[Senate Hearing 117-711]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-711
DRIVING THE ROAD TO RECOVERY: REBUILDING AMERICA'S TRANSPORTATION
INFRASTRUCTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 24, 2021
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
53-084 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chair
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Ranking
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii ROY BLUNT, Missouri
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts TED CRUZ, Texas
GARY PETERS, Michigan DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin JERRY MORAN, Kansas
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
JON TESTER, Montana MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona TODD YOUNG, Indiana
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada MIKE LEE, Utah
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia Virginia
RICK SCOTT, Florida
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming
David Strickland, Staff Director
Melissa Porter, Deputy Staff Director
George Greenwell, Policy Coordinator and Security Manager
John Keast, Republican Staff Director
Crystal Tully, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Steven Wall, General Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 24, 2021................................... 1
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Wicker...................................... 3
Statement of Senator Warnock..................................... 4
Statement of Senator Fischer..................................... 30
Statement of Senator Blumenthal.................................. 32
Statement of Senator Sullivan.................................... 33
Statement of Senator Peters...................................... 36
Statement of Senator Lummis...................................... 37
Statement of Senator Young....................................... 39
Statement of Senator Tester...................................... 40
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 42
Statement of Senator Rosen....................................... 44
Witnesses
Hon. John D. Porcari, Former Deputy Secretary of Transportation;
Managing Partner, 3P Enterprises............................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Douglas R. Hooker, Executive Director, Atlanta Regional
Commission (ARC)............................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Hon. Toby Baker, Mayor, City of Hattiesburg, Mississippi......... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Mark McAndrews, Port Director, Port of Pascagoula................ 19
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Appendix
Letter dated March 23, 2021 to Hon. Maria Cantwell and Hon. Roger
Wicker from Catherine Chase, President, Advocates for Highway &
Auto Safety.................................................... 49
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. John D. Porcari
by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 60
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 61
Hon. Kyrsten Sinema.......................................... 62
Hon. Shelley Moore Capito.................................... 62
Hon. Marsha Blackburn........................................ 64
Response to written questions submitted to Douglas R. Hooker by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 64
Response to written questions submitted to Mark McAndrews by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 66
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 67
DRIVING THE ROAD TO RECOVERY:
REBUILDING AMERICA'S TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2021
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:27 a.m., in
room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Chair of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Cantwell [presiding], Blumenthal, Schatz,
Markey, Peters, Baldwin, Tester, Rosen, Hickenlooper, Warnock,
Wicker, Thune, Fischer, Sullivan, Young, Lee, Capito, Scott,
and Lummis.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
The Chair. The hearing that we are having today is on
rebuilding America's infrastructure, and I believe this is one
of the most important topics before us, as it relates to our
economy.
We live in an ever-increasing global economy, where more
than 95 percent of consumers live outside our borders. That
means American workers and businesses need world-class
infrastructure to reach customers, and we need to be
competitive. Instead, The American Society of Civil Engineers
gives the United States infrastructure a rating of C-. So, we
definitely need to improve that grade. Right now, the United
States only invests 0.7 percent of our GDP on transportation
infrastructure. Other countries invest up to eight times that
amount, and the United States needs to make more investments if
we are to remain competitive.
In 2018, America shipped nearly $19 trillion worth of
freight. That number is expected to top $25 trillion by 2030.
In my home state of Washington, we moved over $443 billion
worth of goods alone, and every day we see the cost of failing
to make this investment by the amount of delays in our movement
of product. The Washington State Department of Transportation
estimated that if truck congestion increased by 20 percent, it
would cost farmers, manufacturers, and businesses $14 billion
in operating costs, resulting in thousands of job losses.
So, what we need to do today is start the conversation
about how we are going to invest in America's infrastructure.
To me, three things are very clear. One, Congress must provide
funds to invest in megaprojects that are important to our
Nation and regional economies. For example, in my State, the I-
5 bridge replacement between Vancouver and Portland, the West
Seattle bridge repair, or the North Spokane Corridor, which is
a major transportation hub of moving product from Canada
through the United States, and onto other destinations. All
three of these projects are significant regional projects that
mean a lot to our Nation's economy.
Second, we have already seen that freight and
infrastructure programs have helped our economy be more
economically efficient, but more needs to be done. If we can
ease the congestion on our roadways, and at rail crossings, and
our ports, it only helps our economy grow. Now is the time to
partner with local and regional people to solve these problems
and get more out of America's competitiveness. With 95 percent
of customers living outside the United States, those products,
whether they are from the South or from the Midwest or from the
East Coast, need to get to their destinations.
And third, I believe we need to do more to help at-grade
crossings, particularly because of rail congestion. If we are
seeing an increase of rail traffic and exports out of the
United States, it is clear that we are also seeing more
congestion at our railroads--that is, at railroad crossings.
This is costing us safety and efficiency. We are releasing a
report today, ``Railroad Crossing Congestion and Its Impacts to
Safety and Efficiency,'' showing that these delays are really
causing concerns.
The report shows, for example, in Davis, Oklahoma, a town
of 2,800 people, it took police about 20 minutes to respond to
a person threatening suicide, even though the person was less
than three blocks away. In my hometown, Edmonds, Washington, a
train blocked the only access on the waterfront for 3 hours.
This required first responders to literally crawl through the
rail cars to aid a pregnant woman who was due to give birth. I
am pretty sure that the story that is told locally is that they
actually transported her out on a stretcher through the rail
cars, to get her to the hospital. In Valley, Nebraska, on
Christmas morning, firefighters were prevented from responding
to a house fire for over an hour, only because a train blocked
access to the home. These at-grade crossing issues are real,
and we need to make more significant investments to help
alleviate this congestion.
We also need to help the serious congestion at our ports
with containers. There are currently 26 ships anchored in idle
at the Port of LA, Long Beach, because they are not able to get
to port. When ships are unable to get to port, too often
foreign-owned carriers offload goods at American ports and
then, load up empty containers to go back to Asia, leaving U.S.
exports behind. A recent investigation found between July and
December 2020, carriers rejected at least $1.3 billion in U.S.
agriculture exports.
These are important issues to keep our economy going, so I
am glad today we are going to hear from Deputy Secretary of
Transportation in the Obama Administration, John Porcari. He
has an extensive record on public and private activities
related to infrastructure and, before joining the Obama
Administration, was Secretary of Maryland Transportation. We
also have three other individuals on the docket to hear from.
Executive Director of the Atlanta-Regional Commission, Mr.
Douglas Hooker, is going to be joining us remotely, and I am
going to let our colleague from Georgia give a longer
introduction of him in a moment. And two other individuals,
Toby Baker, the Mayor of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, and Mark
McAndrews, is going to be remote, from Pascagoula. But I am
going to let my colleague, Ranking Member Wicker, make those
introductions at the appropriate time. So now, I would like to
turn to--unless we have gotten another member, I would like to
turn to my colleague, Senator Wicker, for his opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Wicker. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me say at the
outset, Senators are often late for votes, or late for lunch,
but the history of this committee, under Democrats and
Republicans, is that we hardly ever start late. I can just say
that, for my part, I have had four of my committees meeting
this morning and I am sure that is the problem with some of our
colleagues. So, those of you visiting and those of us listening
in, should know that we do everything we can, and this Chair
has done everything she has been able to do, to start this
meeting on time.
But thank you, Senator Cantwell, for holding this important
hearing to consider our Nation's infrastructure needs, and to
discuss surface transportation reauthorization.
Our Nation's transportation system deserves a long-term
authorization that is paid for, in order to provide certainty
and support for infrastructure investments. In 2015, Congress
passed the overwhelmingly bipartisan FAST Act. Last year,
Congress extended the FAST Act only until September 30. Given
the FAST Act's upcoming expiration, and the impacts of COVID-19
on the transportation sector, Congress, and this committee in
particular, has an opportunity to provide funding sources and
updates for transportation programs. Our State and local
transportation officials depend on Federal programs to maintain
roads and bridges, carry out safety programs, and perform other
essential functions. The various users of our transportation
system, including Amtrak passengers, trucks delivering
essential goods, and ports moving imports and exports, rely on
strong Federal programs. A long-term surface transportation
reauthorization would support these programs and propel our
economy forward, as we recover from COVID-19.
Surface transportation reauthorization needs to be a
bipartisan effort. Transportation issues have a tremendous
impact on all Americans. Therefore, all Senators should be
included in the legislative process. There has been some
discussion of addressing infrastructure through budget
reconciliation. Reconciliation is a process that is an overtly
partisan exercise. This committee has a long track record of
consensus and bipartisanship, I look forward to collaborating
with Senator Cantwell and all members of this committee, to
meet the needs of transportation infrastructure, and I hope
that is done outside of reconciliation.
Today's hearing provides an opportunity to hear regional
and local perspectives on infrastructure needs. It also allows
us to consider how best to support different modes of
transportation and our freight network. For instance, this
committee has jurisdiction over the Department of
Transportation's Office of the Secretary, which includes
programs like the BUILD grants. Our committee also has
jurisdiction over the Build America Bureau, which administers
several other grant and loan programs that are important for
infrastructure investments. A priority of mine is to ensure
rural communities are able to utilize and leverage these
programs, given the unique challenges that rural areas often
face in funding critical projects.
Today, I have the privilege of introducing two
Mississippians who have important perspectives on
transportation issues. Mayor Toby Barker of Hattiesburg,
Mississippi, has worked tirelessly to bring needed investment
and updates to the transportation network that connects his
city to the state and the rest of the country. From the local
level, he has successfully navigated various Federal financing
programs to improve his city. I look forward to hearing about
his experiences with the Department of Transportation grant
programs and his insights on managing infrastructure investment
from the local perspective.
Mark McAndrews will join us remotely. He brings a wealth of
experience as Director of the Port of Pascagoula, which is an
essential connection point in our transportation system, for
both the regional and national economies. He has served as Port
Director since 2001, adding to his nearly 40 years of
experience in the maritime sector. I look forward to hearing
his views on how we can improve our multimodal freight
transportation system.
Today's witnesses provide an opportunity for this committee
to learn how Congress can improve the policies that ensure the
safety and efficiency of our transportation infrastructure
system. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair. Thank you, Ranking Member Wicker. Senator
Warnock, would you like to introduce your witness from Atlanta
today? Actually, let us wait 1 second, if you could, thank you.
[Recess]
The Chair. Now, we will return to the hearing for--the
previously discussed hearing on America's infrastructure needs
and we will go to our panel. But first, we are going to allow
Senator Warnock to introduce one of the panelists. Senator
Warnock.
STATEMENT OF HON. RAPHAEL WARNOCK,
U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA
Senator Warnock. Thank you, Madam Chair and I am honored to
have the pleasure of introducing the next witness who hails
from the great state of Georgia. Doug Hooker is Executive
Director of the Atlanta Regional Commission, and in his career,
he has worked in the public sector and private sector
organizations. Among the places that he has worked are the City
of Atlanta's Department of Public Works, the State Road and
Tollway Authority, with BioLab Inc., and with Atkins
Engineering.
The Committee will benefit, no doubt, from his wealth of
experience working on important regional and local projects, in
the areas of energy, education, transportation, transit, and
water. I look forward to listening to his testimony, as he
highlights the great work being done, right now, in Atlanta,
and how the Federal Government can be a partner moving forward.
Mr. Doug Hooker.
The Chair. Thank you, Senator Warnock, and again, thank you
for helping to get this witness here. We are going to go in
order. Mr. Porcari, Mr. Hooker, who I think will be remote, and
then, the other witness--is that right? I cannot see that far
down the----
Senator Wicker. It is Mayor Barker----
The Chair. OK, thank you. OK, so, and then, we will have
Mayor Barker, who is here, and Mr. McAndrews. So, we will
proceed, and start with you, John Porcari. Thank you so much.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. PORCARI, FORMER DEPUTY SECRETARY OF
TRANSPORTATION; MANAGING PARTNER, 3P ENTERPRISES
Mr. Porcari. Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, members
of the Committee, thanks for the opportunity to testify today
on this important topic.
Transportation policy has never been more important to the
future of our country, and indeed the planet, than it is today.
We are compelled to admit that many past transportation
investment decisions have not resulted in a cleaner, safer,
more equitable world. We now face the urgent need to make
immediate and profound changes, if we are to ensure a better
future for the next generation of Americans.
This fundamental change in direction is best implemented
through two policy lenses, climate change and equity. Simply
put, the transportation sector is the largest single source of
CO2 emissions in the U.S. It needs to be the single
largest component of our response to the existential threat of
climate change. Equity, we have not paid adequate attention, in
the past, to who benefits and who bears the burdens of our
transportation investments. Equality of opportunity for all
Americans should be a fundamental objective, not just the
occasional happy by-product, of our investment choices. Each of
the policy recommendations below will help directly address
equity in climate change goals.
First, electrification of our transport system across land,
sea and air should be our singular short-term imperative. It
starts with better stewardship of our public rights of way. We
need to modify 23 U.S.C. 111 explicitly to permit charging
facilities at rest areas and inductive charging in travel
lanes. We need to use our highway rights of way for both
renewable power generation and long-distance transmission of
renewable energy, via buried High Voltage Direct Current lines.
We need to encourage the use of railroad rights of way for
buried renewable HVDC transmission lines to tax credits and
incentives.
America's ports, airports, and intermodal freight transfer
facilities are the linchpins of our economy. The gantries,
cranes, tractors, shore power for ships, aircraft tugs, and
ground handling equipment can all be electrified immediately,
and can be ramped up, through a competitive grant program that
does not cap participation by freight projects.
Next, we need to build on America's existing passenger rail
network, providing benefits to every part of the country.
Amtrak long distance service provides crucial connectivity to
rural communities. New city pairs should be added to existing
services as building blocks for a comprehensive national
network. And promising private sector passenger rail proposals
should be actively encouraged, through the use of the RIFF Loan
Fund. Urgently needed improvements to the Northeast Corridor,
Midwest and West Coast passenger service will continue to grow
ridership.
And a surface transportation program that adopts a systems
approach to moving people and goods safely and efficiently,
needs to separately fund projects of national significance that
are physically located in one state or region, yet provide
crucial system wide benefits. For example, the Brent Spence
Bridge carrying I-75 over the Ohio River, may be located in the
greater Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky region, but it plays an
outsized role in supporting the auto industry ecosystem from
Michigan to Georgia, carrying 3 percent of America's GDP
annually over an outdated, substandard bridge. Projects such as
the I-5 Columbia River multi-modal bridge, the Gateway
passenger rail project, as well as various coastal ports,
inland waterways, and Great Lakes cargo projects, play a
similar national function. These projects should be treated as
a separate category of nationally critical projects.
The National Environmental Policy Act process should now
incorporate climate change and equity considerations in the
development of the foundational Purpose and Need statements for
those documents. Our re-engineered interagency NEPA process can
have the twin benefits of both a streamlined process and better
environmental and community outcomes. Active transportation
alternatives, such as bike lanes, trails, and last mile
electrified mobility devices for persons with disabilities,
must be included wherever possible.
The TIFIA and RIFF loan programs should be broadened and
simplified, to encourage the construction of fleet charging
facilities, and the acquisition of electrified rolling stock
for transit systems, freight and commuter rail, school
districts, and municipal fleets. Local employment and skills
training needs to be an integral component of the project
procurement process. Pilot programs have shown that local
hiring and training component in those procurements, creates a
ladder for good paying, middle-class jobs. Similarly, a whole
of government approach at the Federal level is required to
maximize the U.S. manufacturing opportunities for local
infrastructure projects.
The genius of federalism, as it applies to our
transportation system, is that project decisions are properly
made at the local and State level based on local needs and
priorities, and these projects aggregate into a national
transportation system. We need to encourage bold, persistent
experimentation by local jurisdictions in states through more
aggressive use of the SEP-15 process and by funding innovative
technology pilot projects, through the competitive grant
programs.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Porcari follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John D. Porcari, Former Deputy Secretary of
Transportation; Managing Partner, 3P Enterprises
Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on this important
topic. My name is John Porcari and I have had the opportunity to serve
in the public and private sector in a variety of transportation and
economic development positions, including the honor of serving as
Deputy Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation and
Secretary of the Maryland Department of Transportation.
At no time during my lifetime has transportation policy been more
important to the future of our country, and indeed the planet, than it
is today. If we are honest with ourselves, we are compelled to admit
that many past transportation investment decisions have not resulted in
a cleaner, safer, more equitable world.
We now face the urgent need to make immediate and profound changes
throughout our transportation system if we are to ensure a better
future for the next generation of Americans. A strong and compelling
case is being made across the country and by my colleagues here today
for increased investment across the transportation system. I would like
to make the case for corresponding policy changes that would maximize
the return on increased public infrastructure investments and rebuild
our transportation infrastructure in a smarter, more resilient and
sustainable way.
This fundamental change in direction is best described through two
policy lenses: climate change and equity.
Climate change. Simply put, the transport sector is the largest
single source of CO2 emissions in the United States, and
must, therefore, be the single largest component of our response to the
existential threat of climate change.
Equity. We have not paid adequate attention in the past to who
benefits and who bears the burdens of our transportation investments.
Equality of opportunity for all Americans should be a fundamental
objective, not just the occasional happy by-product, of our investment
choices.
For each of the policy recommendations below, I will briefly
describe how they can directly address equity and climate change goals.
Electrification of our transportation system across land, sea and
air should be our singular short-term imperative. For our Interstate
highway system, several legal and policy changes would accelerate these
electrification efforts, including: modifying 23 USC Section 111 to
explicitly permit charging facilities at rest areas and inductive
charging in travel lanes; and commitment to both renewable power
generation and long-distance transmission of renewable energy via
buried High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) lines in highway rights-of-
way. Better stewardship of our public rights-of-way can greatly
accelerate the generation and transmission of renewable energy.
Similarly, early projects already underway utilizing private and public
railroad rights-of-way for buried renewable energy HVDC transmission
lines could be accelerated and scaled nationally through tax credits
and incentives. These electrification efforts will also help to redress
past inequities, in particular the disparate emissions impact on
communities by diesel medium and heavy duty trucks, buses, and
locomotives.
America's ports and intermodal freight transfer facilities,
linchpins of our economy, need to be electrified as well. Cranes,
rubber-tired gantries, drayage tractors and shore power for ships are
all candidates for electrification and would benefit from a
turbocharged competitive grant program that does not cap participation
by freight projects. Airports would similarly benefit on the air side
in the short term from electrification of tugs and ground handling
equipment, and land side airport projects that provide electrified,
portal to portal transit for passengers and employees. Increased
investment in cleaner, more seamless goods movement across the
transportation system is one of the most cost-effective investments we
can make for future economic growth.
Building on America's existing passenger rail network will provide
benefits to every part of the country. Amtrak long distance service
provides crucial connectivity to rural communities. City pairs should
be added to existing service in a building block fashion that will
ultimately provide more of a national network, and promising private
sector passenger rail proposals should be actively encouraged through
the use of RRIF loans. Urgently needed improvements to the Northeast
Corridor are a sound investment for a corridor with proven operating
economics and strong growth potential. Likewise, Midwest and West coast
passenger rail service has shown that infrastructure investments bring
increased ridership. America's freight rail network is the envy of the
world, and shared use of these rails can enhance both freight and
passenger rail capacity, reducing our carbon footprint and providing
mobility to underserved communities.
A surface transportation program that adopts a systems approach to
moving people and goods safely and efficiently needs to specifically
recognize and separately fund projects of national significance that
are physically located in one state or region, yet provide crucial
system-wide benefits. For example, the Brent Spence Bridge carrying I-
75 over the Ohio River may be located in the greater Cincinnati/
Northern Kentucky region, but it plays an outsized role in supporting
the auto manufacturing ecosystem from Michigan to Georgia, carrying 3
percent of America's GDP annually over an outdated, substandard bridge.
Projects such as the I-5 Columbia River multi-modal bridge, the Gateway
passenger rail project in New York/New Jersey, as well as various
coastal ports, inland waterway and Great Lakes cargo projects, play a
similar national function and should be treated as a separate category
of nationally-critical projects.
Transportation projects requiring either an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) or an Environmental Assessment (EA) under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) should now incorporate climate change
and equity considerations in the development of the foundational
Purpose & Need statements of those documents. This will bring
mitigation and remediation of climate impacts, as well as specific
equity considerations, into the project scope. Active transportation
alternatives such as bike lanes, trails, and last-mile electrified
mobility devices, including those for persons with disabilities, should
be integral components of surface transportation projects. A re-
engineered interagency NEPA process can have the twin benefits of both
a streamlined process and better environmental and community outcomes.
The resulting NEPA documents will also be less vulnerable to legal
challenges.
The eligibility of USDOT's TIFIA and RRIF loan programs can also be
broadened to encourage the construction of fleet charging facilities
and acquisition of electrified rolling stock for transit systems,
freight and commuter rail, school districts and municipal fleets. The
use of Master Credit Agreements for electrification across asset
classes by counties, cities and public authorities would help spur the
concurrent electrification of multiple surface transportation systems.
Electrified intermodal facilities for moving goods and people,
particularly port/rail and air/transit, should be given expanded
eligibility and expedited processing for these loan programs.
The genius of federalism as it applies to our transportation system
is that project decisions are properly made at the local and state
level based on local needs and priorities, and these projects aggregate
into a national transportation system. USDOT should, in the words of
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, encourage ``bold, persistent
experimentation'' by local jurisdictions and states through more
aggressive use of existing mechanisms such as the SEP-15 process and by
funding higher risk/reward pilot projects through the competitive grant
programs. Encouraging innovation in response to climate change and to
redress the impacts of past project decisions should be central
elements of our Federal transportation program, and USDOT should strive
wherever possible to assist local jurisdictions. This innovation agenda
should also include connected/autonomous vehicles, safety and other
technology innovations.
At the same time, these local project choices should be encouraged
at the Federal level to include local employment and skills training as
an integral component of the project procurement. Multiple successful
examples now exist of pilot programs that have squeezed more value out
of infrastructure dollars by including a local hiring and training
component that creates a ladder for good-paying middle class jobs.
Similarly, a whole-of-government approach at the Federal level
including USDOT, DOE, Commerce and other agencies is required to
maximize the US manufacturing opportunities for local infrastructure
projects.
As we drive forward in rebuilding America's transportation
infrastructure, it is worth remembering President Biden's vow to
``Build Back Better''. What does that mean?
``Build Back'' is an acknowledgement that we have under-invested in
our Nation's future, that we have to do much more if we are going to
rebuild our economy and establish a stronger foundation for America's
future. ``Better'' means we have to do it differently, explicitly
taking into account climate change and equity as, together, we develop
smarter ways to make foundational investments in a better American
future through infrastructure.
The policy suggestions in my testimony today are intended to help
us Build Back Better by maximizing the impact of every dollar invested
and putting our Nation on a glide path to a brighter, more sustainable
future.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
The Chair. Thank you, Mr. Porcari. We are now going to turn
to Mr. Hooker. Thank you so much for joining us.
STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS R. HOOKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ATLANTA
REGIONAL COMMISSION (ARC)
Mr. Hooker. Good morning, Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member
Wicker, and members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me
here to offer the Atlanta Regional Commission's perspectives on
challenges and opportunities in developing our transportation
infrastructure. My name, as Senator Warnock says, is Douglas
Hooker. I am Executive Director of the Atlanta Regional
Commission, or ARC. In addition to being the metropolitan
planning organization for a region of 20 counties and 5.8
million people, ARC leads important regional programs related
to aging services, water resources planning, workforce
development, and Homeland Security.
Wise investments in transportation infrastructure will
boost our economy, support more equitable community
development, and advance interstate commerce. These are goals
that ARC shares with this committee, your colleagues in the
Senate and the House, and all of our government partners. And
with these outcomes in mind, I will focus my remarks on four
key recommendations that I elaborated on in my written
testimony.
First, continue to support the unique role the Nation's
MPOs play in convening diverse groups of public and private
stakeholders, to address transportation issues in metropolitan
areas. Our work promotes regional efficiencies by avoiding each
of our counties and cities having to fund its own
transportation planning staff, along with all the technical
elements needed to perform those functions effectively. In many
ways, we serve, as a repository of services and professional
expertise and the ARC is very proud to provide this vital role
for our jurisdictions.
Second, since interstate goods movement is important and
vital to our regional and national economies, focus additional
resources on addressing challenges faced by these industries.
