[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OF RAILROAD PROPERTY AND FACILITIES
=======================================================================
(110-134)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 5, 2008
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-775 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Vice Chair DON YOUNG, Alaska
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
Columbia WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
JERROLD NADLER, New York VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
BOB FILNER, California FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas JERRY MORAN, Kansas
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi GARY G. MILLER, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa Carolina
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
RICK LARSEN, Washington SAM GRAVES, Missouri
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Virginia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois TED POE, Texas
DORIS O. MATSUI, California DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
NICK LAMPSON, Texas CONNIE MACK, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii York
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota Louisiana
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
JOHN J. HALL, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
(ii)
?
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
CORRINE BROWN, Florida Chairwoman
JERROLD NADLER, New York BILL SHUSTER, Pennylvania
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
NICK LAMPSON, Texas STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio, Vice Chair JERRY MORAN, Kansas
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa GARY G. MILLER, California
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia Carolina
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas SAM GRAVES, Missouri
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois LYNN A. WESTMORELND, Georgia
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey JOHN L. MICA, Florida
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota (ex officio)
(ex officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Brooks, Thomas E., Assistant Vice President for Projects and
Chief Engineer, Alaska Railroad................................ 6
Fowler, John M., Executive Director, Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation................................................... 6
Fowler, Marianne Wesley, Senior Vice President of Federal
Relations, Rails-To-Trails Conservancy......................... 6
Little, J. Rodney, Director, Division of Historical and Cultural
Programs, Maryland Historical Trust............................ 6
Merritt, Elizabeth, Deputy General Counsel, National Trust for
Historic Preservation.......................................... 6
Simmons, Patrick B., Director, Rail Division, North Carolina
Department of Transportation................................... 6
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Brown, Hon. Corrine, of Florida.................................. 30
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois............................. 35
Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., of Maryland............................ 37
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Brooks, Thomas E................................................. 41
Fowler, John M................................................... 56
Fowler, Marianne Wesley.......................................... 60
Little, J. Rodney................................................ 68
Merritt, Elizabeth............................................... 76
Simmons, Patrick B............................................... 86
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.005
HISTORIC PRESERVATION OF RAILROAD PROPERTY AND FACILITIES
----------
Thursday, June 5, 2008
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
Materials,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:06 p.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Corrine Brown
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Will the Railroad, Pipelines and
Hazardous Material officially come to order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the
historical preservation of railroad property and facilities.
Today's hearing is in response to an amendment offered and
withdrawn during Full Committee consideration of the Passenger
Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008. The amendment
would prevent Federal historical protection for an entire
railroad line or corridor in response to a claim by the Alaskan
Railroad and the North Carolina Department of Transportation
that the historical protection process has led to costly delays
in capital improvement with no benefits to historical
preservation.
I believe the Committee goal should be to ensure that any
action it takes respects the valuable process of protecting our
Nation's heritage while ensuring a fair process to rail
providers that allows them to adapt to future needs without
undue costs and delays.
The testimony of the Advisory Council and the national
trust points that there are administrative agreements to
resolve the problems raised by both parties. This hearing has
brought the problem raised by the Alaskan Railroad and the
North Carolina to the attention of the Advisory Council. I
think there is a willingness to resolve these concerns
administratively, and I would encourage all of the parties
involved to work toward an equitable solution to any possible
disagreements that have arisen.
We must ensure that we are not looking for a solution to a
problem that may not exist. Prior to this markup, the issue of
historical preservation and its impact on the rail system have
never raised with me or the Committee, and I haven't heard from
any other rail providers facing similar problems. However, I
look forward to learning more about the problems from the
witnesses appearing today and pledge to work with my colleagues
to ensure that the Alaskan Railroad and the State of North
Carolina and all other rail providers are being treated fairly.
I want to thank our panelists for agreeing to join us
today, and I look forward to hearing your testimony.
Before I yield to Mr. Shuster, I ask that Members be given
14 days to revise and extend their remarks and to permit the
submission of additional statements and materials by Members
and witnesses without a statement by the preservation action.
Without objection, so ordered.
I now yield to Mr. Shuster for his opening statement.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I appreciate
you holding this hearing today.
As you know, the amendment that I offered concerns
historical designations of railroads. I have worked with Mr.
Young from Alaska and Mr. Coble on this amendment. We began to
hear complaints that historical designations were impeding some
of the railroads' ability to maintain tracks in a safe manner.
We know that this issue is particularly important, as I
mentioned, to Alaska and to North Carolina and, of course,
potentially other rail lines around the country, and again, Mr.
Coble and Mr. Young were very involved in crafting this
amendment.
In Alaska there are attempts by State historic preservation
officials to declare entire stretches of lines as historic. I
am not talking about historical train stations, but actual
track that trains run on. Even mundane projects have to be
reviewed by the Historic Preservation Office, costing the
railroad both time and money. If we go too far down this path
of historic preservation bogging down necessary improvements
and safety modifications with red tape, I believe we could be
setting ourselves up for an historic accident. We had a similar
situation regarding interstate highways, and we corrected this
problem in SAFETEA-LU when we passed it a couple of years ago.
This amendment would give railroads exactly the same
treatment as interstate highways for historical purposes and
would exempt rail lines from historical designation. I'm open
to suggestions as to how to craft this amendment to protect
clearly historical stations and possibly bridges and tunnels,
but I do not believe that entire mile-long stretches of active
track should ever be considered historic.
The provisions will also benefit Amtrak freight and
commuter lines.
From a policy standpoint, I think we need to give the
Department of Transportation a role in ensuring the protection
of rail facilities of true historic interest while at the same
time ensuring that rail safety is not compromised. And I hope,
Madam Chair, you will work with me on this important issue as
we move forward with the Amtrak reauthorization bill. And with
that, I yield back.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Mr. Oberstar.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the
witnesses for being here, Mr. Shuster for participating, and
for the issues that were raised in the course of our markup.
We meet, in fact, pursuant to discussions held during the
markup of the Amtrak authorization bill, discussions concerning
statements that the Federal historic preservation process has
led to costly delays in improvements in infrastructure for
railroads, with little or no benefit for historic preservation.
Those complaints came from rail development interests in Alaska
and in North Carolina, and the remedy proposed at the time was
to limit historical preservation to very specific facilities,
terminals, bridges, but not entire lines or corridors for
railroads.
Well, we need to explore that issue in the course of
today's hearing. Railroads certainly are deserving of
historical preservation. They have been at the center of our
development as a transcontinental economy, as transcontinental
transportation. They are, along with the Interstate Highway
System, at the very basis of our prowess, our economic prowess
as a Nation.
Certainly one of the most vivid and dramatic examples of
that significance of railroading in our history is the pounding
of the golden spike that linked the Central Pacific and the
Union Pacific and connected the United States coast to coast.
It is the subject of many History Channel programs, which I
delight in observing.
Many of our rail lines that cross through mountainous
terrains are marvels of engineering. Rail stations are marvels
and models of outstanding architectural achievement in
engineering and construction achievement. But I also at the
same time point out that it was the destruction of Pennsylvania
Station in New York that was a major factor that led to the
enactment of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. I
remember that very well serving on the staff here.
I think we need to understand how the Federal historic
preservation process works. Federal law does not absolutely
prohibit Federal actions that permit the impairment of historic
properties. Rather, Federal law requires that before the action
occurs, there should be consideration of a range of actions to
mitigate or to avoid the impact, consideration of alternatives
that produce similar benefit without destroying historic
properties.
Railroads are covered by a multiplicity of historic
preservation laws; 2,300-plus rail properties are listed in the
National Register. They are subject to those procedures. And
additional rail properties are covered because when there is a
proposed Federal action, there will be historic protection for
sites that meet the criteria for listing those sites on the
National Register. And even if the sites are not listed, there
is an issue that comes up.
The rail properties that are covered in the register, and I
have a complete list of these here, include bridges, tunnels
and viaducts. There are 19 corridors or railroads that are
listed now in the National Register. They may be listed for
their historical significance as links between important
cities. They may be listed for excellence in construction or
for their scenic value, such as the Stone Arch Bridge in
Minneapolis that goes from Nicollet Island and which James J.
Hill, the founder of the Great Northern Railroad, insisted be
built on an S curve so that the passengers on his freight
train, as they went around the curve, could look back and have
something to see of significance and beauty. And it was built
with Mankato stone, which is a unique yellowish-colored stone
that is very attractive and also very resistant and has
survived all these--well, let's see. That was built in 1893,
and it is still with us today. But it was on the National
Register of Historic Places, so when the Great Northern
Railroad became BNSF, and the BNSF decided they no longer
needed to move freight through that area, that bridge wasn't
destroyed. It was protected, and it is today a bus, rail,
pedestrian and bicycling link, and thousands of people come
every year to lunch on Nicollet Island to walk the bridge, to
see the beauty that railroad magnate James J. Hill created and
that the Empire Builder railroad once traversed.
