlier in my testimony, starting with the passage of senate
    bill 2205, which opened the doors for that innovation in the
    State--all of those cities have been looking at first- and
    last-mile solutions, looking at movement on universities,
    movement between universities and housing areas, medical center
    movement for--especially for disabled or elderly that need to
    move in and around, for example, Houston and some of Dallas'
    medical complexes, and who can't do the walking, for example.
        And they are also looking at freight movement, both within
    the urban areas and then moving, you know, outside of the urban
    areas along our corridors. So several of those.
        We know that we are going to have many of those actually
    happening in the next year, beyond the ones that currently are
    occurring in Arlington and Frisco, where we have circulators of
    autonomous vehicles. In the case of Arlington, it is in the
    entertainment district, and in the Frisco area it is between a
    business district and a restaurant area, and it is limiting the
    amount of vehicles that have to be moving nearing lunch time,
    and things like that.
        But also in Austin, San Antonio, Houston, Bryan-College
    Station, Coastal Bend area, and El Paso, they all have either
    microtransit solutions or circulator routes that they are
    looking to deploy in the next year. And all of those are a part
    of that proposed autonomous driving system grant.
        Mr. Allred. Right.
        Mr. Anderson. They are offering those to be data sets for
    what is happening--you know, not a pilot, but something that is
    happening now, and providing that data to the Federal highways.
        Mr. Allred. Thank you, Mr. Anderson.
        Mr. Terry, I am interested in how you increased ridership.
    I know you discussed it briefly previously there. As I have
    spoken with our DART officials, obviously, that is the
    challenge for our local regional transit folks. And if you
    could, just very quickly go into how you approach doing that.
        Mr. Terry. Sure, thank you. It is putting the frequency,
    the reliability that people can count on, the hours of service.
    We are focusing on the density, where the employment centers
    are.
        Mr. Allred. Did you have to decrease the area that you were
    serving to get that----
        Mr. Terry. We have an increase of local funding through a
    referendum to support. And we were increasing our system by
    over 70 percent. But it is not adding a lot of more routes, it
    is more focusing on that frequency----
        Mr. Allred. Right.
        Mr. Terry [continuing]. The hours, and the--starting
    earlier every route, every day. So now you have that
    dependability that people can count on. And when you have the
    frequency--we are creating a 15-minute frequency grid that
    feeds into, eventually, three rapid transit corridors--people
    start using it.
        So we already invested in several routes this past year
    with some of the new funding, and immediately we started seeing
    an increase in ridership. So it is starting to validate our
    planning.
        Mr. Allred. Well, thank you. I think when we say frequency,
    we should also say just convenience.
        Mr. Terry. Yes.
        Mr. Allred. And Mr. Mayor, just really quickly, you talked
    about the importance of the Federal Government investing in
    regional transportation solutions in your written testimony. We
    have a promising high-speed rail project between Dallas and
    Houston. Probably get San Antonio in on that, eventually. If
    you could, just very quickly, just touch on how that would be
    helpful.
        Mr. Nirenberg. Yes. Well, the regional rail between Austin
    and San Antonio has been a long sought-after dream. We have had
    a couple of committees, organizations set up to support it. But
    we really are reliant on leveraging existing infrastructure in
    the corridor.
        But certainly that project is not going to be enabled
    unless we have Federal support, so it is vital to our State's
    economy, as you know. The Texas Triangle is where our State's
    economy runs, will for the foreseeable future. And Texas is one
    of the leading economies in the world now, so it is very
    important for us in our economic sustainability to see that
    corridor connected with something other than just our highway
    system.
        Mr. Allred. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much for that answer. And I want
    to thank each and every one of the witnesses for this
    informative testimony. We have kept you a long time, but we
    have learned a lot, if that is any recompense.
        I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
    remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided
    answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in
    writing, and unanimous consent that the record remain open for
    15 days for any additional comments and information submitted
    by Members or witnesses to be included in the record of today's
    hearing.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        If no other Members have anything to add, the subcommittee
    stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:23 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                           Submissions for the Record

                                  ----------

         Letter from Shailen P. Bhatt, President and CEO, Intelligent
      Transportation Society of America, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
                                     Norton
                                                        March 13, 2019.
    Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
    Chair
    Hon. Rodney Davis
    Ranking Member
    Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and
            Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
            20515
        Dear Chair Norton and Ranking Member Davis:
        In anticipation of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
    upcoming hearing entitled ``Aligning Federal Surface Transportation
    Policy to Meet 21st Century Needs,'' the Intelligent Transportation
    Society of America (``ITS America'') urges the Subcommittee to
    prioritize the research and deployment of intelligent mobility and
    smart infrastructure in the reauthorization of Fixing America's Surface
    Transportation (FAST) Act and an infrastructure package.
        This hearing takes place at an important time. Just as
    transportation infrastructure was critical to the development of our
    economy in the 20th century, maintenance of existing infrastructure and
    deployment of intelligent mobility and smart infrastructure will be
    critical for our global competitiveness in this century. Advances in
    robotics, artificial intelligence, and wireless communications have
    inspired a race to make the next generation of transportation and
    infrastructure a reality. We are entering a technology revolution that
    will define the way people, goods, services, and information move in
    the 21st century. Part of that revolution includes new technologies
    that allow freedom of movement for those who have limited mobility
    access, such as people with disabilities, older adults, and people
    living in transit deserts. And most importantly, these technology
    advancements will finally help us begin to reduce the epidemic of
    fatalities on our roadways.
        Members of ITS America are state and city departments of
    transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, automotive
    manufacturers and suppliers, technology companies, engineering firms,
    and research universities. We are united around a shared vision of a
    better future transformed by intelligent mobility that is safer,
    greener, and smarter. ITS America looks forward to working with you on
    a FAST Act reauthorization and an infrastructure package that increases
    federal commitments to intelligent transportation technologies that
    save lives, improve mobility, promote sustainability, and increase
    efficiency and productivity.
        ITS America is developing our FAST Act reauthorization policy,
    which we look forward to sharing with the Subcommittee early this
    summer. In the meantime, the following are our high-level
    transportation infrastructure policies that will frame the
    association's FAST Act reauthorization platform:
        FAST Act Reauthorization: In the 20th century, transportation was
    about moving cars. In the 21st century, the transportation landscape is
    rapidly evolving. New forms of mobility are being deployed even as
    others are being developed. A century ago with the invention of the
    car, Departments of Roads were created to deal with this new form of
    transportation. Those agencies are now Departments of Transportation,
    having grown to include other modes of transportation. Now those same
    agencies need to evolve again to provide seamless mobility. Instead of
    just moving cars, transportation is about moving people, data and
    freight. To keep pace with these advances in technology, which are
    transforming transportation, ITS America supports a FAST Act
    reauthorization that prioritizes federal policy and programs that make
    intelligent transportation deployment the rule rather than the
    exception and provides federal funding that encourage the rapid
    deployment of intelligent transportation technologies.
        Increase Federal Investment in Transportation by Prioritizing
    Safety through Research and Deployment of Intelligent Mobility and
    Smart Infrastructure: Support increased revenue for intelligent
    mobility and smart infrastructure; ensure the solvency of the Highway
    Trust Fund; and transition to long-term and sustainable revenue for
    America's transportation system. Only with such certainty will the
    nation finally see the research and the large-scale transformational
    deployments of intelligent transportation technologies--and most
    importantly, finally help us begin to reduce the epidemic of fatalities
    on our roadways.
        Saving the Spectrum for Transportation Critical Safety
    Communications: New and developing vehicle to everything (V2X)
    technology that depends on the 5.9 GHz band is allowing us to finally
    address the lives lost and ruined on our nation's roads. Our members
    are actively developing and deploying such technologies, which send
    hazard alerts to vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians, and traffic lights.
    These technologies can also enhance automated driving systems, which
    hold the promise to provide numerous economic, environmental, and
    societal benefits, such as decreased congestion and fuel consumption,
    and increased access for the elderly and disabled. These safety
    innovations require dedicated spectrum to ensure they work every time
    without signal interference. Millions of dollars have already been
    invested in this effort, including incorporating connected vehicle
    technologies into infrastructure by states and cities. ITS America
    strongly supports preserving the entire 5.9 GHz band for transportation
    safety applications. Speed matters when safety information is involved;
    sharing the band could compromise the speed and put lives as risk. With
    all the advancements and technology deployments, we are finally on the
    cusp of turning the corner to reduce deaths, but we need the spectrum
    to do that.
        Increase Buildout of Alternative Fuel Vehicle Infrastructure:
    Transportation is now the largest source of carbon emissions in the
    United States, and carbon emissions from cars and light trucks account
    for almost one-sixth of the nation's total emissions. ITS America
    supports policies in the transportation infrastructure sector that will
    help reduce transportation emissions. Given that automakers are
    committing to alternative fuel vehicles that will reduce greenhouse gas
    emissions, ITS America supports standalone legislation and language in
    the reauthorization of the FAST Act and an infrastructure package that
    would provide increased federal funding to rapidly buildout alternative
    fuel vehicle infrastructure and new technologies such as inductive
    charging to speed the deployment of electric vehicles.
        New Technology Grants to Support Congestion Relief: ITS America
    urges Congress to create a new emerging technology grant program to
    support congestion relief in metropolitan and urban cores as well as
    heavily traveled regions and freight corridors. Eligible projects would
    include capital and operational investments that improve system safety
    and performance such as priced-managed lanes; transportation demand
    management programs; strategic transit investments; advanced parking,
    freight delivery, and incident management systems; and programs to
    support the deployment of connected and autonomous vehicles, including
    vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications
    technologies.
        Mobility on Demand: Mobility on Demand (``MOD'') facilitates a
    transportation ecosystem in which consumers can research, book, and pay
    for all parts of their daily journeys--no matter the form of
    transportation (e.g., transit, rideshare/bikeshare, personal vehicles,
    micromobility, etc.)--on one integrated platform accessible on request.
    Developing the policy conditions for MOD to flourish will better enable
    consumers to identify and use the transportation options that best meet
    their mobility needs at any time. MOD promotes societal benefits such
    as a less congested, less costly, and more sustainable transportation
    system. Leveraging the insights gained from MOD data, new business
    models can be developed to enhance mobility and address unmet
    transportation needs. ITS America advocates for policies that promote
    MOD and remove roadblocks that limit or restrict federal funding for
    MOD and supports an increased national commitment to public transit as
    it will be a key component in any successful implementation of MOD. To
    that end, ITS America supports policies that promote arrangements
    between public transit agencies and other shared modes of
    transportation to help promote first mile/last mile solutions as well
    as policies that foster alternative transportation modes. Additionally,
    we support increased funding levels for the MOD Sandbox program
    administered by the FTA Office of Research, Demonstration and
    Innovation.
        We look forward to working with the Subcommittee on Highways and
    Transit on a reauthorization of the FAST Act and an infrastructure
    package that prioritize investments in intelligent mobility and smart
    infrastructure.
            Sincerely,
                                              Shailen P. Bhatt,
       President and CEO, Intelligent Transportation Society of America
        The ITS America Board is represented by the following companies:
    AAA, AECOM, Arizona Department of Transportation, California Department
    of Transportation, California PATH UC Berkeley, Conduent, Central Ohio
    Transit Authority, Crown Castle, Cubic, Delaware Department of
    Transportation, District of Columbia Department of Transportation,
    Econolite, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, Gridsmart, HELP, Inc.,
    HNTB, Iteris, Kapsch TraffiCom North America, MCity, Michael Baker
    International, San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation
    Commission, National Renewable Energy Lab, New York City Department of
    Transportation, Panasonic North America, Pennsylvania Department of
    Transportation, Qualcomm, Southwest Research Institute, State Farm
    Insurance, Toyota, Texas Transportation Institute, Utah Department of
    Transportation, Washington State Department of Transportation.

