[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
=======================================================================
(110-170)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 18, 2008
__________
Printed for the use of the
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
45-109 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
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
NICK LAMPSON, Texas DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio CONNIE MACK, Florida
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa York
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina Louisiana
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
JOHN J. HALL, New York MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
(ii)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JERROLD NADLER, New York DON YOUNG, Alaska
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts GARY G. MILLER, California
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York Carolina
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina Virginia
MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
BOB FILNER, California TED POE, Texas
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Louisiana
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa, Vice Chair THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JOHN L. MICA, Florida
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota (Ex Officio)
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Chesley, Andrew, Executive Director, San Joaquin Council of
Governments, Stockton, California.............................. 5
Hickenlooper, Hon. John W., Mayor, Denver, Colorado.............. 5
Howard, Charles, Transportation Planning Director, Puget Sound
Regional Council, Seattle, Washington.......................... 5
Pedersen, Neil, Chair, Executive Board, I-95 Coalition,
Baltimore, Maryland............................................ 5
Ritzman, James, Deputy Secretary for Transportation Planning,
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation...................... 5
Selman, Keith, AICP, Planning Director, City of Laredo, Texas.... 5
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania............................. 34
DeFazio, Hon. Peter A., of Oregon................................ 35
Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona.............................. 36
Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................ 37
Richardson, Hon. Laura A., of California......................... 42
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Chesley, Andrew.................................................. 49
Hickenlooper, Hon. John W........................................ 54
Howard, Charles.................................................. 76
Pedersen, Neil................................................... 89
Ritzman, James................................................... 117
Selman, Keith.................................................... 181
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California:
Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority, Rick Richmond,
Chief Executive Officer, letter to Rep. Napolitano........... 45
Gateway Cities Coalition of Government, Richard Powers,
Executive Director, suggested comments on hearing supplied to
Rep. Napolitano.............................................. 47
Pedersen, Neil, Chair, Executive Board, I-95 Coalition,
Baltimore, Maryland, responses to questions from Rep. DeFazio.. 107
Ritzman, James, Deputy Secretary for Transportation Planning,
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, responses to
questions from the Subcommittee................................ 174
Selman, Keith, AICP, Planning Director, City of Laredo, Texas,
responses to questions from the Subcommittee................... 182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.007
HEARING ON TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
----------
Thursday, September 18, 2008,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Jerry
McNerney presiding.
Mr. McNerney. The Subcommittee will come to order.
I want to start out by thanking Chairman DeFazio and
Ranking Member Duncan for holding this hearing on
transportation planning and for asking me to Chair today's
session on behalf of Chairman DeFazio.
Transportation planning has a profound effect not only on
our infrastructure, but also on our travel behaviors, the
economic development of our communities, and on our quality of
life. It is an issue that this Committee will be closely
examining during the authorization of the next transportation
bill which is coming up in 2009.
Congress created the metropolitan transportation planning
process 46 years ago, and much has changed in our metro areas
since that time. State departments of transportation, the State
DOTs, and the metropolitan transportation organizations, the
MPOs, are the two entities that were required by law to conduct
transportation planning. In 1991 Congress created State-wide
transportation planning procedures and the Federal funding
mechanisms that are still used today.
These important planning processes provide the context for
reconciling State and regional transportation needs and the
Federal transportation goals with proposed transportation
projects and activities. That is why I am particularly pleased
that Andy Chesley from the San Joaquin Council of Governments
is testifying before the audience today. Since I came to
Congress, Andy and I have worked together on a number of
important transportation projects in and around California's
Central Valley, and I know first-hand that Andy is a strong
advocate for our region, but he also knows that we need to
think and plan on a large scale, with input from everybody at
all scales of government.
My District, which includes part of the San Francisco Bay
area and a significant portion of the Central Valley, is really
a microcosm of the national transportation system. We have
cities, we have growing suburbs, small towns, rural
communities, which are supported by a deep-water port, an aging
highway system, and a freight network that also serves as a
commuter rail and needs upgrading. The challenges we face
regionally are the challenges we face nationally, but I am
confident that we can find the solutions.
Today's hearing will focus on four key challenges to
current transportation planning requirements. First of all, how
to better plan the movement of freight. Secondly, how do we
enable the States and the MPOs to incorporate regional and
national priorities into their plans. Third, how to better
integrate land use decisions with transportation improvements.
That is a new subject. And how to establish performance
measures for transportation planning processes.
In order to examine these issues in greater detail, today's
hearing will be conducted on a modified format. Witnesses will
not be asked to give a five-minute opening statement, but
rather just to introduce themselves. After the Ranking Member
and the Chair, witnesses will be asked to make short
introductions. We will immediately proceed to questions.
It is our hope that this new format will allow Members and
witnesses to delve into the issues and will encourage a full
discussion and dialogue.
Thank you.
I will now turn to the Ranking Member, Mr. Duncan from
Tennessee, for his opening remarks.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Chairman McNerney. Welcome to your
new position here in place of Chairman DeFazio, at least for
the time being.
Today's hearing on transportation planning comes at a very
critical time for the transportation community. In a little
over a year, the existing highway transit and highway safety
programs will expire. Of course, almost everyone knows that the
next highway bill will be one of the biggest bills, perhaps
even the biggest bill, in the next Congress.
The information we gather today from the hearing will help
this Committee determine what the highway and transit planning
requirements will look like in the next surface transportation
authorization bill. While all of us on this Committee spend a
little more time on these issues than most Members, still, we
have to deal with a thousand other things and so many other
issues that we are not the experts that we have here on the
panel today, and so we certainly need their expertise and their
input here today.
The transportation planning process involves more than just
listing highways and transit projects in a State or
metropolitan area. The planning process involves collecting
input from all users of the transportation system, including
the business community, community groups, environmental
organizations, the traveling public, and freight operators, in
making decisions to promote transportation projects that
advance the long-term goals of the State or local community.
Requirements for transportation planning in metropolitan
areas and at the State level have been a part of Federal
highway and transit laws since the 1960s; however, there are no
requirements to look at transportation planning from a regional
or a national perspective, and that certainly is what we need
to start doing more. This is one of the reasons that our
Ranking Member, Congressman Mica, has called for a national
transportation strategic plan. A national transportation plan
will allow us to look beyond State borders and local political
jurisdictions to evaluate the impacts that transportation
projects have on different regions of the Country, and in some
cases the entire Nation.
I read recently that two-thirds of the counties in the U.S.
are losing population. That really surprises people in my area,
because the metropolitan area around Knoxville is one of the
really fast-growth areas in this Country. So we need to funnel
probably more resources and funding to the metropolitan areas,
and particular the fastest-growing metropolitan areas, but we
also need to do more to encourage people to live in and visit
the small towns and the rural areas that are losing populations
and are having economic problems because of that.
In addition, we have two interstates that meet in Knoxville
and a third that comes 37 miles outside of town, so we have
millions of people coming through our area each year, many
millions, but they drive through those small towns and rural
areas on their way to and from Tennessee and coming to and from
Florida and so forth, so we can't ignore the needs of the small
towns and rural areas either. So we have some difficult
decisions to make and choices to make in the next Congress. I
know that you all will help us to the extent that you can.
As I understand, Chairman DeFazio has suggested that the
witnesses primarily introduce themselves and try to avoid
reading the lengthy statements that we have gotten from some
witnesses, but I do hope that, in addition to introducing
yourselves, you will at least take a couple of minutes to tell
us what your major concerns are or your suggestions are, and
then we can get into it a little more deeply on the question
and answer portion.
Mr. McNerney. The Chair now recognizes the distinguished
gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mica, for an opening statement.
Mr. Mica. Thank you so much for yielding for just a minute.
I will try to be brief.
I appreciate the leadership shown on both sides of the
aisle in calling this hearing. I think this is very important,
and particularly as we start out now. We are not quite taking
on the successor to SAFETEA-LU, but we are starting to talk
about important processes in transportation, and certainly
planning is absolutely critical to the entire process.
As you heard our Ranking Member, Mr. Duncan, mentioned, I
have proposed a national strategic transportation plan. Having
served on the Committee now for almost 16 years, it is amazing
from my vantage point--and I know Mr. Oberstar has also come to
this conclusion--that we don't have a national strategic
transportation and infrastructure plan. I mean, how could you
go about anything in business or undertake any enterprise
without a good plan? Most of our States and some of our
metropolitan areas have set forth pretty good plans, but we
don't look at this in the whole.
I think it is absolutely essential that we develop that as
part of our reauthorization. The key element, of course, in the
planning process is, again, looking at the whole Country,
setting our policies, our projects, and our priorities, and
also doing that sort of from the bottom up. You all have your
planning process. We need to incorporate our national plan that
takes elements of that and prioritizes it, sets the policy by
which we will partner with you, but until we do that we are
sort of meandering, and we have done that for a number of
years.
Just a couple of quick points before I close. Also in the
planning process there are some issues that I have witnessed
first-hand, and some of you may have had to deal with this. Our
MPOs and some of our structures do not take into consideration
the huge metropolitan areas that some of our planning must
encompass, and I have areas where we have MPOs backing up to
other MPOs and sometimes not talking. Now, some of the
communication has improved, but we may need to look at that
structure and the ability for better cooperation and better
coverage in some of these metropolitan areas rather than being
so split and divided. So if we come down a tier from the
national level, we have to look at the MPO process level and
improve that. I would love to hear your recommendations in that
regard.
There is a whole host of policy issues that also will help
us with planning. Of course, we have got the big finance issue
to resolve. But there are issues about investments, public/
private partnerships that also can help you in your process. If
that is defined by the Federal Government, the terms by which
everybody can participate in this process, I think you can also
move projects forward.
The final element is actually speeding up the process. I
think today is the day that they are opening the I-35 bridge
over the Mississippi in Minneapolis that collapsed about a year
ago, done on schedule, actually ahead of schedule and under
budget, done in 437 days or less. The normal process would take
seven to eight years to complete that.
