Segment 3 Of 5 Previous Hearing Segment(2) Next Hearing Segment(4)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 153 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
MEMBER POLICY INITIATIVES AND REQUESTS FOR HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT IN THE ISTEA REAUTHORIZATION
THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 1997
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas E. Petri (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. PETRI. The subcommittee will come to order.
This morning we're continuing our series of hearings to receive testimony from Members of Congress on policy initiatives or on transportation projects that they have requested to be included in the ISTEA reauthorization. In many cases Members will be accompanied by State or local officials who also support the request.
These hearings will provide important information so that the committee can fully assess these requests during the development of the ISTEA reauthorization legislation.
Page 154 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Subcommittee hearings will continue next week.
I know that the senior democrat on the subcommittee, Mr. Rahall, will be here shortly and may have an opening statement. Statements by the chairman of the full committee, Bud Shuster, and the senior minority member, Jim Oberstar, will be included in the record.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Costello, Mr. Miller and Mr. Poshard follow:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PETRI. I'd like, if I could—we have a fairly lengthy series of witnesses today. I'd like to remind all witnesses that we'll be operating under the five-minute rule. Your full statement will be included in the record. You are welcome to summarize it or read a portion of it during the 5 minutes that's allotted.
Our first witness is the Honorable Steve Buyer of Indiana.
I'd like to welcome you to testify. Please proceed as you wish.
TESTIMONY OF HON. STEPHEN E. BUYER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM INDIANA
Mr. BUYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me congratulate you for starting your hearing on time. A lot of us on the National Security Committee and VA, we think we're the only ones that do that. We compliment you.
Page 155 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. PETRI. Thank you for being here on time.
Mr. BUYER. Thank you.
We appreciate this opportunity. This is my 5th year now testifying before this subcommittee with regard to the Hoosier Heartland Corridor. My colleagues, Mr. Pease, that represents the Lafayette area, and Mark Souder, who are not testifying with me here today, support this project.
I'd like to share, for Members who are not familiar, the Hoosier Heartland Corridor which stretches from Ft. Wayne, Indiana, to Lafayette. It's broken into four segments. Two out of the four segments are complete. It's a four-lane highway of interstate quality.
The Ft. Wayne-to-Huntington section and the Wabash-to-Peru section are complete. The two sections that are ready to let are the Huntington-to-Wabash and the Peru-to-Logansport section. These are two sections ready-to-go projects right now.
As a matter of fact, when I testified previously I used to talk about the bridge to nowhere. We had this bridge built across the Wabash River. But now I'm happy to report—I used to kid the subcommittee by saying you can come out and fish off my bridge across the Wabash, but now be careful because they finally have the land movers and they're moving the land.
We don't have the funds to lay down the four lanes. What we're doing in this section here, from the Peru-to-Logansport, is we purchased the land for the four lanes. We're laying down two out of the four lanes, and that land is being moved at the moment.
Page 156 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The existing characteristics of U.S. 24 really—the two major points why this is a continuing project and a great partnership between the local, the State, and the Federal deal with not only safety, but also the economic enhancement of this project.
This principal artery has a cost/benefit ratio of $3.50 for every $1 spent on the highway.
On opposite ends we have a General Motors assembly plant in Fort Wayne. We have a Subaru/Isuzu plant in Lafayette, along with Caterpillar and Wabash National, which is the Nation's number one truck/trailer manufacturer. So we have located throughout this area here a lot of small auto parts manufacturing.
Not far from Pocomo we also have—Chrysler has a huge assembly plant for their transmissions. We also have—located right here is Grissom Air Force Base, which under the first BRAC was a realignment to a reserve base, and we've been working very hard on the rural economic benefits to that transition.
This has been an important project. The governor, new governor of Indiana is very supportive of the project. This isn't one of these projects where a Member says, ''Oh, this is a great idea. I want to present it.'' This is an ongoing project. It has been going on for years and has a lot of support.
I am requesting $98.7 million be allocated for the completion of the construction and the activities from the Logansport-to-Peru and the Wabash-to-Huntington sections of the highway. This will complete two out of the three remaining segments of the Hoosier Heartland Corridor.
Page 157 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The design and the right-of-way are finished, and the Indiana Department of Transportation stands ready to match with the 20 percent.
I don't know where the—Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure where you're going with the ISTEA and the bill, itself. I, like other Members, if, in fact, there are demonstration projects, ask that that be included. I don't know if, under ISTEA, how that, in fact, is going to happen with the allocation.
I have been a supporter of STEP 21 for the greater equity and the flexibility.
And I also don't know if you're going to be doing line items for national priority corridors.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Are there any questions of our colleague?
[No response.]
Mr. PETRI. That goes from—is it Indianapolis to—
Page 158 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. BUYER. No. This is a four-lane highway from Lafayette to Ft. Wayne.
Mr. PETRI. All right.
Mr. BUYER. We have major highways of four lanes in Indiana that run north and south, go from Chicago to Indianapolis, which is Interstate 65. We have U.S. 31 that comes straight down, like this. And we have I–69 that comes this way.
We have no major four-lane highway that goes east and west through northern Indiana.
Mr. PETRI. And this is, as you have indicated, fully supported by the Indiana transportation authorities?
Mr. BUYER. Fully supported. Yes, sir.
Mr. PETRI. All right. Well, we very much appreciate your persistence—
Mr. BUYER. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI.—and your being here. You asked a number of questions. We don't really know where we're going so far as the reauthorization bill is concerned, a lot of the details, until we have some handle on the budget situation.
Page 159 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
We thank you for your support on trying to make sure we have adequate resources and integrity in the trust funds. Maybe we'll get that done and then we'll have a good highway program.
Mr. BUYER. I hope so, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Buyer follows:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PETRI. The next witnesses are our colleague, the Honorable Bob Franks of New Jersey, who is accompanied by Mayor Greg Muller of Union, New Jersey.
Welcome.
TESTIMONY OF HON. BOB FRANKS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM NEW JERSEY, ACCOMPANIED BY HON. GREG MULLER, MAYOR, UNION, NJ
Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very, very much. I'll be brief, Mr. Chairman, in order to give the maximum allowable time to the mayor who is accompanying me.
Page 160 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Just by way of background, Mr. Chairman, New Jersey is the tenth most populous State in the Nation. It is the third-smallest State in terms of the land mass of our area. We have serious problems in meeting our obligations under the Clean Air Act. And we are the most densely-populated State in all of America, making our traffic congestion problem an enormously serious one.
This train station project, the Townley Train Station, will help to provide a new means of mass transit for some 14,000 people every day who currently commute to Kean College, Elizabethtown Gas Company, and Schering-Plough Pharmaceutical Company, among a large number of other individuals who would use it as a more direct means of intermodal transportation.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce the mayor of the community in which the Townley Train Station would be located, the Mayor of Union Township, Greg Muller.
Mr. MULLER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Sir, welcome.
Mr. MULLER. Honorable lady and sirs, the township of Union is a suburban-urban community located in Union County, New Jersey, having a population of approximately 52,000 people, covering an area of 9.4 square miles. We are the second-largest municipality in Union county in population and in area.
In spite of these statistics, Union does not have a train station within its borders, and that is why I have come before you today.
Page 161 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Union is a stable and prosperous community which has, nonetheless, seen the symptoms of economic dislocation in terms of loss of its traditional industrial job base, which mirrors the trend throughout northern New Jersey. This trend affects the tax base of the community, as well as jobs available for its citizens.
Effective use of declining industrial properties can help alleviate much of this negative impact. For each $100 million in additional development that can be achieved, the typical homeowner will receive an annual tax savings of $140.
In 1995 the county initiated a study to determine the potential for establishing a new train station and for fostering new development in the Townley section of Union.
Townley is strategically located next to a railroad line that currently exists and includes one of the largest vacant industrial parcels of land in the township.
Furthermore, the Townley area is home to Kean College, Schering-Plough Corporation, Elizabethtown Gas, and Union Hospital, which is a member of the St. Barnabas Health Care System, which is the 12th largest health care provider in the United States.
An estimated 30,000 vehicles pass this area daily, with resultant congestion and air quality impact.
This area of Union is historically significant, as well. It is the site of Liberty Hall, the Kean family estate, which is a national historic landmark. It is also in this area that the Statute of Liberty can be seen, hence the designation ''Liberty View Station.''
Page 162 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The Townley area has excellent highway access to the region, being within 2 miles of the Garden State Parkway, 3 miles of interchanges on the Jersey Turnpike, and is located 2 miles within Interstate 78.
The nearest train station, located in Roseville Park, has limited parking, no room for expansion, and we have the support of their mayor on our project.
Our proposed rail station would serve a number of different travel markets. The first, with traditional commuters traveling to work in Manhattan, Newark, and Jersey City, is expected to predominate.
The second market would include riders traveling the diverse route to neighboring communities of Craft and Westfield and other locations.
The third market would be employees of the area's largest employers, which are, as I said before, Schering-Plough, Elizabethtown Gas, the college, and the hospital.
The fourth market, Kean College, is very unique. The very nature of class scheduling ensures ridership at off-peak hours, a situation that does not often exist and one that makes the railway station that more feasible.
The fifth market favorably served by the proposed station is the development concept to create a historical museum and park to be called ''Liberty Hall Historic Park'' on the 27-acre Kean family estate.
Page 163 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The historical program is now being developed. It anticipates using a portion of the park for a small historic inn, a restaurant, curio shops, and an early 19th century firehouse. The park is envisioned as a focal point for historic tours in northern New Jersey. These plans project over 1,500 riders boarding or departing at this stop each weekday.
The proposed station will provide for the potential of significant commercial and residential development, including planned development of residential, retail, hotel, and institutional uses.
Potential development of this area is exciting to visualize and to contemplate; however, the key is the train station, a project developed by a consortium of private and public sector entities working to solve problems that government can no longer solve alone.
In fact, according to New Jersey Transit, this is the first major mass transit project being launched as a public/private partnership in New Jersey transit history.
This project would also provide a new transportation option for residents, easing congestion, helping with compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act mandates.
The close proximity of bus lines to Liberty View Station enhances the ability of passengers to transfer between modes of transit and plays a key role in encouraging transit ridership.
These benefits, alone, make the project worthwhile. However, we are talking more than just about a train station. The station will bring in new business and jobs, turning an abandoned area into a viable commercial, residential, educational, and historical center.
Page 164 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The Liberty View Train Station and the ancillary development projects it will generate will not only benefit the people of Union and Union County, but serve as a model for other communities that are seeking solutions to traffic congestion, air pollution, and economic stagnation.
There is one problem, however, and that is time. The property needed for this project is on the market and we have no control over its sale.
I urge this committee to move quickly so that we can do likewise. The loss of this opportunity would have a negative effect upon our community that would be difficult to overcome.
Union needs the Liberty View Train Station and we seek your support.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Mayor, thank you.
Are there questions?
[No response.]
Mr. PETRI. If not, I do want to say it does sound like an exciting project and one that will have a number of different facets with the tourism and economic development and so on.
Page 165 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
You've got a very determined and effective advocate in our colleague, Mr. Franks.
Mr. MULLER. Indeed we do, sir.
Mr. PETRI. We'll give it serious consideration. We appreciate your taking the time to come here and explain it to us.
Thank you.
Mr. MULLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Muller follows:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PETRI. The next panel is made up of three of our colleagues: the Honorable Jim Ramstad, the Honorable Bill Luther, and our colleague Bruce Vento from Minnesota, who are accompanied by Mayor Coral S. Houle of Bloomington, Minnesota; Elwyn Tinklenberg, who is the president of the North Metro Crossing Coalition and former Mayor of Blaine, Minnesota; Michael Opat, commissioner from Hennepin County Board of Commissioners; Myra Peterson, a commissioner from Washington County; and Mark Bernhardson, city manager of Bloomington, Minnesota.
Page 166 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
I'd like to welcome you all here this morning. Let's see, Bill, would you like to start, or Bruce?
TESTIMONY OF HON. JIM RAMSTAD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA; HON. BILL LUTHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA; HON. BRUCE VENTO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA, ACCOMPANIED BY HON. CORAL S. HOULE, MAYOR, BLOOMINGTON, MN, ELWYN TINKLENBERG, PRESIDENT, NORTH METRO CROSSING COALITION (NMCC), AND FORMER MAYOR OF BLAINE, MN, MICHAEL OPAT, COMMISSIONER, HENNEPIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, MYRA PETERSON, COMMISSIONER, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AND MARK E. BERNHARDSON, CITY MANAGER, BLOOMINGTON, MN
Mr. VENTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Petri, and my colleague and friend, your ranking member, Mr. Rahall.
I have a small piece of this presentation this morning. I'm joining with my colleagues, Congressmen Luther and Ramstad, in support of the Wakota Bridge, which is a bridge project to cross the Mississippi.
Mr. Chairman, this bridge was built in the late 1950s to, of course, 1950s standards. The consequence is today it is inadequate. It is a significant bottleneck on the interstate highway system. In fact, the Federal Highway Administration has recognized that it does not meet current safety requirements. Besides being a tremendous inconvenience, there are safety risks.
This segment of I–494, of Trunk Highway 610, which is a major truck route, and obviously one of the transportation corridors that joined together the great States of Wisconsin, Mr. Chairman, and Minnesota—they join together the great States of Wisconsin and Minnesota.
Page 167 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
We are very interested in seeing this project recognized in the authorization measure that you're considering, and I know that you will give this careful scrutiny.
I will at this time thank you for the time and probably be excusing myself shortly. My colleagues will join in support of this, as well as some other focuses that they have, and I'll be back to see you next week with a further detailed summary of meritorious proposals, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. We always like to see you.
Mr. VENTO. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Jim?
Mr. RAMSTAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, distinguished members of the committee, for the opportunity to testify before your subcommittee on behalf of not only the Wakota Bridge, but also Trunk Highway 610/10 and the I–494 reliever arterial system projects.
I would like to just say a few brief words before letting the local experts at the far end of the table testify: Washington County Commissioner Myra Peterson, who will testify on the Wakota Bridge; former mayor of Blaine, El Tinklenberg, who will testify on Trunk Highway 610/10; and Bloomington Mayor Coral Houle and city manager, Mark Bernhardson, who will testify on the I–494 reliever arterial system project.
Page 168 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
First, Mr. Chairman, the Wakota Bridge is a vital regional national highway system project, absolutely crucial to the Twin Cities metropolitan area highway network.
Right now, Mr. Chairman, the present bridge, which was built in 1959, is clearly deficient and unsafe. It's the only Mississippi River crossing for more than 80,000 vehicles per day, and I think everyone agrees that that project is desperately needed.
The second project, Mr. Chairman, Trunk Highway 610/10, is also a crucial project. Right now the area has a population of over 860,000 and has no east-west transportation corridor. So this is another very, very crucial project which Mayor Tinklenberg will explain in more detail.
The third project is the I–494 project. We're talking about a 25-year-old design which would relieve congestion that commuters experience—including myself, whose office is located in this area—every day.
I will let my good friend, Mayor Coral Houle, and City Manager Mark Bernhardson explain that project in more detail.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I'm certainly looking forward, as I'm sure you are, to hearing from the local experts and officials here today.
Mr. PETRI. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Page 169 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. Luther?
Mr. LUTHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. I appreciate this opportunity.
I'm here to emphasize my strong support, as well, for several transportation projects that are important to my District and to the people of Minnesota.
Support for the 610 north metro cross-town that has already been mentioned is an ongoing cooperative effort between Mr. Ramstad, representing the Third District, and myself, and my predecessors representing the Sixth District of Minnesota.
I would like to thank the committee for your initial designation of $36 million for the project in 1991, and I urge you to give every consideration to finishing the work that has been started.
But I'd also like to state my support for two exciting rail projects in the Twin Cities metro area.
The Trunk Highway 10 multi-modal transportation corridor development project is a request for planning funds for commuter rail, bike trails, and other enhancements along existing rail lines from Minneapolis to St. Cloud. The corridor runs through the heart of one of the fastest-growing areas in Minnesota.
Page 170 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
I look forward to continuing to work with Mr. Oberstar on this important project.
In addition, I join my colleagues Mr. Sabo, Mr. Ramstad, and Mr. Vento in supporting the Twin Cities transitways proposal. This move to build a viable Twin Cities transit infrastructure represents a far-sighted effort to deal with increasing population density and transportation demand in the metro area.
Finally, and very importantly, I commend to the attention of the committee the Wakota Bridge project already mentioned by Mr. Vento.
My colleagues, Mr. Vento and Mr. Ramstad, join me in recognizing the significance of this project. Businesses, county and local governments, and private citizens throughout Washington, Dakota, and Ramsey Counties have united to form the Wakota Bridge Coalition, and I particularly appreciate Mr. Ramstad's support on this project. Mr. Ramstad had represented part of this area in the past directly affected by this bridge.
This bridge is a vital link to and from the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport, one of the busiest in the country, and the eastern and southern suburbs of the Twin Cities, as well as being a lifeline transit route for ambulances and other emergency vehicles.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, one important aspect I would like you to keep in mind about the Wakota Bridge is that it is one of those rare sections of interstate highway originally built without Federal dollars. It was built by the State of Minnesota and, in effect, donated to the interstate highway system.
Page 171 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
There is ample precedent, as you well know, for States receiving reimbursement for such highway projects even decades after construction.
Minnesota does not request reimbursement. It simply requests Federal funding to replace this aging and outdated structure.
I urge you and the members of this committee to evaluate this request for funding to address the serious safety and traffic conditions on the bridge.
I would like to now introduce to the committee Commissioner Myra Peterson. As Mr. Ramstad has already mentioned, she is the Chair of the Board of Commissioners of Washington County. She will testify about the need for funding improvements to the Wakota Bridge.
Myra has taken a real lead in transportation policy issues while serving as president of the Metro and Suburban Chapter of the Minnesota Transportation Alliance, and through her work on the Transportation Committee for the National Association of Counties. Most importantly, Myra serves on the regional MPO for the Twin Cities metro area.
Thank you very much for your time today and for your consideration. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. And would you like to start first, Myra Peterson?
Page 172 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Ms. PETERSON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am grateful for the opportunity to address you today and thank Congressman Luther, Congressman Ramstad, and Congressman Vento for their generous support of this project.
I'd also like to express my personal appreciation to Minnesota's Eighth District Congressman Oberstar and the appreciation of the people of the State of Minnesota for the service that Congressman Oberstar provides for them as ranking member of this committee.
I come before you not only as a representative of Washington County, but as a member of the Wakota Bridge Coalition. This coalition is a public/private partnership of our local and county governments, as well as three chambers of commerce and over forty businesses.
The reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act is one of the most important issues facing the 105th Congress. It is vital to the economic health of our country that we expand and protect our Nation's existing infrastructure, and imperative that Congress provides sufficient authorization to meet the ever-increasing demands placed upon it.
The Wakota Bridge was built by the State of Minnesota preceding the interstate system to meet the traffic and safety specifications of the 1950s.
As Congressman Luther reminded you, the Wakota Bridge was built without the support of Federal funds and was essentially donated to the interstate highway system in 1959.
Page 173 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The Federal Highway Administration has now found that the bridge does not meet the safety requirements for the interstate system. The bridge creates a bottleneck, as it accommodates only two lanes of traffic with no shoulders or emergency lanes, and it is approached on the west side by three lanes and on the east side by two lanes with appropriate shoulders.
This bottleneck creates an accident rate of over two-and-a-half times the metro average for roads of this type.
The bottleneck at the Wakota Bridge also creates several other potential safety hazards, as 50 percent of the 80,000 vehicles passing over this narrow and unsafe bridge are trucks, many carrying hazardous and flammable materials.
The congestion caused in the approach to the bridge has forced several companies to reroute their trucks, carrying hazardous and flammable materials directly past an elementary school. The Minnesota Department of Transportation found that as many as 800 of these heavy truck trips per day are now occurring as a result of the Wakota Bridge bottleneck.
Several major studies, including feasibility, major investment, and needs assessments have been conducted without benefit of Federal funds. The region cannot afford to support all of the project it currently faces.
I respectfully ask the committee to consider Federal investment of $96 million, 80 percent of the need, $120 million to complete the development and the implementation of this critical project.
Page 174 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The benefits are clear. Not only will the interstate system in this area receive the improvement it needs to meet current and future demands, but the safety will be increased as congestion clears and emergency vehicles can be accommodated. Air and noise pollution and energy consumption will be reduced. The counties will have improved linkage to western Wisconsin and southern Minnesota.
There are significant economic benefits to this project, as well. Reduced congestion will allow for greater commercial efficiency, as trucks will be routed to their destination in a timely fashion.
Improvements also support planned local and regional economic development and accommodate resulting employment and population growth.
A Minnesota Department of Transportation study has shown a projected $3 return in commercial growth for every $1 invested in the improvement of the Wakota Bridge. It also has shown that for every $1 invested, $3 will be gained because we will have a better mechanism of dealing with our population.
MINDOT's MIS shows that, based on accidents, time delays, repair, trip diversion, and maintenance, we will recoup $3 for every $1 we invest in this bridge.
There is exceptional community support for this project, and I submit letters of endorsement from a range of private and public entities as evidence.
I ask that the members of this subcommittee acknowledge that commitment and address the discrepancy in Federal funding and Federal highway safety standards that exists in this section of interstate highway by including the Wakota Bridge project in the reauthorization of ISTEA.
Page 175 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Thank you for your time and your consideration and your dedication to our infrastructure.
Mr. TINKLENBERG. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, my name is El Tinklenberg. I'm the president of the North Metro Crossing Coalition. I want to thank you for this opportunity to present our views on the request made by Congressman Jim Ramstad and Congressman Bill Luther to your subcommittee seeking $76 million of Federal highway discretionary funds to finish what was started in ISTEA in 1991 on Trunk Highway 610/10.
We are here supporting this bipartisan request Mr. Ramstad and Mr. Luther have made with our own expression of support.
We know and understand that one of the longstanding principles of this committee is that no highway is either a democratic highway or a republican highway. Highway funding is for the common good of the people, and we believe there is no better example of that common good than the benefits that would result from the completion of Highway 610/10.
We are here today representing the North Metro Crossing Coalition, the grassroots group of over 20 municipal and county governments encompassing over 860,000 residents north of Minneapolis, Minnesota. The North Metro Crossing Coalition was created nearly 10 years ago to provide broad-based support and advocacy for the construction of 14 miles of Trunk Highway 610/10 from I–35W on the east to I–94 on the west.
It is important that we thank Mr. Ramstad and Mr. Luther for their tireless support of this vital highway link in what is one of the fastest-growing parts of the Twin City area.
Page 176 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Further, we would be remiss if we did not also thank one of the great champions of the Nation's transportation needs and our State's only representative to the critical work of this subcommittee and the full committee's ranking member, Mr. Jim Oberstar, for his important role in helping move the 610/10 project forward.
I would like to begin, Mr. Chairman, by expressing our appreciation to you and to the committee for the designation of the $36 million of Federal discretionary funds received in ISTEA 1991. These funds have been dedicated to build the Trunk Highway 610/10 from the Mississippi River west to Trunk Highway 169.
We strongly urge the committee to finish what has been started and authorize, over the period of the next reauthorization, $76 million in Federal highway discretionary funds for the completion of this highway west from trunk highway 169 to I–94.
We are pleased to report to you that all of the design, engineering, and environmental sign-offs have now been completed on the portion of Trunk Highway 610/10 that received your previous support, and ground-breaking for construction is scheduled for this summer.
We anticipate that this segment of the highway will be open to traffic in 1991; therefore, it is critical, in order to complete what you have helped us to begin and avoid the horrid traffic problems which invariably result from partially-completed projects, that this final authorization be approved, allowing this critical highway link to be finished without interruption or the inevitable cost increases which are associated with delay.
Page 177 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The completion of Trunk Highway 610/10 will provide, among many others, the following benefits to our area:
One, relief of traffic congestion. The existing highway infrastructure has already reached capacity, and it's expected that Trunk Highway 610/10 will carry between 32,000 and 52,000 vehicles per day.
Two, increased automobile travel safety. A current portion of the Trunk Highway 610/10 is experiencing about 2.7 accidents per million vehicle miles traveled. With the construction of a limited access four-lane highway, it is projected that this accident rate will be cut by over 50 percent.
Three, a support for business growth. Studies of the future growth of the north metro area have consistently shown that Trunk Highway 610/10 will play a vital role in the commercial and industrial development of nearly 20 million square feet of building space in communities in the corridor. This growth has the potential to provide up to 21,400 jobs over the next 20 years.
One unique aspect of this project that is not widely publicized is that the communities along this corridor have been planning for this critical highway link for nearly two decades. It is not often that the local governments work together to preserve potential highway right-of-way and protect that right-of-way from development in order to assure that a highway will be built.
Page 178 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The Trunk Highway 610/10 has been recognized for so long as a crucial transportation link that local governments have reserved large portions of the right-of-way and therefore have minimized the cost and community disruption inherent in major highway projects.
One final note, Mr. Chairman. We know that your subcommittee from time to time comes under criticism for the designation of highway funds to particular projects. We believe that our elected representatives are fully capable of determining what are important transportation priorities in their own Congressional Districts.
In addition, we are proud that the Minnesota Department of Transportation recognized Trunk Highway 610/10 as its top highway priority in 1991 and has continued to provide strong support for its completion.
In addition we are grateful that, again, with this subcommittee's support, Trunk Highway 610/10 was added onto the national highway system in your bill enacted in 1995.
For these reasons and more, Trunk Highway 610/10 is ready to move forward, and with your support we will finish what was started, and by the time this reauthorization is up for renewal this important highway link will be open to the public.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to present our views on the requests put forward by Congressman Ramstad and Congressman Luther for the completion of the Trunk Highway 610/10 project.
Ms. HOULE. Mr. Chairman and honorable members of the committee, just for your reference, you can follow some of the graphics with our testimony this morning if you like.
Page 179 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
My name is Coral Houle, mayor of the city of Bloomington, Minnesota. With me today is Mr. Mark Bernhardson, our city manager.
We would like to thank you for this opportunity to testify in favor of an ISTEA special project application for Bloomington's portion of the parallel arterial reliever route, the ring route adjacent to the congested Interstate 494.
Conceived more than 25 years ago, following what was then a recent conversion of Highway 5 to Interstate 494 in Bloomington, this three-city ring route was proposed as a means to provide traffic relief for I–494.
The ring route provides an alternate to I–494 for short- and medium-length trips, improves transit, and enhances safety.
Today the traffic volume on I–494 has grown from 50,000 vehicles per day in 1965 to 160,000 vehicles per day today on essentially the same 1960s roadway configuration.
There is considerable peak period congestion in excess of six hours per day, even with ramp metering and the most-advanced traffic management tools in operation.
While I–494 is slated for a major upgrade, construction is many years off.
Page 180 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
This congestion will continue, due to recent development. The Twin Cities Metropolitan Council is attempting to concentrate development in the metropolitan region's central area around the project to utilize existing public infrastructure investments.
This development concentration, particularly within the I–494/I–694 rings, will intensify the traffic on the interstate corridors and spill over into adjacent streets.
In addition to the Metropolitan Council's efforts to concentrate development, the State Legislature recently made the decision to retain and expand the Twin Cities International Airport in its current location at the edge of I–494, a decision the city of Bloomington strongly supported.
This decision will save billions of Federal and State dollars. Increasing activity at the airport, however, further loads the I–494 corridor.
Mr. BERNHARDSON. Taken together, these developments take the concept of the ring route and multiply many-fold the benefits of traffic relief on I–494 as it currently exists, particularly for the type of use on I–494 where half the trips are of 3 miles of length or less because of a lack of an adequate parallel arterial.
An efficient ring route would be an asset to transit, to commercial vehicle movement, to airport user safety, and the region. In addition, the ring route would also serve as a primary detour route for I–494 construction and future maintenance.
Page 181 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
We would like to thank the United States Congress, the Department of Transportation, and, in particular, Congressmen Ramstad and Sabo for their momentous role in providing funding for substantial portions of this regionally-significant project in the city of Richfield and initial portions in the city of Bloomington.
Key, however, to maximizing the success and capitalizing on the initial projects is funding of the remaining strategic segments for which the city of Bloomington has submitted a special project application.
This ring route project and its alignment were developed and supported for construction as soon as possible by the joint efforts of the corridor cities, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Metropolitan Council, and the Hennepin County Department of Transportation.
On behalf of not only the city of Bloomington, but the hundreds of thousands of people who live, work, and visit this area, many of whom come to Minnesota from your Districts around the Nation, and those who come from abroad to visit the Mall of America in Bloomington, conduct business, or enjoy many other wonderful attractions of the Twin City area, we respectfully ask for your support of approximately $20 million in funding these projects.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PICKERING [assuming Chair]. You're very welcome.
The Chair wants to thank this panel in the demonstration of the local and Congressional coordination and support that is important as we go through our deliberations, and this is an impressive panel.
Page 182 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
[The prepared statements of Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Luther, Mr. Vento, Ms. Houle, Mr. Tinklenberg, and Ms. Peterson follow:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PICKERING. We're going to have to hurry very quickly. We have a vote.
I would like to recognize the next panel and have the Members of Congress give brief comments, and then we will come back from the vote and Mayor Riordan will have a chance to go further into the projects that he is advocating.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JULIAN C. DIXON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA; AND HON. BUCK MCKEON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA, ACCOMPANIED BY HON. RICHARD RIORDAN, MAYOR, CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CA
Mr. DIXON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I realize we only have 8 minutes, and I would yield to my colleague, Mr. Buck McKeon, who has a plane to catch as well as a vote to make.
