[Senate Hearing 116-7]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-7
THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF HIGHWAY
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND
ACCELERATED PROJECT DELIVERY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 6, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
22-966 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, -
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia Ranking Member
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
MIKE BRAUN, Indiana BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JONI ERNST, Iowa TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
Mary Frances Repko, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MARCH 6, 2019
OPENING STATEMENTS
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 1
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 2
WITNESSES
McKenna, Patrick, Vice President, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials and Director of the
Missouri Department of Transportation.......................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Responses to additional questions from Senator............... 20
Demetriou, Steven, Chairman and CEO of Jacobs Engineering Group,
on Behalf of the Business Roundtable Infrastructure Committee.. 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Responses to additional questions from Senator............... 38
Replogle, Michael, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, New York City
Department of Transportation................................... 42
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Responses to additional questions from Senator 63
THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT AND
ACCELERATED PROJECT DELIVERY
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
U.S. SENATE Committee on Environment and Public Works
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. John Barrasso (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Barrasso, Inhofe, Capito, Braun, Rounds,
Sullivan, Boozman, Ernst, Carper, Cardin, Whitehouse, Booker,
and Van Hollen.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. I call this hearing to order. Today, we
will discuss the economic benefits of highway infrastructure,
and ways we can accelerate project delivery.
It is no secret that our economy relies heavily on the
well-being of our Nation's roads and bridges. In 2015, the U.S.
transportation system moved a daily average of about 49 million
tons of freight that was worth more than $52 billion. Annually,
that is around 18 billion tons of freight valued at over $19
trillion and these numbers are only going up.
According to the Department of Transportation, by 2045 our
aging roads and bridges will carry an additional 4 billion tons
of freight every year. Our Nation's highways must keep pace.
The authorization of Federal highway funding will expire in
September of next year. The Congressional Budget Office
projects that the Highway Trust Fund will become insolvent
sometime in 2021. It is essential that Congress invests in our
infrastructure and specifically our surface transportation.
That is why we must pass a multi-year reauthorization of
the highway funding bill that is on time and fiscally
responsible. If Congress fails to act, States and local
governments will not have the funding certainty they need to
plan and deliver vital infrastructure projects for the American
people. Our highways, our roads and our bridges would struggle
to keep pace with our growing economy.
Last November, we kicked off the process with a hearing to
gather stakeholder input. In January, we held a hearing to
consider the nomination of Nicole Nason to be Administrator of
the Federal Highway Administration. One week later, we
favorably reported her nomination out of committee and to the
floor.
The Federal Highway Administration will need a strong
Administrator to work with Congress on the development and
implementation of highway infrastructure legislation. It has
been now over a month since we reported her from this
committee. As with so many of the President Trump's nominees,
the process is taking too long. We need Ms. Nason confirmed and
in office.
Last month, Ranking Member Carper and I began asking Senate
offices for their priorities for a highway infrastructure bill.
As this bipartisan process continues, we must find ways to
increase the effectiveness of Federal investment, so
communities can feel the economic benefits faster.
Maintaining the Federal highway program's current approach
of distributing funds to the States by formula is key. Using
the formula-based approach expedites the delivery of
infrastructure spending. It is an approach that works and
should be continued.
Another way to make Federal highway dollars more effective
is to speed up project delivery, which I believe can be done
without sacrificing environmental safeguards. As States and
towns wait to get permits and approvals from Washington,
valuable time is wasted and costs for projects go up.
It should not take years to permit projects that take only
months to complete. In order to truly benefit the economy,
highway infrastructure legislation must address the needs of
rural America, as well as urban America.
Rural roads are vital to bringing raw materials and
products from the heartland to the coasts. We all buy and use
goods that are transported on our Nation's highways through
rural States and communities.
Federal highways like I-80 run coast to coast, bringing
these goods and services across America. This includes the
stretch of I-80 that runs through my home State of Wyoming. We
must maintain and improve the highways that crisscross our
rural States to keep vital arteries of national commerce open.
Our transportation infrastructure provides a firm
foundation for our economy. As we will hear today, better
highways, roads and bridges across America strengthens that
foundation. I look forward to working together in a bipartisan
way to pass a highway infrastructure bill that will deliver
real economic benefits for the American people.
I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Carper for his
remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Chairman.
We welcome our witnesses.
Before I give an opening statement, you mentioned Nicole
Nason, who has been nominated and I think is a very good
nominee for Federal Highway Administrator. Last month, we
submitted some questions for the record. We are waiting for her
to finish those and soon as we have those responses, I suspect
we will move forward quickly. I will be happy to work with you
and move that nomination. We need to get her into her job.
There used to be a Governor from Ohio named Jim Rhodes. I
was a Navy midshipman at Ohio State in the late 1960's. He was
Governor for 8 years. He sat out for 8 years and ran again. He
was Governor for 8 years. He sat out and then he ran again and
he almost did it again.
It was pretty amazing, but when he would give his State of
the State address, he would mention the word jobs a whole lot.
The folks in the reporting pool actually would take dibs on how
many times he was going to say it. He would say jobs 30 or 40
times in one speech.
Not just because of that, but I have always been focused on
jobs and how to create jobs. In our business, we do not create
jobs, as you know. We create a nurturing environment for job
creation. A big part of that is the ability to get people and
goods where they need to go when they need to go. This is an
important hearing with that in mind.
People ask me what I like most about my job. I say, I like
getting things done. They say, you must be really frustrated.
Some days, I am. In this committee, we actually do get things
done. We are looking forward to building on what we did last
year, water infrastructure. We are looking forward to doing
something equally substantial on surface transportation this
year.
I think as we work to achieve that goal, I believe we have
to acknowledge three important facts. One of those is the No. 1
way to accelerate projects, quite simply, is to pay for them.
Second, while the level of investment is critical, we also need
new thinking as to how we invest and which innovative solutions
will truly improve outcomes.
Third, perhaps most important, the benefits of highway
infrastructure investment will be impeded, if not downright
nullified, if we do not address the threats of climate change
and extreme weather events that are increasingly disrupting our
Nation's transportation system.
Let me speak first about project delivery and funding.
Today, over 95 percent of highway projects are categorically
excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy
Act, NEPA. I will say that again, over 95 percent of highway
projects are categorically excluded from review under the
National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA.
Moreover, the highway bill passed out of this committee in
2005 had 10 environmental streamlining provisions for highway
projects, the highway bill in 2012 had 23 environmental
streamlining provisions for highway projects, and the highway
bill in 2015 had 18 streamlining provisions for highway
projects, and an additional 10 environmental streamlining
provisions for large infrastructure projects.
While I will consider all ideas fairly, as I always do, let
me be absolutely clear: I will not support legislation that
weakens environmental protections in the name of accelerating
transportation project delivery. Sometimes it seems that the
focus on cutting environmental protections is a way to avoid
talking about the 800-pound gorilla in the room, which is our
funding shortfall. We have a deficit in the Highway Trust Fund
that is $13 billion per year, and growing.
Despite spending more than we collect, we still are not
spending enough to make a dent in the $800 billion backlog of
investments needed to merely improve our highways and bridges.
We also need to look beyond the total level of investment, and
think about the transportation goals we are trying to achieve.
For instance, despite increasing spending every year, our
safety outcomes continue to be dismal, with more than 37,000
Americans killed on our roads last year, a lot of them were
pedestrians.
As we begin to work on the surface transportation bill, we
are looking for opportunities to address these challenges and
support a new vision for a 21st century transportation system.
One critical element of that vision is addressing the global
emergency of climate change. The transportation sector is now
our Nation's largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions.
The bulk of it these days comes from cars, trucks and vans. To
reduce those emissions, Federal policy can, and should,
encourage the purchase of electric or alternative fuel vehicles
through tax policy, as well as through funding for fueling and
charging infrastructure.
Finally, we must ensure that we are planning and designing
transportation systems that are sustainable and resilient to
increasingly severe weather and extreme weather events. Nearly
2 years ago, the Rocky Mountain Institute published a report
that said installing electric vehicle charging infrastructure
should be, ``an urgent priority in all States and major
municipalities. The time to act is now.'' I agree.
