[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BRAC IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA: BASE REALIGNMENT AND CALAMITY? A REVIEW OF
BRAC'S IMPACT ON TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN OUR REGION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
AUGUST 31, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-181
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
29-934 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JON C. PORTER, Nevada C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina Columbia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania ------
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio (Independent)
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
David Marin, Staff Director
Lawrence Halloran, Deputy Staff Director
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on August 31, 2006.................................. 1
Statement of:
Kaine, Tim, Governor, Commonwealth of Virginia............... 9
O'Brien, Senator Jay, Commonwealth of Virginia; Keith E.
Eastin, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations
and Environment, accompanied by, Colonel Brian Lauritzen,
Garrison Commander, Fort Belvoir, and Jim Curran, traffic
consultant, Fort Belvoir Project; Jeff Shane, Under
Secretary of Transportation for Policy, U.S. Department of
Transportation; David B. Albo, Delegate of the 42nd
District of Virginia, Virginia House of Delegates; Gerald
W. Hyland, Mount Vernon District supervisor, Fairfax County
board of Supervisors; Dana Kaufman, Lee District
supervisor, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors; Dean
Tistadt, chief operating officer and assistant
superintendent for facilities and transportation, Fairfax
County Public Schools; Kevin D. Kirk, president, west
Springfield Civic Association; Vivian Watts, Virginia House
of Delegates; and Senator Toddy Puller, Mount Vernon/Lee
District................................................... 24
Albo, David B............................................ 40
Eastin, Keith E.......................................... 25
Hyland, Gerald W......................................... 48
Kaufman, Dana............................................ 53
Kirk, Kevin D............................................ 65
O'Brien, Senator Jay..................................... 24
Puller, Toddy............................................ 72
Shane, Jeff.............................................. 33
Tistadt, Dean............................................ 62
Watts, Vivian............................................ 68
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Albo, David B., Delegate of the 42nd District of Virginia,
Virginia House of Delegates, prepared statement of......... 42
Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia, prepared statement of................... 4
Eastin, Keith E., Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Installations and Environment, prepared statement of....... 27
Hyland, Gerald W., Mount Vernon District supervisor, Fairfax
County board of Supervisors, prepared statement of......... 50
Kaine, Tim, Governor, Commonwealth of Virginia, prepared
statement of............................................... 13
Kaufman, Dana, Lee District supervisor, Fairfax County Board
of Supervisors, prepared statement of...................... 55
Kirk, Kevin D., president, west Springfield Civic
Association, prepared statement of......................... 67
Puller, Toddy, Mount Vernon/Lee District, prepared statement
of Mr. Sickles............................................. 73
Shane, Jeff, Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy,
U.S. Department of Transportation, prepared statement of... 35
Tistadt, Dean, chief operating officer and assistant
superintendent for facilities and transportation, Fairfax
County Public Schools, prepared statement of Mr. Dale...... 63
Watts, Vivian, Virginia House of Delegates, prepared
statement of............................................... 70
BRAC IN NORTHERN VIRGINIA: BASE REALIGNMENT AND CALAMITY? A REVIEW OF
BRAC'S IMPACT ON TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN OUR REGION
----------
THURSDAY, AUGUST 31, 2006
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Springfield, VA.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., at
Rolling Valley Elementary School, 6703 Barnack Drive,
Springfield, VA, Hon. Tom Davis (chairman of the committee)
presiding.
Also present: Representative Moran.
Staff present: David Marin, staff director; Larry Halloran,
deputy staff director; Ed Puccerella, Christopher Bright, and
Chris Lopez, professional staff members; Teresa Austin, chief
clerk; Michael Galindo, deputy clerk; Ali Ahmad, staff
assistant; Michael Sazonov, research assistant; Bill Womack,
legislative director; and Kim Trinca, minority staff.
Chairman Tom Davis. If everyone could take their seats, the
hearing will come to order. I want to thank everybody for
joining us today to examine the Army's plans for implementation
of the recommendations of the BRAC Commission and how they will
affect northern Virginia, the metropolitan D.C. area, and the
Army's ability to accomplish its mission.
Since 1988 the BRAC Commission and the BRAC process has
served as the mechanism to realign military installations to
match the challenges of an evolving world. The four previous
BRAC rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995 brought about 97 major
closures, 55 major realignments and 235 minor actions. Overall,
DOD claims that the previous BRAC rounds saved the American
taxpayers around $18 billion through fiscal 2001 and a further
$7 billion per year since. However, the 2005 BRAC
recommendations represent the most extensive BRAC ever
proposed, affecting more than 800 installations. DOD claims
BRAC 2005 will cut excess military infrastructure between 5 and
11 percent and save $48.8 billion over 20 years.
As part of the 2005 process, the Department of Defense made
numerous recommendations to the BRAC Commission regarding
activities in the metropolitan D.C. area. Many of these could
be characterized as part of a concerted effort to move DOD
functions from leased office space to military posts. The main
rationale was that leased space did not meet the Army's rigid
force protection standards.
Along with my colleague Jim Moran who joins me here today,
as well as Senators Warner and Allen, we all argued vigorously
against the Army's recommendations. We voted to disapprove the
mission's final recommendations. I felt that the Department of
Defense was using the BRAC process as a vehicle to advance an
unrelated policy goal, mainly moving out of leased space. I
also felt that the entire BRAC process looked at these issues
solely from a DOD perspective. There was little coordination
with other agencies regarding the impact of these moves.
For northern Virginia, the final result of the 2005 BRAC
round was that 23,000 personnel, a force the size of the
Pentagon, will be relocating to Fort Belvoir by 2011. In the
BRAC game, the conventional wisdom has always been that those
who saved or gained jobs won, and those who lost jobs lost. The
jobs coming to Fort Belvoir are very desirable, highly skilled,
high paying jobs with considerable economic spin-off, but that
will be little consolation if the tradeoff for these jobs is
chaos on our roadways. Unfortunately I think that's where we're
headed. Yesterday's Washington Post reported that the
Washington, DC, region already has the second longest average
commute in the Nation. Without proper planning and execution,
the influx of traffic to Fort Belvoir could lead to the
collapse of the transportation infrastructure along the I-95
corridor, making the situation even worse.
In February the Army awarded a $60 million contract for
master planning services at Fort Belvoir to handle BRAC-related
issues. As part of this process the Army also formed a board of
advisers comprised of Federal, State and local stakeholders to
discuss issues and concerns regarding BRAC implementation at
Fort Belvoir. On July 28th the Army announced its initial plan
to site military activities in the fort.
This plan involves locating 18,000 personnel on the
Engineer Proving Grounds, a former live-fire range located on
the western side of I-95. The remainder will be located on the
main post located off Route 1.
The Army also announced its intention to locate the
National Army Museum on the western portion of the Engineer
Proving Ground. The museum had been planned for the main post.
I would note that the museum is not part of the BRAC process.
Finally, the Army intends to build a new hospital to
replace the aging DeWitt Hospital on the main post, which
hospital will also host some of the services formerly provided
at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
The Army's plans raise a number of concerns, foremost among
them the effects they are going to have on regional traffic.
How does the Army propose to handle an estimated 15,000 extra
car trips per day? The Army's answer is a number of
transportation projects, 14 of which they characterize as
required. These include the completion of the Fairfax County
Parkway, widening of I-95 and new access ramps to EPG. However,
only three of these projects, the completion of the Fairfax
County Parkway, widening of I-95 between Fairfax County Parkway
and Route 123 and the Woodlawn road replacement are even
partially funded.
The completion of the Fairfax County Parkway was once
considered to be fully funded. However that's now doubtful
since the dispute regarding environment concerns has delayed
construction for years. So the question is, who's going to pay
for these projects? Only two are in Virginia's 6-year plan.
Only two are included in the most recent Federal transportation
reauthorization bill, the next version of which won't be
enacted until 2010 at the earliest.
Unless the Army plans to spend the money to fund these
projects, which it estimates to cost about $626 million, it's
foreseeable that little if any new transportation
infrastructure will be in place before 23,000 new people report
to Fort Belvoir.
Not to add insult to injury, but this figure does not
account for the private sector that's likely to also move to
the area along with the agencies they serve, and clearly that's
just not an acceptable situation. The Department of Defense got
what it asked for from the BRAC Commission. Now it has to
figure out how to put those pieces in place in only 5 years.
Those with experience with large projects will tell you that's
very little time. The concern is that the short-term imperative
of the deadline is outweighing long-term considerations. It
could be likened to 2-minute drills in a football game when
caution is thrown to the wind in the desperation hope of
beating the clock.
A case in point: The Federal Government currently owns a
General Services Administration warehouse facility in
Springfield just north of the EPG and adjacent to Interstate 95
and the Springfield Metro and VRE stations. It strikes me that
this property should be used as something other than warehouse
space next to a major transportation center. However, time
constraints have led the Army to take the option off the table
without giving it the consideration it merits.
I can certainly think of possibilities for the GSA site. As
the chairman of the Government Reform Committee, I have
jurisdiction over GSA and I intend to make sure these options
are explored. If it makes sense, we're going to followup on
them.
In closing, I called this hearing to highlight what I
believe is an unrealistic timeline and a flawed planning
process. It's my hope that doing so will provide the
justification for legislation that will allow the process to
move along in a rational manner.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.003
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. Thank you very much.
Chairman Tom Davis. Let me just--I would ask unanimous
consent that my colleague Mr. Moran be permitted to sit with
this hearing.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Tom. Tom, thank you very much for
having this hearing. It is as important as it is urgent. We
took a tour of this area earlier this morning, and we see what
a difference a commitment can make with regard to the
Springfield Mixing Bowl. That's working. But it's not going to
work if the people driving through it have to spend half an
hour on the road before they get to it. All of this
transportation situation is interrelated.
Now we're going to hear from Governor Kaine. I very much
appreciate your being here, Governor. You've spent a great deal
of time in northern Virginia, and I know that's deliberate
because you understand that northern Virginia's the economic
engine that is generating revenue for the rest of the State, is
leading the rest of the State, and really the country, in terms
of jobs generated. Northern Virginia is experiencing the
strongest economic growth in the country. In fact, in the last
5 years, more jobs have been created in northern Virginia than
anywhere in the country. That's terrific. But it also places an
enormous responsibility on us to maintain that momentum. The
economic health of the State is at stake and, really,
nationally as well.
We just saw an article as a result of the Census Bureau
yesterday that showed that Loudon is the fastest growing and
most affluent, Fairfax County is the third most affluent. But
that will not continue to be the case unless we make the kinds
of decisions that must be made now.
And, Governor, I say this with total conviction: that your
transportation plan, if it is not funded, that will be the
death knell of this economy in the long run. We cannot continue
to grow at the rate that we've been growing--anywhere near the
rate that we've been growing--if we continue to have the worst
transportation congestion in the country. And the commitment
that you have made to put a billion dollars a year into fixing
this transportation situation is absolutely essential. And
there's no way--and I know that Tom agrees, and Frank Wolf and
our Senators agree--that there's very little that the Federal
Government is going to be able to do unless the State does its
share as well.
So we're anxious to hear from you, but this immediate
situation is born of a judgment that was wrong. Tom referenced
the vote that we took on BRAC, and we should also credit
Senator Warner as well, who did a tremendous job laying out why
the decisions to move people out of leased space were not
consistent with the authorizing legislation. But we lost that
vote. So now we have to deal with the ramifications of moving
20,000 people out of Arlington County. Arlington County will
survive. Had those people moved out of this area, though, this
economy would have taken a major hit.
Now the reality is that 20,000 people are going to move
into Fort Belvoir, and in fact if you add in the contractors,
it's going to be probably 24,000, 25,000 people. As Tom has
said, this is more people moving into southeast Fairfax County
than are employed at the entire Pentagon. Imagine that: to move
the entire Pentagon work force into southeast Fairfax County,
it's the equivalent of four major military bases. But the
Pentagon has Metro, it has excellent bus service, it's right on
395 and Washington Boulevard, so it obviously has figured out
how to accommodate that traffic. The reason we're having this
hearing today is that we are not prepared at all to accommodate
the traffic that this move of more than 20,000 people will
require. That's why we're here.
Now, the average commuter in northern Virginia loses 72
hours each year to congestion. If we don't fix this, that
figure is going to be in the triple digits. It will be over 100
hours a year on average. This scenario is going to be a
disaster for employees, for commuters, and in fact for everyone
that lives and works in this area because we're not just
talking about those 20-plus thousand people in southeast
Fairfax, we're talking about all the people that are traveling
north on 95 or Route 1. All of them will be impacted by this if
we don't do the right thing.
Now, it's a good thing that the Army has decided to split
up some of these projects but, as Tom said, they've missed the
boat in a number of areas. For example, the GSA warehouse. That
is so much closer to public transportation, it's Federal land,
we need to use that location. We need to use that property as
part of this solution. The Army has identified 14 projects that
are required to make this work, 14 required projects. We agree.
Gerry Hyland, Dana Kauffman, our State delegates all agree
these are required to make this work. They estimate that it
will cost $626 million, and yet only 3 of those 14 required
projects have any identified funding source.
Now, it stands, Virginia's 6-year plan has been cut by
almost $800 million, $795 million. Without additional revenues,
the State funding will be limited to road maintenance and
matching Federal money beginning in 2010. That's grossly
inadequate. It doesn't include meeting any of these needs.