Mr. MCKEON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just have my remarks inserted in the record and just let you know how pleased I am to be here with my colleague, Julian Dixon, and with our mayor, and thank you for giving us the time this morning.
Page 183 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman and members, I don't know what your pleasure is. The mayor tells me he has about 5 or 6 minutes worth of testimony. If you want to take a break, I will return with him, and I think that would probably the best arrangement.
Mr. PICKERING. I believe we have about 8 minutes remaining in the vote, and so if we could take 2 or 3 minutes for any other comments and then we'll take a break and come right back.
Mr. DIXON. I would like to submit my comments for the record. Obviously, I'm here to support the $723 million request by the LACMTA for ISTEA II. Certainly that money is going to be used to enhance much-needed bus service and to improve our rail system and highways.
With that, we could maybe take a break now and then come back and I'll introduce the mayor.
Mr. PICKERING. Thank you very much.
Mr. DIXON. Thank you.
Mr. PICKERING. We will take a brief recess and return as quickly as possible after the vote. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Page 184 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Ms. EMERSON [assuming Chair]. Mr. Dixon?
Mr. DIXON. I appreciate the opportunity to be here to introduce the mayor of the city of Los Angeles and member of our Metropolitan Transportation Authority Board, who is here in support of the LACMTA request.
Mr. RIORDAN. Thank you very much.
I am momentarily without my talk to you, so I will remember as much as I can until it comes in.
Thank you very much for allowing the city and county of Los Angeles to be represented here today. Ms. Chairman, thank you very much for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
I'd like to personally thank you for your continuing support of ISTEA and transportation funding for Los Angeles.
I'm also honored to be here with the dean and the Godfather of the Congressional representation of Los Angeles, the Honorable Julian Dixon. Several other members of the L.A. delegation were here earlier—Juanita McDonald, Buck McKeon, and also Jay Kim is supposed to be here.
As you know, Madam Chairman, Los Angeles County is a sprawling metropolis covering over 4,000 square miles, larger than the States of either Delaware or Rhode Island.
Page 185 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
L.A. County is the 20th biggest economy in the world, Greater Los Angeles the 11th biggest economy, the State of California the 6th biggest economy in the world. There are only five countries in the world with a larger economy than California.
Los Angeles is a foreign trade capital of the United States. We had $168 billion go through our Customs district last year. Our ports are the biggest in the country. Our airport handles the highest value of cargo in the country.
We are an important asset to the whole United States.
Unfortunately, we grow up with a love affair with the automobile, which exists to this day.
We do operate the second-biggest bus system in the country, and we have begun to build a mass transit system.
Today, 6.5 million people will drive to work in Los Angeles, 1 million will ride buses, 100,000 will use our rail system.
We also have the dubious distinction of having some of the most polluted air in the country, although it has been reduced by almost 70 percent since I moved to Los Angeles in 1956.
An effective transportation system is critical to the competitiveness, economic vitality, and quality of life in Los Angeles County. As we move into the 21st century, Los Angeles plays a key strategic role as the Nation's gateway to the fast-growing economies of the Pacific Rim. Our transportation system must be able to provide for the safe and efficient movement of goods and people.
Page 186 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
We need an efficient transportation system to provide viable alternatives to the automobile and less-polluting options that protect environmental quality and the quality of life.
Los Angeles taxpayers have demonstrated that they are committed to being strong partners in creating mobility in our county. Our voters have twice approved a one-half cent sales tax to fund transportation projects.
In all, these taxes amount to $750 million per year of local investment in transportation.
My central philosophy, both as a businessman and as mayor of the second-largest city, is that we must pursue a course of constant improvement.
It's not easy. Winston Churchill said, ''Any person can come up with a perfect strategy to win a war so long as they are not responsible for waging the war.''
But for the MTA, we need this improvement. This means to finish projects started on time and on budget, to deliver the most service with the fewest tax dollars, and to strengthen our relationships with our funding partners.
In January the MTA Board took important steps in adopting a rail recovery plan that prioritized funding for the red line and also implemented a very stringent ethics policy.
Page 187 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
We must finish what we started, but we must also look to how transportation improvements can be made that benefit the most people for the fewest dollars.
Honorable members of the committee, we are submitting for your consideration seven projects for funding in the ISTEA reauthorization.
First, $100 million to complete the current Mid-cities extension of the Red Line.
Second, $58 million to complete final design of the next extension of the Red Line in the San Fernando Valley. The San Fernando Valley has 1.3 million people, and alone it would be the sixth-largest city in the country.
Next, $44 million to complete final design of an extension of the Red Line into east Los Angeles, one of the two most transit-dependent areas of our city.
Next, $154 million for a 20-mile extension of the Almonte busway and HOV lanes in Interstate 10.
Next, $97 million for grade separations in the San Gabriel Valley to relieve freight-related congestion.
Next, $20 million for a highway configuration of Santa Monica Boulevard to improve vehicular and transit traffic flow.
Page 188 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Finally, $250 million for accelerated replacement of our bus fleet with clean-fuel vehicles. Buses represent over 90 percent of our public transportation, and one of our key goals is to improve busing. Our bus capital request is in response to Federal guidelines for replacing buses that exceed 12 years or 500,000 miles.
The merit and importance of all seven projects are detailed in my written testimony.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, again thank you and your committee for your leadership on behalf of national transportation policy. Each of our projects is necessary to continue Los Angeles as the major trade center for foreign trade of the United States, but also to improve the quality of life of our county.
Thank you very much.
Mr. PICKERING [resuming Chair]. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Congressman.
Do we have any questions? Ms. McDonald?
Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me be the first to welcome our mayor of the city of Los Angeles to this committee. We certainly do understand the role that you play for us in the city of Los Angeles, knowing that Los Angeles is the second-largest metropolis in the Nation, recognizing that we are the 20th largest economy.
Page 189 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
We can ill afford to not pass the projects that this mayor is talking about, because Los Angeles really drives the Nation in that a lot of the cargo that comes from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach really go not only across the State of California, but across the Nation.
And so I am pleased to join with this mayor and with my senior member, Mr. Dixon, and hoping that this committee looks at the projects that he has brought forth, because it is imperative that a city that has about 6.5 million people and increasing—about 60 percent of the immigrants who come to California really migrate into the Los Angeles area—we must have modes of transportation that will afford us the opportunity to advance not only people across our great city and great State, but also across the Nation.
So I just wanted to welcome you this morning, Mr. Mayor, to our committee, and we'll be working with you on the projects that you have brought forth, knowing that this will not only help us in the city of Los Angeles and the State of California, but also in the Nation.
Welcome to this committee.
Mr. RIORDAN. Thank you very, very much, Congresswoman McDonald. You've been a great leader for our area.
Mr. PICKERING. Are there any other questions? Mr. Rahall?
Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 190 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. Mayor, I commend you, as well, for your excellent testimony this morning and the fact that you've taken the time to travel here to Washington to once again show this committee the importance of this project.
I've had the opportunity to tour most of the L.A. metro project and visit with you in your home city. I've also had the opportunity to discuss this quite frequently with your powerful member of the House Appropriations Committee and the dean of your delegation, my good friend Julian Dixon.
And now, just as importantly, you have a very forceful voice on this committee in the form of Juanita Millender-McDonald. Your interests are very well protected here in our Nation's capital.
L.A. being the second-largest city, and our window to the Pacific rim, is a city of national significance. And certainly if we're going to remain competitive, if we're going to move the products out of the east, even from my home State of West Virginia, Los Angeles is a window through which we move our products and it deserves support.
Mr. RIORDAN. Thank you very much, Congressman.
Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. PICKERING. I thank the panel.
Page 191 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. DIXON. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. RIORDAN. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statements of Messrs. Dixon, McKeon, and Riordan follow:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PICKERING. Our next panel will be Mr. Ensign. The committee wants to welcome you and your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN E. ENSIGN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM NEVADA
Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rahall. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this Surface Transportation Subcommittee. And I want to also thank you for your assistance in giving Members this forum to discuss critical infrastructure needs in our various Congressional Districts.
Before briefly touching on individual projects that I support, I wanted to bring to the subcommittee's attention the current formula which distributes Federal highway funds to the States.
The ISTEA formula has, unfortunately, failed to meet Nevada's exponential growth and support the transportation investment necessary in high-growth States like Nevada.
Page 192 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Nevada is, by far, the fastest-growing State in the Nation. Nor surprisingly, infrastructure surpasses crime and education as the number one concern among southern Nevadans.
My Las Vegas, Clark County based Congressional District is the fastest-growing metropolitan area in the United States.
Because of this unprecedented growth, Las Vegas faces EPA sanctions for nonattainment in the national Clean Air Act requirements.
Since the current ISTEA was enacted, Nevada's population has increased by a phenomenal 25 percent. According to the Census Bureau, Nevada grew in population by 4.5 percent between July 1, 1995 and July 1, 1996, compared to the west average of 1.4 percent, and southern Nevada is growing even much faster than the State, as a whole.
The State added over 105,000 new residents last year, and 5,000 people a month are moving into the Las Vegas Valley each and every month for over 5 years now.
As one of the world's premier tourist destinations, Las Vegas attracted 30 million visitors last year. Clark County ranked first among 289 urban U.S. areas, with a 1995-96 employment gain of 8.5 percent.
Moreover, Nevada led the Nation in the rate of employment gains in construction, trade, and government.
Page 193 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The current ISTEA formula is not responsive to our growth needs. As you know, ISTEA set each State's share of funding based on the historical share of the funds the State received from major programs before ISTEA was enacted.
If the subcommittee chooses to base a new formula on protecting State's historical share of funding, Nevada will be penalized.
To correct this problem, I urge you to authorize an equity or bonus funding category similar to what was enacted in the recent welfare reform bill for the purpose of compensating fast-growing States.
Unless this step is taken, Nevada will continue to get a share of Federal highway dollars that does not recognize our growth.
I urge you to do what is equitable, and I think that Nevada can be treated fairly while protecting States which have not experienced such strong growth.
I also strongly urge you base the formula on the Census Bureau's most recent annual population estimates. The Administration supports this approach.
Next, concerning innovative projects, I have requested two highway projects and a fixed guideway new start authorization. These projects, in addition to a growth-sensitive formula, are critical to southern Nevada's capacity to deal with the unparalleled population boom.
Page 194 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
I have already provided extensive information to the subcommittee for your further review.
I respectfully request $270 million to widen U.S. 95 from the current six to ten lanes. U.S. Highway 95 between downtown Las Vegas and the northwest portion of the Las Vegas Valley is the most congested freeway in Nevada, approaching 150,000 vehicles a day, and it's growing at 10 percent per year.
This project has the support of the Nevada Department of Transportation and every local government in metropolitan Las Vegas.
Widening U.S. 95 is the number one priority in Nevada and my number one priority request for this authorization.
I also requested $8 million for the city of Henderson, which is the fastest-growing city in the United States—Henderson is right next to Las Vegas in the Las Vegas Valley—to mitigate noise, environmental, and air quality problems along this segment of Interstate 515 and U.S. 93 and 95.
This highway was designated as a portion of the CanaMex Corridor in the National Highway System Designation Act. Henderson desperately needs to mitigate noise and environmental deterioration along this heavily-traveled commercial corridor that is serving as a NAFTA link between Canada and Mexico.
Page 195 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
I would like to lend my support also for Congressman Jerry Lewis' request to widen Interstate 15 between Barstow and Victorville in California. This segment of interstate is a critical tourism corridor between southern Nevada, Arizona, and California. Relieving congestion along I–15 would be of significant benefit to Nevada's economy.
The Regional Transportation Commission of Clark County is seeking an authorization in the amount of $406 million for a fixed guideway new start project and an expansion of the citizen area transit bus system.
The fixed guideway or monorail will serve Los Vegas' heavily-congested central business and hospitality district.
I understand that your subcommittee will be reviewing several requests under the new start category. There will be far more requests than available funding. In this regard, I ask you to carefully consider the significant 55 percent over-match proposed by the Regional Transportation Committee and Las Vegas' unparalleled growth.
This is the first such request from Nevada, while other communities are seeking extensions to their existing fixed guideway systems.
Mr. Chairman, I have included written testimony from local officials in support of my project request. Of course, if any members of the subcommittee are interested in examining southern Nevada's transportation needs first-hand, you are always welcome to come out to our fair city.
Page 196 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PICKERING. Thank you, Mr. Ensign.
Mr. Rahall?
Mr. RAHALL. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I just appreciate our colleague's leadership on this issue in bringing this project to our attention.
Mr. PICKERING. And I want to thank you for your hard work in putting together your proposals and congratulate you. The committee thanks you.
Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ensign follows:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PICKERING. The next panel is Mr. Goodling.
TESTIMONY OF HON. WILLIAM F. GOODLING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. GOODLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee. I know you have a difficult task ahead, and I'm sure you'll evaluate all projects fairly.
Page 197 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
My Congressional District is probably a disaster waiting to happen. We are the third fastest growing area in the State, and my area encompasses York County, Adams County, and Cumberland County. We've had some good projects in the past. Most are now outdated, deteriorated. The population has just grown leaps and bounds.
To add to all of that, of course, Interstate 83, Interstate 81, the Pennsylvania Turnpike, U.S. 30, U.S. 15 all come together, which has made it just a great place to attract all the trucking companies in the world.
We counted recently. I think we have 173 trucking companies operating in my District, 30 of which are interstate. And if you're coming from any place in the west to midwest, probably you're going to come through my District if you're transporting anything.
We have, for instance, on Interstate 83, of 20 exits, only one has a complete cloverleaf. But I showed you a picture of what that complete cloverleaf amounts to. That's Route 30 where you see all that traffic, and 83 is up over the top.
Now, we're not dealing with that specific area at this time because there is some work being done in that area, but I just wanted to show you, on that stretch of 7 1/2 miles, they have about 45,000 trucks and cars every day, and they also have 10 stop lights. It's supposed to be a bypass, but there are 10 stop lights on that whole mess.
The bottom picture shows you a car trying to get off of 83, and what that car is going to try to do is get in that line, and immediately, within 50 feet, is going to try to get across all that traffic to take a left-hand turn. Good luck, if they live to see the day.
Page 198 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Let me give you just a couple of the areas that we have real concerns about.
Route 15 and Lisburn Road is one of the most dangerous intersections in the District. This existing signalized intersection represents a serious safety concern for the area. It serves Williams Grove Speedway, Messiah College, and many other areas.
It has an area that is just growing leaps and bounds, and it is a tremendous hazard for local residents as they travel Route 15 to travel to Gettysburg, Harrisburg, and Washington, D.C. It had numerous accidents, serious injuries, and fatalities in recent years.
All the fatalities are serious. Its most tragic, two Messiah College students and one Mechanicsburg High School student have needlessly lost their life.
A new interchange would greatly enhance the safety of that area, and the cost of that is $16.8 million. It would require $13.4 million in Federal funds, of which $668,000 has been obligated for preconstruction phases. So I'm requesting the $12.7 million in Federal funds to complete the project.
It's on PennDOT's 12-year plan.
Route 94 in the Hanover area is an interesting area in that the townships around it are the most rapidly-growing industrial townships I think that you could find.
Page 199 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The borough of Hanover has about 15,000 people, and then another 12,000 out in Penn Township. They already employ over 26,000 in the area.
Every truck that has to deal with all this area has to go right through the borough and try to get through the square of Hanover.
It's probably the most rapidly-growing manufacturing center. PennDOT estimates that there will be a 32 percent population growth by the year 2020, and they say the employment will increase by 35 percent by that time.
It has had no serious infrastructure enhancement for as long as I can remember.
I also would indicate the fact that, while Hanover has experienced rapid growth, particularly in industry, there is no direct route to Hanover on the national highway system from the Pennsylvania Turnpike, Harrisburg area, to the north.
The addition of a roughly 10-mile stretch of 94 between 15 and 30 should be part of the national highway system. The increased amount of truck traffic coming into the city, as I indicated, warrants its inclusion. It's just unbelievable.
Exits 4 and 5 on I–83—that's part of I–83 over the top that you see on that picture. South of that is what they call ''Dead Man's Curve,'' and it's aptly named because we have people going off that curve just constantly, trucks and cars. It is, as I said, a disaster already, and it's going to get worse. They've reduced the speed limit around the curve, but it is still just one serious hazard.
Page 200 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Everyone I know has had a near miss at trying to negotiate the ill-placed series of on/off ramps. This is an interesting thing, because you come out of the city of York and all of the sudden you're coming into Interstate 83. Again, you're coming in on the left side, if you can get into the traffic that's coming around on 83, and then you're immediately going to try, in most instances, to get clear across the traffic to turn right so you can go to your place of residence.
As I said, it's a real disaster waiting to happen.
I have submitted a diagram of one proposed solution. Total cost of this renovation would be approximately $25 million, of which $20 million would be Federal funds.
The Gettysburg area is primarily a study and then some money to follow up. Many of you have probably visited the battlefield area and know it is a small, sleepy kind of area with all sorts of traffic that we really don't know how to handle.
They would have you do the study and then supply the money in order to carry out the results of that.
Exit 12 off of I–81, we need an improvement to the interchange of exit 12 on I–81 at the intersection of Route 465 in Cumberland County. The project will improve the ability of the interchange to handle the increasing traffic from the commercial and industrial development expected within a 1-mile radius of that interchange. The project would cost $6.9 million.
Page 201 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Intermodal freight transfer—as I indicate, with all the trucking that we have, anything we can do to enhance the rail system will be helpful for everyone in the area.
We'd like to establish an intermodal freight transfer terminal in York County. It was submitted to me as a priority for York County Transportation Coalition. Total cost of the project is estimated at $5 to $6 million. Twenty percent will be contributed in the form of land and cash by Emmons Logistic Services, Inc. It plans to use the terminal extensively, but it will be a publicly-owned facility.
It is my understanding that a similar project receiving Federal funds in Maine has already succeeded in removing 14,000 long-haul trucks per year from the highway there. South-central Pennsylvania and the national highway system would greatly benefit from it.
Again, I thank you for having the opportunity to testify before you. It is a pretty big agenda but, as I said, we have a disaster waiting to happen in a rapidly-growing area.
Mr. PICKERING. Thank you, Mr. Goodling.
I see that the ranking member of the full committee has come in.
Mr. Oberstar, would you like to say anything?
Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank Mr. Goodling for coming to the committee, along with so many of our colleagues over the last few days and the next few days, to come to underscore the significance of this legislation and the importance of funding fully all the respective needs.
Page 202 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Just a question. These projects have all been cleared by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and meet all the standards of our committee 14-point inquiry of Members. If they were not individually designated by the committee, what would be the time frame within which you might expect the State—the Commonwealth, excuse me, of Pennsylvania to fund these projects?
Mr. GOODLING. Some of these are not on the 12-year plan in the State of Pennsylvania, so that would give you an idea. A couple of them are on the 12-year plan. So any time between now and about 10 years down the pike. By that time, anything that they think about doing today will be outmoded by that time with the rapid growth.
Mr. OBERSTAR. So if the devolutionist approach to the future of ISTEA were to prevail and all power and all authority and all decision-making given to governors, you'd be standing there on the highway with hat in hand for a good many years?
Mr. GOODLING. A long time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. We intend to work with Members on this committee.
Mr. GOODLING. Thank you very much.
I might add that the picture I showed you, I took Chairman Shuster on a bus right in the middle of that mess. I wanted him to see first-hand what a mess we have trying to get our transportation around there. It's something else.
Page 203 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. PICKERING. Thank you. It looks like the projects have or address legitimate needs, and I appreciate your testimony.
Mr. GOODLING. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goodling follows:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PICKERING. We would like to go to the Lucas panel if possible. We have a vote coming up shortly. If we could—we're running a little bit behind, and if we could submit your testimony for the record and to the best of your ability, summarize, the committee would appreciate it.
TESTIMONY OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM OKLAHOMA, ACCOMPANIED BY MITCH SURRETT, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY, OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DAVID STREB, PROJECT ENGINEER, AND GUY LIEBMANN, COUNCILMAN, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK
Mr. LUCAS. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.
I would like to introduce and make some comments. With me today are: Mr. Mitch Surrett, special assistant to Oklahoma Secretary of Transportation, and David Streb, project engineer, as well as Guy Liebmann from the Oklahoma City Council. We'll stand by their comments. And I'd ask to be permitted to add some letters from the mayor and appropriate authorities to the written testimony, Mr. Chairman.
Page 204 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. SURRETT. Good morning. As part of the interstate system, the I–40 Crosstown Expressway and Bridge in downtown Oklahoma City is very vital.
On a national level, the interstate provides connecting access between North Carolina and California, a direct route to Tinker Air Force Base, and it is located approximately a half mile south of the Alfred P. Murrah Memorial.
The bridge extends from the I–35 junction west approximately 2 miles to Western Avenue in Oklahoma City. It's the largest bridge in Oklahoma, encompassing six lanes, stretching nearly 2 miles in length, with 130 spans and 837,000 square feet of bridge deck.
The bridge is 30 times larger than the next-largest bridge in need of replacement.
The east end of the bridge interchanges with I–35, which has been designated by Congress as a high-priority corridor in the 1995 National Highway Designation Act.
Currently, I–35 is experiencing significant increases in vehicular and commercial traffic due to the North American Free Trade Agreement. A Federal corridor study has been planned to assess these increased needs.
The bridge, which is the heaviest-traveled section of highway in the State, is in critical condition. Today this bridge has over 100,000 vehicles per day, although it originally was designed for 78,000 vehicles.
Page 205 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The term ''fracture critical'' is commonly used to describe the bridge's condition. It means that if only one cross member of this structure failed, the entire bridge section would collapse.
In fact, in 1989 a crack was detected in one of the bridge's cross members and the eastbound lanes were closed while the repair was made. This resulted in devastating traffic impacts to the downtown area.
Joint failures are common in the eastbound lanes, and the concrete deck needs to be replaced.
The bridge is in such poor condition that overload trucks with permits are restricted from traveling it.
The Oklahoma Department of Transportation currently spends $5 million on repairs to piers and hangers, and spent approximately $775,000 for a major investment study and environmental impact statement just to keep the bridge operational.
Due to the nature of the bridge's condition, ODOT performs inspections every 6 months, as opposed to the standard of every 2 years. And each inspection takes at least 2 months to complete.
As for magnitude, it would take the Department of Transportation in Oklahoma 8 years of traditional bridge replacement funds to pay for this one bridge, meaning that all the other State bridge replacement would be postponed for 8 years.
Page 206 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The infrastructure needs of the I–40 Crosstown Expressway and Bridge cannot be overlooked. Looking at future investment, the project consists of $300 million in capital improvements. These will include a ball park, arena, library, civic center improvements, and a canal which will pass directly under the bridge.
ODOT is working in partnership with city officials to make these improvements as smooth as possible.
To date, the reconstruction of I–40 through downtown Oklahoma City is estimated to cost approximately $200 million. There are no sound alternative routes for traffic during construction. This project must be constructed rapidly, with minimal detour time.
The entire crosstown, not small portions, must be constructed before the facility can be open to the public. That means that funding for the project cannot be progressive, but it has to be a lump sum.
The new alignment will consist of 10 lanes with interchanges.
That's the largest and most compelling project in ODOT's history. The cost is too large for the agency's current construction program, which is $300 million annually.
In closing, it is critical that sound planning and funding is secured for the reconstruction of the I–40 Crosstown Expressway to ensure that there are no future repercussions of closed cross-country interstates.
Page 207 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Thank you.
Mr. LIEBMANN. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Guy Liebmann, councilman from Oklahoma City.
First let me thank you for the time that you're giving us this morning.
The project, as described in our submittal, consists of constructing approximately 5 3/4 miles of four-lane arterial roadway with left-turn bays to replace a major portion of MacArthur Boulevard, which was closed at the request of the Federal Aviation Administration Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center.
The street that was closed bisected the campus of the FAA Center, making it impossible to meet the new security requirements of the FAA and other Federal facilities. The higher security requirements on the Federal facilities is a direct result of the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
Because of the concern, we, the City Council, voted to close MacArthur, in spite of the fact that it served a number of public and private facilities as the only open arterial in this area.
Other public facilities accessed by the street include the Federal Prison Transfer Center, the Oklahoma Air National Guard Base, Metro-Tech Aviation Career Center, and the Will Rogers World Airport.
Page 208 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Since the closing of MacArthur Boulevard, the traffic that would have traveled this street has diverted to neighborhood streets, causing traffic and safety concerns.
To solve these problems, we propose to relocate MacArthur Boulevard west of the FAA Center and connect it back to I–44. This will provide access to the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center and provide a security operation which is efficient and cost effective.
The new alignment will also serve the Federal Prison Transfer Center, the Oklahoma Air National Guard Base, Metro-Tech Aviation Career Center, and the Will Rogers World Airport.
Mr. Chairman, we estimate this project to cost approximately $7.9 million; however, we do not expect the total amount to come from the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. We propose to provide $3.7 million in funding, 47 percent, as our part of this project cost.
We have already completed most of the environmental assessment and estimate it will be completed in June of this year. Engineering plans, along with the necessary right-of-way free and clear of any utilities, can be completed by December 1998, and construction can begin shortly thereafter.
Not only will construction of this project help create jobs, but it will provide economic relief for employees working at the facilities which need this north-south arterial street reopened.
Page 209 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
We are submitting for the committee's review letters of support on the project from the mayor of Oklahoma City, the chairman of the Oklahoma City Airport Trust Authority, the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, and the Federal Transfer Center.
Again, thank you for your time. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. LUCAS. If, in the spirit of brevity, I might be permitted to say, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleagues coming from Oklahoma to testify today, and I wholeheartedly support both these projects and hope that the committee will be able to give them fair consideration.
Mr. PICKERING. Thank you. And your panel represents the model that we want to see—the city, the State, and at the Federal level working together, Congressman Lucas.
Mr. Rahall, do we have—
Mr. RAHALL. I have no questions.
Mr. PICKERING. Any other questions?
[No response.]
Mr. PICKERING. We thank you for coming and thank you for your time and your effort and the proposals you brought to the committee.
Page 210 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. LUCAS. Thank you.
[The prepared statements of Messrs. Lucas, Liebmann, Norick, Townsend, and Ritz follow:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PETRI [resuming Chair]. Now we're joined by our colleague, Jennifer Dunn, who is accompanied by Rowan Hinds, who is the mayor of Issaquah. These Indian words are—we have a few out in Wisconsin, as well.
Ms. DUNN. You don't have any of those in Wisconsin, do you, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. PETRI. Right. Anyway, welcome. We look forward to your introducing your guests.
We're going to have a vote in a minute, so we might as well see if we can't get this done before then.
Ms. DUNN. You bet.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JENNIFER DUNN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM WASHINGTON, ACCOMPANIED BY HON. ROWAN HINDS, MAYOR, ISSAQUAH, WA, AND JAMES WARJONE, PORT BLAKELY COMMUNITIES
Page 211 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Ms. DUNN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, it is my pleasure to introduce to the subcommittee Mr. Rowan Hinds, who is mayor of the city of Issaquah, which is located in Washington State's Eighth District. He is accompanied by Mr. James WarJone of Port Blakely Communities, who has been a very important and early part of our private partnership in this important project.
Mayor Hinds will give testimony. Mayor Hinds has been working on a much-needed project in my District known as the I–90 Sunset Interchange since at least 1993. He contacted me during my first term in the 103rd Congress about the project, when I served on the then Public Works and Transportation Committee.
Since that time, I've been demoted to the Ways and Means Committee, but other Washington State delegation Members have worked for the funding of this project in my stead.
The project is an interchange on Interstate 90 at the western end of our national highway system. It would provide traffic congestion relief to improve the transportation network not only for the surrounding communities, but also for the flow of commerce from eastern Washington to the ports for trade.
I should point out for the record that Issaquah is an economic success story perched on the interstate system. It is now home to such corporate giants as Price Club/Costco and Nintendo, although its ability to move products to markets is hurt by traffic congestion. This is the problem we seek to solve.
Page 212 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The city of Issaquah, King County, the Washington State Department of Transportation, and Port Blakely Communities have come together to make this project a reality. This is a very good illustration of local, State, private, and Federal interests working together to meet national transportation needs.
Another good example of this collaboration was evident during my Tuesday meeting with King County Council Chairman Jane Hague, who manages the second-largest government in the State of Washington. Her council was especially helpful in conveying the local transportation needs of Washington State.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I ask you to welcome Mayor Hinds of Issaquah to the committee, and I commend his testimony to you for your consideration.
Mr. HINDS. Thank you, Ms. Dunn.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I'd like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today at this hearing on the ISTEA reauthorization act.
I'd like to request your funding inclusion of the most critically-needed transportation project in my community and the surrounding region. I'm speaking of the Sunset interchange in highway Interstate 90 at the east edge of the city of Issaquah to approximately 18 miles east of Seattle, Washington.
First, I'd like to share my wonderful city with you. We are a moderate-sized urban community of some 9,000 people with quality housing and sufficient job opportunities to keep our children in the community if they choose to remain.
Page 213 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
We are situated in a very beautiful scenic area, surrounded by the Issaquah Alps and Lake Sammamish. We enjoy a salmon hatchery with salmon runs in our streams, wildlife on our doorstep, forests and lakes for our playgrounds, and pure air and clean water.
Our residents genuinely enjoy their city and our environment, and we have many volunteer boards and commissions to help us maintain this quality of life.
The community of Issaquah is still a paradise and one of the finest cities in the State of Washington. My purpose here today is to request your help in keeping it that way.
Our State, our region, and our cities are growing in population and employment. This growth is causing pressure, but we continue to find jobs and homes for nearly everyone who needs them.