     Letter from James D. Ogsbury, Executive Director, Western Governors'
              Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Norton
                                                        March 11, 2019.
    Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
    Chair
    Hon. Rodney Davis
    Ranking Member
    Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and
            Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
            20515
        Dear Chair Norton and Ranking Member Davis:
        Terrain and landownership patterns in the West underscore the
    purpose and vital need for a federal role in surface transportation.
    Western states are responsible for vast expanses of national highways
    and interstates that serve as critical freight and transportation
    routes for the nation. The infrastructure in the region, especially in
    rural areas, is under strain from increased movement of goods and
    people and from underinvestment in infrastructure needed to keep pace
    with this growth and change.
        Thank you for examining this important topic at the Subcommittee's
    March 13 hearing on Aligning Federal Surface Transportation Policy to
    Meet 21st Century Needs. To inform your consideration of this subject,
    I request that the Subcommittee include the following attachments in
    the permanent record of the hearing:
          WGA Policy Resolution 2018-06, Transportation
    Infrastructure in the Western United States, which emphasizes the
    importance of a state-federal partnership in improving our nation's
    surface transportation and of a long-term federal funding mechanism for
    the maintenance and expansion of surface transportation networks.
          WGA Policy Resolution 2018-15, Modernizing Western
    Infrastructure, which sets forth the Western Governors' support for
    more efficient infrastructure permitting and environmental review
    processes without shortening timelines for state input and consultation
    or compromising natural resource, environmental, or cultural values.
    Early, meaningful and ongoing state consultation on infrastructure will
    help prevent delays, reduce duplication, and streamline the process.
        Thank you for your consideration of this request.
            Sincerely,
                                              James D. Ogsbury,
                     Executive Director, Western Governors' Association
        Attachments
    Policy Resolution 2018-06--Transportation Infrastructure in the Western
                                 United States
    A. Background
        1.  The American West encompasses a huge land mass representing 2.4
    million square miles or over two-thirds of the entire country. Over 116
    million people live in these states and they reside in large, densely
    populated cities, smaller cities and towns and in rural areas.
        2.  Perhaps more than any other region, terrain and landownership
    patterns in the West underscore the purpose and vital need for a
    federal role in surface transportation. Western states are responsible
    for vast expanses of national highways and interstates that often do
    not correlate with population centers but serve as critical national
    freight and transportation routes for the nation.
        3.  Western states ports are national assets, moving needed parts
    and retail goods into the country, while also providing the gateway for
    our nation's exports. Although they benefit the entire country, the
    financial burden of developing, expanding and maintaining them to meet
    the demands of growing trade is almost entirely borne at the state and
    local level.
        4.  Jobs, the economy and quality of life in the West depend on
    high quality transportation infrastructure that efficiently,
    effectively and safely moves goods and people. Western transportation
    infrastructure is part of a national network that serves national
    interests. Among other things, transportation infrastructure in the
    West: moves agricultural and natural resource products from source to
    national and world markets; carries goods from western ports on western
    highways and railroad track to eastern and southern cities; and enables
    travelers to visit the great National Parks and other destinations in
    the West.
        5.  The transportation and transit needs in the West differ
    significantly from our eastern counterparts. Western states are
    building new capacity to keep up with growth, including new
    interstates, new multimodal systems including high-speed passenger rail
    and transit systems and increased capacity on existing infrastructure.
        6.  The infrastructure in the region is under strain from both
    increased movement of goods and people and from underinvestment in
    repair and new infrastructure needed to keep pace with this growth and
    change.
        7.  The vast stretches of highways and railroad track that connect
    the West to the nation do not have the population densities seen in the
    eastern United States.
        8.  Raising private funds to carry forward infrastructure projects
    in the rural West will be extremely challenging. The low traffic
    volumes in rural states will not support tolls, even if one wanted to
    impose them. Projects in rural areas are unlikely to generate revenues
    that will attract investors to finance those projects, even if the
    revenues are supplemented by tax credits.
    B. Governors' Policy Statement
        1.  Western Governors believe there is a strong federal role, in
    partnership with the states, for the continued investment in our
    surface transportation network--particularly on federal routes and in
    multimodal transportation networks throughout the West that are
    critical to interstate commerce and a growing economy. These routes and
    networks traverse hundreds of miles without traffic densities
    sufficient to either make public-private partnerships feasible or allow
    state and local governments to raise capital beyond the historic cost
    share.
        2.  Western Governors believe the current project decision-making
    role of state and local governments in investment decisions should
    continue. Western Governors desire additional flexibility to determine
    how and where to deploy investment in order to maximize the use of
    scarce resources.
        3.  Western Governors believe regulation accompanying Federal
    Transportation programs should be reduced by expediting project
    delivery and streamlining the environmental review process without
    diminishing environmental standards or safeguards.
        4.  Western Governors believe that a viable, long-term funding
    mechanism is critical to the maintenance and expansion of our surface
    transportation network and encourage Congress to work together to
    identify a workable solution that adequately funds the unique needs of
    the West.
        5.  Western Governors believe in enhancing the ability to leverage
    scarce resources by supplementing traditional base funding by creating
    and enhancing financing mechanisms and tools that are appropriate for
    all areas of the United States, including those with low traffic
    densities where tolling and public private partnerships are not
    feasible.
        6.  Western Governors believe using the historic formula-based
    approach for the distribution of funds would ensure that both rural and
    urban states participate in any infrastructure initiative and it would
    deliver the benefits of an infrastructure initiative to the public
    promptly.
        7.  Western Governors believe the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) and the
    programs it supports are critically important to success in efforts to
    maintain and improve America's surface transportation infrastructure.
    Currently, the HTF will not be able to support even current Federal
    surface transportation program levels and will not meet the needs of
    the country that will grow as the economy grows. Congress must provide
    a long-term solution to ensure HTF solvency and provide for increased,
    sustainable federal transportation investment through the HTF.
        8.  Western Governors strongly encourage western states port
    operators and their labor unions to work together to avoid future work
    slowdowns by resolving labor issues well before contracts are set to
    expire. In recent years protracted disagreement in bargaining between
    parties has had an adverse impact on the American economy that should
    not be repeated.
        9.  Western Governors believe modern ports infrastructure is
    essential to strong national and western economy and urge Congress to
    fully fund the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and to reform the Harbor
    Maintenance Tax to ensure western ports remain competitive.
    Furthermore, Western Governors believe the Federal government must work
    collaboratively with states, along with ports, local governments and
    key private sector transportation providers like the railroads, to
    ensure the necessary public and private investments to move imports and
    exports efficiently through the intermodal system.
    C. Governors' Management Directive
        1.  The Governors direct WGA staff to work with Congressional
    committees of jurisdiction, the Executive Branch, and other entities,
    where appropriate, to achieve the objectives of this resolution.
        2.  Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to consult with the
    Staff Advisory Council regarding its efforts to realize the objectives
    of this resolution and to keep the Governors apprised of its progress
    in this regard.
         Policy Resolution 2018-15--Modernizing Western Infrastructure
    A. Background
        1. Western states depend on a safe, reliable and resilient network
    of infrastructure to move goods, people, energy, and agricultural
    products to meet growing demands across our nation and world.
    Investments to modernize our state's infrastructure, including ports,
    water systems, bridges, pipelines, highways, airports, electric
    generation and transmission, communications facilities, recreational
    assets and railways not only support the economic well-being of our
    communities, they also serve to position our economies to attract and
    retain investment through maintaining our competitive advantage in a
    growing global marketplace. Because a significant portion of the West
    is federally-owned, federal processes impact the region's
    infrastructure.
        2.  Modernizing and maintaining the West's network of
    infrastructure relies upon permitting and review processes that require
    close coordination and consultation among state, federal and tribal
    governments. State and federal coordination is necessary to ensure that
    infrastructure projects are designed, financed, built, operated and
    maintained in a manner that meets the needs of our economies,
    environment, public health, safety and security. Early, ongoing,
    substantial, and meaningful state-federal consultation can provide
    efficiency, transparency, and predictability for states, as well as
    prevent delays, in the federal permitting and environmental review
    process.
        3.  Western Governors applaud the principles and intent of the
    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which, since its enactment in
    1970, has required that federal agencies consider how proposed federal
    actions may impact natural, cultural, economic and social resources for
    present and future generations of Americans. The process by which NEPA
    is implemented has been defined over time through regulations and
    guidance issued by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).
        4.  Congress recognized the need for improved state-federal
    coordination in the NEPA process in the Fixing America's Surface
    Transportation (FAST) Act, passed in December 2015, which implements
    reforms regarding cooperating agency status and coordination with state
    and local governments. This statute should be consistently implemented.
        5.  NEPA mandates federal agency cooperation with state and local
    governments through the designation of qualified ``cooperating
    agencies.'' Under existing law, an entity shall: (i) participate in the
    NEPA process at the earliest possible time; (ii) participate in the
    NEPA scoping process; (iii) assume, at the lead agency's request,
    responsibility for developing information and preparing environmental
    analyses; (iv) provide staff support upon request of the lead agency;
    and (v) use its own funds in its participation as a cooperating
    agency.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ 40 CFR Sec.  1501.6(b).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        6.  The manner in which cooperating agencies are selected by a lead
    agency to participate in the NEPA process is unclear and inconsistently
    implemented. Additionally, a lead agency's determination of whether or
    not to grant cooperating agency status to a federal or non-federal
    governmental entity is not subject to judicial review.
        7.  State and local governments often have the best available
    science, data and expertise related to natural resources within their
    borders. In cases where the states have primary management authority,
    such as wildlife and water governance, states also possess the most
    experience in managing those resources and knowledge of state- and
    locality-specific considerations that should inform infrastructure
    siting decisions.
    B. Governors' Policy Statement
        1.  Western Governors support improved infrastructure permitting
    and environmental review processes that result in more efficient
    reviews without shortening timelines for state input and consultation,
    or compromising natural resource, wildlife, environmental quality or
    cultural values.
        2.  Western states have a diverse mix of infrastructure needs
    spanning rural and urban areas and across multiple sectors of our
    economies. Infrastructure financing reforms should recognize this
    diversity and should avoid shifting costs to states or creating undue
    or disproportionate impacts to the infrastructure that connects the
    West's cities and rural communities with the nation and world. Federal
    infrastructure financing appropriations should acknowledge and support
    the diverse infrastructure needs facing western states.
        3.  The federal infrastructure permitting and environmental review
    process must be transparent, predictable and consistent for states and
    project developers. Federal processes must ensure that agencies set,
    and adhere to, timelines and schedules for completion of reviews and
    develop improved metrics for tracking and accountability.
        4.  Federal programs that increase bottom-up coordination among
    agencies, state and local governments and that foster collaboration
    among diverse stakeholders and project proponents can create efficiency
    and predictability in the NEPA process, including reducing the risks of
    delays due to litigation.
        5.  State, local and tribal governments, as well as their political
    subdivisions, have unique and critical duties to serve their citizens
    and should not be considered ordinary ``stakeholders'' for purposes of
    the NEPA process.
        6.  Federal agencies should be required to engage with states and
    state agencies in early, meaningful, substantive and ongoing
    consultation. Federal agencies should be required to invite all
    qualified state governmental entities to participate in the NEPA
    process as ``cooperating agencies'' and promulgate regulations to
    clarify consultation procedures and states' roles as cooperating
    agencies. The denial of any bona fide request for cooperating status
    should be accompanied by a clear and thorough explanation from the lead
    agency denying such request, citing specific factors the agency used in
    its determination. Such information should be recorded and maintained
    by the lead federal agency and collected by the Office of Management
    and Budget.
        7.  Western Governors encourage consistency in the implementation
    of NEPA within and among agencies and across regions. The federal
    government should identify and eliminate inconsistencies in
    environmental review and analysis across agencies to make the process
    more efficient.
        8.  Federal NEPA regulations should allow for existing state
    environmental review processes to supplement and inform federal
    environmental review under NEPA. Federal agencies, in their NEPA
    implementation guidelines, should encourage joint reviews with the
    states where possible.
        9.  The federal government should consider and apply peer-reviewed
    environmental science in a consistent manner across agencies as each
    undertake their NEPA reviews of different projects' impacts on and
    contributions to environmental quality. Federal agencies should work
    directly with states to obtain and use up-to-date state data and
    analyses as critical sources of information in the NEPA process.
    C. Governors' Management Directive
        1.  The Governors direct WGA staff to work with Congressional
    committees of jurisdiction, the Executive Branch, and other entities,
    where appropriate, to achieve the objectives of this resolution.
        2.  Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to consult with the
    Staff Advisory Council regarding its efforts to realize the objectives
    of this resolution and to keep the Governors apprised of its progress
    in this regard.

    Western Governors enact new policy resolutions and amend existing
    resolutions on a bi-annual basis. Please consult www.westgov.org/
    policies for the most current copy of a resolution and a list of all
    current WGA policy resolutions.

      Letter and Congestion Maps from Tori Emerson Barnes, Executive Vice
        President, Public Affairs and Policy, U.S. Travel Association,
                    Submitted for the Record by Hon. Norton
                                                           May 7, 2019.
    Hon. Peter A. DeFazio
    Chairman
    Hon. Sam Graves
    Ranking Member
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
            Representatives, Washington, DC 20515
    Re: Hearing: ``Aligning Federal Surface Transportation Policy to Meet
    21st-Century Needs''

