[Senate Hearing 118-660]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-660
LONG-TERM ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND IMPACTS
FROM FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
BANKING,HOUSING,AND URBAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
EXAMINING THE LONG-TERM ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND IMPACTS
FROM FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
INVESTMENT
__________
JULY 31, 2024
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available at: https: //www.govinfo.gov /
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-421 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio, Chair
JACK REED, Rhode Island TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
JON TESTER, Montana MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
TINA SMITH, Minnesota J.D. VANCE, Ohio
RAPHAEL G. WARNOCK, Georgia KATIE BOYD BRITT, Alabama
JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
LAPHONZA R. BUTLER, California STEVE DAINES, Montana
Laura Swanson, Staff Director
Lila Nieves-Lee, Republican Staff Director
Elisha Tuku, Chief Counsel
Cameron Ricker, Chief Clerk
Shelvin Simmons, IT Director
Pat Lally, Assistant Clerk
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 2024
Page
Opening statement of Chair Brown................................. 1
Prepared statement....................................... 25
Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
Senator Scott................................................ 3
Prepared statement....................................... 26
WITNESSES
Christopher A. Coes, Acting Under Secretary of Transportation for
Policy, Department of Transportation........................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Responses to written questions of:
Senator Scott............................................ 36
Senator Warnock.......................................... 37
Senator Fetterman........................................ 38
Michael Knisley, Executive Secretary and Treasurer, Ohio State
Building and Construction Trades Council....................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Responses to written questions of:
Senator Warnock.......................................... 39
R. Richard Geddes, Founding Director, Cornell Program in
Infrastructure Policy.......................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Responses to written questions of:
Senator Scott............................................ 40
(iii)
LONG-TERM ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND IMPACTS
FROM FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION INVESTMENT
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 31, 2024
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met at 10 a.m., via Webex and in room 538,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Sherrod Brown, Chair of
the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIR SHERROD BROWN
Chair Brown. The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs is called to order.
Thank you all for joining us to our three witnesses, whom I
will introduce in a moment.
For too long, too many people in Ohio, too many people
across the Nation, thought--for good reason--that their leaders
had given up making our infrastructure, making our
manufacturing base the best in the world. Congress' inaction
and the empty promises of Presidents of both parties left
Americans to fend for themselves, as they swerved to avoid even
bigger potholes; as they bypassed dilapidated bridges; as they
dodged chunks of concrete falling from decaying overpasses; as
they waited longer and longer for buses that were getting older
and older.
Americans saw the consequences of years of congressional
inaction and Presidents' broken promises, and they watched as
other countries--our competitors and our adversaries alike--
added highspeed rail, built better roads, upgraded their water
and sewer, and installed 5G networks.
Our failing infrastructure was only compounded by misguided
tax and trade policies that shuttered factories in places like
Zanesville, places like my hometown of Mansfield, and places
like Kathy and Mike Knisley's hometown of Lima and Chillicothe,
and jobs shipped overseas.
At last week's hearing, I talked about how our economy and
national security interests are interconnected. Ensuring that
the United States leads the world in producing semiconductor
chips is critical to both our entire economy and our national
security.
Because of the work of many of the Senators on this
Committee, we passed the bipartisan infrastructure law and the
CHIPS and Science Act. But people don't really care that we
passed a bill. That's sort of inside baseball. They care about
results. Today, let's look at the results.
Sixty-thousand infrastructure projects--60,000--already
underway across the country because of the bipartisan
infrastructure law. These projects are improving 165,000 miles
of road. More than 9,400 bridges are getting repaired.
Every State is benefiting. The Mobile River Bridge in
Alabama is getting improvements. Rural and tribal communities
in Minnesota, Idaho, and other States are getting new buses and
vans. We are making bus and rail stations that were built
before the Americans with Disabilities Act finally accessible
in places like Philadelphia and Cleveland.
Six years ago, Rob Portman and I introduced the Bridge
Investment Act to replace or repair the hundreds of bridges in
Ohio and thousands around the country that in many cases had
not had serious repairs in literally decades.
And now, because of the years of work we did that
culminated in the bipartisan infrastructure law, we are
finally--finally--building a new Brent Spence companion bridge
over the Ohio River. We are replacing the 90-year-old Western
Hills Viaduct, crucial to Cincinnati.
Brent Spence, for example, a critical link in the supply
chain network, transports 160,000 cars and trucks and $2
billion in goods every single day. That's 3 percent--think of
that, 3 percent--of the country's entire GDP. And it's part of
the fabric of the city of Cincinnati, helping to create the
vibrancy of one of America's great cities.
But Ohioans know Brent Spence is as dated as it is
dangerously crowded. We've heard from Ohioans who are concerned
about concrete crumbling on the Western Hills Viaduct. We are
fixing that and we're seeing new construction across Ohio--and
it's not just huge projects like the Brent Spence and the Intel
fabs in Licking County.
We are seeing major upgrades to streets and bridges across
my State, including Ohio's rural counties and Appalachia. We
announced this month that the Market Street Bridge, which
connects Steubenville with West Virginia, that will finally be
replaced.
We are also making critical investments to modernize public
transit. Americans take 21 million trips--21 million trips--on
transit every day. And when the buses and trains and all the
infrastructure required to operate them are not up-to-date,
service is slower; service is less reliable.
Imagine driving--think about this--imagine driving the same
car every day for 40 years. That's what operators on
Cleveland's RTA and its 60 cars have been doing for years
running. The newest of these 60 cars is 40 years old.
In Cleveland, I met with workers whose job it is to
maintain railcars that date back to the Reagan administration.
At the railcar garage that I visited on the east side of
Cleveland, you actually see these workers over in the corner
machining replacement parts for cars that are so old, they
can't find replacement parts. They have to machine the
replacement parts to keep these trains running. It's the only
way to get the parts because they don't make them anymore. Now,
finally, because of the infrastructure law, Cleveland will get
60 new railcars.
We know the U.S. lacks a robust national passenger rail
network that other major economic powers have. We are changing
that. We're seeing construction of new facilities to improve
transit and rail service, like Akron Metro, its public transit
system, its new maintenance facility, and a new Amtrak station
in Bryan, Ohio, a small town in the northwest corner of the
State.
We know how crucial manufacturing and innovation are to our
economy. Modern infrastructure today is driven by information
technology. The microchips that power our machines and
computers are the products of American design and ingenuity,
but we have become dependent on other countries for their
production. Ninety percent of the chips we invented are now
made overseas.
Taiwan is dominant today. Alarmingly, China is trying to
become dominant tomorrow. We wrote the CHIPS and Science Act to
change that trajectory. It's allowing us to build a new
generation of chip production facilities in Ohio and around the
country.
These investments are growing our economy. They're creating
jobs and opportunity. In the past 3 years, we've added 670,000
construction jobs--670,000 construction jobs--added to the U.S.
economy. Think about that. This is only the start. Hiring is
expected to pick up even more in the coming years. More and
more projects will get underway.
That doesn't even take into account the jobs throughout the
manufacturing supply chain, because we made sure these laws--
again, first ever in the last few years--have the strongest Buy
America rules ever.
The steel, iron, pipes, and other construction materials
are being made in Ohio and across the U.S. by American
workers--not, as previously, imported from China. Pipefitters,
bricklayers, ironworkers, steelworkers, carpenters, machinists
are good, middle-class jobs with high wages and on-the-job
training opportunities, where you can develop a craft and build
a career.
One of the highlights of the last few years for me was I
saw Mike Knisley in Columbus. He's the Secretary and Treasurer
of the Ohio State Building and Construction Trades. He
represents the men and women who are doing the real work on
these projects.
I was at an event last summer with Mike in our State's
capital: graduation for a training program that places workers,
places workers directly into union apprenticeships in the
trades--creating opportunity for so many people who haven't had
that opportunity before. Every one of these graduates, mostly
men and women in their twenties, had on T-shirts that said in
big, black letters on the back, ``Direct Path to the Middle
Class''--opportunities that most of these young people didn't
dream of having.
It's the jobs; we're creating a direct path to the middle
class. It's how you build an economy that upholds the dignity
of work.
Senator Scott.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM SCOTT
Senator Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the witnesses for being with us today, and thank
you for the Committee Members who are here with us as well.
One of the challenges I see on this conversation that we're
having today is to realize that local problems need local
solutions. It's really hard for folks in Washington, D.C., to
understand the transit needs of folks in Charleston, South
Carolina; Summerville, South Carolina; Columbus, Ohio, or
Chicago, Illinois.
The most effective thing that we can do is make sure that
the resourcing goes without all the red tape and challenges
that come from Washington, D.C. Getting that done seems to be
too close to Peter walking on the water. Nearly a miraculous
occurrence manifestation has to happen for us to just do the
simple thing.
I've spent half my career in politics on the local level,
understanding infrastructure projects and what it takes to get
those things done. When I first became a Senator, the one thing
I did was I decided that, as a kid who grew up in a single-
parent household mired in poverty who understood the transit
needs of the poorest Americans trying to get to the job, I
wanted to make sure that I was sensitive to the current state
of Americans trying to get to work. So, I decided I'd go back
to the old bus routes and get on those bus routes and spend
time talking to people waiting on the bus to come.
I remember talking to a grandmother who worked at Walmart
who wanted to spend more time with her grandkids on the
weekends, but she would spend 80 to 90 minutes early in the
morning waiting on the bus, 7 hours at work, and 80 or 90
minutes to get back home. Three hours to work a 7-hour shift
for slightly more than minimum wage to provide the resources
necessary to help her grandkids have a better life and a better
opportunity to experience and enjoy the American dream.
Having the conversations with folks who were struggling to
make ends meet, and thinking about how challenging it is, as a
local official, to understand, and then, to decide the right
transit routes, so that the folks who need public
transportation have access to the right routes at the right
times to get to the right job--you just can't do that from
Washington.
The one thing Washington has done poorly is to put more
onerous burdens on local government and State government,
because somehow 535 people in Washington seem to know
everything about local needs. And yet, we seem to know nothing
about getting the job done.
As an example, my friends on the left are always looking
for a ``new green steal.'' They call it the ``New Green Deal,''
but in the end it steals opportunity, innovation, creativity,
and resources from the local folks to make good decisions about
what they need.
But it's not just transit; it's actually the infrastructure
needs that are delayed time and time again. I was thinking
about this recently. It takes about 7 years--seven years--for a
project to turn the shovel on a new highway program. I was
thinking about Highway 17 and this expansion in Mount Pleasant
in South Carolina a number of years ago. The frustration I
felt, as the Chairman of the County, waiting for all the red
tape to be cut, so that we could simply turn shovel on a
project that had been approved for years. And I sent some notes
to my friends back on County Council just to make sure that I
was right about the 7-year process.
It could take up to 2 years for the planning and the
programming just to meet Federal thresholds, so that projects
can start. And then, after you do that, it can take up to 3
years, whether it's NEPA or other environmental challenges.
Throw the ``green new steal'' on top of all of that and you
recognize that this onerous burden to start a road project
takes 7 years.
Now, here's the challenging part: when you get the price of
a highway project--let's say in those days it was several
hundred million dollars; $700 million, right?--it's not
anticipated that 7 years later somehow someway, miraculously,
that same road project is going to cost the same amount of
money 7 years later. That's what we call in South Carolina
ridiculous hogwash. It just doesn't work that way. But none of
that is anticipated in the actual price that people pay waiting
and waiting and waiting for the Federal Government just to do
their jobs and get out of the way.
But then, after you get through the environmental review
and compliance, and it's 3 years later, then you go to the
preliminary and final design--up to 2 more years on this
process.
And at the same time all this is happening, currently,
under the Biden administration--everybody wants to celebrate
the IIJA and the IRA, the most ridiculously named bill in maybe
American history, the Inflation Reduction Act that actually
increases inflation, and the CHIPS and Science Act--what
happens? Well, the cost of construction explodes to the highest
level ever. It costs more money to do the same thing than it
has ever cost three or 4 years later.
And so, when you take a 7-year delay on a road, and you
take all the impact studies that it takes--we're not smart
enough to do them all at the exact same time--we're going to
wait for the first 2 years before we start the Environmental
Impact Studies. If this was a business, we would just fire
everybody. That's what I would do. That's what I did when I was
in business.
If it takes you 7 years to get something started, I want a
new--I want somebody else in charge. Americans want someone
else in charge because the $2 billion problem that they have in
Maryland to rebuild a road that's going to the bridge, that's
going to take 4 years. It's ridiculous, unnecessary. All you
need is common sense and people ready to go to work.
And unfortunately, every time well-intentioned politicians
make the decision that we know better than the local community,
it costs jobs; it costs prices, because they explode. I've got
to tell you, 13 years at the local level is a really good
education on what not to do.
Let's not burden local government with the ``green new
steal,'' that $7.5 billion in green funding that results in
only eight EV charging stations; that takes all those dollars
away from being able to have real progress on real roads for
real people to get to their jobs.
Mr. Chairman, I'm glad we're having the hearing today, but
I've got to tell you, most Americans would say skip the
hearing, block grant the money, and let a brother go to work.
That's what they would say.
Chair Brown. Thank you, Senator Scott.
I will introduce the three witnesses. We're pleased to
welcome the Acting Under Secretary of Transportation for
Policy, Christopher Coes. Mr. Coes was previously confirmed by
the Senate as the Assistant Secretary for Transportation
Policy. He worked for many years advocating for safe and
reliable transportation that builds better communities. We look
forward, Mr. Secretary, to hearing your input.
Micheal Knisley served as the Executive Secretary and
Treasurer of the State Building Instruction Trades Council
since 2018. Prior to his current leadership role, Mr. Knisley
served as President of the Lima, Ohio, Building and
Construction Trades Council. He oversees the day-to-day
operations of the State Council and supports its 14 individual
local councils that comprise 137 trade unions and some 100,000
members.
I would like to welcome Mr. Knisley's family members
visiting from Ohio today: his wife Kathy from Lima, his sister-
in-law and brother-in-law, Jennifer and Brad, from Columbus,
and nephews Griffin and Grayson. It's great to have all of you
here. It's the first time you've come to a hearing, I think.
So, welcome.
And, Mike, I look forward to hearing about the new jobs
you're seeing and learning how we're bringing more workers.
And I would add that, interestingly, I'm almost certain I
will see Mike at the groundbreaking for the Brent Spence
Bridge. It was announced by Senator Portman and me, the
President of the United States, Senator McConnell, the
Governors of the two States. It was announced in early January,
right around the time Senator Portman left office, of 2023. The
groundbreaking to build this bridge will be in less than 2
years. So, thank you for that, and I assume I will see you at
that.
Dr. Richard Geddes is the Founding Director of the Cornell
Program in Infrastructure Policy and a nonresident senior
fellow with AEI. He previously served as Commissioner of the
National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study
Commission. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Secretary, would you begin?
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER A. COES, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY OF
TRANSPORTATION FOR POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Coes. Good morning.
Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify today and
for your leadership and partnership, as we work to deliver
projects to build a stronger, safer transportation system that
connects American people to jobs, to housing, and to one
another.
DOT has been working tirelessly executing the vision of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Because of this
generational investment, the Biden-Harris administration has
announced $461 billion of awards, funding over 60,000 specific
projects in all 50 States, the District of Columbia,
territories, and for tribes.
As I've travelled across the country, I can tell you these
headlines don't come close to telling the full story about
IIJA's significance. Nationally, 47 percent of the U.S.
population spends more than 15 percent of their annual income
on transportation. IIJA isn't just an investment in
infrastructure; it's an investment in our economy, in our
workforce, and in our Nation's household budgets.
IIJA is allowing us right now to invest over $91 billion
into restoring and upgrading our Nation's transit service--
creating thousands of new jobs and expanding affordable access
to even more. Bringing transportation, jobs, and housing closer
together improves access, while also supporting local and
regional economic development.
In April, FTA announced the award of nearly $18 million to
20 projects in 16 States in transit-oriented development funds
to support local economic development efforts to improve access
and increase affordable housing production near transit.
It's also critical that transit is available to everyone,
regardless of their ability. That's why the All Stations
Accessibility Program is so important, allowing us to upgrade
and modernize legacy transit stations built before the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Last month, we saw the groundbreaking for the first project
to reach construction under this program, an upgrade to six
transit stations in Philadelphia that will make them fully
accessible and provide greater access to everyday destinations.
We're also investing in projects to reconnect communities,
including through the Reconnect Communities and Neighborhoods
Program. For example, in Columbus, Ohio, we're funding the
development of a bus rapid transit corridor along the West
Broad Street, which currently divides disadvantaged communities
and is one of the most dangerous roadways in Ohio. Once
completed, we expect that the availability of this BRT system
will result in more affordable transit station options, fewer
pedestrian deaths, and greater private investment along that
corridor.
This project is just one example of how transit investments
are helping transform disadvantaged communities into thriving
ones. More broadly, we are exceeding our Justice40-covered
programs goal with 55 percent of our benefits going to
disadvantaged communities, particularly rural and tribal.
For example, at the border of Montana and Idaho, we're
funding the rehabilitation of a critical segment of Interstate
90 to enable it to better withstand increased harsh weather
events and make it safer and more reliable for travelers and
vulnerable populations nearby.
We're also replacing rural bridges in South Carolina that
are disrupting vital farm-to-market and commercial freight
routes with existing load restrictions due to their age and
condition.
In March, we experienced a painful reminder of the
criticality of our Nation's bridges to our daily lives and to
our economy when the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore
collapsed after being struck by a container ship. We all worked
rapidly with multiple partners to reopen the Federal channel
and the Port of Baltimore in less than 100 days, and we
continue to work with them to rebuild the Key Bridge.
But even before that incident, we've been working with
communities across the country to rehab and replace aging
critical bridges. And that is why, earlier this month, DOT
awarded over $5 billion to 13 large bridges, including $250
million for the I-95 bridge over Lake Marion in South Carolina;
$550 million for the I-10 Mobile River Project in Alabama; $251
million to repair a cluster of bridges on I-95 in Rhode Island.
These projects will join so many projects already underway.
For instance, we expect construction to begin soon on the Brent
Spence Bridge, which carries over $400 billion in freight each
year over the Ohio River.
We are excited to see some of the earliest IIJA investments
to break ground and begin construction and start to deliver
benefits. We are doing everything on our part to accelerate
projects, including standing up a new Project Delivery Center
of Excellence, streamlining our NOFOs, and providing technical
assistance to rural and tribal communities.
On behalf of Secretary Buttigieg and the entire Department,
we appreciate the partnership and the shared commitment on
delivering a world-class transportation system for the American
people.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
Chair Brown. Thank you.
Mr. Knisley, welcome.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL KNISLEY, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY AND
TREASURER, OHIO STATE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL
Mr. Knisley. Good morning, Chairman Brown, Ranking Member
Scott, and Members of the Committee.
Thank you for your leadership on building a resilient
economy for American workers and the communities through
Federal investment.
My name is Mike Knisley. I'm here to testify on the impact
that Federal investments are having on the 100,000 men and
women that I represent as Executive Secretary/Treasurer of the
Ohio State Building and Construction Trades Council.
In our nearly 60 years as a building trades council,
there's never been a brighter future for tradespeople who build
Ohio. Ohio owes this bright future to smart public-private
investment, led by strong bipartisan leadership in Congress.
And we're building big in Ohio. Over the next decade, we're
looking at over $200 billion in construction projects that will
create generational careers that provide prevailing wages with
health care and retirement benefits, as well as tuition-free,
paid apprenticeship training, for both present and future
tradespeople.
The bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act means
that thousands of tradespeople in southern Ohio and northern
Kentucky will build the Brent Spence Bridge. This bridge,
which, besides being long overdue, is a vital transportation
corridor for our region and will be built by a diverse
generation of construction workers, including tradeswomen like
Saria Gwin-Maye of Ironworkers Local 44.
The CHIPS and Science Act means that nearly 10,000
construction tradespeople will build Intel's new semiconductor
fabs in Columbus, Ohio. This project is creating family
sustaining construction jobs across the Central Ohio region,
but also in Ohio's Appalachian communities, where the residents
can see opportunity on the horizon again.
There's excitement in the air in places like IBW 1105's
Electrical Training Center, where a whole new generation of
tradespeople will begin their apprenticeships on the Intel
project, including having the potential to work their entire
career at that facility upgrading and maintaining the fabs.
Imagine that--lifelong family sustaining construction careers
within commuting distance of Ohio's counties. This type of
investment has the potential to deliver lasting recovery in
Ohio's struggling towns.
Statewide, the Ohio building trades have scaled-up their
workforce development to meet the demand driven by these
investments. Across Ohio, our 80 privately funded
apprenticeship centers are taking in their largest classes
ever.
The buildings trade model is the gold standard in workforce
development, where they train over 80 percent of all
construction apprentices in Ohio--and I must put on this--with
zero tax dollars.
The continued high-road investment in construction projects
generate the steady demand of apprentices needed for the next
generation of local tradespeople.
Underinvestment in our Nation's infrastructure over the
past 30 years has hurt economic growth in the communities where
our members live and work. But now, with the new infrastructure
investment in places like my hometown of Lima, Ohio, good-
paying construction jobs are on the rise--creating an
environment where young people do not have to leave the Buckeye
State to support their families.
The Ohio Building Trades believes that the rising tide of
economic opportunity must be within reach for all Ohioans,
including women, people of color, and veterans. Thanks to our
partners in industry and at every level of Government whose
commitment to responsible contracting and sustainable jobs
means that Ohio's rising economic tide reaches working families
in Ohio. Our commitment to our partners is this: we will get
the job done.
We ask that you match our commitment by ensuring that
federally funded construction jobs go to American tradespeople.
These jobs must provide benefits to working families in our
communities. And despite the heavy workforce demand in certain
regions across our State, there are still depressed areas that
have local tradespeople being displaced by companies that hire
workers without the proper documentation to work well below the
required prevailing wage and without any benefits.
Properly executed, each new project built through Federal
investment strengthens Ohio's construction workforce by growing
our communities through local wages and benefits for working
families. And you can take the building trades' commitment to
equal economic opportunity to the bank. Our journey people and
apprentices are protected by collective bargaining agreements.
CBAs are the great equalizing in wages, health care, and
retirement equity on every jobsite, and they guarantee that
each worker, regardless of race or gender, earns dollar-for-
dollar the same pay and benefits as everyone else.
When Ohio's building trades people are bringing home a
steady paycheck from major projects, their entire communities
feel the economic benefits of those earnings. And thanks to
Federal investment, these are the working Ohioans who someday
will drive past factories like Intel or across the Brent Spence
Bridge and say to their children and grandchildren, ``I built
that.''
Thank you for allowing me to voice the economic stability
and hope for the future of thousands of Ohio building
tradespeople and a new generation of Ohio construction
apprentices that we have, thanks to these Federal investments
in American workers.
And I'm going to end with my final comment. Good
infrastructure and investment policies that come out of
Washington create great outcomes in your local communities.
Thank you, Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Scott.
Chair Brown. Thank you, Mr. Knisley.
Almost every day I drive over Interstate 480 through
Cleveland. And, you know, bridges and buildings are often named
after politicians. Well, this bridge is called the Union
Workers Bridge, as it should be.
And as you know, building trades workers often--a few lose
their lives on these projects, these dangerous projects that
matter so much for our country.
Dr. Geddes, thank you. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF R. RICHARD GEDDES, FOUNDING DIRECTOR, CORNELL
PROGRAM IN INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY
Mr. Geddes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and Ranking
Member Scott, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify.
In addition to your kind introduction, I'm Rick Geddes,
Academic Director and Founder of the Cornell Program in
Infrastructure Policy, also a professor in the relatively new
Jeb Brooks School of Public Policy at Cornell, as well as a
professor economics at Cornell.
So, I'll proceed with that. Thank you.
Approximately 2 years ago, to take a step back, Congress
passed the bipartisan infrastructure law, the CHIPS and Science
Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act within the span of about 9
months. Together, those Acts constitute the largest Federal
action on infrastructure since the National Interstate and
Defense Highways Act of 1956, which created our interstate
highway system.
Those legislative acts are important in strengthening our
country's infrastructure and addressing endemic problems, such
as a large backlog of deferred maintenance, as well as creating
a lot of new important projects.
The actual impact of the acts on U.S. infrastructure to
date, however, has been a bit less than expected for several
reasons.
First, inflation has been persistent since the acts were
passed, particularly in the materials and labor needed to
deliver much infrastructure, as I detail in my written
testimony.
Second, to Senator Scott's point, environmental permitting
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, or NEPA,
remains cumbersome. As I and coauthors report in a 2023
article, a typical Environmental Impact Statement, or EIS,
under NEPA now takes about 4\1/2\ years to complete and is over
600 pages long. Some EISs take more than a decade to complete.
In an economic sector where time really is money, long
schedules can significantly increase project costs. Permitting
reforms in place in several other countries can be instructive
as excellent models for the U.S. to implement, as I detail in
my testimony.
Third, provisions of the Build America, Buy America Act, or
BABA, are inhibiting project delivery. We understand the
motivation behind it, but they contribute to confusion amongst
contractors and project developers. With the tighter BABA
requirements, even minor products must be produced by U.S.
companies to qualify for available Federal incentives. Those
items, however, are often not available or are more expensive
than the imported versions--adding to costs and time delays.
Ensuring crystal-clear guidance regarding waivers under BABA is
a key step, or could be a key step, in facilitating more
efficient project delivery.
There are, however, solid reasons for optimism in the
infrastructure outlook. I believe we now have an opportunity
for the private sector to take a larger role in financing U.S.
infrastructure beyond that currently provide by the Federal
Government.
The BIL Act took steps to encourage greater private
participation by increasing the national limit on Private
Activity Bonds, or PABs, for qualified projects from a $15
billion cap to a $30 billion cap. So, the spirit of the law was
there.
But more can be done. These arrangements that encourage
public and private cooperation can bring American
infrastructure delivery up to global standards through better
cooperation. The core of such cooperation is a long-term
contract between the public and private sectors, broadly known
as a public-private partnership, or PPP. Those contracts are
helpful, particularly for addressing deferred maintenance, in
that they, typically, bundle or wrap the design and
construction of a major infrastructure facility together with
the operation and maintenance, or O&M, over the long term, such
as 25 or 30 years. And that can include provisions to ensure
proper maintenance.
A properly structured PPP contract puts more of the risk of
the time and cost overruns on the private partner rather than
on the taxpayer. Such contracts can also include future-
proofing. Future-proofing refers to the risk of not adopting
available innovative technologies well into the future. A
future-proofed contract places that risk on the private
partner; thus, ensuring that private capital, incentives, and
expertise are deployed to make U.S. infrastructure as resilient
as possible for decades to come.
I believe Congress can take further steps to facilitate
greater PPP use in the United States, which is behind every
other developed country I know, by the way, in PPPs.
One is to encourage States and regions to utilize PPP
units, which are quasi-Government entities that assist the
public sector in undertaking PPPs. Such units are well-
established around the world, including Australia, Canada,
China, Egypt, India, Israel, Japan, and the United Kingdom,
among many other countries.
I believe that, with several key policy changes that I've
described here, infrastructure projects can deliver long-term
benefits and returns for all parties.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify and I
look forward to your questions.
Chair Brown. Thank you, Dr. Geddes.
Mr. Knisley, I'll start with you.
For decades, we've corporations follow the business model
that pursued growth by closing factories, shipping jobs south,
and then, overseas--always in search of cheaper wages. It's
devastated the hometowns of each of us, of Lima and Mansfield.
We've passed a bipartisan infrastructure law, in part, to
create the types of jobs that corporations can't outsource. The
number of construction workers in Ohio is at a 24-year high and
growing every week.
You note that, when people bring home a steady paycheck,
the entire community feels the benefit. I love what you say
about generational careers. Talk about how these projects
create the kind of construction jobs that lead to these
generational careers.
Mr. Knisley. So, let's, if we could, talk about the CHIPS
Act. Can we talk about that, Senator?
Chair Brown. Sure. Of course.
Mr. Knisley. So, the Intel factory, I worked intimately
with the company as soon as the announcement was made in
Newark, Ohio, in late January of 2022. And my job here in Ohio
is to keep our 100,000 members to work every day through
policies, and some politics with this, but also by working with
the owners on this.
And so, in the span of 3 months, myself and a small
delegation went to Phoenix, Arizona, to the Ocotillo campus for
Intel; to Portland, Oregon, the Hillsboro campus, and also, to
Albuquerque at the Rio Rancho campus. And we did tour the
factory and we saw the scale of what this does for not only
construction workers, but what it does for the American public,
reducing inflation, and for our defense, making sure that these
chips are done here in the United States.
But one thing that I found interesting by talking to the
local workers there--and some of them had worked their entire
careers; that was in my statement earlier--because of the
commitment from companies like Intel that are not only
innovative, but they're also changing their technology to stay
competitive in that ultra-competitive market. It made a
generational career for the pipefitter or the electrician or
the sheet metal worker that was in that local community, and
some of them actually had three generations on that project,
due to this generational change that we're going to see the
same thing in Columbus, Ohio.
And so, because of the CHIPS Act, that has now created that
same dynamic in Columbus. We're building the project right now.
But we know that, right after, they call it, phase 1, which is
two fabs, the CHIPS and Science Act actually created the
opportunity for three more phases, or another $80 billion in
investment in the Central Ohio region. We know that that will
now create that same model that we saw in the three other
regions across the United States.
Chair Brown. Thank you.
And we have talked a number of times, Mr. Knisley, about
the Federal Government helping to support workers, especially
young people considering entering the trades. So, I may ask you
another question on the record later about that in writing,
just because of time.