If you are involved in the planning process, sometimes the
local governments change, the players change, some of the
projects get shelved or put behind because of politics. But you
can't proceed in planning or executing projects if the process
takes so long, and that is something else I would like to see
us do and hear your recommendations on.
But if we can do the I-35 bridge in record time, not
substantially changing the footprint of a project, there is no
reason why we can't do other projects in an expedited fashion.
I look forward to working with all of you as you come
forward with your recommendations.
Thanks again. I yield back.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Ranking Member of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for your thoughtful
remarks.
Transportation is a complicated issue, and I think we can
all learn from each other. The point of this hearing really is
to allow the witnesses an opportunity to instruct us on what
would be more useful, what would be the most useful way to
proceed. We need your inputs on making this process work for
the 2009 authorization.
Next I would like to recognize the gentleman from
Pennsylvania for his introduction of one of our witnesses.
Mr. Holden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
welcome all of our witnesses today, but particularly Mr. Jim
Ritzman from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Jim
is the Deputy Secretary for Planning for Penn-DOT, and that is
a very challenging job. As Members of this Committee have heard
me say many times, Pennsylvania has more road miles to maintain
than New York, New Jersey, and New England combined, but Jim
and Secretary Biehler have been doing a great job with the
limited resources.
I would like to welcome Jim and all of our panelists today.
I look forward to their testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Holden.
Now we would like to allow each of the witnesses a minute
or two to introduce yourselves. If you have specific issues
that you want to bring up briefly, then we will turn to
questions and answers. I would like to start with Mayor
Hickenlooper. Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, MAYOR, DENVER,
COLORADO; ANDREW CHESLEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SAN JOAQUIN
COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA; CHARLES HOWARD,
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DIRECTOR, PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL,
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON; KEITH SELMAN, AICP, PLANNING DIRECTOR,
CITY OF LAREDO, TEXAS; JAMES RITZMAN, DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION; AND NEIL PEDERSEN, CHAIR, EXECUTIVE BOARD, I-95
COALITION, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
Mr. Hickenlooper. You should have heard what they did to my
name as I grew up throughout childhood.
I am the mayor of Denver in Colorado. I am very grateful,
Chairman McNerney, to be here, and to the Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify.
Certainly, although planning is a concept that, as a topic,
doesn't really excite the passions of our citizens, often the
results of planning do excite those passions.
As mayor of Denver and as someone who, before I ran for
office five years ago, was a real estate developer, developed a
number of housing and restaurants in the downtown area in the
metropolitan area, I realize that what we are about now is
creating a model of regional collaboration, and if these models
are going to succeed on a national level they need support of
the Federal Government.
In the next 25 years, Denver's metropolitan population is
going to come close to four million people, and what we have
done again and again, whether you are talking about our fast
tracks transit project or our regional economic development
initiative, we have a regional cultural facilities tax, but
each of these are models on what we used to refer to as
unnatural acts between consenting adults. These are elected
leaders from different parts of our metropolitan area looking
at broader self-interest and finding ways that they can work
together.
I also appear today as the chair of the U.S. Conference of
Mayors Transportation and Communications Committee.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mayor.
Next I would like to have Mr. Ritzman introduce himself,
even though he has been also already recognized by one of our
Members of the Committee.
Mr. Ritzman?
Mr. Ritzman. Good morning. Thank you so much for the kind
introduction, Congressman Holden.
I, too, am thrilled to be here this morning and just to
share some perspective from Pennsylvania. I am the Deputy
Secretary for Planning in Pennsylvania, but I come from a
background of transportation roles in highway safety, design,
and construction, as well as planning, so a real focus area
that I would want to share today further on is sometimes
planning gets lost in the shuffle and only becomes a book on
somebody's shelf somewhere or a study. What we ultimately need
to do is make sure and ensure that the planning activities that
we do really do lead to that project delivery efficiencies and
program delivery efficiencies.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Ritzman.
Next we have Mr. Howard from the Puget Sound area. This is
a very complicated transportation region because it includes so
much waterways, airways, and not to mention surface
transportation.
Mr. Howard?
Mr. Howard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Charlie Howard. I am the Transportation Planning
Director of the Puget Sound Regional Council, and that
organization is a metropolitan planning organization for four
counties in Washington State, which includes central Seattle
but also includes vibrant suburbs all the way to working
forests, mountains, farmland. So we encompass quite a wide
area.
One thing, I would share Mr. Ritzman's view that, while we
are pretty successful in developing plans in our region, what
we really view as success is actually implementing those plans,
and so that is really paramount in our interest as to how we
can make sure that our plans are delivering projects and
transportation services that serve our public.
Thank you.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Howard.
Next is a gentleman who I have had the pleasure of working
with in my District. I know that he is feared and respected
throughout the region. Mr. Chesley?
Mr. Chesley. You are very kind, Chairman McNerney. Thank
you very much.
My name is Andrew Chesley. I am the Executive Director for
the San Joaquin Council of Governments in Stockton, California.
I look forward to speaking on behalf of the National
Association of Regional Councils here and the role that
metropolitan planning organizations have played in successfully
delivery transportation projects and some of the challenges
that we are facing as we move forward in terms of making our
transportation system more successful in the future,
particularly in areas dealing with situations such as
greenhouse gas emissions, a new area for us in terms of
tackling transportation in the future, and it is going to call
upon us to use new tools, new partners as we move into a better
transportation planning process and better transportation
system.
Thank you for inviting me and having me here.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chesley.
Next we have Mr. Selman from Laredo, Texas, who has his own
special considerations regarding border crossing.
Mr. Selman?
Mr. Selman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Keith Selman. I
am the Planning Director and the MPO director for a small MPO
in Laredo, Texas. We have a city population in the last census
of about 175,000. Right now our population estimates are about
2.25. We expect that number to increase by the next census.
We are the largest inland port on the border between the
United States and Mexico. We have over $347 billion in commerce
crossing the U.S.-Mexican border on an annual basis. We are
dealing with the whole gauntlet. We deal with rail, we deal
with trucks--10,000 trucks a day crossing our international
bridges. We have four international bridges, five if you
include the railroad bridge that is owned by Kansas City
Southern. We have two commuter bridges and two bridges solely
committed to the movement of commerce.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Selman.
Next we have Mr. Pedersen, who is going to discuss the I-95
corridor.
Mr. Pedersen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Neil
Pedersen. In addition to being Chair of the Executive Board of
the I-95 Corridor Coalition, I serve as the Administrator of
the Maryland State Highway Administration. I am a constituent
of your newest Member, Congresswoman Edwards. I am also very
active in the American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials Policy Development Authorization
Committees and can speak about some issues from that
perspective, as well.
The I-95 Corridor Coalition is a coalition of 16 States
along the eastern seaboard, and we are addressing a number of
multi-State issues from both an operations perspective, as well
as from a planning perspective. We have undertaken a vision
study for the 16-State corridor. I think a number of the
lessons that we have learned at looking at issues from a multi-
State perspective I think are very appropro for the hearing
this morning.
Thank you.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Pedersen.
Next we will begin with our questions. The Chair will
recognize himself for five minutes.
Congress requires that Federally funded highway and transit
projects just flow from metropolitan and State-wide
transportation planning processes. I would like to ask Mr.
Hickenlooper what ways have transportation planning
requirements been helpful and what ways have they been a
hinderance in your transportation planning?
Mr. Hickenlooper. Certainly the current transportation
framework acknowledges the importance of metropolitan scale and
mobility issues, but it doesn't really motivate or support the
metropolitan based transportation solutions that would be led
by the various elected officials I was referring to in our
collaborative processes. I think the key here is that our
planning processes in metro areas, they are only going to be
meaningful if the resources to implement the plan are connected
to the body that is making the plan, as well.
In most metro areas, local officials are never afforded the
opportunity to control or substantially influence how the bulk
of the Federal resources are expanded in our region. If you
look at the relative weight in a metropolitan area versus the
rest of the State, we have in metropolitan Denver, of the $438
million in spending authority under the core highway program
categories in Colorado last year, only $54 million out of that
$438 million, so roughly 12.5 percent, is directly controlled
by the metro Denver planning processes, even though metro
Denver represents roughly half of the State's population and 60
percent of its economic output. So I think that disparity
between the transit versus highway projects, ultimately it
promotes, to the disadvantage of the entire area, it promotes
road investments.
Oftentimes the cost for planning the requirements in terms
of matches, all these things are scaled in such a way to make
it more difficult for more integrated solutions to get funded.
So I think we would ask for a rigorous evaluation in
matching rules to apply uniformly to highway and transit
projects for both metropolitan and non-metropolitan so that we
enable the planners to make decisions that are mode neutral,
that are driven by merits and not differentially aligned
incentives, and to make sure that those incentives are equal
all the way along and that we make sure that we take advantage
in terms of long-term investment of some of the asset rich
already urbanized but metropolitan areas.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Pedersen, would you like to take a crack at that? What
has been helpful and what has been a problem in the current
framework?
Mr. Pedersen. Having been Planning Director of Maryland
State Highway Administration for 16 years, I go back to prior
to ISTEA. ISTEA was really a watershed in terms of
significantly increasing not just collaboration but partnership
between the State DOTs and metropolitan areas and local
jurisdictions. Quite frankly, from my perspective, observing
perhaps all 50 States what has worked and what has not, it is
where the true partnership and collaboration has developed,
which was the spirit of ISTEA, that has been most successful.
In terms of hindrances and where I believe the process has
not worked as effectively, and it has been raised by several of
the Members already, is that when we start to look at issues of
true national interest, issues that are multi-State issues,
particularly when you start looking at freight issues, the
process as it has been set up primarily causes either States or
metropolitan areas to primarily look at things from their
interest, and we need to be revamping the process to really be
looking much more at those issues that are of national
interest, those projects that truly benefit and affect multiple
States and the entire Nation as a whole.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. That sort of leads to another
question I had. In the sense that freight from ports and from
ports of entry and from centers go through localities that are
required to make improvements in order to accommodate those,
and also to put up with the impact of all this freight going
through there, both on trains and on trucks. In what way do you
see--anyone that wants to take this question--how do you see us
managing the local jurisdiction influence on this planning
process to accommodate that large increase in freight?
