Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
THE FUTURE OF THE WOODROW WILSON BRIDGE
Thursday, September 30, 1999
U.S House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Ground Transportation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas E. Petri [chairman of the subcommittee] Presiding.
Mr. PETRI. The subcommittee will come to order. We are meeting today to receive testimony on the future of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. The bridge first opened to traffic in 1961 and after nearly 30 years of service needs to be replaced. I think we all agree on that fact. However, deciding how to replace the bridge and how it should be financed has not been easy. There are a number of legal and environmental, financial and political issues that need to be resolved before construction can begin on the new bridge.
The purpose of today's hearing is to update the subcommittee on the status of all of these issues. This update will be useful for us as we consider what, if any, legislation is needed to move the project forward. It is no secret that I, for one, have serious misgivings about the Department of Transportation's proposal to simply have Congress provide $600 million from the Highway Trust Fund in addition to the $900 million already provided by TEA-21. Replacing the bridge, which is only part of the project that is owned by the Federal Government, is estimated to cost between $600 million and $700 million. The $900 million in TEA-21 is more than sufficient to cover the cost. The remainder of the price tag is for improvements to the Capital Beltway which is owned by Maryland and Virginia.
I point out that the bridge is federally owned only because the States refuse to take ownership. Even though they signed an agreement in the 1980s to do so. It seems to me the Department of Transportation and the States are making decisions about the size and scope of the project, and then sending the bill to us because the bridge is federally owned. I am sure that the two States' Secretaries of Transportation that are appearing today don't simply pay bills that appear in the mail for projects in Baltimore or Richmond, and neither should we.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I am not sure how I could explain to people back in Wisconsin that I support a bill to send their fuel tax revenues to Washington, D.C. to improve the Capital Beltway while the State of Wisconsin is struggling to come up with over $1 billion of its own money to finance the reconstruction of key interstate interchanges in Milwaukee.
However, I understand that we need to find a solution to the problem of financing this project. And I hope that today's hearing will allow us to explore other options such as innovative financing that could be used to move the project forward. I look forward with great interest to hearing from all of our witnesses this morning.
And with that, I yield to the Ranking Democrat on the committee who arrived a moment late because he had an important delegation meeting with the senior representative—Senator Byrd from West Virginia— Mr. Rahall.
Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this is the first time I can remember that we have had a subcommittee hearing convened on a single transportation project. So I think this clearly shows the importance we attach to this matter. And you referred to a meeting from which I have just come. So perhaps in the future, we will have such a hearing on Corridor H in West Virginia as well.
As our colleagues know, last year we passed the largest transportation bill in the history of our Nation, known as TEA-21. It extended the Federal-Aid Highway Program through fiscal year 2003.
During our consideration of this legislation, the administration requested that we include $400 million for the replacement of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. However, to their credit, many of whom are with us today, the Northern Virginia congressional delegation, aided by their Maryland counterparts, our dear colleagues, successfully fought to obtain a $900 million earmark of Federal funds. That was only last year. And I know how many long hours we spent in negotiations with the other body, coming down to the final hours of the conference on this important matter.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
One of the issues we will discuss today is what has transpired since we considered funding for this project only last year. The administration is now proposing that we commit the Federal Government to paying an additional $600 million for the bridge between fiscal years 2004 through 2007. This proposal is embodied in H.R. 2563, introduced by our colleague, Representative Tom Davis, joined with others of our colleagues.
In this regard, I believe, Mr. Chairman, we are faced with two fundamental issues. First, the appropriateness of this level of Federal commitment to the bridge replacement costs which, between TEA-21 and H.R. 2563, would total $1.5 billion in Federal funds. The second issue is whether it is fiscally responsible to commit Federal dollars for a single transportation project during a period beyond the current authorization of the Federal-Aid Highways Program, and indeed even beyond the expiration date for Federal fuel tax collections which finance the Highway Trust Fund.
So, in effect, the 106th Congress, this Congress, is being asked to decide a financing issue which may more properly be one which the 108th Congress should probably decide. Not knowing at this time what may be the nature of any reauthorizations of -TEA-21, the amount of funds that will be available, potential challenges to State apportionment formulas and the like, we nevertheless today are being asked to earmark a fairly significant amount of Federal spending for just one transportation project.
The replacement of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge is obviously of utmost importance and it is obviously a matter of regional significance, but it is one with a long history as well; a long history, including what appears to be constantly changing calculation of costs, allocations between Federal and State entities, and real or perceived agreements which may have been reached among the various entities. These are all part of the history of this issue today. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the panel of witnesses we have today.
Mr. PETRI. Unless there is objection, Ms. Norton, who is a member of the full committee, will be recognized for purposes of today's hearing as a member of the Ground Transportation Subcommittee because her constituents have a deep interest, obviously, in transportation in this region.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
At this time, Mr. Shuster, do you have an opening statement?
Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, less than a year and a half ago, we passed our major transportation bill and provided almost a billion dollars for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. That funding was more than double what the Department of Transportation proposed in their legislation and indeed the cost of the bridge itself in Washington is only $694 million. So most of the cost we are talking about now really is beyond the bridge itself. Between the $900 million that we provided and the $600 million asked for, this 1.5 billion is more than the 6-year total that 14 States received in -TEA-21 for their whole, entire highway program.
And I have been mystified, too, by one of the region's leading newspapers again editorializing in strong support of this bridge. Indeed when we passed -TEA-21, we were castigated. We were excoriated for pork barrel projects across America. Apparently if you spend a billion dollars on one project in the Washington area, that is good government, but if you try to build the rest of America, that is pork barrel spending. I don't quite understand this. It is too complicated for me.
I also see, time and time and time again, in the Washington Post, that this is a federally-owned bridge. First of all, there was an agreement made years ago, a compact that once funding was provided, the bridge would be taken over by the States. It would not be a federally-owned bridge. But unfortunately somebody reneged on that agreement.
However, in the law today, TEA-21, very clearly spells out that not a single construction dollar will be spent on this bridge until it is no longer a Federal bridge. Therefore, this continuous drumbeat of it being a federally-owned bridge is not accurate; not accurate, because it won't be under the law unless we once again are going to disregard the law. It is not federally owned.
Now, I realize that it is important to this region, but there are over 30 major interstate projects around America, each one of which is costing more than a billion dollars, which are very, very important to the rest of America.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I also have some concern about the added cost of the bridge as a result of it being a drawbridge. Why does it need to be a drawbridge? I think we need an analysis of who benefits from the drawbridge, and then perhaps there should be a fee charged to those who benefit from the drawbridge. That might be one way to help fund this. I think that is something we should look at as well.
So I have very grave reservations about this and yet I want to try to be helpful. I had a very productive meeting yesterday with Congressman Davis. I assured him I would be happy to try to find ways in which we could accommodate not only the needs of this region but the needs of the rest of America. And if we can find a package which not only accommodates transportation needs for this region but a package which also accommodates transportation needs for the rest of America, we may well be able to find a solution here and I certainly hope that is the case. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Chairman Shuster.
Mr. Oberstar.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is an important hearing. I subscribe to the statements made by the Chairman about our conference and the vast increase in funding for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge; an astonishing reality that this bridge's cost is more than several other States are going to receive. And it sets a very troublesome precedent for us in this committee, providing this amount of money for one structure and bypassing needs of many other parts of the country.
In 1954, before this committee authorized the interstate highway system and the Federal Highway Trust Fund, the Congress authorized construction of a bridge by the Interior Department to relieve traffic congestion for the District of Columbia at the site of what is now known as the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. A year later, Interior delegated that authority to the Bureau of Public Roads and the Bureau then built a bridge, and when it was completed it was declared by someone, by some entity, to be owned by the Federal Government. That is a great puzzlement to the Chairman and to me.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Wilson Bridge was designed to handle 75,000 vehicles a day, but a decision not to complete the interstate highway program through the District of Columbia shifted more traffic, so that now it is in the range of 190,000, far beyond design capacity, and it is supposed to grow to 300,000 vehicles.
What concerns me about this project, in addition to its vast dollar amount, is planned obsolescence. Whatever the design is, it isn't going to be sufficient to carry whatever traffic is going to be generated. Mr. Chairman, as cited so often, as I have referenced, the one constant in surface transportation is that projections of future growth have always underestimated rather than overestimated growth. Traffic is growing 5 to 6 times faster than population growth. It is growing 5 to 6 times faster than the economic growth of this country. I don't see how you design enough capacity into this structure to accommodate future growth that we haven't even fully foreseen.
There is no plan for mass transit, for example. You can accommodate as many as 3 times as many passengers with the rail transit system than you can with 4 lanes of interstate highway.
So I will look forward to hearing a lot, I hope, about functional service of this bridge, structural design life, flexibility of this structure, so we are not investing a huge amount of dollars into another bottleneck of transportation. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Oberstar.
Are there other members of the subcommittee who wish to make opening statements? Ms. Norton?
Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your indulgence. I will have just a brief opening statement. Indeed, I won't be able to stay the entire time. I will try to go and come back, because this is a hearing of great importance not only to this region but to the entire East Coast which it serves.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I can understand the comments of the Chairman of the committee and the subcommittee and my own Ranking Member, because this is curious. It is unique. It must be explained and I believe it can be explained. I don't think it goes off on ownership. I think we do have a dangerous situation with this bridge. There is no way to keep it from serving the East Coast from Maine to Florida and yet if it continues to do so, we in the District of Columbia and in the region are in great danger.
The region, of course, is not asking for the Federal Government to pony up the money without, in fact, calling upon its own funds. Not only is it calling upon its own funds, some Members have introduced legislation that would make additional funds available from the region so that there would be additional sources of financing. Somehow or other, this has to be done.
The region does not pretend that it will not be and should not be responsible for this bridge and for financing this bridge. I do think it fair, given all of the circumstances, for there to be some Federal contribution, and all I ask from my colleagues on the committee is that everyone have an open mind for what I think will be some facts, figures, and other matters that may not be entirely clear.
That is why I once again want to thank the Chairman for calling this hearing so appropriately so that we could hear the matter out. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Are there other members who wish to make opening statements? If not, I now recognize staff to give a quick overview of the legislative history of the bridge.
Mr. NOBER. Good morning, Mr. Petri, Mr. Rahall, members of the subcommittee. I would like to give a brief overview of the eight prior congressional actions related to the Woodrow Wilson Bridge to try to put in some historical context some of the issues that will be raised this morning. As Mr. Oberstar pointed out, the bridge was first authorized in 1954 by an act of the D.C. Committee to provide for two bridges, the Roosevelt Bridge and the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, which wasn't called that then, and provided $24 million for the construction of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
That act, while providing that the Federal Government would construct the bridge, required Maryland and Virginia to build the approaches and interchanges leading up to the bridge to make it functionally useful.
The following year, in 1955, the D.C. Committee transferred the authority to construct the bridge from the Interior Department to the Commerce Department, where the Bureau of Roads at the time was located, and also required that the maintenance and operation of the completed bridge be undertaken by Maryland and Virginia. So for the first time, the Congress envisioned that the overall upkeep and ongoing maintenance of the bridge would be undertaken by the jurisdictions and not the Federal Government.
In 1956, the following year, it was named the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. The next action was in 1961 to statutorily mandate the maintenance shares between Maryland, Virginia, and D.C. for the maintenance and ongoing operation of the bridge. The next action was not until 1981, which is the subject of some debate, where the Federal Government provided $60 million for the rehabilitation and redecking of the bridge, contingent upon an agreement between the jurisdictions and the Federal Government to transfer ongoing maintenance, rehabilitation, and repair of the bridge.
That led to the agreements mentioned by Mr. Shuster, one in 1982 which was signed by Maryland, Virginia, D.C., and the Federal Government to provide that. First, the Federal Government would provide the $60 million for the redecking of the bridge, and second, that Maryland, Virginia, and D.C. would agree to take title of the bridge. A second agreement in 1985 provided that the jurisdictions would indeed take title of the bridge upon successful completion of the $60 million project; it also provided that the Federal Government was obligated to seek more funds for the bridge for any future construction or reconstruction that was needed.
The next action was in 1991 where ISTEA provided a $15 million general fund authorization and approximately $30 million contract authority authorization for repairs to the bridge.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The next major action was in 1995, which I know most of you remember in the NHS bill, which created the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge Authority. It was an interstate compact of Maryland, Virginia, and D.C. which was to take title to the bridge and provide for the reconstruction of the project. It left open what the Federal share would be, and it, in addition, provided for a negotiation between DOT and the area jurisdictions as to what the ultimate cost, design, and Federal share of the bridge would be.
The last action prior to TEA-21, was the Federal Government committment of approximately $169 million to the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, $15 million for its initial construction and then another $153 million for its maintenance and upkeep over the years.
Mr. BERTRAM. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, included $900 million in contract authority over 6 years for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. The funding is available and is included under the guarantee provided in the Highway Trust Fund under the firewalls. TEA-21 also stipulated that none of the funds can be available for construction until an agreement has been reached for transfer of the bridge ownership, and it also required that of the $900 million, the cost of crossing over the bridge would have priority over any other funding in the project.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Now we will entertain testimony from the first panel. I am not sure if all of the members are here, but some may come as the panel begins. Scheduled to be on the first panel are Senator Warner from Virginia; the Honorable Tom Davis and Jim Moran, also from Virginia; Representative Morella from Maryland; Representatives Hoyer and Wynn, from Maryland as well; Representative Pombo and Representative George Radanovich, from California. Shall we just go down the list, or have you made arrangements as to how you would like to start?
Mr. Davis?
Mr. DAVIS. Could we start with Mr. Moran? He has an appropriations markup and then I will go next.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
TESTIMONY OF HON. JAMES MORAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM VIRGINIA
Mr. MORAN OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Chairman Petri, for having this hearing, I think. I wasn't all that encouraged by your opening statements, but I guess it is good that you are having a hearing. We wouldn't get very far, I guess, without the hearing. But it does give us an opportunity to testify on what is a matter of vital importance not just to our constituents in the entire metropolitan Washington, D.C. Region, but interstate commerce along the entire I-95 mid-Atlantic corridor.
As members may be aware, the Texas Transportation Institute found in its annual survey of urban road conditions that this region suffers from the second-worst congestion levels in the Nation. The report stated also that the annual cost of vehicle delays and wasted fuel for this region totals more than $3.8 billion annually, meaning that it ranks the region first in the Nation in per capita cost in wasted fuel and time.
So we have the worst, most expensive situation in the entire Nation. No place is this traffic problem more critical than at the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. Cramming 8 lanes of Capital Beltway traffic and the equivalent of 2 additional lanes from the Route 1 and I-295 interchanges just adjacent to the bridge into a 6-lane bridge causes bottlenecks of massive proportions. You can't cram what is basically 10 lanes of traffic into 6 lanes on the bridge. On a normal day, traffic backs up as much as 2 to 4 miles during rush hour, but on a bad day, the entire region can shut down because of what happens on the Wilson bridge.
Last November we caught a glimpse of what the future may hold if there is no progress on a replacement bridge. On November 4 of 1998, a distraught individual contemplating suicide forced the closure of the bridge for several hours. The traffic congestion caused by this suicide attempt wasn't just limited to the bridge and the Capital Beltway. Major transportation arteries across the region were overwhelmed by rush-hour commuters seeking alternative routes home. Delays as long as 2 to 3 hours were seen at Tysons Corner, way out to the west of the region, in Greenbelt, Maryland. And in Alexandria, virtually all of the streets became parking lots.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Now, you could ask, Why didn't we just push the guy off the bridge? But we are not going to get into that. The fact is that this is what could happen in the region if we don't expand the bridge, because the transportation infrastructure of this region has already exceeded its saturation point. Rush-hour conditions are a 24-hour-per-day phenomenon. We have no extra capacity to absorb traffic disruptions on any of our major transportation arteries. Nowhere are we more vulnerable to such episodes of regional gridlock than at the Wilson Bridge. Its rapidly deteriorating condition compounds the situation that Virginia and Maryland could face and could be forced to restrict traffic, truck traffic on the bridge, and close lanes more frequently for repairs. That is the only alternative if we can't build a new bridge very quickly.
The consequences of restricting truck traffic in this region would be devastating. The communities I represent, particularly Alexandria, would bear the brunt as truck traffic would go through the residential streets and local roads to get to the next river crossing. It would affect the entire Northern Virginia region. It would bring gridlock to the entire western part of the Beltway. Essentially it would break down Northern Virginia's transportation system if trucks can't cross the Wilson Bridge.
Unfortunately, the potential ramifications of the April ruling by a U.S. District court is further delay. Construction of the bridge pilings could be delayed for up to a year if the Federal Highway Administration is forced to undertake a full supplemental environmental impact statement to comply with the court ruling. The U.S. Department of Transportation and the Justice Department are appealing that Federal district court ruling. I think they have a good case.
Senator Warner, nice to have you with us both physically and nice to have your strong support for this issue.