The Port of Savannah is the largest container terminal in the
western hemisphere, and a major export gateway for the United
States. Metro Atlanta's location allows trucks to deliver goods
to the region and return to the port, within a single day's
service time. Thus, Metro Atlanta has become a major center for
warehousing and distribution for the entire Southeastern United
States. However, one of the consequences of this success is
that I-285, the region's bypass freeway, has two of the
Nation's five worst freight traffic, interchange bottlenecks.
Third, ensure that FAST Act reauthorization recognizes the
critical role that quality-of-life considerations will play in
building a stronger and more equitable economy when properly
integrated into transportation development. We face the
challenge of increasing housing costs for our work force, our
Nation's most important resource. In Atlanta, one-third of
homeowners and half of renters, are cost-burdened, meaning they
spend 30 percent or more of their incomes on housing, or 50
percent or more on housing and transportation combined. Due to
limited affordability, many employees are forced to undertake
long and expensive commutes, which further congest our
roadways, and adversely impacts interstate commerce.
Fourth, leverage the capacity of MPOs to convene broad
stakeholder groups to plan for the future electrification and
interconnection of our transportation system. For example, the
ARC is partnering with Georgia DOT in several local communities
to implement a large, connected vehicle, or CV, program. Our
goal is to equip over 1,000 intersections with CV technology
that enables vehicles and traffic signals to share safety and
signal timing messages with each other. This will be the
Nation's largest deployment of connected vehicle technology in
one region.
And in closing, I commend this committee for its focus on
ensuring the future Federal transportation investments needed
to support the Nation's interstate commerce, and in ways that
will benefit all Americans. MPOs, such as ARC, are helping to
forge consensus solutions, to advance critical interstate
commerce goals. Your leadership and support are critical to
help us build a more equitable transportation system that
provides the opportunities for our Nation, and all of its
residents to thrive in a global economy.
Please view ARC as a resource as you continue your critical
work. We look forward to working with you on our common goals,
and thank you, again, for inviting me here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hooker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Douglas R. Hooker, Executive Director,
Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC)
Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for inviting me here to discuss the Atlanta
Regional Commission's perspectives on the current challenges in
developing our transportation infrastructure at the local, state, and
Federal level, and how investment in transportation infrastructure can
help boost our economy, support a more equitable community, and advance
interstate commerce. My name is Doug Hooker, and I am the Executive
Director of the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC). My Board Chairman,
Kerry Armstrong, joins me in thanking you for this opportunity to have
the ARC's voice heard.
In 1947, the Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC), was created in
Atlanta and became the first publicly supported, multi-county planning
agency in the United States. Ultimately renamed the Atlanta Regional
Commission, the agency's responsibilities include: 1) being designated
by the state of Georgia as a Metropolitan Area Planning and Development
Commission as well as a Regional Commission; 2) the federally
designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) that is responsible
for developing a multi-modal, financially constrained transportation
plan; 3) the federally designated Area Agency on Aging for the Atlanta
region, providing services and policy guidance to improve the quality
of life of older adults; 4) planning staff to the Metropolitan North
Georgia Water Planning District, which develops comprehensive regional
and watershed-specific water resources plans; 5) the administrative
agency for the Atlanta Regional Workforce Development Board; and 6) the
local administrative agency for the Atlanta Urban Area Security
Initiative (UASI), which prepares and coordinates the region's response
and recovery to homeland security issues. ARC's transportation planning
area includes all or part of 20 counties and serves a population of 5.8
million people.
ARC's perspectives on meeting the infrastructure challenge and the
need for investment to boost our economy and improve the transportation
system.
The Nation's MPOs, in partnership with local communities, states, and
other regions are in a unique position to work with our Federal
partners to address and implement national transportation and
interstate commerce goals.
The Nation's MPOs convene diverse groups of stakeholders that range
from mayors, county commission chairs, local and state government
staffs, business and community leaders, and Federal stakeholders, to
address the pressing public challenges facing regions. These
discussions cover a variety of questions: from `How do we fix dangerous
intersections so freight trucks can safely get to warehousing
districts?'; to `What are the best strategies to lower vehicle
emissions to improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gases?'; to
perhaps the most important questions we must wrestle with: `How can we
best design a transportation system that supports our economy while
furthering equitable growth in our 20-county region?' `How do we design
a system that works well to meet the needs of all of our residents?'
Only a partnership among the local, regional, state, and Federal
government officials can advance solutions to these challenges. This
convening role is where regional planning agencies excel, including
providing vital support as part of our mission for the under-resourced
communities that exist within our region. The ARC is proud to play a
supporting and coordinating role across many city, county, and state
agency jurisdictions.
In this capacity, the ARC and many other large MPOs have already
started addressing the needs that are important to this Committee, such
as providing funds for goods movement projects, planning for resilient
transportation systems, factoring into our decisions the need to combat
climate change, and strengthening equity considerations in the
selection of the region's transportation investments. The ARC is
closely monitoring the development of these policies by committees of
Congress and the Administration, and hopes to work with you to fashion,
strong, reasonable, and implementable changes in the Nation's
transportation policies that serve our region and its people. We
welcome the added emphasis to address these areas more thoroughly and
comprehensively. MPOs will need additional resources beyond their
current funding levels to implement these Federal priorities that
advance interstate commerce, national economic competitiveness, and
fairness at home.
We have shared with staff from the Senate's Environment and Public
Works Committee a list of our recommendations for planning provisions
in the FAST Act reauthorization. That document is appended to this
written testimony.
We note that last year's House bill provided a 41 percent increase
in funding resources for MPO planning to successfully address these
national goods movement, equity, and environmental challenges. It is up
to the Congress to decided what that number should be, but we strongly
encourage that you make available the additional resources needed to
implement any new responsibilities required of the Nation's MPOs.
Along these lines, a reauthorized FAST Act can be strengthened by
lowering the required non-federal match for MPO planning programs, from
the existing 20 percent level to a maximum of 10 percent or even
eliminating this match requirement.
Further, the ARC supports creating the Metro Performance Program
concept, for high-performing MPOs that direct funding to local
communities, to advance transportation-focused investments that support
Federal priorities related to goods movement, equity, congestion
relief, climate change, and infrastructure resiliency.
We note that a core goal of the Senate Commerce Committee is
furthering the Nation's economic competitiveness through interstate and
international commerce. We are extremely proud that Georgia was named
in September 2020 as the ``Top State for Doing Business'' by the
magazine Area Development. This was the 7th consecutive year that our
State received this recognition. While there are many factors that led
to this recognition, Georgia's strong goods movement and logistics
sector--including the ability to cost-effectively transport goods both
throughout the Nation and to international markets--is a core
foundation of our community's economic success. The Georgia legislature
continues to prioritize supporting interstate commerce, with the
creation in 2019 of the Georgia Commission on Freight & Logistics. This
legislative initiative emphasizes finding solutions to the challenges
being faced by industries supporting interstate commerce.
The state of Georgia has significantly increased transportation
funding since 2015, with the passage of the Transportation Funding Act
(HB 170). This action has doubled transportation revenues for the
state. Local governments have also increased revenue to support
transportation funding for both transit and roadways, including the
transit funding referendums in both the City of Atlanta and Clayton
County. It is critical that our Federal partners also identify
strategies to increase transportation revenues.
Interstate goods movement is critical to Georgia and the Atlanta
region's economy.
Nearly one-third of the jobs in Metro Atlanta are in industries
that rely on freight transportation. These jobs comprise $514.8
billion, or 38 percent, of our region's economic output. The Atlanta
region's total freight tonnage will increase by 43 percent over the
next 25 years. By 2050, the economic contribution of the goods movement
sector will increase to $1.2 trillion.
The Atlanta region has a close economic relationship with states
and regions throughout the Nation, but the most critical goods movement
partner is the Port of Savannah. The largest container terminal in the
western hemisphere and the Nation's top export gateway, the Port of
Savannah is a critical part of the Nation's interstate commerce. For
example, while metro Atlanta is the Port's largest intermodal trade
partner, the Memphis region is Savannah's No. 2 trading partner and is
responsible for one out of every five containers. The Port of Savannah
is one of the primary drivers of goods movement in the United States.
The location of metro Atlanta, relative to the Port of Savannah,
allows for the transportation of goods to metro Atlanta and back to the
Port in one business day. This has allowed metro Atlanta--and Georgia--
to become a major center for warehousing and distribution for the
Southeastern United States. Georgia continues to emphasize development
of inland ports, including the Appalachian Regional Port, the
Bainbridge Terminal, and the Northeast Georgia Inland Port that is
scheduled to open later this year. The Georgia Ports Authority
continues to assess the feasibility of additional future inland ports.
The port's current annual capacity is four million TEUs, or twenty-
foot equivalent units. By 2028, the Port of Savannah will have a
capacity eight million TEUs.
The Atlanta region and other MPOs need the Committee's leadership
to help our Nation's goods movement and logistics sector to succeed.
The current USDOT National Highway Freight Program has helped states to
improve goods movement bottlenecks. Additional funding is needed in
this program to address the Nation's most significant freight movement
bottlenecks. Two of the Nation's top five trucking bottlenecks are in
the Atlanta region: #3 at the I-285 North/I-85 North interchange
(DeKalb County) and #4 at the I-285 West/I-20 West interchange (Fulton
County).
Without the necessary rail and roadways improvements, our Nation's
economy will be at a disadvantage when competing globally. The ARC, in
partnership with the Georgia Department of Transportation and local
communities, conducts freight cluster plans to identify needed
transportation improvements for our largest manufacturing and
distribution centers. One outcome identified in these studies is that
insufficient funding is available for the critical ``last mile''
freight connections that support interstate commerce. We recommend that
the next transportation reauthorization bill not only increase freight
program funding for states, but also provide the Nation's largest MPOs
a suballocation of the National Highway Freight Program to fund needed
improvements for these essential ``last mile'' freight bottlenecks.
Within the Atlanta region, examples of these ``last mile'' freight
improvements include two intersection operations projects on SR 6 (Camp
Creek Parkway), south of Atlanta. These projects will improve safety
and reduce congestion along a corridor that serves an Amazon
distribution center and numerous other industrial businesses, while
connecting to three interstate highways and Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta
International Airport. Northeast of Atlanta, in the Gateway 85 area of
Gwinnett County, several intersection projects have been identified
that will add turn lanes, increase the turning radius on corners, and
shift the location of stop bars at intersections so that trucks can
turn left more easily. While these ``last mile'' projects are not as
high profile as our largest interstate program projects, they are among
the most critical needs identified by our trucking partners that use
our roads.
ARC has conducted a truck parking study of needs within the Atlanta
region. Most interstate commerce corridors in our region suffer from
truck parking shortages, with this shortage forecast to worsen in the
future. To support the Nation's interstate commerce, the trucking
industry needs safe and accessible parking. We ask that you keep these
critical truck parking considerations on the agenda for your Committee.
Safe and accessible truck parking is not just a local issue, the needs
cross state boundaries. A national program is needed that focuses on
interstate commerce corridors and addresses the unmet needs for safe
and accessible truck parking.
We need a strong national vision that encourages strategies to
shift more of our Nation's interstate goods movement from trucking to
rail. ARC often hears this desire from local and state officials.
Increasing the share of interstate goods movement from trucks to rail
is a strategy that would reduce crashes and congestion, lower truck-
related NOX and VOC emissions, and reduce greenhouse gases.
Increased Federal assistance is needed to upgrade rail infrastructure
and at-grade rail crossings in both rural communities and metropolitan
areas. Due to economic factors associated with the rail industry, it is
likely that train lengths will increase in the future and place
additional delays at existing grade-crossings. To further community
safety at these at-grade rail crossings, it is essential that the
Federal Railway-Highway Crossings program be expanded well beyond the
current $250 million per year.
As the Committee continues deliberations on the necessary policies
and investments needed to support interstate commerce and advance
prosperity, we must always keep one item in mind. This leads to my
third point.
Recognize the critical role that quality-of-life considerations play in
building a strong economy.
One of the challenges we face is increasing housing costs for our
workforce, the most important resource we have in our communities. No
community can succeed in supporting interstate commerce without a
diverse and affordable housing supply that meets the needs of our
residents. We are rapidly losing housing affordability throughout the
nation, and the Atlanta region is no exception.
The Atlanta region has been long recognized across the Nation as
having relatively affordable housing costs. Historically, this housing
cost advantage helped fuel the region's growth, allowing workers in
critical interstate commerce industries to achieve the American Dream:
shifting from renting to ultimately owning a home. But quality,
affordable, housing is becoming more difficult to find in our region:
and not only affordable housing, but quality, affordable renting as
well. This threatens our quality of life by reducing our residents'
ability to improve their economic prospects in an equitable manner,
because they fail to fully share in in the region's prosperity. In
metro Atlanta, about one-third of homeowners and half of renters are
now considered ``cost burdened''--that is, they spend least 30 percent
or more of their income on housing or 50 percent or more on housing and
transportation combined.
Over the past five years, rents have increased almost 27 percent in
Atlanta, which is the largest five-year increase among the Nation's 11
largest metros. Rents have increased by 37 percent since 2011, but
earnings have only increased 20 percent. Overall, housing prices in the
Atlanta region are among the most reasonable among our peers, but once
you add the cost of transportation, we are worse in terms of overall
affordability than Seattle, New York, Chicago, and San Francisco, to
name a few major metros.
Most of our workforce cannot afford housing close to where they
work. High construction costs make it difficult to rehab existing
housing stock and residential building permits are at about 1/3 the
levels before the ``Great Recession.'' Housing costs near major
employment centers have soared, forcing many employees to undertake
long and expensive commutes that further congest our roadways and
adversely impact interstate commerce. If a historically lower housing
cost region such as the Atlanta region is experiencing these
challenges, this is an item that must be a national priority for our
Nation to compete globally in commerce.
To further economic competitiveness and interstate commerce, ARC
has developed multimodal transportation programs to address these needs
through our pioneering Livable Centers Initiative. This program
utilizes transportation investments to equitably plan for the
development of mixed-use centers that reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
support equitable growth, increase transit ridership, reduce
congestion, and encourage housing to be constructed in a variety of
price ranges. In moving forward, Federal programs should consider
equity and its role in supporting economic mobility.
Congress can support these core Federal objectives by continuing to
provide funding assistance to programs that clean our air and support
resiliency goals. Funding for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
program should be expanded and dedicated exclusively to initiatives and
projects that clean the air. This includes removing the current
provision that permits 50 percent of program funding to be redirected
to other programs.
Transit operators in the Atlanta region are in the planning,
engineering, and environmental review phases of several major transit
expansions. Many of these projects are supported by sales tax programs,
such as those in the City of Atlanta and Clayton County. Examples of
these projects range from expanded bus services, such as Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT), to potential rail expansions such as streetcars in the
City of Atlanta and rail on the Clifton Corridor connecting the MARTA
rail network to the Emory and CDC area.
It is critical that the Federal government be major partners in
these transit expansion programs, including having adequate funding
through the FTA Capital Investment Program. Increases in transit
funding will allow MPOs to meet the critical needs of our transit
systems, which have suffered significant financial challenges because
of the pandemic.
This leads to my fourth point.
Leverage the capacity of MPOs to convene broad groups from the public
sector (local, state, federal) and the private sector, to plan
for the electrification of the transportation sector.
One of the great challenges--and one that directly impacts
interstate commerce--is the future electrification of our
transportation sector. This transformation is being led by the private
sector, for example with General Motors phasing out vehicles using
internal combustion engines by 2035. Another example is FedEx recently
committing to deploying electric-only vehicles by 2040. The trucking
industry is evaluating clean energy technologies and major
breakthroughs are expected in the coming years. We must prepare now to
support this transition to electrification of the transportation
sector.
High capacity MPOs can use their unique convening powers to bring
together the public and private sectors to meet the needs of interstate
commerce and the traveling public. Because of the expected challenges
in meeting the future demand of the evolving power grid--and one for
which our communities were not originally designed to meet--federal
leadership is also needed in identifying best practices for communities
to follow in addressing this challenge. Opportunities will exist in the
coming decade to co-locate broadband, power, and charging stations.
This can support equitable outcomes for all residents that live in
underserved communities, both in metropolitan areas and rural areas,
ensuring they share in the benefits from electrification and expanded
broadband services. However, achieving these goals will require Federal
policy and Federal investment that help lower barriers to public-
private cooperation and reduce the risk of innovation in this frontier.
The pandemic exposed the critical importance of broadband to our
Nation. Due to the outstanding broadband availability in many parts of
our region, ARC staff was able to work remotely. However, many rural
and under-resourced communities lack these broadband resources,
adversely impacting prosperity in our Nation. Creating synergy by co-
locating broadband and electrification improvements alongside
transportation projects provides the opportunity to advance equitable
outcomes that span multiple needs.
One of the core missions of the Commerce Committee is the support
of new transportation technologies. In the rapidly evolving arena of
technology, what was once a state of the practice technology can be
obsolete the next year. However, local governments and states need some
stability to plan for and invest in needed transportation-related
safety investments.
An example of this challenge is within the arena of connected
vehicles. The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and ARC are
pursuing a connected vehicle (CV) program called CV1K+. With a $10
million budget, the initiative is a significant investment for the
region. The goal is to equip over 1,000 intersections with CV
technology that allows safety messages and signal timing information to
be shared between vehicles and traffic signals. This will be the
Nation's largest deployment of connected vehicle technology in one
region. One of the great challenges in pursuing this project, which
supports interstate commerce and safety, has been the rapidly evolving
regulatory environment at the FCC in recent years regarding the 5.9 GHz
safety spectrum. While we understand that the FCC must respond to the
introduction of new technologies and changing needs, a stable
regulatory environment is essential. While the project is now underway,
instability in knowing what technologies will be allowed to use the 5.9
GHz safety spectrum created delay and uncertainty in implementing the
program.
One item we have learned during the advancement of this technology
program is the critical role of capacity-building. However nationally,
many communities and smaller MPO's lack the technical capacity to do
this. Our Federal partners need to emphasize capacity-building as a
core element when designing Federal programs, allowing equitable
outcomes to be achieved by all communities--metropolitan and rural--to
advance our Nation's competitiveness.
There is one final point I want to share with you.
Design Federal programs that permit communities to invest in what is
most needed for the community vs. pursuing Federal programs
that are narrow and limit solution options.
Local communities best know their needs and what constitutes a
priority investment. In the past the way Federal funding programs were
funded prejudiced some decisions. An example is the Federal interstate
program which permits funding as high as a 90 percent Federal share
with a 10 percent non-federal match. Transportation projects off the
interstate system historically have been largely funded with at an 80
percent Federal share and a 20 percent non-federal match. The FAST Act
included a rail title for the first time, leveling the playing field.
The economic competitiveness of the Nation depends on having resources
to support intermodal goods movement, including by rail. It is critical
to provide funding for rail in future Federal bills.
* * *
I commend the Committee for its focus on ensuring that the billions
of dollars being spent on transportation support our Nation's
interstate commerce in a way that benefits all Americans--including
those in those under-resourced communities. These under-resourced
communities exist both in our Nation's large metropolitan regions--such
as the Atlanta region--and rural America. MPOs such as the Atlanta
Regional Commission are working to help find solutions to our important
interstate commerce goals. Your leadership is needed in helping us
build an equitable transportation system that not only supports the
Nation in competing--but thriving--in international commerce. Please
view ARC as a resource as you continue the critical work of this
Committee. Thank you again for inviting me here today, and we look
forward to working with you on these important issues.
The Chair. Thank you, Mr. Hooker. I think we could have had
the same testimony from somebody from the Puget Sound region.
So, I feel like the issues that you brought up are the exact
same issues in a growing area of our State, as well.
We now turn to a more local view of the transportation
needs, Mr. Toby Barker, Mayor of the City of Hattiesburg. Thank
you for being here and joining us.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOBY BARKER, MAYOR,
CITY OF HATTIESBURG, MISSISSIPPI
Mr. Barker. Thank you Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member
Wicker, Members of the Committee for allowing me to share a
local perspective on rebuilding America's infrastructure. Any
mayor of any of the thousands of towns and cities across the
United States could speak to the challenges faced when
attempting to plan and finance infrastructure projects.
Hattiesburg is a city of around 50,000 residents in South
Mississippi. Home to both The University of Southern
Mississippi and William Carey University, as well as two
hospitals, and Camp Shelby, around 150,000 people work in
Hattiesburg daily. In its early days, the railroad brought
economic growth, both in goods and in people. We have been very
fortunate to be at, or near, the top of job growth in
Mississippi for several years. Wall Street 24/7 reported that
out of all the MSAs in the country, Hattiesburg was #2 in job
growth nationwide, between February and November of last year.
Rail is a valued component of that growth, both freight and
passenger. However, one challenge that developed over time is
that when a city has a rail switchyard in the middle of its
downtown, and 20 crossings, all at-grade in and around that
downtown, problems will occur. Blocked crossings are part of
daily life. Aside from being a source of frustration for
motorists, they are a safety concern and have been the site of
recent fatalities. It is a generations-old problem. The
solution, of course, was simple. We need an overpass, or
actually, two or three overpasses. Fortunately, we found
Federal avenues to leverage our limited local capacity into
real funding. In early 2020, we were awarded a CRISI grant to
build the first overpass on a road just south of our downtown.
And again, later last year, we were awarded a BUILD grant to
build a second overpass. Our delegation, particularly Senator
Wicker, were incredibly helpful in this effort. We also had the
support of both freight railroads. If Federal surface
transportation grants were not available, these projects would
not happen for Hattiesburg.
Cities have a tough enough time maintaining their existing
infrastructure maintenance issues. Roads need paving. Bridges
need replacing. Water, sewer, and storm water lines are
undersized or aging. There is public demand for sidewalks. And
the list goes on. There is very little money available after
taking care of all those other things, if you can take care of
them, either to solve a big challenge, or to invest in game-
changing projects that can lead to future growth. Surface
transportation grants are a lifeline that communities can use,
and it is critical that Congress reauthorize those programs.
Furthermore, when weighing such reauthorization, there are
a few items policymakers may want to consider. First, even with
reauthorization, I believe the local community needs to
continue to have skin in the game, through proper planning and
prioritized budgeting. No community should expect the Federal
Government to shoulder the full responsibility of
infrastructure at the local level.
Second, I would encourage more investment in these
programs. We went after an INFRA grant once and BUILD grant
twice before finding success in 2020. There are other
communities with strong projects that could be funded, if the
available pool had the certainty and funding provided in a
long-term surface transportation reauthorization.
Third, communities need technical support and assistance
with planning when accessing these programs. We engaged local
firms to assist with our grant, particularly for benefit-cost
analysis and engineering. The city incurred costs for those
programs, and we were more than willing to pay them. However,
some communities might be weighing projects that require more
outside expertise, and thus, more cost when it comes to even
proposing a solution. Having funds available for planning would
help, and it would also allow DOT to gain understanding on a
community's unique challenges prior to the grant application
going in.
Fourth, any transportation system must accommodate the
needs of all users, whether in a vehicle, on a train, in a
wheelchair, on bike, or on foot. Modern cities are expected to
build out complete streets. However, other than TAP and FTA's
5339 grant program, or including complete street style elements
in large projects, the direct resources available to cities,
counties, and MPOs are limited.
Finally, it is important that programs remain accessible to
communities of all size. Right now, there is a proposal before
the Office of Management and Budget that would double the
minimum population requirement from 50,000 to 100,000 for a
community to be considered a metropolitan statistical area.
This would adversely affect Hattiesburg and 143 other cities,
and the implications of this could be profound on grants and
other Federal programs, particularly in the transportation
space. If this metric is changed, and we hope it is not, it is
critical that any reauthorization not tie grant eligibility to
the definition of an MSA.
In conclusion, the U.S. Department of Transportation's
discretionary grant programs are vital to the aspirations of
every city. As we look to where we want each of our communities
to go, in economic development, in education, in tourism and in
quality of life, I believe shared infrastructure investment
between Federal, State and local governments can build strong,
visionary cities, which, in turn, will be cornerstones of an
even stronger nation. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Toby Barker, Mayor, City of Hattiesburg,
Mississippi
Introduction
Thank you Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, Members of the
Committee for allowing me to share a local perspective on rebuilding
America's infrastructure. Any mayor of any of the thousands of towns
and cities across the United States could speak to the challenges local
elected officials face when attempting to plan, finance and oversee
infrastructure investments.