Now, the Fairfax County Parkway certainly needs to be
completed. There is some money for that, but it certainly is
inadequate. So we're going to try to find answers to the
questions as to what the Army is prepared--willing to pay for,
what kind of legislation is going to be required by the
Congress to enable the Army to meet its funding
responsibilities, what is the timetable for moving people,
because we've had many discussions on this, and both Tom and I
agree, you've got to have the infrastructure in place before
you move 20,000 people into this area. So that timetable needs
to match the funding timetable.
We'll talk a bit about the U.S. Army Museum when we hear
from the Army. We will try to refine some of these cost
estimates, but this hearing is really the kickoff of a campaign
that can't stop until we find the funding and we find the
solutions and we're able to--that will enable us to accommodate
more than 20,000 people into southeast Fairfax. So it's going
to be the best of worlds if we can do it. It will be the worst
of worlds if we cannot.
And, Tom, again let me conclude by where I started. I thank
you for holding this hearing as Chairman of the Government
Reform Committee. You have the authorization to hold a formal
hearing. This is such a hearing and it is just the kind of
hearing we need. So thank you again. And Governor Kaine, thank
you for your leadership.
Chairman Tom Davis. Jim, thank you. And I know as a member
of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, on Armed
Services, you will be playing a key role in this as it goes
through. So we are happy to have you here.
We are just very pleased to have the Governor of the
Commonwealth of Virginia here today. Governor Kaine, you have
proposed a lot for transportation. I want you to know I have
personally spoken to my State Senator in support of your
transportation plan, and we appreciate all of your initiatives
in this and so many other things, and it's been a pleasure to
work with you during your tenure as Governor. The partisanship
and bickering aside, I think we've had a great working
relationship. We're going to work together on this as well as
so many other issues. So thank you very much for being here.
It's our policy to swear witnesses in.
[Witness sworn.]
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Once again, thank
you for your leadership.
STATEMENT OF TIM KAINE, GOVERNOR, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Governor Kaine. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the
invitation. Congressman Moran, ladies and gentlemen, good
morning. I begin by thanking you again for this hearing on a
matter that is just critical to northern Virginia and the
entire Commonwealth. The three of us have all spent time in
local government. We started our public service careers there,
and we know as former local government officials the critical
balance that has to be struck between land use decisions and
the transportation planning and infrastructure. You've carried
that local experience, both of you, to Washington and are key
leaders in transportation efforts.
And, Congressman Davis, I just want to mention that your
focus this year on the potential for Federal matching funds for
expansion of Metro and Metrobus is something that I mentioned
to the legislature just 2 or 3 days ago as something that we
need to focus on.
But we're here today to talk about a different partnership,
and that's what has been a long and productive partnership
between the Commonwealth of Virginia and the U.S. military, a
partnership that is historic and important, and we want to make
sure it continues to go forward in a positive way. And
specifically, we're talking about the jobs that will come to
Fort Belvoir, the Engineer Proving Grounds. And also I'll say a
little bit about the growth of Quantico, which does factor into
this discussion today.
We are pleased with any decision to bring great jobs, you
know, to Virginia. And so the decision to relocate the National
Geospatial Intelligence Agency, in particular, high-quality
technology jobs to Virginia, what a natural thing, because
we're a great community for these kinds of jobs. The idea of
the Army History Museum, the new hospital, other DOD
consolidations at Belvoir and Quantico, these present some
wonderful opportunities. But the situation, though, as you
pointed out in your comments is really a microcosm for the
biggest challenge that faces our economy today as a
Commonwealth. We have this exciting opportunity. We welcome
high-quality jobs, but can we successfully accommodate these
additional workers? This is not just an issue about northern
Virginia. It's an issue about the entire Commonwealth because
the entire Commonwealth for the last decade to a large degree
has been yoked to the success of this most dynamic economy in
the State. And if we get it right here, everyone in Virginia
benefits. If we get it wrong here, it's tough for those in
northern Virginia, it's tough for those everywhere all across
the Commonwealth.
The future growth of Fort Belvoir, the Proving Ground in
Quantico, represents a major land use decision by the Federal
Government, with extraordinary ramifications. In just 5 years,
the effect of these BRAC actions, as you indicated, will be the
equivalent of putting a Pentagon on this site or moving the
entire population of the town of Herndon to this site, and that
is demonstration of the significance of it. The impact will be
substantial, and it's an unplanned change to the quality of
life and existing transportation system of every northern
Virginian touched by I-95 from the Beltway all the way to
Fredericksburg.
Even the Army's own analysis shows, given current funding
levels, that we can't meet the shared responsibility to ensure
that the commuter can get between home and work in a safe
manner. Our internal analysis indicates the effects of the
relocation could extend along I-95 from Belvoir to well south
of Quantico where the addition of 3,000 employees there will
add to the existing challenge that we're talking about today.
Our existing highways are overwhelmed, as you know. Current
employees at Fort Belvoir who must travel south on I-95 to get
home at night must contend with stop-and-go conditions that
last 3 or more hours every evening, and the conditions on Route
1 are not much better.
The Commonwealth has only funding to address--to partially
address the current congestion levels. We have resources right
now, as you referenced, to widen I-95 to four lanes in each
direction, significant construction to begin in 2008. However,
even with this major improvement, the engineers tell us by 2010
motorists traveling southbound in the evening will have 3 or
more hours in the evening of stop-and-go traffic, and that
condition will exist even before we wrestle with this question
of Fort Belvoir and the EPG.
Now, much has been said about the need to complete the
Fairfax County Parkway. We agree, and we have funds committed
to that. But the funds were committed to expand the parkway
prior to the assumption that we would be looking at 18,000 more
people coming to the area. Probably the most challenging piece
of this--and I would be glad to talk more about it if you would
like--is to provide transit service to the site. If indeed the
relocated work force could come from the north and east, the
Army should consider direct Metrorail extension to the site. If
the relocated work force comes from the south, consideration of
VRA bus or hot lane access is incredibly important. Mr.
Chairman, these are just suggestions, but more hard analysis is
needed.
We've received the Army's proposed list of transportation
projects only recently to fully grasp the extent of the BRAC
challenges and the decisions we need to make in tandem. To that
end, what we would request is basically a series of things in
the spirit of partnership. We would like the Department of
Defense to take the following steps: First, that the Department
work with the Commonwealth, the GSA, and the Federal Highway
Administration and regional planning agencies to define the
basic transportation assumptions. And particularly, we need to
know how many private contractors, as you have indicated, will
cluster around these Federal employees who will move here. We
will be talking about more than 22,000 jobs in Fort Belvoir and
3,000 at Quantico.
Second, the Department of Defense should work with VDOT and
the FHA and the Federal Transit Administration to define
appropriate standards and methodologies for impact studies, I-
95, the parkway, Route 1 are all part of the national highway
system, and these national standards should be applied as
rigorously here as in any other case. In particular, we need to
know if it's appropriate to base long-term travel forecasts on
zip code questionnaires of current employees.
Third, DOD should work with VDOT, FHA, regional planning
organizations to develop a comprehensive and rigorous analysis
of the direct and indirect transportation impacts of the BRAC
relocations. In both Route 1 and I-95 corridors, the effort
should include a review of realistic and achievable strategies
to use through teleworking, flex-time, maximizing transit and
HOV usage, and incorporating security check impacts in the
facility and operational planning.
Next, DOD should work with the relevant agencies, VDOT and
the FHA, to look at realistic cost estimates for this list of
project improvements; as it was pointed out, only a few of
which are contemplated in the current 6-year plan in Virginia
and not contemplated to the extent that would be required by
this plan. DOD and the Commonwealth has to work together to
secure funding for traffic and environmental mitigation
efforts. And Mr. Chairman, the most important of all, the DOD
must incorporate these impact studies and the mitigation
efforts into the environmental documents currently underway for
both Fort Belvoir and Quantico. That's the only way to achieve
the balance between transportation and land use that we all
have worked hard to achieve and want to achieve in this
instance.
Failing that, failing the incorporation, Virginia is
prepared to do what we can to lead the analytic effort, but it
will not be nearly as successful if we cannot do it in tandem.
So in closing, Mr. Chairman, we are proud, obviously, not
only of the strength of our economy and the fact that we can
attract great jobs, but of our long and successful history
partnership with the U.S. military. That's a key part of who we
are as Virginians. We're excited to have more Armed Forces, we
are excited to have more jobs, and we're dedicated to working
with our partners to do all that we can to ensure that the
transition is as smooth as possible.
This may be--although there have been other transportation
challenges a lot in the media about particular items--this may
be the single most challenging, I would say from my perspective
as Governor, the Fort Belvoir situation and the growth of the
Port of Hampton Roads, the Port of Virginia, are the two most
challenging long-term transportation land use problems that we
have in Virginia right now.
There is much work to do. I look forward to working in
tandem with you and doing all we can to partner with DOD to do
the appropriate planning and then find the financing to make
this something that doesn't detract from the quality of life in
northern Virginia.
[The prepared statement of Governor Kaine follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.008
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Governor, let me ask, I think your concern is one that both
Congressman Moran and I raised as well; that is just getting
our arms around the scope of the problem. We don't really know
where the people that will be moving into the area are going to
live.
Governor Kaine. Right.
Chairman Tom Davis. It's great to do zip codes of current
employees, but a lot of these people will be new to the
Commonwealth. Hard to get a grip around that. Also in Crystal
City, although it will be vacated from DOD space, other
businesses are going to move in there. So a lot of the traffic
that's currently going to Crystal City will be going there for
other jobs, wouldn't you imagine?
Governor Kaine. Absolutely, Mr. Chair. The two planning
assumptions that we just immediately kind of questioned, that
we really need to drill down on are--the first one, you are
right. Where are the people going to live and travel from? The
Army's assumption suggests that 60 percent or more will be
traveling north to south to come to Fort Belvoir. That is at
odds with some of the experience that we have right now. If it
was north to south in the morning, it will be slightly a bit of
a reverse commute, but we think from the expansion all the way
down to Fredericksburg, it may be the reverse, compounding the
northbound traffic problems every morning.
And the second assumption that right away we need to get a
handle on is, how many contractors will come? This Geospatial
Intelligence Agency is one powerhouse enterprise in terms of
attracting private commercial development and contractors. And
so we have to do the hard work to figure out what are the
numbers we're actually dealing with.
Chairman Tom Davis. I would just guess that the people
moving into the area are more likely to locate south, where
land is cheaper, where they can get more acreage for fewer
dollars and the like. So we need to get a handle around that if
we want to do proper planning.
You've seen the Army's list of required transportation
projects. Does the Commonwealth agree with that or is there any
supplement or any additions you would want to make? And you've
seen the Army's cost estimates. Does the State lead any of its
own cost estimates?
Governor Kaine. Mr. Chair, we don't either have our own
list or our own cost estimates yet because the list was only
shared with us recently. I think the list looks to be an
appropriate list. We didn't look at that list and say gosh, you
know, they're clearly omitting something. But it's a sizable
list, about 14 projects, as you mention, only two or three of
which would be in the 6-year plan right now, and some funded at
a much more minimal level. And so it is a sizable list. We want
to work with the Army to understand some of their assumptions
and see if it should be changed. This are they coming from the
north or from the south could well change the projects that are
necessary and we would want to work with them on the cost
estimates as well.
Chairman Tom Davis. The keystone of the Army's plan seems
to be the intersection of I-95 and the Fairfax County Parkway,
but no matter where you work on Belvoir or which direction you
come from, you probably have to use this interchange. I think
that's the assumption. Does VDOT think this is a viable plan to
rely so heavily on one interchange?
Governor Kaine. No. The current design of that interchange
is not adequate for 18,000 new jobs. And so if we're going to
make the transportation infrastructure adequate, it's going to
be significant upgrades over the plan of that interchange. It's
going to be some significant discussion about transit.
You mention the GSA warehouse, Franconia/Springfield,
there's got to be some significant discussion about transit.
The Fairfax County Parkway current program for us has to be
built to a very different level to accommodate it, and then
there is going to be a whole series of other internal
improvements, but the interchange in and of itself will not
handle the 18,000 employees scheduled to come to the EPG.
Chairman Tom Davis. And my final question, I have to ask
this. The project that is the most funded of all these right
now is, of course, completion of the Fairfax County Parkway. At
one time it was fully funded, but with the delays and with the
upgrades the road may need now, this may have some deficits in
its funding as well. But there have been environmental
problems, as you know, everybody's afraid to take the leap and
build the road and take it over. We've put language in both the
House and the Senate defense authorization bills trying to
allow the Army to manage it and build it and turn it over. But
how is that coming from your perspective?
Governor Kaine. Well, first, you were charitable when you
said that maybe we would have to revisit whether we funded it
on our side. It is not funded to the level it needs to be, the
funding the State put in and so many State legislators here who
have worked on this based on a particular assumption about the
amount of traffic that with the addition of this 18,000 will
change very dramatically. So there will be more funding. The
staffs have talked about this environmental issue, and I think
we've actually had some positive discussions about, you know,
if we could find the funding, the way to manage a project to
get around some of the environmental concerns. We're not at the
end of that discussion, but I would say that the discussion has
been a cooperative one. But certainly, you know, as we expand
the scope of that project, some of the environmental issues get
more significant.
Chairman Tom Davis. Well, the delay is not only money at
this point. This road has to be completed. It's got to be an A-
1 order by opening day or nobody's going to be able to use the
site.
