Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
GROUND TRANSPORTATION ISSUES IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST
Tuesday, August 31, 1999
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Ground Transportation, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in the Port of Seattle Commission Chambers, Pier 69, 2711 Alaskan Way, Seattle, Washington, Hon. Thomas Petri [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. PETRI. The subcommittee will come to order. We are meeting today to hear testimony on a variety of ground transportation issues in the great Pacific Northwest. And I for one, welcome this opportunity to learn, firsthand, about the transportation challenges and accomplishments of this region of our country, such as multi-modal solutions to freight congestion along the Interstate 5 corridor and the notable success of intercity passenger rail.
The Pacific Northwest is a model for our country in using public-private partnerships, as well as in interstate and international agreements, to meet the complex passenger and freight needs of this thriving corner of the world.
I am very happy that Washington and Oregon are taking advantage of the funding made available in TEA 21 for innovative corridor and border projects to help ensure the region remains competitive in the international marketplace.
Finally, I would like to thank a member of the Committee, Representative Jack Metcalf, for the assistance that he and his staff have provided to our Subcommittee in preparing for today's hearing, and our host Congressman, Jim McDermott of the 7th District, for joining us here at this hearing today.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
This afternoon our first panel of witnesses will consist of the Secretaries of Transportation of Washington and Oregon, the Chief Executive Officer of Amtrak West, and the Chairman of the Amtrak Reform Council.
The second panel of witnesses will present testimony from a state and local perspective on regional transportation needs.
Witnesses are reminded that oral statements are limited to five minutes. You, I know, have submitted statements. Those entire statements will be made a part of the record and we thank you and your organizations for the effort that you have put into preparing them. They will be very helpful to members and staff of our Subcommittee as we evaluate new changes in Federal programs and legislation.
But five minutes for the oral statements. And we were planning on having five minutes from each of the panel members and then questions at the end of the entire panel.
I ask unanimous consent that non-Subcommittee members may participate in this afternoon's hearing, and without objection, so ordered.
With that, I yield to our colleague from Oregon, Congressman DeFazio, for any opening statement he would like to make.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, Mr. Chairman, it has been quite a number of years since we achieved the initial authorization for the high-speed rail corridor in the Pacific Northwest. And I think we have made considerable progress and I am really pleased to have the Committee here to check in on our progress, hear some of our concerns in terms of continuing our partnership with the Federal Government and improving high-speed rail service in this area, and look at some of our local efforts.
If we just were to take you for a spin on I–5 you would understand very well the need for the continued improvements in rail service. Starting somewhere just north of Eugene in my District, pretty much on up to the Canadian border, I–5 is virtually at capacity, subject to frequent interruptions and delays, and we need viable alternatives.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And rail is and can be one of them. I am particularly pleased to be in Washington State where their legislature has done a much better job of funding high speed rail, but through the perseverance of my state Department of Transportation and other advocates in Oregon we have at least put a little money on the table for the first time and are moving forward in Oregon, too. And I believe we have a great future ahead of us in high-speed rail in the Northwest and can help provide a model for the nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Congressman Metcalf.
Mr. METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to Seattle and thank you very much for coming. I am delighted to be with you today to highlight the vital transportation issues affecting the Pacific Northwest. I am truly grateful for the concern you have shown for our growing pains, have appreciated your leadership ensuring these needs are met.
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome my friend and colleague from Oregon, Representative DeFazio, to Seattle. I also want to express my appreciation to our witnesses. There are many friends and colleagues testifying today and I look forward to what they have to tell us.
Transportation is a critical issue to me and to Western Washington for a number of reasons. The first is safety. Several studies have indicated that about a third of all accidents are caused by poor or overcrowded roads. When we consider the growth we are experiencing in the Pacific Northwest, this question becomes even more significant.
In addition, fiscal integrity has always been important to me, and was lacking in previous highway funding bills. Citizens have been driving up to the gas pump and paying 18 cents a gallon in Federal taxes to highway trust fund only to have much of that money looted from the trust fund for various, non-highway, Congressional projects.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
By passing TEA–21 we restored the integrity to the trust fund by making sure that all the gasoline tax money is used solely for the transportation purposes, to meet the legislative needs of our communities. This was a major victory.
Almost everyone in business in the Northwest understands the importance of Pacific Rim trade to the economy of this region. But trade is dependent upon adequate transportation infrastructure and without it our ability to compete and our potential for growth will be retarded.
We have two problems compounding each other: insufficient infrastructure to move goods across, and especially East/West across our state and region; and growing competition from Vancouver, B.C., and the Los Angeles area.
At nearly 300 points in the Puget Sound region surface transportation is blocked at various times of the day by train traffic, which itself has to be slowed appreciably to safely traverse these crossing points. Vital East/West movement is delayed in those conditions.
On the other hand, the Vancouver and the Los Angeles areas have invested many millions of dollars to speed East/West transit of goods, threatening the marketshare our region has now. The advent of NAFTA held out promise for an explosion of cross-border traffic but a lack of facilities and capacity create problems like long truck lines which hold us back.
I felt we had to improve the transportation component of our trade economy. Trade is critical to this region and transportation infrastructure is critical to trade. My priorities on the Transportation Committee were, and still are, borders, trade corridors, and ferries.
As the only member of the House Transportation Committee from Washington State, when TEA–21 was written I can tell you it was no accident that ferry funding was in that legislation.
Here and throughout the Nation we are suffering a deficit in public infrastructure investment costing us jobs and world competitiveness, affecting our very sovereignty as a nation. Whether it is bridges, roads, or storm drain systems under our cities, our platform for national prosperity has been deteriorating beneath us. We have to turn this around.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I have been working with the Levy Monetary Institute of New York and we have developed and I have introduced, a bill detailing a novel approach to financing infrastructure renewal without high interest costs, which is about half the cost of the projects.
Last Congress we passed a 6-year ground transportation bill known as TEA–21, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. This legislation provides $218 billion over the next five years; funding for renewing our nation's crumbling infrastructure.
TEA–21 established a 6-year path to restore the highway trust fund, to put back the trust into the trust fund, restoring funding levels to a place we can deal with all these problems. Each year, spending for highways and transit will increase guaranteeing all 18 cents of Federal gasoline tax paid at the pump will go to transportation.
As a member of the Conference Committee with the Senate, I worked to ensure that Washington State's needs were addressed. I am pleased to report that we did very well. Washington State received $201.8 million dollars in projects of Congressional priority. It is important to note that all the projects were endorsed by our Secretary of Transportation, Sid Morrison.
We are going to see significant funding for many FAST Corridor projects that will squarely address freight mobility for our region as a whole. FAST Corridor will be eligible for construction money under the corridor section of the bill. The corridor program was open to construction which will free up 1.25 billion, allowing other corridors in the state to compete for funding.
Project designations by members of FAST Corridor reduce the price by $35 million for the FAST Corridor. With the additional $10 million awarded by the Department of Transportation, we are on our way to full, Federal funding for the Federal portion of FAST.
I included a number of border-specific projects. These projects will begin to address the many problems facing our economy and the congestion at the border. Jim Miller will highlight these projects and other border needs in his testimony.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We will see multi-modal facilities move forward in this state which will ease congestion by making it easier and encouraging people to utilize alternative modes of transportation. I am particularly happy to have worked with the problems in our developing cities and determining what needs to be spent and where, along I–5 in the future as we deal with exploding growth.
Finally, on ferries, Washington State will receive a guaranteed five million dollars a year for the life of TEA–21 to ensure adequate investment in this essential transportation mode that links our state's citizens with each other. And as a person living on Whidbey Island I'm very aware of that.
As you can see, Mr. Chairman, your leadership has been vital in addressing many problems, and I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and receiving a status report on the effects of TEA–21 thus far.
Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, and I see we are joined by former Governor Mike Lowry, and welcome to this hearing and I hope if you stay around we will get a chance to catch up with each other afterward.
And our host, Jim, would you have any opening statement?
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't take very long. First, I want to thank you for bringing the Committee to Seattle. Not very many Committees travel this far to see us. I hope you will take some time to enjoy the last days of summer here. This is what we call summer outside.
And I also want to say something about Jack Metcalf. Jack has done a hell of a job on the Committee and we are going to miss him in the next session defending Washington State's needs. We hope we can put a good Democrat in his place but you know how it goes.
As I listened to lunch I couldn't help being struck by the comment from the gentleman from Portland, that people like or hate two things: sprawl and density. Well, in this state at the moment, you are here in what I would call a kind of a twilight zone where people want freedom of movement but nobody wants to pay any taxes to get it.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And we have an initiative on the ballot which is going to seriously damage this state's ability, in my view, to deal with transportation issues. I think that what is important about this hearing is for people to understand where the Federal Government is and what the likelihood is there is going to be more money coming from the Federal Government if the state and the local governments don't pick up their share.
That to look to the Federal Government as we used to 20 or 30 years ago is simply not very likely in the foreseeable future, and I think that it is important that this hearing be held here because we are in the throes of a real traffic crisis. It is not one that started yesterday. It started 15, 20 years ago; certainly when I arrived in the Congress it was already in full sway.