I believe every mayor wants similar things for his or her town. We
want a good quality of life for our residents. We want safe
communities. We want opportunities for economic growth. We want to
provide solutions when our constituents have complaints. Quality
infrastructure is both the bedrock and the catalyst for making these
things happen.
The Hattiesburg Story
Hattiesburg is a City of around 50,000 residents in South
Mississippi, about an hour north of the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Home to
both The University of Southern Mississippi and William Carey
University, as well as two major medical facilities and Camp Shelby,
around 150,000 work in and around Hattiesburg on a daily basis. In its
early days, it earned the nickname ``the Hub'' because of its central
location to other regional commercial centers such as New Orleans,
Mobile, Gulfport, Jackson and Meridian. As with many towns in that era,
it was the railroad that brought economic growth, both in goods and in
people.
In our case, those rail lines continue today, serving the freight
needs of our industrial park and the many rail lines that intersect in
and around Hattiesburg. Additionally, those rail lines serve passenger
rail, as Hattiesburg is Mississippi's third most visited city and a
beneficiary of being on Amtrak's Crescent Line. We have been very
fortunate to have been at or near the top of job growth in Mississippi
for several years in a row. Even in the pandemic, we have held strong.
In fact, Wall Street 24/7 reported that out of all the metropolitan
statistical areas in the country, Hattiesburg was #2 in job growth
nationwide between February and November of last year.
Freight is a valued component in that growth. However, a challenge
that developed over the course of the 135-plus years of our city's
existence is that when a city has a rail switchyard in the middle of
its downtown--and 20 at-grade crossings in and around that downtown and
no grade separated crossings--problems will occur. Blocked crossings
are a part of daily life in Downtown Hattiesburg. Aside from being a
source of frustration for motorists, they are also a safety concern and
have been the site of recent fatalities. It has been a generations-old
problem for Hattiesburg. The solution, of course, was simple. We needed
an overpass. Actually, we needed two or three overpasses. However,
overpasses cost a great deal of money--money that a city like
Hattiesburg would not simply have at its disposal.
Fortunately, we found Federal avenues to leverage our limited local
capacity into funding that could build those overpasses. In early 2020,
we were awarded a CRISI grant--Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and
Safety Improvements Program--that matched local support to build the
first overpass on a road just south of our downtown. We were lucky a
second time in 2020, as we were awarded a BUILD grant to build a second
overpass along that same road, south of our downtown. Our Congressional
delegation, particularly Senator Wicker, were incredibly helpful in
this effort. We also had the support and collaboration of both freight
railroads on our CRISI and BUILD applications.
By the time both of these overpasses are built, there will be one
road--with one grade separated crossing on each end--that motorists,
cyclists and pedestrians can take when trains are across the tracks.
If Federal surface transportation grants were not available, these
projects would not happen for Hattiesburg. Most cities and towns
cannot--on their own--solve these longstanding challenges without
state, but more often, Federal support.
The Problem Facing Every Community
Cities and counties have a tough enough time meeting their existing
infrastructure maintenance issues. There are roads that need paving.
There are bridges that need replacing. There are water lines that are
undersized or aging. There are sanitary sewer issues that lead to
consent decrees, putting another external pressure on a municipality.
There is a need for more storm water capacity. There is public demand
for sidewalks and ADA accessibility.
However, there is very little extra revenue available--after taking
care of all those other things, if you can take care of them--to either
solve a longstanding challenge; or to invest in game-changing projects
that can set the stage for potential growth areas. Surface
transportation grants are a lifeline that cities and counties can use,
and it is critical that Congress reauthorize those programs.
Furthermore, when weighing such reauthorization, there are a few items
I believe policymakers may want to consider.
#1--Local Governments Should Participate in Funding Infrastructure
First, even with reauthorization, I believe the local community
needs to have skin in the game. No community should expect the Federal
government or state government to shoulder the full responsibility of
infrastructure at the local level. Proper planning and prioritized
budgeting are responsibilities of local leaders. In our case, we were
paying off some general obligation debt and used that existing debt
service capacity in our millage to issue new bonds that will match the
Federal investment on both of these grants.
#2--Additional Investment Needed
Secondly, I would encourage more investment in these programs. We
went after an INFRA grant once and BUILD grants twice before finding
success in 2020. I know there are other communities with strong
projects that could win awards if the available pool of funding had the
certainty and funding provided in a long-term surface transportation
reauthorization. Our grade crossing projects were one longtime
transportation challenge. However, there are a dozen other projects on
my desk now waiting for funding so we can solve those problems and
capitalize on opportunities for economic growth.
#3--The Need for Planning Funds and Technical Support
Third, communities need technical support and assistance with
planning when trying to access these programs. We had a local firm that
assisted in writing our grant and doing the benefit-cost analysis; and
an engineering firm that helped with plans on where the overpasses
should go, as well as cost estimates on the project. The city incurred
costs for those services, and we were more than willing to pay them in
order to apply for CRISI and BUILD. However, some communities might be
weighing projects that require more outside expertise--and thus, more
expense--when it comes to even proposing a solution to a transportation
challenge. Having funds available for planning costs would help, and it
would also allow for DOT to gain understanding on a community's unique
challenges prior to the grant application going in.
I would also encourage DOT to continue providing technical support.
Having this dialogue helped us improve our application with each
application round, and I know many cities and counties could benefit
from this outreach.
#4--Need for Direct Assistance to Cities, Counties and MPOs on Complete
Street Infrastructure
Fourth, any 21st-century transportation system must accommodate the
needs of all users, whether in a vehicle, on a train, in a wheelchair,
on bike or on foot. Modern cities are expected to build out complete
streets. Our residents demand it. However, other than TAP, FTA's 5339
grant program or including complete street style elements in large
projects such as BUILD, the direct resources available to cities,
counties and MPOs are limited.
#5--Reauthorization in Light of Potential OMB's Change to MSA
Definition
Finally, if and when these programs are renewed, it is important
they remain accessible to communities of all size. Right now, there is
a proposal before the Office of Management and Budget that would double
the minimum population requirement--from 50,000 to 100,000--for a
community to be considered a metropolitan statistical area. This would
adversely affect Hattiesburg and 143 other cities around the country,
and the implications of changing this definition could be profound on
grants and other Federal programs, particularly in the transportation
space. If this metric is changed--and we certainly hope it is not--it
is critical that any legislation that reauthorizes these grant programs
not be tied to the definition of an MSA.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the U.S. Department of Transportation's
discretionary grant programs are vital toward the aspirations of every
city around the country. As mayors, we have a responsibility for
maintaining what's here now. But if we stop there, we are choosing to
settle for status quo. As we look to where we want each of our
individual communities to go--in economic development, in education, in
tourism and in quality of life--I have to believe shared infrastructure
investment between federal, state and local governments can build
strong, visionary cities--which in turn will be cornerstones of an even
stronger nation.
The Chair. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you so much for that
testimony and definitely, we will have questions to follow up
for you from your statement.
Now, we are going to have Mr. Mark McAndrews, the Director
of Port of Pascagoula. Welcome, thank you for joining us.
STATEMENT OF MARK McANDREWS, DIRECTOR,
PORT OF PASCAGOULA
Mr. McAndrews. Good morning Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member
Wicker, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for having me.
My name is Mark McAndrews, and I am the Port Director at
the Port of Pascagoula in Mississippi and the past Chair of
both the American Association of Port Authorities and the Gulf
Ports Association. I would like to thank the Committee for
working to ensure that our infrastructure system, and in
particular, our freight, intermodal, and maritime
infrastructure is, once again, the pride of our Nation. To make
our observations as broad as possible, we solicited some input
from AAPA, which is the collective voice of our Nation's
seaport industry.
Port authorities exist to create and support economic
activity by building transportation infrastructure and managing
operations at our facilities. U.S. seaports represent a vital
economic engine of our national economy. They have also played
a crucial role in our national defense, a point acknowledged
through the designation of 17 of our Nation's ports as
``strategic seaports,'' by the Department of Defense, including
our sister port of Gulfport, just down the road.
Investing in our port infrastructure and intermodal freight
system pays dividends. Ports have seen significant impacts over
the past year, and in order to remain competitive in the global
economy, we must protect and expand Federal intermodal and port
infrastructure investments and remove limitations on freight
infrastructure investment.
The COVID-19 pandemic caused 2020 to be one of the most
erratic and volatile years in terms of cargo volumes. Early in
the year, China's efforts to stem the pandemic shuttered
factories, led to canceled sailings, and coupled with a drop in
consumer spending in the United States as shutdowns were
implemented to stop the spread of the virus, ports experienced
significant drops in volumes across the industry throughout the
first half of 2020.
The second half of the year saw a rebound for many in the
maritime industry, and these surges in cargo have led to
challenges, from container shortages for the U.S. export
market, to issues of chassis availability. But despite these
challenges, goods and cargo have continued to move through our
ports.
At the Port of Pascagoula, our major commodities at the
public facilities are lumber, steel, forest products, and
agricultural products, and our export partners for these are
largely located in the Caribbean, Central, and South America.
The price of lumber has nearly tripled through the course of
the pandemic and tonnage has declined significantly. Domestic
demand is high due to an active hurricane season and an upsurge
in new home construction in the U.S. While many experienced
surges in cargo in the second half of the year, others saw
little recovery in revenue. What is clear is that each port has
been impacted differently.
I commend the Chair and the Ranking Member for working to
ensure that the Maritime Transportation System Emergency Relief
Program became law at the beginning of this year as part of the
National Defense Authorization Act. While not yet funded, this
new program gives the Maritime Administration the tools
necessary to help ports respond to and recover from natural
disasters. While critical to our national economy, our ports
and our marine transportation system, do not always receive the
attention they deserve as a main link in our Nation's supply
system.
Energy commodities, such as petroleum and coal, are the
dominant commodities moved through the ports by weight. At the
Port of Pascagoula, over 27 million tons of crude oil is
received, refined, and shipped out from Chevron's Refinery in
our East Harbor. Presently, the Port of Pascagoula has several
major projects in progress. The Gulf LNG terminal in the port
is planning to add liquefaction and export capabilities to
their import terminal. We have a $60 million biomass export
facility underway in our Bayou Casotte Harbor. It is a public/
private partnership scheduled to be completed and functioning
before 2021. Our ongoing $37 million Rail Relocation project,
partially funded through TIGER and CRISI grants, was a major
factor in attracting this regional economic development
venture.
The American Society of Civil Engineers gave ports a grade
of B- in their 2020 Infrastructure Report Card. In the U.S.
Committee on the Maritime Transportation System's Economic
Analysis of Spending on Marine Transportation System
Infrastructure, CMS notes that new funding for investment in
our marine transportation infrastructure will help the United
States catch up from a well-documented backlog of deferred
infrastructure projects.
And as the Committee considers a surface transportation
reauthorization and other transportation proposals, we offer
the following recommendations, with more detail found in the
written submission. Number 1, increase funding for the Port
Infrastructure Development Program/Port and Intermodal
Improvement Program. Number 2, increase funding for the FAST
Act's INFRA and freight formula programs. And number 3, remove
multimodal funding caps on the INFRA and freight formula
programs.
To close, I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts
on infrastructure investment, how best to facilitate the
movement of freight, and the infrastructure needs of our
Nation's ports. I appreciate the Committee's continued
leadership and the ongoing commitment of Chair Cantwell and
Ranking Member Wicker to highlight freight and the movement of
goods by water as issues critical to our Nation's economic
growth. I'll be glad to answer any questions at the appropriate
time. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McAndrews follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark McAndrews, Port Director,
Port of Pascagoula
Good morning Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, and members of
the Committee.
My name is Mark McAndrews, and I am the Port Director at the Port
of Pascagoula in Mississippi as well as a previous Chair of the
American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA). I would like to thank
the Senate Commerce Committee for working to ensure that our
infrastructure system, and in particular our freight, intermodal, and
maritime infrastructure, is once again the pride of our Nation.
This Committee's recognition of the important role played by ports
and by those throughout the freight supply chains has been critical to
ensuring investment in our multimodal transportation system, and I
appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss importance of
infrastructure investment for regional and national freight movements,
the particular infrastructure needs of ports, and how to rebuild our
infrastructure to help drive the economic recovery from the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic.
Seaports are vital to the U.S.
Port authorities exist to create and support economic activity by
building transportation infrastructure and managing operations at our
facilities. U.S. seaports represent a vital economic engine of our
national economy. In the National Economic Impact of the U.S. Coastal
Port System, Martin Associates of Lancaster, PA, stated that America's
seaports influence nearly 31 million U.S. jobs and generate $378
billion in federal, state, and local tax revenue. This report found
that nearly 26 percent of the Nation's economy is created by cargo
activities in our deepwater ports, producing $5.4 trillion in total
economic activity.
Our nation's seaports deliver vital goods to consumers, facilitate
the export of American-made goods, create jobs, and support local and
national economic growth. The economic impacts of a port carry far
beyond our own geographic regions because ports are not simply local
assets in urban centers. Our port system is a fundamental foundation of
the U.S. economy, supporting every region of the country--moving
automobiles from the Midwest, agricultural commodities from the
Heartland, airplanes from the Pacific Northwest, and more, from each
and every corner of our nation, to markets abroad.
In fact, the American Association of Port Authorities has joined
with Farmers for Free Trade to call for the removal of tariffs that
hurt American exporters. Polling shows heartland Americans agree that
investing in trade infrastructure to move their goods abroad is a top
priority.
Ports also play a crucial role in our national defense--a point
acknowledged through the designation of 17 of our Nation's ports as
``strategic seaports'' by the Department of Defense.
Investing in our port infrastructure and intermodal freight system
pays dividends. Although ports have seen significant impacts over the
past year, to remain competitive in the global economy we must protect
and expand Federal intermodal and port infrastructure investments and
remove limitations on freight infrastructure investment. Doing so would
help ensure sustained investment is made in our intermodal and freight
systems.
COVID 19 Impacts on Ports Business
Like nearly all aspects of life, ports have endured significant
impacts over the past year.
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, our port has worked
with AAPA and other ports to monitor the impact of the pandemic, to
communicate regarding the need for Federal relief and recovery, and to
share best practices with one another as we all manage through this
ongoing crisis. On this point I would highlight how impressive the
collaboration within the industry has been; typically, the fiercest of
competitors--ports have set aside market share aims in favor of keeping
port workers safe and healthy, and moving critical goods, including
personal protective equipment and other medical supplies, to the
frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as to consumers like you
and me.
Ports, working with marine terminal operators and others operating
within port footprints, have put in place protocols to maintain the
health, safety, and well-being of our employees and all involved in the
movement of goods and cargo throughout our facilities. AAPA has worked
with port members to establish recommended COVID-19 protocols and best
practices for the port industry. The maritime industry has not had
sector-wide issues in terms of outbreaks, and we continue to
voluntarily follow public health guidelines.
The COVID-19 pandemic caused 2020 to be one of the most erratic and
volatile years in terms of cargo volumes. Early in the year, China's
efforts to stem the pandemic shuttered factories, which led to
cancelled sailings. Coupled with a drop in consumer spending in the
United States as shutdowns were implemented to stop the spread of the
COVID-19 virus, ports experienced significant drops in volumes across
the industry throughout the first half of 2020. By the end of the year
commercial cargo volumes had declined across the industry--with total
waterborne trade volume down 4.8 percent compared to the prior year,
while the value of trade dropped by 11.3 percent totaling nearly $200
billion.
In the spring, the U.S. economy seemed headed for an historic
collapse. Millions of people lost their jobs. Then, the second half of
the year saw a rebound for many in the maritime industry, and these
surges in cargo have let to challenges--from container shortages for
the United States export market, to issues of chassis availability. But
despite these challenges and others, goods and cargo have continued to
move through our ports. We surely could not have accomplished this
without the hard work and dedication of our frontline port employees
and dockworkers. In this process though, many workers have taken ill
and some have passed away. The maritime industry has lost many to the
COVID-19 pandemic.
At the Port of Pascagoula, our major commodities at the public
docks are lumber, steel, forest products, and agricultural products,
and our export partners for these are largely in the Caribbean, Central
America, and South America. The price of lumber has nearly tripled
through the course of the pandemic and tonnage has declined
significantly. Domestic demand is high due to an active hurricane
season and an upsurge in new home construction in the U.S.
While many experienced surges in cargo in the second half of the
year, others saw little recovery in revenue. What's clear is that each
port has been impacted differently. While there were encouraging signs
at the end of the year for some of those ailing, the outlook for the
coming year remains uncertain.
I commend the Chair and Ranking Member for working to ensure that
the Maritime Transportation System Emergency Relief Program became law
at the beginning of this year as part of the National Defense
Authorization Act. While not yet funded, this new program gives the
Maritime Administration (MARAD) the tools necessary to help ports
respond to and recover from natural disasters and other emergencies,
including the COVID-19 pandemic. Our port lies along the Gulf Coast and
has been impacted by hurricanes in the past, and I believe that this
new program will prove to be critical in the future as the Port of
Pascagoula and others respond to extreme weather and other emergencies
that may occur.
Our Port System's Infrastructure Challenges
While critical to our national economy, our ports and our maritime
transportation system do not always receive the attention they deserve
as a main link in our Nation's supply chains. I appreciate the
attention that has been paid to ports and the needs of our intermodal
freight system by this Committee and believe that my being invited to
speak today at this hearing is the type of highlight necessary to bring
about a greater understanding of the needs of our ports.
Ports facilitate trade and the movement of cargo throughout the
supply chain. Ports of course move containerized cargo, but containers
are only one important piece of a bigger picture. Millions of tons of
non-containerized cargo are shipped annually through U.S. ports--
commodities such as steel, coal, iron ore, cement, grain, soybeans,
fertilizers--the raw and semi-processed inputs so vital to the
functioning and health of our national economy.
Energy commodities such as petroleum and coal are the dominant
commodities moved through ports by weight. At the Port of Pascagoula,
over 27 million tons of crude oil is received, refined, and shipped out
from Chevron's Refinery in our East Harbor. These commodities play a
significant role in cargo movement at many Gulf Coast ports, and over
the years significant investment has been made in energy
infrastructure. Ports and our terminal partners expect to continue to
make significant investments in the future.
Presently, the Port of Pascagoula has several major projects in
progress: The Gulf LNG terminal in the Port of Pascagoula is planning
to add liquefaction and export capabilities to their import terminal.
This is an $8 billion investment.
We also have a $60 million biomass export facility underway in our
Bayou Casotte Harbor. This venture is a public/private partnership
which is scheduled to be completed and functioning before year end
2021. Vessel traffic will increase by approximately 30 percent in the
Port when the terminal becomes operational. Of course, this project
would not be viable without the $40 million Bayou Casotte Channel
Improvement Project, currently in the final phase for approval of
assumption of maintenance by the U.S. government.
Prior to the outbreak of the pandemic, in information collected as
part of the Port Planned Infrastructure Investment Survey, American
Association of Port Authorities members and port property tenants
projected that they would invest $163.1 billion in port-related
infrastructure by 2025. These investments are in marine terminals,
berths, piers, roads, yard equipment, storage facilities, security,
rail links, environmental controls, shipping channels, and more.
However, as ports and port tenants have faced the challenges of the
pandemic, and the resulting changes wrought by shifting supply chains,
some ports have indicated that these investments would be delayed.
To take advantage of the billions of dollars being invested by
ports and port tenants, we must ensure Federal investments like that in
the Bayou Casotte Channel Improvement Project are being made, and that
we are adequately investing in our Nation's intermodal infrastructure
and in first and last mile connections to ports.
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) gave ports a grade
of B-in their 2020 Infrastructure Report Card. While this grade
represents an increase over the C+ earned by ports in the 2017 Report
Card, due in large part to the creation of the Port Infrastructure
Development Program (PIDP), investment in ports through discretionary
grant programs, and recent changes to ensure that Harbor Maintenance
Tax receipts are invested in harbor and channel maintenance, the ASCE
notes that there remains a significant need to invest in intermodal
infrastructure and that this type of infrastructure has been
historically underfunded.
Building a modern port system requires that we address the system's
current deficiencies. This challenge is significant, and additional
Federal investment and focus will be necessary to be successful in
modernizing this sector.
But it isn't enough to simply maintain our current port
infrastructure and ensure a state of good repair--we must also expand
our port system's ability to handle more cargo. This need has been made
clear recently as our Nation has struggled with cargo congestion.
Freight volumes are projected to increase in coming years with the
Department of Transportation predicting freight to double by 2045.
Addressing this need will require steady investment, as many seaport
terminals require restoration and modernization.
As a key component of global freight networks, ports must also
manage the impacts of business decisions made by the shipping industry
that have directly impacted how ports operate. These decisions impact
the whole of our freight network. Ships using our ports are larger than
ever before--as long as a skyscraper and as wide as a freeway.
Accommodating these newer, larger ships requires major investment at
ports, including deeper berths and deeper navigation channels; larger
cranes and stronger docks to support them; electrical grid upgrades;
new, high-efficiency cargo-handling equipment; and improvements to
container yards and intermodal facilities to handle the flow of cargo
coming from these ships.
In order to leverage the billions of dollars of investment being
made inside the gate at port facilities, by public port authorities and
by port tenants, the road and rail infrastructure that connects ports
to the rest of the national freight system we must likewise invest in
this infrastructure to accommodate the efficient movement of cargo.
To put multimodal needs into perspective, in the American
Association of Port Authorities' State of Freight III survey, AAPA port
members identified more than $20 billion in projected multimodal port
and rail access needs.
Additionally, many of these port projects have an on-dock rail
component. 73 percent of our ports have on dock rail, but many of these
systems are out-of-date and need to be significantly enhanced and
reinforced, as well as integrated with new technology to accommodate
rising shipping volumes.
With the creation of two funding programs; INFRA discretionary
grants and National Highway Freight Program formula funding, the Fixing
America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act has proven a great start to
investing in our Nation's freight system. The bill dedicated a total of
$11 billion for freight funding over five years. However, of that
total, only $1.13 billion is multimodal-eligible, far below what is
needed to build out a 21st-century multimodal freight network.
The immediate challenges confronting the freight programs are
funding levels and project eligibility. The current freight programs
are funded out of the Highway Trust Fund, which means that eligible
projects are primarily highway focused. Highways are essential to our
freight network, but ports are multimodal facilitators, involving
trains, trucks, and ships, all of which need access to these funds. One
could argue that as our supply chains becomes more sophisticated, and
as consumers continue to shift to e-commerce resulting in the use of
more inland distribution centers, demand for multimodal funding will
increase.
It is also important to note that the port business is competitive.
This is particularly true for discretionary cargo--that cargo bound for
inland regions that can be shipped through any number of ports. Our
international neighbors to both the north and south have recognized the
importance of investing in their ports and in their intermodal
infrastructure. Canada's national gateway initiative includes a
strategy to serve America's heartland and Mexico's Interoceanic
Corridor seeks to provide an alternative to the Panama Canal.
These investments have already begun to bleed discretionary cargo
from ports in the Pacific Northwest. Should the United States not make
port and intermodal investment a priority, we could see this pattern
intensify in coming years.
How Can the Federal Government Help
In the U.S. Committee on the Maritime Transportation System's (CMS)
Economic Analysis of Spending on Maritime Transportation System
Infrastructure, CMS notes that ``new funding [for investment in our
maritime transportation infrastructure] will help the United States
catch up from a well-documented backlog of deferred infrastructure
projects that have accumulated, including maintenance, repair, and new
capacity'' and that ``greater infrastructure investment will help
sustain economic growth and resiliency.'' Essentially, this report is
advising that by investing in our Nation's maritime transportation
system and intermodal infrastructure we can Build Back Better.
The FAST Act has laid out the programmatic framework for a 21st-
century multimodal freight network, with the Port Infrastructure
Development Program and Marine Highway Programs likewise providing the
framework for inside the gate investments. However, to fully leverage
the success of the FAST Act's freight provisions, the next
reauthorization bill will need to address increasing funding levels
while identifying a multimodal funding source.