        Dear Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves:
        On behalf of America's travel and tourism industry, I am pleased to
    submit the findings of a new U.S. Travel Association study for this
    important hearing on ``Aligning Federal Surface Transportation Policy
    to Meet 21st Century Needs.''
        Travel to and within the United States is one of the largest and
    most important aspects of interstate commerce. Travel generates $1.1
    trillion in direct spending, produces $2.5 trillion in total economic
    output and supports 15.7 million--or one out of every 10--American
    jobs. Each of the 2.3 billion business and leisure trips that take
    place to and within the United States each year, and every dollar of
    economic output generated by the travel industry depends on our
    nation's transportation network.
        Unfortunately, inadequate federal investment in America's travel
    infrastructure has increased congestion across all modes of
    transportation, reduced national and regional connectivity, and
    restricted travel demand. Every day, whether commuting to work,
    traveling for business, visiting family or taking a vacation, Americans
    feel the consequences of Congressional inaction.
        The U.S. Travel Association recently conducted a study on the
    ``time toll'' that Americans pay due overcrowded, underfunded,
    crumbling bridges, tunnels and highways. Using data from INRIX
    Research, the study examines travel times along major Interstate
    corridors under three conditions:
          Ideal: driving with no congestion;
          Summer: driving under summer traffic conditions; and
          Peak: driving during peak holiday conditions.
        The results show that in the time it takes to drive between major
    U.S. cities during summer and peak hours, Americans could travel
    hundreds of miles farther if they had the efficient, safe and modern
    transportation network that our nation deserves.
        For example, along the I-95 corridor from Washington, DC to New
    York, NY, the study found that:
          During the summer months, travelers could drive an
    additional 68 miles--or the equivalent distance to New Haven, CT--under
    ideal conditions; and
          During peak holidays, travelers could drive an additional
    109 miles--or the equivalent distance to Hartford, CT--under ideal
    conditions.
        To better illustrate these findings, U.S. Travel developed maps of
    the United States where the distances between cities are based on
    average drive times, rather than mileage. As drive times increase, the
    distances between cities grows.
        These maps tell a troubling story of how Congressional inaction to
    boost investment in our nation's infrastructure is pushing America's
    cities, businesses, and citizens farther apart. When our commutes get
    longer, our jobs get farther away from our homes. As the time to
    deliver goods grows, businesses get farther away from their customers,
    and prices become higher than what families can afford. As the hours
    traveling between cities pile up, our families, friends, and
    communities grow farther apart.
        Congestion takes a toll on more than just our time--it also takes a
    toll on our economy. According to a U.S. Travel survey, highway
    congestion caused 38 percent of Americans to avoid at least one
    business or leisure trip by car during the previous year. This resulted
    in $23 billion in lost travel spending, which is enough to support
    208,000 American jobs.
        Without significant policy changes to provide increased,
    sustainable investment in our nation's infrastructure, travel's vital
    role in interstate commerce and the future growth and competitiveness
    of America's travel industry are at risk.
        Please find enclosed examples of the ``congestion maps'' described
    above, along with an outline of the U.S. Travel Association's
    recommendations for aligning federal surface transportation policy with
    America's 21st Century needs.
        Thank you for your leadership in identifying policy solutions that
    increase investment in the nation's transportation infrastructure. We
    look forward to working with you to solve our infrastructure investment
    crisis and support American jobs in every corner of the country.
            Sincerely,
                                            Tori Emerson Barnes
      Executive Vice President, Public Affairs and Policy, U.S. Travel
                                                            Association
       u.s. travel association--transportation and infrastructure policy
                                recommendations
      Increase federal user fees: Adjust federal user fees
        dedicated to the HTF, to finance surface transportation
        improvements needed to maintain and modernize our nation's travel
        infrastructure network. Congress should consider all user fee
        options, including (but not limited to):
          Federal gas tax;
          Federal taxes on heavy vehicles;
          A vehicle sales tax based on fuel economy or emissions;
          Registration Fees;
          Federal bonds, loans, and tax credits back by user fees;
    or
          A value-added gas tax, with a progressive rebate for
    certain consumers
      Establish a Projects and Corridors of National Significance
        Program. Authorize a Projects and Corridors of National
        Significance (PCNS) program within U.S. DOT that provides funding
        for major multimodal projects that cannot be supported by current
        formula programs. The PCNS program should include the following
        elements:
          Multi-state planning and operations. Award funding to
    multi-state organizations that promote cross-jurisdictional cooperation
    in project planning and construction, and conduct activities that
    improve operations along critical travel corridors. Eligible activities
    should include:
          Projects of National Significance (PNS): Provide funding
    for major multimodal surface transportation projects that generate
    economic benefits that accrue beyond local areas and states, but cannot
    otherwise be supported through existing formula programs. Selection
    criteria should prioritize funding for:
            Projects along critical corridors that support
    significant volumes of long-haul passenger travel, ensure the
    resiliency of travel infrastructure, improve access to major travel
    destinations and attractions, and enhance the economic contributions of
    business, leisure and international travel; and
            Projects that were planned and developed through
    multistate corridor coalitions or achieve the goals of the National
    Travel and Tourism Infrastructure Strategic Plan (Sec. 1431(e) of P.L.
    114-94).
      Authorize a National Travel Mobility Program. Establish a
        National Travel Mobility Program funded at $1.2 billion per year
        for the development of long-term plans and capital improvements
        that ensure the efficient movement of people on the national
        transportation network. Funds would be distributed to States by
        formula for eligible projects that:
          Alleviate congestion, provide mobility options and
    accommodate future growth along major corridors for long-haul travel;
          Improve safety, efficiency and reliability of the surface
    transportation system; and
          Enhance connectivity between modes and to major
    destinations; or
          Improve mobility within destinations; and
          Achieve the goals of the National Travel Infrastructure
    Strategic Plan.
    Program Elements:
          Authorization Period: 5 years
          Obligation Limitation: Obligations would be reimbursed
    from the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. Funds would come
    with contract authority and be subject to the annual obligation
    limitation imposed on the Federal-aid Highway Program.
          Federal Share: 80 percent
          Establishment of National Multimodal Travel
    Infrastructure Network: Direct the Secretary of Transportation
    designate a NMTIN made up of the NHS, rail, National Parks, Federal
    lands access, Scenic Byways, transit systems, and other surface
    transportation assets that are critical to facilitating a majority of
    long-haul travel (50 miles or more) to and within the United States.
          Long-Term Planning: Consistent with current STIP and TIP
    planning requirements, States and MPOs would identify projects and
    strategies for enhancing national and regional travel mobility. Funds
    provided under the program could be used to conduct long-term planning
    activities related to enhancing national and regional travel mobility.
          Project Eligibility: Project eligible to be carried out
    under Title 23 U.S.C.
          Formula: Direct the Secretary of Transportation to
    develop a methodology for determining the annual number of non-local
    visitors to each State (definition: anyone taking a trip of more than
    50 miles from that includes at least one overnight stay). For each
    state, apportion $1.50 for each out-of-state visitor and $.50 for each
    in-state visitor.
    congestion maps--washington, dc-new york, ny / portland, or-seattle, wa
                      / los angeles, ca-san francisco, ca
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                    Appendix

                                  ----------

          Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Hon. Ron Nirenberg

    Highway Fatalities
    Question 1. Mayor Nirenberg, in your testimony you raise the appalling
    fact that roadway accidents are the leading cause of death for youth
    ages 5-24, but you go on to note that cities like San Antonio are
    leading efforts to reduce deaths on our Nation's roadways through
    Vision Zero and related efforts.
        What methods have been most effective in your city for lowering
    traffic fatalities?
        Answer. In 2015, San Antonio began a Vision Zero program led by the
    City's Transportation & Capital Improvements (TCI) to take a citywide
    systems-level and multi-faceted approach to protect people on our
    roads. Cities across the country have also recognized this unmet need
    and more than 40 have formed their own programs [https://
    visionzeronetwork.org/resources/vision-zero-cities/]. Vision Zero is
    different than past safety efforts because the focus lies on using a
    multi-faceted approach to make the roadway safe for all users. Our
    approach uses the five essential elements for a safe transportation
    system: Engineering, Education, Encouragement, Enforcement and
    Evaluation. By focusing on the 5 ``E'' approach, San Antonio brings
    community awareness to the epidemic of traffic fatalities while
    evaluating crashes and identifying the areas in most need of enhanced
    infrastructure. We want San Antonio roadways to be safe for everyone:
    whether they choose to walk, bike or drive.

        Question 2. What are the biggest hurdles to implementing safety
    measures?
        Answer. Vision Zero efforts are generally being funded locally or
    through competitive grants, but more could be done with federal support
    for both planning and implementation according to organizations such as
    the National Transportation Safety Board, Governors Highway Safety
    Association, and the Vision Zero Network. Additionally, many changes
    with proven results, such as lowering speed limits or using automated
    enforcement to modify driver behavior, require onerous special
    permission from state DOTs or state legislatures; we must put all
    safety tools to work to prevent deaths on the roads. Incentives for
    cooperation should be pursued in all safety programs. Lastly, state
    DOTs have traditionally had a singular focus on congestion reduction
    and need to expand the focus to safety improvements and other modes of
    transportation.

        Question 3. What can Congress do to direct Federal investments to
    move the needle on safety?
        Answer. Congress should ensure that federal programs are data-
    driven and promote and support changes to best practices to reduce
    roadway fatalities, particularly those identified in the Toward Zero
    Deaths National Strategy. While FARS continues to be the data of record
    on fatalities, state and local government data is more readily
    available and actionable much more quickly; federal platforms and
    systems to collect and analyze data that will generate the information
    needed to target safety interventions must catch up. We hope that
    Congress will also explore opportunities to align safety research and
    development funding with fatalities and trends to improve return on
    investment.
        Additionally, the National League of Cities concurs with GHSA's
    latest 2019 report, ``Speeding Away from Zero: Rethinking a Forgotten
    Traffic Safety Challenge,'' [https://www.ghsa.org/resources/Speeding19]
    which calls for increased attention to speeding as one of the most
    forgotten safety challenges. With approximately 1 out of every 3
    crashes involving speed, Congress could consider calling out speeding
    in a similar way that drunk driving, an issue with unfortunate and
    similar crash risk, is focused on in legislated programs. GHSA's
    recommendation is to focus on speeding with ``comprehensive public
    awareness campaigns, traditional and automated enforcement efforts, and
    traffic calming infrastructure'' and take ``successful approaches to
    speeding, including the implementation of Vision Zero concepts in urban
    areas.'' Proven countermeasures to manage speed would also move the
    needle to zero traffic deaths.
        Finally, for the High-Risk Rural Roads program, Congress should
    allow for quicker safety interventions if the number of fatalities on a
    rural road reaches a certain threshold prior to the end of the
    reporting period [Reference: 23 U.S.C. 148(g)(1)]. Waiting to act where
    data supports action is not prudent. We would also recommend that
    states work in coordination with local governments in regard to setting
    their high-risk rural roads within their road safety program
    [Reference: 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(1)].

        Question 4. Would it be helpful to require Federal safety dollars--
    that are currently allocated to State DOTs--to be spent in specific
    areas of a State where the most fatalities occur?
        Answer. Yes, in order to reach our vision of zero fatalities, we
    should be allocating federal dollars directly to the corridors and
    transportation systems where fatalities are occurring based on the
    data, but also where risk is greatest for the most vulnerable road
    users who are biking and walking. For example, with 76 areas of high
    crash concern in San Antonio, it will take us nearly 20 years to
    address the simple pedestrian infrastructure need we have. The city
    currently has committed $1M for infrastructure, education, and
    outreach, but this does not even address the education, outreach and
    innovative programs that are needed to make a difference in traffic
    safety for all our modes of transportation. We would welcome more
    support from our state and federal partners to continue to take action
    to save lives.

    Mobility and Connectivity
    Question 5. Mayor Nirenberg, your testimony states that the mobility of
    our citizens should be our measure of success in the next surface
    transportation reauthorization bill.
        Do you feel it is necessary for the Federal government to support
    both the Interstate Highway System as well as local transit in order to
    increase mobility?
        Answer. Transportation should be about the safe mobility of all of
    our residents, whether walking, bicycling, taking transit or driving,
    and every region will have different needs to improve their
    transportation network. We should be investing in the transportation
    options that best support moving people through our regions safely
    whether that is a highway or transit investment. The innovation that's
    happening in transportation today is changing out views on what is
    possible, but just proceeding with the status quo of programs and
    funding ratios is not leaning into that innovation happening in
    mobility, transportation data, or rapid transit networks. Now more than
    ever do flexible and accountable transportation programs, like the
    Surface Transportation Block Grant and the Mobility on Demand Sandbox,
    need to be embraced as the right tools for the federal government to
    unlock the potential of mobility innovation and strive for greater
    equity among our modes.

        Question 6. Are local transit options and broader regional
    connectivity closely related?
        Answer. Yes, mobility is central to individual prosperity, as well
    as to commerce and to the growth of communities, and both local transit
    and regional connectivity options have a role to play in our future
    planning. In San Antonio, 79% of our residents commute by single
    occupancy vehicles. We know that this is not sustainable, especially as
    we are experiencing such rapid growth and expected to have nearly
    double our population by 2040. In order to have an effective,
    sustainable transportation system, we need to have realistic choices
    for our residents.

        Question 7. How does this connectivity affect the overall strength
    of our national transportation system?
        Answer. Transportation is about flow and also, for growing areas
    like San Antonio, about what is keeping that from happening. As a
    country, our national transportation system should not be slowed to a
    crawl in our most productive urban economic centers. To create flow, we
    must make system-level decisions like investing in transit options and
    investing in regional connectivity with fast and reliable trains, as
    well as walkable communities that support local businesses and healthy
    activity. America must invest in the performance of our system for our
    residents.

    Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Roger Millar, PE, FASCE, FAICP

    Multimodal Investment
    Question 1: Secretary Millar, as the head of Washington State's
    Department of Transportation, you have a unique perspective on the
    importance of multimodal transportation. As you mention, your agency
    oversees everything from ferries to airports, and rail systems to
    public transit.
        Can you give an example or two of how your agency makes multimodal
    investments in the transportation system?
        Answer. Like many states, Washington has an amendment to our state
    constitution that limits the use of gas tax revenue to highway uses.
    However, we have other sources of revenue that can be used for
    multimodal investments, including some federal funding, and we make
    full use of those revenues.
        Through our practical solutions approach to solving transportation
    challenges, we work to first understand what the problem is and don't
    presuppose what the solution to a transportation challenge should be.
    It might be that widening a highway or updating an interchange is the
    appropriate solution. But it might also be investments in our local
    partner's system, increased transit service, adding managed lanes or
    improving bike and pedestrian connectivity that will best address the
    transportation challenge that's been identified. We strive to work with
    our local partners, our state legislature, USDOT modal administrations,
    and within our funding constraints to identify and fund the best
    solutions to complex transportation challenges and needs.
        We also support the transportation system through a series of
    multimodal grants and loans to cities, counties, transit agencies,
    ports and nonprofits. These transportation projects create access for
    those who have no other transportation options, reduce delay for
    people, improve goods movement, lessen demand, reduce carbon emissions,
    create safe routes to schools, and improve sidewalks and bike lanes for
    all Washingtonians. For example, we award over $250 million in public
    transportation grants per biennium, and we award nearly $15 million in
    rail loans and grants per biennium to help support freight rail capital
    needs.
        Washington has also led the nation in design and implementation of
    our rural intercity bus network. It is designed as a system so that
    people can make timed connections with multiple providers on multiple
    routes. Our public-private partnership with the industry opened up new
    ways of ensuring that people can get to wherever it is they need to go
    throughout the country. We should note our thanks to both the Federal
    Transit Administration for allowing us to pilot this partnership and
    Congress for codifying it in subsequent surface transportation
    authorizations.
        Our I-405 Renton to Bellevue Widening and Express Toll Lanes
    project [https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/I405/RentontoBellevue/home]
    is a good example of an investment in a highway expansion and
    congestion management project that also supports a bus rapid transit
    (BRT) investment by our regional transit partner, Sound Transit. The
    new express toll lanes between Renton and Bellevue will connect to the
    existing express toll lane system between Bellevue and Lynnwood to the
    north, as well as the SR 167 HOT lanes to the south, to create a 40-
    mile system of express toll lanes. This project is designed to improve
    speeds and trip reliability for all travelers and support the new I-405
    BRT line between Lynnwood and Tukwila included in the voter-approved
    Sound Transit 3 package. It's the state's investment in widening I-405
    to finish the express toll lanes that will enable Sound Transit to make
    its BRT investment in the corridor. Without the state's investment, BRT
    would not work as the buses would be stuck in congestion and wouldn't
    have a reliable trip.
        As a part of the I-405 Corridor Master Plan, we are also working
    with King County to add 16.7 miles of new regional trail in the
    corridor that will connect the ``Eastside'' of Lake Washington like
    never before and provide the cities of Renton, Bellevue, Kirkland,
    Woodinville, and Redmond with new opportunities for non-motorized
    recreation and transportation. This trail investment is being linked to
    our earlier multi-use trail investments in the Interstate 90 and State
    Route 520 corridors, connecting the Eastside with Seattle over our
    floating bridges and to Eastern Washington via the Mountains to Sound
    Greenway corridor.
        Even before we finish the Renton to Bellevue express toll lanes, on
    the existing Bellevue to Lynnwood segment, we're moving more than 25
    percent more people and giving transit riders a faster and more
    reliable ride. King County Metro ridership is up 9 percent in the 405
    corridor and Community Transit ridership is up 2 percent.
        As a final example, the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Program in
    Seattle replaced a seismically vulnerable highway with a safer roadway
    and tunnel under downtown. After the nearly 60-foot-tall viaduct is
    removed, the central business district will be reconnected to the
    historic waterfront with new streets that provide connections for
    people who drive, bike, walk and roll. The City of Seattle is also
    building out 20 acres of public space and a new promenade for people to
    enjoy. Additionally, WSDOT built a new shared use path that links
    neighborhoods with downtown Seattle and the state's largest ferry
    terminal. A second shared use path will be connected in 2020. Later
    this year, two surface streets that were severed by the old highway
    will be rebuilt--one is a green street--reconnecting several vibrant
    neighborhoods for many modes of travel.

