[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


 
        RURAL TRANSPORTATION CHALLENGES: STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES

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

                                (118-50)

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                          HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

                                 OF THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                   TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                             MARCH 21, 2024
                               __________

                       Printed for the use of the
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
             
             
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]             


     Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
     transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
                             transportation
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
56-115 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2024   


             COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

  Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman
 Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking 
              Member
Eleanor Holmes Norton,               Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, 
  District of Columbia               Arkansas
Grace F. Napolitano, California      Daniel Webster, Florida
Steve Cohen, Tennessee               Thomas Massie, Kentucky
John Garamendi, California           Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiaian Babin, Texas
Andre Carson, Indiana                Garret Graves, Louisiana
Dina Titus, Nevada                   David Rouzer, North Carolina
Jared Huffman, California            Mike Bost, Illinois
Julia Brownley, California           Doug LaMalfa, California
Frederica S. Wilson, Florida         Bruce Westerman, Arkansas
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey     Brian J. Mast, Florida
Mark DeSaulnier, California          Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon,
Salud O. Carbajal, California          Puerto Rico
Greg Stanton, Arizona,               Pete Stauber, Minnesota
  Vice Ranking Member                Tim Burchett, Tennessee
Colin Z. Allred, Texas               Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Sharice Davids, Kansas               Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey,
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois     Vice Chairman
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire          Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts          Tracey Mann, Kansas
Jake Auchincloss, Massachusetts      Burgess Owens, Utah
Marilyn Strickland, Washington       Rudy Yakym III, Indiana
Troy A. Carter, Louisiana            Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Oregon
Patrick Ryan, New York               Thomas H. Kean, Jr., New Jersey
Mary Sattler Peltola, Alaska         Anthony D'Esposito, New York
Robert Menendez, New Jersey          Eric Burlison, Missouri
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon                 John James, Michigan
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio            Derrick Van Orden, Wisconsin
Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan        Brandon Williams, New York
Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina   Marcus J. Molinaro, New York
                                     Mike Collins, Georgia
                                     Mike Ezell, Mississippi
                                     John S. Duarte, California
                                     Aaron Bean, Florida
                                     Celeste Maloy, Utah
                                     Vacancy

                  Subcommittee on Highways and Transit

    Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, 
        Arkansas, Chairman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
     Columbia, Ranking Member
Jared Huffman, California            Daniel Webster, Florida
Chris Pappas, New Hampshire          Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Marilyn Strickland, Washington       Mike Bost, Illinois
Patrick Ryan, New York               Doug LaMalfa, California
Robert Menendez, New Jersey          Pete Stauber, Minnesota
Val T. Hoyle, Oregon,                Tim Burchett, Tennessee
  Vice Ranking Member                Dusty Johnson, South Dakota
Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina   Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
Grace F. Napolitano, California      Troy E. Nehls, Texas
Steve Cohen, Tennessee               Tracey Mann, Kansas
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgiargess Owens, Utah
Julia Brownley, California           Rudy Yakym III, Indiana
Greg Stanton, Arizona                Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Oregon
Colin Z. Allred, Texas               Thomas H. Kean, Jr., New Jersey
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois   Anthony D'Esposito, New York
Seth Moulton, Massachusetts          Eric Burlison, Missouri
Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio            Derrick Van Orden, Wisconsin
John Garamendi, California           Brandon Williams, New York
Dina Titus, Nevada                   Marcus J. Molinaro, New York
Salud O. Carbajal, California        Mike Collins, Georgia
Jake Auchincloss, Massachusetts      John S. Duarte, California,
Mark DeSaulnier, California            Vice Chairman
Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio) Aaron Bean, Florida
                                     Celeste Maloy, Utah
                                     Vacancy
                                     Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

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

                 STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, a Representative in Congress from 
  the State of Arkansas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Highways 
  and Transit, opening statement.................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the 
  District of Columbia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 
  Highways and Transit, opening statement........................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 
  Infrastructure, opening statement..............................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     8

                               WITNESSES

Mike Koles, Executive Director, Wisconsin Towns Association, on 
  behalf of the National Association of Towns and Townships, oral 
  statement......................................................    11
    Prepared statement...........................................    12
Jeff Greteman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Windstar 
  Lines, on behalf of the American Bus Association, oral 
  statement......................................................    18
    Prepared statement...........................................    20
Todd Morrow, Executive Director, Island Transit, on behalf of the 
  Community Transportation Association of America, oral statement    23
    Prepared statement...........................................    25
Scott VanderWal, National Vice President, American Farm Bureau 
  Federation, oral statement.....................................    30
    Prepared statement...........................................    31

                       SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Submissions for the Record by Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford:
    Letter of March 21, 2024, to Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, 
      Chairman, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, 
      Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, from Anthony Dimas, 
      Jr., County Manager, McKinley County, New Mexico...........    63
    Letter and Attachment of March 22, 2024, to Hon. Eric A. 
      ``Rick'' Crawford, Chairman, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes 
      Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and 
      Transit, from Jack Waldorf, Executive Director, Western 
      Governors' Association.....................................    64

                                APPENDIX

Questions from Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford to Jeff Greteman, 
  President and Chief Executive Officer, Windstar Lines, on 
  behalf of the American Bus Association.........................    71

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                             March 15, 2024

    SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

    TO:      LMembers, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
    FROM:  LStaff, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
    RE:      LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Rural Transportation 
Challenges: Stakeholder Perspectives''
_______________________________________________________________________


                               I. PURPOSE

    The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure will meet on Thursday, 
March 21, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. ET in 2167 Rayburn House Office 
Building to receive testimony at a hearing entitled, ``Rural 
Transportation Challenges: Stakeholder Perspectives.'' The 
hearing will provide an opportunity for Members to hear from 
stakeholders regarding the importance of Federal highway and 
transit programs for rural areas, the unique challenges facing 
these communities, and implementation of Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (P.L. 117-58) programs meant to 
aid rural communities. At the hearing Members will receive 
testimony from witnesses on behalf of the National Association 
of Towns and Townships, American Bus Association, Community 
Transportation Association of America, and the American Farm 
Bureau Federation.

                             II. BACKGROUND

RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE

    The United States transportation system, overseen by the 
United States Department of Transportation (DOT or Department), 
includes 8.8 million miles of public roads and nearly 620,000 
bridges, as of 2020.\1\ Of the 8.8 million miles of public 
roads, roughly six million lane-miles, or 68 percent, are in 
rural areas.\2\ The National transportation system also 
includes approximately 970 urban and 1,270 rural and Tribal 
public transit operators.\3\ States and local governments own 
the vast majority of roads, accounting for roughly 19 percent 
and 77 percent, respectively.\4\ The Federal Government owns a 
small segment of transportation facilities, mainly located on 
Federal lands.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ DOT, Transp. Statistics Annual Report (2022), available at 
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/65841.
    \2\ DOT, Bureau of Transp. Statistics, Rural Transportation 
Statistics, (Aug. 16, 2022), available at https://www.bts.gov/rural.
    \3\ DOT, Transp. Statistics Annual Report (2022), available at 
https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/65841.
    \4\ DOT, FHWA, Ownership of U.S. Roads and Streets, (May 31, 2022), 
available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/table5.htm.
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The definition of the term ``rural'' varies across Federal 
agencies and programs. Generally speaking, for the purposes of 
highway transportation, title 23 of the United States Code 
defines ``rural areas'' as those that are not ``urban areas,'' 
which are subsequently defined as ``designated by the Bureau of 
the Census as having a population of 5,000 or more and not 
within an urbanized area, within the boundaries to be fixed by 
responsible state and local officials in cooperation with each 
other, subject to approval by the Secretary [of 
Transportation].'' \6\ For purposes of transit, chapter 53 of 
title 49 defines ``rural area'' as an area encompassing a 
population of less than 50,000 people that has not been 
designated in the most recent decennial census as an 
``urbanized area'' by the Secretary of Commerce.\7\ However, 
many discretionary programs authorized by Congress and overseen 
by DOT set specific parameters of what constitutes rural.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ 23 U.S.C. Sec.  101.
    \7\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  5302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Transportation networks are essential for the movement of 
people and goods across the Nation. In rural areas, residents 
tend to drive farther distances to get to work and for goods 
and services. According to the Census Bureau, as of 2020, 
approximately 66 million Americans lived in rural areas, 
equating to about 20 percent of the total population.\8\ While 
a smaller share of the total population lives in these areas, 
the Census Bureau estimates these communities constitute 97 
percent of total land area in the United States.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census Urban Areas Facts, (June 2023), 
available at https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/
guidance/geo-areas/urban-rural/2020-ua-facts.html.
    \9\ U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Rural Handbook 
(2019), available at https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/
publications/2019/acs/ACS_rural_
handbook_2019_ch01.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rural communities have diverse infrastructure needs. A 2022 
TRIP report found that a $180 billion backlog exists for rural 
road and bridge needs.\10\ Further, the same report cites that 
the average annual United States rural household's vehicle 
miles traveled (VMT) is 50 percent higher when these 
communities are compared to their urban counterparts.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Press Release, TRIP, U.S. Rural Roads & Bridges Have 
Significant Deficiencies & High Fatality Rates & Lack Adequate 
Capacity; Backlog of Needed Repairs & Improvements to Rural Roads & 
Bridges totals $180 Billion, (Oct. 13, 2022), available at https://
tripnet.org/reports/rural-connections-national-news-release-10-13-
2022/.
    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION: SELECT PROGRAMS

    The Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) 
oversees various discretionary grant programs. On November 15, 
2021, the President signed IIJA into law, representing the 
largest Federal investment in decades in the United States' 
infrastructure.\12\ While the majority of highway funding under 
IIJA was distributed to the states via formula, the law 
significantly expanded discretionary grant programs 
administered by the Secretary, including the creation of 
several new programs.\13\ For example, IIJA codified the 
Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and 
Equity (RAISE) (previously known as TIGER and subsequently 
BUILD) program.\14\ The program was initially funded under the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 (P.L. 
111-5) and subsequently funded by annual appropriations 
legislation.\15\ IIJA requires that not more than 50 percent of 
funding under the program go to either projects located in 
rural areas or projects located in urbanized areas.\16\ For the 
purposes of RAISE, the law defines a ``rural area'' as being 
located outside of an urbanized area.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Press Release, The White House, Updated Fact Sheet: Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, (Aug. 2, 2021), available at 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/08/
02/updated-fact-sheet-bipartisan-infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-
act/.
    \13\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429.
    \14\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  6702.
    \15\ American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 
111-5, 123 Stat. 203.
    \16\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429.
    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    IIJA also statutorily enacted the Rural Opportunities to 
Use Transportation for Economic Success (ROUTES) 
Initiative.\18\ The ROUTES Initiative was formed in 2019 by DOT 
Order 5050.1 to bolster support for rural areas through the 
facilitation of grant and loan opportunities and technical 
assistance.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 854.
    \19\ DOT Order, DOT 5050.1, U.S. Dep't of Transp.'s Rural 
Opportunities to Use Transportation for Economic Success (ROUTES) 
Initiatives, (Oct. 28, 2019), available at https://
www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/dotorders/
DOT%205050.1%20updated.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additionally, OST provides guidance for all competitive 
discretionary grant programs by first issuing a Notice of 
Funding Opportunity (NOFO), which sets forth the eligibilities 
under each program. A NOFO may also set forth requirements for 
grant applicants to demonstrate effort with respect to 
priorities established in executive orders or broader 
Administration or DOT-wide goals, in addition to criteria 
established by statute.\20\ For example, the Justice40 
Initiative (J40), created by President Biden's Executive Order 
14008, establishes a goal to devote 40 percent of certain 
Federal benefits to funding in disadvantaged communities.\21\ 
DOT's implementation of J40 affects the decision-making 
processes for at least 39 programs and approximately $204 
billion in authorized IIJA funding.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ DOT, DOT's Implementation of White House Executive Actions 
(EAs), (last updated July 13, 2023), available at https://
www.transportation.gov/priorities/dots-implementation-white-house-
executive-actions-eas; see also DOT, Maximizing Award Success: USDOT 
Grant Evaluation Criteria, (last updated Nov. 17, 2023), available at 
https://www.transportation.gov/rural/grant-toolkit/maximizing-award-
success/evaluation-criteria.
    \21\ DOT, Justice 40 Initiative, (last visited Feb. 23, 2023), 
available at https://www.transportation.gov/equity-Justice40.
    \22\ DOT, Justice40 Fact Sheet, available at https://
www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-11/
Justice40_Fact_Sheet_v1.2pptx.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DOT has outlined in its FY 2022-2026 Strategic Plan its 
goals of advancing safety, economic strength and global 
competitiveness, equity, climate and sustainability, 
transformation, and organizational excellence.\23\ In order to 
increase the likelihood of securing a grant award, DOT 
encourages applicants generally, and within their NOFOs, to 
align applications with DOT's defined strategic goals and to 
detail how their respective projects would help DOT achieve 
these goals.\24\ While applicants must comply with statutory 
requirements for grants, pursuant to the NOFO they will have a 
greater chance at securing a grant award if they also meet this 
Administration's additional criteria related to equity, 
Justice40, and climate change--although some competitive grant 
programs also include these same factors as statutory 
evaluation criteria.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ DOT, Strategic Plan FY 2022-2026, available at https://
www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-04/US_DOT_FY2022-
26_Strategic_Plan.pdf.
    \24\ DOT, Maximizing Award Success: USDOT Grant Evaluation 
Criteria, (last updated Nov. 17, 2023), available at https://
www.transportation.gov/rural/grant-toolkit/maximizing-award-success/
evaluation-criteria.
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHWA): SELECT PROGRAMS

    An estimated 87 percent of funding provided in IIJA to be 
overseen by FHWA is distributed to states by formula.\26\ This 
funding is important for supporting the vast and disparate 
needs of states, including in rural areas. For example, under 
IIJA, 55 percent of the Surface Transportation Block Grant 
(STBG) formula program is distributed based on population 
factors. In the first three years of IIJA, areas below 5,000 in 
population received $4.8 billion in funding and areas between 
5,000 and 50,000 received an additional $1.9 billion.\27\ Areas 
with population under 50,000 received 32 percent of 
suballocated STBG funding under IIJA.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ William J. Mallett, Cong. Rsch. Serv. (R47922), The Highway 
Funding Formula: History and Current Status Under the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act, (Feb. 15, 2024), available at https://
www.crs.gov/Reports/R47922.
    \27\ See FHWA, IIJA FY 2022 Computational Tables, available at 
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/comptables2022/
table4p1-6.cfm; FHWA, IIJA FY 2023 Computational Tables, available at 
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/comptables2023/
table4p1-6.cfm; FHWA, IIJA FY 2024 Computational Tables, available at 
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/comptables/
table4p1-6.cfm.
    \28\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    IIJA made updates to existing programs and created new 
programs and initiatives to support rural infrastructure needs. 
The law amended STBG to also allow states to use up to 15 
percent of funding per fiscal year on rural minor collectors or 
local roads or critical rural freight corridors.\29\ As another 
example, for the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway 
Projects (INFRA) program, IIJA provided that of the at least 15 
percent of funding set aside for small projects with 
anticipated costs of less than $100 million, that 30 percent be 
for projects to rural areas.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 464.
    \30\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 469 seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    IIJA also created the Rural Surface Transportation Grant 
program to support infrastructure projects in rural areas.\31\ 
The law authorized $2 billion in contract authority for the 
program. For the purposes of the program, the law defines a 
``rural area,'' as being located outside an urbanized area with 
a population of more than 200,000.\32\ Generally, highway, 
bridge, or tunnel projects are eligible for funding. The 
program requires the Federal cost share of a project not exceed 
80 percent, except for projects on the Appalachian Development 
Highway System or the Denali Access System, which states may 
determine to be eligible for up to 100 percent Federal cost 
share.\33\ The law also stipulates set-asides under the 
program: not more than 10 percent for projects with awards of 
less than $25 million; 25 percent for projects on the 
Appalachian Development Highway System; and 15 percent for 
projects aimed at addressing fatalities due to lane departures 
on rural roads.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 510.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

RURAL ROADWAY SAFETY

    According to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA) in 2021, 40 percent of all traffic 
fatalities occurred in rural areas.\35\ A 2022 report by TRIP 
looking at rural infrastructure found that traffic crashes and 
fatalities on rural non-Interstate roads are disproportionately 
high and notes that rural roads are more likely to have narrow 
lanes, limited shoulders, sharp curves, exposed hazards, 
pavement drop-offs, steep slopes and limited clear zones along 
roadsides.\36\ A 2022 report by the Governors Highway Safety 
Association and State Farm about the disproportionate rate of 
rural fatalities cites several contributing factors, including 
lack of safety resources, simpler roadway infrastructure, poor 
emergency medical services and behavioral risks including 
failure to use a seat belt, impaired driving, speeding and 
distraction.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\ DOT, NHTSA, Summary of Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes, (Oct. 
2023), available at https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/
ViewPublication/813515.
    \36\ Press Release, TRIP, U.S. Rural Roads & Bridges Have 
Significant Deficiencies & High Fatality Rates & Lack Adequate 
Capacity; Backlog of Needed Repairs & Improvements to Rural Roads & 
Bridges totals $180 Billion, (Oct. 13, 2022), available at https://
tripnet.org/reports/rural-connections-national-news-release-10-13-
2022/.
    \37\ Press Release, Governors Highway Safety Association, America's 
Rural Roads: Beautiful and Deadly, (September 1, 2022), available at 
https://www.ghsa.org/resources/news-releases/GHSA/Rural-Road-Safety22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    IIJA included initiatives to improve safety outcomes, 
including in rural areas. The law increased funding for the 
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), which is focused on 
infrastructure projects that enhance safety, to $15.6 billion, 
a 34 percent increase when compared to the previous 
authorization.\38\ This program includes a special rule for 
high risk rural roads, which requires a state to expend HSIP 
funds for safety projects on roads that the state determines 
pose a significant safety risk pursuant to FHWA guidance.\39\ 
In fiscal year (FY) 2024, 24 states triggered the special rule, 
and $103.7 million was required to be obligated for safety 
projects on high risk rural roads.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ DOT, FHWA, Federal-Aid Highway Program Authorizations Under 
the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, available at 
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/estfy20162020auth.pdf; see also, DOT, 
IIJA, Public Law 117-58, Authorized Funding, FY 2022 to FY 2026, 
available at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-
01/DOT_Infrastructure_Investment_and_Jobs_Act_Authorization_Table_%28IIJ
A%29.pdf.
    \39\ 23 U.S.C. Sec. 148.
    \40\ DOT, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Computational Tables, Table 
5: Highway Safety Improvement Program, available at https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/comptables/table5p2.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The law also provides funding for NHTSA, whose grant 
programs include those aimed at improving safe driving 
behavior, such as preventing impaired driving or distracted 
driving. Funding for NHTSA's behavioral programs, which are 
funded under the Highway Trust Fund, was increased to $5.1 
billion, a 36 percent increase compared to the previous 
authorization.\41\ IIJA also provided $1.6 billion in advance 
appropriations over five years for NHTSA, much of which is 
focused on the agency's behavioral safety work.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ Robert S. Kirk et al., Cong. Rsch. Serv., R44388, Surface 
Transportation Funding and Programs Under the Fixing America's Surface 
Transportation Act (FAST Act; P.L. 114-94) (Feb. 18, 2016), available 
at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44388; see also, DOT, 
IIJA, Public Law 117-58, Authorized Funding, FY 2022 to FY 2026, 
available at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-
01/DOT_Infrastructure_Investment_
and_Jobs_Act_Authorization_Table_%28IIJA%29.pdf.
    \42\ DOT, IIJA, Public Law 117-58, Authorized Funding, FY 2022 to 
FY 2026, available at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/
files/2022-01/DOT_Infrastructure_Investment_
and_Jobs_Act_Authorization_Table_%28IIJA%29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION: SELECT PROGRAMS

    FTA provides Federal financial assistance for Rural Areas 
through both mandatory formula funding and the discretionary 
competitive grant process.\43\ Title 49, United States Code, 
Section 5311 authorizes FTA Formula Grants for Rural Areas and 
stipulates that authorized grants may be used for planning, 
capital projects, operating costs, job access projects and 
public transportation service agreements.\44\ IIJA provides 
$4.6 billion for these formula grants over five years. Section 
5311(b)(3) further authorizes the Rural Transportation 
Assistance Program which may be used for research, technical 
assistance and training.\45\ Federal project cost shares are 
limited, with exceptions, to 80 percent for capital projects 
and administrative expenses and 50 percent for operating 
assistance under Section 5311(g).\46\ Eligible recipients of 
Section 5311 funding include state and Federally recognized 
Indian Tribes; and subrecipients may include state or local 
government authorities, nonprofit organizations and public 
transportation or intercity bus service operators.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ See DOT, FTA, Formula Grants for Rural Areas--5311, available 
at https://www.transit.dot.gov/rural-formula-grants-5311; see also DOT, 
FTA, Rural Transit, (Nov. 8, 2023), available at https://
www.transit.dot.gov/rural.
    \44\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  5311.
    \45\ Id.
    \46\ Id.
    \47\ DOT, FTA, Formula Grants for Rural Areas--5311, available at 
https://www.transit.dot.gov/rural-formula-grants-5311.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    IIJA established the Ferry Service for Rural Communities 
Program and the Electric or Low Emitting Ferry Pilot Program, 
both of which provide Federal funding opportunities for rural 
communities to develop or expand ferry services.\48\ Operated 
by FTA, the Ferry Service for Rural Communities Program is 
authorized for discretionary funding totaling $1 billion over 
the five-year authorization of IIJA, which may be awarded to 
ferry service providers that operate a regular service schedule 
between at least two rural areas located more than 50 sailing 
miles apart. These funds may be used for capital and operating 
expenses.\49\ Additionally, IIJA provides $1 billion over five 
years in advanced appropriations for the Ferry Service in Rural 
Communities program.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 1325-1326.
    \49\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 1326.
    \50\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 1441.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Electric or Low Emitting Ferry Pilot Program, another 
FTA-administered discretionary grant program, was authorized up 
to $250 million in total funding for fiscal years 2022 through 
2026 for ferry infrastructure, equipment, and related 
technology for grantees seeking to transition to electric or 
low-emitting vessels.\51\ These funds may be allocated to 
qualifying recipients of Section 5311 funding or recipients in 
urbanized areas.\52\ The Electric or Low Emitting Ferry Pilot 
Program received $250 million in advanced appropriations from 
IIJA over five years.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 1325.
    \52\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 1325; U.S. Dep't of 
Transp., FTA, Electric or Low-Emitting Ferry Pilot Program--IIJA Sec.  
71102, (Feb. 12, 2024), available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/
funding/grants/grant-programs/electric-or-low-emitting-ferry-pilot-
program-iija-ss-71102.
    \53\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 1440.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    IIJA also allocated $1.97 billion in contract authority for 
the FTA-administered Bus and Bus Facilities Competitive Grant 
Program. Section 30018 of IIJA stipulates that a minimum of 15 
percent of annual grant amounts from this program must be 
distributed to projects in rural areas.\54\ Many rural 
communities rely on bus transit systems and this funding 
provides communities the opportunity to replace, rehabilitate 
and purchase buses, vans, and related equipment, and to 
construct bus-related facilities.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 915.
    \55\ DOT, FTA, Grants for Buses and Bus Facilities Program, 
available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/bus-program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES: SELECT REGULATIONS

    Rural transportation plays a critical role in our Nation's 
supply chain. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics recently 
completed a study that found ``between 2000 and 2019, the 
volume of freight (in millions of tons) per year per Interstate 
lane-mile grew nine percent in rural areas versus 1.1 percent 
in urban areas and that 46 percent of truck vehicle miles 
traveled occurred in rural areas.'' \56\ DOT estimates nearly 
half of all truck VMT happens on rural roads.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\ DOT, Bureau of Transp. Statistics, Rural Transportation 
Statistics, (Aug. 16, 2022), available at https://www.bts.gov/rural.
    \57\ DOT, The Critical Role of Rural Communities in the U.S. 
Transportation System, (Nov. 20, 2023), available at https://
www.transportation.gov/rural/grant-toolkit/critical-role-rural-
communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Title 49, United States Code, Section 31111, prohibits 
states from restricting the lengths of buses, truck trailers, 
and trailer combinations operating on the national network of 
highways below the Federal minimum.\58\ Federal law requires 
states to allow a minimum 28-foot length for truck trailers in 
a double combination, and 48-foot length for a truck 
semitrailer, and 45-foot length for a bus.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  31111.
    \59\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Title 23, United States Code, Section 127, sets forth 
maximum vehicle weights for use on the Interstate system, which 
is generally 20,000 pounds on a single axle and 34,000 pounds 
on a tandem axle. FHWA may withhold up to 50 percent of a 
state's apportionment of Federal highway funds if such state 
does not permit vehicles on the Interstate system up to these 
formula weight maximums.\60\ This withholding provision was 
enacted by Congress in 1982 to ensure states would uniformly 
allow truck weights up to the Federal maximum.\61\ Similarly, 
FHWA may withhold up to 50 percent of a state's apportionment 
of Federal highways funds from a state that sets weight limits 
on the Interstate system that are higher that these formula 
weight maximums, unless a state has a legislative exemption or 
is covered under grandfathered allowances. Many rural states 
with a large agricultural and forestry presence have truck 
weight laws and regulations in place that exceed the Federal 
standards to address the movement of agricultural commodities 
and forestry products.\62\ These size and weight limits were 
grandfathered to apply to Interstates under federal law or 
subsequently added through statutory exemptions.\63\ Forty-one 
states have a variety of limited exemptions from Federal truck 
size and weight limits for moving agricultural commodities.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\ 23 U.S.C. Sec.  127.
    \61\ DOT, FHWA, Compilation of Existing State Truck Size and Weight 
Laws, (Oct. 4, 2019), available at https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/
policy/rpt_congress/truck_sw_laws/app_a.htm.
    \62\ Id.
    \63\ Id.
    \64\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 
regulates commercial activities of interstate motor carriers, 
the safety of commercial motor vehicles operating in interstate 
commerce, and the licensing and fitness of the drivers of such 
commercial motor vehicles.\65\ One such regulation is the 
Hours-of-Service (HOS) requirements, which generally limit the 
number of hours drivers operating commercial vehicles in 
interstate commerce may drive during a seven or eight day 
consecutive period.\66\ Most property-carrying CMV drivers may 
drive 11 hours after 10 consecutive hours off duty.\67\ Most 
passenger-carrying CMV drivers may drive a maximum of 10 hours 
after eight consecutive hours off duty.\68\ These regulations 
have been updated over time due to Congressional action, DOT 
rulemakings, and legal challenges. Congress has granted 
exemptions from Federal HOS regulations for certain industries 
and under certain circumstances.\69\ The DOT has also granted 
exemptions using its authority.\70\ IIJA further modified the 
HOS requirements for livestock haulers to include an exemption 
from requirements if within a 150-air mile radius from the 
final destination.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \65\ DOT, Safety First, Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, (May 2, 2018), available at https://
www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/safetyfirst/federal-motor-carrier-
safety-administration.
    \66\ 49 C.F.R. 395.3.
    \67\ DOT, FMCSA, Summary of Hours of Service Regulations, (Mar. 28, 
2022) available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/hours-service/
summary-hours-service-regulations.
    \68\ Id.
    \69\ DOT, FMCSA, Interstate Truck Driver's Guide to Hours of 
Service (2022), available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/
fmcsa.dot.gov/files/2022-04/FMCSA-HOS-395-DRIVERS-GUIDE-TO-HOS%282022-
04-28%29_0.pdf.
    \70\ Id.
    \71\ IIJA, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 777
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             III. WITNESSES

     LMr. Mike Koles, Executive Director, Wisconsin 
Towns Association, on behalf of the National Association of 
Towns and Townships
     LMr. Jeff Greteman, President, Windstar Lines, on 
behalf of the American Bus Association (ABA)
     LMr. Todd Morrow, Executive Director, Island 
Transit, on behalf of the Community Transportation Association 
of America (CTAA)
     LMr. Scott VanderWal, National Vice President, 
American Farm Bureau Federation

 
       RURAL TRANSPORTATION CHALLENGES: STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2024

                  House of Representatives,
              Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in 
room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' 
Crawford (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Mr. Crawford. The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit will 
come to order.
    I ask unanimous consent that the chairman be authorized to 
declare a recess at any time during today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the 
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at 
today's hearing and ask questions.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document into 
the record, please also email it to [email protected].
    I now recognize myself for the purposes of an opening 
statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD OF 
    ARKANSAS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT

    Mr. Crawford. We are here today to discuss transportation 
challenges facing rural areas across the country. Rural 
communities are the backbone of America. While they are often 
forgotten about, much of the food and fuel consumed by people 
across our country is produced in or travels through rural 
areas to make it to our urban city centers. Without a strong 
transportation network and updated infrastructure, these vital 
goods produced by our Nation's farmers, ranchers, and 
manufacturers can't be delivered to market for consumers.
    The United States Census Bureau estimates around 20 percent 
of our Nation's population lives in rural areas. While folks 
living in these communities account for a smaller segment of 
the overall population, rural areas make up 97 percent of the 
total land area in the United States.
    Our rural communities are essential to the connectivity of 
the Nation, and a robust transportation network of rural 
highways and roads ensures that people and goods can freely 
move across the country. These communities vary in shape and 
size, and have vastly different infrastructure needs than their 
urban counterparts.
    They also often lack sufficient resources and capacity to 
make necessary improvements to infrastructure. A report issued 
in 2022 by the nonprofit research group TRIP found there is a 
$180 billion backlog in rural road and bridge needs across 
America.
    Needless to say, formula funding is critical to States and 
helps support our rural areas. The States know best what their 
individual transportation needs are. For example, the 
transportation needs in my home State of Arkansas vary greatly 
from the needs of California, Wyoming, or New York. It is 
paramount we retain the ability of States to prioritize 
projects and address their wide-ranging needs.
    That's why the Federal Highway Administration's December 
16, 2021, policy memo--which sought to encourage States to 
prioritize nonmotorized modes of transit, as well as updating 
existing infrastructure over new capacity projects--was so 
troubling. Thankfully, after a number of us here in Congress 
raised our significant concerns, Federal Highways did the right 
thing and superseded their memo.
    People who live in rural areas often travel further to 
work, the grocery store, and other essential services. For 
many, this involves frequently crossing State lines, so, there 
must be some recognition of the implications. When one State 
proposes policies that have implications on interstate 
commerce, it affects travelers in other communities.
    It is also unrealistic to think that these communities can 
or should prioritize bike lanes and pedestrian projects over 
much-needed critical infrastructure. The same 2022 report by 
TRIP found that vehicle-miles traveled are 50 percent higher in 
rural areas than in urban areas.
    While the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, or IIJA, 
made changes to existing programs and included initiatives to 
support rural areas, we heard in a full committee hearing 
earlier this month about the many challenges that rural 
communities face in applying for discretionary grants. IIJA 
provided historic funding for the improvement of American 
infrastructure. The law significantly expanded discretionary 
grant programs. IIJA authorized $196 billion for new and 
existing DOT competitive grant programs over 5 years.
    Witnesses raised concerns with the high cost of applying 
and the lengthy review processes that disproportionately affect 
rural America. Concerns were also shared about the ability of 
small communities to comply with burdensome Federal permitting 
requirements. These barriers, combined with woke policies the 
Biden administration has included as part of the Notices of 
Funding Opportunity for discretionary grants like Justice40 
have seriously undermined the ability of rural communities to 
compete for grants. The Biden administration has pushed an 
onerous regulatory agenda that is particularly harmful to rural 
America.
    This includes the Federal Highway Administration's final 
rule to create a greenhouse gas performance measure, forcing 
State departments of transportation and metropolitan planning 
organizations to set declining targets for carbon dioxide 
emissions stemming from transportation on the National Highway 
System. This rule goes beyond the administration's statutory 
authority. The policy was considered and rejected during Senate 
negotiations of IIJA. Stakeholders have previously testified 
before this subcommittee that this rule will impact project 
selections.
    Furthermore, concerns have been raised regarding how the 
rule will impact more rural States with communities that can't 
build a subway or bike lanes to cut emissions. These projects 
simply don't make sense in communities where the only 
congestion and traffic jams are caused by combines or cattle.
    I look forward to hearing today from our witnesses 
regarding the challenges facing our rural areas, as well as 
their thoughts on how we might help address issues at the 
Federal level.
    [Mr. Crawford's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, a Representative 
 in Congress from the State of Arkansas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on 
                          Highways and Transit
    We are here today to discuss transportation challenges facing rural 
areas across our country. Rural communities are the backbone of 
America. While they're often forgotten about, much of the food and fuel 
consumed by people across our country is produced in or travels through 
rural areas to make it to our urban city centers.
    Without strong transportation networks and updated infrastructure, 
these vital goods produced by our nation's farmers, ranchers, and 
manufacturers can't be delivered to market for consumers.
    The United States Census Bureau estimates around 20 percent of our 
nation's population lives in rural areas.
    While folks living in these communities account for a smaller 
segment of the overall population, rural areas make up 97 percent of 
the total land area in the United States.
    Our rural communities are essential to the connectivity of the 
nation, and a robust transportation network of rural highways and roads 
ensures that people and goods can freely move across the country. These 
communities vary in shape and size, and have vastly different 
infrastructure needs than their urban counterparts. They also often 
lack sufficient resources and capacity to make necessary improvements 
to infrastructure. A report issued in 2022 by the nonprofit research 
group TRIP found there is a $180 billion backlog in rural road and 
bridge needs across America.
    Needless to say, formula funding is critical to states and helps 
support our rural areas. The states know best what their individual 
transportation needs are. For example, the transportation needs in my 
home state of Arkansas vary greatly from the needs of California, 
Wyoming, or New York. It is paramount we retain the ability of states 
to prioritize projects and address their wide-ranging needs.
    That's why the Federal Highway Administration's December 16, 2021, 
policy memo--which sought to encourage states to prioritize ``non-
motorized modes and transit,'' as well as updating existing 
infrastructure over new capacity projects--was so troubling. 
Thankfully, after a number of us here in Congress raised our 
significant concerns, Federal Highways did the right thing and 
superseded their memo.
    People who live in rural areas often travel further to work, the 
grocery store, and other essential services. For many, this involves 
frequently crossing state lines, so there must be some recognition of 
the implications when one state proposes policies that have 
implications on interstate commerce; it affects travelers in other 
communities.
    It is also unrealistic to think that these communities can or 
should prioritize bike lanes and pedestrian projects over much-needed 
critical infrastructure. The same 2022 report by TRIP found that 
vehicle miles traveled are 50 percent higher in rural areas than in 
urban areas.
    While the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) made 
changes to existing programs and included initiatives to support rural 
areas, we heard in a full committee hearing earlier this month about 
the many challenges that rural communities face in applying for 
discretionary grants.
    IIJA provided historic funding for the improvement of American 
infrastructure. The law significantly expanded discretionary grant 
programs. IIJA authorized $196 billion for new and existing DOT 
competitive grant programs over five years.
    Witnesses raised concerns with the high cost of applying, and the 
lengthy review processes that disproportionately affect rural America. 
Concerns were also shared about the ability of small communities to 
comply with burdensome federal permitting requirements.
    These barriers, combined with woke policies the Biden 
Administration has included as part of its notice of funding 
opportunities for discretionary grants, like Justice40, have seriously 
undermined the ability of rural communities to compete for grants. The 
Biden Administration has pushed an onerous regulatory agenda that is 
particularly harmful to rural America.
    This includes the Federal Highway Administration's final rule to 
create a greenhouse gas performance measure, forcing state departments 
of transportation and metropolitan planning organizations to set 
declining targets for carbon dioxide emissions stemming from 
transportation on the National Highway System. This rule goes beyond 
the Administration's statutory authority. The policy was considered and 
rejected during Senate negotiations of IIJA. Stakeholders have 
previously testified before this subcommittee that this rule will 
impact project selections.
    Furthermore, concerns have been raised regarding how the rule will 
impact more rural states with communities that can't build a subway or 
bike lanes to cut emissions. These projects simply don't make sense in 
communities where the only congestion and traffic jams are caused by 
combines or cattle.
    I look forward to hearing today from our witnesses regarding the 
challenges facing our rural areas, as well as their thoughts on how we 
might help address issues at the federal level.

    Mr. Crawford. I now recognize Ranking Member Holmes Norton 
for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON OF THE DISTRICT 
   OF COLUMBIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND 
                            TRANSIT

    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank 
subcommittee chair Rick Crawford for holding this hearing on 
transportation challenges in rural communities.
    One of the many benefits of the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act, the surface transportation portion of which I 
helped to shape as the then-chair of this subcommittee, is that 
it provides funding for communities of all sizes.
    In my district, the District of Columbia, 151 new 
transportation projects were started in the first 2 years of 
the law alone. This includes $72 million to repair the 
Interstate 395 bridge, $35 million to redesign South Capitol 
Street, and $20 million for the Wheeler Road Safety Project.
    But DC's story is not unique. Similar investments are being 
made in every congressional district in America, and the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act includes dedicated 
funding for rural transportation.
    One example is the Rural Surface Transportation Program. To 
date, under this program, the Biden administration has awarded 
funds to 30 different projects to rebuild bridges, eliminate 
unsafe railway crossings, and increase truck parking.
    Another example is the RAISE Program. Fifty percent of the 
program funds are dedicated by law to rural areas. The law also 
increased funding for our safety programs. While only 19 
percent of our U.S. population lives in rural areas, rural 
roads account for 43 percent of all traffic fatalities. Reasons 
for this disproportionate fatality rate include outdated 
infrastructure and unsafe driver behavior.
    The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act includes a 34-
percent funding increase for the primary infrastructure safety 
program, the Highway Safety Improvement Program, and a 36-
percent increase for programs to prevent unsafe behavior like 
speeding and drunk driving. The investments will make our roads 
much safer.
    We also will hear today about the importance of rural 
transit. Too often, transit is dismissed as being only relevant 
for major metropolitan regions like my own. This is simply not 
true. For an elderly resident who relies on the bus to get to a 
doctor's appointment, transit is a lifeline. For a person with 
a disability who is not able to drive, transit is a lifeline. 
For someone who cannot afford a car, transit is a lifeline. 
That holds just as true for rural communities as it does big 
cities.
    According to the Federal Highway Administration, 6.8 
percent of households in rural areas, or approximately 4.3 
million people, do not drive a car. I appreciate that we will 
hear today from Todd Morrow, executive director of a rural 
transit system, about the value of transit in rural 
communities.
    One of the roles of this committee is to ensure that the 
Nation's infrastructure is safe and efficient in all 
communities. While my congressional district does not include 
any rural areas, I appreciate the need to invest in rural 
America to ensure the safety of roads and bridges, to ensure 
reliable transit service, and to spur economic development.
    Those same needs exist for the 81 percent of the country 
that live in urban communities. I hope that we, as a committee, 
continue to work together to pass infrastructure investments 
that improve the lives of all Americans.
    [Ms. Norton's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
    Prepared Statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in 
      Congress from the District of Columbia, and Ranking Member, 
                  Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
    I would like to thank Subcommittee Chair Rick Crawford for holding 
this hearing on transportation challenges in rural communities.
    One of the many benefits of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act, the surface transportation portion of which I helped to shape as 
the then-chair of this Subcommittee, is that it provides funding for 
communities of all sizes. In my district, the District of Columbia, 151 
new transportation projects were started in the first two years of the 
law alone.
    That includes $72 million to repair the Interstate 395 bridge, $35 
million to redesign South Capitol Street and $20 million for the 
Wheeler Road Safety Project.
    But D.C.'s story is not unique. Similar investments are being made 
in every congressional district in America, and the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act includes dedicated funding for rural 
transportation.
    One example is the Rural Surface Transportation Program. To date, 
under this program, the Biden Administration has awarded funds to 30 
different projects to rebuild bridges, eliminate unsafe railway grade 
crossings and increase truck parking.
    Another example is the RAISE grant program. Fifty percent of 
program funds are dedicated by law to rural areas. The law also 
increased funding for our safety programs. While only 19 percent of the 
U.S. population lives in rural areas, rural roads account for 43 
percent of all traffic fatalities. Reasons for this disproportionate 
fatality rate include outdated infrastructure and unsafe driver 
behavior.
    The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act includes a 34 percent 
funding increase for the primary infrastructure safety program, the 
Highway Safety Improvement Program, and a 36 percent increase for 
programs to prevent unsafe behavior like speeding and drunk driving. 
The investments will make our roadways safer.
    We will also hear today about the importance of rural transit. Too 
often, transit is dismissed as being only relevant for major 
metropolitan areas. This is simply not true.
    For an elderly resident who relies on the bus to get to a doctor's 
appointment, transit is a lifeline. For a person with a disability who 
is not able to drive, transit is a lifeline. For someone who cannot 
afford a car, transit is a lifeline. That holds just as true in rural 
communities as it does in big cities. According to the Federal Highway 
Administration, 6.8 percent of households in rural areas, or 
approximately 4.3 million, people do not have a car.
    I appreciate that we will hear testimony today from Todd Morrow, 
the executive director of a rural transit system, about the value of 
transit to rural communities.
    One of the roles of this Committee is to ensure that the nation's 
infrastructure is safe and efficient for all communities.
    While my congressional district does not include any rural areas, I 
appreciate the need to invest in rural America to ensure the safety of 
roads and bridges, to ensure reliable transit service and to spur 
economic development.
    Those same needs exist for the 81 percent of the country that live 
in urban communities. I hope that we as a Committee can continue to 
work together to pass infrastructure investments that improve the lives 
of all Americans.

    Ms. Norton. I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. I thank the ranking member. I now recognize 
the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Larsen, for 30 
seconds to make an opening comment.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Chair Crawford----
    Mr. Crawford [interrupting]. Just kidding. You get 5 
minutes.
    [Laughter.]

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASHINGTON, RANKING 
     MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

    Mr. Larsen of Washington. All right. Thank you, Chair 
Crawford and Ranking Member Norton, for holding this hearing.
    Today's hearing focuses on rural transportation and the 
unique experience, needs, and challenges of rural communities 
that our infrastructure investments must address. The Census 
Bureau estimates that 97 percent of the total land area in the 
U.S. is in rural areas. Rural communities are not limited to 
any one part of the country and certainly not limited to only 
certain States.
    The district I represent, which is located north of 
Seattle, including none of Seattle, is home to rural 
communities, urban communities, and everything in between. 
These communities have many shared transportation needs.
    At the same time, my rural and smaller communities face 
unique challenges. They play a crucial role in our economy. 
Many of the first-mile supply chains that need infrastructure 
investment to efficiently get goods and products to market, for 
instance, are in our rural communities.
    Rural communities have unique mobility needs. Residents in 
rural counties are aging. In nearly 85 percent of counties, 
more than 20 percent of the population is 65 or older.
    Rural communities face distinct safety challenges. While 
only 19 percent of the U.S. population lives in rural areas, 
nearly half of all fatal crashes occur on rural roads. These 
realities highlight the quality of life, economic development, 
safety, and mobility benefits we can achieve through 
investments in rural areas.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is helping rural 
communities respond to these challenges. A frequent topic of 
this committee is how Federal infrastructure dollars can 
advance equity. A key part of realizing equity in 
transportation systems is ensuring that smaller communities can 
succeed in accessing funding. Smaller communities have limited 
funds to design and apply for infrastructure grants and limited 
capacity to manage complex permitting and construction. Yet, 
smaller jurisdictions in my district and throughout the country 
are in great need of investment.
    The BIL marked the largest investment in transportation 
infrastructure since the 1950s, and it is already paying off in 
rural areas. Investing in rural transportation creates jobs 
while enhancing transportation connectivity, supporting global 
economic competitiveness of our farmers and manufacturers.
    A great example of the BIL's investment in rural economies 
is through bridge funding. Off-system bridges, those not on the 
Federal-aid highway system, have had limited access to Federal 
funds. Eighty-seven percent of those bridges are located in 
rural areas. The BIL takes steps to address this by including a 
15-percent set-aside of each State's bridge formula funding for 
use on off-system bridges.
    The BIL also created the Bridge Investment Program, which 
is delivering results in rural America. One example is the $50 
million award DOT made to replace and rebuild six rural bridges 
in northwest South Carolina.
    The Brookings Institute estimates that BIL invests more 
than $338 billion in specific or significant rural investment 
opportunities. It includes creating a $2 billion Rural Surface 
Transportation Grant program for safety and connectivity of 
rural roads; formally establishing the Rural Opportunity to Use 
Transportation for Economic Success, or ROUTES initiative, to 
better support smaller communities in accessing Federal 
resources; dedicating half of the $7.5 billion for the RAISE 
grant program to rural areas; and establishing new set-asides 
in highway formula programs to direct more Federal funding to 
rural roads and bridges.
    Another issue I have heard from my constituents and 
community leaders about is increasing mobility in rural areas. 
Transit is often associated with larger cities, but it is also 
very important for rural and smaller communities. Transit 
riders don't care about whether the system is classified as 
rural, small, small urban, or large urban. They do not care if 
they are 1 of the 380,000 annual riders on Island Transit in my 
district, or 1 of the 2.5 billion annual riders on New York's 
Metropolitan Transit Authority. What they do care about is 
getting to their jobs on time, making a doctor's appointment, 
or being able to visit friends or family.
    That is why the BIL made significant investments in transit 
infrastructure nationwide, including $4.6 billion for Rural 
Area Transit Formula program, a 42-percent increase over the 
prior authorization. The BIL also invests $1 billion to support 
ferry service to rural areas--mainly Alaska, I would note.
    The BIL also requires that 15 percent of all bus and bus 
facility grants go to transit investments in rural areas. And 
in my district, Island Transit was awarded $7.5 million in a 
grant to design and construct a South Whidbey Island Transit 
Center. I don't want to steal Todd Morrow's testimony too much, 
but this project is going to create jobs and make travel easier 
for residents of Whidbey Island.
    Additionally, transit agencies in Skagit and Whatcom 
Counties in my district received almost $15 million from the 
FTA to upgrade their bus systems. While these agencies serve 
small urban areas, they actually do provide quite a bit of 
vital service to connecting the surrounding rural communities.
    So, I welcome this opportunity to discuss the challenges 
facing rural communities and highlighting the ways the BIL is 
already working to address the problems. I also appreciate 
hearing what programs and funding we may consider in the 
upcoming surface authorization to ensure that every community, 
no matter the size or location, shares in the benefits of 
infrastructure investment.
    I want to thank the witnesses for being here today, I look 
forward to today's discussion.
    [Mr. Larsen of Washington's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress 
    from the State of Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure
    Thank you, Chairman Crawford and Ranking Member Norton, for holding 
this hearing.
    Today's hearing focuses on rural transportation and the unique 
experience, needs and challenges of rural communities that our 
infrastructure investments must address.
    The Census Bureau estimates that 97 percent of the total land area 
in the United States is in rural areas.
    Rural communities are not limited to any one part of the country or 
only in certain states.
    The district I represent, which is located north of Seattle and 
includes none of Seattle, is home to rural communities, urban 
communities and everything in between. These communities have many 
shared transportation needs.
    At the same time, rural and smaller communities face unique 
challenges.
    Rural communities play a crucial role in our economy. Many are the 
first mile of supply chains that need infrastructure investment to 
efficiently get goods and products to market.
    Rural communities have unique mobility needs. Residents in rural 
counties are aging--in nearly 85 percent of counties more than 20 
percent of the population is age 65 or older.
    Rural communities also face distinct safety challenges. While only 
19 percent of the U.S. population lives in rural areas, nearly half of 
all fatal crashes occur on rural roads.
    These realities highlight the quality of life, economic 
development, safety, and mobility benefits that we can achieve through 
investment in rural areas.
    The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) is helping rural 
communities respond to these challenges.
    A frequent topic of this Committee is how federal infrastructure 
dollars can advance equity.
    A key part of realizing equity in transportation systems is 
ensuring smaller communities can succeed in accessing funding.
    Smaller communities have limited funds to design and apply for 
infrastructure grants and limited capacity to manage complex permitting 
and construction.
    Yet, smaller jurisdictions in my district and throughout the 
country are in great need of investment.
    The BIL marked the largest federal investment in transportation 
infrastructure since the 1950s, and it is already paying off.
    Investing in rural transportation creates jobs while enhancing 
transportation connectivity, which supports the global economic 
competitiveness of farmers and manufacturers.
    A great example of the BIL's investment into rural economies is 
through bridge funding. ``Off-system'' bridges--those not on the 
Federal-aid highway system--have had limited access to federal funds. 
Eighty-seven percent of those bridges are located in rural areas. The 
BIL takes steps to address this by including a 15 percent set-aside of 
each State's bridge formula funding for use on off-system bridges.
    The BIL also created the Bridge Investment Program, which is 
delivering results in rural America. One example is the $50 million 
award DOT made to replace and rebuild six rural bridges in northwest 
South Carolina.
    The Brookings Institute estimates that the BIL invests more than 
$338 billion in specific or significant rural investment opportunities.
    The BIL directly invests in rural communities by:
      Creating a $2 billion Rural Surface Transportation Grant 
program for safety and connectivity of rural roads;
      Formally establishing the Rural Opportunity to Use 
Transportation for Economic Success (ROUTES) initiative, to better 
support smaller communities in accessing federal resources;
      Dedicating half of the $7.5 billion funding for the RAISE 
grant program to rural areas; and,
      Establishing new set-asides in highway formula programs 
to direct more federal funding to rural roads and bridges.

    Another issue I have heard about from my constituents and community 
leaders is increasing mobility in rural areas.
    Transit is often associated with big cities, but it is just as 
important for rural and smaller communities.
    Transit riders do not care about whether their system is classified 
as rural, small urban, or large urban.
    They do not care if they are one of the 380,000 annual riders on 
Island Transit in my district, or one of the 2.5 billion annual riders 
on New York's Metropolitan Transit Authority.
    What they do care about is getting to their jobs on time, making it 
to doctor's appointments or being able to visit friends or family.
    And that's why the BIL made significant investments in transit 
infrastructure nationwide, including $4.6 billion for the Rural Area 
Transit Formula Program, a 42 percent increase over the prior 
authorization.
    The BIL invests $1 billion to support ferry service to rural areas.
    The BIL also requires that 15 percent of all Bus and Bus Facilities 
grants go to transit investments in rural areas.
    In my district, Island Transit was awarded a $7.5 million Bus and 
Bus Facilities grant to design and construct the South Whidbey Island 
Transit Center.
    This project is going to create jobs and make travel easier for the 
residents of Whidbey Island.
    Additionally, transit agencies in Skagit and Whatcom Counties in my 
district received almost $15 million from the FTA to upgrade their bus 
systems. While these agencies serve small urban areas, they also 
provide vital service to connect surrounding rural communities.
    I welcome the opportunity to discuss the challenges facing rural 
communities and highlight the ways that the BIL is already working to 
address these problems.
    I also appreciate hearing what programs and funding we may consider 
in the upcoming surface authorization, to ensure that every community, 
no matter the size or location, shares in the benefits of 
infrastructure investment.
    Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. I look forward 
to today's discussion.

    Mr. Larsen of Washington. I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. I thank the gentleman. Now I want to welcome 
our witnesses and thank them for being here today.
    Before we have the formal introductions, I want to briefly 
acquaint you with our lighting system. As you can imagine, it 
is pretty self-explanatory: green, yellow, red. There are three 
lights in front of you. Green means go. But unlike a stoplight, 
yellow does not mean proceed with caution, as you might expect. 
It means step on the gas, because it is fixing to turn red. 
Once it turns red, you might hear a little tap, tap, tap, just 
to remind you that your time has expired. So, I just want to 
make sure everybody was clear on that and how that lighting 
system works.
    I ask unanimous consent that the witnesses' full statements 
be included in the record.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing 
remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided 
answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in 
writing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open 
for 15 days for any additional comments and information 
submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record 
of today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    As your written testimony has been made part of the record, 
the subcommittee asks that you limit your oral remarks to 5 
minutes--see the lighting system.
    Before our first witness, Mr. Koles, gives his testimony, I 
would like to recognize Representative Van Orden to give a 
short introduction.
    Mr. Van Orden [audio malfunction]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Transportation and Infrastructure, what is going on here?
    Mr. Crawford. That is a comms problem, sir.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Van Orden. Very well. Dang, Army guy's in charge.
    Hey, it is great to have another Wisconsinite here. I 
appreciate you showing up. There are two of us now, so, we have 
got everybody surrounded.
    Mr. Michael Koles, from Shawano, Wisconsin, has dedicated 
his working life to finding solutions to everyday 
transportation infrastructure challenges we experience in 
America's Dairyland. After receiving his bachelor's degree in 
political science--the one strike against him--from Wartburg 
College, and his master's in urban and regional planning from 
the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Mr. Koles has spent 26 
years committing to improving Wisconsin's transportation 
system, specifically for our rural roads.
    He currently serves as the executive director of Wisconsin 
Towns Association, where he and his team work with State 
elected officials to improve transportation, land use, 
emergency services, housing, and economic development 
conditions for communities across the State. He also served as 
the president of the National Association of Towns and 
Townships from 2020 to 2022, where he collaborated with the 
State and Federal Government to fund our local and minor 
collector roads.
    Thank you, Mr. Koles, for coming. I appreciate you being 
here today. And I understand that you brought cheese for the 
entire subcommittee, and we appreciate that greatly. I am 
looking forward to hearing your testimony.
    Mr. Crawford. And with that, Mr. Koles, you are recognized 
for 5 minutes.

 TESTIMONY OF MIKE KOLES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WISCONSIN TOWNS 
ASSOCIATION, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TOWNS AND 
    TOWNSHIPS; JEFF GRETEMAN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
    OFFICER, WINDSTAR LINES, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN BUS 
 ASSOCIATION; TODD MORROW, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ISLAND TRANSIT, 
   ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF 
AMERICA; AND SCOTT VanderWal, NATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 
                     FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

 TESTIMONY OF MIKE KOLES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WISCONSIN TOWNS 
ASSOCIATION, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TOWNS AND 
                           TOWNSHIPS

    Mr. Koles. Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member Norton, 
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify about the challenges facing rural roads.
    I am Mike Koles, the executive director of the Wisconsin 
Towns Association. We represent 1,266 rural municipalities that 
range in size from a couple square miles to 100 square miles. 
Fifty-eight percent of them are home to less than 1,000 people. 
Ninety percent of those municipalities are home to less than 
2,500 people. So, really rural. I was recently, as 
Representative Van Orden noted, president of the National 
Association of Towns and Townships. We represent 10,000-plus of 
those rural communities.
    In the most recent census, as has been noted twice, 19 
percent of the population lives in rural areas. The amount of 
land that that covers, though, is 97 percent. And maybe even 
more striking for this committee, 68 percent of the road-miles 
are in that rural area.
    In the United States, our interstate system is really the 
heart of our system. The veins and the arteries, those are the 
State highways. And then those local roads, which are a vast 
majority of the entire system, those are our capillaries. In 
America's Dairyland--and I don't have cheese for everybody--but 
in America's Dairyland, we have a saying: milk doesn't come 
from the grocery store. It comes from a farm that is on one of 
those capillaries.
    We produce a lot of forest products in Wisconsin. The 
lumber and also the concrete that we produce helps build 
buildings in cities and rural areas alike. That comes off a 
capillary.
    And I am sure you are all big Packer fans; you know Green 
Bay, best team out there, of course. Green Bay is also known as 
the toilet paper capital of the world. That pulp comes from 
aspen trees that comes off of a capillary that gets that wood 
to the Green Bay to turn it into toilet paper. So, ingest a 
little bit: without rural roads, you don't have toilet paper, 
folks.
    An athlete cannot succeed if they have a strong heart and 
weak capillaries. I am telling you the rural areas in our 
system have those capillaries, and they are weak. We have a 
sickness, and that hinders our economy, and that hinders our 
safety, as was noted by several Members.
    Just a couple of facts. In 2020, 48 percent of the Nation's 
arterials and collectors were rated in poor, mediocre, or fair 
condition. These arterials and collectors represent only 31 
percent of the rural roads; 67 percent of the rural roads are 
actually functionally classified as local--so, again, a major 
part of the system. A national condition rating for those most 
local roads is hard to determine, but in Wisconsin, I can tell 
you that 11 percent are in poor condition and 76 percent need 
some type of maintenance or construction work.
    As for bridges, the story is sort of the same. We have 
42,000 bridges in this country that are rated as poor or 
structurally deficient. Eighty percent of them are rural. 
Interestingly--and not a lot of folks understand this--a bridge 
is defined as anything over 20 feet. We have a lot of 
structures that are called culverts under 20 feet that act a 
lot like bridges. And yet on the local system in this country, 
we don't know where they are, we don't know how many there are, 
and we have no idea what the safety condition is on them.
    And last, about 10 months ago, we had one in Representative 
Van Orden's district, a 15-foot culvert, that collapsed under 
the weight of a 20-ton fertilizer tender. Nobody got hurt, 
thankfully. When they deconstructed the culvert, the engineers 
said the newest it was was 1916. So, it was built earlier than 
1916.
    I will note one final fact. It has been noted already. 
Rural roads are significantly more dangerous. The fatality rate 
on rural non-interstates is double what it is on others.
    I put a lot of solutions in my written materials. I have 
included three here that I will note.
    First, we need to make sure that the money gets down to the 
local level. Right now, we have some wonky definitions: 200,000 
is considered rural, and I can tell you that NATaT does not 
think that 200,000 people is rural.
    We need stable, consistent funding. The FAST Act and IIJA 
are necessary investments. We need to make that stable and 
growing so that we can plan better, so that contractors can 
plan better so that materials suppliers can plan better.
    And third, we have to be proactive. The culvert crisis is 
one example of where we can either wait for the crisis to 
happen or get out ahead of it. Thank you.
    [Mr. Koles' prepared statement follows:]

