[Senate Hearing 117-648]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-648
IMPLEMENTING IIJA: OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO ADDRESS
TRANSPORTATION CHALLENGES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
AND INFRASTRUCTURE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 15, 2022
__________
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
51-858 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont Virginia,
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island Ranking Member
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
MARK KELLY, Arizona JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
ALEX PADILLA, California ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
JONI ERNST, Iowa
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
Mary Frances Repko, Democratic Staff Director
Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure
MARK KELLY, Arizona, Chairman
BEN CARDIN, Maryland KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota,
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont Ranking Member
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts MARKWANE MULLIN, Oklahoma
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
ALEX PADILLA, California JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania OGER WICKER, Mississippi
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware (ex LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Caolina
officio) SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
Virginia (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
NOVEMBER 15, 2022
OPENING STATEMENTS
Cardin, Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland..... 1
Cramer, Kevin, U.S. Senator from the State of North Dakota....... 3
WITNESSES
Day, Hon. Jacob, Mayor, City of Salisbury, Maryland.............. 7
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Carroll, Michael, P.E., Deputy Managing Director, Office of
Transportation and Infrastructure Systems, City of
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania..................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Willox, Jim, Chairman, Converse County Commission, Converse
County, Wyoming................................................ 25
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Benson, Jason, Cass County Engineer, Cass County, Wyoming........ 33
Prepared statement........................................... 35
IMPLEMENTING IIJA: OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO ADDRESS
TRANSPORTATION CHALLENGES
----------
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2022
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastucture,
Washington, DC.
U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure Washington,
DC.
The committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 2:40 p.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Benjamin L.
Cardin (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Cardin, Cramer. Also present: Senator
Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. The Subcommittee of Transportation and
Infrastructure of the Environment and Public Works Committee
will come to order.
Today's subject is implementing the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Bill from local jurisdictions to address
transportation challenges. It is a hearing that I have been
looking forward to for a long time. This is the 1-year
anniversary of President Biden signing the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Bill.
I first of all want to acknowledge and thank Senator
Cramer, the Ranking Republican on the subcommittee, for his
cooperation in putting together today's hearing. We both want
to thank Senator Carper and Senator Capito, the Chairman and
Ranking Member on the Environment and Public Works Committee,
for allowing us to go forward with this hearing.
As I said, this is the 1-year anniversary of President
Biden's signature on the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill. But I
think we all take great pride on this committee, the
Environment and Public Works Committee, because we gave the
foundation for the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill by the work
of this committee.
We passed, over a year ago, the Surface Transportation
Reauthorization Act, a $303 billion program for our roads and
bridges. It was the largest program ever passed by Congress,
and it passed unanimously in this committee. That is no easy
task, to get a unanimous vote on such an important bill. It
laid the foundation for the Bipartisan Infrastructure package,
so we take great pride in the work of getting that done.
A major national effort to deliver infrastructure we need
to sustain our competitiveness and our economic strength for
future generations, new opportunities for our work force. This
bill is a lot about jobs, creating good jobs here in America,
modernizing our infrastructure.
A lot of us have traveled to other countries in Europe and
Asia. We look at their infrastructure and wonder, what are we
thinking? We have to do better. Well, we are doing better by
the passage of this bill.
We advanced equity and we advanced safety with the
bipartisan action, and we met the challenge of climate change.
I will talk about this a little bit later. I just got back from
COP27, which is the environmental conference that was help in
Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt. I must tell you; the Bipartisan
Infrastructure package was front and center. Americans were
welcomed because that bill did much to deal with our
obligations in regard to climate issues.
There are opportunities for all States, so yes, I am going
to talk a little bit about Maryland, because I am proud of what
we are able to get done through this bill in Maryland. There
are many, many examples. I am just going to give you a few
concrete examples.
Our multimodal transportation hubs were dramatically helped
by the passage of this bill. A grant to the Baltimore Penn
Station, which is going to have a new life, for the Baltimore
Metropolitan area, New Carrollton Station in Prince George's
County, which is the major hub for multimodal transportation in
the Washington communities, both are going to be seeing
substantial funds as a result and have received substantial
funds.
We have many bridges. We can mention the dozens of bridges
that have already been worked on in Maryland. We have 270 that
are in need of serious repair. I know Mayor Day will talk a
little bit about the Eastern Shore. There are a lot of bridges
and a lot of water on the Eastern Shore, so there are a lot of
bridges on the Eastern Shore, and many are in need of
attention. In Prince George's County, they got $560,000 to
replace two bridges. That is just an example of what has
already been acted on in the legislation.
Today, we are going to look at it through the eyes of local
government. Why? Because local government officials know their
community best. They know what is needed for quality of life.
They know what is needed for economic growth. They know where
the priorities are in using transportation infrastructure to
improve their communities.
I am extremely proud of legislation that I originally
authored with Senator Cochran of Mississippi, the
Transportation Alternatives Program. In the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Bill, a substantial improvement was made in the
Transportation Alternatives Program by an initiative that I
initiated with Senator Wicker, again, from Mississippi. This is
a bipartisan proposal.
We now have 10 percent of the surface transportation block
grant programs devoted to Transportation Alternatives Programs.
These are programs that are competitive but are requested by
local governments. The State makes the grants, but these are
local programs to help local communities. They are for sensible
things that you need to get people around safely, like
sidewalks, pedestrian paths, bicycle paths. These are
improvements to deal with the everyday needs of your community.
Local government equity is also included in the bipartisan
proposal. Reconnecting Communities is a program I am
particularly proud of because, you see, we have had
transportation programs in our community that have divided
communities and worked against their individual interests. Come
to Baltimore and see the Franklin-Mulberry Corridor. We call it
the highway to nowhere, because it is a highway to nowhere. But
it caused a lot of damage. It dislocated 1,500 Black residents,
and those communities are still hurting today.
The Reconnecting Communities allows us to bring these
together to strengthen local communities. We now have a program
which local governments can help us design to look at
transportation programs that were not designed to help the
local community because we were trying to get people out of
cities or out of areas, and it divided communities. How can we
use those funds? We need your input to deal with that.
Local governments can make a real difference on safety
issues. Safety issues to me are extremely important. We had a
record number of deaths in highway accidents the first 6 months
of this year, over 20,000 fatalities.
I can mention several in my own State, but I will mention
just one, a Foreign Service officer, Sarah Langenkamp, from my
State of Maryland, who was biking home from her son's
elementary school when she was killed. Bike safety is something
that we can do much better with. The Transportation
Alternatives Programs can be used for that purpose as well. We
have authorized for the Safe Streets and Roads, another
program, to help in regard to safety, $5 billion over the next
5 years.
Last, in advancing climate agenda. When you have sidewalks,
you have safe bicycle paths where people can walk rather than
taking cars, when you deal with the heated community centers,
that we can cool down by having a recreational space to help
the transportation programs, when we combine that with the
moneys we put in the Bipartisan Bill for electric vehicles and
the infrastructure for electric vehicles, local governments can
make a difference in meeting our needs on climate. That was one
of the major things we had at our COP27 meeting.
There is a lot to talk about with our local officials:
safety, equity, climate, quality of life, economy, jobs, and
how local communities can help us meet the objectives of the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Package.
We have a really distinguished group of witnesses that I am
looking forward to hearing from. We will give you your
introductions, but first, I want to turn it over to the
distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Cramer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN CRAMER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Cramer. Thank you, Chairman Cardin. Thank you to
all of our witnesses.