Mr. Pedersen. Obviously I spoke earlier about partnership
being necessary, and using the I-95 Corridor Coalition
experience as a starting point for the discussion, the I-95
Corridor Coalition is not just 16 State departments of
transportation; we actually have 60 different transportation
agencies, including a number of the different metropolitan
planning organizations within the 16 States. You have to have
the dialogue. There are joint analyses that are taking place
and partnership in terms of decisions that are being made at
all three levels of government--Federal, State, and local or
metropolitan level of government--in terms of joint decision-
making that takes place.
Ultimately, quite frankly, it takes leadership from the
Federal level in terms of looking at the issues from a national
perspective, but in dialogue and partnership with the States
and the metropolitan areas.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Selman, I think you want to have a chance here.
Mr. Selman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I think the mayor is correct. Capitalizing
the projects is key, and it was mentioned earlier the timing of
a project. Time is money, and you can lose a lot of money by
taking longer to do a project, millions of dollars, depending
on the size of the project and the magnitude of the project.
We feel that the CBI program that was initiated and the two
programs, the coordinated borders that was created in SAFETEA-
LU. The formulas are sound, the mechanism is sound. Every
dollar that you spend in a community that deals with this
movement of commerce, you are facilitating that movement of
commerce.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Chesley?
Mr. Chesley. Mr. Chairman, actually you are aware of this
more than almost anybody. In San Joaquin County we consider the
Port of Oakland just as important a port to us as the Port of
Stockton, even though it may be located well outside of our
regional boundaries, but when the container ship comes into the
Port of Oakland, it unloads on the trucks, comes over into San
Joaquin County where it is repackaged onto a train, and then
shipped out from that. So intermodalism is a key really in
terms of freight movement. We can see it in southern California
as well as northern California.
Local jurisdictions and regional agencies are prepared to
address those kind of issues, but also our concern about
mitigation-related issue such as grade-separated facilities, as
well as being able to move vehicles in and out of communities
in this way.
What we did in northern California as a result of the trade
corridor bond funding was to form a coalition with the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Sacramento Area
Council of Governments, and the San Joaquin Valley in terms of
setting priorities in terms of how to redistribute the
component of the $2.1 billion that was going to northern
California. We have prepared a joint set of agreements on
projects that covered everything from the Donner Pass to the
Martina Sub all the way down to a multi inter-modal facility in
Kern County.
This kind of cooperation between regional agencies in terms
of trying to address those local impacts that come from maybe
as far away as 350 miles from a port facility are, I think, the
keys to successes, finding the right incentives for those
agencies to work together.
We had 23 counties team together on this one, and I think
the amount of cooperation between us is really kind of a model
that has been highlighted in the State of California's
transportation planning effort.
Mr. McNerney. Mr. Howard?
Mr. Howard. Yes. Our ports of Tacoma and Seattle combined
are about the third-largest port in the Country, and we serve
not only the inland northwest but the midwest and really the
rest of the Country. So several years ago we formed what was
called the Fast Partnership, which, again, was benefitted by
corridor and borders money that was available. We have
leveraged that money cooperatively. We developed a list of
projects that were needed not only to support and improve
freight capacity, but to help the local communities take care
of the effects on their communities.
We have been able to leverage that money into about a $568
million investment of both public and private dollars so that
we can get that freight moving faster.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Ritzman?
Mr. Ritzman. Thank you.
I have a couple comments, too. They just really fall into
and almost address the first question, as well. Just the
funding eligibles and the categories of funds I think is really
important, especially when you are dealing with MPOs. In
Pennsylvania the RPOs, we treat the rural side of things the
same as an MPO. So when you are trying to explain and
regionally come up with priorities, it gets very confusing
unless you are a transportation professional who deals with it
every day.
So I would say some categories that are more simple, more
broader-based are really key. Right now we are really
challenged with our existing infrastructure, just maintaining
our existing infrastructure, so whenever you pull in potential
projects that I will say have a concern of a private nature as
well as a public entity, it gets a little bit tricky when you
are trying to come up with priorities.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
It sounds like cooperation and communication are the key
here.
What I would like to do now is recognize the Ranking
Member.
Mr. Duncan. I want to yield my time at this point to
Ranking Member Mica.
Mr. Mica. I will just ask a couple of questions. We have
got some real experts here from some of the States and locales
that have had to deal with, again, the Federal planning process
and funding, which is so key.
In Pennsylvania you just got turned down, Mr. Ritzman, on
your I-80 proposal to toll it. It makes it a little hard to
plan when you really don't have a handle on Federal policy as
to what you can do with existing interstates.
Now, who is the guy from Baltimore? Mr. Pedersen? I can't
pick Baltimore out, because whether it is Denver, Baltimore, or
Pennsylvania, all of our interstates are basically parking lots
turned into parking lots from Florida to Maine and across sea
to shining sea. I challenge people to cover your eyes and say
what's the plan, and nobody has a clue.
God bless Eisenhower. He had a plan, proposed a half-
trillion-dollar system in 1954, when the Federal budget was $78
billion, and I think we are going to have to have a mega plan
to deal with this, unless somebody has got another idea.
And then if we just define what the Federal Government
would do and then come up with some mechanisms of financing or
allow you to take the asset. This is an asset actually with
some potential for income, unlike maybe some subprimes where
people can't pay the debt, but you actually have some proposals
that will return revenue, right? But you just got turned down?
Mr. Pedersen. Correct. We have an outstanding bid for $12.8
billion.
Mr. Mica. That is on the Turnpike. Some States have acted.
I know Mitch Daniels pretty well. He served up here when I was
in the Senate with him, and he has worked on Indiana, and you
can do things within your State with your State assets. But the
problem is, again, the Federal asset, the Federal planning
process, and assistance in being a partner. And then public/
private partnerships, some of the leadership of this committee
sent out an edict to State DOT Secretaries--was that last
year?--when they said, don't do anything that might not be in
the public interest.
I don't want to be critical, because there are people going
in different directions, but if we just would define the policy
and the projects and prioritize them.
Am I smoking the funny weed, Mr. Pedersen? Is this a good
approach? Give me an idea what we should do in the planning
process?
Mr. Pedersen. I think if you look at what the I-95 Corridor
Coalition has been underway with for a year it serves as a
prototype in terms of trying to address the issues that you are
raising. We have been underway with a vision exercise and
developing a vision for the corridor.
Part of my experience in planning is it is the process of
planning that is important, as important as ultimately what the
outcome is. What we are doing in terms of that process is going
through and analyzing what conditions can be expected to be in
year 2040, so it is truly long-term, if it is business as usual
without changes, and then what needs to be done in terms of
intervention to try to not have some of the very, very serious
impacts we would have.
For example, we have projected, if it is business as usual,
a 70 percent increase in vehicle miles of travel in the 16-
State corridor, an 84 percent increase in congestion, if you
can believe that, over today's conditions in the urban areas
within the corridor. And then started looking at interventions
that need to be done in terms of whether it is land use,
whether it is addressing freight issues, ways that we can be
trying to increase passenger rail usage within the corridor and
identifying what the 16 States need to do together from a
vision standpoint in terms of trying to address from a long-
term perspective how to address what would be a totally
unacceptable situation otherwise.
Mr. Mica. One of the problems we have at the Federal level,
and we have different jurisdiction niches, and the SAFETEA-LU
successor is going to primarily handle highway and transit, but
rail I have heard is also, both freight, passenger service, is
also something that needs to be in the mix, and how it all fits
together, or cost-effective alternatives to just paving
everything over. We are going to have to do a lot more paving.
Just two quick things. There is my proposal, and you can
throw my proposal in the Potomac if you want. There is another
proposal that we appoint a commission and study this and have
the commission sort of study what would be the priorities.
Quite frankly, I had thought of that approach, but then I
thought, well, most of the people know what the problems are,
most of the people know what the need is. It is for us to
identify, again, the policy that will implement some of the
projects, of course a financing mechanism, and then speeding up
the process.
But, again, I hope that some of you would weigh in against
just another study commission with another report and that we
do adopt a plan with these elements. You don't have to answer
that. Just do what you want to do on it.
I think those are the two points--bringing in the other
modes, that we have got to do. I don't know how we do that with
that, given our jurisdiction split, but I would appreciate if
you see hope on the horizon.
Mr. Oberstar is here, and he and I both pledged, I mean
from the first day, he took over the shop and I am Tonto and he
is the Lone Ranger, but we have committed to, no matter who is
the President or who is in charge here, to move. The other
thing is moving the damn bill forward next year, not a year and
a half from next September. So we are going to do all we can. I
know he is committed to it, and we are really going to rely on
folks like you to weigh in on the process. Just don't stay out
there and not comment.
Mr. Pedersen. If I could respond again in terms of lessons
learned from the I-95 Corridor Coalition, we have undertaken
now studies in the Mid-Atlantic region, New England, the
northeast region of our corridor, and the southeast region of
our corridor, looking at freight rail issues, and what the
issues are from a corridor-wide perspective, not from the
perspective of any one individual State, and also started to
look at what the benefits are of some of those needs that have
been identified in terms of multi-State benefits.
Some of the largest and most costly projects actually have
greater benefits in the other States than in the State in which
it is located. If the decisions are being made just a State or
metropolitan level, they will be made in terms of the benefits
to that State as opposed to from a corridor-wide perspective.
Mr. Mica. I didn't want to interrupt, but I can solve
Skagg's problem. I can come down to Florida, do a little in
Florida, or we can do a little in Baltimore or a little in
Texas, but unless there is a comprehensive approach to this,
folks, we are just taking pinking shears around the edges.