                                 
 Prepared Statement of Mike Koles, Executive Director, Wisconsin Towns 
    Association, on behalf of the National Association of Towns and 
                               Townships
                              Introduction
    Chairman Crawford, Ranking Member Norton, members of the committee, 
thank you for the opportunity to speak today about the challenges 
facing rural roads. I am Mike Koles, the Executive Director of the 
Wisconsin Towns Association. We represent 1,266 rural municipalities 
covering the entire rural area of Wisconsin. These municipalities range 
in geographic size from a few square miles to over 100 square miles. 
Fifty eight percent (58%) of them are home to less than 1,000 people 
and 90% have a population less than 2,500.
    I am also on the Board of Directors and recently served as 
President of the National Association of Towns and Townships, which 
represents over 10,000 of these rural local governments across the 
country.
    In the most the recent Census, 19% of the U.S. population lives in 
rural areas, but these communities cover 97% of America's land and are 
home to 68% of the nation's road miles. Most of this country and its 
lane miles are in what many would erroneously call the middle of 
nowhere.
    The road system in America can be compared to the human circulatory 
system. Any athlete is going to pay close attention to the health of 
their circulatory system. They exercise their heart and it pushes the 
blood to and from capillaries through arteries and veins. The 60,000 
miles of capillaries are the last connection that delivers nutrients 
and oxygen to the 30 trillion cells in the human body and the first 
connection to transport blood back to the heart and lungs.
    While the small eleven ounce heart is important, so are the much 
larger 60,000 miles of capillaries. Both are critical if the athlete is 
going to be healthy.
    In America, our interstate system forms our heart. State highways 
function as the transportation system's arteries and veins. And, like 
the human circulatory system, our local roads form the critical and 
vast majority of our capillaries that serve as the first and last mile 
of our economy.
    In America's Dairyland, we have a saying, ``milk doesn't come from 
the grocery store.'' It comes from a farm on one of those rural 
capillaries. The wood and concrete that build our urban areas comes 
from a forest or a quarry on one of those rural capillaries. And 
although you might know Green Bay for the Packers, it is also the 
toilet paper capital of the world. The pulp that produces the toilet 
paper comes from the aspen trees that are in a forest on one of those 
rural capillaries. Simply, without healthy rural roads, our nation's 
citizens don't have much to eat, don't have much for homes or office 
buildings, and don't even have toilet paper.
    I am here to tell you today that our capillaries have been 
neglected and are sick, and that sickness hinders our national economy 
and endangers our safety.
                         Rural Road Composition
    According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in 2020 
there were over 6 million rural road lane miles. The lane miles were 
distributed as follows in order of functionality: interstate (2.0%); 
other freeway (0.4%); principal arterials (3.9%); minor arterials 
(4.6%); major collectors (13.6%); minor collectors (8.6%); and local 
(66.8%).
    Due to the nature of functional classification, most entrances to 
farms, fields, forests, quarries, mines, energy producing lands, and 
other rural based economic drivers are found in communities with small 
populations and on roads functionally classified as minor collectors 
and local.
                Rural Roads are Critical to the Economy
    Based on a 2019 UW-Madison analysis of the economic impact of 
agriculture in Wisconsin using the 2017 USDA Census of Agriculture, the 
industry is responsible for $104.8 billion in economic activity and 
437,700 jobs. This represents 16.4% of Wisconsin's industrial revenues 
and 11.8% of employment. Given trends and inflation, economic activity 
is expected to be even greater following calculations using the 2022 
Census of Agriculture.
    Wisconsin is the #1 cheese producer (25% of US total). Over 1,200 
cheesemakers produce over 600 types of cheese. The state produces more 
potatoes than all but two and is a top producer of snap beans and peas. 
The tart cherry crop produced 12.9 million pounds in 2022 and the state 
is #1 in cranberry production (60% of the country's total). $3.87 
billion in product was exported outside the US (#11 amongst states), 
bringing in foreign money that recirculates in the domestic economy 
multiple times.
    According to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the 
forest products industry produces $24.2 billion in industry output and 
contributes 130,000 jobs to the state's economy. It is the #1 industry 
in 10 of Wisconsin's 72 counties; #1 in employment in 8 counties, and 
the #1 industry for value added in 10 counties. These facts speak to 
the heavy reliance of certain communities and populations on 
traditional rural industries and, thus, rural roads.
    Nationally the story is no different. According to a TRIP report: 
``Agriculture, food, and related industries . . . contributed $1.2 
trillion to the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) in 2021. This 
represents 5.3 percent of overall U.S. GDP.''
    A vast majority of the fields and forests that produce the 
aforementioned goods, economic impact, and employment are in rural 
areas and obtain access from roads functionally classified as minor 
collector or local. Furthermore, they are certainly in communities well 
below the 200,000 population threshold to be considered eligible for 
the U.S. Department of Transportation's Rural Surface Transportation 
Grant Program.
               Rural Road and Bridge Condition a Concern
    In 2020, 12% of the nation's rural arterials and collectors were 
rated in poor condition, 19% percent in mediocre condition, 17% in 
fair, and only 51% in good. These arterials and collectors represent 
only 31% of rural roads. Sixty-seven percent (67%) are functionally 
classified as local roads. While a national condition rating for local 
roads is hard to determine, in Wisconsin 11% of town roads are in poor 
condition and 76% require significant maintenance and reconstruction.
    Of the nation's over 618,000 bridges, 70% (435,189) are rural. In 
2022, 8% of the nation's rural bridges were rated as poor or 
structurally deficient. These are characterized by significant 
deterioration of the bridge deck and other major components. It is 
frequently not feasible for modern day agriculture, forestry, mining, 
or supply chain equipment to use these bridges. Out of all the 
country's bridges rated poor or structurally deficient, 80% are rural.
    Road and bridge conditions often result in weight postings that 
limit the size and weight of farm machinery, school buses, commercial 
trucks, and even emergency service vehicles. These weight limits are 
used as a strategy to preserve public safety and what little road 
remains. Infrastructure users are forced to haul partial loads or 
follow longer alternative routes, which can be substantial in rural as 
compared to urban areas due to the lack of connectivity and a high 
density road grid system. This results in decreased productivity, 
greater fuel emissions, increased costs, increased food prices, and 
reduced fire and ambulance response times. According to a Pacific 
Economic Cooperation Council study, improving the quality of 
transportation systems serving the movement of goods from rural to 
urban areas is a strategy that should be followed to lower food prices 
and increase economic prosperity.
                   Rural Culverts an Emerging Problem
    23 CFR 650.305 defines a bridge as ``having an opening measured 
along the center of the roadway of more than 20 feet.'' The nation's 
bridges have been located, inventoried, and are regularly inspected for 
condition. The federal government provides funding for off-system 
bridges, presumably due to the resulting safety and economic concerns 
absent the funding.
    Any structures under 20 feet are culverts, although colloquially 
called many things, such as small bridges or bridge-like structures. 
Unlike bridges, except for several states that have championed efforts 
to address culverts, we largely don't know where these are, how many 
there are, or what condition they are in. Furthermore, outside of a 
small pilot program in IIJA (Public Law 117-58) for anadromous fish, 
federal funding for stand-alone culvert replacement is lacking.
    Despite the 20-foot threshold, many culverts look, act, and 
function like a bridge, thus posing the same safety and economic risks. 
For example, in the spring of 2023, a 15 foot, 5 inch culvert collapsed 
under the weight of 20 ton fertilizer tender in the Town of Farmington, 
Wisconsin, in Representative Van Orden's district (below). Luckily 
nobody was injured and no fertilizer was spilled in the trout stream. 
Human and environmental disasters were avoided. Deconstruction of the 
culvert revealed an estimated age of no later than 1916. The structure 
was likely built prior to or during WWI.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    In the Town of Bloomfield, Wisconsin, a large dairy farm must 
travel nearly 6 miles to go a few hundred feet to access some of its 
fields due to a weight limited culvert that spans nearly 20 feet, but 
doesn't quite make the length necessary for the town to access state or 
federal (below).

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Rural Road Safety
    Reports from the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) and 
TRIP reveal disturbing rural road safety realities. Fatalities on 
rural, non-interstate roads occur at a rate double that on all other 
roads. In 2020, rural roads accounted for 2.17 deaths per 100 million 
vehicle miles traveled compared to 1.09 deaths on all other roads. 
Furthermore, despite only being home to 19% of the population, between 
2016 and 2020 almost half of all fatalities took place on rural roads. 
During these same years, the risk of dying in a crash was 62% higher on 
a rural road than the same trip length on an urban road.
    A variety of factors have been found to produce these unfortunate 
results. For example, rural roads are more likely to be narrow, have 
limited shoulders, sharp curves, and steep ditch slopes. Interestingly, 
these are some of the same features that plague efficient agricultural 
equipment travel. Limited clear zones in the right-of-way increase the 
number and density of obstacles when a vehicle leaves the road.
    Lack of safety mechanisms, like low-cost rumble strips that would 
help prevent collision with right-of-way obstacles and head-on 
collisions, are sorely missing on many rural roads. The GHSA report 
states: ``Rural and tribal areas often grapple with limited resources 
at all levels. Cash-strapped governments must cover broad geographic 
areas that often have few alternative transportation options. Rural and 
tribal roads tend to lack safety features . . . Small communities may 
not have access to technical expertise--in fact, they may have a single 
person tasked with all aspects of public safety, from well water to 
road safety to disaster response.''
    Lack of resources to employ people to address rural road safety 
challenges extends to after accident emergency services. Many 
communities are encountering a fire and EMS crisis as decreased 
volunteerism and lack of resources to employ full-time emergency 
responders is producing an increase in already lengthy response times 
resulting from the extreme distances that must be traveled in rural 
areas.
                               Solutions
    1.  Adjust the Rural Surface Transportation Grant Program to target 
truly rural areas and first mile roads that service the fields, 
forests, farms, and quarries that feed the nation and provide building 
materials.
          IIJA provided $2 billion in STP discretionary grants that are 
available to communities either: a) outside of urban areas; or, b) 
within urban areas so long as the population is less than 200,000 
people. The Wisconsin Towns Association and the National Association of 
Towns and Townships feel strongly that a population of 200,000 is not 
rural and highly populated communities outside of urban areas are also 
not rural.
          NATaT supports the Rebuilding Rural Roads Act (H.R. 3002) and 
the Protecting Infrastructure Investments for Rural America Act (H.R. 
5437) that would change the definition of rural in DOT's Rural Surface 
Transportation Grant Program from 200,000 to 20,000.

    2.  Build upon the paradigm shift included in the FAST Act to the 
STP block grant that allowed states to allocate 15% of funds dedicated 
to adjusted census-defined areas that have a population of 50,000 or 
lower for projects on roadways functionally classified as either rural 
minor collector or local. (23 USC Section 133(g) and (k)).
          Roads functionally classified as minor collector and rural 
are the first and last mile roads in the US supply chain. These 
comprise 75% of the rural roads in the US and over 99% of Wisconsin's 
town roads. Previously these roads were not eligible for STP block 
grant funding.
          Wisconsin Department of Transportation Secretary Craig 
Thompson has actively chosen to use this discretion and has deployed 
the maximum 15%. This will result in an approximately $15 million 
investment over the course of the FAST Act for town roads alone. To 
date, $36 million has been awarded to 57 local governments in 
Wisconsin. The program has proven extremely popular and is 
significantly overprescribed. A total of 1,057 applications were 
submitted requesting $856 million. This is a funding overprescription 
of 2,378% and speaks to the significant investment need on minor 
collector and local roads in smaller communities.

    3.  Right size competition for grant funding.
          As was noted by the GHSA, rural communities often have one 
person that oversees many local government responsibilities. It is not 
uncommon in a town to have one or two road patrol people that are 
responsible for 50+ miles of plowing, ditch maintenance, and basic 
summer road maintenance. They do not have the time or skill set to 
prepare a competitive grant application. Furthermore, lack of private 
sector grant writing resources and local government funding even when 
grant writers are available further plague rural communities. Juxtapose 
this with a community of 200,000 that likely has a public works 
director and possibly even a grant writer on staff. The much larger 
community certainly has an advantage in obtaining both formula and 
discretionary funding.
          Again, WisDOT has been a leader in addressing this challenge. 
The 15% in formula funding noted in recommendation #2 was suballocated 
to different municipal types, thus, for example, preventing a city of 
50,000 people from competing with a town of 250.

    4.  Consider targeted changes to the quality based selection 
process.
          When rural communities do muster the resources to hire out 
project scoping and grant writing, the current quality based selection 
process requirement significantly diminishes the supply of engineering 
firms willing to do such work. Firms that assist in project scoping and 
grant writing are typically prohibited from providing the much higher 
profit margin engineering services to the community. This exacerbates 
the already existing shortage of engineering firms to assist small 
communities in an attempt to compete with larger communities.

    5.  Continue the FAST Act and IIJA investment in bridge funding.
          In addition to the increased funding in the FAST Act, the 
required off-system set aside was increased from 15% to 20%. Both are a 
welcome increase and should be continued in a future authorization. The 
IIJA created a new Bridge Formula Program (BFP) that, in Wisconsin's 
case, awarded $45 million annually ($225 million total). Under BFP, a 
minimum of 15% must be spent on off-system bridges and projects must be 
funded at 100%federal participation. WisDOT chose to exceed the 15% 
minimum and allocate $180 million to date to local off-system bridges 
resulting in 330 bridge projects that are 100% federally funded. Based 
on conversations with my colleagues on the NATaT Board, WisDOT's 
actions are an anomaly.

    6.  Increase funds for the federal bridge program and create a 
carve-out to include off-system non-state structures less than 20 feet, 
which states must distribute through a competitive process.

    7.  Create a program modeled after Wisconsin's Agricultural Road 
Improvement Program.
          Wisconsin recently created a $150 million pilot program to 
increase agricultural supply chain efficiencies through reconstruction 
of roads functionally classified as minor collector and local that are 
subject to weight limits. Reconstructed roads can no longer be subject 
to a weight limit. This program will prove the first step in creating 
priority agricultural routes on which farmers, loggers, and processors 
will be able to carry full weights throughout the year.

    8.  Achieve a stable, consistent, and enhanced funding stream.
          In 2021, FHWA estimated the US faces a $180 billion backlog 
in rural road and bridge maintenance and construction. Investments in 
the FAST Act and IIJA are a welcome and necessary injection that must 
continue. The enhanced funding is necessary; however, achieving greater 
consistency and stability is needed to empower local governments to 
engage in more effective planning and move toward an asset management 
approach to managing their infrastructure. Furthermore, this would 
allow materials suppliers, engineers, and contractors to more 
efficiently prepare, which would avoid infrastructure construction and 
maintenance pricing bubbles.
Sources
America's Rural Roads: Beautiful and Deadly, Governors Highway Safety 
Association, September, 2022

Deller, S., Contribution of Agriculture to the Wisconsin Economy: 
Updated for 2017, August, 2019.

Rural Connections: Challenges and Opportunities in America's Heartland, 
TRIP, October, 2022

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 
Office of Highway Information Management, Highway Statistics 2020, 
Table HM-60

United States Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 5-Year 
Estimates, 2020.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Wisconsin Forest Economy, 
2020

Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Wisconsin Information System 
for Local Roads, 2023

    Mr. Crawford. Thank you, and I now recognize our ranking 
member for the introduction of our next--oh, I am sorry. We are 
going to jump to Mr. Greteman.
    You are recognized for 5 minutes. My apologies.

   TESTIMONY OF JEFF GRETEMAN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
    OFFICER, WINDSTAR LINES, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN BUS 
                          ASSOCIATION

    Mr. Greteman. No problem.
    Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Norton, members 
of the committee. My name is Jeff Greteman. I am the president 
of Windstar Lines, a family-owned charter bus company based out 
of Carroll, Iowa. I appreciate the opportunity to testify about 
rural transportation challenges and the importance of bus 
operations in meeting the public transportation needs of rural 
communities.
    The timing of this hearing is important, as private bus 
operators are facing increased challenges to provide these 
vital services. The goal for the transportation policymakers is 
to support a connected, nationwide transportation service for 
the public. Private bus operators, both charter operators like 
Windstar and scheduled service operators, play a critical role 
in this system, ensuring rural communities have access to vital 
services, educational and job opportunities, and connections to 
the broader national transportation network in a safe, cost 
effective, and environmentally friendly manner.
    However, the operating environment for bus operators is 
deteriorating rapidly, and the COVID pandemic took a toll. Bus 
operators are increasingly losing access to key facilities 
which provide intermodal connections, and many of these 
facilities are publicly funded.
    Also, we are seeing jurisdictions restricting access 
through zoning or other means to prevent rural operators from 
establishing safe pickup and dropoff points that provide 
meaningful connections to other services. There is statutory 
language to prevent these restrictions, but these entities are 
finding ways around it.
    Recognizing intercity bus service provides an essential 
link between rural communities and the rest of the Nation, the 
Federal Government created the 5311(f) program because major 
intercity bus carriers were forced to abandon less productive 
routes. But the program has not kept up with today's costs and 
business environment, putting bus operators who participate in 
the program at increased risk of abandoning these routes or 
face going out of business. These issues put a strain on rural 
operators.
    As well, there are basic infrastructure needs in rural 
States. Congestion and potholes are not solely the problem of 
large urban areas, and rural States need the flexibility to 
choose the infrastructure investments that best fit their 
needs. For this reason, Mr. Chairman, we support your 
legislation addressing the recent Federal highway rule that 
could limit a State's ability to make infrastructure investment 
decisions such as adding capacity when appropriate.
    Just one example is completing the four-laning of Highway 
30, which runs through my hometown in Iowa. Highway 30 is the 
most heavily trafficked route outside of Interstate 80. 
Limiting our State's ability to determine when Highway 30 gets 
its last miles four-laned is unneeded Federal oversight and 
should be left in the hands of local and State officials.
    We are also challenged by resource issues. As you have 
likely heard, we face staffing shortages. Finding qualified 
drivers is one of the biggest challenges to bus operators 
today, and in rural areas, this is more difficult due to lack 
of CDL testing sites and the time it takes to obtain a CDL.
    Additionally, there are a number of broader challenges we 
face that are not just limited to rural operators, but pose a 
threat to the entire private bus industry. Bus operators and 
CMV operators in general engaging in interstate operations are 
wholly dependent on a national, uniform safety scheme. The 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations work, and they work 
because the operators can cross State lines without the risk of 
running into differing individual State rules and regulations.
    Because of this uniformity, national safety standards 
remain in place and all operators play by the same rules. For 
this reason, we oppose any effort by the FMCSA to waive its 
preemption of State rules concerning drivers' hours of service. 
Windstar operates in the lower 48 States, and the burden to 
keep up with 48 different hours-of-service schemes would be 
overwhelming. We can't operate with a patchwork of hours-of-
service regulations. We need a national standard.
    Finally, the bus industry has a long and successful 
environmental track record taking cars off the road and 
relieving congestion. We are proud of these efforts, and 
support addressing climate change issues. However, recent 
policy initiatives and regulations to push CMV owners toward 
ZEV technology, although well-intended, are unrealistic for the 
bus industry. Please understand, we are not opposed to cleaner 
vehicles, but the transition requires a more reasonable 
timeline with realistic expectations for our industry.
    For bus operations, the technology is still under 
development. Appropriate charging infrastructure is not yet in 
place. The cost to transition to ZEVs is also significant, 
particularly for an industry dominated by private small 
business. Right now, the cost of an electric bus is twice the 
cost of a diesel bus, and the price is even higher for 
hydrogen, and the cost for the infrastructure, coordinating 
with power suppliers, and training for staff to maintain the 
fleet.
    Also, current EVs on the market can't meet the capacity 
range of diesel vehicles we have no idea on the resale value. 
Investment of this sort is very risky for small businesses, and 
especially for rural operators already struggling to remain in 
operation. Robust funding is available for transit and 
schoolbus industries, but once again, the private bus industry 
is being left out. We want to be supportive. However, we need 
more reasonable timelines and resources.
    I will close by saying if rural bus services are to survive 
long term, there needs to be greater recognition of the 
critical role we play in the national transportation network 
and the very real challenges we are facing.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer any 
questions.
    [Mr. Greteman's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
  Prepared Statement of Jeff Greteman, President and Chief Executive 
   Officer, Windstar Lines, on behalf of the American Bus Association
    Good morning Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Norton, and members of 
the Subcommittee. My name is Jeff Greteman, and I am president of 
Windstar Lines, a private bus operator based out of Carroll, Iowa.
    I appreciate this opportunity to testify today about rural 
transportation challenges, and the importance of private bus operations 
in meeting the public transportation needs of rural communities, both 
on behalf of my company and the entire industry, representing the 
American Bus Association.
    The private bus industry has a long and respected history serving 
the traveling public in this country, although not often recognized for 
its contributions. It is an industry dominated by small businesses, 
often family owned like Windstar, which provides a vital service as 
part of the larger national transportation network. Private bus 
operations include scheduled route services, like Greyhound, but also 
commuter and shuttle services in and around urban areas and work sites, 
and charter operations, like Windstar, which operate locally or across 
the country. Private bus operators also are relied upon by the public 
for transportation services, and we move our military and serve in 
times of disasters to assist with evacuations and recovery in the 
aftermath.
    Windstar Lines provides charter bus service, contract commuter 
service, employee shuttles, and convention transportation support, and 
we are certified to move our military by the Department of Defense. We 
are a family owned and operated business based in Carroll, Iowa, with 
11 additional locations nationwide. We transport approximately 1.5 
million passengers annually, while maintaining an exemplary safety 
record. However, I am also here to speak on behalf of all rural bus 
operations, including scheduled operations that serve rural communities 
and work with state and local governments to ensure these communities 
have adequate public transportation services.
    During the COVID-19 pandemic the private bus industry suffered 
staggering losses, close to $12 billion in 2020, alone, and it is still 
struggling to recover--this is particularly true for rural operators 
and the vital services we provide. Although Congress enacted the 
Coronavirus Economic Relief for Transportation Services Act or CERTS in 
2021, to assist private operators the industry was left primarily to 
rely on its own resources to survive the Pandemic. Yet, at the same 
time, private operators played a critical role, shuttling necessary 
medical personnel to high-risk areas, connecting rural communities to 
medical facilities in larger urban areas, and assisting those who faced 
dire economic circumstances by providing reliable and cost-effective 
transportation services. From a rural standpoint, this was particularly 
important, as private bus operations provide a vital link for rural and 
otherwise isolated communities to the larger national transportation 
network, urban hubs and facilities, and access to medical and 
educational resources and jobs.
    However, although critical to serving the transportation needs of 
rural communities, the operating environment for bus operations is 
deteriorating. Companies are struggling to remain viable, which is 
becoming increasingly difficult to do.
    Rural bus operators like Windstar are facing various strains on 
their operations. As is well documented, the bus driver shortage is 
making it difficult to meet staffing needs. However, in the Midwest, 
because of the lack of availability of Commercial Driver License (CDL) 
testing facilities and CDL training facilities for bus operators, it 
makes it even more difficult to attract drivers to the profession. 
Further, federal CDL requirements for testing, requiring lengthy waits 
between testing and obtaining a license, are disincentives to pursuing 
a CDL.
    Additionally, roadway infrastructure needs are very important to 
rural operations. Congestion and potholes are not solely the province 
of large urban areas. Rural States face similar issues and should have 
the discretion to address their transportation needs as they see fit, 
including adding capacity if appropriate to address inefficiencies as 
well as safety. For example, Highway 30 runs from the east to west 
border of Iowa, and is the second most traveled roadway in the state 
after I-80. It is the state's longest roadway and connects major cities 
such as Cedar Rapids and Ames, and serves over 550,000 of Iowa's 3.1 
million population. However, over 80 miles of it remains two-lane, 
which causes safety concerns, congestion, and operational 
inefficiencies for businesses like Windstar that depend on it. The 
Highway 30 Coalition is advocating for the State to modernize this 
roadway and add capacity to make it a 4-lane highway.
    This project is specific to my state, and states need to have the 
flexibility to identify their own infrastructure needs and make these 
types of decisions. For this reason, Mr. Chairman, we wholly support 
your legislation, H.J.Res. 114, to stop the Federal Highway 
Administration's final rule imposing national performance measures 
concerning greenhouse gas emissions, on states and transportation 
planning agencies. Rural states have unique needs and should not be 
forced into a ``one-size-fits-all'' mandate restricting their ability 
to provide critical transportation investments to meet their 
transportation needs. Unlike urban areas, bike lanes and transit rail 
are not always an option for rural communities--we, as public 
transportation providers, need highway capacity, and I want to thank 
the Chairman for recognizing this and for his legislation.
    Another significant issue is that bus operators are losing access 
to key facilities and destination points providing intermodal 
connections, and many of these facilities are publicly funded 
facilities like transit stations, Amtrak stations and airports, which 
should welcome and promote intermodal transportation. Although there is 
statutory language \i\ requiring these public facilities to provide 
reasonable access to intercity bus operators, facilities have found 
ways to get around the law due to gaps in the law or interpretive 
guidance. This is a major concern for rural bus operators who are 
trying to ensure their passengers have meaningful connections to the 
larger national transportation network. Efforts to work with federal 
partners like the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) or the Federal 
Aviation Administration, have proven unsuccessful either because the 
law is insufficient or because of disinterest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \i\ See, 49 USC 5323(r) and 49 USC 47107(a)(20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Similarly, rural bus operators are increasingly facing restrictions 
from the local jurisdictions they are trying to serve, in terms of 
destination points or pick-up/drop-off locations. The changing business 
environment for intercity bus operations has led to numerous bus 
station closings, and while operators seek to relocate many localities 
are restricting or prohibiting these efforts. For example, rather than 
permit bus operators to relocate to areas that provide amenities and 
meaningful connections to other transportation services, they are 
instead restricting bus stopping points to industrial areas with few 
amenities and no intermodal access, resulting in less attractive bus 
service and hurting both the passengers and the bus operator.
    The private bus industry prides itself on being one of the few 
publicly accessible intercity modes of transportation servicing rural 
communities, ensuring equitable access to the national transportation 
network in a safe and cost-effective manner. However, if bus operators 
cannot provide necessary transportation connections and attractive 
service to customers, the operating model is unsustainable and rural 
communities will suffer.
    Also, federal programs like the 5311(f) rural transportation grant 
program, managed by FTA, are not keeping up with the costs and business 
case to support rural transportation bus routes. The funding formula 
for use of 5311(f) funds is insufficient for subsidizing rural route 
operations. Increased requirements, like the Buy America requirement, 
and supply chain issues have increased costs for equipment 
significantly. Currently, there is only one manufacturer who can supply 
compliant equipment, and costs for equipment have increased by over 
30%. These cost increases, in turn, cut into funds otherwise relied on 
to cover operating loss costs.
    As well, the formula funding for operating loss subsidies, 
typically 50% of net operating losses, does not fully account for the 
actual costs to private operators to provide services on routes that 
would not otherwise exist. By definition, the remaining 50% of net 
operating losses are unfunded and often require the private operator to 
subsidize the route, an increasingly difficult burden to carry. The 
5311(f) program was initially created to prevent intercity bus 
operators from abandoning less productive routes. However, we are at a 
point where the program is not meeting its goals. Operators providing 
5311(f) services these days need greater support to sustain their 
businesses if they are to continue operating such routes and remain 
viable rural transportation providers. It would also help if States 
were limited from certifying and transfer these vital funds to other 
programs when they could be used to provide increased support for rural 
transportation in other states. Better coordination between the states 
in support of rural interstate transportation instead of an intrastate-
only focus, could also lead to better results for this important 
transportation lifeline and better connections for passengers to the 
national transportation network.
    In addition to these various challenges for rural operators, the 
viability of the entire private bus industry is at risk from a number 
of current regulatory initiatives and policy directions. These 
initiatives appear to reflect a lack of understanding of bus operations 
and take no account of the valuable services and benefits private bus 
operators contribute to our country.
    Bus operators, as well as commercial motor vehicle operators in 
general that engage in interstate operations, are wholly dependent on a 
national, uniform regulatory safety scheme. This scheme is a hallmark 
of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's (FMCSA's) safety 
oversight role. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations or FMCSRS 
work, and they work because operators can cross state lines without the 
risk of running afoul of differing individual state rules and 
regulations. Because of this uniform scheme, national safety standards 
remain in place and all operators must play by the same rules. However, 
FMCSA is currently entertaining waiver requests to set aside its 
preemption determination of state ordinances that differ from the 
national scheme and interfere with their jurisdiction over drivers' 
hours of service. If FMCSA proceeds to waive its preemption 
determination and allow states to set their own rules, bus operators 
like Windstar will be burdened with trying to navigate new rules every 
time they cross state lines or be faced with heavy penalties and 
litigation. This is entirely unworkable from a business standpoint, in 
terms of engaging in interstate operations. Windstar currently operates 
in the 48 contiguous states; the burden of trying to remain compliant 
with 48 different HOS schemes would be overwhelming.
    Finally, Mr. Chairman, the bus industry has a long and successful 
environmental track record, taking cars off the roads and relieving 
congestion, along with adopting cleaner engine technology and cleaner 
fuels. We are proud of these measures, and certainly are supportive of 
addressing climate changes issues. However, recent policy initiatives 
and regulations to drive the commercial vehicle industry transition to 
zero emissions vehicle (ZEV) technology, albeit well intended, are 
unrealistic for the bus industry.
    Increasingly stringent emissions requirements pursued by the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and sometimes driven by or even 
superseded by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and like 
states, are a serious threat to our industry. These agencies seem to 
take no account of the environmental benefits the bus industry 
currently provides, in the development of their rules, nor do they 
consider the costs for new heavy-duty ZEVS and the need for reasonable 
timelines. In fact, neither EPA nor CARB has made any concerted 
outreach to the private bus industry to understand our operations or 
the burdens we face from their rules.
    Right now, for motorcoach vehicles, zero emissions technology is 
still under development--and it is unclear whether batteries or 
hydrogen fuel cells will be the best fit for such vehicles. Also, 
appropriate charging infrastructure is not yet in place, and very 
little attention is being paid to what infrastructure is necessary--in 
terms of charging capacity, speed, space, and the needs of passenger 
carrying vehicles. Further, the costs for our industry to transition to 
ZEVs are significant, particularly for an industry dominated by small 
businesses, who continue to struggle with recovery from the pandemic. 
Currently, the cost of an electric bus is two times the cost of a 
regular diesel vehicle ($600K v. $1.5 million), and the price is even 
higher for a hydrogen vehicle ($2 million+). Then there is also the 
cost for installation of onsite charging infrastructure and training 
for staff, to consider, in order to maintain the fleet. Further, the 
current ZEV vehicles on the market cannot meet the capacity or the 
range of diesel operated vehicles, which is particularly problematic in 
terms of providing rural transportation services. Lastly, purchases of 
bus equipment are a significant investment for bus operators, who also 
take into account the resale value of the equipment--which is a known 
quantity for vehicles on the market today. This is not the case for an 
electric bus or ZEV vehicle, where resale value has yet to be 
determined.
    Investment of the sort necessary to transition an industry to an 
entirely new power mode is very risky for small businesses, and 
especially for rural operators who are already struggling to remain in 
operation. Although legislation has authorized various grant programs 
for ZEV investment, none of these programs will assist the private bus 
industry with such a transition. Please understand, we want to be 
supportive and are not opposed to moving toward cleaner vehicles, but 
this transition needs to happen on a more reasonable timeline, with 
more resources, and with realistic expectations for our industry.
    Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you, again, for holding this hearing 
and allowing me to testify about rural transportation services. I will 
close by saying the private bus industry provides critical public 
transportation services to rural and isolated communities. However, if 
rural bus operators are to survive, there needs to be greater 
recognition of the critical role we play in the national transportation 
network and the very real challenges we are facing.
    I would be pleased to answer any questions.