Mr. Willox, I want to say right away that your Senator,
Cynthia Lummis, grabbed me on my way out of lunch. I am the
first person to leave what is clearly the most entertaining
lunch in D.C. this week, if you are easily entertained. Anyway,
she grabbed me and said, would you please apologize to Jim for
me, and tell him I am so sorry, but if you carry that ball, she
said, she will give me notes on the lunch. Anyway, I just
wanted to express that right away.
Thank you all for being here, and thank you, Chairman
Cardin, first of all, for this timely and important hearing and
for your leadership. It really was, for those of you who think
that we never do anything together, it is because no one really
reports on the things we do together. This was a joy, it really
was, to work on this bill.
It turned out to be a good bill, not just one I sort of
grudgingly supported, but one that I am happy to champion. I am
especially pleased with the cooperation between the two parties
and the four people that lead, all whose names begin with
``C,'' strictly coincidental.
Anyway, today's hearing is to talk about the role of local
government and local leadership in implementation and to get
your feedback. Even the best strategies and the best plans in
the world have to be assessed. I think 1 year later is a good
time to do that. Thank you for that opportunity.
During the bill's negotiations, I really did put a strong
emphasis on making sure that rural and local communities and
their role in the funding formula was maintained, the 90-10
split that you are all familiar with, and really, I don't
think, with much pushback. I don't want to imply that it was a
hard, difficult thing to conclude, but it was important. It
recognizes the role of rural communities as much as anything,
the role of a system that recognizes the East Coast and the
West Coast, the Canadian Border and the Mexican Border, can
only work if it is all hard covered. We can't reserve a few
hundred miles here and there for dirt.
Thank you for that. It was a joy. It really does ensure
that our States and localities have consistent funding. Very
important, as you know, particularly as we face these high
prices we have today with inflation, that consistency and
counting on consistent funding is so important.
The other things that we worked hard on and I was very
pleased by was the codification of the One Federal Decision
policy, hard-fought. Right now, I think people on all ends of
the spectrum, of the philosophical spectrum, can see the value
of that, whether you are siting, whatever it is you are trying
to permit, you may be for that or you may be against it, for
this and against that, having a consistent regulatory regime
that recognizes that streamlining doesn't mean compromising the
integrity of the process, I think, it was a successful
conclusion. I want to talk a little bit about that. I will be
very interested in some of your experiences with the One
Federal Decision and where we are in that.
Obviously, and I have a North Dakotan here that I will get
to introduce here in a little bit, but there were a lot of wins
in it for my little State of North Dakota. We are literally,
there is even a monument to prove it, the center of the North
American Continent, in North Dakota. We are a long way from
everybody that wants the things that we produce, whether it is
food or energy. Getting it to market is important. This one
includes a lot of wins for North Dakota, but it is really more
about the Country than just one State.
Now, the codification of the One Federal Decision was a
priority item, as I said, for other committee members as well
as myself, but it was a significant policy win and something
that I have loudly applauded. Frankly, I think it should be
duplicated in other areas of permitting reforms. But it is also
one of the things that I am most concerned about. That is why I
am going to be interested in what you all have to say about its
enforcement.
Implementation is far from complete. In fact, a year after
being signed into law, especially as the Administration still
has no specific plan as to how they intend to meet the law's
goal of the 2-year average of project reviews. That is really
unacceptable, especially like I said, the clock is ticking; the
calendar is moving; inflation is real. We need to have some
certainty.
Permitting certainty and improved efficiency for
infrastructure projects only comes if the agency, the United
States Department of Transportation, makes it a priority. As
our last hearing on this confirmed, State and local communities
want and need predictable and expeditious permitting.
Similarly, the bill included language to expedite NEPA
reviews for oil and gas gathering lines if it led to the
reduction of reduced methane. Win-win. I am a person, as is I
think Senator Cardin is, who believes that not every
transaction in this town requires a loser. There can be winners
on both sides of transactions, and I think this is one of those
situations. If you can demonstrate a reduction in methane, then
we ought to have a faster NEPA process.
I had a hearing in the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, and Secretary Van Hollen acknowledged the expediting
authority by saying ``we will move that forward as we can.''
See, as we can isn't a word that is consistent with expediting.
Responses like these don't exactly inspire confidence, not
in our local communities, our States, nor in the industries
that build roads. I know that Secretary Buttigieg has said he
is ``working on it'' as well, but to anyone paying attention,
it is pretty clear it is not a high priority.
Anyway, the main goal here is to hear from you all. I want
to get to that, and we will ask some questions. I hope we have
some more participation by the committee members, but I
wouldn't count on a lot of Republicans getting here anytime
soon, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cramer. Thank you all.
Senator Cardin. As Senator Cramer has pointed out, this is
our first day back. Our two caucuses are meeting. There was
some interest in debating what happened last Tuesday, so there
is a lot of distraction here today. So we apologize if members
are not here. Some will, I think, come and go. But I can assure
you, the record of this committee hearing is going to be
extremely important in our work.
I will just make one observation, Senator Cramer, on the
permitting. This committee worked very well together on the
permitting provisions. It could have been pretty contentious.
But we listened to each other, and we learned from each other,
so I just want to thank my colleagues. I came to this
discussion with a different view, but it was convinced that we
had to make the progress that we were able to do in the bill. I
think when we work together, we can really get good things
accomplished.
With that, I am going to introduce either two or three of
the witnesses today, and Senator Cramer will introduce one or
two. We will see how that goes along.
I want to first introduce my mayor, Mayor Jake Day. I do
not live in Salisbury; I live in Baltimore. But Mayor Day is an
extraordinary leader in our State and the Mayor of Salisbury,
the 28th Mayor of Salisbury. He was first elected to the city
council at the age of 30 and was unanimously elected president
of the council at one point.
He spent his career revitalizing downtowns and making them
more vibrant, living places, and that is true in Salisbury. He
has worked for the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy, and was, in
2021, elected president of the Maryland Municipal League, which
is not an easy political assignment. I am very proud that he is
a major in the U.S. Army, a veteran of the global war on
terrorism. We thank you for your service to our Country and
your service to our community.
We are also joined by Michael Carroll. Michael Carroll is
the Deputy Managing Director of the Office of Transportation
and Infrastructure Systems and President of the National
Association of City Transportation Officials. Michael is a
creative and nationally respected leader with more than 25
years of experience in transportation.
Deputy Carroll coordinates and sets the policy directions
for critical functions, including streets, both transportation
and sanitation, the Philadelphia Water Department, as well as
the newly created Office of Complete Streets. His oversights
include infrastructure systems that make up more than 9,500
transit stops, 2,500 miles of streets, 320 bridges, 450 lanes
of bike facilities, 1,000 Indego bikes, and 100 Indego
stations, 6,500 miles of sewer and water lines. If you walk
those every day, you could certainly get your exercise. It is a
pleasure to have you here with us today.
I think, Mr. Willox, your introduction was supposed to be
given. I am more than happy to introduce, or would you like to
make the introduction for the next two witnesses?
Senator Cramer. I kind of want to.
Senator Cardin. OK.
Senator Cramer. Yes, I kind of want to.
Jim Willox, the reason I want to do it is because you are
from a territory kind of like mine, but more importantly,
because you have chosen to be a leader in an institution that,
next to church councils, has got to be the hardest in the
world, and that is county commissions. Honestly, that is where
the rubber literally meets the road.