Later today, I will introduce the Clean Corridors Act of
2019. This legislation would provide grants for the installment
of electric vehicle charging infrastructure and hydrogen
fueling infrastructure along the National Highway System. Even
better yet, this legislation will help us in our efforts to put
the United States back in the driver's seat of the world's
clean energy economy, while creating green manufacturing jobs
here at home.
I am confident we can pass this bill, as well as surface
transportation reauthorization into law. If we are able to
address climate change, encourage innovation and produce a
sustainable source of funding, let me repeat that last one,
produce a sustainable source of funding, then we will have
achieved a great victory for the American people.
I think we can, and I am very much hopeful that we will.
Thank you so much. Welcome.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Carper.
We have three witnesses who are here to testify. We welcome
all of you. We have Patrick McKenna, Vice President, American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and
Director of the Missouri Department of Transportation.
We have Steven Demetriou, Chairman and CEO of Jacobs
Engineering Group, testifying on behalf of the Business
Roundtable Infrastructure Committee.
We also have Michael Replogle, the Deputy Commissioner for
Policy for the New York City Department of Transportation.
I welcome all of you. I would like to remind you that your
full written testimony will be made a part of the official
hearing record. Please keep your statements to 5 minutes so we
may have time for questions. We look forward to hearing from
you.
Mr. McKenna, please begin.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK McKENNA, VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS AND
DIRECTOR OF THE MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. McKenna. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the benefits to our citizens from infrastructure
investments and speedy project delivery.
My name is Patrick McKenna. I serve as Director of the
Missouri Department of Transportation and Vice President of the
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials.
Today it is my honor to testify on behalf of the great
State of Missouri and AASHTO, which represents the
transportation departments of all 50 States, Washington, DC,
and Puerto Rico. We spent the past century building our
Nation's transportation infrastructure. Once a model of
innovation, achievement and progress, our current
transportation system is in dire need of attention and
investment.
Our focus today must be on restoring our network of
interstates, roads and bridges to useful condition, ensuring
they provide safe and reliable service to the American people.
Looking forward, we must seek and implement innovation to
operate the transportation system more safely, reliably and
with less environmental and community impact. AASHTO and its
member DOTs welcome discussions related to an infrastructure
initiative and the reauthorization of the Federal surface
transportation bill.
As this committee continues its work, please consider the
tangible benefits of improving our highways both in the short
and long term; the importance of the formula-based highway
apportionments to States; and accelerating project delivery and
improving our environment through assignment of Federal
authorities to States. State DOTs appreciate your leadership in
passing the FAST Act in 2015. Prior to the FAST Act, there was
Federal funding instability and Missouri was in the difficult
financial position of considering abandoning maintenance on
26,000 of our 34,000 miles of roadways.
Since passage of the FAST Act, Missouri has increased our
capital budget by $3 billion over 5 years. We live in a market-
based economy where the supply and demand for goods and
services are typically determined through very clear price
signals. You know exactly what a gallon of milk costs and what
you pay for electricity.
Unfortunately, for use of the transportation system, there
are no similar price signals. The place to start this
conversation is to recognize we need to do a better job
communicating both the costs and benefits related to the uses
of our transportation system.
The Federal Highway Administration estimates that each
dollar spent on road and bridge improvements results in a
benefit of $5.20 from reduced vehicle and system operating
costs and reduced emissions from improved traffic flow. Perhaps
most importantly, according to a Federal Highway Administration
study, $100 million spent on highway safety improvements will
save 145 lives over a 10-year period.
To demonstrate the purpose and urgency of transportation
investment and the call to action for Congress, please consider
a single bridge in central Missouri, the Rocheport Bridge. The
bridge is 60 years old and needs to be replaced.
MoDOT has programmed only $14 million for rehabilitation as
the only option due to funding constraints. Replacement is
estimated to cost well over $200 million. Traffic models
predict that rehabilitation would close lanes on InterState 70
for seven to 9 months with three-to 8-hour backups.
Commercial traffic traveling over the Rocheport Bridge
touches every part of the continental U.S. within 72 hours.
This bridge demonstrates the nationally impactful nature of
strategic investment in seemingly local transportation assets.
I would be remiss if I did not raise the issue of the $7.6
billion rescission of unobligated highway contract authority to
take effect on July 1, 2020 and urge its elimination.
Progress has been made toward the goal of streamlining
environmental reviews for transportation projects. However, the
environmental process is still too long and costly. The most
persistent difficulties arise from interaction among NEPA and
other Federal environmental laws.
Several States are participating in the NEPA Assignment
Program made available to all States in MAP-21. Changes that
will make this program both more efficient and attractive to
interested States include simplifying the assignment
application and audit process, allowing States in this program
to be solely responsible for the development of their policies
so long as Federal laws and the USDOT requirements and guidance
are met, and adding NEPA assignment authority to Title 49.
Another streamlining measure is to authorize any Federal
agency to apply a categorical exclusion that has been adopted
by any other Federal agency which would make CEs
interchangeable among all Federal agencies. No matter what we
might think, we cannot streamline our way into providing a safe
and sound transportation system. We cannot cut our way to
buying steel, concrete, asphalt, equipment and labor. We must
work together to move transportation funding and policy in the
direction of providing safety, service and stability to all.
Thank you again for the honor and opportunity to testify
today. I am happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McKenna follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you so very much, Mr. McKenna.
Mr. Demetriou.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN DEMETRIOU, CHAIRMAN AND CEO OF JACOBS
ENGINEERING GROUP, ON BEHALF OF THE BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE
INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE
Mr. Demetriou. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking
Member Carper and members of the committee. Thank you for
inviting me to testify on the economic benefits of
infrastructure investment.
At Jacobs, the 80,000-person professional services firm
that I lead, we are working every day throughout the United
States and around the world to solve complex infrastructure
challenges, transform government and business operations, and,
very importantly, to enhance communities.
I am here on behalf of the Business Roundtable, an
association of CEOs of American leading companies working to
promote a thriving U.S. economy and expanded opportunity for
all Americans. At the Business Roundtable, we believe that
infrastructure is critical to a modern, competitive economy.
Appropriate investment in infrastructure creates near-term and
long-lasting benefits.
At Jacobs, we have seen these benefits, in fact, firsthand
right here in Washington, DC. with the $390 million 11th Street
Bridges Project over the Anacostia River. Jacobs led the
environmental and preliminary design work for these bridges
crossing the southeast, southwest and Anacostia freeways.
For decades, drivers were forced onto neighborhood streets
to compensate for missing links between these highways. This
restricted movement to local workplaces, schools and stores and
discouraged economic development. Ultimately, the completion of
this project improved traffic flows, connected communities,
triggered billions of dollars of private investment in mixed-
use development and resulted in new jobs, enhanced social and
economic growth on a local and regional level.
For decades, America set the global standard when it came
to transformative infrastructure. Yet, while the benefits were
clearly tangible, our national commitment to investing in
infrastructure has more recently diminished.
As a business leader, it concerns me that the U.S. spends a
smaller share of GDP of infrastructure than all but two G7
countries. From 2003 to 2017, U.S. public infrastructure
spending fell by a staggering 80 percent.
Forty-four percent of America's major roads are in poor or
mediocre condition. Twenty-three percent of our bridges are
either structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Because
of inadequate infrastructure, American businesses incur nearly
$27 billion in extra transportation costs each year.
Business Roundtable recently completed a study that
quantifies the benefits of returning our infrastructure to a
State of good repair and expanding it to meet the demands of a
growing economy. Let me highlight a few key findings.
First, every $1 invested in infrastructure can return
roughly $3.70 in additional economic growth over 20 years.
Think about that for a moment, a four to one ratio representing
an extraordinary return on investment. The additional
infrastructure investment will create 1.1 million new jobs over
the next decade and boost wages. The average American household
will gain $1,400 in disposable income every year for an
increase of more than $28,000 over 20 years.
Investing in infrastructure will increase real GDP by
nearly $6 trillion over the next two decades. Every State will
experience positive impacts on employment, household incomes
and economic growth. This will also deliver benefits across
economic sectors from farming, insurance, mining, to
manufacturing. This is why it is so important to increase
investment in Federal trust funds, especially the Highway Trust
Fund where additional revenue is needed just to keep the fund
solvent at current baseline spending levels, excluding critical
future needs.
In addition to infrastructure funding, we must also
streamline the permitting process. Although the Business
Roundtable study did not examine the effects of permitting
reform, we know that red tape increases project costs and
delays. Streamlining the regulatory process is essential.