Mr. Coes, before we passed the bipartisan infrastructure
law, big projects moved slowly or didn't move at all. We had
seemingly forgotten how to build things in this country. You
know, that's why Senator Portman and I bipartisanly worked on
this so much in Ohio, because we knew that it would actually
result in speeding things up and making things happen.
I want to talk to you about, briefly, Cleveland. The city's
next transformational project is connecting downtown Cleveland
to Lake Erie. Because of a large freeway and railroad tracks,
and we know what interstate construction did dividing
communities--often communities of color--because of that large
freeway, because of the railroad tracks, generations of
Clevelanders have grown up near the lake, but unable to access
the lake. This project will help change that.
If DOT's current Competitive Grant Programs don't continue,
what happens to the transformational projects, like in one of
America's great cities, like Cleveland, that our cities,
counties, and States are developing?
Mr. Coes. The short answer is those projects sit on the
shelf. These grants provide not only capacity to local
governments to partner with private sector--I know that
particular project is working with Bedrock and so many other
private sector interests--to think about how to do transformer
projects.
In addition to that, that means less people able to get
jobs through these programs. We have seen already through the
bipartisan infrastructure law how discretionary grants are
taking these mega-complex projects, like the Brent Spence
Bridge, from actually vision to actually execution.
We are really excited that we're about to break ground on
the Brent Spence fairly soon. But more importantly, it
demonstrates that, within the Department of Transportation, we
have the capacity to take local ideas, even for big projects,
and actually get them approved through our NEPA process in a
timely fashion; at the same time, getting dollars to the ground
to give more workers on those projects.
Chair Brown. Thank you.
Connie and I live maybe five or six miles from Lake Erie.
Those not exposed, who aren't lucky enough to live nearby the
greatest body of freshwater in the world--which the Great Lakes
is--might not see how important access to that lake is. And for
far too many families, there are train tracks; there are
highways that keep them from having access to that lake--for
recreation, for all kinds of opportunities. So, your continuing
that is really important.
I just want to make one statement in response to Dr.
Geddes, and sorry, this won't be a question. But I just wanted
to thank you again for your testimony. How important it is to
strengthen and update our infrastructure.
Your testimony pointed out concerns about expanded Buy
America requirements. They must be clear, I agree with you
about that. But Buy America policy represents a simple choice
in the iron, steel, and materials used in Federal
infrastructure projects. In Ohio and South Carolina: made there
or made in China. And I think it's pretty clear what the
Americans want. If we're spending taxpayer dollars on
infrastructure, I think the steel and pipe we use needs to be
made in the United States.
So, thank you, all three of you.
Senator Scott.
Senator Scott. Thank you.
You know, I was talking in my opening statement, opening
comments, about the fact that the impact of inflation has
driven the cost of construction to the highest levels we've
seen in the shortest period of time.
I think about the Inflation Reduction Act that some
continue to celebrate as somehow mitigating the impact in our
country on inflation. It's still to me a bit backwards.
One program within that IRA is the Greenhouse Gas Fund that
has to get $27 billion out the door by September the 30th. And
the way I look at it--Dr. Geddes is an economist--you know, if
you rush $30 billion, $27 billion, out of the door in an
already hot, over-artificially stimulated economy, the chances
of it having a negative impact within the construction industry
I think is pretty high personally.
I think the fact of the matter is that the COVID relief
package, the first bill passed by the Democrats, $1.9 trillion;
the Inflation Reduction Act; the IIJA; the CHIPS Act, those
resources flooding into the economy--some of it, not all of it,
immediately--only helped impact the inflation that the average
American has been feeling.
So, from the macroeconomy perspective, the loss of spending
power of the average American is around $28,000 cumulative over
the last 3 to 3\1/2\ years. Can you please speak, Dr. Geddes,
to the inflationary impacts regarding infrastructure,
specifically, and this development because of the inflationary
environment that we find ourselves in today?
Mr. Geddes. Yes, thank you, Senator. I think it's two ways
of approaching that.
One would be from the macroeconomic theory that you
mentioned. And you're stimulating demand in a highly supply
constrained environment. And the theory implies that this is
going to be inflationary.
On the sort of empirical or statistical side, it's
difficult to tease out the effects of a particular program on
the overall inflation rate.
Senator Scott. Yes.
Mr. Geddes. But I think it's worth noting--maybe
emphasizing a part of my testimony--to your original statement
about how inflation in this sector, in the heavy civil
construction sector, is higher.
There's a block quote, in my written testimony, that I have
from The Economist in November 2023 that says, ``The problem is
that inflation has been rampant in the construction sector,
making delays that much more pernicious. The single biggest
component of the infrastructure package was a 50 percent
increase in funding for highways to $350 billion over 5 years.
But highway construction costs soared by more than 50 percent
from the end of 2020 to the start of 2023--in effect, wiping
out that extra funding.''
So, the purchasing power effects are being diminished or
wiped out by the added spending--or added inflation.
Senator Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Geddes. I added some more up-to-date numbers----
Senator Scott. Yes?
Mr. Geddes. ----on concrete costs, and so forth. And it's
still higher than the Consumer Price Index.
Senator Scott. I want to ask you a question about NEPA. But
before I go there, I want to, once again, highlight programs
that the Government continues to provide resources for, but
they never actually spend the resources that they provide.
As an example, back in 2021, Congress approved $42 billion
to help connect more Americans to the internet, basically. I'm
looking at a tweet that I saw and found. At this point, it had
been 987 days since the plan was enacted and zero Americans had
been connected; zero shovels worth of dirt had been turned,
even though there had been $42 billion set aside for programs
to help connect Americans. The challenge, of course, the
Government rewards itself based on its intentions, not based on
the actions that follow those intentions.
You mentioned the cumbersome process that NEPA creates for
getting shovel-ready projects started.
Mr. Geddes. Uh-hum.
Senator Scott. Would you expound for the rest of my time
that I have?
Mr. Geddes. Sure. So, NEPA had, again, very good
intentions, I believe, when it was passed in 1970. It's grown
over time. It's sort of, you know, a whole lot of things going
on.
Senator Scott. A web of confusion.
Mr. Geddes. NEPA, it's grown administratively, and it's now
become an extremely serious barrier to rapid project delivery.
We're seeing that kind of delay in green projects where
there's environmental groups that would like those projects to
get out quickly, but then, they sort of run head-long into this
cumbersome NEPA process.
And I think it's time for reform. I should probably
highlight this study that I have here that came out in the past
few weeks by one of my heroes, Bob Poole at the Reason
Foundation, who surveyed other countries and how they do their
NEPA processes.
Just to highlight, I could go--we don't have time--but I
could go on across countries. Australia has sort of a one-stop
shop for its environmental review and permitting process called
the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and
Water. And they have strict time limits on how quickly their
reviews of environmental permitting processes have to go. Like
20 days for the first stage; 30 for the second. So, it is
really a time-constrained process that still respects the
desire to preserve the environment----
Senator Scott. Yes.
Mr. Geddes. ----as Australians do, but it doesn't have to
be as long as it is in the United States.
And as we know, Senator, time really is money in
infrastructure.
Senator Scott. Absolutely.
Mr. Geddes. If you delay a project, it always goes up in
cost.
Senator Scott. Thank you.
The last point--and I'm running out of time here--I would
love for us, I'll submit it for the record, questions about the
public-private partnerships that actually reduce costs, extends
long-term maintenance, and puts part of the onus on the private
sector.
Thank you.
Mr. Geddes. Thank you.
Chair Brown. Thank you, Senator Scott.
Senator Reed of Rhode Island is recognized.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony.
And Under Secretary Coes, we are seeing a lot of activity
in Rhode Island. In fact, we recently had a call from Secretary
Buttigieg informing us we received $251 million for a large
bridge grant, which will address 15 high-need bridges along
Route 95.
And we're also seeing people working, and working at very,
very good wages. So, this is, I think, a good program for
middle-class American workers and, also, for overdue
infrastructure. And our infrastructure needs were way overdue.
Could you tell us how, generally, how this project is
improving infrastructure all throughout the country?
Mr. Coes. Thank you, Senator.
You're absolutely right. We just this past month announced
one of our big bridge improvement programs that is actually
addressing some of the critical needs that we're seeing in
bridges across the country that are in a state of good repair.
We believe these investments would not have happened
without the bipartisan infrastructure law. And these
investments are not only allowing us to hire workers from
neighborhoods, but also allowing us to ensure freight
resiliency and, also, allowing everyday Americans to ensure
that they can get home safely.
We also are seeing that the private sector is also looking
at other projects, working in tandem with local governments.
For example, we are very close to doing a major groundbreaking
with the Brightline West high-speed rail, which, again, would
not have happened without the bipartisan infrastructure law.
So, those are just two examples of how working in tandem,
these investments are really being transformative in
communities.
Senator Reed. And all of this work makes transportation
more efficient, I presume. And second, it also is matched many
times by private development, either directly in the project or
very near the project, since the highways are opened up and
it's more flexibility and more opportunity. Is that accurate?
Mr. Coes. That is absolutely true, as noted. In addition to
the bipartisan infrastructure law, we're seeing major
investments through the CHIPS program, where we're seeing major
private sector investments for new chip manufacturing, as well
as EV manufacturing, locating near these new, improved
infrastructure assets.
Senator Reed. And, Mr. Knisley, how is this helping workers
in the industry?
Mr. Knisley. Senator Reed, workers are benefiting from all
the legislation over the past couple of years that has come out
of Washington. When you look at infrastructure, that's a little
bit longer-term maybe than what you would see with an EV plant
or even the chips side.
But what you're creating in a time where demographics are
working against all of us, and including the construction
industry, it's created generational change for generational
careers for young people. And I don't think they've seen that
type of optimism come out for quite some time.
I can't overstate the fact--and it was in my final
comments--that good policies come out D.C. and create great
outcomes in every local community. It just does, whether you're
putting, from the transportation side, new blacktop coming
down, or for a long-term, 30-plus generational career at a
chips manufacturing plant.
We anticipate our growth in the State of Ohio, even
factoring in attrition with the retirements and deaths, to move
from 100,000 men and women that put a hard hat on and work in
union construction every day in Ohio to somewhere between
115,000 and 125,000 over the next generation for this.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
And, Secretary Coes, I could not leave here without
mentioning the Washington Bridge, which I'm sure you've heard
of, a section of 195 that goes between Providence and East
Providence, essentially, the metropolitan area of Providence.
The eastward-bound bridge had to be closed before it would
collapse, and we are seeking support for efforts to repair it.
But it brings up the question of the Mega Grant Program
and, also, the Large Bridge Grant Program. And they have been
helping States really in a significant way. We hope it will
help Rhode Island eventually.
But can you comment on the role these programs have played?
Mr. Coes. Senator, first, I want to acknowledge, yes, we
are aware of the application and will definitely give it due
consideration. And again, we'll continue to provide technical
assistance to the project sponsor as we go through this
process.
But you're absolutely right to call out that the Mega
Program, specifically, as well as a number of our major
discretionary grants, allows us to move major complex projects
faster. If we did not have these resources, many of these
projects would take more time, which means they would cost more
money. But, more important, the benefits, whether it's reducing
air pollution; greater accessibility; again, safety, whether
it's from the freight corridors, but also to passengers, would
not happen. That's why these investments are so critical today.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Brown. Thanks, Senator Reed.
Senator Van Hollen of Maryland is recognized.
Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank all of you for your testimony here today.
Secretary Coes, I want to start with some thank you's to
President Biden, Secretary Buttigieg, and yourself on the
really great, fast Federal response to the collapse of the Key
Bridge, a huge tragedy, of course, for Baltimore City, our
State, and had national implications. We're grateful for the
fact that we were quickly enrolled in the Emergency Relief
Program, the $60 million for traffic mitigation, and, of
course, other Federal agencies that helped clear the channel
and open the port.
But, obviously, now we want to move forward with the
reconstruction and are really pleased to see the President's
disaster supplemental that includes $3.2 billion for the
Emergency Relief Program, and we look forward to working with
you on that to try to make sure we get it through the Congress
just as quickly as possible.
I will say that, if that had also been a transit route over
the bridge, it, obviously, would have been even a bigger
catastrophe in terms of transportation. So, I do think we need
to be looking in Congress at an Emergency Relief Program that
applies not just to bridges and other transportation, sort of
roads, but also to transit.
And another thing I just wanted to flag is I've been
working on the Moving Transit Forward Act with Senator
Fetterman, which would address some of the operational sides of
the expenses and costs for States.
I know your budget, as you proposed it, allows metro
systems around the country to use their funds for either
operations or capital, and I think that's a good direction to
go and we want to build on that.
Thank you, also, for attending a gathering earlier last
year, I think----
Mr. Coes. Uh-hum.
Senator Van Hollen. ----with Governor Moore, Senator
Cardin, and myself, and Congressman Mfume on the Red Line.
And obviously, the bipartisan infrastructure law has been
mentioned a couple of times this morning, but I just want to
remind you--and I know you're aware of it--that that bill has a
provision in it, and I am quoting from that bill, ``The
Secretary shall provide full and fair consideration to projects
that seek an updated rating after a period of inactivity
following an earlier rating and evaluation.'' End quote from
the statute.
So, would you agree that the previous work done by MDOT and
FTA in support of the Baltimore Red Line Project should not be
wasted, and that once submitted to FTA, the Red Line Project
should be able to receive a rating more quickly, given all the
previous work that had been done?
Mr. Coes. Senator, I will just say, as I said previously
when we were together in Baltimore, you have my commitment to
working with the State and Baltimore to get this project across
the finish line. And, yes, we do agree that the information and
effort that had been previously done should be part of the
process. And that's why I'm pleased to say that, even as of
today, FTA is working closely with the State and the transit
agency to do that, just that. So, we hope that in the near term
we'll have something more positive to say.
Senator Van Hollen. No, I appreciate that. Just for my
colleague's benefit, our previous Governor pulled the plug on
the Baltimore City Red Line after it had already gone through
all the reviews and approval. Essentially, Maryland sent close
to a billion dollars to the rest of the country. But, as part
of the infrastructure bill, we included this language, and
under the current Governor, Governor Moore, and the city, we're
all moving together to get the Red Line on track, literally.
I would just like to also ask you, Secretary Coes, about
some of the transportation safety issues. We had included in
the infrastructure modernization bill provisions from the bill
that I had introduced that deal with transit safety,
establishing the safety committees to identify safety risks.
And I understand that the Department and the FTA are close to
finalizing a general directive to transit agencies to address,
specifically, assaults on transit workers. That's a piece of
this overall safety plan.
Action on these issues cannot come fast enough. Last year
when we had this hearing, I actually had a witness from the
Baltimore Transit Union and that morning he had been in the
hospital with a transit work who had been assaulted, stabbed.
So, what is the timeline for finalizing the general
directive and additional rulemakings to protect workers and
riders from assault?