So we have Rails-to-Trails because we have been able to
preserve corridors that once were rail facilities. And just on
Sunday I did the Paul Bunyan Trail ride for our 10th year.
That, too, was launched in 1893; 90 years later it was
terminated. The freight rail service was terminated on that
stretch, about 100 miles of rail. And Terry McGaughey, the
midwife of the Paul Bunyan Trail, went up like a 20th-century
Paul Revere asking the communities to band together to put up
funds to preserve that right-of-way and convert it to a
bicycle/pedestrian facility. And today we 650,000 users of the
Paul Bunyan Trail. We did the 11th annual Ride with Jim bicycle
event on the Paul Bunyan Trail. With my new cobalt hip, I did a
25-mile ride on the trail.
So today we are going to hear from interests, from the
Advisory Council, the National Trust, but I want the Committee
to pay attention to the administrative remedies available to
deal with the problems raised.
Historic preservation may be required for individual
facilities that in themselves may not be historically
significant, but they are part of a corridor that is
historically significant. And I know there are problems that
were raised on behalf of Alaska and on behalf of North Carolina
in our markup of the Amtrak bill. If there are problems with
the processing that takes time to do these things, we can deal
with the process. But I think that we can speed that process up
as we did in SAFETEA-LU under the direction of the Chairman,
then-Chairman Young.
A comparison has been made to the Interstate Highway
System, and the Interstate Highway System is not 50 years old;
the act is 50 years old. There were some interests in the
course of our work on SAFETEA-LU said, oh, my goodness, the sky
is falling, the interstate is 50 years old, it is going to be
subject to historic preservation, and we won't be able to add
or change interchanges, or add lanes or delete lanes or
whatever. The interstate isn't 50 years old; one or two
segments are, but it is an evolving program. And so the
exception was for the entire interstate system as a law, as a
structure.
So, use that panel, that pattern, for the rail program,
well, then, I think there are some distinctions that need to be
cited. And I think the request was for a much broader exception
than was necessary to meet the needs. And I want to listen
carefully to the concerns and to the obstacles and find ways
that we can accomplish this without doing harm to the National
Trust For Historic Preservation nor doing harm to railroads who
need investment for expansion.
Madam Chair, thank you.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Thank you.
The gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I thank the Chairman for his comments.
We have a unique situation in Alaska. We have a railroad
that is 50 years old and actually older. McKinley came up and
drove the golden spike, and it is still the major means of
transportation within the State of Alaska. And we are not
asking to destroy any historical sites. In fact, a lot of the
sites in Alaska already been identified and are protected under
my amendment. But we are in the process of trying to replace
approximately 50 bridges that need to be replaced, or we are
going to lose lives.
We are in the process of straightening out the rail in
areas which are extremely dangerous, because in the old days we
didn't have the technology nor the equipment. And it is
extremely important that this railroad still function on time
because we can't do the work we need to do because we have
different weather patterns, much like Minnesota, and we have to
have the ability to do so. And we have a concern that there are
those within the historical preservation group that will
utilize this to imperil the ability for the Alaskan Railroad to
operate. And that is the purpose of my amendment.
And I truly believe that we ought to expand it like we did
in the highway bill to a point where there cannot be an
impediment to improve the safety of passengers and freight that
are utilizing the railroad. And as I mentioned before, the
railroad has been very good under the leadership and the
tutelage of the managers, the board itself, of protecting, but
it would be very nearly impossible to go through some person
under the present act itself on historical preservation who
will say they haven't taken consideration the replacement of
glass with the original type glass in a certain terminal. That
would be, to me, an extension of not logic, but that does
happen in our society.
So I am asking you, especially this Committee, to look at
the railroad in total that it is declared historical, and it
does happen, and the effect upon the economy of Alaska, the
ability to move products, the ability to move military to and
fro from our port, and the safety of those that ride the train.
And so I do think there is room here to work this out, but
I don't want one law to take and impede another agency that is
trying to do what they should do for the good of the State of
Alaska and this Nation.
I originally intended to have just this Alaska in this
program and not all railroads, but I think all railroads do
have a problem. But I am not going to go that far if I can have
some relief in Alaska for this railroad which is crucial to the
economy of the State.
And so I do think there is some room here. I will listen to
the testimony from these witnesses, and let's solve a problem
that can be very damaging in the State of Alaska. And with that
I yield back the balance.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Thank you.
I would like to welcome and introduce today's panel. Our
first witness is Mr. John Fowler, Executive Director of the
Advisory Council of the Historic Preservation. Our second
witness is Mr. Thomas Brooks, assistant vice president and
project and chief engineer of the Alaska Railroad. The third is
Patrick Simmons, director of the rail division of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation. And our fourth witness
is Ms. Elizabeth Merritt, deputy general counsel for the
National Trust for Historic Preservation. Fifth is Rodney
Little, a director of the division of historic and cultural
programs for the Maryland Historic Trust.
And our final witness is Mrs. Fowler, senior vice president
of Federal relations of the Rail-to-Trail preservation action,
has submitted testimony for the record. A copy of the testimony
is available to each of the Members' folders.
Let me remind the witnesses, under our Committee rules oral
statements must be limited to 5 minutes, but the entire
statement will appear in the record. We will also allow the
entire panel to testify before the questioning of the witness.
We are pleased to have you all here this afternoon, and I
recognize Mr. Fowler for his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN M. FOWLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ADVISORY
COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION; THOMAS E. BROOKS, ASSISTANT
VICE PRESIDENT FOR PROJECTS AND CHIEF ENGINEER, ALASKA
RAILROAD; PATRICK B. SIMMONS, DIRECTOR, RAIL DIVISION, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; J. RODNEY LITTLE,
DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL PROGRAMS,
MARYLAND HISTORICAL TRUST; ELIZABETH MERRITT, DEPUTY GENERAL
COUNSEL, NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION; AND MARIANNE
WESLEY FOWLER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF FEDERAL RELATIONS,
RAILS-TO-TRAILS CONSERVANCY
Mr. John M. Fowler. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It is a
pleasure to be here on behalf of the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation. The Council is an independent Federal
agency created by the National Historic Preservation Act to
advise the President and the Congress and to oversee the
section 106 process. It is made up of 23 Presidential
appointees, Federal agency heads and leaders of preservation
organizations. It includes the Secretary of Transportation in
its membership.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is
the primary Federal protection for historic properties. It sets
up a consultative process to evaluate the impacts of Federal
activities on historic properties. It has limits. There has to
be Federal involvement, and in the end the process is advisory.
It can't stop a project.
Over 100,000 cases a year go through section 106 review.
All but a few of these are resolved in an expeditious manner.
The ACHP's regulations which implement section 106 also offer a
variety of tools to deal with special needs. We use them
regularly for cases like the one presented today.
The railroad industry's exemption request is not at all
unprecedented. Several industries in the past have sought
congressional action to avoid historic preservation reviews. In
1989, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration sought
a legislative exemption from section 106 claiming that it
placed an undue burden on their programs. The Congress rejected
it and asked the Advisory Council to develop administrative
remedies. The ACHP worked with the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration to develop an agreement that still guides
section 106 compliance for NASA.
In 2001, the pipeline industry sought a legislative
exemption for historic pipelines, pipelines such as World War
II's famous Big and Little Inch pipelines. The Congress again
rejected the request, and the ACHP worked with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission to complete an exemption created
through the section 106 regulations.
In 2004, the telecommunications industry wanted a
legislative exemption for cell tower construction. Congress
again refused to grant such an exemption, and the ACHP worked
with the Federal Communications Commission to develop a
national agreement that streamlines section 106 reviews for
cell towers.
And as has been noted, the Federal Highway Administration
initially sought a legislative exemption for dealing with the
Interstate Highway System, but working cooperatively with the
ACHP they developed an administrative exemption that now covers
the entire Interstate Highway System.
I think the message is consistent. After examining the
issue, the Congress has regularly found that the basic law of
section 106 is sound. There are adequate administrative tools
that exist, and legislative exemptions are unnecessary. The
ACHP is prepared to work with the rail industry, Federal
agencies, and stakeholders to reach the same kind of successful
conclusion to the present challenge without resort to
legislative exemptions.
Thank you.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Mr. Brooks.
Mr. Brooks. Thank you, Chairman Brown, and Chairman
Oberstar and Members of the Subcommittee, for holding this
hearing and inviting me to speak here today on behalf of the
Alaska Railroad.
I would like to thank Representative Shuster for offering
the amendment at the markup and Representative Young for his
leadership in bringing the issue to the attention of the
Committee.