A locally healthy economy and a moderately aggressive growth bring with it increased population mobility and personal travel impacts. I think these impacts come with a price which we all have to pay.
One of the price tags in my city is a high level of congestion on our arterial streets and insufficient access to Interstate 90. All our arterials are congested to the point that we often are in violation of the levels of service goals contained in our comprehensive land use plans. These plans are required by our State's Growth Management Act.
Not only are our present citizens experiencing high accident rates and unacceptable travel delay from this congestion, but, additionally, our land use plan will fail if we are forced to deny land use permits because of our congested transportation system.
Page 214 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
If not mitigated, this plan will fail and our population and employment growth will slow down and eventually stop, bringing to a halt our healthy economy.
Because of the strategic economic value of King County and the Issaquah region to the entire State of Washington, the failure of our local land use economy will hurt the entire State and ultimately the Nation.
Our employment base is composed of aviation, computers, software, electronics, and other high-tech industries with names like Boeing, Microsoft, Intel, Fluke Manufacturing, Semus Quantum, and others.
They will stop growing because we can no longer support their need for quality housing, environmental amenities, and employment. These industries are highly mobile and will seek other regions if we cannot give them what they need. The loss of these businesses would have a societal cost, as well, which the entire Nation would bear at some point.
The leaders do not want this to happen because these industries are clean, progressive, and economically stimulating to the region and the Nation.
In the immediate region of the city, the most critically-needed transportation improvement is access to Interstate Highway 90 at the Sunset interchange. All of our other local improvements are predicated on that interchange being modified.
Without the Sunset interchange improvements, the other projects cannot succeed and we cannot achieve our transportation goals.
Page 215 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Traditionally, an interchange project like this would have been a good candidate for Federal funding, but with ISTEA tradition has changed. The local region has, accordingly, agreed to supply nearly three-fourths of the necessary $100 million the four projects associated with the interchange need. Our present funding gap is $29 million for the Sunset interchange to match the $71 million of local money which has been obligated by the city, county, and State in the amount of $41 million, and $30 million from private sector. So we do have a very substantial public/private partnership here.
Mr. PETRI. We thank you for your testimony. The whole will be made a part of the record.
You've heard the buzzes and bells. We had a five-minute rule and the red light is on, so that's expired. But we also have to go and vote.
We will work with your able representative, part of our leadership, Representative Dunn, and others in the Washington delegation on this project. I know you're quite close—I think Rick White's District and a number of other representatives.
Mr. HINDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. DUNN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Page 216 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
[The prepared statements of Ms. Dunn and Mr. Hinds follow:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PETRI. We'll have two votes, and therefore the subcommittee will recess until 11:45 we'll be back.
[Recess.]
Mr. PETRI. The committee will come to order. I apologize for not resuming at 11:45, but there was an extra adjournment vote that we hadn't—I guess some people had anticipated, we hadn't.
I'm delighted to welcome our colleague, Representative Davis, right off a triumph on the floor.
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Please introduce your guests and proceed as you wish.
TESTIMONY OF HON. THOMAS M. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM VIRGINIA, ACCOMPANIED BY MARK JOSEPH, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL TAXICAB AND LIVERY ASSOCIATION, AND ALFRED LAGASSE, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL TAXICAB & LIVERY ASSOCIATION
Page 217 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. DAVIS. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and fellow committee members. I appreciate your allotting time in your busy hearing schedule to give the senior officers from the International Taxicab & Livery Association an opportunity to testify.
Here from the association to testify about the labor protection provisions of the Federal Transit Act are Mark Joseph, president, and Alfred LaGasse, the executive vice president.
I understand Mr. Joseph will present the testimony and Mr. LaGasse is here to provide technical assistance if you have any questions.
Again, I appreciate the subcommittee providing time to hear both sides of this very complex issue.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Gentlemen, as you know, we operate under what we call a ''five-minute'' rule. Since we've slipped a little behind schedule, we're actually going to enforce it fairly strictly.
Your full statements will be made a part of the record. Please proceed.
Mr. JOSEPH. Thank you, Congressman Davis.
Chairman Petri, my name is Mark Joseph. I am accompanied by Alfred LaGasse. I'm president and Mr. LaGasse is executive vice president of the ITLA.
Page 218 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
ITLA is the only national nonprofit association that represents all types of private, community-based, passenger-carrying fleets—taxis, liveries, vans, and other para-transit vehicles.
There are nearly 15,000 private companies providing public transportation. These fleets operate well over 250,000 vehicles, provide work for over 400,000 men and women, and transport over two billion passengers per year.
Our industry provides 20 percent of all public transit service in the United States.
Today I urge you to repeal section 5333(B) of title 49 of the U.S. Code, formerly known as section 13(C) of the Federal Transit Act.
As you consider the reauthorization of ISTEA and the empowerment of local governments and transit authorities to attain more control over local operations, there are two characteristics of this onerous labor provision that we urge the committee to consider.
First, whenever a grant is submitted to the Federal Government by a public transit authority, it must be signed off by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the U.S. Department of Labor, and the national office of unions that represent workers in the respective transit authority.
In other words, if there is a portion of a grant application that the Washington office of a national labor organization does not like, that office can simply refuse to sign off.
Page 219 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Second, under this burdensome labor provision, if a transit authority decides that it would like to competitively bid a portion of its regular route or para-transit service in order to try to become more efficient, section 5333(B) prevents such efficiencies and innovative approaches. It prevents such actions because if a protected worker loses his or her job as a result of this action, they are entitled to up to 6 full years of salary.
Section 5333(B) is an invisible hammer that prevents transit authorities from being innovative. In my written testimony I quote from the testimony of a number of representatives from public transit agencies who appeared before this committee in February 1995 concerning the negative impact that this troublesome labor provision has on their agencies. I will not read these quotations to you, but the statements of transit officials are as true today as they were just 2 years ago.
For our part, ITLA has, for the past year, undertaken an extensive project to document real competitive contracting projects and the substantial savings that are being prevented by section 5333(B). This project is documenting that the labor provision is antI–competitive and it is pricing public transportation out of the transportation market.
ITLA began a process of going into selected markets around the country to develop packages of service that would be logical candidates for competitive contracting.
There were at least two criteria considered in selecting services: first, the routes had to be the least-protective routes in the system, thereby avoiding the claim that we were cherry-picking; second, the routes had to be logically chosen in order to minimize deadhead miles and provide attractive enough package to garner a large field of competitors.
Page 220 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Table one of my written testimony shows that the eight transit markets that were documented, ranging from Chicago to Washington, D.C., in all of these markets a proposal from a responsible group of private operators is being submitted to the transit authority or is based on verifiable information.
Table one also reveals that in just eight transit markets it could be reasonably estimated that an annual operating savings from competitive bidding would total about $27 million, and that this level of annual savings, as realized over the expected 6-year period of this reauthorization, would yield a total savings of $162 million.
If the savings of $162 million can be realized in just eight transit markets, the potential in nearly 500 other transit authorities in the United States is extremely significant.
The savings generated could prevent fares from increasing, prevent the elimination of bus service in dependent neighborhoods, prevent raising taxes, or it could enhance para-transit service.
The supporters of the status quo have stated that eliminating section 5333(B) would be taking away the collective bargaining rights of transit labor. We have stated for the record that the collective bargaining rights of transit management and transit labor would not be impacted; rather, this meddlesome transit labor provision is, itself, a Federal intrusion into the local collective bargaining process.
Page 221 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. Chairman, there is more than ample justification to repeal 5333(B).
The other policy I would like to address today is the need to repeal section 5305(E)(3) of title 49 of the U.S. Code, formerly known as section 8(I)(5) of the Federal Transit Act, because it discriminates against private transportation operators.
The power and role of the MPOs were greatly enhanced with the enactment of ISTEA. Every MPO is now required to be certified at least every 3 years that it complies with all applicable laws and regulations except for one. That one law the MPOs do not have to certify compliance with is the private sector portion of the Federal Transit Act.
We respectfully ask that this discriminatory portion of section 5305(E)(3) be repealed.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to present our views.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you both for coming and testifying. I think it's very useful for you to lay this out for us on the record, and, even though everyone's not here, they will be made familiar with what you brought before the committee.
Thank you very much.
Mr. JOSEPH. I appreciate your time. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Joseph and Mr. LaGasse follow:]
Page 222 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
[Insert here.]
Mr. PETRI. The next witness is our colleague, the Honorable Martin Frost from our Lone Star State.
TESTIMONY OF HON. MARTIN FROST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS
Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to testify today. I'll be relatively brief.
As you know, nothing will prove more important to the transportation needs in this country for the remainder of the decade and well into the next century than the 1997 reauthorization of ISTEA.
As members of the committee, you have important decisions to make, and I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words about this important legislation.
I'm here to request funding for two important projects in the north Texas area. As many of you know, the Dallas/Ft. Worth area is one of the fastest-growing areas in the country. While the area has taken great strides in developing mass transportation projects such as the DART light rail system and Railtran, there still remains much overcrowding on our highways.
The first project calls for the widening of portions of Interstate 30 from six to eight to a ten-lane freeway. In addition, this project includes an interchange, structures, and sound walls for this 14-mile section. The total project cost is $183,600,000, of which 80 percent would be in Federal funds.
Page 223 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
This particular portion is from the Tarrant County line eastward back toward Dallas and is a very highly-traveled area.
The second demonstration project is the widening of Interstate 45, which is the highway generally between Dallas and Houston. This project involves the reconstruction of Interstate 45 from a four-lane rural to a six-lane urban freeway. Total project cost, $47,490,897, of which $22,490,897 would be the Federal portion.
This particular project is around the city of Corsicana, which is a city about 45 miles south of Dallas.
Both projects are in keeping with the Texas Transportation Commission's Statewide priorities, and, if the funds are appropriated, Texas Department of Transportation will be diligent in its efforts to complete the projects.
I would also like to say a few words about formula funding for highways.
As you know, Texans have contributed their motor fuels tax dollars in the national cause of building a strong, reliable, and safe national surface transportation system. To accomplish this, Texans and other Americans have allowed tremendous amounts of their tax dollars to be sent to other States to address national priorities.
Texans believe in these goals; however, as I mentioned earlier, surface transportation needs in Texas require a growing amount of attention, as well.
Page 224 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Current highway allocation formulas ignore the tremendous growth in population in Texas and the international trade we're experiencing and the increase of use of our transportation system that comes with it.
Today, a State's share of Federal highway funds is determined by outdated measures and its population in 1980. High-growth States like Texas lose when funding formulas are based on antiquated factors.
It is my hope that the committee will right the formula inequity and guarantee the so-called ''donor States'' something closer to a dollar-for-dollar return on their contributions to the highway trust fund.
In closing, I want to thank you again for asking me to be here today, and I appreciate your consideration of my remarks.
Mr. PETRI. We thank you, and we apologize for being a little behind schedule. That's business as usual here.
Mr. FROST. Well, you have a lot before you, and I just appreciate your full consideration of this request.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much. Are there any questions?
[No response.]
Page 225 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. PETRI. If not, thank you.
Mr. FROST. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Frost follows:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PETRI. The next witness is our colleague, the Honorable Ron Klink of Pennsylvania.
TESTIMONY OF HON. RON KLINK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. KLINK. I thank the chairman. I would ask that my official testimony be submitted for the record and I'll try to use some photographs, since pictures are really worth thousands of words.
I thought what we would do—I know that you and I have had the opportunity to speak before about these projects. What I want to show you, if I could stand, Mr. Chairman, is—the area that we're talking about is an area on the Ohio River. We have a brand new Greater Pittsburgh International Airport, which is about $1 billion, and Route 60, which goes by it, was another $700 million to complete that four-lane highway.
Page 226 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Down here we have the city of Aliquippa, which is a port, and it is on the longest navigational pool in the Ohio River.
Very near there we have the Conway Railyards, and they're this green area. This is the largest railyards between New York and Chicago.
We've got this wonderful intermodal transportation system, which includes also Routes 60, 65, and 51 along the river, but we have no way to connect them with some other thriving areas north of Pittsburgh.
Right here we have the Pennsylvania Turnpike. We have I–79. We have Interstate 79. If you'll notice, all these are north-south highways.
And if these large companies which have located up here in the vicinity of exit three—and there are huge employers up there like Mine Safety Appliance, Treco Window—they do all the window replacements for the Empire State Building, for the Statue of Liberty. They're one of the largest replacement window companies—American Eagle Outfitters—four systems. They now have 2,000 employees in this area in the last 6 years.
So these large companies cannot get their products down to the rail yards, cannot get their products right to airport. They have to either go north and come back over and down, or go south on 79 toward the city of Pittsburgh and come back out the highway again. And so we've got a real transportation problem.
In previous bills, $14.2 million was allocated for what we call the ''Crow's Run Corridor.'' We've begun to spend that money, and so we're back to take a look to see if we can complete that project.
Page 227 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Similarly, $25 million was allocated by this committee for an Aliquippa-Ambridge Bridge. That's half the money. We cannot build half a bridge.
So those are two of the things that we're talking about.
If I can go to some other pictures, this is a picture that, unfortunately, is about 15 years old. This is the city of Aliquippa, Mr. Chairman. You'll notice a 7.5 mile long steel mill that employed 15,000 people very near where this Aliquippa-Ambridge Bridge will go. It's very near the Conway Railyards and very close to the Greater Pittsburgh International Airport.
This is what it looked like 15 years ago. Chairman, this is the same site today. There's nothing there. It is empty. Those 15,000 jobs are gone. The mill has been shut down. The community is in disarray.
We have workers in this area that are not capable of being able to travel to this area where the jobs are being created. We need to be able to get these products to the intermodal transportation system, get these workers that have been displaced to where the jobs are. That's why it's important for us to do this project.
This is the Greater Pittsburgh International Airport. I talked about it just a few moments ago. It was just opened about 4 years ago. It is about a $1 billion project. It has been a very successful airport. The State and Federal Government, working with this committee, expedited a tremendous amount of money, $700 million, to be able to build Route 60.
Page 228 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
So we have the north-south transportation. That is available.
The bridges which are located in the area of the Ohio River—this is actually the railyard that we're talking about here, the Conway yards.
With the merger of Conrail and CSX—it looks like it's moving much closer this week—it is important to this new company to be able to have the trucks from this area come straight to the railyards. They cannot do that now.
The reason I will show you, as we go to the map—and you'll have this map in your packet. This is an overview shot, an aerial shot of the railyards.
What we call currently ''Crow's Run'' is this little dirt road which not only can't take truck traffic, it can't even really take car traffic. And so the traffic comes down now through this residential area.
Again, it cannot take commercial traffic. Tractor trailers cannot travel this road.
Further on, as we move in toward this area of Cranberry where all the commerce is taking place, you get an idea of what this road looks like. It is very curved. Again, it's very dangerous. Some of these curves represent some of the most dangerous highways in southwestern Pennsylvania, and because of that, the safety factors, PennDOT has moved ahead on those curves with the 14.2 million that you've given them in the past. They're actually working on those sections.
Page 229 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
But there will be no way to get to the highway from 65. The entranceway, that dirt road I talked about, is not there. So we need the money to be able to roll the tractors and trailers through this area.
Similarly, the other thing that we're looking at in our presentation—now, this is the other end. This is—we're now moving from this area across, and we're now to this very busy area. This is a photograph from 1994. If I can show you, this is the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Now, you come off the turnpike. This is Route 19. It's a business road. Since this picture was taken, all of these empty areas are now filled with shopping malls and businesses. All of the intersections here are failing. When you come off the Turnpike you come onto a four-lane business road. It is not limited access. If you want to go south on 79 you have to go down 19 first. All of these intersections and traffic signals are failing. People sit in traffic for long periods of time.
You cannot get straight from the turnpike to Route 79. If you do get over to 79, you can't turn south. That's why you have to go this direction.
The Turnpike is beginning with phase one. They're going to put their own intersection in with Pennsylvania Turnpike funds, but that still doesn't tie us in to 79 and to Route 19. That's what we need the money for.
And we are asking for $25 million to finish this bridge. You've given us 25 already, we need the other 25. We're asking for $82 million to finish this highway. And we're asking for $42.8 million to finish this connector.
Page 230 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
It is all really one project. Well, there are three separate projects. They really are one massive project, and it just makes sense simply to give us an east-west connector for these major roadways.
I thank you for your kind attention and putting up with my pictures and graphs.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you for a very effective presentation. I think it does help us to visualize it, to have the pictures and graphs. It brings it to life quite clearly.
Are there any questions? Yes?
Mr. PEASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congressman, in the materials that you—this has been very helpful, by the way.
Mr. KLINK. Thank you.
Mr. PEASE. In the materials that you provided, there is not present—and I don't need it at this moment, but would appreciate having at some point the amount of contributions made by the State of Pennsylvania and local governments to the total cost of the project.
Page 231 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. KLINK. Thank you, Mr. Pease, for mentioning that, because not only do we have that for you, but we can also provide the committee some of the private companies that are located in this area that are growing so large and have actually said that they're willing to put up some of their own money to improve intersections.
In the case of Mine Safety Appliances, they're actually willing to rebuild part of Route 228 just to the east of this site. That's how important it is. They will create, where Route 79 is a four-lane north-south highway, intersects with Route 228, they will create one of the finest, if not the finest industrial park in this Nation and create 5,000 jobs, minimum. And they're ready to move on this now, but they want to make sure that both the State and Federal Government are going to put up the money.
So we're leveraging not only State money and local funds, but also private industry is stepping in, as well, because they're busting at their seams. They want to be there. This is where they want to locate, but the infrastructure is killing them.
So we'll give you that information. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Klink follows:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much.
Page 232 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The next panel is made up of our colleague, Lloyd Doggett, and—is Lamar here?
Mr. DOGGETT. I believe he's on the way.
Mr. PETRI. Very good. Well, please proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. LLOYD DOGGETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS; AND HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS
Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Rahall and members of the committee.
I'm here on behalf of two complementary projects, a light rail and bus transportation modernization program for the local transit authority in Austin, Texas, and an Interstate 35 bypass around the city of Austin, affecting my District, but this bypass begins and ends within Representative Lamar Smith's District, who has filed written testimony and I believe will be joining us shortly.
Trying to act within the original spirit of ISTEA, our central Texas communities have been working together on a regional basis to design a comprehensive, integrated, and intermodal response to our very great transportation challenges.
The alternate Interstate Highway 35 route, which we call in Texas ''State Highway 130,'' is something on which Lamar and I offer joint support.
Page 233 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Congressman Gonzalez and undoubtedly the successor to Congressman Tejeda will also offer their enthusiastic support. This has bipartisan support of Texans, consistent with the bipartisan tradition of this committee.
As you're aware, I–35 is a major north-south corridor connecting the Minnesota-Canadian border with the Texas-Mexico border and running right through the heart of America, and the part that Congressman Smith and I are addressing your attention to is the most dangerous part and the most heavily-congested portion of that entire I–35 route.
The Austin/San Antonio corridor is a stretch of highway that runs essentially from Georgetown to San Antonio, Texas. This stretch of I–35 has experienced an increase in vehicular traffic since the 1960s of 754 percent. In just the last 48 months, traffic on this particular segment of I–35 has doubled.
There are truly big traffic problems there in central Texas, and this is from a State that, by its very size, knows what big really is.
Such rapid increases in congestion have pushed us near the brink of nonattainment of Federal air quality rules, and when you take the congestion that we already have, you mix in some NAFTA truck traffic, you mix in the kind of high-tech growth we've had there, you get a recipe for gridlock.
Within the next 3 years, really less than 3 years, our transportation experts tell us it will take longer to get from San Antonio, Texas, to Dallas, Texas, than it did before we even had an interstate highway in this area.
Page 234 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
There have been times that I'm convinced on the upper deck there in Austin you can move forward faster by walking than by trying to go forward in your car or your truck.
More disturbing than the congestion is the danger posed along the highway. There have been 8,000 accidents in this stretch between 1994 and 1996. I know you can't see it up there. I'll submit it for the record.
This is just one example from the ''Austin American Statesman'' where they say, ''I–35 prone to truck accidents—729 truck accidents in the last couple of years.'' This particular one, a fiery tractor trailer crash, tied up traffic for everyone trying to move south on I–35 from any part of the country for about nine hours.
We have had one example after another of this type.
But we recognize that pavement, alone, is not going to solve our transportation problems, and so, as I've explained more fully in my written testimony, I have a request before you for $78 million over the next 5 years to modernize our Capital Metro buses that are too old to provide the quality of service or the quality of air that we need in central Texas.
In addition to our bus needs, we have an opportunity to develop an initial line of light rail service that will connect the communities of Leander and Cedar Park in Congressman Smith's District with downtown Austin.
Page 235 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
This Red Line service has the potential to relieve traffic congestion on I–35 and provide many other benefits.
One of the good things about it, from the work of this committee, the standpoint of this committee, is that Capital Metro already has the right-of-way for this entire Red Line system. Eventually it would be expanded to connect with one of the newest airports in the country, the Austin-Bergstrom Airport that will be completed in 1999.
With bus modernization and light rail modernization, we believe that will assist on I–35, but we are most concerned, as well, with the need to provide this bypass to the city of Austin that would run along a corridor roughly from Seguine, Texas, east of Decker Lake, bypassing Austin and Plugerville, and ending up somewhere near Georgetown in Congressman Smith's District.
We believe that the combination of these two approaches is consistent with ISTEA. It's intermodal, it's integrated, and will advance the interests not only of central Texas, but of this entire Nation in providing the kind of backbone for commerce that we need.
I would welcome any questions the committee might have.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much.
Are there any questions?
[No response.]
Page 236 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. PETRI. If not, there is—obviously, the previous witness talked about 35 up in his area and here.
Mr. DOGGETT. Right.
Mr. PETRI. Probably because of the growth of the Mexican economy to the south, and then, of course, mushrooming in the Dallas/Austin area, there is a lot of pressure on this.
Mr. DOGGETT. Absolutely.
Mr. PETRI. Your statement, of course, will be made a part of the record, and so will Lamar Smith's, in full.
Mr. DOGGETT. Yes. I know he shares my full commitment to this project, and we appreciate very much the committee's consideration.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much.
Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rahall.
[The prepared statements of Messrs. Doggett and Smith follow:]
[Insert here.]
Page 237 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. PETRI. I see our next duo is here, and I'd like to welcome Anne Northup to her, I think, debut before this committee, and also our senior colleague, Lee Hamilton. It's bipartisan and bI–State, I guess. We'll stop with that and ask you if you'd like to—Anne, would you like to proceed?
TESTIMONY OF HON. ANNE M. NORTHUP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM KENTUCKY; AND HON. LEE H. HAMILTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM INDIANA
Mrs. NORTHUP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is probably also one of the most senior Members and one of the newest Members, so we cut across a lot of lines.
I'd like to submit my statement for the record and just say a few words, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
The project that we're here to talk to you about and describe for you is very, very important to southern Indiana and the Louisville, Kentucky, area. It is also very important for regional transportation.
We have had a continued problem in this region for transportation, primarily because it was so impossible to get aligned all of the political and divergent interests in the community.
In a sense, there has been a long-term standoff that has created an almost impossible situation related to transportation. I'm happy to tell you today when I come before you that finally I believe there is a united effort to resolve this problem. We have gone through studies. We have reconciled differences. Both States, both local communities on both sides of the river, and the Members of Congress that are affected by these transportation problems are united on what the solution is.
Page 238 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
There has been a study that has proposed a solution that is universally supported, and we ask you now to help us resolve these transportation issues.
It so happens that, maybe through bad management or through bad planning, we have a convergence of three interstates—I–71, I–64, and I–65—that all converge at one point. Big problem.
It's exacerbated by the fact that it happens to be in downtown Louisville, and it's exacerbated by the problem that it is right on the river.
So what we have is a growing gridlock that has occurred over the years that is going to be very expensive and very difficult to resolve.
The two resolutions that have been proposed are two bridges, one in eastern Jefferson County that connects I–265. That allows for the first time a dispersal of the traffic.
Currently, all east-west, all north-south traffic that comes through Indiana and Kentucky must go through downtown Louisville, Kentucky. Now it will allow for a dispersal of that. A lot of that traffic can go a different route because of the East End Bridge.
It also proposes a reconfiguration of that exact intersection and another bridge at that point to take the pressure off of the downtown traffic that will still use downtown.
Page 239 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
So both from a political standpoint and from a long-term regional transportation solution, we believe that this is really good, not only for our local communities, but for the interstate traffic system that needs such relief.
I'm happy to be here with my colleague, Congressman Lee Hamilton. He is beloved in our area of the country and has a lot more experience than I do, and it's really an honor and a privilege and a pleasure for me to be working so closely with him on this project.
Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, Anne, for your very gracious comments. It's a very special pleasure for me to have the opportunity to work with you on this project.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rahall, we thank you for the attention that you are giving to it. Indiana is very pleased that we have Mr. Pease on the committee now to help us out on some of these projects, and he will do that in a very able way.
Let me simply second what Anne has already said to you. I'm testifying for two projects here, one of them that Anne has already described. The second one is just for the State of Indiana.
I think it is important to say that this committee provided $500,000 for the so-called ''ORMIS study''—that's the Ohio River Major Investment Study. That has been completed now, and the process that Anne has described we've gone through.
Page 240 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The request that we make today has the support of the Kentucky governor, it has the support of the Indiana governor, it has the support of the respective transportation departments, as well as the regional planning authority.
The first element, of course, is the bridge, a new I–265 bridge across the Ohio River. There are all kinds of advantages to that. I'll not go through them. I'll just submit my statement, if I may, completely.
The second element is the project to rebuild Spaghetti Junction. That includes the three interstate highways that come together in Louisville and will require the construction of a bridge, as well as a lot of rehabilitation work.
We just have an extraordinary transportation tie-up, a mess, really, in southern Indiana and Kentucky today. It's really urgent that we begin to deal with that problem, and that's why Anne and I are here—to plead with you to give us a sympathetic understanding.
I might just say that the metropolitan planning organization did recommend a time table on this project. We're trying to deal with the entire regional transportation needs of the region. They recommended—their plan contemplates construction of the first element of the project, the East End Bridge, to be followed by the construction of the second element, a Downtown Bridge and Spaghetti Junction.
The entire project is stretched out over a period of many years. We understand that's necessary. But I cannot stress strongly enough to this committee the urgency of this project in order to relieve the transportation problems in a very, very important metropolitan area in this country.
Page 241 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The second project I want to mention to you very briefly is the U.S. 231 project. That calls for a new four-lane highway to replace the existing two-lane road. Lots of things are happening in that part of Indiana.
We just had a new steel mill, AK Steel, come in and announce they're investing a billion dollars in one of the most up-to-date modern steel-producing plants in the country. Toyota has come in there to build a pickup truck plant. We'll be hiring thousands of people.
So this area of Indiana that has been very rural, isolated in many respects, is now going to become the center of a lot of activity.
In order to help accommodate that we need some help expanding U.S. 231.
This also happens to be, for your information, Lincoln Country. Abraham Lincoln lived in this part of the State for a period of 9 or 10 years, if I recall correctly, and, of course, that draws a lot of visitors to the area.
So thank you very much for giving us this opportunity. These are critical projects before us. I thank Anne Northup for her support and work in all of this, and we look forward to working with her, as well as the members of the committee, to get this done.
Thank you.
Page 242 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. PETRI. Thank you both.
Are there questions at all? Yes, Mr. Pease?
Mr. PEASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
No questions. Just an observation.
I was first elected to the Indiana Senate in 1980, and the problem of the bridges over the Ohio River had been festering for years at that time.
I cannot speak highly enough of the work that Congressman Hamilton and Congresswoman Northup have put into this project, not without some political risk to themselves. They've done the difficult things that we are somewhat occasionally averse to doing, and that is letting folks know that their expectations may be more than is realistic at the moment and that it is absolutely essential that we come to some consensus. They've done a masterful job of doing that.
This solution is one that I think meets the most critical current needs, and it does so in a fiscally responsible fashion that has been a remarkable exercise in political and transportation maneuvering.
I'm grateful to both of them for the work that they have done and the effort they've put into this project, and I want to do everything I can to be supportive of your efforts.
Page 243 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. HAMILTON. We thank you.
Mrs. NORTHUP. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you both. We've discussed this before, and we're happy to have this opportunity to make sure that this is highlighted in the record.
Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you.
Mrs. NORTHUP. Thank you.
[The prepared statements of Mrs. Northup and Mr. Hamilton follow:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PETRI. Now we're joined by our colleague on the committee, the Honorable Joseph Pitts, and he is accompanied by Colin A. Hanna, Chester County commissioner and chairman of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, and Terry Kauffman, who is chairman of the Lancaster County Board of Commissioners.
Gentlemen, welcome. Representative Pitts?
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA, ACCOMPANIED BY COLIN A. HANNA, CHESTER COUNTY COMMISSIONER AND CHAIRMAN, DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION, AND TERRY L. KAUFFMAN, CHAIRMAN, LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Page 244 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to provide testimony in support of four vital transportation projects in the 16th Congressional District of Pennsylvania which qualify as candidates for project funding in the reauthorization of ISTEA.
As you continue your thoughtful consideration of funding demonstration projects, I hope you will take into account these projects which will greatly benefit Chester and Lancaster Counties by alleviating congestion, increasing economic prosperity, and making vital highway safety improvements.
In order to demonstrate the importance of these projects to our infrastructure, I've invited the chairman of the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission—that's the MPO—and also Chester County commissioner, Colin Hanna; and the chairman of the MPO in Lancaster and Lancaster County commissioner and chairman of that board, Terry Kauffman, to join us this morning.