But as we speak, a new legal challenge is being prepared that could halt further progress. Citing ISTEA's financial constraint, if you don't have all of the money identified in advance, opponents of the bridge could sue to suspend further work on the project until the region can demonstrate that sufficient revenues are reasonably expected to be available to cover the full cost of the project. They would have a very credible lawsuit.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Their success in court, however, would affect more than just this bridge. It would halt approval of the entire regional transportation implementation plan. This region could no longer access any new Federal transportation funds or advance any new projects, such as the further improvements on the Springfield interchange, the so-called ''mixing bowl,'' an extension of our massive transit system, until the two States resolve the bridge's funding shortfall. The transportation gridlock and economic harm this ruling could impose on this region would be monumental. That is why we have to have the funding identified in advance, even if it isn't going to be appropriated or made directly; it has to be identified. Otherwise we can't proceed, based upon Federal law.
Now, the key question: Does the Federal Government have a responsibility to address this transportation crisis? The answer is yes. The Federal Government owns the bridge. Its responsibility extends beyond its $900 million contribution. When Congress authorized the construction of the Washington Capital Beltway, it established the Federal Government's ownership of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, but it refused to authorize a sufficient amount of funds to build an adequate bridge. Congress ran out of funds and built the bridge on the cheap. That is what happened. Of course, it didn't expect that as much traffic was going to use the bridge as now uses it because 395 was supposed to go straight through the District of Columbia.
When you have both building a bridge on the cheap and have more traffic than was ever anticipated, you will quickly exhaust its useful life. You can go on a tour of this bridge and see what happens when you stretch engineering standards and place the pillars and supports too far apart, and that's one of the ways we saved money. It was not well built in the first place. No amount of repairs can cure this design problem. And even if you could find a way to reduce the vibrations that tear up the bridge's surface with greater frequency, the bridge's design structure precludes the addition of more lanes to accommodate current or projected future traffic flows. Designed to handle 75,000 vehicles a day, this bridge carries close to 180,000 vehicles today, about 20,000 heavy trucks. In another 20 years it will be 300,000 vehicles, as the Chairman has suggested.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
There have been on-again, off-again discussions with D.C., the State of Maryland, and Virginia about acquiring the bridge. Congress needs to appreciate the challenges of creating a multistate ownership arrangement, but we are going to do it. We are going to take it over but we are not going to take it over until the bridge is built adequately. Then we will take over the maintenance, but we don't have the money and we don't have the responsibility of assuming the cost of rebuilding the bridge.
The larger the Federal contribution, the greater the prospects of success of this regional arrangement. This bridge is an asset that any State should be anxious to acquire when it is completely built. It is a liability if it is not adequately built. You can't assume and expect the States to assume a nearly $2 billion liability. -TEA-21 was generous, but $900 million is only half of the cost.
I will conclude now. We all know that the four interchanges that are part of the project and part of the $1.9 billion price tag are not part of the bridge but they are integral to its future functionality. If the tables were turned and the States owned the bridge, the Federal Government would not accept ownership of the bridge without assurances that the interchanges had been improved. So why, when the Federal Government owns the bridge, should it not assume some of the cost of improving these interchanges?
Federal ownership has been a mixed blessing. Had the bridge been owned by either State instead of the Federal Government, it would have been included as part of the State's interstate cost estimate. Federal funding could have been available under ISTEA, to provide up to 90 percent of the cost to replace the bridge, and Federal funds would not have come out of the State allocation but off the top.
One last thing. The Bureau of Transportation's statistics estimates that this bridge is directly responsible for at least $58 billion of this Nation's gross domestic product, and these are even old figures. Numerous East Coast cities are within its daily travel—what they call the ''travelshed.'' If we deny this $600 million, it is going to affect the national economy; there is no question about it. The entire East Coast commercial network relies upon this Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge. We have no choice.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
It would be great if we have a northern and southern bypass. We need two more bridges. The States are willing to take more of the share of the cost of those, but at this point the Woodrow Wilson Bridge is our only alternative. It has got to function, and our Nation's economy depends on its functioning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Moran.
Senator Warner, we are honored by your presence.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN WARNER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Senator WARNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We had a vote in the Senate this morning, precluding my appearance earlier. But I want to go back to about I think—around 3 o'clock in the morning, a small office in the Senate that I had, as Mr. Shuster, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Chafee and myself—and about the last item on TEA-21 that was decided was this bridge. In fairness to my colleagues, I said at that time and continuously throughout the initiation of the $900 million on the Senate side, that at some point in time we would be here, as we are today, addressing what I call the final installment.
Colleagues here have described the need for the replacement. I will not go over that. I would like to ask unanimous consent to have my statement put in.
Mr. PETRI. Without objection.
Senator WARNER. It is very clear that this bridge is likened to one's heart. We are having a clogged artery and I say there is no bypass surgery. We have to simply assume the responsibility and replace this bridge. The cost of the structure, and the design, we have to leave to the Department of Transportation. That is their responsibility. Congress should not get into the design business. But we do have the responsibility to put in place in a timely manner the financial structure. So I close by urging the House of Representatives to take the initiative with regard to the final installment, as did the Senate with the down payment. Thank you very much.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Senator Warner.
Representative Davis.
TESTIMONY OF HON. THOMAS DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM VIRGINIA
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see the problem now. In 1954, the original authorization came from the D.C. Committee and then they transferred jurisdiction to this committee. If you give it back to the D.C. Committee, Mrs. Norton and I would be happy to handle this prickly thorn for you and be able to resolve it quickly.
I ask unanimous consent my full statement be included in the record so I can just give some of the highlights.
Mr. PETRI. Without objection.
Mr. DAVIS. Each day that goes by on this is money down the drain. It costs the Federal Government $250,000 annually just to inspect this bridge. It needs over $300 million in repairs to keep it operational. If in fact—Mr. Moran talked about the gentleman who one day just closed off the bridge and we had massive gridlock around this region. If we have to detour trucks off this bridge to save it, because we are at a standstill in terms of how to fund this bridge, because if we don't have a complete funding package, as was mentioned earlier, this construction can't move forward. Those trucks going into other areas around this region will bring it to its knees and bring East Coast transportation to its knees.
Let me mention some of the important factors surrounding the bridge which is federally owned, and which I think on testimony from the two States, you will understand why the transfers that were contemplated didn't take place from the Federal Government to the States, and how we can ensure that that takes place this time around.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
If Federal aid is provided to a State highway or a bridge project, the State would have to demonstrate to U.S. DOT that the project complies with a number of Federal regulations and they have to be able to meet area traffic needs for a 20-year planning horizon. The States have simply asked the Federal Government in this case to fulfill its responsibility to the States and comply with the same mandates. Indeed, the 12-lane structure paid for through the authorized TEA-21 meets the Federal Government's first obligation in that it replaces the bridge. However, this would not address the two existing interchanges on the Virginia and Maryland sides of the bridge.
In order to support a 12-lane structure, they have to be entirely reconstructed under Federal existing regulations. Had the bridge been jointly owned by the States, the interchange and bridge adjustments would have been made part of the long-range transportation planning done by both States and the interchanges would now be up to date. But instead, the Federal Government has owned this bridge and was unwilling to address bringing the bridge or interchanges up to date for a number of years.
The States' commitment to the region is highlighted by contrasting the management of the other major Beltway bridge crossing to the north. Maryland and Virginia have always worked cooperatively to effectively update the American Legion Bridge crossing and make all necessary improvements to the relative interchanges to ensure they adequately serve that portion of the Beltway. As a matter of fact, if the Woodrow Wilson Bridge had been owned by the States in the 1980s, it would have been replaced as a part of the interstate completion program and been funded at 90 percent level by the Federal Government, with only a 10 percent contribution from the States. But instead, here we are in this financing legislation—under this legislation, would be 80/20 instead of 90/10 which we would have benefited from earlier.
At the mid-point between Maine and Florida in the interstate system is where this bridge lies, and it carries an unusually large amount of interstate commerce up and down the East Coast. Since 1988 was the year that the bridge began carrying twice its design capacity. In 1996, AAA cited the Woodrow Wilson Bridge as one of America's top 10 worst highway bottlenecks.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Moran talked about 1.3 percent of the gross domestic product carried by truck crosses this bridge annually. That is a $58 billion figure, and I am certain has only increased in the last 7 years. Four hundred fifty miles is the average distance traveled by truck shipments once they have crossed the bridge. I would like to note the many cities that fall within this 450-mile travelshed to the north and to the south: Boston, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Norfolk, New York City, Richmond, Raleigh, Newark, Savannah, Hartford, Trenton, Elizabeth—and I could go on. Forty-nine percent of heavy trucks, or 7,000 trucks crossing the bridge, go beyond the immediate area. That means consumers up and down the East Coast would face higher prices for products and services if trucks had to be rerouted and delivery of products slowed. These are consumers who want to know why prices have gone up and live and work in congressional districts well beyond this immediate area.
As a southern crossing point for the Capital Beltway, the bridge has carried more traffic and heavy trucks than it was designed to hold. And we have already gone through some of those numbers and my complete statement refers to that. Let me just note that in TEA-21, this committee and the 105th Congress recognized the Federal responsibility for the bridge and funded the construction at $900 million. However, the States remained adamant that this was not enough funding for the project and secured a commitment from the administration to develop a plan to fund the remaining costs of the bridge.
After several alternative funding formulas were considered, the administration came up with a proposal that includes $600 million advanced authorization on the next, the next TEA-21 bill. It is not coming out of anybody's authorization this time. And the States would pick up the difference, $400 million under current cost estimates, but should those cost estimates go up, that burden does not fall on this body or the Federal Government, it would fall upon the States.
In conclusion, I just want to say that if we do not get a funding formula together, this bridge could be held up for years because under the Clean Air Act, we have got to have completion in terms of how this is going to be funded. We look to this committee, look forward to working with you to do some innovative solutions and appreciate your holding this hearing today.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Representative Morella.
TESTIMONY OF HON. CONSTANCE MORELLA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MARYLAND
Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rahall, and members of the Subcommittee on Ground Transportation. I, like my colleagues, appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you today the prospect for funding for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. Replacing the Wilson Bridge is a matter of critical importance not only to the residents and the commuters in our Washington metropolitan area but to the national interest as well.
As you know and as you have heard today, and I know that you are very knowledgeable about it, the bridge is critical to the flow of national commerce along the eastern seaboard. It is located at the midpoint of Interstate 95. It is an essential link moving goods from Maine to Miami. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation—and you just heard that from my colleagues—I reiterate, at least 1.3 percent of our trucked gross national product crosses the Wilson Bridge every day, products such as food, paper, coal, electrical machinery, and petroleum carried across the bridge on a daily basis, and about $100 billion of our Nation's economy is dependent upon the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.
As you know, if you have driven over it and from what you have read, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge is deteriorating. It is crumbling. It is decaying at a very disturbing rate. It is an aging bridge, one that is overloaded with more traffic than it was meant to handle. When it was built in the sixties, it was designed to carry a maximum of 75,000 vehicles a day, and now it carries 3 times the number of vehicles, including 7,000 heavy trucks and 7,000 tractor trailers. The pavement is pockmarked. The constant pounding of too many cars and trucks is causing its steel structure to weaken. I had a group of engineers in my office last week. They told me in no uncertain terms that, quote, ''the Woodrow Wilson Bridge is an accident waiting to happen.'' .
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I am just going to ask unanimous consent to include most of my statement in the record and just bring out a couple of other little points.
Mr. PETRI. Without objection.
Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you. During rush hour, the backup at the Wilson Bridge can extend for miles. Eight lanes of Beltway traffic squeezes into 6 lanes on the bridge. The ramps are substandard. The cloverleaf interchanges are operationally deficient and, as you know, Maryland and Virginia are responsible for the interchanges. But even if the States made substantial improvements, the bridge could not handle it.
I want to point out also in response to comments made in the opening statements with regard to looking into the future, Mr. Oberstar and Chairman Petri, that frankly the 12 lanes are anticipated in the future and lanes 11 and 12, I understand, are for express bus or rail. So there is the concept of looking into the future with this project.
So I appreciate the opportunity with my colleagues to appear before you. I believe very strongly that we have to construct a new bridge that will provide mobility for the 21st century, preserve the environmental standards, and protect the interests of those most affected by the scope and design of the bridge. I think we can do that, but with your help. Thank you very much.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Representative Wynn.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ALBERT WYNN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MARYLAND
Mr. WYNN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Let me first begin by thanking you for convening this very important hearing and also recognize and thank you for your previous generosity. It has not gone unnoticed and certainly the citizens of my district are appreciative. The bridge ends—one end of it occurs in the Fourth Congressional District, which I represent.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I would also like to ask that my full statement be included in the record.
Mr. PETRI. Without objection.
Mr. WYNN. Thank you. I would also like to note that our Secretary of Transportation, Mr. John Porcari, is here from the State of Maryland, and we are unified throughout the State and throughout the region, obviously, in our desire to receive this funding package.
It has been my observation that redundant testimony does not help the cause, so I will refrain from doing that. I just want to make a couple of quick points and emphasize the strategic importance of this bridge along the interstate system. Estimates of between 58 billion and $100 billion of GNP I think are accurate and growing. That reflects the importance of the bridge.
The question regarding the interchanges was raised and I think it has been well recognized that it is national policy that in any bridge project, the interchanges be included as part of the bridge. Otherwise, you have a bridge standing in the middle of water, going nowhere. Third, I would note that this bridge has twice the accident rate of any similar highway in Maryland or Virginia, as well as the American Legion Bridge which spans the northern Beltway crossing the Potomac River. So it is clearly a significant problem.
The comment was made earlier about the role of Maryland and Virginia. We are prepared to assume our responsibility. The States have entered into an interstate compact which would assume responsibility for ownership of the bridge, assuming we get the money to build it, but more importantly, we are assuming responsibility for operation and maintenance of the bridge.
I note that although today we have a bridge designed with 75,000 cars that is carrying 190,000 cars, by the year 2020 we will have 300,000 cars; and those maintenance responsibilities, which will be considerable, will fall upon the States of Virginia and Maryland as well as the District of Columbia.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Again, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to belabor this issue. I believe the committee has all the essential facts. I would provide one historical note, however, going back to Mr. Oberstar's comments. In 1954, I am told, that the true driving force behind the construction of this bridge was the fact that committee staff used this bridge to get back and forth to work and they were concerned about backups at this time. Some committee staffers said the same thing to me today, so I hope not only on behalf of the traffic and the economic impact but in consideration of our committee staff that the committee will look favorably upon our request. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Representative Pombo.
TESTIMONY OF HON. RICHARD POMBO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA
Mr. POMBO. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that my entire statement be included in the record.
Mr. PETRI. Without objection.
Mr. POMBO. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to come here today and have the opportunity to testify on the Wilson Bridge. I want to start off by saying that I support the efforts of my colleagues to expand the Wilson Bridge and to have the opportunity to take care of a local transportation problem that they have. But it was mentioned earlier that one of the local papers editorialized this morning the necessity of doing this work. I will tell you that in my district, 3,000 miles from here, I have had newspapers editorialize on the Wilson Bridge as well, but for a very different reason. That reason is that as this has moved through the process, an effort has been made to subvert or somehow get around some of our Nation's environmental laws.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I would like to point out that because of something that Mr. Wynn said, a lot of my constituents feel that it is because congressional staffers and Congressmen and people that work in Federal buildings have to use that bridge, that all of a sudden our Nation's environmental laws somehow have a different importance and that somehow we can put them aside and that somehow we can put this on the fast track and get it through and not do all the work.
Now, I see some faces up there and people are looking and saying, Oh, we are not going to do that. We are not going to put aside our Nation's environmental laws. There is no way that we would ever do that. And yet as this bridge has moved through the process, I will point out to you that at no time during this entire process has a section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act been done. At no time has the Fish and Wildlife been called in and consulted with the Federal engineers on this particular project to see if there was an impact on our endangered species, and yet just a few miles from this bridge we have an 84-year-old property owner who owns a single house lot, who was told he could not build a house on his lot because he was near a nesting bald eagle, and so he—because he was a single property owner in a small lot in northern Virginia, he was told he couldn't build on his property because there was a nesting bald eagle. And within just a few miles of the Wilson Bridge, there are nesting bald eagles. There are other endangered species, aquatic species in the area, and never was a section 7 consultation ever done.
The reason I bring that up is because I would like to remind my colleagues and bring you back to 1997 when my congressional district was under water and we had hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland that had flooded. We had lives that were lost. We had families that were destroyed. And I brought a bill to the floor, along with Congressman Wally Herger, which would have allowed an exception to the section 7 consultation if human life were in danger or to prevent a substantial risk of serious property damage, and every member of the area delegation voted against that legislation because they did not want to subvert our Nation's environmental laws. I had people die. I had families destroyed. I had hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland that was under water at the time that that bill came to the floor, and yet it wasn't important enough.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Now, I believe that this bridge is important. I believe in taking care of our responsibility on the Federal side and I believe that this is a mess, and I don't question anything they have said about the necessity to do this. But I will tell you that in order to go forward with this particular project or any project in any of your districts, that if the laws need to be changed, if they are unreasonable, if they don't make sense, if there is a way to make them more streamlined, I am all for it and I will work with any of you to make that happen. But when my district is under water and my constituents are dying and you all have the nerve to come to the floor and vote no on not exempting them from the Endangered Species Act, but the requirement that they bring in the Fish and Wildlife Service for a consultation, I think that there is a hypocrisy in that, and I would ask the committee to take that into consideration in your deliberations.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Representative Hoyer, it is your call; we have a vote on the floor, we have 10 minutes. The first one usually runs a little bit longer. If you would like to proceed, go ahead.