My name is Tom Brooks. I am assistant vice president of
projects and chief engineer at the Alaska Railroad. Alaska
Railroad has a 500-mile-long mainline running from the Ports of
Seward, Whittier and Anchorage to the interior city of
Fairbanks. We offer a full--year-round full passenger service
and freight. The railroad carried over half a million
passengers in 2007, and we have extensive freight operations in
interstate commerce. Because of our service to five military
bases, we have been designated by the Department of Defense as
a Strategic Railroad.
The railroad was built and operated by the U.S. Government
from 1914, and it was sold to the State of Alaska in 1985. And
we are proud of our history, and we actively support historic
preservation in numerous ways. These are detailed in the back
of materials.
However, the effect of expansively applied historical laws
and regulations imperils our ability to maintain our railroads
safely and efficiently and compromises the operational business
agility vital to our railroad's mission of stimulating State
economic development. We support an amendment along the lines
of the Shuster amendment that was offered and then withdrawn at
the Full Committee markup pending this hearing.
I would like to start by sharing a current problem that
illustrates our dilemma very well. We have a bridge at milepost
432.1 that is 160 foot long and spans a small creek at a remote
location. Two separate independent historians determined this
bridge has no historic merit on its own; however, it has been,
in practical effect, declared historic by our State's Historic
Preservation Officer, or SHPO, merely because it is part of the
Alaska Railroad. This has triggered an extensive bureaucratic
process that is meant to preserve and protect historic
structures.
The foundation of this bridge is failing badly, and we want
to replace it in 2008. We can't. We are currently passing
around documents between the Alaska Railroad the Federal
Transportation Administration, the National Park Service and
the Alaska SHPO. We expect to obtain the required approval so
the replacement can be completed in the fall of 2009. In the
meantime we have got to get about 150,000 passengers, quite a
bit of freight and military equipment across that bridge
safely. We believe we can do this, but it is really expensive
and very unnecessary. We would like to replace the bridge this
season.
We submit that this is a misapplication of public process
and squanders Federal resources and public funds. There is
really no reason that we couldn't have replaced this bridge
this year. The problem is created by overzealous attempts to
identify the railroad as a single historic corridor, and this
designation automatically triggers the historic protections for
this mundane railroad feature, and it lacks historic merit on
its own.
Bridge 432.1 represents the sixth time we have been through
this process since 2002. It is expensive and delays our efforts
to improve safety and efficiency and to serve our customers.
The Shuster amendment will ensure that the historic
preservation standards continue to be applied to railroad
features with historic merit in their own right, not because
they are merely part of a railroad historic district. This
amendment would provide the same relief to railroads that was
afforded to the Interstate Highway System through SAFETEA-LU,
and like the Interstate Highway System, railroads have been
evolving since their inception and continue to do so. They have
been constructed, expanded and upgraded to serve our national
transportation needs. Their integrity depends on continuing
maintenance and upgrades so they continue to operate and move
passengers and freight efficiently.
The Alaska Railroad is a critical component of our State's
transportation infrastructure and must continue its mission as
an economic tool. Without the Shuster amendment there is
immediate danger that our entire railroad corridor will in
practical effect be treated as an historic district.
Safety improvements and routine maintenance and even
mundane features such as bridge 432.1 are incurring undue delay
and costs, and the problem will get even worse in the future if
the railroad corridor is either officially declared a historic
district or, as is currently the case, it is simply treated as
if we are. While avenues exist to appeal historic
determinations, they are made to bodies like the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation or the keeper of the National
Register. These entities are firmly grounded in historic
preservation and have a far different mission from running a
safe transportation system.
In closing, we will gladly continue to support efforts to
preserve Alaska's history and the history of Alaska's railroad,
but we must also ensure safe operations. Through the Shuster
amendment we will continue our historic preservation efforts,
focusing them on truly deserving properties while moving ahead
with our mission.
Thank you for opportunity to speak, and I will be happy to
answer any questions.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Mr. Simmons.
Mr. Simmons. Thank you, Chairwoman Brown, and Chairman
Oberstar, and Ranking Member Shuster and distinguished Members
of the Committee. My name is Patrick Simmons. I am director of
the rail division with the North Carolina Department of
Transportation.
NCDOT is blessed to have the full-service rail program. Our
program is nationally recognized for our work with the
intercity passenger rail service, and I am pleased to report
that the ridership on the two State-sponsored trains is up 20
percent over the last several months.
Just yesterday Governor Easley announced that we will add
another State-sponsored train as soon as it can be done in
order to meet the growing demand. We are developing the
federally designated Southeast High-Speed Rail Corridor, which
we refer to as SEHSR. That will link the Northeast with the
Southeastern States.
We administer our State's highway-railroad grade crossing
safety program, and we are proud to have partnered with Norfolk
Southern Railway and the Federal Railroad Administration to
create something called the Sealed Corridor. Later this year
USDOT will report to the Congress how the Sealed Corridor has
saved lives at highway-railroad crossings.
We partner with Norfolk Southern, CSX Transportation and
the North Carolina Railroad in an ongoing program of
infrastructure investments that improve safety, add network
capacity and reduce travel times. We partner with the FRA to
operate a railroad industry safety inspection program. We
partner with our railroad community to do economic development
projects. We also partner with the Virginia Department of Rail
and Public Transportation, and the Federal Highway
Administration, and FRA and the community of some 50 State and
local agencies to develop the design and environmental
evaluation of SEHSR.
I am not here today to offend our historic preservation
community, for I am very proud of our achievements in North
Carolina to preserve historic train stations, equipment, and
our contributions to the North Carolina Transportation Museum.
Last year the National Trust recognized our body of work and
honored us with the John Chafee Award for Excellence in Public
Policy. I am here, however, to point out what I believe to be a
significant impediment to our Nation's developing
transportation policy: designation of railroad corridors as
historic. My concern is that such a designation adds
significant process, time and cost to project delivery. The
prospect of such a designation also will constrain our ability
as a State to work with the freight railroads to add capacity
and improve safety.
We are at the beginning of a new era in public-private
partnerships in our industry. Both parties wish to leverage
funds from each other to add sorely needed capacity and enhance
mobility. Adding process and cost--and again, it impedes
project delivery.
I note, Mr. Chairman, or Madam Chairwoman, that the
railroads are largely privately owned, while the interstate
network is a public asset. SAFETEA-LU included the exemption
from designation for the Interstate Highway System. This
provision effectively places rail at a competitive
disadvantage. It also favors public investment in highways
versus the developing public-private partnerships between
States and railroads.
By not leveling the playing field, our program of
infrastructure investment is further constrained from taking
advantage of the enhanced economy, efficiency and productivity
that the rail mode can offer. Already our Class 1 railroads are
wary of governmental regulation, and rightfully so in this
case. A requirement such as the historic designation that can
apply broadly across their privately owned network will produce
a setting that will make the task of entering into public-
private partnerships all the more difficult.
Our State has had experience as well with the facilities.
We have had some challenges there that we were able to
negotiate and overcome and go forward with those projects in
good spirit of working together. However, I believe that
designating railroad corridors as separate and apart from the
facilities and structures as historic adds significant time and
cost to project development. It is an impediment to adding
network capacity and enhancing safety. I believe it will hinder
our ability to foster these public-private partnerships, and I
am not sure that it adds materially to the body of knowledge
and protects our historic resources. Therefore, I urge the
Committee to reconsider the amendment offered by Congressman
Shuster, and I thank you for the opportunity to be here today
and will be pleased to respond to any questions.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Thank you.
The bell--we are going to stand in recess for about 25
minutes. We have a series of votes, and we will be reconvening
as soon as the votes are over. Thank you.
Will the Committee come back to order, please? And Ms.
Merritt will get started, please.
Ms. Merritt. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Brown and
distinguished Members of the Committee. I am Elizabeth Merritt,
Deputy General Counsel for National Trust for Historic
Preservation.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Excuse me. Could you please pull your
mike up?
Ms. Merritt. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before
you today to share the National Trust's serious concerns about
a proposed major exemption from Federal historic preservation
laws. The National Trust was chartered by Congress more than a
half century ago to lead the private historic preservation
movement in the United States.
During the past 2-1/2 decades in which I have served as in-
house counsel at the Trust, the Trust has worked tirelessly to
implement and enforce section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act, the laws from which the railroads are
seeking a broad legislative exemption.
The Trust has served not only as a preservation advocate in
the context of individual projects, but we have also been
actively involved over the years in shaping regulations and
programmatic agreements, and occasionally even legislation
which is carefully designed to address complex implementation
issues and special approaches tailored to specific agency
needs.
We have described in our testimony, as has the Advisory
Council, a number of examples in which these administrative
solutions have been very successful in addressing precisely the
kinds of concerns that the railroads have presented here. The
examples provided by the railroads simply do not represent the
kinds of issues that Congress should be dragged into resolving.
We urge you not to get pulled into the weeds here. The Federal
and State preservation agencies represented at this table have
the expertise and the successful models to address and resolve
these concerns without the need to do a hatchet job on our
Federal historic preservation laws.