I am sorry I took so long, Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you for the questions, your thoughtful
questions.
The Transportation Committee has the honor of being one of
the oldest and most distinguished committees, but also a
Committee that operates on a very bipartisan basis. Because of
the nature of the issues that we are facing, that is important,
and it is an honor to be on this Committee. The Chairman of the
Committee is here today. I would like to give him an
opportunity to address the panel.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Duncan, good to
see you here, as always, the judge whose very thoughtful
presence on these brings a great deal of experience on the
Committee, having served as Subcommittee Chair and a previous
Chair on two Subcommittees in the previous era. And Mr. Mica,
with whom we have worked, he has served on this Committee since
his first days in Congress. He was elected in 1992 and started
here in 1993. I hadn't really thought about that image that he
projected. I am not quite ready to see Mr. Mica on Paint or me
on Silver.
If there is a horse to ride, it is transportation. We have
done good things since the beginning of this Congress. In fact,
together with bipartisan support we passed the Water Resources
Development Act that languished for six years, mostly because
the other body couldn't get their act together. But in this
Congress we not only moved it through Committee, 920 projects,
through the House, and eventually the Senate did the same. When
the President vetoed it, the House overrode that veto. To do
that you need two-thirds vote. That shows what kind of
bipartisanship we can get when we bring people together.
That was kind of the planning process that you face. The
purpose of MPOs should be to resolve differences at the
community level. In 1962, in an era in the 1960s and the 1970s
and into the mid-1980s when we didn't have fancy names for the
legislation we passed, it was just simply The Highway Act. It
later became the Surface Transportation Assistance Act. Then
they got fancier with all these other acronyms. We need to
return to those.
But in 1962 in the Highway Bill metropolitan agencies were
given the first authority to be engaged in the transportation
planning process. Two years later in UMTA, the Urban Mass
Transportation Act, MPOs were given authority to do planning on
transit projects. In 1973, my last year as staff director of
this Committee, we gave a directive to the States to allocate
funds to MPOs to undertake the planning process. Sure, you had
authority to do it, but you didn't have the money to do it.
So now you have the authority for both highway and transit.
MPOs have funding with which to engage in the planning process.
But the money is decided by the State. A number of questions
that I have for you. One is, to what extent do your State DOTs
respectively respect, comply with, implement your TIP, your
participation in the STIP, or your local metropolitan area
plans?
Second, do you use the planning process as a forum within
which to resolve land use issues and the conflicts that arise
out of transportation planning? If you can't resolve them,
don't expect your Members of Congress to do it, your United
States Senators, or the U.S. DOT, or your State DOT. You have
got to do that.
Then, for Seattle area, Mr. Howard, when the monorail
project was alive and well I went out to Seattle to meet on a
wide range of transportation issues, but that was one of them,
and I was impressed with their project permitting procedure
that held promise of compressing 45 months of permitting into
45 weeks. We were working on the same concept in fashioning
what became the SAFETEA-LU legislation. Then Chairman Young
asked me to lead this effort and craft a permit expediting
streamlining process. What I had in broad outline is what
Seattle was, in fact, preparing to do had they been able to
carry out the monorail.
So now the question is, have you, in the Puget Sound area,
applied the lessons learned from that aspect, that is the
permitting? Have you had success in consolidating all the
permitting entities into one group at one time with a
horizontal approach rather than a vertical approach? In the
past the model was that each agency had a crack at it
sequentially. That stretched out and still does stretch out the
permitting process over years rather than weeks. We can't have
transit projects waiting 14 years on average before they
actually deliver services to people. We can't have metropolitan
areas redesigning their interstate system within the MPO and
take ten years to do it. That is outrageous.
Mr. Mica earlier--I heard while I was engaged in another
meeting--referring to the I-35W bridge. Well, that was done in
a matter of less than 12 months, actually. You can do them when
you have got 100 percent Federal funding, when you don't have
to do an environmental impact statement because you are in the
same footprint as the previous bridge, when you don't need a
slough of permits from Federal, State, county, township, city
officials, and when you have the funding with which to provide
incentives to the contractor to deliver the project ahead of
time. That is nice formula, but we can't do that everywhere.
All right. I have laid out some questions. I want to hear
about permitting, I want to hear about connection with land
use, I want to hear about the responsiveness of State DOTs to
the local planning process, and whether not having the funds to
implement makes a difference in your planning process.
Mayor Hickenlooper, we had a great time in your city.
Mr. Hickenlooper. Thank you, Congressman. We had a pretty
good time, ourselves. We appreciate all that. It was a
remarkable week.
You know, if I could just touch on that a little bit,
certainly in terms of the link between land use and
transportation, and I think also the connection between the
State Departments of Transportation and the local collaborative
MPOs, the Federal Government can certainly play a stronger role
in providing the incentives to make sure that that planning
isn't just a plan that ends up on the shelf and that the
planning incorporates approaches to land use.
Again and again, whether you are talking about issues
around land use or economic development, energy or
environmental factors, most of those have local government
authority over them, and that ability to integrate land use and
energy and economic development, climate, these goals, putting
them all together, is the natural purview of an MPO, and I
don't think that metropolitan areas want to take away the power
of State Departments of Transportation. I think what we want to
do is make sure that everyone is working together and that we
do have that collaborative approach.
We spent an awful lot of time when we passed our fast
tracks, which is 119 miles of new track, $4.7 billion transit
initiative--I am sure you heard about it while you were out
there. We ended up getting all 32 mayors in our metropolitan
area--there are now 38. Municipalities keep springing up like
mushrooms out there. But those 32 mayors from big cities and
the small little towns, Republicans and Democrats, in the end
we were able to get all 32 mayors unanimously to support a 4/
10ths of a cent sales tax increase to build this project fast
tracks, and that took a remarkable amount of collaborative
discussion about people's broader self interest. Even if a
little town doesn't get a light rail segment that comes right
into their town, their citizens still benefit by having the
congestion mitigated, even though we still don't have a good
performance measure of congestion mitigation or congestion.
I think the Federal Government can play a real role by
getting more of the allocation and authority within the local
MPOs, within the local governments, that you can create an
incentive whereby people are incentivized to collaborate. Same
way that we should be doing our plannings around land use, we
should also be looking at how can we make sure--the City of
Denver is going to roll out a strategic transportation plan in
the next month that is going to stress, instead of just
measuring car trips, it is going to be really looking at person
trips and all the different--whether it is by bus, by light
rail, in a car, by bicycle, whether it is pedestrian.
How do we look at each one of these as travelsheds, just
like you would think about a watershed? What are we really
trying to get to? What are the end results, whether it is land
use or economic development? How do we get all these factors in
a real, measurable way? That leads ultimately to the whole
notion of performance measurements and ultimately what--you
know, I spent 15 years in the restaurant business. You learn
very quickly there two things. One is that there is no margin
in bickering, and I think this Country as a whole, we just
don't have the luxury any more of having all these squabbles
over these issues. We have got to get more quickly and more
effectively to the final issue. And you also learn that what
gets measured is what gets done. I think we need to, again,
have some Federal help there getting some performance
measurements around things like congestion.
It does come back to land use. I think that becomes a key
part of all of this is where does the real benefit come. We can
get the people that have authority over land use, and that is
not even just mayors, it is city councils, it is the MPOs
together making their plans. Make sure that they have some
funding around that; then you can really make some progress in
it.
Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Howard?
Mr. Howard. Sure. Representative Oberstar, I will answer
your questions I think in the order that you asked them.
You talked about the State respecting our TIP process. We
have got an excellent working relationship with the State of
Washington and the Washington State DOT, so they are our
partners at the table. But, that being said, we have got to
recognize that we make decisions in our region on only about 6
percent of the Federal dollars that come to our State, and we
take that role very seriously. That is the congestion
mitigation, air quality funding a portion of the surface
transportation program and the transit programs that we
receive. But 6 percent of the highway dollars are our purview.
So I think the mayor mentioned earlier the same situation
in Denver. We focus that money on implementing our plan, but it
is kind of hard to take responsibility for implementing our
plan when so few Federal dollars are actually decisions made at
our regional table.
The issue about land use, I didn't mention it during my
introduction but the Puget Sound Regional Council has three
functions. We are a land use growth planning agency, and that
function comes from State law through our State's Growth
Management Act. We are an economic development agency, and we
are a transportation planning agency. Those three functions fit
very, very well together.
Mr. Oberstar. I think they are essential. That is a great
model we ought to have replicated across the Country.
Mr. Howard. Right. And my boss, Bob Drewel, has often said
that where you have got land use and transportation there is an
economic nexus there, and so you have to treat those three all
together. So we have tried to integrate our work programs for
those three areas.
Our State did adopt a Growth Management Act in 1990, and
that Growth Management Act did not take land use planning
authority away from local governments; it kept the authority at
local governments. It is a bottoms-up process. But it required
that local plans be consistent with each other and consistent
with the regional plan that we collaboratively developed. And
so our role is to develop that collaborative regional plan that
sets out growth policies for our region, and so decides things
like population allocations, job allocations, environmental
policies, and other things like that. And so we are intimately
involved in the land use transportation linkage.
Professionally, all transportation planners are engaged in
the practice of land use planning. Land use drives
transportation. Transportation, in turn, drives land use. I
have often said that transportation is a land use, and so
making transportation decisions is making land use decisions.
So I think those things have to be very much wedded
together, and in our State we have found the mechanism to do
that.
On project permitting and specifically related to the
monorail, I know the monorail project was helped because it was
a one-jurisdiction project, so it was totally contained within
the City of Seattle. City of Seattle was the permitting
authority, and it had been approved by the voters of Seattle.
One of the key things to the monorail project and other
projects in my experience has been when they are fully funded
it is pretty easy to proceed. Often what my experience has been
when projects are not fully funded is when we have delays in
the process, and so when you don't have the funds identified to
proceed it is awfully difficult to just shorten that time to
implementation because you need to find the money.