Mr. Coes. Senator, as you know, immediately after the
enactment of bipartisan infrastructure law, the FTA sent out an
immediate ``Dear Colleague'' letter to every transit agency
letting them know that they needed to stand up their own safety
committees.
Since then, I can tell you 100 percent of the transit
agencies are in compliance. In addition, as you mentioned, we
have put out a draft, a general directive. We have now received
those comments. We are hoping in the next couple of months that
we will be able finalize those comments, and then, go out
publicly with the final directive.
Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that. Thank you. And I may
have some followup questions for the record.
Mr. Coes. Absolutely.
Senator Van Hollen. But thank you. Thank you all.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chair Brown. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen.
Senator Smith of Minnesota.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And welcome to all of you. Thanks so much for joining us
today.
So, I want to focus my questions to you, Mr. Coes. And I'm
going to focus for a minute on rural transit.
So, I chair the Transit Subcommittee and I also represent a
State with large communities, many communities of rural places
and small towns. And I know that, mostly, when we talk about
transit, as my good friend from Maryland has--you know, when we
think about what goes on in big cities, we think about big
buses and trains. But, of course, we know there's an incredibly
important network of rural transit agencies across the country,
including in Minnesota.
And we also know that the bipartisan infrastructure law
puts significant new resources into rural transit and increased
funding for programs like bus grants and low and no grants that
really benefit rural agencies as well.
Minnesota has received two of these grants from the FTA for
rural transit. One for SMART, which is based in Austin,
Minnesota, to build two new transit facilities, and one for
UCAP and Friendly Rider Transit to buy propane buses, and then,
install the fueling infrastructure that they need.
So, I think that one of the best things about the
bipartisan Infrastructure and Jobs Act is that it is lifting up
all of these communities, including rural communities, that
often have many people who rely on transit to get around.
So, could you just give us sort at a high level what your
view is of how the Biden infrastructure law has really
supported rural transit around the country?
Mr. Coes. Senator, thank you for that question and, also,
your leadership on this topic.
As someone who grew up in rural southwest Georgia with a
mother who was disabled, I know firsthand the importance of
rural transit. Being able to get an elderly grandmother to a
doctor's appointment, or just being able to take a father to a
veterans' hospital without having a car, rural transit was a
lifeline.
So, I can tell you, because of the bipartisan
infrastructure law, we've now seen historic resources going
directly to rural transit through formula dollars, but also
through our discretionary dollars. We have now over $11 billion
of the bipartisan infrastructure law, which represents close to
$35 billion of resources, going directly to meet the unique
needs of rural communities. That would not have happened
without the bipartisan infrastructure law.
Senator Smith. Thank you.
I think it just illustrates how this law has helped so many
rural communities in so many ways. And I also know that rural
transit authorities tend to be small; they're scrappy; they're
very innovative, and they don't have a big grants department--
--
Mr. Coes. That's correct.
Senator Smith. ----that they can rely on to go and chase
these Federal dollars.
So, I know that you all have put a lot of time and energy
into figuring out how to help rural transit authorities
navigate through these different Federal grant opportunities
and reporting requirements that also follow. Could you just
tell us a little bit about that work? Because I think it's
important for people to understand.
Mr. Coes. Absolutely. We have stood up within the
Department a number of rural-specific programs to provide
direct technical assistance. We have a $20 million technical
assistance program directly for rural and tribal communities to
not only understand how to navigate the Federal process, but
also how to deliver a project. Because sometimes that rural
mayor or that transit department may be also the planner.
Senator Smith. Right.
Mr. Coes. They also might be doing five other jobs. And so,
the Federal Government can't just be on the sidelines; we want
to be a partner.
In addition to that, we also know that we want to support
rural communities as we prepare for the 21st century. We have a
stood up a new rural EV toolkit that provides rural communities
the step-by-step process to make sure that they're not left
behind with the electrical vehicle revolution.
But, also, we're seeing amazing innovation where rural
communities, working with State DOTs, are partnering with
private companies. For example, we awarded $9 million to the
North Carolina DOT to partner with nine rural counties and Via
to provide on-demand services for those residents. That's just
an example of how we can meet the needs, but also prepare rural
communities. And that's what the bipartisan infrastructure law
allows us to do.
Senator Smith. I really appreciate that. I also appreciate
you highlighting the innovation that we see happening in these
rural transit agencies that have to be creative----
Mr. Coes. Uh-hum.
Senator Smith. ----because the models that might work in a
larger city are just not going to work there.
Mr. Coes. Exactly.
Senator Smith. And so, they are doing some pretty
incredible work to make sure that people can get around and can
be connected.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Chair Brown. Thanks, Senator Smith. I thank you for your
comments about transit.
Senator Cramer is coming back. So, I'm going to go a bit of
a second round until he does.
And, Under Secretary Coes, I appreciate what you have said
about transit-oriented development. One of the wonderful things
about getting to chair this Committee, when I took it over,
it's always been called Housing and Urban Development--I'm
sorry--Banking, Housing, and Urban Development. It was really
the Committee that took care of Wall Street until I became
chair. And we have emphasized sometimes--and Senator Smith does
that--sometimes calls it Housing and Banking.
But one of the focuses of this Committee is public transit,
and there isn't nearly enough interest in this town in public
transit. It gets a whole lot of people, particularly moderate-
income people, to work.
I remember a story. I was in Cincinnati one day and their
public transit system was called SORTA. And I talked to the
leader of the transit system who was struggling with keeping
some additional routes that are there during the week, but
routes that they don't have enough ridership for the weekend.
And there was a young woman who worked at a moderate $10 or
$12, $13-an-hour job, and the transit system--she had to work;
she had to work on Saturday--the transit system didn't run on
Saturday. So, she had to Uber to work on Saturday. She talked
to her boss, and her boss said, ``You've got to come in on the
weekend. That's the way it is if you want to keep this job.''
And she had to Uber to work on Saturday, which ate up most of
her income. So, one of the things we were able to do is expand
the service, the SORTA service.
So, Senator Cramer just entered. I'll turn to him in a
second.
But I like what you said about the opportunity for new
housing construction near transit developments. That's really
important in all the big cities and the moderate-size cities in
my State. And what DOT can do to support such transit-oriented
development and transit-oriented development can bring
opportunities to those communities, again, especially those
communities that in the '60s, '70s, and '80s were, essentially,
almost demolished for interstate highways.
And I look to any of the major cities in my State,
particularly Columbus, where the number of people living in a
neighborhood on the east side of Columbus, mostly African
American, shrunk by about two-thirds because the highway went
through, disrupting, cutting, demolishing businesses,
demolishing people's homes. They had to move elsewhere. The
community's vitality was, essentially, sapped and wasn't able
to rebuild. So, always thinking about those issues.
So, thank you for that.
Senator Cramer from North Dakota is recognized.
Senator Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to the witnesses for being here.
Mr. Coes, I'm going to initiate a conversation with you
that will play off a little bit, I think, on your conversation
with Senator Van Hollen relating to formula fixes. I'm looking
for some potential fixes.
To a challenge I just learned about recently, I was at a
groundbreaking ceremony for an expansion of the Hector
International Airport in Fargo. And Fargo, of course, is our
most populous city in North Dakota. And the mayor, Mayor Tim
Mahoney, came up to me, and that's one of the great things
about a small place, the mayor talks right to you. He's better
than any lobbyist, just so you know, and I love my lobbyist
friends.
But he brought this to my attention, that Fargo had gone--
you know, they had one more baby or something and went from
199,999 people to 200,000. So, you already know where I'm
going. And he noticed this reduction in the formula funding, or
at least in the amount that Fargo got.
Now, it gets a little more nuanced than that, and I'm sure
you're familiar with that. Because they went from an MPO to a
TMA in the transit funding. And by the way, just so you know--
and I think this gets back to your previous discussion with
Senator Van Hollen--the formula changes, of course, but not
just the formula; you know, the flexibility for the community
to use the money the way they were using it, which, in this
case of Fargo, was for operational expenses.
And not understanding all of the fungibility of cash and
all the ways you maybe could do this, he was just asking for
help. And so, as we dug into it a little more, we learned that
there are, in fact, rules/laws that govern how you can
distribute these funds, the transit funds, based on the size of
a community.
My concern is that there's a little bit of a perverse
incentive in that formula that actually discourages growth. And
we don't want that, I don't think, on the one hand. On the
other hand, maybe there's a rational reason for it.
My ask of you is just I describe this situation. I tell you
this story, and then, maybe just see if you have some thoughts
about it; ideas on how we could, either legislatively or
through a budget process or, you know, whatever discretion the
agency would have to sort of not punish communities like Fargo,
and see if there's a better way to do this.
Mr. Coes. Oh, Senator Cramer, thank you for bringing that
issue here--not only to my attention, but I know this is one
that is shared within our building.
Senator Cramer. Sure.
Mr. Coes. Communities need to be able to meet their needs.
And we believe that, whether it's through the formula program
or even from our discretionary grants, we should be able to
give them as much flexibility to achieve those goals.
We do believe, and as I was discussing with Senator Van
Hollen, that transit agencies, particularly coming out of
COVID, are recognizing that travel patterns are different.
Senator Cramer. Sure.
Mr. Coes. We're seeing that now developers want to build
near transit and create more walkable communities. We need to
give transit agencies their ability to leverage not only the
pent-up demand that they're seeing in the private market, but
also the unique needs of their residents, as we deal with these
travel demands.
So, we would love to work with you, as we said with Senator
Van Hollen, to look at how we can make sure the formula
programs, particularly on the transit side, particularly these
larger systems, have the flexibility they need to meet the
changing environment, which, again, comes back to people want
to live in great quality neighborhoods.
Senator Cramer. Sure. And I love that you refer to them as
larger communities because we kind of consider Fargo to be
larger than the small ones----
Mr. Coes. Right.
Senator Cramer. ----but smaller than the large ones.
Mr. Coes. That's what they say about Thomasville, my
hometown.
Senator Cramer. Right.
Mr. Coes. We're still a small town.
Senator Cramer. Yes. That's the flexibility which I really
appreciate. And quite honestly, and I know we've been talking--
obviously, we're talking about the bipartisan infrastructure
law, which I not only supported and voted for, but championed.
And the formula issues of all the distribution of funds is
really important to small States, right? We can't sort of
reserve 100 miles for gravel in the middle of an Interstate
Highway System.
But, similarly, for our communities, where you have
populations that certainly depend on good transit systems, we
just want it to be, to your point, be successful and we want
the communities to be successful.
So, to the degree there's legislative fixes that are
necessary, maybe Chris and I could work together with you on
some of that, right?
Mr. Coes. Yes.
Senator Cramer. And then, where there's flexibility within
the agency, we would sure encourage that as well.
Mr. Coes. Absolutely.
Senator Cramer. And, Mr. Chairman, that's all I have. Thank
you. Thank you.
Chair Brown. Senator Cramer, thank you for the thoughtful
questions and the followup. And it was worth stalling a little
to wait for you to get back here.
[Laughter.]
So, thank you for making us all think about these important
issues.
Thanks to the three witnesses today. It shows we're making
progress in long overdue investments in infrastructure and the
men and women of the construction workforce leading the way.
And I love thinking about that bridge I mentioned. We have
much more to do in the years ahead. I'll keep working with U.S.
DOT--thank you for that--and others at your department, on Ohio
priorities like replacing more bridges, building big projects
like the North Coast Connector in Cleveland. I'm going to keep
reminding you of that.
We'll continue working with the building trades to ensure
that our transportation infrastructure and manufacturing
sector, as you pointed out, Mr. Knisley, are making the
Nation's economy stronger, more competitive, and delivers more
of the generational jobs that you talked about.
Thanks for the witnesses for testimony today.
For Senators who wish to submit questions for the hearing
record, those questions are due 1 week from today, Wednesday,
August 7th, and witnesses have 45 days from that day to follow
up with answers. So, best wishes. Thank you all.
The Committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Prepared statements and responses to written questions
supplied for the record follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIR SHERROD BROWN
For too long, too many people in Ohio and across the Nation
thought, for good reason, that their leaders had given up making our
infrastructure and manufacturing base the best in the world.
Congress' inaction and the empty promises of Presidents of both
parties left Americans to fend for themselves as they swerved to avoid
ever bigger potholes, and as they bypassed dilapidated bridges, and as
they dodged chunks of concrete falling from decaying overpasses, and as
they waited longer and longer for buses that were getting older and
older.
Americans saw the consequences of years of inaction.
And they watched as other countries--our competitors and our
adversaries alike--added high speed rail, built better roads, upgraded
their water and sewer, installed 5G networks.
Our failing infrastructure was only compounded by a misguided tax
and trade policy that shuttered factories in places like Zanesville,
Mansfield, and Chillicothe and jobs shipped overseas.
At last week's hearing, I talked about how our economy and national
security interests are interconnected.
Ensuring that the United States leads the world in producing
semiconductor chips is critical to both our entire economy and our
national security.
Because of the work of many of the Senators on this Committee, we
passed the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Chips and Science Act.
But people don't really care that we passed a bill. They care about
results. So today, let's look at the results:
More than 60,000 infrastructure projects are already underway
across the country, because of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
These projects are improving 165,000 miles of road. More than 9,400
bridges are getting repaired.
Every State is benefiting. The Mobile River Bridge in Alabama is
getting improvements. Rural and Tribal communities in Minnesota, Idaho,
and other States are getting new buses and vans. We are making bus and
rail stations that were built before the Americans with Disabilities
Act finally accessible in places like Philadelphia and Cleveland.
Six years ago, Rob Portman and I introduced the Bridge Investment
Act, to replace or repair the hundreds of bridges in Ohio and thousands
around the country that in many cases had not had serious repairs in
decades.
And now, because of the years of work we did that culminated in the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we are finally, finally building a new
Brent Spence companion bridge.
And we are replacing the 90-year old Western Hills Viaduct, which
is crucial to Cincinnati.
Brent Spence is a critical link in the supply chain network,
transporting 160,000 cars and trucks and $2 billion in goods every
day--that's 3 percent of the country's entire GDP. And it's part of the
fabric of the city in Cincinnati, helping to create the vibrancy of one
of America's great cities.
But Ohioans know the old Brent Spence is as dated as it is
dangerously crowded, and we've heard from Ohioans who are concerned
about concrete crumbling on the Western Hills Viaduct.
We are fixing that, and we are seeing new construction across
Ohio--and it's not just huge projects like the Brent Spence and the
Intel Fabs in Licking County.
We are seeing major upgrades to streets and bridges across Ohio,
including Ohio's rural counties and Appalachia. We announced this month
that the Market Street Bridge, which connects Steubenville with West
Virginia, will finally be replaced.
We are also making critical investments to modernize public
transit.
Americans take 21 million trips on transit every day. And when
buses and trains and all the infrastructure required to operate them
are not up to date, service is slower and less reliable.