        Question 2: In your opinion, how important is it that the Federal
    government invest in multimodal transportation options?
        Answer. Federal investment in multimodal transportation options is
    critical. People need choices when it comes to transportation. Not
    everyone is able to drive or can afford a car, yet they need a reliable
    way to get to work, to doctor appointments and other important
    destinations. In Washington state, I-5 is the backbone of our
    transportation system and goods movement on the west coast is dependent
    upon it. Transit and active transportation give viable and well-used
    choices to driving alone, freeing up space on I-5 for trucks to get
    goods to market. It also frees up space for those that prefer or have
    no choice but to drive. Similarly, our Amtrak Cascades intercity
    passenger rail service that we sponsor along with the Oregon DOT
    reduces vehicle demand on I-5 and gives both business and leisure
    travelers another option. More than 800,000 passengers rode Amtrak
    Cascades in 2018. Without that service most of those passengers would
    have had to drive on I-5.

        Question 3: Can you speak to the impact having a strong multimodal
    system has on both passengers as well as the movement of goods?
        Answer. Per the answer to question number two above, when people
    have safe, direct, and convenient alternatives to driving alone, it
    frees up critical space on the Interstate for trucks to get goods to
    market. Not everyone in Washington state can or wants to drive, and
    there are many that can't afford a car, yet they still have a right to
    access to opportunity and to have a viable way to get where they need
    to go. Having transportation options is integral to having a strong
    economy.

    Rural Versus Urban Needs
    Question 4: Secretary Millar, your State is unique in that it has major
    urban areas which are home to some of the largest companies in the
    Nation, while also having extremely rural populations as well.
        How can we ensure that as we modernize our Federal highway and
    transit programs we address the needs of both urban and rural
    populations equally?
        Answer. Transit and active transportation programs are just as
    important to urban and rural communities as are the federal-aid highway
    programs. In urban areas, transit and active transportation provide a
    critical option to avoiding congestion. In rural areas, transit often
    provides a critical lifeline for those who cannot drive or who cannot
    afford to drive. Agriculture is a major part of our state's economy and
    those commodities must get to market, using our roads, railways,
    waterways and airports. As you work on reauthorization of the FAST Act,
    we encourage you to increase investment in all of the formula programs,
    highways, transit and ferries, as well as the rail programs and allow
    state DOTs the flexibility to continue to work with our local partners
    to invest those funds in both our urban and rural areas depending on
    our most critical needs. When it comes to urban and rural, it's not an
    either/or, it's both. Everyone deserves transportation choices and all
    parts of Washington state need safe and efficient transportation
    options.

    Technological Advancements
    Question 5: Secretary Millar, in your testimony, you mention AASHTO's
    recently established Cooperative Automated Transportation (CAT)
    coalition which will help leverage emerging technologies. You also
    mention that State DOTs are planning now for a future which integrates
    new technological advancements with existing systems, such as connected
    vehicles and multimodal trip planning.
        In your opinion, how soon will we begin to see technological shifts
    in local transportation systems to this degree?
        Answer. Advances in vehicle automation, connectivity,
    electrification, and shared mobility are already impacting the state's
    transportation system and have begun to radically change the movement
    of people, data and goods. The private sector has made significant
    advances in the development and deployment of automated vehicles (AV)
    and connected transportation technology. Opinions differ about the
    deployment level, rate and timing of AVs. However, it is expected that
    some level of vehicle automation will be widespread by 2025, and fully
    automated cars are anticipated to be more broadly adopted by 2030.
    Currently, most new vehicles are equipped with a range of driver
    assistive options. This may include adaptive cruise control, blind spot
    detection, forward collision warning, lane departure warning, rearview
    video systems, vehicle and pedestrian automatic emergency braking,
    pedestrian protection, rear cross traffic alert, and lane centered
    assist. At this time, ten technology companies and original equipment
    manufacturers (OEMs) are registered to conduct on-road testing on
    Washington's public roadways. This number is expected to increase as is
    the number of initial automated vehicle pilot and deployment projects
    conducted in Washington state. Transportation network companies such as
    UBER and Lyft and cloud computing and data integration companies such
    as Amazon, Google, Atos, and INRIX have already begun deployment of
    Mobility on Demand (MOD) services. These services provide multimodal
    traveler information, scheduling and payment platforms which are
    already impacting the way transportation agencies develop and deliver
    services and the way people and goods are moved.

        Question 6: What are the risks and benefits associated with
    utilizing these new technologies?
        Answer. Automated and connected transportation has the potential
    for significant mobility and societal benefits. This includes safety,
    system efficiency, reduced congestion, environmental sustainability and
    improved equity and access. At the same time, without careful policy
    guidance and management, these technologies could also have less
    desirable effects such as increased trips, congestion and emissions.
    Safety
        In 2017, there were 560 fatalities and more than 2,200 serious
    injuries due to crashes on Washington state roadways, resulting in an
    $8.4 billion impact to Washington's economy. Ninety-four percent of
    these crashes are assumed to be related to human error. Vehicle
    automation that provides driver assistive systems now or driverless
    options later have the potential to drastically reduce crashes and
    fatalities. By minimizing or eliminating human error from the operation
    of cars and trucks, automation can support Washington's Target Zero
    goal (reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries on Washington's
    roadways to zero by the year 2030). While technology is not infallible
    and government agencies need to ensure deployments of automated
    vehicles are safe, it is important to note that, on average in the
    United States, 100 people lose their lives on our roadways every day.
    In addition, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety
    Administration (NHTSA), connected, Vehicle to Infrastructure (V2I)
    technology helps drivers safely negotiate intersections and could help
    prevent 41 to 55 percent of intersection crashes. Another connected
    vehicle safety application that helps drivers with left turns at
    intersections could help prevent 36 to 62 percent of leftturn crashes,
    according to NHTSA. In addition to the lives saved, just these two
    applications alone could prevent up to 592,000 crashes and 270,000
    injuries each year.
    Congestion and System Efficiency
        According to the 2017 Global Traffic Scorecard from INRIX, U.S.
    drivers spent an average of 41 hours a year in traffic during peak
    hours, which cost drivers nearly $305 billion, an average of $1,445 per
    driver. According to the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI),
    congestion produced 56 billion pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution
    and contributed to 3.1 billion gallons of wasted fuel in 2015. Without
    stewardship and active engagement, there are also risks that automation
    can further increase the number of trips, traffic congestion and urban
    sprawl. Automated technology can potentially reduce the cost of
    transportation and therefore increase access and demand. This would add
    pressure to state and local transportation systems, many of which are
    already operating beyond capacity. However, if emphasis is placed on
    shared automated vehicles and Mobility on Demand solutions that
    leverage investment in public transportation and active transportation
    networks, the transportation system could be used more efficiently,
    resulting in less demand for roadway expansion projects.
    Environmental Sustainability
        Automated electric vehicles have the potential to reduce carbon
    dioxide (CO2) pollution and our nation's dependence on oil. However, to
    maximize the environmental benefits of automated transportation, it
    should be both electric and shared. Fossil-fueled automated vehicles
    could increase emissions if the convenience of automated vehicles
    results in selecting a single-occupancy AV travel over transit or other
    modes, traveling longer distances to home and work, and letting empty
    AVs circulate until a ride is needed. Research conducted by UC Davis
    projected that if vehicles are automated but not electrified or shared,
    greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector could rise 50
    percent by 2050 compared to current levels. However, if autonomous
    vehicles are electrified and shared, transportation sector emissions
    could decline by 80 percent.
    Access and Equity
        Connected and automated vehicle technologies coupled with Mobility
    on Demand applications and supportive policies have the potential to
    expand access to transportation for everyone and especially the
    disadvantaged populations, including older Americans and people with
    disabilities. According to the U.S. census, residents age 65 and over
    grew from 35.0 million in 2000, to 49.2 million in 2016, accounting for
    12.4 percent and 15.2 percent of the total population, respectively;
    and nearly one in five people have a disability. Similarly, it is hoped
    that automation will provide more options and access for people in
    underserved communities to support better work opportunities, better
    education, and access to better healthcare. These communities need to
    be actively engaged as stakeholders in the development and deployment
    of these new technologies.
    Infrastructure
        At this time, infrastructure investments that may be needed to
    support automation are still being defined. For competitive reasons,
    the various Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) are hesitant to
    define specific infrastructure modification needs. However, it is
    understood that a minimum level of infrastructure systems, conditions
    and maintenance levels will be needed for automated vehicles to operate
    properly. Most automated vehicles analyze real-time inputs from a
    combination of active sensors. Ideally, supervised and/or unsupervised
    ``machine learning'' occurs to improve performance of these processes
    over time, extending and expanding safety capabilities across vehicle
    models. Consistency in the implementation and maintenance of traffic
    control devices is important. Signage and markings provides direction,
    guidance and warnings to drivers. Some states elect to follow the
    federal Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), while other
    states may generate different iterations of the MUTCD. Even if a road
    sign design is not the easiest to perceive or assimilate for a human
    driver, for an automated vehicle vision detection and classification
    system, it is likely easier to learn how to interpret a single but
    ambiguous traffic sign as opposed to having to learn to interpret a
    large number of different but more easily identifiable signs. Not only
    is consistency important, maintenance is also vital. In some
    circumstances, poorly maintained markings and signage can be worse than
    having no markings and signage at all, as they can result in unintended
    responses by the automated driving system Road surface conditions are
    also important. Poorly maintained roadway surfaces (buckled asphalt,
    potholes, etc.) could increase the risk of damaging vehicle sensors.
    Damage to sensors can compromise vehicle performance and may force a
    vehicle into a degraded state where automation must be deactivated.

      Questions from Hon. Mark Meadows for Roger Millar, PE, FASCE, FAICP

    Question 7: Part of meeting 21st Century needs is making sure we are
    addressing the current maintenance backlog plaguing our roads and
    bridges. For instance, the National Park Service has almost $6 billion
    in overdue needs, including almost $275 million for the Blue Ridge
    Parkway that runs right through my district.
        How do we make sure that we are adequately addressing the needs of
    our federal lands roads as we consider policy proposals?
        Answer. Lack of funding to keep transportation infrastructure in a
    state of good repair is a problem nationwide and at all levels of
    government. Like other western states, Washington has a large amount of
    federal lands, including three national parks, which are important to
    tourism and our economy. The Federal Lands Access Program is an
    important source of revenue to ensure these important national
    treasures are open and safe for the public to access. As the Committee
    works on reauthorization of the FAST Act, we encourage you to make
    investing in preserving and maintaining our existing infrastructure in
    a state of good repair--at all levels of government--a top priority.

            Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Darran Anderson

    Technology Applications for Rural Communities
    Question 1: Mr. Anderson, your testimony gave great insight into how
    States can harness emerging technologies to solve mobility and other
    transportation issues through applications such as connected vehicles
    and data sharing across modes. However, most of these examples seem to
    be geared toward large, metropolitan areas.
        Can you provide some examples of technology applications that Texas
    has used to benefit rural or underserved communities?
        Answer. Transportation has been identified as a barrier to jobs,
    medical care, schools and other critical services. In Texas, as in a
    number of other states, car ownership is often essential to access
    economic opportunity. The challenge is widespread: it exists for
    vulnerable and underserved communities in regions where affordability,
    displacement, and rapid growth are applying pressure. But it is also
    impacting smaller or more rural communities that are particularly
    limited in their budgets to meet their residents' needs. To combat
    this, the Texas Innovation Alliance has identified a number of
    strategies and action items. These are (1) to improve access to jobs,
    medical care, schools, and critical services, (2) to explore innovative
    paratransit partnerships, and (3) to assess affordability and
    livability. As new developments in technology emerge, it will be
    critical for public agencies to develop a mobility system that
    continues serving all communities.
        For example, in Bryan-College Station, the Brazos Valley Center for
    Independent Living has purchased SimpliTransport, an on-line software
    package that allows trips to be coordinated by multiple agencies. In
    the past year, they have introduced the software to the human service
    agencies in their area and have met with local hospitals to determine
    how best to serve those who need transportation for medical services
    but do not have access to a vehicle.
        Another example is in Arlington, Texas. Although Arlington is
    located between two very large metropolitan areas, there are people who
    live in nearby suburban communities that depend on these bigger cities
    for access to medical care, jobs, education, and even groceries. The
    Via Rideshare Service in Arlington provides a flexible and personalized
    on-demand transportation solution to those services. Via Transportation
    shares extensive data with the City of Arlington to allow informed
    decision making regarding transportation in the future. The city is
    also exploring possibilities to coordinate existing paratransit
    services within the Via platform and service to improve access and
    efficiencies.

        Question 2: Do you believe there is a disparity in how
    technological advancements can benefit varying populations, and if so,
    how can we level the playing field so everyone shares the benefits?
        Answer. Research has indicated clear economic benefits of access to
    opportunity provided by transportation mobility--including affordable
    public transportation. As emerging technologies advance transportation
    mobility, we should consider that many low-income people and households
    either do not have access to a vehicle nor do they live near public
    transportation. This can significantly limit their access to
    opportunity, healthcare, food, and steady employment. Moreover, many
    elderly or low-income individuals do not have access to a smart phone
    or even a computer from which they could access rideshare opportunities
    such as Uber or Lyft. As technology innovations to mobility systems
    advance, we should continue to work with private stakeholders to
    develop options that offer all communities affordable, accessible, and
    convenient transportation options.