So we have had quite a bit of success in working with our
environmental agencies. We have a group at the regional council
that we pull together of all the permitting agencies. They sit
through our planning processes. They review our plans. Our hope
in doing that is that we can deal with some of the major
sticking points when you get to a project like secondary and
cumulative impacts. We can address that early in the planning
process when it can be addressed and when it is best addressed.
We have involved them in our land use planning, in our policy
setting. We have involved them in our transportation planning.
One of the issues that we do face, though, is that the
permitting agencies have little time to spend in the planning
process, and so their focus is and they are staffed to review
projects and to provide permits, and so it is very difficult
for them to find the time and the dedication to participate in
our planning processes.
Mr. Oberstar. Others? But I have to ask you to compress
your response because I have gone well beyond eight minutes
now.
Mr. Chesley?
Mr. Chesley. Mr. Chairman, you are very familiar with the
California process, and in California many of my compatriots
across the Country would like to have the same kind of
relationship with our State Department of Transportation that
we have as an MPO. We provide an excellent model for others.
Out of the State's capital program, 75 percent of the projects
are determined by MPOs and regional agencies across the State.
On the land use side, I have to echo----
Mr. Oberstar. Then does the State commit the money to the
plan that you have developed?
Mr. Chesley. Well, to the extent of the resources
available, yes.
Mr. Oberstar. Okay.
Mr. Chesley. And we have been very successful in making
that happen.
On the land use side, we are in the process of trying to
get up to speed with the Puget Sound and Portland areas on
that. The Sacramento Area Council of Governments and its
blueprint process has proven to be the model in California. As
we move forward with things like Senate Bill 375 dealing with
greenhouse gas emissions, we are finding more and more State
authority to become involved in land use decision-making on a
higher level, not at the level of where the Wal-Mart goes but
at the level of how we develop growth policies across our
region for affordable housing and for economic development
opportunities.
Mr. Oberstar. And then serve those compact growth policies
with light rail or commuter rail or rapid bus transit?
Mr. Chesley. That is right.
Mr. Oberstar. If you don't do that, then people don't buy
into the process.
Mr. Chesley. That is right. In fact, that is the only way
to be successful in these particular efforts, and that is a
challenge. I mean, there is no question that is a huge
challenge for us.
Mr. Oberstar. In the Sacramento area it certainly is. I see
that regularly.
Mr. Chesley. Yes, and that is actually the model that the
rest of us are using.
Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Ritzman?
Mr. Ritzman. Thank you.
In Pennsylvania we use what's called the Financial Guidance
Work Group, and as we start to update our STIP, our four-year
STIP--we do that every two years--we pull a committee together
comprised of our local Federal highway administration office, a
couple of our regional district executives, MPO partners, and
rural planning organization partners, and we look at every
category of Federal funds, come up with a needs-based formula
for how to distribute that across our State into the 23
different regional planning organizations that we use.
So we have those hard discussions of making people think
State-wide. We do have a small reserve, 20 percent of the
highway funds, for our Secretary's discretion. We call those
spike funds, so that when there is a big project, a big bridge
in a region, that we can help assist in those projects. This
last TIP update, all those spike funds went to structurally
deficient bridges. That is how much in need we are for those
types of funds.
Mr. Oberstar. Essentially you have a biennial update?
Mr. Ritzman. Update, correct, and we go through every
category of funds and figure out a fair distribution of those
funds.
Mr. Oberstar. That is good.
Mr. Selman?
Mr. Selman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just like my friend here, to the extent the resources are
available we are respected, the answer there. The other two are
yes.
I think the small MPO is the perfect conduit for this type
of land use and transportation nexus and activity. Our city
council makes up almost a full majority of our local MPO. They
are the ones that have land use regulatory authority. The very
mindset that they are coming to the table with is that: where
is land use going to be played into a transportation project.
Mr. Oberstar. Okay. Mr. Pedersen?
Mr. Pedersen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If you were to speak to the six MPOs in the State of
Maryland, I think you would get a response from all of them
that we have an excellent working relationship in terms of both
elements to plan and the priorities that we have consensus. The
issue is lack of resources. Every single one of the six MPOs
would say that the State does not provide them with enough
money. Every single one of them would say that other parts of
the State are unfairly getting too much of the money. So we
find ourselves in the position of trying to have an unequal
amount of unhappiness among the various parts of the State.
In terms of the process to coordinate with land use issues,
we have some of the strongest State legislation in terms of
coordination between State and local jurisdictions on land use
plans. We find we have the decision-making--and this is the
case in almost every State--being at the local level, that from
a State level or from the use of Federal funds it really
becomes what incentives and disincentives you provide in terms
of transportation funding availability that is made available.
So, for example, we want to significantly increase transit
ridership. We have incentive programs for transit-oriented
development. We make decisions in not making transportation
improvements outside of planned areas of growth, and we allow
the congestion to grow in those areas because we don't want to
be providing incentives for further development to be taking
place where it is not planned.
In terms of permit expediting, the key issue from my
perspective on that is being able to get the engagement of the
actual decision-makers in the other environmental resource
agencies at the time that you need them to be involved and to
be getting timely decisions. Unfortunately, either the lead
Federal agency, the U.S. Department of Transportation, or the
State Department of Transportation or implementing agency does
not have the authority to be getting those decision-makers
involved and to be making timely decisions. That is where we
could really be using Congress' help.
Mr. Oberstar. I invite you, in light of that comment, to
review the language in the current law, all of you. We are
making policy decisions for next year right here in this room
as you speak, so give us your thoughts about how that language
should be adjusted and improved. If you have had success in
Maryland, I suspect it is due to Mr. Shiner. Isn't he engaged
with you?
Mr. Pedersen. He definitely is in the I-95 Corridor
Coalition, and we are very fortunate to have him as our
executive director.
Mr. Oberstar. He did a brilliant job with the National
Scenic Byways program. We are grateful eternally to him.
All right. I want to compress this in maybe a minute and a
half. Of the interstate, 15 percent is located in urban areas,
but 50 percent of the vehicle miles traveled on the interstate
is in urban areas. That is where we have to concentrate effort
if we are going to unlock the congestion problems.
Of the $78 billion in congestion cost that the Texas
Transportation Institute cites in their annual report, 100
percent of that occurs in the 68 major metropolitan areas of
this Country. Now, in the SAFETEA-LU legislation I proposed a
mega projects program where we would allocate something in the
range of $7 billion to addressing congestion in those areas and
let the project areas be selected by the Department of
Transportation.
Well, by the time we got through conference with the Senate
that was emasculated. It was cut up and shredded into little
pieces of what we had. In fact, the money was cut from $7.5
billion to $3 billion, and then it was divided between the
House and the Senate, and then it was sub-allocated by Senators
and House Members until it was all piddled away and there was
no effect. That is not going to happen next time.
We have to have like a laser beam on these congestion
points in the Country. We are going to craft a process by which
the biggest effort, biggest success, biggest reduction of
congestion can be done with an entity in a process that doesn't
involve the House or the Senate or the DOT of the U.S.
Government or the States, and select those areas and then
target the money to them and make a really significant impact.
If we don't, we will have failed this Country. That has to
involve intermodal and multi-modal and transit and trollies and
street cars and high-speed rapid bus and adjusting the
interstate system and incorporating freight transportation
movement in those areas and deal with it and unlock this
congestion. And the planning process is foundational portion of
it.
We need your best ideas as we go forward to craft the next
legislation.
I thank my colleagues for their patience.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I want to thank the Chairman for coming
down and participating in this hearing. He has more insight, I
believe, on this issue than anyone.
Next I would like to recognize the Ranking Member for his
questions, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, Chairman Oberstar said some kind things about
me, as he has done so often. I will tell you, I have had the
honor and privilege of serving on this Committee for 20 years,
but that pales in comparison to his, I think, now 44 years,
counting his time on the staff.
I will say this. I doubt there has ever been a Chairman of
this Committee in the entire history of the Congress that has
been more knowledgeable and more dedicated, more knowledgeable
about the work of this Committee and more dedicated to the
goals and work of this Committee, than Chairman Oberstar. It
has been a real honor to serve with him.
I am already running late to meet with a group of military
families, and so I am not going to be able to ask my questions,
but I would like to make a few comments.
I will start out, Mayor Hickenloop, just by saying that my
father was city law director for three and a half years and
mayor for six years, and so from the time I was eight until I
was seventeen I partially grew up at City Hall, and I became
convinced that being the mayor of a large city is about the
most difficult job in this Country. We found out that I think,
at that time--it may have changed now--but we found out that
everybody and his brother wanted to be a fireman or a
policeman, and the day after they went on the force they wanted
a promotion or a raise. I don't know if it is still the same or
not.
Are you any relation to the former Senator Hickenloop from
Iowa?
Mr. Hickenlooper. Yes. He was my great-uncle.
Mr. Duncan. Is that right? My mother was from Iowa and
moved to Tennessee after college.
I have always said that there is a very legitimate Federal
interest in the work of this Committee in every aspect, but on
highways I have used the roads and highways in every one of
your States and my constituents have, and vice versa. People
from Colorado and Pennsylvania and Washington State and
California and Texas and Maryland, they come to Tennessee.
The staff will be submitting some of my questions, if they
are not covered later on, but you heard in my opening statement
one of my questions is how we handle our transportation funding
when we have two-thirds of the counties in the U.S. losing
population. I know Mayor Hickenlooper has expressed his
frustration about insufficient resources and then too little
input. I assume that he is speaking on behalf of all of the
mayors who feel that way. But then, by the same token, even the
people from the rural areas in Colorado come to Denver to shop
or go to ball games and so forth, so it is fair, I guess, that
they have some say.
Mr. Ritzman, we had your governor in here two or three
months ago, and he was mainly talking about the problem of the
structurally deficient bridges, and so I would like to know
what kind of progress you are making on that.