Mr. Hanna will testify in support of U.S. 30, the Coatesville-Downingtown Bypass, and Pennsylvania Route 41 from the Delaware State line to approximately Pennsylvania Route 926.
Mr. Kauffman will testify in support of U.S. Route 30 east and west bypass and Pennsylvania Route 23 from the U.S. 30 bypass to the Lancaster County line near Morgantown interchange of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Page 245 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. Chairman, I am committed to building upon and improving ISTEA, believing that investment in U.S. infrastructure is a direct investment in the lives of American citizens.
Again, thank you for your time, your consideration.
Let me introduce at this time Commissioners Colin Hanna and Terry Kauffman.
Mr. Hanna?
Mr. HANNA. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for this opportunity to be with you.
Chester County is one of the fastest-growing counties in Pennsylvania. An indication of that is that more land has been developed in our county in the last 25 years than in the preceding 300 years.
We are part of the Philadelphia and Wilmington, Delaware, metropolitan areas, and we're also indirectly influenced by the Lancaster and Reading metropolitan areas.
The County Commissioners and its Planning Commission have just completed a 4-year planning effort that culminated in the adoption of a new comprehensive plan which we call ''Landscapes,'' and a principal theme in this plan is to encourage development within and adjacent to existing developed areas, while preserving agriculture and open space in undeveloped areas.
Page 246 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
While this planned approach to growth will lead to lower overall road costs than would following the typical pattern of suburban sprawl development, it places extremely high demands on those roads which will become transportation corridors linking the centers of development.
The two projects which I'll present to you today are prime examples of the need for the direct and immediate attention of Congress to prioritize necessary improvements to these transportation corridors so that the longer-term efficiencies of our plan can be realized.
The first project, Pennsylvania Route 41, is a unique problem involving the agricultural and historical communities and the trucking industry.
The second project, U.S. Route 30, is the rehabilitation of a 35-year-old expressway which is a conspicuously weak link in a highway paralleling the old Lancaster Pike and Lincoln Highways, regarded by many historians as the Nation's first turnpike.
Both of these projects are fundamentally safety projects and they'll enhance other community values, as well, especially in the older industrialized areas of Downingtown and Coatesville.
Both are consistent with State, regional, county, and municipal comprehensive planning, as well as past Congressional philosophies and policies focusing on maintaining existing infrastructure.
Page 247 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The first project, PA Route 41, is a two-lane principal arterial that is on the NHS highway system. Despite its predominantly rural and village surroundings, it carries an inordinate amount of local, regional, interstate, and international commerce.
Technical studies have documented that trucks account for 30 percent of the traffic on Route 41. This is one of the highest percentages of truck traffic on any major road anywhere in Pennsylvania.
Route 41 is the most significant truck route for the port of Wilmington to and from central western Pennsylvania, as well as on to Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. For example, four million cases of bananas are carried on Route 41 per month.
The corridor accommodates significant local and regional truck traffic related to agriculture. The two counties that it links, Chester County and Lancaster County, are two highest-ranked Pennsylvania counties.
The problem is one of congestion. We desperately need relief from not only the congestion but also the safety problems.
Route 30, the Coatesville-Downingtown Bypass, is an old 1962 vintage bypass which has serious safety problems with the entrance and exit ramps which require sudden deceleration and acceleration. This is an important corridor east-west within the State. It is one of five major east-west corridors, and it carries more traffic than the three interstates—Interstates 76, 78, and 80. So it gives you an idea of what a volume of traffic this bears and how insufficient the current design is to it. Inadequate ramp design, deteriorated travel lanes, and the recent opening of a new highway have just put tremendous demands on that.
Page 248 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The scope of the project includes shoulder reconstruction, travel lane reconstruction, and other projects which, taken together, are a perfect example of why Congressional support is necessary. It's a combination of needs that will require a comprehensive solution in a way that the separate individual projects simply would not warrant the appropriate attention going through the MPO planning process.
Your timely funding of these two projects is critical to the success of our county-wide planning effort and to achieving the lower, long-term burden on taxpayers which this plan offers.
Thank you for the opportunity to present them to you this morning. Now I'd like to turn the microphone to my colleague to the west, Commissioner Kauffman from Lancaster County.
Mr. KAUFFMAN. Thank you Commissioner Hanna.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, I very much appreciate the opportunity to present several items for your consideration in support of the efforts of Congressman Pitts.
First I would like to make some brief remarks on the U.S. Highway 30 project, which is somewhat linked and is part of the process Commissioner Hanna spoke about earlier.
Page 249 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Our particular portion of this project extends east and west, north of the city of Lancaster, and involves improvements to one of the most important highways in Pennsylvania.
U.S. Highway 30, for the record, was the Lincoln Highway, the first trans-continental highway in the United States.
In the 1950s a bypass was built around the city of Lancaster to reduce congestion created by the heavy volumes of traffic on that particular corridor.
Today, volumes on the bypass exceed 61,500 vehicles per day on the western section, almost 45 percent of which is commercial trucks. Of course, commercial trucks are vital to the economy of our region. In fact, the busiest sections of U.S. Highway 30 carry more vehicles than the Pennsylvania Turnpike, which is Interstate 76, as it passes through the northern part of Lancaster County.
Unfortunately, while traffic on U.S. Highway 30 has continued to increase, we continue to have a highway that dates to the 1950s.
Through efforts of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, we have been able to begin construction on the center section; however, there are currently inadequate Federal dollars under the current funding allocation to Pennsylvania to complete the east and west sections of the bypass. This is a crucial problem and will create an unacceptable deficiency in the Federal transportation system.
Page 250 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
We believe it is absolutely essential to the economy of south-central and southeastern Pennsylvania that funding for the completion of the east and west section of Route 30 bypass be completed and included in any funding allocation that is made part of the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.
These sections, I might add, are key segments in the intermodal routes from the port of Wilmington, the intermodal railyards at Harrisburg, and the Philadelphia metropolitan area to Interstates 83 and 81.
If we are going to demonstrate the potential of intermodal service to more effectively move the Nation's freight, then we must complete the reconstruction of essential links such as this.
Secondly, I want to speak about the need for funding of an environmental impact statement for improvements within the Pennsylvania Route 23 corridor.
Currently, the Lancaster Metropolitan Planning Organization, of which I serve as Chair, is initiating a unique partnership with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and with Federal funding and a local match of dollars, a major investment study under the standards and requirements of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.
This, by description, is a critical corridor with critical environmental, cultural, land use, and transportation issues. The corridor involves some of the best agricultural land in the Nation—and we obviously believe it is the best. It also involves the old order Amish and Mennonite societies and nationally-significant manufacturing facilities such as the headquarters of New Holland International, the largest manufacturer of farm equipment in the world.
Page 251 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The corridor is characterized by extreme conflicts between the use of horse and buggies by the Amish and heavy volumes of automobiles and truck traffic.
We have over 8,000 manufacturing jobs in this area that are currently at risk. Since these plants are served by STAA trucks that are not even legal on the very roads they have to travel, we are deeply concerned. Yet, many people fear the effects that transportation improvements could have in inducing sprawl and destroying the Plain Sect culture.
The major investment process mandated by Congress in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act will enable us to resolve these conflicts and to design transportation improvements that reinforce and support the land use plans for the corridor.
The MIS will enable us to demonstrate that transportation planning can be done in a manner which is both culturally sensitive and respectful of a nationally-significant scenic and cultural resource.
It is imperative that we continue this process and complete the environmental impact study required under the National Environmental Protection Act.
The work that we will be accomplishing in this corridor may have national implications, and we ask that Congress include demonstration funding for completion of the EIS.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity. I believe that Mr. Hanna and I both are willing to answer questions that you may have.
Page 252 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony.
Are there any questions?
[No response.]
Mr. PETRI. Is this in keeping with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation plans, or are they fully supportive of what you're talking about here today?
Mr. KAUFFMAN. I would indicate, from our MPO, they are number one and two projects that have been endorsed by the city, the county, and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation as our number one and two projects.
Mr. HANNA. Same thing applies with the Chester County projects, and we have supplied to the committee copies of letters to that effect.
Mr. PETRI. Good. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. We hope that as you come to Hershey this weekend you'll take a look at the area. It's about 25 minutes away.
Mr. PETRI. I'm planning on driving up, but I think I'll be going a little west of this.
Page 253 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. BASS. What's the weather going to be this weekend?
Mr. KAUFFMAN. It's going to be just fine. It's supposed to be sunny and 45.
Mr. PETRI. And if the wind is moving south you can smell the chocolate about 10 miles out of town.
Thank you very much.
Mr. PITTS. Thank you.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Hanna and Mr. Kauffman follow:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PETRI. The next panel is one led by our colleague, Joel Hefley from Colorado. He is accompanied by Commissioner Michael Cooke of Douglas County and City Manager James Mullen of Colorado Springs, Colorado.
With your indulgence, I will be turning the Chair over to our colleague, Mr. Bass, for a few minutes.
Mr. BASS [assuming Chair]. Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to have you here today. Congressman Hefley, you're welcome to proceed.
Page 254 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOEL HEFLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM COLORADO, ACCOMPANIED BY M. MICHAEL COOKE, COMMISSIONER, DOUGLAS COUNTY, COLORADO, AND JAMES H. MULLEN, CITY MANAGER, COLORADO SPRINGS, CO
Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have the pleasure today of introducing two individuals to you, Commissioner Michael Cooke on my right of the Douglas County Commissioners, and Mr. James Mullen on my left, who is the city manager for the city of Colorado Springs. They are here today on two separate projects, and I guess we'll start with the Colorado Springs project.
You may remember I testified on previous occasions with Mayor Bob Isaac on this project, who is now gone into retirement—he was the mayor of Colorado Springs for so many years—on behalf of Powers Boulevard in Colorado Springs.
This project is for the expansion of Powers Boulevard, which is a north-south road in the eastern portion of Colorado Springs that will complete portions of the road link to I–25, which is the main north and south highway running through Colorado Springs.
With the growth of Colorado Springs and the huge increase in traffic coming down to the new Colorado Springs Airport, this development is critical to the successful growth patterns of The Springs. It has significant regional support and links several of Colorado Springs' military installations, such as Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy, and Peterson Air Force Base.
Page 255 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
With that, let me introduce Mr. Mullen, and we'll let him speak specifically to this project, and then we will talk with Commissioner Cooke.
Mr. MULLEN. Thank you, Congressman Hefley.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today about this project, which I think has very adequately been described by Congressman Hefley.
We do have written testimony, which we'd like to submit as part of the record. In respect of your time, I'm going to be very brief about what we want.
Mr. BASS. Thank you very much. Without objection it will be made a part of the record.
Mr. MULLEN. Thank you, sir.
We, as the Congressman has said, are speaking on behalf of the Powers Boulevard project in Colorado Springs, and I am representing a partnership made up of the city of Colorado Springs, the city of Fountain, El Paso County, the Colorado Department of Transportation, and the Pike's Peak Area Council of Governments.
As a city manager of a large city in the United States today, we know it's very important that we try to bring to our city councils and to our State legislatures projects which leverage public and private monies and also create partnerships among both the private sector and public agencies of our jurisdictions.
Page 256 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
I'd just like to say a few words today to you about why we think this project is deserving of the $34.5 million that we are asking for you to support.
First of all, this is an existing roadway. Of the 36 miles that the Congressman mentioned, 16 miles are already constructed. Of the $55 million required to complete that 16-mile stretch, only $7.3 million came from the Federal Government.
Of the $49.85 million that will be included in the next 5 years of this project, $14.85, or almost 30 percent of that money, will come from non-Federal sources.
Of the total $100 million for that 22-mile stretch of national highway system roadway, urban roadway, 60 percent of the funding is non-Federal. I know there's an interest on the part of the committee in that kind of information.
We know that there is an 80/20 Federal/local match. The city of Colorado Springs has arranged for 29 percent of the monies that we are requesting to come from non-Federal sources.
The project has been identified by the Colorado Department of Transportation and Colorado Transportation Commission as one of the two highest priorities in Colorado, and it is strongly supported by the Colorado Department of Transportation and local metropolitan planning organization.
There are a number of benefits which we feel are tailor-made for the ISTEA legislation.
Page 257 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
First of all, as the Congressman mentioned, it does serve five existing major national defense installations. That includes the Air Force Academy, Fort Carson, the U.S. Space Command at Peterson Air Force Base, Falcon Air Force Station, and NORAD.
This will result in improved services to one of the Nation's fastest-growing airports in Colorado Springs. We have increased enplanements in Colorado Springs at our airport from a level of 800,000 enplanements annually in 1994 to 2.4 million enplanements in 1996.
This project will also result in relief of serious congestion and accidents on the interstate system and I–25 because it will connect Powers Boulevard to I–25 and it will also bring about the achievement of significant Federal, State, and regional transportation and environmental goals, including increased safety, a reduction in vehicle miles traveled, a reduction in about 360,000 pounds of pollution a year, and reduced operating costs for vehicles in El Paso County in Colorado Springs.
Most importantly, also, because of the advanced planning we've done on this project and the fact that it is an existing project, it is ready to go. The city has been very efficient in ensuring that all obligated balances are spent within the fiscal year obligated. We're ready to move ahead with this project.
We feel that it demonstrates a true partnership between government and private sector and the community.
Page 258 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. Chairman, once again, on behalf of Mayor Leon Young of the city of Colorado Springs and the City Council, we thank you for having the opportunity to speak to you today, and we'd be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. BASS. Thank you very much.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Cooke is here today to testify about one of the most important safety projects that I think this committee will consider in its deliberations. She's joined by another important member of the Douglas County Board of Commissioners, Chris Christensen back here behind me.
They are in desperate need of a truck safety lane in Douglas County. Instead of citing statistics and numbers on this project, I wan to read you a brief quote from the Denver newspaper about a recent accident on this stretch of I–25.
Incidentally, this accident happened at the same time Commissioner Cooke was in Washington promoting this important safety project.
To quote the Denver Post, ''Kevin Carion of Thornton was hauling a tractor trailer load of new cars when he spotted a man running down the highway waving some sort of flag or shirt. He touched his brakes and started sliding, thinking of a Honda Civic that had passed him a while earlier with a baby in the back seat.
''He headed for the shoulder to use the guard rail to stop him. The baby's mother later told him how grateful she was that he had stopped in time. The baby was just recovering from open heart surgery and was on oxygen.
Page 259 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
''But after Carion stopped, four vehicles piled into him, causing major damage to the cars and, of course, the injuries to the people involved.''
Mr. Chairman, I believe the truck safety lane on this stretch of I–25 quite simply will save more lives than almost any project that you could authorize in this committee.
With that, let me introduce Commissioner Michael Cooke to discuss it in some detail.
Ms. COOKE. Thank you, Congressman Hefley.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, for your record my name is Michael Cooke. I am on the Douglas County Board of Commissioners in Colorado.
I'm here today on behalf of the entire Board to support Congressman Hefley's requests before this subcommittee in two critical areas.
The first is the need for reform of the metropolitan planning organization, or MPO, system. The second, as you've heard, is to support the crucial need for a $12 million pilot project to construct a truck passing lane on I–25 in Douglas County.
The requests Congressman Hefley has presented to your subcommittee directly impact our ability to require the resources necessary to meet our growing transportation needs and to enhance the safety of our citizens.
Page 260 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Congressman Hefley's bill, H.R. 477, would provide more local government flexibility by allowing local jurisdictions to withdraw, redesignate, or join adjacent metropolitan planning organizations. In our testimony to your subcommittee on July 30th of last year, we described in detail the basis for our concerns regarding the MPO process.
For purposes of our testimony today, we will only urge the reauthorization of ISTEA to include the provisions of H.R. 477.
More specifically today we'd like to express our support for Congressman Hefley's request for a $12 million pilot project to fund an auxiliary lane on Interstate 25 in Douglas County from Lincoln Avenue to Castle Pines Parkway for slow-moving trucks.
Due to the growth in Douglas County, which you may know is the fastest-growing county in the Nation, as well as the growth of the Denver metropolitan and Colorado Springs metropolitan areas, which we link, we have experienced on I–25 nearly a 50 percent increase in traffic between 1990 and 1995, and we estimate the average daily traffic will more than double between now and the year 2015.
This section of I–25 is currently designated and designed to rural interstate standards; however, it is carrying urban-level volumes of traffic and will soon exceed an acceptable level of service for even an urban freeway.
The section of I–25 in a pilot project area has an extremely high accident history, as you've heard. Specifically, in 1993 there were 77 accidents in the 5-mile stretch, five of which involved fatalities.
Page 261 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
In 1995, we had 147 accidents in this stretch. And, as you've heard, exactly 1 month ago today we had an 82-car pile-up in the project area that included several trucks and vehicles which collided in a chain reaction accident. It resulted in numerous injuries and did, in fact, make national headlines.
Because of the seriousness and the sheer number of accidents we have on this stretch of I–25, we are here today asking for assistance to meet our needs for a safety project.
The design of the proposed project would allow for immediate improvements by adding a safety lane, a truck climbing lane for slow-moving vehicles, because of the roadway's sharp curves and steep grades.
We are currently working, in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Transportation, our co-sponsor on this project, as well as our MPO, to ensure that a local match is available to cause the project to be completed.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify before your subcommittee and would also like to extend special thanks to Congressman Hefley, whose strong support for his constituents, and especially those in Douglas County at this time, is greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
Page 262 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, both of these projects relate to I–25 which, as you well know, is kind of the main street of the Rocky Mountain west going north and south from Mexico to Canada.
I used to, when I first came back here to Congress and I would go back and people would complain to me about the traffic on I–25, I would kind of grin and think to myself, ''Yeah, you have never commuted on 95 and 395, as I do here in Washington, D.C.'' But I don't smile any more when they complain about it. It is unbelievable the increased traffic patterns that we have here.
You have in both cases—you have, on one project, a project that, instead of the 80/20 match, you're talking about a 40 percent Federal/60 percent local match because the community feels so strongly about it.
And in the other instance you're talking about a safety situation that just desperately needs to be solved.
And then Commissioner Cooke mentioned something else that I had failed to mention earlier, but I do want to ask you to take this in consideration. I would hate for us to reinstitute ISTEA without dealing with this issue, and that is the MPO process.
We really do need to take a hard look at that. I've introduced legislation. I hope you'll look at that legislation and have hearings on that because that is a process that I think we do need to instill more flexibility for the participants in—people like Michael Cooke and Chris Christensen, who are duly elected people by their local areas, and yet feel so strapped many times in trying to solve local problems because of this process.
Page 263 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
So with that I will stop and see if there are any questions that we might respond to.
Mr. BASS. Thank you very much, Congressman Hefley.
I'd just like to say that the presentation has been extraordinarily well prepared. It is obviously a project that an enormous amount of effort has gone into. I'm glad to see that it's supported by the appropriate authorities in Colorado, and we'll certainly do whatever we can to accommodate. This is obviously a very significant problem.
Are there questions from other members of the committee?
[No response.]
Mr. BASS. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony here today.
Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Hefley, Ms. Cooke, and Mr. Mullen follow:]
[Insert here.]
Page 264 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. PETRI [resuming Chair]. Our colleague, Representative Visclosky, has been waiting.
Peter, we'd like to welcome you. I know you've testified on behalf of some of these projects in the past, and there has been significant interest and concern, and we welcome you here today.
TESTIMONY OF HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM INDIANA
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I want to thank you, Mr. Rahall, and the other members of the committee for providing me the opportunity.
As a former member of the committee, I can only begin to appreciate the pressures you're under as far as the allocations provided and the requests that you have had submitted to you.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that I have had to go through the same process in our office. We have literally been presented with hundreds of millions of dollars of very necessary requests. I have submitted those that I think are of most merit in northwest Indiana to the committee and will look forward to working with you, Mr. Rahall, and the other members of the subcommittee as far as establishing priorities in working through our list. They are vitally necessary to my District.
In the time allocated, I would also simply encourage the committee to deal with the issue of minimum allocation. I do come from the State of Indiana, which is a donor State, and would hope, again, that the subcommittee can positively address the issue.
Page 265 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Finally, I'd remind the committee that I've introduced legislation, H.R. 650, relative to the rail highway crossing program. I believe that the formula should be changed to emphasize States and areas that have more crossings and more accidents per crossing in a relatively neutral fashion as far as the budget is concerned.
With that, I understand also the press of your time and again thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Are there any questions?
[No response.]
Mr. PETRI. If not, the testimony will be a part of the record and we appreciate your coming.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Visclosky follows:]
[Insert here.]
Page 266 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. PETRI. Todd Tiahrt, welcome. Once we finish authorizing, we're hoping you'll appropriate everything.
TESTIMONY OF HON. TODD TIAHRT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM KANSAS
Mr. TIAHRT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be with you.
I have a formal testimony that I would like to submit for the record, and I'll just be somewhat brief in my remarks.
We have two problems in Wichita, Kansas.
The first one is a local problem with national significance. The Powder River basin in Wyoming provides a wonderful supply of coal. Recently there has been a merger of the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific, and they're moving that coal to the south and southeast through the center of Wichita.
These trains are about 135 cars long, and which makes about a mile-and-a-half train that goes about 10 miles an hour through town.
There are about 400,000 people that live in Wichita, and there are 26 intersections, so there is quite a problem going through town.
Page 267 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Besides just having the inconvenience of trains going through, there are also safety issues when we have police trying to respond to calls, fire equipment trying to respond to calls. Also, one hospital located next to the tracks. The railroad tracks effectively cut the city in half.
So we have a problem as far as trying to deal with grade separations. We think that the problem can be solved if you have approximately 10 grade separations, an overpass or an underpasses, and building grade seperations we have the opportunity to respond to the city's safety needs, in addition to the convenience needs.
There is one other problem that has surfaced recently. With Kansas—you can hear the wind blowing here, Mr. Chairman. It blows like that most of the time in Kansas. But occasionally we have calm days, and when we do have calm days we have an environmental problem because our emissions are right at the borderline on a calm day. With an additional ten thousand cars stalled waiting for a train, it could push us over and affect some of the Federal Clean Air Act programs that we're involved with. So that's another environmental issue that they're currently studying.
We also have a timing problem. There is a Wichita Mitigation study being preferred by the Surface Transportation Board, and they won't resolve this problem until—probably their draft will be done in September.
In the meantime, ISTEA is going through the process, and so we have to make some consideration in solving this problem, and that's why I'm submitting to you what I think is about a $150 million problem.
Page 268 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
I'm basing that on—I know it takes about $11 million to build a mile of highway in Kansas. These grade separations are about a quarter of a mile, so I estimate somewhere around $15 million each. If there are 10 of them, that's approximately $150 million.
I think that there is—recently Union Pacific released a letter saying they may divert some of the traffic through Kansas City, which would lessen the problem, but that letter is not legally and it really shouldn't be taken into consideration. I think a community has to plan for a worst case in doing so, and so we are requesting assistance to fix our railroad problem.
The second problem is U.S. Highway 54, which is a main route between Kansas City and Los Angeles. It's the route of choice by many shippers who use tractor and trailer rigs.
So, as it cuts through Wichita, we are in the process of making it a six-lane through Wichita, but we have three intersections that we need help with, and those intersections are Woodlawn Avenue, Rock Road, and Web Road, all on K–96–54 Highway.
We are asking for $246 million. That's 80 percent of the total projected cost.
So those two needs are both safety issues and also economic issues, as well as environmental issues in the Fourth District of Kansas.
Page 269 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
On a personal note, I did, within the last month, lose a friend at a car/train accident, and so the grade separation problem has become very paramount in my mind, to lose a friend that I worked with for a long time. His name was Doug Knight. For some reason one night he drove into the side of the train.
We hope to also mark some of these intersections, as well as giving alternate routes, also marking them with light and barriers, rather than just the cross-bars.
So there are very important safety issues that go along with this.
The rest of it I think is very complete in my testimony that I submitted, and I would be glad to respond to your questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Are there any questions?
[No response.]
Mr. PETRI. Well, we have your statement and we will be working with you to try to help do something about these problems.
A lot of midwestern towns, the trains used to go right through town. We're trying to move them out or do something, especially since the train business is coming back pretty strong. It's putting increasing pressure on movement of goods and people through the same restricted area. So we understand.
Page 270 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. TIAHRT. And alternate routes are not one of the options that we have, for some reason. So we do have to deal with the traffic right through the center of our biggest community.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Mr. TIAHRT. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tiahrt follows:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PETRI. The Honorable Maxine Waters, welcome.
TESTIMONY OF HON. MAXINE WATERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA
Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members. I just want to take a moment to testify here today in relationship to the Arbor Vitae widening project in the city of Inglewood. Inglewood is one of the small cities in my District.
A decade ago the Los Angeles Department of Airports and CALTRANS identified the need for an interchange on Interstate 405 at Arbor Vitae Street. This was designed to relieve traffic congestion in one of the most gridlocked areas of southern California, an area adjacent to the world's third-busiest airport, the Los Angeles International Airport.
Page 271 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
In 1980, the interchange was programmed into the State transportation improvement program. Up until now, construction of the interchange has been delayed pending completion of the improvements to Arbor Vitae.
However, the State has now decided to move forward with construction of the interchange. Arbor Vitae must be widened if it is to accommodate the increased traffic that will directly result from the I–405 interchange.
Arbor Vitae changes from a five-lane road in Los Angeles to a two-lane street in Inglewood. This is a formula for disaster.
The Arbor Vitae widening project has been included in the Federally-approved funding year 1993–1999 regional transportation improvement program, and it was included in the 1994 House-passed national highway system bill. Of the $10 million total project cost, 65 percent—that is $6.5 million—has been secured with local funds.
The city of Inglewood is seeking $3.5 million in ISTEA contract authority funds to complete the widening improvements to Arbor Vitae.
I thank you for the dedication you've shown to our Nation's transportation needs and for your consideration of this project. It's not a big one, but it's very important to a little city like Inglewood and that congestion around the airport.
Mr. PETRI. Are there questions?
Page 272 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
[No response.]
Mr. PETRI. Is the State of California sort of on board with this?
Ms. WATERS. Yes. That is absolutely correct.
Mr. PETRI. Great. Well, thank you very much for going to bat for your area.
Ms. WATERS. You're certainly welcome.
Mr. PETRI. We appreciate your testimony and your brevity, and your whole submission will be a part of the record.
Ms. WATERS. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Waters follows:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PETRI. The Honorable George Brown, accompanied by: David Eshleman, mayor of Fontana; Lee Redmond, senior vice president of Kaiser Ventures; Alex Clifford, chairman of the board, Southern California Regional Rail Authority; and Mr. Richard Stanger, the executive director of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority.
Page 273 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Welcome. George, feel free to proceed as you wish.
TESTIMONY OF HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA, ACCOMPANIED BY HON. DAVID R. ESHLEMAN, MAYOR, FONTANA, CA, INC., ALEX CLIFFORD, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY, AND RICHARD STANGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY
Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Chairman Petri and our ranking member, Mr. Rahall.
Lest you be concerned with the undue amount of time that we might spend, I have agreed to shorten my presentation in order to allow our friends here to make a short presentation on behalf of several of the projects.
I must say that I'm awed at the evidence that this committee has become the center of attention for the whole Congress, as evidenced by the number of people who have volunteered to participate in its activities.
I appreciate this opportunity to highlight several urgently-needed projects in my Congressional District, and I have asked the committee to consider four of these through the ISTEA reauthorization process.
Joining me are sponsors of three of these individual projects, and I hope that you can listen to them briefly.
Page 274 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Three of these are crucial interchange projects along Interstate 10 in my Congressional District in San Bernadino County. In order to impress you, I should tell you that Interstate 10 is the carrier of the largest amount of traffic in and out of the Los Angeles basin. San Bernadino County is the largest county in the United States. We have a problem of very rapid growth in this area, and this necessitates the upgrading of existing facilities, and we are presenting to you what I think are four of the most important upgrade needs for our region.
The Interstate 10 carries about 150,000 vehicles per day, and, as I say, three of these projects are interchanges, one of which is the major north-south interchange, I guess, that cuts across I–10, which is east-west, and which carries the largest amount of regional traffic in a north-south direction here. It's a crucial arterial link-up, and the mayor of Fontana is going to speak briefly to that.
The next one is the I–10 Pepper exchange, which is located in Colton. I don't think there's one of the sponsors here, but the county attaches great importance to this because they are building a new major county hospital at this exchange and they anticipate a continued large increase in traffic here, which requires that there be a major exchange there.
We are asking also to consider the Etiwanda exchange, which provides access to a nearly completed major new speedway development, which will attract tens of thousands of individuals and automobiles during several key parts of the year. We know how much traffic these major facilities generate. This is also the location of a major truck stop. It will be the location for an intermodal rail facility and other major intermodal transportation-related industries.
Page 275 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The fourth item is some upgrades to the light rail system that conveys traffic by rail from this region into Los Angeles County and to the four or five other counties in southern California.
I have presented more detail on this in my prepared statement, and I ask that that be made a part of the record.
At this point then let me introduce the mayor of Fontana, who is here to present the case for the Sierra interchange, Mr. David Eshleman.
Mr. ESHLEMAN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman Petri and Mr. Rahall and committee members.
My name is David Eshleman, and I'm the mayor of the city of Fontana, the seventh fastest growing city of over 100,000 population in the United States.
I would also like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to present our case before you today, and I would like to thank Congressman Brown for recommending this project to you.
I have with me my testimony, and I've seen some of you have already been looking at this document called, ''Gridlock,'' and the report here that answers the 14 questions. I'm not going to bore you with reading all of that, nor am I going to bore you with reading all of my testimony. I have crossed most of it out and I will just highlight the important facts.