In those days we worked with the state legislator to put the three counties together—Pierce County, King County, and Snohomish County—and tried to get a coordinated plan. That was a fight. We got that done finally and now of course, the Federal money is in short supply.
So people need to understand that it isn't all going to come from the Federal Government; that there is going to have to be some local participation in real serious fashion. And I think in this election that comes up very shortly people are going to have to be thinking seriously, if they want to still be able to move in their car they had better decide whether they want to take another initiative and pass it and seriously decimate the transportation money.
Again, I really thank you for coming and raising the issue. It will be in the newspapers and on television and so forth, that people will have to think about what they are doing. Thank you for coming.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, and as you know we had a meeting earlier, a luncheon, when a number of leaders from the region and from the Senate and Assembly and from both political parties spoke about the need for confidence of planning and more investment in transportation infrastructure to maintain the economy and the quality of life here in this region.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And I was very impressed with the fact that there seemed to be a, not agreement on every detail, but an agreement on the nature of the problem and the approach that needed to be taken. The fact that a very high priority had to be given to meeting transportation needs for the next President for the quality of life here in this region.
Our panel today consists of another colleague, Mr. Sid Morrison, who is currently the Secretary of the Washington Department of Transportation. And he is joined by Ms. Grace Crunican who is the director of the Oregon Department of Transportation.
Our next panelist, Gil Mallery, I think had a problem with his back and could not join us, but he is being represented, and his organization, by Mr. Kurt Laird who is the General Manager of the Pacific Northwest Corridor of Amtrak West, and we thank you for appearing here today.
And the final member of the first panel is Mr. Gilbert E. Carmichael, who is the Chairman of the Amtrak Reform Council, and I understand a number of the members of the Council are here and had a meeting this morning.
So we thank you all for being here and we will start with Mr. Morrison.
TESTIMONY OF SID MORRISON, SECRETARY, WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; GRACE CRUNICAN, DIRECTOR, OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; KURT LAIRD, GENERAL MANAGER, PACIFIC NORTHWEST CORRIDOR, AMTRAK WEST; GILBERT E. CARMICHAEL, CHAIRMAN, AMTRAK REFORM COUNCIL
Mr. MORRISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly add my voice in welcome to you. In fact, appreciation for your many visits here as TEA–21 was being formulated. In fact, you were exceeded only I think, by Representative Shuster who seemed to be here like every other week; brought into town by Representative Metcalf. We were delighted with that relationship. And to Peter DeFazio and Jim McDermott, greetings. Thank you for some wonderful support.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Chairman, having been on your side of the table at one time I am submitting my testimony, 24 pages of it. I will disregard it. I would ask you to read it at some point because it does mention some wonderful things that we are involved in that are under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee: our innovations in transit support, freight rail, passenger rail, Washington State Ferries, highway, intelligent transportation systems, public-private initiatives program.
I am going to concentrate my few minutes just on the border and corridor issue which is so vital to us here. Special thanks to Congressman Metcalf. Jack, you were—I think really carried our interests very effectively and I saw the Committee pick them up, and having attended then several of the listening post sessions around the United States on behalf of the corridor and border crossing issue found that it was a tone that was ready to be struck all across this country. And the number of applications made it a very highly competitive thing.
For us it was a wonderful chance to sharpen our partnership skills; something we feel very strongly about here in the Northwest. We have always worked together and this has bene a special opportunity for that.
I also want to assure you, since I was with you there for the passage of ISTEA, Mr. Chairman, that we did exactly what you asked us to do under ISTEA. And now under TEA–21 we really are ready to roll and look forward to the partnership, but more than ever before, with all of you.
Under the corridor/border crossing program we had three designated corridors: I–5, which you certainly heard about at noon; the FAST Corridor also mentioned; and the U.S. 395 corridor which is to the East of us here, running from Canada to Reno, Nevada.
All of them fit I think, precisely what you had in mind. The nice thing about this program, even though it sounded like a lot of money to start with, is that it didn't just invite us to form partnerships; it forced us to form partnerships.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And I think we were winners, we were successful in the competition for the funding that was available because of the breadth of those partnerships. It was no longer, let's go to Washington, D.C. and see if we can get some Federal money. It was, let's find the most important project, let's build a team, and let's build it. And then by the way, if in fact, some Federal funding is available that will be helpful to us. And you certainly have been.
I wanted to mention that on the FAST Corridor—which is our acronym to at least play a little game with our friends to the South on the Alameda corridor—wonderful partnership. I mentioned Sound Transit, which is these three counties—we are in King County; the neighbors to the North and the South—with $200 million for track improvement.
And those track improvements provide vital linkages for the movement of freight as well as for the commuter rail program which is going to be starting here in just a few months.
Amtrak was a wonderful partner and Kurt will be talking more about the unique nature of our relationship with them. Plus the two ports of Seattle and Tacoma—actually three, including Everett—and the two major railroads that we have serving this area.
Sometimes the agency I head just sort of serves as the catalyst; perhaps at times the glue to hold these teams together. But I can tell you that it works; we are very proud of it.
Also our successful efforts on trade corridors, border crossings certainly includes the MPOs—Metropolitan Planning Organizations—local governments, the ports, and in our case a delightful relationship with our neighbors to the South, Oregon, and with Oregon DOT as the lead successfully competing for the Portland/Vancouver—a look at that crossing between the two of us.
The Cascade Gateway to the North, a partnership with British Columbia; Whatcom County has had the lead there. We just really are very pleased with this because it makes us bi-national and multi-state, and we are delighted with that.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Let me close by saying that Governor Lowry who is here, provided leadership in this arena. Governor Locke has certainly followed through on that. He is just back from a trade mission to Mexico, which was very successful. And the Transportation Commission, the people I work for.
And you have heard at noon from our Transportation leadership in the legislature. They have been dynamic through the years. I think we were successful on border crossings and trade corridors because they went as a team to Washington, D.C. to appeal to Secretary Slater and Administrator Wykle as the competition was really heating up just to say, we are here to represent wonderful partnerships in the Northwest. This is what you had in mind, and please include us.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to questions from the Committee.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Ms. Crunican.
Ms. CRUNICAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to, on behalf of the State of Oregon, Governor Kitzhaber, and those of us in the transportation world, to thank you for all the work that you and your Subcommittee have done to help further the transportation goals that we have in Oregon.
I would also like to thank you for some of the specifics in TEA–21 that we have been able to benefit from in Oregon. There is a record level of funding as we are all aware of. In Oregon we chose primarily to invest those funds in safety and preservation projects: preservation of our highways and preservation of our bridges.
We have an extensive coastal bridge system that got a needed boost and TEA-21's bridge categories will help to sustain the system that we have.
Also, we have a strong, Federal Lands Highway Program in TEA–21. We give credit to Representative DeFazio for leading the charge there. He spoke up on our behalf and with Oregon having over 50 percent of its land in Federal control it is a critical program to Oregonians.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I would also like to complement you on the policies and funding allocations that promote a multi-modal transportation system. While we don't take advantage of it as extensively as Washington State does, it means a great deal to us to have flexibility that we do not have in our own state gas tax which is constitutionally dedicated to roads and bridges.
You also in TEA–21, provided for environmental streamlining. Washington has agreed to work with Oregon and we are trying to extend our effort to Idaho and Montana to work with Federal agencies, Fish and Wildlife, NMFS, and others.
Because as we go to do our road projects with the Endangered Species Act, it is very difficult even to do the maintenance of our roads without contact with five or six Federal agencies and permits for everything that we do.
So we look forward to pushing that even further as time goes on and reporting back to you on those items.
I would like to just outline for you two areas where TEA–21 has helped us greatly so that you know what it is like at the local level. One problem is at the junction of I–5 in Oregon with I–5 in Washington. And for the traveler they don't notice any difference when they cross the state but if you look at any congestion point on I–5 in Oregon it is really where we meet Washington that we have the most problems.
And what TEA- 21 allowed us to do by naming I–5 a trade corridor of national significance, was target some funding to this problem.
We have engaged a Committee of private business people and some civic leaders and they are doing the first step; not the local elected officials. The local elected officials will come in on the second phase.
But we have taken the private sector and engaged them in looking at the data. Because as you know, Commerce knows no political boundary.
So we are making progress as a result of TEA–21 and by December Phase 1 will be done and then we will engage in Phase 2. And at the completion of Phase 2 which will be partially funded by TEA- 21, we will have a list of improvements that we will be reporting back to the Committee on.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I would also like to say that the high-speed rail corridor between Eugene and British Columbia, has been improving greatly due to the investments made through the rail program and through TEA–21.
Rail stations have been invested in through the enhancement program through the Federal Railroad Administration, and we have leveraged partnerships with local governments to enhance their stations along the way.
The ridership improvements over the last four years have been 40 percent and in the last year we have had a 15 percent increase in ridership in that corridor. That is all because ISTEA as a forerunner to TEA–21 provided the framework for two states to work together with local government and the private sector.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Mr. Laird.