Mr. Howard, I read all your statements, and this target
zero thing is certainly a legitimate goal, to have no debts and
no disabling injuries by the year 2030. I would like to know a
little bit more about that, what steps you are taking and how
much progress you have made. My impression is you just sort of
barely got into that, but boy that would certainly be a great
goal.
I was on the Oprah Winfrey show a few years ago because
they had this expert talking about how we were going to start
having a crash a week on airplanes, and I was taking the other
side, and I said, Unfortunately, we have more people killed in
three and a half months in the Nation's highways than in all of
the U.S. aviation accidents combined since the Wright Brothers
flew in 1903. It is an amazing situation. But boy, this goal
you have got, if we could even come close to it, it would
really be something.
I will just stop right there.
I will say to Mr. Selman, you hit my pet peeve or the thing
that bothers me the most, and that is these projects take far
too long. The main runway at the Atlanta Airport took 14 years
from conception to completion. It took 99 days of construction,
but they had to get all of those approvals. So in the last
highway bill we tried to do some environmental streamlining,
because that is where most of the delays are. I don't know how
successful we have been on that. Maybe you could submit
something on that.
But also another thing that we are hearing about, I have
never fully understood what is the controversy about this
trans-Texas corridor. I don't know whether that affects you as
much, but maybe you could give me some help on that.
At any rate, I have to run. I appreciate all of the
testimony I have heard so far. All of you all know a lot more
about this stuff than I do, but I think and hope that my
concern about these challenges and problems is as great as
yours, and I thank each of you for taking time out of your very
busy schedules to be with us today.
Thank you very much.
Mr. McNerney. I want to thank the Ranking Member for his
thoughtful questions, and I look forward to the answers that
are produced in accordance.
Next I would like to recognize my colleague from
California, Ms. Richardson, who inhabits Long Beach and one of
the busiest, if not the busiest, ports of our Nation.
Ms. Richardson?
Ms. Richardson. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Howard, my introduction that just occurred is very
pertinent to the question that I am going to ask you. I
represent the two largest ports in this Nation, the Port of
Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles, and my question to you
is, it is my understanding that in Washington there was a
consideration of a container fee. Given the fact of the
inability to really fund all of the projects that we have and
the impact of what goods movement has on our transportation
corridors, could you share with me in two minutes or less how
that came about and what you did?
Mr. Howard. Sure. One of our State legislators, and
actually a State legislative committee, had proposed a
container fee on containers within the State that are coming in
and out of our ports. That was a bit controversial because of
the competitive position that our ports face with other ports,
not only L.A./Long Beach but Mexico and Canada. So that was
studied as a potential funding source, and it is still being
considered, but not acted on.
I think the feeling is probably that if this were to be
done nationally to put all ports on the same footing, that that
probably would be a much more welcome idea.
Everybody recognized the need for the funding, because the
money that that fee would have supported would have funded very
important freight project.
Ms. Richardson. Well, Congresswoman Grace Napolitano and
the Chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Committee, Mr.
Elijah Cummings, and other Members were present at a hearing in
Los Angeles, and I intend on bringing something forward on that
matter, myself.
My second question is for you, Mr. Pedersen. I am sure you
saw all in the news of what happened in California, the recent
Metro as well as freight train wreck that we had. I wanted to
get your thoughts of coming from a local government
perspective, what are your commuter rail in conjunction with
freight rail, and also passenger? It is my understanding that
commuter rail does not come to the same standards that these
other sections have. What are your thoughts in terms of how you
cohabitate and what projects effectively need to be done.
Mr. Pedersen. Maryland is very committed not just to the
commuter rail system we have, but actually growing it. We have
MARC. Our commuter rail system is called MARC, a very
aggressive expansion plan associated with it, as well.
Our greatest challenges on that, quite frankly, are dealing
with the private railroads in terms of sharing the track. We
have had some significant safety issues. We, unfortunately, had
a very serious crash several years ago just north of
Washington, D.C. We are constantly working with the private
railroad companies in terms of the safety issues that we have
associated with the shared track, as well.
But it is a huge challenge, and anything that Congress can
be doing to be helping us in terms of recognizing the priority
of commuter rail and shared track and safety issues we would
welcome.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, gentlemen. If you could supply
this Committee with further information on both of those
issues, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Ms. Richardson.
Next the Chair will recognize Mr. Coble, the gentleman from
North Carolina.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is good to have you gentlemen with us this morning. Mr.
Howard, one time I was formally stationed with the Coast Guard
in Seattle, and I am very high on your city and very high on
the northwest generally, for that matter. I know the other
cities represented here are equally favorable, but since I am
most familiar with the northwest I will examine Mr. Howard.
I arrived late. You may have already touched on this, Mr.
Howard, but what are some of the unique challenges getting
cooperating port and freight movement into a metropolitan
transportation plan?
Mr. Howard. Well, we have touched a little bit on some of
those issues during some of the other testimony, but the
interaction of the freight local communities is a very large
issue, and so the idea of the railroads and the freeways that
pass through local communities, when you get increased volumes
you get increased impacts, and so there is a lot of concern
there. We recognize the need to make some of those improvements
to local systems and to mitigate some of the impacts of freight
on local communities in order to allow the freight to expand. I
think that was one of the bigger issues.
The other is finding money to implement the rail and
highway projects that are needed to move freight through our
region.
Mr. Coble. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan,
touched on the target zero issue, Mr. Howard. What are some of
the strategies you are examining to achieve the target zero
objectives?
Mr. Howard. We are working with our State Highway Traffic
Safety Commission on that. Most of the strategies are
behavioral strategies dealing with speeding, impaired driving,
youth driving, and other concerns. In our region we have a very
large pedestrian fatality rate, and so we are doing some
special work to figure out what we can do to mitigate that. But
it is focusing attention on where the largest numbers of deaths
and disabling injuries are coming from.
Mr. Coble. And, finally, what are some of the funding
mechanisms that the Puget Sound Regional Council has utilized
to pay for its transportation infrastructure?
Mr. Howard. We have a number of sources. Our State
legislature has stepped up in the last several years with two
State gas tax increases and funded a number of projects, and so
we have a lot of State-funded projects that come through the
gas tax. We have local sales tax which supports our transit
systems, and we do allocate the surface transportation program
and congestion mitigation air quality Federal highway dollars
to priority projects in our plan.
Mr. Coble. Now, before my time expires, does anyone else
want to weigh in on either of those issues? Yes, sir?
Mr. Chesley. The Port of Stockton is the second-largest
inland seaport on the west coast. One of the challenges that we
have had in our dealing with port-related planning is that a
lot of the improvements that are necessary to get a ship to the
port occur outside of our regional boundaries. They occur in
the channel. They occur in the San Francisco Bay. They can even
occur in relationship with the Coast Guard. So the amount of
input that comes into the Port of Stockton is oftentimes
something that is outside of our regional transportation
planning process and something that is hard to recognize and
quantify.
We found that to be a bit of a challenge as we have gone
through looking at improvements to the channel that occur
outside of our normal purview.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, sir.
Yes, sir?
Mr. Selman. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we see at
the Laredo MPO, we deal almost exclusively with the mobility of
commerce, moving commerce through our community. The rail lines
bisect some of our most disadvantaged neighborhoods, and yet
those who live in those neighborhoods receive absolutely zero
benefit from those rail lines.
What used to happen in the City of Laredo, if you go back
20 or even 30 years, although the rail lines have been there
over 100 years, 20 or 30 years, one or two whistle-blowers
coming through the neighborhood per day that was maybe a
quarter-mile long was not that much of a disturbance to the
neighborhood, even something to be watched and waited on. Now,
when you have 12, 13, 15 trains coming through the same
neighborhood, each of them a mile long, it is a huge impact on
those neighborhoods and the people that live there.
Again, it is a true EJ issue. They get no benefit and
receive all the negative impacts.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Selman. Quickly, if I may, the question that was asked
earlier, what we are seeing--and Mr. Ritzman put this on the
table, and I think what you are going to see is that local
entities will end up having to solve projects of national
significance. We have done that with our weigh and motion
system on our bridges. We have done that. Right now we are
looking at adding toll booths to the bridge system in order to
meet the needs of that commerce coming across the border,
because we see the impacts. We live them daily. Those trucks
rumbling through your community impact everything from signal
timing to neighborhoods to infrastructure, size of pavement.
From top to bottom, those trucks impact you.
Mr. Coble. My time has expired. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr.
Pedersen wanted to raise a question, if you would permit him to
do that.
Mr. McNerney. Yes.
Mr. Pedersen. Speaking for the I-95 Corridor Coalition and
the rail studies that we have done, in particular, along the
eastern seaboard the greatest challenge we have right now are
some very old infrastructure that, if certain critical links
fail because of their condition, it will have dire
consequences, and the investment is not being made. We need to
be looking at that.
The second largest almost challenge to that is the need to
be able to accommodate double-stacked rail in some very old
tunnels, in particular, that are incapable of doing that and
the capital not being available from private railroads to be
able to address those issues.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, gentlemen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the gentleman for his participation.
Next I would like to call on my colleague from New Jersey.
You are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for being
here today. As you know, New Jersey is probably one big
transportation hub.
I have a question. I would just like to get your opinion if
you ever dealt with this--the process of design build and
operate. Do you consider that when you do your planning? And
what do you think of a concept like that? Mayor, if you could?
Mr. Hickenlooper. Certainly the concept, design build, has
a great deal of benefits. When I was in the private sector we
would consistently use it because it does give you so much more
time that, even though you don't have quite the same control
over the contractor, the overall savings again and again are
proven out.
We are looking at design build on a larger level with fast
tracks concept and actually beginning to look at some
partnership possibilities with one firm designing, building it,
and then helping be a partner in the operations, as well. We
believe that there are significant savings there, as well.
Mr. Sires. Yes?
