[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT PROGRAM
=======================================================================
(111-25)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 28, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
49-496 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
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 VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
JERROLD NADLER, New York FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
CORRINE BROWN, Florida JERRY MORAN, Kansas
BOB FILNER, California GARY G. MILLER, California
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi Carolina
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania SAM GRAVES, Missouri
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
RICK LARSEN, Washington JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York Virginia
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois CONNIE MACK, Florida
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN J. HALL, New York ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee PETE OLSON, Texas
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
PHIL HARE, Illinois
JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
BETSY MARKEY, Colorado
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York
THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia
DINA TITUS, Nevada
HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico
VACANCY
(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
BOB FILNER, California THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania JERRY MORAN, Kansas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington GARY G. MILLER, California
MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York Carolina
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania Virginia
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
HEATH SHULER, North Carolina MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona CONNIE MACK, Florida
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
RICK LARSEN, Washington
JOHN J. HALL, New York
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
PHIL HARE, Illinois
JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio
MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
TESTIMONY
Blumenauer, Hon. Earl, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon................................................ 3
Boozman, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Arkansas.................................................... 19
Brown, Jr., Hon. Henry E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of South Carolina........................................ 18
Carney, Hon. Christopher P., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Pennsylvania...................................... 25
Davis, Hon. Geoff, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Kentucky....................................................... 28
Degette, Hon. Diana, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado.................................................... 13
Dent, Hon. Charles W., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Pennsylvania.......................................... 22
Driehaus, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio........................................................ 30
Edwards, Hon. Donna F., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Maryland.............................................. 20
Foster, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois....................................................... 35
Hare, Hon. Phil, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois....................................................... 38
Heller, Hon. Dean A., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Nevada...................................................... 6
Larsen, Hon. Rick A., a Representative in Congress from the State
of Washington.................................................. 9
Mckeon, Hon. Howard P. `Buck,' a Representative in Congress from
the State of California........................................ 15
Melacon, Hon. Charlie, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Louisiana............................................. 37
Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California............................................ 39
Posey, Hon. Bill, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida........................................................ 11
Schrader, Hon. Kurt, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Oregon...................................................... 41
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Blumenauer, Hon. Earl, of Oregon................................. 44
Boustany Jr., MD, Hon. Charles, of Louisiana..................... 52
Melancon, Hon. Charlie, of Louisiana............................. 55
Mitchell, Hon. Harry, of Arizona................................. 56
Paul, Hon. Ron, of Texas......................................... 57
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
California State Assembly, Hon. Charles M. Calderon, Assembly
Member, written statement...................................... 59
California State Senate, Hon. Ronald S. Calderon, Senator,
written statement.............................................. 61
City of Downey, California, Brian A. Ragland, P.E., Director of
Public Works:
Letter to Arthur T. Leahy, Chief Executive Officer, Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, regarding the
Lakewood Boulevard/Rosemead Boulevard at Telegraph Road
Intersection Improvement Project 2009 Metro Call for Projects
Funding Application.......................................... 63
Letter to Arthur T. Leahy, Chief Executive Officer, Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, regarding
Telegraph Road Traffic Throughput and Safety Enhancements
Project 2009 Metro Call for Projects Funding Application..... 64
City of La Puente, California, Hon. Louie A. Lujan, M.Ed., Mayor,
letter to Hon. James L. Oberstar, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Minnesota regarding the Transportation
Reauthorization Request Form................................... 65
City of Norwalk, California, Hon. Cheri Kelley, Mayor:
Letter to Hon. Grace Napolitano, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California, regarding support for
alternative fuel expansion buses for Norwalk Transit System.. 66
Letter to Hon. James L. Oberstar, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Minnesota and Hon. John L. Mica, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Florida,
regarding the San Antonio Drive Rehabilitation Project....... 68
Letter to Hon. James L. Oberstar, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Minnesota and Hon. John L. Mica, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Florida,
regarding the Studebaker Road Rehabilitation Project......... 69
City of Pomona, California, Hon. Elliott Rothman, Mayor, letter
to Hon. James L. Oberstar, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Minnesota, regarding support for California State
Route 71 Freeway Conversion Project............................ 70
City of Santa Fe Springs, California, Frederick W. Latham, City
Manager, letter to Hon. Grace Napolitano, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, regarding support for
the City of Santa Fe Springs' request for Federal
Transportation Reauthorization Funds for the Norwalk/Santa Fe
Springs Transportation Center Phase II Parking Expansion
Project........................................................ 71
City of Whittier, California, Hon. Bob Henderson, Mayor, letter
to Hon. James L. Oberstar, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Minnesota and Hon. John Mica, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Florida, regarding support for the
Norwalk Boulevard at Whittier Boulevard Realignment and
Widening Project............................................... 73
Gateway Cities Council of Governments, Anne M. Bayer, President,
Board of Directors:
Letter to Hon. Grace Napolitano, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California, regarding High Priority Project
Request for Freeway Corridors Congestion Relief Projects-
Planning and Environmental Phases............................ 75
Letter to Hon. Grace Napolitano, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California, regarding High Priority Project
Request for Regional Goods Movement Transportation
Coordination................................................. 77
Gateway Cities Council of Governments, Richard R. Powers,
Executive Director, letter to Hon. Grace Napolitano, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California,
regarding High Priority Project Request Environmental Impact
Report/Statement............................................... 78
The I-5 Consortium Cities Joint Powers Authority, Michael Mendez,
Chairman, letter to Hon. Grace Napolitano, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California, regarding High Priority
Request for Preparation of the I-5 (from I-605 to I-710)
Environmental Impact Report/ Statement......................... 80
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, David Spence,
President, letter to Hon. James L. Oberstar, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Minnesota and Hon. John L. Mica,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida,
regarding support for Foothill Transit's Transportation
Authorization Bill request for $30 million to continue the
conversion of their bus fleet to cleaner burning alternative
fuel buses..................................................... 81
Southern California Association of Governments, Hasan Ikhrata,
Chief Executive Officer, letter to Rick Richmond, Chief
Executive Officer, Alameda Corridor-East Construction
Authority, regarding Alameda Corridor-East Construction
Authority Project.............................................. 83
Southern California Regional Rail Authority, David R. Solow,
Chief Executive Officer, letter to Hon. Grace Napolitano, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California........ 84
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.009
HEARING ON THE HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT PROGRAM
----------
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
House of Representatives
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Washington, D.C.,
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Peter
A. DeFazio [chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Mr. DeFazio. The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit is
now in session. This hearing today is limited in scope to
testimony by individual Members on their potential high
priority projects.
This is a different approach than has been taken
historically with high priority projects, first called when I
came to Congress demonstration projects. They have always had
some controversial element to them.
When I was first elected, Ronald Reagan had vetoed the
Surface Transportation Bill, the Highway Bill. I then was
allowed the opportunity as a new Member to put in a small
project to study a needed bridge replacement in my district.
When I was then meeting with the editors of the largest
newspaper in my state a few months later, the Oregonian, during
the inquisition which it was like in those days, they asked
what does this demonstrate. I said it demonstrates that I
understand the needs and priorities of my district and that I
can deliver. They just sort of dropped it at that point.
That is the key here. Does all wisdom reside in the
bureaucracy? Should all of the money be allocated either
through the political appointee, the Secretary of
Transportation, or through the various State departments of
transportation, most of which are generally unelected
bureaucrats with some direction from their legislatures,
governors, or commissions?
The firm conclusion that I would come to over the years is
no. There is room for some designated spending by Members of
Congress who better understand the needs of their district and
the degree of attention which those needs have received from
their State departments of transportation, legislatures, or the
Federal Department of Transportation bureaucracy.
However, that is not to say that we want to replicate some
of the more notable problems in the past. So we have totally
reformed the process. We are going to make it a transparent
process.
Members are going to have to post their requests to the
Committee on their websites very similarly to what is being
done in Appropriations. Then after and when we determine what
allocations will be available to Members, they will probably
have to revisit and refine those requests. It is unusual in
that we are moving forward without making allocations to
individual Members where they can tailor their projects and
requests into that number, so I do admit it is a bit difficult
for Members. Then their name will be forever associated with
those requests when and if these are included in the
legislation. This is part of a much larger process that is
moving forward.
We have done, I think, 27 hearings on reauthorization or
authorization now. The staff has been drafting for months. They
reviewed every one of the 108 program expenditures of the
Department of Transportation. We are going to very
substantively reduce the number of programs or move, perhaps,
to a small number of functions to dramatically streamline the
Department of Transportation bureaucracy and the Federal
Transportation Administration.
We are very interested in providing for more prompt project
delivery; lowering overhead costs; and moving toward a
practical least-cost designs, solutions, and planning in
dealing with the major problems that confront our Country.
Member projects will have to fit into that context. They will
have to meet our new National priorities. They will have to
address those concerns to be included in the legislation later.
This is a process that is ongoing. We have a sense of
urgency as I have stated previously here. If we do not achieve
authorization by October 1st for the next Federal fiscal year,
absent a waiving of all the rules and some significant
borrowing or appropriation of new funds, our spending--and the
numbers are moving around a bit--but our spending or investment
on highways and transit would drop somewhere between 30 and 40
percent for the next Federal fiscal year.
That would be a disaster. It would more than offset any
stimulus effect that came from the earlier legislation this
year with some transportation spending. So we have a sense of
urgency.
Last week Chairman Oberstar and I met with principal
Democrats on the Senate side to initiate discussions on
principles and moving forward. We are moving forward with
drafting and hope to have a bill in the not too distant future
for public discussion.
With that, I would turn to my colleague, Mr. Duncan from
Tennessee.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
On the last Highway Bill, we had three days of hearings in
which Members came and presented their different projects. I
see that what you have done this time is scheduled all of these
Members to be here sort of one at a time. I guess we will have
to see how that works.
I do want to welcome our former colleague, Mr. Blumenauer
back who was such a great Member of this Committee.
The last Highway Bill was $286 billion. That is a lot of
money. But when you think about that that was to cover a six
year period spread over 50 States, then you see that it really
wasn't enough to meet all the needs that we have.
Then you think that last year the Government Accountability
Office came out with a report that said the Pentagon had a $295
billion cost overrun on just their 72 largest weapons systems.
Now you think about that. That didn't count how much cost
overruns in all the thousands of other large, medium, and small
contracts that they might have had. And that wasn't the total
cost of those 72 contracts. That was the cost overruns on those
72 largest weapons systems, $295 billion. It is an astounding
figure.
Of course, now we are working on this new Highway Bill.
Chairman Oberstar and I think both sides on this Committee want
to try to avoid the two year delay that we had the last time.
So we have already been having, as Chairman DeFazio said, many
hearings. Then last week Chairman Oberstar presided over a
couple of closed door meetings between some of the key people
involved. So hopefully we are going to move on this in the
House and do our duty. Then we will see what the Senate does.
Thank you very much for being here. This is very important
to this Nation as I have said many times. There is a very
legitimate Federal or National interest in the work that we do
on this Subcommittee and in this Full Committee.
People in Oregon sometimes use the roads in Tennessee and
vice versa. People in California use the water systems on
occasion in New York. We all use the airports in the different
States and the ports and so forth.
So I am proud to be a Member of this Committee and this
Subcommittee. I look forward to doing one of the best Highway
Bills ever. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
With that, I recognize the Chairman of the Full Committee
for some brief remarks. Chairman Oberstar?
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you very much. I listened to your
opening comments, Mr. Chairman, while I was in the anteroom
meeting with others. I think you summed it up very well. I just
want to take this time to thank you for that succinct analysis
of where we are.
It is serious outlook for the future of the Highway Trust
Fund. But we are building on the legacy left by all these
predecessors represented in the portraits ahead of us. They all
worked hard to lay a good foundation. We are going to build on
that foundation. We are going to build it together. We are
going to build a good and strong future for transportation in
America to move our economy.
The challenges you laid out are exactly the ones we need to
address. Today we are going to hear from Members and that is
exactly what I am going to do. I am going to listen and hear
what they have to say.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With that, we turn to our colleague Earl Blumenauer who
used to be an esteemed Member of this important Committee
before he moved off to other undertakings. Mr. Blumenauer?
STATEMENT OF HON. EARL BLUMENAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Duncan, and Chairman Oberstar.
I would like to think that I am just out now being a one
person Subcommittee on resources for this Committee, looking
forward to making sure you have what you need to do your job
right.
Mr. Oberstar. If the gentleman yields, an adjunct professor
member of the Committee.
Mr. Blumenauer. As you see fit, Mr. Chairman.
I do deeply appreciate the hard work that this Subcommittee
and Full Committee has done getting a running start on
reauthorization. You have had terrific hearings. You have made
a strong record of support, not just for reauthorization of the
Surface Transportation Act, but literally for a major rewrite
of the Bill as is referenced. I strongly urge that you build on
that record, establishing for the first time a real purpose in
this Bill.
I am going to split my testimony, if I could, into two
parts. I wanted to just talk briefly about the overview and
then some specific items that I think are consistent with that.
What you are doing is a critical part of a new vision for
rebuilding and renewing America. It is not just about
protecting and optimizing existing transportation
infrastructure. More than ever before, this is about
revitalizing the economy and strengthening our communities
while we protect the planet from global warming.
Your Committee has already started along this path of
energy conservation and greenhouse gas reduction. I hope that
you in the reauthorization will continue to be bold because
transportation represents 30 percent of our Nation's greenhouse
gasses. We can't meet our goals without your help.