Mr. LAIRD. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee. Thank you for giving me the opportunity today to testify.
Amtrak West was established in 1995 as one of Amtrak's three, strategic business units. We are responsible for Amtrak operations in Washington, Oregon, and California. We are also responsible for the development of rail corridors in Arizona, Nevada, Utah and Idaho.
Amtrak West focuses on state partnerships, commuter operations, and a premier long-distance train called the Coast Starlight. We continue to aggressively seek opportunities to expand the business with state and local support.
Amtrak West employs over 2600 people. Amtrak West operates 54 daily inter-city trains and 210 weekday commuter trains, with reduced service levels on weekends. We also provide support service to long distance trains operated by Amtrak Intercity in Seattle, Portland, Oakland, and Los Angeles.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In addition, Amtrak West operates an extensive Thruway Motorcoach service that helps passengers either connect with trains from areas that are not served by inter-city rail or helps train passengers get to popular destinations that are not on the rail route.
Within specific product lines, emphasis is placed on increasing ridership, enhancing revenue, cutting costs and aggressively pursuing local market opportunities. Amtrak West is very much a growth SBU, posting a 22 percent revenue increase and a ten percent ridership increase between FY96 and FY98. We are currently experiencing four percent and 13 percent increases in ridership and revenue, respectively, in FY99.
The key to the success of Amtrak West's inter-city rail service can be summed up in one word—and you heard it earlier—partnerships. Amtrak aggressively pursues public and private partnerships for two key reasons.
First, because the states and communities help develop the actual service, such as the schedules and service amenities, the service tends to reflect the needs and preferences of the local ridership. That results in strong public awareness and support of the service.
Second, the states and where possible the communities, provide both capital and operating funds for inter-city rail services, which means each partner gets a bigger bang for its buck. When the cost of projects or additional services can be shared among a number of partners, the possibility of success increases dramatically. The project can be funded quicker; the service can start sooner.
The funding partnerships also foster a cohesive working relationship among the stakeholders. Central to this arrangement is that the funding contribution helps Amtrak reach its Federal statutory mandate of reaching operating self-sufficiency by the beginning of Fiscal Year 2003. Amtrak can continue to grow services without jeopardizing the glidepath to self-sufficiency.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
When I transferred to Seattle in 1990, Amtrak operated one train in corridor service and three long-distance trains. I believe that it was the long-distance trains that were the base for the level of service that we operate today.
Long-distance trains provide many valuable functions. They serve customers that often have no other reasonable alternative for transportation. They share infrastructure and operating costs for tracks, stations, and wages. (Operating more services helps to reduce individual train costs) and the states benefit from Amtrak paying for proportional costs for this long-distance service.
They also provide for network connectivity, not only for passengers but for mail and express as well and as you are aware the success of the mail and express program it is vital to Amtrak's self- sufficiency goal.
For example, the Chicago-Minneapolis service is extremely popular and some would argue that with the privatization of corridors one could eliminate the long- distance trains. The Chicago-Minneapolis service however, would not be as heavily traveled if the long-distance trains that arrive in Chicago were eliminated.
Amtrak operates a system of trains that rely on one another for this network connectivity. The Amtrak Cascade service which serves the Pacific Northwest region, is known nationwide as one of Amtrak's most successful corridor services.
Amtrak is proud of the Cascades service, in part because of our partnership with Washington, Oregon, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe, other freight railroads, the British Columbia government, and others that have helped achieve the dramatic increases in ridership, revenue, and customer service.
The success of the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor is due to this partnership. The partnership investment is impressive. Washington DOT has contributed $225 million since 1993, including $20 million for two trainsets that are currently used in daily service.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Oregon has contributed $18 million. The budget for this next bi-annum includes funds for a second frequency operating between Portland and Eugene. Sound Transit, as previously mentioned, has contributed over $200 million for infrastructure improvements along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe right-of-way.
Amtrak has contributed almost $100 million in capital improvements. Freight railroads have contributed $225 million in infrastructure and the province of British Columbia and Amtrak are currently working on a funding arrangement where we would allow the second train service, which begins in two days, to operate through to Vancouver, British Columbia.
Others such as local communities, ports, the Federal Government, have contributed approximately $30 million. The partnerships embedded in the Cascade service is an integral part of Amtrak's business plan. We knew we couldn't go it alone and Amtrak's funding was the seed money used to leverage capital and operating funds from partners who saw a benefit in the service.
To the states and the communities, Amtrak's service has helped mitigate the problem of growing congestion and the accompanying air quality concerns, as well as constraints on economic development. To the freight railroads, improvements to the track infrastructure for passenger rail service provided collateral benefits to their business, including port customers.
Federal officials saw a viable, high-speed rail corridor along an economic growth corridor that would promote their goal of encouraging multi- modal transportation.
Like the Pacific Northwest, Amtrak depends on its partnership with the State of California to build upon an extensive rail network serving the three state-supported established corridors. Since 1990, the state and Amtrak have jointly invested over $1.1 billion in capital and operating in inter-city rail services in the state.
The investment that Washington, California, and Oregon have made to-date are considerable, however, this is not the norm. The states have made the unusual decision to invest a portion of their limited state dollars on inter- city rail because they are prohibited from spending the state's Federal allocation on Amtrak services.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
While the Federal Government allows states to invest their Federal highway trust fund dollars in almost any problem that will solve transportation problems, states cannot spend their allocations on inter-city rail. The bias is dramatic.
If a state wants to spend Federal transportation funds on mass transit, bus acquisition, highway construction, light rail, bike paths, they have that flexibility. However, if a state wants to spend a portion of its allocation on inter-city rail service, because the transportation officials in the state legislature believe that inter-city rail is the best solution, they can't.
The states should have the right to make that investment decision. Right now they have no such right.
The National Governors Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the National Council of State Legislatures have urged Congress to enact Senate Bill 1144 which would allow the states to have that flexibility.
In conclusion I would like to state that Amtrak is a successful partner in the growth of the Pacific Northwest Rail Corridor and in California not only because we operate the services, but also because we come to the table with capital and operating funds to help drive the future of the corridors.
It is essential that Amtrak have access to substantial capital funding to develop passenger rail corridors serving economic centers throughout the country. We at Amtrak look forward to working with you to help give all potential partners in high-speed rail corridors the tools to let the corridors and the passengers riding the corridors, succeed.
Thank you very much.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Mr. Carmichael.
Mr. CARMICHAEL. Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, the Amtrak Reform Council is indeed grateful that you have provided this opportunity for me to appear before you today. We have just completed a very successful open business meeting this morning, right here in this very room, and I'd like to report to Sid and to Ms. Crunican that Ken Uznanski and Ed Immel did an excellent job.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I was involved back as the Federal Railroad Administrator in the ISTEA days, from December of '91—in fact, I had the privilege of coming out here and designating the Northwest Corridor as a federally-designated Northwest Corridor. So I have a real close affinity to what is going on in Washington and Oregon and up in British Columbia.
The report that we got this morning from Ken and Ed was really an exciting report. There are 13 high-speed corridors designated around the United States. The Northeast Corridor of course, is the one moving pretty fast. The Northwest Corridor though, is doing something that I think is a model for the rest of the nation.
You are incrementally increasing your train speeds and your train frequencies and your use of your train services. So what we heard this morning and what was reported to us by the two states, you are way out ahead of a lot of the rest of the regions in the country in creating the new, national rail passenger system that I think this country is going to have to have in this next century we are entering.
The Chicago hub of nine states and a two billion dollar project would do well to study what Washington and Oregon and British Columbia have put together. What we saw and what we heard this morning was that the state, working with the railroad, the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe, particularly, and with Amtrak, have formed a very good public-private partnership that's produced the ridership and train system that I think you are going to be extremely proud of.
Dr. Bill Harris at Texas A&M made a transportation report the other day that the automobile and truck population in the United States will double in the next 10 to 12 years. So if you think you have got congestion now,' you ain't seen nothing yet.'
This nation has a huge railroad system: 150,000 miles of railroad right-of-way. And a lot of it has been skinnied down. It is single track where it used to be double-track. And a lot of the freight railroads are beginning to realize they've got to go back to double-track and some of them going back to triple-track.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But the Amtrak Reform Council and its mandate from this authorizing committee and the Senate, the House and the Senate, told us to encourage Amtrak to reach self-sufficiency by the end of Year 2002. It also told us that if we see Amtrak not reaching self-sufficiency in that period, that this Amtrak Reform Council made up of 11 members, we have to come up with an outline for a restructuring plan to produce a national rail passenger system.
Logic tells all of us that we are going to fully utilize this railroad right-of-way system in this United States in this next century. And I assure you that this railroad network is only operating at about 25 percent of its present capacity. With the technology available, it can do a heck of a lot better than is out there now.
And the partnerships developing between the states and Amtrak and the transportation officials, bodes real well for a new, national rail passenger system early-on in this new century. What the Northwest is doing, is a good model for the rest of us to study and copy.