Page 276 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The city of Fontana is requesting $17.5 million in funds for the reconstruction of the Sierra Avenue interchange at I–10, interchange project.
The project is a shelf-ready project. It is a shelf-ready project. If this committee authorizes the necessary funding, Fontana can have a shovel in the ground by May 1998, and the construction completed by July 2000.
Forty years ago, when the Sierra Avenue interchange was constructed, the overpass was designed to safely handle 15,000 to 20,000 trips a day. Fontana was a town of approximately 15,000 people.
Today this roadway has become one of the most important commercial corridors in the western part of San Bernadino County. Fontana's population has increased by more than 800 percent, to over 140,000 population. The overpass struggles to handle more than 65,000 trips per day. In fact, traffic existing on Sierra Avenue frequently backs up onto interstate during peak hours, causing traffic safety problems and travel delays on the interstate.
In addition to the obvious importance to Fontana, Sierra Avenue I–10 interchange has regional, State, and even national significance. It is one of the few interstates which connects the east and west coast, and it is the major automobile/trucking route out of the Los Angeles basin.
I would like to quote now, quoting from a letter of Stan Lisiewicz, the District 8 Director of CALTRANS, which is California's DOT. ''This is to reaffirm CALTRANS' support for Fontana-sponsored interchange reconstruction at Interstate 10 and Sierra Avenue.''
Page 277 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The letter reaffirms major development in the area which, in the words of the director, ''results in Sierra Avenue being one of the most congested interchanges along Interstate 10 in San Bernadino County.''
The letter concludes by stating, ''Considering both the needs and energy already expended on this project, we, CALTRANS, concur with the need for the funding of this freeway interchange.''
Sandbag, the local MPO, also recognizes the need for this project. On February 5, 1997, Sandbag voted to endorse the Sierra Avenue interchange as their highest-priority project within Congressman Brown's 42nd District.
In a February 12 letter to Congressman Brown, Norm King, Sandbag's executive director, quotes, ''Our Sandbag top priority is the major construction of Sierra Avenue interchange at Interstate 10.''
In addition, this project enjoys bipartisan support from our State Legislature, and I've included in the packet that you've all seen letters of support from the State legislators within this area.
In conclusion, the reconstruction of the Sierra Avenue Interstate 10 interchange is the last remaining piece of a puzzle which will match existing improvements to the north and south of the interchange. All told, the city and the private sector have already worked together to construction $6 million of off-site improvements immediately around the interchange, and another $2.3 million in design and engineering costs.
Page 278 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Let me also inform you that there is no environmental hangup with this project.
We are asking this committee authorize and provide contract authority for $17.5 million to construct this shelf-ready project.
Let me remind the committee that the city of Fontana can have a shovel in the ground within 6 to 8 months, and the project completed within 2 1/2 years of the funding authorization.
Thank you very much.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. BROWN. Next, speaking on behalf of another I–10 interchange, is Mr. Lee Redmond, the senior vice president of Kaiser Ventures.
I might tell you that this interchange is to serve a huge new economic development in this area which replaces the only integrated steel mill we had in the western United States, which went belly up about 25 years ago and which I've been struggling to have replaced in terms of the economic benefit. We are about at that stage, and this interchange would serve that area that was impacted by that steel mill loss.
Mr. REDMOND. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak today on behalf of the proposed project in Congressman Brown's District that we believe is worthy of your consideration for the 1997 ISTEA bill.
Page 279 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
My name is Lee Redmond, as earlier introduced, with Kaiser Ventures.
We've provided more-detailed information in response to the questionnaire, but today I will briefly summarize.
Our project is located at the juncture of Etiwanda Avenue and the I–10 freeway approximately 1 mile east of the I–15 and I–10 interchange in San Bernadino County, California.
The area affected by this project is generally the area known as the former Kaiser Steel Mill.
Over the past several years, Kaiser has been redeveloping a portion of this property into the California Speedway, a major motor sports facility owned and operated by Penske Motorsports, which will open on June 22, 1997.
We are continuing our efforts to return the remaining acreage into productive new uses.
We have identified many uses which are appropriate for the area which will have a direct impact on goods movement through southern California to both international and national destinations.
The unique attribute of our property is that it's served by both the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and the Union Pacific Railroads. This provides for significant opportunity to establish major intermodal facilities in the area.
Page 280 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
We also believe that the development of the property for such intermodal uses will contribute meaningfully to the achievement of the purposes of NAFTA.
In light of efforts to improve rail and truck transportation to and from the ports of LA and Long Beach, this freeway improvement will assist in improving the efficiency with which goods move, as well as encourage additional development to serve this expanding sector of our economy.
In fact, one of the proposed developments for a portion of the property around this interchange is a major truck stop to provide adequate facilities for the significant existing and future truck traffic.
In order for these goals to be achieved, it's imperative to alleviate certain safety and congestion impacts that currently exist.
The project will provide for a grade separation of a major rail crossing at Valley Boulevard, which has been identified as one of the most dangerous in the State of California. It also will provide certain congestion safety factors that exist on Etiwanda Avenue and the I–10 freeway due to the mixture of automobile and truck traffic.
In fact, the California Department of Transportation has found this project of such interest that they are working with us to facilitate an expedited review as an emergency safety project.
Page 281 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
In summary, we believe that the project addresses a number of worthwhile objectives. It will relieve congestion, eliminate a hazardous intersection of truck and auto traffic, contribute further to truck safety by providing a major rest stop which addresses fatigue, establishes the linkage for a future intermodal rail/truck facility, and assists the region and the State to maximize the benefits from NAFTA.
If the committee wishes additional information, we stand ready to provide it, and we also would be pleased to provide a tour of the project for any committee member or staff who might be interested.
Again, we certainly appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony before you today and would hope that your committee will look favorably on our project for consideration under the new round of ISTEA legislation.
Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. Redmond would also like to offer free tickets to the raceway when it opens in June, but he's precluded by law from doing that. But if you'll see him he will make the suitable arrangements.
The last witness, Mr. Richard Stanger, is the executive director of our Southern California Regional Rail Authority, who will speak on behalf of our Metrolink upgrade program, which he's responsible for.
Page 282 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. STANGER. Thank you, Congressman Brown.
Good afternoon.
Southern California Regional Rail Authority, locally known as Metrolink, is the seventh-largest commuter rail system in the country, serving the entire five-county Los Angeles area.
The SCRRA has 45 stations along 6 lines, totaling 415 miles. Our ridership continues to grow at more than 14 percent a year. And with virtually all its operations performed through private contractors, it is also one of the largest public/private partnerships in transit today.
The east coast probably knows SCRRA from the days after the 1994 Northridge earthquake, when ridership on one line soared to 22,000 from 1,000 within a week.
We have a lesser-known distinction, and that is, with the exception of some post-quake FEMA funding, the entire SCRRA system was built and has been operated without Federal funding.
The SCRRA system is a major success story. Each day SCRRA removes 15,000 cars from freeways that parallels about 8 percent of their volume, in annual savings of 120 million freeway vehicle miles of travel.
Page 283 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
CALTRANS has estimated that freeway delays would increase 30 to 60 minutes on those same parallel freeways were SCRRA service to be disrupted.
We are seeking $155 million over 5 years. Even with this full commitment, however, the amount of Federal funding for one of the Nation's most successful rail projects will still be only 15 percent of the system's total capital cost.
No other rail system in the country matches this level of local funding commitment.
The projects we have submitted for Federal funding are critical if the SCRRA is to meet the surging demand for its commuter rail services. They add cars to its fleet, capacity to its tracks, and safety for its passengers.
A complete description of these projects is contained in my written testimony and the materials previously submitted.
I want to thank Congressman Brown for accompanying me here today, and also Congressmen Jerry Lewis and Jay Kim, Congresswoman Lucy Roybal-Allard, and Congressmen David Dreier and Elton Gallegly for their sponsorship of these projects, as well as virtually every other member of the southern California delegation for their strong support of our pressing needs.
If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
Page 284 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Are there any questions?
[No response.]
Mr. PETRI. If not, I'd just like to—I think Kaiser ended up operating it, didn't they, and it was built for World War II, I think, and then, once markets changed, it somehow was left out high and dry. People tried very hard to keep it going, but it just didn't—it was hard enough for the—
Mr. REDMOND. It was hard for them to compete in the late 1970s with the markets. But, interesting enough, one of the questions we were asked, because we're a private company, is what we received in Federal funding as a company. Since the bankruptcy, since we merged, we've received none. But the only money I think Kaiser ever borrowed from the Federal Government was originally to build the steel mill, and I think they paid it back with interest around 1950 after the war.
Mr. BROWN. I might say that the company not only is doing this with private funds, but I think it's solving most of the residual environmental impact of that steel mill using private funds, because they didn't want to entrust its fate to the Federal Government and EPA.
Page 285 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for giving us this amount of attention. It may seem a little inordinate for just one region of California, but I do urge you to look at the statistics. The facts of the situation indicate that this is a very necessary, important, and cost-effective investment for the whole Nation. I know you'll consider that fully.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you all.
[The prepared statements of Messrs. Brown, Eshleman, Redmond, and Stanger follow:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PETRI. We're kind of trying to take you pretty much according to schedule, but Representative Kanjorski has been here and is, I think, ready to proceed.
Representative Davis Canceled and Mr. English I think will take Mr. Davis' time following Mr. Kanjorski, and then we'll be returning to the regular schedule.
TESTIMONY OF HON. PAUL E. KANJORSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. KANJORSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I am here to recommend two projects very seriously. I will not take the opportunity before the committee to explain them in detail, but I would first like to say that I think the committee is entirely too small. If we could enlarge it to another 60 Members or so we probably could fill the room.
Page 286 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. PETRI. If we add just a few there's going to be a revolution around here.
Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I am here first on a portion of funds that are made available through the enhancement program, transportation enhancement funds.
To my knowledge, no such funds have ever flowed into my District, and this first request by the city of Wilkes-Barre for an intermodal facility is an intriguing request.
The mayor of the city, the business community, and everyone within the surrounding area—although Wilkes-Barre city is only a 50,000 population, it actually is the heart for population within the Wyoming Valley of about a quarter of a million people—support the proposal. The city is the vital center of that valley.
The city suffered some 20 years ago from more than $1 billion worth of damage from a national disaster known as the Hurricane Agnes flood disaster. What is now attempted is the first major renewal of downtown Wilkes-Barre. This project would help facilitate that renewal. It is a $29.3 million project. It will involve all forms of transportation, from helicopter ports to interstate traffic to taxis to a bus shuttle, and everything we can imagine in a consolidated downtown facility. It also will provide an impetus for a state-of-the-art theater complex, a new mall to be built downtown, and an expansion of several hundred million dollars of commercial buildings. So although it is a $29 million project, it will probably stimulate well more than 10 or 20 times the actual cost of this facility.
Page 287 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
I think the project is well thought-out. Wilkes-Barre represents one of the smaller cities of the United States, but because of Pennsylvania's makeup of communities it is the heart of what would be the third-largest city of Pennsylvania if consolidation were in place.
I ask that the committee really put a high priority on this project, because I think it goes to the essence of what we in Congress should be all about—not just providing better roadways or transportation, but actually an economic development component that will drive business, will drive economic recovery for the community, and will be a dollar well spent and multiplied many times over.
The second issue that I wish to address the committee on is what we call the Route 29 Connecting Road. It is a request over the 5-year period for $70 million, which would develop a new interchange on Route 29 and extend a road through a community college complex into approximately 25,000 virgin acres of land, a good part of which were brownfields but are being now rehabilitated by a nonprofit corporation that has under its control approximately 17,000 of those acres. That organization is about to embark on opening up a 2,000-acre industrial site. The addition of this interchange and connector road will facilitate the economic development of that site, which could cause the employment of tens of thousands of new employees in an area of Pennsylvania that has been known for its economic depression over the last 30 years.
I think that it is essential, as we allocate these things—actually, I feel like a little bit of a piker coming here after two Californians, because when they talk of facilities they talk big-time.
These are actually very minimal requests, but it is in the nature, I think, of ISTEA, as we reauthorize it, that our highest priority be given to those projects that will stimulate economic development in the areas they are located in. These are not just good highways, these are not just transportation routes which will help people, but they will help them in their very fundamental nature—that is, economic development, good jobs, and recovery. As a result of the investment of the monies requested in these two programs, both Federal, State, and local governments will recoup those monies in a very short period of time from the stimulated economic growth that will occur.
Page 288 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
So on behalf of my constituents in the 11th District of Pennsylvania, these are two major priorities. We ask the committee to commit to both of them to the directed portion of the act for the construction of these projects.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you for summarizing. The full statement will be in the record.
Are there any questions?
[No response.]
Mr. PETRI. Very good.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kanjorski follows:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PETRI. Mr. English? Our colleague is accompanied by the chairman of the Erie Area Transportation Study, Mr. Thomas Hoffman, and the Honorable Joyce Savocchio, who is the mayor of Erie, Pennsylvania.
We welcome you.
Page 289 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
As you know, your full statements will be included in the record, and we'd urge you to summarize them.
TESTIMONY OF HON. PHIL ENGLISH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA, ACCOMPANIED BY HON. JOYCE A. SAVOCCHIO, MAYOR, CITY OF ERIE, PA, AND THOMAS HOFFMAN, CHAIRMAN, ERIE AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY
Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Ranking Member. We appreciate the opportunity to appear here today to talk about several of the projects that I have submitted, and one in particular.
I want to thank you particularly for having these hearings to focus on ISTEA priorities.
I have been meeting with local elected and appointed officials throughout my District, and my submission includes four highway and three mass transit projects whose completion would dramatically improve the transportation infrastructure available to the citizens of northwestern Pennsylvania and western Pennsylvania.
Let me say, in my testimony today I particularly want to focus on one project, the construction of an Eastside connector for the city of Erie, which is the third-largest city in Pennsylvania.
Page 290 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
This particular project would be an enormous benefit to our community, but also to the national network of highways that we would be wiring into.
It has been a long-delayed project. It is a project the importance of which was highlighted by its inclusion in the 1991 ISTEA as a highway of national significance.
I have taken the liberty of inviting Mayor Savocchio and also the chairman of the Erie Metropolitan Planning Organization, Mr. Tom Hoffman, a gentleman who is a community leader and has worked long and hard to kind of nurture this project and I think is our resident expert on it.
In my view, the completion of the Eastside connector will dramatically improve the transportation network in the eastern part of the Erie SMSA, facilitating easier access to the city's bayfront and expanding opportunities for goods movement in the community's industrial corridor.
I anticipate that this will stimulate development in Erie's east side, open up new sites for commercial and industrial development, promote our growing tourism industry, which is expected to benefit from planned public investments in our bayfront area.
I have a number of other projects that I am going to also invite your attention to, including a widening of Route 18 north in Mercer County, which represents a significant local bottleneck now and is, I believe, of Federal significance.
Particularly, also, some projects of great interest to my colleague, Mr. Klink—expansions of the links between I–79 and the local road network in Cranberry Township, which will relieve local congestion, improve the environment, and also open up parts of Butler County for better goods movement.
Page 291 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
I want to say also in Erie County I would encourage the subcommittee to look at a reconstruction of 18 miles along I–90, which is severely dilapidated. I recognize that historically this committee has not used ISTEA dollars for the interstate network. I would like you to consider this a test case of one area where Federal assistance might be most appropriate.
I want to say that, during the conversations with involved individuals in my District, they have repeatedly emphasized to me the challenge of maintaining and improving mass transit. I have several mass transit submissions, the largest of which is a submission for Erie County for a local mass transit property that is in severe need of assistance, particularly in view of our commitment of moving people from welfare to work.
I think it is an essential part of our local transportation infrastructure and would benefit our community.
Let me say I am once more grateful to you for having this hearing, giving us an opportunity to explain the regional importance of these projects.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record these materials which elucidate particularly why the Eastside connector is a critical resource for our region and for the entire Nation, and I would strongly encourage you to consider putting it in ISTEA as a priority project.
With that, I'd like to yield to these distinguished witnesses here.
Page 292 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mayor?
Ms. SAVOCCHIO. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to thank you and Ranking Member Rahall and the committee for holding these hearings on projects proposed for the authorization of the new Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, better known as ISTEA.
For almost 35 years, the city of Erie has been working diligently to address traffic congestion, safety issues, and economic development needs within the east side of the city of Erie and adjacent communities.
The proposed Erie Eastside Access Highway, which is now ready to build, with all Federal, State, and legislative requirements satisfied, all permits issued and in place, being a culmination of these many years of work.
The construction of this highway through the east side of Erie's older industrial and residential community will provide the short-and long-term stimulus for redeveloping transportation-locked industrial sites which may otherwise remain as urban brownfields problems within our inner city.
Cities such as Erie are committing tremendous resources to clean up and revitalize our inner cities in order that development opportunities may take place. Transportation access such as that to be provided by the Eastside Access Highway are critical if we are to be successful.
Page 293 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
I wish to thank you very much for allowing me to appear here before the subcommittee. I also want to thank Congressman English for inviting me to testify on behalf of the future of the citizens of the city of Erie.
I would ask that you do everything in your power to make the Eastside connector a reality in our city.
Thank you very much.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Madam Mayor.
Mr. HOFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I'm here as chairman of the Erie County Metropolitan Planning Organization, commonly known as a MPO, which was initiated in ISTEA 1991.
I'd like to give you an update as far as the progress that we have made since the Eastside connector was included as a highway of national significance in ISTEA 1991.
Then-Congressman Ridge, now Governor Ridge gained a $7.5 million appropriation. Since then, that money has been used to prepare an environmental impact statement, and we have brought about community consensus on the preferred alignment.
The final environmental impact statement has now been reviewed by the Federal Highway Administration, and they are issuing their record of decision.
Page 294 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
This is a ready-to-build project. The remainder dollars that weren't spent on the environmental impact statement are now being used for the first part section of the construction, which will be like $5.8 million, which will be underway in 1998, since the Federal Highway is approving the record of decision.
We need then the continued funding, like $94 million, to build out this 6.1 mile missing link which connects the port of Erie to Interstate 79, 90, and the southern tier expressway, which is Route 17 running through New York State which goes from Erie to New York City.
So the missing link is the Eastside connector. We are ready to build. All the permits, all the environmental impacts, the National Environmental Protection Act, Clear Air, Clean Water all have been met. We've done the homework. We're ready to build. We look to continued funding in ISTEA 1997.
Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Hoffman.
Are there any questions?
[No response.]
Mr. PETRI. If not, let me just say that you are very ably and effectively represented by Mr. English. I think you probably have a friend in the governor's mansion, as well. Hopefully we'll be able to help meet this national need really to move traffic through your area.
Page 295 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. ENGLISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm deeply grateful for that acknowledgement, and we appreciate your time today.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Ms. SAVOCCHIO. Thank you.
[The prepared statements of Mr. English, Ms. Savocchio, and Mr. Hoffman follow:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PETRI. The next person is our colleague from Beaumont, the Honorable Nick Lampson.
Sir, I apologize for the delay. We're trying to do this in as common-sense a manner as possible, and we have been running behind schedule because of the votes that occurred, and that has caused various logistical problems for people, so I apologize and I thank you for your patience.
TESTIMONY OF HON. NICK LAMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS
Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Certainly no apology is necessary.
Page 296 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
I appreciate the opportunity of coming before you this afternoon and thank you for taking the time and allowing me the opportunity to appear.
The reauthorization of the 1991 ISTEA law obviously is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we in Congress will address this year.
I'm here to testify in support of four proposals for transportation projects in my District. I look forward to working with you toward the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and to helping you understand the significance of these projects in my District.
The first project I'll discuss is the Concord Road proposal, a road-widening project in north Beaumont Texas that both the city and I consider to be of the highest priority.
It would provide for a four-lane, undivided urban cross-section with turn lanes at significant intersections, thereby alleviating the current congestion problems on Interstate 10 at the U.S. 69 interchange.
It would also provide local traffic with a logical alternative to the freeway system, thus easing the movement of goods and services on these key routes.
In addition, this vitally important project would provide a direct route from one of the area's major employment corridors to the affordable housing sector of north Beaumont. It also would improve what is a major evacuation route for the city of Beaumont in the case of an emergency.
Page 297 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The total cost of the Concord Road project would be $16.5 million, $4 million of which will be paid by the city of Beaumont. The project will be completed in three phases over a period of 4 years and enjoys significant support from local elected officials, transportation planning officials, and the Beaumont community.
The city of Beaumont believes that this project would provide economic development benefits and serve as an important link between the jobs at petrochemical and correctional facilities in the area and those affordable housing residents in a historically depressed area.
The second project of great importance is the construction of a new causeway between Galveston County mainland and the island city of Galveston. Transportation between the city of Galveston and the mainland is critical for this isolated city's survival.
The current causeway allows for two lanes of traffic in each direction, with travel on the shoulders due to significant growth and demand in both directions. Two additional lanes in each direction are needed.
Galveston Island is losing opportunities to increase its economic base and to accommodate many more visitors due to the inadequacy of the existing causeway between the mainland and the island.
Virtually all of Galveston Island's 3 million annual tourists must use Interstate 45 causeway to access Galveston Island.
Page 298 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Additional causeway lanes would open Galveston for a 50 percent increase in tourism and up to $100 million increase in tourism business.
In order to build the new causeway lands, the city will need an estimated $140 million, $80 million of which would come from the Federal Government, $30 million from the State, and $30 million from local government and private sector. Of this funding, $2 million would provide for an environmental assessment.
The project would take 5 years to complete.
The third project I wanted to highlight is the widening of farm-to-market road 364. This is a major roadway and a vital north-south corridor linking State Highway 124, Interstate Highway 10, U.S. Highway 90, and State Highway 105. Much of the roadway has been widened; however, there is a segment from Interstate 10 to Umble Road that remains a bottleneck to traffic on the roadway and needs to be expanded from a two-lane highway to a four-lane highway.
This project would increase capacity and safety for new traffic caused by recent commercial and residential development on the west side of Beaumont.
To complete the final phase of this three-phase project, an additional $6 million of Federal demonstration funds is needed, with 80 percent Federal and 20 percent State.
And last, but certainly not least, I would like to discuss the extension of the Galveston Island Rail Trolley.
Page 299 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Galveston Island Rail Trolley has been in continuous operation since 1987. In 1995 the system was expanded to provide service to new waterfront developments, including hotels, restaurants, museums, cruise ship terminals, parking, and other facilities.
The proposed 3.2 mile extension to the University of Texas Medical Branch will connect the system between the downtown core and the city's largest employer.
This extension continues the transit and economic development linkage which this system has promoted now for 10 years.
It needs $8 million of Federal funding and $2 million from the local community over the period of the next 4 years for completion of this extension.
In addition, the city of Galveston Rail Trolley System operated by the Brassus Valley Community Action Agency is the only rail transit system in the Nation that is ineligible to receive FTA rail modernization funding, and this is because the current Federal law restricts access to this funding source to urbanized areas of 200,000 population and greater.
In recognition of this anomaly, Congress provided the Galveston Trolley a special earmark in fiscal year 1997 of $500,000 for rail modernization; however, for the long term a technical correction of existing Federal law is required to provide Galveston ongoing access to this funding source. Congressional and FTA representatives are in agreement that the current law should be amended to allow Galveston access to Federal rail modernization funding.
Page 300 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you again for the opportunity and for your consideration. I look forward to working with you and answering any questions.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Are there any questions?
[No response.]
Mr. PETRI. If not, we again appreciate your coming. It's an interesting mix of projects in your area, and we'll be happy to work with you on it.
Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are some critical things there, and obviously tremendously supported by the communities.
Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lampson follows:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PETRI. Now we will hear from our colleague, Albert Wynn from Maryland, who is accompanied by the Honorable David Winstead, secretary, Maryland Department of Transportation, to discuss a small bridge.
Page 301 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
[Laughter.]
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, may I be recognized for a minute or two, please?
Mr. PETRI. Of course.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I would just like to welcome the secretary from Maryland's Department of Transportation, David Winstead. I certainly appreciate his being here today to emphasize the importance of our committee authorizing full funding for the Federally-owned—and I emphasize Federally-owned—Woodrow Wilson Bridge.
As you know, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge crosses the Potomac River between Maryland and Virginia. The bridge is of great importance to hundreds, thousands of travelers who use I–95 each day for business and pleasure.
Mr. Chairman, because of the large quantities of traffic on the bridge, coupled with the bridge's age, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge has fallen into severe disrepair. In fact, engineers have estimated that the bridge's viability will only last another 7 to 8 years.
Unless immediate action is taken to address this critical infrastructure, traffic patterns will be severely disrupted in the Maryland, D.C., and Virginia area, and millions of commuters will be adversely affected.
Page 302 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The financial responsibility for this project belongs to the Federal Government, not the States and the District of Columbia. In an era of tight budgets, Maryland already has had to cut back on much-needed State and local projects and is not in a position to assume the cost of this Federal project.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to listen closely to the testimony and recommendations of Secretary Winstead and to develop a funding plan for this Federal project which adequately reflects the Federal Government's responsibility as owner of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Elijah.
I see we're also joined by our colleague that represents the watermen and the Eastern Shore, Mr. Gilchrest.
Did you want to say anything, or are you just showing your support? You're on the schedule later. I don't know if you want to put in a plug for 113 now.
Mr. GILCHREST. Just 15 seconds.
Mr. PETRI. Sure. Go ahead.
Page 303 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. GILCHREST. I'm just here to support what Mr. Cummings is saying and what my colleague, Albert Wynn, will say, along with the Maryland Department of Transportation.
It is absolutely essential. This is an interstate highway system that we're talking about, not a local bridge. It deals with a myriad of traffic and commuters from Maine to Florida.
And so the Federal Government's assistance here is not only essential; it's a part of the highway system that the Federal Government has a responsibility for.
Mr. Chairman, I will be willing to sit here and have all of the Members present in the subcommittee to ask me questions. I'm ready to answer any of their questions, including Mr. Cummings.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. They will be submitting them in writing, I'm sure.
All right, Representative Wynn.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ALBERT R. WYNN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MARYLAND, ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID L. WINSTEAD, SECRETARY, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, ROBERT MARTINEZ, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, VIRGINIA, AND ART LAWSON, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON, D.C. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; HON. STENY HOYER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MARYLAND
Page 304 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. WYNN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rahall, and also I want to thank my colleague from Maryland, Mr. Cummings, for those most accurate remarks.
We're delighted to be here. I am joined by Maryland Secretary of Transportation, David Winstead; Virginia Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Robert Martinez; and Mr. Art Lawson, who is the acting deputy director from the D.C. Department of Public Works.
As you can see by the comments of my colleague, Mr. Gilchrest, this is also a bipartisan as well as a regional effort.
I have submitted several projects that are critical to my District and to the State of Maryland, but today I'd like to focus on a very unique project, the rebuilding of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. I say ''unique'' because this is not Maryland's bridge, nor is it Virginia's bridge, although it connects both States and touches my District. This is the only bridge, as has been indicated, that is wholly owned by the Federal Government. We are here today to urge that the Federal Government fully fund the cost of rebuilding the bridge.
The bridge was built over 35 years ago and was designed to handle 75,000 vehicles. Today it is now used by more than 170,000 vehicles, including 17,000 heavy trucks.
Federal Highway Administration engineers have determined that the remaining useful life of the bridge is less than 8 years; thus, the bridge must be replaced.
Last fall, pursuant to directives of the Federal Highway Administration, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Coordinating Committee, composed of officials from Maryland, Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Highway Administration, recommended a 12-lane drawbridge design with upgraded access ramps. The approximate cost is $1.6 billion.
Page 305 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The design and construction of a new bridge will take at least 6 to 7 years to complete, so it is essential that the bridge be funded under the reauthorization of ISTEA. Any delay will mean that within the next 7 years the Federal Government will have to begin extensive structural maintenance on the bridge in order to maintain it, at significant cost.
In addition, unless the bridge is replaced it will be woefully inadequate to accommodate current and anticipated traffic demand.
In fact, today the bridge creates one of the worst bottlenecks along the east coast.
It is also possible that without rebuilding the bridge, truck traffic could be restricted in the next few years.
The Wilson Bridge is a major link for I–95 north-south traffic on the east coast, as well as a critical route for Washington commuters.
What we're attempting to do here, Mr. Chairman, is forge a Federal/State partnership whereby the local jurisdictions, through a bridge authority, would take over ownership, operation, and maintenance of the bridge. But first the Federal Government must assume its responsibility to fully fund the replacement of the bridge.
Again, this isn't Maryland's bridge nor Virginia's bridge nor D.C.'s bridge. It's the Federal Government's bridge. It's our bridge, and we have to assume that responsibility.
Page 306 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
I look forward to working with the committee on this project, and I would just add that, although he couldn't be here today, Congressman Frank Wolf has asked me to pass on his total support for this project.
I'd now like to defer to the other representatives here and only request that the chairman keep the record open for future submissions that we might like to make on this subject.
Mr. Winstead, if you want to proceed—
Mr. WINSTEAD. Congressman Wynn, thank you very much. Chairman Petri, Congressman Cummings, we thank you for your support, as well as Congressman Gilchrest.
I'm here on behalf of Governor Glendening, who has been very vocal in his support to resolve the issues facing the Woodrow Wilson Bridge in terms of the major infrastructure link in this region, a Federal bridge, and I think Congressman Wynn and the statement I've submitted to the committee covers his position very clearly. I just want to save time and just refer you to my statement.
I'd also mention, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with this committee over the coming year. I'll be heading up the Reauthorization Committee for AASHTO as vice president, so I look forward to working with you overall on the reauthorization.