I know Mr. Willox is testifying on behalf of county
commissioners around the Country, the National Association. He
is a chairman, not only a commissioner with Converse County,
but with Wyoming County Commissioners Association. He
previously served as an officer, this is really amazing to me,
Officer of the Converse County Stock Growers, Douglas Moose
Lodge, and the Douglas Board of Realtors. Currently Chairman of
the Wyoming Lottery Board, Mr. Willox and his wife, Tione,
currently own and operate Willox Properties.
My only question is, what do you do in your spare time?
Honestly, I know you have testified before Congress a couple of
times before. Welcome. We are always glad to have a county
official with us, for sure, especially on transportation
issues, right?
Now, we are glad to have Jason Benson with us. Thank you,
Chairman Cardin. It is really a privilege to introduce Jason,
who serves as the County Engineer for Cass County, North
Dakota. For those of you not familiar with the rectangular
blank spot in the middle of the North American Continent called
North Dakota, Cass County is where Fargo, our largest city,
resides.
Other than Fargo, it is a very rural county, as well, right
on the Minnesota border. He has been an invaluable asset to my
office during the development and the implementation of both
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Water
Resources Development Act. I am glad he is able to join us
today so that the committee can receive his expertise as well.
I do want to say, as a side note, that he is not only in
D.C. today for this hearing. Yesterday, Jason attended a
graveside service at Arlington Cemetery for his great-uncle,
Army Private First-Class Robert Alexander, a North Dakotan from
Tolley who gave the ultimate sacrifice during World War Two in
the Pacific Theater. Until recently, his remains had not been
identified, but Jason and his father were able to attend the
full honor service yesterday, bringing a welcome conclusion to
what had been a long and open-ended saga.
I wanted to take a minute to highlight Robert Alexander's
exemplary service to our Nation, Mr. Chairman. Jason himself
has followed in his great-uncle's footsteps, serving 33 years
in the United States Army and the Minnesota Army National
Guard, including four overseas combat or peacekeeping
deployments. Jason has worked for Cass County for 22 years and
manages the infrastructure of nearly 637 miles of roads, over
564 bridge structures, and an annual budget of $20 million.
I am going to skip the rest of the resume, because, I think
your testimony, like the rest, will speak for itself and your
expertise. Thank you all for being here.
Senator Cardin. Once again, we thank our witnesses. Your
entire statements will be made part of the record. You may
proceed as you wish. We ask that you try to summarize your
testimony in approximately 5 minutes. If you go over a minute
or two, we are not going to complain.
Mayor Day.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAKE DAY, MAYOR,
CITY OF SALISBURY, MARYLAND
Mr. Day. Chairman Cardin and Ranking Member Cramer and
members of the subcommittee, thank you so much for your
hospitality today. Thank you on behalf of my constituents and
local governments across America for the opportunity to share
our perspective.
My name is Jake Day. I am a trained architect and city
planner. Most recently, I served, as you mentioned, Senator, as
President of the Maryland Municipal League, representing the
interests of Maryland's cities and towns from Port Tobacco with
its 18 residents to Baltimore with its 576,000 residents.
Today, I come to you as mayor of my hometown, Salisbury,
Maryland. It is a small but growing principal city of the
455,000 resident Salisbury Metropolitan Area, which sits at the
center of the DelMarVa Peninsula, the breadbasket of the
Northeast United States. I like to think of it as the best of
both worlds.
We are home to Maryland's second busiest commercial airport
and Maryland's second busiest port. We are crisscrossed by two
U.S. highways. We have a robust trail network under
construction. We have one regional bus transit system and even
a micromobility company.
As a local leader, it is my job to try to solve the
challenges that my citizens face to living the best life they
can with the limited resources that I have. But some challenges
are simply stronger and taller than I can reasonably fell on my
own. For those factors, we look to our partners in the Federal
Government.
Many of the mobility and infrastructure challenges are
baked into the asphalt, the concrete, the housing and policy
landscape. Like most American cities, ours fell victim to the
progress of its time. In 1927 and again in 1956, two U.S.
highways were cut through our city and displaced residents.
The well-worn tale is as true in Salisbury as anywhere that
most of the displaced and largely erased neighborhoods were
home to Black families and Black-owned businesses and replaced
with interchanges and parking lots. Federal Urban Renewal
dollars were later used to clear blocks. Local zoning codes
prioritized low-density and single use development, meaning
decades of investment further separated where workers earn
their paycheck from where they lay their heads at night.
These past policy decisions combined resulted in an
inefficient, unjust, and unsafe landscape, effectively keeping
a community from functioning efficiently. It is our charge now
to rebuild and repair from that context.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is a departure from the
way things have always been done, and that is a welcome change.
When infrastructure decisions are further removed from the
communities where we articulate our priorities, investment and
the return on investment is slowed.
In Salisbury, we articulated three such priorities: one, to
build a more just city, taking healing actions to make access
to work, services, and opportunity a little bit easier, safer,
and more equitable, particularly for communities put at a past
disadvantage.
This year, I joined mayors from seven cities from across
America in the Just City Mayoral Fellowship, and we worked to
identify policy barriers and physical barriers to progress in
our communities. Mobility represented the single most
significant challenge.
Two, a safer Salisbury. We envision an end to
transportation system decisions that make it more likely that
our citizens will die on our roads. When we know an engineering
solution that will save lives, we must fund them, period. In
2021, Salisbury adopted Vision Zero policies prioritizing the
safety of human beings over convenience.
No. 3, a more efficient Salisbury. A hallmark of the status
quo is the inefficient use of limited resources, whether it is
dollars or land or energy, material, they are all treated as
more expendable than we know they are. We envision a city more
respectful of the rural landscape around us and the planet as a
whole.
I believe local officials should be trusted more than we
have historically been to know what is best for our cities,
counties, and towns. Americans trust local government to
respond to their needs. Whatever the ownership of a given right
of way, you can rest assured, your county commissioner or mayor
has been called about it.
Setting and delivering community priorities is our bread
and butter. The benefits of direct allocation of infrastructure
dollars to America's cities and towns is being felt in town
halls and city council chambers nationwide. In Salisbury, we
feel strongly that this has become a moment of opportunity
where we are being treated more fully as a partner in shaping
our destiny.
With adequate resources and through programs like Safe
Streets for All and Transportation Alternatives and with the
trust of our Federal partners, we can get about the business of
delivering on the vision of a litany of projects, each of which
would have remained a pipe dream or languished due to a deficit
of resources were it not for the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
The principles of flexibility, human focus, direct
allocation to local governments, and increased appropriations
should be preserved in future infrastructure legislation. In
particular, rural communities have more opportunity to compete
when burdens on applicants are simplified. One year on from the
adoption of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the view from
city hall is an optimistic one.
In my opinion, this law is a powerful signal that we are a
more trusted partner to our Federal representatives than ever
before. My city will be more just, safe, and efficient as a
result of you placing that trust in us and providing us
additional resources with which to deliver.
I want to thank you for your confidence. I want to thank
you for your attention to this critical matter for our Nation
and for your time today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Day follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Carroll.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL CARROLL, P.E., DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS, CITY OF
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Carroll. Good morning, Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member
Cramer, and members of the subcommittee. On behalf of Mayor Jim
Kenney and the city of Philadelphia, I am profoundly grateful
to testify.
I am Mike Carroll, Deputy Managing Director of the Office
of Transportation, Infrastructure, and Sustainability. As was
mentioned, I oversee the Philadelphia Department of Streets,
the Philadelphia Water Department, and the Office of
Sustainability. I am also interim President of National
Association of City Transportation Officials.