After our meeting today we are going to ride your new train tomorrow. That new train is a very inexpensive train, it carries a lot of people, and the figures that we got today—just between Portland and Seattle, primarily— are tremendous. The ridership is growing at a very high rate.
So I want to congratulate the states of Washington and Oregon and British Columbia for the partnership that they've created, and I want to encourage this Authorizing Committee that I think this is part of the solution for the rest of this nation and early-on in this next century. I encourage you very much to please continue and please keep moving in that same direction.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, and thank you all for your input. We're in the second phase of the panel and that is where members get five minutes to ask questions. And we will start with Representative DeFazio.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, during the testimony I did hear raised the issue of flexibility, and I would just like to explore that a little bit and perhaps key in on our former colleague, Sid Morrison.
And Sid, I am wondering, from your perspective I guess Washington is a little better endowed with funding than we are in Oregon with some of the taxes you have and registration fees. But could you or would you use enhanced flexibility with Federal funds to promote the rail corridor needs in addition to the funding you can apply from the state level? Would it be helpful? Do you need that?
Mr. MORRISON. Congressman, we would love to have the flexibility. Just the opportunity to use it I think, is very significant to anyone that has to administer these types of programs. For instance, our gas tax as Director Crunican has indicated, is constitutionally restricted to highway use.
And yet we see our way into the future here with a number of modes of transportation. And our challenge in management is to balance those, and very frankly, as is yours at the national level.
So to have that flexibility would be returning power to the states to make up their minds under the equity provisions of TEA–21 on how they're going to really use their own money. And so I like it. You will find some people representing just highway interests that won't like it because they would like to have that continue to be tied to some highway program.
But in fact, this state has now—the last two surveys I have seen reflecting two different year periods, Washington State citizens would rather have investments in transit and other opportunities for movement as opposed to investment in highways. So we would like to have the flexibility you have described.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Great. Ms. Crunican, do you want to add to that from an Oregon perspective?
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. CRUNICAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representative DeFazio. I would agree with everything Sid said. I guess I would add the context that I think that the flexibility that you provide goes parallel with the streamlining that I was talking about.
Now, when streamlining came in we were talking about environmental streamlining but most people come beating on my door as a party to a solution. They have a problem and they want a solution and they really don't care how you fix it, they just want it fixed.
I think represented at the table at the state level are the highway interests to speak up for the user-fee concept. And certainly as part of my testimony I applaud the fire walls that we got up to make sure that our transportation dollars stayed with transportation.
I would include though, rail as part of the solution sometimes, which actually helps the highway out. We may be more able to more cheaply alleviate a highway problem by fixing a rail problem. And so I would ask for the permission, along with Sid. I think that is very important.
And then we have at the local level, a lot of safeguards in place so that there is not abuse, which is what I think people are concerned about. I think those are well in place at the local level.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. Mr. Laird, this isn't exactly your jurisdiction. I should have an FRA person here,—but perhaps Mr. Carmichael with his former expertise there, one of the two of you could answer it.
But my understanding is that we are seeing new standards promulgated by the Federal Railroad Administration on passenger rail cars and safety issues, and this would go to your equipment acquisition issues at Amtrak and Amtrak West.
And I had it represented to me by people from TALGO that since the FRA is just looking at just one standard for safety which is based on tradition, which is the only way to make cars safer is make them tougher, heavier, bigger, because of the coupling devices that are used and the problems with jackknifing and overlaying in accidents.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And TALGO uses a totally different suspension system so that actually a much lighter car could be safer. Is this something that has come to your attention at Amtrak and do you know anything about this issue?
Mr. LAIRD. A little bit. Let me say first that Amtrak would not operate equipment that was not safe.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Right, certainly.
Mr. LAIRD. There are different theories as far as energy management goes, and I think I would let the engineering experts speak to how each one works and what is right for each corridor, which service at which speeds. But once again——
Mr. DEFAZIO. All right. Are you familiar with what is being promulgated? Because I'm curious. My understanding is, we may be driving towards something where one particular technology dominated by one manufacturer is about to prevail on the Federal regulations. To the detriment of TALGO, which seems to me to be a viable option in the Northwest corridor.
Mr. LAIRD. My understanding is that the new TALGO product that is currently being tested in Spain and also soon in Pueblo, Colorado, where they will conduct a squeeze test where it will meet the 800,000 pound bus strength that is the future requirement.
Mr. DEFAZIO. So it will be able to comply?
Mr. LAIRD. That's correct.
Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Mr. Carmichael, do you have—and if the Chairman would just abide——
Mr. CARMICHAEL. I am very familiar with just about all of the different high-speed train sets and technology, and I learned about the TALGO technology early on.
I think in a push-pull configuration where it has locomotive on both ends and cars in the middle, they can be made just as safe as any of the other trains. The one thing in this country that is kind of interesting is about how we design our vehicles. In the United States we design our vehicles to have an accident and to survive them, and then to try to save the passenger inside of them from serious injury.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
It is interesting to note in Asia and in Europe, they design the vehicles and infrastructure not to have accidents. They take it the other way. TGV for example, has not had a fatality I don't think, in 20 years of operation. And the Shinkansen in Japan, 30 or 40 years with 'no' fatalities.
But during my tenure as the FRA Administrator, each different train set needed—in my decisions at that time—a specific rule for each type, or performance standard for each type. I tried to encourage FRA at that time to approach it from that direction.
I think the different trains are all good technology in the 'push-pull' configuration I don't see where the TALGO might be vulnerable compared to the other. The nice thing about TALGO, it is a very low-cost trainset with very good high-speed potential, too.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. I have been very impressed but I will probably take the issue up with the FRA to try and get more clarification. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Representative Metcalf?
Mr. METCALF. No.
Mr. PETRI. Representative McDermott?
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Yes, I have just one question. Every once and a while there comes up an issue that I haven't heard about before so I thought I would ask Sid while I have a chance here.
This proposal I heard about at lunch for 605, tell me where that is. Because I come from the District where we took the first highway off the planning map in the whole country; the old R.H. Thompson Expressway. So when I hear somebody is going to put a new freeway through somewhere I am curious as to where all that is.
Mr. MORRISON. Oh, my. The original 605 concept I first saw on a map that goes back to 1965, which sort of featured the highways that had been designed and built, and also more importantly, the ones that had been designed that had not been built. And yes, the R.H. Thompson certainly was one of those.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
At that time the urban growth boundaries would allow the construction of some sort of a highway system just east of Lake Samamish, which as you know now is within the urban growth boundaries under growth management; is absolutely solid houses.
So Senator Horn particularly likes to talk about this because he is convinced that before the urban growth boundary reaches the wilderness areas of the Cascades, which you have helped set aside, that we should somehow squeeze another corridor through there.
We are dutifully studying it as the Department of Transportation. And I'm in no position to place odds on it now but I will just say that we immediately run into the conflicts that would come with any sort of a transportation infrastructure in such a fragile environmental area.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. So it really is not a way to relieve the FAST Corridor problems in any foreseeable timeframe?
Mr. MORRISON. No, it could be—you know, if you were just drawing on a clean piece of paper and there were no people, no environment, no ESA listings, no wilderness areas, no Cascade Mountains, you would say, this would be a wonderful place to put a highway.
Because it would relieve significantly, the pressure now as Senator Horn indicated, on I–5 with tremendous volumes, with 405 now which has turned into being, you know, our half-beltway around the Seattle area and to being just chuck-a-block itself.
So it does make sense except we are not sure that it fits and that is what the legislature did provide some funding for us to look at. We didn't even number it 605, we just called it East King County Corridor Study, to see if something could be done to relieve the pressure.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you. Mr. Carmichael?
Mr. CARMICHAEL. If you don't mind, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add a couple of pieces. I have a formal paper that we will submit that talks about the corridors around the United States and the status of where those corridors are.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I think those corridors are developing into a new, high-speed, national system, I would certainly request the Committee if it had a chance, to read it over. It is a good, up-to-date report on the status of the 13 corridors and the evolution.
I also want to emphasize that I am here as a person who has long argued for inter-city rail passenger service as an essential part of the national, regional, and local transportation system. I am also an ex-highway lobbyist. As a politician in Mississippi one of my last acts in Mississippi was to help pass 1,077-mile highway program to connect state highways to the interstate system. So I wear several hats in this thing.
But I do believe that a national, inter-city rail passenger system is going to be extremely critical to the quality of life in this country in this next century. And I think that this part of the country is doing it.
But I am not speaking for the members of the Council when I talk on my personal beliefs. The Council will create its own recommendations and resolutions for Amtrak's encouragement and for a future national rail passenger system.
If you don't mind I would like to ask my associates-we have an 11-member committee, we are bi-partisan, and we range from labor to corporate management. They are broad in their coverage. We have a small staff of six people, professional people, that keeps us together. If they would all just stand up I would just like to introduce them en-bloc if I could.