TESTIMONY OF HON. STENY HOYER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MARYLAND
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Petri, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rahall, members of the committee, and distinguished Ranking Member, as I refer to him, Chairman in exile, Mr. Oberstar, I will just take a short time and ask that my full statement be included in the record.
Mr. PETRI. Without objection.
Mr. HOYER. I know that my colleagues, Mr. Davis, Mrs. Morella, Mr. Wynn, and Mr. Moran have already articulated the rationale for this additional funding. Very frankly, I am sure they have also pointed out to all of you that your committee anticipated this need in the legislation that we passed, -TEA-21. In that, you provided for spending up to $1.5 billion. Effectively I think you knew then, as we know now, that such assistance will be essential if this project is to be completed.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I am sure you have heard from my colleagues of the ownership of this bridge and know it very well. Clearly it is the Federal ownership that is a distinctive factor in your consideration of this matter. The fact of the matter is that effectively this project will be an 80/20 project, not a 90/10 project when it is through if you pass this funding; but the more stark fact is that the locals will not be able to afford to complete this project without further help.
You have been generous in TEA-21. We appreciate that. We hope that you will stay the course, realizing, yes, this is an expensive project but it is a critical project not just for the Washington metropolitan area whose members speak here, but I suggest to my friends from the West it is a critical project for them as well, because without the completion of this project, without the assurance that this bridge can handle the capacity that interstate traffic demands of it, the Washington metropolitan area, the capital of the United States, will be in gridlock; and that will adversely affect every visitor, every worker from around the country who comes here, and that therefore makes this a national project, which is the same reason that metro was funded in the fashion it was and viewed by the Congress in a bipartisan fashion as America's subway.
I don't call this necessarily America's bridge, but it is owned by all Americans and it services all Americans uniquely. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to appear. I urge the committee to approve this additional funding so that this very important capital project can be completed in a timely fashion. I thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Representative Hoyer.
Representative Radanovich, we don't want to short-change you. We are going to have to leave in about 2 minutes.
Mr. RADANOVICH. I would be happy to come back if it is okay with the Chairman.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PETRI. We will recess until 7 minutes after the last vote commences. Let's say until 20 minutes after the hour.
[Recess.]
Mr. PETRI. We will resume. And I understand we are honored today by the presence of Senator Robb who is able to join us. We would welcome the opportunity to hear your testimony, sir.
TESTIMONY OF HON. CHARLES S. ROBB, A U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Senator ROBB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate very much the opportunity to come over and to be a part of a solid delegation. I am very pleased, Mr. Chairman, to be able to tell you—.
Mr. PETRI. I should say you are an honorary Badger because of going to the University of Wisconsin.
Senator ROBB. I will pursue that particular honor a little later if I may, Mr. Chairman, but I do appreciate your holding a hearing on funding for the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge. Let me just say, if I may, that this is clearly the number one transportation concern for the entire region, and it has been for a long period of time. The bridge has become a particularly vital link for the region since the decision was made to divert most 95 traffic away from downtown Washington, through what would, I think anybody would recognize, be simply an unmanageable downtown traffic gridlock,
and over the Woodrow Wilson bridge
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the region now shares the dubious distinction of being judged number 2 in gridlock in the nation. To make matters worse, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge is literally falling down, and we have some very serious time constraints with respect to getting this particular job done. It was my hope, frankly, since this is the only bridge owned by the Federal Government, that the Federal Government would have accepted the responsibility for the full replacement of this bridge earlier.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Political reality dictated that we move in a slightly different direction, and we finally got the administration fully supportive of this approach in June of this year. Senator Warner and I are now working with Senator Mikulski and Senator Sarbanes to gain approval on our side of the Capitol. There is not much more that I can add to what I think all of my regional colleagues have already said, except that this is the most important item on the agenda.
We have finally brought everyone to the table. You are going to hear from Virginia's Secretary of Transportation momentarily. She and I were just talking. I won't preempt her testimony to tell you what the State's position is—suffice it to say it is supportive. We are all moving in the same direction on the same time frame at this particular point. Our principal concern is the possibility of a lawsuit that might challenge the bridge construction based on the lack of a reliable, stable, dependable source of funding. The lawsuit would bring the project to a halt and might force us to turn away trucks or other heavy vehicles.
I have seen statistics, and I can't verify every single percentage point, but more than half of the trucks heading north go beyond this region, more than half of the trucks heading south go well beyond this region, so it is a truly national problem. I don't think anyone would take issue with the fact that U.S. 95 is the most important north-south artery on the East Coast, and to have this bridge not be available, particularly for some of the truck and heavy volume traffic, would truly be—disaster may be a little strong, but it would be a major disruption in all of the commerce and the traffic in this particular region.
So I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the opportunity to simply show the flag where we are working hard on our side. I am very grateful to you and to your committee for taking up this important issue. If there is any information that we can provide to you, we would be delighted to do it.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Representative Radanovich.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
TESTIMONY OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA
Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to submit my full statement for the record.
Mr. PETRI. Without objection.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I am here as a Chairman of the House Western Caucus, which represents the views of many public lands States. The House Western Caucus is made up of about 58 Members of Congress representing about 24 States. And in general, our shared vision is about protecting the quality of life in rural America. That mission includes protecting jobs and the environment of the places that we call home.
I am going to tell you why regulatory gridlock on the Wilson Bridge is such an important issue for members from public lands States. Western Caucus members have a lot of Federal land in their States. For example, Oregon's Second District is 58 percent Federal land. The State of Idaho is 64 percent Federal. Utah, 65 percent Federal land owned. In Nevada it is 85. In fact, in Nevada, Mr. Gibbons' district, there are about 6 national forests, 2 national parks, 2 wildlife refuges, and 14 Federal wilderness areas.
In my district, which runs along the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California, it is 75 percent federally owned. We have 3 national parks, 3 national Forests, and thousands of acres of wilderness. We place great value on these resources, but there is a problem when Federal agencies in Washington have more to say in my district than our State representatives, our county commissioners, our mayors, and our citizens.
In the West, every project must comply with a myriad of Federal laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, several grazing and mining acts, and various national forest, refuge, park, and wilderness acts. These laws are made and administered in Washington but they profoundly affect our constituents.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Few of these laws, however, directly affect people in the east or in the urban areas. The result is a critical separation between Easterners and urbanites who vote on the laws and the people who live under them.
When Judge Sporkin wrote in his opinion on the Wilson Bridge, he said he was reluctant to halt construction because it is so important, so urgent, in fact, that Congress should bypass the regulatory gridlock. I did an informal poll and found more than 100 projects on hold due to regulatory gridlock in the Western Caucus districts, from flood control and drainage in California to bridges in Pennsylvania, gas fields in New Mexico, and Wyoming, timber sales in the Pacific Northwest and North Carolina, and roads in every State.
The fact is Federal laws do create regulatory gridlock. The gridlock can damage local economies, hinder development, and, worse, endanger human life. This dilemma on the Wilson Bridge which poses such jeopardy in Washington happens in every one of our districts every year. The fact is, importance is relative. But we see this as an opportunity to finally work with our eastern and urban colleagues to inject some common sense and expedited process into some of our Federal laws.
We are steadfastly opposed to any special fixes for the Wilson Bridge. The problems in the laws and regulations go well beyond the Beltway. The problems are systemic and we need a systemic fix in the law. The people in our districts deserve better. They deserve better than one law for Washington, D.C. And one law for the rest of America.
And I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to come before you. I look forward to working to resolve this problem. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you for your testimony.
Are there any members of the panel who have any questions? Most of the people who testified have left, but Representative Davis has returned.
Mr. Pease.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PEASE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Davis, Tom, have the Maryland and Virginia delegations considered options for either forward funding from the next transportation reauthorization bill or an amendment to the current one that would take some of the discretionary funds granted to Virginia and Maryland and earmark them for this project?
Mr. DAVIS. I think we have looked at all the alternatives. This basically does forward funding. Instead of taking it from other States' percentages, this forwards funds out of the next legislation, but it takes it off the top instead of as a percentage. Instead of the $900 million that we got under -TEA-21, this would take $600 million off that because it is a federally-owned bridge and because of the opportunity we had to fund this 90/10. We were stopped from doing so because the Federal Government owned the bridge and we couldn't work out other items. I would just note that under this legislation, should the costs go up as they have consistently done through this, the States will bear that cost. The Federal Government is off the hook as costs go up.
Mr. PEASE. I appreciate that. Would the States consider the other option of earmarking current discretionary funds authorized in TEA-21 for this project?
Mr. DAVIS. I think they will be here and you can answer more fully their ability to do that. I think Maryland took somewhat of a hit, actually, comparatively in the last authorization bill. Virginia got a little bump up, but it is still only 91 cents on the dollar. Mr. Wynn may be able to answer that.
Mr. WYNN. My response would be this. Maryland is a pretty small State. Point in fact, all of our TEA-21 funds have been earmarked for local projects. We are going to contribute to this project, without question. We are committed to the tune of over $200 billion now. It will increase with increased costs. But I emphasize operating and maintenance, which is now the Federal Government's responsibility, will now be Maryland's and Virginia's responsibility, and that is going to be substantial. Again, 190,000 cars now, 300,000 by 2020. So we are participating with—Maryland just could not take the hit of having to fund a project of this dimension out of its TEA-21.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DAVIS. If I could make one other note. The administration originally was going to have a lower match from the States. It was after the congressional delegations that we didn't think that would fly. We upped the amount the States would pay under this particular legislation. The States would now be responsible for any increases in cost and this would lock that in.
Mr. PEASE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Rahall?
Mr. RAHALL. No questions.
Mr. PETRI. I have one question, really, for the members of the region who testified. They are not here, so maybe we can ask that they submit a response in writing. That is: Would you be willing to have your State-Federal highway apportionments offset in the next reauthorization bill by the amount of any additional funding you receive for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge?
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Petri, let me just say, speaking for myself, and I know the States will have a different answer, I think we need to look at all the options on the table. The reason for that is if we can't come up with some forward-financing option in this, we may not get the bridge through at all. It can be challenged, as you know, under the Clean Air Act for not having a completion cost allowed to it. I think to take all of that out of the State's allocation I think it would not—you would find there wouldn't be any money left. I think we need to look proportionately at what we need to do to move this through. As far as I am concerned, we are willing to look at all the options.
Mr. WYNN. From the standpoint of Maryland, I think that would be a difficult haul. I think we would obviously have to involve the government, Secretary of Transportation as well, but I think Maryland would find it very burdensome to have to do that because we have forward funded some things already. We have, for example, a lot of Beltway interchanges on the interstate system that we have responsibility for that we fund out of that as well, but obviously no option can be absolutely foreclosed at this point in time.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Franks.
Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Chairman. I would like to first recognize and thank Mr. Radanovich for recognizing that the regulatory morass which he has encountered on a whole host of western issues has now come to bear on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and he is willing to work with those of us who are concerned about the viability of that critical bridge as we look for the appropriate fix, but we need to recognize that it has application beyond the bridge itself. But, George, thank you.
Mr. RADANOVICH. I appreciate that comment.
Mr. FRANKS. I particularly thank you, George because they calculate there are over 7,000 trucks traversing this bridge every day, and upwards of 20 percent of those trucks either originate from or make stops in my home State of New Jersey; which is not just around the corner, it is up the East Coast a ways. This is a vital artery. This is an absolutely critical transaction link for the East Coast. The decisions about that bridge can't really be isolated to the Beltway because their impact is felt, candidly, 500 miles away very readily.
Mr. Davis, I am confused, though, about the threshold issue of who owns this thing. The committee chairmen come in and say we really don't own it. I have heard repeated references to the fact that you guys say we own it.
Mr. DAVIS. It is a federally-owned bridge, Mr. Franks. I will let our State people talk about the history of this. Twice, Congress has tried to move this back on the States to take control and they have agreed to do that. The difficulty has been to be able to work out the fine print. Number one, was the bridge up to the standards where the State could accept it as contemplated by the agreement? The State of New Jersey wouldn't take over a local road or a county wouldn't take over a local road if it wasn't up to standards. They would make first that local jurisdiction come up and meet the standards before they would accept that road into the system. That has been one of the problems.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The other was the problem of even under the contemplated agreements there was going to be an allocation over and above the regular State allocation of money that would be earmarked for the bridge. I think there has been difficulty getting that through this year. Those have been the two holdups in the arguments between the Federal and State governments.
One of the things this legislation wants to do is bring these disagreements to an end and resolve it once and for all. The cabin John Bridge, which is the bridge crossing on the other side, is owned by the States. That has worked beautifully. We have been able to finance that without any problems because we have been able to take advantage of other Federal programs as they have come up, some of them with 90/10 matching money. In this case it is federally owned; we are doing worse than if we owned it ourself.
Mr. FRANKS. Tom, there is a bridge 25 miles from my house called the George Washington Bridge, which has an unbelievable level of traffic. That bridge is operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey under a bi-State compact. I have heard reference to a bi-State effort that would ultimately maintain operational control over this bridge, but there is not yet in place any such bi-State compact; or not?
Mr. WYNN. The legislation is in place subject to this appropriation. I don't want to put it crudely, but basically the States have committed in legislation that we will take ownership of the bridge as soon as it is built or the funds committed for it to be built and will assume the operating and maintenance costs.
Mr. DAVIS. It would be similar to what has happened to the Cabin John Bridge, which now the States work out between themselves. And even now the States are paying maintenance costs on the bridge. We are not foisting all of that on the Federal Government.
Mr. FRANKS. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Any other questions?
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, if I could just say one thing briefly. I appreciate Congressman Franks' comments regarding this. I just wanted to, since Representative Pombo is not here to tell the story about the levee in California that broke in January of 1997—very briefly, because I don't want this committee or this Congress to be in a position of waving and changing laws for the benefit of economies or commuter convenience when people are actually killed over the lack of the same privilege not being conveyed in other circumstances.
In California there was a levee agency, or water agency that regulated a levee, that was trying to get repairs to a levee that they knew was weak and needed to be repaired. Took them 6 years under section 7 consultation to finally get the permits to go in. Unfortunately, they only got permission 1 week before the floods hit, and it did not give them time after 6 years of knowing there was a problem out there, and the heavy rains came and broke a levee and drowned three people. Three innocent lives.
And I just want to say to this committee that I think it is a real problem if you are making laws for the sake of economies and convenience while you are not going to allow for the same laws to be changed to protect human life. That is why I am here today and I hope that you will keep those priorities in mind because this is happening. This has happened in more than one instance. That is just one example.
But that is why Mr. Pombo was here today, and I would just hope that the committee keeps in mind those priorities.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. As long as it is a national bridge, we will be taking a national look at it and you have helped us do that.
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Bateman.
Mr. BATEMAN. Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make some brief observations. If more was being asked than a 90/10 split, it would seem to me there would be essentially something outrageous above that, but in reality what is being asked is less than a 90/10 split for something that is an integral part of and an actual segment of an interstate highway.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I don't understand why there is so much controversy about the degree of Federal participation in the construction or reconstruction of a part of an interstate highway.
The other comment I would like to make is, I am very sympathetic to Mr. Radanovich and to Congressman Pombo's concerns and I think an understandable aggravation, that for something that involved public safety, they couldn't convince a majority of the Congress to give relief to what in my view are too frequently egregious overregulation. I have a memory good enough to reconstruct how I voted on that particular legislation, but I am fairly confident that I voted for it. I certainly would have voted for it, if I knew any of the connotations of what has been described by Congressman Pombo today.
I would like to address a lot of excessive regulation that hamstrings public works improvements throughout these United States, and I will be happy to join with you at the earliest opportunity that we stand any prayer of getting that done. In the meantime, because your project involving the levies and the risk of flood and public safety should have been cleared of any unnecessary regulatory constraints, doesn't necessarily mean that therefore we don't do so in other instances where there is good reason to do it. So I hope we can come together and we can solve the broader problem. But the failure to address the total problem should not really be an impediment to addressing a part of the problem that is a very important one and where there is a very distinct national and Federal interest involved. I thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. With that, we will conclude Panel I. Thank you all for your testimony.
The Honorable Carol Schwartz has a conflict in timing and asked if it would be possible for her to offer her testimony at this time rather than at the scheduled time. So if she could come forward, we will attempt to accommodate her.
She is the Chairman of the National Capital Region, Transportation Planning Board, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, and a Member of the Council of the District of Columbia. Please proceed.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
TESTIMONY OF CAROL SCHWARTZ, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BOARD, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, AND MEMBER, COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ACCOMPANIED BY RON KIRBY, DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BOARD
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. If you are wondering about the whistling sound, this room whistles when the wind blows outside.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. So I shouldn't take it personally. Good morning, Mr. Petri, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Carol Schwartz. I am an at-large member of the Council of the District of Columbia and I currently serve as Chairman of the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board. You see that is a mouthful, so in the future, I will just call it TPB of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
I wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for accommodating my tight schedule by letting me give my statement now. I appreciate that.
The TPB has been designated by the Mayor of the District of Columbia and the Governors of Maryland and Virginia to serve as the metropolitan planning organization for the Washington region in fulfillment of the metropolitan planning requirements of the Federal-Aid Highway and Federal Transit Administration Programs. Members of the -TPB include representatives of the transportation agencies of the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia, 18 local governments, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and the Maryland and Virginia General Assemblies, with non-voting members from the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority and Federal agencies.