As the Committee considers a surface transportation reauthorization
or other transportation proposals, I offer the following
recommendations:
1. Increase funding for the Port Infrastructure Development Program/
Port and
Intermodal Improvement Program
We at the Port of Pascagoula and those throughout the U.S. port
community were encouraged by the creation of the Port
Infrastructure Development Program, now codified as the Port
and Intermodal Improvement Program. I would like to thank Chair
Cantwell and Ranking Member Wicker for your efforts to see this
program authorized and to see the authorized level of funding
raised to $750 million. For Fiscal Year 2021, $230 million has
been authorized for the program, despite the program being
oversubscribed by nearly 4-to-1 last year, under the $225
million appropriation. These appropriations levels are
significant, and this funding helps ports leverage Federal
dollars to make critically needed infrastructure investments.
However, if we hope to keep our ports competitive, we must
increase the level of funding provided to this program.
Additionally, while PIDP dollars can and should be used to
improve the movement of goods into, out of, and around ports, I
encourage the Committee and the Department of Transportation to
explore how to use this program to also invest in freight
intelligent transportation systems, digital infrastructure
systems, environmental mitigation measures, and operational
improvements directly related to enhancing the efficiency of
ports and intermodal connections to ports.
2. Increase funding for the FAST Act's INFRA and freight formula
programs
U.S. ports view the INFRA and freight formula funding programs
created in the FAST Act as another step towards adequate
investment in our Nation's multimodal freight system. However,
as noted earlier in my testimony, funding levels for these
programs are not sufficient to meet the needs of our gateways
and trade corridors and limits are put on these funds being
invested in intermodal infrastructure. The INFRA program is
oversubscribed, and state planning efforts required by the FAST
Act have demonstrated that the freight formula program also is
underfunded. Now on a year-long extension, with the FAST Act
expiring later this year, this Committee has the opportunity to
expand funding for these programs, while ensuring that the
INFRA program remains focused on freight movement.
3. Remove multimodal funding caps on the INFRA and freight formula
programs
As the Committee knows, our freight system is multimodal and
Federal freight programs must reflect that reality if they hope
to be effective. FAST Act funding programs currently cap the
amount of funding that can go to non-road projects. INFRA
intermodal funding was capped at $500 million over the original
five-year FAST Act authorization, while intermodal dollars were
capped at 10 percent of freight formula funds. These
limitations must be removed to allow our Nation to modernize
our seaports and the first and last mile infrastructure that
connects ports to the rest of the freight system and would
allow for much needed flexibility to invest in critical, shovel
worthy, multimodal freight projects.
Both the House and Senate found it appropriate to raise these
caps in surface transportation reauthorization proposals
released and considered during the 116th Congress. However, all
freight program funding should be 100 percent multimodal. A
first step in accomplishing this would be to lift the
multimodal cap on the INFRA grants and the formula program.
Conclusion
To close, I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts on
infrastructure investment, how best to facilitate the movement of
freight, and the infrastructure needs of our Nation's ports. Without
enhanced and sustained investment in port and freight infrastructure,
we risk falling behind the competition, and risk our Nation's trade
infrastructure limiting our ability to compete economically on a global
scale. Ports are our Nation's trade gateways, and it is critical that
we make the investments necessary to remain an economic superpower.
I appreciate the Committee's continued leadership and the ongoing
commitment of Chair Cantwell and Ranking Member Wicker to highlight
freight and the movement of goods by water as issues critical to our
Nation's economic growth. The American Association of Port Authorities
and I look forward to working with the Committee as you consider FAST
Act reauthorization and search for the most effective ways to invest in
freight and intermodal infrastructure.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
The Chair. Thank you--thank you, Director McAndrews, and
thank you for, you know, mentioning the work that Senator
Wicker and I were able to do, as it related to improvements in
the NDAA bill, in enhancing port competitiveness. And thank you
for that detailed list. In the State of Washington, I like to
say, ``ports are us.'' So, to hear from a port director, it is
music to my ears to hear about the competitiveness of our ports
around the Nation. But I am going to defer to my colleague,
Senator Warnock for the first round of questions.
Senator Warnock. Thank you so very much, Madam Chair, and
thanks to all of you for your testimony. Keeping everyone
moving and connected is critical. Without transportation
mobility, there is little or no opportunity for social
mobility. Poor people, disconnected communities find
themselves, literally and economically, stuck.
And so, highways can play a big role in correcting this
problem. Georgia is home to some of the busiest eight-lane
highways in the country. However, there is a long history of
transportation infrastructure, particularly highways and
bridges, being used to segregate communities of color and
cutting off access to job opportunities. I have seen this even
in the highway infrastructure right near my church.
In other cases, the highway is built through the middle of
blue-collar neighborhoods, displacing working class residents.
Midtown Atlanta is a case in point, with I-75/I-85 splitting
the community in two and limiting mobility and safe access
across Atlanta's east-west divide.
I know that the ARC and other regional partners are
exploring ways to reconnect midtown with an ambitious and
creative solution that not only would enhance mobility, but
also improve safety and create new greenspace and environmental
benefits. I believe these are the types of bold projects that
we need to be supporting.
Mr. Hooker, can you tell us a little bit about this
project, and how metro Atlanta residents would benefit from
such a project?
Mr. Hooker. Thank you, Senator. Yes, happy to offer a
thought about that. The Midtown Connector Project is being led
by a private non-profit group called the NPC Foundation. They
are two-thirds of the way through a 3-year feasibility study.
And they are constantly in consultation with us at ARC and we
offer them a lot of technical advice, as well.
This project seeks to re-knit the city in the middle of its
core. And the Midtown area, as you say, and provide
transportation access--easy transportation access, for
neighborhoods on the west side, to the east side of the city,
where there had been a lot of strong job growth, primarily
through innovation types of employment. Our early indications
that this project will have a significant improvement on
congestion in the downtown corridor, and safety, and restores
tree connections, as you pointed out so well, that were lost
when the interstate was originally built. And in addition to
providing those benefits, it will give us the added benefit of
25 acres of additional green space and trails. And the early
work on the feasibility of this suggests that there will be a
large infusion of private capital, to go along with public
capital and help make this possible.
Georgia DOT, and other stakeholders, as well as ARC,
continue to work on this and our goal is to finalize a
feasibility study within the year. A very exciting project and
very innovative and creative project. Thank you.
Senator Warnock. Thank you, Mr. Hooker. In your view, is
the Federal Government providing adequate funding or any
targeted funding that reconnects these communities that have
been divided by highways, in order to improve mobility in these
communities?
Mr. Hooker. Senator, I will say that, in honesty, no, we do
not have enough funding. As we as a Nation, and as a region,
are waking more to the need to address inequities that have
been created by some of our highway construction. Having
additional funding, particularly through programs like our CMAQ
program, our Transportation Alternatives program, that will
help us look at ways to reconnect our communities that were
divided would be greatly appreciated. In addition to
reconnecting communities and providing greater access and
greater equitable development for communities, it will also
improve our air quality outcomes, by making our transportation
more seamless and efficient.
Senator Warnock. Thank you so very much. It is clear to me
that Congress can and ought to do more to support these kinds
of creative solutions that reconnect these communities that
began to heal our communities, and provide greater mobility to
communities that are marginalized, in terms of physical
infrastructure, and therefore, marginalized economically. Not
to mention the support for green space and overall air quality.
And so, as we turn to infrastructure, I look forward to being
in touch with you and other stakeholders. I will be doing
everything I can to make sure that we support and fund these
kinds of projects.
I yield the last 5 seconds of my time, Madam Chair.
The Chair. I just wanted to make sure. You are a man of
many talents. So, I just wanted to make sure we were not going
to hear more, thank you. And again, thank you for getting us a
witness for a regional perspective on these issues.
So now, I am going to turn to Senator Wicker.
Senator Wicker. Thank you. Well, let me start with Mayor
Barker. On page 5 of your testimony, you say that local
communities need to have skin in the game and not look to the
Federal or State Governments to shoulder the full
responsibility. I think we all agree with that. Let us talk
about ways for you to have more skin to put into the game.
I introduced a local infrastructure act last year, which
would provide additional funding through advanced refunds on
tax-exempt municipal bonds. It would allow cities like
Hattiesburg and local governments that use tax-free bonds to
take advantage of the low interest rates, which we have right
now. I have introduced the American Infrastructure Bonds Act,
which would authorize a class of direct pay taxable bonds, to
help State and local governments. Could either of these
programs benefit cities like Hattiesburg, in coming up with the
needed funds for that local skin in the game?
Mr. Barker. Thank you, Senator, and the answer is
absolutely. The BUILD grant and the CRISI grant were game
changers for us; because there was no way that we could have
accessed those without those funding programs. We matched that
BUILD and CRISI grant with our own general obligation bonding.
We had some bonds that were rolling off. We used that existing
debt millage--debt service millage to access those.
But more specifically, to your question, municipal finance
tools can play a critical role in bridging the current funding
gap. Direct pay bonds and the ability to advance refund
municipal debt on a tax-exempt basis are two tool that local
and State governments could use. And I know, back in the 2009-
2010 Build America bond, we saw investment in all 50 states,
with over $150 billion coming in.
And then, regarding advanced funding, just as all Americans
have the opportunity to refinance their mortgage at a lower
interest rate, reinstating such a tool would similarly provide
State and local governments the ability to refinance
outstanding debt at a lower interest rate, and free up
borrowing capacity for new infrastructure investments, and
boost local economy, in turn.
Senator Wicker. On the advanced refunding, Senator Stabenow
and I will have this local infrastructure act to do that. I
just do not see the downside of allowing State and local
governments to refinance at these lower interest rates if,
through advanced refunding, we can do as we have done in the
past and hold harmless the investors who have invested in
these, which is the whole idea.
Let me turn to Mr. McAndrews--you have utilized some of our
infrastructure assistance. It needs to be better. What two or
three extra things would you do if we could get more
infrastructure money to you?
Mr. McAndrews. Well, sir, I think (poor connection). We
have difficulty hiring consultants to----
Senator Wicker. You know, Madam Chair, if I could
interject, we actually tested this communication before the
hearing, and it worked fine. It is my luck with technical
things, so I may have brought Mr. McAndrews bad luck here. Let
me, turn to Mayor Barker. Mr. McAndrews will certainly supply
that information on the record, and it will appear right here
in the hearing.
Mayor,talk to us about technical assistance and how it is a
big negative if you do not get it.
Mr. Barker. Well, feedback from DOT, in the form of the
debriefing calls that we were offered each time, we were not
successful. And I mentioned that we applied for INFRA and BUILD
twice before we were able to secure CRISI and BUILD. Helped
Hattiesburg, both in terms of navigating the grant programs and
determining the actual components that we should submit. There
were several iterations of what we wanted to do, and having
that debriefing helped us reach that. And it helped us improve
our application, with each round.
I would also say that, and I think that Mr.--the gentleman
from the Port of Pascagoula was about to get to this. Expanded
funding for planning and preliminary engineering for projects
have merit, because they may give you a step forward in a
project that has merit but does not meet DOT standard of
project readiness yet. So, both those things are important
because they are--the challenge may be so large that, if you do
not have some funds to go and hire the right people to help you
figure out what the solution is, you never get in the game to
begin with.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mayor Barker. Let me just say
that we actually had an announcement in Hattiesburg and the
mayor was kind enough to invite me. I was late getting to that
announcement because our car was blocked by a train. I yield.
The Chair. Well, thank you for that handoff. I heard all
the witnesses, I believe, say that more investment in INFRA and
helping us to move product and reduce congestion is key. You
may have said it, you know, each differently, but I would like
to have a, kind of, global discussion about this, if we could,
Mr. Porcari. The context is, obviously, we do want more money
for INFRA. We definitely feel this notion that the United
States is growing and making things, but the big ``aha'' moment
here is that the world market has just exploded with the growth
of the middle-class around the globe. So, we have lot more to
ship and we are feeling that. We are feeling the congestion and
pains of that. We were able, with the INFRA project, to get the
Landers Street project in Seattle, kind of like, a last mile,
if you will, between I-5 and the Port of Seattle. So, big
success.
So now, as we look at this, and I listen to what Mayor
Barker explained, that very project is an example. So, do you
increase INFRA? Do you go back to the CRISI grant program and
look at at-grade crossings and put them on more steroids? What
do we do? Because I feel like there are these big projects,
like Lander and megaprojects, and we are getting some of them
done, but I would say probably not enough of them done. And
then, we have other regional projects that are also just, you
know, the communities just left to deal with the congestions or
not allowing an elected official to get to an important event.
But, you know, there are these examples of projects, both
enormous economic impact to a region, and then, these projects
that are just the level of congestion. So, what do we do when
looking at the Surface bill, to get this right? Mr. Porcari and
Mayor Barker and Mr. McAndrews, if we got him back.
Mr. Porcari. Thank you, Madam Chair. That really is the key
question, and the short answer is, we need to do all of the
above and do it in a targeted way. You mentioned INFRA and
CRISI grants. Those are very helpful. I think you could make a
strong argument for broadening the eligibility for some of
those grants. Providing more technical assistance, as Senator
Wicker has indicated, because that is essential for many
jurisdictions. You are not born knowing this and being able to
have some technical assistance getting there is an important
part of it.
And I had mentioned projects of national significance, but
there is a whole cohort of projects, dozens and dozens of them,
just below that level on goods movement, for example. Inland
intermodal container transfer facilities, inland waterway
projects, just to name two categories that, from a benefit cost
point of view, are very effective investments for Federal
dollars, in particular when they are matched by private and
local dollars. And if we are going to take a systems approach
to goods movement--and I know that you have worked hard to do
that, both in your home state and nationally--we really need to
look at the seams in the system, in particular where the
shortcomings are, and make sure that competitive grant programs
address those. That is an argument, in my opinion, for both
more funding for those grant programs and broader eligibility
to meet the particular needs of those projects.
The Chair. So, since I know you are familiar, where would
you put the West Seattle Bridge in that? So, do you we need
funding for megaprojects, or are those more dollars for INFRA
related--because they clearly--that is clearly a huge economic,
you know, part of our delivery system?
Mr. Porcari. In the Seattle example, I think you could make
a strong case that that is a project of national significance--
regional national significance, given its larger impact on the
region. In my testimony, I mentioned that these projects are
all in a specific place, but tend to have national and regional
import, and that is certainly true in that case.
The Chair. So, do that. Make sure that we are funding
those, because they also have a big economic impact to the
Nation, and then, increase INFRA, based on a similar formula
that we have today.
Mr. Porcari. That is right. And I would specifically say,
on INFRA, that freight projects, because of their cost
effectiveness, should not be capped in terms of how they can
participate. One other element I would mention, that goes back
to the original TIGER grants, is a rule set aside to make sure
that there are rural projects coming through the pipeline
getting that assistance, is important, as well.
The Chair. Thank you. If I could, Mayor, ask you the same
question. How are you looking at this?
Mr. Barker. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair. The Ranking Member is letting me go over my time
here, so I can get an answer. But you--yes, thank you.
Mr. Barker. Thank you, Madam Chair. As Mr. Porcari said, I
think it is an all of the above type thing. I think you have to
have a balanced approach that tackles those problems of
national and regional significance, but also allows a community
to shape its own destiny and future. I think INFRA and BUILD,
CRISI, those are all good grants. But it is--you work several
years to get one and, what happens is--you know, we had this
long-standing transportation challenge, but we have a dozen
other ones that are waiting behind it and you have to get
creative in how you possibly could tackle two or there, within
the next decade. And really, an overall further deepened
commitment to infrastructure that would spread across INFRA,
CRISI, BUILD, even down to some of your TAP type programs.
Those direct allocations to cities and counties and MPOs is
very important.
I would also just echo the thought that there needs to be
set asides for all communities to be eligible. And I go back to
this potential rule; it is before OMB right now, which would
change the definition of a metropolitan statistical area. That
would take 144 cities out of those 390+ metropolitan areas we
have nationwide right now. And so, does that affect eligibility
for transportation grants, if definitions are tied to the
definition of MSA.
The Chair. Thank you. Well, we do want to followup. And
just to clarify, you--so, you are supporting more dollars for
INFRA, but you think we need to do more on at-grade crossings,
as well, and projects of----
Mr. Barker. I think there are a lot of cities with a lot of
challenges. And any avenue that we can take to get there, to
solve those challenges, in whatever form it takes, is welcomed.
The Chair. Thank you. Senator Fischer.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Fischer. Mr. Barker, I appreciate your testimony
about the blocked railroad crossings in Hattiesburg. Railroads
are important for our communities, but issues like blocked
crossings are not only inconvenient, but they can hinder
emergency vehicles.
I recently reintroduced bipartisan legislation with several
members of this committee that would authorize the Federal
Railroad Administration's Blocked Crossing Portal. Basically,
this bill would give the public and law enforcement an
opportunity to inform FRA of blocked crossings in their
community. The FRA would then better understand the locations
of frequently blocked crossings, which would lead to better
policies to address blocked crossings going forward.
Mr. Barker, would you agree that if the Federal Government
were better able to identify frequently blocked at-grade
crossings, it would be in a better position to work with local
communities to address these issues?
Mr. Barker. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I do
believe that data of any kind, that can help us figure out
where these problems are happening most frequently, is
absolutely important. I think train congestion is, hopefully, a
symptom of growing rail traffic, which is a symptom of economic
growth and commerce. It is a growing pain of something that
ultimately could be good, but is still a pain, nonetheless. And
I think any sort of data that would allow us to steer more
investment, and steer assistance to those communities that can
then meet the needs of both the railroad and the surrounding
community would be welcomed.
Senator Fischer. Thank you. Mr. Hooker, your testimony
touched on the issue of the lack of truck parking spaces in the
Atlanta region, and across many interstate corridors. As you
know, the lack of truck parking is not only an inconvenience,
it is also a safety issue for truck drivers. What did the ARC
study that you mentioned find about the truck parking needs, in
the Atlanta region? And additionally, do you think there are
barriers or lack of awareness at the State and local level,
regarding truck-parking needs?
Mr. Hooker. Thank you, Senator Fischer. Yes, our study
identified that we lacked a great deal of truck parking in the
metro area. Most of our truck parking, unfortunately, is
outside of the bounds of the metro region, which means trucker
have to decide--make a decision very early on, are they going
to stop outside of the region, even though their delivery is
inside the region, or whether they will have time to make it
through the congestion to get there. Because they are limited,
obviously, by regulatory limits on how long they can drive the
truck itself. And that creates a problem. We think that, at
least in the Atlanta region, our local governments are
increasingly more aware of the problem, because of the study we
have done, because our transportation committee is composed of
the elected officials of 20+ counties. And so, we are more
aware of it, but I think, at large, a lot of us are
appreciative of the systems problem that we have here.
With the increased regulation on the safety for truck
drivers, which is very necessary, that throws another quandary
to the system, as where can we safely park when they need to
stop, before they are able to deliver. And a lot of time, even
the place they have to deliver to will not allow them to be
there for very long or stay overnight. So, it is a very tough
problem for our truck drivers, who are trying to do us an
essential service. So, I think, as a whole, the Nation, as well
as many of our metro areas, are only beginning to wake up to a
serious problem that we have.
Senator Fischer. I hope you will be a messenger and spread
that across the country, and really increase awareness. So,
thank you.
Mr. Hooker. Happy to do so, thank you. Thank you.
Senator Fischer. Mr. McAndrews, as you noted the
transportation network, including ports, has experienced a lot
of freight volatility in the last year. In your opinion, do you
expect the current surge of freight, and related congestion, at
port facilities to continue? And has this congestion brought to
the forefront any specific infrastructure needs at ports, that
could be better addressed, the issues that we are seeing with
that increase in freight, such as, using technology?
Mr. McAndrews. Yes. I hope you can hear me. I am going to
get a little bit closer to the mic here. Freight is supposed to
greatly increase Route 2045. So, the problem is only going to
get worse.
First mile and the last mile, both highway and rail, is a
critical part of what we do. And we have addressed that, here
in Pascagoula, by what we call the Rail Relocation project, and
it was funded by all kinds of things. The first phase was
funded by a TIGER grant, funding from the State legislature, a
Mississippi DOT grant, and our own funds. Phase two, is funded
by a Mississippi Department of Transportation grant,
legislative appropriations, BP Economic Damages Fund, port
funds, and CRISI grant. It makes for messy bookkeeping, and
difficult implementation. And perhaps, if the process of both
application and implementation were streamlined, it would be
better.
This is an important project here. It closed 17 at-grade
crossings and rerouted the Mississippi exports mainline through
some property that we own, off CSX's mainline, to move the
interchange from downtown.
Senator Fischer. OK, thank you very much. I see our time is
out.
Mr. McAndrews. Oh, OK.
Senator Fischer. But if you would like to complete your
thoughts and send it to the Committee that would be great.
Mr. McAndrews. Will do, thank you.
Senator Fischer. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair. Yes, thank you. I am going to make sure all of
Director McAndrews' comments are, you know, in the record for
us. His testimony, I find very compelling. The statement that
he just made on closing of at-grade crossings and streamlining
the port's efficiency, exactly what we want to understand. And
so, we have Senator Blumenthal next.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you
for having this hearing. Thank you to Ranking Member, as well.
Secretary Porcari, in the course of your service as Deputy
Secretary of Transportation, did you become familiar with the
Gateway project?
Mr. Porcari. Yes, I did, Senator.
Senator Blumenthal. And you know about the need to replace
the tunnel under the Hudson?
Mr. Porcari. Yes, Senator.
Senator Blumenthal. And that tunnel is decaying, becoming
decrepit, and severely dangerous, correct?
Mr. Porcari. Correct. It is 110 years old and----
Senator Blumenthal. And what has been the reason--and I
apologize for interrupting, but as you know, we are limited in
time. In your view, what has been the reason for the delay in
meeting that very, very urgent need?
Mr. Porcari. Senator, it is the very definition of a
project of national significance, like the Brent Spence Bridge,
I-5 over the Columbia River, and the other examples I mentioned
before, where the project may be in a jurisdiction, or in a
region in this case, but 20 percent of America's GDP is
represented by the Northeast Corridor.
Senator Blumenthal. What is the reason for the delay? Just
stating--and I agree that it is important.
Mr. Porcari. The environmental impact statement was under
review for over 27 months by the previous DOT leadership, with
no response.
Senator Blumenthal. The previous DOT leadership being who?
Mr. Porcari. Secretary Chao.
Senator Blumenthal. And is there any rational explanation
for why there has been that 27-month delay?
Mr. Porcari. There is not, Senator. It took us 22 months to
put it together, which is actually very quite fast. But the
review, I do not have an answer.
Senator Blumenthal. I do not know whether you can respond
in writing as to what an answer might be, but I am not going to
press you further because I know that you did not come here to
talk about that issue. But I do think it is absolutely
unconscionable that it has not moved more quickly. You have
said absolutely correctly that it is of vital national
importance. It is the gateway to the entire eastern region for
freight, passenger rail. If it is crippled, the entire
Northeast Corridor is crippled, correct?
Mr. Porcari. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Let me ask you, later this
week or next, I expect to write to President Biden, asking him
to implement the Connect Northeast Corridor 2035 plan. It is a
consensus-based plan for Northeast Corridor stakeholders to
identify and sequence capital investments. Early estimates
suggest implementing the plan will cost approximately $55
billion over the next 10 years. I think that that is
underestimating, vastly, the amount but I am using that figure
as a place to begin. Can Congress ensure that stakeholders
along the Northeast Corridor are empowered to identify and
prioritize projects in a good state of repair?
Mr. Porcari. Yes, I think Congress plays a very important
role in that and, in particular, in the Northeast Corridor, has
done a good job of marshalling of consensus opinion on the
improvements needed.
Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you about another proposal.
I am the lead drafter of the Intercity--the Passenger Rail
Trust Fund Act, which would provide a steady source of
investment in rail. Every year, Amtrak depends on discretionary
appropriations, to meet both capital and operating needs. As a
result, the company's ability to make long-term plans and to
make effective use of the support taxpayers provide is
compromised. Rail is the only source and the only major type of
transportation without a dedicated, reliable funding stream. Do
you think that the Intercity Passenger Rail Trust Fund Act is
worth support?
Mr. Porcari. I do, Senator. I think it is critical that
intercity passenger rail be put on an equal footing with the
formula highway program that is out there. And I mentioned
climate change inequities as two really important lenses that
we should be looking through here. A trust fund would provide a
great basis to, actually nationwide, move forward with
passenger rail that is more equitable and more climate
friendly.