I strongly urge that you put the I back into ISTEA,
intermodalism, having a higher standard in this new vision. As
you are sorting through this, I hear that you are talking about
more uniformity. Everybody must plan and deliver for this new
era. I find that exciting.
I hope that you will work with us to extract more value
from the Federal partnership. Provide more statutory guidance
on cost effective projects and apply it to all transportation
modes. If it is good enough for light rail lines, it ought to
be good enough for an interchange.
I urge that your Committee adjust and harmonize match
ratios. A formula should not determine the transportation
solution.
We must also work together to streamline this process to
become more performance driven for environmental protection and
public participation.
I do want to be your partner on the Ways and Means and
Budget Committees to make sure you get the resources you need,
generating more money after you create this new vision and make
the Federal Government a better partner.
In pursuit of more resources and for the future, I strongly
urge that you include in this Bill an expanded pilot project on
vehicle miles traveled. We have been pioneering that work in
Oregon. Please help us extend it to all 50 States so that
together we can design a transportation funding program for the
future.
You will receive from me in written testimony emphasis on
five specific major projects. One is a Columbia River crossing
which is a huge undertaking combining both Oregon's and
Washington's resources to cross the Columbia River on the I-5
corridor, one of the Nation's vital trade routes. Please work
with us to refine the toll authority and to do a better job
with not just freight movement but pedestrian, transit, and
light rail connection from Vancouver to Portland.
I will be submitting second a request for the Portland-
Milwaukee light rail extension that will continue to build on
what we think is the best national light rail model to showcase
not just what light rail does for our region, but what it has
done nationally.
Third, I will be submitting legislation--actually
introducing it this week--that I hope will be incorporated into
your Bill. It is not just to expand the Portland streetcar
system, but to literally jumpstart a national movement building
on the Small Starts Provision that we worked on together in the
last reauthorization but that the previous Administration
couldn't figure out quite how to administer. I will be offering
a bill to expand, refine, and direct it.
Fourth, I am confident that under your leadership, Mr.
Chairman and Mr. Chairman, the Bike and Pedestrian Program will
enter a whole new era through expanding safe routes to school
and other trail and pedestrian programs. We will have some
modest suggestions for what might happen for the showcase in
our region.
Finally, you will receive a request from me for some
funding on Portland's Sellwood Bridge, an example of how one
local government struggles to meet massive regional needs and
really does not have the resources for something that goes
beyond its specific jurisdiction.
I deeply appreciate the hard work that you have done and
the opportunity to share my thoughts. As I say, I will follow
up with written testimony about specific projects. But I am
hopeful that we can work together on the resource side and the
vision side. You are laying the foundation for one of the most
important economic and environmental developments beyond just
transportation. I look forward to working with you. I really
appreciate the chance to share some thoughts and observations
today.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Blumenauer. I have one very
quick question because we will try to get caught up and get
back on schedule. I didn't quite understand your comments about
the match, when you are talking match not by formula.
Mr. Blumenauer. I hope that as part of what you are doing,
there is an opportunity to look at harmonizing match ratios.
Mr. DeFazio. Oh, I see. I understand.
Mr. Blumenauer. I am sorry.
Mr. DeFazio. I missed that.
Thank you and we will look forward to the details on your
particular priorities. Obviously, I am quite familiar a number
of them, being a frequent visitor to the Portland area. I look
forward to working with you on those.
Mr. Blumenauer. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
courtesy.
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Chairman, did you have any questions?
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I greatly appreciate
Mr. Blumenauer who is always a fount of ideas and new
initiatives.
We are going to concentrate on cost effectiveness guidance.
More than that, it is going to be direction for cost
effectiveness. Performance based, we are going to move from a
prescriptive program to a performance based program. We are
going to have more openness, accountability, and visibility as
we are doing in the Stimulus program. The hearing we will have
tomorrow will be the precursor.
But I wanted to come to your suggestion of a pilot program
for vehicle miles traveled. I have followed the Oregon
experience very closely. I participated in a demonstration of a
VMT initiative at the Humphrey Transportation Center at the
University of Minnesota.
Why do we need a pilot program? Why don't we just phase
this in? It is going to be done; it is something we have to do.
Why not just move it ahead? There are many suggestions that it
will take five or 10 years. I think it can be done in far less
than that, maybe two years.
Mr. Blumenauer. Mr. Chairman, I agree with you. I think we
are further along both with the technology and the
understanding that if we don't move to a vehicle miles traveled
formula, we are locked into an inevitable downward spiral that
is going to make your job and our job on Ways and Means
untenable.
The reason I suggested expanding the pilot project is we
find that as we have been able to get more people involved,
they understand and they are more comfortable with it. I think
the impediment to a national vehicle miles traveled is less
technological than it is in terms of public perception.
I sincerely believe that if you would help us with a pilot
project that could be undertaken on a voluntary basis in every
State in the Union, we would be able to increase the public
awareness and comfort. It would hasten the day that we could
make the transition.
I have been very pleased with what the reaction has been to
the pilot project. If you would put this in your
reauthorization so we could do it in the next couple years
across America, I think we could build acceptance and awareness
and refine it.
Mr. Oberstar. Under other circumstances, I think that would
be a very good, thoughtful suggestion. But I would prefer to
have Mr. DeFazio convene a meeting of all the best think tank
minds--not a hearing but a meeting--and engage both the
Republican and Democratic sides of the Committee. I would
prefer to have a discussion, get all the ideas out on the
table, and work on an implementation program. I am at a point
of impatience with more studies. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. Are there any other Members with
urgent questions?
Mr. Blumenauer. I am sorry if I misspoke. I am not talking
about a study. I am talking about demonstrating in each State
in the Union how it works, raising the comfort, and answering
the questions that people have. I agree with you.
Mr. Oberstar. Pilot is in the category of a study. We need
an action program.
Mr. DeFazio. Okay, thank you.
Next, we have the Honorable Dean Heller.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEAN HELLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Heller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee for the opportunity to spend a few minutes here in
front of you to discuss some of the needs and merits of Federal
investment into Nevada's transportation system. Hopefully I
will make some of your decision making a little bit easier. I
don't know if I will succeed at that but I will give it a shot.
Today, perhaps more than ever, Nevada depends on a strong
transportation system for commerce and mobility to support
economic stability and job growth.
The State of Nevada, like other States, counties, and
communities is currently facing difficult financial deficits.
Funding for transportation projects is needed to accommodate
Nevada's rapidly growing population, especially during these
tough economic times.
Nevada's transportation programs are facing a severe
funding shortfall crisis. Our State's highway system needs are
expected to be $11 billion by 2015. Nevada is currently facing
a $3.8 billion shortfall for the 10 largest projects planned
for completion in 2015. Compounding all of this, highway
construction costs rose 99.7 percent nationally and highway
construction inflation has risen nearly 44 percent in the past
few years, far exceeding general inflation.
As Members of the Committee, you may know that Nevada's
population exploded from 1950 to 2000, increasing more than
1,200 percent. Since 1990, Nevada's population grew 133 percent
with nearly one million new residents, the fastest rate of
growth in the Nation. Annual vehicle miles traveled on Nevada
roads exploded from 10 billion miles in 1990 to 22 billion in
2006. The number is expected to increase to 35 billion vehicle
miles by 2010.
Almost every major road leading into and out of both the
Reno metropolitan area and the Las Vegas Valley area needs to
increase capacity just to keep up with growth as well as meet
the demands of tourists traveling in Nevada. Tourism is the
lifeblood of Nevada's economy. Thirty-nine million people visit
Las Vegas annually and 53 percent of them arrive by automobile
or bus on U.S. highways.
In addition, Interstate 80 and Interstate 15 are among the
busiest truck freight corridors in the Nation. That traffic is
expected to increase significantly in the future as the United
States increases its overseas trading relationships. Increased
trade will mean more ships arriving in western ports with goods
that will need to be transported both to and across Nevada and
to other States.
Interstate 80 is the lifeline for the city of Reno and
Sparks and it also goes through the towns of Fernley, Lovelock,
Winnemucca, Battle Mountain, Elko, Wells, and West Wendover on
its way through the State. Many of these areas are growing.
Maintaining and expanding I-80 infrastructure will alleviate
traffic, improve traffic safety, and help small businesses grow
in all of these communities.
These facts demonstrate that Federal funding for surface
transportation projects is critical to the future of Nevada.
The Surface Transportation legislation that the Committee is
currently working on could provide the foundation for
unprecedented investment in Nevada and throughout the United
States.
I stand beside Nevada's communities, counties, and the
State to provide a top ranked transportation system that
supports Nevada's economy and mobility in a fiscally, socially,
and environmentally smart manner. I look forward to working
with every Member of the Committee on measures that will ensure
the Federal Government remains a faithful partner in meeting
the demands of Nevada's rapidly growing transportation system.
Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for your few moments and
minutes to express some of the concerns and virtues necessary
to keep Nevada's transportation system solid.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. Obviously, your
testimony very well makes the case that we are dealing with an
integrated national system. Demand may not originate with
Nevada but Nevada is dramatically impacted by demand elsewhere.
I appreciate you making that point.
Mr. Heller. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. Do any other Members of the panel have
questions? Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Congressman
Heller.
I was interested to hear your testimony because I do know
of the explosive growth in and around Las Vegas. I read last
year that two thirds of the counties in the U.S. are losing
population. That really surprises people in my area. I
represent the Knoxville area and it happens to be also one of
the fastest growing parts of the United States.
We have got to take a lot of that into consideration when
we do this Highway Bill. On the other hand, I don't want to see
everybody jammed into 30 or 35 megapolises. So I hope we also
do what we can for the rural areas.
But I was interested in your 39 million people coming to
Las Vegas. I also represent a big portion of the Great Smoky
Mountains National Park and that is by far the most heavily
visited National Park. We get three times what any other
National Park gets, but that still is only a little over nine
million visitors a year to the Great Smoky Mountains. So that
39 million is a pretty impressive figure to me. I can
understand why you are here before us today. Thank you very
much for your testimony.
Mr. Heller. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. Do any other Members of the Committee wish to
speak?
Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. DeFazio. Mr. Chairman, certainly.
Mr. Oberstar. I just want to thank our colleague for his
astounding numbers. Those are rocking numbers: 39 million a
year with 53 percent by car and bus. I have been to the airport
at Las Vegas. I have been in and out of it many times. It seems
every organization in the Country wants to hold a conference in
Las Vegas.
Mr. Heller. I hope it continues to be that way, too.
Mr. Oberstar. You probably want more of them to go to Reno.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Oberstar. So I am astounded. Your suggestions of
investments are well placed.
We just want to remind each of the witnesses today again of
standards the Committee has set, that projects have a public
hearing; have a local sign off; and that you are prepared to
assure the 80 percent non-State--that is 80 percent Federal--
share of funding for projects, to assure that these projects
will be completed in the timeframe of the legislation or at
least substantially underway.
We have had the situation in years past where Members have
a $10 million project need. We put $1 million into it and then
the State says, fine, where are the other $7 million; we will
put up $2 million. We have seen that happen over the last 18
years and we want to avoid that for the future. What happens is
the project is never undertaken and money is then recision bait
for the Office of Management and Budget or the Appropriations
Committee instead of that money remaining in the Highway Trust
Fund and going to transportation projects. As a transportation
dependent State, you want to see those dollars well used.
Mr. Heller. I appreciate it, Mr. Oberstar. I will keep
those criteria in mind as we move forward. Thank you.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. If there are no other questions, we
will move on. Thank you, Mr. Heller.
Mr. Larsen from my neighboring State of Washington.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
testify before the Subcommittee on behalf of high priority
project requests. First off, I just want to say I look forward
to working with you and Chairman Oberstar to make a significant
investment in our Nation's transportation infrastructure and
build a foundation for future economic growth as we rewrite the
Federal Surface Transportation legislation.
In February, President Obama and Congress took an important
first step to modernize our roads, bridges, and transit; to
create jobs; and to help our economy recover by passing the
economic recovery package. Recovery dollars are already going
to work in Washington State and in my district.
In fact, just yesterday the Washington State Department of
Transportation announced that they had obligated over 50
percent of their economic recovery funding 51 days ahead of
schedule. That makes Washington State one of about five or six
States to obligate that much money.
In Snohomish County in my district, a project to repave a
worn-out section of Interstate 5 has already gone out to bid
and is expected to employ approximately 60 workers during
construction.
In Whatcom County, the Whatcom Transportation Authority
will combine economic recovery dollars with a Federal
appropriation to buy 11 new buses to help replace their aging
fleet. Whatcom Transit saw the highest ridership increase in
the Country last year, so these new buses will help them keep
up with skyrocketing ridership.
In Washington State, Recovery projects are addressing
pressing local needs, creating jobs, and coming in ahead of
schedule and under budget. Despite these successes, the
Recovery package only funds a small percentage of the
investment our Country needs to invest in our aging
transportation infrastructure.
In Washington State, our Department of Transportation and
metropolitan planning organizations selected their Recovery
projects from a list of hundreds of shovel-ready projects. As
we write the next Surface Transportation Bill, it is clear that
our Nation needs a significant investment in our transportation
infrastructure to modernize our roads, bridges, and transit; to
create jobs; and to set the foundation for future economic
growth.
The top transportation priorities for my district in the
next authorization are highway safety, freight mobility, and
ferries. In addition for pushing for specific policy changes to
the current authorization, I have approached the high priority
project process with these three issues in mind.