    Mr. Crawford. Thank you, sir, and I now recognize the 
ranking member for an introduction of our next panelist.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am 
pleased to introduce Mr. Todd Morrow, the executive director 
for Island Transit, which provides safe, reliable, and 
accessible transportation services for more than 380,000 riders 
in Island County, Washington State, each year.
    Todd is a seasoned leader in the transit industry with 23 
years of experience. And I knew him before then, as well. 
Throughout his career, he has worked to promote public 
transportation at the local, State, and Federal level. In his 
role as Island Transit's executive director, Todd has helped 
the agency weather the pandemic, and he has secured funding for 
capital projects that will improve service for community 
members on the island. He has guided the agency through the 
interagency process by moving towards a zero-emission fleet, as 
well as implementing sustainable energy practices.
    He's also focused on increasing Island Transit's service, 
adding Sunday service for the first time in the agency's 
history. Morrow's leadership extends to various industry roles, 
as well, including past presidency of the Washington State 
Transportation Association's board of directors, and he 
continues to be an integral part of The Bus Coalition, serving 
as the treasurer.
    I want to thank him for making the trip out, and look 
forward to hearing his testimony.
    Thanks, Todd.
    Mr. Crawford. Thank you.
    Mr. Morrow, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

 TESTIMONY OF TODD MORROW, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ISLAND TRANSIT, 
   ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION OF 
                            AMERICA

    Mr. Morrow. Thank you very much. Chair Crawford, Ranking 
Member Larsen, and committee members, thank you for this 
opportunity to discuss rural transit. I am Todd Morrow, 
executive director of Island Transit. I am here representing 
the 1,200 members of CTAA, otherwise known as the Community 
Transportation Association of America, the majority of which 
are rural public transit systems.
    My public transit agency serves Island County, a rural 
county of 86,000 northwest of Seattle. Island County has the 
most visited State park in Washington and is the home of Naval 
Air Station Whidbey Island. As a rural transit agency, we 
receive our Federal funding through our State department of 
transportation. Island Transit has a $21 million annual budget, 
63 buses, 136 employees, 16 bus routes, and an operating base 
on each of our two islands. We provide traditional, on-demand, 
paratransit, and vanpool service. We carry approximately 7,500 
passenger trips an average week; 13 percent of those are ADA 
paratransit trips for those receiving door-to-door service. 
Popular destinations include grocery stores, local hospital, 
Walmart, restaurants, schools, and the Washington State Ferry 
for Boeing and Microsoft workers.
    Just as in urban areas, people need access to those places. 
This is especially true for vulnerable Americans, older adults, 
persons with disabilities, and low-income individuals. 
Everything we do is about safely and equitably moving people. 
We are currently growing our service. Last June, we began bus 
service on Sundays for the first time.
    We are unique because we are zero fare. Our agency receives 
70 percent of our operating revenue from voter-approved, 
locally collected sales tax.
    The recent increases in Federal transit funding are making 
it possible for Island Transit to move two critical projects 
forward. One is our South Whidbey Transit Center project, which 
will create a safe place for off-street transfers. The Federal 
Transportation Administration awarded at $7.5 million.
    Like urban systems, rural systems need modern facilities. 
Competitive bus and bus facilities funding makes that possible.
    One challenge that occurs with facility building is that 
transit, unlike highway projects, is required to complete the 
environmental process prior to purchasing the property.
    Our other major project is transitioning our fleet to zero-
emission vehicles. We have seven battery-electric vehicles in 
our fleet already, solar panels on our two operating bases, and 
battery charging at our main operating base.
    Another challenge is the availability of vehicles. Our 
agency's current purchase of nine more electric vans is in 
limbo because manufacturers have gone out of business. Vehicle 
prices, particularly for these small vehicles that rural 
systems depend on, have dramatically increased.
    This shortage also impacts large buses, particularly 
hydrogen fuel cell buses. There is just one Buy America-
compliant manufacturer of hydrogen buses. This year, we will be 
requesting Federal funding to purchase 12 of those full-size 
hydrogen buses.
    Both Island Transit and CTAA support the Federal Transit 
Administration's recent prioritization of progress payments to 
bus manufacturers to help them with their cash flow challenges. 
We would welcome strategies to increase access to new bus 
manufacturers while they become Buy America-compliant.
    For rural systems, the fleet transition is challenging 
because advances in zero-emission technology have not 
successfully reached the smaller class of vehicles we use. 
Their battery range is low. Charging infrastructure, too, is 
just not as prevalent yet in rural America.
    The capacity of our local power grid and grid resiliency is 
also a concern. To address this, my agency has purchased 
acreage adjacent to our operating base, with the potential for 
siting a microgrid there for possible additional electricity.
    Recruitment is challenging for transit agencies, as well. 
We see two places where the Federal Government could help us. 
One is to fast-track the certification of oral testing labs for 
our required drug and alcohol testing. CTAA requests members of 
this committee send a letter to HHS to urge them to finish this 
important work.
    Another area is the requirement for a commercial driver's 
license. We need an addition to the CDL passenger endorsement 
that is focused on bus driving and public transit.
    I would like to end by introducing you to one of Island 
Transit's bus riders, James, a veteran turned veterans 
advocate. He said, ``Island Transit gives people like me, a 
vet, a chance to get to where I need to go and help others. 
Without Island Transit, I couldn't do what I do.''
    I would like to thank you for inviting me to speak to you 
today.
    [Mr. Morrow's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
Prepared Statement of Todd Morrow, Executive Director, Island Transit, 
    on behalf of the Community Transportation Association of America
    Chair Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, Committee Members:
    Thank you for this opportunity to share the challenges and 
opportunities facing rural transit providers. I am Todd Morrow, 
Executive Director of Island Transit. I'm here representing the more 
than 1,200 members of the Community Transportation Association of 
America (CTAA)--the majority of which are rural public transit systems. 
I am also a Board Officer of The Bus Coalition and the past chair of 
the Washington State Transit Association.
                         Island Transit Basics
    ``When you have seen one transit agency you have seen one transit 
agency'' is a common phrase in our industry and aptly describes Island 
Transit. Island Transit serves Island County, a rural county northwest 
of Seattle which includes two large islands. One, Whidbey Island, is 
the fourth longest in the lower 48. This ``long-ness'' and island 
geography significantly impacts our operations. To get to our other 
island, we travel through two other counties. There are only four 
gateways to our islands, two of them are via Washington State Ferries 
and the others are by way of bridges, including the iconic Deception 
Pass bridge. Island Transit helps to mitigate the congestion through 
those entry points by the bus routes we provide.
    Island County has the most visited state park in Washington state. 
We are the proud home to Naval Air Station Whidbey Island and have a 
thriving agriculture, arts, and hospitality industry. 86,000 people 
call Island County home. For federal purposes we are categorized as a 
rural transit agency and receive our federal funding through our state 
Department of Transportation.
    Island Transit has an annual budget of $21 million, a fleet of more 
than 60 buses, a staff of 136, sixteen bus routes, and an operating 
base on each island. We provide traditional and on-demand bus service, 
paratransit, and vanpool service. We are governed by a Board of 
Directors composed of local elected officials and a union 
representative.
    Our route that travels from our largest town, Oak Harbor, to the 
ferry terminal in Clinton, is our longest. It covers nearly the length 
of Whidbey Island and is approximately 40 miles long. It runs hourly 
and carries the most passengers of any of our routes (1,798 an average 
weekday). The one-way trip lasts about one hour and forty five minutes. 
We also have long routes connecting our islands to transit systems and 
larger cities on the mainland.
    Popular destinations in Island Transit's service area include the 
Washington State Ferries for those who work off island, at Boeing and 
Microsoft. Our popular on-island destinations include our local 
hospital, grocery stores, Walmart, restaurants, and schools. We also 
cater to tourists and bicyclists with our summer state park service.
    We are somewhat unique among the nation's rural transit providers 
because we are fare-less and began that way when our service started in 
the 1980s. Our agency receives approximately 70% of our operating 
revenue from a voter-approved, locally collected sales tax, which is at 
the highest level allowed by state law. The rest of our capital and 
operating revenue comes from federal and state funds. During the COVID 
era Island Transit received more than $16 million from the federal 
government's pandemic relief spending. Those funds made it possible to 
not furlough staff, among other things. During that time there was a 
disproportionately high portion of our budget that came from federal 
programs.
    Being fare free has many positives for the operations of Island 
Transit. The most important is that it removes the fare as a barrier, 
so that all can have access to the mobility we provide. Even if one can 
afford a bus fare, simply worrying about how much it is and when to 
pay, presents a psychological barrier to some. Fare free also 
transforms the role of Coach Operator. Rather than having to check and 
enforce each passenger's payment of a fare, that driver can instead 
focus on helping the customer. This is especially important for the 
tourists and first-time riders. Finally, not charging a fare negates 
the cost of having to account for the fares collected, which in some 
cases may just barely cover that accounting cost.
             Demographics of Island Transit's Service Area
    Island County has several notable demographic realities that shape 
Island Transit's service and its importance. The 2020 US Census Bureau 
identified that almost 25% of the county's population was age 65 years 
or older. That is significantly higher than the state and national 
average of 16% for the elderly population group. 13% of the population 
identified as veterans, and 15.5% identified as having a disability. 
All of these factors underscore the need for scheduled fixed-route and 
especially paratransit service to ensure the mobility of these 
populations. To efficiently serve these groups we are oftentimes 
combining our ADA paratransit trips with those on our new on-demand 
service. Public transportation allows seniors to age in-place in their 
homes, something many prefer and is less costly than assisted living 
senior housing.
                            Economic Impact
    The impact of Island Transit on our local economy is threefold: one 
is from our payroll's impact on the local economy, as one of the larger 
employers in the county. Another economic impact stems from our 
construction projects and spending on our service, which generates 
business in our county. Our service is also beneficial to area 
businesses, including in the hospitality sector, by making it easier 
for their customers and workers to access them.
    An example of our impact in the tourism industry is when Island 
Transit began service 7 days a week, including Sundays. Because of our 
daily operations, our islands can now be advertised as a place to visit 
every day of the week without an automobile, making it possible for 
even the transit dependent to enjoy them. Related to that, we started 
summer service which connects our state parks easily by bus, helping to 
address congestion and providing access for all.
    Another example of the role that transit plays in supporting the 
local economy is Island Transit's South Whidbey Transit Center project. 
This project is the recipient of recently awarded Congressionally 
Directed Spending and of a Federal Transit Administration bus and bus 
facility (Section 5339) grant. It will support area businesses by 
making it easier for customers and workers to access them, and it will 
provide access to a new pedestrian and bike path to the ferry terminal. 
Visitors to the island (as well as residents who are traveling for 
work) will have a convenient place to leave their car and travel 
hassle-free by transit, enjoying the scenic beauty and arts and culture 
of the island.
    During the pandemic, the important role of Island Transit was 
underscored, as was the case with other transit agencies across 
America. Essential workers (including hospital workers, first 
responders, and store employees) still needed to get to their jobs. 
Others still needed to travel to their medical appointments, grocery 
stores, pharmacies, and so on. Transit, including Island Transit was 
there to provide that service and did not shut down. Importantly, as a 
larger employer, we also kept our workforce employed, in part because 
we knew the importance of our payroll to the local economy.
                       The Value of Rural Transit
    One of the challenges of rural transit is that destinations are 
farther apart requiring long routes, all in areas with low population 
density. But transportation in rural areas is just as important as 
transit in big cities. People in rural areas, as in urban areas, need 
access to health care, places of employment, goods, and services. This 
is especially true for vulnerable Americans: older adults, persons with 
disabilities, low-income individuals, and others.
    In rural areas, these long routes increase the cost of bus service. 
Island Transit, like all rural providers, seeks ways to efficiently 
provide our services. This includes using small bus vehicles and 
combining traditional, scheduled trips with those serving disabled 
passengers.
                          Island Transit Today
    Everything Island Transit does is about safely and equitably moving 
people. And we are currently growing our service. Last June, Island 
Transit began bus service on Sundays for the first time. We expect to 
add more hours to our service day, to support those who work later once 
we have hired more staff.
    This service growth began with an analysis of the financial 
sustainability of our operating revenue, followed by a route network 
analysis, called Island Transit Maximized. That work has made it 
possible to replace some of our scheduled trips with a more efficient 
on-demand service, as well as provide service on Sundays and in new 
places. On demand service is an increasingly common form of service 
that involves the customer scheduling their bus trip, rather than 
expecting a bus at a pre-set time. The scheduling occurs using an 
application on a smartphone or computer, or by calling dispatch. With 
these trips being scheduled for a particular rider, a bus is not out 
circulating empty.
    As we add service, ridership on the Island Transit system has 
grown. This is normal in the transportation industry. Unfortunately, 
many rural transit systems are not in a position to add more service. 
Island Transit's financial sustainability analysis showed that the 
agency has the capacity to provide more services.
    During the past 12 month period, Island Transit carried on average 
7,485 passengers trips each week. 13% of those trips were paratransit 
trips. We had the highest ridership in the month of August last year, 
after we added service on Sundays, with 37,507 passenger trips for that 
entire month.
    Island Transit has embarked on a 17-year plan to replace our 
current fleet with both hydrogen and battery electric vehicles. We need 
hydrogen buses because they work on our long routes and are not 
dependent on an electrical grid that is susceptible to long power 
outages from storms. Federal investment makes this transition possible. 
We have 5 battery electric sedans for our vanpool program. We have also 
installed solar panels on our two operating bases and battery charging 
at our main operating base. We just received two battery electric, ADA 
accessible vans and have nine more on order, funded by a grant that 
includes state and federal funds.
                Challenge: Vehicle Availability and Cost
    This gets to our first challenge: The availability of vehicles, 
which has been severely impacted by a bus manufacturing shortage and 
supply chain issues. My agency's order of nine more vehicles is in 
limbo because the manufacturer has gone out of business. We are having 
difficulty finding another vehicle model to replace those, one with 
adequate range. Vehicle prices, particularly for the small vehicles 
that rural systems depend on, have dramatically increased, creating 
another challenge.
    This manufacturing shortage also impacts large buses, particularly 
hydrogen vehicles. There is just one Buy America compliant bus 
manufacturer of hydrogen buses, its competitor having recently stopped 
production. This year we will be requesting federal funding to purchase 
12 full-sized hydrogen buses. We are concerned that the reduction in 
manufacturers will mean it will take two years to receive those buses. 
We welcome strategies to increase access to new manufacturers of bus 
vehicles while they become ``Buy America'' eligible.
    Both Island Transit and CTAA support the Federal Transit 
Administration's recent prioritization of allowing agencies to make 
progress payments to bus manufacturers, something that will help those 
businesses with their cash-flow challenges. Also, in Washington State 
we are fortunate to have a state department of transportation that has 
contracts in place with many vendors, making joint procurements easier 
for smaller transit agencies.
              Challenge: Limitations of Current Technology
    For small transit agencies like mine, fleet transitions like the 
one we've embarked on will take time. The advances in zero emission 
technology have not extended to all vehicle classes. The battery range 
is low for smaller vehicles, making them a challenge for many rural 
operators whose service areas cover hundreds, and sometimes thousands, 
of square miles. For our new vehicles we were expecting a range of 200 
miles, however our initial testing shows a much more limited range, 
about 100 miles. For context, most of our vehicles travel 140 to 250 
miles or more a day. Charging infrastructure is just not as prevalent 
yet in rural America.
    As agencies like Island Transit move to some electric vehicles, 
concerns arise about the capacity of our local power grids. Grid 
resiliency, including after storm damage, is especially important. Our 
agency is working with our local power provider for a new transformer 
that is needed for the charging of more electric vehicles. To address 
this long-term concern, my agency was fortunate to buy acreage adjacent 
to our operating base, with the hope we may site a micro grid there to 
support our energy needs.
    The national investment in hydrogen hubs will help transit agencies 
like Island Transit who will use hydrogen for a portion of its fleet. 
Additional investments in battery technology and the nation's power 
grid will also benefit the transition to battery and hydrogen fuel cell 
vehicles.
            Challenge: Property Acquisition and Development
    Just like their large urban counterparts, rural transit systems 
need modern facilities. Island Transit is working with the Federal 
Transit Administration to build a transit center at the south end of 
our long island. We need a place there for safe, off-street transfers. 
In the latest round of bus funding, the FTA awarded us $7.52 million 
for this project. We thank Representative Larsen for that. Senator 
Murray and Senator Cantwell secured us an additional $4 million in 
Congressionally designated spending, in the FY 2024 appropriations 
bill.
    When building facilities, all transit agencies, unlike highway 
projects, are required to complete the environmental process before 
purchasing the property. If they do not complete that environmental 
work first, they are not eligible for federal dollars to develop the 
project. This makes land acquisition exceedingly challenging for many 
transit agencies. Thankfully, this was not an issue for my agency, but 
for others it is.
               Challenge: Front-Line Employee Recruitment
    Recruitment, as for most employers these days, is a significant 
challenge for my transit agency. We have been able to cost-effectively 
implement service increases, but we chronically lack drivers. We see 
two places where the federal government could make changes that would 
assist us in recruiting: one is to fast-track the certification of oral 
testing labs for our required drug and alcohol testing. CTAA would like 
to request that members of this committee send a letter to HHS urging 
them to finish this important certification. Another area is the 
requirements for a Commercial Driver's License. We need an addition to 
the CDL passenger endorsement that is focused on bus driving and public 
transit. Additionally, there needs to be a way to consider learning 
disabilities and language differences in the testing.
                               Priorities
    The Community Transportation Association of America is working to 
address the vehicle shortage, particularly the small bus industry, 
because those vehicles are the mainstay of most rural transit systems. 
To that end, CTAA advocates for strategies to address that shortage, 
including increasing access to new manufacturers while they locate 
facilities in America and streamlining the vehicle procurement process.
    Here are CTAA's 2024 Legislative and Policy Priorities
    1.  Maintain full funding for FTA formula grant programs as 
authorized in IIJA.

    2.  Provide 80 percent federal share for all FTA formula grants, 
regardless of whether these grants are providing operating or capital 
assistance to public transit providers.

    3.  Create a tier of supplemental Section 5311 funding to be 
awarded on a STIC-like basis to states in which rural transit providers 
exceed selected performance benchmarks.

    4.  Assure that FTA recipients and subrecipients can retain all of 
the proceeds from the sale or disposition of vehicles acquired with FTA 
financial assistance when they commit to using these proceeds for 
capital replacement.

    5.  Set aside a percentage of Section 5339 bus and bus facility 
grants, including Section 5339(c) low- and no-emission bus and bus 
facility grants, for award to tribal nations' bus, bus facilities, and 
``low/no'' projects.

    6.  Make the Internal Revenue Code's charitable mileage rate for 
volunteer drivers the same as the mileage rate for non-taxed 
reimbursable business travel, and adjust the charitable mileage rate 
annually, just like the business rate.

    7.  Have FTA establish a public interest waiver from Buy America 
for standard production vans and minivans, including vans and minivans 
modified solely to become accessible to wheelchair-using passengers, 
provided that the final assembly of these vans and minivans takes place 
in the US, Canada or Mexico.

    8.  Develop criteria for identifying particular states and urban 
areas with exceptionally low numbers of CDL-holding drivers as 
``transportation professional shortage areas,'' and give FTA authority 
to consider waiving any or all provisions at 49 USC Section 5323 as 
requested by FTA recipients in those areas.

    9.  Require FTA to identify the scope of data collection and 
reporting requirements currently placed upon its rural, tribal and 
smaller urban transit recipients, and mandate that no additional data 
collection or reporting requirements be placed on these transit 
providers until or unless existing requirements are streamlined, 
simplified or reduced.

    10.  Have DOT and HHS take steps to accelerate the implementation 
of saliva-based testing for marijuana among employers and employees 
covered by federally required transportation workforce drug and alcohol 
testing regulations.

    11.  Call upon FTA to allow (and provide guidance concerning) 
advance and progress-based payments for vehicle procurements likely to 
take 13 months or more to fulfill, and establish mechanisms by which 
FTA can allow the use of performance bonds to assure timely, cost-
compliant production and delivery of transit vehicles.

    12.  Change DOT NEPA guidelines to allow FTA recipients to acquire 
the real estate for bus-related facilities prior to beginning the 
environmental assessment process.

    13.  Provide technical assistance and financial incentives to 
advance the deployment of charging infrastructure for electric medium- 
and heavy-duty buses, trucks and heavy equipment where appropriate in 
smaller communities and rural areas, particularly to enable 
coordination and partnerships between local utilities, transit 
agencies, local public works agencies and other fleet operators.

    14.  Establish a program of FTA formula grants specifically for 
tribal nations' transit projects on reservations and tribal lands in 
urban areas with populations greater than 50,000.

    The Bus Coalition has the following priorities:
      Increasing funding ($400 million) for the Bus and Bus 
Facility Program along with legislative language that would set aside a 
portion ($150 million) for the FTA to address cost escalations for 
previous grant awardees.
      Support for CTAA's efforts to address the cutaway crisis.
      Support microgrid and battery storage initiatives through 
the Department of Energy and FTA
      Seek additional spare ratio flexibility.
      Address local match concerns, especially as transit 
systems transition to more expensive zero emission vehicles.

    I'd like to end by introducing you to one of Island Transit's bus 
riders, James. James is a veteran turned veteran's advocate. Not only 
does he use Island Transit, but he also sees it as linking the veteran 
community to essential resources. He said: ``Island Transit gives 
people like me, a Vet, a chance to get to where I need to go and help 
others. Without Island Transit, I couldn't do what I do.''
    Thank you for being our partner in providing the service that 
benefits so many. Thank you for the opportunity to share about our 
needs as we do this work.

    Mr. Crawford. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman from 
South Dakota to introduce our final witness.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, on one hand, it 
is sufficient to describe my friend, Scott, as a third-
generation producer from Volga. That's important and noble 
work, so, it's a good description. But on the other hand, it 
doesn't tell the whole story.
    The reality is Scott is among the very most trusted policy 
voices in South Dakota. And as I thought about why that is, 
it's because so many people in politics, they are dramatic, and 
they are hyperbolic, and their hair is always on fire. In 
typical Farm Bureau fashion, though, Scott VanderWal is level, 
steady, deliberate, and wise, and so, people in South Dakota 
have figured out that when Scott VanderWal tells you something, 
you can take it to the bank. And I am sure that will be the 
experience of this committee, as well, today.
    Thank you for being with us.
    Mr. Crawford. I thank the gentleman from South Dakota.
    And Mr. VanderWal, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

TESTIMONY OF SCOTT VanderWal, NATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT, AMERICAN 
                     FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

    Mr. VanderWal. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of 
the committee. Good morning. I am Scott VanderWal, a third-
generation corn and soybean farmer and cattle feeder from east 
central South Dakota. I am president of the South Dakota Farm 
Bureau and vice president of the American Farm Bureau 
Federation. And I am pleased to offer this testimony today on 
behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation and the nearly 6 
million Farm Bureau member families across these United States.
    The long-term success of American agriculture relies upon a 
robust, safe, and dependable transportation network. My 
testimony today will outline several key issues affecting our 
Nation's agriculture, industry, and transportation 
infrastructure. During the past few years, farmers in South 
Dakota have been under pressure from a variety of factors 
outside of our control, such as the pandemic, three consecutive 
years of drought, and the highly pathogenic avian influenza.
    Farmers were more frustrated than anyone at the supply 
chain delays we saw during the pandemic. We want the supply 
chains straightened out as soon as possible so we can get goods 
from our farms to America's pantries. That is why I am grateful 
that Representative Johnson from South Dakota has introduced 
the Modernizing Operations for Vehicles in Emergencies Act, or 
the MOVE Act. This bill gives States more flexibility to waive 
Federal weight limits in the Interstate Highway System in order 
to allow the States to respond to emergencies. This will help 
to resolve supply chain issues quickly and allow our food 
system to be more adaptable.
    The American Farm Bureau Federation continues to be 
supportive of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, or 
IIJA, that made essential investments to our Nation's 
infrastructure. These investments will continue to give farmers 
and ranchers a leg up on competitors in the world market.
    This last year, the U.S. became a net importer of food for 
the first time in many of our lifetimes. So, new investments 
are timely. This is a huge concern for us, as we work very hard 
every day to make sure that the United States is not dependent 
upon other countries for our food supply. Food security is a 
huge part of national security, and we take that very, very 
seriously.
    Farmers and ranchers do not work remotely, but our products 
reach markets well beyond our farm gates. Nearly everything we 
do involves physical items, whether it's crop inputs, feed, 
livestock, grains, or other produce that we grow. These all 
have to be moved physically from or to markets around the world 
or the United States. While highways play a vital role in 
transporting goods across the country, we must also recognize 
the importance of our rail and inland waterway infrastructure. 
In most cases, transporting goods via waterways can be more 
cost effective than traditional road transport.
    The national Highway Trust Fund serves as the backbone of 
our transportation infrastructure, providing crucial funding 
for maintenance and improvement of our roads and bridges. Farm 
Bureau supports increasing Federal Highway Trust Fund fees to 
reflect improvements in fuel economy and increased inflation.
    We also support revenue collection efforts to those users 
whose vehicles do not contribute to the Federal Highway Fund, 
such as electric vehicles. I am hopeful that this committee 
will work with the American Farm Bureau Federation to 
prioritize long-term, sustainable funding solutions for the 
national Highway Trust Fund.
    Electronic logging devices, or ELDs, play a crucial role in 
ensuring the safety and efficiency of our Nation's 
transportation system. However, certain exemptions of these 
devices are necessary to accommodate the unique needs of the 
agricultural community. We aren't hauling widgets that can sit 
in a truck bed for 10 hours. We are hauling live animals, and 
each stop along the way poses hazards to the livestock. The 
IIJA provided an exemption for livestock and insect haulers 
from hours-of-service regulations within a 150 air-mile radius 
of their final destination. We are thankful that Congress 
continues to recognize that need, and we ask for continued 
support on that.
    In conclusion, I urge this committee to consider the 
perspectives and priorities of the agricultural community as 
you work to address the challenges that face our Nation's 
transportation infrastructure. By working together to 
prioritize long-term investment, maintain necessary exemptions, 
and promote biofuel production, we can ensure a brighter, more 
sustainable future.
    Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify before you 
today, and I will look forward to your questions.
    [Mr. VanderWal's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
    Prepared Statement of Scott VanderWal, National Vice President, 
                    American Farm Bureau Federation
    Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Scott VanderWal, a 
third generation corn and soybean farmer and cattle feeder from Volga, 
South Dakota. I am President of the South Dakota Farm Bureau and vice 
president of the American Farm Bureau Federation. I am pleased to offer 
this testimony on behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation and the 
nearly 6 million Farm Bureau member families across this country.
    The long-term success of American agriculture relies upon a robust, 
safe and dependable transportation network. Farmers and ranchers need 
to efficiently transport goods to market to ensure our nation's food 
supply remains safe and secure. Access to well-maintained roads, 
waterways, ports and railways is critical for business, and outdated 
infrastructure in our rural communities poses a significant threat to 
the security of our agricultural economy.
    Rural communities play an important role in our nation's economy. 
They are home to a majority of U.S. manufacturing, farming and 
ranching. American agriculture provides the food and fiber for our 
country and the world, creating jobs for millions of Americans. 
Deteriorating rural infrastructure, however, threatens the competitive 
leadership of American agriculture. Our farmers' and ranchers' ability 
to meet domestic demands and compete globally depends on a robust and 
reliable infrastructure.
    My testimony today will outline several key issues affecting our 
nation's agriculture industry and transportation infrastructure.
                                MOVE Act
    During the past few years, farmers in South Dakota have been under 
pressure from a variety of factors outside of our control, such as the 
pandemic, three consecutive years of drought, and the Highly Pathogenic 
Avian Influenza. Of course, negative headlines often find a way to 
crowd out the positive, but research shows that Americans trust farmers 
and ranchers, more than any other profession. They understand that we 
are committed to growing safe, sustainable food, fiber and fuel, even 
as we face mounting challenges beyond our control.
    Farmers were more frustrated than anyone at the supply chain delays 
we saw in the pandemic. We want the supply chains straightened out as 
soon as possible so we can get goods from the farm to America's 
pantries. The federal government needs to provide flexibility to states 
when we are dealing with pandemics or disaster events. We all saw that 
firsthand.
    That's why I'm grateful that Representative Dusty Johnson (R-SD) 
has introduced the Modernizing Operations for Vehicles in Emergencies 
(MOVE) Act.
    This bill gives states more flexibility to waive federal weight 
limits on the interstate highway system in order to allow the states to 
respond to emergencies. This will help resolve supply chain shortages 
quickly and allow our food system to be more adaptable.
             Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)
    The American Farm Bureau Federation continues to be supportive of 
the IIJA that made essential investments to our nation's 
infrastructure. These investments will continue to give farmers and 
ranchers a leg up on competitors in the world market. This past year, 
the U.S. became a net importer of food--for the first time in many of 
our lifetimes--so new investments are timely.
    Farmers and ranchers do not work remotely, but our products reach 
markets well beyond our farm gates. Farm inputs and the products we 
raise all have to be moved to markets across the world. Our competitive 
advantage has always been an efficient transportation network.
    While highways play a vital role in transporting goods across the 
country, we must also recognize the importance of our rail and inland 
waterway infrastructure. In most cases, transporting goods via 
waterways can be more cost-effective than traditional road transport.
    By improving and expanding our inland waterway infrastructure, we 
can alleviate congestion on our roads and reduce the wear and tear on 
our highways. Studies [https:/www.nationalwaterwaysfoundation.org/file/
28/tti%202022%20final%20report
%202001-2019%201.pdf] have shown barges can provide transportation at a 
tenth of the cost of rail and a sixteenth of the cost of trucking when 
available. This not only benefits the agricultural industry but also 
contributes to overall economic efficiency and environmental 
sustainability.
                      National Highway Trust Fund
    The National Highway Trust Fund serves as the backbone of our 
transportation infrastructure, providing crucial funding for the 
maintenance and improvement of our roads and bridges.
    However, the Trust Fund faces significant challenges, including 
insufficient funding and outdated infrastructure. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office (CBO), projections indicate a shortfall of 
$149.7 billion over the five fiscal years following the expiration of 
the IIJA.
    Farm Bureau supports increasing Federal Highway Trust Fund fees to 
reflect improvements in fuel economy and increased inflation. We also 
support revenue collection efforts to those users whose vehicles do not 
contribute to the Federal Highway Fund (electric vehicles).
    I am hopeful that this committee will work with the American Farm 
Bureau Federation to prioritize long-term, sustainable funding 
solutions for the National Highway Trust Fund to ensure the continued 
viability of our transportation infrastructure and make sure all those 
who use our highways pay into the Trust Fund.
         Electronic Logging Devices--Hours of Service Exemption
    Electronic logging devices (ELDs) play a crucial role in ensuring 
the safety and efficiency of our nation's transportation system. 
However, certain exemptions of these devices are necessary to 
accommodate the unique needs of the agricultural community. Farmers and 
ranchers often operate on tight schedules dictated by weather 
conditions, harvest cycles and market demands. Mandating ELD 
regulations without providing necessary hours of service exemptions for 
livestock would raise serious concerns about animal welfare.
    We aren't hauling widgets that can sit in a truck bed for 10 hours. 
We are hauling living animals and each stop along the way poses hazards 
to the livestock. Farmers and ranchers need to ensure that their 
livestock are healthy when they arrive at their destination. The IIJA 
provided an exemption for livestock and insect haulers from Hours-of-
Service regulations within a 150 air-mile radius of their final 
destination. We are thankful that Congress continues to recognize that 
need and ask for continued support.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): National Performance Management 
    Measures; Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, 
                 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Measure
    Farmers and ranchers across the country are committed to providing 
food to both domestic and global markets. We recognize the importance 
of sustainable practices that minimize our environmental footprint and 
believe that agriculture is well-positioned to help reduce emissions. 
Renewable fuels offer a choice that can supplement fossil fuels, 
helping to reduce our emissions while giving us a valuable market for 
the crops we grow.
    Congress should continue to invest in biofuel infrastructure and 
promote the use of renewable fuels by passing year-round E15. The 
Environmental Protection Agency could also help by providing larger 
volume increases to advanced biofuels so that heavy-duty trucks can be 
more involved in lowering emissions. These actions could be quick fixes 
to reducing greenhouse gas emissions on roadways.
    This past November, FHWA finalized a rule that imposes emissions 
performance measures on state departments of transportation. This rule 
will favor states with large populations that can build public transit 
or buy electric buses. We do not support additional burdens placed on 
states by the FHWA with respect to establishing declining carbon 
dioxide targets and for states to then report on progress toward the 
achievement of those targets.
    South Dakota highway users--and all rural Americans--want to see 
safe and reliable roads well into the future. Adding more bureaucracy 
and red tape to the highway planning process will limit long-term 
success and put rural Americans at a disadvantage. If the federal 
government's goal is to lower emissions on the roadway, higher blends 
of renewable fuels are proven policy solutions to help achieve national 
climate goals.
                               Conclusion
    In conclusion, I urge this committee to consider the perspectives 
and priorities of the agricultural community as you work to address the 
challenges facing our nation's transportation infrastructure. By 
working together to prioritize long-term investment, maintain necessary 
exemptions, and promote biofuel production, we can ensure a brighter 
more sustainable future. Thank you for the opportunity to testify 
before you today. I look forward to your questions.