But I would like now to defer to Rob Martinez, the Secretary of Commonwealth of Virginia, and Art Lawson from the District, so that our regional partners can speak to this issue, as well.
Page 307 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. MARTINEZ. Thank you very much, Secretary Winstead, and thank you, members of the subcommittee, for this opportunity.
I will be very brief.
We will be submitting for the record two documents specifically, in addition to Secretary Winstead's written documentation, his testimony.
We have a joint letter that was signed by Governor Allen, Governor Glendening, and Mayor Barry on this issue which we will be submitting for the record. I also have a resolution that was passed unanimously by the Virginia General Assembly.
I want to make just one point very clear, highlight one specific item that is referenced in that joint letter, and that is that this facility is 100 percent owned by the Federal Government.
Had this been owned by a State, by either Maryland or Virginia, in the 1980s under the interstate completion program, under the final interstate cost estimate, it would have been paid for 90 percent by Federal funds, and that 90 percent would have been outside of the normal Federal aid apportionment.
In other words, Virginia nor Maryland would have seen their normal Federal apportionments reduced to pay for this facility.
Page 308 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Additionally, under the cost to complete nature of that program in the 1980s, that meant that the Federal share would have grown commensurate with actual construction and development costs. So it would not have been 90 percent of an estimate; it would have been 90 percent of actual cost, and it would have been done outside of our normal State apportionments.
The only reason that it was not paid for under that program was because it was a Federally-owned property. Otherwise, either Maryland or Virginia would have brought it into that program at that time.
There was an understanding at that time that it would have been paid for by the Federal Government.
On this specific issue, we would like to keep the record open and provide additional documentation on this point.
I will turn it over to our colleague from the District, Mr. Art Lawson.
Mr. LAWSON. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Petri, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Cummings, again thank you for this opportunity.
On behalf of Mayor Barry and the District of Columbia, just let me say to you that we are partners in this effort. We support and associate ourselves with the comments made by Mr. Wynn, Secretary Martinez, and Secretary Winstead.
We are awfully concerned about progress on this bridge, simply because if we don't start soon and we have to get down the road and put weight restrictions on this bridge that would force additional traffic through the District of Columbia, and the infrastructure within the city cannot handle this additional traffic.
Page 309 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
So we urge the committee to move quickly on this matter and urge the Federal Government to fund this facility 100 percent.
Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you all.
Are there questions?
[No response.]
Mr. PETRI. Actually, this is going to be discussed, as you know, considerably. I suspect there is a little interest on the part of a few people in the Senate, as well. So this is going to get attention.
I wonder if you do have a breakdown of how much is involved that represents bridge work and how much is involved that represents accessway or ramp work in each State, and whether you have a view on whether, because we own the bridge, we're supposed to do the accessways, as well, or if we just can do the bridge and forget about the access roads, and if people don't want to get off in Maryland or Virginia at that particular point that's your problem.
[Laughter.]
Page 310 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. PETRI. We are taking care of the national need, which is moving traffic through the region.
Secondly, I wonder whether you have any views on whether—I know it would be unprecedented, I guess, or close to it, but I wonder if it would make sense to have toll financing of all or part of this project.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the first question and then turn it over to my friends from Maryland to respond to the second question.
On the first question, yes, we can provide for the record any kind of breakdown so that you can analyze it. Let me just be very clear, though, on one point.
There has been some discussion at the Federal Highway Administration about how their Federal obligation really should be just for the bridge and for a replacement bridge.
Let me point out that the Federal regulations under which all of us have to comply—Mr. Lawson, Secretary Winstead, myself—if this were a bridge over the James River in Virginia, I would be required, in the replacement situation, to replace not only the bridge but also the ramps and the access, the approaches, and I would have to do so to meet the year 2020. That is the planning horizon that Federal regulation requires me to do a replacement for. I have no option, no option whatsoever.
Now we have a situation of a bridge that is 100 percent owned by the Federal Government. It's the only segment of the entire interstate that is 100 percent owned by the Federal Government. And we've had an argument thrown in our direction that, in essence, would absolve the Federal Government of the same requirements that they impose on all of the States whenever there is a replacement situation, and that's fundamentally unfair.
Page 311 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
But we will provide to you any data that you need, and we will do that expeditiously.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, with respect to the question of tolls, this obviously has been discussed.
Our view is that, because it is a Federal bridge, the funding is a Federal responsibility and not the responsibility of primarily local residents.
We have a great concern that if tolls were imposed, that this could, in fact, defeat the whole purpose of the bridge with respect to local commuters, who would then avoid the bridge, bringing additional traffic into the region beyond the region's capacity. As was indicated by Mr. Lawson, the District of Columbia would be particularly burdened, but all of the surrounding jurisdictions would be burdened as traffic attempted to avoid the bridge.
Mr. WINSTEAD. Chairman Petri, Governor Glendening is opposed to putting tolls on this bridge, for all the reasons that my colleagues have stated.
Mr. PETRI. And I'd like to welcome our distinguished colleague, who I think also has an interest in this on the Maryland side, in particular, Steny Hoyer. Would you like to say a word?
Mr. HOYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity. My colleague, Mr. Cummings, and, of course, Mr. Rahall, I appreciate this opportunity to join my colleagues and our Secretary of Transportation on this issue.
Page 312 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
As you know, the entire region views this as a critical issue that needs to be confronted as quickly as possible.
I'm not going to repeat what you know, Mr. Chairman, and what Mr. Rahall knows already. This bridge is badly over capacity at this point in time. It is Federally owned, as you know, and we do believe that this needs to be moved through the authorization and appropriation process as quickly as possible so that we do not have a major disaster on Interstate 95, which is the major roadway that crosses here.
Yes, it is, in addition, a very important local asset of the Washington metropolitan area, and of the national capital area. The entire Atlantic coast accesses and utilizes this bridge for transportation south, as well as, of course, the 301 bridge further south on the Potomac.
I want to support the comments of my colleagues here, both in Virginia and in Maryland, as well as the District of Columbia, on the critical nature of moving ahead, and that the Federal Government undertake its responsibility to fund this enterprise and see that this is completed as quickly as possible.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. We will be submitting additional questions. We don't want to—we probably bit off more than we can chew today.
Page 313 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
One other question. I wonder—we'd like to get your reaction in each State to whether, as part of any bridge program that the Federal Government were to undertake, what your reaction would be to ending the sort of anomalous status of the bridge as being the only Federal project and graciously giving it to you so that 30 years or 50 years down the road this would be judged along with other bridges in the Mississippi or anywhere else, rather than having the hunting license of being owned by us.
Mr. WINSTEAD. Chairman Petri, obviously I think the actions of the States and the District—the Commonwealth, rather, and the State, we have passed legislation that would create an authority, too, that could take over both responsibility, maintenance, and operation of this bridge.
The one thing we will be honest is our position that that authority is not going to be activated until both governors and the mayor are satisfied, together with the Congressional delegation, on the Federal funding issue.
Enabling legislation is in place, however.
Mr. PETRI. Yes. I think it was 1986, or something like that.
Mr. WINSTEAD. Actually, we've passed, in the last two sessions of the General Assemblies in Maryland, Virginia, and in the District, enabling legislation for a Federal compact, so the legislation is in place.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes, sir, that is correct. We have already got our legislation. We feel that we've demonstrated good faith with the Federal Government because we're ready to go. In other words, we do have a vehicle to assume title, but we will assume title as Governor Allen, as well as Governor Glendening and Mayor Barry have made very clear, only upon the commitment and the receipt of that Federal obligation.
Page 314 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. PETRI. All right. Well, there is no point in arguing about history, so I won't do that, but we do want to move forward and try to solve the problem, rather than trying to deal with things that there will not ever be any consensus about. We have enough places in the world where that seems to be the pattern, and we don't want to repeat it here in our own neck of the woods if we can possibly do it.
So there obviously is a need, and it's going to have to be addressed on some basis, and we would like to work with you so that it could be done in as orderly and regular a way as possible, and from then on this would be dealt with as part of the national program rather than as some sort of special case.
That's just speaking from Wisconsin's point of view, but I suspect that's the point of view of a lot of other people around the other parts of the country, as well.
Are there any other comments or questions?
[No response.]
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
[The prepared statements of Messrs. Wynn, and Winstead follow:]
[Insert here.]
Page 315 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. PETRI. All right. And now we'll hear from our colleague, Earl Hilliard from Alabama, who has been patiently waiting. He's going to talk about a number of projects in his area of Alabama.
Sir?
TESTIMONY OF HON. EARL F. HILLIARD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM ALABAMA
Mr. HILLIARD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Rahall, for the opportunity to testify.
As you will recall, last year before this committee I came and I testified about several projects, and some of these projects are ongoing, they are lingering. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to come and reiterate the need for these projects in my Congressional District.
I would like to say that each one of the projects that I'm requesting is supported by the State Department of Transportation of the State of Alabama, as well as the mayors and the commissioners, the county commissioners in the area where they are located.
The first project that I would like to talk about is the Finley Avenue extension project. It is a key component in the north Birmingham industrial redevelopment project area, and it will provide emergency access across many railroad tracks and for many residents in the north Birmingham area.
Page 316 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Also, it would improve industry access to a very large industrial corridor that we're trying to create.
It also would reduce congestion and shorten the trip time between these industrial corridors that we're trying to create.
It would eliminate a major gap in the existing transportation network.
Last year Congressman Bevill, who is now retired but did serve on the Appropriations committee, was unable to get here because after he had gotten off the interstate going to the airport in Birmingham, which is his airport near his residence, he was unable to get on there because of the problem we had with flooding in the area.
In fact, our airport flooded, and it's for this reason of the road project in the area has not been completed. The extension of the Finley Avenue project would take care of the flooding problem.
The second one is the Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit System. It is a project that is very much needed. More buses and bus-related equipment is needed. The transit system already is inadequate, so it is giving us an opportunity to get some buses that are needed and improve the area.
The intermodal transportation facility that we have been trying to create for years, we have been working on that project for some 11 years, and we did receive some funds out of the last ISTEA bill that passed, but it was insufficient for our needs. So we are asking also that that project be fully funded.
Page 317 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Highway 43 and Highway 5 are two projects that will connect to interstates that interchange Alabama. There's Interstate 20 and Interstate I–59. At the present time, we have a new project that has brought about 22,000 jobs to the southern region of our country, including Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi, and this is the Mercedes plant.
We have about 18 different companies that supply component parts for the Mercedes automobile that are manufactured in these five Southern States, and they all ship the material into Vance, Alabama. The roads we have are insufficient, and that's Highway 5 and Highway 43.
So we're trying to build to four lanes both of those roads. That would improve the transportation of those projects. That would improve the workers being able to get back and forth from Mercedes.
So this not only will help the State of Alabama, but five other States if we could get those two projects four-laned between those two interstates.
The fourth project that I would like to talk about is the Naheola Bridge. This is one of the only kind of bridges in the entire United States. It is a railroad bridge that is a wooden trestle, by the way, and it's about two blocks long, and it is also a pedestrian bridge and is also a bridge for cars and very small trucks.
Now, the problem is it is only one lane. It is only one lane, and the bridge was built back in the 1930s by workers. It is insufficient. It is inadequate. It is over the Alabama Tombigbee, which is one of the waterways that was funded by this committee, and because of that we have had some financing in keeping the trestle, the other structure pretty strong, but it needs to be replaced. We're asking for $27 million for that.
Page 318 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Finally, there are four avenues that, because of the construction of Interstate I–59 and I–20 in the Birmingham area where they converge a safety hazard has been created, and they need to be redone because after the construction of the interstates some on and off ramps were created, and that was not in the total engineering plan, so it has created some health hazards, some safety hazards, and we would like to have those corrected.
So I hope that all the other information that I have, supporting documents as well as this document, would be submitted for the record. Mr. Chairman, I would like for it to be made a part of the record.
Mr. PETRI. And without objection, that will be done.
Mr. HILLIARD. Thank you very much. And I'd be happy to answer any questions that any of you gentlemen may have.
Mr. PETRI. Are there any questions?
[No response.]
Mr. PETRI. Let me just thank you for going to bat for your growing area. Obviously you're suffering some growing pains with the Mercedes that's adding to it. Some people would like to have some of those problems, but they are problems, nonetheless.
Mr. HILLIARD. Yes. But the beautiful part about it is that by funding these two projects, especially 5 and 43, it would help a five-State region because Vance is located very close to the Mississippi and Alabama-Tennessee line. And, of course, we get all kind of supplies from Georgia, as well as South Carolina, where we ship the cars out of when they go to foreign port.
Page 319 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
So it would be a great deal of help not only to the deficit when we're able to ship cars to other parts of the world, but it would help the southern region.
Thank you very much.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you very much, Earl.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hilliard follows:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PETRI. Next is our colleague, Ruben Hinojosa from Texas. How do you pronounce that? The ''J'' is ''H'' usually.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Since I came to Congress I have been called Mr. Hiroshima. My name is Inohosa [phonetic]. The ''H'' is silent and it's very easy to pronounce, really, Inohosa [phonetic].
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF HON. RUBEN HINOJOSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I couldn't help but overhear my former colleague here talk about the growing problems that they are having in their region and how they are so pleased to have Mercedes building cars in their area.
Page 320 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Well, I come from a little community called Mercedes, Texas, and the region that I represent is from the outskirts of San Antonio downward to McAllen, Texas, which borders with Mexico. It's the 15th Congressional District, one that was represented for the past 32 years by my very good friend, Congressman Kika de la Garza.
Mr. Chairman and Congressman Rahall and other members of the subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify concerning ISTEA reauthorization and to give you the Texas perspective of border transportation infrastructure needs for my area.
In south Texas there is widespread interest in the ISTEA reauthorization process, so much so that we have begun to call ISTEA not NEXTEA, as the Administration is proposing, but OURTEA.
We feel that after 40 years of being ignored by the Federal Government, the 1997 highway bill will enable us to finally build an interstate into the region.
The Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas, which I represent, is the largest metropolitan area in the United States that is not served by an interstate highway. In south Texas we have over 750,000 Texans who live there. And if you couple our population with that of our neighbors to the south, we exceed a population of 2.5 million people. Yet, the nearest interstate to the Lower Rio Grande Valley is over 100-some miles away.
Years ago, no one would have anticipated the extent to which our border highway infrastructure is today being utilized. South Texas may have been an isolated, rural region of the United States at one time, but clearly in these recent years NAFTA has thrust us into the role of the most active gateway of the country.
Page 321 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
To illustrate this, one need only travel along what is commonly referred to as the I–69 route in my District. This is a route that originates in Michigan at the Canadian border and extends down to Texas to our border with Mexico.
South of Houston, the I–69 route splits into three sections, Route 59 to Laredo, Route 77 to Harlingen and Brownsville, and the third one is route 281 to McAllen.
All three prongs of this I–69 route in south Texas handle growing volumes of international truck traffic, and all three connect with vital ports of entry at the border.
At times, the border ports of entry and adjoining roadways are choked with traffic.
From 1991 to 1995, these ports of entry saw an increase of 23 percent in total auto crossings.
The I–69 route in south Texas is woefully inadequate for the volume of traffic that the area receives due to the increased commerce with Mexico. In 1999, alone, 61 million automobiles crossed through the ports of entry between Brownsville and El Paso. The valley had 43 percent of the total Texas auto crossings. And in that same year the Rio Grande Valley ports of entry accounted for $13.1 billion, 13.8 percent of the total United States and Mexico trade.
Page 322 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
So we in south Texas need your help. We need your help to ensure that our transportation infrastructure can meet the public demand, including local and international truck and auto traffic, and can support the national economic growth that is occurring in my area.
Mr. Chairman, this subcommittee held field hearings in McAllen Farr and Laredo last August, and I was very pleased that you and Chairman Shuster were able to come down and see it for yourselves. Those Members who visited were allowed to see and to focus attention on a transportation system that is critical to strong economic and national growth in our international trade efforts.
Sitting at the vehicle inspection lot adjacent to the Farr Bridge, as close as you can get to the Rio Grande River without stepping in, you came and you saw quite vividly the effect that NAFTA is having on our bridge and highway infrastructure.
In Chairman Shuster's words, representatives of our area who testified at the hearing in Farr and McAllen made an extremely strong case for tying the Rio Grande Valley with an interstate north.
As you consider ISTEA reauthorization, we ask for your concurrence that work along I–69 route begin at our Texas border with Mexico, where current traffic congestion and frequent bottlenecks place heavy demands on the existing infrastructure.
I repeat, it's very important that when this begins that it start from south Texas and move north. This is the area of greatest need, and it is the Nation's gateway to trade. Goods destined for all parts of the country are slowed, and there are severe economic losses when bottlenecks at this southernmost point occur.
Page 323 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
In south Texas, we've got the best case in the Nation for funding. The future interstate 69 would go through South Texas and link Mexico, the U.S., and Canada in a way that, when coupled with NAFTA, would bring tremendous economic benefits to our area and to the Nation. It would result in many, many jobs.
Unlike many regional projects, I–69 brings something to the entire Nation and puts our push to find the funding in a category above all other projects in the Nation.
The so-called ''NAFTA Corridor'' will bring the benefits of free trade to the entire Nation. I–69 will create jobs in the area severely impacted by the welfare reform act. Our double-digit unemployment is one that we can't stand any more.
Under today's formulas for distributing Federal highway funds, Texas and other border States receive no additional funds to respond to the burden placed on our highways from carrying the international trade destined for all parts of the country. This is just plain wrong and needs to be corrected.
Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater testified last week before the Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure concerning the need to make the most of opportunities from the success of the North American Free Trade Agreement. He urged the Senate subcommittee to provide Federal funding for new and improved border crossings as part of ISTEA reauthorization legislation.
Page 324 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Like Transportation Secretary Slater, I believe we should examine the establishment of a dedicated border infrastructure investment program.
It is in this same vein, Mr. Chairman, that I recommend that your committee establish a second category of international trade corridors within the ISTEA reauthorization bill with dedicated funding for multi-State corridors with international trade significance and economic national benefits.
While the entire 160,000 mile national highway system is significant, I believe that some corridors, such as I–69 and I–35 and others, are of such domestic and international trade significance that they merit a separate category with dedicated funding within the national highway system.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Your full statement will be made a part of the record.
Representative Hinojosa, we did very much enjoy working with your predecessor, Kika de la Garza.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Petri, I'd like to conclude by saying that I sent to your committee a listing of some of the high-priority highway projects that have been recommended from my area, and they included letters of support from the Texas Department of Transportation—they've already been sent to your committee—along with very strong local support indicating the need for those eight projects that were itemized.
Page 325 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
I don't want to read them other than to say that they are already filed with your committee and that our area is one that is skyrocketing in growth. You can see it by looking at the student population in our public schools and our community colleges and our 4-year universities.
So there is no doubt that we are growing by leaps and bounds, but we need to have that infrastructure necessary to carry this trade.
So everything that you can do and your committee would be greatly appreciated.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Are there any questions?
[No response.]
Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much.
Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you for the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hinojosa follows:]
[Insert here.]
Page 326 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. PETRI. Representative Matthew Martinez?
TESTIMONY OF HON. MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA, ACCOMPANIED BY JULIE M. AUSTIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FOOTHILLS TRANSIT, WEST COVINA, CA
Mr. MARTINEZ. I see you've got the same whistling in this room as we do in our Education and Labor Committee.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me first of all say thank you for the opportunity to express my support for the Foothill Transit request for contract authority in this year's ISTEA reauthorization legislation, and also thank you, Mr. Rahall, for the considerations in the past.
As you know, Foothill Transit is a public/private partnership that provides bus service to the rapidly-growing populations of the San Gabriel Valley and the Pomona Valleys, and I represent the San Gabriel Valley, which is very fast growing and has high unemployment rate and a great need of this kind of service.
During its 10-year life span, Foothill has held its operating costs constant, while increasing the service by more than 60 percent. That's something to really be appreciated.
With this unprecedented success rate, Foothill was designated by Congress as a national model for transit systems nationwide.
Page 327 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Foothill Transit is requesting now $28.5 million to upgrade its bus fleet with alternative fuel vehicles, something that we have talked about for many, many years.
Clean air vehicles are critically needed in the Los Angeles basin, where State and Federal ambient air quality standards are exceeded on a regular basis.
Foothill's long-range plan calls for the replacement of its current diesel fleet with CNG electric hybrid buses. Foothill plans to procure 99 alternative fuel replacement buses over a period of 3 years at a cost of the $28.5 million.
The proposed schedule calls for the purchase of 33 buses during each of these 3 years.
While I believe that the value of this project speaks for itself, I urge you to give every consideration to this request that will allow this agency, which has become a national model, to continue providing cost-effective and environmentally-sound transportation.
Recently—in fact, in the last couple of days—I read an article which criticized this committee and the projects by Tom Schatz, who is president of the Citizens Against Government Waste, and his quote was that he believed that transportation directors were better qualified than people sitting in the Congress to make the decisions about what the priorities should be for their areas.
I would submit to you and to him that this request comes from a director of transportation in our area, and all these projects that are before you now have come from the direction of local transportation directors. They weren't dreamed up by the Members of Congress.
Page 328 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Once again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to share my support for this project, but I would like to at this time include, with permission of the chairman, testimony from that same transportation director, Julie Austin, into the record, along with my testimony.
Mr. PETRI. It will be made a part of the record. We thank you.
Are there questions?
[No response.]
Mr. PETRI. I'd just say that I think your Foothill Transit program has developed a national reputation of public/private partnership, and I think a lot of people who have observed it feel that it manages to provide lower-cost and higher-quality transportation to the residents of the area than some other approaches that people follow in different parts of the country than yours.
Mr. MARTINEZ. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. The fact is that we hear this from our constituents all the time, too. The schedules are on time. The service is as good as it can possibly be. We hear nothing but raves about it in the District.
Mr. PETRI. Good. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Martinez and Ms. Austin follow:]
Page 329 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
[Insert here.]
Mr. PETRI. Now we will hear from Silvestre Reyes from south Texas.
Mr. REYES. No, no. West Texas.
Mr. PETRI. West Texas. Excuse me. Southwest Texas.
Mr. REYES. Congressman Hiroshima was from south Texas.
Mr. PETRI. Moving along the border to the west.
Mr. REYES. To the west.
Mr. PETRI. Right.
TESTIMONY OF HON. SILVESTRE REYES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS
Mr. REYES. I hope to bring attention to the border area, because it is a vital area that, as my colleague, Mr. Hinojosa, said earlier is bursting at the seams with trade.
Page 330 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity and I thank you for giving me this opportunity today, and I want to tell you about a couple of projects that are important to my District, but first I would like to make some general remarks about a serious problem along our Nation's border, particularly along the southwest border between the United States and Mexico.
When Congress passed ISTEA in 1991, the Secretary of Transportation was directed to conduct two studies. Section 1089 called for a study of the advisability and feasibility of an international border highway infrastructure that was a discretionary program that would contribute to the functionality of the border, and section 6015 called for an assessment of existing and emerging international trade corridors between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, and to make recommendations on how to improve trade-related transportation systems.
I want to highlight a few things from those studies.
The U.S.-Mexican border, as you know, is 1,933 miles long, with 40 border crossings. In 1996, more than 78 million vehicles passed through these crossings, but border trade is heavily concentrated, however, at seven major ports of entry.
The busiest port of entry for commercial trucks is El Paso in the 16th District of Texas.
In its report to Congress about border infrastructure, the Department of Transportation found that arterials leading to and from border crossing sites are badly in need of repair and upgrading. According to information developed from the national bridge inventory, 20 percent of the 40 international border crossings are structurally deficient, and 42 percent are functionally obsolete.
Page 331 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
In its report to Congress, the Department of Transportation reported that communities that adjoined busy international border crossings face special problems resulting from the concentration of trade-related traffic, including congestion of local arterials with accompanying delays in travel times for local residents, and the deterioration of air quality, safety risks associated with heavy vehicle traffic, and increased deterioration of highway infrastructure.
Today these arterials are under stress and will be hard-pressed to handle significantly greater amounts of cross-border traffic.
These arterials connect border crossings to the main interstate and inter-regional transportation system within the United States. New sources of infrastructure funding and improved methods of allocation are thereby necessary.
During his confirmation hearing, Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater said that he supports the development of a program specifically designed to help States address concerns related to increased border traffic.
In its report to Congress, the Department of Transportation recommended that a limited number of pilot projects be undertaken to address congestion at various gateways.
Mr. Chairman, that is exactly why I am here today, and the two projects that I have submitted to the committee for your consideration are designed specifically to do just that.
Page 332 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The first project consists of a ramp to link a Federal port of entry, the Bridge of the Americas, directly to the Federal highway, which is Interstate 10. This project has both national and regional significance.
I–10 carries $20 billion worth of trade to Los Angeles, Dallas, Atlanta, Chicago, Cleveland, St. Louis, and places like Raleigh, North Carolina. The major highways used are I–10, I–25, I–40, and U.S. Highways 54, 70, and 62/180.
This project connects the Bridge of the Americas port of entry and all these national highways.
This project will have a direct impact on environmental air quality, cross-border movement of commercial traffic, and public safety.
Completion of this project will remove the more than 2,000 commercial vehicles a day from city streets.
The second project will also relieve congestion at the border. The cities of El Paso and Juarez, Mexico, where more than three million people live, are working together to identify solutions to reduce traffic delays at the international bridges.
The development of an international fixed guideway public transportation system would dramatically improve the problem. The project would be developed jointly by the two cities, the Federal Transit Administration, and the Mexican government.
Page 333 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The initial phase of the system involves an 8,600-foot fixed guideway in downtown El Paso, and 4,000 feet of fixed guideway in downtown Juarez, Mexico.
The city of El Paso is seeking recognition of the U.S. portion of this initial phase system in the ISTEA reauthorization bill. Not only would this project help resolve congestion, but it would also improve the region's air quality problems.
As you may know, El Paso is currently designated by the Environmental Protection Agency as a nonattainment area for air quality.
Mr. Chairman, 365 years ago on September 4, 1632, our Nation's first highway legislation was enacted by the Colonial Legislature of Virginia meeting in James City. Since then our country and our highway system have grown and expanded to meet the demands of the moment.
Now is the time to provide that much-needed improvement along our Nation's borders. I urge you to give this your most serious consideration, and I thank you for your time this afternoon.
Thank you very much.
Mr. PICKERING [resuming Chair]. Mr. Reyes, thank you for your testimony. We will give your proposals and projects due consideration.
Page 334 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. REYES. Thank you so much.
Mr. PICKERING. It's very good to have you before the committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Reyes follows:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Etheridge?
TESTIMONY OF HON. BOB ETHERIDGE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be as brief as possible and leave my remarks as a part of the record, if that is suitable with the Chair.
Mr. PICKERING. It is.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Let me say that one of the large tasks that this Congress has, as you well know, is the reauthorization of the ISTEA legislation, and I can assure you, as I've said, I'll keep my remarks very brief, but I do want to cover just a couple of things about the Second District of North Carolina, which I represent.
Page 335 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
It's a very unique District consisting of small towns, small businesses, rural farmland, coupled with high-tech industry on one end. Transportation is an integral part of that.
The truth is, it may be the only District in the United States where you find a tobacco farm adjacent to a pharmaceutical factory.
Transportation is the lifeblood in our District. We have three interstates crossing—I–85, I–40, and I–95—so it is the artery of the State.
The secretary of transportation for the State of North Carolina has compiled a comprehensive package of the State's needs on ISTEA, and I had the privilege of joining my colleagues in signing a portion of legislation, House bill 674, and a number of others that ask, as the bill is reauthorized, to treat North Carolina a little more fairly.
We get an average of about 75 cents for every dollar we send to Washington, and under STEP 21 we're asking that at least 95 percent of that money come back.
Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I mailed to all the mayors in my District and all the county commissioners, and we received responses from them and we have included those requests as a part of the record and have already sent that to the committee.
But let me share with you, under the equitable funding piece of the bill—I forwarded it. It will be a part of this record. But I think I do need to make it public today that I did receive concerns from a couple of people dealing with that legislation. One in particular dealt with the possible harm for the major investment study in Durham and Orange County as they were concerned that there would not be enough local input. That's a part of the record.
Page 336 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Secondly, some of the small town mayors have asked that this committee continue to support and to retain and strengthen and enhance the funding for the small portions of that bill for their use.
Thirdly, I ask for stronger support for small urban projects under mass transit in small towns in our District. They're growing very rapidly. North Carolina is one of the fastest-growing areas, and we have a bipartisan request from all members of the delegation for the Durham-Chapel Hill corridor for bus and rail transportation.
Finally, let me ask that a project on I–95, project number I–2704—it's in the State transportation plan—be considered. The total cost of this project is $4.15 million; that it be funded with interstate maintenance funds. I reiterate again that that is part of the State plan. It is totally consistent with our request.
This is a crucial project in a fast-growing community.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say to you and to the members of this committee thank you. These projects enjoy strong support and they have the support of the total State delegation.
I thank you for your attention and would say to you that these projects will do a great deal not only in my District but all of eastern North Carolina to eliminate some very hazardous congestion.
Page 337 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Thank you.
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Etheridge, thank you.
Mr. Rahall?
Mr. RAHALL. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PICKERING. We appreciate your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Etheridge follows:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Rothman?
TESTIMONY OF HON. STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM NEW JERSEY, ACCOMPANIED BY CHESTER P. MATTSON, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BERGEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Rahall, it is a pleasure to be here. I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee today, along with Mr. Chester Mattson, planning director for the Bergen County Department of Planning and Economic Development.