We appreciate very much being here and my remarks are mine and the formal report is the Council's. Thank you.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Mr. Carmichael a question? As an old highway lobbyist—concrete boys we call them in the state legislature——
Mr. CARMICHAEL. Asphalt and concrete.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Yes. I introduced a bill in 1972 in my first session in the state legislature, to just change—add one word to the state constitution—that the gas tax could be used for highways and transit. And it hasn't happened in this state since.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Do you think that there is ever going to be a possibility of making those kinds of changes in any state?
Mr. CARMICHAEL. Yes, sir, I do, and I see it happening.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Where do you see the evidence?
Mr. CARMICHAEL. I see it happening with the state officials. You know, ISTEA, when it was introduced in December of '91, that was the first time in my adult life that the highway bill didn't say ''highways'' in it. It was the Inter-Modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. So I think there has been a significant change in consciousness.
I see more and more state officials wanting this flexibility to solve their transportation problems on a state or regional basis. And what I see here today is, these states and the province of Canada, they are working regionally.
So I believe the awareness is spreading—my Mississippi DOT was a good, old-fashioned 'highway' Department of Transportation. Today they are funding multi-modal stations, inter-modal stations, all over the state of Mississippi right now. And so this is highway funds under ISTEA going into multi-modal projects.
My little city that I brag about all the time has a, out of ISTEA funds, has a very fine, multi-modal station made up of Greyhound and Amtrak and the city transit system. It has more passengers than our airport does. Its very good and it was funded by our state DOT.
So if provincial Mississippi is doing that, plus what I see here in Washington and Oregon, I say the flexibility is coming and the quicker we get it the better decisions we will have.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. What do you suggest we do to make it come faster?
Mr. CARMICHAEL. Well, there is a Senate bill right now that I wish there was a House version of it, the Senate's being circulated. It calls for more flexibility. Bud Shuster and I were strong parties together back in the '70's. We did a National Transportation Policy Study Commission report together. I think Bud is thinking inter-modal and looking in that direction. I hope he is.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. I did have one or two questions, too. Ms. Crunican, you mentioned several times the idea of environmental streamlining that we put in TEA- 21.
And that concept was to not in any way, weaken or change any of the environmental standards or requirements that need to be satisfied for the transit or transportation project, but to attempt to do them concurrently rather than seriatim; have the project delayed over and over and over again, and sometimes for a generation as the result of that.
We have been receiving mixed reports on—it is this sort of a new effort and it is in the bill. It requires some time for people to sort of adjust procedures in the Transit Department and also in the other agencies that are involved.
And we have had follow-up hearings on that because we have been getting very mixed reports as to whether people were even aware of it or if they were doing it or it was just business as usual. And I wonder if you could—either of you or both of you—could comment a little bit about that.
And as a follow-up, we would very much like to be kept informed if there are problems with it. Is there anything we can do legislatively or using the bully pulpit, so to speak, to help, or the funding process or whatever would be required to get people's attention?
I think it was negotiated in good faith between the environmental community and the transportation community, and we would like to see it work. Could you comment on it at all?
Ms. CRUNICAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. To the overall effort, I think what we are trying to do is—and maybe not the specifics of any one plan but generally speaking—we are trying to get certification or Federal approval or whatever is required from the Federal agencies, as early in the process as possible so that we would not have a permit required at every single stage along the way.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And if I could use as a parallel to that certification, we have licensed engineers, professional engineers. And when a professional engineer signs a document everyone assumes that from an engineering point of view they have met all the needs there.
Where we are trying to head is to a discussion of a more generic certification of the work we do. And the reason we have Idaho, Montana, and Oregon—actually we have Washington and Oregon and we are trying to get Idaho and Montana to work with us—is we all share the same watershed, the Snake/Columbia River Basin. And we have the same fish problem. Fish don't know any of these political boundaries whatsoever.
As we go to do our road projects, really we fester things up a bit, two ways: one is if you are going to do a new project and one is if you are just going to maintain what you have. And we are trying to work to establish some sort of generic certification so instead of having a professional licensed engineer on a project you might have some kind of environmental certification.
So that we have agreed to the standards that we are going to meet when designing it, and we attest up front that is what we have done. And once you have signed off, you have signed off, instead of going through every little process.
Another thing is on the maintenance side of things, if we can agree, which we have with the National Marine Fisheries to a set of maintenance practices.
But it is worth it from our point of view, to set forth how it is we are going to maintain our streams, how it is we are going to maintain our culverts, how it is we are going to correct our culverts on road projects. So that if something comes up, NMFS knows what the procedures are that we are going to use in maintaining our roads throughout whatever the season is.
There are some roads we have in Oregon that we can only fix, if you will, during a 6-week window in any one year. That makes for awfully clever scheduling if you have any kind of major improvement.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So, Mr. Chairman, what we are trying to do is make more generic the work, make less specific the certification, and move up-front planning so that a Federal agency knows what we are going to do, knows the practices we are going to use, and knows that we will guard windows that have been established up-front and then the checking isn't necessary. We would encourage audits, you know, occasionally, and that sort of thing.
We are not saying trust me, we are showing how it is. We have earned our certification much the same way a professional engineer—before you get to sign they have been through classes and bridge design school.
So that is the effort we have underway, and in terms of the work with ISTEA, I had understood some more generic work between transit and highways wasn't going so well; that they still had their specific hats on as they looked at the activities. That has more to do with the planning side then it does the environmental streamlining side.
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Chairman, I think that the streamlining efforts—and we are part of AASHTO's team to work on this—are excellent directioned, probably a little idealistic to think that they are gong to be immediate results without some hitches. I concur with what Grace Crunican has shared with you, that I think we are going to have to work together as states and regions or as individual states, that have some experience along these lines.
We have been cultivating trust here within Washington State Department of Transportation for a number of years with the Federal agencies. Thank goodness because now we have virtually every species of salmon that could potentially be listed, listed.
And so we now have a level of trust in which this last session of legislature provide us the people to put 12 of our employees, working actually in the same desks at National Marine Fisheries, at the U.S. Corps of Engineers, EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and our own State Department. All of them having responsibility for signing off on any permits related to construction.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And I think it is this sort of experience that will be very helpful to us in assisting at the Federal highway and other USDOT levels, on making streamlining actually work. Thank you for your interest and we certainly will lean back on you if we find a barrier that we think deserves your level of attention.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Just one other question for Mr. Carmichael and possibly Mr. Laird might want to comment. You talked about the tremendous success of—and we are going to be going tomorrow on the passenger service north to Vancouver—about the tremendous increase in ridership that is in this region.
Does that mean that the funding stream from Amtrak for this service is improved, or does it get penalized for increasing its business? How do the incentives work there?
Mr. LAIRD. Well, I should say first that without the TRA funds the growth we have seen in the projects that we have launched in the last year and for the next few years wouldn't be possible to support the growth of ridership that we have experienced with the success with Oregon and Washington and the new train system we have.
Those funds also allowed us to fund equipment sets that were exactly the same as the ones that the Washington Department of Transportation had funded, and so the customer sees a common service when they ride an Amtrak Cascades train in the Northwest.
I don't think anybody is penalized by the success of the service or by the money that has been available. We just look for more so that we can continue to grow it to the eventual 13 round trips to Seattle and Portland that we would like to do with the state.
The Volpe Center has studied the numbers and the frequency and the demographics of the area and have concluded that this corridor can be profitable when you get to that level of service with what they have seen thus far.
Mr. CARMICHAEL. I can't help but say that the reason this corridor has succeeded is because of these two state DOTs, because they have been very supportive of it. The other one is that I think Burlington Northern—and I don't mind—I know all the railroads pretty well so I don't mind singling out the accomplishments of that railroad—they put up about a quarter of a billion dollars, in helping develop these corridors.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And the railroads are wise in this because what is happening is the state, using its funds, and the railroad, using its funds, have improved the speed on this corridor for both passenger and freight, that increases the capacity of it.
I think that model that you have here, we are going to have to try to make it happen in the rest of the country. I do see some others that are very supportive in that. Kansas City Southern in my part of the country is quite interested in getting more rail passenger service.
I have to give credit to the states and the reailroads willingness to be a partner, the public-private partnership that we all talk about between the railroad and the states, and Amtrak coming in also. I have to pat TALGO on the back because TALGO was willing to risk its money and to take the chance to demonstrate its product.
It has been a great partnership, I think it is something that we will take around the country. When I go to Chicago I am going to talk about it. Of course, I tell lies about this part of the county all the time. It's been an excellent public-private partnership, it has been your state DOTs, and it has worked. It is a forerunner of what we can see across this country.
Mr. PETRI. OK. Well, thank you all very much for being with us this afternoon and for your testimony and your response to our questions.
The second panel consists of Mr. James Miller who is the Executive Director of the Whatcom County Council of Governments; Mr. A Daniel O'Neal who is the Chairman of the Washington State Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board and will be accompanied by Mr. Bruce Chapman, the Director of the Discovery Institute; Mr. Paul Chilcote who is the Senior Director of Inter-Modal Transportation of the Port of Tacoma; and Mr. David Lohman, Director of Policy and Planning of the Port of Portland, Oregon.