    Mr. Crawford. Thank you, sir. I thank all the witnesses for 
being here today. Thank you for your testimony.
    I now turn to Member questions. I recognize myself. I would 
like to raise an issue that I have significant concerns with, 
which is the Federal Highway Administration's final rule to 
create a greenhouse gas performance measure forcing State 
departments of transportation and metropolitan planning 
organizations to set declining targets for carbon dioxide 
emissions stemming from transportation on the National Highway 
System.
    This policy was considered and rejected as part of 
negotiations of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. 
Despite that fact, the Biden administration continues to march 
forward with their proposal. The full committee and this 
subcommittee have previously heard concerns from other 
stakeholders regarding this rule.
    Specifically, folks have raised concerns about how this 
rule will impact the ability of States to select their own 
projects and what that would mean to rural communities. As I 
mentioned in my opening statement, these are areas where a 
subway system or bike lanes just simply don't make sense, and 
they won't help move people or goods within or from our rural 
areas. So, I would like to start with Mr. Greteman.
    Do you share those concerns?
    Mr. Greteman. Yes. Great question, Chairman, absolutely.
    Because the greenhouse gas performance measures apply a 
one-size-fits-all to both rural and urban communities, it just 
doesn't make sense for certain communities to have bike lanes, 
to have subways, to have heavy transit in rural Iowa, rural 
Arkansas, western Nebraska. These places don't need that type 
of service. And when you start influencing States, State 
officials on how they can spend their revenue, it leads to--to 
me, it just seems like a recipe for disaster.
    And reducing greenhouse gas is important, but it needs to 
be done in a fiscally sensible way. They will end up spending 
money on projects that are not necessary and don't provide any 
economic benefit. And no, I don't think it benefits rural 
America at all.
    Mr. Crawford. Thank you.
    Mr. VanderWal, you addressed this in your written 
testimony. Do you want to expand on that?
    Mr. VanderWal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we are very 
concerned about that process because it does complicate the 
process.
    For a small State like South Dakota, we don't have the 
resources in a lot of cases. And frankly, not the need for some 
of these transportation methods. Like you mentioned, subways, 
we don't have any subways in South Dakota. Electric vehicles is 
another one that is a real challenge for us because it can be 
25 degrees below zero in the wintertime. And as we saw with 
Chicago during the cold snap this winter, they don't work well 
in that circumstance.
    So, we believe it's not fair to States that have fewer 
resources, and we need flexibility among the States. Like the 
previous speaker said, one size doesn't fit all.
    Mr. Crawford. Got it. Mr. Greteman, in your testimony, you 
discussed the importance of having one Federal standard for 
companies engaged in interstate commerce as it relates to meal 
and rest break provisions. Can you elaborate on that, and why 
there is currently a patchwork of State provisions, and how 
that's problematic?
    Mr. Greteman. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    One aspect of our company's mission is maintaining 
operational simplicity. And not only would this create 
operational inefficiencies for our company, it creates 
operational inefficiencies for every single company that 
operates in interstate commerce. How would the DOT hours-of-
service rules apply? Which State regulations would supersede?
    We have motorcoaches that depart Sioux Falls, South Dakota, 
pick up a group in northwest Iowa. The driver from South Dakota 
switches drivers in Illinois or Missouri by St. Louis, switch 
to another driver. Which sets of rules would apply? We are 
going to drive through six States. We are going to use drivers 
from multiple States. We have an origin, we have a destination. 
Which State rules will apply? Cross-country travel will be 
completely disrupted. How will electronic logging devices 
accommodate the different State changes?
    Right now, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, 
they work. We have a uniform safety scheme that works great for 
the United States travel, and having a patchwork of different 
State provisions would just be an utter failure in progress of 
moving goods, services, and people across the United States.
    Mr. Crawford. Thank you. The Clean Freight Coalition just 
this week announced the results of a study which found $1 
trillion of investments could be required to meet goals set by 
States and the Federal Government to reduce emissions from and 
electrify the trucking sector.
    Mr. VanderWal, our ag sector, like many others, relies on 
trucking to deliver goods to market. American families are 
dependent on those products. I have some concerns about forcing 
a massive shift to EVs, and particularly as it applies to 
trucks. A trucker hauling cattle across Arkansas doesn't have 
the hours to spend waiting for their truck to charge. Your 
thoughts on that? And in just a few seconds.
    Mr. VanderWal. Yes, we would be concerned about that. We 
feel that if the administration wants to reduce the carbon 
footprint, we certainly have something to contribute through 
biofuels and renewable fuels that we can contribute. You are 
correct, we can't have livestock trucks sitting along the side 
of the road, especially in hot conditions. So, it's very, very 
much a concern for us.
    Mr. Crawford. Thank you. I appreciate that.
    Ranking Member Norton.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a question for 
Mr. Koles.
    Can you share your concerns about the bill and the effects 
that allowing heavier trucks would have on safety and 
infrastructure, particularly on bridges?
    Mr. Koles. We work closely with the Farm Bureau in our 
State, and we are going to take just a little bit different 
position than the Farm Bureau during this hearing.
    So, NATaT is opposed to extra weights on the roads. From an 
engineering aspect, it creates more damage, especially to 
bridges. Bridges don't care about axles, it's all about weight. 
And then, from a safety standpoint, for the few States that we 
do have enough quality data from, the safety aspects are 
problematic, as well, because the crash amounts increase. So, 
we are very concerned about any increased weights beyond the 
current standards that are there right now.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you.
    Mr. Morrow, your testimony notes that over 15 percent of 
people in Island County have a disability. Transit is often a 
lifeline for people with disabilities. Can you share any 
strategies or success stories from Island Transit's work 
serving those in your community with disabilities?
    Mr. Morrow. Well, thank you very much, Ranking Member 
Holmes Norton, I appreciate the question.
    And yes, as you know, transit is critical to supporting 
access to opportunities for all Americans, especially those who 
are dependent on it, and that includes people with 
disabilities.
    And one of the things that we have done in order to make 
more access to opportunities available is increase our service 
and add service. As you heard, we added Sunday service for the 
first time in our history, which means that now people who are 
transit-dependent, are with disabilities and use us, can now 
access and do whatever they want on Sundays where our service 
goes.
    And one really interesting story about that was a gentleman 
named Lucas, one of our bus riders, a wonderful young man who 
was obviously thrilled that we would add Sunday service because 
it opened up opportunities for him. He organizes his life 
around our bus service so that he can see his friends, and go 
to work, and do all those things. When he met me the first week 
after I was at Island Transit, he saw me standing at the bus 
stop looking like I am today, and I think he was pretty 
suspicious. Who is this guy getting on there? And he knew right 
away I was the new executive director, and he treated me like 
the President of the United States, because what Island Transit 
does for him on a daily basis so very much improves his life. 
Thank you.
    Ms. Norton. Mr. Morrow, what can Congress do to help ensure 
transit agencies can purchase the vehicles they need?
    Mr. Morrow. Well, thank you for that question. You are 
already doing it with the investments. For instance, the strong 
and increased investments in the bus and bus facilities program 
has made a substantial difference.
    Obviously, a bus operator like myself will say there is 
always room to do more. I think you all know that there was 
maybe $8 billion in requests in the last round for bus and bus 
facilities funding, and available was about $1.7 billion, 
something like that. My agency benefited from that, and I thank 
Ranking Member Larsen for that, for the FTA grant that we 
received.
    But also, supporting things like the progress payments that 
the FTA is working on that will help manufacturers so that they 
can receive payment for the vehicles as they are produced, that 
will help them.
    Investing in technology. One of the real challenges in the 
rural transit industry for us in the CTAA world is that not all 
of those improvements have made it to the small bus market yet. 
And so, we really need to see longer battery ranges, other 
options in the small vehicle market.
    And then, as I mentioned before--and this is, I know, 
something that some of you are working on--is an on-ramp for 
the manufacturers who are in the process of coming to the 
United States, who have good vehicles that we could use today. 
We need somehow to have access to those vehicles while they are 
working through the Buy America process.
    It's all those sorts of things in combination, and then 
also remember it's different depending on whether it's small 
vehicles and large vehicles. There is no one-size-fits-all 
response. Thank you.
    Ms. Norton. And I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentlelady yields. The gentleman from 
South Dakota, Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. VanderWal, ag shippers have dealt with a lot in recent 
years: high path, drought, COVID. Talk to us about the 
difficulties they have faced when dealing with those challenges 
and the emergency truck weight waivers.
    Mr. VanderWal. Well, thank you, Representative, for that 
question. That is a big deal for South Dakota and, frankly, 
most of the States.
    And I guess I would use an example of the Texas drought 
about 3 years ago. South Dakota was having a good year. We had 
lots of hay, and we had lots of ranchers wanting to donate hay 
to the ranchers in Texas. And logistically, it got to be a 
problem because they had to get exemptions from Governors 
across all the States, all the way from South Dakota to Texas, 
and that got to be quite a process.
    But what the situation is, is you want to do something like 
that as economically, inexpensively as you can. And when you 
have people donating hay, and in some cases, we had people 
donating their--at least some of the truck-miles, the trip 
permits and all the things that go along with going through 
those States and the different regulations get to be a problem. 
So, our members put in policy a request to streamline the 
process to make that happen more economically.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Yes, and you could just 
imagine all kinds of scenarios, emergency scenarios, where some 
additional flexibility and streamlining that flexibility could 
be useful. Give us some other ideas, examples of where ag 
shippers or, really, the ag industry generally would want a 
little more flexibility.
    Mr. VanderWal. Well, I would start out by answering that by 
saying the livestock can't wait for feed in disaster 
situations. We have had it in South Dakota, too: floods, 
snowstorms, all kinds of things. We have had several cases in 
the past where the Governor has waived the height and weight 
limits for trucks hauling hay certain times of the day or 
extended the hours. Those are all times when livestock in 
particular need taken care of, and they can't wait, like I 
said.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. So, as we look to--and there 
is a 150-mile exemption for ag truckdrivers that they can get 
around the hours of service, or the hours of service don't 
apply to them. In general, is that working pretty well? Are 
there any reforms needed to the system?
    Mr. VanderWal. Yes, it certainly has helped, because it 
gives them some flexibility. And flexibility is what we really 
need. When we talk about this whole situation, that is really 
the key.
    And I will use an example of trucks that go out to western 
South Dakota or Montana to pick up feeder cattle. A lot of 
times they have to go out in the pastures, and the rancher will 
often have them rounded up in the corrals, and sometimes they 
don't. So, the trucker can arrive, and it might take 20 minutes 
to load the load, or it could take 2 hours. And at that point, 
they might know that they are going to be out of hours before 
they get where they are going.
    And a concern that we would have there is if that happens, 
a rancher may not be able to sell his cattle that have to go 
that far away. And maybe that's the best bidder for his cattle, 
but he could be prevented from selling for the best price in 
that circumstance.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Yes, not everybody might 
understand how much more difficult cattle can be to wrangle 
than a pallet of iPhones. They have their own minds, and they 
don't always take orders very well, as you know better than I 
do.
    Let's talk a little bit about the global supply chain and 
shipping. During COVID, the west coast ports were pretty locked 
up for quite a little while. That had a pretty big impact on 
beans, which I know, along with corn and cattle, you produce.
    And then also with the Red Sea. I mean, is Farm Bureau 
concerned about--and have we seen much disruption, particularly 
among the corn and bean folks, because of the Red Sea issue?
    Mr. VanderWal. Yes, we have seen some disruptions. And, 
obviously, we are in a worldwide economy when it comes to corn 
and beans and a lot of these commodities. And it affects the 
markets because the markets get jittery about certain things 
like that. They don't like uncertainty, they don't like 
disruptions.
    And whether or not the products that we raise in South 
Dakota are going someplace where they have to go through the 
Black Sea, that doesn't really matter. But it's the disruptions 
in the market. And so, we try to look for other markets or 
expanded markets around the world, but at this point, we 
haven't been able to do that, either. So, it is a problem, and 
we are concerned about it going forward.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. So, Mr. Chairman, I would 
close by just trying to underline a couple of things that Mr. 
VanderWal talked about, the things that we can take back into 
our work.
    Number one, some additional flexibility for America's 
growers. I mean, our farmers and ranchers, they will do better 
if they have the flexibility they need to get these products, 
get this food to market.
    And then also the importance of developing new markets 
abroad. In America, we ship out a heck of a lot of corn, beans, 
beef, vegetables, dairy, and other things. People are hungry 
for our food. Let's make it easier for them to get it.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields. Ranking Member Larsen.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Morrow, Todd, thanks for coming and helping us out on 
short notice. I appreciate that. And I wanted to give you an 
opportunity to talk a little bit about Island County or Island 
Transit service. I think it might have been kind of glossed 
over quickly. Island Transit, by virtue of its name, it's an 
island. In fact, it's two islands, not just one island. It's 
two separate islands unconnected by a bridge. You have to go 
around into other counties to get to the other island.
    So, you have some unique challenges, but you are trying to 
update service, expand service, extend hours. And of course, 
you moved to Sunday. From a rural transit perspective, what 
were the challenges and what are the challenges you are facing 
doing that?
    Mr. Morrow. Yes, thank you very much, Congressman.
    One of the main challenges right now--and I think it exists 
in pretty much every industry, of course--is having the 
workforce available to do the things that are needed. In our 
case, we just started another class of driver trainees. That's 
great, but we still need more. And in order to complete our 
transition that you alluded to, to what we call Island Transit 
Maximized, to expand service, to really meet all the needs 
throughout the day, we need to add a couple of hours to the end 
of the day. And that's the last thing that we need to do, and 
it's going to take us probably about 7 to 10 more drivers in 
order to do that. So, it's going to be several months off. We 
had hoped to do it last year. So, that is always challenging.
    Operating costs are definitely always higher in rural 
environments, and that's something that all of us that provide 
transit across America in particularly rural situations know. 
But just because we are in a rural environment doesn't mean 
that those people deserve any less the services that all 
Americans enjoy.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. So, on extending hours to the end 
of the day, why is that so important?
    Mr. Morrow. Well, we have essential workers, for instance, 
that rely on transit because their transportation costs are so 
high. Transit allows them to save money. And these are the 
people that work, for instance, at Walmart, one of our busiest 
commercial entities on the island that serves the people that 
are there. Their hours are until 11 o'clock at night, and so, 
those workers that work those shifts are not currently able to 
use us because we don't have those hours. That is what our goal 
is to add those hours so that we can support those workers.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. And then do you have specific 
service? You mentioned Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, which 
is the, I should note, home of half of the P-8 fleet and all of 
the Growler fleet, the electronic attack aircraft. So, you are 
welcome, America. Do you have any specific service for NAS 
Whidbey Island?
    Mr. Morrow. Yes, thank you for asking. We actually have on-
demand direct service, where individuals who are properly 
credentialed, including servicemen and servicewomen, as well as 
civilians that are there, we take them from their neighborhoods 
directly on base. And the wonderful thing about it is it avoids 
the congestion at the gate and leading up to the gate, and it 
saves them money. Many of them are a single-car household, and 
so, this frees up the car to be used by the spouse that's not 
working there.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. You mentioned a challenge, or 
maybe you didn't see it as a challenge, but the service you 
provide for folks who are disabled or homebound or otherwise--
about 13 percent of your ridership.
    Mr. Morrow. Correct.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Is that right?
    Mr. Morrow. Yes, exactly, yes. Thirteen percent of our 
service is paratransit service. Obviously, that's expensive 
because you are providing a door-to-door service. So, what we 
try to do is batch together as many trips as possible. There is 
software that we use. This is something rural transportation 
providers have been doing forever, is figuring out ways to 
efficiently transport people where they need to go. But it is 
more expensive. We have combined it now with our on-demand 
service in other areas, so that we can do all of those things 
together more efficiently.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. How does that compare to, say, 
your neighboring transit agencies?
    Mr. Morrow. Well, on-demand service is something that is 
starting to be seen more and more across the country. We have 
just started it. There are some that still do not have it.
    And then, if you are getting to the point of how do we 
connect up with other systems, we have arrangements and we do 
connect both our paratransit and our fixed-route scheduled 
service so that people can make those connections.
    However, if you are a veteran and you need to go and--to 
Veteran Affairs or medical services, that can be harder in a 
rural area like ours, because there are no direct bus routes 
off the island to take people. So, there are actually social 
service agencies that provide that service with our help. We 
provide them the van, the training, we maintain that van so 
they can do that.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you. Thanks very much. 
Thanks for making the trip out, and hopefully we will see you 
at home.
    Mr. Morrow. Thank you.
    Mr. Larsen of Washington. I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields. Mr. Mann.
    Mr. Mann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Chairman, thanks 
for having this hearing to really zone in on the needs of our 
rural communities.
    So, I represent the First Congressional District of Kansas, 
which is 60 counties in the mostly central and western part of 
the State. I am from a rural community. My hometown, 800 
people. My driver's ed coach was also my basketball coach, 
which, if you are from a rural community, you understand that. 
And he used to load us up when we would drive 60 miles to the 
big city of Hays--because there are stoplights in Hays, and 
there is no stoplight in our county--as we were learning how to 
drive.
    Our family has a farm and a feed yard, and I remember--that 
my dad and brother still operate--middle of the night, a cattle 
truck rolls in, you unload them, those cattle may have been on 
the road from Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, Florida. Incredibly 
important. And repeatedly, the driver's number-one priority was 
safety and also caring for those animals. And then they would 
put their own needs last, because that's just the makeup of 
that industry.
    And Mr. VanderWal, I have a handful of questions for you. 
And this continues to come up, this hours-of-service exemption. 
And it keeps coming up this morning because it is so incredibly 
important to the industry. So, would you just further expand 
upon the importance of the exemption, but also possible 
ramifications, or what are the effects if we do not continue 
this exemption in the future?
    Mr. VanderWal. Well, thank you for that question.
    It all comes down to flexibility, again, like I said 
before. I will use the example of loading cattle in Montana. 
That can vary by a couple of hours. And it's so important, 
especially in hot times when you are hauling livestock, you 
have to keep moving to make sure that the air moves through the 
trailer to keep livestock cool. And they can't just be sitting 
along the edge of the road.
    So, like I said earlier, that may limit a person's ability 
to sell where he wants to sell, or it could just be a situation 
where we are not treating the livestock right, and that's not 
what we are after at all. First is safety of the people driving 
the truck and the vehicles around it, but also animal welfare.
    Mr. Mann. That's exactly right. What could Congress do to 
improve upon the exemption?
    And should we consider codifying it or making it permanent?
    We forget, you know, we have to make an exemption every 
year. I would be for just making this flexibility permanent, 
but what are your thoughts on that issue?
    Mr. VanderWal. Well, first of all, we very much appreciate 
the exemption, because it has solved some problems and given us 
flexibility. But it would be nice to have it permanent, because 
we always have to have our antennas up to make sure we are out 
there advocating to get that renewed again.
    Mr. Mann. Yes, and it just provides more uncertainty to an 
industry that is plagued with uncertainty given market 
conditions and all the travails of trying to raise and care 
for, feed, and eventually produce livestock to produce meat.
    Last question. How can Congress ensure that our rural 
infrastructure is prioritized at a time when it seems like many 
times the administration overlooks rural America? In your view, 
Mr. VanderWal, what is the administration and what ought we be 
doing to focus more on the rural communities all across our 
country, from a transportation standpoint?
    Mr. VanderWal. Well, that's a great question, and I think 
it really comes down to recognizing the importance of rural 
America in producing our food for our country and for the 
world, and also energy and fiber.
    I always say when I give a speech: food security is 
national security. As long as we can feed ourselves, no matter 
what happens around the world, we'll be OK. But if we get to 
the point where we have to depend on other countries for our 
food supply, that's a serious problem.
    Mr. Mann. I wholeheartedly agree. Mr. Chairman, thank you 
again for having this hearing, thank you all for being here. 
And I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
    Mrs. Foushee.
    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 
witnesses for your testimonies.
    In my district, North Carolina's Fourth Congressional 
District, the Research Triangle Park is growing, thanks to 
investments in rural class research centers and businesses big 
and small. But as it grows, the lack of affordable housing has 
pushed those who work in the Triangle to move farther and 
farther out into the more rural areas. That's why it has become 
more important for regional transportation to reach rural areas 
like those in Granville, Person, and Orange Counties, for 
example.
    Mr. Morrow, how can we better mitigate traffic on the major 
local roadways to ease access for those who commute long 
distances daily?
    Mr. Morrow. Thank you very much for that question.
    Invest more in transit because, as Island Transit does, we 
have services that run from one of our islands into another 
county just for that exact reason. Every time you have more 
transit, more people can use it, and that takes cars off those 
roads.
    And in many cases, those commutes are pretty awful, I am 
imagining, in your district, and it is a far better way to ride 
comfortably in a bus, and not have to worry about that 
congestion.
    And you are benefiting all the other users of that highway, 
as well, because you are actually increasing the carrying 
capacity of those roadways without spending millions of dollars 
to add more lanes by instead putting people who choose to on 
buses.
    So, it's a win-win for everybody. We have a great 
relationship with our State department of transportation in 
Washington State. They very much support the work of transit 
because they know, the more that people use transit, it 
increases the capacity of those facilities and lessens the 
burden on them to expand and increase them at even higher 
rates.
    Thank you for the question.
    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you. I also have a concern about the 
difficulties that small, rural municipalities face in applying 
for grant funding, like a lack of time, staff, and experience. 
What resources or educational systems could a congressional 
office provide to these municipalities to better equip them to 
apply and compete for funding with larger cities?
    And this question goes to both Mr. Morrow and Mr. Koles.
    Mr. Morrow [to Mr. Koles]. Want to go first?
    Mr. Koles. The challenge for local, small communities is 
real. You are having a community of a couple of hundred people, 
a couple of thousand people that don't have the staff or the 
financial resources to hire out for grant writers, and they are 
competing with, in some of these grants, communities that are 
hundreds of thousands of people. So, it's really a David and 
Goliath situation.
    From a strategy standpoint, what could we do in a 
congressional office? Yes, I think it is about education, but 
some of these grants are so complex to write that education of 
some of our local officials--who are salt of the Earth people 
but they just don't operate in that arena--might work in some 
cases, but more likely the better strategy is to actually 
provide some funding to hire grant writers so that those folks 
that do not have the resources to even buy a ticket to the 
ballpark can get a ticket to the ballpark.
    Absent doing that, with these grants--and we have moved to 
a very grant-oriented system--you are just going to leave them 
out, leave them out of the option to apply and obtain those 
grants.
    Mr. Morrow. So, I was just going to add ditto, but also 
funding the various national programs that help create the 
capacity for people to learn how to write those grants. CTAA, 
for instance, has an annual conference where people can come 
and learn how to do that.
    But probably the most important thing that you and your 
office can directly do is just let the agencies know when these 
grant opportunities come, and that will really help them. In 
our case, at my agency, our grant writer also serves as the 
clerk of the board and my assistant. So, we all wear lots of 
hats. And so, any help that you and your staff can provide is 
always greatly wanted. Thank you.
    Mrs. Foushee. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentlelady yields. Mr. Kean.
    Mr. Kean of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you to our witnesses for being here today.
    Mr. Greteman, as you know, New York City is in the process 
of finalizing details related to the Central Business District 
Tolling Program, a first-of-its-kind, incredibly destructive 
congestion pricing scheme that unfairly hurts New Jerseyans. 
Under the plan, this program will impose significant tolling 
costs on daily commuters and charge between $24 and $36 per bus 
to companies that regularly bring visitors into the city. This 
will most surely include charter bus routes for school field 
trips into New York City.
    Each year, hundreds of school field trips from my district 
in New Jersey travel to the city to visit the various museums 
and landmarks. How do you think this congestion pricing plan 
will impact the price of a school field trip, and how will it 
affect ABA members operating these routes?
    Mr. Greteman. Yes, thank you for the question, Mr. Kean.
    It is--when you think about the origin of the congestion 
pricing, it is to reduce congestion in the central business 
district. And whether that congestion is reduced by a private 
motorcoach, a private bus, or a publicly funded city bus, a 
Government-contracted commuter bus, the bus is inherently 
reducing congestion, whether it's private or public. The fact 
that private buses are having to pay the tax and public buses 
are not doesn't make sense.
    At the end of the day, it's not necessarily about reducing 
congestion, it feels more like a tax. And it does affect the 
school kids that are going to New York City to sightsee and 
spend money. It does affect the seniors that are going to see a 
play and spend money at a restaurant. And at the end of the 
day, to me, to the ABA, it appears more like it is just another 
tax that is only being applied to private operators, whether 
you are riding in a privately owned bus or a Government-owned 
bus.
    Mr. Kean of New Jersey. OK. Mr. Greteman, I also understand 
that the MTA has announced plans to exempt personal vehicles of 
people who have disabilities from the congestion pricing 
scheme, as well as city-run paratransit vehicles, which is 
commendable. Given the role and capabilities of your members' 
buses, how could this impact people who have disabilities from 
areas like my district who might want to visit New York, but 
may not want or be able to drive?
    Mr. Greteman. Yes, I believe that it will positively affect 
these people. There is no reason why a private operator won't 
be able to transport someone with disabilities. Most of the 
private motorcoaches are equipped with ADA lifts which will 
accommodate that.
    But at the end of the day, it still boils down to why are 
certain exemptions out there for private versus Government 
buses?
    Mr. Kean of New Jersey. So, the cost will go up.
    Mr. Greteman. The cost will go up, the cost will go up for 
the riders, the cost will go up for the bus companies. And 
again, it is just another tax that--it is not necessarily about 
reducing congestion, it seems to be a tax.
    Mr. Kean of New Jersey. And then, on a different issue, you 
have referenced in your testimony the difficulties the 
intercity bus operators have in accessing train stations and 
other local transit centers to drop off or pick up passengers. 
Can you expand on how these problems affect ABA members, and 
specifically, their passengers?
    Mr. Greteman. Yes, absolutely. So, when a private operator 
is not allowed to use a publicly funded transit center for 
pickups and dropoffs, it creates a bottleneck in the national 
transportation system, as far as making meaningful connections 
for passengers. A lot of times, people that are riding 
intercity buses may not have the means to connect to the 
intercity bus carrier without going through a transit, without 
riding the bus, without riding a city bus to get to the 
intercity bus.
    If the intercity bus station in some scenarios is in a 
nondesirable or it's in an industrial area where there is poor 
access, it makes riding intercity buses less attractive and 
less convenient. And what it ends up doing is not allowing 
certain members of the traveling public to be able to get to 
the bus station to get to where they need to go.
    Mr. Kean of New Jersey. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields. Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 
holding this hearing, and thank you to the witnesses for your 
testimony today.
    I filed some legislation back in January, the Stronger 
Communities Through Better Transit Act. It has 104 cosponsors. 
And what it would do would be to create a grant program, $80 
billion over 4 years, $20 billion a year, to support 
operational costs, as opposed to capital costs, for transit in 
underserved and unserved urban and rural communities.
    And with respect to rural communities, it would increase 
the Federal share for operating cost to 80 percent, which would 
be something very important, to extend transit to rural 
communities, rural people living in rural communities.
    Is that legislation something that you gentlemen can 
support?
    Mr. Morrow. Well, Todd Morrow from Island Transit, we are 
part of our broader organization, CTAA, who can give you more 
information about that, of course. But what I can tell you from 
our agency perspective, investment in transit is good and 
important, so, thank you for that.
    I can also say that, when it comes to operational funding, 
it's critical that we know that that operational funding will 
continue. So, it can't be a time-limited bill, because if 
that's the case, it's hard for a transit provider, whether for-
profit or nonprofit, or a governmental agency, to plan. If you 
provide service and then the money runs out, you have to cut 
the service. And there's nothing more horrible in our world 
than having to reduce service.
    So, for us, we would always want something to have the 
promise of continued payment. We welcome any investment, thank 
you.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
    Mr. Greteman. Yes, yes, Mr. Johnson. Would private 
operators, private transit operators be eligible for these 
grants?
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, I would think that contracts 
with public agencies to provide transit to underserved areas 
would be covered. I would have to go back and check it. If it's 
not, it should be.
    Mr. Greteman. Absolutely, I agree. And it would be great. 
And I think that 80 percent level is an appropriate amount and 
would be great for both private and public entities.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Yes, it doesn't take a great big 
bus to go into a small city or small community and pick up two 
or three people. It can be a van, ideally. Or it could even be 
some other vehicle, but just a way of getting people in rural 
areas to the pharmacy, to the doctor's office, to school, to 
the community college, or to visit a sick relative. Those 
things are important to people who live in urban areas and 
people who live in rural areas.
    Mr. Koles, do you have anything to say about it, and Mr. 
VanderWal?
    Mr. VanderWal. Well, thank you. I apologize, I don't know 
the details of the bill. But from a general standpoint, when 
there is a need in a rural community, which all of South Dakota 
is, it's usually appreciated.
    Having said that, we always have to watch out for what the 
strings that might be attached are. So, I am not sure what our 
policy would be on that, so, I will have to leave it with that. 
But thank you.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. And no strings attached that I know 
of, just really offering service to unserved and underserved 
areas, both urban, suburban, and rural.
    Mr. Koles.
    Mr. Koles. In our rural areas in our State, we use shared-
ride taxi as our focus for rural transit. So, if those rural 
taxis could be supported in a way that increases the percent so 
that they are more viable operations and create more access, 
certainly that would be a good thing.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. So, well, thank you all for your 
thoughts about it.
    This is an idea whose time has come, but unfortunately 
mired in gridlock. We have 104 cosponsors, but all of them are 
Democrats. But we need to work hard to try to make this 
bipartisan legislation.
    And to your point, Mr. Morrow, this is an issue that is not 
going to be served in 4 years. We won't cure the problem or the 
challenge. This is a challenge that we will continue to have, 
and I appreciate that viewpoint.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields.
    Mr. Van Orden.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Koles, in your written testimony, you mentioned that 
approximately 19 percent of the population lives in rural 
areas, but about 68 percent of the Nation's roads are in those 
areas. You mentioned the critical structural failure of our 
culvert in Farmington, which is being--the construction starts 
in August on that.
    About how many of these culverts--I know you can't pin it 
across the country. Do you have an idea of how many of these 
culverts, which is essentially a bridge less than 20 feet, 
there are in the State of Wisconsin?
    Mr. Koles. The national number is not known, and we are--
because we don't know exactly where they are, you are doing 
estimates based on waterways and surveys. And there have been 
three estimates, one by our association, one by the Wisconsin 
County Highway Association, and one by the Wisconsin DOT, and 
everybody comes to a number right in that 20,000 to 25,000 
range.
    So--and that's not culverts. That's from 6 feet to 20 feet. 
There would be a vastly higher number for anything under 6 
feet, as well.
    Mr. Van Orden. OK. It's going to cost about $400,000 to fix 
that culvert. That's a lot of money when you are talking about 
Farmington. People don't understand. They are responsible for 
maintaining all of their roads, and to apply, essentially, what 
is it, 4 years' worth of their budget, about, to fix a single 
culvert. I am just not OK with that.
    In your testimony also, you mentioned that our rural 
communities, the definition is 200,000 for rural. Well, Eau 
Claire has got 69,737 people in it. That's the largest city in 
our district. La Crosse has got 51,380 people in it. And if you 
tell someone from Potosi in Grant County--it's a population of 
647, and the second oldest brewery in the State of Wisconsin, 
by the way--or Richland Center, that has got 5,114 people, or 
people from Adams-Friendship that have--the village has got 639 
people in there, you tell them that Eau Claire and La Crosse 
are rural, they are going to laugh you out of a cornfield.
    So, I really appreciate the fact that Mr. Stauber, my great 
friend from Minnesota, who is sitting behind me, and Mr. 
Finstad, also a Member--well, he is from Minnesota, but he is 
still a good guy, don't hold that against him--I am very proud 
that we introduced the Protecting Infrastructure Investments 
for Rural America Act. And that is going to lower that 
threshold to 20,000 folks for the definition of rural in 
relationship to these roads.
    Can you tell us what type of effect it would have, do you 
think, nationwide, being the former chairman of the National 
Association of Towns and Townships, and now Wisconsin Towns 
Association--what effect would that have?
    Mr. Koles. We appreciate all the folks that are on that 
bill, appreciate your sponsoring that, as well as Mr. 
Stauber's.
    The definition of 200,000, as you noted, it's not rural, 
and we have a Rural Surface Transportation Program now that has 
$2 billion allocated into it out of the IIJA. And you have 
communities of 200,000 that are competing with the smallest 
town in Wisconsin. If they had the resources to muster a grant 
application--they have 36 people.
    Mr. Van Orden. Right.
    Mr. Koles. Those towns often have one person in charge of 
roads. In our State, 50 miles of road is the average roadway, 
so, they are plowing all the roads, they are mowing 100 miles 
of roads, because you have got to mow the ditches on both 
sides. They are doing all the summer maintenance, and they just 
don't have the time or the expertise to write a grant 
application.
    Contrast that with even the city of Eau Claire. They have a 
public works director, an entire public works department, an 
engineer, and perhaps even have a grant writer. And if they 
don't, they have the resources to hire it out.
    By decreasing that to something that is really, truly 
rural, you are going to even the playing field so you don't 
have that David and Goliath situation, and really open up the 
opportunities for smaller communities to access those grants.
    Mr. Van Orden. Thank you for that. I have limited time, but 
I have got to tell you what, man. I wanted to have a grant 
writer on my staff, and the House Ethics Committee said I could 
and then I will be in jail in 5 minutes after that. So, we 
don't have a grant writer on our staff, but we do have a guy 
named John Spiros who is responsible for talking to guys like 
you, and getting these community-directed programs going. We 
can point you in the right direction, we just can't write it 
for you, and here is why. Washington, DC, sends money to 
Madison, Madison sends money to Madison and to Milwaukee, and 
they forget about us. And we are not doing that anymore.
    So, if you can get the word out again to all your folks, 
get your community-directed spending projects to my office 
ASAP, we are going to help shape those to make sure that we can 
get money directly to the small communities that require these 
funds because they can't afford it themselves. Because, as we 
said, the vast majority of roads in the United States of 
America run through small towns and middle America, and we are 