The Woodrow Wilson Bridge is currently the most critical transportation problem in the Washington region. Its limited 6-lane capacity makes it a regular bottleneck during peak commuting hours and during heavy weekend and holiday travel. Designated to handle 75,000 vehicles a day, the Wilson Bridge currently carries 190,000 vehicles a day, with another 110,000 vehicles per day expected by 2020. A large number of the vehicles on the Wilson Bridge is traffic going through the region including, as stated earlier, 7,000 heavy trucks carrying goods beyond the metropolitan area. The constant wear and tear of heavy truck traffic requires expensive continuing maintenance and rehabilitation of this ailing structure. In the event that continuing deterioration of the bridge causes lane closures or a ban on heavy trucks, the local jurisdictions would be severely impacted by diverted truck traffic. Such diversions are already experienced when accidents occur on the bridge.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
A new bridge designed to handle critical traffic demands well into the next century is badly needed. The Woodrow Wilson Bridge and its surroundings have been the subject of extensive study and debate over the past 7 years. -TPB members participated in a coordination committee formed in the spring of 1992 to oversee the project studies, and in January of 1997 the -TPB voted unanimously to include the coordination committee's preferred alternative in the region's Long Range Plan and 6-year Transportation Improvement Program.
Most recently at its September 15, 1999, meeting, the -TPB voted again to include the coordination committee's preferred alternative in the 1999 amendments to the Long Range Plan. These amendments were released for public comment at the September 15 meeting and are scheduled for final approval by the TPB at its next meeting on October 20. Critical to the TPB's decision on October 20 is the availability of funding to cover the entire $1.9 billion cost of the Wilson Bridge Improvement Project.
As you know, the metropolitan planning requirements included in Title 23 and Title 49 of the United States Code require that the Long Range Transportation Plan and 6-year Transportation Improvement Program adopted by the TPB include financial plans demonstrating that adequate funds from public and private resources are, quote, ''reasonably expected to be available.'' and we do have this deadline of October 20.
The financial plan included by the TPB and the draft Long Range Plan and Transportation Improvement Program released on September 15, 1999 is consistent with the provisions of H.R. 2563, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Financing Act of 1999, introduced on July 20, 1999. Specifically, the financial plan includes $900 million authorized in the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge Authority Act of 1995, as amended, $600 million under H.R. 2563 and $402 million provided by the Capital Region jurisdiction, also in accordance with the requirements of section 2(e) of H.R. 2563.
Approval of the Long Range Transportation Plan and the 6-year Transportation Improvement Program by the TPB is required in order for the transportation agencies of the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia to include the Wilson Bridge Improvement Project in their State transportation improvement programs for approval by the United States Department of Transportation. These are necessary steps in order for the project to move forward to construction.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And an indication of your positive support is needed by October 20 for this vital project to proceed, a project which has local, regional, national, and thus Federal Government significance.
After many years of study and debate, all of the affected Federal, State, and local agencies are ready to begin work on the replacement of this critical facility, but we need you now. The TPB is pleased to play its part in addressing this longstanding transportation need in the Washington region.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I want to express my appreciation for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. And thank you very much.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
I do have two questions. If you have a moment to respond. First, aren't there a number of innovative finance options such as State bonds backed by Federal highway funds that would satisfy the requirement to identify full funding for the project? We are not the only way of doing it, are we?
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Well, I would like, if I could, to bring up the Director of Transportation of the Transportation Planning Board at this time, and that is Ron Kirby. And he is our real financing expert on these issues so I would like to defer to him if I could.
Mr. KIRBY. Thank you, Chairman Schwartz. As was mentioned in earlier testimony, a number of financing alternatives have been looked at in putting this package together, and at the current time there is a reliance on additional Federal funding to make up the full cost of the bridge. There is a commitment, as Chairman Schwartz mentioned, of $402 million from the States of Maryland and Virginia as part of the total cost in accordance with the House bill.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PETRI. I understand that total financing for the bridge is currently the financing method that is actually in your transportation plan, and since that is in your plan and went through the planning process, why aren't you pursuing that particular option?
Mr. KIRBY. The current proposal, as Chairman Schwartz mentioned, which is out for public hearing, does rely on the additional funding that is being discussed at this hearing. The timing is critical, as she mentioned, in that we need to make a decision on this plan within the next month or so and need some positive indication of reasonable expectation of funding being available. So, absent that, we would have to go back and revise the current proposals and come up with another alternative.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. I would just like to add, an alternative would delay the project a considerable amount of time, and I think we all realize the timeliness of the need.
Mr. PETRI. Are there other questions? If not, thank you.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Thank you and also thank you again for accommodating my schedule.
Mr. PETRI. The second panel will be comprised of Mr. Peter J. Basso, the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs and Chief Financial Officer of the U.S. Department of Transportation; Mr. Ken Wykle, who is a familiar face at these proceedings, who is the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration of our U.S. Department of Transportation; and Raymond DeCarli, Deputy Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Gentlemen, please come forward, and I think we will start with Mr. Basso.
TESTIMONY OF PETER J. BASSO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS, AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; KENNETH R. WYKLE, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; AND RAYMOND J. DeCARLI, DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rahall, other members of the committee. Mr. Wykle actually is going to summarize our statement for us so I will just make one very brief comment, that we appreciate on behalf of the Secretary the committee holding this hearing so appropriately and giving the kind of attention—and we particularly appreciate, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rahall, the opportunity we had to meet with you last week and discuss in a very constructive way the issues. So let me defer to Mr. Wykle.
Mr. WYKLE. Good morning, sir, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the critical issue of the future of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. As indicated, I am joined today by Jack Basso, the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs.
The Wilson Bridge, the only segment in the interstate system owned by the Federal Government, needs to be replaced. The bridge is a key transportation route for the metropolitan area of Washington, D.C. and a vital link in the Interstate 95 corridor for East Coast commerce. Functionally, it is deficient. It is too narrow, it is unsafe. Two times the number of crashes occur on the bridge as opposed to any other place around the Beltway area. It is structurally deficient. It is deteriorating. The main supporting members of the bridge are fatiguing and they cause ever-increasing costs to repair and maintain the bridge.
The total Wilson Bridge project is defined in legislation and environmental documents as a replacement of the bridge and the reconstruction of the 4 interchanges, 2 in Virginia and 2 in Maryland. So it is one complete project. During the environmental study phase, the determination was made that, for operational and safety reasons, the project had to include reconstructing these four interchanges. The estimate of the cost for replacing the bridge and the interchanges was developed in 1995 using a detailed estimating process developed by the Maryland State Highway Administration, based on previous bid prices for like-type projects.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
This process is the basis for the current total project cost estimated to be $1.89 billion in the year of expenditure, assuming completion in 2006.
This estimate includes a 35 percent adjustment or contingency factor to account for cost variations that may occur as the design of the project progresses. Following completion of the preliminary design phase next month, a more refined cost estimate will be prepared.
The Federal Government's ownership of the bridge, together with the very significant cost to replace it, has made the problem of how to share the costs particularly difficult. A substantial portion of the cost of the bridge project is due to the reconstruction of the previously mentioned adjacent interchanges and to the need for mitigating the impacts on wetlands, parks, and historical sites. On all other interstate bridge projects, the Federal share is not an issue. States are subject to the normal Federal-State matching requirements established in Federal law.
For the Wilson Bridge project, we have no precedent or law to guide us on the Federal-State share of a project to replace a federally-owned interstate bridge. We also have no guide to what the Federal share should be for reconstructing State-owned interchanges to accommodate the new approaches to the replacement of a Federal bridge and the increased number of through and local lanes.
The legislation that we sent to Congress on June 28 addresses these funding issues. It provides for an additional $600 million in Federal funds. Maryland, Virginia, and the District have committed to provide the additional $400 million necessary to complete the project out of their regular Federal-Aid Highway apportionments and State funds. We believe this is a reasonable and fair proposal to resolve this very difficult issue.
Quite frankly, if the additional Federal funding is not provided, the available options are limited: substandard approaches and interchanges connecting the bridge, which would not provide the service, the congestion relief, or environmental mitigation that Congress envisioned in TEA-21; or the State could redirect funds from other projects and accept long-term debt with the potential of impacting their bond rating.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Agreement on financing for the new Wilson Bridge is crucial to keeping the project on schedule. We certainly want to work with the committee and your Senate counterparts and with the State transportation departments to develop Federal-State commitments that are fair to all parties and will get the job done.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my remarks. We look forward to your questions.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Are you making a statement, Mr. DeCarli?
Mr. DECARLI. Yes, sir.
Mr. PETRI. Proceed.
Mr. DECARLI. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rahall, members of the subcommittee, we appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning to discuss the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project. On Monday we issued our first and certainly not our last report on this project. Our testimony this morning will discuss four issues that we presented in that report. They are the cost increases, the funding needs, ownership and environmental issues, and the level of service after the construction of the new bridge.
First let me turn to the cost increases. In 1995, the Federal Highway Administration estimated that it would cost $1.9 billion to complete this bridge. Since that estimate was prepared, we have identified an additional $227 million net increase in cost to the project. These increases could bring the total cost to $2.1 billion. The major cost increases that we found were for contract change orders, overtime work, soil stabilization, and disposal of additional dredge material. There is a detailed discussion of those issues in our report.
At this time the Federal Highway Administration does not want to adjust the 1995 estimate. They believe there are two reasons why they don't want to do that. The first one is that the original estimate contains sufficient flexibility to offset the $227 million increase, and the second one is that the preliminary design process which is scheduled to be completed by the end of the year will provide opportunities to reduce costs further.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Quite honestly, Mr. Chairman, we can't tell you at this time whether or not the $1.9 billion estimate can absorb those cost increases. Having reviewed numerous large construction projects in the past, we noted it is not unusual for costs to increase even after designs are completed and construction is well under way. Because of that uncertainty, we have suggested that Congress place a firm funding limitation on the total cost, or a cap on the Federal amount that will be provided to the project. We think that would make it clear to everyone what the Federal commitment would be, and there would be no expectations for additional funding.
The second issue that we raised is the adequacy of the Federal commitments. I think it is pretty clear that there is a funding shortfall at this point in time, so I don't think I need to elaborate on that issue. But the point is that to meet the 2004 date for completion of the first span, bids for construction contracts must be advertised by May of 2000. That is only 7 months away. Therefore, there is an immediate need to find the solution to how this project is going to be financed if that time frame is going to be met.
The third point that we talk about are ownership and environmental issues. Even if the Department wins its pending court appeal, there are other issues that have to be resolved before construction begins. First, TEA-21 specifically prohibits the use of any of the Federal funds until a new owner of the bridge is identified. The jurisdictions and the Department have met, but a decision has not been made as to how that would work.
Second, the project officials must prepare and the Army Corps of Engineers must approve a wetland mitigation plan. That is an environmental issue.
Third, as mentioned before, there are bald eagles in the construction area, and Federal highways must meet with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine whether a mitigation plan will be required. Hopefully these issues can be resolved fairly quickly once the funding decisions are made.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that currently the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, according to the Transportation Research Board criteria rates an -F on its scale. That means it is one of the worst service providers on the Interstate system. However, once the new bridge is built, that bridge will only provide a level -D service when it is opened in 2006. And, by the year 2020, it will revert back to an -F level of service.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
To summarize, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things still to be done and done quickly to keep the project on schedule. Simply stated, the Department must complete the preliminary design and reestimate the cost of the project, sufficient funding must be committed and a finance plan must be prepared, a new owner must be identified and, finally, the project must comply with other environmental requirements.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes our statement and I would be pleased to answer any of your questions.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you all for your testimony. As you know, there is a vote that just started on the House floor. I understand you were busy testifying all day yesterday over in the Senate, so I am torn. We have a long series of questions. We could come back and ask them. We could submit them for you to respond to for the record, given there is a fair amount of interest in this region and among some of the other people testifying, or you might prefer that approach or come back in a half hour and respond.
Mr. BASSO. Mr. Chairman, we would defer to whatever you would like to do in this regard.
Mr. PETRI. Then we will recess for half an hour and then reconvene.
[Recess.]
Mr. PETRI. Thank you for staying around. As I indicated, I did have a number of questions that staff had prepared. After reviewing the testimony, I thought it would be helpful to give you a chance to respond now—or if you want to add testimony later, that is fine too— first, to explain why $600 million now, when in 1997 the proposal from the administration for funding the bridge was $400 million.
Mr. BASSO. Mr. Chairman, let me explain that. At the time we set up the $400 million request, that was a rough approximation of what the cost would be to replace the bridge exactly as it exists today. The 1958 structure didn't have any magic or technical skills. It was just a number. We ultimately in the administration obviously came around to the thinking that $900 million as the Congress enacted was a better way to go and a necessary way to go. In the final analysis, adding this additional $600 million really is to address the need to get the bridge to completion.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
You will hear from a lot of people about technical issues: This could have been 90/10, could have been all of that. I want to dismiss all of that, sir, and get to the heart of the matter. We have an equation for the bridge and the intended interchanges. It works out to about an 80/20 split between the Federal Government and the States, not the bridge itself but the total project. We think that is an equitable split. We think it is critical for all the reasons you heard earlier.
I won't belabor that point to get the facilities built. It affects the eastern United States, and the administration therefore came forth with the extra 600 million which we thought would allow the States and ourselves to reach an agreement, get the bridge transferred, get the facility built.
Mr. PETRI. Has the Department ever attempted to enforce the 1985 agreement between the Federal Government and Maryland and Virginia and the District where they agreed to accept ownership of the bridge? And if not, why not?
Mr. WYKLE. We did some research on that, sir, in preparation for this. We found in the files—.
Mr. PETRI. Before your watch.
Mr. BASSO. Before my watch, but a legal opinion was issued by the Department that they did not feel it was enforceable in terms of the previous agreement in the mid- 1980s.
Mr. PETRI. So you have some opinion from counsel in the Department.
Mr. WYKLE. We have an opinion from the counsel within the Federal Highway Administration. We would be happy to provide that for you if you would like to have that.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[The information received follows:]
[insert here]
Mr. PETRI. Could the States use—I guess they are called GARVEE bonds, where the States pay principal and interest with their regular Federal highway apportionments to finance the cost of the approaches and interchanges?
Mr. BASSO. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think Representative Davis probably said it well. There are a whole range of options that could be used. GARVEE bonds are one of them, innovative financing techniques, but I come back basically to what I think what I said earlier: This project really comes down to a unique situation requiring a unique negotiation and the States are expected to kick in 400 million or more than that. The IG mentioned the fact that we propose a cap on this project. There is already one in legislation, but I want you to know we strongly support a cap that would end any future special funding for this project.
Mr. PETRI. In your written statement you say there is no precedent as to how to fund this federally-owned bridge and the State-owned approaches; but what about the 1954 bill that explicitly required Maryland and Virginia to pay for the approaches when this project was originally—.
Mr. WYKLE. I don't have the background as to all that happened during that period of time. We have discussed perhaps what may have happened or influenced that. Some of the witnesses this morning commented on the interstate completion program. It was in existence about that time so States could apply for Interstate completion money which was over and above their federally-apportioned dollars. That program expired a couple of years ago, and so the States had other Federal sources available to them, separate from the normal Federal-aid dollars, which are not available today. I will provide additional information for the record.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
[The information received follows:]
[insert here]
Mr. PETRI. There has been a lot of—I think the Chairman alluded to this in his opening statement and there have been letters to the editor and I think some columns in the local press about the drawbridge feature of this bridge and the cost and necessity of it. Do you know if there has been any analysis of whether it would make economic sense to buy out, the Washington Post—I think they are the main commercial user with that subsidiary that owns a newsprint distributing company and imports that by water. Would it cost them to relocate, or the other users, as opposed to the Federal Government just ignoring and picking up the extra costs of the drawbridge? Is that an accurate—is that what we are talking about? How much would we save if we didn't have the drawbridge feature?
Mr. WYKLE. Let both Jack and me respond to that. I can tell you from the standpoint of looking at all the options in terms of crossings and types of bridges, those types of things were considered. They looked at a tunnel to preclude needing the drawbridge. They looked at a high bridge so vessels could go under. They looked at a low bridge. They looked at a combination bridge-tunnel. Ultimately the group involving the State or States, the Federal Government, and the local community decided that this was the preferred option. Whether or not they actually looked at the cost quote to relocate the warehouses and so forth, I don't know. I will let Jack answer.
Mr. PETRI. My understanding, in fairness, is that occasionally the drawbridge does go up to accommodate the movement of military vessels. How essential that is or whether there are alternative ports or places that those ships could move to, I don't really know either, but it seemed to me that you either build a bridge to accommodate the user or you change the use so you don't have to build the bridge that way, and that is an alternative that we ought to be willing to discuss or think about. Or if someone has looked at this, I don't know if it has been looked into. That is why I am asking.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BASSO. Just a couple of comments, and we could give you more detail for the record. There was clearly consideration of those options. There are other—you mentioned military uses. It is fairly limited but there is military use. There are also occasions when tall ships come up the river that, frankly, a high bridge couldn't accommodate those, and the costs would be prohibitive if you reach the point of that; but I know there were some analyses. I just don't know the detail, but I would certainly be happy to get that for you for the record.