A great recent example of successfully streamlining the
permitting process is the I-25 Gap Project in Colorado which
connects Denver and Colorado Springs, the State's two largest
employment centers. The project used permitting reforms,
including the FAST Act, among others, to achieve an
unprecedented delivery schedule, completing the long-range
planning process through NEPA to the start of construction in
less than 2 years.
This is why Business Roundtable supports the
Administration's One Federal Decision policy. It encourages you
to codify the 2-year deadline to reach a single decision on all
proposed infrastructure projects.
Finally, we also need to modernize America's infrastructure
through adaptive technology and innovation. At Jacobs, we are
providing the value of new technologies for transportation
infrastructure every day. In fact, we are working with Los
Angeles County to pilot connected vehicle technologies that
would reduce traffic congestion along an interState corridor
that is crucial to international trade. In another example, we
are partnering with Florida's Turnpike Enterprise and Florida
Polytechnic University to create a test facility to demonstrate
the resiliency of driverless vehicles in simulated conditions
of rain, fog and smoke.
The need for action is clear. The benefits are profound. An
investment in infrastructure is an investment in the future.
Business Roundtable is committed to working with Congress to
advance policies that will modernize U.S. infrastructure to
support economic growth and expand opportunities for all
Americans.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify. I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Demetriou follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you so very much for your
testimony.
Mr. Replogle.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL REPLOGLE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR POLICY,
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Replogle. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking
Member Carper, and members of the committee.
On behalf of Mayor Bill de Blasio and DOT Commissioner
Polly Trottenberg, thank you for inviting me here to share our
perspective on how Federal transportation investment could
better support sustainable development across America drawing
lessons from New York's experience.
We urge Congress to boost Federal funding for
transportation infrastructure and to increase public
transportation capital investment grants while ensuring
competitive grant programs like BUILD are not largely directed
away from urban areas. We urge support for new flexible funding
for safety initiatives, for the redesign of streets to
accommodate multiple travel options, and to safeguard
transportation assets against extreme weather.
New York has been a U.S. lab for many of these approaches.
Our officials realized 40 years ago that we could not solve
congestion or support economic growth by continuing to expand
New York City highways.
Since then, we have focused on improving highway
operations, maintenance, management and safety, improving
subways and commuter rail and investing in strategic transit
expansions. This was not only smart economic policy. By relying
on multimodal systems, we also slashed traffic fatalities, air
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
Key to New York's success has been a focus on making it
more attractive to walk, bike and take public transportation.
We have begun to cut excessive traffic speeds, enhance
enforcement and strengthen safety ethics. This has led to
remarkable accomplishments other communities could learn from.
Since 2013, U.S. pedestrian deaths are up 30 percent and
overall traffic deaths are up 13 percent. In New York City, on
the other hand, we have cut both of these by more than one-
third to the lowest levels in a century.
My testimony outlines multiple steps Congress should take
to improve traffic safety, including allocating funds directly
to local governments and metropolitan planning organizations
for traffic safety activities.
Turning to climate change, the transportation sector's
carbon footprint is substantial and growing, over 28 percent of
total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. New York City recognizes
global climate change as an existential threat and is taking
action by cutting emissions.
The City is investing over $10 million in fast charging
hubs. We are expanding our fleet of 1,300 electric municipal
vehicles. We are partnering with utilities and the tech
industry to develop solutions to take electric vehicle charging
to scale.
Congress should take a number of steps to address climate
change. Halt the phase-out of Federal tax credits that
incentivize the purchase of electric vehicles. Support smart
electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Ensure that Federal,
State and local infrastructure investments are designed and
evaluated to take account of the latest anticipated forecasts
for sea level rise, rainfall and flooding. Restore and
strengthen FHWA's recently rescinded greenhouse gas rule that
was designed to support State and local cooperation on climate
mitigation plans to avoid wasting taxpayer dollars.
Last, I want to address project delivery. While Federal
support for our investments is essential, federally funded
transportation projects do often take longer to complete due to
requirements administered by multiple agencies under dozens of
statutes.
Expedited delivery need not and should not undermine
important environmental safeguards and protections. A good
first step would be to enhance local authority by increasing
Federal funding directly available to cities.
FHWA should adopt a direct aid model that resembles the FTA
process by granting self certification and delegation of design
authority directly to localities; streamline permitting and
reviews by developing concurrent permit processing guidelines;
require States and large localities to develop programmatic
agreements between relevant State, Federal and local resource
and transportation agencies to cover routine permitting for
common activities with triggers for more in-depth review where
warranted.
While I have highlighted a number of policy ideas just now,
my written testimony offers additional details on the
initiatives mentioned here today.
In conclusion, this Congress has an exciting opportunity to
rethink how the Federal Government supports the massive
infrastructure needs of cities and other communities across the
Country. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today
regarding New York City's views and I am happy to answer any
questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Replogle follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. I am grateful for the testimony of all of
you. We are going to go to a round of questioning.
Senator Inhofe, I know you have a pressing matter so I
would like to turn to you first.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to
go out of turn.
I wanted to do it because there are two things I want to
emphasize. You have done a pretty good job of emphasizing, Mr.
Demetriou, but it is worth repeating.
You hear the word investments all the time. Every big
spender around, every big spending program, you never hear the
word spending, you never hear the word deficit. You just hear
investments. A lot of time it is a phony characterization.
However, in transportation, it is not. It is real.
In my State of Oklahoma, because of some massive
improvements we have made in our transportation system, two of
our communities, one, Durant and the other, Innova, are the
direct beneficiaries as a result of what happened in the
highway programs.
In those two communities, the companies are investing $250
million in one and $360 million in the other creating 300 new
jobs in each location. The investment the Oklahoma Department
of Transportation and the Federal Government has made improved
these highways as a result of property tax, sales tax and all
of that.
What I would like to get from you, Mr. McKenna and Mr.
Demetriou, is any elaboration on this, very briefly, and what
you see as a return on investment? We will start with you, Mr.
McKenna.
Mr. McKenna. Thank you, Senator. That is a great question.
In Missouri, we actually track our capital program. We put,
at present, about $900 million per year into that program. We
track and measure that with an economic study on each 5-year
period.
We find when we are at that $900 million to over $1 billion
level, we see returns of 4 to 1 in economic benefits. When we
have instability of Federal funding and tighten down the types
of projects we work on, we can see that drop to $2 to $2.50 per
dollar invested.
Consider the changes between a short-term paving program or
a long-term capital investment program, those returns are
really stark. We have tracked that for over 20 years.
Senator Inhofe. I appreciate that very much.
Mr. Demetriou, you did cover this. Is there anything you
wanted to add to what you have already said concerning return
on investment?
Mr. McKenna. I think I stated that there was a tremendous
return. Patrick just covered that as well. Hopefully, each of
you has a fact sheet on your State that has been put together
by the Business Roundtable.
Specifically for Oklahoma are the additional jobs you laid
out, but more important are the benefits to the mining
industry, finance, insurance and real eState industries which
are important to your State. Each and every one of you has a
similar fact sheet.
For me as a business leader, this is completely tied to
what we do every day to drive investment and get a high return
on that capital. It is clear that, from an infrastructure
standpoint, that is what we are talking about.
Senator Inhofe. The second thing I would like to have you
elaborate on a little bit has to do with streamlining. In the
last two highway bills or transportation bills that we had,
actually when I was chairing this committee, we concentrated on
streamlining. It had not been done before.
I remember that Barbara Boxer at that time came around in a
lot of areas where she did not agree initially but she changed
her position. I think that streamlining has come a long way.
Mr. McKenna, you did not say too much about that. Tell me
what your thoughts are on streamlining. Some people are saying
we have already addressed that. We do not need to address it
more. Why do we need to address it more in this bill?
Mr. McKenna. Thank you, Senator.
We do believe we are along the path. We have made
significant progress in streamlining with a lot of coordination
going on among and between Federal agencies. We are trying to
mirror that at the State level between cabinet agencies in each
State. The coordination efforts that are going on are
substantial. We do believe that we still have progress to be
made.
I want to make sure everyone realizes we are not suggesting
we delve into the environmental issues themselves. We do not
wish to negatively impact the environment, but we do think on a
process standpoint, even in simple projects where we have
categorical exclusions, that coordination can still be
improved. We have more work to do. If we can shave, on average,
3 months off 95 percent of the projects we do, that is a
substantial return for the taxpayer.