Highway safety is a top priority for my district. My
district includes U.S. Highway 2, a stretch of highway where
there have been over 50 fatal accidents since 1999. The
communities along this 50 mile span of U.S. 2 and the
Washington State Department of Transportation have partnered to
implement safety improvement projects throughout the corridor.
The U.S. 2 Route Development Plan, or RDP, has identified over
$1 billion in projects to enhance and reduce congestion on U.S.
2.
In the next authorization, one of my priority project
requests is a $10 million project to construct safety
improvement projects in this corridor between the cities of
Snohomish and Gold Bar. This highly traveled corridor
experiences a large number of accidents. A key priority among
the possible projects is the intersection of U.S. 2 and
Bickford Avenue. This location has experienced a significant
number of collisions in the last five years and was identified
as one of the highest rated projects on the U.S. 2 Route
Development Plan.
Freight mobility is a priority for my district and for
Washington State. In 2007, Washington State freight systems
supported over one million jobs in freight dependent industry
sectors. Washington State's transportation infrastructure
including our northern border crossings; Interstate 5; the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific rail lines; the
ports of Everett, Seattle, and Tacoma; and all of our
intermodal connectors are all critical in supporting the
movement of freight.
I intend to request a high priority project in my district
to help freight move safely and efficiently across the U.S.-
Canadian border. The Blaine Freight and Passenger Rail
Improvement Project will construct additional rail line
capacity to keep the import and export of freight to and from
Canada moving efficiently. It also provides additional siding
track to allow for safer inspection of freight traffic coming
into the U.S. at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection
facility. This additional siding track has the added advantage
of allowing freight train inspections to occur off the main
line, helping to ensure that Amtrak Cascades passenger trains
operate on time.
Ferries are an important top priority for my district and
Washington State. The Washington State ferry system is the
largest system in the U.S. It carries over 25 million riders
annually. They are an integral part to our transportation
infrastructure of Washington State. They are an extension of
the highway system and provide public transportation to help
thousands of my constituents get to work and to return home.
I intend to request project funding for the Anacortes
multi-modal ferry terminal in my district. Washington State
ferries provide the only public transportation access to
several of the San Juan islands and all these routes depart
from the Anacortes ferry terminal. This project will replace
existing terminal buildings and five spans of the passenger
overhead loading system. It will also pave terminal access
lanes and parking lots.
I would also encourage the Subcommittee to improve and
expand the overall Federal investment in ferry transportation.
Tomorrow Senator Murray and I will introduce the U.S. Ferry
Systems Investment Act of 2009. Our legislation would make a
more robust investment in the Federal Ferry Boat Program. It
would also mandate that half of those funds be distributed by
formula to help ensure that significant funding is directed to
the largest and most important public ferry systems. Half of
the funding as well would continue to be distributed on a
discretionary basis, which would help initiate and expand ferry
services throughout the country. I believe these changes would
significantly improve the current program and provide our
Nation's ferry systems with the resources they need to improve
public safety, meet growing demand, and create jobs to keep our
economy moving.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to present my
project requests for the next Surface Transportation
Authorization. I look forward to continuing to work with you
and the rest of the Subcommittee to invest in our Nation's
transportation infrastructure and set the foundation for future
economic growth.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentleman. Thank you for pointing
out the intermodal needs with ferries, the border problems, and
freight movement.
I thought the number you gave on Highway 2. The total need
for that one highway in one State is $1 billion. That just
underlines how huge the unmet needs are nationally. We see that
every year in the American Society for Civil Engineers and we
have seen other folks. The commissions quantify it, but when
you reduce it down to just one highway in one State and put out
those numbers, we realize that we need a tremendous amount more
investment.
Mr. Duncan, do you have any questions?
Mr. Duncan. I have no questions, but I want to thank our
colleague, Congressman Larsen, for being here. I have been out
to his district several times over the years and in the
vicinity to visit the Boeing operation and some other things. I
know the projects he is talking about are very, very important.
So I thank you for taking this time to come here and be with us
today. Thank you.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. Do any other Members have
questions? If not, then we will move on. Thank you, Mr. Larsen.
We move to the Honorable Bill Posey.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL POSEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member
Duncan, for the opportunity to come before you and share with
you some of the needs for east central Florida.
There are several transportation products that are
important to east central Florida. I will use my time here this
morning to share with you three of the highest priorities.
These projects meet the qualifications for the Committee and
each is high on the list of the local metropolitan planning
organizations. Later this week, I will be submitting all of the
data and support letters that the Committee has requested.
First, I would like to ask the Committee to consider
providing funding for the Palm Bay Parkway. The Palm Bay
Parkway is well underway with planning by Brevard County, the
city of Palm Bay, the city of Melbourne, and the Melbourne
Airport Authority in full concert. The funding will help speed
this project along, obviously.
The Palm Bay Parkway was conceived in the 1990s to address
regional mobility needs in southern Brevard County and northern
Indian River County, to alleviate congestion on all major
parallel roads including I-95, to improve access to Melbourne
International Airport and the major employers near the airport,
and to enhance public safety by providing additional evacuation
capability for significant populations within limited
evacuation options. The Palm Bay Parkway will aid in hurricane
evacuations, obviously.
The Palm Bay Parkway has been in planning for more than 15
years and is now moving forward. The general public and elected
officials are very much aware of the need for the Parkway and
actions are being taken to move this project forward. The
potential to create new construction, commercial and service
jobs, and residential neighborhoods on the property transverse
the Parkway is substantial.
The Parkway consists of two interchanges along I-95. It
will provide a western loop around the city of Palm Bay,
connecting both the northern end of Palm Bay to the north end
of near Melbourne and the Melbourne International Airport.
In 2007, Brevard County commissioners issued a revenue bond
which raised an estimated $21 million. Over 40 percent of the
bonds' proceeds were allocated to the Parkway.
Second, citizens in Indian River County have several
projects that are important to improving traffic flow in and
around the county. While one of these projects is new
construction, the others add more lanes to already existing
roads. I will be submitting funding requests on their behalf
later also.
Finally, I would ask the Committee to give consideration to
providing funds for the Hoagland Boulevard/Pleasant Hill Road.
That is in Osceola County. It is a corridor of a 3.8 mile
roadway connecting two State highways, U.S. 192 and U.S. 1792.
The project is an important link in the regional transportation
network in central Florida. It provides direct access to
Kissimmee Gateway Park and airport and to designated enterprise
zones critical to economic development in Osceola County.
Osceola County and the city of Kissimmee have jointly
completed preliminary engineering and alignment analyses for
the project as of last December.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to come before you. My
staff and I are looking forward to working with you to meet our
Nation's infrastructure needs.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you for the testimony. The gentleman
makes a good case regarding how what would seem to be a local
project has tremendous economic development and, again in
dealing with airports, intermodal implications. I appreciate
your highlighting those factors to the Committee. Thank you.
Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our
colleague, Congressman Posey, for being here to present what I
know are great needs. I am familiar with his part of Florida.
There has been such a population explosion over the last 25 or
30 years all through Florida so I know there are a lot of needs
down there.
Congressman Posey is a new Member, but he has already
gotten off to a great start in becoming a very effective Member
for his district. I appreciate your being here with us today.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Posey. I know the days are long and you have a lot of
people coming before you. I can't tell you how much I
appreciate your courtesy and your attention. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. Brevity is appreciated and will be rewarded.
Thank you.
Ms. DeGette, the Honorable Diana DeGette from Colorado?
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DEGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Ms. Degette. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Duncan,
and Members of the Committee. I thought I would come down today
and update you on a couple of exciting transportation
developments going on in the Denver metropolitan area.
Some of you were in Denver last summer and you saw the
historic Union Station development, which is a multi-modal
development. It is very exciting because it is in the core of
my district, in the core of Denver. It is an historic train
station that is being rethought to be the transportation hub,
not just for rail, but also for light rail, for a hard rail
system out to the airport, and for and many other projects.
This is a personal favorite of Chairman Oberstar's, I know, and
I am excited about it. It really helps cement Denver as the
national model to how to complete major transportation
projects.
The second thing I would like to talk about this morning is
the expansion of light rail throughout the metropolitan Denver
area in a project known as FasTracks.
Mr. Chairman, all of these projects have been on time,
under budget, and maybe most importantly they have had the full
support of all of the voters in the regional area. That has
helped us tremendously in building out this entire project.
With respect to Union Station, Union Station is going to be
the core of Denver's FasTracks program. It is going to connect
downtown Denver by light rail and commuter rail to the suburbs
in all four directions. Also there is enhanced bus service,
Amtrak accessibility, and pedestrian and bicycle options with
Union Station.
In the last transportation reauthorization, the Committee
wisely named Union Station as a project of regional and
national significance. What we are looking at doing right now,
one of our top priorities, is developing out the connection
between Union Station to Denver International Airport. Those of
you who have flown into DIA know that the airport is some
distance away from the city center and so having a viable
public transportation option will really be helpful.
Turning to the FasTracks program, that program is six light
rail and commuter rail lines. It was approved by the voters. It
is one of the top priorities of the business community. It is
really a good example of what a lot of western cities--not just
Denver but Portland and other cities--are doing as well because
it is moving into all of the suburbs which are developing,
albeit at a smaller pace with the economy.
So the FasTracks build-out that we still need to do is
going to include 18 miles of bus rapid transit and 21,000 new
parking spaces. It is going to serve 91 percent of the
households in the metropolitan areas.
We do have a couple of problems with the FasTracks funding
that I think are probably shared by every single light rail
program in the Country. Soaring commodity prices last year sent
the costs through the roof. That was a real problem for the
RTD, the Regional Transportation District, in meeting its
budget. Oil, concrete, steel, and copper reached record level
prices.
RTD underwent cost containment measures, including design
changes in some areas and some innovative public/private
partnerships in other areas. But what basically has happened is
the increase in commodity prices last year has slowed the
build-out of the project. One of the effects of the economic
downturn is those commodities are also going down, so that may
help in the future.
So in closing, I would just want to thank the Committee for
its great commitment to these projects over the years. I urge
you to consider continuing with these two projects in the days
ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeFazio. I thank the gentlewoman for her testimony. As
she points out, the Federal Government has been partnering with
your community in achieving some tremendous success in
intermodal transit. This airport connection is very exciting. I
look forward to the day when we might experience that.
We really like the ``on time, under budget'' part. Perhaps
there is something to be learned there either by the Federal
Transit Administration or by other agencies. We will
investigate some of how you were able to pull off that miracle.
Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was also going to
mention that we love to hear those words, ``on time and under
budget,'' because we get into all these projects where there
are problems. In fact, I remember years ago when I was chairing
the Aviation Subcommittee, we had a big hearing one time about
the Denver Airport and some of the problems that you were
having at that time.
I know there is a lot of need. I was visited and I am sure
the Chairman was visited by a group from Boulder to discuss the
transportation needs between Denver and Boulder.
Thank you very much for being with us.
Ms. Degette. I was telling someone yesterday that though
the baggage system has been worked out now for about 15 years
in Denver, people still ask me if their luggage is going to get
lost. The baggage system works great and it is all working.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you.
Mr. DeFazio. Does anybody else have any questions? Yes?
Mrs. Miller of Michigan. If I could, really quickly? You
were talking about the intermodal system that you are doing out
there. I haven't had an opportunity to be there in several
years. Is part of that a high speed bus with a dedicated bus
lane? Is there anything with the bus system out there that you
are improving as well as this?
Ms. Degette. A high speed bus is not a part of that
particular program, although as part of the whole build-out of
FasTracks we have dedicated HOV lanes. Of course, buses use
those lanes as well.
But the bus system, which was the traditional public
transportation system in the Denver metropolitan area, is being
incorporated into this light rail system that we have in
addition to the bike lanes and the commuter lanes and all of
that so that it all works together. That is always a help in
these situations.
Mrs. Miller of Michigan. I see. Very good. Thank you.
Ms. Degette. Thank you very much.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you.
The next is the Honorable Buck McKeon. He is running a
couple of minutes late so we will go into a brief recess. My
colleague, Mr. Sires will take the Chair upon his arrival. With
that we stand in indefinite, short term recess and will take
Mr. Boozman next.
[Recess.]
Mr. Sires. [Presiding] The Honorable Congressman McKeon,
any time you are ready?
STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD P. `BUCK` MCKEON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
testify on one of the most important California transportation
projects: improvements to Interstate 5.
Interstate 5 is one of the most regionally significant
transportation corridors and goods movement arteries in
California, perhaps in the Country. You can see on the map that
I have here the portion there that is blown up. Here, Santa
Clarita, is where I live.
Interstate 5 goes from Washington down to the border. It is
a very important part of the interstate project that was built
in the 1950s. The I-5 is absolutely vital for efficient goods
movements from the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles to
destinations in California, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.
Moreover, the I-5 is an essential international trade artery
connecting the west coast industry with Canada and Mexico.
We are often tragically reminded of the importance of this
freeway and the goods movement it facilitates after a disaster
such as the seismic event in 1994, the Northridge earthquake.
It shut down, right in here, it shut down all of the bridges
coming north and south from Route 14 and from the I-5. There
was really no other major way to get through.
They did a great job of rebuilding. In fact, what they did
was everybody worked together. They had three major bridges
there to build to put that back together. They worked night and
day and had it done in six months. We paid a bonus to the
workers and did it cheaper than the normal process would have
been. In six months they wouldn't have even had the building
permits. But still, it is a major weakness that we have there
at that point.