Philadelphia's 2018 Strategic Transportation Plan
celebrates the connection between the quality of our
infrastructure and the tangible benefit to people's lives.
These values match those of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
After decades of neglect, this is crucial if we want to
ensure that world class infrastructure remains at the center of
the Americans' agenda. We place every effort to align our
infrastructure priorities with those of our constituents. I
appreciate Senator Cardin's mention of the large inventory of
assets that we manage. These assets are well-used.
Our main regional transit authority, SEPTA, carried over
100 million riders last year, after the pandemic. In some
areas, nearly 20 percent of our commute trips are made by
cycling.
In our center city, several corridors carry 30,000
pedestrians per day. Our historic city retains its colonial-era
character with great pride, and it isn't physically possible
for us to move enough people without robust options for
transit, biking, and walking. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
strengthens our hand to deliver these safe transportation
alternatives.
Many Philadelphians rely on our trails and bike network to
conduct their daily lives. We are eager to implement $4 million
in grants from the Transportation Alternatives Program to
improve walking and biking safety around schools, to add
pedestrian and bike connections to the jobs at the Philadelphia
Navy Yard. This funding will also help complete Philadelphia's
section of the East Coast Greenway from Maine to Florida. The
ways infrastructure binds our Country together are more than
just symbolic.
We agree with the law's emphasis on equity as well, because
addressing social inequality means more opportunity. On a
section of US Route 1 in Philadelphia called Roosevelt
Boulevard, we used CMAQ funds to create high quality bus
stations and express transit service. People once stood in
patches of dirt next to a 12-lane highway, waiting to take a
circuitous bus ride to their destination.
In 1 year, the new service had a 17 percent increase in
ridership, the highest increase in the whole system. One person
told us the shorter travel times saved her job.
We will seek more funding to extend this to other parts of
Philadelphia, and this will be one key to updating the entire
bus network. One neighborhood will have 65,000 more jobs
accessible within a 45-minute bus ride than can be reached
today.
The list of projects we need requires us to grow our talent
pool aggressively. USDOT's recommitment to on-the-job training,
disadvantaged business enterprises, and flexibility on local
hiring sets a bar for our own local efforts. Our recently
awarded $25 million RAISE grant will help us take on a host of
infrastructure challenges in seven historically disinvested
neighborhoods around the city. We can now make safety
improvements to roads where nearly a thousand people have been
involved in traffic crashes in recent years. We will be paving
streets that haven't been paved in more than a quarter century.
We will also use community engagement around our projects
to point people to jobs and contracting opportunities. These
projects shouldn't just change the physical conditions of the
neighborhoods; they should contribute to the life prospects of
the people who live in these neighborhoods.
Direct aid to cities is something else we appreciate. I was
thrilled to join FHWA, Amtrak, SEPTA, and the Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation to celebrate the city being
awarded $1.5 million in Direct Bridge Improvement Program
funding. Our project will pilot strategies to accelerate bridge
rehabilitation over electrified rail lines. Although
Philadelphia will immediately benefit as a community from these
improvements, the model will serve our whole State and
communities across the Country in the long term, as well.
We are proud to propose a project called Reconnecting Our
Chinatown for the Reconnecting Communities Program. This takes
up Secretary Buttigieg's direct challenge to the city of
Philadelphia to fix the harm done in carving our Chinatown
community in half with the Vine Street Expressway in the
1990's. We developed a CAP project to provide neighborhood
space overtop of the roadway without impacting throughput on
that vital artery.
In general, the mix of approaches present in the
infrastructure law provides excellent alignment of resources to
the infrastructure needs we experience at the local level. We
are very grateful. At the end of the day, we need Congress to
stay focused on infrastructure, though. Even with this historic
investment, the legacy of neglect and underinvestment will
still persist. Our steady attention will allow us to finally
turn the page on an era of crumbling infrastructure around the
United States.
Senators, I want to thank you deeply for the opportunity to
share my thoughts with you all today. This ends my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carroll follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. Mr. Carroll, thank you very much for your
testimony.
Mr. Willox.
STATEMENT OF JIM WILLOX, CHAIRMAN, CONVERSE COUNTY COMMISSION,
CONVERSE COUNTY, WYOMING
Mr. Willox. Thank you, Chairman Cardin and Ranking Member
Cramer. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here.
I have been a commissioner for 16 years, and I currently
serve as chairman of our local board and President of the
Wyoming County Commissioners Association, and I am here today
on behalf of the National Association of Counties, as well. I
can assure you, roads are a top priority for commissioners.
Converse County is located in Central Wyoming, and just
like two-thirds of America's counties, we are considered rural.
Converse County is home to the Country's largest uranium mine,
significant oil and gas reserves, five wind farms, solar
potential, and sprawling cattle and sheep ranches. We are
critical to the United States' natural resource and energy
production.
County governments own 44 percent of public roads and 38
percent of the bridges, more than any other level of
government. Counties invest annually over $60 billion into the
construction, maintenance, and operation of our transportation
system. To paraphrase an old saying, a road is only as good as
its weakest mile. The connectivity of interstates and U.S.
highways to gravel county roads and one-lane bridges is vital.
If you can't get to the interState, what good is it?
We are pleased to see that infrastructure continues to be a
bipartisan topic, not red or blue, but red, white, and blue as
a topic. We want you to know that America's counties are
working to deliver transformational infrastructure projects for
our residents, and our counties continue to need a responsive
Federal partner.
In Wyoming, the IIJA will help us repair and rehabilitate
45 local and off-system bridges. Many of these bridges are low
volume and could be only one lane, but they may be the only
connection to emergency services, economic operations, or
schools.
The IIJA significantly increased the number of competitive
funding opportunities and created new programs, such as the
Bridge Investment Program, which has been vital for counties in
Wyoming and across the Nation. The Rural Surface Transportation
Block Grant and the new Safe Streets for All Programs are also
important new opportunities.
As we look forward, Federal policymakers should eliminate
obstacles and ensure the timely establishment and rollout of
competitive grant awards. Counties believe that the new
practice, such as using a common application for multiple
funding opportunities at the U.S. Department of Transportation
has implemented is a step in the right direction.
One of the best things in the bill, and you have referenced
it, is the One Federal Decision. We support and applaud that
effort. However, two obstacles still remain. The Buy America
provisions, which we support in concept, and I think we all do,
should be applied in a commonsense, flexible way that
appreciates any lack of domestic availability or grand costs
inconsistent with the public interest as we balance stewardship
of taxpayer dollars with the policy goal of building domestic
capacity. Waivers should be issued accordingly.
Streamlining the Federal permitting process is a
longstanding priority of local governments. One Federal
Decision is a step in the right direction, but the NEPA process
is still cumbersome and counterproductive. There is little to
no reason to go through the NEPA process to work or replace a
county road or bridge that has been in place for decades. The
NEPA in this case only adds costs, delays, and frustration to
the real goal of implementing and improving our transportation
system. That is saying that we believe that the categorical
exclusion needs to be expanded further and more flexibility
allowed.
While county officials appreciate the creation of dozens of
new opportunities in this bill, we do not believe competitive
opportunities should come in lieu of the continued direct
Federal funding for locally owned infrastructure.
When the national transportation system is considered, too
often, only Federal highways come to mind. A fellow
commissioner of mine must use gravel and paved county roads,
city, State, and Federal highways when delivering his cattle to
market all in a two-and-a-half-hour trip. In resource rich
Northern Converse County, workers take similar trips every day
to help energize our Country.