feeding the world. So, please, when you get done with this 
committee, let's go talk and make sure that you are on board. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Koles. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Van Orden. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields. Ms. Hoyle.
    I am sorry--Mr. Stanton. You got in here just in time.
    Mr. Stanton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman; thank you 
for the witnesses for joining us today.
    Transportation networks, they are essential for the 
movement of people and goods across my home State of Arizona. 
Many of the rural routes across Arizona are interconnected with 
interstate highways. And when an accident occurs on one of 
those interstates, these rural routes become the alternative 
route for traffic.
    Rural reliever routes need to be adequately maintained and 
serviced to handle the surge of traffic volume intended for 
multilane interstates, even for short periods of time. Moving 
traffic onto a reliever route instead of it sitting idle in 
extended traffic is important not only to the frustrated 
commuter and for the flow of goods from rural and urban areas, 
but also for safety.
    State Route 347 in Arizona is a four-lane, nondivided rural 
highway with no street lights and only stop signs at 
interchanges. This is just one example of rural roads across 
Arizona, and particularly on the Navajo Nation in Arizona, that 
I have visited and I have driven on that struggle to maintain a 
level of service that we could expect from other areas of the 
State.
    Mr. Koles, in your testimony, you talk about low-cost, 
commonsense safety measures like rumble strips that would be a 
game-changer for rural and Tribal communities. How can Congress 
be a better partner and work with our local and Tribal 
communities to implement these types of safety measures?
    Mr. Koles. Thank you for the question. Yes, there are, as I 
said, rural roads. The ones you described are a lot more 
dangerous, and there are a number of low-cost safety 
mechanisms.
    You mentioned the undivided highway. Dividing that, even 
with barriers down the middle, eliminates those head-on 
collisions. That is one of the potential strategies.
    Another strategy, the rumble strips. In the rural areas, we 
travel a lot longer distances. So, there is a tendency to be 
distracted, a little sleepy. Rumble strips have been shown to 
wake you up when you hit them, get that attention going again.
    How can you be helpful? I think in two ways. First of all, 
you have got to have the funding to do it. And I think we have 
increased funding in IIJA and the FAST Act to try to address 
some of these things. The key is to get it down to the local 
level. That's the challenge, is we haven't designed the Federal 
system to think about the capillaries, as I called them. We 
have really developed the Federal system to look at only the 
heart.
    But we can't have--well, it's not something I would hope we 
would allow for, to have this high safety concern, high death 
rate. And instead, we would start to get some of that money 
down to those local levels.
    Mr. Stanton. I really appreciate that. You also mentioned 
in your testimony rural roads are often Tribal roads, and these 
roads must be maintained, must be maintained much better than 
we have in Arizona and across the United States of America.
    In Arizona, we are in the middle of a historic drought that 
is impacting many of the rural roads that run through our 
Tribal communities. Many of these rural roads are dirt, so, the 
drought can create sand dunes. When we finally do get rain, the 
water creates clay that acts like ice. This mud can trap 
vehicles, delaying travel and keeping families from attending 
work, school, doctor's appointments, et cetera.
    While rain can seem to be a minor inconvenience to those in 
urban areas, on rural Tribal roads, it can mean the difference 
between getting somewhere or being stuck at home. I have heard 
from one county that says that sometimes when mud is 
particularly bad, the only option is to try and place 
tumbleweeds under the tires to attempt to gain some traction.
    Our Tribes and Tribal governments are equal nation-to-
nation partners. I know much of this maintenance falls on the 
Department of the Interior under the Committee on Natural 
Resources, but I would ask my colleagues here today and the 
stakeholders on the stand to consider the needs of our Tribal 
partners as we make important decisions on the local, State, 
and Federal level. Our Tribes deserve safe roads that their 
families can enjoy, and roads that can safely transport goods 
across our State.
    I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields. Mr. Stauber.
    Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Chair Crawford, for holding this 
really important meeting, and to all of our witnesses who have 
really talked about what is really the heart of the issue, is 
the rural communities and the rural voice in Washington, DC.
    I want to commend my good friend, Representative Van Orden. 
He and Representative Tiffany, we work closely on these issues 
because we represent rural--I represent northeastern Minnesota, 
rural Minnesota. Rural Wisconsin, rural Minnesota, it's the 
same group of great people, same struggles, OK?
    I just--I am going to kind of--I am not going to follow my 
notes, because this--I am passionate about this. That IIJA, Mr. 
Koles, that you talked about, 200,000 people or less? In 
Minnesota, it's just Saint Paul and Minneapolis. So, that means 
our small communities in northeastern Minnesota have to fight: 
Edina, Bloomington, Wayzata, Roseville and such. It's the same 
in Wisconsin. And we have talked about that.
    My mother was born in Glidden, Wisconsin, in the town of 
Jacobs, Ashland County. How is Glidden, Wisconsin, and Ashland 
County, the town of Jacobs, supposed to fight with Milwaukee or 
Madison? It is not fair. That bridge over the Chippewa River in 
Glidden, when it needs to be fixed, it should be fixed because 
those people in small-town America deserve the respect and the 
appreciation of this town.
    And it's on both sides of the aisle. My rural colleagues on 
the Democratic side and my rural colleagues on the Republican 
side, we get it, and we are pushing in one voice to make it 
happen.
    Mr. Koles, you bring up the--talk about grants. You are 
exactly right. We have legislation to reduce the grant from 500 
pages to 20 for our rural communities.
    Mr. VanderWal, I agree with you, sometimes people aren't 
taking these grants because there are so many strings attached 
by this town. They have no idea. They have no idea your 
struggles, and your needs and wants, your desires, and what 
works in your community.
    And I think that, in a healthy balance, my colleagues, my 
rural Representatives on both sides of the aisle, we hear you 
and we are working to change this now. It didn't get this way 
overnight, and I don't think it is going to go back to where we 
need. But I can tell you that the rural Members that spoke 
today are one and the same on this issue.
    I mean, had the IIJA--I am the only Federal Representative 
on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for the 
State of Minnesota. I had zero input on that. They just came 
and said, ``Here it is.'' You can bet, had we had a look on 
that, we would have found that 200,000 or less. It would have 
been changed.
    Representative Finstad and I, along with Representatives 
Van Orden and Tiffany, we are signed on to that legislation to 
bring it down to 20,000, something reasonable, because rural 
America, as my good friend in Arizona, Mr. Stanton, just 
mentioned, it matters. It matters. And we have to look beyond, 
because I think the foundation of this country is the 
heartland, is our rural communities. We have to have a fair 
shot. We have to make it work with the folks you have in place.
    Mr. Koles, I served in small-town government and county 
commission. So, we are in the wheelhouse together on this. I 
hear what you are saying. When you have to have--literally, 
some of these major urban areas, they have the money to hire 
several grant writers. That's not right, because the rural 
America is neglected.
    So, in my last 45 seconds here I just want to share--I just 
want to thank you all for your comments and spending your time 
and money coming here to help educate all of us and those 
Members that represent the more urban areas, to let them know 
of our concern. Everything that you talked about in regards to 
rural transportation and a rural America has hit home. You have 
hit a home run today. And so, this legislation and some of the 
changes that we need to do, you can bet we are going to fight 
with every fiber in our body because we represent our 
constituents, our rural Minnesota and rural Wisconsin.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields. Mr. Carbajal.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
    Mr. VanderWal, trucking is a critical mode of 
transportation for rural America. Heavy trucks carry 70 percent 
of the agricultural and food products in the United States. And 
we also know that these heavy truck trips begin and end on 
local, rural roads and bridges that don't receive direct 
Federal support. Can you comment on the state of rural 
infrastructure as it relates to the efficient movement of 
goods?
    How important is it to America's agriculture sector that 
local roads and bridges networks are in a state of good repair?
    Mr. VanderWal. Well, thank you for that question.
    Our local roads are hugely important to us, and we have 
found that, just in the last few years now, they are starting 
to deteriorate. And the local governments are really struggling 
to keep up because of inflation, higher costs, higher 
contractor costs, and all those things.
    And if you think about it, every road we have is crucial, 
even a township road that has gravel on it. In South Dakota, 
there is a tremendous number of those. But to the people that 
farm beside those roads, they are hugely important, because 
that's how they get their products to market.
    So, we struggle a bit--in South Dakota, in particular--with 
those local and township roads getting to the State roads. But 
it is all part of the system that we are dealing with, and it 
is hugely important.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Having served in local government, 
I have represented urban and rural communities, so, thank you 
very much for that.
    Mr. Koles, much of America, including many communities in 
my home State of California, are rural and face capacity 
constraints. From your perspective, have you experienced 
financial and personnel capacity limits?
    If so, how do these limits impact your ability to meet your 
local infrastructure goals and responsibilities?
    Mr. Koles. Certainly, there are capacity issues in our 
small, rural communities. Personnel is lacking. We squeeze 
blood out of a turnip, from a budget standpoint. So, the staff 
has everything they can do to take care of the roads, let alone 
think about how do we improve safety, how do we get a grant, et 
cetera.
    Because you can't often afford personnel to be able to do 
that, then you can't afford to hire a grant writer. In addition 
to not being able to afford a grant writer, we have a number of 
areas of the country where grant writers just aren't available. 
If you are a private-sector grant writer, you are not going to 
exist in an area that has a low-density population. So, even if 
you were blessed with the money to try to purchase a grant 
writer, they are not available. That lack of access creates a 
real inequity between rural communities and urban communities.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
    Mr. Morrow, a lot of folks in smaller communities feel like 
public transit access is simply out of reach. Can you share any 
rural transit best practices other stakeholders might benefit 
from?
    Mr. Morrow. Thank you for the question. Yes, the on-demand 
mode of service, where you don't just run a bus or rely on 
buses to be constantly running but respond when someone wants a 
trip, is a cost-effective way to meet that demand. And 
actually, that's happening today across America in many of our 
rural communities and urban communities, as well. And that 
seems to work well to help.
    The other piece of it is just all of us work together, 
including those of us who are here, but back in our communities 
and State to try to have more funding and, if there isn't 
funding available, work with nonprofits or others so that they 
have the vehicle so that they can step in if the public transit 
agency can't do that work themselves.
    So, there are other partnership opportunities. Thank you.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Morrow, as a followup 
question, we know that 3.6 million people in the United States 
do not obtain medical care due to transportation issues. This 
includes lack of vehicle access, inadequate infrastructure, 
long distances to reach needed services, and transportation 
costs. In short, transportation issues can impact a person's 
ability to access healthcare and become a social detriment to 
their health.
    What are some of the policy recommendations we should 
consider to ensure equitable access to transportation for all 
communities?
    Mr. Morrow. Well, funding, that's what it comes down to in 
most cases. And in fact, a big part of our paratransit 
business, the work that we provide, is helping people get to 
dialysis, for instance, which is an important thing. So, I 
would ask for consideration of more funding for those trips, 
because they are the most expensive that we all do. Thank you.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I am out of time, I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields. Mr. Collins.
    Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I kind of want to 
preface my questions, first of all: I am in the trucking 
business, and so, we use a lot of the interstates and the 
highways across this country every day. And, Mr. Koles, I want 
to get right into this thing. Do you all see commercial 
truckdrivers on local roads?
    Mr. Koles. Absolutely.
    Mr. Collins. And I don't think I have to ask you what the 
impacts are on those local roads. And I think the reason is 
because they are using these driver apps, or these Google Maps, 
or whatever map app that they are using to get through, to get 
to their destination.
    Rural towns, do they have mass transit?
    Mr. Koles. The only transit we have in rural towns is 
shared-ride taxi in the State of Wisconsin, so, we aren't, in 
our State, using bus service at all.
    Mr. Collins. I have got over 20 counties. We don't have 
mass transit in any of them, except for Athens, Georgia, for 
the University of Georgia. Mass transit in our rural towns is a 
mom with a boatload of kids, taking them to the recreation 
department or wherever she may be taking them for the day.
    I would like to ask just one more quick question. Would you 
prefer a bypass or a bypass around small towns?
    Mr. Koles. A bypass or a bypass?
    Mr. Collins. Bypass or a bike path.
    Mr. Koles. Oh, a bypass.
    Mr. Collins. How about electric charging stations or maybe 
passing lanes on these rural highways?
    Mr. Koles. Passing lanes.
    Mr. Collins. Yes, sir. I would agree 100 percent.
    There is a reason, Mr. Chairman, that you are seeing these 
commercial trucks on these local highways. It is because our 
interstates are jampacked daily all across the United States. 
And it is getting worse, forcing these commercial truckers to 
have to go off and try to use these local highways in these 
local towns to make their deliveries on time.
    And there is a reason for that, you all. We have got an 
administration and we have got a Department of Transportation 
that is focused on DEI initiatives that are focused more on 
electric vehicles and mass transit, this fantasy that they want 
to push across all of America. They don't even want a rural 
America, actually. They would much rather see us piled up in 
some metropolitan areas, where they figure that you will 
actually be dependent on them. So, that is why they keep 
pushing for more Federal funding, that free money that they 
want to give you, the reason we are $34 trillion in debt.
    Actually, rural Americans thrive on being self-sufficient. 
They can provide for their families. They know how to get to 
the doctor, the grocery store, the pharmacy. We have done it 
ever since this country was created. And we will continue to do 
it tomorrow.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields. Ms. Hoyle.
    Ms. Hoyle of Oregon. Thank you very much.
    My district, Oregon's Fourth Congressional District, is a 
largely rural district that includes Oregon's south coast and 
the Willamette and Umpqua Valleys. It is Willamette like damn 
it, so, if anyone asks you. We have two major issues.
    The first is, like most rural areas, we have an extreme 
backlog of infrastructure investments. For instance, in two of 
the six counties that I represent, Lane and Douglas County, 
each one of which is about the size of Connecticut, we have 700 
bridges, the vast majority of which were built in the 1950s and 
1960s, that are in dire need of repair or replacement.
    We have also been relying on the Highway Trust Fund to fund 
these projects, which is facing insolvency because we are 
relying on a gas tax. We need to figure out how to deal with 
that as we move away from fossil fuel. That's a conversation 
for a different day, but an urgent and important one. The fact 
is the Highway Trust Fund is becoming insolvent.
    So, I have two questions. One is, there are clear economic 
benefits we see from investing in rural roads and bridges. How 
can Congress help spur more investment in rural bridges, 
especially the off-system bridges, those owned by counties and 
cities? Because, according to what I am hearing from my rural 
counties, the Federal cost-benefit analysis tends to prioritize 
higher traffic volumes, higher population densities, which 
disadvantages rural transportation projects and makes their 
needs less competitive.
    And again, we are shipping. We are feeding the world. We 
are feeding the country. What we grow, what we raise, what we 
catch, everyone else needs to eat, right?
    So, my question is, what benefits should we consider when 
discussing rural projects?
    I know there are grants, but as everyone has said, rural 
communities don't have giant grant writing parts of the--
everybody does everything in small communities.
    The second major issue is a lack of workforce, specifically 
in busdrivers and truckdrivers, which is exacerbated in rural 
communities as the job is more difficult, and we again have 
great need to move the food we grow, raise, and catch.
    In your views, what are the main reasons why recruitment 
and retention of busdrivers and truckdrivers are so difficult?
    And what are your views on utilizing the apprenticeship 
programs to recruit, train, and retain busdrivers and 
truckdrivers?
    Because again, this is an issue. I will start with Mr. 
Morrow, but I will open it up in the 2\1/2\ minutes we have 
left.
    Mr. Morrow. Thank you very much. I wish I had the answers 
to those questions about recruitment because, if we did, we 
would be implementing them.
    Obviously, pay is top of mind, and we work through a 
collective bargaining agreement to address that. Other 
benefits, retention, hiring bonuses, all of those sorts of 
things, referral bonuses, things like that, but also the 
benefits that we can offer, we try to share that because in a 
governmental setting, we are fortunate to have some really 
strong benefits that support families, as well as the employee, 
things like that.
    And then we try to reach out to the veterans community, 
others to find good talent. It's difficult. I think it's 
difficult everywhere.
    Ms. Hoyle of Oregon. So, I think the first part is also 
that we have difficulty recruiting CDL drivers everywhere, but 
in rural communities, where they are driving buses and they are 
driving trucks, it is really difficult because the 
infrastructure is crumbling. So, if they can pick riding in a 
city and sitting in traffic, they will do that.
    And we desperately need to get the investment. So, how do 
we deal with the weight that's given to the urban, more 
populous areas?
    And how do we recruit and retain more people?
    Anybody.
    Mr. Greteman. Thank you for the question. I believe right 
now there is an issue with getting CDL drivers--getting an 
actual CDL. There is a waiting period, there is a 14-day 
waiting period after a driver actually takes and passes the 
written exams before they can come and do the driving test. And 
then oftentimes, due to limited availability of CDL testing, 
you can't get an appointment to do that for another 2 to 3 
weeks. So, all of a sudden, you are looking at a----
    Ms. Hoyle of Oregon [interrupting]. I hate to interrupt, 
but it is short. But the key thing is we don't have the 
infrastructure. So, dealing with how do rural communities 
compete against urban areas, when we are feeding the country 
and the world.
    Mr. Koles, you look like you want to say----
    Mr. Koles [interrupting]. I will be really brief, because 
your time is about to expire. Formula funds are better than 
discretionary grants.
    In our State, our secretary chose to take almost all of the 
bridge formula program funds that came in IIJA and send it to 
off-system bridges. It has been a huge help.
    The other thing that you talked about, cost-benefit 
analysis, ADT is not necessarily the right metric because it 
doesn't measure type or weight.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentlewoman's time has expired. Mr. 
LaMalfa.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Kind of following up 
on that thought here a little bit, I have been thinking about 
this grant writing situation here a little bit, and for a long 
time, but it has been a hot topic today. And Mr. Koles was 
speaking with Ms. Hoyle about that.
    And would you expand a little bit on what--I mean, we could 
just, we are almost alone here now, we can talk. If we just 
eliminated the grant writers and that grant writing process 
and--the terminology used a second ago--on a more direct route 
of funds there, I mean, how do you think we could really 
aggressively move towards that?
    Because every small county, small town, small jurisdiction, 
they can't compete with somebody somewhere else with great, big 
grant writers and a big budget for all that. So, talk a little 
about what would that look like if we could just wipe the slate 
and say----
    Mr. Koles [interrupting]. Just--so, we are talking 
discretionary versus formula. We would much prefer formula 
funds because it allows the State's discretion to distribute it 
in a much more flexible manner.
    A couple of things that we could do with regard to the 
surface transportation program, and we actually have an example 
of this. In the FAST Act, we allowed the States to use 15 
percent of their lowest cohort. So, STP--Surface Transportation 
Fund--is distributed amongst cohorts. The two lowest cohorts, 
you could take 15 percent of that and get it down to local 
roads and minor collector roads. That's where the action is at. 
Those are the farm fields and the forest entrances and the 
quarry entrances. We could expand upon that in the surface 
transportation program by increasing that percentage.
    We can also have a scenario where you look at how those 
cohorts are distributed differently. Right now it's based on 
population, rather than lane-miles.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Well, and there is the thing, because in my 
home State of California, which probably shouldn't be an 
example, but we are so much getting run over by the needs of 
the very large cities. It is probably common to most States, 
but we struggle. We struggle with trying to get at least 
something equitable in some fashion in our rural areas.
    Let me jump to Mr. VanderWal, and I might come back to you, 
Mr. Koles.
    In a recent hearing we talked a lot about at-grade 
crossings, railroad crossings. And the panel we had that day 
was big on pushing, the best crossing isn't--eliminate at-grade 
crossing and have all split-grade. But the price of them we got 
out of that hearing was at least $40 million, typically, to 
build a split-grade crossing where you had an at-grade before. 
And probably in my home State it is double that because 
everything has to be so freaking expensive in California. So, 
$40 to $80 million it could be.
    So, talking from a rural aspect, especially from a farmer, 
as a fellow farmer here, if they are really aggressive on 
eliminating at-grade crossings, what is that going to look like 
for agriculture, for movement of raw materials, and finished 
fuel products, and tractors, and all that stuff?
    Mr. VanderWal. Well, thank you for that question. If I am 
understanding your question right--I am having a hard time 
hearing over the echo some. But when you talk about split-grade 
crossing, you mean the overpasses with interstates, that kind 
of thing?
    Mr. LaMalfa. Well, yes, I mean, even in a small town--like, 
I picture a town--I have my district called Los Molinos there, 
which is basically one main crossing in town. If they said, 
``You've got to come up with 40 million bucks to have a split-
grade,'' they are not going to find that kind of money.
    And so--and then all down the line where you have 
driveways, you have homes, you have small farms that have them 
even with no lights on them. How are we going to go about--if 
they are going to be this aggressive on shutting them down just 
to shut them down, what is that going to do to our sector?
    Mr. VanderWal. Yes, thank you for the clarification. That 
would be a major problem, because there are so many of these 
rural areas we don't even have a road every mile in some cases. 
And if a person has to drive, let's say, 5 miles around an 
interchange like that that might disappear, that is a huge 
economic imposition.
    Some areas have put in rotaries. They don't understand 
semitrucks have to go around those, and they make them too 
tight, and there are all kinds of issues like that that people 
from Washington don't understand how it really works in the 
local areas.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Well, we are seeing prime examples of that in 
California with this high-cost rail--did I say ``cost''? High-
speed rail system we are putting through the valley that is 
just cutting off vast areas, and you are seeing farmers--like I 
got a tractor pulling a folded up disc or a combine with a wide 
header on it, and I got to go 5 miles up this way whereas you 
can just jump across at these other crossings. And that is a 
real impact. It is probably even a safety one. They talk safety 
all the time, but having to go so much farther with all this 
equipment. So, I wish I had time to throw it to Mr. Koles, what 
he deals with, but maybe in a different comment.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields. Mr. Duarte.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you to the 
panel. Good to have you here today.
    Mr. VanderWal, a long-term Farm Bureau member, a board 
member for 10 years in my local Farm Bureau. We have got an 
administration that is administering the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 
funds to a great extent out of a White House office, not 
through formulas, not through DOT grants solely, but literally 
has a White House office to hand this out and, in my opinion, 
politicize the awards.
    In California--I am from a rural county in California--we 
also have a very blue State government. And that doesn't bode 
well for red rural counties, in terms of getting our share. The 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act awards grants that we 
just saw a few months ago put $3.1 billion in my district for 
high-speed rail, which Congressman LaMalfa just touched on, and 
very little to actual highways that anyone is going to use, any 
resources the next 20 years.
    We look at the electrification, we look at how this 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act money is being spent. We 
look at rural communities that produce most of our food here in 
America, that solve most of our logistics challenges and get 
that food to market.
    Net-net, in your opinion and from your experience, is this 
administration enhancing food security with these trillions of 
dollars of investment, or are we moving backwards in food 
security for the United States?
    Mr. VanderWal. Well, thank you for that question, and I 
think it comes down to priorities.
    And when you talk about the high-speed rail line, 
obviously, we can't haul anything on that in regard to ag 
products. We certainly need to keep priorities in line and 
remember that the local areas are really best suited to 
determine what their needs are.
    And so, a grant program that is out there, if it comes down 
with a whole bunch of regulations and requirements and things, 
that is not very productive. We need to let the local areas 
have the autonomy to identify their own needs. And if we can 
then use that money for the productive use that it needs to be 
used for in local areas, then that is the way to do it.
    Mr. Duarte. Yes. Let's go to the grant writing. That has 
been a topic. And we just--a few weeks ago, we had a person, 
Stacey Mortensen from the Altamont Corridor Express, which is 
an Amtrak enhancement that will move people from Modesto and 
Stockton and Merced to the bay area for the job market in the 
bay area. It is a big deal. It is a project I do support, as 
opposed to high-speed rail, which I think is an endless $204-
million-a-mile boondoggle. The Altamont Corridor Express does 
hold out hope for being practical.
    When you take the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
money and apply for grants, you have got to review a Made in 
America constituent to it, you have got to have a carbon-
friendly constituent to the application process. You have got 
to have a DEI, social justice constituent to the process. And 
much less than even knowing how to fill these out or what the 
standards are, we don't even yet have standards for these. 
Several years later under the Biden administration, with their 
own office to deal with this stuff, doesn't yet have clear 
standards to how these criterion can be met so the grants can 
be awarded. The money hasn't flowed out to major urban areas, 
much less rural areas.
    Are we on any realistic path with the trillions of dollars 
in debt America is taking on with the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act to actually solve our rural issues in 
transportation?
    Mr. VanderWal. Well, I think that is an excellent question, 
and I am not sure I have a solid answer for it, other than the 
fact that we are very much opposed to all these requirements 
being put on. When you have to meet certain tests when you go 
through this process, it just complicates the whole issue and 
makes it a lot harder for rural governments, especially, to 
qualify.
    We would go back to what we are already doing, the biofuels 
that we are raising, and reducing the carbon footprint already. 
And that's what this Government wants us to do. We have got the 
solution right here, and we just need to promote that, and 
maybe even carry it a little further and go toward the 
sustainable aviation fuels and things like that that we can 
produce with our products.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you. I will open those questions and 
those themes up to the rest of the panel if there is other 
input.
    Mr. Koles. We have to remember that milk comes from a farm, 
not from the grocery store. And so, this is about a proportion 
of the trillions of dollars that were invested proportionately 
because of the way the Federal system has been designed, 
getting it down to those local roads and those minor 
collectors, which are 75 percent of the entire system in rural 
America. It's just not going to happen. There are limited 
examples of getting it down to those local roads where the 
farmers and the loggers and the miners actually do the----
    Mr. Duarte [interrupting]. So, would any members of the 
panel agree that a formula system by county, similar to COVID 
relief funds, would be more effective than the grant system?
    Mr. Crawford. Quick answer.
    Mr. Koles. Formula funds are always better.
    Mr. Duarte. Thank you.
    I yield back. Thank you, Chair.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields. Mr. Burlison.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. VanderWal, as you well know, farming is one of the most 
difficult jobs or professions in the United States. But to make 
matters difficult, farmers now have to wade through regulation 
after regulation, many of which are being made by people who 
were not elected. To me, it's a challenge.
    People talk about democracy being under threat. There is 
nothing that threatens democracy more than to have unelected 
people who represent no one making decisions that affect 
everyone. And so, this includes initiatives and orders from 
this administration on climate change, which has hurt our 
farming and transportation sectors across the country. This 
includes the methane emission regulations, and then the fuel 
emission standards that are going to impact all of our 
vehicles.
    So, my question is, do you think that the average farmer is 
more worried about climate change, or are they more worried 
about keeping their business going?
    Mr. VanderWal. Yes, thank you, sir, for that question. 
There is no question that the average farmer is more focused on 
remaining profitable and staying in business.
    We are in a position right now, just starting a few months 
ago, where, for corn and soybeans anyway, we are under cost of 
production. And it comes down to inflation. It comes down to 
all the costs that we have seen, fertilizer, crop production, 
chemicals, all those things. And when we have more requirements 
put on us by the Federal Government, it just increases 
expenses.
    Labor is one really good example, as well. The increased 
labor that comes along with the H-2A program that a lot of 
people are forced to use in fruits and vegetables, especially, 
just adds costs.
    And so, certainly, farmers are very insulted by the focus, 
the laser focus on climate change and what to do about it, and 
they are sitting here thinking, I am just trying to hold my 
business together and hopefully my family will have a chance to 
run it someday.
    Mr. Burlison. Are you familiar with the new EPA proposed 
rule on meat processing facilities?
    Mr. VanderWal. I need to ask more questions----
    Mr. Burlison [interrupting]. So, they basically have a new 
rule related to the waste that's produced and requiring 
treatment on site of water for these facilities.
    In response to that, what I find, Mr. VanderWal, is that 
Congress ends up playing Whac-A-Mole with all the--most of the 
laws that are filed are trying to address the Executive orders 
that have been implemented by someone who was not elected, 
people that are basically trying to act as though they are the 
legislative branch.
    One of the bills in response that I have sponsored is 
called the BEEF Act, which would reverse that EPA proposed rule 
on the meat processing facilities. And another one is this new 
requirement that cattle ranchers have to get a prescription for 
the antibiotics to keep their--sometimes their calves alive, 
which is why I sponsored, along with Representative Brecheen, 
the Stop Government Overreach in Ranching Act.
    These are just two of the most ridiculous new Executive 
orders that are written by people that have no idea what it is 
like to be a farmer. Would you agree?
    Mr. VanderWal. I do agree, and your example of the VFDs for 
using antibiotics is right on target. We resisted that back 
when they put it in place, and of course it did go into effect. 
It is a hassle, though, for a producer to have to call their 
vet, and typically the vet just writes up the prescription, or 
the VFD, Veterinary Feed Directive, and you get it done.
    If there is a benefit to it, it deepens the relationship 
between producers and their veterinarians. But we think there 
would have been a more simple way to do it.
    Mr. Burlison. And how is the agriculture--the farming 
community impacted by these new transportation regulations?
    Mr. VanderWal. Well, anything that makes it more difficult 
and adds burdensome regulations is a very big concern to us.
    I think I have said it before, but with these grant 
programs or whatever the situation is, we need to let our local 
governments have more autonomy to respond to the local needs 
that are out there.
    Mr. Burlison. And not to step over you, but I have just a 
few seconds left and I want to get your comment on do you 
believe that the Federal Government could use its dollars more 
wisely?
    I know that, for example, we are spending $7.5 billion to 
fund electric vehicle charging stations that I think would not 
benefit rural Missouri whatsoever.
    Mr. VanderWal. Well, I think you are correct in that, and 
consumers are telling us what their thoughts are about that 
through the lack of market for electric vehicles. People just 
aren't interested in buying them. And I think we need to find a 
happy medium someplace in there.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields. Mr. D'Esposito.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Greteman, thank you for being here, thank you all for 
being here.
    So, I am not sure if you are familiar with what is going on 
back in New York, but we have a State legislature and a 
Governor, all three Democrats, who have been over the last few 
years known for, really, their overreach. We had their attempt 
to eliminate local zoning so that they could build housing in 
communities. Governor Hochul has what is called the RAPID Act, 
which is proposed, basically taking the local voice out of 
permitting processes for their green agenda. We have seen the 
disasters of criminal justice reform and cashless bail, where 
bureaucrats in Albany decided to give criminals more power than 
police officers and law enforcement, legitimately taking the 
handcuffs away from the police and really handcuffing law 
enforcement from doing their jobs.
    And now there is another overreach coming. And for far too 
long in New York and the tristate area, the MTA has really 
served as--really, the MTA has become the ATM for the State. 
And what we are seeing is that they want to impose what is 
called congestion pricing, and they are selling it as a plan to 
have people increase ridership on the subways, but the fact is 
that people aren't riding the subways because they don't want 
to get either, one, thrown in front of it; or, two, stabbed or 
shot. It's not because they just want to drive, it's because 
they are too afraid to be in the subway. But nonetheless, they 
have decided once again for the people and the hard-working 
people that live in New York and on Long Island to serve as the 
ATM for the MTA.
    So, we have a motorcoach company that services Long Island 
from New York City, and they recently sent an email to its 
riders saying that the company will pay more than 30 percent 
per week in tolls if congestion pricing goes into effect. And 
you mentioned in your testimony that the bus companies are 
already struggling to remain viable post-pandemic, and 
operators are facing various strains on their operation, 
whether it's operators, whether it's the ability for the riders 
to utilize the buses.
    Can you talk about how adding costs, and specifically this 
disaster and overreach of congestion pricing, how it would 
affect the American Bus Association members in the New York 
tristate area?
    Mr. Greteman. Yes, absolutely, and thank you for the 
question.
    It is going to affect the member bus companies very 
adversely. It's extra expense. It's extra costs that are really 
no more than a tax. Motorcoaches, buses, they are already 
removing cars from the road. Each motorcoach can remove up to 
56 cars from the road, and so, we are already doing our part to 
reduce congestion.
    If this is really about congestion mitigation----
    Mr. D'Esposito [interposing]. Which it's not.
    Mr. Greteman [continuing]. Which it's not, it sounds like 
it's, from what I know, it's more about the MTA budget 
shortfalls and how to fund that. And coming up with this plan 
penalizes private operators like Hampton Jitney and every other 
private bus operator in New Jersey and New York that does their 
part to bring people into the city that are spending money at 
the theaters, at the restaurants, doing sightseeing and 
whatnot. And all of a sudden, it's just another tax that 
private operators are forced to foot the bill.
    Mr. D'Esposito. And you know what? You said it best when 
you said it penalizes operators, and it's just another tax.
    And when the MTA was asked, and the Governor was asked, 
well, what is this congestion pricing about, why do you need 
the money. Because, like you said, it's not about reducing 
congestion, it's about, so they say, having people ride the 
subways and the buses, which they don't want to because they 
are scared--we have spoken to the transit workers union, the 
transportation workers union, who said they are even afraid for 
themselves on the trains.
    And one of the reasons as to why, and which shows that they 
are just doubling down and they really don't care about the 
American people--and in this case, New Yorkers, Long Islanders, 
and the tristate area--is because they have lost so much money 
because of theft of service. Why? Because people have no reason 
to pay to be on the subway, or be on the buses, or to pay for 
the Long Island Rail Road because there is no reason to, 
because now you could just jump the turnstile, you can't get 
stopped, you are not going to get arrested or given a summons. 
So, why pay?
    So, they have created this disaster, and now they are 
passing it on to operators like you. And like you said, it is 
just another tax. And if you could, monetize, just in your 
situation, what this could cost you per year if this goes into 
effect.
    Mr. Greteman. I can't give you an estimate on that. But for 
the operators in New York and New Jersey, it is in the 
millions, millions of dollars.
    Mr. D'Esposito. Millions of dollars on local business 
owners who probably, in the situation that you have described, 
may not even be able to continue in business because they are 
already facing shortfalls. So, now they are getting, like you 
said, another tax, an attack on local business with the sole 
purpose of filling budget shortfalls, not trying to reduce 
congestion, and certainly not increasing ridership on the 
subways because no one wants to ride them because they are too 
scared because of cashless bail and criminal justice reform 
that Democrats like Kathy Hochul implemented.
    My time is expired, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Crawford. The gentleman yields. And are there any 
further questions from any other members on the committee?
    Seeing none, that concludes our hearing for today. I would 
like to thank each of the witnesses for your testimony. The 
committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:13 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]