Senator Inhofe. That translates into more money for
infrastructure.
Mr. McKenna. Yes, it does.
Senator Inhofe. Do you agree with that, Mr. Demetriou.
Mr. Demetriou. Yes, I do. I really do encourage you to put
into the law the Executive Orders putting the 2-year limit on
the permitting process.
I also want to say there are great examples of projects
recently applying the FAST Act, applying the deadlines,
collaborating and cooperating with all the stakeholders
ensuring government and environmental regulations are
preserved. We are seeing opportunities to improve and shorten
the timelines.
Senator Inhofe. I appreciate that very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Mike, how do you pronounce your last name?
Mr. Replogle. It is Replogle.
Senator Carper. Why?
Mr. Replogle. Old Alsatian dialect. It means wine carrier.
Senator Carper. The 800-pound gorilla in the room is always
how to pay for this stuff. We all know we need to do it. A
fellow named Earl Blumenauer who I think is from Oregon, talks
about the purchasing power of the Federal gasoline and diesel.
I think he is calling for five cent increases for 5 years and
index it, going forward.
It reminds me a little of what George Voinovich and I
suggested almost a decade ago to the Simpson-Bowles Commission
when we called for increases of four cents a year for 4 years
and then to index. A lot of people said that was a pretty good
idea. We never got around to doing it. We really did not have
the kind of leadership we should have had from the executive
branch. People were really reluctant here in this body to raise
fees even for something we know we all need to do.
I was in a meeting with Senator Inhofe, Senator Barrasso
and a number of our colleagues maybe 6 months ago at the White
House, meeting with the President on infrastructure. He said, I
am not going to give a big speech but let's listen here to all
of you. What do you think we ought to do?
He turned to me first. I am sitting right across the table
from him. I said, the 800-pound gorilla in the room is always
how to pay for this stuff. I suggested what George Voinovich
and I had suggested seven, eight or 9 years ago, four cents a
year for 4 years. He cut me off. He said, that's not enough.
I looked at John Barrasso sitting right next to the
President and I winked at him. He said, that's not enough. It
should be 25 cents and it should be right now. I looked around
the room and I think there were a few surprised people there.
He came back to it again and again in the meeting which lasted
over an hour.
That night I spoke on the phone with the Secretary of
Transportation. I said was that just a warn-off or something he
decided to throw out there as he sometimes does? She said, no,
he's been talking about this for weeks, actually longer.
As an old Governor, I have always felt leadership is
important, especially in doing difficult things. The President
said he supports 25 cents right now on the gas and diesel tax
and provides political cover for the Congress. He said, I know
this is a hard thing for elected officials in the House and
Senate to do, Democrats and Republicans. I will provide you
that cover for that.
I said to the Secretary, was he serious about this? She
said, he's been talking about it for quite a while.
I would suggest if we are serious about really doing
something, I think Earl Blumenauer was on to an idea. I think
George Voinovich and I had a pretty good idea. I think the
President has a pretty good idea. What we need is the political
courage to do it.
Not just that but can we find more ways to streamline and
save some money through permitting reform? My guess is we
probably can. Everything I do, I know I can do better.
How about the folks out there who use roads, highways and
bridges and do not bring in anything? They are in electric
vehicles, hydrogen-fueled vehicles. Shouldn't they have some
obligation to maintain the roads they are driving on? I think
so.
Let me ask you guys to react to what I have just said and
laid out before you. Then I will ask some other questions. Mr.
Replogle.
Mr. Replogle. I think we clearly need more infrastructure
investment here in America. I think we need to consider a
diverse array of ways of achieving increased revenues, both
through traditional means and new innovative means if we are to
accomplish this. We need to make sure those funds are well
targeted to the right kinds of investments.
Senator Carper. We just opened a four-lane limited access
highway called Route 301 which comes right out of the eastern
side of Maryland and comes through Delaware. It was always a
two-lane road in Delaware with a lot of congestion, traffic
lights and pollution.
We just converted it into a four-lane, limited access
highway. It is a toll road with the largest loan from the
Federal Government. It is a toll road and we are recovering the
tolls to pay off the loan back to USDOT. That is another
option.
Steven?
Mr. Demetriou. Senator, I agree with what Michael said.
There is no silver bullet. There needs to be a diverse array of
public, State, local and private funding. The overlay is it
really should be user-based. We have that in place today with
the gas tax. Unfortunately, it is 25 years since we increased
it. I think we have lost about 40 percent of the purchasing
power.
We have vehicles out there that are more energy efficient,
as you said, some even electric, not even paying the gas tax.
We need to move to a mileage-based, user fee as quickly as
possible. Initially, we should start with the increased gas tax
and then move to a miles-based user fee. At Jacobs, we are
working with many States and coalitions across the west coast
and east coast to pilot these. I think we need to accelerate
that to get to that ultimately.
Senator Carper. Mr. McKenna, please.
Mr. McKenna. Thank you.
Senator Carper. I would ask you to be brief and right to
the point.
Mr. McKenna. Great points, and I agree the two primary
issues we are facing are lost purchasing power from inflation
over the last 20-plus years, and the rising fuel economy. We do
have to address that. We do believe there are cost effective
ways to do that through user fees today, adjusting those user
fees to help that purchasing power.
Senator Carper. Have you done anything in Missouri along
these lines?
Mr. McKenna. We have made several attempts in that regard.
We have constitutional prohibitions on legislative authority to
increase revenues. The public has not agreed with us to date.
We have not made as much progress as we would like.
We do have right now one of the alternatives to the fuel
tax going through our legislature. It is actually a conversion
of our registration fee to a mileage-based fee. The idea is to
capture from all users relatively the same amount.
Whether you are paying gas and fuel tax or whether you have
an all-electric vehicle or a hybrid, the idea is that we
capture about $30 a month from each of these users. We need to
do that across whatever form of transportation you are using.
Senator Carper. Thanks so much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thanks, Senator Carper.
Senator Braun.
Senator Braun. Thank you.
I come from the State, Indiana, where back in 2017 we were
grappling with the same issues here. Being on Roads and
Transportation there in Ways and Means, and a fiscal
conservative, it was easy for us to do it. I spoke vehemently
to increase the gas tax and diesel, and I own a trucking
company, 10 cents a gallon on gas, 20 cents on diesel. It was
in the context of a balanced budget that we do every year and
cash balances.
I did not have the reservation of even increasing a user
fee in the context of what I would call bad fiscal management
here in general. I think that is the dilemma that we live here
on the Federal level.
What I want to talk about mostly, though, and I agree with
Senator Carper when he mentioned how do you pay for it, I think
it is disingenuous to rely on an institution like we have here
that is running trillion-dollar deficits, and $22 trillion in
debt. That would be infeasible anywhere else, if you are asking
to get more revenue out of it, whether it is through transfer
from the general budget or raising a user fee. I think we have
to work on that in general before we really can do it with
confidence that it is going to be there and sustainable.
We started experimenting with some other ideas. We had
counties and cities constantly wanting more roads and bridges
fixed within their domains, and had the nerve in that same year
to throw out a program that had a 50 percent match. They griped
about it, did not want to do it. It is oversubscribed now in
the two or 3 years we have done it, because they had no
capacity to do it. They found the way to do it. Cities and
counties are going to have capacity to do stuff within a State.
States have capacities to do more.
I think we cannot shy away from asking States that
generally are in financially good shape, to do more. There is
capital capacity there. Also, through public-private
partnerships, there is even more probable capital capacity in
that area. There are a lot of folks who do not like the idea of
it.
I think we have to be enterprising. We cannot expect this
to be solved because look how long it has been and we did not
have the fortitude to do a user fee here. It would have been a
lot easier 10 or 15 years ago when we had a balance sheet that
would not argue against doing it.
I know in my State, Joe McGuinness, who is our Director of
Transportation, is really enterprising. I want to mention one
other thing we did. I authored the bill, could not find a model
for it anywhere in the U.S. This was for cities and counties,
locals, to initiate a road project and bring the State along to
get engaged with it and put skin in the game. Here, it seems
like you never talk about skin in the game. When you do it,
things work better.