Playing such a prominent role, this nationally designated
high priority corridor faces some significant challenges.
Despite the nearly unanimous community support, the sheer size,
scope, and cost of the Gateway Improvement Project pose
significant obstacles. Even with a robust Federal investment,
such a project will require unprecedented collaboration of
effort and resources from all efforts and sectors. That is why
I am asking this Committee to support the Santa Clarita-Los
Angeles Gateway Improvement Project.
This project will help relieve congestion along one of the
most heavily traveled portions of the I-5, which currently
experiences 48,000 daily hours of delay that costs motorists
$204 million a year. I live right here. This picture is going
south. Here there is a mountain pass.
I have to leave for the airport when I am coming back early
in the morning at about 4:30 a.m. Then I can get to the airport
for my 7:50 a.m. flight. If I leave 15 minutes later, it takes
about an hour longer. It is amazing what that happens.
It will also reduce a mixing of commercial trucking and
passenger vehicles. Trucks are supposed to take about one lane
but they take two. There are only four lanes through there so
it just backs up for miles.
Moreover, the improvements in efficiency are projected to
increase air quality by almost 50 percent. The Santa Clarita-
Los Angeles Gateway Improvement Project will accomplish this
task through two major enhancements.
I grew up down here in the San Fernando Valley area. We
have always had bad air quality down in the LA basin but when I
moved out to Santa Clarita over 40 years ago, there was no
problem with the air. Now it is sometimes worse than in the LA
basin. A lot of it is because of that traffic that can't get
over the mountain and down below.
The Santa Clarita-Los Angeles Gateway Improvement Project
will accomplish this task through two major improvements, as I
said. First the project will extend existing high occupancy
vehicle, HOV, lanes for several miles along I-5. Second, it
will incorporate dedicated truck climbing lanes along steeper
portions of the freeway.
The HOV lanes will provide badly needed efficiency at peak
times for this key stretch of highway that serves as a gateway
to and from the Los Angeles community for thousands of
commuters every day. We have people that are driving from clear
up in here down into this basin every day. I have seen Route 14
backed up for miles and miles in the morning. It is amazing.
The HOV lanes would extend from the Route 14 interchange to
Parker Road, a key stretch of highway badly in need of
increased capacity.
The other aspect of the project is the incorporation of
dedicated truck lanes from Route 14 to Pico Canyon Road and
Lyons Avenue. As truck volumes continue to increase along a
path that is projected to double by 2030, the I-5 truck lanes
will dramatically improve the flow of goods movement in the
corridor, regionally, and internationally. This will help to
keep America's ports competitive with new ports in Mexico and
Canada. In Southern California, this goods movement represents
a direct economic impact of more than $90 billion in economic
activity. It supports 690,000 jobs.
The importance of this project is strikingly evident by the
overwhelming local support from the communities that depend on
the I-5 from industry, local government, and private citizens.
Several key businesses have joined together to support this.
Members of our delegation have joined together to support it.
Even the California Department of Transportation, Caltrans, and
the Metropolitan Transit Authority--which have numerous high
priority projects--have placed an increased urgency on
improvements to this I-5 corridor.
So in closing I would ask this Committee to make an
investment not only in the future of the Santa Clarita Valley
but in the future of California by supporting my request for
the Gateway Improvement Project. This is something that,
because of the regional status, is too big really for just the
local people here. They have put up a lot of money and they are
willing to match as much as they can. But the State of
California, the Governor, has shown that $222 billion of
projects are needed in the State. So the State is also going to
need help to make this happen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Congressman McKeon.
Congressman Duncan, do you have a question?
Mr. Duncan. I don't have any questions. But I will say that
the most recent study that has come out says that we lose at
least $78 billion a year just due to congestion, people sitting
in traffic. I am sure a significant part of that must come from
that Southern California area. I know I have been visited and I
am sure Chairman DeFazio and Chairman Oberstar have been
visited by a couple of groups from Southern California already
to talk about the great needs that are out there. I think all
of us or most of us have probably been on Interstate 5 and are
a little bit familiar with the needs out there.
I do remember, though, many years ago I went on the
Congressional plane with the big delegation to go to former
President Nixon's funeral. They had a couple of buses for us
when we landed and we were on I-5. It was just totally empty. I
said to Congressman Gallegly, where is all that traffic you all
are always complaining about out here? I said, there is not a
car on this road. What it was was that they had the entrances
and exits all blocked off for us so we could get to that
funeral. So I did get to ride on it one time when there wasn't
a car in sight.
Mr. McKeon. It was the same thing when we had that 1994
earthquake. President Clinton came out and the same thing
happened. We got on that freeway and I had never seen anything
like that before. It was like an airport runway. But that is a
very rare occurrence. We were making a lot of people mad that
were sitting on the side streets that wanted to get on those
freeways.
Mr. Duncan. You did mention one other important thing,
though, that we need to consider in this bill. It seems that
when we give incentive bonus type contracts out that work is
done much more quickly and everybody is happier.
Mr. McKeon. That is something. I don't know how you do that
in a bill like this but if there is something that can be done
to cause that kind of incentive, I think we could get a lot
more bang for our buck.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much.
Mr. Sires. Does anyone else have anything to add?
Congressman, I can't see it from here. Is that downtown Los
Angeles where it goes right through, Interstate 5?
Mr. McKeon. This is I-5.
Mr. Sires. But on the bigger picture there?
Mr. McKeon. This is Interstate 5.
Mr. Sires. That goes right through downtown Los Angeles? Is
that what I see on the bottom there?
Mr. McKeon. Right. This is this and here is Los Angeles. It
does go all the way through, all the way down to the border and
all the way north to Canada.
This was built, remember, as part of the construction of
the freeway system when Eisenhower was President and did the
interstate transit. It was built for defense purposes so that
we could get people from one part of the Country to another
quickly.
Eisenhower, after World War I, was sent--you all know, I am
sure, the story--he was sent with others to go across the
Country. In those days, they had mules and they had very
inadequate equipment. He said it took him months to get across
the Country. Some days they maybe could only go a mile or so a
day. He remembered that. So when he became President, that was
the motivation to do the interstate transportation system.
I think it is time now that we really upgrade it and bring
it into the 21st century.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. McKeon. Thank you.
Mr. Sires. Mr. Brown, would you like to begin?
STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY E. BROWN, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. Brown of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
know this has kind of come at short notice but I appreciate the
opportunity to serve on this Committee. This has been my 9th
year.
Back in the last reauthorization bill, TEA-LU, we were able
to get an interstate system into South Carolina designated as a
high priority. We were able to get some funding at that time to
get the design, the right-of-way, some of the environmental
impact statements, and these preliminary things out of the way.
As we look at this reauthorization bill, I would hope that
we would become a little bit more innovative in our process. I
know that we really haven't looked at the overall highway
system--I know Buck alluded to it earlier--since Eisenhower,
back in the 1950s. So I think we need to go back and revisit
some of the corridors that were missed back in the 1950s and to
go back and readdress those.
I know we all talk about the lost hours and lost energy in
delay time on our road systems. In fact, I heard somebody today
say something like 50 tankers a year of fuel is consumed just
in delay on the highways.
I would like to talk just a little bit about I-73. It
starts up in Michigan and comes down through the other States
into South Carolina. It comes into Myrtle Beach. Myrtle Beach
is a destination of choice for around 14 million tourists a
year. It doesn't have anything but secondary roads. So we are
looking for some relief for that congestion coming into that
region. The total project cost would be about $2 billion for
the Federal share. We would like to certainly hope that this
project would be one of the projects that would be looked at as
we revisit the interstate system.
I would hope that this Committee would take a longer look
at not only just I-73 in South Carolina but the other corridors
that need to be addressed as the population shifts from the
Northeast down to the Southeast and also to the Midwest. My
petition would be to take another look at I-73 and try to get
some additional funding to complete this system plus the other
corridors that are necessary throughout the Nation.
Another thing I would like to see us do is to make it, I
guess, easier to build highways. I know that we built Cooper
River Bridge, which we named for Arthur Ravenel, under design-
build method. It came in under budget and also under time. So I
would hope that somehow we could incorporate some language in
this reauthorization bill to allow for other types of
construction rather than just the normal process which we go
through as we build our highways. I think the design-build
method certainly would be something that I would like to see us
implement.
Mr. Chairman, with that I will just yield back the balance
of my time and entertain any questions.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Does anyone have a
question? Thank you very much.
Mr. Brown of South Carolina. Thank you.
Mr. Sires. Mr. Boozman, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to
have the opportunity to testify today. I have been on the
Transportation Committee since I arrived in Congress and it
really has been an honor to serve with all of you.
I am here talking about the I-49 highway. This highway,
once complete, would run from New Orleans to Kansas City, up
through and all the way to Canada. It would provide a route all
the way from the Canadian border down to the port of New
Orleans.
I have Vanna and her assistant here to help us. As you can
see, most of our interstate system is built east and west.
There are very few north-south corridors.
This system is one of those that is almost constructed.
Major portions of the route are already constructed in
Louisiana, from Lafayette to Shreveport, as well as other
sections in Arkansas and Missouri. But with the completion of
the Missouri portion, which is a small stretch here, we will
have interstate all the way from the western portion of
Arkansas all the way to the Minnesota border. We have a section
in Arkansas that needs to be completed and a little bit in
Missouri.
Myself and Mike Ross have been working hard on this and
right now we have records of decision for the sections that
will be signed by the Federal Highway Administration.
Construction funding is really the remaining obstacle to
completion of the interstate.
Construction and completion of I-49 will support the
creation of up to 206,290 new jobs. Once complete, I-49 will
provide more than $817 million in annual savings to the
Nation's economy by reducing travel time, transportation costs,
and congestion. Over six years, these savings will total over
$4.9 billion or more. The total cost to construct I-49 is
estimated at just over $4 billion.
It is a significant freight distribution, intermodal
corridor that will service the deep water ports of south
Louisiana, New Orleans, Houston, Beaumont--four of the top five
ports in the Nation by tonnage--as well as the Great Lakes
ports of Duluth-Superior, Chicago, Gary, and Milwaukee and one
of the Nation's most important freight distribution hubs,
Kansas City. So again, I think as you can tell this really is a
very, very important project. It is something that many of us
have been working on for several years.
The good news is that we have had significant funding in
the past. We had significant funding in the last
reauthorization. We will be working, hopefully with your help,
to acquire more funding.
I want to echo, I think, what the previous speakers have
been talking about in the sense of identifying areas of
National priority. I think with the limited funding that we are
going to have with the next reauthorization that we really do
need to look back towards the Eisenhower years when we created
the interstate system. I think that with limited funding that
we really do need to address areas that have significant
congestion--those are scattered out throughout the United
States--and to use the funding that we have to most
advantageous way that we can.
So I would ask that the Committee look at this very, very
hard. I would ask for support from the Committee as we go
forward with reauthorization. Thank you very much. I yield
back.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Boozman. Does anyone have a
question for Mr. Boozman? Thank you very much.
Welcome Ms. Edwards.
STATEMENT OF HON. DONNA F. EDWARDS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Ms. Edwards of Maryland. Thank you. Good morning, Mr.
Chairman. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here today
to discuss a specific high priority request in the 4th
Congressional district in Maryland. I am a Member of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, a new one, and
this Subcommittee.
I think it is important for me to be on the record to
discuss a couple of projects in my district. You will notice
that they are related because I believe in a systems approach
to developing transportation so that it works for an entire
corridor. These represent only a few of the projects,
obviously, that are a priority in our State and our district
but that would be of great importance to this Committee as we
are thinking about how to develop infrastructure in a systemic
way.
I began to be a champion about 10 years ago for rail over
the Wilson Bridge to improve the I-95 corridor moving
commercial traffic as well as commuter traffic in this
district. This Committee put a lot of money into rebuilding the
Nation's only Federal bridge. It is designed for rail but rail
is not there, so it is the final piece of the puzzle for the
Wilson Bridge.
It serves Maryland, D.C., and Virginia but the entire I-95
corridor extends from Maine down to Florida and beyond.
In fact, I think right now we also have business, for
example, at the Pentagon and Andrews Air Force Base. If one
wanted to get from the Pentagon onto Andrews Air Force Base,
public transportation is definitely not the way to do it
because you could spend hours going from bus to bus to bus to
Metro. Rail across the Wilson Bridge would actually connect the
Pentagon, the National Airport, and important development
corridors in addition to Andrews Air Force Base. So you can
see, Mr. Chairman, how that would be an important project for
us, really improving the capacity and the mobility along the I-
95 corridor.
The first step to getting rail over the Bridge is to
analyze the transit options for the Bridge. The analysis will
only cost $1 million and will help get us one step closer to
rail over the Bridge. The Capital Beltway South Side Mobility
Study, published in February 2009, confirmed that a demand
exists for alternative options for the Bridge, including
transit. A furthering of this study would help us get further
down the field.
I believe, as you can hear, that it is really important for
us to invest in rail as a component of our Nation's
infrastructure.
I assume that many of us have been reading the Washington
Post, our paper of jurisdiction here, about the Purple Line. It
is a proposed 16 mile light rail or bus rapid transit line in
the State of Maryland along suburban Washington, D.C. that
extends from Bethesda to New Carrollton in Prince George's
County.