 
                       Submissions for the Record

                              ----------                              


Letter of March 21, 2024, to Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, Chairman, 
    and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 
Highways and Transit, from Anthony Dimas, Jr., County Manager, McKinley 
 County, New Mexico, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' 
                                Crawford
                                                    March 21, 2024.
Chairman Rick Crawford,
Ranking Member Eleanor Holmes Norton,
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.

Hearing on Rural Highway and Transit Challenges and Problems

    Dear Committee:
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony. I am 
Anthony Dimas Jr., County Manager for McKinley County, New Mexico. Over 
the past several years, McKinley County has worked tirelessly with the 
Navajo Nation to secure funding to repair 36 dilapidated bridges. These 
bridges are in such a dire state that, without funding and repair, they 
face imminent closure. Such closures will result in detours of upwards 
of one hour for residents. As it stands, many of the bridges are unsafe 
for ambulances, fire trucks, including water tankers (for rural fire 
fighting) and school buses to cross, endangering residents who rely on 
these services. The bridge repair effort is complicated by many 
factors, including a lack of adequate funding and the multitude of 
property ownership interests at stake. Both the Navajo Nation and 
McKinley County have strived to secure funding, only to come up short, 
and both parties are working tirelessly to solve a looming rights-of-
way issue that threatens to halt or delay the project. These bridges 
are located on a variety of properties from Navajo Nation Tribal land, 
Fee Land, BIA Land, BLM Land, Forest Land, Trust Land to County owned 
land to private land. The rights-of-way requirements that come with 
construction on Tribal land and private property have posed a 
significant obstacle to securing funding.
    I write to you today to highlight the funding challenges faced by 
Tribes and the rights-of-way issues that plague construction and repair 
projects on Tribal lands. In February 2024, USA Today \1\ highlighted 
the staggering lack of funding in northwest New Mexico, specifically in 
McKinley County, ``it's exactly the type of disadvantaged place the 
Biden administration promised would benefit from a massive influx of 
federal money for safer streets. McKinely County is poor and home to 
Native communities often left out of such programs. But two years into 
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's rollout, many places like Gallup 
(in McKinley County) have received little help even as millions go 
unused.'' McKinley County is in dire need of transportation funding, 
with some of the highest traffic fatality rates in the country. 
However, no funding is being awarded to the nation's poorest and more 
rural areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2024/02/20/
safe-streets-money-misses-needy-counties-data-investigation/
71722408007/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to the challenges listed above (rights-of-way issues 
and overlapping property ownership interests), McKinley County, and 
rural communities like Navajo Nation and Gallup, NM, lack the capacity 
to complete, submit, and manage onerous federal grants. As a result, 
poor rural and Tribal communities are losing out on funding to 
wealthier towns and cities that have the capacity to compete for this 
funding. This means that some of our nation's neediest communities, the 
communities for which transportation grant programs were designed, are 
going without recognition and without funding.
    As noted above, McKinley County, in particular, is facing enormous 
challenges in securing wide-scale rights-of-way across a multitude of 
land interests in order to repair and reconstruct dilapidated bridges. 
In order to proceed with construction, McKinley County and Navajo 
Nation must secure a traditional right of way to access the land on 
which the bridge is located. The various land interests at stake in 
this project across the 36 dilapidated bridges pose a significant 
obstacle to securing rights-of-way. Rural communities across the 
country, especially those that overlap with Tribal lands, face similar 
issues in securing authorization for road and safety improvements. This 
obstacle threatens to delay or halt critical projects.
    As you consider the rural highway and transit challenges as part of 
today's hearing, please give thought to the funding and access issues 
faced by many rural and Tribal communities. This is just a small part 
of the many challenges faced by rural areas in repairing and 
constructing our nation's transportation infrastructure.
    Thank you for your attention and dedication to this topic.
            Sincerely,
                                         Anthony Dimas Jr.,
                       County Manager, McKinley County, New Mexico.

                                 
   Letter and Attachment of March 22, 2024, to Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' 
  Crawford, Chairman, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, 
  Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, from Jack Waldorf, Executive 
 Director, Western Governors' Association, Submitted for the Record by 
                     Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford
                                                    March 22, 2024.
The Honorable Rick Crawford,
Chairman,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and 
        Infrastructure, House of Representatives, 2165 Rayburn House 
        Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and 
        Infrastructure, House of Representatives, 2165 Rayburn House 
        Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.
    Dear Chairman Crawford and Ranking Member Norton:
    With respect to the Subcommittee's March 21, 2024, hearing, Rural 
Transportation Challenges: Stakeholder Perspectives, attached please 
find Western Governors' Association (WGA) Policy Resolution 2021-07, 
Transportation Infrastructure in the Western United States. This 
resolution includes Western Governors' collective and bipartisan policy 
recommendations concerning transportation in the western United States.
    Transportation needs in the West differ significantly from those of 
eastern states. Remote rural communities, underinvested infrastructure, 
and an increased movement of people and goods have strained the West's 
network of infrastructure. Western Governors believe there is a strong 
federal role, in partnership with the states and local governments, for 
continued investment in our surface transportation network--
particularly on federal routes and in multimodal transportation 
networks throughout the West that are critical to interstate commerce 
and a growing economy. Specifically, Western Governors believe the 
current project decision-making role of state and local governments, 
with meaningful participation from affected communities, particularly 
tribes and historically underserved communities, in investment 
decisions should continue. Western Governors desire additional 
flexibility to determine how and where to deploy investment to maximize 
the use of scarce resources.
    I request that you include this document in the permanent record of 
the hearing, as it articulates Western Governors' policy positions and 
recommendations on this important issue.
    Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please contact me 
if you have any questions or require further information.
            Sincerely,
                                              Jack Waldorf,
                Executive Director, Western Governors' Association.

Attachment
                               __________

                                                         Attachment
                     Western Governors' Association
                       Policy Resolution 2021-07
       Transportation Infrastructure in the Western United States
A. BACKGROUND
Surface Transportation
    1.  The American West encompasses a huge land mass representing 2.4 
million square miles or over two-thirds of the entire country. Over 116 
million people live in these states and they reside in large, densely 
populated cities, smaller cities and towns and in rural areas.

    2.  Perhaps more than any other region, terrain and landownership 
patterns in the West underscore the purpose and vital need for a 
federal role in surface transportation. Western states are responsible 
for vast expanses of national highways and interstates that often do 
not correlate with population centers but serve as critical national 
freight and transportation routes for the nation.

    3.  Western states ports are national assets, moving needed parts 
and retail goods into the country, while also providing the gateway for 
our nation's exports. Although they benefit the entire country, the 
financial burden of developing, expanding and maintaining them to meet 
the demands of growing trade is almost entirely borne at the state and 
local level.

    4.  The vast stretches of highways and railroad track that connect 
the West to the nation do not have the population densities seen in the 
eastern United States.

    5.  Raising private funds to carry forward infrastructure projects 
in the rural West will be extremely challenging. The low traffic 
volumes in rural states will not support tolls, even if one wanted to 
impose them. Projects in rural areas are unlikely to generate revenues 
that will attract investors to finance those projects, even if the 
revenues are supplemented by tax credits. Some western states have 
implemented or are developing mileage-based fee programs as an 
additional tool to enhance funding.
Transportation Infrastructure
    6.  Jobs, the economy and quality of life in the West depend on 
high quality transportation infrastructure that efficiently, 
effectively and safely moves goods and people. Western transportation 
infrastructure is part of a national network that serves national 
interests. Among other things, transportation infrastructure in the 
West: moves agricultural and natural resource products from source to 
national and world markets; carries goods from western ports on western 
highways and railroad track to eastern and southern cities; and enables 
travelers to visit the great National Parks and other destinations in 
the West.

    7.  The transportation and transit needs in the West differ 
significantly from our eastern counterparts. Western states are 
building new capacity to keep up with growth, including new 
interstates, new multimodal systems including high-speed passenger rail 
and light rail transit systems, biking and pedestrian options, and 
increased capacity on existing infrastructure.

    8.  The infrastructure in the region is under strain from both 
increased movement of goods and people and from underinvestment in 
preservation and repair and new infrastructure needed to keep pace with 
this growth and change. Positive and productive partnerships between 
state department of transportation offices and their local U.S. 
Department of Transportation (DOT) Federal Highway Administration 
(FHWA) office have enabled innovative advances in infrastructure 
funding and development.

    9.  Modernizing and maintaining the West's network of 
infrastructure relies upon permitting and review processes that require 
close coordination and consultation among state, federal and tribal 
governments. State, federal and tribal coordination is necessary to 
ensure that infrastructure projects are designed, financed, built, 
operated and maintained in a manner that meets the needs of our 
economies, environment, public health, safety and security. Early, 
ongoing, substantial, and meaningful state-federal consultation can 
provide efficiency, transparency, and predictability for states and 
tribes, as well as prevent delays, in the federal permitting and 
environmental review process.

    10.  State and local governments often have the best available 
science, data and expertise related to natural resources within their 
borders. In cases where the states have primary management authority, 
such as wildlife and water governance, states also possess the most 
experience in managing those resources and knowledge of state- and 
locality-specific considerations that should inform infrastructure 
siting decisions.

    11.  The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), since its 
enactment in 1970, has required that federal agencies consider how 
proposed federal actions may affect natural, cultural, economic and 
social resources for present and future generations of Americans. The 
process by which NEPA is implemented has been defined over time through 
regulations and guidance issued by the Council on Environmental Quality 
(CEQ).

    12.  On April 27, 2021, FHWA issued a guidance document [https://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/real_estate/right-of-way/corridor_management/
alternative_uses_guidance.cfm], State DOTs Leveraging Alternative Uses 
of the Highway Right-of-Way Guidance. The guidance encourages FHWA 
division offices to work with state departments of transportation in 
order to leverage highway rights-of-way (ROWs) for the siting of 
renewable energy projects, transmission and distribution assets, 
broadband infrastructure, and alternative fueling facilities.
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
    13.  WGA recently executed the Electric Vehicles Roadmap 
Initiative, its signature policy project for Fiscal Year 2021. The 
Initiative was principally focused on the planning, siting and 
coordination of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure in 
western states and explored a number of federal policy issues that 
affect the buildout of this infrastructure.

    14.  Western Governors and states are exhibiting strong leadership 
on EV infrastructure planning, coordination, and investment. Many 
western states are actively collaborating with each other via their 
engagement in the West Coast Electric Highway \1\ and Regional Electric 
Vehicles Plan for the West \2\ (REV West).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ California, Oregon and Washington are members of the West Coast 
Electric Highway.
    \2\ Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, 
and Wyoming are members of the REV West.

    15.  Western states face a suite of challenges related to planning 
and siting EV infrastructure, including the unique needs of both 
underserved and rural communities, vast distances between communities, 
limited electric grid infrastructure in sparsely populated areas, and a 
patchwork of federal, state, and private lands ownership boundaries. 
These factors combine to make EV infrastructure installations more 
logistically challenging and costly, regardless of whether the 
infrastructure is funded by public or private sources or a combination 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of the two.

    16.  Many western states have engaged with and submitted corridor 
nominations to the FHWA's Alternative Fuel Corridors Program. The 
Program assigns ``Corridor-Pending'' and ``Corridor-Ready'' 
designations for interstate, U.S. route, and state highways.

    17.  In order to meet the ``Corridor-Pending'' and ``Corridor-
Ready'' metrics, charging or alternative fueling infrastructure must be 
sited every 100 or 50 miles, respectively, along the proposed corridor. 
A number of western states have experienced challenges in meeting these 
defined metrics due to lacking electric infrastructure and suitable 
charging locations in sparsely populated areas.

    18.  23 U.S.C. 111 prohibits Interstate System rest areas built 
after January 1, 1960, from offering commercial services such as fuel 
and food on the Interstate System right-of-way. Due to this 
prohibition, EV charging stations may be sited at Interstate System 
rest areas, but no fee may be charged for the electricity that is 
dispensed. This significantly complicates the business case for siting 
EV charging infrastructure at these rest areas. Western Governors 
support amending 23 U.S.C. 111 to allow commercial EV charging at all 
rest areas along the Interstate, but we would note that western states 
are especially affected by the current prohibition because many rest 
areas in the West are located far from communities or businesses that 
could offer suitable locations for EV charging.

    19.  Western states contain many public federal lands, including 
areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service 
and U.S. Forest Service. Many of these federal lands serve as regional 
tourism attractions and support economic development in rural western 
communities. Creating and implementing efficient practices for 
permitting and siting EV infrastructure on federal lands will help 
support continued tourism and economic opportunities across the West.

    20.  Private investments in zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) charging 
and fueling infrastructure can be aided by supportive investment tax 
credit structures. The current Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling 
Property Investment Tax Credit could be enhanced to improve the 
business case for private sector investment in ZEV charging and fueling 
infrastructure.

    21.  The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Vehicle Technologies 
Office manages the Clean Cities Coalition (CCC) Program, which has 
active members across the West. CCCs often serve a crucial role at the 
local level by leading EV infrastructure planning and implementation 
projects.

    22.  The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted disruptions to domestic 
supply chains across many sectors. On February 24, 2021, President 
Biden signed an Executive Order on America's Supply Chains (EO 14017 
[https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-03-01/pdf/2021-
04280.pdf]). The EO launches a comprehensive review of certain U.S. 
supply chains and directs federal departments and agencies to identify 
ways to secure U.S. supply chains against a wide range of risks and 
vulnerabilities. Two supply chains included in the review are critical 
minerals, including rare earth elements, and large capacity batteries 
such as those used in electric vehicle production.

    23.  Battery EVs require a number of critical minerals in their 
production, including lithium, nickel and cobalt, among others. 
Consumption of these critical minerals essential to EV supply chains 
will rise as more EV batteries are produced. EVs sold in 2019 alone 
accounted for more than one quarter of the total battery capacity 
deployed nationwide.\3\ With increasing demand for EVs, it is projected 
that demand for these minerals will concurrently increase in coming 
decades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2021-02/ev-battery-
recycling-fact-sheet.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation
    24.  Lack of reliable air service is a significant barrier to 
fulfilling the needs of rural communities in the West. Air service is 
essential infrastructure for connecting many remote communities. It is 
important not only to recreation and emergency services, but to 
economic, social and cultural needs. In some communities it is the only 
way to bring doctors or other non-local workers in and out of where 
they work but may not live.

    25.  The DOT Essential Air Service (EAS) Program was put into place 
in 1978 to guarantee that small communities served by certificated air 
carriers before passage of the Airline Deregulation Act maintained a 
minimum level of scheduled air service. This is generally accomplished 
by DOT subsidizing two round trips a day with 30- to 50-seat aircraft, 
or additional frequencies with aircraft with 9 seats or fewer, usually 
to a large- or medium-hub airport. The Department currently subsidizes 
commuter and certificated air carriers to serve communities in Alaska 
and in the lower 48 contiguous states that otherwise would not receive 
any scheduled air service.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ DOT Essential Air Service Program https://
www.transportation.gov/policy/aviation-policy/small-community-rural-
air-service/essential-air-service

    26.  Of the communities that participate in EAS, 63 percent are in 
the West, illustrating the rurality of these areas and their need for 
connectivity. EAS has a significant economic effect on rural 
communities. A 1 percent increase in traffic to an EAS airport results 
in a 0.12 percent increase in income for the entire community, and an 8 
percent increase in traffic results in a 1 percent income increase. 
Businesses need connectivity to the national and global economy to 
succeed and rural communities with good air service are more attractive 
to remote workers.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ WGA Reimagining the Rural West Initiative Appendix https://
westgov.org/images/editor/FINAL_RTRW_Appendix_2020.pdf

    27.  The Small Community Air Service Development Program (SCASDP) 
is a DOT grant program designed to help small communities address air 
service and airfare issues. SCASDP's eligibility criteria are broader 
than EAS and provide a grant applicant the opportunity to self-identify 
its air service deficiencies and propose an appropriate solution 
compared to an EAS direct subsidy.\6\ Air service started by the SCASDP 
often continues without further funding once the grant is over, 
exemplifying that the service proves itself to be commercially viable 
beyond its value to the community and the public.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ DOT Small Community Air Service Development Program https://
www.transportation.gov/policy/aviation-policy/small-community-rural-
air-service/SCASDP
    \7\ WGA Reimagining the Rural West Initiative Appendix https://
westgov.org/images/editor/FINAL_RTRW_Appendix_2020.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. GOVERNORS' POLICY STATEMENT
Surface Transportation
    1.  Western Governors believe there is a strong federal role, in 
partnership with the states and local governments, for the continued 
investment in our surface transportation network--particularly on 
federal routes and in multimodal transportation networks throughout the 
West that are critical to interstate commerce and a growing economy. 
These routes and networks traverse hundreds of miles without traffic 
densities sufficient to either make public-private partnerships 
feasible or allow state and local governments to raise capital beyond 
the historic cost share.

    2.  Western Governors believe the current project decision-making 
role of state and local governments, with meaningful participation from 
affected communities, particularly tribes and historically underserved 
communities, in investment decisions should continue. Western Governors 
desire additional flexibility to determine how and where to deploy 
investment in order to maximize the use of scarce resources.

    3.  Western Governors believe that a viable, long-term funding 
mechanism is critical to the maintenance and expansion of our surface 
transportation network and encourage Congress to work together to 
identify a workable solution that adequately funds the unique needs of 
the West.