Governor Kaine. Absolutely.
Chairman Tom Davis. I appreciate your willingness to
continue your work on it.
Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Tim, Governor, you began your testimony by pointing out the
fact that all three of us started out in local government, Tom
on the Fairfax County Board, chairing the board for several
years. I was mayor of Alexandria. You were mayor of Richmond.
And so you are very much aware that while we generally focus on
the macroperspective, what really matters is the
microperspective. It's that family who is working hard every
day just to meet the mortgage, to plan their daily commute, to
get their kids to school or daycare or whatever, and to try to
maintain a standard of living that they've dreamed of for their
family. And it is that quality of life which is really what
we're talking about here.
All these numbers and grand plans, it really comes down to
how does it impact the average family that lives in this area
or south of 95? I know it's a little bit of--you know, it's a
different kind of question to ask you. But I know that's your
perspective as well. So would you elaborate a little bit on how
you feel these issues are going to impact that average family
in northern Virginia?
Governor Kaine. Certainly. Well, you know you hate it when
people from Richmond say they understand what you're going
through, because we really don't. But for 5 years, 1 year when
I was running for Lieutenant Governor, and then 4 years as
Lieutenant Governor, I spent a third of my time in northern
Virginia. And now when the legislature is not in session, which
actually isn't very much time these days, I spend about a third
of my time in northern Virginia. And so I've done that south-
to-north trip that thousands and thousands of Virginians do
every day, and seen it get worse and worse and worse over the
last 5 years. And I can kind of in my mind's eye say, OK,
22,000 more; add contractors, maybe it's 26,000, 27,000. Some
come from the north, so maybe it's 15,000 or 18,000 more in
rush hour. It is not a pretty picture.
The circumstances that folks in this region live with in
fighting through traffic is grim. It's grim in terms of the
amount of time, but the other thing that I never fully
appreciated until recently, it's grim in the unreliability of
it.
So people, you know, change their assumptions. This is
going to be rush hour so I will try to do this errand on a
Sunday afternoon or, you know, I'll try to go to work an hour
earlier or an hour later. And so people change their behavior
and then they find it's just as crowded. So that stop-and-go
traffic time isn't an hour in the afternoon. It's 2 hours and
it's 3, and we are robbing--we are robbing people of time with
family, and we are robbing businesses of productivity.
I was talking to somebody here in the northern Virginia
area recently who has a business that relies on crews going out
to do cable TV installations at folks' homes. And it used to be
that they could schedule, you know, 10 trips a day for a crew
and now it's 5 or 6 trips a day.
So at every level, what we are seeing is, you know, we're
victims of our success. We are a great place to live, but we
have to have the planning decisions made and then the
infrastructure funding to keep up with this, or people are
going to be confined to less and less of a high-quality life.
And this is our opportunity now to try to get this right.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Governor. Just one more, form of a
comment really, but it will end with a question.
We just looked at the Springfield Mixing Bowl and we
congratulate the Virginia Department of Transportation. It was
on time, and at least it was on budget in terms of the most
updated budget, but we got it done. You know, Tom remarked to
me that this was 94 percent Federal money. The Wilson bridge,
$2.5 billion Federal initiative. The State has done its share
on both projects, and that's why they got done.
But as my colleagues, Tom and Frank and our Senator Warner
said this many times--it is going to be very difficult,
whatever party's in power, whatever happens after this November
in terms of the House of Representatives, whatever happens
after 2008 in terms of the President, both Republicans and
Democrats are first going to look to us when we look for
Federal money and say, you know, your economy--and all of them
are going to be able to say this--your economy is so much
stronger than my economy. Why should you be getting the lion's
share of Federal money, whether it's for public transit or even
for the infrastructure necessary to bring in 20,000 jobs, which
they would do anything to get 20,000 new jobs into their
district, and likewise with rail to Dulles through Tyson's.
Going to be very difficult.
And so we have to be able to say, the State and the
locality is doing its share, as much or more than your State or
locality would be willing or able to do. And without that State
commitment, that commandant State commitment, I don't see how
we're going to address these issues. We will try to do
everything we can, and if Tom disagrees, he'll say so but----
Chairman Tom Davis. Well, Jim, if you'd just yield on that,
and then the Governor can respond.
As you know, we've been able to bring it home here. Woodrow
Wilson Bridge, the Mixing Bowl, rail to Dulles; and in the
latest $1.5 billion for Metro that we moved through the House,
this was targeted by a number of anti-tax groups, the club for
growth as being large--people are looking at northern Virginia
as kind of being pigs on this. Getting additional money's
tough, but one of the things that was cited by some of these
groups going after our appropriation for Metro was the fact
that the State wasn't stepping up and, well, the State doesn't
want this to do this and the like. And of course, Governor, you
have to be such a leader in this. It's been tough. That's why
it's imperative we pass a State package down there. It is going
to be hard for us to get money out of Washington without that
cooperation.
Mr. Moran. Let me amplify on that. Tom, you were able to
get a dedicated source of revenue for Metro. That was
essential. We could not have made our argument if we had not
done that. But that dedicated source of revenue again puts part
of the burden in your lap, Governor, and that of the
localities. They've got to come up with the matching money. As
I say, this was largely the form of a comment but it's a
comment I would like you to respond to.
Governor Kaine. Well, you know, my mom and dad taught me to
not ask people for help if I was not trying to help myself. And
one of the things that has been a critical part of this
discussion about transportation is that our Federal delegation,
both parties, and part of the State, have really gone to bat
for us in an amazing way.
Mr. Chairman, you started off talking about--putting
differences in partisanship aside--you will never hear them say
anything but positives about our Federal delegation, what they
have done for us on the transportation side. I have been with
each of you in the last 2 days, asking you to heavy-lift on
other projects. I hate to ask for heavy lifting by our Federal
delegation when I know that we are not doing what we need to do
as a Commonwealth, and we are not doing what we need to do. And
it is wrong for us as leaders at the State level to say, boy,
we hope the Federal Government will do more and maybe, gosh,
maybe local guys can do more, but we'll maintain a purity and
maintain or remove from it all. We can't do that.
Plans that are currently pending, either the plan that I
put on the table, or the Senate of Virginia has a plan that's
pending over in the House; if some version or some mixed
version of those plans were put together, double transit money
statewide, put money that would be available for Metro match,
nearly double urban and secondary road construction funds, and
so I want to do all that I can to challenge--and there are
other plans that are being discussed that would be very helpful
in this, and, as you know, we're coming back to the table down
in Richmond on September 27th to try to find a way so we can do
what we can do, so I can look you guys in the eye and say we
are doing what we need to do, and then we can go forward and
make that partnership continue to work.
I think we owe it to you because when we ask you to produce
for us and you do, and then we don't do what we need to do,
we're just not being the serious leaders that Virginians demand
that we be.
Mr. Moran. Well, thank you, Governor. That's the bottom
line. Tom talks with his State Senator, I put pressure on my
brother. But it comes down--it's ultimately going to come down
to your leadership. And I think your statement is the final
line.
I don't have any further questions.
Chairman Tom Davis. Governor, thank you very much. We
appreciate it.
We will take a 5-minute recess as we get our next panel up.
We are going to have Keith Eastin, the Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Installations and the Environment; Jeff Shane, the
Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy for the U.S.
Department of Transportation; David Albo, the Delegate for the
42nd District; Gerry Hyland, Mount Vernon District supervisor,
Fairfax County Board of Supervisors; Dana Kauffman, the Lee
District supervisor, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors; Dean
Tistadt, the chief operating officer and assistant
superintendent for facilities and transportation in the Fairfax
County Public Schools; and Mr. Kevin Kirk, the president of
West Springfield Civic Association.
I would also like to ask Senator O'Brien, Delegate Watts,
Senator Puller I noticed is here, and Delegate Sickles, if
you'd also like to make a comment, we'd be happy to have that
on the record and invite you up here, and we'll make room. So
we'll take about a 5-minute recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Tom Davis. All right. If we could have the
panelists take their seats and the audience take their seats,
we'll proceed to the second panel.
We have a very distinguished second panel as well. We have
Keith Eastin, again, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Installations and Environment. Keith was kind of a point man
for the Army on this. We appreciate you being here. Keith, you
have a couple people with you I think we'd like to swear in as
well. Who are they, for the record?
Mr. Eastin. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have with me Colonel Brian
Lauritzen who is the Garrison Commander, if you will, the mayor
of Belvoir. He may be asked to elaborate on some things, if you
could swear him in. And also Jim Curran who is our traffic
consultant for the Belvoir project.
Chairman Tom Davis. We'll swear you in so you can answer
questions directly, should they come up.
Again, we have Jeff Shane, the Under Secretary of
Transportation for Policy for the U.S. Department of
Transportation.
We have David Albo, the Delegate from the 42nd District of
Virginia, the Virginia House of Delegates. David, thank you for
being with us.
We have the Honorable Gerry Hyland, a member of the Board
of Supervisors from the Mount Vernon District, Fairfax County.
Gerry, thank you for being here.
Honorable Dana Kauffman. Dana is the Lee District
supervisor here, and I understand as well your testimony is for
Chairman Connolly, who I understand is recuperating today and
has sent you. And, of course, you preside over a good part of
this area as well.
My old friend Dean Tistadt, who is the chief operating
officer and assistant superintendent for facilities and
transportation for the Fairfax Public Schools. Thank you for
being with us.
We have Kevin Kirk, a real citizen, here among everyone
else; the president of the West Springfield Civic Association,
which is going to be hugely impacted by this development and
has taken the lead in the past. Thank you for being with us as
well.
We have the Honorable Vivian Watts, a member of the House
of Delegates, where the EPG sits as well. Vivian, thank you
very much; a former Secretary of Transportation in the
Commonwealth of Virginia as well.
And Senator Toddy Puller from the Mount Vernon Lee area is
sitting there. Fort Belvoir is in her district. Toddy, thank
you for being with us.
And we have Jay O'Brien, a State Senator from the district
where we're sitting right here as well. Jay, thank you for
being with us.
It's our policy we swear everyone in. If you would just
rise and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. I am going to
break a little bit, and I know Senator O'Brien has another
meeting. And, Jay, I will let you lead off, and then I'm going
to go right back to Keith Eastin. We do have a light in front
of you that's green when you start. It turns orange after 4
minutes, red after 5. To the extent we can adhere to that,
we'll move along crisply. Thank you for being with us.
STATEMENTS OF SENATOR JAY O'BRIEN, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA;
KEITH E. EASTIN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR
INSTALLATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY, COLONEL BRIAN
LAURITZEN, GARRISON COMMANDER, FORT BELVOIR, AND JIM CURRAN,
TRAFFIC CONSULTANT, FORT BELVOIR PROJECT; JEFF SHANE, UNDER
SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; DAVID B. ALBO, DELEGATE OF THE 42ND DISTRICT OF
VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES; GERALD W. HYLAND, MOUNT
VERNON DISTRICT SUPERVISOR, FAIRFAX COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS; DANA KAUFMAN, LEE DISTRICT SUPERVISOR, FAIRFAX
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; DEAN TISTADT, CHIEF OPERATING
OFFICER AND ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT FOR FACILITIES AND
TRANSPORTATION, FAIRFAX COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; KEVIN D. KIRK,
PRESIDENT, WEST SPRINGFIELD CIVIC ASSOCIATION; VIVIAN WATTS,
VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES; AND SENATOR TODDY PULLER, MOUNT
VERNON/LEE DISTRICT
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAY O'BRIEN
Mr. O'Brien. Thank you very much, Chairman Davis,
Congressman Moran, it is a pleasure to be before your
committee. I have three particular interests in this
discussion. First of all, as a resident of northern Virginia,
my own commute through Springfield and the Mixing Bowl; second
as a representative for this area, the concerns that my
constituents have about their quality of life; and third, as a
recent military retiree, I just retired as a Reserve colonel in
March, and plan on continuing my visits to Fort Belvoir for the
many benefits that they provide to the military community, be
they Active Duty, dependents, or retirees, such as myself.
After the first numbers of BRAC came out, we were all very
surprised by the number, the impact that it would have. Recent
revisions and polls show that many people who will be moving
their office to the Fort Belvoir area will not be relocating.
While that may be positive, I think there will be a significant
physical impact on new homes, schools, restaurants,
entertainment, grocery stores and the like.
Congressman, you mentioned the new hospital, the shift of
health care and health care services from Walter Reed to Fort
Belvoir. That impact, I cannot tell you how big that is. The
number of Army, particularly Army military that currently visit
Walter Reed will now be visiting Fort Belvoir instead. These
are not regular work commuters, but people using the services
of Fort Belvoir. And last, of course, transportation. The
highest priority to me is the completion of the Fairfax County
Parkway. I also have the Mixing Bowl here in my district, but
there are so many other smaller arteries that Senator Puller
and I and our colleagues from the House of Delegates will be
concerned about.
So in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you. I was
very pleased to hear the comments of our Governor, and I
support his priorities as well in terms of trying to get a real
fix from the military in terms of the needs and then also the
way the General Assembly can respond to assist in those needs.
So thank you very much. We will, all of us, follow your
proceedings very, very closely because it is a community of
support that needs to come to the fore here to solve this
crucial problem. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you Senator O'Brien.
Keith, Honorable Secretary.
STATEMENT OF KEITH E. EASTIN
Mr. Eastin. Good morning, Mr. Secretary, Congressman Moran.