Breakdowns in the supply chain can be mitigated at the
local level if we are equipped to do so, which includes having
the maximum flexibility possible to use Federal grants. As
proven good stewards of Federal dollars, county officials
believe a direct, consistent Federal funding stream for local
roads and bridges will continue to ensure a robust
infrastructure for the future.
Wyoming's Governor, Mark Gordon, has noted that the debt
from this bill and others passed in response to the pandemic
will be carried by future generations. Therefore, we have an
obligation to make generational investments with these funds.
County officials live and work in our communities every day. We
know the needs of our communities better than the Federal
Highway Administration, and I dare say, better than Congress.
Allowing more time and broad flexibility, which are a portion
of this bill, and we appreciate that, offers the best
opportunity to do meaningful improvements for our communities
and for future generations.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, thank you for this
opportunity. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Willox follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. Commissioner Willox, thank you very much
for your testimony.
Mr. Benson.
STATEMENT OF JASON BENSON, CASS COUNTY ENGINEER, CASS COUNTY,
NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. Benson. Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Cramer, thank
you for the opportunity to testify before you today.
I am Jason Benson, the County Engineer for Cass County,
North Dakota. I am a member of the Legislative Committee for
the North Dakota Association of County Engineers. I am an
active member of the National Association of County Engineers,
consisting of over 3,000 fellow county engineers and highway
superintendents across the Country.
Cass County is the most populous county in North Dakota and
has a population of over 180,000, which is roughly 24 percent
of the State's population. Our highway system consists of 637
miles of roadway covering nearly 1,800 square miles.
In 2019, the North Dakota Legislature requested a study of
the transportation infrastructure needs of all counties,
townships, and Tribes in North Dakota. This study was completed
by the Upper Great Plain Transportation Institute, which is
headquartered in Cass County. This study determined that over
the next 20 years, an estimated $10.5 billion is needed in
maintaining and preserving our county roads and bridges. In
Cass County alone, the estimated costs for the next 20-year
span is $514 million in needs.
These significant long-term infrastructure needs are
influenced by the agricultural industry across North Dakota,
which requires over 1.4 million truckloads just to get the
crops off the field every fall. In addition, there are over a
million other truckloads needed to keep our farms producing
high-quality crops.
This heavy agricultural traffic taxes the durability and
safety of these local roads. These roads were designed and
built for the trucks and farming equipment of the 1960's. They
are not built for the way that reflects today's traffic and
use, influencing the cost of construction's significant rise in
North Dakota construction costs. To keep up with the
construction cost increases, since 2000, our Federal Highway
funds should be approximately $2 million a year instead of our
$1.3 million that we currently receive.
While we collaborate closely with the North Dakota
Department of Transportation to maximize our Federal funding,
it is no secret to anyone that the current inflationary
environment we find ourselves in only adds to the problem. With
the passing of the IIJA, North Dakota counties can leverage
funding from the Bridge Investment Program, or BIP. Cass County
expects to replace over 41 bridge structures in the next 20
years and over 100 minor structures that are not eligible for
Federal funding.
With this focus Cass County has placed on bridge
replacement, we still face significant fiscal challenges. One
case is the three interState bridges over the Red River between
North Dakota and Minnesota. We recently worked with three
counties in Minnesota to submit an interState bundle bridge
project through the BIP Program to replace three bridges along
the State's border. The bridges are over 70 years old and are
deficient in design and size and can no longer safely
accommodate large trucks or agricultural equipment.
The Federal funds requested for this BIP grant is over $23
million, with the non-Federal funding coming from each co-
applicant. Awarding this BIP grant to replace the three bridges
will have a significant benefit to the Red River Valley region
in North Dakota and Minnesota.
Second, the IIJA provides Federal safety funding through
the Safe Streets and Roads for All Program in the
Transportation Alternatives Program, which includes safe routes
to schools. This Federal funding, in combination with local
funding, has allowed Cass County to complete $5.3 million in
safety-related projects since 2011. I want to thank Senator
Cramer for his support in the Safe Route to School funding for
North Dakota's rural school zones.
As the County Engineer, I also serve as the senior
technical advisor on the $3.1 billion Fargo-Moorhead
Metropolitan Area Flood Risk Management Project. Key to this
project is that it includes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
first ever private-public partnership, P3, which awarded a $1.1
billion contract to build 30 miles of diversion channel, 12
county road bridges, four interState highway bridges, four
railroad bridges, and two aqueducts.
I want to thank you for your support of this historic
project by providing $437 million in IIJA funding to finish the
construction of this project and provide the region with
permanent flood protection by 2027.
The IIJA provides a revenue stream that is needed across
the counties in North Dakota and across the U.S. Unfortunately,
these funds come with some challenges. That brings me to my
last point.
I am blessed to have a large staff of engineers and
construction managers compared to many of my partner counties.
I rely on them for design and construction of our roads, as
well as research and grant opportunities.
Regrettably, most counties in North Dakota and across the
Country do not have an engineering staff. Their senior-most
staff member is often the road superintendent focused on road
maintenance. This makes it difficult for small counties to
identify grant opportunity and navigate the application
process.
Since most counties do not have available technical
knowledge to apply for and leverage these grant funding
opportunities, I fear many counties will not even try to apply
without a concerted effort to lessen the administrative burden
that comes with these applications.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before this
committee. I look forward to any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Benson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. Mr. Benson, thank you for your testimony.
I must tell you, I was keeping track of all the different
projects you all have started. The bill is working. We have a
lot of activity going. It is great to see that.
I am certain there is a lot more you want to do. We are
just getting started under the Bipartisan Infrastructure
package. I think it is very encouraging to see the variety of
transportation programs that have been started and the input
that you have been able to do in your local communities.
I want to start with a general question, if I might. That
is, most of the decisions on priority-setting is made at the
State level. If you look at the formula funding, 90 percent
goes to the States. The States have input from local
government, but those decisions are generally managed at the
State level.
The Transportation Alternatives Program are local
applications, but the decisions are made at the State level, as
well. On most of the competitive national grant programs, the
State prioritizes and the State plays a critical role in which
programs within a State are going to get the maximum attention
at the national level.
My fundamental question, having a panel of local officials,
is it working the way you want it to work for local input, or
is there anything we should be considering so that local
officials have a more meaningful role in the way the States are
making these priority decisions?
Mayor Day, I will start with you, and we will just go down
the row and the aisle.
Mr. Day. Mr. Chairman, let me start off by saying that we
have benefited from countless grants, especially Transportation
Alternatives, that have passed through the State, so I want to
be careful in providing you this answer, because we appreciate
our friends at the State DOT.
That being said, look no further than the execution of
projects within our city limits, where the priorities of a
State Department of Transportation and the priorities and
values of the constituents that are going to have to use that
piece of infrastructure, then a perhaps safer but certainly
compromised solution. Those compromised solutions are never the
safest nor the most efficient nor the best solution. We have
countless examples of those.
What I would like to emphasize is that, at the local level,
whether it is a master planning process, and I can talk to you
about our downtown master planning or our parks planning
process, or whether it is a specific design project, such as
our Eastern Shore Drive community corridor, or whether it is
our Urban Greenway Plan, or our Rails to Trails Plan, each of
those engaged the public directly in community-based planning.
Those processes, where constituents of yours and mine and
all of ours, but at the local level, have had a voice in
articulating visions, priorities, their values, and even the
details of what they would like to see in a project, those
processes ought to be trusted. When at the local level, we hear
what our constituents want out of a project, need out of a
project, and then ask us to be held accountable for us, because
they are going to ask us to maintain that project, I would say
that we have demonstrated that we can be a trusted partner, and
that direct allocation of resources to the lowest levels of
government, whether that is a county or a municipality, is the
best way to stay connected to those articulated values, those
priorities, and again, I believe, even the design details of an
infrastructure project in our communities.