[The information follows:]
[insert here]
Mr. PETRI. It seems to be in selling this we need to pin down as many things as possible if people are going to be satisfied that we have done our job.
Have you recently revised your earlier estimate that heavy truck traffic would have to be banned from the current bridge in 2004, or is that projection still in force?
Mr. BASSO. Let me just tell you the answer to that—I have had this experience on a radio show. The fact of the matter is that the study that was done some years ago that suggested in 2004 we would have to ban the trucks was based on no improvements or repairs being made to the bridge and things moving forward. We have since obviously come with congressional approval invested in making the necessary repairs in keeping the bridge functional. If I am correct now, I don't think anybody is suggesting that in 2004 we would have to post this bridge for trucks. I think the real issue gets down to what we have to do in terms of investment if we continue with this facility to prevent that from happening. So I think that is a fair statement, and my colleagues from Maryland and Virginia might have something to add to that when they are up.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PETRI. What are the prospects for building the 12-lane bridge if the government loses its appeal of the district court's April decision halting progress on this proposal due to environmental and historic preservation problems?
Mr. WYKLE. Well, if we lose the court case, then certainly we will have to comply with the guidance from the court which was—and we are doing currently--the supplemental EIS to really look at the 10- versus 12-lane option as well as the NEPA piece of that, the clean air as well as the historical preservation piece. So we would have to go back and really look at that, and then come back with another solution. If that occurs, then we will delay the project for at least one year. If we are successful in winning the appeal, then we think the construction schedule will stay as it is now.
Mr. PETRI. Finally, isn't it true that even if we kept the Federal contribution at $1.5 billion, the States could still use their Federal highway apportionments to pay for the costs of the remaining project?
Mr. BASSO. My understanding, Mr. Chairman, as to the bridge itself, they cannot use their Federal aid apportionments on the bridge itself. It is true that they could certainly use Federal aid apportionments for the interchanges and that kind of work but we went through a fairly complicated exercise yesterday which concluded that on that point, they still have to maintain 20 percent State funds in the interchanges that are not involved and attendant to the bridge itself. So it is half true and half not true I think is probably the right answer.
Mr. WYKLE. I think the real key there is the NHS Act and it was fairly specific in terms of the 80/20 match.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Terry.
Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will probably use my time to make more of a statement. Some of my comments may be rhetorical and you may wish to answer them, although I don't necessarily direct my comments at you personally. This provides me an opportunity to vent, so to speak.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
First all, let me introduce myself to you, gentlemen. I am Lee Terry. I am from Omaha, Nebraska, and I represent an area that is right along the Missouri River. And I will tell you, as I use the Wilson Bridge almost daily while we are in session and I certainly share some of the frustrations of the people that have to go over that by way of delays, I want to express a bridge situation in my district. Two of the counties that I represent have one bridge in Sarpy County and Cass County. We have been trying for years to try and get those two bridges replaced.
While your testimony here today discusses the traffic and the grade of -F, which is the worst level of congestion you can get for an intersection or a bridge, and that we can spend a billion and a half dollars and upgrade it to a -D, when we talk about grading the bridges that I am referring to, we use an engineering safety scale of numbers of 1 through 30, and both of these are in single digits.So in my district when we talk about bridges—excuse me for being parochial here—we talk about safety, not congestion and delays.
Now, the other issue is in funding. Last year's ISTEA, what was it, 900 million, was put aside and criticism was that is not enough. Well, we talk about safety of people going over those two, only two bridges in those counties—not convenience and delays but safety—you know, how much money was put aside for those bridges in my district? Zip. The message to the people in Omaha, Nebraska, Sarpy County, Cass County, and the people on the other side of the river in Iowa is that the Federal Government cares more about the convenience of Virginians and Marylanders than they do for the safety of Nebraskans and Iowans.
I have got to share that frustration. It is hard for me, even though I go over that bridge, but I listen to that radio and I hear about—excuse the term ''whining,''—but we have been beating our head against the wall. Congressman Bereuter dropped a bill just to try and get some attention to these two bridges.
And another thing that really just, I tell you, astounds me as I listen to the news reports on the radio about this bridge and some of the testimony I have heard here today, is about how the local government is saying that the Federal Government has to pony up more money for this project to share in their costs for the approaches. While these communities are railing the Federal Government to accept more of the cost and responsibility, do you know what the communities in Sarpy and Cass County are doing? They are trying to get legislative authority from the State of Nebraska so they can tax themselves to build the darn bridges, because they know the Federal Government, even though these are U.S. Highways, aren't coming forward. They think that we want to use all of the Federal money to build bridges in Virginia.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
You know what? I can't defend that when I go back to my district. And it really is discussion of safety versus convenience, and I can't defend that. And I am angered as well. And so it frustrates me to hear what I classify as whining.
Now, does it need to be done? I am not going to deny that. But this is being placed at a much higher priority than other areas in the country, when the issues concerning bridges are the safety of the people that are using it. The bridge in Bellevue is rated at 05. You guys know what that means. That means we will probably have to close the darn thing in a year or two or truly risk it collapsing while people are using it. They have already banned trucks. And again, that is the only bridge in Sarpy County and we are talking about the bridge in Cass County is rated at a what, a 9? Both are in single digits but yet we want to focus more on building 12-lane bridges to get it from a grade -F to a -D.
To me, I just think we have misplaced priorities here in Washington and I think this is a classic example of it. So if you want to defend the action, I appreciate it.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your letting me vent some of my frustrations and, like I said, I don't mean it personally. It just gave me an opportunity to get on a soapbox for 5 minutes.
Mr. BASSO. Congressman Terry, let me say this not to defend at all, but let me say I share your frustration and I have great respect for what you are saying. We have across the country made progress on bridge deficiencies, but it is one of the most significant problems we have here in the region. Obviously we are trying to address this issue but let me say we have great respect for what you are saying, sir.
Mr. TERRY. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Cummings?
Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just have a few questions.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
As I was listening to Mr. Terry, I certainly can sympathize. I am sure you all do too, and I think that the issues that he raised are very, very important but I don't want us to get off of the fact that we have a safety issue here too; is that right?
Mr. BASSO. Yes, Congressman, we definitely have a safety issue here. The accident rate on this bridge I am told is substantially higher than the rest of the region for these kinds of facilities and increasing.
Mr. DECARLI. According to our data, the Wilson Bridge accident rate is 153 accidents per 100 million miles, around the Beltway in Maryland and Virginia it is in the 75 to 87 range. So it is almost double on the bridge.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, tell me with your proposal, the 400 million and trying to come up with the 900 million. What happens in the ideal world if everything worked together? What would happen that would actually reduce—that you would hope would reduce what you just said? In other words, the accident rate. In other words, taking that money, how does that money translate into saved lives, avoiding injuries and whatever?
Mr. BASSO. Let me answer it this way. I don't know I can give you the exact like per-dollar kind of equation but here is the situation. The bridge currently funnels the Beltway, which is at some points 8 to 10 lanes, into a 6-lane funnel. This funnel clearly is a major contributing factor to the accident rates on the bridge and obviously the volumes being channeled like that. So building the facility that has been proposed would clearly substantially align the bridge structure, its environs, and its approaches with the flow of the Beltway and certainly would be expected to improve substantially that condition. General Wykle might have a better engineering judgment than I.
Mr. WYKLE. There are several things that this new facility will do to improve safety, and certainly as Ray DeCarli mentioned, the current crash rate is double what it is other places within the local area. But, additional merging lanes as you come out of these two interchanges on each side of the current structure will be provided, so that it will be easier for oncoming traffic to merge with existing traffic. There are going to be shoulders on the bridge. There are no shoulders there now. If a car stalls or there is a crash, there is no place to move to the side, and we found, through rubbernecking, slowdowns and so forth, that creates additional crashes. So, getting that out of the way more quickly and getting it off to the side will reduce the number of accidents.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Also, the proposed design of this bridge separates the local traffic from the through traffic so you have a better traffic flow. This in itself will cut down on the weaving and the lane changing that currently occurs there. There is a multitude of features that are built into this design that are going to significantly improve safety.
Mr. CUMMINGS. When you think about 1995, you are talking about a highway that is much more for—much more than Maryland, D.C., and Virginia, and I would think—the significance of it to the East Coast is tremendous; is that correct?
Mr. BASSO. That is correct. It affects the flow of traffic up and down the whole eastern seaboard.
Mr. CUMMINGS. And so one of the concerns that has been raised is when you are looking at the District of Columbia, what the District of Columbia may be putting in—I don't know if this was raised earlier or not, but many of us believe that the District of Columbia doesn't have too much to put into much of anything, because they are trying to come back up and make sure that they keep their city going. What are you all looking at from the District money-wise?
Mr. BASSO. Currently the District doesn't have a specific dollar commitment to the project. It is principally Maryland and Virginia. We had some discussions with the District, but haven't settled on anything. One of the things to make a point and not to diminish the District's role in this at all, the District of Columbia property actually sits in the middle of the river. It is basically an island down the middle of the river. So while it affects the District dramatically in terms of traffic flow, the actual property and control of it is very minimal, frankly.
Mr. CUMMINGS. In the ideal world, once you finish this, when do you see us revisiting it, assuming that your proposal goes through and accomplishes the things you hope to accomplish with these funds—and I know regular maintenance. But do you see us in this situation, say, 30 years from now, 25 years from now? What have we learned over these years? What bridge has been there and other bridges that will help us to maintain it so that we can have maximum longevity?
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BASSO. I think with regard to the first question, the key feature here is to transfer ownership. I don't think we will find, assuming we accomplish that which we have to do to make the project go anyway, that we will find the Federal Government in quite the unique situation it is in now. The Cabin John Bridge was mentioned earlier. This would be handled just like the Cabin John is on the Beltway, by the States with their Federal aid funds or long-term plans and that sort of thing. So I don't really see, if all turns out properly and in fact ownership transfers and the funds are provided, that we will face this situation in the future. And I think the maintenance question, clearly the States, I am sure, will do what is necessary and proper to properly maintain the facility, which is something that a lot has been done over the years but in the early years was not done. Unfortunately, I hate to admit I have been around since 1964 dealing with this, a little of the history, and I was hoping Chairman Petri would do me well and let me retire.
Mr. CUMMINGS. I just want to just go back to one question, and that is one you left off. Technology—we have learned a lot I am sure in the course of years, my question is that are we in a much better position now to preserve what we are about to rebuild to preserve it than we were say back over 20, 30 years ago?
Mr. WYKLE. I would certainly think so. It is very difficult to predict the future, but we have done a lot of work over the last several years in terms of researching new materials, new construction techniques, composites of fibers, polymers, new surfaces, all of those types of things that, theoretically, should extend the life of this new bridge much farther than the current bridge. So I think, without question, this new structure will last through three-quarters of the next century.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much.
Mr. DECARLI. You are also facing a lot of additional traffic. So even as you build a new bridge, the projections are with the additional traffic, you are still going to have congestion 20 years from now.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PETRI. Ms. Norton?
Ms. NORTON. No questions.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much.
Mr. PETRI. The next panel is comprised of the Honorable John D. Porcari, Secretary, Maryland Department of Transportation; the Honorable Shirley J. Ybarra, Secretary, Virginia Department of Transportation; and Ms. Vanessa Burns who is the Director for Operations, District of Columbia Department of Public Works. We apologize for the fact that the hearing is lasting a bit longer than we may have anticipated at its beginning, but we look forward to your testimony and we may as well start with Mr. Porcari.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN D. PORCARI, SECRETARY, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; HON. SHIRLEY J. YBARRA, SECRETARY, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; AND VANESSA BURNS, DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. PORCARI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. I am John Porcari, Secretary of Transportation for the State of Maryland. I wanted to make three general points in my testimony today: First, the importance of this project to the region and to the Nation; second, the justification for House bill 2563; and third, the commitment that the two States are making here.
Our congressional delegation made the first point, the importance of the project, much more eloquently than I can, and Secretary Ybarra and I had prepared joint testimony. If it is the pleasure of the subcommittee and in the interest of time, we can just submit that testimony.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. It will be made part of the record.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PORCARI. I would like to make some general points on the justification for the $600 million and then address some of the questions and issues that have come up in the testimony so far.
The House bill 2563, the additional $600 million which would complete the funding plan for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge is, we believe, absolutely necessitated by the physical construction that needs to take place as part of the bridge reconstruction. You simply cannot replace the Woodrow Wilson Bridge with the 12-lane section that will accommodate future mass transit without completely reconstructing the inner interchanges. That is 295 in Maryland and Route 1 in Virginia. The physical changes of the bridge alone will require that.
Further, as you get to the two outer interchanges—and we will talk about those in a little more depth—Maryland 210 on the Maryland side and Telegraph Road on the Virginia side, likewise the bridge construction necessitates changes in those interchanges as well.
But the essential point on the funding is the $400 million commitment, actually $402 million commitment between the two States, funds the outer interchanges and makes it an 80/20 project. We believe very strongly that a 12-lane section with a local and express lane division and the accommodation for future HOV and transit is the minimum required for this bridge to serve into the next century.
Had this been a State-owned bridge rather than federally owned, it would have been subject to that same 80/20 requirement which again would have necessitated 12 lanes. We believe that it is fair that the same standards should apply both at the Federal level and State level.
One of the questions that came up both directly and indirectly earlier today was why the two States can't afford to pay more than 20 percent of the project cost, again, $402 million among the States. The $200-plus million that Maryland has come up with is coming from our general fund. It is not coming from our Transportation Trust Fund. In Maryland that is the same fund where our school construction, law enforcement, parkland and open space and other statewide requirements come from. Our Governor earmarked $200 million out of the general fund for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge replacement because this is an extraordinary obligation that we cannot fund from our Transportation Trust Fund.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Further, the $600 million in additional funding covered by this bill if the two States were to be required to cover that on the Maryland side of the river, that would be 15 to 20 percent of our entire Federal Highway-Aid program over that program period, or over 75 percent of our program in any given year. We truly believe that $200 million from our general fund is the only way that we can maintain the highway system we have in place and fund the Wilson Bridge.
One of the other questions that has come up from the subcommittee this morning is the question of GARVEE bonds or bond financing for that $600 million. I will not speak for the Commonwealth of Virginia, but on the Maryland side of the river, we have capital debt affordability ceiling. That $600 million, the Maryland portion of it, whether it was GARVEE bonds or bonds that we sold through our own means, would be counted against that capital debt affordability ceiling and would preclude other State priorities. We have an absolute upper limit because of that, and the repayment of that would likewise come out of other highway needs that we would not be able to do because of that.
The question came up in the earlier testimony regarding tolls and whether toll financing could be used for the bridge. As you know, at one point that was under active consideration, and the Governors of both States have stated that they do not think tolls are appropriate for this facility. I want to very briefly describe why.
Tolls work as a means of financing highway projects on specific highway segments if there is no alternative routes or if the alternative routes have capacity on them to accommodate that. And anyone who has traveled in the Washington metropolitan area knows that the other bridge crossings, the 14th Street Bridge, for example, do not have the capacity to accommodate that. Putting tolls on Woodrow Wilson Bridge would strain every other bridge crossing up and down the Potomac, and they are already very congested.
The final point I would like to make very quickly, there were environmental issues raised, and those are very important. Congressman Pombo had mentioned the Endangered Species Act and its applicability. There is currently a section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act under way right now for this bridge. There are two issues, bald eagle and short-nosed sturgeon. We are complying with all the environmental regulations, and there is certainly no exemption for the two States for this project.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In addition to the Endangered Species Act which has been applying here, National Environmental Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Air Act and any other Federal requirements clearly apply here, and we have been assuming that and dealing with that.
Mr. Chairman, that is a very brief overview. I do want to underscore from Maryland's perspective this is our single most important transportation priority. And to take $200 million from our general fund to cover the local obligation is an indication of how serious we take this. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Ms. Ybarra.
Ms. YBARRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. It is indeed a pleasure to be here, and I think that, first of all, that so much of what John said is applicable also in Virginia, and I will hit a few of the points.
I think that John and I have worked very long with the U.S. Department of Transportation to find a way to address this critically important issue in the region. I am here today to see that the Commonwealth of Virginia is fully prepared to fund its share of the funding under the terms of Representative Davis' bill, and we are anxious to get started in rebuilding the Woodrow Wilson Bridge. We consider this proposal to be both fair and equitable, and we feel strongly that construction should begin as soon as possible. The bridge is far too important to this region and to this Nation to delay the approval of the funding. And you have heard all of the reasons, and again, I won't go into those either.
And just to continue where John was on the environmental issues, we have also not asked our—asked our Members of Congress for our Members to pursue any exceptions on this. We feel that it does need to comply and meet all of the requirements that every other bridge does. And I will say that as Mr.—was it Terry from Nebraska, I can be sympathetic. With all of the other bridge situations at least in the Commonwealth of Virginia, we have some 19,200 bridges that probably—certainly they are not as large as this one or maybe nationally significant, but we also have a lot of bridges that we address through our normal program.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Governor Jim Gilmore considers the Woodrow Wilson Bridge the highest transportation priority in the region, and he is fully prepared, as I said earlier, to meet Virginia's commitment to provide the Commonwealth's share towards the project if Congress will provide the 600 million. And this provides—makes it an 80/20 project.