Many people would view this hearing with some trepidation,
especially if you were in my position, and one might want to
take a vacation and probably blame it on the coming storm or
something. I don't view it that way. I look forward to being
here, and I thank the chairman for having this hearing so that
we can express our views, hear what your concerns are, perhaps
answer some of them.
We are in a very challenging time here, and we would be
foolish not to acknowledge that. I have prepared some written
remarks. Rather than read those, I would----
Chairman Tom Davis. Written remarks will be in the record.
Questions will be based on the entire statement. Thank you.
Mr. Eastin. I would like to clear up a couple of
misimpressions that I think some people have. There are two
things about this process that are important. One is that BRAC
is a fact of life. The BRAC Commission has deemed it necessary
to move about 22,000 people from various other places in the
National Capital Region to Belvoir somewhere, somewhere on
Belvoir property. That includes both the South Post and the
Engineer Proving Ground that we will talk about sometime later.
While some might question the wisdom of putting so many people
down there, this is a fact of life that we the Army are
required to move and prepare for that 22,000 people coming
down.
The second fact of life is that this all must be done by
September 15, 2011. That's in the legislation. That does not
mean that they have to come down here on September 14, 2011.
They have to be here on September 15th. So all of the decisions
that are being made in terms of citing the traffic problems,
the moving problems, the building problems, all have to be
accomplished by that date.
So we do have a full 5-plus years. We have been working on
this for the better part of a year now, and a lot of planning
exercises have gone on, which is how you got the preliminary
siting that you see, which is under question here today. But we
believe this is going to be challenging, but we believe it can
be done. We're going to have to keep our foot on the
accelerator. We're going to have to manage this process very
closely and insist that it be done.
Which brings you to the next question, the question that is
on everybody's mind. This move is not necessarily about 22,000
jobs. It is not about environmental problems. It is not about
where to locate on Belvoir. This process we are engaged in is
all about traffic. We are talking about how to get the people
into, in our case, the EPG or the south post, and we want--they
are coming here to work, and we want to get them in a condition
so that when they get up in the morning and look in the mirror,
they're happy to think about going to work rather than sitting
in some sort of traffic mess.
Traffic in northern Virginia, I think it's an
understatement probably to say that we are traffickly
challenged here, and it is up to the Army and the Office of the
Secretary of Defense working with VDOT and the FHA to see if we
can't solve these traffic problems so that the workers can get
here and work and do their jobs, so that the neighbors don't
feel poorly about this influx of traffic. After all, I believe
the Governor has suggested before, we are looking for the
quality of life of our employees. This is how they are
productive. And let's not forget that the people here in many
cases are your neighbors. We are your neighbors. The people who
are working here are already your neighbors. We want to ease
their problems as much as we can.
The Army appreciates the friendship that the State of
Virginia has shown to the Army and the Defense establishment
over the years. We are particularly happy with Fairfax County's
welcoming of the Army here at Belvoir and elsewhere in the
county. We recognize these are problems. The Army, and Defense
in actuality, does not want to be someplace where they're not
welcome. We feel welcome. Your problems in traffic are our
problems in traffic. We expect to fix those so that we can all
get on about the business of defending the country and having a
good quality of life down here not only for us and our workers
but for the various citizens of Fairfax County. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Eastin follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.014
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Shane, thank you for being with us.
STATEMENT OF JEFF SHANE
Mr. Shane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. And good
morning, Congressman Moran. Mr. Chairman, I would also ask that
my prepared remarks be included in the record.
Chairman Tom Davis. I will just note for the record,
everyone who submitted prepared remarks are in the record at
this point so you can use your 5 minutes to sum up or clarify
or accentuate a few points.
Mr. Shane. Thanks very much. That is precisely what I'd
like to do. It is my pleasure today, Mr. Chairman, to represent
my boss, Acting Secretary of Transportation Maria Cino, and the
entire Department of Transportation to discuss with you the
potential impact on transportation congestion in our region
that may result from the implementation of the BRAC decision
that we have been discussing. I am going to even summarize my
summary because we've been talking a lot about the projects
that will be a part of the complex of responses.
What I'd like to point out is that the Department of
Transportation is fully engaged with other Federal agencies and
with State and local entities in collecting and analyzing the
data that will be necessary to assess the impacts on
transportation from these BRAC realignments, and we are working
with appropriate officials and all of those entities to
implement what we hope will be timely and effective multimodal
responses. A working group has been established to review the
transportation impacts of the Fort Belvoir expansion with
members from the Army, VDOT, Fairfax County, the Federal
Highway Administration's Federal Lands Division, and, of
course, DOD consultants.
While the master plan for the Fort Belvoir development,
including the environmental impact statement, won't be finished
until the summer of 2007, the working group has developed a
preliminary list, as you've already referred, a preliminary
list of transportation improvement projects for the region.
Federal Highway Administration's Virginia division office has
been following the Defense Department's plan very closely to
determine the BRAC impacts on current and planned
transportation projects. And all of the projects that we have
been discussing, of course, are in the mix for further
discussion. The division will continue to monitor the BRAC
plans to ensure that transportation issues, including impacts
on highway safety, are considered in any environmental
documents for BRAC installations, and that BRAC requirements
are fully considered in the regional planning process. BRAC
impacts will be factored into the Interstate 95/395 ``hot lanes
project'' and BRAC impacts on the interstate interchange
leading to the Marine Corps base at Quantico will also be
evaluated.
The Federal Transit Administration will assist the Northern
Virginia Transportation Commission and local transportation
providers in coordinating future transit service enhancements
and expansions to serve the growing transit market resulting
from the BRAC relocations.
As the master plan becomes more developed, local transit
agencies, including the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority, the Fairfax Connector, Alexandria Dash, and the VRE
will participate in the planning process to identify potential
new transit services.
The Federal Transit Administration is encouraging local
agencies to implement transit-supported site designs for the
proposed new construction and to identify opportunities for
transit-oriented development that will increase accessibility
to transit services. And I'm pleased to note that just recently
the Department of Transportation, through its Federal Railroad
Administration, approved a $72.5 million loan to the VRE under
our railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing program.
We know reducing traffic congestion is crucial for northern
Virginia, for the entire Washington, DC, metropolitan area, and
across the country. Congestion wastes fuel, wastes time, and
robs the economy of productivity. Congestion costs Americans an
estimated $200 billion a year. That's the conventional
estimate. The Department of Transportation actually thinks
that's woefully understated in terms of productivity as a
result of congestion, and that's why in May of this year we
announced the Department's new national initiative to address
congestion across the country.
I guess what I would say, Mr. Chairman, is that while we
have obviously a very important problem here as a result of
BRAC decisions that were made and the 22,000 souls that will
now be realigned and relocated as a result of those decisions,
the fact is that we have heard the extent to which northern
Virginia is growing. This is a problem we would have faced in
any event. We may have accelerated that problem somehow through
the BRAC decisions, but the fact is that northern Virginia must
have--must address its transportation problem, must address it
with robust solutions, infrastructure, technology, a whole
assortment of tools, including those which Governor Kaine was
talking about.
It may well be that this BRAC decision can be treated as a
wake-up call and will force all of us to start focusing on the
need for effective and timely decisionmaking and responding to
these issues in a far more effective way than we've done in the
past, or, as Congressman Moran rightly said, the economic
growth for which northern Virginia has been so rightly
celebrated will begin to be compromised in a serious way. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shane follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.019
Chairman Tom Davis. Delegate Albo, thank you for being with
us.
STATEMENT OF DAVID B. ALBO
Mr. Albo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Congressman Moran, I want to first of all
thank you for holding these hearings here in west Springfield,
because I think it shows that you know what the real problem
is, and the problem is how do we help the people here maintain
their neighborhood quality of life. I want to welcome you to
Rolling Valley. This is my elementary school. And in 1974 I sat
there, and a lunch lady was yelling at me, telling me to be
quiet; and now there's no lunch lady and they've given me a
microphone. So I figure I've really made it.
Chairman Tom Davis. Dave, is it true you were here for 9
years?
Mr. Albo. Yeah, you know you can never beat you, Tom.
That's one thing I have learned over the years.
My formal remarks are in there, but I wanted to kind of
talk to my friends at the Army and other friends on some more
practical solutions on this. I am not happy. I don't think any
of my constituents are happy that 22,000 jobs are moving here.
Let's face the facts: The problem is that's the way it is. We
need to learn to live with it, and we need to try to solve a
problem.
So the No. 1 thing I think I'd like to ask the Army is--you
see this road here, Rolling Road. Rolling Road goes north to
south through west Springfield through Saratoga. It's kind of a
neighborhood road. It has kind of grown into something more,
but that's what it is. It's a neighborhood road. And if you
have any access onto the EPG for 18,000 jobs off Rolling Road,
you will ruin this neighborhood, absolutely ruin this
neighborhood. You cannot have Rolling Road become an access to
the EPG whatsoever, not a single interchange, because what will
happen is people will use the neighborhoods here to commute
into their 18,000 jobs in the EPG.
So how do you solve that problem? Well, first, the Fairfax
County Parkway has to be constructed. Now, it seems strange to
me that the Army decides it's cheaper to move a bunch of
offices into EPG, and one of the reasons it's cheaper is
because they don't have to pay for the roads. As the Governor
said and as our two Congressmen said, the Fairfax County
Parkway is funded, but funded to a lesser extent because no one
knew we were going to have 18,000 jobs.
We're kind of in a little bit of a quandary right now
because we have an environmental problem and the State law says
that the State cannot take over a road when there are
environmental issues. I proposed a bill that will be heard on
September 27th that allows the State to take possession of the
road to complete it if there's a written agreement between the
Army and the State to remediate, which is environmental lawyer
talk for cleaning up the oil. So if we pass that, then I think
there will be two methods: your method where the Army does it,
or the State method. But that should really break open the
logjam on that.
The second thing is 22,000 jobs doesn't just mean 22,000
jobs. It means a heck of a lot more. It means all the
contractors, it means the dry cleaners, it means the stores, it
means everybody who serves the 22,000 jobs, it means all the
subcontractors who do the 22,000 jobs, it means all the people
who want to move closer to work. So this actually has a very
big school impact, too. Lee High School and Hayfield High
School will handle most of the population brought in, but
that's going to leave South County, which is already
overcrowded, in a real quandary.
Another practical solution I have is this. Imagine if you
owned a couple acres on Route 7 in Tyson's Corner 30 years ago.
You would be really rich. And what the Army has done by moving
18,000 jobs here is they have created a huge financial windfall
for the land in this area. One of the things to do would be for
the Army to spin off a portion of the land, especially the very
valuable land at Route 1, and transfer it for the county. Gerry
is very familiar with the PPEA, Public Private Education Act.
We can use that land to trade with the developer to build a
South County middle school so we can keep the capacity at
Hayfield and at Lee and at South County all for 5, 10 years
when there will be an explosion in population up here.
And with that I'll close, and more details are in my
written remarks.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thanks very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Albo follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.025
Chairman Tom Davis. Supervisor Hyland, thank you for being
with us.
STATEMENT OF GERALD W. HYLAND
Mr. Hyland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the
hearing and for Congressman Moran being here.
The Department of Defense's decision to relocate over
22,000 employees to Fort Belvoir I perceive to be a challenge
for Fairfax County. It is an opportunity, but unless we find a
way to fund the substantial transportation infrastructure
improvements, it won't work.
When the BRAC recommendation was first announced, Fairfax
County made its concerns and suggestions known to the Army, and
we suggested, frankly, that the agencies be spread among the
various properties that comprise Fort Belvoir. However, after
the Army decided to locate 18,000 of these persons to the
Engineer Proving Grounds site as well as the National Museum of
the U.S. Army, which will attract a million and a half visitors
a year, it appears that our concerns and suggestions, frankly,
were ignored.
While the Army has said that these locations are not set in
stone, my gut tells me that not much is going to change unless,
through your committee, Mr. Chairman, and the Congress, through
its oversight, we establish a different direction and possibly
a different time table.
Supervisor Kauffman will handle the transportation
infrastructure issues and the time to put those in place on
behalf of the county.
I would like to emphasize in the rest of my testimony the
National Museum of the U.S. Army, which I have been intimately
involved with when the Army first came to me a number of years
ago and said, Gerry, we would like to opportune you to give you
the chance to help us locate our Army Museum at Fort Belvoir,
not at Carlisle, not at some other location in the Washington
area, but at Fort Belvoir, and we have a site right next to
Pence Gate with all of the infrastructure in place.
The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors supported that
concept. We have made substantial financial contributions to
that effort. And the main reason that we supported that
location was that you can take advantage of the synergy of the
existing historical sites in Mount Vernon, Woodlawn, Gunston
Hall, and you would have in the center of all of those historic
locations this museum, which gave us the opportunity of
capturing tourists to this part of Fairfax County for a day,
day and a half or 2 days. That means tourist income. It would
help revitalization for Richmond Highway.
When Senator Strom Thurmond introduced legislation to
locate the Army Museum at Fort Belvoir, he stressed its
proximity to Washington, DC, and Mount Vernon and said Fort
Belvoir was the most suitable location. The Engineer Proving
Grounds site, in our opinion, is anything but suitable. What
was envisioned from the beginning was a historic destination in
southeast Fairfax County that would give families a day or two
to explore our country's founding and the leaders and soldiers
who helped create it. In fact, the Army Museum's location is
along the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route, the same
route that the Army's first commanding general took as the
Continental Army marched to victory at Yorktown. To move the
Army Museum to the Engineer Proving Grounds, you not only lose
the sense of history that prompted its placement there, you
also lose the synergy of putting the Army Museum near Mount
Vernon and other historic locations such as Woodland Plantation
and Gunston Hall.