Page 338 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
I'm here today to urge your support for solutions to northern New Jersey's transportation needs in the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, ISTEA.
The number one crisis facing northern New Jersey now and into the 21st century is the need for significant improvements in our transportation infrastructure. Congestion on our roadways, both on the highways and even now in our neighborhood side streets, is stifling our region's economic growth, endangering the public's health, and costing our taxpayers thousands of dollars each year in lost wages, high auto insurance bills, and road tolls.
The first ISTEA has paved the way for improving New Jersey's road conditions, making our transit systems more efficient and enhancing the quality of environment.
Furthermore, the State of New Jersey, which ranks first in the Nation in its level of effort of contribution of resources to solve our own transportation problems, has demonstrated over the years, including this year, its strong commitment to using its own resources.
With the continued support from the State and Federal governments, automobile, bus, rail, ferry, and other transport services will be linked, thereby ensuring a decent quality of life for our residents and an infrastructure able to support our existing growing economy.
The benefits of a robust transportation infrastructure go beyond the State lines of New Jersey. Supporting national infrastructure needs is a critical role of the Federal Government, and, as you know, New Jersey is a corridor State.
Page 339 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
As you debate reauthorization of ISTEA, I urge you to preserve the principles contained in ISTEA. ISTEA works for the Nation.
I have already submitted in writing my requests to the subcommittee. Today I would like to highlight one program in particular that I believe will be significant in aiding our region's economy.
I urge your support for a cross-county light rail demonstration project going from west to east through Bergen County's economic corridor. Bergen County is the largest county in the State of New Jersey, and I happen to represent about half of the towns in that county.
Over the past 35 years, Bergen County has had a dramatic change in landscape, with a booming concentration of office and retail economy. But, unfortunately, that concentration of development and growth is one we can no longer sustain.
For example, between 1960 and 1990, Bergen County's population increased by half. The housing stock doubled, and the total employment in the county quadrupled to a half a million.
Bergen County now draws its daily work force from 400 municipalities—urban, suburban, and rural—from different States.
Again, New Jersey and Bergen County are a corridor State and county respectively.
Page 340 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Whereas people in the District used to go from Bergen County to Manhattan in New York City, it is now from within Bergen County to another spot in Bergen County, or from nearby areas in other States coming to work in our county.
That is why a new cross-county light rail system along a portion of the existing Susquehanna and Western rail lines will provide our residents and the residents of surrounding States with an alternative commute along an east-west corridor.
This new rail network will open up possibilities for other inter-connection points, to existing rail, to new bus and auto interfaces, and to new rail and ferry opportunities.
Our urban links will be strengthened, while congestion will be reduced along stretches of regional roadways now utilized to get work forces into our county—again, from out of State and out of county.
This proposal also makes the most sense environmentally by taking cars off our overcrowded roads.
This solution responds to the congestion now facing our area for which neither expanded roadways nor expanded bus service will provide any remedy.
The solution is affordable. There are no major engineering or environmental obstacles. And if authorization is approved this year, the first stage can be in place by the year 2000.
Page 341 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
This is the best solution for our region's economic needs.
I see that my time is expired. My remarks in full have been placed into the record.
I appreciate this opportunity. I'm advised that Mr. Chester Mattson, who is with me from Bergen County, will now have 5 minutes to discuss the proposal in greater detail.
Mr. Mattson is the director for Bergen County Department of Planning and Economic Development.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Rahall.
Mr. PICKERING. Thank you.
Mr. Mattson?
Mr. MATTSON. I'm going to illustrate Congressman Rothman's points. I'm pleased to be with him today.
You have a copy of my statement. It is from our county executive, Pat Shubert, who works very closely with Congressman Rothman on this project.
This map is of the 13 counties in northern New Jersey that have 77 percent of the State's population and employment. We're the eighth largest State economy in the country, and if we were a nation we'd be the 18th largest economy in the world.
Page 342 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Within this 13-county region where 77 percent of the State's economy lies, the dark red shows where it is most highly concentrated.
Within the dark red area—this is a map of the economy, population plus jobs per square mile by census block group—this is where work and people are most highly concentrated together.
This portion of Bergen County, which is slightly larger than Congressman Rothman's District, again with the attention on the red area, contains 65 percent of Bergen County's economy, 65 percent of its population, 65 percent of its work force, 65 percent of the taxes it generates, 65 percent of the $80 billion in ratables that sit on the land, and 65 percent of the commuters in the county.
So we're talking about the part of the county that has the largest concentration in the entire State of these building blocks of the economy. That's the geography—that's the economic geography.
To the north of us lies New York State and Rockman County and Orange County.
Within this green area are the 30 municipalities that Congressman Rothman referred to, and the cross-county rail line that serves the heart of this economy. We want to use a portion of it, 10 miles, between Interstate Route 80 in Saddle Brook and Edgewater on the Hudson River. We are the width of the Hudson River from Manhattan Island. So you can then therefore understand that our population of 842,000 and our job base of 550,000 are in part a reflection of that economic powerhouse.
Page 343 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
But, as Congressman Rothman indicated, we are also a corridor across which people travel from 11 other counties to get to Manhattan on a given day.
So our internal commerce among those jobs and population and our external travel patterns run from out to in, in to out, from all directions are at capacity.
We have one solution available to us which will sustain our economic capacity. This is an enormous economic base. It provides the State with a sixth—it's the sixth of all the jobs in the State, and it provides the State with a sixth of all of the taxes that are generated—sales, corporate, and income—in New Jersey.
So we're talking about a strong—a large economic concentration, and it is under dire threat from congestion.
That's point two.
There are no roadway or bus remedies, but except for the rail link that we're talking about here. It's an existing track. It can be built with public/private assistance. There are large business groups that would like to join us in the design/build approach. We think that this project goes to the heart of the words ''intermodal'' and ''efficiency'' in the act you are about to renew.
The light rail line will share trackage with a freight line, and it will connect to our interstate highways in three places.
Page 344 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
This will provide an astonishing amount of new capacity for a small bit of track that connects the rest of our network.
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Mattson, what is the cost of your proposed project?
Mr. MATTSON. The rail line from Saddle Brook to Edgewater on the Hudson River can be built for $230 million.
Mr. PICKERING. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. MATTSON. That's the lowest cost per mile light rail link in the country.
Mr. PICKERING. And what are the local or other funding sources? Do you have any estimate?
Mr. MATTSON. Bergen County has already contributed $2 million to do the engineering design. The county has already established a $10 million pool as a match to ISTEA monies or others. And we expect to be developing some funds from the transportation improvement program using flex monies from highway to transit projects here where roads won't do us any good—State of New Jersey money.
Mr. PICKERING. Thank you very much.
Page 345 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. Rothman, thank you.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Thank you.
Mr. PICKERING. The committee appreciates your testimony and we'll consider the project with all due diligence.
Mr. Rahall?
Mr. RAHALL. No questions.
[The prepared statements of Messrs. Rothman and Mattson follow:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PICKERING. The next panel, Ms. Roybal-Allard.
TESTIMONY OF HON. LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Rahall. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee on behalf of the city of South Gate, its residents, and the motoring public to seek funding for the I–710/Firestone Boulevard interchange project.
Page 346 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
This is a project that cries out for construction. Interstate 710 serves as a major inter-and intra-regional commuting and shipping corridor through an urbanized area from Long Beach to Pasadena.
Firestone Boulevard is the most important street in South Gate, where most of the city's business and industry are located.
The high volume of trucks attempting to exit Firestone Boulevard creates traffic tie-ups that are as costly as they are time consuming and dangerous to area businesses and residents.
The southbound off ramp has an accident rate more than five times the average for that area. The northbound off ramp's accident rate is more than twice that for the area.
From January 1, 1993, through December 31, 1995, the CALTRANS traffic accident surveillance system reported 84 accidents at this interchange, two of which included three fatalities.
And the data indicates high numbers of rear-end collisions, which are chiefly attributed to congestion.
As the city's response to the committee's 14 criteria demonstrates, every aspect of the project is eligible for the use of Federal funds. For example, I–710 is on the national highway system and Firestone Boulevard is a major arterial.
Page 347 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
This project has the support of all pertinent Federal, State, and regional agencies. These agencies have included phase one of the project in the transportation improvement programs.
It is also important to note that the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority has approved phase one funding in the amount of $5.4 million.
Mr. Chairman, this is an ambitious project. The existing interchange will be replaced with a full cloverleaf design. Off ramps will be widened and given new signalization. A portion of Firestone Boulevard will be widened, and the existing over-crossing will be reconstructed.
This will entail the widening of the Los Angeles bridge west of the interchange and the Rio Hondo channel bridge to the east.
The project will be carried out in four phases to facilitate funding.
CALTRANS, our State transportation agency, has agreed to provide design oversight and construction administration.
Mr. Chairman, the present interchange is clearly inadequate to handle the volume of commercial and other traffic. As a result, lives and property are at a deadly risk.
Of the $29.8 total project cost, we are seeking Federal authorization for $16 million.
Page 348 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The city of South Gate is ready, and we respectfully ask the committee's approval of this worthwhile project.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI [resuming Chair]. Thank you. We appreciate your coming over and putting in a good word for the Firestone project, and we will be working with you on it.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Thank you. We appreciate it.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Now we're joined by our colleague, Christopher John from Louisiana.
Sir, welcome.
He's accompanied by Bill Fenstermaker, who is the president and chief executive officer of C.H. Fenstermaker and Associates.
Welcome.
TESTIMONY OF HON. CHRISTOPHER JOHN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM LOUISIANA, ACCOMPANIED BY BILL FENSTERMAKER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, C.H. FENSTERMAKER AND ASSOCIATES, AND CHAIRMAN OF BOARD, LAFAYETTE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, AND CO-CHAIR I–49 TASK FORCE, AND ROB GUIDRY, PRESIDENT AND CEO, LAFAYETTE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Page 349 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. JOHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Petri and Ranking Member Rahall and members of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation.
We sure appreciate the opportunity to express our views on a very important project.
In the interest of time, I'd just like to introduce the two gentlemen who will be speaking to you for a few moments about the importance of this project.
We have with us, as the chairman stated, Mr. Bill Fenstermaker, who was formally the chairman of the board of the Lafayette Chamber of Commerce. He's also a co-chair of the I–49 Task Force. We have, accompanying him today, the president and CEO of the Lafayette Chamber of Commerce, Rob Guidry.
I'll turn it over to these two gentlemen, who will be giving their presentation.
Mr. PETRI. Gentlemen, please proceed. As you know, we will be including your full submission as part of the record and are operating under a five-minute rule.
Mr. JOHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I have my written comments. In the interest of time, I'd like to submit them.
Mr. PETRI. That will be made a part of the record.
Page 350 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. JOHN. Thanks.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Mr. GUIDRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
While I represent the members of the greater Lafayette community, I also represent the coalition that supports this I–49 project. The coalition represents economic development groups, private industry, etc., all along this corridor.
Of the population of the State of Louisiana, 36 percent is on this corridor. And if you would fold in the population of New Orleans, we're talking about 50 percent of the population of Louisiana that is living and working along the U.S. Highway 90 corridor that we want to upgrade to U.S. interstate standards.
I will yield the balance of my time to Mr. Bill Fenstermaker.
Mr. FENSTERMAKER. Mr. Chairman, I hold a map in my left hand, and hopefully you can see it, but we'll be more than happy to provide it to this committee. The reason I'm involved in it is because I'm from a small town, New Iberia, which probably its best-known name is Tabasco, where Tabasco is made. It is in the middle of the oil and gas belt and industrial corridor of Louisiana.
Page 351 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The reason I have passion for this project and am a co-chairman of this project is because six of my classmates have been killed at different times, not in the same car, along this road.
We became aware of others as we travel up and down the highway and talk about the need to not build a new highway but to make much more safe or make an interstate highway out of the four-lane U.S. 90. I find that that story is repeated over and over by the people we talk to, so I am not just a single individual talking about that.
Year in and year out in every parish along this highway we average over six traffic deaths because of the unsafe nature of this highway.
Another reason, when I was chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, that we became involved in a study of this project was because of Hurricane Andrew. This slide that I lift shows Hurricane Andrew as it came on the coastline of Louisiana. One thing that it pointed out very vividly was the lack of an exit for the people that lived up and down the highway all the way to Homer, Louisiana.
They hit a brick wall in Lafayette because they could not get through, and trapped many people as the storm progressed.
One other thing of fairly significant importance, this slide here shows the oil and gas revenue that was produced from the offshore continental shelf right off of Louisiana and south of Louisiana last year, 1996. It totaled almost $20 billion of commerce in this country.
Page 352 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Federal tax revenues from 1991 to 1996 from these leases was $369,000,811, and revenues from bonuses paid on offshore lease sales last year off of Louisiana were $511 million.
Just yesterday we got the report that the lease sale of the central Gulf of Mexico produced revenue of $824 million into the Federal coffers because of the lease sale of record, and we're sure that, because of the continuation of oil companies bidding at these prices on these leases, that this highway will become more and more significant.
The highway we're talking about—and if you can see this line that is in the submittal, it shows a number of areas, two areas that are already under construction. This highway is being built to interstate standards for about 30 percent of the route already, and we would like to get the designation under ISTEA as a continuation of priority corridor one from Kansas City not just to Shreveport, Louisiana—and I–49 is built from Shreveport to Lafayette—but we'd like the designation of priority corridor one to go all the way to the port of Orleans, which would have some significant benefit to the country.
The large map that I show is priority corridor one. If you can see the small circle at the top, it is planned to stop in Shreveport, Louisiana. Obviously, when that connection is made, priority corridor number one to I–49 will stretch all the way from Winnipeg, Canada, and Lake Superior, all the way down to Lafayette, Louisiana, the town in which I live.
I cannot believe that this highway was ever planned to end in Lafayette when the goal line is about 100 miles down the road in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Page 353 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
What we ask this committee to be aware of is the public safety aspects, from a hurricane evacuation and just unbelievable amount of deaths and injuries that happened, but also from an economic base of the whole country and the State of Louisiana.
We thank you very much for allowing us this time.
Mr. PETRI. And we had a couple of football players from my part of the world who managed to get across the goal line in New Orleans Super Bowl this year.
[Laughter.]
Mr. JOHN. We appreciate the courtesy. Thanks a lot.
Mr. PETRI. We thank you. This one—are the environmental concerns, have they all been taken care of? We always start running into people talking about wetlands and other things. I know it's a major aggravation in your part of the world.
Mr. FENSTERMAKER. Mr. Chairman, the monies we're requesting under ISTEA are for the environmental impact statements and only preliminary engineering work, $60 million under ISTEA.
But there are no environmental problems along this highway. All of them have generally been addressed. It's existing. We're not putting any concrete over an area that doesn't have concrete already. We're eliminating crossroads. We're building some service roads.
Page 354 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
And I think we will find that, after submission of the proper documentation, this will be a very clean environmental highway.
Mr. PETRI. So you're upgrading existing facilities to interstate standards, including it within the system and hopefully the NAFTA priority corridor and system?
Mr. FENSTERMAKER. That's correct. It's a pure upgrade, and it is a U.S. highway right now, U.S. Highway 90, which definitely needs it.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statements of Messrs. John, Guidry, and Fenstermaker follow:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PETRI. The Honorable Robert Weygand from Rhode Island is joining us, talking about Quonset Point.
Sir, welcome.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ROBERT A. WEYGAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM RHODE ISLAND
Page 355 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. WEYGAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Bob Weygand from Rhode Island. I'm one of the many freshmen that are asking for your support and help.
Mr. PETRI. I apologize for mangling your name.
Mr. WEYGAND. That's okay. My wife does it, too.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I'm here because I'm requesting that you incorporate into the ISTEA reauthorization two major projects which we think are extremely important, not only myself, and government of the State of Rhode Island, who is proposing this project; the Department of Transportation, and actually the people of Rhode Island have made the two of the top-priority projects economically for our State.
In the northeast we have been hard hit by the loss of economic viability. We are strapped in terms of available land area. But there is one project called ''Quonset Point Davisville'' which is a former Navy property that has been transferred over to the State of Rhode Island and is a major facility for economic development. It provides deep-water berthing for waterborne vehicles. It also provides an air strip for air transportation.
It also has a rail line which is in dire need of repair which the Federal Government has already authorized $13 million worth of improvements, and the State has authorized approximately $53 million worth of improvements in a 1996 bond issue.
Page 356 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The third track project and the electrification of the northeast corridor will complement this in terms of railway access, an extremely important project for rail transportation to Quonset Point.
But the fourth mode of transportation which is incredibly important is that of surface transportation and roadway access to this 3,000-acre site.
Right now we travel to it by way of secondary roads. Long on the top-priority list of transportation projects has been the access road to Quonset Point/Davisville. It will provide us with the surface transportation access that we direly need.
In the 1996 bond issue that was approved by the voters of Rhode Island overwhelmingly, we approved $22 million for the $110 million project to develop this access road.
We're asking that you provide $88 million, the 80 percent match to that, so that we can provide this access.
It will provide us with the number one export facility for the State of Rhode Island and the northeast, something that we need very much, Mr. Chairman.
The second project—and I've submitted testimony that explains both of these projects in far more detail than I have the time for today.
But the second project is probably the epitome of an intermodal surface transportation project.
Page 357 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
While it is very small—it's called the ''South County Bicycle Trail,''—it connects the northeast corridor pedestrian transportation to the University of Rhode Island and tourist attractions within Narragansett and South County. It provides bicycle access. It connects to other roadway or surface transportation projects. In fact, what it does is provide a boon to tourism in the area, both bike trail and walking trails, and to our rail line, the northeast corridor in South County.
The total cost is only $3.8 million. The first phase will begin on October 1 if this project is included within the reauthorization of ISTEA.
It is a project, again, that is one of the high-priority projects for the South County area and the District of Rhode Island that I represent. It is key to the economic development that complements the tourism that we have been working so very hard on.
Both of these projects have the support of—being a democrat—have the support of the republican administration, the governor of our State, the Department of Transportation, but, probably more importantly, Mr. Chairman, the people of Rhode Island who have, in both cases, supported it with regard to bond issue and State allocations.
We need your help. We need your support on this issue. We would like to have you consider it for the reauthorization of ISTEA, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Do you have any questions?
Page 358 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. RAHALL. No questions.
Mr. PETRI. Do you know if Senator Chafee has any interest in any of these?
Mr. WEYGAND. Senator Chafee is fully supportive of this measure. As a matter of fact, he has really been one of the main supporters of the Quonset Point project, as well as the South County Bicycle Trail.
We have been in constant contact with Senator Chafee's office, with the knowledge of him being the chairman of Transportation on the Senate side.
We believe that we fully have his support and, as I said, the governor's support, so we look forward to bipartisan support on this issue, and we'll be working closely with him.
Again, Mr. Chairman, we hope to have your support on this issue, as well.
Mr. PETRI. Well, I suspect between you and Senator Chafee you'll probably make some progress.
Mr. WEYGAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Page 359 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weygand follows:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PETRI. We have several Members on their way. Is there anyone who is on the schedule who is in the room that would like to testify?
[No response.]
Mr. PETRI. If not, we'll stand in informal recess until one of our colleagues gets back. Let's take a 10-minute recess, and we'll be back at about 3:30.
[Recess.]
Mr. PETRI. We will reverse our break, because it's not going to get any shorter.
Our colleague, Saxby Chambliss, has arrived, so we will resume.
Sir, welcome. We're proceeding under the five-minute rule, and you're invited to use as much or as little of it as you wish.
Your full statement will be made a part of the record concerning the Fall Line Freeway.
Page 360 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
TESTIMONY OF HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM GEORGIA
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I can tell you all are anxious about a break, so I'll try not to use all of that 5 minutes.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today, and I want to take this opportunity to thank the committee for allowing me to speak before you on behalf of the Fall Line Freeway.
This is an issue that is of great importance to me, as well as to all the citizens of Georgia.
This highway project has been submitted to this committee for inclusion in the reauthorization of ISTEA per your request, and I can tell you that the Fall Line Freeway receives a tremendous amount of broad support not only from me but from all the Georgia delegation and the Georgia Department of Transportation.
The typical design of the project is a high-type multi-lane facility consisting of four through lanes with a 44-foot median. This project will be constructed by widening existing roadways and, where necessary, constructing facilities on new location.
The scope of the project is to provide a multi-lane facility between Macon and Augusta. When completed, the Fall Line Freeway will provide greatly improved access between the urbanized areas of Columbus, Macon, and Augusta.
Page 361 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The Fall Line Freeway is a central element of the governor's road improvement program, which is also known as GRIP. The GRIP is a system of 16 corridors consisting of 2,847 miles of proposed four-lane highways. Once constructed, the GRIP system will place 98 percent of Georgia's population within 20 miles of a multi-lane highway.
The GRIP system will improve access, spur economic growth, and increase safety to rural areas of our State. Increased access to multi-lane highways, metropolitan areas, and the interstate system will provide rural areas a marketing tool to attract new businesses and improve local economies.
The GRIP system will provide access to over-sized trucks, thereby improving the State's attractiveness and ability to compete in a growing and ever-changing market.
The GRIP system was incorporated in the Georgia State law in 1989.
The objective of the Fall Line Freeway is to link the metropolitan areas of Columbus, Macon, and Augusta with a high-speed, multi-lane, inter-regional highway.
This linkage will substantially increase inter-city transportation access, connect off-interstate communities with major economic activity centers, and serve as a catalyst for economic development.
The trucking, timber, and kaolin industries will benefit from safer improved access to distribution and processing sites.
Page 362 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The Fall Line Freeway will provide the infrastructure necessary for rural Georgia to attract and retain economic development.
In addition, the Fall Line Freeway will link three critical defense facilities by multi-lane highways, those facilities being Fort Benning in Columbus, Robins Air Force Base in Warner Robins, Georgia, and Fort Gordon in Augusta.
Gentlemen, in an increasingly global and competitive economy, the Nation's level of competitiveness is dependent upon the ability of individual States to stimulate economic growth, provide safe and efficient movement of people and goods, and to actively encourage employment.
The Fall Line Freeway represents a primary element of Georgia's ability to participate in the new age of economic competitiveness, while stemming the growth of economic disparity between the State's urban and rural populations.
Even though this project receives the support of the Georgia delegation, the residents of Georgia, and the Georgia Department of Transportation, additional funding would expedite State efforts and lessen lost economic opportunities.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and allowing Members to express their support of critical projects in their States.
The Fall Line Freeway is both regionally and nationally significant. There is not a more important project in the whole State of Georgia.
Page 363 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
I am requesting your assistance through sponsorship of statutory authorization for the Fall Line Freeway.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Are there questions?
[No response.]
Mr. PETRI. I've had the opportunity to meet with—you have a very interesting and powerful Transportation Commission in the State of Georgia. It's critically well connected, I think.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Shackelford is quite an interesting guy and does a great job as our head of our Department of Transportation.
Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of letters here, one directed to you and one directed to Chairman Shuster from Congressman Norwood, Congressman Collins, and myself, which are our three District through which this Fall Line Freeway will go. I'd like to present these to you at this time also for the record.
Page 364 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. They will be part of the record.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Thank you very much.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chambliss follows:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PETRI. Wayne Gilchrest has come back, this time to talk about U.S. 113, I think.
Mr. GILCHREST. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Sir, you are welcome. As you know, we are proceeding under the five-minute rule. Everything that you brought with you will be submitted for the record, and you're welcome to summarize or proceed as you wish.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, does the five-minute rule apply to committee members?
[Laughter.]
Mr. GILCHREST. We'll get started.
Page 365 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. PETRI. Not if you want to sit up here. We're told it's a two-minute rule for committee members.
Mr. GILCHREST. I thought that was the democratic side, because we're in the majority now. We can pretty much—
Mr. PETRI. All partisanship has dissolved like molasses up here.
Mr. GILCHREST. We're going to try to reinvent that this weekend at the bipartisan retreat in Hershey, Pennsylvania.
My 5 minutes haven't started yet, have they, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. PETRI. Four minutes and seven seconds remain. Go ahead.
TESTIMONY OF HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MARYLAND, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT HULBURD, FOUNDER, COUNTY RESIDENTS ACTION FOR SAFER HIGHWAYS (CRASH)
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I have a constituent with me who lives in the part of the Congressional District that deals with a rather major highway that goes from Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, and I asked him to come in and give you testimony this afternoon to add a sense of urgency to the problem that has existed here for quite some time.
Page 366 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
In the last 20 years, 70-some people have been killed on this highway.
It is dualized on the Delaware side, it is dualized in Virginia, and it is dualized in a small section of Maryland, but there is a single lane that remains to be dualized, and it is a point of controversy.
We are here to express the need for Federal involvement in making this highway, this interstate highway, a much more safe road to travel, given the fact that there is a large number of people all over the east coast that travel in this area because of some of the tourist attractions and resort facilities.
Right now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn the microphone over to Bob Hulburd to give his testimony.
Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Hulburd, welcome.
Mr. HULBURD. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Please proceed.
Mr. HULBURD. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my thanks both to you and Congressman Gilchrest for this opportunity to testify on an issue of importance to my community and, more specifically, my family.
Page 367 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Lee Figs was my cousin. In July of 1994, Lee died on Route 113 as he was returning home from his job in Ocean City, Maryland. He had to travel Route 113, as there is no other option in Worcester County. It is the only road that goes north-south through the county.
Like most people who die on Route 113, Lee was killed because another vehicle, in this case a truck, crossed the center line to pass. The truck hit my cousin head on, and they say he was killed instantly.
In addition to being a former All-State football player, Lee played the guitar and loved to water ski. At 28 years of age, Lee had a nice wife and a 4-year-old son named Jake.
This inadequately-designed highway contributed to his death.
Of course, for me there is no highway tragedy to match Lee's death, but there are 21 other similar stories since 1990, and there have been 70 fatalities since 1977.
These numbers are six times the Statewide average for roads carrying the amount of traffic carried by Route 113.
I and some other citizens founded County Residents Action for Safer Highways, or CRASH, in August of 1994 to ensure that the personal tragedies we suffered as a result of 113 and other highways might, while if not the last of their kind, at least be more of a rarity.
Page 368 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Our major focus with CRASH is safety, and our major reason for needing this road is safety. There has been entirely too much bloodshed on this road through the years.
Maryland State Highway Administration lists as their number one priority systems preservation. Our goal is people preservation.
We are committed to improving Maryland's most dangerous highway. The highway in question runs through Delaware into Maryland and connects with U.S. 13 to continue into Virginia's eastern shore in Congressman Bateman's District. It is dualized throughout its length except for the stretch in Maryland. This non-dualized stretch creates a continuity problem.
Of the highway's traffic, 15 percent is truck traffic supporting our agribusiness in our area, and this traffic is going either to or from the eastern shore or continuing across the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel to points south. We believe 15 percent is a very high number of truck traffic.
The traffic on this highway has increased at a greater rate than all but a few of Maryland's highways, and the death toll and lost productivity attendant to the highway status will increase at much the same rate.
Route 113 is a very old road, actually predating the system. Like other roads from that time, it is not up to the task of safely moving today's traffic. Dualization would bring it up to the 21st century standards.
Page 369 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The road acts as a major north-south thoroughfare for travelers on the Atlantic coast. It affects travel through at least three States—Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia—and an argument could be made that it could be considered an interstate connector.
If you look at the map here—I don't know how well you can see it—113 is identified on there. If you'd like a closer look, I certainly can give it to you. But people don't come down through 13 because they've got traffic and so forth in Salisbury that they get hung up with. People don't go down 95 as much—sometimes they come this way because they've got traffic and congestion of Washington and Baltimore. So a lot of people when they travel take the scenic route and they come down through the eastern shore of Maryland, many coming over the Cape May Lewes Ferry and getting right onto 113 right off the ferry there.
The State of Maryland has recognized the need for dualization of Route 113 and has allocated money for study of the project, but the State argues that its commitments in other areas of the State leave little funding available for this project until several years from now.
However, it is a mathematical certainty that every year Route 113 remains a two-lane highway it will have a cost in terms of lives, as drivers invariably cross the center line.
Just recently a mother and her 7-year-old son lost their lives in an accident on 113 the day after Christmas. The father had to return the brand new bicycle his son got for Christmas, and the father still does not understand why this road is not dualized, when dualization began 40 years ago and then stopped because of other priorities.
Page 370 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
This project is way past due to be a priority.
If Federal money were granted to commence engineering and right-of-way engineering in this successor to ISTEA, it would move up the schedule for improvements significantly, as the out-year money the State budgets for these purposes could be used for construction, instead.
That's basically all I've got to say. I really appreciate this opportunity. On behalf of myself and my fellow members of CRASH, I am grateful that you have given us the chance to be heard. Dualization of Route 113 will do much to improve the lives of many of us on the lower shore and those who travel through it. It will certainly save the lives of many more people in that area.
The project stands on its own merits, without question. The numbers, the safety problem stands that it deserves to be done. Its justification is truly measured by the lives saved as a direct result of dualization.
Please help us solve this problem.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. You're talking about the stretch of road from Berlin to Snow Hill, roughly?
Page 371 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. HULBURD. I didn't understand you, sir.
Mr. GILCHREST. The stretch from Berlin to Snow Hill.
Mr. HULBURD. There are two stretches, from the Delaware-Maryland line at Selbyville, Delaware—
Mr. PETRI. I see.
Mr. HULBURD.—to Berlin. And then the stretch from Berlin to Snow Hill. The stretch that is dualized through Berlin was started in 1940, so that was dualized a long time ago, about a 4- or 5-mile stretch. And then the two ends.
There is a tremendous continuity problem because you go from dual in Delaware to single to dual to single to dual again.