Imagine driving the same car every single day for 40 years. That's
what operators on Cleveland's RTA have been doing for years.
In Cleveland, I met with workers whose job it is to maintain rail
cars that date back to the Reagan administration. At the rail car
garage on the East Side of Cleveland, you actually see these workers
machining replacement parts for cars that are so old, that's the only
way to get the parts--they don't make them anymore.
But now, finally, because of the Infrastructure law, Cleveland will
get 60 new rail cars.
And we all know the U.S. lacks a robust national passenger rail
network that other major economic powers have. We are changing that.
We're seeing construction of new facilities to improve transit and
rail service, like Akron Metro's new maintenance facility and a new
Amtrak station in Bryan, Ohio.
We also know how crucial manufacturing and innovation are to our
economy.
Today, modern infrastructure is driven by information technology.
The microchips that power our machines and computers are the
product of American design and ingenuity--but we have become dependent
on other countries for the production. 90 percent of the chips we
invented are now made overseas.
Taiwan is dominant today. Alarmingly, China is trying to become
dominant tomorrow.
We wrote the CHIPS and Science Act to change the trajectory.
It's allowing us to build a new generation of chip production
factories in Ohio and around the country.
All of these investments are growing our economy and creating jobs
and opportunity.
In the past 3 years, we have added 670,000 construction jobs to the
U.S. economy. This is only the start--hiring is expected to pick up
even more in the coming years, as more and bigger projects get
underway.
And that doesn't even take into account the jobs throughout the
manufacturing supply chain, because we made sure these laws have the
strongest ``Buy America'' rules ever.
The steel, iron, pipes and other construction materials used in
these projects are being made in Ohio and across the U.S., by American
workers--not imported from China.
Whether they're pipefitters or bricklayers or ironworkers or
steelworkers--these are good, middle class jobs with high wages and on-
the-job training opportunities, where you can develop a craft and build
a career.
Few understand that better than one of our witnesses today, Mike
Knisley, Secretary and Treasurer of the Ohio State Building and
Construction Trades Council.
Mike represents the men and women who are doing the real work on
these projects. I was at an event last summer with Mike in Columbus--it
was a graduation for a training program that places workers directly
into union apprenticeships in the Trades. It's creating opportunity for
so many people who haven't had a lot of it before.
Every one of those graduates had on T-shirts that said in big
letters on the back, ``Direct Path to the Middle Class''.
That is what the jobs are that we're creating--a direct path to the
middle class. This is how you build an economy that upholds the dignity
of work.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM SCOTT
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses for being with
us today. Thank you for the Committee Members who are here with us as
well.
One of the challenges I see on this conversation that we're having
today is to realize that local problems need local solutions. It's
really hard for folks in Washington, DC, to understand the transit
needs of folks in Charleston, South Carolina, Summerville, South
Carolina, Columbus, Ohio, or Chicago, Illinois.
The most effective thing that we can do is make sure that the
resourcing goes without all the red tape and challenges that comes from
Washington, DC. Getting that done seems to be too close to Peter
walking on the water. Nearly a miraculous occurrence and manifestation
has to happen for us to just do the simple thing.
I spent half my career in politics on the local level,
understanding and appreciating transit systems, infrastructure
projects, and what it takes to get those things done.
When I first became a senator, the one thing I did was, I decided
that as a kid who grew up in a single parent household mired in
poverty, who understood the transit needs of the poorest Americans
trying to get to the job, I wanted to make sure that I was sensitive to
the current state of Americans trying to get to work, so I decided I'd
go back to the old bus routes and get on those bus routes and spend
time talking to people waiting on the bus to come.
I remember talking to a grandmother who worked at Walmart, who
wanted to spend more time with her grandkids on the weekends, but she
would spend 80 to 90 minutes early in the morning waiting on the bus,
seven hours at work, and 80 or 90 minutes to get back home. Three hours
to work a 7-hour shift for slightly more than minimum wage to provide
the resources necessary to help our grandkids have a better life and a
better opportunity to experience and enjoy the American Dream. Having
the conversations with folks who are struggling to make ends meet,
thinking about how challenging it is as a local official to understand
and then to decide the right transit routes, so that the folks who need
public transportation have access to the right routes at the right
times to get to the right job. You just can't do that from Washington.
The one thing Washington has done poorly is to put on more onerous
burdens on local government and State government, because somehow 535
people in Washington seem to know everything about local needs, and yet
we seem to know nothing about getting the job done.
As an example, my friends on the left are always looking for a
``new green steal.'' They call it the New Green Deal, but in the end it
steals opportunity and innovation, creativity, and resources from local
folks to make good decisions about what they need. But it's not just
transit--it's actually the infrastructure needs that are delayed time
and time again.
I was thinking about this recently and it takes about 7 years--
seven years--for a project to turn the shovel on a new highway program.
I think about Highway 17 and its expansion in Mount Pleasant in
South Carolina a number of years ago. The frustration I felt as the
chairman of the county, waiting for all the red tape to be cut so that
we could simply turn a shovel on a project that had been approved for
years. And I sent some notes to my friends back on county council just
to make sure that I was right about the 7-year process.
It could take up to 2 years for the planning and the programing
just to meet Federal threshold so that projects can start. And then
after you do that, it can take up to 3 years, whether it's NEPA or
other environmental challenges through the Green New Steel. On top of
all of that, you recognize that this onerous burden to start a road
project takes 7 years.
Now, here's the challenging part. When you get the price of a
highway project, let's say those days, it was several hundred million
dollars, $700 million. It's not anticipated that 7 years later,
somehow, someway, miraculously, that same road project is going to cost
the same amount of money 7 years later. That's what we call in South
Carolina--ridiculous, hogwash. It just doesn't work that way.
But none of that is anticipated in the actual price that people
pay. Waiting and waiting and waiting for the Federal Government just to
do their jobs and get out the way. But then after you get through the
environmental review and compliance, which 3 years later, then you go
to the preliminary final design--up to 2 more years on this process.
And at the same time of this is happening, currently under the
Biden administration, everybody wants to celebrate the IJA and the
I.R.A., the most ridiculously named bill in maybe American history, the
Inflation Reduction Act--that actually increases inflation--and the
Chips and Science Act.
What happens? Well, the cost of construction explodes to the
highest level ever. It costs more money to do the same thing than it
has ever cost--three or 4 years later.
And so when you take a 7-year delay on a road, you take all of the
impacts studies that is that it takes. We're not smart enough to do
them all at the exact same time. We're going to wait for the first 2
years before we start the environmental impact studies, before we start
the. if this was a business we would just fire everybody.
That's what I would do. That's what I did when I was in business.
If you can't, if it takes you 7 years to get something started, I want
a new--I want somebody else in charge. Americans want someone else in
charge because the $2 billion problem that they have in Maryland to
rebuild a road--a bridge--that's going to take 4 years is ridiculous.
Unnecessary.
All you need is common sense and people ready to go to work. And
unfortunately, every time well-intentioned politicians made the
decision that we know better than the local community, it costs jobs.
It costs prices because they explode. I gotta tell you, 13 years on the
local level is a really good education on what not to do.
Let's not burden local government with the Green New Steal--that
$7.5 billion in green funding that resolves to only eight EV charging
stations--that takes all those dollars away from being able to have
real progress on real roads for real people to get to their jobs.
Mr. Chairman, I'm glad we're having the hearing today. But I got to
tell you, most Americans would say, skip the hearing block, block grant
the money, and let a brother go to work.
That's what they would say.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER A. COES
Acting Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy, Department of
Transportation
July 31, 2024
Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for your leadership
and partnership as we work to deliver projects to build a stronger,
safer transportation system that connects the American people to jobs,
to housing, to educational opportunities, and to one another.
DOT has been working tirelessly executing the vision of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). Because of this
generational investment, the Biden-Harris administration has announced
$461 billion of awards, funding over 60,000 specific projects in all 50
States, D.C., the territories, and for Tribes. As I travel across the
country, these headlines don't come close to telling the full story
about IIJA's significance.
Nationally, 47 percent of the U.S. population spend more than 15
percent of their annual income on transportation. IIJA isn't just an
investment in infrastructure, it's an investment in our economy and
workforce, in housing, and in our Nation's families. IIJA has allowed
us to invest over $91 billion into restoring and upgrading our Nation's
transit service, creating thousands of jobs, and expanding access to
even more. Bringing transportation, jobs, and housing together improves
access to transportation while supporting local and regional economic
development. In April, FTA announced the award of nearly $18 million to
20 projects in 16 States in Transit Oriented Development discretionary
funds to support community efforts to improve access and increase
affordable housing near transit.
It's also critical that transit is available to everyone,
regardless of ability. That's why the All Stations Accessibility
Program (ASAP) is so important, allowing us to upgrade and modernize
legacy transit stations built before the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 so they are accessible to people with disabilities. Last
month, we saw the groundbreaking for the first project to reach
construction under this program--an upgrade to six transit stations in
Philadelphia to make them fully accessible and provide access to
everyday destinations.
We're also investing in projects to reconnect communities,
including through the Reconnecting Communities and Neighborhoods (RCN)
Program. For example, in Columbus, Ohio, we're funding the development
of a bus rapid transit (BRT) corridor along West Broad Street, which
currently divides disadvantaged communities and is one of the most
dangerous roadways in Ohio. Once completed, we expect that the
availability of a reliable BRT system will result in more affordable
mobility options, fewer pedestrian deaths, and greater private
investment along the corridor. This project is just one example of how
the transit investments are helping transform disadvantaged communities
into thriving ones.
More broadly, we're exceeding our Justice40-covered programs goal,
with 55 percent of the benefits from awards going to disadvantaged
communities, particularly rural and Tribal. For example, at the border
of Montana and Idaho, we're funding the rehabilitation of a critical
segment of Interstate 90 to enable it to better withstand increased
harsh weather events and make it safer and more reliable for travelers
and vulnerable populations nearby. We're also replacing rural bridges
in South Carolina that are disrupting vital farm-to-market and
commercial freight routes with existing load restrictions due to their
age and condition.
In March, we experienced a painful reminder of the criticality of
our Nation's bridges to our daily lives and to our economy when the
Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore collapsed after being struck by a
container ship. We worked rapidly with multiple partners to reopen the
Federal channel and Port of Baltimore in less than 100 days and
continue to work with them on rebuilding the Key Bridge. Even before
that incident, we have been working with communities across the country
to rehabilitate and replace aging critical bridges. Earlier this month,
DOT awarded more than $5 billion to support 13 large bridge
construction projects, including $251 million for the I-95 Bridge over
Lake Marion in South Carolina, $550 million for the I-10 Mobile River
Bridge in Alabama, and $251 million to repair a cluster of bridges on
I-95 in Rhode Island, to name a few. These will join significant
projects that are already underway. For instance, we expect
construction to begin soon on upgrades to the Brent Spence Bridge at
the border between Ohio and Kentucky, which carries $400 billion in
freight across the Ohio River each year.
I'm excited to see some of the earliest IIJA investments break
ground, begin construction, and start to deliver benefits for the
communities that they serve. We are doing our part to accelerate
projects, including establishing a new Project Delivery Center of
Excellence, streamlining processes by simplifying and combining
complementary notices of funding opportunity (NOFOs), and providing
extensive technical assistance, especially for rural and Tribal
communities. On behalf of Secretary Buttigieg and the entire
Department, we appreciate your ongoing partnership and shared
commitment to delivering a world-class transportation system for the
American people.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL KNISLEY
Executive Secretary and Treasurer, Ohio State Building and Construction
Trades Council
July 31, 2024
Good morning, Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of
the Committee. Thank you for your leadership on building a resilient
economy for American workers and their communities through Federal
investment.
My name is Mike Knisley. I'm here to testify on the impact that
Federal investments are having on the 100,000 men and women that I
represent as Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the Ohio State Building
and Construction Trades Council.
In our nearly 60 years as a Building Trades Council: There's never
been a brighter future for the Tradespeople who build Ohio. Ohio owes
this bright future to smart public-private investment--led by strong
bipartisan leadership in Congress.
We're building BIG in Ohio. Over the next decade, we're looking at
over $200 Billion dollars in construction projects that will create
generational careers that provide prevailing wages with health care and
retirement benefits; as well as tuition-free Apprenticeship training
for both present and future tradespeople.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act means that
thousands of tradespeople in Southern Ohio and Northern Kentucky will
build the Brent Spence Bridge. This bridge which besides being long
overdue is a vital transportation corridor for our region and will be
built by a diverse generation of construction workers--including
tradeswomen like Saria Gwin-Maye of Ironworkers Local 44.
The CHIPS and Science Act means that nearly ten-thousand
construction tradespeople will build Intel's newest semiconductor fabs
in Columbus, Ohio. This project is creating family-sustaining
construction jobs across the Central Ohio Region--but also in Ohio's
Appalachian communities where the residents can see opportunity on the
horizon again.
There's excitement in the air at places like IBEW 1105's Electrical
Training Center, where a whole new generation of tradespeople will
begin their Apprenticeships on the Intel project including having the
potential to work their entire career at that facility, upgrading and
maintaining the fabs.
Imagine that--lifelong, family-sustaining construction careers
within commuting distance of Ohio's counties. This type of investment
has the potential to deliver lasting economic recovery in Ohio's
struggling towns.
Statewide the Ohio Building Trades have scaled-up their workforce
development to meet the demand driven by these investments. Across
Ohio, our 80 privately funded apprenticeship training centers are
taking in their largest classes ever. The Building Trades training
model is the gold-standard in workforce development where they train
over 80 percent of all construction apprentices in Ohio--with zero tax
dollars.
The continued high-road investment in construction projects
generate the steady demand of apprentices needed for the next
generation of local tradespeople.
Underinvestment in our Nation's infrastructure over the past 30
years has hurt economic growth in the communities where our members
live and work. Now, with new infrastructure investment in places like
my hometown of Lima, Ohio, good paying construction jobs are on the
rise creating an environment where young people do not have to leave
the Buckeye State to support their families.
The Ohio Building Trades believe that the rising tide of economic
opportunity MUST BE WITHIN REACH FOR ALL Ohioans--including women,
people of color, and veterans.
Thanks to our partners in industry and at every level of Government
whose commitment to responsible contracting and sustainable jobs means
that Ohio's rising economic tide reaches working families in Ohio.
Our commitment to our partners, is this: We will get the job done.
We ask you to match our commitment by ensuring that federally
funded construction jobs go to American tradespeople. These jobs must
provide benefits to working families in our communities. Despite the
heavy workforce demand in certain regions of our State, there is still
depressed areas that have local tradespeople being displaced by
companies who hire workers without proper documentation to work well
below the required prevailing wage and without any benefits.
Properly executed, each new project built through Federal
investment strengthens Ohio's construction workforce by growing our
communities through local wages and benefits for working families.