Senator Blumenthal. Excellent points. I really thank you
for being here today, Mr. Secretary, thanks. Madam Chair.
The Chair. Thank you. Senator Sullivan.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to
thank the witnesses for being here. And I want to raise an
issue that I think should be very bipartisan. As a matter of
fact, Mr. Porcari, you just touched on it in Senator
Blumenthal's questioning. It is about permitting reform,
streamlining our permitting. You know, if we can do a $3
trillion, we can do a $7 trillion bill on infrastructure. And
if you cannot permit the projects to get them out in time, it
is going to be wasted money. So, this is a priority of many
people. I think, actually, the more local you get--mayors,
Governors, regional transportation officials, the more they see
it as an imperative. The building trades, all our top unions
that build things in America, this is a top priority of theirs.
We had a hearing here a couple years ago on airport
infrastructure. The head of the Sea-Tac airport was talking
about their new runway that they build at Sea-Tac. The
Chairman, obviously, is very interested in that. Took 15 years
to permit, 15. It was unbelievable. He actually said--I was
asking him the question, he said, ``Senator, I believe it took
the--I believe the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids in a
shorter amount of time than--'' Just to get the permits.
So, here is my question. In 2018, a lot of the top
infrastructure permitting agencies, DOT, FERC, EPA, Interior,
the Corps of Engineers, signed a memo of understanding that
they agreed to complete a single environmental review. One
point of contact. That was working well. I think it was very
bipartisan. Unfortunately, President Biden, one of his numerous
executive orders revoked that. So, I would like each of you to
just talk a little bit about--briefly, because I have one more
question--you know, if we are going to build back better, do
you not think it makes sense to have a one Federal policy
decision, similar to that previous MOU that has been revoked?
And what other ways in which can we streamline permitting? We
had a gold mine in Alaska took 20 years to permit. Twenty
years, crazy.
So, maybe I will start with you, Mr. Porcari, and others,
if you could keep your views short but succinct, how important
is streamlining permitting for the topic we are talking about?
Mr. Porcari. Senator, it is imperative, I think. And as I
have in my written testimony, it is certainly possible to have
both a streamlined process and better outcomes. And there are
multiple examples of that around the country. It is less a
question of one Federal permitting agency, although that is--
that can be helpful--than having concurrent review upfront, not
consecutive review, by all the resource agencies.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Porcari. By all the resource agencies.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Porcari. Which, if you look at the Tappan Zee bridge
project, the environmental impact statement was 19 months,
beginning to end, which is a record.
Senator Sullivan. Which is OK. It is still not great. I
mean, I think we have, kind of, dumbed down what we believe is
good. But I hear your point.
Mr. Porcari. And it was typically 5 years or more before
that.
Senator Sullivan. Yes.
Mr. Porcari. But it is the interagency process part of it
that I know is part of a build back better plan, where the
benefits----
Senator Sullivan. You think China takes 5 years for EISs
when they build infrastructure?
Mr. Porcari. China does not have that process and a lot of
their environment reflects that.
Senator Sullivan. Oh, I know. I agree with that. But I am
not talking about cutting corners. I am talking about
streamlining permitting that makes sense. Any other witnesses
would like to weigh in on that?
Mr. Barker. Thank you, Senator. I think it is important to
understand that some of the principle goals of infrastructure
investment are to promote safety and to boost economic
development. And any process that would streamline those things
that, whether it is a grant program, or whether it is a permit,
are vitally important. We have a mega site south of our city,
right now, that, you know, we are waiting for environmental
permits that we could use to hopefully attract a----
Senator Sullivan. Are you waiting for Federal agencies?
Mr. Barker. That is correct. In trying to----
Senator Sullivan. How long have you been waiting?
Mr. Barker. Well, it has been a process. And we are trying
to have a permit that can be flexible enough that, when we do
have a potential, you know, manufacturer that comes down, that
they can move faster to construction, as opposed to waiting in
the process for an additional few years before it happens.
Senator Sullivan. Well, let me ask another, just very
quick, question. Senator Blumenthal talked about projects of
national interest. I just read that we are now importing more
Russian oil than ever. So, America is the superpower of energy,
and yet, we have a new administration that wants to curtail the
production of oil and gas. And what is going to happen? We are
going to import more oil and gas from our enemies. That is just
obvious. It is happening right now, record----
We have a project in Alaska that would be of national
significance, although, it is not directly related to surface
reauthorization. President Biden himself has said, when we are
building back, he is all in on natural gas. How important do
you see natural gas for the development of your economy's clean
burning, reduces greenhouse gas emissions? And should we look
at ways to help expand the use of pipelines for natural gas?
Additionally, big projects in Alaska, we have an L and G
project that has been fully permitted by the Federal
Government. Took years but it is shovel-ready, and we think the
Nation needs it. So do our allies, and certainly, we do not
want to be importing more Russian natural gas and oil. So, any
thoughts on that?
Mr. Porcari. Senator, I will be happy to express my
personal opinion on this, which is that natural gas is, at
best, a bridge strategy toward where we need to be, which is
our--and I am specifically talking about our transportation
system. It needs to be electrified as quickly as we can if we
are going to meet the climate challenge, this existential
challenge that we have. And anything that detracts from that
singular goal will be to the detriment, again in my opinion, of
the Nation.
Senator Sullivan. The International Energy Agency thinks
that we are going to need oil and gas for at least the next
five, six, seven, eight decades.
The Chair. Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair. Thank you. Senator Peters. And, Senator, I am
going to ask you to chair for a few moments while I run over to
vote. But thank you so much.
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN
Senator Peters. Oh, absolutely. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you for your testimony here today. We appreciate you
coming in.
Mr. Porcari, my first question is for you. Your written
testimony suggests that we need to specifically recognize, and
separately fund projects of national significance that are
physically located in one state or region. And you use the
example of an outdated crumbling bridge that pays and outsized
role in supporting our Nation's auto manufacturing, carrying 3
percent of America's GDP annually. You also highlight Great
Lakes Cargo projects, as well, which play a similar national
function. I am well aware of both of these projects from the
State of Michigan, and how important projects like these are
critical, not just for a state but also for an entire country.
So, my question to you is, what changes would you recommend
that we make to enable the Department of Transportation to
identify these nationally important projects, that do not
always compete successfully, for one reason or another, in our
existing transportation grant programs?
Mr. Porcari. It is an excellent question, Senator, and I
argue that there needs to be, first, a separate funding
category for projects of national significance. In the examples
that you mentioned, it is arguably beyond the capability,
certainly of local jurisdictions, but also, the states--or a
state or states--to fund those projects by themselves.
It would be relatively easy for U.S. DOT to show, from a
systems prospective, the national importance of a cohort of
projects that, frankly, we have not invested in for
generations. And in the case of the Brent Spence Bridge, from
Michigan to Georgia, that is a significant facility.
So, that should be a separate funding category. It should
be intermodal in the sense of sometimes they are bridges,
sometimes it is passenger rail. It could be any mode of surface
transportation. But we should think about those things in
intermodal terms, and we should actually build for the future.
What we have found is, with these major projects, their
effective life is 50 or 75 years, or in the case of Gateway,
110 years. So, we need to look far into the future, as we are
thinking about capacity and future needs.
Senator Peters. Great, thank you. Additionally, Mr.
Porcari, you have noted that, as a matter of equity, promising
private sector passenger rail proposals should be more actively
encouraged, through the use of the Railroad Rehabilitation
Improvement Financing loans. So, my question for you is, is
encouragement enough, or are there legislative changes to the
program that we should consider?
Mr. Porcari. Well, certainly, Senator, encouragement for
the private proposals. There may be legislative tweaks. One
would be to put RIFF on par with the TIFIA program, where the
credit risk premium is paid up front by a public funding pool.
One of the real drawbacks, and one of the reasons that the RIFF
program is underutilized, is because the credit risk premium
has to be paid up front, maybe 10 percent of the loan cost or
more, by the applying entity, which is unlike the TIFIA
program.
Senator Peters. Very good. Mr. McAndrews, your testimony
recommends Congress utilize the Port and Intermodal Improvement
Program to further invest in freight intelligence,
transportation systems, and other operational improvements
directly related to enhancing the efficiency of ports and the
intermodal connections to ports. Do you have the available
tools and flexibility you need from the Federal Government to
be able to invest in AI and digital infrastructure? Or are
changes needed to more explicitly promote the use of grant
funding to improve efficient, along these lines?
Mr. McAndrews. Well, I believe--Senator, thank you for the
question. I believe that a bill such that Senator Wicker
introduced last Congress, the Rural Infrastructure Advancement
Act, would be very helpful to smaller ports, smaller cities,
and giving advice for not just the project development, but in
the application, feasibility studies, and cost-benefit
analysis. We have been stuck on the cost-benefit analysis in
the Port and Intermodal Investment Program for two rounds now,
and we just cannot seem to, despite the assistance of the
Metropolitan Planning Organization, we struggle with that.
Senator Peters. All right, thank you. Mr. Porcari, in your
testimony--your testimony mentions there are multiple
successful examples of pilot programs that have maximized
Federal infrastructure spending, to include local hiring and
training components, creating opportunity for good paying jobs,
which are essential to marry these two things together, with
our transportation projects. What are some of the takeaways
from these pilot programs to inform how we might better utilize
jobs and training potential associated with these projects?
Mr. Porcari. Yes, Senator, there is a U.S. Employment Plan
that has been successfully used in several procurements.
Chicago Amtrak has used it, Los Angeles, and others. And one of
the takeaways from it is, on these large, complex projects,
people can climb the skills scale from flagger to--I met a
Chief Safety Officer that started, actually, as a flagger on
that same project. So, the larger point, I think, is to turn
infrastructure into a twofer or a threefer, by maximizing the
local employment and skills training, and the threefer part of
it is U.S. manufacturing.
Senator Peters. Great, thank you. Thank you for your
answers. I now recognize Senator Lummis. Senator Lummis, you
are recognized for your questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Lummis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My first
question is for John Porcari, and thank you, witnesses, for
participating today.
Mr. Porcari, I was concerned to learn about the FCC's
decision to share the 5.9-gigahertz radio frequency band with
other non-transportation related users. Auto manufacturers and
State DOTs were relying on this spectrum, to deploy innovative,
and potentially life-saving technology, like vehicle to
everything communications. Does this decision by the FCC
concern you, as well? And do you think the decision could lead
to interference on the spectrum and then, slow down the
deployment of these new technologies?
Mr. Porcari. Senator Lummis, it is an excellent question. I
do believe the FCC's decision on 5.9 can really hurt. This is
an important safety improvement. It is on where you are asking
the industry ecosystem to invest billions of dollars in a, as
you point out, vehicle to everything, including pedestrians.
They are not going to do that without consistent and
predictable support on the frequency side. The--I use the FAA
analogy for air safety. The FCC should have to prove that it is
safe and that there will be no signal interference from shared
use of the 5.9 gigahertz frequency. As opposed to permitting
mixed use of it for which it was specifically reserved for
safety technology that, not coincidentally, is an opportunity
for U.S. leadership.
Senator Lummis. Well, thank you for that response, and I
appreciate your thoughts about how to address it. I have been
struggling with that. My ideas have been far more complicated
than what you just raised, so thanks for providing that.
For Toby Barker, I was pleased to see you mention the
possible OMB change to their definition of a metropolitan
statistical area. I joined a letter by my colleague, John
Thune, because like Hattiesburg, Casper and Cheyenne, Wyoming
would have been downgraded, as well. Is it your understanding
that this change would adversely impact these cities, when it
comes to Federal funding opportunities? And how concerned are
you about this change?
Mr. Barker. Thank you for that question, Senator. We are
very concerned because this is so widespread. One hundred and
forty-four cities, and I think that, out of the folks on this
committee, every member, except for Senator Blumenthal and
Senator Hickenlooper, will have one metro area affected by
this. And between all the Committee members here, 91 cities
will no longer be considered metropolitan statistical areas,
out of the state's represented here. So, we are very concerned
and--because you do not know the real implications, because
these programs have existed for quite some time, and if they
are tied to being a metropolitan statistical area, then that is
a problem.
The other thing that concerns us is that, I referenced
Hattiesburg last year was listed as #2 out of the almost 400
metro areas, in terms of job growth as far as job growth during
the pandemic. If our metro area status was stripped, and we are
now a more rural micro-politan status, we would not be
mentioned in that job growth analysis. And site selection
consultants and companies considering new and expanded
facilities, you know, they want to locate in metro areas. And
so, taking 144 of those off the table with this rule change,
would be a hamper to recruitment and especially when it comes
to trying to get talent and retain jobs, as well.
Senator Lummis. Well, thank you for that response, too.
That is a massive concern for my state and our communities of
Cheyenne and Casper, our two biggest communities, by the way.
Finally, for Mark McAndrews, do you believe that the Rural
Project Initiative will prove to be a valuable resource to more
rural, multimodal facilities, like the port you operate?
Mr. McAndrews. Yes, ma'am. We can use all the technical and
expert advice that we can get our hands on. Our projects are
complicated, multimodal projects. And with multiple funding
sources, we would greatly appreciate any assistance that we can
get.
Senator Lummis. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding
the hearing and I want to thank all three of the witnesses who
responded to my questions. It is really an important panel
discussion. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Lummis. Senator
Young.
STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Young. Well, I thank the Chairman for holding this
hearing and I want to thank all of the witnesses for your
appearance today before the Committee. My home state of Indiana
is home to nearly 20,000 bridges, more than 250 high-hazard
dams, 350 miles of inland waterways, approximately 4,500 miles
of rail, five major water ports, over 100 public access
airports, 355 miles of levees, and over 75,000 miles of road.
So, as the crossroads of America, and then most manufacturing
intensive state in the country, Indiana, of course, relies
heavily on transportation infrastructure.
The State of Indiana and our localities leverage every
Federal dollar to the greatest extent possible. And the Hoosier
State's transportation infrastructure consistently ranks as one
of the best in the country.
As we discuss, debate, and draft the Long-Term Surface
Transportation Reauthorization Bill, it is essential that we
focus on our core needs revolving around our Nation's
infrastructure. Hoosiers know best that successful
infrastructure projects are a product of timely and efficient
cost and environmental assessments, strict but fair
accountability standards throughout the process, and the use of
incentives, to stretch every dollar as far as it can go. It is
with these lessons that I believe we must fine tune existing
programs where necessary and appropriate, eliminate those found
to be ineffective, and continue to support our successful
initiatives, all while embracing creative solutions and
innovations to repair and upgrade our Nation's infrastructure.
I ask each of our panelists, could you discuss your
thoughts on which transportation infrastructure program should
be fine-tuned, maintained, or eliminated? Very general
question, if you would just go down the line, please.
Mr. Porcari. Yes, Senator Young, I will be happy to start.
In the surface transportation program, as you point out, given
the need for bridge rehabilitation and road rehabilitation,
that is a program that can be plussed up, knowing that we can
impact the state of good repair and have better state of good
repair. On the transit programs, there is--because it is
essentially a race to the bottom, with a single pot of money
for new starts and core capacity projects, in particular that
is a program that I believe we really need to increase the
funding of, as well as the technical assistance that is out
there.
The local project decisions are made at the local level
properly. And that mix of projects should be flexible, meeting
local needs. And I think you see that by and large, in the
program, but anything we can do to increase that flexibility
for the local decisionmaking, should be encouraged.
Senator Young. Thank you, sir. Should any programs be
eliminated, as a followup?
Mr. Porcari. I do not know of any programs that should be
eliminated, Senator. There are some where maybe broadened
eligibility or streamlined process would be useful.
Senator Young. Thank you. Our next witness, please.
Mr. Barker. I would just say, from a mayor's perspective,
any program that helps us solve a problem--and we have to be
creative in how we use these, because they are--when we had an
issue--we first realized we really needed to do something
about--the blocked grade crossings. We first went the BUILD
route and that was not successful the first 2 years. And so, we
pivoted to hit CRISI, and we were able to use that for the
first one, and then, go back to BUILD for the second one. So, I
think the ease and flexibility is important, and really, an
overall investment that cities, counties, and NPOs can access,
is important.
Senator Young. I hear that time and again. More
flexibility, streamlining existing programs so that the
application process is easier, and implementation is easier.
What about elimination? Are there any programs that you just
found to be completely ineffectual or so burdensome that you
think they merit elimination all together?
Mr. Barker. Senator, I have not. But again, I approach it
from a municipal, trying to solve a problem, standpoint.
Senator Young. Sure.
Mr. Barker. And I would say, broadening eligibility is the
key thing. And then, increasing overall investment, because we
do spend multiple years accessing one grant, and it does take
the burden of solving a long-standing transportation challenge
very difficult.
Senator Young. Thank you, sir.
The Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Tester.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate
the opportunity to visit with you guys. I just want to add to
the record a little bit. A previous Senator talked about
importation of Russian oil. The stats that he gave came from
the Trump Administration. I just want to make that clear, as
far as importing of Russian oil.
Mr. Porcari, I want to talk to you a little bit. In your
testimony, you mentioned the importance of maintaining a
national transportation system. And I agree, rural
transportation projects are--they provide critical system wide
benefits. And I believe it is critically important we maintain
our current system of formula funding. What is your opinion on
that, when it comes to real investments being vital to our
national network and the funding formula, overall?
Mr. Porcari. Yes, it is a great question, Senator. I think
the short answer is that continued rural investment is
essential for us as a Nation. And formula funding is one way to
do that, but from the founding days of the republic, our
ability to export, for example, agricultural products, has been
foundational to our economic success. In my opinion, we under
invest of some of our national resources, like the inland
waterways and Great Lakes, that can certainly be stronger on
the export side for our rural economies.
In addition, I will say we need, also, to think about
transportation writ large, when we are talking about the use of
public right of way, in particular. Bringing broadband to every
corner of America is something that better use of our right of
way resources can help with, as well.
Senator Tester. I could not agree with you more on all of
the above. And I would tell you that those inland waterways
that you are talking about, even though it does not affect my
state of Montana by having waterways, it affects our market
because it would reduce the cost of transportation, which can
make a big difference in the bottom-line of folks that are
family farmers on the ground.
Another important thing is avoiding regulations that are
one-size-fits-all kind of regulations, that make perfect sense
in urban areas but rural areas, it really is really tough to
sell, quite frankly, and they do not make a lot of sense. Let
me give an example. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
has a rule in the books that does not take into account the
challenges faced by livestock farmers. And they are different,
by the way. They do not understand that, you know, when you are
hauling a live animal, often times you just cannot pull over
anywhere. And by the way, I might add on a previous thing we
were talking about, municipalities and trucking--parking spots
in municipalities. You are absolutely right. We need more of
those. But you also have to be aware that--I fell asleep one
night at a truck stop, and a load of hogs came by me in the
wintertime and parked beside me and about took me out of the
vehicle. That could be a problem in municipalities, okay. But
the truth is, we do need them.
I want to talk about these regulations, though. And, Mr.
Porcari, once again, from your experience on DOT, what is the
best way to ensure that these regulations that impact rural
America, in a whole different way, in my opinion, are taking
into consideration, while the department formulates rules, or
Congress develops transportation policy?
Mr. Porcari. Senator, all of those rules and regulations
really should start from a premise of safety and they, by and
large, do. On things like truck size and weight, hours of
service requirements, there should be a science and evidence-
based basis for proposed regulations and rules. There has also
been a lot of give and take and discussion about particular
needs, for example, for rural economies during harvest season
and other times of the year. The balance is, again, safety and
wear and tear on bridges and highways, as opposed to the short-
term needs. There is a balance there and I think what you find
in practical terms is, when you use a science and evidence-
based approach, starting from a safety perspective, you end
up--and maybe not everyone is happy, but you end up in both a
defensible and a good place.
Senator Tester. Man, oh, man, I will tell you what. You
take the words right out of my mouth. I think it is really
critically important that we do use--we keep safety in mind,
and we use science. It is really important.
Mr. Barker, I want to turn to you very, very quickly, and I
want to thank you for your testimony. I am glad that you have
had concerns with the OMB's proposal to increase the size of
metropolitan statistical areas. I will just ask you point
blank. Should OMB move forward with this? Are you worried about
how this is going to affect your city, and you city's ability
to invest infrastructure?
Mr. Barker. Absolutely, and beyond infrastructure, be able
to recruit companies and promote economic development. I think
all of those are concerns. They are very real.
Senator Tester. Yes, well, we need to shut this rule down.
I am just telling you. It just totals out the State of Montana.
Thank you all very much.
The Chair. Thank you. Senator Thune.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I would echo
what my colleague from Montana said on MSAs. That rule needs to
be shut down. I find that very concerning and recently led a
letter with nine other Senate/House colleagues, encouraging OMB
to reject that recommendation to increase the population
required for communities to qualify for MSA.
I want to thank all the witnesses that are here today for
your input as we begin working toward a reauthorization of
surface transportation programs.
Transportation infrastructure investments has always been
an area for bipartisan cooperation, as evidenced by the passage
of the FAST Act in 2015, which enjoyed wide popularity in
Congress and among states, and by the bipartisan Highway Bill
reported out of the EPW Committee last Congress. We simply
cannot tackle a reauthorizing of these programs without working
together in a bipartisan manner.
Recognizing our Nation's diverse and highly interconnected
transportation system, from my perspective, is crucial that
transportation policy and investment continue to recognize the
importance of rural areas, where the vast majority of
agricultural and industrial commodities originate. I have said
it before, and I will say it again. Those investments benefit
the entire country, not just rural areas, by keeping the
national transportation system fluid and interconnected. And
while they may not be located in major cities or experience
high traffic volumes, rural freight corridors are a crucial
component of the Nation's transportation system, ensuring that
goods are transported around the Nation and the world safely
and efficiently.
So, thanks again to all the witnesses for being here today.
I look forward to discussion. I want to start with Mr. Porcari
and talk about automated vehicles, which I think have the
potential to dramatically reduce highway fatalities, relieve
congestion, and provide a safe and accessible transportation
option for our seniors and persons with disabilities. I have a
bill with Senator Peters, that we have worked on over the past
several years, to enact automated vehicles legislation, which I
believe, is the key to ensuring that AVs are tested and
deployed under a safe and consistent regulatory framework. And
I remain committed to working with him to advance this
critical, emerging technology.
Mr. Porcari, you mention in your testimony the importance
of encouraging innovation in transportation policy and
investment. Do you see AVs and other innovative transportation
technologies as part of the solution?
Mr. Porcari. Yes, Senator Thune, it is an integral part of
the solution. And if we are to have national leadership on
this, we need to move forward quickly. There are great
opportunities throughout the country, including in our rural
areas, for things like truck only lanes and platooning, that
would greatly help on the freight movement side.
Senator Thune. So, the National Council on Disability has
recognized the potential of AVs to greatly improve the lives of
persons with disabilities and together with several disability
organizations, provided helpful input on passed drafts of AV
legislation. Do you believe AVs will be a critical part of a
more equitable and accessible transportation system?
Mr. Porcari. Yes, I do, Senator. I think they are an
integral element of a more equitable and safer transportation
system.
Senator Thune. Mr. Barker, in 2019 DOT established the
Routes Initiative, meant to address important issues with rural
access to discretionary grant programs like INFRA and BUILD.
Additional outreach from the department can really make a
difference for rural transportation agencies with limited
resources to allocate for the application process. Mr. Barker,
you discussed the need for additional planning and technical
assistance to local governments applying for discretionary
grant programs. Do you believe these programs should be
continued under the current administration?
Mr. Barker. I think it is as vital that local communities,
particularly those that are rural, that have limited means, to
have access to some sort of planning or technical assistance.
Simply because, you know, a lot of communities may not have the
expertise in house to try and figure out what the solution is
to a long-standing transportation problem. And so, having
resources that are there, so they can go and get the solution,
will actually assist them in trying to find that solution. And
then, also, the technical assistance from DOT is incredibly
important to keep projects--getting the feedback is important,
not only for the rural community to better their application,
but also to DOT to understand what the unique challenges are,
in communities around the country.
Senator Thune. And do you have any other recommendations to
improve Federal planning assistance to small and mid-size
communities?
Mr. Barker. I think there is a need for planning dollars,
when going after things like BUILD and INFRA, because they are
big projects. And having some set aside there, that you can go
and access the engineering expertise or the cost-benefit
analysis, would help smaller communities find their way into
the game.