We thank you very much, as the members of the previous panel, for your written statements and as I think you understand, we would appreciate very much if you could summarize your statements and any other thoughts you have in about five minutes' time. And once the panel is concluded with its presentation we will have a session of questioning.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Let us begin with Mr. James Miller.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES MILLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS; A. DANIEL O'NEAL, CHAIRMAN, WASHINGTON STATE FREIGHT MOBILITY STRATEGIC INVESTMENT BOARD; PAUL CHILCOTE, SENIOR DIRECTOR, INTERMODAL TRANSPORTION, PORT OF TACOMA; DAVID LOHMAN, DIRECTOR, POLICY AND PLANNING, PORT OF PORTLAND
Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Whatcom County Council of Governments appreciates this opportunity to bring current transportation concerns to the attention of the Subcommittee on behalf of the local governments in our area.
I think in your briefing package you will see a background piece on the IMTC, or the International Mobility Trade Corridor efforts that we coordinate up in Whatcom County. And not to spend a great deal of time on that. That is a bi-national planning effort in partnership with Federal highways, Washington Department of Transportation, Cascadia, and several other Federal, local, and state agencies all involved in transportation issues as they relate to the border.
Our area is crossed by Interstate 5 and is located between the large port cities of Seattle and Tacoma, Washington, and Vancouver, British Columbia. Whatcom County faces unique transportation challenges. Whatcom County's northern border is also the international border with Canada and is crossed by five ports of entry.
Coupled with Whatcom County's own growing transportation demands, burgeoning international trade traffic volume is overloading our region's dated infrastructure and challenging international cross-border procedures. Meeting the challenge will require innovation: doing things differently and cooperatively.
Some remarks on TEA–21 specifically as they relate to the borders and corridors. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century has created opportunities for change and partnership. Most notably for Whatcom County is the TEA–21 Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program, or Section 1119.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Congress deserves congratulations on the foresight of these new programs. Particular thanks from my office goes to Congressman Metcalf and his able staff for helping strategize and steward our efforts in dealing with Section 1119.
With regard to TEA–21 generally, we are very encouraged by the goals that the Act sets for streamlining process. As our area looks for opportunities to convert innovative partnerships into on-the-ground solutions and looks for ways to respond to the recent Endangered Species Act listing of the Chinook salmon, streamlined process will be increasingly crucial, and I think we have heard that from a number of other panelists earlier.
The new Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program, or the CBI in TEA–21, is a much-needed response to impacts that our bi-national region faces from voluminous cross-border trade and travel. The first year of this program, which was FY99, although delayed significantly, did go well. There was no earmarking of this discretionary program and we look forward to continued, equitable administration of these funds.
There are improvements that should be made to the CBI program. Funding for the CBI program was blended with funding for the National Corridor Planning and Development, which is the NCPD program, or Section 1118 of TEA–21.
And so two sets of goals are being supported with one pot of money. This hinders states and local agencies who need assistance from these separate pieces of legislation. If the programs were financially discrete, states could focus on the two separate legislative goals simultaneously instead of viewing them as funding tradeoffs.
There needs to be a funding firewall between the two programs. And I think if you will remember in the earlier iterations of TEA–21 leading up to the final legislation, there was an initial firewall between Section 1118/1119. We would like to see that in the next iteration of TEA–21 reinstalled.
A barrier to efficient administration of the Border and Corridor program has been the lack of a predictable, program schedule detailing application periods, due dates, and award deadlines. This would enable applicant agencies to more efficiently dedicate resources and maintain the good will of public and private partners whose involvement is central to successful applications and resulting projects.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And I know that Federal Highways has worked very hard on this. It is a new program. We do expect some delays but it is our hope that as we move through FY2000 and into 2001 that we will be back on schedule.
Lastly, as indicated by the level of response by FY99 CBI and NCPD programs, more funding for these important trade and transportation issues is needed. First- year requests made to these two programs from states and MPOs totaled more than $2.2 billion for the $124 million that was available.
Simply stated, current funding levels are inadequate to maintain our region's double-digit increase in NAFTA and Asian trade that cross our borders via our international trade corridors.
One issue away from TEA- 21 that was discussed a little bit earlier is the introduction alluded to: the demands on Interstate 5 corridor are growing with urban industrial areas along it. Reliance on I–5 for the vast majority of North-South trade and travel mobility through Western Washington cannot continue indefinitely.
It is time to acknowledge these limits and assess such options as an additional limited- access vehicle route, increased freight and traveler rail capacity, links between inter-regional and international transportation and transit systems, and increased use of marine transportation.
As mentioned above, tomorrow's solutions will be crafted differently and cooperatively. Getting there will require public-private partnerships and non-traditional cost recovery. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Mr. O'Neal.
Mr. O'NEAL. Thank you. I want to start out by making clear that I am from the private sector. I have a day job. Part of my day job anyway, as a member of the Board of the Greenbrier Companies, we make railroad cars. We sell most of them to freight railroads but because of the nature of this——
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PETRI. I'm glad you said that. I thought you maybe were offering a resort.
Mr. O'NEAL. No, no. Sometimes it seems like that. No. But we also sell freight cars to Amtrak, so we have an interest in both the freight side and the passenger side.
I don't want to reiterate everything that has been said here, so I am just going to focus on kind of the private-public partnership that is represented by a couple of the organizations that I am involved with.
As we know, as you have heard many times, Washington State has recognized the value and the importance of freight mobility. The legislature, the Governor, the state and local, city governments all understand the importance to this area of freight. Certainly the fact that one in four jobs here is tied to international trade has a big impact on the way we feel about freight.
The private-public cooperation, I think we can say has led to action that has resulted in, or will result in, more great separations between railroads and highways, greater port access. We think it will reduce some of the crossing delays at the ends of the state. And it has also made possible another East-West rail line.
The Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board, which I am the Chairman, is an interesting group because it is made up of private and public people. I am in the private sector. We have railroad representatives, the truckers are represented, steamship lines, the Secretary of Transportation, Sid Morrison, is on the Board.
So we have a cross section of people that I think is unique, and we are actually making decisions about which corridors, freight corridors, are strategic to this state, which projects should be prioritized, and how some of the money should be spent; if the money is ever made available to be spent, that is.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And another group that I want to mention which is local here and totally cooperative, is the Freight Mobility group here in Puget Sound which is supported by the Puget Sound Regional Council, which is the local MPO, and by the Economic Development Council in this area.
This group is made up of carriers, railroads, truckers, shippers like the Boeing Company and Darigold and several other local companies. Plus we have a great representation from the State Department of Transportation, Federal officials attend the sessions, and city officials in this area.
It has been a very successful group although it has no particular authority. We just meet and we discuss and we try to push some projects forward that everybody is interested in. But out of this has come the FAST Corridor project. The idea originated with this group and of course, was supported by the state and by other entities.
So we feel like we have got a good relationship here between the public and the private side. We are gaining a greater understanding, both sides, of what the requirements are, what the needs are on either side, and that has helped us move forward and brought the kind of broad support that has helped get us down the road on FAST Corridor and other projects.
I want to say that we appreciate what the Committee has done. Congressman Metcalf has been a great help to this area and we really appreciate that. And I thank you for the chance to say something.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Mr. Chilcote.
Mr. CHILCOTE. Thank you. Again, I am Paul Chilcote, Senior Director for Inter-Modal at the Port of Tacoma. I am the guy that is responsible for getting the trains in and out and I have been chosen to be the spokesperson for this loose coalition you have been hearing about a lot over the last couple of hours called FAST Corridor. And I am going and try to give a little bit of the whos, whys, and what of the FAST Corridor and some of its national benefits, as well as stressing the partnership and the funding that came out of Section 1118 in particular, as well as the demonstration grants for the TEA–21.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
FAST Corridor is made up of the three ports that are mentioned here: Seattle, Tacoma, and Everett. Three counties are involved; the main three counties of those port cities. Eleven cities are involved. Two mainline railroads that have been very active, in fact, voluntarily contributing the entire corridor: the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and the UP. As well as our State DOT who, along with our local MPO, the Puget Sound Regional Councils, have taken basic ownership in managing this overall effort.
It is a loose coalition, really a grassroots if you will, as Dan mentioned, that came out of a growing concern over increasing rail traffic in particularly the Seattle-Tacoma area where the rail main lines transit through the middle of a number of suburban communities, all of which are growing very rapidly. In fact, we have seen a close doubling of train traffic in about a 30-year period, which also saw about 300,000 people move into these communities causing the inevitable conflict.
Our initial and ongoing premise of this whole effort was that over the course of time, very few grade separations had been made. As trains got longer and more and more people were moving into the area and waiting for these longer trains, that we agreed no one really is responsible for what happened. Let's move into the future and solve this problem.
And we got together with all these people; quickly realized that no one entity could afford this all; and put together quite an extensive partnership, particularly with a lot of state leadership in this case. And then working out the details with various planning and public works people along with their representatives, worked out about a $400 million phase 1 effort.