Mr. PETRI. I have a town in my District of about 6,000 people that they call it ''Berlin,'' even though over in Germany they say Berlin.
Mr. HULBURD. Well, if you talk to four or five people from my area, you'll hear four or five different pronunciations of it, I'm sure.
Mr. PETRI. Yes. We thank you very much, and Wayne, for bringing this to our attention.
Page 372 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. HULBURD. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statements of Messrs. Gilchrest and Hulburd follow:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PETRI. Representative Wes Watkins.
Sir, welcome. Please proceed as I think you've got the drill down.
TESTIMONY OF HON. WES WATKINS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM OKLAHOMA, ACCOMPANIED BY MITCH SURRETT, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY, OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AND DAVID STREB, OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. WATKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you and my former classmate, Mr. Rahall, for allowing us to be here. I appreciate the staff's hard work.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to also ask unanimous consent to revise my remarks and give you a—
Mr. PETRI. Your statement and those, if any, of the gentlemen accompanying you will be made a part of the record, and we obviously appreciate any abbreviation that you can provide.
Page 373 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. WATKINS. I appreciate it.
As you know, Mr. Chairman—and I know my classmate, Mr. Rahall knows, when I came here with him we were continuing to fight to try to build the economy and build jobs in a rural, economically-depressed area—areas where there used to be coal and other things, Mr. Rahall, in my part of the region, the deep southeast.
I had to leave that area of the State of Oklahoma three times when I was a youngster with my family to go find jobs in California and other places, and it has been my lifelong dream to try to help build that area, to build jobs, build those opportunities for our people.
I would like to say I've already revised—I was coming before the committee here for four different projects, but because of our efforts and our interests we've gotten the State and some others to work with us on one of the projects, so really I have three.
Two of those are on U.S. Highway 70, one up in the Bryan County/Marshall County area, which has a large population of tourism that comes in the area. They're unfamiliar with the roads. It has been very, very difficult. It's very much of an area that needs safety built into it because there are a lot of accidents, just as we hear on other projects.
The other one is an area that has been an area of the highest rate of unemployment, double-digit under-employment, out-migration of people, low education level—a group that I've been working with there. We've been building all facets of infrastructure, another area of Highway 70 that has some economic growth taking place.
Page 374 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
As we know, when economic growth comes, all of the sudden there are more trucks, more everything, and we have some real problems there, so we hope that that can be improved on U.S. 70 that goes to Arkansas line, because there is a new highway system going north and south and it will be able to feed off into that area even more traffic, more economic growth, and we need that help.
Another one is Highway 3 that leads into the deep southeast part of the State of Oklahoma.
Mr. Chairman I, personally, have been on that highway for 45 miles not being able to pass at night with little hills in the rain. I know we cannot four-lane it, but I ask for the help in trying to get passing lanes so that the big trucks and many others can pull off and keep moving and build the safety.
In order to make these points further, Mr. Chairman, I ask permission that Mr. Surrett and also David Streb of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation be allowed to say a few words and be available for questions.
Mr. SURRETT. Good afternoon.
U.S. 70 is a principal arterial route on the national highway system. U.S. 70 from Madill to Durant connects Interstate 35 with U.S. 69, two of the highest-volume truck routes in the State of Oklahoma.
Page 375 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
With tourism, the highway provides direct access to Lake Texoma, Lake Hugo, the Ouachita National Forest, and several other major recreation and scenic areas.
The southern region of the State relies significantly on the economic support of the tourism and logging industries.
After careful study, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation found the existing highway alignment to be the most deficient for reconstruction.
Also, U.S. 70 was identified in the Statewide intermodal transportation plan as a transportation improvement corridor from I–35 east to the Arkansas border. This indicates a high accident potential for projected traffic. Traffic volumes as high as 9,200 cars travel between Durant and Madill on U.S. 70, consisting of mostly two-lane highway with no shoulders.
Due to the absence of passing lanes, the highway continues to experience high accident rates and poor traffic flow.
These problems are largely connected with the percentage of recreational vehicles and trucks traveling the roadway.
The traffic flow is currently directed through the towns of Madill, Kingston, and Durant, which drastically slows traffic movement.
The high cost of the project versus the State's limited funds validate why this project is not currently scheduled. The current estimate to reconstruct U.S. 70 to four lanes from Madill to Durant is $100 million. This cost would include a bypass. The crossing is the largest cost of the proposed project, estimated at $25 million.
Page 376 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Much of Oklahoma is comprised of rural areas that depend on and deserve acceptable trade routes.
With the appropriate support, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation expects the proposed project to be let in the 4th or 5th year following funding.
Thank you.
Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, any questions?
Mr. PETRI. Are there any questions?
[No response.]
Mr. PETRI. I think you're experiencing a lot of changes in your area over the lat 20 or 30 years, with all of the growth and with the—I don't know what you call it. Robert Kerr remade Oklahoma, and it has changed the whole nature of the State a lot.
I think that probably has added to some of your needs with the lakes and things that you have now that really didn't exist before World War II.
Mr. WATKINS. In the deep southeast, fortunately or unfortunately—I guess mainly unfortunately—I've had depressed economic conditions since the Great Depression, and it has been hard. It's kind of like West Virginia, a lot, Mr. Rahall. It has been very difficult to get it turned into the new technology and new economic opportunities, and there has been a lot of effort and a lot of investment, and we've had some success, but then that brings some good problems. You've got to try to start providing more infrastructure to help meet that load of truck traffic.
Page 377 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
God sent blessing of timber and natural resources and all. We're finally able to do some things with it.
With your help and the committee's help, maybe we'll be able to give them some decent roads to get in and out, safe roads.
Mr. PETRI. Gentlemen, thank you all.
Mr. SURRETT. Thank you.
Mr. WATKINS. Thank you.
[The prepared statements of Messrs. Watkins and Surrett follow:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PETRI. We're joined by our colleague, Barney Frank from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
TESTIMONY OF HON. BARNEY FRANK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. FRANK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was delighted to be told that the subcommittee wanted to hear me earlier. That is a rare experience.
Page 378 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. PETRI. Believe it or not, we're on schedule. I don't know how it happened.
Mr. FRANK. Mr. Chairman, you have my absolute admiration for that. May your example redound.
I know that your committee member and my colleague originally planned to be here, Mr. McGovern. I don't know if you know, but he has had a death in his family, so I think he may not—unexpected death, and so is not able to be here. He obviously will be doing the major explanation of this, as a member of the committee.
It actually deals with a project which I worked on with his predecessor, Mr. Blute, who was a member of the committee. Mr. Blute and I worked closely with the cooperation of this committee on a bridge known as the Brightman Street Bridge between the city of Fall River and the town of Somerset, Massachusetts.
The reason I thought we should respond to your invitation to talk about projects is this: this is a project for which there are State funds, Federal formula funds available, but the Coast Guard intervened to insist on a substantial widening of the bridge. It was originally planned to be 150 feet for many years. The Coast Guard insisted that it go to 200 feet. In fact, we'd done environmental impact statements and were all ready to go, and the local people were perfectly satisfied with 150.
The current opening, by the way, is 98 feet, so we naively thought that going from 98 to 150 wouldn't be a problem, but the Coast Guard said no, going from 98 to 150 would be unacceptable, it had to go to 200.
Page 379 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
So then the choice was—you know, we thought 150 was better than 98, but we were apparently wrong. Silly us.
So the plans had to be changed to accommodate a 200-foot opening.
It's also a bridge which will open less, by the way. It had some important environmental aspects, as well as transportation. It's a bridge—the last time I looked, the figures were that it had to be opened three times every 2 days, and now it will be open once every—it was three times a day, now it's once every 2 days. It's a factor of five in terms of reduction of openings, which is obviously very important. It would not have to open at rush hour, etc.
So this project is ready to go ahead, and I think Mr. McGovern will have more detail on the specifics of the request.
But what we were asking for was some help with the incremental costs that result from the Coast Guard insisting on a significantly—150 to 200 feet opening, which required redesign and will be more expensive, etc. That's the fundamentals.
As I say, getting this bridge built was something that both my predecessor, who you two both served with—a decreasing number have—Margaret Heckler. It originally had been Margaret Heckler's District.
I think, to be honest with you, the first person who promised this bridge was Joe Martin, who was running this when the chairman and I were in school in Massachusetts.
Page 380 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
But we've gone along. The State has been responsible and is doing its job. The State obviously should have to use its formula funds for much of this, it seems to me. But it does seem to me a legitimate request to make that where the Coast Guard insisted on the extra 50 feet, that we get some help with that.
I believe that's what Mr. McGovern will expand on.
That's essentially it, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Great. Well, thank you for again bringing it to the committee's attention. As you point out, there are others who are going to be working on it.
Mr. FRANK. I should add, actually the committee did help us with it, because the Coast Guard originally said they wanted 300 feet. I think they may have thought that the Navy was going to be using this as a disembarkation point for Latin America. It turned out there was an old statute that required 300 feet that nobody had known about, and your committee graciously, with Mr. Blute's lead, repealed it. So we got rid of that, but we did go to 200.
Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, sir. And any submission will be, obviously, made a part of the record.
Page 381 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
I understand that Representative McInnis has been unable to be here at this time, but the person he was going to be introducing, Mayor John Bennett of Aspen, Colorado, is here.
Sir, I actually used to be a tenant of a man who was on the City Council in Aspen, Colorado, who owned the St. Moritz. I don't know if you're familiar with that.
Mr. BENNETT. That would have been Michael Baron probably.
Mr. PETRI. Yes, it was.
Mr. BENNETT. Yes.
Mr. PETRI. How is he?
Mr. BENNETT. He's very well, and I hope he treated you well at the time.
[Laughter.]
Mr. PETRI. Better than he probably should have.
You've been observing the proceedings. You know we're operating under what we call a five-minute rule.
Page 382 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. BENNETT. Yes.
Mr. PETRI. Your full statement will be made a part of the record, and I look forward to your oral summary.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN BENNETT, MAYOR, ASPEN, CO
Mr. BENNETT. Thank you. I'll be as concise as possible.
I want to begin by thanking Congressman McInnis for his support and exemplary leadership on this project so important to the economic vitality and quality of life of the Roaring Fork Valley.
Mr. Chairman and members of this subcommittee, my name is John Bennett. I'm the mayor of the city of Aspen, Colorado. I'm here on behalf of a partnership of five cities and three counties committed to completion of a combined highway and rail project.
The Roaring Fork Valley is a narrow, 40-mile-long valley in western Colorado stretching from Aspen to Glenwood Springs. It is served by a single transportation corridor, State Highway 82, which is the most congested rural highway in the State and has one of the highest accident and fatality rates.
In the words of ''The Denver Post,'' ''Highway 82 mutates into a massive, dangerous traffic tangle.''
Page 383 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Our area's exponential growth has created major challenges. Colorado is one of the fastest-growing States in America, and our three-county region is growing about three times faster than the rest of the State.
The Colorado Department of Transportation, CDOT, has just completed a feasibility study and identified rail as the best solution to our long-term traffic and regional mobility problems.
The first segment of the project, known as the Entrance to Aspen, will build 4 miles of a new parkway with a light rail system alongside it from the Picken County Airport to downtown Aspen.
This will relieve a major traffic bottleneck, and this portion of the overall project will be built entirely with State and local funds.
I want to emphasize this point. Aspen and Picken County are investing $63 million of our own funds, and CDOT is investing another $67 million to cover 100 percent of the Aspen end of this project.
We seek Federal funding only for the second segment of the project, which will continue the rail down-valley, connecting the Picken County Airport to Glenwood Springs. A major investment study will be completed soon, and the acquisition of the needed right-of-way along this existing rail corridor will be finalized shortly.
Page 384 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
I should note that the $8.5 million right-of-way acquisition costs are offset by the largest non-highway grant from CDOT in our State's history.
The project has been endorsed as part of the region's transit development plan and will be included in the State's transportation improvement plan.
The cost of the entire project is estimated to be $223.5 million. Local and State agencies will fund $138.5 million, or 62 percent of the project.
We request an authorization for $85 million, or 38 percent, over 5 years to help fund the final design and construction costs of the rail link from the Picken County Airport to Glenwood Springs.
This project is unique in several important respects. First, it represents the first ever application of a Federally-supported new starts rail initiative in a more rural setting. Our State demographics tell us that, given the high projected growth for our region and the constraints of our narrow valley, rail is the only viable option available to us.
The alternative of widening Highway 82 to six lanes would cost upwards of $1 billion and adversely impact the sensitive environment of our narrow valley, which is already a PM-10 nonattainment area.
Second, we are also told that to meet current ridership projections for our existing transit service, the Roaring Fork Transit Agency, or RFTA, we would have to maintain from 1,200 to 2,000 bus trips a day into our town, which would destroy our liveability and undermine our efforts to reach clean air targets.
Page 385 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Already RFTA has perhaps the fastest-growing transit ridership among comparable service areas anywhere in the Nation. Total ridership reached almost 4 million in 1996, well over twice RFTA's ridership of just 5 years ago.
CDOT conservatively estimates that, with the completion of this project, rail ridership, alone, will exceed five million by the year 2015.
We're building a strong 25-year track record of transit success and firmly believe that this rail project will be heavily utilized by the work force of our service-based economy and the many millions of tourists who visit our region throughout the year.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, this significantly over-matched project is ready to go. All we lack is the Federal Government as the final link in the partnership that will preserve the economic vitality, environmental health, mobility, and essential character of this beautiful region of our Nation for generations to come.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. And you're looking for some capital contribution but not operating funds; is that correct?
Mr. BENNETT. That's correct. We have operated RFTA for 25 years now. We have never needed nor requested an operating grant from the Federal Government, and we're quite confident of that in the future.
Page 386 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. As one who has used your beautiful complimentary bus service in that region, it has been a considerable success. We will be working with Scott and your Senators on this.
Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bennett follows:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PETRI. I see that our colleague, Bob Goodlatte, is here. He is accompanied by Virgil Goode, our colleague, as well as Robert Martinez, secretary of transportation, Commonwealth of Virginia, for his second appearance of the day.
Bob or Virgil, which of you would like to go first?
TESTIMONY OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM VIRGINIA; AND HON. VIRGIL H. GOODE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM VIRGINIA, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT MARTINEZ, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, VIRGINIA
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to testify before you and Mr. Rahall, the ranking member. We want to talk about a couple of roads that have a great impact on West Virginia as well as Virginia.
Page 387 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
I'm joined today by Congressman Goode, who represents the Fifth District, which adjoins the Sixth District and is very heavily impacted by both of these highways, and am joined as well by Secretary Martinez, who has been very helpful, as has Governor Allen, in working out the alignment of these roads between West Virginia and Virginia, in the case of I–73 between Virginia and North Carolina.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, this is a major transportation issue in southwest Virginia, and you have been very helpful to us in the past in getting it included in the national highway system legislation which passed the last Congress and which will be a major improvement in highway safety, in economic development, and it is actually one of the more cost-effective ways to construct Interstate 73, which runs from Michigan to South Carolina, to bring it through Virginia along routes that are a part of the national highway system and are in bad need of upgrade, anyway.
So, rather than building a separate interstate highway or upgrading an existing one, our solution was to bring it along corridors that are already in the national highway system and save having to duplicate by upgrading those corridors and building an interstate highway.
This is a substantial economic savings to the taxpayers, as well, and vitally important to Virginia and West Virginia and North Carolina.
From the standpoint of my constituents in the Roanoke Valley, the thing that we need the most for economic development is to open up access to the major areas in North Carolina—the Piedmont Triad, Winston-Salem, Greensboro, High Point, as well as access further south to Charlotte.
Page 388 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Congressman Goode will elaborate on that, as well, because it is particularly important for his constituents, many of whom are not served by any interstate highway, as well.
The Sixth District that I represent has Interstate 81 running through it; it's just that it does not run to the major areas of economic impact on southwest Virginia, and so that's why this road is so vitally important for us, and we would ask that you include it in the legislation that you are working on at this point in time.
I'd also like to mention again and thank you for your assistance in the last Congress, and thank Congressman Rahall, as well, for the language in the national highway system legislation that authorized the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to release funds to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the purpose of studying the corridor for what is variously referred to as I–66 or the Trans-America Corridor and is not yet included as a comprehensive system in the national highway system, but really we think should be.
It goes through a portion of Virginia that is not served by a good road system. Lynchburg, Virginia, in my District is one of the largest cities in the United States that is not served by an interstate highway.
So the study that is ongoing now, the State last year applied for the funds and received, I believe, $400,000 for the purpose of conducting the preliminary studies on the routing of that road. It is very, very helpful to us and, again, benefits both the people in my District and the folks to the east of me in Congressman Goode's District, and also very much benefits folks in West Virginia where we want them to have the easiest way to get back to Virginia possible.
Page 389 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
I again thank you for the opportunity to testify today and would encourage you to include these important projects in your legislation.
I have submitted in writing a number of other proposals, and I know that there's not an endless list of things that can be done, but we have put those before you, as well, as important needs of southwest Virginia.
I thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Representative Goode?
Mr. GOODE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
First, I, too, want to say thank you for the designation last year of I–73 from Roanoke to Winston-Salem. We very much appreciate that and we are back this year asking for some additional funding for that route because it is so vital to the Commonwealth of Virginia and really North Carolina and West Virginia.
If you went by interstate from Virginia to North Carolina, you're 100 miles further than what the I–73 link would provide.
Page 390 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
In addition to that, our area has a lot of textiles. We have been hard hit, and this highway would open up economic development. It would also be far safer than current Route 220.
Current Route 220 is a pumpkin vine road built to 1930 standards. It's not very safe, and if we could get I–73 it would greatly enhance the safety of our area.
Back in the 1930s we had a lot of people that traveled from my home town in Franklin County to southern West Virginia, and if we could get I–73 built and rolling along we could open up that corridor again, and I ask you to show us every consideration.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary?
Mr. MARTINEZ. Thank you, sir. I'll be very brief.
I just want to add the State's unqualified endorsement for the I–73/74 project.
I would like to just point out two things. It has tremendous support within Virginia. It is fully bipartisan. Of course, that's reflected by the two gentlemen to my right, but also with the strong endorsement of both of our Senators, again one from each party.
The road that was selected in Virginia went through our process in the Commonwealth Transportation Board, which chooses these roads and was composed at that time of nine republicans and five democrats. It was a unanimous selection in that process.
Page 391 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
I also would like to point out that, in terms of public support, we have great public support for this facility.
In fact, Virginia was the only State that held public outreach meetings of any of the States that have I–73/74 throughout its entire length—that's from Michigan all the way to South Carolina. We're the only State that actually held public meetings prior to our selection of our corridor. We had five such meetings, with well over 1,000 people that attended and provided for the record, and the level of support is overwhelming for this facility.
So we have made a commitment through the State allocation of some of the Federal monies available to us, but anything that the Congress could do to help this facility along we certainly would appreciate.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Thank you all for your testimony.
I just would say, Bob, you were actually a little modest about what was done, because, as you well recall, there were a number of issues, some directly related to the merits and some not, having to do with things going on in neighboring States as well as in Virginia, and I think you may have a career in the Foreign Service in the Diplomatic Service after you finish your years in Congress, because you certainly did a good job in working that whole thing through.
So we look forward to working with you on this continuation of that.
Page 392 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GOODE. Thank you.
Mr. RAHALL. I might just add an ''Amen'' to their testimony. Any road proposals you all have to allow the Virginians to get over into West Virginia a lot quicker I'm for.
Mr. PETRI. It might work both ways, though. All right. Thank you. Thank you all.
[The prepared statements of Messrs. Goodlatte, and Goode follow:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PETRI. We're now joined by Walter Capps.
Sir, welcome. As you know, your full submission will be made a part of the record and you're welcome to summarize it as you wish.
TESTIMONY OF HON. WALTER H. CAPPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA
Mr. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.
Page 393 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
I've come today to request support for the widening of Route 46 Expressway, in San Luis Obispo County, which is a part of the 22nd District of California that I represent.
This project is the first part of a multi-phase effort to widen most of the dangerous 25-mile stretch of Route 46.
The details on this projects are in the report, but I can give you a couple of anecdotal features here that I think will reinforce the urgency here.
This is the highway on which James Dean, the famous James Dean, was killed 40 years ago. A couple of years ago, the editor of the ''Telegram Tribune,'' which is the major newspaper for San Luis Obispo County, he and his wife, who was an assistant editor, and one of their daughters was killed on this highway. Since 1992, 48 people have been killed on this highway, and nearly 700 have been injured. In 1995, the highest fatal accident rate in over 10 years occurred on Route 46.
The other bit of anecdotal information I'd like to add is that I was in a near-fatal car accident, myself, in the District, not on that particular road, but I know first-hand what it is to be on a dangerous road.
This particular highway, Route 46, is the main thoroughfare from the west coast to the central part of California from Los Angeles to the bay area. It is the road that is traveled most frequently.
Page 394 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
We're asking for $10 million of Federal funds to supplement and complement the State funding, which we expect to receive this year.
I also want to say that in 1995 there was a task force formed in the community made up of citizens, law enforcement people, transportation professionals called ''Fix 46,''. In fact, this has become a major cause in our region and members of my staff have worked with it. I've met with the local citizens and the California Highway Patrol to find a way to widen the road.
I can tell you that the people in the District, when I ask them what their number one priority is for me as Congressman, coming here as a freshman Congressman, the number one priority is to fix Highway 46.
So I said I would make that the priority while I'm here, and that's why I come on with such force and enthusiasm, because it will really add immensely to the vitality of our community, because that road is going to be traveled more and more and more. The need is urgent.
I hope that the subcommittee can help us address this critical safety need in my District, the 22nd District of California.
I'd be happy to answer any questions, but that's the summary of my request.
Page 395 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much. Is there a price tag on this?
Mr. CAPPS. We're asking for—I think the total cost is $44 million, and the State—the entire project is estimated to cost $44 million, and the State is expected to dedicate most of that, maybe three-quarters of it. $10 million is what I'm asking of this committee, and that will enable us to do the entire thing.
Without the Federal help we can only do part of it. We think that still the most dangerous portion is the part that remains.
We have the plans and the State is going to be supportive. California has—the economy is stronger there now than it was. There have been no new projects of this kind in the past 5 years, in San Luis Obispo County, and this would be most important.
So I think we're all working together to create something good with this project.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Are there any questions?
[No response.]
Mr. PETRI. Great. Thank you very much.
Page 396 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. CAPPS. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Capps follows:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PETRI. Representative Sue Kelly could not be here, but she did request that we ask the mayor of Poughkeepsie, Mayor Colette Lafuente, to be given an opportunity to discuss a concern of many of her constituents.
Ma'am, your full submission will be made a part of the record and I invite you to proceed for 5 minutes as you wish to summarize.
TESTIMONY OF HON. COLETTE LAFUENTE, MAYOR, CITY OF POUGHKEEPSIE, NY
Ms. LAFUENTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you, Chairman Petri, and also Congresswoman Kelly for allowing me to speak here today, because this parking deck for 700 cars for Metro North is a solution for the region in Duchess County, Ulster County, and Orange County.
I am the mayor of the city of Poughkeepsie, and Poughkeepsie is an old city. It's in between Albany and New York City. It's about 4 square miles.
Page 397 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The train station is in the northwestern corner of the city, which is right along our waterfront, and that's why this is so critical to the development of the city of Poughkeepsie.
Since 1984, Metro North has increased their ridership by 109 percent, so there has been a lot to improve the air in the Hudson Valley, but all of the people are parking their cars all over our city, and because of that we, as many other small cities in New York State, are trying to bring back our economy. The way that we hope to do that is by developing our waterfront, and the train station is right in that area, and many businesses are unable to locate there because there is no place for their customers to park.
So the funding of this deck, which would be for 700 cars, we are asking for $3,750,000 from your committee today.
The city of Poughkeepsie has gone through and is going through a lot of very difficult fiscal times. In Duchess County and in the area, we used to have a major employer, IBM. There used to be over 30,000 employees at IBM, and now they are down to 11,000.
Combined with the traditional problems that a city has, we are suffering economically.
However, we recognize the importance of this deck for the city of Poughkeepsie, and we have committed $2 million in local bonding funds for this deck. That's because we know that the city is not going to be able to develop ourselves as a vibrant economy without being able to clear up this area of these commuter cars.
Page 398 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
This has to happen or we're going to be permanently constrained in the northwestern part of our city.
Metro North has committed $2 million towards the construction of this deck, and we, as I said to you before, have committed $2 million, and we are asking for you to commit $3,750,000, which would complete this deck.
If that happens, I am sure that we will be able to develop our 2-mile waterfront. We'll be able to develop the southern half without this, but the northern half really relies upon this deck being built.
We are in a particularly good location. We will be able to develop as a regional tourist site. There is West Point just to the south of us and the Franklin Delano Roosevelt to the north of us, and we have local developers that are very interested in building conference centers, day marinas, and other types of tourist shops and amenities.
I think that this deck would be—I know that it's vital to our city, and it will certainly help solve the regional problem that we have in Duchess County right now because the highways going out of Duchess County are completely congested during the early morning run and then when people are coming back on their return from work later on in the day.
I want to thank you very much for allowing me to speak here today, and I would answer any questions.
Page 399 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. PETRI. Are there any questions of Mayor Lafuente?
[No response.]
Mr. PETRI. Ma'am, thank you for coming. I'm happy we were able to accommodate your Representative's request and give you an opportunity to discuss this project, and we will be looking forward to working with you and Representative Kelly as we go forward.
Ms. LAFUENTE. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
[The prepared statements of Ms. Kelly and Ms. Lafuente follow:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. PETRI. And last but certainly not least the Honorable John F. Tierney of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN F. TIERNEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. How are you?
Mr. PETRI. Good.
Page 400 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Mr. TIERNEY. I appreciate your indulgence of letting me come in this late in the day, and I don't want to take up an awful lot of your time.
I know the large number of projects that you have before you, and I come here just in a small period of time to highlight three projects that are within the Sixth District of Massachusetts, which, for those of you who haven't traveled lately, is north of Boston along the coastline, primarily all the way in to Merrimac Valley. There are 36 cities and towns in that area.
Briefly, there are three projects that I'd like to heighten your attention to. One of them is in the city of Peabody, which is a city of about 40,000 to 50,000 people right in the heart of the District. It is a project known as the Peabody Riverwalk.
Peabody, if you know, is an old tannery city. We had large numbers of leather shops and shoe factories there in our history. As a result, you can imagine that some of the waterways along where those buildings were suffered a great deal of damage, and they have grown over with weeds, with trash, with other factors, and they are right in the heart of the District.
There is a project underway that the city is looking for help for that would allow walkways to be built on both sides of the river that cuts through the center of town, as well as to clean up that weed and trash-strewn area so that seniors would have a place to walk and recreate and that people of all ages would have the same advantage in terms of riding their bicycles or walking.
Page 401 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
It's a covered area. When opened up, it's quite attractive. There are a number of brick facades, brick bridgeways over it. It would enhance it for, as I say, individuals of all ages and, in particular, businesses would perhaps, we suspect, be able to relocate down there, would be attracted to that area.
There are two demonstration projects in the area that were quite successful, and we're looking forward to having that work done, and also looking forward to the fact that, as a further benefit, it would be flood control because that area is low and does suffer a lot of the businesses there a great deal of flood damage.
The second issue in the District is the Bates Bridge reconstruction up in the Merrimac Valley area. This is a bipartisan project. It's named after Congressman Bates, who served in our District in the 1950s and onward. Both he and his son were republican Congressmen of some distinction in our area.
This project would improve the transportation system between Groveland and Haverhill, Haverhill being one of the largest cities in our District, Groveland being one of the smaller towns. But that bridgeway will be an accessway to a number of the communities around there and the people going to and from for business as well as social reasons.
It's only a two-lane bridge. It's one of those old Tinker Toy types of constructions that you look at with a lot of cross-work and lattice-work going on, but 17,000 vehicles go over it daily. It is in serious disrepair.
Page 402 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
The ability of the communities to work and reconstruct that and fix it now will save enormous amounts of money later on.
If approved, that project could be out and could be advertised within a year.
It's a serious issue of safety, not just convenience, and it would be a tremendous boon to the people and the businesses in that District, as it is a major east-west connector.
Lastly, in the Sixth District we have the Essex National Heritage project, which is a unique project, one of only 15 in the Nation.
We have, as you already know, a great deal of attributes in the area from our early settlers in the Salem area to maritime areas, and also a great deal of industrial immigrant shoe factories, leather factories, textiles, all sorts of background that have historical proportions to it.
This heritage area was constructed and approved last year, and allows that community and that region to work cooperatively so that the significant economic boost of tourism is heightened to this advantage and so we can get people from one site to another and get them around that area of 30-plus cities and towns, and all of them benefit from that.
Basically, it is encouraging in cost-efficient benefits for the cultural, economic, and historical aspects of that District. It's in two phases. Through the ISTEA program, phase one was already funded and completed, and it has to do with the signage directing people to and from those areas. Phase two would complete that, would allow us to close off that loop to get people from one area to the other so that everyone in that heritage area gets the benefit and that all of the communities are successful as a result in their economies.
Page 403 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
I thank you for giving me the time to come before you this afternoon to just hear about those three very important projects to those local communities. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. But, as I know, you have a lot of paperwork before you, including the work associated with these three projects.
Mr. PETRI. Sir, thank you very much.
Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Are there any questions at all?
[No response.]
Mr. PETRI. If not, we appreciate your staying around here today to come and go to bat for your constituents.
Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you very much.
Mr. PETRI. With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Insert here.]
Page 404 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 3 Of 5
Next Hearing Segment(4)