The centrality of America's historic railroad resources to
our national heritage is well-documented and summarized in the
testimony. Our rail corridors have reflected and defined the
spirit of our Nation, its culture, history and economy. As a
result, railroad preservation has been a longstanding priority
in Federal law and policy.
We have provided for the record a list of all 2,486
railroad resources that are listed in the National Register.
This is just a sample of all of the historic properties
eligible for the National Register nationwide.
Federal historic preservation laws are designed to achieve
a balance between preserving the integrity of our historic
resources and providing for their efficient and responsible
continued use. The fact that a rail corridor is still in use is
not a reason for exempting it from consideration for
preservation. On the contrary, when these corridors have
legitimate historic significance, they deserve to be included
within the scope of our Federal preservation laws.
Other active transportation facilities such as airports and
historic parkways are managed in a way that respects their
historic character and complies with Federal law. The railroads
should live up to the same standard.
Of course, Federal preservation laws only apply when the
railroads receive Federal funds or permits. In the absence of
such Federal benefits, these preservation laws pose no barrier
at all for the railroads to do whatever they want with their
historic property, even destroying it. But it is not
appropriate for private corporations or State agencies to use
Federal taxpayer dollars to destroy historic resources without
at least participating in the review process like other
industries and agencies.
There is no showing that the railroads are unduly or
disproportionately burdened by preservation laws that all other
industries follow when they receive Federal funds and permits.
The section 106 regulations include a number of flexible tools
that could be used to address the railroad's concerns. Our
testimony mentions three in particular.
The first is programmatic agreements which are often used
to streamline or eliminate review from minor actions. For
example, the North Carolina DOT recently signed a PA to
streamline review for minor transportation projects throughout
the State. According to the North Carolina SHPO, well over 100
projects per year are reviewed under this PA and all have been
resolved quickly and successfully. Why couldn't such a PA be
developed for rail projects?
As another example, the Alaska Railroad has a PA in place
that allows for the replacement of all of its 57 historic
timber bridges, further evidence that section 106 is not an
obstacle to necessary upgrades.
The second tool under section 106 is known as program
comments, issued by the HCHP, which comment on an entire
category of undertakings in lieu of individual reviews. These
have been used extensively by the Defense Department to
accomplish section 106 compliance for literally tens of
thousands of historic properties.
The third tool is that the ACHP can exempt certain
categories of undertakings from section 106. This is the model
used for the interstate system. However, consultation is
required with the ACHP to develop and craft such an approach to
ensure that it doesn't sweep too broadly. And the DOT has not
yet initiated such consultation. The devil is in the details.
And it should be the ACHP and the DOT rather than Congress
undertaking the complex task of attempting to define the scope
of an exemption.
In addition to these administrative tools under section
106, section 4(f) also has streamlining mechanisms which have
not been brought to bear here. This is important because
section 4(f) is a more stringent law. First, section 6009 of
SAFETEA-LU included a new exemption for de minimis impacts on
historic properties and other resources protected by section
4(f). This was a carefully crafted, consensus-based amendment
which the National Trust was actively involved in developing.
We believe the de minimis exemption could be used to address
many of the railroad's concerns regarding section 4(f). As far
as we could tell, this has not been evaluated. In addition,
FHWA has adopted detailed regulations and guidance and a number
of programmatic section 4(f) evaluations which have also been
used to streamline review under section 4(f). All of these
tools should be fully evaluated before a legislative exemption
is considered.
In conclusion, there are proven administrative tools
available and we are confident that all of the railroad's
concerns can be addressed through consultation using these
administrative tools. We respectfully ask Congress for the
opportunity to show that those administrative solutions can
work. The National Trust stands ready and willing to
participate in that process. Thank you.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Mr. Little.
Mr. Little. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. My name is Rodney
Little. I am a member of the National Conference of State
Historic Preservation Officers and I currently serve as the
State Historic Preservation Officer for the State of Maryland.
Madam Chairwoman, thank you and Ranking Member Shuster and
Members of the Subcommittee for this opportunity to present our
views of the National Conference of State Historic Preservation
Officers.
I have served as the State Historic Preservation Officer
for Maryland for almost 30 years. In that time we have dealt in
Maryland with a great many types of historic properties. We
have our share of the signers of the Declaration of
Independence, but we also have many sites that are in
contemporary daily use and with high technological needs.
For example, the oldest airport in the United States is in
the State of Maryland. It was started in 1909. It is in
continuous use today. And it has been on the National Register
since about 1980. We have several other airports that are on
the National Register.
In the field of railroads, we deal every day with very
historic railroad features. The first regular--the regular
carrier passengers and freight in the United States, the B&O
Railroad, started in Maryland and we deal with facilities of
that railroad that date from the 1930s--or, I am sorry, the
1830s.
We have a very good working relationship with our
transportation agencies regardless of modal form, and that
certainly includes our rail authorities. I would note with
pride that in the 30 years that I have been doing the work,
while we have reviewed hundreds of railroad projects, including
railroad projects and designated corridors, that there has
never been a piece of litigation involving those railroad
projects.
Ms. Merritt and Mr. Fowler before me mentioned that there
are a number of administrative remedies that perhaps have not
been fully investigated here. And I certainly can testify to
that from the State of Maryland.
In Maryland we use what has been referred to as
programmatic agreements or programmatic approaches. Let me cut
through the bureaucratic jargon and talk a little bit about
what those are. Over the years, the historic preservation
review processes have evolved and are very effective in dealing
with a wide variety and diversity of types of projects.
However, every agency has different planning processes. The
planning process for highway is very different than the
planning process for a railroad, is very different than the
planning process for a housing development. What we do in our
State is we try to take a programmatic approach to those kinds
of problems as opposed to a project-by-project review. That has
worked very well, and as far as I have been able to see in this
case, that programmatic approach has not been applied to some
of these problems that we are talking about.
In order for that to work, the State Historic Preservation
Office has to be willing to enter into such programmatic
approaches. It has to be willing to make compromises and trade-
offs up front. And likewise, the State or Federal agencies on
the other side need to be willing and capable of carrying out
those kind of sophisticated programmatic approaches. They work.
In my long career I have, unfortunately, had to deal with
quite a number of public projects that were subject to
litigation on preservation issues. The first question that the
courts always ask is, Are there administrative remedies that
will take care of this issue? Have those administrative
remedies been utilized? And have they been exhausted? Were this
particular issue before the courts right now, I think they
would send us all back to the drawing board and say, You have
not exhausted the administrative remedies.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Ms. Fowler.
Ms. Wesley Fowler. Madam Chair, Ms. Brown, Chairman
Oberstar, Congressman Shuster, Congressman Young, other
distinguished Committee Members, thank you for the privilege of
addressing you today on this most important topic. I am
Marianne Fowler, Senior Vice President of the Rails-to-Trails
Conservancy.
Let me draw your attention to the wall monitors, and I
invite you to focus on the pictorial representations of
historic railroad features. They are, after all, what this
hearing is about. Many of them have been preserved through the
auspices of the National Historic Preservation Act. Let me
assure you, I will not be offended if you divide your attention
between these pictures of America's railroad heritage and my
words.
RTC speaks today in opposition to any attempt to exempt
railroad corridors and facilities from Federal historic
preservation laws. Here is why: Congress has mandated that it
is our, quote, national policy to preserve established railroad
rights of way for future reactivation of rail service, to
protect rail transportation corridors, and to encourage energy-
efficient transportation use.
It is RTC's mission to aid in this process by identifying
rail corridors that are not currently needed for rail
transportation and work with communities to facilitate the
conversion of these corridors into public trails and
nonmotorized transportation corridors.
Congress has given us three tools with which to accomplish
this goal.
First, the rail banking statute which allows for the
transfer of a corridor on which a rail company no longer wants
to conduct service to a willing trail manager. This process,
however, depends upon not only the willingness of the interim
trail manager, but also the willingness of the railroads. And
the railroads are not always willing.
It is in this context in which section 106 provides a
critical constraint to the ability of private railroads to
dismantle historic transportation corridors. To carry out its
section 106 obligations, the Surface Transportation Board
imposes conditions that temporarily bar railroads seeking
abandonment authorization from removing any historic bridges,
features, other features that require railroads to engage in
historic preservation consultation. These preservation
conditions give public agencies and potential trail managers
the time necessary to undertake the due diligence and reviews
necessary to proceed with public land acquisitions, and ensures
that important historic structures and features that will allow
for trail use and enhance the trail experience are not removed
until these consultations are complete.
It is the synergy between these two provisions of Federal
law that have now given us over 15,000 miles of active, open,
rail trail and have also given us many more miles of rail
trail, rail corridor that is in project stage. And so we oppose
this exemption.