We teed-up that bill the same year that we did the long-
term road funding. I can tell you in my home area, we have a
road project we have talked about for 40 years that local
industry is going to pay half of the EIS fee and we have shamed
local governments into matching it, so we are on the board. We
are getting something done. That is what it is going to take.
Mr. McKenna, you would be in the same space as Joe
McGuinness was. He likes it. We were in a State legislature
that did something. What do you think of the idea of asking
cities and counties to do more within States and States
carrying more of the burden because they are better able to do
it?
Mr. McKenna. Senator, those are great comments and a great
question.
In Missouri, we have a 15-year history of cost share with
local communities. Those local communities, to the extent that
they believe investment in the National Highway System that
runs through their communities is valid and valuable, we do
have them putting skin in the game. In fact, we have used $450
million of State and Federal resources and actually produced $1
billion worth of construction projects.
I would say that in a State like Missouri, where we have
the seventh largest transportation network and are ranked 48th
in terms of revenue per mile, we have been looking, on an
enterprising basis, for any potential solution we can find on a
project by project basis. All of these types of programmatic
project-based approaches work. However, they do not solve the
entire system base. There are tools in the toolbox that are
vitally important and everyone should be seeking those. I do
think DOTs around the Country and communities have been working
together pretty hard to do so.
Senator Braun. Thank you.
In respect of time, I will yield. If there is a second
round, I have another question.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Braun.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to the witnesses for coming. This is one of the
areas where it is kind of fun to be on EPW. We work together
and I think we can get a lot of things done. I wanted to flag a
couple of issues I think are important as we go forward.
One is I want to add to the record a statement of the
American Property Casualty Insurance Association made to the
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. They pointed out the importance of
incorporating climate risk models and climate resilient
standards into all public infrastructure projects and that it
is not just designing and building resilient infrastructure, it
is also retrofitting existing infrastructure in areas at risk.
I think I see every head nodding about this.
It becomes particularly important for States like mine that
are coastal where there is a lot of infrastructure along the
coast, where we are at risk of losing transport capability to
flooding. Highway 95, in the big rain-burst flooding of several
years ago, actually closed because it was filled with water.
Amtrak has been stopped because of flooding in Rhode Island and
its railway along the Connecticut coast is a massive, massive
potential liability. I think it is important that we pay
attention to what the insurance industry, what the American
Property Casualty Insurance Association is saying.
I also want to emphasize as we go forward the opportunities
for better infrastructure, cheaper construction, more durable
infrastructure and I think for a lot of our local States,
economies through the increased use of new materials.
I would like to ask that a report called The Performance of
Bridges that Receive Funding Under the Innovative Bridge
Research and Construction Program by the National Academies of
Science, Engineering and Medicine be added as an exhibit.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. It points out that one of the problems
is we lack comprehensive design standards and specifications,
as well as programs for detailed long-term monitoring. A better
composite solution might actually be harder to get to because
the engineers never bothered to write down the specs for
composite.
What is in the book is rebar, steel, concrete or whatever,
so the engineers automatically go to the old and perhaps less
effective and efficient technology. Trials of composite
materials were a major interest of participants in the study
but ``Few of the States that responded to the survey use or
have specifications for FRP deck elements, super structure
elements, and pre-stressing tendons. Most States had little or
no prior experience with these materials.'' I think we need to
continue to press forward to make sure these new and
potentially better, lighter, smarter, more durable materials
have a fair chance to compete against the traditional
materials.
In my State, we see more and more of a priority on
bicycling and walking as an alternative. Obviously, as our
roads get more and more use, if people were willing to ride a
bike, many actually prefer to, we shouldn't be foreclosing that
option. Pedestrian and bike infrastructure, to me, is very
important in this conversation.
I will echo our Ranking Member's remarks about the charging
infrastructure for electric vehicles. I am not a serious car
person but I like cars and I like driving. When you look at the
electric vehicles coming into the marketplace, these aren't
golf carts. This is Jaguar. This is Audi. This is Mercedes.
I have a Chevy Volt, so I have a GM electric vehicle
already but they are moving it to their top line, to their
Cadillac division because they see this as a really huge
opportunity. The performance specs of these things are, to use
Elon Musk's words, ludicrous. That is actually what he
describes as one of the performance options in the Tesla. You
can blow the doors off a Lamborghini with your electric Tesla
for about one-fifth the price of the vehicle.
I think we have to be prepared for a larger and more rapid
adoption of electric vehicles as the market sees how incredibly
cool they are and what fun they are to drive. It is like basic
human characteristics here.
Senator Barrasso. The question is, do they need a $7,500
tax credit for people who do buy it?
Senator Whitehouse. They are easily worth $7,500 compared
to the $7,500-plus worth of damage that emissions from
automobiles do. I am eager to support that.
I have two last comments. As far as environmental
streamlining goes, I am all for it. I actually led the
environmental streamlining for offshore wind that actually got
offshore wind built.
Once we showed that it could be done, there have been
literally multiple hundreds of millions of dollars of
investment in offshore wind that have come immediately into the
market because we showed the permitting did not have to be
fatal to the project. I am all for that as long as it is not a
pretext for crummy environmental protection and rolling local
communities.
I do think we, in Congress, need to find ways to reassert
our priorities through these bills, whether it is highway bills
or Army Corps water bills. The idea that we just shovel
enormous amounts of money into these executive agencies and
then beg and plead for their consideration as to what might get
funded and get lost in their priorities and their bureaucracy,
I think we need to revisit that and create a stronger system of
regard for congressional priorities.
With all of that, I would be happy if anyone wants to
comment on that, please do so as a question for the record.
However, my time has expired so I have to go on. Take that as a
question for the record and put your answers in writing if you
would like to respond to any of those thoughts.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you all for being here today.
Mr. McKenna and Mr. Demetriou, you both cited several
statistics on the return of investment for infrastructure as
being as high as maybe one to four. There is another side of
the ledger, I think, that you all are aware of.
A study was released in 2017 for our State of West Virginia
that said drivers in West Virginia spent $1.4 billion,
including an average of $647 per vehicle, increased operating
expenses due to potholes and poor conditions of the roads. We
also have rural bridges and you mentioned Missouri with the
same kind of issues with your bridges that are in poor
condition. We have quite a few bridges in our State. I want to
bring that up and my colleague from Indiana brought up what
they are doing.
Driving the message in our State probably two-and-a-half to
3 years ago was more the negative effects of not doing
anything, not improving your infrastructure and the negative
effects it was having on the lifestyle and ability to do
business in our State, the opposite side of the ledger.
We actually passed a $1.6 billion road bond in the State of
West Virginia which has difficulty on our economics much like
my colleague said. It raised the gas tax with people willing to
pay to have better and improved infrastructure in their lives.
You can follow the progress we are making in West Virginia on
the website. It is very transparent at the DOT website.
I guess my question is, do you think the better driving of
the message from here is on the negative? We are obviously good
at driving negative messages from time to time. Is it a message
that needs to be obviously both a positive benefit through the
business? Mr. Demetriou, you outlined that quite well.
From a State perspective, I am sure in Missouri you can
drive a negative message and drive more voter satisfaction on
that. Do you have any comments on that?
Mr. McKenna. I do, Senator. That is a wonderful point. I
think we do, as an industry, and all States need to drive a lot
of the messaging forward, the costs and benefits and also
really what the cost of doing nothing is.
We put together a citizen's guide for transportation
funding in Missouri and put it on a website. We have determined
the price people pay is about $30 a month for access and use of
the transportation network but the cost of doing nothing
exceeds $180 a month.
Those higher maintenance costs, the cost for insurance for
increased damage to vehicles and for, unfortunately, incidents
that rise up as much as to fatalities all over the Nation,
those costs are very important. You can see very clearly, I
think, the path for solutions in policy when you understand
that you are exceeding your costs by $150 a month.
Senator Capito. Mr. Demetriou, do you have a response to
that?
Mr. Demetriou. I think at the end of the day, you stated it
very nicely, if people understand what the purpose is and buy
into that purpose, they are going to support it.
Senator Capito. Right.
Mr. Demetriou. Whether it is to overcome the negative or it
is to enhance lifestyle and make things more efficient.
I will also talk from a business standpoint that as
infrastructure is improved, it is going to accelerate business
investment because businesses are going to be more confident in
expanding their business facility, whatever it is, knowing
there is going to be more efficient infrastructure and
transportation adjacent to their facility.