We are a bit perplexed that the size of the museum has gone
from 60 to 125 acres, and we sort of hold our breath that the
concept of a theme park approach that was suggested by some may
still be a reality. But at a minimum, what we are hearing is
that we were having a museum at EPG with 18,000 employees. We
will have a conference center, hotel. And you put a million and
a half visitors a year at EPG, 18,000 employees, and what Mr.
Albo has just suggested reminds me of the time that we talked
about putting Major League Baseball on the Engineer Proving
Grounds site, and the community surrounding the EPG site went
ballistic, and with good reasons. And this is analogous to what
we are proposing.
So in closing, I would ask that we press the decisionmakers
to reconsider the decision to make the National Army Museum at
EPG to either reconsider the Pence Gate site or some other
location along Richmond Highway, and then, most important, that
we address the substantial question of timing of putting the
infrastructure in place to support what is being proposed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hyland follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.028
Chairman Tom Davis. Supervisor Kauffman, thank you for
being here as well.
STATEMENT OF DANA KAUFFMAN
Mr. Kauffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Moran.
As you indicated earlier, I am providing this testimony on
behalf of Chairman Connolly, who can't make it, and the rest of
our board.
I would also like to thank the Department of Defense for
recognizing Fort Belvoir's key location, the dynamic community
that surrounds it, and also respecting the men and women who
live in our neighborhoods who work for the Department of
Defense and make this work for us every day.
Indeed, if this fact of life, as the Secretary has said,
that is BRAC was wedded to the transportation improvements,
this could be the single biggest economic opportunity our end
of Fairfax County will ever see. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman,
the proposal that the civilian leadership has put on the table
without the transportation improvements is a lose-lose; not the
desired win-win for our community.
From the first day this plan was rolled out, it came with
an admitted funding gap of close to three-quarters of a billion
dollars in transportation funds, and that was funding just to
support the 14 most critically needed transportation
improvements, not all those that need to work over time to keep
this viable.
And it's not just--well, it puts us in the position, if you
will pardon the use of a modified movie line, that if you don't
build it, if you don't build these transportation improvements,
they will still come anyway. And that is unacceptable.
The idea of moving this forward quickly is also critical,
because, as you know, Mr. Chairman, even if you had the money
on the table today, the time it takes to make a transportation
improvement real requires months and years of environmental
review, then the engineering, then the physical construction.
The plan assumes that the missing leg of the Fairfax County
Parkway, the spine to connect all of these commands together,
is going to be in place come September 2011 when this opens,
and unless the decision is made in the next year of how to
proceed, that road won't be in place. And also to add insult to
injury, on the environmental cleanup, the contractor pulled
out, just abandoned the site, because the Army funding to
complete the work isn't there.
So this is just one of those 14 missing projects. You asked
the Governor, do you have a list of projects, and I'll submit
for the record two pages single-spaced of projects that need to
go into the mix.
You also had asked the question about why are we objecting
to this huge economic largesse as presented. Well, I give you
another analogy. This morning we heard some great analogies on
our bus tour, but the--and what comes to my mind is someone
giving you a brand new car that doesn't have an engine, doesn't
have the wheels, doesn't have the gas tank, and someone saying,
don't you love the smell of the leather upholstery? Well, this
proposal is like that car without the tires, without the
engine, without the gas tank. Give it all to us, and I'll join
you in saying, hosanna, this is a great economic opportunity.
My colleague Gerry Hyland has well captured the concerns of
the Army Board. It belongs to the highway located there. It
will serve the community's and the Army's best long-term
interests.
I am also extremely grateful to have heard your comments on
incorporating the GSA warehouses into the mix. However we
define smart growth, and I'll admit that is a work in progress,
it is dumb to not include that land in the mix. Yes, it is
hard, but that is why you bring leadership together, to do the
hard things. Let us make that work. Personally I would love to
see that as the location of the hospital for the reason it can
be collocated with the medical education campus of the Northern
Virginia Community College, George Mason Medical College of
Virginia, and setting proximate to Metro just as the Bethesda
Naval Medical Center does. But whatever it is used for, it
needs to be in the mix.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, at a recent community meeting I
was asked a very simple question, just what do I think the Army
was thinking when they came forward with this proposal. My
answer then and my answer today is that I don't have evidence
that the Army was thinking, at least when it comes to the
immediate impacts on our community and what is in the long-term
best interest of the U.S. Army. I would remind folks that it
isn't unpatriotic to question a proposal that is brought
forward by our civilian leadership. We have to question it, and
we will continue to.
We can have a win-win solution if the transportation is put
on the table and if we take a more long-term focus on where the
commands are located.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kauffman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.035
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Tistadt, thanks for being with us.
STATEMENT OF DEAN TISTADT
Mr. Tistadt. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the
Fairfax School Board, we thank you for this opportunity to
speak this morning.
I'll change the focus just a little bit initially, but I'd
also touch on transportation. The school system certainly
applauds the notion of the DOD trying to be more efficient and
welcomes the idea of creation of more jobs in the region, but
we do have two concerns to speak to. One was alluded to
earlier; that is, the capacity of our schools. If this change
results in differences in residential development and rapid
growth in this part of the county, we are limited in our
capacity to handle that. We have very little capacity of any of
the elementary level and very little at the middle and high
school levels.
On the transportation front, we have 1,200 buses
transporting 110,000 children a day. Probably about a third of
those are in this part of the county to be impacted by traffic
changes in this part. We already struggle with getting children
to school on time and get them to programs that they need to
take. We already open schools earlier than parents would like
and open elementary schools later than they would like. And
we're worried that changes in transportation and traffic in
this part of the county will impact negatively our ability to
get children to school, may require that we change bell
schedules to even more onerous times.
We have heard recently about potential budget cuts at Fort
Belvoir that might result in some closers of gate staff at that
post that would exacerbate these other challenges even further.
So we do have concerns in that regard.
Having said that then, we asked that the Fairfax Schools be
invited to participate in the process so we could have an
understanding of what's happening; that under the National
Environmental Policy Act cooperating agency status can be
assigned to the school system as a means of facilitating an
evaluation of potential impacts in mitigation. Whether the part
of the EIS team evaluates impacts or potentially impacted
governmental agencies, it is necessary for EPS to have insight
into the size, mobility, household income of personnel to be
located. We would also like to find out the status of the new
status plan for Fort Belvoir. So we welcome the opportunity to
be involved in the process.
At the heart of our intent is to provide the best possible
education to the military families we will be hosting and for
the larger community in which we live. This can be accomplished
by allowing the school system to be involved in the process.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dale follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.037
Chairman Tom Davis. We have our citizen member here. We
very much appreciate you being here.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN D. KIRK
Mr. Kirk. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am extremely
pleased to be here to represent the residents here of west
Springfield and the folks that are probably going to be the
most impacted in the short term and eventually in the long term
as a result of the BRAC decision.
I am convinced after listening to you talk to Governor
Kaine this morning that you certainly have our major concerns
in mind as far as transportation, local infrastructure, quality
of life for the residents that are going to be here.
What I would like to do is to bring just one other item up
to your attention, and that is that, one, the folks I represent
in the civic association are keeping an open mind toward the
BRAC decision and the impact it is going to have on us. And the
reason we are keeping an open mind is because we are watching
you, our elected representative at the Federal, State, local
level, to see what actions you are going to take to address the
concerns that you already know about.
And one of the things that I think that I would like to
make you aware of from the folks that I represent is that it is
going to take a significant amount of political will on the
part of our elected representatives to make BRAC the forefront,
I guess, of some of the short-term legislation that is going to
have to occur to either support the move, to terminate the
move, whatever it is going to be.
The BRAC is a Federal decision, and the location was chosen
by the Federal Government. We may be the recipient of some
excellent largesse, but this has to be a Federal priority then
if this is their decision to move the Federal workers down to
the Fort Belvoir area.
Yes, we recognize we are going to have to do our part to
support this. We don't hope to support all of it. And for the
State folks, this is, I think, going to have to result in some
rethinking about how the things--how things and business is
done in Richmond. Northern Virginia is supporting the rest of
Virginia in transportation and education. If you are going to
bring these people in here, we may have to relook those
formulas to redirect funds back up to the northern Virginia
area to allow us to prioritize and complete those projects it
is going to take to support the people that may be coming into
this area to work 5, 6, 7 days a week or to live here.
For the county people what I would like to offer is the
fact that the BRAC is obviously going to have a significant
impact on zoning and how we prepare ourselves to accommodate
this influx of people and all of the associated local
infrastructure that is going to be required, whether schools,
water treatment plants, power facilities, fire, police, the
commercial activities to support recreation, entertainment.
The people in Springfield enjoy a suburban lifestyle. They
moved into this area many, many years ago with that thought in
mind. We certainly enjoy the open land in the county parks that
we have in this area. We certainly would not like to lose any
of that to accommodate the BRAC and its decision to put a new
Pentagon down here.
Yes, we are going to have to live through the short-term
issues of going to work heading north or south. I think we can
do that. We are just in the end looking toward our elected
representatives to put forth that effort to make this thing a
priority so we can get through this in about as painlessly and
about as reasonable a manner as we can without turning it into
a cat fight, I guess, between parties, between Federal and
State representatives and State and local folks.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. That was
excellent.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kirk follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.038
Chairman Tom Davis. Let me just assure you I think from the
State, the locals, Republicans, Democrats, I think we are
staying united on this. It is important we stay together on
this, and I think your admonition is warranted, and I
appreciate it.
Mr. Kirk. I certainly appreciate that, and I wanted to let
you know that I don't have a doubt that our elected
representative in Virginia is going to be able to do this.
Where I have my concerns is probably in the larger collective
body either at the Federal level or the State level. You are 1
out of 435 voices out there, and it's going to take a lot of
leadership on your part and on the Virginia contingent to make
this thing happen.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
That is a good segment for you, Ms. Watts.
STATEMENT OF VIVIAN WATTS
Ms. Watts. Thank you for including me to make remarks.
There is so much to say. I will start by simply associating
myself with most of the remarks that have been made by everyone
this morning, particularly, I must say, my friend Dana Kauffman
where I think he hit a lot.
Five years is an impossibly short time, in my experience.
So I am going to take my time to go specifically into 3 years
that were raised in my mind as I looked at this flow of where
the traffic is supposed to come from.
Let me go first to access from the north via I-395 or
Metro. All employees using I-395 or those being shuttled from
Metro under the Army's current plans if Metro is not extended
will have to use Franconia-Springfield Parkway, that is Route
7900, between I-95 and EPG. This travel pattern was not
addressed at all in the siting analysis of road capacity. It
constitutes upwards of 10,000 commuters who do not currently
use this stretch of road and were never anticipated in its
projected capacity use.
Two construction projects are imperative, and again this is
my district. EPG is in my district. First, a grade-separated
intersection must be built for the only at-grade intersection
in this section of the parkway at Spring Village Drive, Bonnie
Mill Lane, which is not addressed at all in the siting analysis
and will cost $350 million. So that is one item to add to the
list.
This intersection serves many residents including over
2,000 residents of Green Spring Village, a major continuing
care retirement community. The intersection is already
presenting severe problems.
Second, improved ramps to and from EPG from I-95, which is
No. 3 on the Army list, must be completed before employees are
relocated to EPG. Again, we are looking at 10,000 vehicles
using a stretch of highway that was not planned at all for that
usage.
A second travel pattern, which is access from the north via
Backlick or Rolling Road, this travel pattern also was not
addressed at all in the analysis. The interesting geographic
division in the analysis which separate employees commuting
from the north and those from the west obfuscates, masks this
commuting impact. The north grouping includes--and I have
included ZIP codes--Annandale, North Springfield, Springfield,
Barcroft, Lincolnia. These employees will use Backlick Road.
They won't come out to Highway 395. In the west grouping,
employees from King Park, west Springfield, a good portion of
Burke and some of Fairfax 22032 will use Rolling Road. Again,
they won't be coming out to 395. That is not northward--or, I
am sorry, they won't be dropping down to the parkway. They will
be coming straight across on Rolling Road.
Sizable portions of Backlick and Rolling, as have already
been mentioned, are two-laned and/or were built as subdivision
streets with homes on half-acre lots, with front yards and
driveways on both sides directly facing the street. At least
Route 1 was built and developed as a commercial highway.
Addressing the safety issues on Backlick and Rolling Roads will
be costly to the State and forever change these neighborhoods.
A final pattern that I wish to address is the access from
the west by the Fairfax Parkway, 7500, because it is so
central. Again, our designated panel addressed construction of
the parkway across EPG; however, I want to underscore the
criticality of expanding its capacity. The siting analysis
severely underestimates the growth in commuting from the west
by focusing on the current employees' place of residence
instead of making a 20 years projection of travel patterns,
which is standard for road improvements. Whatever we put in, we
project 20 years. Because of the cost of housing, EPG employees
will increasingly come from Centreville, Chantilly, Herndon to
the west. In addition, the travel pattern was not addressed at
all of the projected 1 million visitors to the Army Museum,
many of whom will also be drawn to the Air and Space Museum at
Dulles, impacting the Fairfax County Parkway, where there will
be other intersections that are at grade.