We have put the map in front of you. It is on the brochure that should be on your table. It shows basically the FAST Corridor. The red shows the 12 grade separations that are now underway. The price tag has risen to about $400 million, although we are still asking for around $90 million from Federal sources.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We have about half of that from the demonstration projects that came in to various representatives. And the other half we are hopeful of getting through Section 1118. And we feel we were quite successful, albeit this program proved to be far more successful than we anticipated, and there were so many requests for the amount of money that the amount we were hoping to get wasn't as much as we got but we have been able to fill the holes with predominantly the local sponsors.
The state is contributing about $180 million. Now, many of these projects ar state routes but it still took the state to make a major change to help support communities in this effort and go beyond just state highways or state routes.
As I say, the railroads were very instrumental and for once, the ports, in terms of looking beyond the marine terminals and access in and out of marine terminals, we actually looked at a regional problem that was developing and contributed also to this effort.
I do want to point out some of the national benefits. You again, have a paper in front of you. The second-to-the-last chart shows the top–20 North American gateways as they relate to international trade and the container trade.
Seattle-Tacoma ranks second; by far second, I would add. And second only behind Los Angeles and Long Beach. And this list really shows which gateways are the prime gateways in North America and it is the rail traffic that is basically providing a good share of our business and why we are ranked second- highest in North America.
Just to give you some indication of what that volume equates to, the volume coming through Seattle and Tacoma is now about equal to the entire United States trade with Northern Europe. This next year we expect about three million TEU or containers; about the same as you'll see in the North Atlantic trade with non- Mediterranean and Europe.
So it is an enormous trade route that is going through here, most of which is going well beyond our local region. And in fact, provides indirect and direct effects of economic employment throughout the country. We did a fairly extensive survey looking at exactly that, and it also shows up in my testimony in the final two maps.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
You can get an idea of where these jobs are located throughout the country. There's around 780,000 jobs throughout the country. And again, this whole effort of keeping this gateway going and this trade route going falls very much under the ideal of your Section 1118, and in terms of the corridor it is spawning other projects.
There is track and train control mentioned of another 300 million. Roughly three-quarters of a billion dollars is what this $90 million is generating in public participation to strengthen a gateway that definitely has a national significance.
And with that I will pass on the time.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Lohman.
Mr. LOHMAN. Thank you. I am David Lohman, Director of Policy and Planning for the Port of Portland. I want to echo the earlier expressions of appreciation for your being here and for your work on TEA- 21. With the strong help of Representative DeFazio we got some provisions in TEA–21 that are very helpful to us in our region and to our Port particularly, not the least of which was the I–5 Trade Corridor Study mentioned earlier by Grace Crunican.
I have submitted some written remarks. I want to focus my comments this afternoon on trade movement—the movement of traded goods in the Pacific Northwest.
The Port of Portland is not a major container port and not a major import port, except for autos. But significantly, for the nation's global competitiveness, the Port of Portland is a major export port. We rank second on the West Coast in terms of tonnage handled. The Portland Metropolitan Area is the 10th largest export metropolitan area in the nation. And the Columbia River Ports together constitute the world's second largest grain exporting port area.
The Columbia River has achieved this national export significance, primarily because favorable geographic factors converging in the Portland/Vancouver area prompted thoughtful public and private transportation infrastructure investments.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Notably, Columbia River Channel, or the shipping channel; second, the inland waterway system for barging between Portland and Lewiston, Idaho; third, the two interstate highways; and fourth, two river-grade rail lines to and from the U.S. interior.
The effectiveness of all four of these core transportation systems is increasingly in jeopardy. In the case of all but barging, these threats come primarily from capacity limitations caused by unprecedented cargo growth coupled with shortages of infrastructure funding.
The rail situation is of special concern and I want to take just a moment to talk about that, with respect to movement of goods. The UPSP's only route to Puget Sound is through Portland, up the I–5 rail corridor. BNSF also goes through Portland to Puget Sound.
It however, has two alternative routes but both of those routes traverse high mountain passes and require extra locomotives and crews, and both have severe capacity constraints now and limited opportunity to add capacity.
The result is that both BNSF and UPSP bring almost all of their bulk cargo either to Portland for export or through Portland to Puget Sound for export. The result of this is that rail traffic in the I–5 rail corridor is heavy, and the rail bridge over the Columbia River will be reaching capacity in the foreseeable future.
Add to this future growth in passenger traffic and in the commuter trains on the same rail lines, and we will end up with rail and even road congestion problems that are going to require a lot of infrastructure investment to even begin to solve.
Before suggesting some fixes for these capacity problems I want to suggest five Pacific Northwest principles that we believe should guide public decision-making, including Federal decision-making, about freight transportation investments in this region.
First, conserve existing freeway capacity by encouraging more movement of freight by barge and rail. Second, be wary of exacerbating I–5 rail corridor congestion. Those two may sound a little bit contradictory but I think you will see they may not be as I go on.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Third, discourage bulks for export from traversing the I–5 rail or highway corridor from Portland to Puget Sound. Fourth, encourage origin and destination international cargo to flow through its natural gateways.
By that I mean, goods produced in the Puget Sound should flow through Puget Sound ports, and that's why they need the FAST Corridor: to help those goods flow. But it also means goods produced in Northern Oregon and Southwest Washington should flow through Columbia River ports.
Fifth, and this refers to another category of cargo other than origin and destination; that is, discretionary cargo. Cargo coming say, from the Midwest that could go through any Pacific Northwest or even any Pacific Coast port. Encourage the flow of that discretionary cargo through ports where access can be provided most cost-effectively.
Now, applying these principles, the actions we commend to your Committee for consideration are first, continue your strong and much- appreciated support of deepening the Columbia River Channel.
Second—and really all of these come out of the I–5 Trade Corridor Study, or we hope will be coming out of the I–5 Trade Corridor Study and appearing before your Committee in the form of some recommendations for the next ISTEA bill—benefit the whole Northwest and help the Portland/Vancouver area and the railroads figure out how to increase the capacity of the Columbia River Rail Bridge.
Help our region deal with the road/rail conflicts and connections with freight terminals; our version of the FAST Corridor. And finally, help the Portland/Vancouver area deal with highway capacity constrictions on the I–5 corridor between Portland and Vancouver.
Principally I'm referring there to the bridge over the Columbia River and the few miles of freeway on each side of that bridge. Thank you for your attention.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DeFazio, any questions?
Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, just in response to the last testimony from Mr. Lohman, what you said makes a lot of sense in terms of movement of freight and for crossing the Portland area say, to go up to Tacoma or Seattle, the movements that are not rational.
But for years I've driven on I–5 down in my district or out on Highway 58 and watched the log trucks pass one another in opposite directions. And I have always said to myself, now wouldn't it be great if that guy just took those logs where that log truck is heading and this guy took those logs where that guy is heading and they wouldn't have had to cross here in the freeway after going 100 or 200 miles.
Well, the issue is obviously a commercial issue and ownership issue. How do you propose to get there? How are we going to rationalize these movements? You know, just curious.
Mr. LOHMAN. Well, the thought I had in mind was not telling them where they needed to go or where they needed to locate their businesses but actually focusing public investment in ways that would encourage them to avoid those wasteful movements. That's what I had in mind.
Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, that's vague enough to live with for now, but I'm not quite sure that means you are supporting the I–5 bridge toll across the Columbia River maybe, or something. No, I'm just kidding. OK.
Mr. LOHMAN. Please don't attribute that to me.
Mr. DEFAZIO. No, no. Who was that? No, I mean, what you are saying makes a lot of sense and in terms of being able to use our scarce public dollars wisely. In terms of infrastructure investment it makes a lot of sense and it will take a lot of cooperation, coordination, and planning to get there. I think it is very thoughtful testimony.
Any time you want to talk to me privately and tell me how you think we might nudge things that direction I'll be very interested. So, thank you.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. LOHMAN. I will be happy to make some suggestions.
Mr. DEFAZIO. OK, great. And not to the detriment of Seattle and Tacoma, of course, because we want to help them too. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Metcalf.
Mr. METCALF. I don't have any questions.
Mr. PETRI. Very good. I have one parochial kind of question from my point of view. Wisconsin is in the middle of the continent but very export oriented, and we actually have been quite dependent on goods going to Europe on the fact that Canada is just to our North because the Eastern ports often are much more expensive to do business through than the Port of Montreal.
And we have I think, a daily or twice a day container service that goes from Antwerp to Montreal and our trucks go to Montreal and the containers go on and go over to Europe and sell kleenex tissue and other things that they would be priced out of the market if they were selling through the Eastern ports.
Does the fact that you have Vancouver and Washington State right next to each other—is there any sort of benefit to the Midwesterners out of that or do you cooperate so much that pricing is all the same?
Mr. CHILCOTE. No, actually we have seen quite an erosion of Canadian business that used to come through Seattle-Tacoma actually move into Canada, primarily due to first, the harbor maintenance tax which tended to drive any high-value cargos going to Canada into Canada.
And Seattle- Tacoma became two of the more concerned ports in the East Coast where that situation was also occurring. They also were concerned in New York and some of these other places but they wanted the money more for the maintenance.