Well, John has mentioned that they proposed in their budget using general funds. Under Virginia's process we will be providing those funds, the funds that we will use will be submitted through the Virginia's 6-year transportation improvement plan that is overseen by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. The first opportunity for this to occur will be next May when our 6-year plan is updated, and that is done every year, so it will be updated next year, and we would begin to put in that money to coincide with the 600 million.
And under the bill before you, I think you have heard all of the discussion of the interstate cost completion program and why had we been able to do this, had it been a bridge as we operate some six other bridges between Maryland and Virginia, those bridges were upgraded either in the interstate cost to complete program, and that was money that was above our normal funding, and it was in addition—or in other words, in addition to the normal Federal apportionment, and it was on a 90/10 basis. We are prepared—and our Governors both believe that this is such a significant project that we are prepared to meet to have this—to meet on the compromise and provide 20 percent of the funding.
I think John adequately explained and I won't go in any further to the importance of the interchange and why it is we have this separation of express and local, have a provision for an HOV and transit, that these interchanges need to be completely reworked to make this a functional section of the highway. The time has come, I think, that we need to move on with this. You have got the money committed. We need the additional money to be appropriated for this bridge and to keep this on course. We need to be—as I recall, the construction—the contracts being done next May or June to be on schedule for completing the project in the manner in which we had originally scheduled.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We also in Virginia—just one final point, Mr. Chairman. In Virginia, we also are a State that watches its debt capacity very carefully. We also have a limitation, and we will be presenting to the legislature this spring some GARVEE instruments for the statewide program. But it has to—it does hit the State's capacity. It is not something that you can just do and put it in. You do hit the State's debt capacity, and you are using funds that are Federal funds, statewide, and so we have to be cautious how we use those.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I encourage you to look favorably on this bill, and we would be happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Director Burns.
Ms. BURNS. Good afternoon, Chairman Petri and members of the Subcommittee on Ground Transportation. My name is Vanessa Burns, not Art Lawson. I am the Director of Public Works for the District of Columbia. I am pleased to appear before the subcommittee in conjunction with the Secretaries of Transportation of Maryland and Virginia.
I am in support of the proposal of the Wilson Bridge Financing Act of 1999. Everyone in the region is in agreement that this current and future traffic demand greatly exceeds the design capacity of the existing bridge. The Woodrow Wilson Bridge is not only a vital link within the region's transportation system, but it is also a major link with the entire I-95 Northeast Corridor. Failure to replace the bridge in a timely manner could therefore have both regional and national implications.
In addition, the bridge is the only federally-owned drawbridge on the whole Interstate Highway System. Therefore, we believe that it is appropriate that the Federal Government, accept major financial responsibility for the replacement of the existing bridge. We believe that the additional $600 million that is being requested in this bill represents a way to be able to afford this critical project.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The District of Columbia will work closely with Maryland and Virginia to identify additional sources of funding to complete construction of the bridge and related interchanges. The District's government already has committed to spend approximately $4 million to widen the District of Columbia's portion of the I-95, I-95 interchange near Oxon Hill. However, given our other critical transportation needs, the District government will not be able to contribute any additional funding for the replacement of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.
In 1998, the Department of Transportation worked with the District and worked with us on our transportation needs for the next 20 years in looking at the needs for the District. And at this present time, it was estimated there was about $1 million in the next 6 years, the difference between what we need to have as the District and the available funds. So we are extremely hopeful that full funding for the replacement bridge will be approved as soon as possible.
We are concerned that any delay in building the replacement bridge could result in the diversion of traffic off of I-95 and I-495 and on to District roadways, resulting in further congestion, air pollution and additional wear and tear on our District roads. We therefore strongly urge that this bill be approved by the subcommittee and give the support so that the construction may begin as soon as possible. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Mr. Cummings. Any questions?
Mr. CUMMINGS. I will be very brief. I must say, that it is refreshing—no offense, Mr. Porcari, but it is refreshing to see the head of a public works and the head of the Department of Transportation, women. I think that shows you how far this country has come. That is a long way, and that makes me feel very good, and I am sure it makes all of us feel very good.
I was just thinking—is it Ybarra?
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. YBARRA. I usually say Ybarra.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Ybarra. That is easier.
When you look at the formula that has been put together, that is the portion that Maryland is putting in and you all are putting in, and you look at the entire—everything that is going on here, do you feel like it is a fair formula?
Ms. YBARRA. If we get the 600 million.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Assuming you get the 600 million.
Ms. YBARRA. Assuming we get the 600 million, I will say that it is at that point a fair formula. I mean, it is 80/20. We were prepared—this was such an important project, we are prepared to come forward with what would be our 200 million. We also recognize that should there be additional costs, we understand that this is the last time in Congress, and we would probably—we will have to bear those also. We understand that. But it is a fair formula, once the Federal Government recognizes their 80 percent contribution.
Mr. CUMMINGS. What about you, Mr. Porcari?
Mr. PORCARI. I agree it is a fair formula at 80/20, although we can make the point that it could have been a potentially a 90/10 deal in the past. I think that given the circumstances, this is a fair deal.
As Secretary Ybarra mentioned, both States are making the obligation that any increase in cost will be our responsibility, which gives us a lot of incentive to make sure that it does not increase, but we do believe this is fair.
Mr. CUMMINGS. When—I mean, for future, you heard me ask the question about the future of the maintenance. What do you all see with regard to maintenance after it gets up and running?
Mr. PORCARI. First of all, Congressman, as Secretary Ybarra appointed out, Virginia and Maryland jointly maintain through separate agreements a number of bridges over the Potomac. We are doing that with the present Woodrow Wilson Bridge today. We are maintaining that at our expense today. We are confident that over the long term, with the bridge replacement between Virginia and Maryland, that we will reach an equitable arrangement between ourselves. We already have conceptual arrangement to continue to maintain it.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. CUMMINGS. Ms. Burns, you were talking about the limited resources of the District. And as you probably heard a little earlier, I just assumed that with regard to what could be put into this, I take it that the 4 million that you talk about, is that pretty solid, or are you all still trying to figure out how you can come up with?
Ms. BURNS. No, that has been committed. In the interchanges, that has been committed.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Did I hear you say something at the very end of that?
Ms. BURNS. No, that has been committed.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you expect any more to come forth, just out of curiosity, beyond the 4 million?
Ms. BURNS. We have agreed to do the interchanges, and we will agree to do that whatever the cost estimate, the $4 million. We are prepared to pay that, and we are committed to that.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Ms. Ybarra, did you have anything to say?
Ms. YBARRA. I shouldn't speak for the District, but in working as we have throughout the region, that the—this is the interchange that is on Oxon Hill, and it is not—we are dealing—we, John and I and the Secretary and I, have dealt with the interchanges on our side and working with the Feds, and they are working to make the entire region work.
Mr. CUMMINGS. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Delegate Norton.
Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Now, this bridge runs between Maryland and Virginia. So I just want to clarify why the District—does it have any responsibility for this bridge? We, however, have been and will continue to work very closely with our regional colleagues because there is a regional effect here and an extraordinary effect on the District regarding traffic, almost none of which originates in the District. The let me try to clarify how the District is in this at all.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. Burns, are you aware that the nexus for District participation originates, as I understand it, from a tiny piece of land under the bridge?
Ms. BURNS. Under water.
Ms. NORTON. Which means that the District operates the drawbridge.
Ms. BURNS. Yes. And it costs us annually about $400,000 to maintain those bridges.
Ms. NORTON. Now, does the District believe that that is a function that the District should continue to have to perform for two States that are sovereign States?
Ms. BURNS. The District and the two other States have been in talking regarding that matter on the issue of the maintenance, long-term maintenance of the bridge, and the operation of the bridge, and we feel that the two States and the District will be resolving that over the course—this is prior to building, to reconstruct it, and that the final operation and maintenance of that will be determined, and we believe we will come to an equitable solution as to how that is going to be done.
Ms. NORTON. Let me see if I can put this in English. The Virginia, Maryland and District are talking about whether or not the District should have to cough up $400,000 a year to operate a drawbridge that serves the residents of the District of Columbia—the residents of Maryland and Virginia and the rest of the east coast.
Ms. BURNS. Yes. That is the current situation. But the District and the States of Virginia and Maryland are now in discussion to relate it to the final operation and maintenance of this bridge. I think that—.
Ms. NORTON. When will those discussions culminate? Perhaps Maryland and Virginia would like to say anything. You see my concern. We don't have a State to go to. This is an historic anomaly. If the District has $400,000, it ought not to be going—if I may say so very rich States, among the richest in the United States. This land, I am sure the District would be willing to sell it at a moment's notice if that is what it takes. So that I would just like to clarify this, because we intend to be involved closely with and to do whatever we can on each end, but the notion that we are in this with no State to back us up, putting up almost half a million dollars every year for the convenience of two rich States, is, in fact, something that I think needs to be dealt with.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. BURNS. Congressman Norton, I totally agree, and that is why we have been in discussions related to the final operation and maintenance of—.
Ms. NORTON. Could I hear from the members of—the directors from Maryland and Virginia then?
Ms. YBARRA. As—well, as we have looked at whether—how the bridge is going to be financed, we are quite aware that to access the 900 million, we will have to have agreement as to the ownership of the bridge. And the next step that gets into, that goes further, is the operation and maintenance of the bridge. We have had preliminary discussions, both my staff and Secretary Porcari's staff, and I think your staff, Ms. Burns, have had preliminary discussions as to how we might handle this.
As you know, there has been at least one time a discussion of having a bridge authority run this. It is not clear to us as we have worked further through the implications of that that perhaps there is another way; after all, Virginia and Maryland have six other bridges that we handle. Virginia works with the District on three bridges, and there are other ways to do this than an authority.
I don't have a final answer, and it may be that the District of Columbia would—we have had discussions about certain responsibilities that they may or may not want to have throughout the life of this bridge, and we understand that. I can't say that we are in any final throws yet. The clear thing is are we going to be able to build a new bridge. We decided we would focus on that first, and because of the relationships that have been built up over this time, I think there are ways that we can get through the ownership question or what that agreement looks like very quickly once the 600 million is in place.
Mr. PORCARI. I would add to that that I think it is fair to say that both States recognize the unique role the District has had in the Wilson Bridge up until this point, and that as part of a final capital funding plan that will provide the last funding needed for this, we believe we can very quickly resolve the ongoing maintenance and operating cost-sharing, and we believe it will be in everyone's satisfaction.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. NORTON. I appreciate your response. Just let me say at the time that this arrangement was worked up, the Federal Government essentially owned the District of Columbia, and although the taxpayers of the District of Columbia have always paid for their own maintenance, they paid a much larger share. There is no Federal Government, Federal payment now. And when the District became bankrupt, it didn't abandon this responsibility.
If I may say so, the residents from Maryland, Virginia come into the District every day and don't leave a red cent here. And your Members come to the floor as if the world was going to come to an end whenever anybody even mentions the word ''commuter tax.'' the sky absolutely falls. Huge rich States, full of technology, full of land.
I want to just be clear because I don't want anybody to think that you weren't forewarned. I would hate to be put in the position of advising the Mayor of the District of Columbia to simply abandon that and let it fall—the chips fall where they may, but I will say to you right now if these negotiations go on much longer, if you want to have title and the whole ownership done while my folks who can't get a cent from you all to help pay for this, get no commuter tax, somehow continue to pay for this, then that is exactly what I am going to do. And I am going to ask Ms. Burns to set a date by which there will be an understanding about cost. I don't want to preclude negotiations. I understand that there may have to be some transition, but I do not believe it is fair for the city, which is just coming out of insolvency, to have to pick up this kind of funding for two States that are in far better shape than the District of Columbia is that doesn't get anything from these States.
So you are on notice, Ms. Burns, by the end of the week, I want you to tell me after consulting with the Mayor, by which time he has said negotiations—a due date has been set for the end of negotiations.
Now, let me go on. You say in your testimony very generally that there will be—that there will be a resulting diversion of traffic, and you mentioned I-95 and I-495. I know you are new to the District, but perhaps some of those who are with you could help the panel to understand this. This diversion of traffic into the District would affect what roads? Would they be major roads, roads that are used by, for example, commuters, major roads that are used by tourists, or would they be neighborhood roads? Who exactly would be affected if, in fact, this traffic comes into the District? Would Federal workers be affected? What part of the District would be affected? Thank you.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. BURNS. I would like to introduce our Deputy Director for Operations for the Department of Public Works, Art Lawson.
Mr. LAWSON. Thank you. We believe that if the Woodrow Wilson Bridge was to close, or we had to divert traffic off the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, that most of the streets in the downtown area, and certainly some of the streets just north of downtown area, would be impacted by people trying to find a way to get to 395 North, north of Washington. We are talking about 14th Street, all the bridges would be impacted; the 14th Street Bridge, probably the Memorial Bridge would be impacted, Independence Avenue; all the northbound streets, 13rd, 12th, 14th, 15th, 16th, people trying to get over to New York Avenue. New York Avenue and the communities along New York Avenue would be impacted. It would add additional traffic to streets that are already overburdened. So it would have a catastrophic effect on our ability to move traffic and people who generate income and do business there.
Ms. NORTON. Just one more question. This is a lead into my next question. Because what you see in the District, what Members see, whatever part of the region they have to come to the Capitol from is a truly impossible traffic situation. And I want to leave you, since I have the three transportation directors before us, with a question about that situation. The Members have been hearing about a particular unique problem that each part of the region has had to focus on one bridge. The fact is that if Members read the paper, they also read that the Capitol is located in the region with the second worst traffic congestion problem in the United States of America. And I want to express my concern that the three jurisdictions have not been able to work out a larger plan beyond the Woodrow Wilson Bridge for keeping this region, from Congress, to a grinding halt.
The region, you know, Virginia is off into its politics of traffic, Maryland is trying to deal with the interconnector, and the District has to just take whatever flows into the District. Whenever there is a mention of some kind of authority, whether or not it has taxing authority, people act like children, even though the fact is that the business community in this region has chastised the political leaders for failing to come up with a comprehensive way to deal with the traffic catastrophe of this region. I asked Secretary Slater to appoint a Federal mediator, that is how concerned I have been with it, in order to try to bring the region together so that we could get transportation planning, some regions already have, so that somebody doesn't mention tax if something comes up on this one. Other jurisdictions hadn't found a way through this mess.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So I think you have an obligation to explain to the Members from whom you are requesting funding what you intend to do about the larger traffic catastrophe into which the Woodrow Wilson Bridge at best merely fits and does not summarize and characterize. I would like to hear each of you tell me what your responsibility is to bring this region into some kind of matrix to deal with the problem that is lying out there, killing the economy of the region.
Ms. BURNS. I think I totally agree with you, Congresswoman Norton. It is one of the first meetings that I had when I became the Director in July was a meeting regarding the transportation and the fact that we need to work with the surrounding areas, and the entrances and exits to the city are atrocious. And I am going to be working with both Secretaries of Virginia and Maryland and working at trying to resolve some of these issues.
There has also been a wide number of multijurisdictional task forces that have been created in the last year regarding traffic congestion, and there are—if you look at a lot of those reports, there are no solutions. They just keep on reiterating the same problems. So we have got to figure out—and I completely concur with you, we have got to try to figure out ways to not just talk about the problem, but try to resolve and make them better. And I can assure you that the District is working on that and trying to make improvements regarding how to improve the traffic, and it is clearly a problem in the District, but as well as the surrounding areas.
Mr. LAWSON. If I may add, the District supports and we are encouraged by the initiative that looks at additional sources of revenue to support transit initiatives in the region. That is something that makes sense to us. And that is something we want to discuss in greater detail with the—.
Ms. NORTON. All right. I would like to know how the two of you feel about that initiative. This is something where you have to have a consensus of the region when they pick transportation projects. And there would be bonding authority, but no taxing authority. Everything would have to be done by a consensus, and yet I am not sure where that bill is or what your view is of that bill. So in your answer I would also appreciate hearing what you think about that bill.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PORCARI. Congresswoman Norton, on the Maryland side let me first comment on the specific project level. Maryland and the District have been cooperating, for example—and Ms. Burns and I were talking about that earlier today—on the radial corridors in and out of the city, the gateways to the District and to Maryland from the District. We have a lot of opportunities, have had in the past, and will continue to, to coordinate specific projects, and on those radial corridors we will continue to do that.
On the regional level the Council of Governments Transportation and Planning Board has traditionally been the mechanism and forum to move from local individual plans and build a regional plan and, in fact, develop regional consensus on elements that may be controversial. We would expect that the TPB would continue to do that.
Your specific question about a new regional authority and the ability of new regional authority to kind of build on those two discrete elements, I would point out that we think that there is an opportunity, through the resolution of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge issue here and the kind of cooperative mechanism that the three jurisdictions build as a result of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, to replicate that model for other projects. I think it is always easier when you have resolved a specific transportation issue to then use that same model and apply it to other projects. And I think all three jurisdictions can come out well doing that.
Ms. NORTON. I appreciate that answer and would appreciate your thinking about how to institutionalize that model. Because you give 200 million, he gives 200 million, and somehow you all got some money, that is not a model, but that is the beginning of a model. If you could institutionalize it, if it doesn't go away, but I don't hear anybody talking about doing that. The first I heard is what you just said.