Senator Thune. OK. How am I doing time wise?
The Chair. Eleven second.
Senator Thune. OK, all right. All right, well I have
another rural question, but I will yield back, Madam Chair,
since my time has expired. Thank you.
The Chair. Thank you.
Senator Thune. Thank you to all the witnesses.
The Chair. Thank you, Senator Thune. Senator Rosen.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACKY ROSEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Rosen. Thank you, Chair Cantwell and thank you to
the witnesses for being here today. I really appreciate it.
I want to talk a little bit about our national strategy on
travel and tourism infrastructure. Tourism, of course,
essential to Nevada's economy, as well as the entire Nation. It
is part--it is a comprehensive infrastructure plan that
incorporates intermodal transportation to facilitate travel and
tourism mobility.
So, the National Advisory Committee on Travel and Tourism
Infrastructure drafted its 2020 report, during a healthy and
robust economy, before the public health crisis of COVID-19
happened. And of course, Nevada's tourism grinded to a
screeching halt. It cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. Over
a year later, the national strategy on travel and tourism is
needed now more than ever to bring our industry back to pre-
pandemic strength. And it means identifying strategic
infrastructure investments that will enable our tourism economy
to thrive in the future. As Chair of the Subcommittee on
Tourism, Trade, and Export Promotion, I look forward to working
with the administration and the Committee and all of the
witnesses to make that happen.
And so, of course, we have to have a broad view of
infrastructure, including a new Interstate 11, connecting
Phoenix to Las Vegas to Reno. That is going to help our
tourism, of course, in three of our major metropolitan areas.
So, Mr. Porcari, as former Deputy Secretary of Transportation,
can you talk about the importance of national strategy on
travel and tourism, how surface transportation infrastructure
investments can be part of that, especially as we recover from
this downturn, as a result of the pandemic?
Mr. Porcari. It is a great question, Senator Rosen.
Clearly, a national strategy, as I have referred to before,
using a systems approach to how we actually build and maintain
infrastructure, would be very helpful. Just in the Nevada
example of travel and tourism, making sure that we are
multimodal that--you mentioned Interstate 11, certainly there
is also a private sector passenger rail proposal that would
directly serve the tourism and hospitality industry, and air
service. And all of those are key elements of the strategy that
ultimately work together to promote travel and tourism. The
beauty of the system is that we can do that. It cuts across
committees of jurisdiction and, certainly, funding lines. But a
longer integrated strategy would benefit everyone.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. I want to talk a little bit more,
building upon that, about future infrastructure, technology
initiatives. You know, in Nevada, we have our Las Vegas
Convention Center and, of course, we have a highly innovated
project going on, called our Convention Center Loop. It is a
revolutionary, underground transportation system that is going
to serve the entire 200-acre Las Vegas Convention Center
campus. It will allow convention attendees to be transported
across campus in over a minute, free of charge, in all electric
Tesla vehicles.
And so, I just have a short time left, but Mr. Porcari,
this is new and innovative work. How can Congress bring
transportation innovations to the forefront, to help us start
moving again, like the kinds of things we are doing at our Las
Vegas Convention Center?
Mr. Porcari. The Convention Center Loop project is a great
example of one that does not fit neatly into any of the
existing funding categories yet is an incredibly important
pilot project that could be replicated, to some extent,
nationally. So, the kind of flexibility in Federal funding for
innovation--now, I mentioned before that project decisions are
made at the local level. Those individual decisions should be
supported through pilot projects, some of which are fairly
high-risk reward, to prove the technology and show that it can
part of an integrated transportation system.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. I want to move to another topic,
predictive analytics and transportation. We know how much data
that we collect. We know the data tells a story. And our
Regional Transportation Commission has been on the forefront of
using predictive analytics to improve highway safety and
efficiency. We can anticipate where congestion spots are and we
can modify transportation patters, perhaps in advance. And so,
Mr. Porcari, can you speak to how predictive analytics, how we
can use that, how it is supported, how this technology can help
us reduce crashes, increase railway capacity, and reduce
emissions for fuel and waste, all at the same time?
Mr. Porcari. Yes, Senator, Nevada has been very aggressive
and a leader in predictive analytics. And the explosion of
available technology for analytics is incredible. Whether it is
traffic congestion, spot safety issues, weather, or the
vehicles themselves, and where the analytics can actually
support better decisionmaking on routing, just in time
delivery, and then like. What we have not done, as a country,
is maximized our opportunity with predictive analytics.
As you know, there is a research program at DOT, where some
of this, actually, I think in terms of pilot projects, would be
a very useful expenditure of funds to build national
leadership, on a more holistic, predictive analytics system.
The Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Rosen. Thank you
so much. So, gentlemen, we are going to take a 15-minute
recess. I think we are done, but we are not sure. So, we are
going to treat this as a last call to members, if they want to
come back at that 15 minute and ask questions. If we have some
takers we will continue. If not, we will close out the hearing.
But if you could give us that time, we will recess for 15
minutes. Thank you.
[Recess 12:01 p.m.]
[End Recess 12:17 p.m.]
The Chair. The Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Committee will come back into order. Again, thank our witnesses
for waiting. I am not sure if we have other members who want to
ask a question. But I wanted to follow up on the discussion
from earlier about the funding of megaprojects and INFRA and
these port competitiveness issues. And wanted to ask the
witnesses if, on this megaproject funding concept: I am
assuming states have had the same dilemmas, right? States have
had projects that have been huge, significant impacts to their
State budget. In our state, we used to call the Cat-C projects,
Category C. And, at times, you have to take action to eliminate
your backlog. Literally, eliminate and get those projects done,
otherwise they dwarf the whole transportation funding.
So, what have we seen in innovative ways to deal with this
same dilemma? Mr. Porcari?
Mr. Porcari. Madam Chair, one way is states are making
better use of the loan funds that are out there. And those are
limited tools, but for--with TIFIA and RIFF, in particular, you
can use them as a project finance tool. One of the realities of
the big projects is, we do not fund projects anymore, and we
finance them. And so, you need to structure a finance program
for them.
Another one is, in select cases, for the right project
profile, public/private partnerships can be very useful. On a
personal level, I did one with our container terminal at the
Port of Baltimore. There are a number of examples around the
country, on the aviation side, for example, where public/
private partnerships have worked well. They can also work well
with freight and cargo projects, again, in particular at ports.
The Chair. And so, what would--what are you--tell me more
on that. Would you--are you saying that that is a way for us to
get more mileage now?
Mr. Porcari. Yes, it is a way to get more mileage. A couple
of things. As you know, the TIFIA and RIFF programs are both
35-year loans. Maybe a more appropriate way to think about it
is, if you are building a 75- or 85-year facility, maybe the
loan term should be 75 percent of the lifespan of that
facility. So, it would go beyond 35 years, in that example.
That might be--that would significantly help jurisdictions that
use those loan programs. Again, where appropriate. You cannot
do that if it is a 20-year facility.
The Chair. Well, I mean, a lot of states have
transportation benefit districts and other things that they
have used to make regional improvements make sense for the
region. Get buy-in from individuals in that community. So, how
would you suggest we look at the megaprojects this way? Like,
what percentage of the megaprojects do you think might benefit
from this, or broadening the INFRA functionality?
Mr. Porcari. Both of them, broadening the INFRA
functionality--and if you establish a category of nationally
significant projects, and separately fund it, having the loan
programs more flexible, as I described, would be an additional
way to help move those projects forward. You have a Federal
funding component, but even financing the local share of it,
whether it is 50 percent or whatever, with a more flexible loan
program, would be very helpful.
The other short-term finance aide might be, the
jurisdictions that have existing TIFIA and RIFF loans,
refinancing those at today's interest rates can open headroom
in a capital program. So, if they have a significant TIFIA
portfolio, a refi of those TIFIA loans can help them.
The Chair. Anybody else on this point?
[No response.]
The Chair. Mayor or--yes.
Mr. Barker. I will just say that the problem that faces all
cities is, we have become a maintenance only type setup. You
know, whether it is roads or bridges or water and sewer, and
all of the external pressures that you put on municipalities
and counties to take care of those things. There is very little
left over to try to tackle big issues. And so, anything that is
out there, whether it is INFRA or BUILD or CRISI, helps.
I think that the local governments should have skin in the
game. For us, we took some--we had some--we are paying off some
debt, and so, we use that existing debt service millage, and we
max that out, under the current millage rates, to take out more
that would match our CRISI and BUILD grants. If we had an
opportunity to go after an INFRA grant, the 40 percent non-
INFRA funding match is a challenge for smaller communities. And
you really have to, kind of, either find a creative way to fill
that gap, or collaborate with the State DOT to try to put an
application in.
But again, it is a--you are dealing with areas that have
become more focused on maintenance, and we can go after, maybe,
one or two long-standing challenges, or game changing projects
that could induce more growth. But there may be a dozen
opportunities that are out there that you just will not have
the resources to do.
The Chair. And the project you mentioned earlier, what was
the non-INFRA funding? The 40 percent, where did that come
from?
Mr. Barker. That was the challenge for us with INFRA is
trying to come up with that 40 percent non-Federal----
The Chair. But the project you mentioned earlier that,
like, on the third try actually did get INFRA funding. So,
where did you come up with that? That was the city, or----
Mr. Barker. That was the--that was our BUILD and CRISI
grants on the third try. And we used--we took out bonds
ourselves to fill that funding gap, because we were paying off
some other debt and we wanted to target our municipal borrowing
toward long-term projects, as opposed to just paving streets.
And so, that is what we used as our match for both CRISI and
BUILD.
The Chair. So, Mr. Porcari, what about that example? What
would you do there?
Mr. Porcari. In that specific example, I think looking at
capacity to come up with the local share makes a difference.
And there may be jurisdictions that may be based out of size,
for example, where the local match might, appropriately be,
lower or different than it would be for other projects.
The Chair. But bonding capacity?
Mr. Porcari. Bonding capacity--the Build America bonds
program, I thought, was very successful as an additional
funding source. You heard from you fellow Senators today that
there is a lot of interest in that and having opportunities on
both non-taxable and taxable debt financing at the local level
would be very helpful.
The Chair. Well, to me this is--we know what the issue is.
We have a ton of infrastructure investment we need to make. So
then, the question becomes, what are the tools that we can give
ourselves, that can drive down the cost of making that
investment. And seems to me, that some additions or
restructuring of some of these programs might give us the
ability to finance more projects in a more timely fashion and
drive down the overall cost. Is that--am I getting this right?
Mr. Porcari. I believe that is right. And as I mentioned
before, in general terms, the larger the project, the more
likely it is to be financed, as opposed to funded on a cashflow
basis. So, it becomes more and more important for those
nationally and regionally significant projects.
The Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Well, I do not know if we
have any other members. It looks like we have no takers, at
this moment. But we will leave the record open for a period of
time here. Any Senators who want to submit questions for the
record have 2 weeks to do so. And we ask, obviously, people to
get back to us on those questions.
So, again, thank you to all the panelists for joining us,
both here and virtually. A lot of illuminating information for
the next steps of infrastructure investment.
With that, we are adjourned.
Mr. Porcari. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
March 23, 2021
Hon. Maria Cantwell, Chair,
Hon. Roger Wicker, Ranking Member,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chair Cantwell and Ranking Member Wicker:
Thank you for holding tomorrow's hearing, ``Driving the Road to
Recovery: Rebuilding America's Transportation Infrastructure.''
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) urges you to
prioritize the safety of all road users as you consider policies and
legislation investing in infrastructure. We respectfully request this
letter be included in the hearing record.
Every major surface transportation bill passed by Congress over the
last three decades has included significant public safety improvements
such as airbags,\1\ electronic stability control\2\ and safety belts on
motorcoaches.\3\ These advances have garnered bipartisan support and
saved thousands of lives. In fact, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) estimated that between 1960 and 2012, over
600,000 lives have been saved by motor vehicle safety technologies.\4\
The recent crash involving Tiger Woods is a prime example of the
lifesaving benefits of regulations. Mr. Woods' life was saved, at least
in part, by a seat belt, air bags and roof crush performance standards,
all of which are required as standard equipment in cars. As Auto Week
succinctly explained, ``The details of Tiger Woods' crash are still
being sorted out by investigators, but in general, the world's greatest
golfer can thank more than 50 years of government-mandated safety
advances that he is alive.'' \5\ Technologies, such as advanced driver
assistance systems (ADAS) and impaired driving prevention systems, if
similarly required, could be saving lives now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pub. L. 102-240 (Dec. 18, 1991).
\2\ Pub. L. 109-59 (Aug. 10, 2005).
\3\ Pub. L. 112-141 (Jan. 3, 2012).
\4\ Lives Saved by Vehicle Safety Technologies and Associated
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 1960 to 2012, DOT HS 812 069
(NHTSA, 2015); See also, NHTSA AV Policy, Executive Summary, p. 5
endnote 1.
\5\ Mark Vaughn, Tiger Woods Owes His Life to Decades of Government
Safety Standards, Auto Week (Feb 26, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety advances are urgently needed to address the persistently
high and costly crash death and injury toll. Every year on average,
over 36,000 people are killed and 2.74 million more are injured in
motor vehicle crashes. Preliminary estimates from NHTSA indicate that
the fatality rate and total for the first nine months of 2020 increased
over the same time period in 2019. This is in line with troubling
trends reported across the country, and confirmed by NHTSA, of drivers
engaged in riskier driving behaviors including speeding, impairment,
and lack of seat belt use during the COVID-19 pandemic. Media and
analytics reports note distraction increased as well. Needless to say,
the concurrent decline in vehicle miles traveled did not result in
anticipated safer conditions on our roads.
In addition, the number of pedestrian and bicyclist deaths remain
at or near the highest levels in three decades, with 6,205 and 846
fatalities respectively. Further, in 2018 and 2019, over 100 children
were killed due to heatstroke as a result of being left unattended in a
vehicle or gaining access independently into an unoccupied vehicle
according to NHTSA. In 2019, more than 5,000 people were killed in
crashes involving a large truck. Since 2009, the number of fatalities
in large truck crashes has increased by 48 percent.\6\ An additional
159,000 people were injured in crashes involving a large truck, and the
number of large truck occupants injured increased by 18 percent. In
fatal crashes involving a truck and a passenger vehicle, 96 percent of
the fatalities were passenger vehicle occupants, according to the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). The cost to society from
crashes involving commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) was estimated to be
$143 billion in 2018, the latest year for which data is available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Note, the 48 percent figure represents the overall change in
the number of fatalities in large truck involved crashes from 2009 to
2019. However, between 2015 and 2016 there was a change in data
collection at U.S. DOT that could affect this calculation. From 2009 to
2015 the number of fatalities in truck involved crashes increased by 21
percent and between 2016 to 2019, it increased by 7 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The overall annual cost crashes impose on society exceeds $800
billion, including $242 billion in direct economic costs (NHTSA), based
on 2010 data. When adjusted only for inflation, comprehensive crash
costs now near one trillion dollars, with direct economic costs
amounting to $292 billion. This is equivalent to an $885 ``crash tax''
on every American. Additionally, crashes cost employers $47.4 billion
in direct crash-related expenses annually, based on 2013 data from the
Network of Employers for Traffic Safety (NETS). Similarly adjusted, the
cost to employers is now approximately $54 billion annually. Ending the
physical, emotional and economic toll of motor vehicle crashes is
achievable. As the Committee begins consideration of an infrastructure
package/surface transportation reauthorization, we urge you to address
these serious safety challenges with the proven ``vaccines'' detailed
below.
Require and expand the use of proven technologies which are
demonstrated by data, research and experience to advance safer
roadways, safer drivers and safer vehicles.\7\ Advanced vehicle safety
technologies, also known as advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS),
prevent and lessen the severity of crashes. Research performed by IIHS
has clearly demonstrated the benefits of these technologies. For
example, IIHS determined that automatic emergency braking (AEB) can
decrease front-to-rear crashes with injuries by 56 percent. The
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has included increasing
implementation of collision avoidance technologies in its Most Wanted
List of Transportation Safety Improvements since 2016. These
technologies should be required in all new vehicles, subject to a
minimum performance standard which sets a floor, not a ceiling, from
which manufacturers can innovate. Congress should also direct NHTSA to
update the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) to include ADAS in vehicle
ratings. The NTSB has recommended enhancing NCAP to include these
safety improvements and Euro NCAP already evaluates a number of these
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Past legislation which promotes these issues and should be
advanced includes: Moving Forward Act (116th Congress, H.R. 2);
Protecting Roadside First Responders Act (116th Congress, S. 2700/H.R.
4871); 21st Century Smart Cars Act (116th Congress, H.R. 6284);
Reducing Impaired Driving for Everyone (RIDE) Act (116th Congress, S.
2604); HALT Drunk Driving Act (116th Congress, 4354); Safe Roads Act
(116th Congress, H.R. 3773); Hot Cars Act (116th Congress, H.R. 3593);
School Bus Safety Act (116th Congress, S. 2278/H.R. 3959); Stay Aware
for Everyone Act (116th Congress, S. 4123); and, Five-Stars for Safe
Cars Act (116th Congress, H.R. 6256), among others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, access to these lifesaving crash avoidance
technologies currently is not equitable. They are often sold as part of
an additional, expensive trim package coupled with other non-safety
features, or included as standard equipment in high end models or
vehicles, which are unaffordable to many families. A report from
Consumer Reports found an astounding upcharge of more than $16,000 for
AEB with pedestrian detection in the second most popular vehicle sold
in the U.S. Requiring vehicle safety technology as standard equipment
will reduce its base cost due to economies of scale, make safety
equitable and expedite the benefits to all road users from broad market
saturation.
Many individuals rely on walking or biking for economic reasons,
rather than choice, to reach work or school. The inability to afford a
car or the decision to walk or bike should not come with an elevated
risk for injury or death. Mandating safety equipment in new vehicles
would ensure the protection of vulnerable road users. Moreover, efforts
to address climate change including domestic production of electric
vehicles (EVs), which requires automakers to reconfigure their
production lines, can efficiently and economically coincide with
integrating ADAS technologies.
Requiring that autonomous vehicles (AVs) meet minimum standards and
that operations are subject to adequate oversight throughout
development and deployment will save lives as well as costs for both
the consumer and the manufacturer. Sweeping promises have been made
about AVs bringing meaningful and lasting reductions in motor vehicle
crashes and resulting deaths and injuries, traffic congestion and
vehicle emissions. Additionally, claims have been made that AVs will
expand mobility and accessibility, improve efficiency, and create more
equitable transportation options and opportunities. However, these
potentials remain far from a near-term certainty or reality. Without
commonsense safeguards to ensure these desirable outcomes, the
potentials are imperiled at best and could be doomed at worst. The
absence of protections could result in adverse impacts including safety
risks for all people and vehicles on and around the roads, job
displacement, degradation of current mobility options, infrastructure
and environmental problems, marginalization of certain users, and
others.
The public backs a prudent and thoughtful approach to AVs.
According to a 2020 poll commissioned by Advocates, 71 percent of
respondents support government-mandated minimum safety requirements for
new driverless car technologies and 68 percent reported that they would
be less concerned about driverless cars if they knew that companies had
to meet minimum safety requirements before selling them to the
public.\8\ Moreover, on the path to driverless cars, ADAS can prevent
or lessen the exorbitant death and injury toll now while laying the
foundation for AVs in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Engine Insights CARAVAN
Survey: Public Concern about Driverless Cars is Strong, and the Support
for Performance Requirements is Clear, January 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In November 2020, Advocates led a group of 60 diverse organizations
to release the ``AV Tenets'' which must be the foundation for any AV
policy that is considered.\9\ The core principles of the AV Tenets are:
(1) prioritize safety for all road users; (2) guarantee accessibility
and equity; (3) preserve consumer and worker rights; and, (4) ensure
sustainable transportation and retain local control. During this
transformational time in surface transportation history, we should pay
heed to Benjamin Franklin's infamous quote from 1736, ``An ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The complete AV tenets are attached to this letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As this Committee moves forward with an infrastructure package/
surface transportation reauthorization bill, a strong safety title must
be at its core and provisions which would further degrade
infrastructure and safety must be rejected. The variations in road use
during the pandemic highlighted vulnerabilities inflicting our Nation's
roads. Now is the time to advance effective solutions to save lives.
Thank you again for holding this essential hearing and for your
consideration of these issues. We look forward to working with you to
improve safety on our Nation's roadways.
Sincerely,
Catherine Chase,
President.
cc: Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
______
Autonomous Vehicle (AV) Tenets\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These tenets are limited to vehicles with a gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or less unless otherwise noted;
however, it is imperative that automated delivery vehicles (including
those used on sidewalks and other non-roadways) and commercial motor
vehicles be subject to comprehensive regulations, including rules
regarding the presence of a licensed, qualified driver behind the
wheel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 2021
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prioritizing Safety of All Road Users
Safety Rulemakings: All levels of automated vehicles\2\ must be
subject to comprehensive and strong Federal standards ensuring they are
safe and save lives. While the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
has the authority to issue motor vehicle safety standards for all
levels of automated vehicles, for the last four years, it has abrogated
this responsibility by focusing its efforts on inadequate voluntary
initiatives. When Congress considers legislation on AVs, it is
imperative that the protection of all road users is the guiding
principle and that legislation requires the DOT to commence rulemakings
on safety standards and issue final rules by a prompt date certain with
a reasonable compliance date. The rulemakings must address known and
foreseeable safety issues, many of which have been identified by the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and other research
institutions, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Partially automated vehicles (SAE International Level 2) and
conditional/highly automated vehicles (SAE International Levels 3, 4,
5).
Revising Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Any actions
by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA,
Agency) to revise or repeal existing Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards (FMVSS) in order to facilitate the
introduction of AVs must be preceded by and conducted in a
public rulemaking process and cannot be undertaken by internal
Agency actions. Any revision must meet the safety need provided
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
by current standards.
Collision Avoidance Systems: Certain advanced safety
technologies, which may be foundational technologies for AVs,
already have proven to be effective at preventing and
mitigating crashes across all on-road modes of transportation
and must be standard equipment with Federal minimum performance
requirements. These include automatic emergency braking with
pedestrian and cyclist detection, lane departure warning, and
blind spot warning, among others. A lack of performance
standards has contributed to instances of dangerous
malfunctions of this technology, highlighting the need for
rulemakings for collision avoidance systems and other
fundamental AV technologies. As collision avoidance technology
continues to improve and evolve, it should also be required to
detect and prevent collisions with all vulnerable road users
and objects in the operating environment.
``Vision Test'' for AVs: Driverless cars must be subject to
a ``vision test'' to guarantee an AV will operate on all roads
and in all weather conditions and properly detect and respond
to other vehicles, all people and objects in the operating
environment including but not limited to Black and Brown
people, pedestrians, bicyclists, wheelchair users and people
with assistive technology, children and strollers, motorcycles,
roadway infrastructure, construction zones and roadside
personnel, and interactions with law enforcement and first
responders. Any algorithm that will inform the technology must
be free of bias. Risk assessments for AVs must ensure adequate
training data which is representative of all users of the
transportation system. Manufacturers and developers must be
required to meet basic principles in the development and use of
algorithms including: the use of algorithms should be
transparent to the end users; algorithmic decision-making
should be testable for errors and bias while still preserving
intellectual property rights; algorithms should be designed
with fairness and accuracy in mind; the data set used for
algorithmic decision-making should avoid the use of proxies;
and, algorithmic decision-making processes that could have
significant consumer consequences should be explainable. The
DOT must review algorithms and risk assessment procedures for
potential issues, and any identified problems must be then
corrected by the developer or manufacturer and verified by the
DOT. Coordination and oversight should be led by the Office of
the NHTSA Civil Rights Director in partnership with the Office
of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, NHTSA
Office of Vehicle Safety Research, and NHTSA Chief Counsel's
office. The Office of the NHTSA Civil Rights Director should be
given adequate resources, expertise and authority to accomplish
this role.
Human-Machine Interface (HMI) for Driver Engagement:
Research demonstrates that even for a driver who is alert and
performing the dynamic driving task, a delay in reaction time
occurs between observing a safety problem, reacting and taking
needed action. For a driver who is disengaged from the driving
task during autonomous operation of a vehicle (i.e., sleeping,
texting, watching a movie), that delay will be longer because
the driver must first be alerted to re-engage, understand and
process the situation, and then take control of the vehicle
before taking appropriate action. Therefore, an AV must provide
adequate alerts to capture the attention of the human driver
with sufficient time to respond and assume the dynamic driving
task for any level of vehicle automation that may require human
intervention. This mechanism must be accessible to all
occupants, including people with disabilities and vulnerable
populations.