Mr. Assistant Secretary, I implore you to include full
funding of these and many of the other transportation projects
in the Army's congressional budget requests for these specific
off-base transportation improvements and for the other critical
projects in the siting analysis. We have just 5 years that
funding has to be in place.
I know that Congressman Davis and Congressman Moran agree
that our constituents deserve no less than a full and honest
costing of BRAC's impact so that they are in the strongest
position to ensure that Congress, all the rest of those folks
that you were referring to, will deliver.
And finally, given the tight timeframe imposed for
completion of this realignment, adequate analysis and review
will be challenges.
Today as I address you, I chose to wear not my normal
Virginia seal pin, which is Thus Always to Tyrants, because I
didn't want to lay down the gauntlet on this decision, but
instead borrowed a pin that has the State of Virginia's flag
and the United States of America flag joined together. Again, I
will certainly offer my expertise both in transportation, but
particularly as someone who has driven these roads for 40 years
and knows how these patterns develop. I look forward to working
closely with you on these all-important details.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Watts follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.040
Chairman Tom Davis. Senator Puller.
STATEMENT OF TODDY PULLER
Ms. Puller. Thank you, Mr. Congressmen, for coming out here
and listening to the concerns of the people who will be
impacted by the BRAC decision.
Now, I represent all of the Fort Belvoir post. I do not
represent the Engineering Proving Ground. And I have been
working for I think it is 14 years trying to improve the Route
1 corridor in Fairfax and Prince William County. And currently
over 20,000 people come to the main post at Fort Belvoir every
day, so our roads down at southeast Fairfax County are in
gridlock when those people come to work and when they go back
home. And many, many of them come from the south, and it is
almost impossible to go south of Fort Belvoir in the evening
commute.
So I was very glad, when they decided not to put 18,000
more people on top of the 20,000 that already had come to Fort
Belvoir and to try to develop the Engineering Proving Ground
and have the new employees go there rather than to Crystal
City, and I think we are very fortunate that these employees
didn't go out of State. That could have been a devastating
impact to us in Virginia.
So I think what we need to do is try to do the best job we
can, because we are going to--this is a reality. It is going to
happen, and we have to make it happen in the least--with the
least amount of problems that we possibly can do. And our--and
my--my commitment to you all, along with Delegate Watts and
Delegate Albo and Delegate Sickles, is that we are going back
into session at the end of September specifically to work on
transportation, which we have been doing most of the whole year
without success, I might add. But we need to go back and do
something so that this State steps up to its responsibility to
make our transportation system work not only in northern
Virginia, but all across the Commonwealth. But in this
instance, we really have to all go down there and work together
in the Senate.
We have been working together. We have passed several bills
that are sitting over in the house, and we need to go down
there and be serious about this and get our act together for
the citizens of northern Virginia and the whole Commonwealth
and fund our transportation infrastructure so that our citizens
will not be even more impacted than they are right--than they
are currently, but for the future. And we can expect no less,
and I pledge to go down and work with both sides of the aisle
and try to get a plan. And I don't--I am not wedded to any
plan. We are willing to talk about anything, but we need to go
down there and be serious about it and get something done, and
I plan to do that.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
I also wanted to note we have a statement from Mark Sickles
if he was offered an opportunity to speak and to put it in the
record, and we appreciate that very much as well.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sickles follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.042
Chairman Tom Davis. Let me start the questions.
Keith, I am going to start with you. I want to note for the
record that you didn't make the BRAC decision. You came in to
implement.
Mr. Eastin. I was not around for the BRAC decision.
Chairman Tom Davis. Makes the conversation go a little
easier, as you and I and Mr. Moran voted against the BRAC
decision when it came up before.
Let me ask you this: There has been discussions of an
amusement park or something else to go with that. Can you give
us a clarification with the Army Museum, what is envisioned at
that point and where we are going?
Mr. Eastin. I am not often quoted in the San Diego Tribune
or San Francisco Chronicle or Manchester Guardian in England,
but somehow I made it to those newspapers when I said this plan
was dead on arrival.
A plan was submitted a couple years ago to basically do
more a demonstrative use of EPG and the museum. That is just
not in keeping with what the Army wants out there, and it is
not in keeping with the museum, what the museum wants. So
amusement parks and other flashy displays are--will not be
considered.
What we are looking for in the museum is to present any
museum that is comprehensive, that tells the Army story, and is
a tribute to the men and women who have served and sacrificed
for the Army and for the country. We believe we have had a good
story to tell, and we want to tell it completely rather than
having what might be termed an abbreviated museum.
So the question is why it's been raised here, why would we
move the museum from what is known as the Pence Gate site down
on Route 1 out to the Engineer Proving Ground, and why do you
need all of that excess acreage.
This museum was put together with the idea that it would be
funded privately, that appropriate funds would not be used for
the building of the museum. The museum, we would estimate, is
going to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $175 to $200
million for the building itself, and when we start adding
exhibitry to that, anyone in the museum business can tell you
you don't just move a tank or a gun or out into a bullpen at
the museum and let people just go in and look at it. You have
to tell a story. Stories are expensive. But we are looking at
probably another $90 to $100 million in exhibitry.
By the time we are finished, what are we looking at? A
museum that will cost maybe $300 million. This is a tall order
for any private fundraising organization, especially in this
rather austere fundraising atmosphere that we have faced here
in the last 5 or 6 years. So anything we can do to assist the
fundraising on this museum I think is going to benefit the Army
and benefit the story we have to tell.
That is one of the reasons we moved it to EPG. Of course,
the other reason was I appreciate Gerry Hyland's work on the
museum. A lot has gone into getting the museum down to Belvoir,
and in a lot of ways it would not have happened without Gerry
Hyland's help.
But after it was sited at Pence Gate, something came along
called BRAC, along with its massive traffic problems that we
see. That coupled with the fundraising constraints on building
a first-class museum, I think, caused us to think about putting
this out at the EPG.
What will be going out there, Mr. Chairman? We put out a
request for information to the Department of Defense and public
to see if there was some interest in building a hotel and
perhaps a conference center, and incidentally, while you are at
it, build me a better part of my museum.
We have gotten a number of expressions of interest in that.
We will know more this fall, hopefully by early November, of
what the quality of that interest is. That is the reason we did
that.
This will not be an amusement park under anybody's stretch
of the imagination. There will be very little, if anything,
outside of the four walls of the museum that don't relate to--
directly to museum experience.
Chairman Tom Davis. Let me just get a reaction, Mr. Hyland.
I am sure when Senator Thurmond introduced legislation to put
in Belvoir, he probably meant Belvoir. I wonder as you walk
through the line of thinking that has come from the Army since
then, do you have any thoughts or you, Mr.----
Mr. Hyland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my testimony,
written and oral, and from the beginning--and I think Senators
Thurmond, Warton and Allen were helpful in getting legislation
passed. We looked at the museum as an opportunity to, in
effect, collocate with other existing historical sites in the
southeast and part of Fairfax County, in the middle of them,
and what we were trying to do is to capture those persons who
now come to those sites. We have about a million visitors to
Mount Vernon in a year as it is. As a matter of fact, I have a
proposal before the Fairfax County Board if this happens, we
would propose to have a shuttle that would go among those
various sites, and the synergy of having it there made so much
sense.
But, second, the opportunity to capture people in the
county for a day or 2 days as opposed to their going into
Washington. If it's at EPG, the folks--I am not sure how many
people are going to come from Washington, DC, which is the
major destination, out to the museum. We can capture people
coming up from 95 to go to the museum, so they can go to the
museum and go right into Washington. So that denies us the
opportunity to capture people in Fairfax County for a day and a
half to 2 days, which obviously is tourist income. That is the
best business in the world. They come, they go, and we don't
have to educate their children.
The second question that I now have and the Army has
proposed, and I presume this will be on government land, they
would propose a hotel conference center. They've also talked
about using enhanced use leasing, which means putting public
office space for the private sector on government land, which
obviously doesn't do anything for us as far as our tax base,
but the whole concept of helping us with revitalization, which
was the main reason, the impetus, for our pushing to put the
museum at Fort Belvoir is lost. So I think it is an opportunity
for us that we anticipated was a good investment for us, and
unfortunately EPG just doesn't do the same thing for us.
Chairman Tom Davis. Do you have anything to add to that?
Mr. Kauffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
further clarification from the Secretary.
I go back to our initial concerns and seeing the
opportunity for this Army Museum. We were looking at this as
being integral development; not seeing a significantly expanded
site where the museum itself isn't bigger, but what you have
done is located a lot of hotels, eating facilities, etc., on
post, not on the economy where we are trying to bring about
redevelopment, where we are trying to knock down eyesores. So
that is a critically missing piece. Gerry Hyland alluded to it,
but this is supposed to be a stimulus to redevelopment as well
by putting everything together. I will again use the term
Disney atmosphere, where you have the hotels next to the bars
next to the shock-and-awe rides to drive patriotism
electronically. I think it needs to be a museum that gives us
the opportunity to leverage private investment off-post.
Chairman Tom Davis. Secretary Eastin, I want to talk a
little bit about the money and the time line. It is not like it
is vacant, and all of a sudden September 15, 2011, everybody
moves in. I assume this would be staged, which means some of
these transportation improvements would have to be effectuated,
completed sometime prior to that.
We have 14 identified projects. Three of them have some
level of funding. None of them have completed funding. We have
to do it within 5 years.
The title of the World War II movie was A Bridge Too Far,
and I wondered with this, within that 5-year framework, even if
we had the money today, by the time you go through the
planning, the environmentals on this, send it out to contract,
given everything else, it is a tough reach, and we are talking
about now we don't know where this money is coming from.
The Governor has stepped up today and said they want to be
part of the solution. They can resolve it with the General
Assembly. They never said they don't want to be part of the
general solution. They can't solve it all.
What kind of money does the BRAC have available for this?
How much were you looking to Congress to come back? You get to
a point you were worried about the implementation. How do you
see this going at this time? What additional help do you think
you are going to need outside of BRAC resources?
Mr. Eastin. First off, I think, going back to the initial
part of your question, we are looking at the 14 projects Pierce
Homer and I have been discussing these. We will be meeting in
the next couple of weeks to try to agree on what we think is a
likely list of projects and to try to price those out so that
we can get some idea of how much they are.
Of the $625 million or so worth of projects, two of those
are largely financed already, and that is the widening of the
I-95 and the EPG part of the Fairfax County Parkway along with
Woodlawn Road, which, of course, is funded by Congress or will
be completely in the year 2008. So if you take those out, we
are looking for about $475 million, if the price holds up after
analysis. But our engineering and traffic people tell us that
should be enough to handle this traffic.
What we are trying to do here is with EPG and with the
Fairfax County Parkway that is largely designed, probably
almost ready to go, with some enhancements due to the much
larger traffic use which will largely deal with the on/off
ramps, probably not the parkway itself. So a lot of that design
has been done. The I-95 design, which every time we go down in
this area, we see in painful detail, that, as I am told, is
largely finished. So what we really need to do is figure out
how to design and get people on and off of 95 so that they
don't run through Delegate Watts' neighborhood and further
complicate those problems.
Chairman Tom Davis. And Delegate Albo's neighborhoods. I
want to give credit on this.
I understand that does not include the cost for additional
roads on EPG that the Army would install as part of this
development program.
Mr. Eastin. That is already included in the BRAC funding.
Chairman Tom Davis. That is outside of money we are talking
about.
I've got a few other questions. The time line is still very
tough, particularly because of the identification of funds, the
ability to go out to bid, the ability for the design, the
environmental assessments. Obviously the quicker we can start
on that, the better opportunity we have.
Let me ask you, Mr. Shane. I mean, it is ambitious, isn't
it, to try to get this done in the period of time that the BRAC
allots? These are the orders he was given, in fairness. But
this is very ambitious, it seems to me, given where we are,
isn't it?
Mr. Shane. That is certainly a fair statement.
Chairman Tom Davis. I think one of the things that we want
to explore is some delay on this, and I think the BRAC calls
for this to be done by a date certain, but given some of the
other funding priorities coming within the Defense Department's
budget and the MILCON's budget, that is something we will
explore with you, you do have your orders at this point. I
don't expect you to say anything else. But from our
perspective, we intend to explore the time line on this. We
think it is unrealistic, and we will try to work with you on
that, and that will give you some breathing room to try to
resolve some of those issues.
Let me ask, if I can, about the airport, Davidson Airport.
What is going to happen with the changes at Belvoir? Is it the
utilization will be somewhat different under the new plans?
Mr. Eastin. Excuse me.
Chairman Tom Davis. Go ahead.
Mr. Eastin. We don't anticipate any real change in the use
of Davidson. And, of course, it is an active airfield. It has
very important security purposes here in the National Capital
region flying and ferrying various officials to the government
here and there. And it performs a great service as a platform
during any times of emergency.
We looked at a time perhaps using part of Davidson in the
planning process for part of the jobs and locations here at
Belvoir. While that in the long term might be possible in the
time we have, I don't think that is very realistic. We would
have to find--it serves a purpose. We would have to find
another place for it if we wanted to use that.
Chairman Tom Davis. I would note for the record our
office--we discussed this further with you. It continues to get
complaints on noise emanations, and we need to have some
further discussions on that.