This is important because it says to us, we are going to
build around and connect communities by rail instead of
continuing these sort of spokes of road traffic, thereby taking
congestion off of our roadways and improving our environment.
So I believe that we have to make a significant investment in
rail in the Purple Line.
We are already well down the track with environmental
analyses and impact statements. The Maryland Department of
Transportation is preparing a recommendation for a local
alternative for the alignment. Everybody is on the same page
about the direction we need to go with this project.
Authorization of it will have a really tremendous impact in my
distract.
Then, as well, we support reauthorizing BRAC-related
improvements that are important in that Andrews Air Force Base
corridor that I spoke of, connecting the employees of Andrews
as well as all of the communities and the businesses that are
served at this important facility. It will improving the
economic development prospects as well. I believe that
transportation should be a hub for economic development, as it
would for the BRAC-related improvements. The roads leading up
there are not quite complete yet and it is important to get
that on the table.
Lastly is the Corridor Cities Transit Project. Again, there
is a connection with each one of these projects for economic
development, environmental investment, and investment in the
Nation's 21st century infrastructure. This is a 13.5 mile light
rail or bus rapid transit line in Montgomery County down
through Rockville, connecting through with our development
along the Purple Line and rail on the Wilson Bridge.
So we envision a fully invested and robust transportation
corridor in the Washington metropolitan area that serves so
many of our Federal buildings and facilities and Federal
infrastructure. The study is already being conducted by the
Maryland Department of Transportation. The project really would
have a tremendous, important impact in this community.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for my testimony. I will make
certain to submit something very complete for the record. I
look forward to working with this Subcommittee on these
projects. Thank you.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. Does anyone have a
question? Thank you very much.
Mr. Boccieri. [Presiding] Good morning. This is Congressman
Boccieri from Ohio's 16th district. It is an honor to Chair
this. Congressman Oberstar said don't get too comfortable here.
But nonetheless we wanted to have the opportunity to
recognize the Honorable Charlie Dent from Pennyslvania to
discuss his projects with respect to the Transportation
Committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES W. DENT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Dent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
opportunity to share with the Subcommittee some of the
transportation needs of my commonwealth and Pennsylvania as
well as my district, the 15th district, which includes the
Lehigh Valley and parts of the upper Perkiomen Valley into
Montgomery and Berks Counties. There are a few things I wanted
to say. I have organized my projects in a way that deal our
high priority projects, bridge projects, safety projects, and
transit as well as some other projects and long range
initiatives.
The first thing is that Pennsylvania is a State where we
have a large number of structurally deficient bridges, perhaps
more than nearly any other State. There may be one or two with
as many or more, but we are near the top of the list. Bridges
have been a longstanding issue for us and we are feeling a
great deal of pressure to make some very significant
improvements in that regard.
With respect to high priority projects, one project that I
am heavily involved with and our regional planners are involved
with, as is our commonwealth, is what we call the American
Parkway Project, a bridge over the Lehigh River connecting the
American Parkway on both east and west sides of the east and
west banks of the River. This would connect Route 22, a major
artery in my Congressional district, with center city downtown
Allentown, giving us a north-south connector that we very
desperately need. We have strong east-west connectors but we
are in need of a very strong north-south connector in the city
of Allentown to open it up for more economic development
initiatives. This would be a very significant project for our
area.
For this project, the final cost estimates are somewhere
between $60 and $70 million. A great deal of funding for the
project has already been secured. I intend to use my position
to help advance that particular project even further. Again, it
is the American Parkway Project, a bridge over Lehigh River.
The other initiative that is also very significant is the
Route 22 renovations, particularly between 15th Street and
Airport Road. This is one of the more heavily congested
highways in America. Again, it is a road that really connects
western Lehigh County just west of Allentown to the eastern
area which straddles the New Jersey State line.
This highway just sees an incredible amount of traffic
volume and we have some safety issues as it relates to the exit
ramps and entrance ramps on that highway, particularly in
Lehigh County right near Fullerton Avenue as well as 7th Street
and MacArthur Road. We are trying to make some very significant
improvements. I would like to use this Surface Transportation
Bill as a way to help improve those interchanges at Fullerton
Avenue especially as well as MacArthur Road.
Another issue, too, in my district in the extreme southern
portion is what I like to call 309 Connector in Montgomery
County, the Sumneytown Pike Connector that would connect
essentially the northeast extension of the Pennsylvania
Turnpike with Route 309. It is an east-west connector that is a
very high priority for that segment of my district.
All of these projects are on the Transportation Improvement
Program, or the TIP as we refer to it. These projects tend to
have strong support from our regional planners.
Bridges, quickly I wanted to mention a few bridges. One we
like to call the Coplay-Northampton Bridge is structurally
deficient and is in desperate need of repair. This is one of
the most significantly deficient bridges, I believe, anywhere
in the commonwealth and probably anywhere within my
Congressional district.
Another bridge of great significance is the 8th Street
Bridge or the Alburtis Meyers Bridge. Alburtis Meyers Bridge is
in the city of Allentown. It is a grand old bridge but, again,
is in need of some significant repairs.
There are other bridges as well that have been identified,
again by our counties and our municipal planning organization,
MPO. They have established these as significant priorities for
the region and ones they would like me to advance going
forward.
Other safety projects include the Route 100/Claussville
Road intersection in Lehigh County where we have had some
fatalities. Again, we need to make some very significant
changes to the grading and to the overall intersection at that
location in a somewhat rural area of my district. Another
safety project is along the same Route 100/Route 29
intersection, again in Lehigh County in the southern part of my
district.
Beyond that, we also have some mass transit or transit
projects including an alternative analysis proffered by our
regional organization, LANTA, the Lehigh and Northampton
Transportation Authority. They are looking at developing an
alternative analysis for a rapid speed bus to see if there is a
way to better connect the people within our district and move
them more quickly through the district as an alternative to
perhaps a light rail system. That is also being studied at this
time in a separate analysis.
Also, bus purchases are also critical. One final mass
transit project, what we like to refer to as the Quakertown-
Stony Creek Rail Project, connects essentially the Lansdale
area to the Quakertown/Shelly area by rail, passenger rail. We
are looking at an alternatives analysis, which is nearly
complete. We would like to further advance that particular
initiative through the Surface Transportation Bill so that is
something I will be working on very closely. I know my
colleague, Bucks County Congressman Patrick Murphy, is also
very much involved with that particular project as well. We
will have some language for that as this process moves forward.
At this time, I would like to also mention that I believe
it is important for the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a State
that receives a great deal of cross-State traffic, that the
funding formula to the States also reflect and would protect
States like Pennsylvania that have a great deal of cross-State
traffic to make sure that the funding formula does compensate
them for the amount of interstate traffic that runs through our
commonwealth. I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle probably share that view. That is something else I want
this Committee to consider as we move forward.
At this time I would like to yield back and thank the Chair
for allowing me this opportunity on the spur of the moment to
present some priorities for my district. Thank you.
Mr. Boccieri. Thank you, Mr. Dent. Are there any questions
for Mr. Dent?
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions but I
do want to say I am sorry I missed our colleague, Mr. Boozman's
testimony. I was in the anteroom there and I heard most of it
over the television. I also know that he and our colleague
Charles Dent have both been outstanding Members of this
Committee.
We are going to make sure that when we work on this Highway
Bill, Chairman DeFazio, Chairman Oberstar, Mr. Mica, and I have
all agreed that we are going to really try and take care of the
Members of this Committee. All of the people on this Committee
have very important needs in their districts. That is one of
the reasons why people do serve on this Committee, to try to do
some things for their districts. This Committee usually is
filled with people who are workhorses rather than show horses
and want to try to do good things for their people.
With that, I want to commend Mr. Dent and Mr. Boozman for
their testimony.
Mr. Boccieri. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Truly, these are not
red or blue projects. These are about American projects and
making our Country stronger.
Mr. Duncan. I will say, too, about Ms. Edwards that I
should have mentioned her, too. I did catch the last of her
testimony. She has become a very active Member of this
Committee in a very short time.
I wish I could have gone on that trip with you that you
were on here this last time. I heard some good things about
that. We need to get you involved in some of these trips we
take around the U.S. also. We go visit a lot of these projects
and that is a good thing to do, too. Thank you.
Mr. Boccieri. There is no question. She is a superstar.
The Chair right now is going to recognize the Honorable
Chris Carney from Pennsylvania.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you Mr. Duncan.
I was very heartened to hear your words just a moment ago that
you will take care of the Members of this Committee. That is
great to hear.
Certainly we know there is no shortage of very worthwhile
projects across the country, projects that we would have liked
to have seen funded to a larger extent in the stimulus bill.
But it is what it is and we are where we are today. We have to
look at a number of projects that make sense in terms of first
of all, economic efficiencies in moving freight around the
country in an efficient manner. We also must look in terms of
environmental efficiencies in stopping congestion and in terms
of reducing the pollutants that are caused by trucks idling for
half an hour, 45 minutes, or an hour at a time in chokepoints
across the country.
Certainly one project in my district qualifies on this
score. That is the Central Susquehanna Valley Thruway, which
actually is a project that has been on the books for almost 40
years. The Thruway was designed and put on the books because
the regional planners saw the chokepoint in the Northumberland,
Snyder, and Union Counties area of Pennsylvania that I
represent.
Unfortunately, their foresight has come to pass and we now
have a very significant chokepoint in this part of the
district. Also, it is basically part of the interior of eastern
seaboard so that, really, this chokepoint affects the
transportation of commerce throughout the eastern seaboard
basically from New England down clear into Dixie. The fact is
that hours and hours are lost here in terms of transit on this
chokepoint. Lives, unfortunately, are lost as well. Trucks do
idle for an hour sometimes trying to cross a two lane bridge,
and they pour tons and tons of pollutants weekly--not annually
but weekly--into the atmosphere.
So the project that I really want to point to today, and
there are certainly many, but the Central Susquehanna Valley
Thruway is one that I really want to stress.
In fact, in 2007 actually, Chairman Oberstar came to the
district to view this project. He actually got stuck in the
traffic jam. He thought there was an accident or something but,
truth be known, it is just the normal traffic flow there. He is
familiar with this road since he traveled it many times himself
as a younger man.
But the point is that it is projects like this one that not
only provide sort of the regional economic stimulus that is
necessary but also free up the freight to move along the
eastern seaboard.
In addition to that, I represent an enormous rural
district. My district is about 1,100 square miles larger then
Connecticut. It is not shaped like Connecticut, unfortunately,
but it is quite large. We have a number of rural highways that
also have been neglected for about a decade that really need
whatever help we can provide them. I intend to do that from my
chair on this Committee.
Finally, I want to mention just briefly a rail project that
is also necessary to help relieve congestion on our highways.
This is the Lackawanna Cutoff that would run from eastern
Pennsylvania, roughly the Scranton/Wilkes Berre area, across
through Pike County into New Jersey. This rail cutoff would
actually, if it was put into place, relieve much of the
commuter traffic from eastern Pennsylvania going daily into New
York City.
In fact, as hospitable as our friends in New Jersey are,
they don't like the thousands of Pennsylvania cars daily
clogging their highways, especially Route 80. What they would
like to see, and certainly we would like to see in conjunction,
is the Lackawanna Cutoff which would be a portion of this new
rail system. It would actually take commuters into New York
City daily and bring them back daily, and thereby relieve an
enormous amount of congestion.
We have to think about these projects in terms of what they
mean together. We can't think about a road without thinking
about a railroad. We can't think about a railroad without
thinking about modes of transportation to get people where they
are going once they arrive at the general destination. So we
have to think about these things in intermodal terms. The
Lackawanna Cutoff is certainly one of them that really deserves
our attention.
I thank the Chair and I thank the Ranking Member for the
time to testify this morning. It is important, the work we are
doing here. What we end up doing today and this week and this
month and this year in this Committee will determine the
transportation future of this Nation for generations to come.
So it is no small matter what we are doing. Thank you very
much. I yield back.
Mr. Boccieri. Thank you, Mr. Carney.
Before we move to the question session, we want to
recognize the esteemed Chairman of our Committee, Congressman
Oberstar.
Mr. Oberstar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You look good
sitting in that chair. Mr. Duncan, you have been very patient.
I just want to come back to, before I address Mr. Carney's
comments, Mr. Duncan's reference earlier in the hearing to the
need for emphasis on rural roads. As we address the problems of
the metropolitan mobility and the chokepoints of congestion, we
have to remember that 15 percent of the Nation's surface
transportation milage is in urban areas but 50 percent of the
vehicle miles traveled are in metropolitan areas. While we
address those needs, we also have to make sure that goods can
move from rural areas into the metropolitan centers of this
Country.
We will have a very heavy emphasis on rural roads in the
next authorization bill. We have to engage the States and U.S.
DOT in developing a program to raise the quality of rural roads
to at least a 10 ton level. We have to prioritize those
investments to ensure that as our farms grow fewer in number
but larger in size; as more commodity has to be moved in the
spring planting time for seed, fertilizer, limestone, and so on
that support good quality farmland; and as in the fall the
harvest has to be moved efficiently to market the roads are an
assistance not an impediment to rural transportation.
We have to make sure that there is adequate capacity in the
next transportation bill to achieve that. I appreciate the
gentleman from Tennessee making that reference. Mr. Mica has
already discussed that with me. We are going to ensure that
there will be a sizable emphasis on rural transportation in the
next bill.