    4.  Western Governors believe in enhancing the ability to leverage 
scarce resources by supplementing traditional base funding by creating 
and enhancing financing mechanisms and tools that are appropriate for 
all areas of the United States, including those with low traffic 
densities where tolling and public private partnerships are not 
feasible.

    5.  Western Governors believe using the historic formula-based 
approach for the distribution of funds would ensure that both rural and 
urban states participate in any infrastructure initiative and it would 
deliver the benefits of an infrastructure initiative to the public 
promptly.

    6.  Western Governors believe the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) and the 
programs it supports are critically important to success in efforts to 
maintain and improve America's surface transportation infrastructure. 
Currently, the HTF will not be able to support even current federal 
surface transportation program levels and will not meet the needs of 
the country that will grow as the economy grows. Congress must provide 
a long-term solution to ensure HTF solvency and provide for increased, 
sustainable federal transportation investment through the HTF.

    7.  Western Governors strongly encourage western states port 
operators and their labor unions to work together to avoid future work 
slowdowns by resolving labor issues well before contracts are set to 
expire. In recent years, protracted disagreement in bargaining between 
parties has had an adverse effect on the American economy that should 
not be repeated.

    8.  Western Governors believe modern ports infrastructure is 
essential to strong national and western economy and urge Congress to 
fully fund the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and to reform the Harbor 
Maintenance Tax to ensure western ports remain competitive. 
Furthermore, Western Governors believe the federal government must work 
collaboratively with states, along with ports, local governments and 
key private sector transportation providers like the railroads, to 
ensure the necessary public and private investments to move imports and 
exports efficiently through the intermodal system, as well as community 
organizers and the Environmental Protection Agency's National 
Environmental Justice Advisory Council to effectively mitigate 
environmental and public health impacts to port communities.
Transportation Infrastructure
    9.  Western Governors believe regulation accompanying federal 
transportation programs should be evaluated and if necessary, revised 
to encourage expediting project delivery and streamlining the 
environmental review process without diminishing environmental 
standards or safeguards.

    10.  The federal infrastructure permitting and environmental review 
process must be transparent, predictable, accessible and consistent for 
states, project developers, and affected community stakeholders. 
Federal processes must ensure that agencies set, and adhere to, 
timelines and schedules for completion of reviews and develop improved 
metrics for tracking and accountability.

    11.  Federal programs that increase bottom-up coordination among 
agencies, state and local governments and that foster collaboration 
among project proponents and diverse stakeholders, particularly rural 
communities, underserved communities, and tribes can create efficiency 
and predictability in the NEPA process, including reducing the risks of 
delays due to litigation.

    12.  Western Governors encourage consistency in the implementation 
of NEPA within and among agencies and across regions. The federal 
government should identify and eliminate inconsistencies in 
environmental review and analysis across agencies to make the process 
more efficient.
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
    13.  Western Governors emphasize western states' collaborative 
efforts to improve the planning and siting of EV charging 
infrastructure to promote equitable access, particularly along highway 
corridors, rural areas, underserved communities, or anywhere that users 
do not have the ability to charge at home. We encourage Congress and 
the Administration to leverage these state partnerships when designing 
federal programs and allocating surface transportation and 
infrastructure funds focused on EV infrastructure. Coordinating with 
these multi-state groups would help promote targeted investments and 
partnerships that expand cohesive, regional EV charging networks.

    14.  Western Governors request that FHWA promote additional 
flexibility within the Alternative Fuel Corridors program to recognize 
the unique geographic and infrastructure conditions in western states. 
Western Governors and states are eager to work with FHWA to ensure that 
western states are not adversely affected by federal funding 
opportunities that are tethered to Alternative Fuel Corridors 
``Corridor-Pending'' and ``Corridor-Ready'' designations.

    15.  Western Governors support legislative measures that address 
prohibitions within 23 U.S.C. 111 that limit the siting of EV charging 
stations at Interstate System rest areas and the issuance of a fee for 
the use of that infrastructure.

    16.  Promoting visitation to federal public lands and state parks 
is a high priority for Western Governors. Western Governors would 
welcome the opportunity to work with state and federal land management 
agencies to address challenges that affect the permitting and siting of 
EV charging infrastructure on state and federal public lands.

    17.  Western Governors support legislative efforts that seek to 
extend and expand the Alternative Fuel Vehicle Refueling Property 
Investment Tax Credit and improve the business case, especially in 
rural and underserved areas, for private investment in ZEV charging and 
refueling infrastructure.

    18.  Western Governors emphasize the important functions that Clean 
Cities Coalitions have served in coordinating and implementing ZEV 
infrastructure projects across the West and encourage Congress to 
provide funding support for the DOE Vehicle Technologies Office and 
Clean Cities Coalition Network.

    19.  Western Governors support strengthening domestic supply chains 
of critical minerals vital to electric vehicle battery production 
without compromising environmental and health and safety standards. 
Governors also support development of emerging tools and technologies 
that address barriers to mineral supply chain reliability, including 
technologies that help recycle or reuse existing critical mineral 
resources for use in electric vehicles and other clean energy 
technologies.
Aviation
    20.  Western Governors encourage the executive branch to include 
full funding for the EAS and SCASDP programs in the President's annual 
budget request. Western Governors also support legislative actions to 
maintain and secure the longevity of these programs.
C. GOVERNORS' MANAGEMENT DIRECTIVE
    1.  The Governors direct WGA staff to work with Congressional 
committees of jurisdiction, the Executive Branch, and other entities, 
where appropriate, to achieve the objectives of this resolution.

    2.  Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to consult with the 
Staff Advisory Council regarding its efforts to realize the objectives 
of this resolution and to keep the Governors apprised of its progress 
in this regard.

This resolution will expire in June 2024. Western Governors enact new 
policy resolutions and amend existing resolutions on a semiannual 
basis. Please consult http://www.westgov.org/resolutions for the most 
current copy of a resolution and a list of all current WGA policy 
resolutions.


 
                                Appendix

                              ----------                              


    Questions from Hon. Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford to Jeff Greteman, 
President and Chief Executive Officer, Windstar Lines, on behalf of the 
                        American Bus Association

    Question 1. In your testimony you referenced difficulties that 
intercity and charter bus operators are facing regarding access to 
intermodal facilities. As you described it, disrupting or prohibiting 
this access means many operators are faced with less than desirable 
options for passenger pick up and drop off as well as a lack of 
passenger transit accessibility during their travel.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Rural Transportation Challenges: Stakeholder Perspectives: 
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Highways and Transit of the H. Comm. on 
Transp. and Infrastructure, 118th Cong. (Mar. 21, 2024), (written 
testimony of Mr. Jeff Greteman, President, Windstar Lines, Inc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question 1.a. What steps, if any, would you advocate to address 
this problem?
    Answer. Thank you for the question. Yes, as referenced in both my 
oral and written testimony, bus operators are losing access to key 
facilities and destination points providing intermodal connections. 
These facilities are often publicly funded facilities, such as transit 
stations, Amtrak stations and airports. From a public policy 
standpoint, buses serving the public should have access to these 
facilities. Intermodal connections provide efficiency from a customer 
standpoint as well as a transportation network standpoint, and sustain 
all modes involved. There is also the environmental benefit of 
promoting intermodal connections, thereby eliminating the need for 
additional, less climate friendly, modes of transport to fill the gap 
such as taxis or car services.
    Federal law explicitly directs publicly funded facilities to permit 
access to such facilities by intercity bus operators. Yet, owners of 
these facilities have found ways to get around the statute due to gaps 
in the law or interpretive guidance. For example, title 49 U.S.C. 
5323(r), states that a recipient of federal transit funding cannot deny 
intercity buses from accessing federally funded public transportation 
facilities. However, because ``reasonable'' is not defined in the 
statute or through guidance, these recipients have used the ambiguity 
to delay or simply ignore requests for access, or creatively deny 
access through other means by trying to impose unreasonable conditions 
such as excessive rent. Further, as with both 49 U.S.C. 5323(r) and 
Section 47107(a) concerning airports, there are no enforcement 
procedures for either provision and because private buses are not their 
concern, both the Federal Transit Administration and the Federal 
Aviation Administration have demonstrated either little to no interest 
in ensuring their funding recipients comply with the law or, 
alternatively, they claim the law provides them insufficient means to 
take action. This has left bus operators with nowhere to turn for 
assistance. To address:
 Step 1. Provide for enforcement mechanisms under both the FTA and FAA 
        statutory provisions to address non-compliant grantees, and 
        establish a definition for ``reasonable'' in the FTA statute. 
        Ensure these changes are incorporated into agency guidance for 
        implementing the statutes.
    a.  Statutory language should apply to recipients and 
subrecipients, and in both urban and rural settings, to ensure states, 
regions and localities and any other public authorities, are subject to 
the provision.
    b.  Ensure there is a process established for access requests, 
providing procedures for both grant recipients/subrecipients and 
operators, and include firm deadlines for responses.
    c.  Non-compliance enforcement penalties should include denials of 
access based on frivolous and discriminatory reasons. Also, it should 
be clarified that intercity bus service is not an ``incidental'' use of 
the facility.
    d.  To ensure transparency and assist enforcement, requests for 
access should be made public, along with a recipient's/subrecipient's 
determination on whether to deny or grant such access.
    e.  Conditions of access should not be unduly burdensome, 
economically infeasible, or have a discriminatory effect.
    f.  Pertinent federal agencies should have power to review access 
determinations by recipients/subrecipients, and rectify improper 
outcomes, including overruling denials and withholding of grant funds 
from non-compliant recipients/subrecipients.
 Step 2: Develop a similar provision and program for the passenger rail 
        statutory framework, to ensure application across the modes and 
        use of public facilities.
    Similarly, bus operators are increasingly facing restrictions from 
local jurisdictions they are trying to serve, in terms of pick-up/drop-
off points. Due to the changing business environment forcing the 
closing of numerous bus stations, rural operators have sought to 
relocate \2\; however, many localities are restricting or prohibiting 
these efforts. For example, rather than working with bus operators and 
the public to relocate to areas that are safe and provide amenities and 
meaningful connections to other transportation services, localities are 
instead restricting bus operations to areas with few amenities and no 
intermodal access, such as industrial areas. There are also instances 
where localities tried to prohibit stops at all within their 
jurisdiction. These efforts result in less attractive bus service, 
hurting the traveling public who relies on the service, the bus 
operator, and the entire transportation network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Chaddick Institute, DePaul University, Back on the Bus--2024 
Outlook for the Intercity Bus Industry in the United States, J.P. 
Schwieterman, B. Chesney, and A. Das, February 6, 2024. Note: 
Prediction 2, p. 17. https://las.depaul.edu/centers-and-institutes/
Documents/2024%20-
Outlook%20for%20the%20Intercity%20Bus%20Industry%20Feb%202023.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is entirely contradictory to longstanding Federal policy 
intended to preserve rural intercity bus service. In 1991, ISTEA 
established the 5311(f) program specifically to assist with maintaining 
rural intercity service and ensure the sustainability of such service. 
In 2004, Congress directed the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) 
to study the problem of declining intercity bus service, including 
rural bus service, and make recommendations, demonstrating a continuing 
interest in preserving intercity bus service. However, as first 
identified in the 2005 issued DOT report \3\ and through to today, 
intercity bus service continues to decline, particularly rural bus 
service despite federal efforts. Greyhound is again going through 
restructuring and has exited various markets and sold or closed various 
terminal facilities, seeking stable economic footing to remain 
sustainable. This, in turn, has particularly affected rural bus 
operators with the loss of facilities. Several of these regional bus 
operators replaced services formerly provided by Greyhound; however, 
with the loss of viable pick-up/drop-off locations, their services are 
becoming even less economically feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ U.S. Department of Transportation, Study of Intercity Bus 
Service, report to Congress, July 2005. https://www.transportation.gov/
sites/dot.gov/files/docs/Intercity%20Bus%20Service
%20Report%20%20Final.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 5311 program has not kept pace with current realities and 
localities are frustrating the effort. It is counterintuitive for 
recipients of 5311 funding, funding intended to sustain rural 
transportation services, including bus services, to turn around and 
create obstacles to making such services economically viable.
    The 5311(f) program needs to be updated to reflect current economic 
circumstances facing the intercity bus industry if the program is to 
remain effective.
 Step 3: The 5311(f) program should be reviewed to assess its 
        effectiveness.
    a.  The current 50% limit on federal operating subsidy under the 
5311(f) program needs to be increased. Under the current program, no 
more than 50% of a project cost or service can be covered by a federal 
operating subsidy (e.g. 5311(f) funds), with the remainder required to 
be covered by non-federal match, which most often means by the bus 
operator. However, these projects or services generally run at a 
deficit, making it economically unsustainable for the bus operator to 
continue bearing the remaining 50% cost, particularly if it has no 
other traffic feeding into it and/or the service is unattractive to 
passenger travel. Bus operators providing these rural services simply 
cannot survive under this model; at best, if they are able to break 
even in terms of cost, which is unlikely, it is insufficient to sustain 
an intercity bus business. The federal operating subsidy for supporting 
rural service under 5311(f) needs to be increased if rural intercity 
service is to remain viable.
    b.  Increased capital subsidy matches for buses that must comply 
with Buy America requirements. Currently, under 5311(f), the federal 
subsidy for capital projects can be 80-85%, with the bus operator 
covering the remaining 15-20%. However, Buy America compliant vehicles 
are becoming too costly, with significant increases in recent years due 
to a reduction in OEMs, supply chain issues and labor. If the Federal 
Government requires Buy America compliant vehicles for use under the 
program, it needs to increase the federal subsidy portion. 
Alternatively, increased flexibility for granting waivers under the Buy 
America program could be helpful.
    c.  Consider establishment of a federal low-interest loan program 
for the bus operator portion of vehicle purchases. Private financing 
for vehicles is difficult to obtain because the Federal Government or 
the State DOT puts a first lien on the vehicle, as opposed to private 
purchases with financing, where the bank or financial institution 
requires the first lien on the asset. In the case of capital 
investments using 5311(f) funds, the intercity bus operator needs to 
fund its portion of the transaction with cash or encumber other assets 
to fund vehicles for public use.
 Step 4. Reconsider several recommendations from the 2005 Study of 
        Intercity Bus Service. Specifically worth reconsidering:
    a.  Increased funding for the 5311(f) program;
    b.  Strengthen and add transparency to the 5311(f) certification 
process;
    c.  Fund and ensure access to intermodal passenger facilities, 
ensure such infrastructure allows for bus ticket counters, proper bus 
loading/unloading areas, access to amenities and common areas for bus 
passengers;
    d.  Rural feeder service/coordination;
    e.  State, Regional AND local coordination;
    f.  Integrated traveler information; and
    g.  An ``Essential Transportation Services'' program.
 Step 5. In addition to the recommendations outlined in the report, 
        there are several other steps that should be considered.
    a.  Include stronger statutory language under 5311, in conjunction 
with 5323(r), to limit any recipient or subrecipient of federal transit 
funding from adopting measures, through zoning ordinances or otherwise, 
that would prohibit access to federally funded transportation 
facilities. Access to federal funding should be restricted if such 
inappropriate actions are pursued.

    Question 1.b. Are there policies that can be advanced that would 
remedy the issue?
    Answer. Policies already exist to support the sustainability of 
rural intercity bus service and non-discriminatory practices, if they 
are followed. As noted above, Congress has established strong policy in 
support of intercity bus service and, for that matter, intermodal 
transportation. However, a culture of competition between modes for 
public funding and services has put the private bus industry at a 
distinct disadvantage and the 5311(f) program requires increased 
funding. Also, without mechanisms and incentive to ensure compliance 
with current law in support of established federal policy goals to 
support rural intercity bus service, efforts will continue to thwart 
the policy goals. The ideas outlined above, provide a strong platform 
for discussion in preparation for the next surface reauthorization, and 
the industry would welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee 
to improve efforts to meet the established policy goals for sustaining 
the rural intercity bus industry.

    Question 2. In late 2023, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 
released its final rule to create a greenhouse gas performance measure, 
forcing state departments of transportation and metropolitan planning 
organizations to set declining targets for carbon dioxide emissions 
associated with vehicles and travel along the National Highway System, 
or as your drivers might describe it, their workplace.\4\ On March 27, 
2024, the United States District Court for the Northern District of 
Texas vacated the rule.\5\ Additionally, on April 1, 2024, the United 
States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky issued an 
opinion finding the rule exceeds FHWA's statutory authority and is 
arbitrary and capricious.\6\ However, the Biden Administration has said 
it is considering next steps as the legal process continues.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Performance 
of the National Highway System, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measure, 88 
Fed. Reg. 85364 (Dec. 7, 2023), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/
content/pkg/FR-2023-12-07/pdf/2023-26019.pdf.
    \5\ State of Texas v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., Final Judgment, No. 
5:23-cv-304-H, (N.D. Tex. 2024).
    \6\ Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Fed. Highway Admin., Opinion & 
Order, No. 5:23-cv-162-BJB (W.D. Ky. 2024).
    \7\ E-mail from Acting Cong. Affairs Team Leader, Fed. Highways 
Admin. to Staff, H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, (Mar. 29, 
2024, 4:42 PM EST) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question 2.a. Would implementation of the rule as finalized by FHWA 
help or hurt transportation operations in small and rural communities 
across the country?
    Answer. Thank you for the question. The FHWA rule would not be 
helpful to transportation operations in small and rural communities. 
Rural states have very different transportation needs than states with 
large urban regions, just as western states have very different needs 
from eastern states, and so on. One of the hallmark principles of the 
federal surface transportation program is to ensure federal funding, 
collected through gas taxes, is returned to the states for making 
transportation investments that best meet their needs--recognizing 
local discretion is paramount, because local authorities are in the 
best position to know their needs and how best to address them. The 
FHWA rule flies in the face of this principle by restricting state and 
local decision making.
    By implementing the rule, states and small and rural communities 
will put much needed federal transportation funding at risk if they 
choose projects to meet local needs but may not comply with the 
Administration's policy goals. The rule directly targets roadway 
vehicles and roadway capacity, the most relied upon form of 
transportation for small and rural communities whose transportation 
choices are often limited. The purpose of the rule, like other non-FHWA 
Administration policy initiatives, is to tackle climate change by 
limiting emissions from roadway vehicles through promotion of 
investment in alternative, ``emissions reducing'' transportation 
projects, such as public transit, streetscaping or bike lanes. However, 
the transportation needs of small and rural communities are not always 
suited to these alternative projects, and in some cases such 
alternatives could instead further contribute to emissions and other 
harmful outcomes, as well as waste scarce federal resources.

    Question 2.b. Does a Federally mandated one-size-fits-all approach 
to this issue work in Iowa, where Windstar is based, or in many of the 
surrounding rural states where you run routes?
    Answer. Windstar is very troubled by the Federal Government's 
approach imposing a broad mandate on all states and territories without 
providing the necessary flexibility for states and local planning 
organizations to independently make decisions that best meet their 
needs. The Federally mandated policy is clearly intended to force 
states and rural communities to make decisions about critical 
transportation funding against their interests or risk losing access to 
federal funding.
    For example, Highway 30 runs from the east to west borders of Iowa, 
and is one of the most traveled roadways in the state, connecting major 
cities such as Cedar Rapids and Ames, serving over 550,000 of Iowa's 
3.1 million population. However, over 80 miles of it remains two-lane, 
which causes safety concerns, congestion, and operational 
inefficiencies for businesses like Windstar. Highway 30 needs to be 
modernized, including increasing its capacity to make it a 4-lane 
highway. However, the FHWA rule would discourage Iowa from considering 
this type of project because it involves increasing highway capacity. 
Instead, the FHWA rule would encourage Iowa to consider alternative 
actions, such as adding more transit or bike lanes, to comply with 
efforts to reach declining GHG targets. This outcome would do nothing 
to address the Highway 30 safety and congestion related concerns and 
may even exacerbate them. Alternatively, if Iowa determined to pursue 
the Highway 30 project and/or could not find suitable other emissions 
reducing alternatives, even though the rule refrains from imposing 
explicit penalties for missing GHG targets, the state risks losing out 
on future federal funding opportunities for being noncompliant.
    States with vast open ranges and numerous rural communities 
dependent on surface infrastructure and vehicles are put at a distinct 
disadvantage under the FHWA rule. The rule's ``one-size-fits-all'' 
approach makes no provision for the varying and unique transportation 
challenges facing the varied regions of this nation, the fundamental 
reason why the federal highway program was intentionally designed to 
leave investment decisions in the hands of local experts. Windstar and 
the bus industry do not support the FHWA rule.

    Question 3. The Biden Administration has devoted significant effort 
and funding towards incentivizing a transition of the transportation 
sector to electric vehicles (EVs), including within the bus 
industry.\8\ How do electric buses compare to traditionally fueled 
buses in terms of range, reliability, and production and maintenance 
costs?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ See e.g., The White House, Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris 
Administration Takes Action To Accelerate America's Clean 
Transportation Future, (Dec. 14, 2023), available at https://
www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/12/14/fact-
sheet-biden-harris-administration-takes-action-to-accelerate-americas-
clean-transportation-future/; Press Release, U.S. Dep't of Transp., 
Federal Transit Administration, Biden-Harris Administration Announces 
Availability of $1.5 Billion in Federal Funding to Modernize Bus Fleets 
and Deploy Clean Transit Buses Across America, (Feb. 8, 2024), 
available at https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/biden-harris-
administration-announces-availability-15-billion-federal-funding-
modernize.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. Thank you for the question. Windstar is very concerned 
about the increasing regulatory and policy pressures, not incentives, 
to transition the heavy-duty vehicle industry to zero-emission 
vehicles, including over-the-road buses. Although we certainly support 
the need to address climate change concerns, we are frustrated that our 
industry is not recognized for being one of the ``greenest'' modes of 
transportation currently operating. Buses remove cars from the road, 
with some motorcoaches accommodating 57 passengers. Our engines are 
clean, producing the least amount of carbon emissions per passenger and 
using less fuel per passenger mile than all other modes of 
transportation. Our engines use ultra-low sulfur diesel fuels, as 
mandated by federal rules, and are equipped with particulate filters 
that capture 98% of particles in diesel exhaust, with the lowest 
particulate matter emission rate among all on-road transportation 
modes. Yet, in policy discussions and regulatory proceedings, rarely 
are these contributions to reducing the transportation industry's 
carbon footprint taken into account. As part of the heavy-duty (HD) 
transportation sector, motorcoach operators, along with other heavy-
duty commercial motor vehicles operators, are under intense pressure to 
transition to zero-emissions vehicles or ZEVs.
    Candidly, ZEV transition is just not possible for our industry at 
this time, for a number of reasons. First, the ZEV technology for HD 
vehicles is still under development, with no clear path forward on 
whether electric powered buses or BEVs, or hydrogen fuel cell powered 
buses or some other technology will prevail.
    Although BEV vehicles are in use in limited settings today, they 
cannot provide a 1:1 replacement for diesel powered internal combustion 
engine (ICE) motorcoaches. The nominal range for a BEV, which is likely 
greater than actual operating range, is 150-300 miles, depending on 
battery size, compared to +/- 1500 miles for an ICE powered motorcoach. 
However, once actual operating conditions are factored in, such as a 
20%+/- loss in range (only 80% of the battery is generally available 
for use, as battery life is severely shortened by repeated charging to 
100%), temperatures/climate, geography, auxiliary loads (e.g. heating/
AC, ventilation etc.), and other factors, the actual operating range is 
lower, realistically in the range of 150-200 miles. There are tradeoffs 
for consideration, where range could be extended; however, this would 
involve using larger batteries that would require increased space to 
house the battery pack, longer ``refueling'' time and less space for 
money-generating passenger capacity. Also, from what we are seeing in 
the real-world deployment of BEVs in the transit arena, BEVs are simply 
not as reliable as an ICE vehicle for service--particularly in more 
extreme climates--there are weight issues and durability issues, with 
more breakdowns and longer shop times than expected \9\. Simply put, 
BEVs are not a one for one replacement for diesel ICE buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ TransitCenter, Electric Buses Are the Future. Agencies Are 
Still Right to be Cautious, April 25, 2003. https://transitcenter.org/
electric-buses-are-the-future-agencies-are-still-right-to-be-cautious/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Recharging time to ``refuel'' a BEV is also an issue, particularly 
with a shortened vehicle range. Currently, it takes about 3-4 hours to 
recharge a BEV, depending on battery size, as opposed to 20-30 minutes 
to refuel an ICE vehicle. This time cost is entirely unrealistic for 
long distance passenger travel. Additionally, the charging 
infrastructure to support commercial motorcoach travel does not yet 
exist and will require significant investment.\10\ (See study) Although 
the Administration is heavily investing in charging infrastructure 
buildout, there remain a number of challenges that will take time to 
overcome. BEVs require enroute charging infrastructure that will be 
sufficient to charge HD engines and provide adequate space to 
accommodate large vehicles. To date, investment in charging 
infrastructure has focused primarily on personal vehicles, with no 
thought to the space needs or standards to ensure sufficient charging 
capacity. Charging capacity for HD vehicles requires costly utility 
service upgrades to support high-capacity chargers. This type of 
buildout for HD electric vehicles will not be a short-term undertaking, 
it will require time and sufficient power supply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Clean Freight Coalition study, Forecasting a Realistic 
Electricity Infrastructure Buildout for Medium- & Heavy-Duty Battery 
Electric Vehicles, Roland Berger, April 2024. https://
www.cleanfreightcoalition.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/
RB%20Study%20Report_final
%5B111225%5D.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The alternative technology of hydrogen powered fuel-cells shows 
promise because this technology offers longer driving ranges, shorter 
fueling times, and space efficiencies in terms of vehicle housing for 
the fuel cell technology. However, there are no bus OEMs producing 
hydrogen fuel cell buses currently for use in the U.S. Also, hydrogen 
fuel is in limited supply, costly to produce and not as efficient 
(having to be converted to provide electricity, affecting its 
efficiency), thus it is likely to be a costly fuel source to use and 
maintain. Hydrogen fueling stations and site locations are dependent on 
how hydrogen is produced, delivered and stored on site, and require a 
sizeable footprint. Due to these challenges, hydrogen fueling 
infrastructure at this point in the U.S. is even less accessible than 
charging infrastructure, with almost all sites located in 
California.\11\ As well, there are also safety considerations to take 
into account in using hydrogen, with many of the standards and best 
practices in the current use of hydrogen adapted from other industries 
and not yet updated to apply to use of hydrogen for surface 
transportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ U.S. Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center. 
https://afdc.energy.gov/
fuels/hydrogen-
stations#:%7E:text=As%20of%202023%2C%20there%20are,planned%20for
%20the%20northeastern%20states
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, there are significant costs involved for bus operators 
with transitioning to HD ZEVS, either battery-powered or hydrogen fuel 
cell-powered. In terms of vehicles, the current cost of a BEV is around 
$1.2 million in comparison to the $600,000 cost of an ICE motorcoach, 
and the price is even higher for a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, up to $2 
million (based on transit buses, as motorcoaches are not even available 
in the U.S.) In addition to vehicle costs, there are additional costs 
required to invest in on-site fueling infrastructure, including both 
financial costs and time costs to obtain permits and coordinating with 
power suppliers. This is not a simple undertaking for an industry 
dominated by small, family-owned businesses. Also, drivers and 
maintenance staff will need training to work with and maintain the new 
vehicles and technology, and our industry is already in the midst of a 
driver and mechanic shortage.
    These are extremely complex and heavy economic burdens for the 
private motorcoach industry as a whole, and pose a serious threat to an 
already struggling rural intercity bus network. Further, although the 
Federal Government has prioritized transitioning the HD vehicle 
industry to ZEVs and provided sizable subsidies to support the 
transition, including significant grant funding to the public transit 
industry which is often a direct competitor of private bus operators, 
it has not provided funding assistance to help the private bus 
industry. There are no incentives, instead, federal rules and, by 
default, California Air Resource Board rules continue to press on bus 
manufacturers and bus operators. These actions will force bus operators 
to make timely choices between investing in clean, reliable technology 
that will provide cost recovery: or costly, nascent technology still 
under development, which may not provide a return on investment and 
could induce financial hardship.

    Question 4. Windstar buses traverse across many parts of this 
country, and specifically many rural regions. Does the charging 
infrastructure exist to make long range electric bus travel feasible 
for costs or travel schedules?
    Answer. Currently, Windstar is not operating any electric buses or 
BEVs, and the lack of infrastructure is just one of many reasons why we 
have not pursued investing in these vehicles. However, based on 
information shared by bus OEMs and other bus operators using electric 
vehicles, the infrastructure is not in place to support commercial BEV 
operations.
    Most existing charging infrastructure was designed and built to 
support personal vehicle operations. These facilities often cannot 
accommodate large vehicles, and the charging equipment--when it is 
working--is not high-capacity charging equipment to fast charge HD 
vehicles. Further, there are insufficient charging stations available 
to support long distance bus travel, and what is available rarely 
provides sufficient amenities to support bus passengers. At this time, 
there is very little incentive for private bus operators to pursue or 
invest in electric buses if their operations involve distance travel. 
Another concern is simply the space requirements within the vehicle for 
the battery package. The amount of space needed requires removal of the 
majority of space currently reserved for passenger luggage. Long 
distance travel requires a significant amount of space for customer 
luggage. With electric buses, the current luggage space is now filled 
with large batteries, leaving no space available to accommodate luggage 
for 56 passengers. Simply put, the technology is not there yet for 
over-the-road motorcoach companies to operate electric buses given the 
current battery capacity and size requirements, along with range 
limitations and the lack of charging infrastructure along the route. 
Together with the significant cost investment required for these 
vehicles, the industry is hard pressed to consider transitioning to 
BEVs at this time.
                               Attachment
      Study of Intercity Bus Service, Report of the Department of 
 Transportation to the United States Congress Pursuant to House Report 
                           108-671, July 2005
    The 40-page report is retained in committee files and is available 
online at https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/
Intercity%20Bus%20Service
%20Report%20%20Final.pdf

                                 [all]