Senator Capito. Right. Thank you.
One of the things we talked about in the President's
proposed infrastructure package last year and over the last 2
years was to try to look at what infrastructure really means.
For me in a rural State, enhanced broadband deployment is an
exceedingly important part of an infrastructure package that we
would put together, realizing that the highway bill is
different.
I am thinking if we are looking for efficiencies, we have a
lot of dig once provisions to be able to enhance not just what
is going in surface transportation. There might be some
economic benefits to doing that too. In other words, working
with internet service providers, we will dig once for you, but
it is going to cost you maybe not that much, but it is a better
efficient way to move about.
Do you have any thoughts on that?
Mr. Demetriou. You just touched on what is a tremendous
opportunity for the United States, smart infrastructure, and
connected infrastructure. I think the more we can look at it
holistically, connecting buildings, highways, airports, the
whole infrastructure community and create smarter cities,
smarter buildings, smarter infrastructure, it will accelerate
the improvement we are all talking about.
Senator Capito. And make our dollars go further, I think.
Mr. Demetriou. Exactly.
Senator Capito. Thank you so much.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Capito.
Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks to all of you for your testimony today.
We all know we have a huge infrastructure gap in our
Country, the gap between the need to modernize our
infrastructure and the resources we are dedicating to it. I
hope, as a Congress, we can figure out a way to significantly
increase our investment in that area.
We talked about some of the proposals today. That is true
whether we are talking about broadband, highways or transit.
This is one little sample of what is happening every day around
our Country.
This is from yesterday's Baltimore Sun. The potholes are so
bad on a stretch of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway that the
speed limit was lowered to 40 miles an hour because the
potholes were so bad. Senator Cardin, my colleague from
Maryland, may even come that way. It is just one more example
of what we are seeing every day. We cannot just keep fiddling
here while our infrastructure crumbles away. I want to thank
all of you for being here.
Let me ask you, Mr. Replogle, and thank you for your prior
service in the State of Maryland, I think in Montgomery County
with the Park and Planning Commission, is that right?
Mr. Replogle. Yes.
Senator Van Hollen. Our loss is New York's gain.
You have a statement from your testimony saying you ``urge
Congress to increase public transportation capital investment
grants and take steps to ensure that competitive grants like
BUILD are not largely directed away from urban areas. Rather
than allocating funding solely to existing formula programs, we
urge new support and flexible funding for State and local
traffic safety initiatives for the redesign of our streets to
accommodate multiple travel options and for efforts to
safeguard transportation assets against extreme weather.''
Can you just elaborate a little bit on that? I am wondering
if that sentiment is shared by our other witnesses here as
well.
Mr. Replogle. We are at a place where we can direct our
transportation dollars in a way that does more to advance our
national and community goals or we can direct it as we have
directed it in the past where it does not always deliver the
most performance.
We have 37,000 people a year killed on our highways. Those
numbers are moving in the wrong direction nationally. If you
look across the Country, there are a few communities like New
York City that have been able to significantly push those
numbers down with some concerted action.
We call our initiative Vision Zero. It involves lowering
the speed limit on city streets, enforcing traffic laws that
provide for better traffic safety, doing reengineering on our
streets and our intersections to make it safer to walk, bike
and move about, and making sure we have multimodal street
designs that accommodate bus traffic more efficiently so that
buses are not stuck in traffic but can move more quickly.
These helps the whole transportation system be more
productive at getting people to jobs and opportunities with
less taxpayer spending.
Senator Van Hollen. That would require directing some
formula funds outside the current formula or additional funds?
Mr. Replogle. The challenge we have now is a lot of the
formula funding goes to the States and yet a lot of these kinds
of initiatives that I described are done at the local
government level. The money is not getting to the local level.
Senator Van Hollen. It has been a major frustration, I
know, with a lot of counties in the State of Maryland.
Mr. Replogle. We are calling for direct funding to larger
jurisdictions following the model of the Federal Transit
Administration which directly allocates funding and allows for
design processes and effective delegation of authority for
project reviews and permitting so that we do not have to go
through an extra layer at the State level which makes for
inefficiency and often, in fact, filters out the funding so it
does not get to the local level at all.
Senator Van Hollen. I look forward to following up with you
on that.
I know the time is limited. You talked about the transit
programs. Within the FTA programs, there is the capital
investment grant program. I am interested in adapting that idea
to help create a fund of money for bridges.
When I talk to folks across our State and hear about the
crumbling bridges, it is a huge safety issue. They do not seem
to rank very high on the list of priorities when it comes to
the funds.
I am also interested in whether all of you would support
the establishment of the equivalent to the Capital Investment
Grant Fund at FTA within the Transportation Fund for bridge
purposes?
Mr. Replogle. As a city with 789 bridges, I think we would
support that kind of initiative, especially if the funding
enabled some direct allocation to larger jurisdictions below
the State level.
Mr. McKenna. If I might, I do not disagree with any of the
comments about the need. I do think if we look at this as a
single pie that is not growing and we carve it up differently,
the asset management needs of State DOTs, with the backlogs and
numbers we have talked about, the difficulty and the reason why
some of those funds are not moving through into those other
priorities is simply there are not enough dollars going into
the pie.
That is a critical issue for all of us. As a State with
24,000 bridges, bridge funding is an absolute priority but if
you reduce flexibility for the States to address the most
important priorities in their asset management plans without a
concurrent rise in the resources available to do so, you will
not have the desired effect.
Senator Van Hollen. Back to the bridge program, I am
talking about additional funding source.
Thank you all very much.
Senator Capito.
[Presiding.] Thank you.
Senator Ernst. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today.
I think through the discussion we have heard, there are a
lot of ideas out there. We all need to make sure there is smart
investment in our infrastructure. I think we could all agree,
we do need to control waste and do need to encourage greater
efficiencies in what we do as well.
Mr. McKenna, one of the streamlining ideas you touched on
in your testimony relates to the categorical exemptions or the
CEs. You recommend allowing any Federal agency to use the CE if
it is already in place at another agency.
This does seem to make sense to me. It would provide that
greater efficiency. If one agency has a CE for a certain
action, then another agency should also have a CE for that same
action.
Do you have any examples of how the lack of a CE or CE
interchangeability between agencies has actually slowed
projects?
Mr. McKenna. We can certainly draw in several examples from
all over the Country. I will submit those for the record.
What we do know is that in our own dealings, in many cases
when we are working on our bridge work, when we are crossing
major rivers, even if there are slight replacements, we can
have circumstances where we have what we need from one agency
and another does not have that authority, so they have to go
through a more substantial environmental assessment.
That is where we find the slow-down. When that does happen,
in fact, it is a very similar process within each agency. USDOT
has some ability to do that across modes, but not across to
other agencies of the government.
Senator Ernst. It would be helpful in your estimation?
Mr. McKenna. Yes, it would.
Senator Ernst. Between agencies.
Is this recommendation something that most folks you have
worked with would agree on?
Mr. McKenna. Yes. We do believe that the work done by one
agency versus another is quite similar, so it is a matter of
speeding up the process, not short shifting the environmental
regulations.
Senator Ernst. Certainly, but if one agency has done it?
Mr. McKenna. That is right.
Senator Ernst. Right. Where would you receive pushback on
this idea?
Mr. McKenna. As we have made progress with the FAST Act and
MAP-21, I think we have made progress there. I believe we are
gaining momentum to continue with that forward. It is when we
come across statutory limitations between the programs and
between different agencies with different congressional
mandates, that is where we see some of the issues.
It is not so much that people do not wish to do it. It is
that they may not have the statutory authority to do so.
Senator Ernst. Very good. I appreciate that.
Mr. McKenna, can you go into some detail on what you think
are the benefits of States participating in the NEPA assignment
program? I think there are only a few States right now that do
participate in that. If you could, what do you think is keeping
other States from getting onboard with that?
Mr. McKenna. I think we have seven States now that are
participating in that assignment. We do have some resource
issues at the State level, being able to receive that
responsibility and coordinate that.
Some work to further streamline the application and
approval process I think would be beneficial to help encourage
others. In other cases, it is really a matter of working on a
programmatic basis to set agreements that benefit both the
State and the Federal Government. Being able to coordinate
those efforts more could encourage that.