As to Mr. Carney's reference to the Lackawanna Cutoff and
the need for intermodalism, we need our rail system but the
railroad can't deliver to your doorstep. Trucks do that. And we
need an adequate program for trucking. We have to address the
chokepoints throughout this country.
The United Parcel Service, for every five minute delay
their trucks experience nationwide, they lose $100 million in
overtime costs to drivers, in late delivery fees, and in
penalties. That is why we have to address the mobility issue of
freight goods movement in our economy.
We must squeeze the most that we can out of the several
modes, making them work together more efficiently. It is not
good enough to have a multi-modal system. It has to be
intermodal. I appreciate the gentleman's emphasis. I thank the
Members.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Chairman Oberstar
and Mr. Carney. I have been through parts of your district, Mr.
Carney. It is a beautiful part of the United States.
Those are important needs that you mentioned. Chairman
Oberstar did refer to something I said earlier in which I said
that I read in the National Journal last year that two thirds
of the counties in the U.S. are losing population. But I also
always learn from Chairman Oberstar, and he mentioned in a
meeting the other day that the latest study by the Texas
Transportation Institute showed that congestion was at a point
of costing us at least $78 billion a year now. The next study,
I think you said, was going to probably be closer to $87
billion. Most of that is in and around these urban areas, these
megapolises, and it is costing this nation hugely.
What I think we need to do is come up with sort of a modern
Homestead Act in which we give people tax incentives and other
types of incentives that maybe we can come up with to remain in
or move to these two thirds of the counties that are losing
population. There should be a way that we can do that. I think
it is important also that we make sure that we have good
transportation to and from those areas because people in the
small towns and rural areas generally have to travel further
distances to get to their jobs. I think we need to keep that in
mind.
But we will work with you, Mr. Carney. I appreciate your
testimony. Thank you.
Mr. Boccieri. Thank you. Will there be any Members who have
any additional questions for Mr. Carney?
Okay, before we move to our next esteemed colleagues, I
want to take the liberty to recognize a friend of mine who is
out there. Colonel John Williams is a Lieutenant Colonel at the
Air Force Base that I serve, the 910th Airlift Wing in Ohio. We
have deployed together on a number of rotations around the
world to Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.
He is First Officer with United Airlines and he is here
today with two Captains, Captain John Barton and Captain Jim
Smart here representing United Airlines. So thank you for
coming today. I understand that Captain Barton was President
Obama's captain after he was elected. Thank you for your
service, Colonel Williams and thank you for what you do for
United Airlines, all three of you.
Now we are going to be moving onto the Honorable Geoff
Davis from Kentucky and the Honorable Steve Driehaus, a
colleague of mine who I served with in the legislature to talk
about some very important projects in the greater Cincinnati/
Kentucky region of Ohio and Kentucky. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEOFF DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Davis of Kentucky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Duncan, and Chairman Oberstar. I appreciate the
opportunity to share for a few minutes today. Congressman
Driehaus and I have been working on this since he came into
Office. We are here to talk about the need for a funding
mechanism for mega-projects of national significance.
The Brent Spence Bridge Project is the interstate highway
bridge that crosses the Ohio River between Cincinnati and
northern Kentucky between our two districts. It is nationally
significant as an infrastructure corridor and it is critical to
our economy.
Congress, as we all know since many of us have been part of
this discussion, has repeatedly discussed the need to make
serious investments in our national infrastructure. The 2009
Highway Bill presents a significant opportunity to fulfil that
need. Through this process, Congress must find a new way to
manage mega-projects of national significance.
As you know, funding for these projects is a matter of
great concern to Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica. I
commend them for their vision of developing a rational process
whereby projects of national significance will be objectively
identified and funded based on merit with national
infrastructure corridors. Despite these attempts in the past,
Congress has not established a sufficient mechanism for funding
mega-projects whose benefits are national but whose costs are
so high that they can't be funded by one or two States.
The Brent Spence Bridge Project will ultimately cost
between $2 and $3 billion to complete. However, when we compare
that to the more than $417 billion annually that the bridge
carries for our economy and Congress, the cost is clearly
justified. However, Ohio and Kentucky would both have to
dedicate their entire State transportation budgets for over a
year, in spite of everything else, to accomplish this project.
Major transportation bottlenecks cost thousands of hours of
delay and have a negative impact on individual travelers,
commuters, families, truckers, shippers, and receivers
particularly when the routes they travel are hostage to
underfunded infrastructure nodes. I think the Chairman had a
point and example of the cost to jobs of the United Parcel
Service for each five minutes of delay. We can multiply this
thousands and thousands and thousands of times over for
revenues lost ultimately for job creation.
The Woodrow Wilson Bridge between Maryland and Virginia
just southeast of downtown Washington, D.C. is traveled daily
by some in the room today. In 1993, 200,000 vehicles crossed
that bridge each day. The Wilson Bridge carries Interstates 95
and 495 across the Potomac River. The bridge supports a
transportation corridor of national significance connecting the
southeastern and the northeastern United States.
At the time, the U.S. Department of Transportation
estimated the value of freight trucked across that bridge was
the equivalent of 1.3 percent of the entire gross domestic
product of the United States. By the mid-1990s, the bridge was
carrying 250 percent of the traffic volume for which it was
designed. The bridge only had three lanes but it carried five
lanes worth of traffic trying to squeeze through. This became a
bottleneck with national significance, causing tens of
thousands of hours of delays to American travelers but most of
all to commerce.
Neither Maryland nor Virginia could assume the $2.5 billion
cost of the project, which was several times their annual
State-wide infrastructure budgets combined. Additionally, there
was no Federal program to fund projects of national
significance.
If Congress had not authorized special funding for the
Wilson Bridge, funding that paid for the majority of the cost
of the project, the Wilson Bridge may have come close to
closure with economic impacts that would be felt far beyond the
D.C. area throughout the eastern seaboard of the United States.
Congress helped resolve that funding issue and the Woodrow
Wilson Bridge project was completed. However, the resolution
was cobbled together through exception rather than through a
cohesive, strategic decision making and prioritization.
The 2009 Highway Bill needs to include a mechanism for
dealing with major infrastructure projects with a national
impact.
The Brent Spence Bridge connects Kentucky to southwestern
Ohio between my district and Congressman Driehaus's district in
Cincinnati. This is a project I personally have been working on
for nearly five years. However, the bridge also connects Canada
to Florida via I-75, as well as Ohio to the western United
States via I-71. It feeds traffic and freight into Chicago via
I-74 and all the way to Alabama via I-65. This bridge affects
commerce in over 60 Congressional districts in Georgia,
Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and
Tennessee.
It was designed to carry 80.000 vehicles per day but will
soon have to accommodate nearly 200,000 vehicles per day.
Indeed, this Bridge is functionally obsolete yet it carries
$417 billion in freight annually across the Ohio River for
Federal commerce. That is roughly 3 percent of the U.S. gross
domestic product in 2008 or twice what the Wilson Bridge's
carriage was in commerce daily. By 2030, the amount of that
freight is expected to increase to $830 billion.
In other words, this bridge is a critical piece of
essential infrastructure to the American economy. In the next
Surface Transportation Bill, we will have an opportunity to
ensure that the I-71, I-74, and I-75 corridors continue their
roles in our national transportation system by building a new
bridge at their crucial intersection. The achievement of this
goal would support or create 83,000 jobs permanently and save
businesses and motorists approximately $784 million annually.
The Brent Spence Bridge is but one example of a
transportation mega-project that is critical to the American
economy. I urge all my colleagues to ensure the 2009 Highway
Bill includes a program for dealing with nationally significant
projects. I thank you all for time, especially the Chairman for
his interest in intervention in such national projects in the
past. I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DRIEHAUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Driehaus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Duncan, and the Chairman Oberstar of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee for allowing us to testify before you
today. I also want to thank Congresswoman Schmidt who was a big
supporter of this project as well in eastern Cincinnati.
This project--and I am not going to go over the numbers
that Congressman Davis just went over--but when we talk about
projects of regional and national significance, I don't know
that we have a better example of that then the Brent Spence
Bridge. I would refer to you the map behind me which shows, as
Congressman Davis suggested, I-75 connecting northern Michigan
and Canada all the way to southern Florida. But at the Brent
Spence Bridge at the Ohio River, you have I-75 coming together
with I-71 and I-74 all at the same time. Three major interstate
highways are crossing one of the largest rivers in the country
on one of the busiest bridges that we have in the country.
As Congressman Davis has already outlined, the cost of
replacing this span would exceed the total appropriation for
both Ohio and Kentucky in highway funds on an annual basis.
Now, we have already put, in the Federal government, almost $59
million in SAFETEA-LU projects associated with the Brent Spence
Bridge. We have made tremendous progress due to leadership of
Congressman Davis and others; and of our Senators on both sides
of the River, on both sides of the isle.
We are now to the point where the folks in Cincinnati and
the folks in northern Kentucky are ready to come together on a
single proposal to erect a parallel bridge that would separate
the traffic of I-75 and I-71 to accommodate the tremendous
amount of commerce that is currently going across the Ohio
River.
When you look at the Federal Register, Mr. Chairman, I
would refer to you the Federal Register of October 24th of 2008
where the Department of Transportation, through its rules,
defines projects of regional and national significance. It
states that ``a multi-State project, meeting the definition of
an eligible project under 505.5 of this Section, shall have
eligible project costs that are quantified in the project
proposal as equal to or exceeding the lesser of $500 million or
75 percent of the amount of the Federal highway assistance
funds apportioned for the most recently completed fiscal year
to the State in which the project is located that has the
largest apportionment.''
In this case, that would be Kentucky. As Congressman Davis
has already indicated, this exceeds not just Kentucky but also
Ohio. The total cost of the project is somewhere between $2.5
and $3 billion. So when we talk about reasons for this
Committee coming together and this Congress coming together, to
recognize that there are significant spans that need to be
funded that fall outside of the typical parameters of this
Committee, I believe that this project should be the example
used in our country of this Committee coming together to
recognize the dependence of this type of span for the
international commerce that takes place throughout the United
States.
So I yield back the rest of my time, Mr. Chairman. With
that, I also want to thank Mr. Cole and his staff for the
tremendous work that has been done on this already. With that,
I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Boccieri. Thank you, Congressman Driehaus and
Congressman Davis. I have a quick question. I know Congressman
Driehaus and I worked in a State legislature in Ohio. The
funding mechanism in the State of Ohio is based primarily on
congestion and traffic mitigation with just a small portion of
emphasis given to economic development. Does the Kentucky
Department of Transportation have that same limitation?
Mr. Davis of Kentucky. Essentially, it does. As you well
know from being a State legislator, oftentimes there are
geographic considerations that take place in the statehouse
that will not necessarily address the economic priorities for
growth.
This is such a large project and we have so many pressing
needs in our rural counties, as Ranking Member Duncan pointed
out that many States have in his earlier testimony, that we are
not adequately suited even within our funding mechanism. As I
stated previously, it would take our entire transportation
budget over a period of several years to be able accomplish
such a project and meet our basic needs for maintenance and
upgrade.
Therefore, the real issue, particularly with the amount of
national commerce involved--and both Congressman Driehaus and I
agree--is that it is in the interests of the Federal government
nationally to elevate this project.
Mr. Boccieri. Congressman Oberstar?
Mr. Oberstar. I want to thank both the Members for their
presentation. They both provided good, factual information.
Congressman Davis, you rightly sized up the Wilson Bridge.
I was engaged in the conference on TEA-21 when we reached the
agreement on the Wilson Bridge. At the time I pointed out that
it was carrying 1 percent of the gross domestic product of the
United States. But the goods were being backed up all the way
up into New York because of the slow times crossing the Wilson
Bridge.
What will be the benefits of an improved Brent Spence
Bridge?
By the way, I didn't know Brent Spence but when I was in
graduate school working in the mail room of the House of
Representatives, I delivered mail to his office on the 6:00
a.m. shift. So I knew of Brent Spence. It is fitting that he
has a bridge named after him.
What will be the delivery time benefits from the
improvements you are proposing for this facility?
Mr. Davis of Kentucky. Before deferring to Congressman
Driehaus, the one thing that I can say is there would be
sustained growth within our tri-State region and the creation
of 83,000 permanent jobs. More importantly, with growth of the
population, looking at the challenges that our automotive
industry and manufacturing industry in general is facing in the
United States, it would provide a clear corridor to better
synchronize logistics shipments and transportation all the way
from southern Florida to Canada.
There is a significant safety factor on the bridge right
now. It is one of the least safe major pieces of infrastructure
to travel in the United States. I don't think an adequate price
could be placed on life and limb.
But clearly based on $417 billion in commerce, it is
something that would pay for itself in relatively short order
through the creation of new taxpayers.
Mr. Driehaus. I would just point out that as we have
discussed previously, Mr. Chairman, this is in fact the heart
of an intermodal system in Cincinnati and northern Kentucky.
Consider the barge traffic and the facilities that are
currently underway, and the rail traffic that is being
considered and designed in greater Cincinnati both for commuter
rail as well as freight, and how both will then add to the
complement of traffic going across the Brent Spence Bridge.
This is really a convergence of all of those activities when it
comes to international commerce.
This location is so central to so many markets throughout
the Midwest, connecting the North and the South, that it seems
clear to us that the amount of traffic will exceed rather
dramatically. As a matter of fact, we are expecting an increase
of up to $830 billion by 2030 in real dollars in terms of
commerce crossing that bridge.