Last night I had occasion to speak to the president of one
of America's railroads. And he said to me, Marianne, you can't
expect railroads to care, railroad companies to care about the
history, about the history of the railroads. Their obligation
is to care about the economics of their company and the
functionality of the system. And I thought for a moment. And I
responded to him, no, I do expect you to care. I expect you to
care the very most because you own our history, a history that
so infuses the American sense of ourselves. It informs our
literature. It informs our art. It informs our music. In some
communities I am told it is even so much a part of that
community that they have named their basketball team the
Altoona Curves after a marvelous feat of railroad engineering
that comes through the mountains and curves into Altoona. So
gentlemen, I would ask you to rise to your higher
responsibility of protecting our railroad heritage. Thank you
very much.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Thank you.
And I thank all of you for your testimony. We will start
with Mr. Oberstar for questioning.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I thank all the
witnesses for their splendid testimony. I think that the
frosting on the cake, the icing, if you will, is the show of
railroad history captured in those slides. A wonderful
representation. You finished with the project I started with in
Minneapolis, the St. Anthony Falls Nicollet Island project.
I want to come to the Alaska Railroad issue. And I have a
timeline. Chairman Young provided Member high-priority project
designation for replacement of this bridge 432.1 in SAFETEA-LU
bill. And the Alaska Railroad undertook engineering analyses in
the summer of 2007, showed the bridges in need of replacement.
And the railroad submitted all the environmental requirements
under NEPA to Federal Transit Administration in January of this
year. Right?
In March FTA determined the bridge was not eligible for
National Register because it wasn't historic. In April the
State SHPO, not the Federal Government, not an agency of the
U.S. Government, not the Congress, your own State agency
disagreed and determine the project would have an adverse
effect because of the bridge association with the Alaska
Railroad.
Then the Alaska Railroad began a process of showing that
there is no feasible or prudent alternative to replacing the
bridge. And it completed that work in April. And FTA and the
Alaska Railroad submitted that information to the National Park
Service under the 4(f) provision for review, and FTA is
expected to get a response in July from the Department of
Interior. Is that correct?
Mr. Brooks. That is our best guess, yes.
Mr. Oberstar. That is not a horribly long process.
Mr. Brooks. The problem we have is it causes us to meet the
windows that we need for construction. We can't proceed with
the project under Federal guidelines until all the approvals
are in place. We basically have been unable to commit to
ordering the steel for the bridge and nailing down some of
those lead items.
Mr. Oberstar. But from March through July, to get a process
completed, is not an undue burden. If you had started the
process last summer, you would be under construction now.
Mr. Brooks. Well, I think the process is a fairly long
process. We did start last summer with the second evaluation of
the bridge history.
Mr. Oberstar. That wasn't impeded by the historic
preservation.
Mr. Brooks. Well it is part of the historic preservation
process. I mean, it takes a while to put all that together, use
a historic--we were using a historical consultant to do it, so
that we weren't able to have a historic evaluation to put
before the FTA until December. We put that before them in early
February--or early January, excuse me.
Mr. Oberstar. Well, I really don't see the historic
preservation provision--it caused the railroad to stop, take
stock, make an assessment, evaluate the situation, go through a
process that was beneficial for you, beneficial for the
historic preservation process, and may well--I mean, there is
the designation that there is no feasible prudent alternative.
That is your own. Why do you need an exemption? Do you simply
want not to go through a process at all?
Mr. Brooks. I am sorry. The crux of the matter relates to
whether it is prudent to do that. You know, it is always
feasible to do something. If the Park Service were to determine
that it is prudent to replace that bridge, we would have a very
difficult time figuring out what to do with it. That process is
very--you know, basically we are appealing what we do with our
railroad to historians at the National Park Service.
Mr. Oberstar. Well, and last year, according to documents
that I have requested, the Alaska State Historic Preservations
Office and the Federal Railroad Administration and your
railroad signed a memorandum of agreement for replacement of
timber bridges in the corridor of the railroad. Fifty-seven
bridges are included in the agreement. The railroad agreed to
retain two of them. Is that correct?
Mr. Brooks. That is correct.
Mr. Oberstar. Is that a burden on the railroad?
Mr. Brooks. It is a minor burden on the railroad. We do
have a programmatic agreement in place to govern our timber
bridges. We have agreed that over a third of the bridges in our
system are historic.
Mr. Oberstar. The agreement gives you an out, to the extent
possible.
Mr. Brooks. I think that is a pretty strong obligation from
our point of view.
Mr. Oberstar. Mitigation measures include digitization of
the documents, preparation of an annotated bibliography,
creation of a timber bridge booklet. A lot of people consider
timber bridges to be very significant structures, very
important to our past and to our future.
Railroading evokes the most sympathetic response from any
transportation activity--I don't find people getting fired up
about highways, but I do find they fight over a railroad
bridge, a covered bridge, a railroad station. About a third of
the cities in my district have a caboose or one of those old
cow catcher locomotives on display at the entrance to the city
or as you depart from the city on the other end. These are
historic parts of our history, of our past. If it takes just a
couple of months, or 3 months or 4 months, to go through a
process and evaluate it, I don't see how we are creating a
burden for you.
Now, both Mr. Brooks, Mr. Simmons, are you opposed to
having rail corridors designated in a historic preservation
document?
Mr. Simmons. Yes, sir. And I draw the distinction between a
corridor and the facilities. As we have carried out our
responsibilities, we have had many opportunities to work with
historic facilities, historic structures, and to work through
the issues that are relevant there. So we are okay there.
With respect to rail corridors, I note that the corridor
listing provided to the Committee, the handout included in Ms.
Merritt's testimony, most of those railroads are either tourism
railroads or abandoned. And the issue I am trying to bring
before the Committee is, as we develop private-public
partnerships in this country to make investments that add
capacity and safety to active mainline major railroads, that
that is a distinction. Those railroads do need to function.
We honor our past in many different ways. But as we have
these major transportation facilities, there will be a need to
expand their capacity and to add--or to go down a pathway that
adds this responsibility to the private sector and to the
public sector in working with the private sector, will add
process, will add cost. And, Mr. Chairman, it will make our
task in the public arena all the more difficult.
Mr. Oberstar. Well, there is another responsibility, and
that is to the public and to the past. And in the years 1850 to
1871, the Federal Government granted to the railroads 173
million acres of public lands. That at the time, and today,
represented in the lower 48, 9 percent of the total land
surface of the United States for the public use, convenience
and necessity; and the right to own the minerals below the
surface and the timber above the surface and to sell that land.
That was an enormous gift bestowed upon the railroads in
the public interest to be managed by the private sector. And so
now the public sector says, there is a historic value. We just
want you to consider it.
If we were to accept the language of the amendment proposed
by Mr. Shuster, taking the language from SAFETEA-LU, corridors
can be protected under that language, and are protected: 150
miles of the Pennsylvania Turnpike under that language are
protected; 60 miles of the Columbia, Oregon River Highway are
protected; 30 miles of Alligator Alley in Florida are
protected.
So I leave you there for the moment to think about that
language. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Mr. Shuster.
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My question--well
first, just in response to the Chairman, the railroads were
deeded public lands in the 1850s through the 1870s. And I
believe everything I have seen is that there has been a
tremendous repayment to the public good and to the Federal
Government by many various ways from shipping our troops for
free on the rail system to--by the railroad putting those rail
lines where they went through, the value of the Federal lands
that were retained by the government increased in value, and
then the government sold them or did various things. I don't
know if we can continue to make that argument that there hasn't
been a significant payback to the Federal Government, to
America over the years. So I would make sure we put that on the
record, and we need to consider that as we move forward with
this.
I don't think anybody is--and in the amendment, it does
have protections for railroad stations and significant
engineering structures. And my question to Mr. Fowler: Isn't it
true section 106 of the process would remain in effect under my
amendment? And doesn't that alleviate any of your concerns
regarding protecting historic bridges, tunnels and stations?
Mr. John M. Fowler. As I understand your amendment, that is
correct. It would not affect the application of section 106.
The 4(f) process of the Department of Transportation Act is a
very important historic preservation law in the Federal
establishment. And we are supportive of retaining its
protections as appropriate.
It is more inflexible than section 106 is, and I would
certainly not advocate or support changing that without a very
careful examination of what kind of flexibility does exist
under the current law to meet the needs that the railroads are
putting forward.
Mr. Shuster. I think the idea behind the amendment that
myself and Mr. Young are putting forward is not to necessarily
eliminate the ability to identify corridors, but to limit it
and to make it so that it is not on a State-by-State or local-
community-by-local-community. Allowing DOT to have that say is,
I think, extremely important to the national transportation
system and to the safety of that system.
Mr. Simmons, could you talk a little bit about more--or,
more specifically, public-private partnerships being hindered?
Can you speak--are there specifically things moving forward now
or just over the horizon that you are concerned about that this
may cause a significant problem?