We find ourselves in an awkward situation right now where about 40 percent of all the revenues connected for the harbor maintenance tax come out four ports—Seattle, Tacoma, L.A., and Long Beach—none of which use any maintenance dredging because we happen to sit on deep water. And so it is a real concern to us because we have actually watched erosion of business to Canada.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Now, as that has occurred the two Canadian railroads certainly improved their infrastructure in terms of handling inter-modal cargo where predominantly they have been a grain export and coal export—through the Vancouver port—business. And we are really quite concerned and we are working with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe and the UP to see how we can address this.
But in kind of a closing comment to your concern, if you look at Asian trade we have an interesting phenomenon going on that in the container business somebody is paying a lot of money to get a container from China and Japan to Chicago—certainly your area. And then it needs to be repositioned back.
And what we are finding is there isn't a whole lot of stuff going back to Asia out of the Midwest. And we find we load up a lot of export business out of the state of Washington predominantly because shipping lines—moving containers from the West Coast back to Asia just don't want to carry air. So they will put in a rate structure that will fill it with fairly low-value commodities like lumber and many agricultural products tend to be.
There is absolutely no reason, and in fact, that backhaul rate advantage rate for containers also exists all the way across the country. And in terms of future exports, certainly to the Asian market, I would think your state would sit very well in terms of some of the advantages of a backhaul rate that are typically less than two-thirds of what it was for somebody to get the box over here in the first place.
Mr. PETRI. One other—oh, did you have a comment?
Mr. MILLER. Just a brief comment on that. The Port of Vancouver has been somewhat reluctant to join the backing of our IMTC process at the border. And their concern was, interestingly enough, that any improvements that we make at the border will do nothing but be to the detriment of their trade and in favor of trade for Seattle and Tacoma.
And we pointed out to them two things: one, historically that has not happened; and two, the shipping lines now are making more ports-of-call so it is not an all-or-nothing type of call between the two. And they have reluctantly come, not to the table with us directly, but indirectly given us their support right now.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So it is a very dicey situation when you are—and we are kind of caught in the middle of it. Our position is, is as neutral I think, as we can be and let infrastructure improvements that the ports make and their labor relations and let them compete on their own basis rather than put in infrastructure improvements through the border.
Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. PETRI. Yes.
Mr. METCALF. Could I reclaim my carelessly discarded option of asking a question, because I have one. It is sort of a crystal ball question for any one of the panel members.
Will current and future national and economic arrangements—such as NAFTA, possibly WTO—affect freight flows and freight volume in the Northwest in the future? Will those things have any impact?
Mr. MILLER. It certainly will for us. At the border for example, right now—and I have alluded to it in my remarks—we are experiencing double-digit increases on an annual basis of our freight flows, largely because of NAFTA; you can tie it directly to NAFTA—as opposed to the passenger traffic which has been relatively flat or even declining because of the situation with the Canadian dollar.
So I look at that as happening. And if you, getting back to my last statement about the predicament that we have with I–5 and I think the tremendous strain that I think is going to be on that, if you look at our interstate system and you look at I–5 compared to the rest of the country, you will see no redundancy built in to our system here.
We have I–5. We don't have adequate rail. We need better rail, better Amtrak. We need better transit. It is a combination of answers but I see problems ahead unless we keep in front of this.
Mr. O'NEAL. Yes, I am not sure how to answer that from the standpoint of the Pacific Northwest. As a company, Greenbrier has plants both in Canada and in Mexico, and we are definitely seeing more business in both of those areas for the purchase of cars.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I don't think that we have noticed, from our standpoint anyway, you know, any significant impact in this area. But obviously as it is easier to get into the Vancouver area that definitely is going to siphon off some traffic, as Paul has already mentioned.
Mr. CHILCOTE. I would add too, yes. The North/South emphasis we have seen through various national efforts have certainly improved getting to and from—or getting products mainly—to and from Canada and here in the Puget Sound area.
But our whole world, our perspective, is basically an East-West one and often there is kind of a North-South bias in a lot of national viewpoints on trade and whereas our world basically, is trying to get stuff to Chicago and New York.
And so in terms of the World Trade Organization anything that betters trade certainly improves things for us because we are basically after this discretionary cargo that Dave was talking about and that is where our future is. We see more containers going on beyond to Chicago and New York than we do within our own local area.
Certainly the volume we have is far, far greater than this population base along with support. So anything that improves Asian trade typically improves our effort, and we are seeing it going both ways now. It isn't just an import business anymore.
Mr. LOHMAN. I would agree with Mr. Chilcote on that, but I guess I would go a little bit further and say, from our perspective what is going to be driving what we believe is going to be a continued growth in trade—I mean, extensive growth in trade—will be other factors moreso than expanding NAFTA or WTO.
Just the things in the marketplace like just-in-time delivery, manufacturing in multiple sites—things like that seem to be driving this trade growth. And at the moment we don't see it slowing down in the foreseeable future, really. I mean, we have got this downward blip of Asia now but that seems to be bottoming out, and all our forecasts suggest we are going to see a lot more growth over the next 20 years.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PETRI. Just building on that, I don't know if any of you could respond to this or not but if you can I appreciate your input. We had a series of hearings, two years ago now I guess, a little over two years ago, along the Mexican border, to kind of review—there was a lot of infrastructure requests, people talking about the tremendous congestion at the border and that.
While there did seem to be some need for infrastructure, we were struck after going down there, by the fact that more goods go across one bridge between Detroit and Windsor than the whole Texas/Mexican border. And where there are long lines, and you can see all of this congestion, it isn't necessarily the lack of infrastructure but the fact that there are all kinds of procedures and other things that create the jam-up at the border.
And just building more physical infrastructure without addressing the procedural and political and cultural and economic competition questions and national questions that lead to all these delays and paperwork and everything else, isn't going to solve the problem.
So I wonder if you could comment on that. It certainly is important to the economic success of this region that it not just compete between Vancouver and Puget Sound and Oregon but that it, in a great big world be as efficient a region as possible and draw business to it and through it.
Are there efforts to try to do pre-clearance or automated clearance or various other things so that everything doesn't have to be right down on the border, both for people and for goods, or do we have a lot of work to do there, or is this different and do we just need to pump money into the area?
Mr. MILLER. I can speak to the specific border issues there. It is not just an infrastructure problem, that is correct. Infrastructure is just part of it. But it is a manning issue with Customs and INS, it is the possibility of Section 110 even taking it further with complicating paperwork and processing. If that happens I think we would have a real problem at the border.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
But it is a multitude of problems that exist at the border that we are trying to address in our small way by once a month, sitting down with all of the agencies on both sides of the border—local governments, state—and working through those issues and seeing how something that one agency may do may impact another agency.
As far as pre- clearance goes, and intelligence transportation systems or ITS, yes, that is being done. The ports of Seattle and Tacoma I believe, are starting—or have a pilot program that the containers northbound are in the process of being pre- cleared as they go through.
That will unquestionably be a help. But it is aways off I think, from really ironing out all of the issues that have to be addressed there. But that is part of the solution that we look at.
So in a nutshell, it is not just infrastructure but it is infrastructure. That is a big part of it. But it is manning, it is intelligent transportation, it is all those things that have to be addressed in a collective, collaborative way.
Mr. CHILCOTE. It would seem to me, just listening to the railroad's viewpoints on it, that the differences between moving products across the border in Canada are more in the category of a nuisance—nuisance factors—versus in and out of Mexico which is almost impossible.
And you have hit the nail on the head. It is really a lot more than just infrastructure in the case of Mexico, whereas in the case of Canada the procedures and the state of infrastructures is similar enough that there really isn't serious problems.
Now having said that, unfortunately it appears at this point that the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National are doing a little better job on saying well, let's face it, we have solved a lot of the border crossings and they have been far more aggressive in serving American markets than has been the reverse, of American railroads penetrating into Canada.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
That is a concern we have raised, and certainly working with our mainline carriers I view that as just good competition in which we are all gaining because there's—for one thing, we are talking about so much business out there, as Dave has kind of inferred, in trans-Pacific trade that there is a lot of business out there for everybody but it is still a very competitive situation amongst ports and amongst regions.
Mr. LOHMAN. Mr. Chairman, this may be a little off the point but your question about non-infrastructure improvements gives me an opportunity to bring to your attention a problem we are having, not with freight movement but with people movement, where Asian residents coming to Portland through Vancouver, B.C., can get—I am not quite sure the right term—but it is pre-cleared in effect, going through INS in Vancouver, very successfully and very smoothly.
If they come instead, to Portland we have significant problems with detentions, all kinds of difficult treatment for some of those travelers that are actually causing some significant problems in the Asian business community in the Portland area.
We are trying to work with INS on this problem now but we apparently have the most stringent INS inspectors in the Portland area of anyplace on the West Coast, including Vancouver. So yes, there are non- infrastructure problems that can cause real trade problems.
Mr. PETRI. Well, thank you, and thank you all for participating in this panel. We appreciate the effort you made to prepare your prepared statements and your forthcoming answers to our questions.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:49 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[insert here]