But I think you have to keep in mind, and I think you have
to put it within the proper context, that we are not just going
to see an increase in truck traffic and car traffic across the
Ohio River. What you are going to see is a tremendous increase
in both rail and freight as well as the traffic along barges
coming down the Ohio River. This is a critical piece of that
intermodal system.
Mr. Oberstar. There is no question about it, you both have
stated the case very well. What I would like you to do is
supplement your presentation with the current cost of
congestion and the time spent in truck traffic on the
approaches to as well as crossing over that bridge. And what
the new vision will create for transportation? How is what you
are proposing going to reduce travel times and thereby improve
productivity?
This improvement of productivity, and improvement of
performance, and accountability, and transparency is going to
be a centerpiece of the new transportation program that we are
going to write in this Committee.
You have got a document there.
Mr. Davis of Kentucky. To your point, Mr. Chairman,
Congressman Driehaus has provided a document both our offices
have from our joint transportation authority in Cincinnati and
northern Kentucky. This is the summary document and what we
would like to do is prepare and submit it.
Mr. Oberstar. Why don't you have someone summarize the
summary and answer that question for me?
Mr. Davis of Kentucky. Essentially, in the briefing that we
received last week by the various groups of engineers who have
looked at this project going out over the next 30 to 40 years,
the top two alternatives that have been looked at and the
ultimate one that will be recommended will provide free flow of
traffic at peak periods through the projected growth and
capacity in the long term. I can't give you the precise numbers
right now but we can get you that for the record. It would be
substantive. More importantly to your point on throughput, this
bridge is a node that sits effectively within eight hours of
approximately 80 percent of the American population. So it in
fact sees a very high amount of tractor trailer transit.
Mr. Oberstar. I have asked our staff to gather from U.S.
DOT and from the Maryland, Virginia, and D.C. Departments of
Transportation information on what are the benefits of this $2
billion investment we made in the Wilson Bridge. We need to be
accountable. We need to show the public what they are getting
for their investment. This is a case study in hand. Your case
is a study for the future. If you can help us with that
information, it would be very useful. Thank you for your
splendid contribution.
Mr. Davis of Kentucky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My father grew
up in Scott County, Tennessee. When Lyndon Johnson started his
war on poverty, that was one of the 10 poorest counties in the
U.S. It was a very common thing for most of the young people to
leave and go North to get jobs. There were 10 children in my
dad's family. Three of his sisters moved to Cincinnati when
they were young and two of his brothers moved to Dayton. So I
have been up many, many times to visit aunts and uncles and
cousins in that area. In fact, we have so many relatives there
that this past summer we had a Duncan family reunion at Fort
Mitchell, just very close to the bridge that you are talking
about. I have been across that bridge many times so I know the
need.
One thing I did miss, though, and maybe somebody was
talking to me, was what is the total cost of this project? I
didn't catch that.
Mr. Driehaus. The total cost of the project is between $2.5
and $3 billion.
Mr. Duncan. $2.5 to $3 billion?
Mr. Driehaus. The request being made in this bill is around
$800 million, which will allow us to begin construction and
move forward over the next six years. We have design, we have
to purchase the right-of-ways, and do some of the environmental
assessments. But we believe this will get us well into
construction with around $800 million in this bill.
Mr. Duncan. How come there is such a wide gap? $500 million
is a pretty wide gap.
Mr. Davis of Kentucky. There are two reasons for that. The
first reason is the original range represents a couple of the
different options that a broad consensus committee came up with
looking at the traffic options. The second is largely driven by
the economy. Fluctuations in the cost of energy and hence the
cost of transportation, fuel, steel, and concrete or cement are
going to be driven largely by the macroeconomy at the time. So
there is some projection for what the cost would be. Were those
costs to substantially decrease, the bridge cost would decrease
commensurably.
Mr. Duncan. How long would it take to complete the project?
Mr. Driehaus. We think it is about seven years before the
total completion.
Just to supplement what was said concerning the cost, we
are looking at an alternative that would be building a bridge
parallel to the existing bridge. We believe that would be the
lowest cost alternative in terms of purchasing property,
especially on the Cincinnati side of the river. There is great
concern that if you move the bridge further down the river,
further west, that a tremendous amount of property would have
to be purchased. Now as it is, we have to look at a
transmission facility currently owned by Duke Energy that would
have to be relocated. But we believe the alternative that is
being proposed at this point, which is the parallel bridge just
next to the Brent Spence, is the most cost effective
alternative. We have to purchase the least amount of right-of-
way under that alternative because so much of the right-of-way
is currently controlled.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much.
Mr. Boccieri. The Chair recognizes Congresswoman Edwards at
this point.
Ms. Edwards of Maryland. Thank you gentlemen for your
testimony. Since you mentioned the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, which
is near and dear to my heart and in my Congressional district,
I just want to suggest to you one if you need any assistance in
this, especially from the State of Maryland, please do reach
out to us. I will note that the soon to be incoming Deputy at
the Department of Transportation, John Porcari, the
Transportation Secretary for the State of Maryland was deeply
involved in all of the efforts over the years on the Woodrow
Wilson Bridge project. He could be of great assistance to you.
There were some tremendous lessons learned both about
acquiring the right-of-way, gauging the local communities, and
pulling the stakeholders together that ended up bringing the
project both on cost and on time, on schedule. So I would
suggest to you very strongly as we move forward that you reach
out to these important partners on the bridge project. Thank
you.
Mr. Davis of Kentucky. Thank you. We would appreciate that.
Certainly we are looking to learn and the organizations that
are involved in partnering are trying to grab best practices
from around the Nation. Certainly that is a fine example.
Mr. Boccieri. The Chair now recognizes Congresswoman
Schmidt.
Mrs. Schmidt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to
reiterate the importance of the redoing of the Brent Spence
Bridge. One of the things that amazes people when I talk about
the State of Ohio is that we are either ranked as the fifth or
sixth most traveled State in the Union regarding transportation
as far as cars and trucks. This bridge is not only functionally
obsolete, but in order to accommodate the massive traffic that
goes through on a daily basis, they have widened the lanes to
the margins. If you have a truck or a car that breaks down,
there is absolutely no place for that car or that truck to go.
So when Congressman Davis and Congressman Driehaus say that it
is an unsafe bridge, it is unsafe due to the fact of the
carriage of automobiles that go across it each and every day.
This is something that has been of major importance to the
greater Cincinnati/northern Kentucky area for well over a
decade. I strongly urge this body authorize the money for the
appropriations in the Transportation Bill for this very much
needed project. It is not only important to northern Kentucky
and to Ohio, it is really important to the folks from Canada to
Florida. Thank you.
Mr. Boccieri. If there are no further questions for the
gentlemen, thank you for your testimony.
The Chair will now call the Honorable Dr. Bill Foster.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL FOSTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Chairwoman Edwards. I would also
like to thank Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica for
giving me this opportunity to testify on behalf of my
constituents and their many needs in the communities of the
14th district.
This legislation could not come at a more necessary time
for the people of Illinois who are struggling mightily with
deteriorating roads and little support from their government to
maintain them. As I travel through my district, I repeatedly
hear pleas for help in maintaining the basic roads that are the
lifeblood of our economy. I stand here on behalf of the people
of Illinois and implore you for your support.
The 14th district has many unique needs given the wide
range of communities within its boundaries. I have several ex-
urban communities managing urban sprawl, including the fourth
fastest growing county in the Country. I also have a
significant amount of rural farm areas that are having a hard
time keeping up with the amount of heavy truck traffic that
barrels down Main Street in place of the interstate to avoid
paying extra tolls.
For far too long, the residents of my district have
suffered under a failed State government which for seven years
has been unable to pass a capital bill. So for seven years
almost, new Federally funded projects were started to relieve
the congestion of a growing metropolitan area. In many
instances, maintenance work was put off until the situation
became so bad that the local towns had to step in and shoulder
the bulk of the costs themselves.
I wish to make a special note of Kendall County, which is
the fourth fastest growing county in the Country. It is
projected to have doubled its population over 10 years. The
influx of an additional 50,000 residents presents unique
challenges in building the new infrastructure to accommodate
all the new residents along with the usual upkeep on existing
roads.
These communities have been held together through a series
of patchwork efforts that are a testimony to the
entrepreneurial spirit of 14th district residents and their
representatives. But their efforts are not sustainable for long
term development. Illinois is only now coming out of a dark
time where partisan political fights have trumped the needs of
the people. When citizens are more hopeful that Springfield
will start to hear their cries for help, Washington must also
heed their call. Our citizens must know that we are spending
their money wisely and in ways that benefit them.
Along with the immediate needs and short term benefits, we
have an obligation to think also of regional long term
planning. There are upcoming projects that we will be
requesting that are exceptional opportunities to plan for 15 or
20 years into the future, to set the destiny of our districts
and communities. This includes cultivating area for traditional
industrial growth along with green collar jobs.
My district is in a unique position of partially
encompassing a growing hub of industry and intermodal
transportation. Two intercontinental rail lines intersect
adjacent to the intersection of two interstate highways in
Stewart and Rochelle, all connected by this pair of small towns
that took the initiative upon themselves to connect these modes
of transportation. These towns own and operate their own small
rail line to encourage competition and economic growth for the
factories and the green energy plants located there.
With a small investment of Federal money to improve their
highway and handle the increased volume of industrial traffic,
this small town shows the great potential for growth. It can be
a beacon of good news in a swarm of gloomy economic
predictions. I predict that this will be one of the smarter,
more efficient ways to spend Federal money that will show an
excellent return on our investment.
Recently residents of my district along with many
communities along the Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern Rail, the
EJ&E, have been burdened with the unfair cost of a one sided
rail merger. Canadian National's merger with the EJ&E has
saddled many communities including Aurora, the second largest
city of Illinois, with a price tag to mitigate the disruptive
flow of traffic and emergency services along the railroad. As
we speak, CN is battling in court to even further reduce the
bare minimum of their share for the mitigation costs for this
increase in traffic.
I, along with my fellow colleagues whose districts are
effected by this, will be pushing as hard as we can for Federal
assistance to these communities. We have had many productive
conversations with the Chairman in the past on this and we are
looking forward to working with him on this important issue.
Finally, I wish to commend the Chairman and the Committee
for recognizing the systemic inequity that exists in normal
transportation funding. While the stimulus package extended
millions to communities to assist in their needs, my home State
of Illinois decided that towns and communities with a
population of under 5,000 would not qualify to receive funds.
I was distraught when I heard that because these small
towns in rural Illinois are the communities that often need
this assistance the most. This is why the Chairman's
recognition of these inequalities and support for rural
communities in the priority project requests is greatly
appreciated. Small towns across my district are also grateful
that their needs and concerns are being considered fairly.
Thank you again for taking time to hear my thoughts and
concerns. I feel privileged to be able to serve the people of
Illinois in my capacity. I only hope that my efforts will bear
positive results for my constituents. Thank you.
Ms. Edwards of Maryland. [Presiding] Thank you, Mr. Foster.
We will be in a short recess until the next Member arrives.
[Recess.]
Good afternoon, Mr. Melancon. It is nice to see you this
morning. Thank you for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLIE MELACON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Mr. Melancon. Thank you, Chairwoman Edwards. I appreciate
the opportunity to be here. If I could, I would like to thank
Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica as well as you for
allowing me the opportunity to come before you today to
advocate for Louisiana Highway 1's inclusion as a high priority
project within the next Surface Transportation legislation.
First I want to thank the Committee for recognizing the
importance of Louisiana 1 in SAFETEA-LU a couple of years ago.
Without the Committee's significant investment in this high
priority corridor, LA-1 would not be under construction right
now. I understand that the contractor is working towards
bringing the new bridge into service as early as August of this
year and I would hope that maybe some of the Members of the
Committee might travel to south Louisiana to see this
investment.
To remind the Members of the Committee, Louisiana Highway 1
provides critical access to Port Fourchon, which is Louisiana's
southernmost port and which supports nearly 90 percent of deep
water oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico.
While every Member has infrastructure in their district
that is important, few can boast the direct financial benefits
that Louisiana Highway 1 offers to my district and to this
Country. A 2008 economic impact study conducted for the greater
Lefourche Port Commission and the South Louisiana Economic
Council concluded that a three week loss of services or access
to Port Fuschon [phonetic] would result in a loss of nearly $10
billion in sales at the U.S. firms. It would also cost over
$2.8 billion in household earnings and a loss of 77,440 jobs in
this Nation during that period.
As we recall too well the economic impact of a shut-in oil
and gas industry as we experienced after Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita, make these findings more than just an economic estimate.
We have felt the tangible harm caused when the Gulf of Mexico's
oil and gas production was forced to stop after those two
horrendous storms.
As phase one of the Louisiana Highway 1 Project nears
completion, my request to the Committee this year is to assist
in the construction of phase two of the project. This next
phase will extend the elevated highway from Port Fourchon
within the levy system some 30 miles north to the city of
Golden Meadow, Louisiana. This phase is estimated to cost $360
million. While I certainly do not expect that the Committee
will fund the entire project--but I can always hope--at this
full amount, I hope that the Committee will again recognize the
importance of LA-1 as a critical energy corridor for this
Country.
The Committee's previous foresight enabled the construction
of phase one of the project. We hope to build on that success
in this reauthorization. I want to thank you and the Committee
for this opportunity to speak with you today. I look forward to
working with you on this transportation authorization measure.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Edwards of Maryland. Thank you, Mr. Melancon. I will
just remind you that as for many of our Members testifying
today, hope does spring eternal. Thank you.