Mr. PORCARI. For example, if you look around the country at other major projects that cross jurisdictional boundaries, that mechanism is usually built around a first project, and that is replicated. I really do think the seeds that what you are talking about are here in the Woodrow Wilson Bridge project.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. NORTON. Not if you tell me to go to Congress. It is going to take the people who have responsibility like you and Ms. Ybarra and Ms. Burns to make it happen.
Ms. Ybarra.
Ms. YBARRA. Thank you, Ms. Norton.
I would just say that much, like whether it is Woodrow Wilson Bridge—and I think we have worked 6 years any way that I have been involved with it, and again, that is certainly the opportunity or a way to begin and show the progress in this region.
Let me also just point out that we have on our side feeding into TPB, on the Virginia side, we are preparing the 20/20 plan, I think, as you are on your side. Everyone is working to get to the TPB. We have a substantial proposal by the Governor of Virginia to add 2-1/2 billion on our side of the river. We have worked together with the District, for example, as we apply for welfare-to-work grants and the proposals that we did in working with Metro. We have also worked very diligently on—specifically with the District on the 14th Street Bridge many, many times, that I think we are finally coming to a resolution there of how it may be helpful and make that bridge flow better.
As—and at the other area is on the ITS, intelligent transportation system, we have been working as a region very well on that.
As to your specific proposal, on the Robb-Moran, I guess I would be back where Secretary Porcari is. It needs to have a project rather than just out there as if that is going to be the magic solution, the form has been TPB. I think we have worked well. But more importantly behind the scenes is the— behind the scenes of TPB is what the three Secretaries and how well and how effectively we have worked together to identify and sort out just project by project to make the region work better.
Ms. NORTON. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. I very much appreciate being allowed to join. I think the very notion that has come forward here that they might use this project to work through a model to fund future projects to help both this problem and the problems of transportation in the community I appreciate very much.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PETRI. You are welcome. We are not setting a precedent. I am trying to accommodate you because I know it is a particular concern to people in this region and your constituents.
Director Burns, I was struck—I didn't know if I heard you correctly. Did you say it cost $400,000 a year to operate the bridge lift?
Ms. BURNS. Four hundred thousand.
Mr. PETRI. Four hundred thousand.
Ms. BURNS. Yes.
Mr. PETRI. How many ups and down a year is that?
Mr. LAWSON. We don't have the figures. We can get those to you, but it requires—but the Coast Guard requires certain things in terms of operating a drawbridge for us to have people there 24 hours, and you know how the span is in the process of being open, so it costs money.
Mr. PETRI. So one solution for the District of Columbia would be to just send a bill to people each time they ask you to lift the bridge and close the bridge to pay for your $400,000. If they don't want to pay it, they don't have to go under the bridge. They will have to figure out another way to do their business.
Yes.
Mr. PORCARI. Mr. Chairman, I don't remember the number of bridge openings, but I do know that the new span on the replacement will be higher, and the projection of the number of openings would be reduced by two-thirds. So presumably the operating costs would be lower because of the reduced openings.
Mr. PETRI. One would think with modern communications that it might be possible for a boat operator to radio someone and then for a fellow or woman to run out and operate the thing. Usually they go through late at night anyway, don't they? They try to avoid rush hour or they are held up. So it is kind of weird unless there is security or some other reason why someone has to be there 24 hours a day for occasional operations, but—.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. BURNS. It is a Coast Guard regulation. Even though I am not—I haven't been in the District, I have been in other jurisdictions that have been under my purview, and we have had the same problem where we have to have those bridges, pursuant to the Coast Guard regulations, be manned. And some places do different things like having scheduled openings, but it doesn't really stop you from being able to still have to provide unless those regulations are changed.
Mr. PETRI. In my district, when I was in the State senate, we used to have one bridge that had a toll operator, but he actually had a tavern at one end of the bridge, and you ring the bell, and he would come out, and he had a second job.
In any event, I have a series of questions, if you would indulge me and let me just go through them, and hopefully we will help make our record.
Given the original 1954 legislation authorizing the construction of the bridge, given that that legislation explicitly required Maryland and Virginia to pay for construction of the approaches to the bridge, why are there objections by your two States to paying for the replacement of the approaches that you paid for in the first place?
Mr. PORCARI. Mr. Chairman, the 1954 agreement, which of these agreements is the one I am least familiar with and is news to me, my understanding is that since the replacement of the bridge, notwithstanding the 1954 agreement, requires the upgrade of the interchanges to accommodate it, that that would—in any other scenario as a State-owned facility, that that would be one that would be eligible for Federal funding as well.
Ms. YBARRA. The—well, a number of things in the 1954. When that bridge was being built, as it finally gets built, we were bidding the interstate. But as the laws, the environmental laws, clean air, the planning requirements issued by FHWA, all of those have changed and been added to, so that you don't just sort of slot a bridge in and then ignore the rest of if.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
This bridge, you recall, is higher. It has parallel spans, and that is what changes those interchanges, in addition to the express and local HOV. And so when it is the Federal Government's change in this bridge that changes the interchanges, that is why we are suggesting that they—that is, where the bridge touches down and ties in—as to why they should be responsible for those interchanges.
Mr. PETRI. Would you support deducting additional funding for the bridge from your future post-21 highway apportionments?
Ms. YBARRA. No, sir, I would not.
Mr. PORCARI. No, sir, I would not. And the basic reasons I outline in my testimony, the overall State needs and whether it is debt-financed or on a cash-flow basis, the enormous amount of our overall programs that would be required to pay that.
Ms. YBARRA. The same would be true in Virginia.
Mr. PETRI. If we were to provide additional $600 million, what kind of assurances could Maryland, Virginia and the District provide that you would cover all of the remaining costs, including any potential overruns for the project?
Mr. PORCARI. Mr. Chairman, from Maryland's part, and the two States have talked at some length about this in support of passage of H.R. 2563, we would be willing to put in writing in a form that is suitable for everyone that the two States would cover any overwrites.
Ms. YBARRA. I agree with that. That is what we have discussed. We would be willing to look at that in that language.
Mr. PETRI. I think I understand the answer to this next question, which is why didn't you accept ownership of the bridge when it wasn't up to snuff?
Ms. YBARRA. It wasn't up to snuff, and the Federal Government had not fulfilled the obligation. I am speaking as if I own the river, but I don't, John. But we felt that the Federal Government had not upheld its side of the bargain.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PORCARI. And to amplify on that, Mr. Chairman, it is instructive, I think, to look at an internal memorandum from the Federal Highway Administration dated June 26th, 1991, from the chief counsel that in part says that it is their opinion they wouldn't be able to enforce the 1985 agreement because a significant condition to the transfer had not yet been satisfied, and that was some of the additional work required on the bridge.
Mr. PETRI. Are your two States now willing to accept ownership of the bridge before construction begins as required in TEA-21?
Mr. PORCARI. Providing this additional $600 million in Federal funding is forthcoming, yes.
Ms. YBARRA. Yes, provided the 600 million is there.
Mr. PETRI. And what happens if we don't authorize the $600 million? What is plan B for replacing the bridge?
Mr. PORCARI. Mr. Chairman, on the Maryland side of the river, we simply do not have a plan B. The enormous size of the Wilson Bridge reconstruction project relative to our overall State program has left us with basically no options. And, again, the fact that we had to obligate general fund money that is typically used for school construction, law enforcement and other statewide priorities I think is an indication of how far we had to stretch to get where we are now.
We would obviously, with Virginia, continue to maintain the bridge, but I think there is a fair amount of testimony on the functional deterioration of the bridge, and it is simply a question of when, not if, that function of deterioration would put limitations on the bridge.
Ms. YBARRA. I would agree with Secretary Porcari. I think that in terms of asking what plan B would be, the appropriate people, with all due respect, to ask what plan B would be would be the owners of the bridge, and that would be the Federal Government. We have no plan B either on this one.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PETRI. I am just kind of curious, is this sort of an intergovernment-level problem we are trying to resolve, and that same situation exists between State and local jurisdictions, and communities, and counties, and towns and so on? Do either of you have any situation where you have got a bridge between two communities or two communities across the county line that they have built, and now it is going to cost more money, and now they decide you get to the bill? I mean, I am thinking if this is a Federal bridge, maybe we should have the Federal Government just go ahead and build it according to its specifications and maybe consult with you, but not let you design it if we get the bill. I mean, what would you do if the situation were within your jurisdiction and the roles were reversed?
Mr. PORCARI. Excellent question, Mr. Chairman. First of all, on the Wilson Bridge, it is being designed to Federal specifications. It is Federal requirements for 2020 that are driving the design of it. The intergovernmental-State-local parallel that you brought up is an interesting one. In Maryland, our so-called turn-back program where the State wants to turn a bridge over to a local jurisdiction, either a county or a municipality, we are required under our turn-back program to reconstruct that bridge to the designing requirements before we turn it over to them. So we are asking the Federal Government to do the same thing that we do with our local governments.
Ms. YBARRA. And I have a very different situation in Virginia in that the State maintains 58,000 miles of highway. We have no county roads other than Arlington and Henrico County near Richmond. So all of the requirements that are placed on meeting a 20/20 design standard and so on—I mean, I don't get into the jurisdictional issues. Those bridges, all 19,000 of them, are State-owned bridges and need to be—and are brought up to those standards. So I don't have the same issue there.
Mr. PETRI. These last few questions just—you may not have the answers, but is there a case that can be made that makes this bridge—other than the Federal ownership part— that makes the bridge unique in terms of the percentage of national gross domestic product that it carries as compared with other bridges on heavily traveled portions of our national interstate system?
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. YBARRA. I think there are probably a number of reasons. One is when 95 did not go through the District, and we basically have not only a commuter bridge, but the I-95 bridge makes a very important case. It is really—other than going around to the American Legion Bridge, you really have two places to cross using the interstate. The other thing is you have got significantly, on both the ports up and down on both sides—so you do have significant truck traffic using I-95. I think that makes it a lot different being on this major corridor from Maine to Miami.
Mr. PORCARI. Just to amplify on that, I think part of the uniqueness is simply the length of the corridor, the I-95 corridor, from Maine to Florida is one of the longer contiguous stretches of interstate and clearly is fulfilling the original interstate function that was envisioned when the system was designed.
Mr. PETRI. Now, this is really a question for Maryland, but why can't Maryland use the funds that were previously set aside for the now boarded intercounty connector project to fund the bridge approaches and interchanges in Maryland?
Mr. PORCARI. That is actually an easy question for us, because there were no funds set aside for the intercounty connector. That project as envisioned was a roughly $1.1 billion project. Other than appropriating money for the draft environmental impact statement, there simply was no money. And that was a project that was what we call a long-range needs inventory.
Mr. PETRI. And then finally is there any reason why the current bridge cannot continue to be maintained satisfactorily so that there will be no need to ban truck traffic in 2004 given the big increase that we have provided for Federal funding that is available to maintain bridges in the United States?
Ms. YBARRA. Well, the—there is only so long that you can keep putting the Band-Aid around the bridge. And I mean you have got the six-lane bridge on an eight-lane—or you have got six lanes, you have got a high volume of truck traffic, and even if we continue to put the Band-Aids on, significant Band-Aids would require a shutting down part of that bridge to maintain it even more than we are. And we are doing everything we can right now, but at some point there is almost no more. And the underneath part—I am not the engineer, but the engineers keep telling me underneath things begin to fall down and fall off.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PORCARI. And the first priority we have always had is to spend whatever we needed to to operate and maintain that safely. You heard earlier the accident statistics where the accident rate on the bridge is nearly double what it is, and that is obviously a compelling case—compelling part of the case for the replacement.
But it is very clear that the present bridge will become more and more expensive over time simply to maintain. We have recently with the District as well gone through and done some rewelding and some relatively low-cost work more and more over time just to maintain that structure. That will be very expensive rehabilitation replacement.
The kind of Band-Aids that Shirley talked about we will not be able to do indefinitely into the future. And given the design and the section of that bridge, there will be very, very significant traffic disruptions to do that kind of long-term heavy maintenance.
Mr. PETRI. Ms. Norton, any more questions?
We thank you very much. We appreciate your being with us today.
The last panel consists of Mr. John T. Schwieters, who is the chairman of the Greater Washington Board of Trade; Judy McVay, cochairman, Coalition for a Sensible Bridge; Mr. Stewart Dunn, who is a trustee of Historic Alexandria Foundation; and Ms. Lynn Hampton, chair-elect, of the Alexandria Chamber of Commerce. We apologize. We thank you for your patience, and we would ask, I think, Mr. Schwieters to begin.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN T. SCHWIETERS, CHAIRMAN, THE GREATER WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRADE; JUDY McVAY, CO-CHAIR, COALITION FOR A SENSIBLE BRIDGE, INC., ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA; H. STEWART DUNN, JR., TRUSTEE, HISTORIC ALEXANDRIA FOUNDATION, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA; AND LYNN HAMPTON, CHAIR-ELECT, ALEXANDRIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. SCHWIETERS. Very good, Mr. Chairman, for that last pronunciation was right on.
My name is John Schwieters. I am the chairman of the Greater Washington Board of Trade. For those of you who are not familiar with the Greater Washington Board of Trade, it has over 1,100 employers, members, who are employers in the greater Washington area, which includes the surrounding cities, counties and States of northern Virginia and suburban Maryland and, of course, D.C. We were founded in 1889. We have a long history of working on projects like this, starting with trying to eliminate the dusty roads in the District of Columbia. So this is a project we are very interested in.
We are obviously extremely concerned about the region's transportation issues and its effect on the quality of life. As the Congressman said this morning, sometimes brevity will help our case, and I think I am going to skip through some of the comments that I was going it make that I heard earlier.
Our region depends on the Wilson Bridge for—you know, for a lot of items: the shipment of groceries, movement of supplies to Federal agencies and area businesses, the movement of our region's commuters, the 340,000 Federal employees. Business travelers, tourists use it, and we all know that all the emergency vehicles and public utility vehicles use this bridge.
But this bridge is really a bridge that goes beyond our region, and it is a bridge that really does merit the consideration of this committee. It is of critical importance to the Nation: 1.3 percent of all goods shipped by truck in the United States go across that bridge.
As we heard earlier, I-95 is an extremely important route. It is basically the main street of the east coast. Goods shipped across the bridge travel an average of 450 miles. Forty-nine percent, as you heard this morning, of the tractor/trailer trucks carrying goods, they are carrying beyond the Washington area.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
There are—I would like to correct one thing. There are 14,000 trucks that go across that bridge every day carrying tractor/trailer trucks. So 7,000 of those large trucks are not carrying goods intended for this area. The origins, as you heard this morning, 24 percent are New Jersey; New York and New England, 17 percent; and Pennsylvania, 17 percent. Destinations: North Carolina, 25 percent; Georgia and South Carolina, 18 percent; and Florida 11 percent. So the bridge goes way beyond the greater Washington area.
I don't want to reiterate and repeat the public safety issues, but I will state one more time for probably the 30th time today, the transportation I—the bridge replacement schedule is critical. We are running out of time.
The—we would also like to comment on Congresswoman's Norton's—we appreciate your support of the Regional Authority Act, and we also heard for the first time something about a mediator as a way to address the more comprehensive transportation crises that we are faced with, and we find that an interesting, perhaps new, alternative to move this whole matter along.
So, Mr. Chairman, Congress plays a very vital role in this region comprised of the Nation's capital and two States. Historically Congress has had to be supportive of various infrastructure in this area, such as Metro and the airports' authority. The Wilson Bridge is another area needing your support, and in view of these considerations, we respectively request that you support replacing this bridge. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Ms. McVay.
Ms. MCVAY. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I am Judy McVay, co-chair of the Coalition for a Sensible Bridge, CSB. I am here today to testify in opposition to H.R. 2563.
This bill would provide an extra $600 million over and above the $900 million that has already been appropriated in TEA-21 to replace the present Woodrow Wilson Bridge which crosses the Potomac at the south end of Alexandria, Virginia. It would require Virginia and Maryland to commit an additional $400 million, which adds up to a grand of 1.9 billion.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
CSB is a coalition of 19 civic organizations from Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia which support construction of a new 10-lane Wilson Bridge. The $900 million Congress has provided to replace the present bridge, the only federally owned bridge in the interstate system, is enough to build the 10-lane bridge prosed by -CSB. You have a calculation of this estimate.
Before discussing the substance of H.R. 2563, let me stress two important points.
First, -CSB and its supporters strongly advocate an expeditious replacement of the present bridge. The sooner a new bridge is built, the sooner we will have this massive construction project behind us. The fact is that construction can start sooner on the 10-lane bridge we propose than it can on the much larger 12-lane bridge proposed by FHWA because sufficient funding is available right now to build the 10-lane bridge. Construction of a larger bridge currently faces a $1 billion shortfall.
Second, and let me emphasize this, contrary to what you have heard, the present bridge is not falling down and will not need weight or speed restrictions for the foreseeable future. In 1994, the government commissioned an engineering study of the bridge, the Hardesty-Hanover report. Nineteen specific actions were identified that could be undertaken to maintain and restore the bridge. Depending upon how many of the 19 are completed, you extend the life of the bridge for 15, 25 or 40 years with no restrictions of any kind. All the actions on the 15-year list are complete, and items from the 25 and 40-year lists are under way. Don't be alarmed by the scare talk you have been hearing.