Mr. Simmons. Yes, sir, Mr. Shuster. One of the challenges
that we have taken up in our State is to develop a future high-
speed rail network. Our role has been to bring forward the
environmental documentation, the environmental and preliminary
engineering, on a corridor that stretches today from
Washington, D.C. through Richmond, Virginia, to Raleigh down to
Charlotte, North Carolina. There are other legs of that
corridor that extend south to Savannah to Atlanta, east to
Hampton Roads.
For us to be able to actually construct on a date, sir, we
will need an agreement with freight railroads; in this case,
BCSX and Norfolk Southern as well as our own State-owned
railroad, the North Carolina Railroad. And that is a
challenging group to work with. They are very interested in
their business interests, not to the exclusion of history,
because each in their own way they celebrate that and work with
that.
But to apply designation to the corridor today, we are on
the cusp of the designation from Petersburg to Raleigh, and I
don't know how far that would extend. And I don't know that I
am in a position to provide assurance to our Class I railroads
that it wouldn't extend further.
And I think that, while there may be a process in place, an
appeals mechanism, it still makes the issue of bringing that to
bear fruit, to actually be able to make the investments, to add
capacity to those mainline railroads that provide for
passengers and freight will be all the more challenging and all
the more difficult. I will stop right there.
Mr. Shuster. And just one final point that I would like to
make, just to point out here that the national historic
landmark or the National Register, which the horseshoe curve is
on, which of course is in my district, which the ball team, AA
Baseball Team, is named after. Norfolk Southern has done a
fantastic job of making sure that they have upkept and there
has been a facility built there so that railroaders, railroad
buffs from around the world, can come see it.
And as I have said, for as long as I know, the Norfolk
Southern Railroad has done--and prior to that, Conrail did a
great job on preserving that and making sure. And it is part of
their mainline. So they have a vested interest in seeing that
that part of their system is in good working order and a
pleasant experience for all those who go to visit it.
And if the Chairwoman would indulge me for one last
comment, today is the final hearing that we are going to be
joined by John Brennan who is departing us. He is becoming
senior counsel at the Union Pacific Railroad. And it is a loss
for the Committee and a great pickup for the UP. And I know
that his wife, Maureen, and his two sons, John and James, which
I guess they are not departing yet, but they will be moving to
Omaha shortly, and I just want to thank John for his knowledge,
for his guidance, his support and especially his friendship
over the past couple of months.
I became the Rail Subcommittee Chairman and knew something,
but didn't have the kind of knowledge that John had. So he gave
me a quick education on the nooks and crannies and the details
of it. So he has been with the Committee 5 years, and he will
be greatly missed. But I am sure we will be hearing from him
from time to time when Union Pacific has issues that come
before this Committee.
So John, again, thanks so much for your knowledge and your
experience.
Mr. Oberstar. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Shuster. Yes.
Mr. Oberstar. I would like to join the gentleman, again, in
complimenting John on his service to the Committee and his
departure for new fields, but fields still within his area of
expertise in railroading. He has a very keen understanding of
the issues, an in-depth knowledge of railroad matters. And
Union Pacific will benefit immensely. And he will join another
former Committee staffer over there in the pursuit of the
railroad's needs and in an operating capacity. And I compliment
you on that. Thank you.
Mr. Shuster. And I want to say to the Chairwoman, thanks
again for this hearing. I have to excuse myself. But I am going
to leave it in the able hands of the former Chairman and
someone who has a real interest in this situation. So I yield
back to the Chairwoman.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Did I hear myself or
did I hear someone else say that they would support the TEA-LU
provisions for historical definition that is in the bill; is
that correct? Did I hear that?
Mr. Oberstar. If the gentleman would yield. I simply cited
that the language of SAFETEA-LU on historic preservation gives
the--provides the authority to protect corridors. So----
Mr. Young. I think I am hearing correctly. I just have to
talk to the gentleman a little later. I appreciate it.
Mr. Oberstar. Yes, please.
Mr. Young. Again, Madam Chairman, my interest here is we
have the only railroad in the State of Alaska. And there was no
alternatives. We don't have a great highway system. It is the
main carrier, and we want to improve it and upgrade it and make
sure it is safe.
Now, my information is we have had three bridges identified
totally unsafe; in fact, should not be used. One is in Indiana
and the other one is I believe in Denali; is that correct?
Where is the other one? There was three of them. And then the
rest of them are under question, if I am not mistaken, of the
50 bridges.
Mr. Brooks, your testimony indicates that designating the
Alaska Railroad a historic district adds significantly to
project schedules and costs, and hinders safety and
advancements and operational improvement. But protection of
historic resources is important and is required by law. How do
you propose that the amendment ensures the historic resource
will continue to be protected that is being offered by Mr.
Shuster and myself?
Mr. Brooks. Well, what we propose is that historic
resources, in and of their own right, that have historic value
would be protected under the 106 process. The amendment
essentially proposes that if there is an adverse effect on a
historic resource, it wouldn't have to go through 106--or
excuse me 4(f). In addition, the railroad corridor issue, you
cast a pretty wide net when you talk about a railroad corridor
and you end up bringing a lot of bridges and other
infrastructure into play in the 106 process and the 4(f)
process that really have little or no historic merit.
Mr. Young. The other thing is, Madam Chairman, this is one
of the things that has concerned me. Let's say the railroad,
you know, North Carolina or wherever it may be, and you go
through this process and the SHPO or one of the historical
groups says no. Who do you appeal to?
Mr. Brooks. Actually, I don't know for sure. I know that
our appeal processes have always ended up in the hands of
historians, either at the Park Service or our SHPO----
Mr. Young. So you really don't have an appeal to an outside
source to say, this is meritorious or is not meritorious?
Mr. Brooks. Not normally, no.
Mr. Young. The second thing is, it appears to me--and the
Chairman's question was--it seems to me the Alaskan SHPO just
causes more problems than the national definition. Are they
living off of the national definition? Or are they doing this
on their own?
Mr. Brooks. Well, I think the standards under the national
historic preservation effort are being expanded widely and
applied much more vigorously. For example, although we have had
Federal funding for a number of years, we didn't have any need
to exercise the 4(f) process before 2002. Since then we have
been through it six times. And talking to the timber bridge
MOU, which covers the 106 process, you can only have an MOU in
place there. Whenever we do impact the timber bridge adversely,
we do have to then follow it up with the 4(f) process. So we
are still not out of that for whatever structures we have.
Mr. Young. Madam Chair, I am a little concerned here
because we have an individual on the SHPO board that--we have
another historical barrier in the State that is being proposed
to be adversely affected. And it would seem to me that there
was an indication that there had been some transfer of dollars
into the State program. There may be not as much of an
objection. That goes back to my--there should be, somewhere
along the line, people have a right to appeal outside of those
interested in that issue. See, I want to believe in protecting
historical things. But when I have a railroad that has to move
all my troops and move my gravel and move my fossil fuels and
move my food and move everything, the only real form of rail
transportation, I don't want to see another agency within the
Federal Government has been codified by the Congress to say,
oh, no, you can't do that, but maybe we will help you out.
I don't think that is fair. I think there ought to be a way
that there is an outside source to say, all right, this really
is not going to hurt the historical aspects of it. It is not
going to change the railroad adversely, historically, and maybe
we ought to go forth with it. I don't see who they appeal to.
I am going to ask my counsel to look into this because I
think that is crucially important in this process, that we know
that there is somebody who could make that decision outside of
historians. Why should the historians, when you want to do
something, have the right to say no and stop the process of
your rail from running? That is the thing I don't quite
understand.
Any one of the historians want to comment on that? Mr.
Fowler, can you do that?
Mr. John M. Fowler. No, sir.
Mr. Young. You can't do that. You have not done that and no
one else has done it.
Mr. John M. Fowler. If I am reading your question
correctly, the question of what is or is not historic is a
decision that is made by the people that have the authority and
the responsibility and the expertise to determine historic
significance. So in the section 106 process, it is the State
Historic Preservation Officer and then the keeper of the
National Register.
Mr. Young. May I interrupt? Having said that, we want to
make an improvement. We want to replace a bridge, and that
State Historical Officer says, no, you can't do it. Where does
the railroad go?
Mr. John M. Fowler. First of all, the State Historical
Officer cannot say no, you cannot replace the bridge. Under
section 106 if the State Historic Preservation Officer says
this property is eligible for the National Register, that then
requires the Federal agency that is providing the money--if the
railroad is doing it, but with its own funds, there is no--
there is no Federal law involved. There is no application of
section 106 because there has to be some Federal permission or
Federal assistance.
Mr. Young. But again, going back to the Alaska Railroad--
Madam Chair, my time has run out. Alaska Railroad is difficult
to change that, because it was a Federal railroad, but it still
was transferred to the State.
Mr. John M. Fowler. Correct.