    Promoting Innovation
    Question 3: Your testimony lays out examples of successful innovations
    based on your experience in Texas.
        Can you provide some examples of successful innovations in local
    infrastructure?
        Answer. There are a number of projects which are active and funded
    or active pilots in Texas that provide examples of successful
    innovations in local infrastructure. Many of them are in the early
    stages and data is still being collected and analyzed to assess the
    performance of the projects. Here are some examples:
          Arlington, Texas--Applied Information Test Deployment:
    The City of Arlington has initiated a pilot program with Applied
    Information for a test deployment of a Connected Vehicle (CV)
    application. The application can provide travelers with alerts and
    information for pedestrian/bicycle proximity, signal phase and timing,
    fire truck approaching, school zone, etc., through a wireless network.
    The test site is located from UTA Boulevard to Randol Mill Road along
    the Cooper Street corridor that includes high pedestrian/bike activity,
    a railroad crossing, and a school zone.
          Arlington, Texas--Developing a Standard for Construction/
    Lane Closure/Incident Information: The City has enrolled in the Waze
    Connected Citizen Program and become a partner in the Waze Global Event
    Partner Program. The traffic engineering division of the Public Works
    and Transportation (PWT) Department programs closures for events,
    construction, incidents, etc., into the Waze Road Closure tool. PWT
    staff use Waze traffic alerts to identify traffic congestion areas and
    adjust signal timing as needed. The North Central Texas Council of
    Governments (NCTCOG) became a partner with Waze and created the data
    exchange path between Waze and 511DFW. The residents of the City are
    informed with the current road closure information at their fingertips
    through Waze or the 511DFW app. Developing this standard will allow for
    efficient management of traffic diverted due to incidents on highways
    or arterials.
          Frisco, Texas--Real Time Data Sharing: Frisco partners
    with Traffic Technology Services to provide Vehicle to Infrastructure
    (V2I) technology to Audi vehicles at all of the city's signals. They
    are starting to collect and process the reciprocal data from these
    vehicles to help optimize their signal system.
          Houston, Texas--ConnectSmart: The Houston District of the
    Texas Department of Transportation received an $8.9 million grant under
    FHWA's Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies
    Deployment (ATCMTD) program to deploy advanced technologies as part of
    Houston's ConnectSmart. The project integrates transportation
    management systems across the various modes of transportation to
    benefit drivers and carpoolers, transit riders and bicyclists. The
    system will provide additional real-time information on carpooling,
    ridesharing and the availability of shared electric bicycles.
    ConnectSmart's mobility-as-a-service platform will help to manage
    congestion in the Houston metro area. It will provide transportation
    stakeholders with data to improve their operational efficiency with the
    goal of encouraging multi-modal transportation based on data-driven
    rider recommendations.
          Dallas, Texas--Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART)+Uber:
    DART recently awarded an RFP to Uber for providing first/last mile
    solutions. The initiative enables riders to request an Uber ride using
    DART's GoPass mobile ticketing application. The DART and Uber
    partnership emerged after a successful trial during the Dallas St.
    Patrick's Day parade that encouraged people to ride transit and
    overcome first/last mile obstacles.

        Question 4: What obstacles do you feel are the most significant to
    promoting innovation in our Federal transportation programs?
        Answer. Funding is always an obstacle, but indecision, not keeping
    pace with technological innovations, and outdated and inconsistent
    procurement regulations are as well. Some examples are:
          The continued delay on a decision on technology
    deployment. It is challenging for states and localities to invest in
    certain technology when we don't know when or if the federal government
    is going to choose to employ Dedicated Short-Range Communications or
    opt to use 5G for Connected Vehicles (CVs). Many technology experts say
    the two solutions will never be able to fully integrate and be
    interoperable, so it would require multiple redundant devices to have a
    dual-mode solution. We appreciate that the USDOT wants an interoperable
    system, but we don't want to invest in a Betamax if a VCR will be the
    standard.
          The lack of passing and implementing an Automated Vehicle
    law or declaring a national Connected and Automated Vehicle strategy
    for several years has created uncertainty and encourages inconsistency
    and incongruity as state and local officials design their own
    solutions.
          The slow speed at which the MUTCD keeps pace with new
    technology, industry innovation, and transportation readiness to
    implement new capabilities. MUTCD advancement could be tied directly
    into national connected and automated vehicle (CAV) and other research
    programs, so that as states and national entities complete research
    projects, the new standards are immediately allowed.
          Some federal agencies seem tied to the ``way things have
    always been done'' and deny proven concepts such as allowing an
    alternative font on highway signs, or considering the use of
    sponsorship logos on Dynamic Message Signs to rapidly deploy and
    improve our Traffic Management System. We see dynamic billboards along
    highways, but we are refused the opportunity to conduct a limited test
    on public roads of a public-private sponsorship concept that places a
    logo on part of a DMS during non-emergency situations.
          Inconsistency in the application of procurement laws for
    grant programs. For example, the Federal Highway Administration's
    Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies
    Deployment (ATCMTD) grant program encourages public sector applicants
    to include private sector interests in their grant application. If
    awarded an ATCMTD grant, the public sector awardee is then charged with
    holding an open procurement for the functions meant to be handled by
    their private sector partners. Yet, the Federal Transit
    Administration's MOD Sandbox grant treats private sector partners that
    are part of a public sector application as a sole source contract.
    There is no incentive for the private sector to partner with a public
    institution on a grant proposal if they are going to have to recompete
    for the partnership after the grant is awarded.
          The federal government should also allow state and local
    DOTs to allow broader flexibility in public-private partnership
    arrangements. Using public-private partnerships can assist with
    deploying, operating, and maintaining innovative technology solutions,
    like CV, and make these technologies available to the public faster
    than if they are exclusively funded by traditional public programs that
    require a local match (CMAQ, STBG, etc.). Often, however, these
    arrangements can bring additional and unnecessarily federal regulatory
    oversight into the mix that can stymie innovation and efficiency.

        Question 5: Do you think Congress should make substantial changes
    to how we approach Federal surface transportation policy, or should we
    focus on improvements to how things work currently? If you do favor
    innovating our policies, what is the most important change Congress can
    make?
        Answer. The most substantial action Congress can take in the next
    surface transportation bill is to use current data to inform the
    formulas used to allocate funds, and ensure this remains the case going
    forward. As population changes continue across the country, it is
    critical that the allocation of federal fuel taxes keep pace with
    changing system demands and performance. Since the current formula for
    the distribution of federal motor fuel taxes uses 2000 Census data and
    a formula last updated in 2005, it is important that the federal
    government provide each state with an amount equal to what it
    contributed in federal fuel taxes. TxDOT's current federal priorities
    document, enclosed with this letter, provides additional thoughts on
    this and other changes we believe would benefit the nation's surface
    transportation system.

              Questions from Hon. Mark Meadows for Darran Anderson

    Question 6: The current Administration states its goal is to ``seek
    long-term reforms on how infrastructure projects are regulated, funded,
    delivered, and maintained.'' It directed agencies ``whenever feasible,
    to specify performance objectives, rather than behavior, in crafting
    new regulations.'' A recent report from the Government Accountability
    Office (GAO) states that although ``agencies may design their
    regulations in different ways to achieve intended policy outcomes,''
    agency ``officials reported a preference for `performance' designs that
    establish an outcome. . .''.
        In your experience with Texas Department of Transportation, do you
    believe the use of outcome-based performance standards both in Texas
    and nation-wide will be less prescriptive, as required by Executive
    Order 12866, while facilitating less costly, safer regulatory outcomes
    that do not stifle innovation?
        Answer. One of many challenges for Texas continues to be the
    increasing disparity between demand and available capacity. Since 1990,
    the state's population has increased by 55 percent. During the same
    period, daily vehicle miles traveled have increased 70 percent and
    daily truck miles traveled have increased 110 percent on TxDOT-
    maintained roadways, while roadway centerline miles have increased at a
    disproportionate rate of 7 percent. This demand is only expected to
    increase for Texas. To address needs amid increasingly constrained
    resources it is critical to understand investment trade-offs and
    maximize the impact of every dollar spent. Outcome-based performance
    standards provide a path for TxDOT to align transportation investment
    decisions to address passenger and freight needs and demands amid
    unprecedented growth and declining revenues. TxDOT uses performance-
    based planning to determine strategic direction and performance
    outcomes to evaluate and improve strategies going-forward.
        TxDOT wants the federal government to use a consistent set of
    performance measures, considering the most currently available data and
    performance factors. With that, we do need the flexibility in
    implementation of federal programs and projects to achieve the desired
    outcome as established by Texas, not federal regulations. Because each
    state's circumstances are unique and their ability to achieve a desired
    outcome is just as varied, it is not appropriate to prescribe specific
    regulations for a single outcome for all states. Additionally,
    technological advancements in transportation can quickly outdate
    regulations, even upon passage.
        Every state and political subdivision faces different constraints
    and opportunities affecting their transportation system. Stable,
    reliable, and predictable funding is a particularly important variable
    for states in planning and target setting, but there are other factors
    (as described above for Texas), including economic conditions,
    environmental conditions, population growth trends, legislative and
    gubernatorial mandates and priorities, and issues identified in the
    public involvement process. Consequently, it is essential that states
    and MPOs have the flexibility to determine the best approach for
    achieving outcome-based performance targets, including targets that
    have performance holding steady or, in some situations, declining.
    Regulations pertaining to performance reporting should focus on
    providing the public and interested parties clear, concise, and easily
    available information on transportation system performance in the state
    as determined by the state.
        Texas understands and appreciates the federal desire to hold states
    accountable for progress toward achieving desired federal outcomes;
    however, we believe that states are in the best position to understand
    the needs of our state and, therefore, states--in partnership with MPOs
    and regional leaders--should be the ones to decide program and project
    funding within the state. It is essential that any federal regulations
    do not compromise flexibility, delay project delivery, or create
    redundancies in requirements. It is also important to clarify language
    and definitions to avoid future variances in interpretation and
    guidance.

        Question 7: What is Texas' experience with applying outcome-based
    performance standards and how can the federal government best apply
    outcome-based performance standards?
        Answer. As noted in response to Question 6, TxDOT wants the federal
    government to use a consistent set of performance measures, considering
    the most currently available data and performance factors. TxDOT has
    applied outcome-based performance standards in select programs for many
    years and, in doing so, has developed measures (in some cases very
    detailed measures) that evaluate objectives and results. Texas'
    experience has led to a greater use of performance measures--from the
    performance-based annual planning cycle to the state's first
    performance-based long-range transportation plan (Texas Transportation
    Plan 2040 adopted on February 26, 2015) to MAP-21/FAST Act and Texas'
    Legislative Budget Board performance measures and set targets.
        Visit the Texas Transportation Commission's Performance Dashboard
    [http://www.dot.state.tx.us/dashboard/index.htm] for examples of some
    of the high-level, strategic performance measures, targets, and results
    that TxDOT uses to help monitor and shape transportation policy
    efforts.
        Texas believes that it is extremely important that states set their
    own performance targets, although we understand that the federal
    government should retain oversight to ensure that state metrics are
    reasonable, realistic and data-driven. Texas would prefer a program
    that does not include the federal agencies both establishing and
    evaluating state performance measure targets. Furthermore, any
    performance management structure should support meaningful
    transportation investment decisionmaking by establishing target and
    reporting timeframes that are realistic and appropriate for the
    measures being used.

       Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for John Kevin ``Jack'' Clark

    Workforce Training
    Question 1: Mr. Clark, your testimony highlights the importance of
    apprenticeship programs as well as other frontline training programs.
    You make the case that Federal investment in infrastructure should be
    accompanied by investments in training programs.
        How can Congress specifically target Federal dollars to help
    transit agencies overcome the ``skills crisis'' in transit you mention,
    as well as a rapidly aging workforce? Should Congress set aside
    dedicated workforce training funds from the urban and rural transit
    formula funds, so every transit agency has a small amount of workforce
    training dollars?

        Question 2: What is the most efficient way for Federal investments
    in human capital to result in on-the-ground worker training?