Let me now discuss the substance of -CSB's position on the bridge and this legislation. In particular, I will address the issue of why it costs $1 billion more to build two additional lanes. -CSB strongly believes that highway projects in urban areas should do minimum damage to the urban fabric. They should not be built as if they are cutting through open wheat fields. This consideration is especially important in Alexandria which is celebrating its 250th anniversary this year.
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Old Town area of Alexandria which lies just north of the bridge is one of the original three federally designated national historic districts. While urban highway projects have to meet realistic traffic needs, there must be sensitivity to the area through which a project is built. The 10-lane bridge -CSB advocates has eight through travel lanes to match the present 8-lane Beltway plus two merge lanes between the interchanges at either end of the bridge, Route 1 in Virginia and -I-295 in Maryland. In addition, there will be four breakdown lanes. The present bridge has none.
At 170 feet wide, this 10-lane bridge is 39 feet wider than the 10-lane American Legion Bridge, the other Beltway bridge crossing the Potomac—the American Legion Bridge has an accident rate equivalent to the rest of the Beltway. This diagram—we have a diagram that contrasts the present bridge with the proposed 10- and 12-lane bridges. I am not sure you can see that.
What should particularly appeal to this committee is that our 10-lane proposal honors congressional intent as reflected in TEA-21. By matching the present Beltway, our 10-lane bridge will not require massive rebuilding of the Route 1 and I-295 interchanges. The same cannot be said of the proposed 12-lane, 225-foot-wide bridge. It would require massive rebuilding of four interchanges because the bridge would have physical separations between local and express lanes. Due to these physical separations, each set of lanes will require its own interchanges.
Additionally, there would be slip ramps that would serve separated HOV lanes. These physical lane separations would require eight breakdown lanes on the bridge. Further, this project would extend 5 miles from a rebuilt Telegraph Road interchange in Virginia to a rebuilt Route 210 interchange in Maryland.
In spite of Representative Morella's assertion that the two extra lanes are solely for rail or transit, according to DOT, that is not the case. Adding two travel lanes to the project, which are estimated to serve only 5,000 cars per day in 2020, effectively adds another billion dollars of cost to the project or $500 million per lane largely because of additional interchange work. The cost of -CSB's proposal is a relatively modest $90 million per lane.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I urge you do not act on H.R. 2563 so that the -FHWA, Virginia and Maryland will be forced to come to their senses over the replacement of the Wilson Bridge. -CSB's 10-lane proposal is a more than adequate replacement which can be financed entirely with the $900 million already appropriated for this project.
Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Mr. Dunn?
Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and ask that my statement be made part of the record.
Mr. PETRI. Without objection.
Mr. DUNN. Therefore, I will try to abbreviate my comments.
Until Ms. McVay and I appeared, I don't believe there was anyone who lived near the bridge, and that does give you a different perspective, and I think one that is very relevant to this committee. What has not been mentioned at all to this moment, except lightly by Ms. McVay, is that this is one of the most historic areas in the United States. Old Town Alexandria was, as noted, the third district to have a preservation ordinance and a conservation historic district. This district is registered with the Department of Interior as a national historic landmark. Within this district, which is immediately adjacent to the bridge, we have 5,000 buildings, most of which are homes. We have 200 18th Century buildings in there. That is a very high number, well over the number in Colonial Williamsburg or almost any other part of the country. We have 3,000 buildings that are over a hundred years old there.
Now, we have worked at this brick by brick, house by house, citizen by citizen. We have a number of major buildings—Carlyle House, Gadsby's Tavern, Robert E. Lee homes, the Athenaeum, Lyceum, and our City Hall—each of which was a major preservation battle. We have won those battles. We have lost some others. This proposal would tear at the fabric of this historic town.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Why is that so? One of the things that must always be true when you have a hearing is everybody exaggerates his or her case. And the sky really doesn't fall very often and maybe the historic world doesn't crumble if you build a bridge, but here, especially because we are saying a 10-lane bridge would not do serious harm to our community so why in the world, if a 10-lane bridge is okay, is a 12-lane bridge a disaster?
And the answer, which is also the answer to the key to this whole thing, is the action that is relevant here is not the bridge. All the talk is about the bridge and the traffic tie-up. That is the tie-up in the traffic, but that is not where the money is. As you have stated and as you know, the bridge can be built with the present authorization, be built with all the proposals that you have in mind. Where the action is is at the interchanges, but that is the action that destroys, we think threatens our historic town.
It is at the interchanges which aren't necessary in order to expand the bridge. Nobody has testified that the interchanges are big bottlenecks. It is the bridge that is a bottleneck. That would be resolved. Some modification in the interchanges may be necessary, but it could be quite limited, and with those we would not invade the historic district, which includes some important low-income housing right beside the bridge which we have fought to preserve.
And so that the other thing is that what is going on here as we see it, Mr. Petri, is this is the precursor for the expansion of the Beltway. You don't need the 12 lanes in order to take care of this problem. This is a precursor to the expansion of the Beltway.
And the expansion of the Beltway is what is really at issue here. If you keep it to the 10 lanes, you won't—you are less likely to expand the Beltway and then what will happen is the future planning will go where it was always intended by the Department of Transportation, south of Alexandria. So those two things will preserve our community.
And we ask you—we come before you with what I think is an unusual request, not that it is unique but an unusual request. We are asking, don't give money to our community. Save it for your community. Save it for the citizens of the country. Save it for the taxpayers. Please don't spend it in our area. Because you—by not spending it, you will not only discharge greater responsibilities to your constituents, but you will help save our historic town.
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I thank you very much.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Ms. Hampton.
Ms. HAMPTON. Good afternoon, Chairman Petri and members of the subcommittee. I am Lynn Hampton. I am here today as chairman-elect of the Alexandria Chamber of Commerce. I live and work in the City of Alexandria and an vice president and chief financial officer of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority.
The Alexandria Chamber of Commerce is the largest business organization in the City of Alexandria, with more than 1,100 members. Those businesses employ approximately 49,000 people who depend on the Wilson Bridge to deliver their business products and to receive their business supplies and to transport many of their staff to and from work.
The Wilson Bridge replacement project continues to be a subject of controversy within the City of Alexandria. The Chamber fully acknowledges the current concerns that some of the Alexandria residents have who have properties adjacent to the bridge. We encourage continued efforts to lessen the impact that that project will have on their lives.
It is important to include a relocation program for those individuals who will be misplaced by the construction, as is always done in projects of this nature. However, even the members of the Coalition for a Sensible Bridge acknowledge here today that the need for a realistic replacement for the current structure in a timely fashion, reengineered interchanges, are also critical to the success of the bridge project. The current interchanges are inadequate and contribute greatly to the congestion and to the accident rate that plagues the bridge and its surrounding corridor.
The Route 1 interchange is particularly difficult. One-third of the traffic traveling across the bridge into Maryland during even rush hour feeds in from Route 1. At the same location, the Beltway shrinks from four to three lanes. The geometry of four lanes reducing to three lanes with merging traffic creates the obvious nightmare and which was better explained this morning by Congressman Moran.
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Today, you have heard testimony from various individuals and interest groups supporting or opposing additional Federal funding with the goal of either building or not building a 12-lane bridge. The Alexandria Chamber has consistently supported progress on the bridge replacement project regardless of the number of lanes. We have also consistently supported full Federal funding of the bridge because it is a vital part of our Nation's interstate system.
My testimony on behalf of the Chamber represents a group of bridge supporters that couldn't be here today, the majority of the voters in Alexandria, the silent majority of Alexandrians who support the construction of a 12-lane replacement to the Wilson Bridge. My ability to speak on behalf of the residents of Alexandria is based on the results of a public opinion poll that the Chamber Commission launched last December. The Chamber hired an independent, recognized polling firm to conduct a survey of registered voters residing in the city. Our instructions to the firm were simple: Find out what registered, likely Alexandria voters think about the Woodrow Wilson Bridge project. Do not ask leading questions. Be absolutely objective.
The poll results showed that an unambiguous majority of Alexandria voters support the construction of a 12-lane bridge. Fifty-nine percent of city voters support the bridge versus 35 percent who did not and 6 percent who were not sure. Please keep in mind that this is not 59 percent of Chamber members or 59 percent of the business community but 59 percent of registered, likely voters from all political, economic, age, gender backgrounds.
The survey broke the city into four quadrants based on voter turnout. All areas of Alexandria with the exception of Old Town clearly favored the 12-lane proposal. Further, residents of Old Town did not outright reject the project. The survey showed that 52 percent of Old Town voters oppose the project versus 40 percent who express support.
Traffic congestion continues to worsen because of the bridge at its inadequate interchanges resulting in costly disruptions along the entire eastern seaboard and the Washington metropolitan area. The majority of Alexandrians support the project because, when the bridge traffic backs up, the response is for traffic to divert to the streets of Alexandria.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The Wilson Bridge Coordinating Committee, made up of elected officials from the area, compromised on a 12-lane bridge as the minimum needed to serve the region while protecting our Alexandrian community when a 16 to 18-lane bridge was reported to the committee to be the one that would provide free-flowing traffic when the bridge was 15 years old. Interstate 95 and its crossing of the Wilson Bridge is the Main Street of our national highway system. It is the most important transportation link on the eastern seaboard.
The Alexandria Chamber urges your committee to support additional funding for the bridge project. A delay in funding this project would add to the intolerable traffic congestion and continue a major safety hazard. Therefore, the Chamber supports replacement of the bridge and its full Federal funding.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak and for your time given to this subject all day long.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Mr. Cummings, any questions?
Mr. CUMMINGS. I have one question.
Mr. Dunn, you don't want the money, huh?
Mr. DUNN. Yes, sir, don't want the money.
Mr. CUMMINGS. As I listened to you, you are concerned about the safety of the bridge, though, are you not?
Mr. DUNN. Absolutely, Mr. Cummings. Everyone is concerned about the safety of the bridge. Every one is concerned about the traffic block. The question is, how far do you have to go?
You can take any street in this country and say, what do you have to do to make it safe? You can build up the cost and build up the cost. A lot of bells and whistles have been put on this that, as I say to you, are really the precursor to extending the Beltway. That is what they are there for. They are not for the safety of the bridge. As was pointed out by Ms. McVay, the bridge at the other end, which is narrower than this proposed bridge, has nothing more than normal safety factors. And, as I say also, you have to consider other factors, balance them in the equation, including the displacement of low-income people which I think is very key here and which we think is not right.
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. CUMMINGS. One of the things that you were talking about, this being the door-opener for expansion of the Beltway, I could not help but see out of my left eye the head of the Department of Transportation for Virginia and for Maryland shaking their heads--.
Mr. DUNN. Saying it is not?
Mr. CUMMINGS. Hear my question.
Mr. DUNN. Excuse me.
Mr. CUMMINGS. —in disagreement with you. This was a little bit earlier when you were testifying. And as I was sitting here and I was thinking about what you were saying, I imagine if they came here and swore on a stack of 10 Bibles that this is not the door-opener, you might believe them, but, at the same time, you have lived long enough to know that the administration has changed, and I have been around here long enough to know that that happens and new people come in and what have you. Is that your concern? Even if you got assurances that this is not the door-opener, is that—have you seen something that makes you really believe that this is a door-opener for expanding the Beltway?
Mr. DUNN. Mr. Cummings, you correctly guessed my age. I have lived around here a long time.
But the reason is this. It is not just that but you have to look at—you look at -I-66, and it was never going to be expanded, and the community was promised that. Now they want to expand it, and all the chiefs of transportation said at that time it wasn't going to be expanded. Now they want to expand it. So there is that.
But more to the point, more to the point, I submit that you don't need the 12-lane bridge if you are only going to have an eight-lane Beltway. A bottleneck occurs because you have eight lanes going into six. A bottleneck does not occur when you have eight lanes going into a 10-lane bridge. My colleague, State of Virginia, is already planning 10 lanes from Springfield to the American Legion Bridge. So I don't know—let's see if he nods his head—12 lanes rather. So they are already at it.
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. CUMMINGS. You want to see if she nods her head.
Mr. DUNN. She nods her head. Thank you.
Mr. CUMMINGS. She didn't so—thank you very much.
Mr. PETRI. Ms. Norton?
Ms. NORTON. No questions.
Mr. PETRI. I guess I do have a few questions.
Your testimony then basically boils down to an assertion that it is not sensible to build a bridge that is bigger than the Beltway that connects at either end unless you have a commitment to extend the Beltway if you think it is wise to go that way rather than a further out connector, whatever, some regional planning authority might decide is useful for this region; is that right?
Mr. DUNN. That is certainly part of my testimony, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Committing ourselves to a Beltway expansion or else wasting a lot of money on the bridge?
Mr. DUNN. I am saying any expansion is bound to have some beneficial effects. It may make it somewhat safer. It may make traffic flow a little bit better. But you don't need a 12-lane bridge if you are going to leave the Beltway at eight lanes. So the gravamen of what I was saying is what you thought I was saying, yes, sir.
Mr. PETRI. Now, I guess I maybe should have directed this to the people who are more authorities on highway building, the State of Virginia or Maryland. Is a lot of the cost of this bridge the extra ramps going to the HOV lanes or whatever? We don't have HOV lanes on the Beltway on either end of the bridge. Why would you build, at hundreds of millions of dollars, extra ramps and HOV lanes just to go across the bridge?
Mr. DUNN. I have no answer to that, but I think it is a very good question.
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PETRI. We will have to get one I guess at some point before writing a check anyway.
Would you—I guess you have touched on this, but what would be the impact of projected traffic increases and traffic volume over the bridge in communities in the area such as Old Town, Alexandria? Would it lessen traffic congestion in the area by making it easier to go across the bridge or would it increase traffic?
Ms. HAMPTON. I will attempt to answer, but I also have with me today someone from the organization that is developing the plan for the bridge. Right now, when there is traffic backup on the bridge, people have nowhere else to go but the streets of Alexandria and the streets of the district. I think it was Congressman Moran that talked about what happened last November when it literally brought traffic to a standstill all over the region. So, right now, when people can't get on the Beltway and can't cross the bridge, they have no choice but to come through the city, and that is the result.
If you would like any more expert—I could bring somebody up.
Ms. MCVAY. May I comment on that?
We don't have a problem getting traffic out of Alexandria. We have a—we don't have a problem getting it into Alexandria. We have a problem getting it out. Alexandria's streets can't be widened. You can't take down these historic homes and make wider streets. There is only so much—the problem we have with traffic and a larger bridge is it invites more traffic to come into the city, which is exactly what we don't need, and we have trouble accommodating what we have now.
Mr. PETRI. If you are running a restaurant in the city, you would like more traffic. Probably one reason for the dispute within the community.
Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, to a large extent, it is an element of common sense and common experience. If you have a very efficient road that you can reach, you are going to take the shortcut to get there. Therefore, as these interchanges—and the one at Route 1, of course, is key to Old Town Alexandria. As they are greatly expanded, it invites traffic to come through Alexandria to reach those rather than to take other approaches. And we think it will enhance the traffic and enhance—increase the traffic in Alexandria, and the practical experience has been to that effect.
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. PETRI. One last question from me, and we will see if Mr. Blumenauer may have a question or two.
This is for Ms. McVay and Mr. Dunn. If your lawsuit challenging how the DOT selected the 12-lane alternative is successful and the Department complies with all the terms of the judge's decision, will you then support the project resulting from this process even if it should be a 12-lane bridge or are you basically opposed to the scope of the bridge as opposed to the environmental concerns?
Ms. MCVAY. Well, the scope of the bridge is our environmental concern. Yes, it is the scope of the project. That is the bottom line here.
Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, we were engaged in good-faith negotiations with the Department of Transportation, and I think that we can reach a resolution, but key to that is what you do. The resolution depends largely on that, but we are reasonable, constructive people, that I have already said we are not seeking what is best for Alexandria, we are just trying to avoid what is worse for Alexandria.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Mr. Blumenauer?
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for arriving late. I just caught up a little bit. I plan on reviewing the record.
This is an area of great interest to me and I think is sort of symptomatic of what has created an interesting situation in metropolitan Washington, D.C., where there appears to be a mismatch between a variety of different competing objectives; and it seems to me that we are seeing this played out time and time again in the metropolitan area to the point that everybody is walking away very frustrated.
Mr. PETRI. I think we tried to get ahead of the curve on this, but it has been frustrated often by the different tradeoffs that have to be made.
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. BLUMENAUER. On balance, people sort of dismiss us as sort of the upper left coast, and we haven't built any freeway lanes in the last 20 years, and there aren't any that are planned. Even though we have been growing very rapidly and we have—we are looking at some alternatives. I feel like I am sort of a citizen here of metropolitan Washington.
I commend you for having this hearing; and I hope that we, as a committee, can spend more time getting inside this issue. Because this I think is sort of the key to what is going to happen in metropolitan Washington.
And the ability of people to not talk past one another but be able to coordinate land use, transportation, and make sure that citizens have a chance to be a part of something so they really know what they are getting into is not just the key to solving the conundrum on the Wilson Bridge, which I have been hearing about since I came here, but I think it also, as it pops up around the region in a number of ways, whether it is Redskin football games, where the system doesn't work very well, or you have sort of dualing constituencies—so I would just review the material.
I appreciate your courtesy, and I really appreciate your bringing us together. Because I think it has profound national implications for the community that we all share and for what is going to happen in this metropolitan area for decades to come.
Mr. PETRI. On that high note, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[insert here]