And you can take the Building Trades' commitment to equal economic
opportunity to the bank:
Our journey people and apprentices are protected by Collective
Bargaining Agreements. CBAs are the great equalizer in wages, health
care and retirement equity on every jobsite. They guarantee that each
worker--regardless of race or gender--earns, dollar-for-dollar, the
same pay as everyone else.
When Ohio's Building Tradespeople are bringing home a steady
paycheck from major projects, their entire communities feel the
economic benefits of those earnings. And thanks to Federal investment,
these are the working Ohioans who will someday drive past Intel's
factories or across the Brent Spence Bridge and say to their children
and grandchildren: ``I built that.''
Thank you for allowing me to voice the economic stability and hope
for the future that thousands of Ohio Building Tradespeople and a new
generation of Ohio Construction Apprentices have thanks to these
Federal investments in American workers.
I will end with my final comment: ``Good infrastructure and
investment policies that comes out of Washington create great outcomes
in our local communities''.
______
PREPARED STATEMENT OF R. RICHARD GEDDES
Founding Director, Cornell Program in Infrastructure Policy
July 31, 2024
Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on the
important topic of the ``Long-term Economic Benefits & Impacts from
Federal Infrastructure and Public Transportation Investment''. I'm Rick
Geddes and I serve as the Academic Director and Founder of Cornell
University's Program in Infrastructure Policy, or CPIP. I am also a
Professor in Cornell's Jeb E. Brooks School of Public Policy, Professor
of Economics at Cornell, and a Nonresident Senior Scholar at the
American Enterprise Institute.
I am pleased today to discuss infrastructure policy. Civil
infrastructure is indeed the backbone of any modern society. It
encompasses the fundamental facilities and systems that support daily
life, economic activities, and overall well-being. Its importance can
be understood through several key aspects:
Infrastructure's Impact on the Economy
Infrastructure supports economic development. Well-developed
infrastructure such as roads, bridges, ports, rail, and airports
facilitate trade, reduce transportation costs, and enhance
connectivity, driving economic growth. It supports industries by
providing efficient logistics and supply chains. Infrastructure such as
water supply systems, sewage treatment plants, and waste management
facilities are crucial for public health. They ensure access to clean
water, proper sanitation, and the effective disposal of waste, reducing
the risk of disease outbreaks. Civil infrastructure also impacts the
quality of life by providing essential energy services including
electricity, heating, and cooling. Robust infrastructure is essential
for disaster preparedness and the ability to respond to potential and
real disasters. Well-designed and maintained infrastructure can
withstand natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods, and
hurricanes, minimizing damage and aiding in recovery.
Moreover, advances in infrastructure, such as smart grids and
digital connectivity, drive technological innovation and improve
efficiency across various sectors, including transportation,
communication, and energy management. Overall, sound civil
infrastructure is foundational to the functioning and advancement of
society. It impacts every aspect of daily life, from economic stability
and health to quality of life and environmental sustainability.
Investing in and maintaining infrastructure is crucial for building
resilient, prosperous, and equitable communities.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), also known as
the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), was signed into law by
President Biden on November 15, 2021. The most recent major
infrastructure-related act passed by Congress was the Inflation
Reduction Act, which was signed into law on August 16, 2022. Given that
almost 2 years have passed since the IRA was signed, it is now
appropriate to assess the effects of both of these acts.
Inflationary Impact
Although those acts are important for addressing pervasive
infrastructure problems, such as deferred maintenance, their impact has
been more muted than anticipated, for several reasons. First, there has
been significant inflation in the cost of the materials and labor
necessary to deliver many projects over the past 2 years. As The
Economist warned in November of 2023:
The problem is that inflation has been rampant in the
construction sector, making delays that much more pernicious.
The single biggest component of the infrastructure package was
a 50 percent increase in funding for highways to $350bn over 5
years. But highway construction costs soared by more than 50
percent from the end of 2020 to the start of 2023, in effect
wiping out the extra funding. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/11/22/
spending-on-infrastructure-has-fallen-in-real-terms-in-america
(accessed July 28, 2024).
Those cost increases have continued since November 2023. Although
Covid-related cost increases (such as disruptions in supply chains)
appear to be moderating, inflation in key construction materials has
been stubbornly persistent and is likely to continue. As recently
reported by Statista, the percentage change on previous year of the
Producer Price Index (PPI) for June 2024 for cement was 6.9 percent. It
was 6.8 percent for concrete block and brick. It was 6.5 percent for
ready-mix concrete. For brick and structural clay tile it was 4.8
percent, and so on. \2\ Those rates are routinely higher than increases
in the consumer price index, weakening the purchasing power of Federal
infrastructure dollars. Moreover, these costs do not include the labor
necessary to utilize these products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1046602/inflation-
construction-materials-us/ (accessed July 28, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permitting Process
Second, America's cumbersome permitting process under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1970, or NEPA, continues to delay projects.
That is particularly disconcerting in an inflationary environment. As
Robert Poole, Jr., (Director of Transportation Policy at the Reason
Foundation and an MIT-trained engineer) states in a new June 2024
report,
The United States has an infrastructure permitting problem.
Proposed projects spend years in the Federal environmental
review process, delaying their eventual construction and the
resulting benefits to their users. Project costs grow,
sometimes dramatically, due to inflation during the years-long
review process but also due to mitigation measures that are
imposed on the project as a condition for going forward. And
some projects end up not being built. Bipartisan infrastructure
experts view the legal infrastructure that has evolved for
implementing the requirements embodied in the 1970 National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as a significant factor. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Robert W. Poole, Jr. ``Reforming Environmental Litigation'',
Reason Foundation, June 2024, p. 1.
NEPA-induced project delays, as well as compliance costs, can be
significant. As Michael Bennon, Daniel De La Hormaza and I reported in
a 2023 article published in the Journal of Regulatory Economics, a
typical Environmental Impact Statement (or EIS) under NEPA now takes
about 4\1/2\ years and is over 600 pages long. Some EISs take over a
decade to complete. \4\ In an economic sector where ``time really is
money,'' such long timelines often significantly increase project cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Michael Bennon, Daniel De La Hormaza, and R. Richard
Geddes, 2023. ``A Hazard Analysis of Federal Permitting Under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1970'', Journal of Regulatory
Economics, pp. 1-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although there are several avenues for NEPA reform, Australia
offers an appealing approach. In Australia, the primary environmental
legislation is the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation (EPBC) Act of 1999. Any action or project that is likely
to have a significant impact on the national environment requires
authorization under that act. A 2012 amendment to the EPBC includes an
assessment of environmental impacts, as well as proposed offsets/
mitigations. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment,
and Water (DCCEEW) reviews nationally significant projects. Project
developers must submit a preliminary application to DCCEEW, with strict
timelines regarding how quickly the agency must respond. The agency
must typically respond within 20 days to decide if the project needs an
assessment, and which of five alternative assessments is most
appropriate. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Robert W. Poole, Jr. ``Reforming Environmental
Litigation'', Reason Foundation, June 2024, p. 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BABA Impacts
Third, provisions of the Build America, Buy America Act (BABA),
although well-intentioned, appear to be inhibiting project delivery.
BABA was enacted on November 15, 2021, as part of the BIL. The act
requires Federal agencies to prioritize the use of American-made goods
and services in infrastructure projects. That includes requiring that
all iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used
in federally funded projects be produced in the United States. The act
applies to all Federal financial assistance for infrastructure projects
obligated after May 14, 2022.
On June 11, 2024, POLITICOPRO reported that, with the tighter BABA
requirements, even minor products must be produced by U.S. companies in
order to qualify for the available Federal infrastructure incentives.
However, those items often are not available or are far more expensive
than the imported versions, adding to cost and increasing delays. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See James Bikales, ``Biden's Infrastructure Push Crashes Into
His Buy America Agenda'', PoliticoPro, June 11, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance with BABA has thus become confusing for many contractors
and project developers. The BABA waiver process, in which the newly
created Made in American Office (or MIAO, which is part of the Office
of Management and Budget) plays a central role, is rife with
inconsistencies. What qualifies as a waiver under BABA is unclear to
many market participants, which greatly slows project delivery. \7\
This has become a major source of concern and delay in project
delivery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, e.g., Tim Duit, ``Examining the U.S. Department of
Transportation's Regulatory and Administrative Agenda'', Testimony
Presented to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, July 24, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It appears that, in the laws' zeal to assist U.S. domestic
manufacturing, it has created conflicting policy objectives and
significant confusion among providers. The goal of supporting U.S.
domestic manufacturing is conflicting with accelerating delivery of
infrastructure while ensuring wise use of taxpayer dollars. Ensuring
crystal-clear guidance from MIAO regarding BABA waivers would be an
important first step in facilitating efficient project delivery.
Public-Private Partnerships Can Support Higher Infrastructure Needs
The BIL authorizes $1.2 trillion in spending for roads, bridges,
rail, water, the power grid, and high-speed internet. In addition,
aspects of the BIL encourage greater private-sector participation in
U.S. infrastructure delivery. Section 80403, for example, increases the
national limit on Private Activity Bonds (or PABs) for qualified
highway or surface freight transportation facilities from $15 billion
to $30 billion.
More can be done, however, to encourage greater private involvement
in U.S. infrastructure delivery, which would help address several
stubborn problems we face today. Indeed, the present moment presents an
opportunity for the private sector to take on a larger role in
providing infrastructure financing beyond what can be provided by the
Federal Government.
There are many cases that support the success of public-private
partnerships in building, operating, and maintaining various types of
infrastructure. For example, rebuilding the Francis Scott Key Bridge in
Baltimore offers the chance to bring American infrastructure delivery
up to rest-of-world standards through better cooperation between the
public and private sectors. The core of such cooperation is a long-term
contract between the public and private sectors known broadly as a
``public-private partnership,'' or PPP.
The central aspect of a PPP is that it bundles or ``wraps'' the
design and construction of a piece of infrastructure together with its
operation and maintenance over the long term, such as 25 or 30 years.
Such a PPP might also include private-sector financing to cover the new
bridge's substantial design and construction costs. Because the Key
Bridge featured all-electronic tolling, a user-fee funding source
already exists to help pay for the new bridge (especially for
maintenance) over time.
Although the Federal Government has committed some funding to
reconstruct the Key Bridge, it will likely require more than this
initial commitment. A PPP for the Key Bridge that combines design and
construction with future operation and maintenance, for example,
usually includes provisions to ensure that the infrastructure is
properly maintained. This reduces the likelihood of deferred
maintenance, one of the main problems plaguing U.S. infrastructure
today. Indeed, maintenance has been deferred on so many roads and
bridges that it is difficult to bring them all up to a state of good
repair. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See, e.g., the American Society of Civil Engineers quadrennial
infrastructure ``Report Card'' at https://infrastructurereportcard.org/
(accessed July 28, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than simply ``bouncing back'' from this bridge disaster,
which disrupted supply chains across many industries, a long-term PPP
provides the opportunity to ``bounce forward.'' A quiet but vast
technological revolution has occurred in infrastructure since 1977, the
year the Key Bridge went into service. Improvements in materials (such
as concrete and asphalt), sensors, designs, and more are readily
available. Such improvements can be incorporated into the new bridge's
design and construction, as well as its operation and maintenance by
``future proofing'' contracts with the private sector.
Today many roads and bridges that were built in the 1960s and 1970s
could benefit from technology and innovations that did not exist in
those decades. Because PPP contracts include operation and maintenance
over the long term, there is a risk of locking in outdated technologies
if there is not a forward-looking perspective included in the process.
Future proofing refers to the risk of not adopting available innovative
technology and design standards well into the future. A future-proofed
contract places that risk on the private partner, thus ensuring that
private capital, incentives, and expertise are deployed to make U.S.
infrastructure as resilient as possible for decades to come.
The other pitfall with any large construction project is time
delays. Many U.S. infrastructure projects notoriously run over time and
over budget. When completed, Phase 1 of New York's Second Avenue
Subway, for example, cost about $2.5 billion per mile. That is 8 to 12
times more expensive than similar subway projects in Sweden, Italy,
Paris, Berlin, and Istanbul.
A properly structured PPP contract puts the risk of time and cost
overruns on the private partner rather than the taxpayer. The private
partner can be incentivized to deliver the project on time via
financial penalties for late delivery and rewards for delivery ahead of
schedule. Evidence suggests that projects led by private entities often
come in either on time or ahead of schedule. \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See, e.g., Stefan Verweij, Ingmar van Meerkerk, and Carter B.
Casady, ``Assessing the Performance Advantage of Public-Private
Partnerships: A Comparative Perspective'', London: Edward Elgar, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, PPPs allow projects to cut through much of the bureaucracy
that often slows U.S. projects. America has typically used a design-
bid-build (DBB) approach, where a Government entity first bids out the
bridge's design and then bids out the chosen design. Combining and
integrating the design and construction into a single project results
in quicker delivery and more synergies between design and construction
firms. New York's widely acclaimed new Tappan Zee Bridge was built
using such a contract.
The Key Bridge disaster reinforced the importance of risk
assessment, and assessing all situations that could happen in the
supply-chain process. Evaluating all processes and planning for every
``what if'' situation will help both the public and private sectors to
handle such a tragedy.
Congress can take steps in the future to facilitate greater use of
PPPs in the United States. One is to encourage States and regions to
utilize ``PPP units.'' PPP units are quasi-Governmental entities that
assist the public sector with pre-project screening, project
prioritization, education, and expert advice. PPP units have been
established in Australia, Canada, China, Israel, Japan, Egypt, the
United Kingdom, and India, among many other countries. They strive to
ensure that infrastructure projects attract private participation while
promoting the public interest. Despite their global popularity, PPP
units remain relatively underused in the United States. PPP units have
effectively supported private participation in infrastructure around
the world. Because the U.S. lags other developed countries in PPP use,
the benefits of such units would likely be large if implemented here.
\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See R. Richard Geddes and Carter B. Casady, ``Private
Participation in U.S. Infrastructure: The Role of PPP Units'',
Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, October 26, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interestingly, one side effect of the BIL is that more States and
local governments are working together to coordinate their
infrastructure efforts. This may lay the groundwork for future
cooperation under the auspices of regional PPP units. As The Economist
states:
Some also think that the infrastructure law may pay other
dividends. To manage all the grant applications and the
funding, the Federal Government asked States to establish
infrastructure coordinators, leading to more joined-up planning
for water, roads, energy and more. ``It goes against a hundred
years of how States have worked,'' says Mr. Ferrer. ``It's been
hard and awkward for them. But it is a better way to do
things.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/11/22/
spending-on-infrastructure-has-fallen-in-real-terms-in-america
(accessed July 28, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permitting Processes Can Facilitate Projects
As noted above, with the significant progress of Federal
infrastructure funding to support the need for new and updated
infrastructure, one of the stumbling blocks is the permitting process.
Large projects often cross many jurisdictions, including Federal,
State, and local jurisdictions. The permitting process can take years
to coordinate and can add to the cost and timetable of a project.