Mr. Ritzman. Thank you. In Pennsylvania we have extensive
experience with the design build, not with the design build
operate, primarily on the highway side. There are, again, some
really good financial incentives just having a specific
designer working with the specific expertise of a certain
contractor, so that is a real big cost savings, as well as it
seems to work a whole lot better with an engineer working
directly for the construction firm rather than a State
intervening in between.
Mr. Sires. Mr. Howard, have you had experience with it?
Mr. Howard. No.
Mr. Chesley. I would just say ditto to the comments that
have been made here.
Mr. Sires. Mr. Selman?
Mr. Selman. I agree. Ditto.
Mr. Sires. Okay.
Mr. Pedersen. If I could just add, another significant
benefit that we have seen in design build is that we have far
fewer claims from the construction contractors, and task force
we end up having more cost certainty when we start out on a
project. I think that is a significant benefit that we have
seen.
We are starting to get into the area of design build
operate. We do not have a lot of experience with it. The
biggest reservation associated with it is because of the
uncertainty looking out over a longer period of time. You end
up paying for that uncertainty, as opposed to the risk being
absorbed by the government agency when it is just design build
rather than design build operate.
Mr. Sires. Thank you. And I must compliment you. Sometimes
I drive Union from New Jersey. You are doing a lot of work on
that 95. I don't know whether it is design build and operate,
but they're doing a lot of work.
I was just wondering, when you do your planning--and I am a
former mayor and former assemblyman--one of the things that we
always seem to fight, New Jersey Transit and some of the other
agencies, because when the planning is done they sometimes
don't take in consideration the local input. We won a big
battle in the northern part of the county. They wanted bus
lines.
Obviously, we are so congested--and I am talking a few
years ago--we wanted light rail. We finally won. I was just
wondering, when you encounter such strong local consideration
that want to be considered, how do you deal with it, because
those are the things that stop the projects beyond DEP. Those
are the things that really--you know, the differences on what
kind of transportation you want to put in order to move people
in and out of that area.
Mayor, how do you deal with that?
Mr. Hickenlooper. Our goal has always been to get everyone
at the table, and the Department of Transportation has to be at
the table, as well, but ultimately there has got to be a
process by which all the constituents are represented and there
has to be some incentive so that they come quickly to
conclusions and make the decision.
The most important thing is sometimes, whether it is one
decision or another, people can get very heated and emotional,
but ultimately you have got to make a decision, you have got to
move forward. That is the biggest cost to not just Denver but I
think most metropolitan areas is that we end up getting in this
logjam without clear authority and without a clear enough
process.
I think the key to the process, again, Federal Government
can provide incentives to make sure that everyone does work
together and that everyone does accelerate their conversations
to the point and say, This may not be my first choice, but in
the broader good I am going to go along with this larger
collaboration.
Mr. Sires. Pennsylvania?
Mr. Ritzman. Sure. I think one of the things that is so
important is to really take time to listen up front, because
all too often you realize in some projects that you have to
listen later on what the implications are. But just taking the
time to listen up front.
Our Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, which is
five counties from Pennsylvania and five counties from southern
New Jersey, have collaborated on what's called a Smart
Transportation Handbook. What that basically is is making sure
that we really listen to the community voice and understand
what a transportation problem is we are trying to solve before
moving forward.
Mr. Sires. Mr. Chairman, could I have just one more minute?
I know New Jersey was working with Pennsylvania on direct
line into New York rail. Where is that at, because I asked your
governor the other day and he says they are working on it.
Mr. Ritzman. I would probably stay that, too. I can get
some better details for you. Those kind of things are just so
expensive, and there is not a whole lot of optimism on how you
ultimately try to achieve the actual implementation of those
kinds of projects. Great, great projects, definitely needed,
but it is just things that are financially not able to get to
at this point.
Mr. Sires. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.
Next I would like to recognize the gentleman from Ohio.
Mrs. Schmidt, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I
only have a couple of questions.
One is for The Honorable Mayor of Denver, Mayor
Hickenlooper. I briefly glanced through your testimony, and one
of the things that you say is that there is a disconnect
between planning and resource allocation. I think you have
pointed to the obvious, but how do you think this problem can
be remedied?
Mr. Hickenlooper. I would like to see, again, a mode
neutral calculation in terms of where Federal resources go. If
we are going to have an MPO going through and making the plans,
the MPO has to have a significant role in how the Federal
resources are allocated. It can't all come through the State.
Obviously, there is a number of expenditures that the State is
the best decider and able to bring rural counties together in
an efficient way, but in our metropolitan area they are an
important voice but they are not the only voice. I think making
sure that the MPO has a more significant role in how the
resources are allocated.
To say that you are going to do a plan and then someone
else over here is going to fund it, A, what it does is it takes
authority away from the planning organization. It means they
don't get the high octane civic leaders and the attention that
they should gets put off to the side a little bit because
ultimately the funding comes from this other place. If we could
connect the planning and the funding together, A, you get a
better--well, first you get better plans, right, because people
are paying a lot more attention to it; and, B, you get much
larger participation, from the State all the way down.
Mrs. Schmidt. Follow-up to that: I know that in your
testimony you are the head of the Mayors Association.
Mr. Hickenlooper. I am the Chair of the U.S. Conference of
Mayors' Transportation and Communications Committee.
Mrs. Schmidt. Right. And is this your personal view, or is
this the view of all of the mayors in your group that reflect
the United States.
Mr. Hickenlooper. Well, I am not sure if you have a view of
all of Congress. It is hard to get everyone all on one page,
but yes,----
Mrs. Schmidt. But it is out of your conference? This is
their----
Mr. Hickenlooper. Yes, this is out of our conference, so
this is the position of the mayors. I think that universally,
again, we respect the State Departments of Transportation, but
we recognize that there has got to be a shift in terms of how
that funding comes down to metropolitan areas.
Mrs. Schmidt. And then this is for the open panel, and it
is something I am not sure was covered in any of the testimony,
but one of the things that we are realizing is that there is a
shortfall in funding for all kinds of transportation issues. Do
you all have any suggestions towards how to correct that
shortfall?
Mr. Hickenlooper. Just very quickly, because I have spoken
enough, but part of it is the public has to believe. We are not
making jobs. We are not throwing money at something. We have
got to be more transparent and more creative, but we have got
to deliver what people want. Again, this all comes back to that
planning process.
I spent 15 years in the restaurant business. I hate taxes.
I viscerally hate taxes. We have now passed 13 successive
initiatives, something quite large, because each time we are
spelling out. They are almost all infrastructure, but we are
spelling out exactly what we are going to deliver for those
taxes and looking at it as an investment. I think the reality
is that we as a Country have to recognize we are falling
woefully behind, and it is going to affect not just our quality
of life but our economic future.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you.
Mr. Chesley. The National Association of Regional Councils
has taken a position that we are going to need to, at least in
the short term, address the shortfall in the gas tax through a
gas tax increase, as well as addressing this through indexing,
as well. But in the long term this is not the answer to our
transportation issues. We are going to have to switch over,
maybe gradually, but switch over to a more user-based system
that actually closely addresses the actual use of the system
against what we are actually paying into it, both as
individuals, corporate interest, whatever. That is going to
have to be the way we proceed in the future on this.
Mrs. Schmidt. Yes, sir?
Mr. Pedersen. I am speaking personally, as opposed to on
behalf of either the State of Maryland or the I-95 Corridor
Coalition. I believe, first of all, I agree with my colleague
that we need to be moving more to a vehicle miles traveled
basis for taxation, at least of the usage of the roadway
system, itself. But probably more importantly, the biggest
challenge we have in front of us is greenhouse gas emissions,
and we need to be moving to carbon basis for taxation for
transportation.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you. I don't have any other questions.
Yes?
Mr. Selman. It sounds like a brainstorming type question,
so I will answer it as if I am brainstorming.
I don't think vehicle registration should be tossed out as
an option. I don't think drivers license and permitting should
be tossed out as an option. Fuel tax is something that is a
little bit harder pill to swallow, given the increase in fuel.
I just wanted to toss those two out, as well as vehicle
miles traveled and the technologies that exist for making those
determinations, sending proposal's bills in the mail in terms
of their user fees, those types of things.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you. Yes, sir?
Mr. Ritzman. I guess I will just chime in and agree, but I
guess the point I want to make is just there are tremendous
system preservation needs that we have, and part of me says I
don't care how, we need to be able to deal with not only what
people want but just the basic infrastructure that we currently
have and to keep that operating efficiently and safely.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
indulging me in that question.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the gentlewoman for raising that
difficult and important question, and for the panel for
attempting to answer it.
Next I would like to recognize again my colleague from
California and a mentor, a good friend Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am sitting,
listening, getting all kinds of ideas. I have got notes. I have
got a ton of questions. I won't have the time to ask them all.
I would like to answer for the record a memo from the
Alameda Corridor East Construction Authority from my area, as
well as a Gateway Council of Governments' input into this
topic.
I will leave that aside except for one area that they are
asking that the organizations such as Americas Gateways and
Trade Corridors, the CAGTC, that they be more recognized and
heard, because they do know the impact of trade corridors and
the impact on the communities, themselves.
Which brings an idea to mind that has been bounding around.
It has been brought to my attention. That is that the next TEA
bill should include to establish a Federal Freight Trust Fund
that is tailored to recognize the unique position of freight or
goods movement projects in our Country and the burdens they
create on our local communities.
Any ideas or recommendations? Let me tell you, I was
listening to the gentleman that said he has got a number of
trains. I have 160 daily going through my area, 54 grade
separations, of which only 20 are going to be grade crossings.
Only 20 are going to be separated. I have a major impact. So
while it is wonderful to hear your presentations, I am dealing
with ten times the amount of impact in my area.
I understand Mr. Oberstar has a great vision. I am glad he
is preparing for this. And I agree with Mr. Mica about a mega
plan. What can we come up with, gentlemen, because I agree.
Going to the mega areas, to the big metropolitan areas, L.A.