Certainly in the States that have much more significant and
complicated projects, it is a higher priority. In States like
Missouri, our average project delivery timeframe is under a
year. We have wonderful partners with Federal Highway, our
division office is a terrific partner with us, and we work with
our locals, our cities and our communities to try to quickly
make commonsense investments.
Senator Ernst. I appreciate that. I have very little time
left. I will stop there but I do think as long as we are taking
a look at this, we need to understand our dollars need to go a
little bit further. The less we spend on the bureaucracy, the
more we can actually spend on our infrastructure.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
I will yield back.
Senator Barrasso.
[Presiding.] Thank you, Senator Ernst.
Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this
hearing.
The economic impact of modernizing our infrastructure I
think is obvious. It is good to be able to establish the record
here.
I want to cover a couple of points, if I might, as we deal
with the economic returns of the infrastructure. Senator Van
Hollen mentioned the fact that the B-W Parkway, I do take that
road, the highway speed has been reduced to 40 miles an hour
because of potholes. I admit that is under the Park Service,
not under these programs, but it does point out the fact that
we are not maintaining our transportation infrastructure.
One of the things that concerns me is we all look at the
opportunities to modernize our infrastructure and we always
look for the glamorous new opportunities, as we should because
it does provide economic growth.
However, we do not invest in maintaining our infrastructure
at a level that we need to. That is why we have bridges that
are falling down, roads that are not really safe and we do not
really invest in resiliency recognizing the realities of the
changing climate conditions.
We invest for the purposes of getting a good return. In
reality, we are not investing in maintaining or dealing with
resiliency. As we look at the reauthorization of surface
transportation, I am wondering if any of you have thoughts as
to how we can have a better decisionmaking process at both the
Federal and local levels so that we do not just throw money at
new projects and see existing essential transportation programs
sort of crumble.
I could also mention not only in this committee's
jurisdiction but our transit systems are in horrible condition.
We have seen loss of life in the transit system here. How do we
make sure that we deal with maintenance and resiliency?
Mr. Demetriou. Let me start and tell you what I am seeing
it takes with regard to our clients across the United States.
More and more everyone is seeing what you are talking about.
Every project we are working now has not only the
corrective action for the infrastructure or the expansion, but
it is putting sustainable solutions in place, putting in new
technology and innovation to make it more efficient, both to
operate and maintain as well as the construction side of it. I
think as we go forward, we need to put policy in place that
ensures everything is addressed not just the short-term
solution.
Mr. Replogle. In New York City, we are increasingly taking
a triple bottom line approach to asset management. We have
stepped up the amount we are investing in repaving our asphalt
roadways. We are taking strong action on behalf of our $15
billion, 10-year capital program from my agency goes to keeping
our bridges in a State of good repair and trying to improve
that.
We are looking increasingly at where we need to replace or
modify old bridges. The average age of our bridges in New York
City is over 75 years. As the city has evolved and grown around
those, it commands us to take a fresh look at how we manage and
redevelop those assets over time.
I think the Federal Government could take those kinds of
models and embed them in new legislation to encourage a triple
bottom line asset management program for the United States as
part of a performance-based transportation initiative.
Mr. McKenna. I would agree with what Michael said. Asset
management is really the key. I think you are seeing that
across the Country. Some of the requirements on performance
management and metrics were put first in MAP-21 and then in the
FAST Act.
Some of the State DOTs are really waking up to that and
doing a very good job of asset management. Simply put, asset
management alone cannot do it. We need steady funding, need to
know that it is coming, and need to know what amount it will be
in so long-term reauthorization and steady funding is vital.
You are planning, in a budgetary sense, on a one Fiscal
Year basis in a budget sense. State DOTs and asset management
plans are 10 years long. We are projecting out 20 and 30 years.
Without knowing the amount we can invest, all of those plans
are for naught.
Senator Cardin. Let me respond to the point from Senator
Van Hollen on local input without having to go through the
States. We do have a model under the Transportation Alternative
Program so we might be able to build on that type of model on
some of the issues you refer to because that has been a
successful model for local governments being able to have more
control over projects in their own communities without having
to go through the State funds.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
Senator Braun, you had a question or two you wanted to
follow-up with?
Senator Braun. Thank you.
This is for Mr. McKenna. I am asking you this because it
was stated early on that it has been a long time since we have
adjusted the fuel tax. We are in the worse shape possible doing
things out of our general fund in the current context. I want
to put you on the hot seat but I think I know what the answer
would be in Indiana.
Do you think in Missouri, if the formula was changed from
the 20-80 to where it would ask States to do more, or whether
there was a separate grant process or funding say on a 50-50
basis like we did in Indiana with cities and counties, do you
think that is something Missouri would interested in, in terms
of not relying on something that is not currently working
because I think roads across the Country are getting in worse
and worse shape. Where do you think Missouri would be?
Mr. McKenna. Frankly, we have challenges with funding
across the board. States across the Country and in Missouri, we
do count on Federal partnership and we do not rely solely on
that Federal partnership.
As I said, we have a cost share program where we are
encouraging local participation, but we do need, as I mentioned
in the example and what you can see in my testimony, a single
bridge, the Rocheport Bridge needs to be replaced. Within 72
hours, the commercial vehicles that travel on that touch every
single State in the continental U.S.
Even local projects require that. There is a purpose for
the national program to be able to invest in those.
I am hesitant to think we would go off or move away, from
in its entirety, the Federal-State partnership that exists
today. However, we just dropped two discretionary grant
applications for INFRA into the hopper where the State is
assuming a 70 percent share.
On a case-by-case basis, one of them is to solve that
Rocheport Bridge problem, but on a case-by-case, project-by-
project basis, yes. On a programmatic basis, I think we are a
little hesitant.
Senator Braun. You would still be interested in keeping it
on the 20-80 formula?
Mr. McKenna. Yes.
Senator Braun. I think that would be the reaction from most
States. I just think it is going to be shortsighted because I
think if we want to get those things done within our States, we
are going to have to start being willing to do more because if
you look at what is happening here, we are in the least capable
shape of doing what needs to be done across the Country.
I am glad you are at least taking advantage of the INFRA
grants. I think I would think about maybe doing more as a
State. I know in Indiana, we would definitely think about it.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Braun.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. I just want to follow-up.
As a former Governor, one who has thought a lot about
State-Federal partnership on this front, I just jotted down
five or six ideas on trying to pay for this hole, how to fill
this hole for infrastructure and surface transportation.
One would be to restore the purchasing power of the
traditional user fees that we have had for many, many years.
Two is a toll. I talked about tolling, a four-lane highway we
just opened in Delaware a month or so ago.
Public-private partnerships, a lot of people say that is
the key, that is the magic. It is probably not. I think there
were about 40 public-private partnerships in the Country in the
last decade or so. It is not a lot but it is part of the
answer.
We talked about streamlining. We have done a fair amount of
that already. There may be other ways to do some more. I am not
interested in degrading the environment but exploring
technology to be able to build more durable structures as we go
forward in time.
This is your point, somehow figure out how to leverage more
State and local funding and craft our Federal funding in a way
that does that. I think eventually, for the folks driving
vehicles that do not use any gas or diesel they have to start
paying something as well.
Eventually, what I would like to do is ramp us up to some
kind of vehicle miles traveled. I think a dozen or so States
have been involved a bit in these pilot programs. I think there
are seven active right now. I think that is part of the future.
Thank you very much for mentioning that.
Mr. Replogle, in your testimony, you urged Congress to
increase Federal funding for transportation infrastructure. You
also State not all transportation investments yield similar
benefits. Could you elaborate for us how Congress should ensure
that increased spending is directed to supporting productive
long-term investments?
Mr. Replogle. I think there are a number of studies that
have been done over the years showing if you invest $1 in a new
highway, it creates little over a dollar's worth of economic
activity.
If you invest that dollar in public transportation, you
play this through economic multiplier models, 80 percent of
that dollar in public transportation goes into transportation
into wages for the people who are providing the public
transportation services. That multiplies to about $2.80 in the
local economic activity.
You can look at this from an economic multiplier. The
economic multipliers are heavier for transit investment than
they are for highway investment. Those vary somewhat from
region to region.
You can also look at this from the standpoint of capital
investment dollars. If you put those dollars into expanding a
highway, an interState highway, it is going to certainly create
jobs in the construction industry and provide for long term
mobility.