    Workforce Training Resource Center
    Question 3: Mr. Clark, one of your policy proposals for reauthorization
    of the FAST Act is to create a ``national resource center'' devoted to
    frontline transit worker training.
        Can you elaborate on what role you see this resource center
    playing? What would be the center's objectives? What authority would it
    have and how would it advance solutions?
        Answers to Questions 1-3. At this time, I would not propose a
    federal mandate on a portion of federal grants that needs to be spent
    on training. As the question makes explicit, the resulting formula
    would lead to a ``small amount of workforce training dollars'' for each
    agency. Transit managers are likely to resist another mandate for
    already scarce capital funds, and it does make sense to push through
    that resistance for a small set-aside that isn't up to the scale of the
    problem.
        I would reiterate the absolute need for a national resource center
    for the frontline workforce. There is a long history of authorizing and
    appropriating funds to support the National Transit Institute. NTI does
    invaluable work. By its own admission, NTI focuses on training for the
    15-20 percent of the transit workforce in management and front-office
    roles.
        The national resource center that is urgently needed now, on the
    other hand, would focus on identifying and quantifying the shortcomings
    of current training for the frontline workforce, developing training
    materials for agencies to implement, assisting agencies in improving
    their training, and developing registered apprenticeship programs. As
    the new frontline workforce center grows, it can and will work to
    develop recruitment and training strategies for the next generation of
    technical workers. Registered apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship
    will be part of that strategy. Reaching out to Career and Technical
    Education schools at the secondary and post-secondary levels will also
    be part of that recruitment effort. Conscious strategies to diversity
    the transit workforce need to be central to addressing the workforce
    skills crisis. Representative Brown from Maryland asked during the
    hearing if there is any successful history of training programs that
    have helped previously disadvantaged and excluded populations enter
    skilled transit jobs. I cited the experience in Los Angeles. I would
    like to enter into the record a 2013 study that the Transportation
    Learning Center submitted to the Leadership Conference on Civil and
    Human Rights Education Fund, entitled ``Pathways to Equity: Effective
    Transportation Career Partnerships.'' That study also highlights some
    innovative work by both union and management leaders in Philadelphia to
    reach out to inner-city high school youth. An effective frontline
    workforce center could identify and help to replicate successes like
    these.
        Transit labor needs to have a full and equal voice in oversight of
    this frontline workforce center, and the entity housing this new
    frontline workforce center needs to have demonstrated experience in
    working with labor-management partnerships to improve training. I will
    return to the potential functions of a frontline workforce center in
    some closing comments and in some specific challenges confronting
    transit now.
        It is useful to recall the scale of the challenge on workforce
    training. Take one very dramatic current example: the transition to
    battery electric buses (BEBs). FTA continues to place large sums of
    money in the no-low emissions grant program. California and a handful
    of other states have set timelines for zero emission buses. More states
    are following suit, and federal legislation has been filed to create a
    mandate for zero emission transit fleets. Substantial private funding
    is accelerating the transition. Even Cummins, the sole manufacturer of
    bus diesel engines, is entering a partnership with Gillig to produce an
    electric bus. FTA will continue to fund no-low procurement. Investors,
    responding to those procurements and to their own projections on the
    likelihood of BEBs, will continue to increase the capacity of the BEB
    vendors. Agencies will use the federal money to purchase this new
    technology. Reducing airborne pollution by deploying BEB's achieves
    many good outcomes.
        Who is paying attention to the need for training frontline workers
    to be ready to understand and maintain BEBs?
        We know from a 2002 Transit Cooperative Research study (Training
    for On-Board Bus Electronics) that electric and electronic skills
    presented and still present a major challenge for current technicians.
    My own organization, the Transportation Learning Center, has conducted
    skills gap surveys at dozens of agencies large and small. Consistently,
    the skills gap shows up most prominently in electrical and electronic
    skills. The industry needs a major mobilization to make sure that
    current workers have the proper skills. We know enough to know that
    mobilization is not occurring.
        A funded resource center dedicated to the frontline workforce, with
    leadership from both labor and management, could provide needed focus
    on training for this and many other new technologies.
        Question 2 asks how we can ensure that federal funds result in on
    the ground training.
        The federal government can have a powerful influence in ensuring
    that training reaches the frontline workforce. The Federal Transit
    Administration (FTA) monitors transit agencies on safety, on state of
    good repair, on grants management and fiscal capacity. Currently, the
    federal government does not ask agencies to report on what training is
    taking place or who is receiving training. Congress can and should
    mandate that FTA include training in its oversight of agencies. FTA's
    review of system safety requires a level of workforce engagement. How
    much safety training occurs? FTA has been dogged in reviewing state of
    good repair in vehicle fleets. Is there adequate training for
    maintenance staff to achieve and hold that state of good repair? At
    many industry meetings and conferences, discussions center on the need
    for succession planning in the executive suite. Is anyone paying
    attention to succession for the next generation of mechanics and
    operators? Speaking of operators, some of the dramatic numbers in
    hiring needs come from very high attrition rates among new operators.
    Are agencies taking steps to reduce that rate of attrition?
        Metrics need to be developed on workforce so that FTA has a proper
    framework for its oversight role. One piece of data that should be on
    that list is spare staffing ratio for maintenance. Maintaining a spare
    bus ratio is long-standing good practice for agencies. Accidents occur;
    breakdowns happen. Having spare buses ensures that you can maintain
    service. As we know, you need maintenance staff to keep the buses
    running, too. The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) released
    a study in 2016 on ``Maintenance Technician Levels for Modern
    Transportation Fleets,'' complete with a tool for calculating a proper
    ratio of technicians to buses. FTA needs to adapt and revise that ratio
    to allow for some spare capacity so that agencies can make daily bus
    turnout and be able to devote time for training. That ratio will vary
    over time. When an agency needs to recruit and train a large number of
    mechanics, those apprentices need classroom time. In addition,
    experienced mechanics will spend time coaching and mentoring
    apprentices through on the job learning. That needs to happen, and it
    needs to be included in the calculation for appropriate maintenance
    training. A mature workforce with few apprentices will still require
    time for training and new learning, but it will be a smaller ratio.
        In addition to improved monitoring and oversight by FTA, Congress
    can look at how capital funds currently support--or fail to support--
    good frontline workforce training.
        Federal funds support capital spending in two ways.
        1.  Current law allows states to give agencies leeway to divert up
    to 0.5 percent of federal capital funds to workforce development
    activities. Congress can and should increase that flexibility so that
    agencies can use up to 5 percent of capital funds for workforce
    development. Congress can and should ask for reports from FTA on the
    use of that provision to fund workforce development and on what
    workforce development activities it supports. In general, in transit
    and in the economy more generally, training funds are spent
    disproportionately to support training for employees with higher levels
    of education and more managerial responsibilities. Congress has an
    interest in ensuring that any federal funds support training for the
    frontline workforce.
        2.  Because the federal government is paying 85 percent of the
    cost, most agencies include training in the bid process for new
    equipment. For the agencies and especially for the vendors selling the
    equipment, that training comes as an afterthought, not as a key
    deliverable in the bid process. The Transportation Learning Center
    worked with a wide range of transit rail subject matter experts to
    develop a 2014 study on ``Establishing a National Transit Industry Rail
    Vehicle Technician Qualification Program Building for Success. To quote
    directly from the study:
                    OEM-provided training that comes packaged with new
                    capital equipment is an important source of training,
                    but it can fall short of the training needs of agencies
                    for this new equipment. In a 2012 survey conducted by
                    the Transportation Learning Center, SMEs on the
                    National Rail Vehicle Training Standards Committee
                    identified 50 distinct training areas on which OEMs
                    provide training materials. The named OEMs include
                    leading vendors in the industry. In 35 (70 percent) of
                    these areas, the SMEs rated OEM training materials as
                    poor or fair. Among the topics covered by the OEM
                    training materials, rail vehicle troubleshooting and
                    communications were found to be the most problematic.
                    Not one subject area had an average score that put it
                    in the ``Very Good'' Category across all vendors.
        Anecdotally, some ``training'' consists of OEM sales personnel
    coming to tout how great their equipment is. That is an extreme
    example, but it happens. Training from the vendor more often is
    developed late without much thought on how to deliver it to people
    charged with doing the actual work. Frontline technicians then sit
    through a course written by an engineer that might--or might not--work
    for other engineers. Another common problem is that even if the vendor
    training is excellent, it's not timely. Technicians get good background
    on equipment that's covered by an extended warranty. They won't touch
    that equipment for five years. Can Congress cut through this thick
    underbrush of problems with OEM-training? Once again, there could be a
    substantial role for a frontline workforce center to conduct more
    research like the example from the TCRP Rail Car study. On capital
    purchases, a number of agencies have established best practice
    procurement where representatives of the maintenance and operator
    workforce have a direct voice in design. Frontline workforce
    representatives could help develop guidelines in the original bid for
    what OEM training needs to include. The American Public Transportation
    Association has developed detailed industry-standard recommended
    practices for what constitutes good training in most technical areas.
    OEM's might be required to identify how the training on the new
    equipment they are providing relates to the recommended practices for
    training in rail or bus maintenance.
        So far have this note has addressed some core mandates and
    potential benefits of a resource center focused on the frontline
    workforce. Let me elaborate a bit more on some key functions for such a
    center:
          Promoting apprenticeship in public transportation. In
    recent years, apprenticeship has won bipartisan support in Congress and
    the strong backing of successive Administrations of different parties.
    Quite simply, apprenticeship combines technical learning in a classroom
    setting with a lot of structured on the job learning. Transit needs to
    adopt and adapt apprenticeship to meet its need to upgrade current
    workers and to recruit a new generation.
          Supporting agencies and local unions, particularly with
    ``Train the Trainer'' and ``Train the Mentor'' programs. Mentoring
    provides the basis for structured on the job learning. Workers who have
    mastered the skills teach those willing to learn. A frontline workforce
    center can develop effective training to help those mentors communicate
    more effectively. Similarly, very experienced technical experts may be
    ready and willing to become technical trainers. An intensive train the
    trainer program can give those works the skills to come into the
    classroom ready to help working adults learn.
          Broadening the reach of transit recruitment. By
    maintaining strong ties to Career Technical Education programs,
    programs like Job Corps, Tradeswomen networks and community-based
    training providers, a national frontline workforce training center can
    help the transit industry reach well-qualified candidates for jobs who
    might not otherwise be considered.
          Creating and sustaining cross site interaction of
    frontline subject matter experts, especially for developing strong
    training materials. Working with multiple agencies and unions, a
    frontline workforce center can create and update excellent, classroom-
    ready training materials in a range of technical areas.
          Documenting the return on investment for good training.
    Like most employers, transit managers tend to see training as a cost.
    It's really an investment that can pay for itself many times over. A
    well-resourced frontline workforce center can do the needed legwork and
    analysis to make this case.
          Sharing current best practices in training. Surprisingly,
    there is too little of this in transit now. Part of the problem grows
    from the fact that most cross-site sharing in the industry occurs among
    senior managers and doesn't involve frontline workers. By creating and
    funding a center that functions like NTI but with a focus on frontline
    workers, that dynamic starts to change. TCRP in a two-volume study
    released in 2018 (Guide To Developing Best Practices and Sharing
    Resources for Transit Technical Training) documented the lack of
    sustainable work in developing and sharing best practices. On a level
    of small but crucial detail, this two-volume study noted the lack of an
    institution capable of maintaining and curating good training material
    on a shared internet platform. That finding alone provides an adequate
    case for the creation of a frontline workforce center.
        In summary, I oppose the idea of a mandated training set-aside, and
    I favor increasing from 0.5 to 5 percent the funds that can be used
    flexibly from capital funds to support workforce development. I propose
    that Congress insist that FTA include both data collection and direct
    accountability from agencies on workforce needs as part of its ongoing
    oversight and monitoring of transit agencies. That oversight will
    ensure that needed training occurs regularly. Finally, I urge an
    authorization and appropriation for a resource center for the frontline
    workforce funded at a level equal to the National Transit Institute.
        In my original testimony and in response to these questions, I have
    made specific reference to studies published by the Transit Cooperative
    Research Program (TCRP) and to one specific study the Transportation
    Learning Center did on behalf of the Leadership Conference on Human and
    Civil Rights Education Fund. I am including here the Transportation
    Learning Center paper and a few TCRP studies relevant to the topics
    covered with a brief explanation of the study.

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2005. A
    Guidebook for Developing and Sharing Transit Bus Maintenance Practices.
    Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/
    13562.

    Transportation Learning Center 2013. Pathways to Equity: Effective
    Transportation Career Partnerships. http://www.transportcenter.org/
    images/uploads/publications/LCCHR_FINAL112013.pdf

        This report focuses on two local case profiles for transit Career
    Pathways: a Project Labor Agreement in Los Angeles providing expanded
    access to jobs and training for public transportation capital
    construction, and a youth Career Pathways partnership in Philadelphia
    linking career and technical education with future transit careers.
    Both of these models, if taken to scale in the transit industry, can
    have positive impacts, locally and nationally, for improving access to
    family-sustaining careers and training and for improving educational
    outcomes for disadvantaged groups--urban low-income and minority groups
    as well as women--who have previously been under-represented in these
    occupations.

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2013.
    Building a Sustainable Workforce in the Public Transportation
    lndustry--A Systems Approach. Washington, DC: The National Academies
    Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/22489.

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2014.
    Establishing a National Transit Industry Rail Vehicle Technician
    Qualification Program--Building for Success. Washington, DC: The
    National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/22346.

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2003. The
    Transportation Workforce Challenge: Recruiting, Training, and Retaining
    Qualified Workers for Transportation and Transit Agencies--Special
    Report 275. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://
    doi.org/10.17226/10764.

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2018. Transit
    Technical Training, Volume 1: Guide to Applying Best Practices and
    Sharing Resources. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
    https://doi.org/10.17226/25157.

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018.
    Transit Technical Training, Volume 2: Guide to Overcoming Barriers to
    Implementing Best and Innovative Training. Washington, DC: The National
    Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25158.

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2002.
    Training for On-Board Bus Electronics, A Synthesis ofTransit Practice.
    TCRP Synthesis 44. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. http://
    onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_syn_44.pdf

          Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Therese W. McMillan

    Federal-State-Local Partnership
    Question 1: Ms. McMillan, as Executive Director of a transportation
    commission overseeing seven million residents in nine counties, you
    have a unique perspective on the need for Federal investment in
    transportation and the Federal-State-local partnership.
        Can you describe for this Committee briefly how MTC accesses
    Federal dollars? What portions of the Federal-aid highway and transit
    program, do you have access to, and do you get the funds directly or
    does it flow through the State?
        Answer. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the San
    Francisco Bay Area's federally designated metropolitan planning
    organization (MPO), invests around $180 million in surface
    transportation block grant program (or STP, as we continue to call it
    in our region) and congestion mitigation and air quality improvement
    program (CMAQ) funding each year. In California, direct suballocation
    to MPOs of the population-based STP funds (23 USC 133 (d)) and CMAQ
    funds are provided for in state law. While these funds technically
    remain with the state department of transportation, rather than being
    formally transferred to the MPOs, the MPOs have full control over the
    expenditure of the funds, including establishing the criteria for how
    we distribute the funding. Because the funds are distributed at the
    metro area level, we are able to invest these funds to provide
    innovative regional solutions that span jurisdictional boundaries.
    Projects such as the Clipper card (our multioperator transit-fare
    payment card) or our Bay Bridge Forward initiative (an effort to
    relieve congestion and transit crowding in the San Francisco-Oakland
    Bay Bridge corridor) are harder to pay for with funds that are awarded
    to specific transit operators or to local jurisdictions for specific
    projects (if voter approved) or for mode-siloed investments. This
    regional perspective also helps us prioritize funding for local
    projects that are consistent with regionwide goals, including our
    federal performance goals.
        MTC also works with the Bay Area's 23 transit operators to identify
    our region's federal transit program spending priorities.\1\ MTC is the
    designated recipient of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
    Section 5307 Urbanized Area, Section 3357 State of Good Repair and
    Section 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities formula funds for our region's
    large urbanized areas. The California Department of Transportation
    (Caltrans) has further authorized MTC to select projects and recommend
    funding allocations for our region's small urbanized areas' Section
    5307 and 5339 funds and for the Section 5311 Rural Area Formula
    programs. MTC works cooperatively with our region's transit operators,
    cities, counties and Caltrans to establish transit capital project
    priorities and to fund those priority projects. As an example, the
    region is currently experiencing a time of major reinvestment with the
    replacement of the BART car fleet. MTC, working with our regional and
    federal partners, developed a funding plan using our federal transit
    dollars to deliver this $2.6 billion project.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ There are 25 transit operators in the Bay Area, 23 of which are
    FTA grantees. MTC works with those 23 FTA grantees to identify our
    region's federal transit program spending priorities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, federal metropolitan transportation planning funds
    are allocated by the state to MTC to fund our federally mandated
    metropolitan transportation planning activities.