Senator Cardin. Mr. Carroll.
Mr. Carroll. I certainly endorse everything Mayor Day said.
I want to be careful not to take anything away from what I
think Jim Willox is going to say over on my left here.
But I think what you are hearing is right. We definitely
appreciate our States and the role that they play. We depend on
them for a lot, including the technical expertise to make sure
we are doing everything the right way, and the accountability
is important.
However, if we have demonstrated over decades we know how
to do something, then we should have shorter timeframes to turn
around projects. Senator Cramer mentioned 2 years, even for
low-cost paving projects, where we have been doing this decade
after decade, and we may just have a few new features, it
doesn't seem like even a 6-month or 10-month process makes any
sense.
What I think would be great is if we could incentivize
States to achieve some performance standard or something like
that in terms of improving local access, improving project
delivery, and any creative ideas that make that an attractive
thing for them to do, whether it is giving them better access
to unallocated funds is an idea that I heard.
It is not necessarily like it is all stick and not carrot.
I think that would be really good for us to take up federally.
We will work with our States to make it make sense on the
ground.
Senator Cardin. Mr. Willox.
Mr. Willox. Thank you.
I think there are two prongs to your question. There is the
stuff that is directly to the local governments, and we need
the broadest flexibility and actually the most time to work
there, and that is good. But in Wyoming, it is generally
working well. We meet with the director quarterly on a
statewide association. Our director attends almost every one of
our statewide commissioner meetings, and we have these
conversations.
What the burden is a lot of times are the rules from FHWA
that have to pass through WYDOT to implement those programs.
WYDOT may want to be more flexible, Wyoming Department of
Transportation, may want to be more flexible, but the box that
they are in provides some difficulty to tune it in to those
local needs and those local unique characteristics.
I would say, generically, to answer your question, it is
working with some refinement. We always want that blend of a
statewide approach and direct local. B the more flexibility and
the more time we have, it always is better for us to deal with
the local issues, inflationary pressures that we are dealing
with now, and the nuance that is different in parts of the
State, or adjacent States even have different needs. Overall,
yes, I would rather it be this way than more be brought to the
top. The more to the bottom, the better.
Senator Cardin. Mr. Benson.
Mr. Benson. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
I will take a couple different angles to this. One, I
definitely appreciate the ability for local decisions to be
made on those applications and sending it more directly up
instead of having to send everything through the North Dakota
Department of Transportation. That being said, we have a great
relationship with the director of the North Dakota DOT and
their local government division.
One of the challenges that we have found with this is that
many of our smaller counties, there may be 3,000, 4,000 people,
there may be maybe 6,000 to 8,000 people in the county. Their
funding currently passes through the North Dakota DOT, who is
Title Six compliant. Their county may not be Title Six
compliant for exercising and using those Federal funds.
We still have those small counties that needs to go back to
the DOT and say, we need your help in assisting those funds, to
go through them, or else they have to go through this
compliance process, which, for a small community, may not be
something that they are able to do.
Senator Cardin. Thank you. Senator Cramer.
Senator Cramer. Thank you.
Mr. Benson, I want to start with you, and then we will go
back around and talk a little bit about the, you talked
extensively about BIP, there are two bridge funding programs. I
think you said you have 41 major bridges in Cass County, 100
maybe smaller ones.
As I recall, North Dakota, statewide, it is many hundreds
of bridges, obviously. If you could just elaborate a little bit
on not just your experience, but maybe advising others of how
to take advantage of that program, and then helping us, advise
us on, if we can, how we would tweak it, simplify it, or for
that matter, how the DOT might simplify it or allow more
maximization of the bridge program.
One thing that we have heard is, as tough as our roads are,
bridges create a very significant challenge and safety risk. If
you could just elaborate a little bit on the bridge program.
Mr. Benson. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator Cramer.
In Cass County and the counties that border Minnesota in
North Dakota have about have of the county bridges in the State
because of the winding, meandering rivers that flow to the Red
River to the north. Because of that, yes, I have 550 bridges of
which about half are on the Federal system of 20 feet or
greater.
That is similar to other neighboring counties. So It is a
massive infrastructure demand that many of those bridges were
put in in the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's, and again,
for the old, tandem grain truck or single axle grain truck, not
the semi-truck and large equipment that they need to carry
today.
To be able to use this program to bundle bridges, I think
it really takes it upon counties to look differently. A lot of
them are used to looking at, OK, we have a couple bad bridges.
How can we get them done? Two years from now, we can save up,
and we will apply for some Federal funding. We might have some
local money to match, and we can knock out this bridge or maybe
one or two bridges.
But we have to look bigger now to look out, and having a 5-
year, 10-year plan on how we can bundle these into one project
to submit through the BIP program, and then if we can get that
bridge bundle to complete six, eight, ten bridges in a county,
or maybe it is marrying that project up with your sister
county.
Locally, there might be three or four bridges that are in
the same part of your county that you could lump those together
and have one large project, and again, knock out. Even for
North Dakota to be able to do $5 million or $10 million, that
is a lot of bridges that can be completed.
Senator Cramer. Let us just go this way and give you guys a
break. Wyoming is probably similar.
Mr. Willox. Thank you, Senator. I think what is valuable to
realize is that connectivity issue that I talked about. If you
can't get to the next road, what do you do? You can travel on a
poor road. You can travel on a bad gravel road, but if that
bridge has failed, you are not going to get there.
The focus on bridges in this bill is really valuable. WYDOT
in Wyoming is passing through 35 percent instead of the
statutory minimum 15 percent so we can do a lot more of those
bridges to increase that connectivity. We have old railcars
that are bridges. We have an old railcar, and it works to a
certain point, unless you point out the vehicles that we travel
and the volume is different.
But I think the focus on bridges is really positive. In our
State, they are passing through more so we can do more to
cities, towns, and counties. I do think that we will continue
to need to focus on bridges whether they are rural or
municipal, because I think those are our biggest threat to our
infrastructure is the bridges and making sure we keep that
connectivity to get from point A to B.
Senator Cramer. Mr. Carroll, before you answer that
question, what the heck happened to the Eagles last night? That
was one of the craziest--but you know, you got that one loss,
and now you can move forward.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Carroll. Yes, no comment. Hopefully, it is just that,
right? I can take one loss. Thank you for that.
Senator Cardin. You were coming to Washington, so you
wanted to make it possible.
Senator Cramer. There you go.
Mr. Carroll. I would have a much bigger smile if things
went well.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cramer. This is why he is a politician.
Mr. Carroll. That is true. I appreciate that. Yes, I will
say, just as you have heard from my colleagues, in a municipal
environment, losing a bridge isolates the community. That is
profound. People who rely on walking and biking in particular,
if that bridge, which they have walked across for their whole
lives is out, and some of them are out, that really has a huge
impact on their quality of life, their life opportunities. We
want to prioritize those projects, but we need the resources to
do that.
The bridge projects can be very complicated in an urban
environment. I mention the program we are trying to kick off
around bridges over electrified lines. Those are very complex
because we need to coordinate the removal, the replacement of
this infrastructure that we don't own before we can get to the
infrastructure we do own to make fixes. That could add years to
project timelines.