If you put that same money into building sidewalks and bike
paths in communities, it is actually more labor intensive and
creates more local jobs that are somewhat less skilled, so it
helps support the local base of the economy while also helping
traffic safety and saving lives in ways that we have not been
paying sufficient attention to in America.
That is one of the reasons why pedestrian deaths keep going
up at a much sharper rate than overall highway deaths which are
still going up. We need to address both of those. We need to
think about those things together, again, triple bottom line,
economic, social and environmental.
Senator Carper. I have a follow-up question for you.
Later today, I am going to be introducing legislation
entitled The Clean Corridors Act of 2019 which expands
opportunities for electric vehicle charging. I would ask, how
critical is EV charging infrastructure build out as a tool to
address the global emergency of climate change?
Mr. Replogle. It is quite urgent that we rapidly invest in
electric vehicle charging opportunities so that you can take a
trip, most trips across America, without having to have range
anxiety that you are going to have trouble finding a place to
recharge your vehicle in a convenient way.
We have that ability with the gasoline and diesel-powered
fleet, but we do not have that quite yet for electric. We will
need to electrify our surface transportation if we are to
decarbonize it and to address the climate change challenge that
is an existential crisis for our society and our civilization.
Senator Carper. Thank you.
You mentioned a trip across America. My wife and I went to
see a movie last weekend that won the Academy Award for Best
Motion Picture, Green Book, which is a trip across wide parts
of America by a talented African American pianist, Don Shirley,
I think was his name, he was actually quite a concert musician
as well, and a guy from the Bronx who was Italian-American. The
two of them could not have been more different.
The story is set in 1962 and going through the South. If
you were African-American, you had to use this Green Book to
find a place where you could stay and eat. It was a wonderful,
wonderful film. It reminded me a bit of Hidden Figures, the
NASA stuff with John Glenn which was also inspiring.
It is nice to know they still make movies like that. It is
nice to know we still have hearings like this.
Thank you all.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Carper.
Mr. McKenna, earlier Senator Carper cited the Government
Accountability Office statistic that about 96 percent of
environmental reviews are completed through categorical
exclusions.
Does this figure mean there are no more or other meaningful
ways we could further accelerate project delivery?
Mr. McKenna. No, I think actually that citation shows that
even within the process for categorical exclusion that might be
one of the areas that moves the needle even further. If we make
a 50 percent gain in efficiency on 95 percent of the projects
in this Country, that is a significant gain on process, not on
projects that would impact the environment.
I think even when we shave a week, a month, 2 months or 3
months off that, in a lot of States in this Country that is the
whole construction season. It is really impactful.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Demetriou, do you have any examples
or thoughts on that specific question as well?
Mr. Demetriou. I want to use three projects I want to
highlight and how it can be done in today's environment.
The 11th Street Bridge is a project I mentioned earlier and
the Anacostia River. Average infrastructure projects of an
equivalent type nature were six-plus years. That project was 27
months to get a record of decision.
I already mentioned the Colorado project, 2 years. Then the
Elgin-O'Hare West Bypass is another great example, 6 months
ahead of schedule to get the record of decision.
All three of these projects basically had the four key
elements needed in addition to policy. It had up-front funding
that was committed. A lot of times that is the major driver.
Two, it had upfront commitment by the political environment,
the regulatory and the business purpose was clear whether it
was a need to respond to a disaster or need for improvement.
I think the biggest piece was the collaboration and
communication people committed to. The regulatory agencies, the
owners and the contractors altogether made sure that upfront
everyone knew what had to get done.
It is already happening. I think the more we can codify and
put this into law, we will further accelerate all of that.
Senator Barrasso. I appreciate that.
I do have AASHTO's FAST Act reauthorization proposals from
November 2018 which include a number of the recommendations for
streamlining these environmental reviews for transportation
projects.
If there is no objection, I ask unanimous consent to enter
this into the record. It is so ordered.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Director McKenna, in the last Congress we
heard from a number of State Departments of Transportation that
the Department of Transportation's non-environmental
requirements could be reduced in ways that would give States
more flexibility, empower States to focus on priority tasks,
and accelerate projects.
One idea is to make stewardship and oversight agreements
more standardized and less proscriptive, and more efficient.
These agreements are often too complex and can add burdensome
requirements in Federal approvals that are not required by
statute.
Do you see opportunities for these agreements to be
simplified and for the Federal Government to be more flexible?
Mr. McKenna. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question.
Yes, we do, particularly in those areas where some of the
requirements when we talk about the State standard
specifications, when we talk about pavement design policy,
value engineering policy and a number of those other areas,
there are, in many of the stewardship and oversight agreements,
requirements that those be preapproved, those State policies be
preapproved although that is not a statutory requirement.
We do think there are some good commonsense areas to
further that discussion, to narrow it and make more
programmatic the agreements.
Senator Barrasso. As you also know, Congress often has
difficulty reauthorizing Federal transportation legislation on
time, often requiring repeated short-term extensions to the
program. Could you talk a bit about what happens to your
projects if we do not enact a long-term reauthorization bill
before it expires next year and instead just do short
extensions?
Mr. McKenna. Very specifically, when I joined the Missouri
Department of Transportation, it was just at passage of the
FAST Act. Prior to that, there had literally been a halt on new
projects. Because of that short-term funding scenario, the
State stopped taking financial risk, risk on reimbursement of
the Federal program.
It very much narrowed the types of projects we were working
on. That was a great harm, I think, to the State. As it stands
for what we are projecting right now, we very specifically
already seeing in 2021 $330 million of project risk in our
current capital plan we have already committed to. Our
communities are getting really concerned about that.
Further, we try to do a 5-year capital program. When we do
not have the Federal certainty, we cannot commit to those
projects. We are running with our metropolitan planning
organizations and our regional planning commissions throughout
the State. We are actually running two capital programs in the
event that the Federal Government, that Congress does not act
to bolster that Highway Trust Fund and provide funding
certainty. That will literally take 35 to 40 percent of our
capital program right off the books.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Demetriou, a final question. Could
you give us your thoughts on how the lack of certainty caused
by the absence of long-term Federal highway funding impacts the
private sector?
Mr. Demetriou. I think it is a major issue if we do not get
the long term, six-plus year type funding. At the end of the
day, businesses all have a long-term strategy. We all have our
funding that is laid out for the next several years. Unless we
have long term certainty around infrastructure improvement,
enhancements and innovation, then we are not going to make
decisions to invest in expansion or growth in our own
businesses.
I think it is critical and I think it is a global
competitive situation for the United States because most of us
are global companies. We are trying to figure out where to put
our assets. Everything is set up here to do it in the United
States except for the infrastructure equation that needs to get
solved.
Senator Barrasso. I appreciate the three of you being here
and for your excellent testimony. There are some members who
might want to submit some written questions so I ask that you
respond. We will keep the record open for 2 weeks.
I think all the members want to thank you and I want to
thank all members who attended today. I think our esteemed
guests really did an excellent job bringing home the points,
Senator Carper, that we have been looking at, the time and
crucial discussions regarding our Nation's surface
transportation needs.
Thank you so very much.
Senator Carper. Before we adjourn, I have one question I
wanted to ask Mr. McKenna about a freight enhancement program
you all have in Missouri that my staff tells me has been quite
successful in making meaningful and targeted investments in
transfer points within the supply chain.
Can you take a minute and tell us about that?
Mr. McKenna. Thank you, Senator.
Yes, we have small general revenue that comes through our
legislature. We put it in freight enhancement. It enables us to
target very specific work. In many cases, we have been able to
do rail spurs at our ports. Those are very important
considerations when we consider the multimodal, the trans-
loading needs for the agricultural economy in the State of
Missouri.
We work with our regional partners and our freight advisory
committees to determine what those project priorities are and
how to apply those funds. It has been very successful. We are
really pleased with it and hope to be able to continue it.
Senator Carper. Thanks for sharing that.
Thank you all. It has been delightful and informative. I
would like to bring you back next week but we probably could
not do that.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to submit a
letter to the record from nine environmental organizations
strongly opposing any tax and integrity of environmental laws
and any attempts to limit the ability of ordinary citizens
access to the courts or limit consideration of environmental,
economic and social justice impacts on public projects in any
infrastructure bill considered by this Congress.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you all very much.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:39 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[all]