County has 12 million people. All the money goes there and
maybe to the State, and we get a little bit to our local areas,
so the local communities need to be able, the COGs that
represent--my two COGs represent 60 of L.A. County's 70-some-
odd cities. They have a foundation. Maybe we could start
putting the money into them because they know what the needs
are and they can actually be prepared to do like he said, the
plan and design.
I would like some information from you about what you think
about the Federal Trust Fund being set to be able to deal with
the impact of goods movement. Let me tell you, I have been
sitting in this Committee for a number of months listening to
the railroad say they want to move goods but not passengers.
They make the money on goods movement. Well, guys, they go into
my area impacting us; I want to be sure they are at the table
helping my community deal with the congestion, with the safety
issues, with all of that.
It is open, gentlemen. Mr. Selman?
Mr. Selman. I think you are right on target. There is an
absolute need to move this commerce through this Nation, in
this Nation, and out of this Nation, and in order for us to
continue to be very competitive on a worldwide scale, we must
spend on the movement of commerce.
Mr. Pedersen. Whether it is a separate Freight Trust Fund
or a carve-out of the Highway Trust Fund, I would agree that we
need to be allocating money specifically to be addressing
freight needs.
A big concern is how that money gets allocated and what it
gets allocated to, and there needs to be a performance basis
associated with allocation of the money so that it is based on
rational decision-making process in terms of addressing what
the greatest needs are and, most importantly, where the
greatest benefit will be achieved.
Mrs. Napolitano. Anybody else?
Mr. Howard. Yes, I agree that there probably isn't another
single more important national issue than moving freight from a
transportation perspective, and so I think we need to figure
out how to get those projects funded, and so I think that is a
definite national interest.
Mr. Hickenlooper. And I think what you are getting, we in
Denver and many of the urban areas, the metropolitan areas, the
old freight yards are now becoming redeveloped and becoming
very trendy with lots of multi-family housing in them and jobs
and all this stuff, and yet we have in Denver 110 coal trains
go through every single day, and they are a mile long. That
issue of what does it take to get freight so it can go more
efficiently and also be less of a hazard to our citizens, how
do we fund that I think is a pressing question, and I support
your looking into it.
Mr. Ritzman. And I agree. I think everybody recognizes the
increasing need for us to focus on goods movement, whether it
is freight or trucking. I would say the only reservation is
with regards to, again, where that money comes from and just
the concern for the scarcity of resources to deal with those
kinds of projects.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, gentlemen.
I didn't add that the freight going through my area is
expected to triple, so not only is it going to be 160 trains; I
am going to have close to 500 a day. That means one train every
ten minutes. Imagine that pollution in your area, that safety
concern, and those things that you, as directors of all the
different agencies, would have to deal with.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to submit some other
questions for the record.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
Mr. Platts.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize for my late arrival. I just wanted to thank
each of the witnesses for their written testimony, for my staff
and me, and also just to share a comment with the fellow
Pennsylvanian. Mr. Secretary, thanks for being here. I have had
the pleasure and sometimes the challenge for about 12 years to
serve as a voting member of my local MPO and appreciate the
planning process and the four-year TIPS and the balance and
what's getting on, has come off, what can move in that time
period, what can't, and realize, especially in challenging
financial times at the Federal and State and local level, that
this planning process is not an easy one, and that
prioritization within that process is sometimes very difficult.
I don't uniquely speak to Pennsylvania, but we have been
able to put in place a great, I think, process of our local
officials, our State officials, and our State Department, Penn-
DOT, working hand-in-hand to try to make that as seamless a
process as possible. I know in all corners of the Country
different approaches, but I think we are all after the same end
result, which is that we are being smart with the resources we
have and looking long-term for what our needs are going to be
and how we meet them.
I appreciate each of you being here today and, most
importantly, what you do every day in your respective
positions.
With the I-95 Corridor and Mr. Pedersen, we are looking to
try to replicate what you have done on the I-81 corridor. We
are in the early stages. I know my Deputy Chief of Staff has
interacted with your organization and members in how to take a
better regional approach to our 81 corridor as you and others
have done in I-95, so I appreciate that assistance, as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for
his brevity.
Next I would like to recognize Ms. Edwards, the gentlewoman
from Maryland.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pedersen, it is
good to see you today, too, and all of our witnesses.
I have the distinction, pleasure, of having sat in traffic
for 20 years on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Corridor. I think it
is a challenge. I mean, these planning processes in
metropolitan areas, in particular, I mean, we are crossing--
whether we are talking about the D.C. jurisdiction or Virginia
or Maryland, the challenge of balancing land use decisions that
are very, very local with how you make investments in
transportation to accommodate a corridor that stretches from
Maine down to Florida. So I appreciate the challenge of your
coalition, Mr. Pedersen.
I would like to reflect on the planning decisions, say, of
a decade ago, because I also had been really engaged with our
local communities in the planning of the Wilson Bridge
reconstruction and how to relieve both commuter traffic on the
bridge so that we could actually accommodate the kind of
commercial traffic that travels I-95. I have been part of those
processes for ten years, you know, morning, noon, and night
meetings. I think that when I look back on it I remember the
folks who argued so vociferously against rail over the Wilson
Bridge as a way to relieve some of the commuter congestion.
These are the same folks who today now want rail once we have
got the bridge up, even though it is rail ready.
I am curious about what we might do in our planning
processes, particularly in these metropolitan areas, so that we
can reflect on some of the process and the decision-making that
has led to some actually maybe not-so-helpful decisions it
turns out a decade later, because, for example, in this
corridor, if we go to add rail, which I would love to do, to
relieve that traffic, because it continues to be a problem on
the bridge, it is like starting not from scratch, because it is
a new bridge and it accommodates rail, but we certainly won't
do it in the value for dollar that we could have if we had
engaged in that process at the outset.
I want to have each of you reflect on ideas in the planning
process that might alleviate that.
In addition, I am curious about these new sort of fee
structures, public-private arrangements for developing
roadways, railways, etc., and what that means to all of our
populations, low-income people, moderate-income people who are
subject to those sort of fee structures, and whether there are
some fairness questions that are involved.
I am also curious about incentivizing land use so we can't
control, at the Federal level, land use decisions locally, but
are there things that we could do to actually incentivize
positive land use decisions as they are related to
transportation and things to de-incentivize the negative uses?
And then, lastly, I want to know what it is that we can do
to incentivize also coordinated planning processes, because the
competition among jurisdictions is so significant that if there
is not anything that we might encourage at the national level
to encourage coordination, then there is little to be gained
from some jurisdictions in doing that.
I know I have thrown out a lot of questions, and we can
answer them on or off the record, but over these next several
months it would be good to hear from you on these.
Mr. Pedersen. If I could go first, particularly since I was
involved in the Woodrow Wilson Bridge planning since 1989 along
with you, reflecting back on looking at it from 2008, how we
should have done it differently, we did not do nearly enough
joint land use transportation planning right from the very
beginning, in terms of looking at the kind of transit-oriented
development that should have been taking place within the
corridor to ultimately be able to support the transit line that
we all want ultimately to be on the bridge.
I think it is only now that some of that land use
coordination is actually starting to occur that probably should
have been occurring as long as 20 years ago.
So the requirement of, as projects are being developed,
looking at especially multi-modal projects of the type that we
are talking about, what needs to occur from a land use
perspective to be able to ultimately support transit is key.
In terms of fairness of public/private partnerships,
private financing, I think it is an issue that needs to be very
carefully looked at on a case-by-case basis. There are studies
that have shown that in some corridors the usage of facilities
that have been funded that way have been across the socio-
economic perspective. There have been other corridors where
transit has been subsidized in order to address the fairness
issues, but it is clearly an issue that has to be looked at as
these proposals come in.
In terms of incentivizing land use, using the Maryland
example----
Mr. McNerney. If I could interrupt, votes have been called
and we have eight minutes, so please, witnesses, make brief
remarks. Thank you.
Mr. Pedersen. I would just very quickly say that, again, to
the extent that there can be incentives, particularly for
transit oriented development, that is probably going to be the
single best mechanism by which we can be increasing transit
usage.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Chesley. I am not sure about the bridge in question
here, but one of the questions with multi-modal options in a
corridor is just what the mayor has been talking about here,
and that is the strictures that tend to come about because of
different funding sources relating to different modal
activities. We can reduce some of those barriers, we can reduce
some of the impediments to being more innovative in terms of
putting two modes together, three modes together in a similar
corridor.
There actually is some pretty good research out there about
the impact of fees on low-income individuals. I turn to the San
Diego experience with the congestion corridor down there, where
the primary use of paying the fee on the corridor has been
among parents trying to get home quickly enough for day care
purposes. That is where we see actually the value of time being
expressed in terms of folks who may not be as high-income as
some of the folks we normally would think about.
I will save the rest of the time for comments from the
other Members. Thank you.
Mr. Hickenlooper. You know, if I could just say quickly, we
haven't talked much about TODs, but in terms of the mistakes we
made in the past we need more elected officials like yourself
that have been through the process to come up and make sure
that we keep those and be transparent about our failures as
well as the successes. There should be some way of
memorializing. I am not sure how that would work.
But TODs, if we get everybody as part of this planning
process looking at how to utilize in a really comprehensive and
integrated land use planning approach around these new
stations. Our fast tracks system in Denver, we are putting 57
new stations in, roughly over half of them are in old
brownfields sites here we can really change the density. That
is where we need to be talking about affordable housing, making
sure that everybody has access to this incredible investment we
are making.
Anyway, I want to thank all of you for the chance to be
here, and look forward to working with you in the next year
with all the mayors and with all Congress to make sure we get
some of these things fixed.
Mr. McNerney. Does the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. Edwards. Yes.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I want to thank the witnesses. It has
been instructive. I know it takes a lot for you to come out
here, and I appreciate that.
Members have 30 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks, including questions which may be submitted to the
witnesses.
This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 45109.159