Mr. Young. Now, who has the responsibility? Because there
were Federal dollars involved, so that puts it under the
jurisdiction of historical definition. And it goes back to,
again, Mr. Brooks wants to put a bridge in. The State
historical or the the Federal historical people say no. What
recourse do they have?
Mr. John M. Fowler. Well, again, as I understand it, the
current Federal interest in the Alaska Railroad is only if the
Federal Transit Administration or the Federal Railroad
Administration provides funding, or if perhaps they need a
Corps of Engineers' permit in order to replace a bridge.
Mr. Young. See, then they are covered, because they are the
Corps of Engineers. That means they are under the Federal
jurisdiction. And Mr. Brooks's railroad can't build a bridge if
you say no.
Mr. John M. Fowler. Well, no, because the Corps of
Engineers has to consider the impact of giving the permit on
the historic property. But in the end, the Corps of Engineers
can say, it is more important to give this permit to replace
the bridge, and there is nobody--the Advisory Council, the
State Historic Preservation Officer, the Secretary of Interior,
or the National Park Service, no one can say no to that. That
is a decision of the Corps of Engineers.
Mr. Young. Now we go through this process and we have a
building season in Alaska of 90 days. We are set off more than
90 days. The Chairman brought this up. We are set off a year,
and the train bridge collapses. Who has a responsibility? Is it
Mr. Brooks, Alaska Railroad, Historical Society, Corps of
Engineers? Who has the responsibility for the 150 people at the
bottom of that canyon because the bridge wasn't fixed because
it could possibly be historical? Who is responsible?
Mr. John M. Fowler. I don't quite feel equipped to answer
that question, sir.
Mr. Young. Well, you mean you are not responsible, then,
and you held it up.
Mr. John M. Fowler. No, because----
Mr. Young. Or SHPO held it up.
Mr. John M. Fowler. First of all, I would suggest if one
spends all their time debating whether or not the property is
significant, that that often is the major reason that the
process is protracted.
Mr. Young. We don't disagree with the idea of it being
historical. We disagree with the ability not to improve it so
it is safe. That is all we are trying to do. My wife just
walked in and told me to be quiet. So go right ahead.
Mr. John M. Fowler. The process, sir, can work efficiently
if people sit down and say, okay, this is a historic property,
and now let's see what we can do with it. And the Federal
agency that is funding or approving the project is in control
of the time. If the Federal agency says we don't want to talk
anymore about this, the SHPO is being obstructionist, they can
terminate the process, they can get advisory comments from the
Council, and then they can go forward and approve the project.
Mr. Young. That is a dream world. If one person, one
individual in SHPO says no, the railroad cannot fix that
bridge. And that is what we are trying to address in my
amendment. You know that. That is exactly what we are trying to
do. It is what we did in the highway bill. We are going to try
to apply that, because if we don't do it, then you have impeded
the process of safety, ability to expand the railroad. Not
destroying historical things. And that is not you personally.
But just keep in mind, our goal is to make sure the railroad
runs right, and on time. Yield back.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Thank you. Mr. Fowler--and I guess
anyone who wants to answer this question--over the next 10
years, there is going to be a large increase in freight rail,
shipment, passenger. How do you suggest we balance preserving
our national heritage and preparing the future needs of this
Nation?
Mr. John M. Fowler. Well, Madam Chairman, we have already
started to address that in case-by-case situations with regard
to lines that require tunnel enlargement for clearances for
modern freight equipment and so on. I would suggest that the
Federal agencies that are responsible for funding and
overseeing this, the Federal Rail Administration, the Federal
Transit Administration, work with the Advisory council, the
National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers and
the railroad industry and deal with this in a programmatic way,
much the way we have dealt with the Interstate Highway System.
We are concerned as much as anybody else is in having an
efficient transportation system and we don't want preservation
to be an impediment to that.
Ms. Brown of Florida. You did not answer Mr. Young's
question, or I didn't understand the answer to the question. He
is indicating that what procedure is in place when one person
is blocking--I mean to me, safety is number one.
So the question is, what procedure is in place? If you have
a facility that is structurally, physically, not safe and you
are running trains on it, and then you have a process that is
holding up the construction--you know, I know that on another
Committee I am on, VA, we can completely fund a facility, and
it takes the private sector 16 months to build it, and it would
take us 5 years because of the different agencies.
How can we have a one-stop process to expedite the time? I
guess that is what we are asking here.
Mr. John M. Fowler. All right. Well, first, in emergency
situations there are exemptions from section 106 in order to
meet an emergency situation, such as the imminent threat to
safety for a bridge that is substandard. But as I was saying,
under the section 106 process, the Federal agency--and there
has to be a Federal agency involved--if it is a funding agency,
such as FTA in the situations that I understand, they are in
complete control of the process. They can say--the SHPO's role
is purely advisory. The SHPO says it is historic, and the FTA
says it is not. The FTA can move forward based on that.
If the SHPO says, I don't want you to tear the bridge down
and the FTA says, we don't agree with you, they can terminate
this consultative process. They can get advisory comments from
my agency that have to be delivered within 45 days of a
request. And then it is up to the Secretary of Transportation
to decide what to do with it. And the Secretary can say, rail
safety is more important. It would be nice to save this bridge,
but we are not going to do it. It. Thank you very much, ACHP,
for your comments. We are moving forward.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Mr. Little, you want to comment on
that, the question?
Mr. Little. I am sorry.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Did you hear the question?
Mr. Little. No, I did not, ma'am.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Did you hear my question?
Mr. Little. No, I did not.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Okay. What I said was, over the next
10 years it is going to be a real conflict between the
passenger rail and freight rail as far as the increase in
ridership. And how do we balance the two, preserving historic
and moving the system forward?
Mr. Little. The best solution to that in my opinion is the
one that we have used in my State and around the country for
several decades. And that is the administrative programmatic
approach. Under the programmatic approach, you try to avoid
project-by-project review and instead look at entire programs.
Those entire programs may involve large geographic areas, like
a corridor, or they may involve multiple projects that are
highly repetitive and highly predictable in terms of what the
nature of the project is and what the nature of the solution to
the historic preservation problems are.
What that programmatic approach does is to essentially
allow the railroad agency and railroads in this case to self-
monitor and carry out the preservation planning processes
itself. Now, they have got to do it according to decent
standards. But the agency, the railroad agency does the work
itself and only comes to the State Historic Preservation
Officer or the Advisory Council and historic preservation for
problems that cannot be resolved in accordance with an
agreement.
Those agreements--in my State we probably have right now 50
such programmatic agreements with things from our housing
agency to our transportation agency. They work. But the agency
implementing them has to take the process seriously and has to
own the preservation planning process. We don't want to be the
preservation police. We don't have the time or the money to
look over agencies' shoulders. And if we can get them to do it
themselves, that is what we want.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Ms. Fowler, what impact would the
Shuster amendment have on the Rail-to-Trails program? It is a
very popular program in my State of Florida.
Ms. Wesley Fowler. I think the impact would be that because
of the way railroads under Federal law are allowed to abandon
corridors, they can move corridors through--they can put a
system diagram map and say they plan to abandon it 2 years into
it or what have you, or they can discontinue service on it and
not provide any service and then abandon in a 30-day period,
seeking what they call an exemption.
And our way of slowing down that process enough so that
public agencies have an opportunity to put together funding
packages, build community support, turn to Congress or their
states for TE money, whatever, it prevents the dismantling of
those key features.
We talk about a trestle as if it were just a historic
preservation facility. It is also the way you get from one part
of the corridor to another part of the corridor. The tunnel is
how you get from one part of the corridor to the other part of
the corridor. If those facilities fall into disrepair or are
allowed to be dismantled, if that stone, for instance, on the
Stone Arch Bridge was allowed to be sold off to private sector
because the railroad owned it and so they had a good market for
it, those features, you can't separate the facilities on the
corridor from the corridor itself. They are a part of the
corridor. So you need to keep them intact long enough for
public agencies to make a decision as to whether they want to
acquire that corridor or not.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Is this a coincidence about the two
Fowlers here today?
Ms. Wesley Fowler. Well, we are not sure.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Okay. I am going to have to check
with the staff on this one.
Mr. Brooks and Mr. Fowler, would you all be willing to sit
down and discuss how we can solve this problem before this bill
comes to the floor?
Mr. John M. Fowler. On behalf of the ACHP, we would be
delighted to, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Brown of Florida. How about you, Mr. Brooks?
Mr. Brooks. Yes, we are very interested in getting the
problem solved, but we also feel like we have an immediate
issue.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Mr. Young. Did he leave? Mr.
Oberstar.
Mr. Oberstar. I didn't understand the last part of your
response to Ms. Brown, Mr. Brooks. You said we would, but--
what?
Mr. Brooks. We feel like we have an immediate issue. We do
have a number of bridges that are out there in need of
replacement. And although we have an agreement on timber
bridges for the 106 process, we do not have anything in place
for 4(f), and that is an impediment to our work.