The GSA warehouses are sometimes--I discussed in my opening
statements, Mr. Kauffman discussed them, Mr. Moran has alluded
to it. Currently it seems to me that given the magnitude of the
issues we face on transportation, warehouse usage around a
metro center like we have at the Joe Alexander Springfield
Center, where you have the VRE coming in from the south, you
have Metro coming in from the north and the east, is not a good
utilization; that, in fact, warehouses could be moved somewhere
else probably much more efficiently from a transportation
perspective, and the area that houses the warehouse could
probably have the 18,000 people move to EPG just from our
government, 6,000 or 7,000 people could move there and right on
top of a transportation center. That would greatly alleviate
some of the problems that we face there on the EPG.
I know that is outside of your charge, but would you be
willing to work with Mr. Moran and myself and GSA if we can
find an appropriate location for that?
Mr. Eastin. Absolutely. We have discussed this before.
GSA--but for the time that it would take to utilize that site,
and, of course, the money involved, it always seems to get back
to that little bugaboo that we have to find funding. It is a
utilized site already, and we have to find another place for
them and due to them moving. But in the meantime, if we can
come up with some, I think, innovative approaches to that, we
would be more than happy to consider them.
By the way, consideration of that will be done in our
environmental impact statement. We have considered that as an
alternative.
Chairman Tom Davis. I want to put that on the table because
I think that makes trying to put a size 8 foot into a size 5
foot makes it a little bit easier. That is a lot of work to do.
Mr. Eastin. Mr. Chairman, if you will let me clarify one
thing that came up before, that is the contractor tail on the
employees coming down there. As we know, the government does
not work alone. It has a gaggle of contractors that are of
various degrees of expense that follow them around and help
them out. So it is proper for the Governor and others to
suggest that if you are bringing 18,000 people to EPG, gee
whiz, there is probably a whole bunch of contractors that are
going to follow along with them.
What has not been clarified, I don't think, in this is that
we are bringing 12,400 Federal employees to EPG. Also we are
bringing 5,600 contractors, who will be collocated with those
Federal Government employees. So the contractors are already in
the mix, but we are talking about the 18,000.
Are there going to be additional contractors? Probably. But
the lion's share of them are already accounted for.
Chairman Tom Davis. The clarification itself will at least
initially--who knows how this stuff grows in the outyears. We
can only work with the figures that we have here today.
Before I turn to Mr. Moran, I'll have some other questions.
Let me just ask, we talked about the 14 projects. You were
getting together with Pierce Homer, who is the Governor--
Secretary of Transportation, who I worked with for many years
when he was in Prince William County. He was very able in
getting those funded. I have heard from other members, Ms.
Watts, solving those 14 projects, getting those fully resolved
doesn't necessarily make this a livable item. Is that far
enough?
Let me get a comment from the elected official or citizens
on the panel if they care to address that. Is that the end of
it if we get these projects? And I guess from Mr. Homer's point
of view, if you look at this and work with the Army, I hope
you'll look at input from these officials and maybe factor--if
there were more we need to factor in more. We have to get our
arms around the problem--I know Mr. Albo in his opening remarks
alluded to the Rolling Road situation--in trying to do that,
give you a chance to clarify your views on that.
Ms. Watts, I'll start with you and then anyone else who
wants to chime in.
Ms. Watts. Again, my statement was put in the record, and
this is why I went through the exercise of including the ZIP
codes of where I thought the traffic sheds would go to Rolling
Road or to Backlick Road. It's something we identify. I am sure
that on the other side of 95, there still may be things that
I'm not familiar with, such as Telegraph Road and other things
that are on that list of 13. But I know again for various
reasons this side of 95 has not necessarily been on the radar
screen.
And this may be the tip of the iceberg, but let me then
also tie in to my very strong concern that I started out with
about the only at-grade intersection on the parkway there at
Spring Village and Bonnie Mill. Again, it is already a problem
intersection not just because of the 2,062-plus and they say
62-and-better aged residents of Green Spring Village, but also
because of the volume of traffic that is going through there.
If it's 35 million at that one critical interchange--
intersection, when we talk about improvements to the parkway,
either that which goes across EPG or the parkway that serves
that, the region with the westerly traffic that I also was
alluding to, that gives you some idea of the magnitude of
additional costs that we have to be addressing when we say,
well, we have to do more as far as the design because of these
22,000 commuters that haven't been planned on. The more has a
significant price tag.
Chairman Tom Davis. And let me just say, Secretary Eastin
and Secretary Homer, as we look at this, if we can factor these
in as you come together, and you can prioritize them, you want
to get a list of every road where you approve of this project.
But I do think what you talked about on the Green Spring
Village could be significant. If they need to be addressed, let
us get them up front so we can put them in the package.
Mr. Kauffman.
Mr. Kauffman. I would not want the committee or the members
of the audience to walk away thinking that this is the golden
14 and solve for those and that is it. Fourteen to a certain
extent does dumb down or pare down to say this is what you need
most critically, and those are the terms used to support the
proposals as ruled out. I think it has to be a combination of
rethinking where those commands are, and that would
significantly alter what our other priority projects are, and
also those priority projects include next to nothing for
transit, which, particularly when the day is done, I agree with
other speakers, most of the folks coming here will in the
future years be coming from the south.
I appreciate the USDOT finally coming around on the dollars
for the VRE, but that little engine that has could to this
point is now breaking down and breaking down in a horrible
fashion. We can't rely on it as a system. We need to do more,
and transit has to be integral from the south.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Anyone else?
Mr. Albo.
Mr. Albo. If you recall, when you were on the county board
building the Fairfax Parkway, one of the things you did, you
got the developers to build a parkway to enable people to get
in and out of their offices. This is kind of a messed up
situation here because you have the Army, who, under Federal
law, has the absolute right to do whatever they want to do on
the EPG, and my friends here in the county don't have any
ability to request proffers from the Army to build
transportation access or to alleviate school overcrowding that
is caused by the development.
But I would hope what could happen during this process is,
Congressman Moran and Congressman Davis, with your oversight
over the Army because of your elected position, that you can be
in the position to, in a way, put your local government hats on
that you had many years ago and require some kind of proffers.
That was the idea behind my suggestion of spinning off some
land to be able to do a PPEA trade to build some school space.
There's a lot of assets. In my written statements as soon as
the President of the United States signed the order that put
22,000 jobs here, he compressed 30 years of appreciation on
land into 1 year. The land out here right now is worth tens of
hundreds of millions of dollars, and there's a lot of assets
that are to be used to be able to solve some of these problems
that we listed today.
Chairman Tom Davis. Yes.
Mr. Hyland.
Mr. Hyland. In direct response to your question, at the
last Board of Advisors meeting with Fort Belvoir, the Office of
Transportation of the county prepared a list of additional
transportation improvements, which were given to the Army. I
believe all of those are referenced as an attachment in
Supervisor Kauffman's testimony. So there are many other
improvements that we consider to be helpful and necessary. So
you have them.
Chairman Tom Davis. Let me just finally explore something
Mr. Albo suggested with Mr. Eastin; that is, something we
discussed. If you have something--roughly 800 acres, what is
it----
Mr. Eastin. 804 acres.
Chairman Tom Davis. The county has 25, as I recall, that
they are giving us; is that about right?
Mr. Kauffman. At one point there was 135 acres that were
going to be dedicated to parkland that has since slipped off
the table.
Chairman Tom Davis. I mean, one of the things that we may
want to explore with you is what you are going to need to do
that, and maybe Mr. Moran and I were successful on the Horton
transfer, so take a look at doing something like that to help
the county in some other areas. If we can continue to talk.
Mr. Eastin. I agree.
Chairman Tom Davis. I recognize your orders come from a
higher authority, and you are going to be a good soldier and
implement them.
Mr. Eastin. Not the highest authority, but the higher.
Chairman Tom Davis. Well, Mr. Moran and I have to answer to
everybody. We have to answer to our colleagues, our voters, to
everybody on this. But we have been successful in the past when
we put our heads together. Again, he's on a very critical
Appropriation's subcommittee, a respected member of that. I am
chairman of the committee that oversees GSA. Between us maybe
we can continue to make the pie a little bigger to solve this
and work on the time line. So if we can work toward that, I
think it gives us some hope.
Finally, Mr. Kirk, what is it going to take to satisfy your
citizens at the end of the day? I appreciate you keeping an
open mind on this, but there has to be a lot of anxiety on this
out there.
Mr. Kirk. Certainly there's a lot of anxiety. It's not
going to be something in the short term. I think it is going to
have to be worked through during the course of the years. It's
going to take to identify what the issues are, to identify
potential solutions to them, whether you follow Dave Albo's
suggestion, whether you come up with other ideas.
I think that really we are going to be patient and watch,
and certainly it would be nice if occasionally we could, I
guess, stay wired in slightly somehow. We don't have the
resources, obviously, to influence the county planning or the
State planning decisions, but we certainly have some ideas or
on-the-scene recommendations that we can provide up through the
folks that will spend more time working with you on a regular
basis.
Chairman Tom Davis. Well, I intend to keep you involved,
and I know the other officials in the area wanted to keep you,
and some of the other officials involved as well. Even if we
get a consensus on the plan, implementing that plan is
difficult given the financial constraints and some of the time
constraints that we have, and I think that is something that
Mr. Moran and I need to work on.
Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, when you were chair of the Fairfax County
Board, and this proposal were to have come before you, you
would have rejected it because there wasn't an adequate
infrastructure to accommodate the development, and would have
required that infrastructure be completed before the
development itself was completed. Mr. Hyland and Kauffman, I
trust, would take exactly the same position today. So it is a
private development; you would say that infrastructure has to
be in place before you bring 18,000 people onto the base, or
including--all inclusive we are talking about almost 20,000 to
25,000 really, perhaps more than that. So it wouldn't happen.
It wouldn't be approved.
Mr. Hyland. It would be proper if it was taking care of
this.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Shane, you are an expert, national expert,
on economic development and transportation planning. If you had
such a project that was going to see over 20,000 people coming
into a development, would you take the position that
infrastructure has to be in place before that development can
proceed to completion?
Mr. Shane. In my experience, we have never had so perfect a
situation in which we could see the infrastructure is going to
be there before the people who need it begin to arrive. It is
always imperfect. And what I see here is--forgive me for being
the cockeyed optimist, I have to be to work in the Federal
establishment--a huge opportunity. We have a huge challenge
coming at us. It is a firecracker that is under our seats, and
it's going to force all of the agencies that have a role here,
including several of the agencies that comprise the Department
of Transportation, to really step up to this issue in a much
more efficient way than we are going to do, or we are going to
have, as you have seen, gridlock. We can't afford that.
Mr. Moran. Yeah. So the answer was yes? You would want at
least the funding to be identified.
Mr. Shane. Yes.
Mr. Moran. OK. Now, let's move to Mr. Eastin.
Mr. Eastin. How did I know you were going to get to me on
this?
Mr. Moran. Yeah. Are you going to recommend that at least
the $626 million be--the source of all of that funding be
identified before this project can be approved?
Mr. Eastin. We expect to--as I have indicated before,
Pierce Homer and I and others are cooperating on this, on
trying to find it and put a handle on it, on what's necessary
and what the number, dollar number, is. We're going to go ahead
with the Fairfax County Parkway. I assume they're going to go
ahead with the widening of I-95 and Woodlawn Road, and we're
going to have to identify where the money is coming from to
finish these.
Now, all of the money is not very likely going to come from
the State of Virginia. Not all of the money is going to come
from the Army or the BRAC account. All the money's not going to
come from the Office of the Secretary of Defense or some
outside funding from whatever you and the chairman can help
with.
Mr. Moran. If I could, if you do not have agreement on all
of those funding sources, are you prepared to recommend that
this project should not go forward until such agreement is
reached?
Mr. Eastin. My job under the BRAC law is to bring 18,000
people one way or another to EPG. I am confident, and as Jeff
has indicated, this is going to be a challenge. It's a
challenge I look forward to. I think it can be done, but we're
going to perceive that they're coming down there, and I think
we're going to get the infrastructure to do it.
It would be very unwise to do that if we didn't have the--
didn't have the infrastructure, but our--our duty under the
BRAC law is to bring them down there. If the infrastructure's
not complete, we're going to have to take some other measures,
staggered work and various other things, but I am confident
that between Pierce and myself and the people on the Hill, we
recognize we have a problem, between a rock and a hard place,
if you will, and I am confident that wise people can get
together and figure out how to do this.
Mr. Moran. Well, I am confident as well that we all
recognize this is a problem. I am not confident we all
recognize that there is a solution to this problem. The Fairfax
County Parkway has been on the boards for what, 14 years or
something, and it's still not completed, and at this point,
given the expansion necessitated by BRAC, we don't have the
money even identified for completing the Fairfax County
Parkway.
Can you assure me that the Army is going to have this done?
The Fairfax County Parkway is all I am talking about. That's
the first step, before these people are located at the base by
2011.
Mr. Eastin. I can tell you that from what--my talking with
Secretary Homer, that we will have this thing built long before
September 15, 2011.
Mr. Moran. When do you think you'll have the Fairfax County
Parkway--I really want to get you on the record. When do you
expect the Fairfax County Parkway to be completed?
Mr. Eastin. I don't know, but I think it's time for our
impasse over who's going to build this thing to end, and to use
the funding that VDOT already has supplemented as it might be
necessary from wherever, and get the thing built. Our staffs,
the Pierce staff and mine, are very, shall we say, animated in
their discussions. It's time to eliminate the animation and get
on with the business.