    Resiliency
    Question 2: Ms. McMillan, your testimony encourages us to prioritize
    resiliency of our infrastructure as we begin consideration of a new
    surface transportation bill.
        Do you feel that the current Federal approach under the FAST Act
    allows for prioritization of resiliency? What has the Federal
    government done well in encouraging resiliency, and what can we improve
    upon?
        Answer. No, the FAST Act does not provide states and regions with
    sufficient resources to both invest in the longstanding federal
    priorities of state of good repair and improved mobility while also
    adapting our transportation assets and services to be more resilient to
    extreme weather and a changing climate. The core FAST Act highway and
    transit programs are structured to support important national
    performance goals such as improved safety and infrastructure condition,
    congestion reduction, and economic vitality. While many resiliency
    improvements are eligible under the core programs, the current
    performance-based approach--which MTC has long-supported--encourages
    states, locals and transit agencies to prioritize investments in order
    to make progress toward those national goals.\2\ Even with a strong
    local partnership--in the Bay Area we match our FAST Act funds 9-to-1
    with state and local dollars--adapting our infrastructure to a changing
    climate in addition to investing in the above-mentioned priorities will
    require significant resources that simply are not available at the
    scale of the investment authorized in the FAST Act. For example, MTC
    estimates that at the current scale of investment, the Bay Area would
    receive nearly $30 billion in federal transportation funds between 2016
    and 2040. Preliminary cost estimates for one regional adaptation
    priority--the 20-mile State Route 37 corridor that, as I referenced in
    my testimony, is highly vulnerable to complete inundation due to sea
    level rise--are upwards of $5 billion.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ We consider the following to be the core highway and transit
    programs: the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, the
    Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program, the Highway
    Safety Improvement Program, the National Highway Performance Program
    the National Highway Freight formula and discretionary programs, the
    Capital Investment Grant Program, the 5307 and 5311 Urban and Rural
    transit formula programs, the 5337 State of Good Repair Program, the
    5339 Bus and Bus Facilities Program and the 5310 Enhanced Mobility for
    Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program. While not part of
    the core program, the FAST Act structure specifically supports disaster
    recovery through the highway and transit emergency relief programs. We
    are encouraged that these programs may be used, to a limited extent, to
    harden infrastructure. However, resiliency improvements are only
    eligible post-disaster--dedicated resources are not broadly available
    to proactively adapt our nation's infrastructure to a changing climate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We encourage the committee to create a new flexible program that
    will make our transportation networks resilient in the face of a
    changing climate. Fifty percent of the funding should flow via formula
    to metropolitan areas--our nation's population and job centers--which
    house much of the nation's critical at-risk infrastructure.
    Discretionary grant funding (the remaining 50 percent of the funds)
    should additionally support states, local governments, transit agencies
    and ports in efforts to upgrade freight corridors and other critical
    infrastructure. The discretionary component should have a 25 percent
    rural set-aside to ensure such communities have access to program
    funds. To be most effective, the program should be mode-neutral and
    have broad project eligibility so that states and regions can
    prioritize the road, bridge, bus, rail or other resiliency upgrades
    that are most critical to keep their economies moving.
        In lieu of a new program, the committee could also prioritize
    resiliency through substantially growing the existing FAST Act
    programs--including the Surface Transportation Block Grant program; the
    Capital Investment Grant (CIG) program, the federal transit urban,
    rural and state of good repair formula programs; and the freight
    formula and discretionary programs--and revising programs like CIG so
    that transit capital investments intended primary to improve resiliency
    are eligible for grant funding.
        From a planning perspective, the FAST Act took a step in the right
    direction by expanding the scope of state and metropolitan long range
    plans to include resiliency. We would also like to see an increase in
    planning funds to help regions and states better address complexities
    around climate change. Increased planning funding also will support
    states and MPOs in fulfilling current performance-based planning
    mandates, which were added in the 2012 transportation authorization
    without a commensurate increase in planning resources. Importantly, we
    do not recommend new mandates with respect to resiliency planning. The
    current federal planning framework enables planners to innovate and
    determine precisely how to incorporate resiliency considerations and
    other uncertainties, such as those posed by transformative
    transportation technologies, into transportation planning and near-term
    investment decisions.

              Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Al Stanley

    Workforce Pilot Program
    Question 1: Mr. Stanley, you mention in your testimony that AGC has
    partnered with the Federal Highway Administration and AASHTO on a
    highway construction worker pilot program.
        Can you provide additional details about the program and elaborate
    on what you hope will come from the pilot program?
        Answer. For the past two years, AGC has worked with the Federal
    Highway Administration (FHWA), AASHTO, state DOTs and the Department of
    Labor's Education and Training Administration on a highway construction
    worker pilot program to identify ways to interest workers in careers in
    highway construction. The idea grew out of discussions in the AASHTO-
    AGC-ARTBA Joint Committee on construction industry work force needs.
    AGC members routinely identify worker recruitment, training and
    placement as a significant challenge. The Joint Committee noted that
    the cost and inefficiencies of these continuing workforce challenges
    compromise highway project delivery and efforts to provide for a safe
    and effective highway system. The pilot was established to address this
    serious and on-going workforce development issue in the highway
    construction industry.
        Six cities and six states were selected to examine these issues
    from urban--rural, union-non-union perspectives. In these locations the
    different stakeholders looked at available resources including
    training, outreach and placement programs to determine where there were
    gaps and how industry and the public sector could work together to fill
    these gaps. The coordination proved very successful. What was key was
    the realization that there was not one solution but many different
    approaches. The two-year pilot program effort ended on December 31,
    2018. A ``Playbook'' was developed to identify best practices and
    successful strategies that AGC chapters and other industry groups can
    take to implement a program. Follow-on webinars are also being planned
    to continue the progress and highlight accomplishments. In some most
    cases coordination was the key to success. A well-attended educational
    session was held during AGCs 2019 convention to present the results and
    lessons learned.
        FHWA was able to make some grant funds available to support these
    pilots. This financial support was used to take good ideas and make
    them more widely available. For example, through this initiative AGC's
    Pittsburgh area chapter (Contractors Association of Western
    Pennsylvania) received grant funding to make its Future Road Builders
    app more generally available to others in the industry with
    modifications to make it applicable to other areas.
        The pilot is now transitioning to a Highway Construction Workforce
    Partnership (HCWP) that will encourage other city and state highway
    industry and workforce system partners to work together to identify,
    train and place individuals into highway construction jobs. The
    ``Playbook'' will be used as the centerpiece for further outreach. FHWA
    has also developed a ``Roads to Your Future'' website to house all of
    the resources.

                Questions from Hon. Mark Meadows for Al Stanley

    Question 2: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is currently
    considering reforms which would provide greater flexibility to States
    to use propriety or patented materials in Federal-aid highway projects.
        What is your experience with FHWA's patented and proprietary
    products rule and what, if any, reforms would you recommend?
        Answer. In comments to the Federal Highway Administration
    (attached), AGC expressed contractors' strong opposition to its
    proposal to eliminate or significantly modify the long-standing
    restriction prohibiting states from specifying the use of proprietary
    or patented products in federal-aid highway contracts. AGC believes
    that the existing policy has worked well over time by providing a
    balanced approach ensuring competition while creating a process for
    patented and proprietary products to be used. AGC maintains that the
    arguments put forth to make this drastic change are insufficient to
    justify this action.
        To date, there has been no lack of new materials, products or
    processes used in highway and transportation construction. The history
    of the highway program is replete with examples of new and innovative
    products being adopted. For example, significant advancements have been
    made in pavement technology--both in the materials and placement
    processes that have made pavements smoother, longer lasting and more
    skid resistant. Bridge construction techniques and the technology
    incorporated into these structures has made significant paradigm shifts
    over the years in how bridges are built. Many of these changes started
    out as proprietary products or processes. Materials such as composites,
    disc bearings for bridges, movable traffic barriers, high visibility
    signage and breakaway sign posts are all examples of good ideas that
    have been adopted and brought into the mainstream. All this occurred
    with the current rule in place.
        AGC is very concerned that altering the rule will have a
    detrimental impact on competition by allowing suppliers of patented
    products to determine the costs that State DOTs pay for products rather
    than through the open competitive bid system. AGC is also concerned
    that altering the rule could allow suppliers of proprietary products to
    determine which company is ultimately the low bidder by deciding which
    contractors to provide quotes and at what price. AGC also believes the
    proposed rule change gives an advantage to product suppliers with the
    most aggressive sales force or political influence without necessarily
    having the best product.
        Numerous state departments of transportation weighed in on the rule
    both for and against it. AGC notes that state Departments of
    transportation are mixed in their response to this proposed change.
    Because of the disparity in their members opinions on the change,
    AASHTO responded to the proposed rule change by pointing out some of
    the problems with the rule change without taking a position.
        AGC's full set of comments are attached for your information and
    review.
           attachment--comments to the federal highway administration
                                                      January 14, 2019.
    Mr. John Huyer
    Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200
            New Jersey Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20590
    RE: FHWA Docket No. FHWA-2018-0036 ``Construction and Maintenance--
    Promoting Innovation in Use of Patented and Proprietary Products''