Cybersecurity Standard: Vehicles must be subject to
cybersecurity requirements to prevent hacking and to ensure
mitigation and remediation of cybersecurity events. The Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) has a process for the
certification and oversight of all U.S. commercial airplanes,
including avionics cybersecurity, although improvement is
needed according to a recent Government Accountability Office
(GAO) study.\3\ The DOT should be directed, in cooperation with
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), to
develop a cybersecurity standard for automated driving systems.
The DOT should then require the cybersecurity standard be
applied to all new vehicles. The DOT must be engaged in all
relevant discussions on artificial intelligence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ United States Government Accountability Office, Aviation
Cybersecurity, FAA Should Fully Implement Key Practices to Strengthen
Its Oversight of Avionics Risks, GAO-21-86 (Oct. 2020).
Electronics and Software Safety Standard: Vehicles must be
subject to minimum performance requirements for the vehicle
electronics and software that power and operate vehicle safety
and driving automation systems individually and as
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
interdependent components.
Operational Design Domain (ODD): The NHTSA must issue
Federal standards to ensure safeguards for driving automation
systems to limit their operation to the ODD in which they are
capable of functioning safely. An ODD includes elements such
as: the type of roadway, geographical area, speed range,
vehicle operating status, and environmental and temporal
conditions in which the vehicle is capable of operating safely;
any roadway or infrastructure asset required for the operation
of the vehicle, such as roadside equipment, pavement markings,
signage, and traffic signals; and, the means by which the
vehicle will respond if the defined ODD changes or any
circumstance which causes vehicle to operate outside of its
defined ODD. The rule shall also: specify requirements for how
the vehicle will safely transition to a minimal risk condition
as a result of a malfunction or when operating outside of the
ODD, including the necessity for human intervention that is
accessible to all occupants including people with disabilities
and vulnerable populations; and, the ability of the vehicle to
comply with local laws as part of whether the vehicle is
operating inside the ODD.
Functional Safety Standard: Requires a manufacturer to
ensure the design, development, verification and validation of
safety-related electronics or software demonstrates to NHTSA
that an AV will perform reliably and safely under the
conditions the vehicle is designed to encounter. Additionally,
NHTSA must validate that the manufacturer's certifications of
functional safety are accurate and reliable by conducting their
own testing as needed.
Safe Fallback: Every driving automation system must be able
to detect a malfunction, a degraded state, or operation outside
of ODD and safely transition to a condition which reduces the
risk of a crash or physical injury. In the event of a failure,
it is essential that the occupants of a driverless car have the
ability to assume manual control to complete or command a safe
transition to reach a safe location and safely exit the
vehicle. This mechanism must be accessible to all occupants,
including people with disabilities and vulnerable populations.
Commercial vehicles, including those used for public
transportation or freight, present distinct challenges, such as
the need to identify qualifications necessary to operate, that
will need to be addressed separately.
Crash Procedures Standard: Requires manufacturers to have
procedures in place, including proper shutdown protocols, for
when an AV is involved in a crash to ensure the safety of all
occupants of the AV, other road users and emergency responders.
Standard for Over-the-Air (OTA) Updates: Requires consumers
be given timely and appropriate information on the details of
the OTA update and ensures any needed training or tutorials are
provided. Limits the circumstances in which manufacturers can
update a vehicle OTA and provides requirements for OTA updates
that necessitate a recall or an additional demonstration of
safety. OTA updates that enhance the safety of a vehicle should
not be optional or require the consumer to incur any additional
expense. During the update process cybersecurity must be
maintained. In developing the OTA standard, NHTSA should
develop rigorous testing around the most effective way to push
out OTA updates to owners and operators of vehicles. Updates
must be accessible for all users, including people with
disabilities. In addition, information on OTA updates should be
available in multiple languages, similar to compliance with
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-112),
and via video with closed captioning as appropriate, as well as
other means of communication to promote access. In a commercial
setting, it will be especially critical for there to be clear
protocols for how and when OTA updates are carried out.
Safety and Performance Data: With the increasing number of vehicles
with different automated technologies being tested and some being sold
to the public, standardized data elements, recording, and access to
safety event data are necessary for the proper oversight and analysis
of the performance of the driving automation systems. Vehicles on the
road today are already producing enormous amounts of data, and the
amount and type of data will only increase as driving automation
evolves. There are many stakeholders who need that data for numerous
and varied reasons, most importantly safety. The DOT must issue a FMVSS
requiring all vehicles to be equipped with technology that captures all
necessary data to understand and evaluate the safety performance of AVs
on the road. Moreover, following best practices, data on disengagements
and near-misses would help to identify flaws in the technology and may
allow cities and states to proactively invest in infrastructure
improvements or update the design of dangerous intersections and
corridors to ensure safety for all street users. Real-time data on
vehicle speeds, travel times, and volumes enables states, cities, and
communities to manage congestion and speed, uncover patterns of
excessive speeds, evaluate the success of street design projects, and
ultimately improve productivity and quality of life. It could also
facilitate emergency response by summoning and providing important
information to emergency personnel, assist in the safe extraction of
occupants, and provide a way for first responders to safely disable and
secure the vehicle. Safety and performance data should be made
available to relevant stakeholders such as state and local governments,
Federal agencies, operators or dispatchers of the vehicle itself,
independent research bodies, law enforcement, first responders,
insurers, and the public, with appropriate privacy protections.
Manufacturer Submissions to NHTSA: Any submission to NHTSA by AV
manufacturers or developers must be mandatory, publicly available and
include thorough and adequate data and documentation. Additionally,
NHTSA must be directed to review and evaluate all submissions to assess
whether an approach to automated driving system (ADS) development and
testing includes appropriate safeguards for operation on public roads.
Moreover, submissions should be substantive and include, but not be
limited to the following issues: ADS control capabilities; ODD; other
limitations and constraints; methods and timing of driver engagement
(if applicable); data definitions; recording; and, accessibility. Miles
accumulated by simulation, as opposed to on-road testing, cannot
substitute for on-road testing or serve as the sole basis for the data
included in the submission. (See section below on Proper Oversight of
Testing.) If NHTSA finds information indicating further operation of
these vehicles on public streets poses a danger, the Agency must be
able to intervene and enforce the law\4\ effectively, which will
require not just the greater use of its existing authority but also
new, stronger enforcement authorities that should be enacted by
Congress (See section below on Additional Resources and Enforcement
Authorities for NHTSA). If the Agency determines that a submission is
deficient, manufacturers must be required to submit any additional
information requested. The legislation should clarify that the Agency
has civil and criminal penalty authority for false, fictitious or
fraudulent submissions under 18 United States Code (USC) 1001. This
submission process cannot be a substitute for NHTSA promptly issuing
minimum performance standards through a public rulemaking process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Motor Vehicle Safety Act, Pub. L. 89-563 (1966).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proper Oversight of Testing: AV testing is already underway in many
states and localities. Fundamental and commonsense safeguards must be
instituted for testing on public roads including the establishment of
independent institutional review boards (IRBs) to certify the safety of
the protocols and procedures for testing of AVs on public roads. The
IRB requirements established by the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) in 45 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 46 should serve
as a basis for the requirements for IRBs overseeing AV road testing and
be modified as needed for this particular use. Test vehicles should be
prohibited from providing a service for compensation. In Section 24404
of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST) Act (Pub. L.
114-94), Congress excluded test vehicles from having to comply with
Federal standards as long as those vehicles are not sold to the public.
NHTSA actions required:
Develop empirical data reporting standards and metrics for
such data;
Mandate developer reporting of the metrics to the public to
enable comparison of AV safety performance among developers;
Require manufacturers to provide data on the safety and
performance of test vehicles and systems and to report safety-
critical events including crashes and incidents that occur
during testing that result in death, injuries or property
damage;
Verify developer compliance with all applicable laws;
Make safety-critical event information publicly available
with the rebuttable presumption in favor of disclosure, unless
it is deemed proprietary or confidential in accordance with
Federal law;
Determine which safety-critical events must result in the
suspension of testing until a thorough review is completed and
additional safeguards are implemented and verified by the
Agency, as necessary; and,
Prior to the introduction of the AV into commerce, review
and analyze testing for oversight and research purposes,
including but not limited to rulemaking.
Additional Resources and Enforcement Authorities for NHTSA:
Ensuring NHTSA has adequate resources, funds, staff, and enforcement
authority is essential for the Agency to successfully carry out its
statutory mission and address the multiple challenges presented by the
testing and deployment of self-driving technologies. The Agency also
should be given additional enforcement powers including imminent hazard
authority, and enhanced authority to pursue criminal penalties and levy
larger civil penalties to ensure industry accountability and thwart
misconduct.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ If NHTSA is not to have authority over the commercial operation
of an AV, these same oversight powers must be conveyed to the
respective modal agency responsible for overseeing the deployment of
commercial AVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guaranteeing Accessibility for All
Access for Individuals with Disabilities and Older Adults: Nearly
one in five people in the U.S. has a disability (more than 57 million),
and 16 percent of the U.S. population is over the age of 65. Yet,
significant barriers to accessible, affordable and reliable
transportation remain across all modes, and many people with
disabilities are unable to obtain a driver's license and cannot afford
to purchase an accessible vehicle. Autonomous driving technology has
the potential to increase access and mobility for older adults and
individuals with disabilities, including those with sensory, cognitive,
and physical disabilities, wheelchair users, and people with
neurological conditions, who have varying needs as well as
traditionally underserved communities. This goal can be realized by
Congressional directive ensuring access for everyone, including
accessible HMI, and ramps and securement for wheelchair users.
Discrimination on the basis of disability in licensing for SAE
International level 4 and 5 AVs must also be prohibited. In addition,
the diverse needs of all members of the disability community and older
adults must be accommodated for systems that require human engagement
as well as when developing a safe fallback.
Access for Underbanked Populations: Access to on-demand transport
services is often predicated on the ability to make digital payments.
Twenty-five percent of U.S. households are unbanked or underbanked,
with higher incidence in working-age disabled households, lower-income
households, less-educated households, younger households, Black and
Hispanic households, and households with volatile income. AV-based
transport services must consider a variety of ways in which payment for
service can be made in order to ensure that this technology supports
equitable access and the inclusion of all.
Equity: Transportation is an imperative part of life. It is the
connector for people's work, medical care, worship, recreation,
essentials for life and all other tasks. As new modes of transportation
continue to grow and evolve, investment and development must include a
process where all people can safely participate.
Accessibility, Passenger Safety, and Transportation Services: The
safety of passengers is not a monolith, and the measurement and
descriptions of safety differ for all people in particular for those
who are part of marginalized communities. The use of public
transportation safely is currently partially in control of the
operators of the modes and vehicles. Human interaction remains
essential even when there is an AV and no operators. There must be
clear plans that coordinate the safe transportation for all people
including the need for delivery of medical care as well as laws that
embrace social equity to protect those who are marginalized (Black and
Brown people, Indigenous people, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,
queer, + (LGBTQ+) people, people with disabilities, women, older
adults, and all other groups) in the implementation of these
transportation services.
Preserving Consumer and Worker Rights
Consumer Information: Consumer information regarding AVs should be
available at the point of sale, in the owner's manual, including
publicly accessible electronic owner's manuals, and in any OTA updates.
The vehicle identification number (VIN) should be updated to reflect
whether certain features were built into the vehicle, either as
standard or optional equipment. Additionally, similar to the user-
friendly safercar.gov website, NHTSA must establish a website
accessible by VIN with basic safety information about the AV level,
safety exemptions, and limitations and capabilities of the AV driving
system including those resulting from OTA updates. The U.S. New Car
Assessment Program (NCAP) was the first government program to provide
the public with comprehensive auto safety ratings, including crash test
results. It is vital that Congress require NHTSA to act upon consumer
and stakeholder recommendations to modernize U.S. NCAP (See Claybrook/
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety paper) and include ratings on how
vehicles perform in crashes with motorcyclists, pedestrians and
bicyclists. This enhancement of NCAP will be especially crucial as AVs
are introduced into the marketplace. Consumer information should be
available in multiple languages, similar to compliance with Section 508
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-112), and via video with
closed captioning as appropriate, as well as other means of
communication to promote access.
Privacy: Passenger vehicles have the potential to collect
significant amounts of data that could interfere with personal privacy
rights. Therefore, all manufacturers of passenger motor vehicles,
including AVs, should be required to comply with robust data privacy
safeguards and policies. Any personally identifiable information (PII)
should only be collected or shared for purposes of delivering the
services a consumer has requested or affirmatively opted-in to, with
appropriately tailored exceptions for essential public purposes,
safety, data security, compliance with regulatory requirements, and
analytics/performance monitoring, among other purposes. Companies
should be required to be transparent with consumers and workers
operating a vehicle about the collection and sharing of information,
protect information associated with the vehicle and the vehicle itself
from data breaches, obtain consumers' express permission to sell or
disclose their PII to third parties, and provide consumers the ability
to access and delete PII that is not needed to support essential public
purposes, safety, data security, compliance with regulatory
requirements, and analytics/performance monitoring. The ability of
NHTSA, the NTSB, and local law enforcement to access critical safety
performance data, while preserving the integrity of personal, private
or identifying data, in a timely manner for research, crash
investigation and other governmental purposes must be preserved. In
addition, radio spectrum needed for traffic safety purposes including
vehicle-to-everything communications must be limited to non-commercial
use.
Workforce Protections: The deployment of AV technology will have a
significant impact on our Nation's workforce. While these technologies
will create new business and employment opportunities, they will also
lead to displacement and major shifts in jobs and job functions that
will not necessarily be linked to those new opportunities, especially
for those same individuals who are being displaced. Policymakers have a
major role to play in determining whether AV deployment will help or
harm working people and whether the benefits from these technologies
will be broadly shared. Absent strong leadership, AV technology risks
worsening severe inequalities already inherent in our society,
predominantly for blue collar workers. Existing and foreseeable issues
which stand to be greatly exacerbated by this technology must be
addressed before this technology is broadly deployed on our roads.
Similarly, unforeseeable issues throughout deployment will need to be
resolved with input from affected stakeholders. Congress must ensure
that workers and unions are partners in the development and
implementation of AV technology and policy. It must recognize the
projected negative effects of a transition to AVs, including but not
limited to ensuring strong worker protections in Federal funding and
procurements, and providing worker support programs for current and
future workers including training and re-skilling to ensure that
displaced and otherwise affected workers are able to move into middle
class jobs created by technological change. In order to achieve these
goals, Congress must also take action to require companies and
government agencies that plan to transition to AV fleets to be
transparent and honest with their workers regarding budgets, plans--
including training programs--and timelines for the implementation of
new technology. In workplaces where the employees are unionized and
thus bargain collectively, these issues should be negotiated.
Whistleblower Protections: Employees or contractors of any
manufacturer, supplier, or operator of software or hardware for AVs who
want to report safety defects to NHTSA should not be prevented from
doing so as the result of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). The type of
protections afforded whistleblowers in Section 31307 of the Moving
Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act (Pub. L. 112-141)
as well as Section 24352 in the FAST Act (Pub. L. 114-94) must be
extended in any AV bill. In addition, the Department of Labor prohibits
a NDA that prevents an individual from providing information to the
Federal government. However, only a limited number of cases have been
filed with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
Therefore, more must be done to inform employees as to their rights and
responsibilities when such a situation arises.
Consumer and Worker Rights\6\: The well-established rights of
consumers to seek accountability in a court of law for injuries
suffered as a result of AVs must be preserved. Nothing in this bill
shall exempt a person from liability at common law or under a state
law, or permit a consumer to be required to forgo their rights by a
manufacturer or provider of AVs. Moreover, exploitative independent
contractor relationships that shield AV companies from liability and
deny workers basic workplace rights should be explicitly prevented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety does not take a position
on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensuring Local Control and Sustainable Transportation
Local, State and Federal Regulatory Roles: The statutory mission of
the DOT established by Congress in 1966 is to regulate the performance
of motor vehicles to ensure public safety, which now includes AVs. In
keeping with existing law and practice, the Federal government should
prescribe regulations for the performance of these vehicles, leaving
regulation of the operation of these vehicles to the states. Even after
Federal regulations are in place regarding AVs, existing federalism
practices demand that states retain a legal right and a duty to their
residents to develop proposals and implement solutions to ensure public
safety. In addition, state and local governments have the authority to
manage the operation of vehicles on their streets to address concerns
such as safety, noise, local air quality, and congestion. Any action on
the regulation of AVs shall not preempt states and localities from
regulating the operation of these vehicles just as they do for
traditional motor vehicles.
In-Depth Study of AV Impacts on Transportation Systems and
Environment: AVs could have direct and indirect negative impacts on
safety, congestion, pollution, land use, accessibility, transportation
infrastructure capacity and needs, energy consumption, public transit,
jobs and job functions, mobility and equity. DOT must be directed to
undertake a comprehensive study to inform policymakers and the public
about how these vehicles will impact our existing transportation
systems and ensure effective mitigation of problems identified.
Implementation of infrastructure to support the safe operations of AVs,
such as placement of electric vehicle charging stations, visible lane
striping, and uniform and unobstructed signage, must be equitable for
all communities to ensure equal opportunity for people of all racial
and socioeconomic backgrounds.
NOTE: The AV Tenets outlined in this document do not constitute the
entirety of each supporting organization's policy priorities related to
AVs.
______
Supporters of Autonomous Vehicle (AV) Tenets
Active Transportation Alliance (Metro Chicago)
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
American Association for Justice
American Motorcyclist Association
American Public Health Association
American Trauma Society
Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals
Bicycle Coalition of New Mexico
BikeNWA
BikeOklahoma
Bike Pittsburgh
BikeSD
BikeWalkKC
Brain Injury Association of America
California Association of Bicycling Organizations
Cascade Bicycle Club
Center for Auto Safety
Center for Disability Rights, Inc.
Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways
Consumer Action
Consumer Federation of America
Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety
Consumer Reports
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund
Emergency Nurses Association
Environmental Law & Policy Center
Families for Safe Streets
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association
GorgePedal.com
Health by Design
Idaho Walk Bike Alliance
International Brotherhood of Teamsters
Joan Claybrook, President Emeritus, Public Citizen, Former
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
KidsAndCars.org
LA Walks
League of American Bicyclists
Missouri Bicycle and Pedestrian Federation
National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO)
National Coalition for Safer Roads
National Consumers League
New Urban Mobility Alliance
Parents Against Tired Truckers
Public Citizen
Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy
Ride Illinois
San Francisco Families for Safer Streets
Shenandoah Valley Bicycle Coalition
SoCal Families for Safe Streets
The Daniel Initiative
Transport Workers Union
Transportation Alternatives
Transportation for America
Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO
Trauma Foundation
Truck Safety Coalition
Walk SF
Washington Bikes
Whirlwind Wheelchair International
Wyoming Pathways
______
Glossary of Acronyms
ADS--Automated Driving System
AV--Autonomous Vehicle
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
DOT--Department of Transportation
FAA--Federal Aviation Administration
FAST--Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, Pub. L. 114-94
FMVSS--Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
GAO--Government Accountability Office
GVWR--Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
HHS--Health and Human Services
HMI--Human-Machine Interface
IRB--Institutional Review Board
LGBTQ+--Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, +
MAP-21--Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, Pub. L. 112-
141
NCAP--New Car Assessment Program
NDA--Non-Disclosure Agreement
NHTSA--National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NIST--National Institute of Standards and Technology
NTSB--National Transportation Safety Board
ODD--Operational Design Domain
OTA--Over-the-Air
PII--Personally Identifiable Information
SAE--Society of Automotive Engineers
USC--United States Code
VIN--Vehicle Identification Number
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Hon. John D. Porcari
Megaprojects. Large infrastructure projects are critical to
increasing transportation capacity and improving mobility across the
country. The I-5 Bridge in Vancouver, Washington across the Columbia
River is a prime example. The bridge, which includes a span that is
more than 100 years old, carries 135,000 vehicles and roughly $110
million in freight traffic each day. Congestion on the bridge rose 278
percent between 2011 and 2016. Now, due to its seismic vulnerability,
it is in desperate need of replacement to reduce congestion, improve
safety, and enhance freight access. However, it is often challenging to
fund these megaprojects due to their high cost and multistate
jurisdictions.
Question 1. What are the primary obstacles for constructing mega
projects with multi-state jurisdictions?
Answer. Primary obstacles to constructing multi-state mega projects
include synchronizing the electoral, funding and procurement cycles of
the states, as well as recognition of their national and regional
significance through a separate Federal funding source.
Let me illustrate these obstacles through a project that I
personally led, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge replacement over the Potomac
River, connecting Maryland and Virginia. Like the I-5 bridge over the
Columbia River, the existing Woodrow Wilson Bridge (I-95/495) was
outmoded, well beyond its design capacity, and presented an ongoing
safety issue. The existing bridge also had a highly disruptive
drawspan, which was operated by the District of Columbia. As a result,
two states and the District of Columbia had to partner in its
replacement, although the District of Columbia did not bear any
financial responsibility for the replacement structure. The first
obstacle that had to be overcome was to build a tripartite governance
structure for the $2.4 billion replacement bridge that would survive
multiple changes of administration in the District of Columbia,
Maryland and Virginia (the two states are on different gubernatorial
election cycles), and at the national level. Governors in both states
had to make multi-year financial commitments that would bind their
successors to fund their share of the bridge replacement. Changes of
administration (and parties) in both states, as well as a change in
control of Congress and the Presidency during the design and
construction period, threatened the continued progress of the project
at multiple points. The governance structure ultimately proved durable
enough to withstand these changes of administration and political
support.
Both states used substantial portions of their FHWA formula funds,
as well as two substantial direct appropriations by the Congress. In
this sense, the Wilson bridge replacement was treated as a project of
national and regional significance, and funded accordingly. The
procurement and operational responsibilities were divided between the
two states, with Maryland being the actual procurement agency.
A primary lesson learned in delivering this project was that the
political, financial and legal structure had to be designed from the
beginning to anticipate and survive multiple electoral and funding
cycles in order to deliver a successful project.
INFRA. The INFRA grant program was intended to provide funding for
nationally and regionally significant freight projects. However,
multimodal freight projects are subject to a 10 percent cap. The
program is also significantly oversubscribed and has only been able to
fund less than 10 percent of projects that have applied to the program.
Question 2. What reforms to the INFRA program would provide the
greatest benefit to transportation stakeholders?
Answer. Arbitrarily capping intermodal freight projects in the
INFRA grant program at 10 percent, in my opinion, works against one of
the primary benefits of the program, which is to connect the seams in
the national goods delivery system. A substantially larger INFRA
program, without the 10 percent cap, would better serve America by
helping to reduce the substantial backlog of worthy projects that have
direct economic, environmental and other benefits.
RRIF Reforms. The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing
(RRIF) program is authorized to provide up to $35 billion in loan
guarantees to finance the development of rail infrastructure. Despite
changes to the RRIF program under the FAST Act of 2015 intended to
increase use of the program, utilization remains low.
Question 3. What can Congress to do increase utilization of the
RRIF program and to ensure that transportation projects are receiving
the funding they need?
Answer. The single most important reform of the RRIF program to
encourage its wider use would be to have a Federal allocation for the
credit risk premium, as the TIFIA program does. Multiple potential RRIF
applicants have identified that as an insurmountable barrier to using
the program.
Process reforms that result in a shorter, more consistent process
would also be helpful. RRIF is truly an underutilized tool, and
eliminating the need for the applicant to pay the credit risk premium
and a shorter, more predictable process will make the program
significantly more attractive to applicants.
Climate and Resiliency. In 2020, the United States endured 22
separate billion-dollar weather and climate disasters that have harmed
transportation infrastructure, disrupted service, and increased
maintenance and operating costs. Climate impacts on transportation are
not limited to individual events--the transportation sector is the
largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the United
States, accounting for nearly 30 percent of all GHG emissions.
Question 4. How can Congress ensure that climate and resiliency are
priorities for transportation projects across the country?