Everything we can do to keep the focus on these bridges is
going to help us a ton. We need to ramp up to that, though. So
it is good to have some planning funds, some capacity building
worked into the infrastructure law. It may take us a little bit
of time to get to actual fixes, but if we take that perspective
that this is more of a marathon, I think we are going to be
very happy across the Country with the end results.
Senator Cramer. Mr. Mayor, we are going to stall for
Chairman Carper to gather his thoughts.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Day. Happy to.
Senator, I will share two things, and both sort of positive
tales. One, we really appreciate the funding that has been
received in our community to address the rebuild of our Mill
Street and Naylor Mill Road bridges. But there is a second
tale, and this is of US Route 13 business right in the center
of our city, which has been going through a multiyear design
process and some construction to replace a 1929 bridge.
The cautionary tale here is around flexibility. The
original design of this project, of this bridge replacement,
which included Federal, State, and local dollars, was oriented
on incorporating the Maryland State Highway Administration's
standard for bike lanes. This standard would have put bike
lanes on a 35,000 car a day road, open to and adjacent to
traffic, rather than recognizing that there was a parallel
planning process ongoing at the local level for an urban
greenway that would be adjacent and could, if collaboratively
designed, prioritize safety as we wanted to, a principle that
Maryland State Highway Administration has, and prioritize the
throughput necessary on a 35,000 person a car a day, which I
use every single day, which matters to all of us.
When you look at those two processes in parallel, you would
see an obvious solution. Just put it up on a curb and have the
multi-user path right there, and everybody is happy. But that
is not the way things happen. They happen in a silo, and the
State DOT is working on its plans, and at the local level, we
are working on ours.
The solution has been, we are working together now, but it
took somebody recognizing and arguing for, why can't we
collaboratively work on these processes, which again, bring
local vision, local priorities, local values, into a process
and trust us with those things? Ultimately, things have worked
out, but I do think we could have saved money and we could have
saved time if that had been the standard way of doing business.
Senator Cardin. We are joined by our distinguished
Chairman.
Senator Carper. No, it is me.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cardin. I just want to underscore the point that
Senator Cramer said earlier, the four Cs: Senator Cramer and
Senator Cardin, we are the subcommittees, but it was Senator
Carper and Senator Capito who set up the climate that we could
have the success of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill by the
work we did in our committee. We are really fortunate about his
leadership on this committee. Senator Carper?
Senator Carper. Thank you, Ben, to you and to your wingman
and our good friend, Kevin. Thank you for your leadership.
I think if people across the Country, many of whom I have
heard say, why don't you work together in Washington? Why don't
you just find stuff you can work together on? We passed, with a
lot of support from these two gentlemen and certainly from
Senator Capito and others, the most extensive, meaningful,
consequential Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill we have ever
passed. We are very proud of that.
It is one thing to pass it. It is another thing to
implement it. Part of our job, as you know, is to do oversight.
We are doing that, and that is part of what today's hearing is
all about.
A special welcome to our friend from Salisbury, Maryland.
In Delaware, we have no commercial television. We have a couple
TV stations down in Salisbury. As Ben knows, if you want to
message the people in Delmarva, Maryland or the people in
Delmarva that are from Delaware, you want to be on your
stations. We think a lot about Salisbury and the news coverage
that you provide and the information that you provide, whether
it is transportation infrastructure or any variety of other
things.
We welcome you all today. I walked in, Mr. Carroll, I
walked in and I didn't look at the panel, but I just walked in,
and I heard you speaking, and I thought it was James Lankford.
I am going to ask you a question here in a minute, and we will
see if you still use your James Lankford voice. He is one of
our favorites, a really smart cookie and a good Senator. You
could have been identified with a lot worse, so that is not a
bad one to be involved with.
I think Mr. Day mentioned Route 13. We have a very
prominent family that came over from France a couple hundred
years ago and settled in Northern Delaware. They started the
DuPont company, what was a powder company initially, gunpowder,
turned out to be something way, way more than that and still is
doing amazing things around our Country and around the world.
The DuPont family literally helped pay for building Route
13, significant parts of Route 13 through Delaware and also
funded schools for African American kids that otherwise would
not have had a chance to get an education. I think we got the
DuPont family, with a big boost and a big help, got Route 13
down to the border with Maryland. You guys took it over from
then. That was before we had bipartisan infrastructure
legislation.
I have a question, if I could now, we will see what voice
you respond in. For Mr. Carroll, a question on local project
delivery. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law significantly
increased, as you know, the number of opportunities for local
governments to access Federal Highway Funds, primarily through
new, competitive grant programs. More grant opportunities will
help cities, will help counties, and will help towns across the
Country to fund local priorities that may or may not be
prioritized by State departments of transportation.
However, delivering federally funded projects can pose a
challenge, as you know, especially for local agencies that have
less capacity or less capability or experience with Federal
programs. Some have a lot, and some have relatively little. The
question is: how can Congress and the U.S. Department of
Transportation help to build greater local capacity to both
apply for and carry out federally funded highway projects? Mr.
Carroll, please.
Mr. Carroll. Thank you, I will do my best. I think that is
a great question. I wish I had a pat answer.
Senator Carper. Senator Lankford gave it to me.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Carroll. That is right. I should be careful running
around here, impersonating people, though. I think we need to
look at models that have worked, identify best practices, work
collaboratively with the States.
Most States at the district level, most of the regional
districts for FHWA are committed to try helping communities.
But I would say we are often in passive mode, where it is the
squeaky wheel that reaches out and keeps asking questions and
knows who to call in D.C. or your State capital and ends up
getting a little bit further ahead.
I think it would be good if there was a little bit more
proactive outreach. Some of the things that worked were really
kind of put on the table as part of the program so that there
is a model that we can look to when program guidance comes out
or the notices of funding opportunities comes out. There is a
lot of good outreach, and we really appreciate that. But if we
could extend that a little bit longer, especially as folks are
awarded, so that they know that they are doing it right, they
are getting the support to do that, I think that could go a
long way. Those are the ideas that come to my mind.
Senator Carper. Good, thank you.
I have one other question that would be, Mr. Chairman, for
the entire panel, dealing with the discretionary grants. The
U.S. Department of Transportation is still working, as you
noted, to develop the Notice of Funding Opportunity for a
number of new discretionary grant programs, including something
called the PROTECT Grants and grants for communities that are
charging and fueling initiatives.
These charging and fueling infrastructure, EV and hydrogen
fueling stations, that sort of thing, we put a lot of money
into that, and we want to make sure we get our money's worth.
Last time I checked, 30 percent of the carbon emissions,
greenhouse gas emissions in our Country come from our mobile
sources, so this is, as you know, hugely important stuff.
Others, such as the Reconnecting Communities Program, have
a Notice of Funding, but awards have not yet been made. As
USDOT develops funding notices and selects recipients, what
advice would you give the Department of Transportation on how
they can help make sure that these grant programs work well for
local recipients and prioritize projects that will most benefit
the Administration's climate inequity goals?
Mr. Benson, do you want to lead off with that, please? Tell
me again where you are from.
Mr. Benson. Cass County, North Dakota, the county that
surrounds Fargo, the most populated city in North Dakota.
Senator Carper. OK, good. Welcome.
Mr. Benson. Thank you, Senator Carper.
To your point, I think a couple different things. One, when
it comes to some of the new Notice of Funding Opportunities
that come out and then the application periods, one of the
challenges that I have seen is that sometimes it is relatively
quick, flash to bang, to when the NOFO comes out to when you
have to have the application in.