Mr. Oberstar. Well, whether you want to sit down and talk
about a solution or not is up to you. But the Alaska Railroad
can ask the keeper of the National Register to determine
whether or not the railroad is, in fact, historic. And the
railroad has not asked for this determination as far as I have
been able to determine. So are you aware of that authority?
Mr. Brooks. Yeah. We are aware that we can ask the keeper
if the railroad is a historic entity. There is a process
involved. The de facto position of our SHPO is that we are
historic, and that is the way we have been treated. When we got
to the example today of bridge 432.1, we had the opportunity to
pursue that. Assuming the determination of adverse effect would
have been upheld, we would have had to pursue section 4(f)
anyway, so because we need to repair our bridge, we simply went
directly to 4(f).
Mr. Oberstar. Well, you are really not answering the
question whether you want to talk further, so you have got an
immediate problem; but your immediate problem is about to be
resolved one way or another. I can't imagine that the Interior
Department will reject the claim of no feasible prudent
alternative, as your filing proposes, to replacing the bridge.
And you will be able to go ahead with it. So it is up to you
whether you want to sit down and talk about things and
specifics.
But let me--there are appeals. There are opportunities.
And, Ms. Merritt, I would like you to expand upon that. There
is a claim on the part of the Alaska Railroad, and implicitly
by North Carolina, that there is no appeal from the decision of
one person. But there is an appeal process throughout the whole
historic preservation. Describe this for us.
Ms. Merritt. To elaborate on what Mr. Fowler said, when the
question is whether a resource is eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places, there is an appeal to the keeper
of the National Register in the National Park Service. When the
question is whether the bridge should be replaced under section
4(f), the final decision belongs to the Federal agency in the
Transportation Department, Federal Transit Administration, or
Federal Railroad Administration, whoever is providing the
funding. And the fact that a resource is determined eligible
for the National Register does not determine whether it can be
replaced or altered.
As Mr. Fowler said, that just requires consideration of
alternatives but it doesn't prohibit replacement or alteration.
And the programmatic agreement for replacing the 57 timber
bridges on the Alaska Railroad is a perfect example of that, of
how section 106, even when resources are determined to be
historic, does allow for upgrades and needed improvements.
Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Brooks, do you disagree with that?
Mr. Brooks. No.
Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Simmons?
Mr. Simmons. Mr. Chairman, I do not agree that there is
process. There is, in fact, process.
My point is, as applied to a corridor as opposed to a
distinct resource, such as a bridge or a facility or a
structure, that that then can readily--in our case, it
transcends two States. I think that because our corridor
transcends six or seven States as it goes from Washington to
across the South and Southeast, that we are on the cusp of a
Federal issue. It is one that goes beyond the issue of whether
the State Department or Transportation is in conversation and
working hand in glove with the State SHPO office. I think we
are, and we have demonstrated that.
But when you look at the broader application of this, that
is the challenge that I foresee and would appreciate some
guidance and facility to make that happen so we can construct--
--
Mr. Oberstar. I gather from your statement, not from Mr.
Brooks, you are not opposed to--in principle--to having
portions or specific items, aspects, facilities considered
historic. You are concerned about the process you have to go
through that takes so long to get there. Is that largely right?
Mr. Simmons. That is very close, Mr. Chairman. I will make
the distinction. I will use the example that we have between
Raleigh and Petersburg or Raleigh and Richmond where we are
doing work today. We are studying, analyzing a corridor that is
about 1,000 feet wide. We have identified every structure in
it, we have documented all of that. In addition to that, we
have been asked to document and we have documented the
corridor.
But it is the corridor aspect that I find most challenging,
and I think potentially could be an additional difficulty for
us to ever build something.
Mr. Oberstar. In the current law, and then-Chairman Young
and I spent a great deal of time on this--and, particularly, I
undertook to negotiate over a period of 6 or 7 months with all
the various parties on project streamlining to simplify the
process. And one of these was with respect to historic sites.
And the language of the current law says quote, with respect to
historic sites, the Secretary may make--Secretary of
Transportation may make a finding of de minimis impact.
I think this is very important for your purposes. Only if
the Secretary has determined, in accordance with the
consultation process required under the National Historic
Preservation Act, that the transportation program or project
will have no adverse effect on the historic site, or there will
be no historic properties affected by the program or project.
The finding of the Secretary has received written
concurrence from the applicable State Historic Preservation
Office or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, et cetera, et
cetera, participating, and the finding of the Secretary has
been developed in consultation with parties consulting as part
of the process. That is current law. Do you have a problem with
that?
Mr. Simmons. No, sir.
Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Brooks?
Mr. Brooks. Could you put the first part of that question
together again?
Mr. Oberstar. The first part of the question is, I read all
the current language of the law. And the question is, do you
have a problem with applying current law to your current
project?
Mr. Brooks. And I am sorry. Could you read the first couple
of lines again, please?
Mr. Oberstar. Oh, my goodness. It is a long section here.
The Secretary may make a finding of de minimis impact if the
Secretary has determined, in accordance with the consultation
process required under the National Historic Preservation Act,
that the transportation program or project will have no adverse
on the historic site, or there will be no historic properties
affected by the transportation program or project.
Mr. Brooks. The problem we have with that is the effect of
the Historic District gathers in features of the railroad,
bridges, tunnels, buildings that wouldn't--that have no
historic merit on their own. Their merit is because they are
part of the Alaska Railroad Historic District. The de minimis
finding, if we do something that impacts one of those
contributing elements, then there is a finding of adverse
effect, and it does trigger the 4(f) process.
Mr. Brooks. That is the problem that we have.
Mr. Oberstar. We are not going to overturn current law, I
will tell you that. We are not going to go back and rewrite the
Federal Highway Act. So you need to find something that speeds
up; sit down and talk to each other, talk to us, talk to Mr.
Fowler, talk to Ms. Merritt and find something that speeds up
this process, and do it fast because we are going to bring this
bill to the House floor next week.
Mr. Brooks. We would be happy to do that.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Oberstar. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. Young. I think we are on the right road here, and
hopefully you and I will be able to sit down with the Chairman,
Madam Chairman, because you brought up a good point about where
we are going to be. And it appears to me that SHPOs caused us
the most problems, and they are nicely recognized. It is a
State person that has been the biggest challenge. And somehow
we have to work around that so that we can upgrade the railroad
wherever we possibly can for safety purposes, because it will
expand if we are allowed to do that, because I think we would
be doing a disservice.
My amendment is very simple, as you know. All it does is
adopt the highway safety bill is all it does, and the TEA-LU
bill. It doesn't add anything else to it. And I want to make
sure that we do protect the historical sites, but when it comes
to a wooden bridge that is not safe, that goes back to--and has
been decided that not by the railroad, by other people, and we
have got to go through the Corps, and we have got to go through
da, da, da, and I have one accident, I again ask the question,
who is liable? Are we liable because we didn't doing do
something? Is Mr. Fowler liable? Mr. Brooks? I can tell you
there is going to be a lawyer making sure someone pays.
Mr. Oberstar. We don't want to let it go to that.
Mr. Young. We don't want it to go there, so I am going to
make the suggestion that the three of us sit down and see if we
can't arrive at a solution to make sure the railroads have the
ability to keep growing and protect the historical sites. That
is our main goal. And we can do that if we do it. And I have
worked with the Chairman and the Chairman of the Full Committee
and the Chairman of the Subcommittee for the last 6 years, and
I think we can solve this problem.
I yield back.
Mr. Oberstar. I think that we are on the right course here,
and I know that preservation groups are concerned about getting
the Secretary of Transportation to be the final authority on
this matter. But we do have existing law, and we do have
language that was thrashed out at great length and with great
effort and in great good will on both sides. So let's see if we
can work out something between now and Monday morning. Monday
noon is when we have to file whatever documents you have to
file with the Rules Committee in order to bring the bill to the
floor. So you talk, we will talk, and we will get this done.
Madam Chair, thank you.
Ms. Brown of Florida. Yes, sir. Let us add into this
discussion Mr. Brooks, Mr. Fowler, Mr. Simmons and whoever else
need to be in the room. My recommendation, go in the room, lock
the door and don't come out. Failure is not an option, and we
will all be happy if we can move forward and we can just work
it out and not have to have a problem on the bill on Monday
when it is time to file our bill.
I hope I have the commitment of all the parties that we are
going to work it out, and we want to make Mr. Young happy and
Mr. Oberstar; then I will automatically be happy.
I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony and the
Members for their questions. Again, the Members of this
Subcommittee may have additional questions for the witnesses,
and we ask you to respond to these in writing. The hearing
record will be held open for 14 days for Members wishing to
make additional statements or to ask further questions.
Unless there is further business, this Subcommittee is
adjourned. Thank you, very much. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2775.067