Uncertainty around permit schedules can be costly and creates
significant variability for organizations that want to take advantage
of the new infrastructure funding. With much funding only available
until 2026, inefficiency and permitting delays can derail a project.
Complex processes, poor data governance, and resource constraints are
some of the primary factors underlying today's permitting challenges.
A White House study in 2020 found that the NEPA permitting process,
which most major infrastructure projects must go through to receive a
Federal permit, takes between 3.5 and 6 years to complete, on average.
\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``Environmental Impact Statement Timelines'', Executive
Office of the President Council on environmental Quality, June 12,
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Permitting agencies that can assume a leadership role for managing
the process and for communicating with all entities can play a
significant role in facilitating progress and getting projects in place
more quickly. It is imperative that Governments at all levels support
permitting reforms to speed critically needed infrastructure
improvements. A central permitting office can support the introduction
of integrated permitting capabilities at the State and local levels. A
KPMG study offers insight into the cycle time, project application
status, and suggests streamlining the process by which infrastructure
funding is directed to projects and communities that need it.
Although many States have resources assigned to permitting-related
issues, only some have dedicated offices sufficiently resourced and
empowered to address the known issues. Today's permitting challenges
are exacerbated by the upcoming accelerated pace of infrastructure
investment. There is an urgency to establish clear guidance, enabling
clear communication and providing access to consistent information.
\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Dr. Christian Robert and Suzie Heap, ``Permitting:
Streamlining Delivery of Today's Infrastructure Opportunity'', KPMG,
March 2023.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Cyberthreats
Rising geopolitical tensions are injecting national security
concerns into what were previously viewed as core civilian activities.
Growing cyberthreats to America's electrical grid, as stressed by FBI
Director Christopher Wray in recent testimony, serves as a case in
point. Although geopolitical events are inherently unpredictable, this
is likely to drive further investment in energy and advanced and
defense-related manufacturing, again an example of how the private
entities can support Government.
Technology and Innovation Factors
The rapid pace of technological change in infrastructure is
unprecedented. New types of concrete, energy storage and generating
sources, including hydrogen and a new generation of nuclear reactors,
are appearing regularly, often due to the investments that companies
are making in technology to drive greater and faster innovation.
Although welcome, the ultimate impact of this technological wave on the
infrastructure landscape is quite challenging to predict.
Increasing Private Investment in Infrastructure
Greater use of PPPs offers investors new opportunities to
participate in U.S. infrastructure as an asset class. Importantly, many
investors in infrastructure via PPPs and other avenues are large
institutions. Those institutional investors include public and private
pension funds, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds, and
university endowments, among others. This demonstrates how private
investment can be a ``triple win'' for public infrastructure owners,
for the public using that improved and maintained infrastructure, and
for institutional investors who place their retirement savings in
infrastructure assets and receive appealing returns.
The global investment community has recognized that both civil and
social infrastructure is an important asset class and a growing
opportunity. Despite institutions' under-allocation to infrastructure,
2023 was the most challenging year for private infrastructure
fundraising since 2015, according to the second annual Institutional
Infrastructure Allocations Monitor released on June 18, 2024, by Hodes
Weill & Associates and Cornell University's Program in Infrastructure
Policy. However, considering growing target allocations to
infrastructure and positive investor sentiment, the pace of annual
investments is expected to accelerate over the medium-term. \14\
Infrastructure portfolios continue to demonstrate resilient revenues
and offer investors strong risk-adjusted returns, despite general
market volatility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ https://www.hodesweill.com/single-post/2024-institutional-
infrastructure-allocations-monitor, June 20, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The primary conclusion of the 2024 Infrastructure Allocations
Monitor is that institutions are poised to allocate significant capital
to infrastructure investments as global transaction activity rebounds.
The weight of this capital can be expected to have broad implications
for the industry with respect to fundraising, lending activity, and
asset valuations. Although some third-party research suggests
infrastructure markets may be overvalued, the combination of abundant
capital and liquidity, global Government support, and anticipated rate
cuts, along with the benefit of the asset class' ``inflation
participation,'' can be expected to sustain current valuation and
financing metrics, including discount rates. This perspective does not
downplay the risks of prolonged high interest rates or slow economic
growth, but rather highlights a crucial consideration for industry
participants.
Conclusion
These legislative acts are to be applauded given the needs of our
country to strengthen and update our infrastructure. The funding
commitments through the BIL, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the
Inflation Reduction Act, are expected to achieve those goals and
contribute to future proofing the resilience of our various
infrastructure networks. I believe that with some changes in permitting
policies, the incorporation of new technologies and innovative
products, and the integration of public-private partnerships, the
various levels of Government can leverage this funding to benefit
future generations for decades to come.
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SCOTT
FROM CHRISTOPHER A. COES
Q.1. Mr. Coes, we did not have the chance to exchange questions
during the hearing, nor did I have the chance to address my
concerns with the Department of Transportation's (DOT's)
administration and implementation of the discretionary grant
programs included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(IIJA). I am not alone in these concerns. In fact, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted multiple
reports, finding DOT's and the Federal Transit Administration's
(FTA'S) administration of discretionary grant programs to be
inconsistent and unreliable. \1\ These shortcomings stem from
DOT's failure to consistently provide documentation on its
evaluation processes and for failing to fully align with
Federal regulations and DOT guidance. \2\ Please detail the
steps you are taking to fix the problems cited by GAO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-23-106378,
``Discretionary Transportation Grants: DOT Should Improve Transparency
in the Infrastructure for Rebuilding America Program'' (2024).
\2\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-24-106280,
``Discretionary Grants: DOT Should Improve Clarity and Transparency of
Program Management'' (2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.1. Response not received in time for publication.
Q.2. In 2020, GAO recommended the FTA Administrator should take
steps to provide information to Congress and project recipients
to better clarify how FTA applies the methods and factors it
considers when performing its review of recipient's, or
sponsor's, projects. Four years later, neither the DOT nor FTA
anticipate acting on this suggestion. \3\ Why are you ignoring
this recommendation?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-20-512, ``Capital
Investments Grants Program: FTA Should Improve the Effectiveness and
Transparency of Its Reviews'' (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.2. Response not received in time for publication.
Q.3. In the same report, GAO recommended that FTA take
additional steps to ensure its staff communicates the reasons
why a project is not advancing to sponsors in a timely manner
and in writing upon request. Again, neither DOT nor FTA concur
with this recommendation, instead claiming they are already
performing these kinds of measures. Your standards do not seem
to be working if GAO remains concerned with the lack of
transparency within your agency.
Why are DOT and FTA unable to abide by this commonsense
recommendation?
You claim to be practicing these suggestions, why have you
not taken simple steps to update them per GAO's recommendation?
A.3. Response not received in time for publication.
Q.4. The IIJA carved out $7.5 billion from Fiscal Year 2022 to
2026 to build 500,000 public charging stations for electric
vehicles across the country. The National Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure (NEVI) program and the Charging and Fueling
Infrastructure (CFI) program were authorized by Congress 3
years ago, yet there are only 8 active charging stations
completed in six U.S. States. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Joe Lancaster, ``$7.5 Billion in Government Cash Only Built 8
E.V. Charges in 2.5 years'', Reason (August 7, 2024), (reason.com).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why have only 8 of the 500,000 required charging stations
been completed?
What is the reason for the delay?
How many NEVI/CFI funded charging stations can we expect to
be completed in the next 6 months? One year? Two years?
Please provide a detailed breakdown of the total costs for
each completed charging station using NEVI/CFI grants.
Do you expect the remaining charging stations to entail the
same costs?
A.4. Response not received in time for publication.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR WARNOCK
FROM CHRISTOPHER A. COES
Q.1. As you discuss in your testimony, investments in our
Nation's infrastructure can be measured by how they transform
and uplift communities. The historic investment in our Nation's
infrastructure through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law will
undoubtably help uplift communities by reconnecting those
divided by legacy infrastructure, creating new mobility options
through investments in transit and passenger rail, and much
more. But the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law also has the
potential to uplift communities by creating new wealth and
opportunity by supporting the next generation of small and
minority contractors. Having a more diverse pool of contractors
in the bidding process for infrastructure projects can promote
innovation, bring down project costs, and ensure that Federal
funding is distributed more equitably throughout communities.
Why is it important for small and minority contractors to
be a part of the rebuilding of the Nation's infrastructure?
A.1. Response not received in time for publication.
Q.2. What more can Congress do to support small and minority
contractors' access to this historic infrastructure funding?
A.2. Response not received in time for publication.
Q.3. Without reliable access to transportation, many
communities, especially low-income and rural areas with limited
mobility options, can face limited opportunities for economic
growth. \1\ The Department of Transportation's Areas of
Persistent Poverty Program helps tackle this problem by
supporting both urban and rural recipients in Areas of
Persistent Poverty or Historically Disadvantaged Communities
for activities including the planning, engineering, or
development of technical or financing plans for improved
transit services, new transit routes, and engineering for
transit facilities and improvements to existing facilities. \2\
Georgia has already received $880,000 under this program to
support service in Augusta and Savannah and to develop a
regional transit plan in rural South Georgia. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Paul P. Skoutelas, ``Neglecting Aging Public Transportation
Hurts Our Economy'', Politico (Accessed August 5, 2024, https://
www.politico.com/sponsor-content/2018/06/when-public-transit#.
\2\ ``Areas of Persistent Poverty Program'', United States
Department of Transportation (Accessed August 5, 2024), https://
www.transit.dot.gov/grant-programs/areas-persistent-poverty-program.
\3\ ``Areas of Persistent Poverty Program FY 2021 Selected
Projects'', United States Department of Transportation (September 7,
2023), https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/grant-programs/areas-
persistent-poverty-program-fy2021-selected-projects; ``Fiscal Year 2023
Areas of Persistent Poverty (AoPP) Project Selections'', United States
Department of Transportation (July 20, 2023), https://
www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/grant-programs/fiscal-year-2023-
areas-persistent-poverty-aopp-project-selections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do investments in planning, engineering, or the
development of technical or financing plans for projects
eligible under Chapter 53 of Title 49 help support new or
existing transit service in rural communities?
A.3. Response not received in time for publication.
Q.4. The Metropolitan Atlanta Transit Authority (MARTA) has
submitted an application for Multimodal Project Discretionary
Grant (MPDG) funding to support its Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
project along GA400. According to MARTA, this project
incorporates transit-oriented-development (TOD) planning at
each stop along this busy workforce corridor. In a city like
Atlanta that is simultaneously dense and sprawling, TOD
presents a unique opportunity to reduce housing and
transportation costs for low-income communities, reduce
emissions, spark economic development, and help create that
all-important sense of community.
As the Department of Transportation reviews applications
for MPDG funding, will you commit to giving full and fair
consideration to MARTA's GA400 BRT project, including its TOD
components?
A.4. Response not received in time for publication.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF
SENATOR FETTERMAN FROM CHRISTOPHER A. COES
Q.1. The President's Budget included language regarding
flexibility for transit agencies to use Federal dollars for
operating costs. Many agencies across Pennsylvania are facing a
``fiscal cliff'' or will hit one in the next few years, which
will lead to service reductions that will make travel more
difficult for Pennsylvanians. How could Federal operating
funding prevent near-term cuts to service and improve long-term
outcomes for transit employees, riders, and the broader
communities these agencies serve?
What are the economic impacts of widespread service cuts to
transit service? How will those cuts affect rural communities
and those served by smaller agencies?
A.1. Response not received in time for publication.
Q.2. What is the average wait time for Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) Emergency Relief dollars to be disbursed
after a disaster? What has been the longest period between
disaster and delivery of FTA ER funding?
How does this compare to the delivery timeline for FHWA ER
funding?
A.2. Response not received in time for publication.
Q.3. PennDOT is studying a number of possible alternatives to
improve safety on the Roosevelt Boulevard corridor, including a
Roosevelt Boulevard Subway Line (an extension of SEPTA's Broad
Street Line). If a transit proposal for the Boulevard is
submitted for funding through the Capital Investments Grants
program, would FTA incorporate transit-oriented development or
land use potential into considerations used to evaluate
potential ridership?
A.3. Response not received in time for publication.
Q.4. What guidance has DOT provided for participants in the
Corridor ID program regarding Federal opportunities for
transit-oriented development or other investments in the
neighborhoods around potential station sites?
A.4. Response not received in time for publication.
Q.5. I was very glad to see the Department recognize the
importance of the Schuylkill River Passenger Rail Authority
(SRPRA) project for the Reading-Philadelphia-New York Corridor
by selecting it for the Corridor Identification and Development
Program at the Federal Railroad Administration. Two years ago,
SRPRA was formed by Berks, Chester, and Montgomery counties to
help restore vital rail service for Pennsylvanians who were
left behind commuter rail line closures in the 1980s. Please
provide an update on the status of this project, including
anticipated timelines for preparation and completion of the
Service Development Plan.
A.5. Response not received in time for publication.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR WARNOCK
FROM MICHAEL KNISLEY
Q.1. As you discuss in your testimony, investments in our
Nation's infrastructure can be measured by how they transform
and uplift communities. \1\ The historic investment in our
Nation's infrastructure through the Bipartisan Infrastructure
Law will undoubtably help uplift communities by reconnecting
those divided by legacy infrastructure, creating new mobility
options through investments in transit and passenger rail, and
much more. But the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law also has the
potential to uplift communities by creating new wealth and
opportunity by supporting the next generation of small and
minority contractors. Having a more diverse pool of contractors
in the bidding process for infrastructure projects can promote
innovation, bring down project costs, and ensure that Federal
funding is distributed more equitably throughout communities.
\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Statement of Mr. Michael Knisley, Executive Secretary-
Treasurer, Ohio State Building and Construction Trades Council, https:/
/www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/kinsley-testimony-7-31-24.pdf at
p. 1 (``Imagine that--lifelong, family-sustaining construction careers
within commuting distance of Ohio's counties. This type of investment
has the potential to deliver lasting economic recovery in Ohio's
struggling towns.'')
\2\ ``Opportunities To Increase Inclusion of Small Businesses in
Government Contracting'', United States Small Business Administration
(Accessed August 6, 2024), https://files.hudexchange.info/resources/
documents/Small-Contractors-Initiative-Increasing-Inclusion-of-Small-
Businesses.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is it important for small and minority contractors to
be a part of the rebuilding of the Nation's infrastructure?
A.1. It is critical for small as well as minority contractors
to participate in the rebuilding of the Nations infrastructure
as many times these contractors are at a distinct disadvantage
due to their relatively smaller size to execute the larger
infrastructure projects. The disadvantages also include the
requirements of performance, surety and fringe benefit bonds
that are typical on any construction project but can be
difficult to obtain due to the sheer size of scope for the
project itself.
Contractors that make up this demographic group are the
backbone of the construction industry and unfortunately due to
the scale of most Federal projects as well as the historic
nature of mammoth general contractors that dominate this space
it makes it almost impossible for smaller and/or minority
contractors to work in this environment.