In some cases, I think some entities are looking at it and
going, well, if I had known maybe a little while ago, I could
have prepped, but next year I will probably have a project that
will be ready to go. I think the time from the NOFO to when the
application is due, especially this first round, and I think
that is, in a lot of cases for a lot of these grant
opportunities, this cycle, they are all new or many of them are
new. So identifying projects that fit the criteria, now that
you know the criteria, you can go back and relook and better
prioritize those projects within your infrastructure plan. We
only have so many dollars, whether it is a 10 percent match or
not, we only have so many local dollars to expend on these
projects every year.
Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
Mr. Chairman, could I have just a couple of minutes so the
others can respond to this question?
Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, you can have as much time as
you want.
Senator Carper. Thank you, thank you so much.
Mr. Willox, do you agree with anything that Mr. Benson has
just said?
Mr. Willox. Ditto. Thank you, Senator.
I think two things. Going back to your point about the
electrification, there is a really good example there of how
one size doesn't fit all and some adaption there. The NEVI
Program requires charging stations with every 50 miles, it is
the requirement coming from FHWA.
We don't have gas stations that are 50 miles apart in
Wyoming. Wyoming Department of Transportation applied for 11
exemptions to that, and eight of them were denied without
explanation. We need to have more, if we want to implement
that, there needs to be more flexibility, particularly in those
rural areas where there isn't even a rest area for 70 miles on
the interState. We need to have that flexibility.
If we want to implement charging stations, which I think is
a laudable goal that we can agree on, we need to put them where
it makes the most sense. The current box that the FHWA is
working with doesn't allow for us to put those charging
stations where practical.
Also, they are about a $200,000 investment from the
individual that wants it. It is an 80-20 match. It is about a
million bucks for a four unit charging station. Maybe we ought
to put two in and make it more economical, because the
recapture is going to be extremely difficult.
One specific example: if we want to help the carbon
emissions with electrification, let us make that eligibility a
little broader, so we can get it where it makes sense, and
there will be some economic return.
Again, capacity for applying is always an issue. The
commissioner may be the guy writing the grant, and it may be
the county clerk that has to comply with it, so the simpler we
can have for all grants is important. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Thank you for that.
Mr. Carroll, please, same question.
Mr. Carroll. Yes, so I will make a couple comments about
the NEVI. I will just say that we are really enthusiastic for
it. I think the kinds of issues that my colleagues are raising,
we will keep our eyes on. Because even in a city where we do
have denser spacing of fueling opportunities for the existing
fueling options, we want to make sure that the spread is good
and that people have equitable access. If we can kind of have a
little bit of discretion and flexibility in locating the
stations that end up coming into place as we zone for different
things, that would be helpful for us.
I will also shift a little bit and just say, I really
appreciate the focus on resilience and programs like PROTECT,
especially capacity building. I have talked a lot today about
how important it is for us to work with communities, to hear
their voices in the decisions we make. So the opportunities to
do some community-level capacity building to bring people to
the table for conversations about infrastructure is going to be
really crucial for us to be successful.
Senator Carper. Do you have a favorite team in the NFL this
year?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Carroll. Yes, I do. Yes, I do.
Senator Cardin. The Denver Broncos?
Mr. Carroll. No, not the Denver Broncos. It is the
Philadelphia Eagles, and I will sing the fight song, if you
would like me to.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. We will see, we will see. I was saying a
couple of weeks ago, until the Phillies dropped out of the
World Series----
Mr. Carroll. It has been a hard last couple of weeks.
Senator Carper. It was tough. It was tough, but they got
beat by a very good team. I said that a couple nights before
the Phillies were eliminated, if the Phillies won the World
Series and the Eagles won the Superbowl, the citizens of the
city would probably have burned the city to the ground, and
they probably would.
Mr. Carroll. No comment.
Senator Carper. That wouldn't happen in Salisbury.
Mr. Day, answer my original question please, that I was
asking.
Mr. Day. Although, I will say, our minor league baseball
team is pretty good. Delmarva Shorebirds.
Senator Carper. Oh, yes, they are.
Mr. Day. I don't want to repeat anything that you have
heard. I do agree with the concerns that you have heard about
implementation.
What I will say it, there are several examples within the
legislation that have set a better standard. Particularly, we
have seen the reduced narrative requirements, the simplified
benefit-cost analysis requirement. All of that makes it easier
on smaller communities, rural communities, to be able to
participate in applying and turning around quickly an
application for some of these grants.
The other thing I would say is that many of our communities
have been trusted and developed experience when it comes to the
application for and management of certain block grants. Over at
HUD, our CDBG dollars, that is something most of our
communities are familiar with how to manage.
So, when it comes to the Surface Transportation Block
Grants and applying for those dollars, I would say opening or
lowering the threshold for which communities can apply and have
access to those funds, to even the lowest level of NPO, so
50,000, urbanized areas that have 50,000, I think most of us
are prepared to take on those rigorous grant management
processes.
Trust us to deliver with the limited capacity we have and
to be responsible and, ultimately, held accountable.
Senator Carper. Thanks so much for letting me go over my
time. I just want to say to those of you from Maryland and
Pennsylvania and from the Dakotas or from Wyoming, we very much
appreciate and enjoy working with you as Senate delegations. We
are not all Democrats or Republicans, but we work across the
aisle pretty well in this committee, very well in this
committee.
We are especially proud of the two men sitting to my right.
We just say thank you for sitting in here to work with us and
get stuff done. Thank you.
Senator Cardin. Well, Mr. Chairman, this has been an
incredible panel and really helpful. I want to thank all four
of our witnesses.
Mr. Benson, you raised very important points about
capacity. If you are dealing with a local government that
doesn't have that capacity to do what you are saying, there has
got to be accommodations made. So I just really want to thank
you for bringing that to the attention of our committee.
Mr. Willox, your point about the regulatory process is
something we struggle with, so it is a process. It is an
ongoing issue, and I think your comments are going to be very
helpful to us in trying to continue our work together so that
the objectives are accomplished. If you delay, it is denied. We
recognize that.
Mr. Carroll, as you were talking about the importance of
pedestrian and bike paths in downtown Philadelphia, I was
thinking of Baltimore, which is a similar situation. We can't
survive, literally, unless we have safe ways that people can
walk and bike. In Philadelphia, you are right. If we want to
preserve the history of Philadelphia and the population you
have in that city, you have to be able to have safe ways to
travel. I appreciate your bringing that to our attention.
Mayor Day, I was thinking very much about Route 50 and what
it has done to certain communities. I have seen the communities
firsthand. We built Route 50 so we could get people to the
beaches in Delaware and Maryland. That was the reason why we
did all of these roads to help people that didn't necessarily
come from Salisbury itself.
There is an equity issue that we have to deal with. I think
your testimony has helped us understand that the tools here can
really help the economic growth of our local communities, make
them safer, and provide equity.
Mr. Carroll, your answer on the electric vehicles is right.
Equitable access is going to be a critical issue here. Access
is going to be a critical issue for communities that have been
underserved in the past. We are committed to including that in
the Bipartisan Infrastructure package.
I want to thank all four of you for your contributions to
the record today and to the hearing. I can assure you we are
listening. We are proud of the 1-year anniversary. We have much
more ahead of us, but we have to build on this in the future,
and you have helped us establish that record. Thank you all
very much.
Before we adjourn, some housekeeping. Senators will be
allowed to submit written questions for the record through the
close of business on Tuesday, November 29th. We will compile
those questions and send them to our witnesses. We will ask you
to reply by Tuesday, December 13th.
With that, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:54 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]