Mr. Melancon. I thank you very much.
Ms. Edwards of Maryland. The Committee will stand in recess
until our next Member is available to testify.
[Recess.]
The Chair recognizes Mr. Hare of Illinois.
STATEMENT OF HON. PHIL HARE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Hare. Thank you, Madam Chairman. First I would like to
thank Chairman DeFazio and his hard working staff for holding
this important hearing. This Subcommittee possesses a
tremendous responsibility in laying the foundation of America's
progress, not only in terms of surface transportation but in
terms of jobs and livelihoods. The upcoming Surface
Transportation Authorization legislation will affect more than
mobility; it will affect how our economy functions and how we
live our lives.
In my testimony today I will highlight several examples of
how I envision this bill helping to improve the lives of the
people of west, central, and southern Illinois by laying out
the high priority projects which I intend to pursue. I commend
the Chairman for holding this hearing and the Committee effort
to ensure greater transparency and accountability in the
upcoming Surface Transportation Authorization legislation.
My number one transportation priority is restoring Amtrak
passenger rail service from the quad-city area of Illinois to
Iowa and to Chicago. I am submitting a request on behalf of the
Illinois Department of Transportation for the amount of $22.7
million for track improvements that will restore this vital
infrastructure and transportation system.
The quad-cities are the first major stop along the most
highly populated corridor without Amtrak service to Chicago.
Plans to expand service from Chicago to the quad-cities include
continued service from the quad-cities to Iowa City, to Des
Moines, and to Omaha.
According to a 2008 feasibility study, Amtrak forecast the
quad-cities, with the metropolitan population of 400,000 plus
residents, to have an annual ridership over 110,000 between the
quad-cities and Chicago. With 10.2 million people living in the
corridor's major metropolitan areas, the total ridership is
expected to skyrocket with each additional stop. For example,
when service is extended from the quad-cities to Iowa City,
ridership to Chicago jumps to 187,000 people annually.
The quad-city region will experience economic growth
resulting from Amtrak service including between 550 to 825 new
jobs, an $11 to $16 million increase in household income, and a
$52 to $77 million increase in property values.
I am also submitting several HPPs that fall under the
highway title of the reauthorization. All these projects will
improve the safety of the traveling public as well as foster
economic growth by creating jobs. One of these is the
reconstruction of the Brighton-Bunker Hill Road, part of
Highway 14 in McCook County, Illinois. Reconstruction of the
road will allow 80,000 pounds trucks to use the new road,
thereby improving commerce and strengthening the economy of
McCook County.
Another such HPP request that I am submitting is on behalf
of the city of Galesburg, Illinois for the North Seminary/North
Kellogg Street Overpass Project. This project will enhance
neighborhood safety, emergency response, and capacity needs of
the infrastructure by providing separated areas to reduce
delays and congestion in the downtown area resulting from
increased train traffic on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Chillacathy [phonetic] subdivision while preserving the
historic and aesthetic nature of the community.
I will also submit a request for expansion of U.S. Highway
34 from Gulf Port to Mammoth, Illinois on behalf of the Western
Illinois Economic Development Partnership. Highway 34 as it
stands is one of the busiest and deadliest two lane roads in
the State of Illinois. This two lane road is used by large
semis driving goods to and from a local ethanol plant and to
distribution centers that are located along Highway 34. This
road also connects Interstate 80 in Iowa and Interstate 74 in
Illinois and is often used as a shortcut between the two
interstates by semis, increasing traffic on this narrow road
and endangering people's lives.
On behalf of the 336 Coalition, I will submit a request for
Illinois Highway 336 from Peoria to Macomb, Illinois. This
project will provide the only four lane facility through Fulton
County and will connect the new Illinois 336 facility recently
completed between Macomb and Quincy, Illinois with interstate
74 in the eastern and northern portions of the State. This new
four lane, 65 miles per hour facility will alleviate traffic
congestion on Illinois 116 as well as several other two lane
State routes along the corridor.
Lastly, I will highlight a project that has both regional
and national significance, replacement of the Interstate 74
bridge, which I will pursue funding for in the appropriate
title. The I-74 bridge corridor is extremely important to the
commerce of the area, providing for movement of people and
freight to employment centers, entertainment venues, and
commercial and industrial sites including the quad-cities
international airport.
This project will replace the I-74 bridge which is
functionally obsolete and has never met interstate standards.
The spans were built sometime between 1935 and 1959, both for
local interstate traffic, and were retrofitted to become
Interstate 74 in the 1970s. The bridge has no shoulders. It is
carrying nearly 78,000 vehicles per day but was designed to
carry less than 50,000 vehicles per day. Crashes along portions
of the Interstate 74 corridor exceed three times the national
average for similar corridors as described in the draft
environmental impact.
I thank you, Madam Chairman for allowing me to insert my
statement into the record. Thank you very much.
Ms. Edwards of Maryland. Thank you, Mr. Hare. Are there any
questions by Members for Mr. Hare?
The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Napolitano of California.
STATEMENT OF HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for
allowing us to have some time to discuss high priority programs
in our districts. I thank Mr. DeFazio, Ranking Member Duncan,
and fellow Members of the Subcommittee.
I urge the Committee to continue to designate and fund the
most important project in my area, the Alameda Corridor East
Grade Separation Project in San Gabriel Valley as a project of
not only regional but also national significance. I am also
offering these remarks not only on my own behalf but also on
behalf of my distinguished colleagues representing the San
Gabriel, Congressman David Dreier, Congressman Gary Miller, and
Congressman Adam Schiff, who also join me in support of the
ACE, Alameda Corridor East San Gabriel Valley Project.
This is a project that runs out of the two ports of Los
Angeles and Long Beach, goes up into Los Angeles, and then runs
through my whole district. It covers 54 grade crossings which
are not separated. Only 20 are designated to be separated. Ten
are scheduled for funding and the other 10 are in limbo. What
that means is that although they may be able to increase the
expediting of the handling of the unloading of the vessels,
they will get to Los Angeles and then they are going to run
into slowdown in my whole district because there are grade
crossings, 54 of them, to lead them out into the rest of the
United States.
I certainly want to thank my colleagues on this
Subcommittee for their support on the Alameda Corridor East in
San Gabriel Valley Project in the past by designating it both
as a national high priority trade corridor and also as a
project of regional and national significance. It handles 45 to
55 percent of the Nation's goods. That means that out of those
two ports, the rest of the material comes to the rest of the
United States. This corridor facilitates the movement of goods
from those ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach through the San
Gabriel Valley to, of course, the rest of the waiting business
in the Nation.
As Congress seeks to encourage national economic recovery,
significant infrastructure in transportation projects will play
a key role in creating much needed jobs in the construction
sector. The Alameda Corridor East San Gabriel Valley Grade
Separation Project will not only create jobs but will help
unclog the trade corridor bottlenecks at the leading freight
gateway for our Nation.
In fact, projections show that the grade separations will
eliminate a 300 percent increase in auto and truck traffic
delay at crossings, resulting in up to a 160 percent increase
in rail traffic and a 40 percent increase in vehicular traffic.
Now, I understand that currently there are 80 trains a day
going through my whole district. This increase is going to be
to 120 trains per day crossing 54 street crossings of which
only 20, some day in the future, will be separated to allow
traffic to go through unrestricted.
The 20 separations the project will construct at the
busiest crossings of this valley will help eliminate 221 tons
of air pollution from emissions annually at the worst air basin
in the Nation.
Grade separations deliver vital safety benefits including
the elimination of delays for emergency responders as well as
of the possibilities of deadly collisions between trains,
vehicles, and pedestrians. We know people don't want to wait.
They go around the arms and sometimes get into very heavy
accidents, sometimes even fatalities.
The grade separation which will commence construction this
year on Novalis Street [phonetic] is in my Congressional
district. This will eliminate the potential for crossing
collisions, which are projected by the Federal Railroad
Administration to occur at this crossing once every four years.
They have already done the math.
Committee Members and leaders are justifiably concerned
that the Federal commitments made available through prior
Transportation Authorization legislation remained little used
or dormant. I share that concern and I am pleased to report
that the Alameda Construction Authority has expended or
obligated 95 percent or more of the $135 million in Federal
funds made available through the TEA-21 legislation with the
remainder obligated next month. Of the more than $65 million
made available through SAFETEA-LU, the ACE Construction
Authority has expended or obligated 65 percent with the
remained to be obligated by early fall of this year.
The ACE Construction Authority has a commendable record in
completing projects on time and on budget. It has made
significant progress toward completing the first 10 grade
separations in the ACE San Gabriel Valley Program.
While most projects around the Country will request an 80
percent Federal commitment toward their total project costs,
the ACE Construction Authority is only requesting 40 percent in
Federal share of the $954 million project. They have already
secured significant local, State, and railroad funding
commitments to help deliver the grade separations projects
through construction completion. The Authority can complete the
next 10 grade separations projects in its program by the year
2014 if $344 million is secured.
I would like to enter into the record, Madam Chairwoman, a
number of records from the councils of government and other
entities that support and sustain the information I have just
revealed to this Subcommittee. I would like to enter it into
the record.
Ms. Edwards of Maryland. Without objection.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Thank you for your attention. I
certainly stand ready to work with my colleagues as we proceed
with drafting transportation program authorization legislation.
This legislation will present a significant opportunity to
encourage economic recovery, improve air quality, mobility, and
safety through the support for high priority projects such as
the ACE Project in my district which will bring not only a lot
of jobs but will also alleviate safety concerns. Thank you,
Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Edwards of Maryland. Thank you, Mrs. Napolitano. Do
Members have questions for Mrs. Napolitano?
The Chair will stand in recess until our next Member
arrives.
[Recess.]
Ms. Edwards of Maryland. The Chair recognizes Mr. Schrader.
Thank you very much for your testimony this afternoon.
STATEMENT OF HON. KURT SCHRADER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Schrader. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate you
coming back from recess so quickly. Madam Chairwoman, I would
like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to testify
today on our transportation needs in the 5th Congressional
district of Oregon.
As the Committee and the Congress move forward with the
transportation authorization, I will be submitting a high
priority project request to help support the construction of an
important interchange at the junction of Highways 214, 219, and
Interstate 5 in Woodburn, Oregon. This Woodburn interchange has
been one of the top priorities of Oregonians for a long, long
time. The interchange was first constructed in 1950 and last
updated in 1975.
It is a major choking point along the Interstate 5 corridor
on the west coast through the Willamette Valley. It slows
traffic, hurting businesses and impeding freight movement, and
it puts the safety of drivers, cyclists and pedestrians at
risk. The interchange routinely delays traffic. It has caused
countless unnecessary automobile accidents along the main
transit route between Portland and the State capital in Salem.
In fact, four of the road segments in the area fall within the
top 10 percent of the Oregon Department of Transportation's
worst crash locations.
Constructing a new, wider interchange with pedestrian
protections and a partial cloverleaf design will dramatically
increase safety and mobility to accommodate the needs of this
growing community and the freight and vehicular traffic in our
region.
I will also be submitting a request to aid Oregon's coastal
communities. Every year, winter storms come in from the
Pacific, making U.S. 101 along the Oregon coast one of the most
treacherous routes in our Country. Roads regularly wash out or
cover with debris from landslides disturbing the mobility of
rural communities that depend on those roads. As the only
north-south route on the west side of Oregon's coastal
mountains, it is extremely important that we make every effort
to relieve that traffic congestion and stoppage.
This modest request will not build a new highway system,
but it will significantly alleviate the congestion in Lincoln
City were U.S. 101 often narrows. The Oregon Department of
Transportation will use these funds to construct a center turn
lane to improve that flow dramatically.
Additionally, I will be supporting transit projects that
will create jobs and facilitate economic growth in our
metropolitan areas. Our State has historically been a leader in
progressive solutions to our Country's transportation network
issues, particularly in the development and use of light rail
and streetcar transit operations. Light rail systems in the
Portland metropolitan area are vital to the continued growth of
the region.
By authorizing and appropriating funds for the expansion of
light rail and streetcar lines in this region, we will build
upon the investments we have already made in the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We will immediately be creating
jobs both in the new construction as well as in the bourgeoning
long term employment from industries supported by the light
rail and streetcar systems in metropolitan Portland. Working
with local transportation authorities to bring light rail lines
south from Portland to Oregon City and streetcars to Lake
Oswego will create new trade corridors where the convenience
and mobility of a well designed public transportation system
will lead to economic growth and job creation on both sides of
Willamette River.
I am giving these projects and others like them high
priority status because it will provide a demonstrable and
achievable benefit to the region, both in the short and long
term. Improving the flow of traffic along the Interstate 5
corridor and U.S. 101 will facilitate the flow of goods and
capital. The expansion of clean, efficient, and reliable public
transportation in the densely populated Portland area will
facilitate the growth of our economy and provide people with
the opportunity to find work and steady employment.
I have considered these priorities very carefully. I ask
the Committee to fund them and others like them. I thank the
Committee for hearing me today and considering these requests.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Edwards of Maryland. Thank you very much for your
testimony today Mr. Schrader. I have to say there are many of
us around the Country who in working in our communities often
look to what Oregon has done with its transportation system as
we figure out ours. So I appreciate your testimony this
afternoon.
Mr. Schrader. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Edwards of Maryland. The Committee stands in
adjournment.
[Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 49496.050