        Dear Mr. Huyer:
        The Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) is a national
    organization representing more than 27,000 businesses involved in every
    aspect of construction activity in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and
    Washington, D.C. AGC members perform contracts for the Federal Highway
    Administration (FHWA), state departments of transportation (DOTs),
    local agencies and other entities that receive funding through the
    Federal-aid highway program and are therefore directly impacted by
    FHWA's policy on the Use of Patented and Proprietary Products.
                               executive summary
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide the contractor's point of
    view on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) ``Construction and
    Maintenance--Promoting Innovation in Use of Patented and Proprietary
    Products.'' AGC strongly opposes FHWA's proposal to rescind or
    significantly modify its long standing and effective policy on the use
    of patented and proprietary products on Federal-aid highway projects as
    detailed in 23 CFR 635.41. AGC recommends that the current regulation
    not be changed and that it be retained ``as is.''
        The arguments put forth in this NPRM to make this drastic change
    are insufficient to justify this action. The petitioners assert,
    without providing any data, that the rule has somehow stifled the
    introduction of new and innovative products. AGC believes that the
    existing policy is a balanced approach to ensuring competition while
    creating a process for patented and proprietary products to be used.
        AGC is very concerned that altering the rule will have a
    detrimental impact on competition by allowing suppliers of patented
    products to determine the costs that State DOTs pay for products rather
    than through the open competitive bid system. AGC is also concerned
    that altering the rule could allow suppliers of proprietary products to
    determine which company is ultimately the low bidder by deciding which
    contractors to provide quotes and at what price. AGC also believes the
    proposed rule change gives an advantage to product suppliers with the
    most aggressive sales force or political influence without necessarily
    having the best product.
                            rule has been effective
        For almost 70 years, the Federal-aid highway program has
    successfully delivered transportation improvement projects that are of
    the highest quality and at the best cost primarily through the
    competitive bidding/competitive proposal process. The Federal-aid
    Highway Act directs that the Transportation Secretary shall require
    such plans and specifications and such methods of bidding as shall be
    effective in securing competition. This system has served the nation
    and taxpayers well.
        The current proprietary product rule is part of the competitive
    bidding requirements. It is based on the concept that allowing bidders
    the maximum flexibility to select materials and/or products to meet the
    contract specifications will result in the lowest bid prices for the
    project. Limiting the range of possible materials/products will result
    in higher bid prices. Through the competitive bid process contractors
    are incentivized to look for improvements in means, methods, equipment,
    materials and other factors that make their business operations more
    cost effective than their competitors. Limiting competition forproducts
    and processes in the bidding process will undermine the competitive bid
    system and limit the use of alternative and equally effective products
    from being used on specific projects.
        To date, there has not been a lack of new materials, products or
    processes used in highway and transportation construction. The history
    of the highway program is replete with examples of new and innovative
    products being adopted. For example, significant advancements have been
    made in pavement technology--both in the materials and placement
    processes that have made pavements smoother, longer lasting and more
    skid resistant. Bridge construction techniques and the technology
    incorporated into these structures has made significant paradigm shifts
    over the years in how bridges are built. Many of these changes started
    out as proprietary products or processes. Materials such as composites,
    disc bearings for bridges, movable traffic barriers, high visibility
    signage and breakaway sign posts are all examples of good ideas that
    have been adopted and brought into the mainstream. All this occurred
    with the current rule in place.
        While the current rule prohibits the use of proprietary products it
    does permit an exception which allows for the use of such products. In
    fact, proprietary products are used widely on Federal-aid Highway
    projects using exceptions permitted by the rule. States can use
    proprietary products: (1) if they are purchased through competitive
    bidding with equally suitable unpatented items; (2) if a State
    certifies either that such proprietary item is essential for
    synchronization with existing highway facilities, or that no equally
    suitable alternate exists; or (3) if a proprietary item is used for
    research or for a distinctive type of construction on relatively short
    sections of road for experimental purposes.
        In addition, States may specify a proprietary product by
    demonstrating that there is a public interest served by using that
    product. Many States have been delegated the authority to approve
    public interest findings without the direct involvement of FHWA. States
    have a common understanding of the certification required for a public
    interest finding and have developed streamlined implementation
    processes to allow the determinations to move forward expeditiously.
        States may also choose to use a proprietary product and not be
    reimbursed by FHWA for the cost of that product, instead paying with
    state dollars.
        This exception process that FHWA has adopted over the years has
    worked well and not limited the development of new materials, equipment
    or methods, or discouraged innovative utilization of them. New
    materials, equipment or methods that show sufficient promise may be
    (and have been) approved for inclusion and evaluated as appropriate
    pursuant to 23 CFR 635.411. Also, in accordance with 23 CFR 635.411,
    State DOTs may specify a higher standard of performance (i.e., above
    what would normally be set) on certain construction projects even
    though it would result in a single product being available. The
    established Approved Product Lists and Qualified Products Lists allows
    DOTs to use products that are demonstrated to be better or have
    specific properties that DOTs desire.
                       case for change has not been made:
        Petitioners make the argument that the rule is a relic of the past
    that was adopted in 1916 and needs to be modernized. However, the
    longevity of the rule's life does not necessarily undermine its
    reasonableness and effectiveness. As FHWA points out in the NPRM,
    ``Over the years, the regulation was clarified through various policy
    and guidance memoranda, and subsequent Federal Register Notices,
    including 25 FR 4162 published on May 11, 1960.'' Most recently, FHWA
    looked at its rule and issued new guidance for the use of patented and
    proprietary products in 2006 and again in 2011 to further clarify the
    steps that DOTs can take to use these products.
        AGC maintains that these requirements have not stifled innovation
    in products, equipment, processes or methods. The rule provides a good
    balance that allows new products and processes to be adopted while at
    the same time protecting the competitive bidding process, eliminating
    undue influence over state specification writers and providing the most
    cost-effective delivery of the final transportation construction
    project.
        Petitioners also argue that the existing rule prevents safer and
    innovative products from being used. It then goes on to cite a list of
    products that are currently being widely used in highway construction
    applications. As their own list shows, safer and innovative products
    have been approved and are being used under the current rule. While the
    time line for adoption may not provide manufacturers with the return on
    investment as quickly as desired it nevertheless ensures that new
    products and processes receive the scrutiny and testing necessary to
    determine how effective they will be long term. AGC recognizes that
    there needs to be an opportunity for new products/processes to come
    into the marketplace. While petitioners claim that the current rule
    stifles this from happening, AGC maintains that the existing process
    for adopting new materials and processes has been effective.
                      problems with such a radical change:
        AGC believes the negatives far outweigh the positives associated
    with eliminating the current rule, which has proven efficient,
    effective and flexible over the years. We outline below a host of
    problems that can come from such a radical change.
    PROBLEM: Suppliers of patented products will determine the costs that
            State DOTs will pay for products rather than through the open
            competitive bid system
        Requiring use of proprietary and/or patented products will increase
    costs to State DOTs. Just as prescription drug producers have
    exponentially increased the costs of name-brand medicines over
    generics, so too would suppliers of their name-brand products specified
    in Federal-aid highway contracts. While generic drugs have the same
    chemical makeups, side-effects, and results as the namebrand drugs,
    they do not have the advertising and sales force budgets the name-
    brands may have. As a result, patients bear the cost for the marketing
    of the name-brand when prescribed but would otherwise receive the same
    medical benefit from generic drugs at a fraction of the cost. The
    Federal-aid highway program would very likely experience a similar to
    the name-brand drug impact if this radical change is adopted.
        In addition, once a proprietary product is included in state
    construction specifications they often remain there for years. Since
    contractors are not able to use an alternative product that has similar
    characteristics there is no competition for those products or processes
    and they stifle efforts by other manufacturers to develop a similar and
    potentially mproved product. In this way there is no competition on
    price and manufacturers can charge what they please. When comparable
    products can be used, prices remain competitive and innovation is
    increased due to competition with the proprietary product.
        Suppliers are naturally advocates for their products. Suppliers
    believe them to be the best available and have a strong monetary
    incentive to get their product specified. The sales force for product
    suppliers can be very persuasive in convincing state officials
    responsible for project design to include their product in the
    specifications. This can create the circumstances for undue pressure on
    state officials to adopt the proprietary product.
    PROBLEM: Eliminating the general prohibition on the use of proprietary
            products can lead to manipulation in the bidding process.
        As noted above, if this radical change is adopted, a significant
    shift in the marketplace could occur where suppliers would be able to
    dictate not only price, but competition within the bidding process. How
    this would occur is explained below:
    PROBLEM: Federal-aid highway contractors may not have equal access to
            specified proprietary products
        Suppliers can require that contractors sign exclusivity contracts,
    be licensed by the supplier or pay royalty fees to the supplier to be
    able to purchase or use their proprietary products. Such arrangements
    would enable one or a limited pool of contractors access to the
    supplier's proprietary product. As a result, a small and limited number
    of contractors--where such a product is specified in a Federal-aid
    highway contract--would be able to bid on the contract. This would
    restrict competition and increase costs to State DOTs.
    PROBLEM: Supplier quotes on proprietary products may not be competitive
            for all bidders
        Suppliers do not necessarily provide the same price quote for their
    products equally to all potential purchasers. For a variety of reasons
    suppliers may choose to favor one contractor over another by providing
    better pricing. In doing so, some contractors may be priced out of the
    market, particularly if the proprietary product is a significant part
    of the overall contract value and the price quoted is significantly
    higher than the price quoted to another contractor. When the product is
    proprietary the contractor has no other source to get a more
    competitive quote. In this way the product supplier can become the
    determining factor in which contractor is the low bidder rather than
    the competitive bid system.
    PROBLEM: The proprietary product may not be available in the quantities
            needed
        When new products come to the marketplace the necessary
    manufacturing infrastructure is not always in place to provide the
    product in the quantities needed to meet market demand. This can be a
    significant problem when demand for the product increases substantially
    because a product manufacturer convinces a major client, like a state
    DOT, to use their product exclusively. This can have a negative impact
    on completion time for transportation projects and increase the cost.
    PROBLEM: The proprietary product may not stand up to the test of time
        There needs to be some assurance for states and contractors that
    new and proprietary products have been field tested and are judged to
    be of an acceptable quality and longevity and that they have some value
    added to the transportation system. This happens best through the
    existing process rather than subjecting public officials to the
    influence of product sales people behind closed doors.
        The state certification process should be open and transparent and
    based on the documented analysis and professional judgment of qualified
    state transportation officials that the patented or proprietary item
    will contribute to the accomplishment of one or more of the goals set
    forth in the state's strategic highway improvement plan.
    PROBLEM: Liability for the use of proprietary products in
            specifications is uncertain
        If or when a specified proprietary product fails, what entity is
    liable for that failure may be unclear. Assuming the contractor
    incorporates the proprietary product into the project properly, subject
    to industry standards and the manufacturer's specifications, it is
    unlikely that the contractor would be liable. The issue would be if the
    State DOT fails to properly test and examine the product--as is done
    under the current process and rule. The State DOT could be subject to
    gross negligence if it does not undertake the same rigorous process for
    vetting such products use as a matter of public safety. In addition,
    determining who is at fault can lead to disputes and possibly
    litigation.
                           option one not acceptable
        FHWA also proposes an alternative option in the NPRM that would be
    short of total repeal. Option one suggests allowing states to specify
    proprietary products but require each state DOT to: (1) Implement
    procedures and specifications that provide for fair, open, and
    transparent competition awarded only by contract to the lowest
    responsive bid. It is unclear how this option would improve the
    existing process for allowing states to specify proprietary products.
    AGC believes this option muddles the existing successful process. Under
    this option, instead of having one well tested and proven process used
    by all states to justify the use of a proprietary product, each state
    would instead set up its own process and FHWA would have to make a
    state-by-state determination as to whether these new, undefined
    standards are being met. This creates confusion and uncertainty
    nationwide for manufacturers and contractors. AGC believes that this
    option should also be rejected.
                                  conclusion:
        Competition requirements in the Federal-aid highway program have
    served states, material suppliers, product manufacturers, contractors
    and, most importantly, taxpayers well over the years and should remain
    an important factor in the program moving forward. AGC believes that
    the current regulation on patented and proprietary products as
    implemented provides a good balance allowing new products to be
    utilized while maintaining strong support for competition in the
    delivery of construction projects.
        AGC strongly encourages FHWA to leave the current rule in place.
            Sincerely,
                                                    Brian Deery
             Senior Director, Highway and Transportation Division, The
                              Associated General Contractors of America

              Questions from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio for Mike Terry

    Account Based Fare System
    Question 1: Mr. Terry, your testimony talks about IndyGo's efforts to
    build an account based fare system allowing for seamless connections to
    other modes.
        How much is that costing IndyGo to set up an account based fare
    system?
        Answer. Flowbird's contract to modernize our fare system is $4.3
    million. The new system will allow our users to utilize mobile devices
    and allows IndyGo to implement daily and weekly fare capping, which
    will improve our customer experience. This amount includes capital
    investments that are necessary to modernize our system, such as ticket
    vending machines. Based on the improved customer experience, including
    fare capping, IndyGo considers the modernized fare system a wise
    investment.

        Question 2: Can you elaborate on the impact this will have on
    riders, congestion, and reduced emissions?
        Answer. Ease of ticketing, purchase, transfers, and cost of
    frequent riding are all variables that impact ridership. Introducing
    fare capping allows current and future riders to pay the best value for
    their trip-nature, and IndyGo anticipates this will increase ridership
    (both new riders and more frequent). Additionally, the account-based
    system allows more seamless partnerships with other agencies,
    organizations, universities, social services, large employers, and
    schools: All improving rider experience, building a generation of
    future riders, reducing single occupancy vehicle (SOV) miles driven,
    and allowing an integration with other mobility means.
        Broadly incorporating enhancements to the fare collection system
    throughout the IndyGo service area will allow IndyGo to reduce cash
    collection on-board, offering air quality benefits that are twofold:
    direct and indirect. Direct air quality benefits are achieved through
    shorter dwell times which reduces fuel consumption on diesel buses, and
    thus reduced emissions from IndyGo vehicles. Indirect air quality
    benefits will be achieved through attracting new ridership to IndyGo's
    local routes, thus reducing (SOV) trips and associated emissions.

    Electric Buses
    Question 3: Mr. Terry, your testimony mentions IndyGo's goal of
    replacing all your diesel buses with electric buses in the next 14
    years.
        What are the obstacles to accomplishing that goal?
        Answer. New technology comes with stops and start. Electric
    vehicles provide an overall reduction in operating costs over the
    lifetime of the vehicle, but the upfront costs can be an obstacle. When
    we began planning to replace our diesel vehicles with electric
    vehicles, the two initial concerns were the upfront capital costs of
    the vehicles and the cost of the charging infrastructure. The
    commitment of Indianapolis residents to the Marion County Transit Plan
    allows us to implement the vision for an all-electric fleet. However,
    reductions in funding commitments from our local, state, or federal
    sources would be a potential obstacle.
        Beyond capital needs, the other obstacles we face include training
    our fleet maintenance staff to work on all-electric vehicles, including
    special training to be safe around high-voltage equipment.
    Additionally, we are working closely with vendors to address concerns
    or issues that may arise (range, heating/cooling). Balancing and
    transitioning vehicle maintenance personnel with diesel training and
    experience to a workforce of trained and experienced high voltage
    technicians to maintain vehicles in a state of good repair and
    performance will be challenging. In the full employment market that we
    are currently experiencing in our region, recruiting, training and
    retaining experienced and qualified employees will continue to be a
    barrier to our operation.
        A final challenge is the length of time between ordering a vehicle
    and placing that vehicle in revenue service--an 18-month delay. While
    IndyGo and other transit agencies plan for this reality, an increase in
    orders for electric vehicle manufacturers may create backlogs, further
    delaying the vehicles.
        IndyGo is committed to reducing the negative impact on the
    environment from diesel engines and the use of fossil fuels by
    transitioning to a fully electric fleet.

        Question 4: How much capital will these bus purchases require and
    do you anticipate the current Federal No/Low bus program will be able
    to fund your request and every other agency trying to achieve a similar
    goal?
        Answer. Each 40-foot electric vehicle costs approximately $850,000.
    IndyGo's fleet replacement schedule is one-twelfth of the fleet per
    year. With 160 vehicles, IndyGo anticipates purchasing approximately 12
    vehicles a year, at a total expense of $10.2 million. IndyGo funds
    vehicle purchases from a combination of sources: FTA Section 5307
    formula grants; FTA Section 5339 competitive grant funding, Surface
    Transportation Block Grant funding through the Indianapolis
    Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and local sources, including
    bonds.
        Low/No funding is a vital program for transit agencies to shift
    their fleets to hybrid orelectric vehicles. However, even fully funded,
    the program is not adequate to meet the needs of the nation's transit
    providers. As evidence, the FY2018 Low/No program received 149
    proposals from 42 states requesting $557 million in Federal funds; but
    only $85 million was available to award. As additional manufacturers
    recognize the ethical and business sense of electric vehicles and
    transit agencies become more comfortable with electric vehicles in
    their fleet, we can only assume that this demand will increase.

        Question 5: As your electric vehicle fleet increases, will your
    charging needs require higher capacity electrical infrastructure and
    who pays for that infrastructure?
        Answer. With the purchase of battery electric buses for the rapid
    transit line, we increased our electrical infrastructure on site. This
    was partially funded through a competitive FTA State of Good Repair
    grant award. Moving forward, we will continue to seek federal
    assistance to support necessary infrastructure additions to meet our
    goal of electrification. We will also engage local public, private, and
    philanthropic partners in meeting electric needs.

        Question 6: As your electric vehicle fleet increases, could IndyGo
    benefit from technical assistance to help determine how to restructure
    routes to optimize them for electric buses and their charging needs?
        Answer. As electric vehicle technology for transit buses
    accelerates, we believe that the range and reliability will improve,
    limiting the need to assign or design around electric vehicles. Having
    resources available to support transit system planning would be helpful
    and especially beneficial learning from subject matter experts in
    electric vehicle technology and network design. With the variety of
    range capabilities for electric vehicles, battery and charging options,
    and transit network topography, climate and operational plans,
    utilizing technical expertise and experience would be very helpful.