Answer. Requiring consideration of climate and resiliency factors
in the Purpose & Need statements that are a component of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
and Environmental Assessments (EA) will be an important step in
building these considerations into the scope of projects from the
beginning. No project should be going forward from this point without
preferred alternatives and design elements that accommodate climate
change and resiliency needs. Climate change and resiliency need to be
integral elements of the selected project alternative.
Additionally, including climate and resiliency considerations as an
evaluation criteria in USDOT competitive grant applications will also
help build these considerations into project scopes.
Finally, USDOT can modify guidance on asset management requirements
for transit, highway and other systems to include climate and
resilience as a required component of lifecycle cost evaluations.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Hon. John D. Porcari
Infrastructure Investment. As one of the first Senators to support
the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, I understand the
critical importance of direct investment in transportation
infrastructure for local economies. A recent report by the American
Public Transportation Association estimates that every $1 invested in
public transportation generates $4 in economic returns.
Question 1. Can you speak to the critical importance of direct
investment in transportation infrastructure, particularly for rural
communities?
Answer. There is no substitute for direct and sustained investments
in transportation infrastructure in communities across America,
including rural communities. From the founding of the Republic,
particularly in rural areas, we have come together as a nation to build
farm to market roads, developed our unparalleled system of inland
waterways and Great Lakes waterborne transportation, and built
railroads that helped make America an agricultural export giant. By any
objective measure, we are now living off the infrastructure investments
made by previous generations, and by failing to pay it forward we are
``eating our seed corn''.
Empire Builder: Rural Communities and Economies. The Empire
Builder, one of Amtrak's longest rail lines, contributes $327 million
to the economies of the states in which it operates and provides a
critical link for many rural communities in Minnesota helping students
get to college, workers get to job centers, and tourists get to travel
destinations.
Question 2. How vital are long-distance routes in connecting rural
areas to urban centers, particularly for local economies?
Answer. Long distance passenger rail routes are crucial to the
communities they serve today, the additional communities that they can
serve in the future, and as a component of our national transportation
network. For our citizens who depend on rail travel or live in
underserved rural communities, these routes are a lifeline. The Empire
Builder also plays a critical role for the tourism industry, travelling
directly through Glacier National Pak and the Cascade Mountains. Long
distance passenger trains such as the Empire Builder are a source of
continued economic vitality for small towns and cities across America.
Adding additional city pairs to the existing network of long
distance routes will help weave communities together and provide an
environmentally-friendly transportation alternative for generations to
come.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kyrsten Sinema to
Hon. John D. Porcari
Interstate 11. A transportation priority for Arizona is I-11, which
will run from the U.S./Mexican border to Phoenix, Las Vegas, and north
through Nevada. Interstate 11 will be an important link between two of
the largest cities in the county, will increase trade and commerce with
Mexico and Canada throughout the region, and will relieve air pollution
and congestion in downtown Phoenix.
Question 1. Based on your experience at the Department of
Transportation, do you agree that interstate projects such as
Interstate 11 are an important aspect of our Nation's transportation
infrastructure, particularly given the continuing population growth in
the region?
Answer. Interstate highways such play a crucial role in our
Nation's economy, and the proposed I-11 has the potential to become an
important north-south trade corridor in one of the fastest growing
regions of the country.
Question 2. If so, what recommendations do you have for Congress
and the Administration to continue to support the development and
construction of such projects?
Answer. It is important to stipulate that maintaining and
rebuilding our existing highway assets must be our first priority.
Providing that there is adequate funding for system preservation of
our existing highway assets by the Federal government and states,
proposed projects such as I-11 can benefit from a number of best
practices that can be incorporated in the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) process. These include the latest tools for more thorough
citizen and community involvement, careful consideration of design
alternatives from an all-hazards resiliency and climate change
perspective, and a more sophisticated review of potential impacts on
historic properties, tribal lands and environmentally sensitive areas.
In addition, the proposed corridor can provide the right-of-way for
other essential infrastructure such as broadband and buried High
Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) transmission of renewable energy.
Amtrak Southwest Chief and Sunset Limited. In my home state, the
Southwest Chief provides service to Flagstaff, Kingman, and Winslow,
Arizona. The Sunset Limited serves Tucson, Benson, Maricopa, and Yuma,
Arizona. In these communities, Amtrak service is a significant
financial driver. For example, over 50,000 riders disembark in
Flagstaff each year and provide more than $12 million in tourism
dollars to the city.
Question 3. Based on your experience at the Department, do you
agree that long-distance Amtrak service such as the Southwest Chief and
the Sunset Limited provide crucial connectivity for many rural
communities and can be significant financial drivers?
Answer. Yes, existing long-distance passenger rail routes such as
the Southwest Chief and Sunset Limited provide crucial connectivity and
economic opportunity to rural communities. Augmenting this network with
proposed additional service such as the ``Amtrak Connects US'' plan
will further assist rural communities throughout the country.
Question 4. If so, what recommendations do you have for Congress
and the Administration to continue to support Amtrak long-distance
service?
Answer. Consistent and predictable multi-year Federal financial
support for long-distance service is essential to its stability and
growth. Beyond that base support, funding for new rolling stock and co-
investments with host railroads for track, bridge and signal
improvements are sorely needed and are crucial for the long-term growth
of the cross-country network. Finally, support for the ``Amtrak
Connects US'' vision, which includes adding service to cities such as
Phoenix, will ensure that we are handing over a significantly improved,
environmentally friendly passenger rail network to the next generation
of Americans.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to
Hon. John D. Porcari
Question 1. It takes an average of seven years to complete an
environmental impact statement for a highway project. This process
should be reviewed and can be improved in order to be able to ``Build
Back Better,'' we need to be able to ``Build Back''. During your time
at DOT, did you experience roadblocks that made it difficult for States
to move projects from concept to completion?
Answer. That is an excellent question, Senator and gets to the
heart of timely, consistent and predictable project delivery. I will
admit that I came to the USDOT Deputy Secretary position with a bit of
a chip on my shoulder, having twice served as Secretary of the Maryland
Department of Transportation, where I delivered a number of large,
complex highway, bridge, transit, airport and port projects, including
coordinating highway and commuter rail improvements with the State of
West Virginia. I made sure that re-engineering the NEPA process was an
important component of our work program.
As you know, more than 90 percent of the NEPA transportation work
is conducted under a Categorical Exclusion (Cat X) and another 3-4
under an Environmental Analysis (EA). The remaining approximately 3
percent of projects require a full Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS). These projects, almost by definition are large, complex and
involve a host of state and local agencies.
In the Obama administration, we established a cross-agency
permitting Rapid Response Team across the executive branch, which I co-
chaired with the Chair of the President's Council on Environmental
Quality. The purpose of this team was to establish and validate process
improvements, which would result in measurably better outcomes,
including environmental outcomes, in a shorter, more predictable
process. One of the first projects we tackled was the Tappan Zee Bridge
replacement in the State of New York, where the EIS was approved in a
record 13 months. We found that the single most significant process
improvement was to front-load the EIS process and have all of the
environmental resource agencies at the state and Federal level declare
their objectives and specific issues up front, rather than one at a
time at the end of the process. By literally having everyone around one
table talking directly to each other, rather than through a series of
interminable e-mail daisy chains, we were able to establish clear
environmental priorities for the Tappan Zee replacement, incorporate
them into the Final EIS/Record of Decision, and get the project
underway. This Rapid Response Team approach was used successfully for
other major projects as well. A similar process was undertaken for the
Columbia River Crossing, a proposed I-5 bridge replacement connecting
Oregon and Washington. And these lessons have now been incorporated
into the work of the OMB-Chaired Permitting Improvement Council.
Follow-up: Do you agree that we should explore ways to
improve this process?
Answer. Yes, I strongly agree that we have shown that we can
simultaneously be both good environmental stewards and implement a
better process. In fact, most major projects would happily trade
additional mitigation in return for a faster, more consistent process.
Close attention to the leadership and work program of the
Permitting Improvement Council can substantially advance this agenda.
Question 2. Under the previous administration, former DOT Secretary
Chao did a very good job recognizing that rural areas were being
underfunded and make a concerted effort to use the Department's
discretionary authority to help rural America. In your testimony, you
mention that President Biden's vow to ``Build Back Better'' means
rebuilding our economy and making foundational investments in America's
future through infrastructure. I believe that investments in rural
communities can maximize Federal funding and address our Nation's most
immediate infrastructure needs. How can we utilize a whole-of-
government approach to maximizing economic growth in rural states, like
West Virginia?
Answer. From the founding of the Republic, rural development has
been seen as an important national goal. Our earliest national pikes
(roads) and our magnificent system of inland and Great Lakes waterways
are two important examples of where a broad consensus of citizens
understood that it is in everyone's interest to connect our rural
communities with opportunities.
This determination to help our rural communities did not begin with
Secretary Chao, nor should it end with her successor. For example, an
essential element of the $48 billion of infrastructure funding in the
Recovery Act (ARRA) in 2009 was the TIGER competitive grant program,
where President Obama established a rural set-aside to
disproportionately advantage rural areas.
I strongly believe that this was the right thing to do, and you can
see the same philosophy today, for example, in the Build Back Better
plans to connect all of America with high-speed internet. Bringing
high-speed Internet service to every corner of rural America now counts
as ``core'' infrastructure, and is consistent with the economic
development goals of infrastructure development.
The Executive Branch has strong convening authority across agencies
and departments and can be used to bring some non-traditional actors on
grid resiliency, broadband, rural air service and other issues to the
forefront. This executive branch-wide convening authority should be
synched with efforts of regional entities such as the Appalachian
Regional Commission for maximum impact.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Marsha Blackburn to
Hon. John D. Porcari
Question 1. In your opening statement, you mentioned
``Transportation projects requiring either an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) or an Environmental Assessment (EA) under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) should now incorporate climate change
and equity considerations.'' Could you please define what you mean by
``equity'' in this statement?
Answer. Thank you for asking this important question. The ``Purpose
& Need'' section of an EIS or EA is where the fundamental justification
for a project is outlined, including consideration of both the benefits
and the impacts of the proposed project.
In this context, ``equity'' means understanding who gets the
benefits, and who bears the burdens, of the proposed improvement.
In the past, communities of color have borne a disproportionate
impact of interstate highway construction, rail expansion, pipeline
construction and other infrastructure projects. Using equity as a lens
to more fully understand who has benefitted and who has borne the
burden of alignment and siting decisions in the past, combined with
undertaking a similar analysis of current community conditions,
provides a critical context for where, what, and how future
infrastructure projects should be determined.
Follow-up: NEPA is one of the most burdensome regulatory
hurdles to rebuilding our Nation's infrastructure. County
officials in Tennessee constantly tell me how ridiculous it is
to get a project approved due to this onerous regulation. Why
should we continue to impose more regulatory requirements on
states that are trying to get projects done in a more
efficient, and effective matter?
Answer. I fundamentally disagree with this premise. When President
Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act on January 1, 1970,
he clearly embraced the premise that infrastructure construction and
environmental protection are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they are
symbiotic.
This has been my personal experience of over 35 years delivering
both mulit-billion dollar and smaller-scale projects at the local,
state and Federal level. Front-loading the NEPA process by engaging all
stakeholders at the beginning, rather than the end of the process
invariably results in better project alternatives selection--and a
streamlined process.
It is true that the NEPA process can be very intimidating for local
officials that have not been through it before, and some states provide
technical assistance and training, which I highly recommend.
Question 2. Many states, including Tennessee, are right-to-work
states, but Federal rules like the Davis-Bacon Act and Project Labor
Agreements mandate union pay scales and work rules across the country,
increasing the cost of infrastructure projects by 10 to 30 percent. Due
to these cost increases in infrastructure projects, why should we
expand these rules, as the Biden administration has stated it intends
to?
Answer. It is important to go back to the original premise for
public investments in infrastructure, and remember that infrastructure
is a means to an end, not an end in itself. In other words, the larger
objective of these public investments is to build a stronger economy,
enhance communities and provide equal access to opportunities for
individuals.
The Davis-Bacon Act was signed into law in 1931 by President Hoover
to prevent a race to the bottom on wages by requiring the payment of
local prevailing wages for qualifying projects. Similarly, the Federal
government requires the use of steel manufactured in the United States
for federally-funded projects. In both cases, this is a recognition
that public infrastructure investments should help build a stronger
economy. I strongly support that premise, and believe that it makes
sense for the Biden administration to review existing requirements, and
update them for today's conditions where necessary.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Douglas R. Hooker
Congestion. Freight congestion has real economic impacts for
consumers and businesses. Nationally, truck congestion increases
business operating costs by about $74.5 billion annually.
Question 1. How is the Atlanta Regional Commission looking to
leverage innovation to reduce freight congestion?
Answer. The Atlanta Regional Commission is looking to leverage
innovation both through our regional MPO freight plans and our local
plans, known as Freight Cluster Plans, which are focused on freight
movement and industrial development. Freight Cluster Plans help local
jurisdictions identify ways to move freight more efficiently, improve
safety, and expand access to jobs at industrial businesses. Project
recommendations include some major, expensive projects such as highway
interchange expansion/reconstruction, capacity projects, and major
intersection improvements. They also include smaller, local projects
such as adding turn lanes, increasing the turning radii at
intersections, and shifting the stop bars further back so its easier
for trucks to turn, all of which can help address local bottlenecks
near industrial businesses. Recommendations also include adding bus
shelters, sidewalks, and improving pedestrian crossings so that workers
can safely get to jobs at these growing industrial businesses.
Other recommendations focus on ITS (Intelligent Transportation
Systems) and CV (Connected Vehicle) technology. Much of this technology
is new, and it can help address traffic congestion and safety. However,
identifying national standards for this technology, especially for CV
technology, is vital for successful implementation for all vehicle
types. Freight Cluster Plans also analyze truck parking in each study
area, but expanding truck parking in major urban areas like Metro
Atlanta is consistently a challenge. One growing issue nationally
appears to be driver delay at industrial businesses. Truck drivers will
allot a certain amount of time for a pickup or drop-off, but then might
be delayed at this location for an extended period, maybe even for
hours. The driver's hours of service are impacted while they are
waiting, meaning they have little or no time to find a safe parking
location once they leave this business. This issue can't be solved at
the local or regional level.
These local Freight Cluster Plans will feed into ARC's next
Regional Freight Plan Update, which will kickoff later in 2021. These
plans also help local jurisdictions identify freight project needs of
all types, providing them with clear freight project priorities in a
way that they've never had in the past.
INFRA. The INFRA grant program was intended to provide funding for
nationally and regionally significant freight projects. However,
multimodal freight projects are subject to a 10 percent cap. The
program is also significantly oversubscribed and has only been able to
fund less than 10 percent of projects that have applied to the program.
Question 2. What reforms to the INFRA program would provide the
greatest benefit to transportation stakeholders?
Answer. Many regions of the country are reaching the limit of being
able to accommodate ever-increasing truck volumes on its freeways,
arterials and other access roadways, and reorient Federal policy
accordingly. Urban congestion and safety concerns created by trucks,
coupled with a crippling shortage of drivers, means shifting a greater
share of freight traffic to the other modes (including those which are
still under development) will be critical to the long-term success of
the U.S. economy. We would encourage future rounds of INFRA funding
eliminate all caps on project types and encourage creative projects
that facilitate long-distance freight movement by other viable existing
transportation infrastructure, while also leveraging any new
technologies which may become viable in the near future.
Many projects likely to be funded under an INFRA grant already have
numerous other Federal programs at their avail at the state and
regional level. Any Federal discretionary program should prioritize a
smaller number of large-scale projects which are difficult to implement
through traditional means, rather than a larger number of small-scale
projects which can be advanced in other ways. For example, the INFRA
(then FASTLANE) funded Mason Mega Rail project in Savannah will allow
the port to construct longer trains on-site without disrupting the
local roadway network, extending the port's reach via rail further
outside the southeast. The INFRA funded C.R.E.A.T.E program of rail
improvements in the Chicago area addresses the challenges with lots of
rail movement in an urban area, a problem that also exists in Metro
Atlanta. Projects such as these, as well as roads and highway
interchanges serving industrial businesses, improved air cargo
connections, truck parking facilities, and new technology for freight
movement should be the focus of the INFRA grant program going forward.
These types of projects show a clear need and purpose related to
freight movement, which is necessary to best support freight movement
nationally.
Finally, under the current manner in which sponsors apply for
funding, implementing larger-scale projects of true national
significance may be hindered if they cross multiple local, regional and
state boundaries and/or involve multiple modes. We believe that to
realize the full potential of the INFRA program (and other similar
national competitive discretionary funding programs), consideration
could be given to expanding the role which USDOT can serve in
assembling, managing and overseeing the broad coalitions of agencies
and organizations which will be required for such projects.
Climate and Resiliency. In 2020, the United States endured 22
separate billion-dollar weather and climate disasters that have harmed
transportation infrastructure, disrupted service, and increased
maintenance and operating costs. Climate impacts on transportation are
not limited to individual events--the transportation sector is the
largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States,
accounting for nearly 30 percent of all GHG emissions.
Question 3. How can Congress ensure that addressing climate impacts
and resiliency are priorities for transportation projects across the
country?
Answer. ARC believes that national goals related to addressing the
challenges of climate change and infrastructure resiliency can be best
achieved by ``mainstreaming'' best design and planning practices
throughout all aspects of related legislation. We see numerous
references to these issues throughout initial transportation
reauthorization proposals, which is encouraging.
There is some concern with the possible creation of numerous, and
potentially duplicative and overlapping, discretionary programs
targeted at narrow and isolated aspects of these challenges. By
isolating such initiatives into relatively small programs with limited
budgets, it can create the impression that these are unique ``one-off''
projects, while much larger funding programs will be allowed to
continue following ``business as usual'' decision-making processes. Of
particular concern is the ability of state DOTs to flex funds from the
well-established CMAQ program to other core programs, which do not
always have the same focus on air quality beneficial outcomes.
Rather than creating new small pots of money which may advance the
same projects which are CMAQ-eligible, we believe a better approach
would be to simply clarify the intended purpose of that existing
program, increase the amount of funding it receives, and restrict the
ability to divert funds to projects which do not support its
objectives. This will send a much stronger message regarding Federal
priorities than multiple underfunded and duplicative discretionary
programs will.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell to
Mark McAndrews
Freight Congestion. Freight congestion has real economic impacts
for consumers and businesses. Nationally, truck congestion increases
business operating costs by about $74.5 billion annually. According to
the state's freight plan, freight shipments in Mississippi are expected
to increase by 48 percent by 2040.
Question 1. What Federal policy or investment priorities would help
prepare you to accommodate increased freight movement and to avoid
congestion?
Answer. Investment in our Nation's multimodal transportation system
is critical to easing the congestion that may occur as freight
shipments increase over the next two decades. Funding for non-road,
intermodal infrastructure was limited in the last reauthorization of
our Nation's surface transportation policies. INFRA intermodal funding
was capped at $500 million over the original five-year FAST Act
authorization, while intermodal dollars were capped at 10 percent of
freight formula funds. Raising, or wholly eliminating, these artificial
investment caps will give the U.S Department of Transportation and
State Departments of Transportation the flexibility necessary to make
critical investments needed to accommodate increased freight volumes
and avoid congestion that may result.
E-Commerce. E-commerce has exploded, growing from just $27 billion
in sales in 2000 to $792 billion in 2020--that's 14 percent of total
sales. These packages travel through ports, over rail, and on trucks to
reach consumers. I am concerned about the congestion our ports are
currently experiencing, as well as export challenges facing American
farmers and businesses working to export their products to global
markets. Increases in e-commerce will continue to stress the shipping
and port infrastructure.
Question 2. What port infrastructure investments should be made to
prepare our economy for this emerging opportunity as consumers pivot to
e-commerce?
Answer. As e-commerce continues to be prevalent, it becomes
increasingly important to ensure that each state plans for supply chain
cargo flows by all modes of transportation and benefits within each
state freight plan and includes the impacts of e-commerce on freight
infrastructure. By planning for an increasingly sophisticated freight
system, investments can be prioritized to ensure the smooth movement of
freight through our Nation's maritime gateways.
Multimodal funding has taken on a greater relevance in recent years
because of large population shifts to metropolitan areas where many
ports are located. Additionally, projects are becoming more complex,
integrating freight flow demands with passenger needs on both the
highway and rail networks. With growing populations and rising freight
volumes, rail access has been one of the vital tools in moving large
volumes of freight to distribution centers outside major population
centers. Increasingly, multimodal funding has been used to connect rail
not only to ports but also to distribution centers nationwide.
As mentioned in my written testimony, the American Association of
Port Authorities has identified more than $20 billion in funding needs
for public port authorities alone to improve our Nation's multimodal
infrastructure, and as supply chain becomes more sophisticated the
demand for multimodal funding will only increase. I applaud the
committee for prioritizing investment in our multimodal freight system,
and this focus must continue to ensure proper planning, investment, and
modernization to accommodate freight flows as consumers continue to
pivot to e-commerce.
INFRA. The INFRA grant program was intended to provide funding for
nationally and regionally significant freight projects. However,
multimodal freight projects are subject to a 10 percent cap. The
program is also significantly oversubscribed and has only been able to
fund less than 10 percent of projects that have applied to the program.
Question 3. What reforms to the INFRA program would provide the
greatest benefit to transportation stakeholders?
Answer. Because the safe and efficient movement of freight requires
many modes to work together, I recommend eliminating the arbitrary 10
percent cap on non-highway funding, allowing all projects to compete
for much-needed funds, regardless of mode. I would also recommend
greater transparency in the decision-making process to give
stakeholders and Congress an increased understanding of 1) what
differentiates a successful project, and 2) whether USDOT is correctly
applying Congressionally directed criteria, such as increasing global
economic competitiveness, improving connectivity between freight modes,
and improving the safety, efficiency, and reliability of the movement
of freight and people. Finally, the oversubscription of the program
demonstrates a true need for additional funding. In the combined FY17 &
FY18 round of awards, USDOT received $12 in unique requests for every
$1 available; all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico
have submitted applications to the program, demonstrating freight
infrastructure needs across the Nation. Based on these needs, the INFRA
program should receive a minimum annual Federal investment of $12
billion, dedicated to multimodal freight infrastructure.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Amy Klobuchar to
Mark McAndrews
Minnesota: Port Infrastructure Improvements. The Port of Duluth
supports industries from agriculture to manufacturing--it is the
largest and busiest port on the Great Lakes with 900 vessels and an
average of 35 million short tons of cargo per year. And in 2017, a new
intermodal terminal opened for Canadian National Railway and Duluth
Cargo Connect to improve the flow of freight in and out of the Midwest.
Question 1. Can you speak to the importance of viable ports in
supporting rural communities?
Answer. Seaports have national and international reach, and ports
are national infrastructure resources that support supply chains and
produces in areas metropolitan and rural alike via the deep-water ports
on the Pacific, Gulf and Atlantic coasts and the Great Lakes/St.
Lawrence Seaway. Through intermodal connectors, ports leverage energy
efficient transportation options to connect rural American farmers,
manufacturers, workers, and consumers to the global marketplace. And in
rural communities, connecting both surface and maritime transportation
modes provide supply chain flexibility to regional businesses and
logistics cost savings that keeps businesses competitive globally.
Question 2. In your view, why are investments in multi-modal port
infrastructure helpful in reducing delays and congestion in the
shipment of goods?
Answer. Ports serve as centers of commerce where freight and
commodities are transferred between cargo ships, barges, trucks,
trains, and pipelines. Port infrastructure supports transportation of
critical bulk commodities that could not be moved any other way. At the
Port of Pascagoula, we have undertaken a $36 million Rail Relocation
Project. As a result, the Mississippi Export Short Line and CSX
Interchange were relocated, increasing connectivity and efficiency, and
closing sixteen at-grade crossings in the cities of Moss Point and
Pascagoula.
And, when moving iron ore on the Great Lakes, one vessel replaces
2,800 trucks on our highways. To supply our Nation's steel mills by
road, at every point on the Interstate Highway System between Minnesota
and Indiana there would be a truck loaded with iron ore passing every
20 seconds on one side of the road and one truck returning empty on the
other side of the road. The Interstate Highway System would have to be
shut down to all traffic except for the iron ore trucks and no road
maintenance could occur. Multi-modal investments ensure that this is
not the case, and that freight and commodities are able to move through
our freight system without causing undue congestion.
[all]