Q.2. What more can Congress do to support small and minority
contractors' access to this historic infrastructure funding?
A.2. A number of things could be done to give the smaller/
minority contractor an opportunity to participate in the larger
infrastructure projects as follows:
A. Split up the project itself into smaller scope that
would allow the contractor to participate at the current
business level they are currently operating at.
B. Codify in the project bid scope that the General
Contractor will utilize smaller/minority contractors for the
smaller codified scope of work.
C. Have the Federal Government create or coordinate a
national pool of financial institutions that would specialize
in offering business loans at a slightly smaller discount rate
to smaller and/or minority contractors for specific line items
like bonding, insurance and other construction specific related
items that typically hold back these contractors.
D. Encourage the surety/bonding institutions to offer a
slightly smaller discount on the respective bonds required.
There might be some value in for the Federal Government to
absorb some of the risk associated with these programs.
------
RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SCOTT
FROM R. RICHARD GEDDES
Q.1. Dr. Geddes, thank you for your testimony before the Senate
Banking Committee. As promised, I am following up on Public-
Private Partnerships (P3s). P3s are crucial for infrastructure
development as they have been proven to reduce Government
spending, extend long-term maintenance, and put a portion of
the risk assessment on the private sector.
Please explain in detail the benefits P3s can have on
infrastructure projects.
A.1. As explained in my written testimony, P3s can generate
numerous benefits for infrastructure projects. Those benefits
can be grouped into several categories.
Better life-cycle asset maintenance. The core element of a
P3 is the bundling together of key project elements,
particularly design and construction (design-build) combined
with operation and maintenance (O&M) over the project's
operational life. This includes design-build-operate (DBO)
contracts, design-build-operate-maintain (DBOM) contracts, and
design-build-finance-operate-maintain (DBFOM) contracts, among
others. The bundling aspect of P3 ensures that public-sector
asset owners are contractually bound to maintain the asset in a
state of good repair during its projected life cycle. This
aspect of P3 will help the United States address one of its
most pressing infrastructure policy problems, which is a
massive backlog of deferred maintenance. Indeed, bundled P3s
are one of the only reliable policy solutions to the endemic
problem of deferred maintenance. Although P3 projects may have
larger up-front costs, the bundling aspect of P3 often results
in lower life-cycle costs for the project because it avoids the
large, costly renovations that generally result from deferred
maintenance.
Risk transfer to private investors. In general, P3s do not
reduce the overall amount of risk in delivering an
infrastructure project. When done properly, however, P3s can
have important riskmanagement benefits because they transfer
some risks to private partners who are often better positioned
to manage them. Although private partners will ``charge''
public asset owners for the service of bearing project risk,
the overall social cost of risk bearing will be lower if it is
better managed by the private partner. This results in long-
term operational efficiency.
Faster project delivery and improved service quality.
Because P3s can place the risk of both poor project quality and
slow delivery on the private partner, they often include
incentives to deliver projects both on time and of high
quality. There is strong empirical evidence for this
conclusion. In some cases, there are bonus incentives for
delivering the project ahead of schedule. As a summary of a
recent book on P3 (Verweij, S., van Meerkerk, I., and Casady,
C. (Eds.). (2022). `Assessing the Performance Advantage of
Public-Private Partnerships''. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar
Publishing. Retrieved Aug 30, 2024, https://
www.elgaronline.com/edcollbook/book/9781800889200/
9781800889200.xm) states, ``This comprehensive assessment
produces several conclusions, but ultimately determines that
evidence for a cost performance advantage remains mixed, while
PPPs are proven to clearly outperform traditional alternatives
in terms of time and service quality.''
Bringing innovation to infrastructure projects. Civil
infrastructure construction and maintenance is notable for its
lack of productivity improvement in recent decades relative to
many other major economic sectors. One reason for this is slow
adoption of new technologies. P3s can help address this
problem. As explained in my written testimony, a P3 contract
that is ``future proofed'' is one that places the risk of not
adopting the latest technologies on the private partner, rather
than on the public asset owner. This contractual provision puts
both parties ``on the lookout'' for the latest technological
advances that may improve the quality of project delivery.
Impact on the economy and on quality of life.
Infrastructure supports economic development. Robust
infrastructure is essential for disaster preparedness and the
ability to respond to potential and real disasters. Well-
designed and maintained infrastructure can withstand natural
disasters, such as earthquakes, floods and hurricanes,
minimizing damage and aiding in recovery.
Q.2. Given your extensive work in this area, what solutions can
Congress take to support the use of P3s?
A.2. There are several important steps that Congress can take
to support the use of P3s in the United States. I describe a
few below.
Eliminate the cap on private activity bonds (PABs). PABs
are a way of leveling the ``cost-of-capital playing field''
between tax-exempt municipal bonds and the privately issued
debt often used to finance infrastructure projects. They are a
type of low-cost financing that allows the issuance of tax-free
municipal bonds by private entities such as the special-purpose
vehicles that deliver major infrastructure projects. They are
used for a variety of transportation projects, including
highways, passenger rail, surface freight transfer facilities,
high-speed commuter and passenger rail lines, urban transit,
new express/managed lanes, and bridge replacements.
PABs were originally viewed as experimental. The
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021 increased
the cap on PABs for qualified highway and surface freight
transfer facility projects from $15 billion to $30 billion.
Recognizing that there is no cap on the total amount of tax-
exempt municipal bond issuance, and that no other country has
this type of tax structure that favors publicly issued debt, it
is now appropriate for Congress to not only raise, but to
eliminate the cap on the issuance of PABs. This would greatly
facilitate the market for P3s in the United States, send a
signal that private investment is welcome, and would contribute
to economic development and job creation.
Improve public-sector P3 contracting capacity. Because P3s
are still somewhat new in the United State compared to many
other developed countries, public-sector asset owners are often
not experienced with this project-delivery method. P3s can be
vastly different from the traditional delivery that many
public-sector officials are used to. Public-sector officials
often need to become more sophisticated to do P3s properly.
They can do this by paying for excellent legal and financial
advice as they move forward with a P3, which is often costly.
They can also do this by creating in-house P3 expertise through
the establishment of a ``P3 unit,'' like the State of
Virginia's Office of Public-Private Partnerships. A Public-
Private Partnership (PPP) unit is an organization that is
responsible for the promotion, facilitation, and assessment of
PPPs in a given area. PPP units can be Government agencies or
semi-independent organizations that are supported by the
Government, either fully or partially. Congress can facilitate
use of P3s in the United States through the encouragement of
both paying for high-quality outside expertise and the creation
of P3 units.
For more information on PPP Units, see, Private
Participation in U.S. Infrastructure: The Role of PPP Units, by
R. Richard Geddes and Carter B. Casady (American Enterprise
Institute) October 26, 2016, https://www.aei.org/.
Facilitate the creation of more facility-specific revenue
sources. Importantly, P3s can be done on infrastructure
facilities that do not have a dedicated user-fee revenue
source. The main way of doing so is via an ``availability
payment'' approach where the private partner is paid either on
the basis of performance or on the basis of measured facility
use. P3s work better, however, in cases where there is a user-
fee sources of revenue which goes directly to the private
partner. \1\ Therefore, one of the main ways that Congress
could facilitate greater use of P3 in the United States is to
help create facility-specific dedicated revenue sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For an analysis of the differences between availability
payment P3s versus real-toll P3s, see Robert Poole, Availability
Payment or Revenue-Risk P3 Concessions? Pros and Cons for Highway
Infrastructure, Reason Foundation Policy Study No. 458 (November 2017),
available at: https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/
infrastructure-availability-payment-revenue-risk-concessions.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One major example of potential user-fee revenue is tolling
the existing Interstate highway system instead of relying on
fossil-fuel taxes. Revenue from fossil fuel taxes is
unsustainable and declining, primarily due to the increasing
number of electric vehicles and more fuel-efficient cars on the
road, which means people are buying less gas, thus generating
less tax revenue from gas purchases. Moreover, taxes on
gasoline and diesel fuel are not indexed to inflation. An
obvious solution is per-mile tolling of Interstate highway use,
since toll revenue is independent of the fuel used to power the
vehicle.
Congress moved in this direction in the TEA-21 Act of 1998,
which created a pilot program under which a State may collect
tolls on one Interstate highway for the purpose of
reconstructing or rehabilitating a highway that could not
otherwise be adequately maintained or functionally improved
without the collection of tolls. However, only three States
were allowed to be included in the pilot program. Although that
was 26 years ago, both tolling technology and the understanding
of tolling's effectiveness have improved greatly. By clearing
the way for expanded use of tolling on existing interstate
highways, Congress could greatly increase P3 use in the United
States. This should be included in any future highway
reauthorization bill.
Q.3. Are you aware of any shortcomings related to P3s?
If yes, please explain whether these shortcomings can be
addressed through legislation.
A.3. Rather than ``shortcomings'' I would say that P3s have
certain costs. One important cost of the P3 method is the so-
called ``transaction costs.'' These are the costs associated
with procuring an infrastructure facility via P3 versus a more
traditional method, such as design-bid-build combined with tax-
exempt municipal bond financing. P3s are usually more complex
and thus more costly to procure. There is also the risk that
public-sector owners are not familiar with P3s and thus agree
to unfavorable terms. As noted previously, those issues can be
addressed through the retention of top-notch expertise, as well
as by the creation of PPP Units. Congress can help address this
by supporting both avenues for improved public-sector capacity.
Second, due to their often-higher transaction and
contracting costs, P3s may not be appropriate for smaller
projects. That is, it does not make sense to incur the higher
transaction costs associated with P3s if the total size of the
project is small. Congress can however help address this
problem by encouraging public-sector asset owners to combine or
``bundle'' many smaller projects into one large P3. This will
not only spread out the (fixed) P3 transaction costs over a
larger project but is also likely to attract more U.S. and
international bidders, which makes procurement more
competitive.
An example of this type of bundling is the Pennsylvania
Rapid Bridge Replacement Program. That Project is a P3 that
replaced 558 structurally deficient bridges in Pennsylvania.
The project is the largest roadway project in the State's
history and the first of its kind in the United States to
bundle the replacement of hundreds of bridges in a single P3
agreement. Congress can explore tools to encourage States to
undertake more similar bundling projects.
Q.4. P3s are used by the Federal Government to finance
infrastructure projects as well as to manage real property. \2\
Are you aware of other positive uses of P3s across other
Government sectors? If so, are there lessons we can learn and
apply from other types of P3s as well?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Jefreda Brown; Melody Kazel, ``Public-Private Partnerships
(PPPs) Definition, How They Work, and Examples, Investopedia'', (August
7 2024), https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/public-private-
partnerships.asp.
A.4. To provide a broad answer, P3s have been used in such
diverse activities as funding and building transportation
infrastructure like toll roads, operating public facilities
like airports through private concessions, developing new
technologies through research collaborations with private
companies, and utilizing private companies to manage certain
aspects of health care delivery, particularly in underserved
areas. More specific examples include leasing out highway
operations to private companies in exchange for toll revenue,
as was done on the Indiana Toll Road P3. In energy there are
examples of partnering with private companies to develop
renewable energy sources or improve energy grid infrastructure.
In health care there are examples of collaborating with private
health care providers to deliver services in rural areas or
manage specific health care programs. There are also examples
in research and development (R&D) of funding research projects
in collaboration with private companies to develop new
technologies, such as in the pharmaceutical or biotechnology
sectors. In community development there are examples of P3s
that use private investment to revitalize urban areas through
projects like housing development or infrastructure
improvements. P3s in public-service accommodations include
school buildings, prisons, student dormitories, community
centers, and entertainment or sports facilities.
Although P3 use is more extensive in other countries, there
are important specific examples in the United States. Regarding
school districts, there is a recent project by Miami-Dade
County Public Schools (MDCPS), a project in Lee County,
Florida, and another school P3 in Maryland. These projects
illustrate how P3s can be used to deliver new educational
facilities.
P3 have also been used in the water sector in the United
States. For example, the city of Rialto, California, contracted
with Veolia to provide operation and maintenance services to
the city's wastewater treatment plant and collection system.
Similarly, Wilmington, Delaware, used a P3 to help that city
provide more than $1.5 million in annual operating savings at
its wastewater treatment plant.
Regarding general lessons that can be learned and applied
from other P3s, the main lessons are ensuring that the public-
sector project sponsor has adequate expertise and knowledge to
properly execute and monitor a P3. This includes having the
capacity to enforce the P3 contract over its entire life cycle.
The second lesson is that the relatively high transaction costs
of using the P3 approach is only appropriate where the expected
benefits exceed those costs. This is more likely to be true for
larger projects or where a number of smaller projects are
bundled together.
Q.5. During the hearing, we had the opportunity to discuss the
unduly burdensome Federal regulations, and the cumbersome red
tape experienced by many due to the implementation of the
National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) of 1970. More than
50 years after its enactment, NEPA regulations have made little
progress to efficiently take environmental concerns into
consideration when developing infrastructure, and instead have
delayed projects from breaking ground, keeping local
communities at a standstill. What is even more concerning, is
that the burdensome process has been recognized--and rectified
for some, but not for all through streamlined permitting
processes for large-scale infrastructure projects.
How do programs that prioritize ``green'' projects over
traditional infrastructure projects, impact State and local
communities?
A.5. Compared to other countries, the United States is
notorious for slow and costly project delivery. One well-
recognized cause is the cumbersome environmental process as
required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970,
or NEPA. In a recent paper with two coauthors, I show that a
typical environmental impact statement (or EIS) under NEPA now
takes about 4\1/2\ years and is over 600 pages long. \3\ Some
EISs take over a decade to complete. These cumbersome processes
often discourage potential private partners from bidding on
projects. A White House study in 2020 found that the NEPA
permitting process takes between 3.5 and 6 years to complete,
on average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Michael Bennon, Daniel Hormaza, and R. Richard Geddes,
2024. ``A Hazard Analysis of Federal Permitting Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1970'', Journal of Regulatory Economics,
Springer, vol. 65(1), pp. 154-183, June.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although a detailed discussion of NEPA reform is outside
the scope of this document, two recent studies point the way
for important reforms. Those studies are Robert Poole, Jr.
``Reforming Environmental Litigation'', Reason Foundation, June
26, 2024 (available at https://reason.org/policy-brief/
reforming-environmental-litigation/) and Nikki Chiappa,
``Understanding NEPA Litigation: A Systematic Review of Recent
NEPA-Related Appellate Court Cases'', (Washington, DC:
Breakthrough Institute), July 11, 2024 (available at: https://
thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/understanding-nepa-
litigation).
Although many States have resources assigned to permitting-
related issues, only some have dedicated offices sufficiently
resourced and empowered to address the known issues. Today's
permitting challenges will be exacerbated by the accelerated
pace of infrastructure investment over the next decade. Now,
more than ever, there is an urgency to establish clear
guidance, enabling clear communication and providing access to
consistent information.
[all]