Mr. Moran. I agree. It's one thing to be animated in
discussion. It's another thing to reach agreement. But you are
on the record saying this is going to--the Fairfax County
Parkway is going to be completed at a level adequate to
accommodate at least the portion of the BRAC expansion that is
coming into the EPG and Route 1 well in time before 2011.
Mr. Eastin. I will commit to that on the parkway. My
commitment does not run to interchanges and other things.
Mr. Moran. No. I understand that, but you're going to have
to do these interchanges.
Now, the $626 million that has been identified is not
provided for in the budget resolution as it applies to the
military construction appropriations.
Mr. Eastin. $407, that's correct. I might add, Congressman,
$626 is really $475 because the other $150 or so has been
identified by VDOT.
Mr. Moran. OK. So we're talking $475 million unidentified.
Mr. Eastin. That's right.
Mr. Moran. And the 2007--it obviously is not in 2007. How
much is going to be in the 2008 request?
Mr. Eastin. It's going to depend on several things. One,
our discussions with the State, the Commonwealth on appropriate
shares of these things. My discussion with the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, remember, 18,000 of 22,000 are not Army
people. We are the agent and landlord, but they are from
elsewhere in the Defense Department. And we will have ongoing
discussions with your committee on where funds might come from.
Along with that, we're looking at declaring some of these
roads, defense access roads, which would then ease the ability
to fund some of their necessary projects.
Mr. Moran. Good. Labeling it a defense access road does
help, but as you know, you have a maximum of 3 months within
which to get that request into the 2008 fiscal year
appropriation. It's not in there, it's going to be very
difficult to get any addition, because that money would have to
come from veterans' healthcare within the allocation to that
subcommittee. So within 3 months, you've got to figure out
where you're going to get that money, and that 2008 money
doesn't become available until 2009, and at that point you have
2 years left to accommodate the influx of 18,000, you say the
20,000-plus people really, onto this base.
I know you know this, but I am kind of underscoring the
timeframe within which we have to operate. From my perspective,
it's impossible, not going to have the infrastructure in place.
If you didn't have the infrastructure in place, and I ask this
again, would you not think it appropriate to delay the move of
these 18,000 people to Fort Belvoir?
Mr. Eastin. I do not have the option as given by the BRAC
law to delay their move. We have the perfect storm here, I mean
quite frankly. To get people in there, we have to put them in
there by September 15th. If we want them to be there and be
productive, we have to fix the transportation system, and I am
confident the State and Defense will do that.
Mr. Moran. OK. Because your role and that of your--of the
people that you answer to is to implement the law as passed by
the legislative branch. So if the Congress was to extend this
deadline, then that would resolve this issue that this--what I
would consider to be an insurmountable challenge. And it
appears that's the situation that we are going to be
confronting.
2011 is not a reasonable timeframe. It's not a possible
timeframe within which to accomplish this infrastructure, and
we have all agreed that without that infrastructure in place,
you can't move 18,000-plus people onto this base.
Another issue related to the fact that the Congress passes
the laws and the executive branch, as you know, implements
those laws, is the Army Museum. When I put the money into the
defense appropriations bill for the Army Museum to kick it off,
and we accompanied it with language, that language was clearly
intended to locate it on the base on Route 1. As far as I am
concerned, there is no authorization nor money to locate it at
EPG at this point. Do you disagree with that?
Mr. Eastin. It's my understanding the law was to take the--
put the museum on Belvoir, which, of course, encompasses EPG.
That's our thinking on this. And once again, as I indicated
before, this is supposedly or supposed to be a privately
funded, financed museum, and we're hoping to put the museum in
a condition where it can be adequately funded in that manner.
Mr. Moran. I understand that, but, of course, once the Army
used the money that was appropriated, they then assumed the
obligation of expending it in the way that was intended by the
Congress. Now, we'll go back and look, but if there is need for
clarification, we will simply have to clarify where the museum
was intended to be located. You will concur with that?
Mr. Eastin. Yes.
Mr. Moran. Yeah. The county has suggested that in addition
to the $626 and you're saying $475 million that is unaccounted
for, there also needs to be rail extension. Would you not
agree, and I would ask this of Mr. Shane as well, that there
should be a rail extension from Springfield Metro to those
office buildings at EPG?
Mr. Eastin. That's not as easy an answer as it might at
first blush appear. The rail line is on the other side of 95
from EPG, so whatever we're going to do there, we'll have to
get the people from that new rail station either under or over
95. Currently we are--the plan is to bring them by shuttles,
regular shuttle service to EPG and Belvoir proper from
Franconia-Springfield Metro station which serves--as you know,
serves both VRE and Metro.
Given the results of the Washington Post study that someone
alluded to before that was in yesterday, it's quite surprising
to see that 9 percent of the people in Fairfax use public
transportation, and 70-some percent drive. So if we assume
that, and our traffic planners are looking for 10 to 15 percent
possibly coming in the Franconia-Springfield station, 10 to 15
percent of our 22,000, this is not a panacea for all these
problems.
We're looking at it however you look at it, 2,500 or 3,000
per day or so, so that the tendency is to think of this as a
Lexington Avenue line in New York, and people ride up and down
it all day long. That's not how northern Virginia, in fact, the
National Capital region, commutes. We'd love to have that
ability, but right now, as you can see from our project list,
extension of the Metro line down there would be another third
of a billion dollars, and given our funding already, not to say
it wouldn't have some marginal value, but that's not in our
current thinking.
Mr. Moran. Is having at least some light rail down to Fort
Belvoir in your long-term planning?
Mr. Eastin. Not right now. No, sir.
Mr. Moran. It isn't. At one point it was.
Do you think that it would be appropriate to put in your
long-term planning widening of Route 1?
Mr. Eastin. Right now our traffic studies, I believe the
figure--correct me, Jim, if I'm wrong--show a capacity of about
6,000 more cars there per day on Route 1.
Mr. Moran. Route 1 during rush hour?
Mr. Eastin. I avoid it.
Mr. Moran. I can understand why; 6,000. Maybe driving down
the breakdown lane or something like that.
Mr. Eastin. We're already putting a little north of 4,000
new people down there already. And I think that's going to
pretty much be the capacity of Route 1. That said, it may not
be a pleasant place to drive at rush hour. It is not as broke
as, say, some of the other roads are there, and this is not in
our current plan, given the way the 22,000 people would be.
Mr. Moran. Well, I think that's a terrible mistake. That's
so short-sighted. I won't pursue this. I think we know what the
situation we confront with transportation is.
I have one other question, though, and that is the
construction of these office buildings, which we haven't
mentioned. The Secretary of the Army called when the BRAC--
original BRAC recommendation came forward, must have been a
couple--3 years ago now or something, said that we're planning
on spending about $2 billion for this construction on the site.
This is irregardless of the infrastructure. This is for the
construction of all these new buildings. Well, now it's been
estimated that was a real low-ball figure. We're probably
talking about as much as twice that. How much is going to be
requested, do you know, for the actual construction of the
buildings and the military construction appropriations bill?
Mr. Eastin. I do not know that. The request from the Army
proper will be pretty much on target. The National Geospatial
Intelligence Agency is bringing their own funding to this. I
don't know what their arrangements are. And WHS is also. The
final business plan on WHS is not in, so I'm not exactly sure
where that's going to come out.
Mr. Moran. One last question. When are you going to
complete the public hearings, the EIS process?
Mr. Eastin. The EIS process on our current target, the
draft EIS, the draft final will come out--excuse me, the draft
EIS will come out late December; holidays involved, probably
the first part of January. There will be public hearings and a
public comment period after that before that EIS is issued
sometime late spring.
Mr. Moran. Late spring. So we're talking about maybe May,
June.
Mr. Eastin. The hearing will be shortly after the----
Mr. Moran. February, March. Then you have to go back to the
drawing boards and presumably take seriously the public
comment. So you are looking at May, June at a minimum before
you complete your recommendations.
Mr. Eastin. That's right. And the record of decision
currently is early July.
Mr. Moran. Early July. So that's barely in time for the
2009 fiscal appropriations request, which becomes available in
2010, and you're going to have 20,000 people, you're suggesting
18,000. You're suggesting these people are going to come a year
later when, at best, you will get your appropriations in 2010
for the 2011 infusion of these 20,000.
Mr. Eastin. The appropriations are included in our
programming process already for these outyears, and yes, your
point is well taken. We're going to dovetail these together
very carefully, and we're going to have to keep----
Mr. Moran. Mr. Eastin, you are a good soldier and an
unreasonable one. This isn't going to happen in the timeframe.
It shouldn't because we have no business bringing 20,000 people
to a constricted site before we have the infrastructure in
place.
Chairman Tom Davis. And we're going to help make----
Mr. Moran. Clearly from this hearing, Mr. Chairman, I think
we've come to this conclusion. We have some work to do in terms
of clarifying the intent of Congress and apparently adjusting
some of these deadlines to a more reasonable timeframe. But
again, Mr. Chairman, thanks for having this hearing. It's been
very informative.
Chairman Tom Davis. OK. I just have three quick questions,
Mr. Eastin. You talked about trying to stop the disagreement
between Virginia and the Army to getting the parkway built. I
put an amendment on the House side and Senator Warner on the
Senate side that would allow the Army to give you the authority
to manage the project. Are you willing to take that over right
now or at least to manage it and get it constructed?
Mr. Eastin. I think what is important for people to realize
is that the Army does not build roads. I don't think VDOT
builds roads. Corps of Engineers doesn't build roads. Highway
Administration doesn't build roads. We contract to build roads.
I think it's incumbent on us to figure out which is the
best contracting vehicle to get these roads built, whether it
be the Army, whether it be VDOT, but as I said earlier, I think
to end the bickering and to get this done one way or another,
we all have smart lawyers who can work through this thing and
go from there.
Chairman Tom Davis. We've had smart lawyers for years, and
I think that's what's frozen it, unfortunately.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, you are seen by some as a smart
lawyer, too.
Chairman Tom Davis. I'm a recovering lawyer, Jim.
Ms. Watts. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Moran. Let me just ask, do you feel you could do this
without the authorization that Mr. Davis is referring to?
Because the defense authorization bill isn't going to get done
this year.
Mr. Eastin. I believe we can get this done; however, some
of this is a matter of interpretation between Secretary Homer's
staff and my staff.
Ms. Watts. Mr. Chairman, may I just add the critical
element of the memorandum of understanding: It's not who
oversees the private sector building it, it's who is going to
pay for the change orders if there's ordnance and explosives
that delay the project, or change it as it's being carried out,
and that becomes the concern under the laws of the Commonwealth
and under the cost to the project.
Chairman Tom Davis. But it's got to be the Army. I mean,
they put the ordnance there. At the end of the day, they are
the ones who would have to bear that cost there. Fairfax County
didn't put the ordnance underground there. I think that's a
couple of the questions.
Mr. Albo. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question real quick?
The other problem is Virginia Code section 1-405, which
states----
Chairman Tom Davis. David is a lawyer.
Mr. Albo [continuing]. No land containing environmental
contamination shall be transferred to the Commonwealth unless
all corrective action necessary to protect human health, etc.,
has been undertaken.
So the problem is a legal one in that Virginia can't, by
code, accept a title to the land, so they can't even start
building. That's the legal loophole.
Chairman Tom Davis. That's why we put it in, Army to manage
it. They don't build it, but to construct it.
Mr. Albo. And the purpose of my bill is if I can get it
passed on September 27th--I don't think it will be a problem,
it shouldn't be controversial--will be at least then to allow
the Virginia VDOT to take title to the land and get started.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Chair, I hate to interject here, but just so
I fully understand, would this not enable the State to get past
this environmental mitigation issue? In other words, the Army
took it, contracted it out; it could be done by a private firm
with all--without a lot of the constraints that the government
requires in terms of the environment, but then turn it over to
the State after they could assure the State that all the
environmental problems were fixed. That's what you're--just so
I can understand in laymen's language, that's what you think
might be accomplished by doing that, by letting the Army
contract out, get it done and then give it to the State.
Chairman Tom Davis. But you've got to start construction.
In the meantime you have to settle this first. It never gets
constructed. That's where it's sat for years, unfortunately.
And the other problem, of course, is the road may need to be
redesigned, given the new needs in that area. And so let's get
it built right and make sure it is designed right, one of the
points the Governor made.
Just a couple other questions, Mr. Eastin. The Governor
asked you if you could to incorporate the impact studies in the
mitigation efforts into the environment documents underway at
Belvoir and Quantico. Are you willing to do that?
Mr. Eastin. Absolutely.
Chairman Tom Davis. OK. And finally, would you consider the
Fairfax County Public Schools' request to be a cooperating
agency in the environmental process? This is something that Mr.
Tistadt----
Mr. Eastin. I don't have a problem in that end. All the
input we can get on some of these things is absolutely
necessary.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Any other questions?
Let me just thank this panel. I want to thank our audience
for staying with us. There is a lot of interest in this
community, a lot of concern about this community, and both Mr.
Moran and I recognize that at the congressional level, given
our committee status, we have a lot of work to do to make sure
that we have a timeline that's reasonable and funding levels
that are reasonable.
We look forward to cooperating, Mr. Eastin, with you and
the Army, with the State government, the Governor, our
legislators, with the County Board of Supervisors, and with our
civic partners as well, and, again, the school system.
Thank you very much. The hearing's adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9934.045