Segment 5 Of 6 Previous Hearing Segment(4) Next Hearing Segment(6)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 538 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
PLEASE NOTE: The following transcript is a portion of the official hearing record of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Additional material pertinent to this transcript may be found on the web site of the Committee at [http://www.house.gov/transportation]. Complete hearing records are available for review at the Committee offices and also may be purchased at the U.S. Government Printing Office.
THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM AND ANCILLARY ISSUES RELATING TO HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT PROGRAMS
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 1995
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:01 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're meeting today to receive testimony from members of Congress on projects they have requested to be included in the National Highway System Designation legislation. While I'd like to emphasize that the committee is still unsure whether the projects will be included in the bill, we've had a lot of requests from members, and we wanted to take advantage of this opportunity to begin the hearing process.
Page 539 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
In addition to some other factors, the budget process is moving slowly, and so the pace for consideration of the National Highway System Legislation has also slowed down. If projects are to be included in the bill, there will be opportunities for additional hearings following the April recess.
With that, I wish to yield to my colleagues for any opening remarks that they might like to make.
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Congressman Rahall is unable to join us at this time. I have no opening statement.
However, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question if I may. Many of us are interested in knowing whether there's been a change in the schedule for considering the NHS bill. And I would appreciate it if the Chairman could update us on this matter.
Mr. PETRI. Yes, as I just indicated in my opening statement, we will be having additional hearings on NHS after the April recess. And we're planning on moving the bill forward, but not until after the recess. We will at least be tracking the Senate as they move their bill forward. I understand they're supposed to be coming forward in May.
But we're aware of the September 30th deadline, and we're going to try to reach it in plenty of time. We're also accommodating members' requests for an opportunity to examine different concerns that they have as to what should be or shouldn't be in the bill.
Page 540 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. POSHARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. All right. The first panel, Representative Clay Shaw is not yet here, but I wonder if Mr. David Miller or Commissioner Diaz de la Portilla here.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I am David Miller.
Mr. PETRI. Good. If the two of you would come forward and begin testifying, hopefully Mr. Shaw will arrive. He's just down the hall, I suspect, and will come in as you are making your remarks.
Which of you would like to begin?
TESTIMONY OF HON. E. CLAY SHAW, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM FLORIDA, ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID MILLER, DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS, PORT EVERGLADES, FLORIDA AND MIGUEL DIAZ DE LA PORTILLA, COMMISIONER, METRO-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, TRI-COUNTY COMMUTER RAIL AUTHORITY, DADE, BROWARD AND PALM BEACH COUNTIES, FLORIDA
Mr. DE LA PORTILLA. Mr. Chairman, I'm Miguel Diaz de la Portilla, Commissioner from Metro Dade County. And first of all, I'd like to thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for allowing me this opportunity to testify here before you on behalf of Metropolitan Dade County and the Miami Urbanized Area.
Page 541 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
I am a Commissioner in Metro Dade County, I am the immediate past chairman of the county's transportation and infrastructure committee. I am a member of that committee presently, and I am the Chairman of the county's Maritime Trade and Tourism Committee.
I'll start by way of introduction and give you a little bit of background, brief background on Metro Dade County. Metro Dade is a political subdivision of 2 million people. But it's part of a larger area of south Florida that is currently composed of 4.5 million people. By the year 2000, our south Florida area will have 6 million people. Dade County is a multi-ethnic diverse community with its principal business being trade, international trade and tourism.
To accommodate these high volumes of tourism and of trade, transportation is vital and key to Dade County. We have a major airport in Dade County, it's Miami International Airport, and it's the second—Mr. Chairman? You've been joined by Representative Shaw. Shall I continue with my testimony?
Mr. PETRI. Would you be willing to suspend, or, Clay, would you like to proceed?
Mr. DE LA PORTILLA. I would like to suspend and yield to him.
Mr. PETRI. We would like to welcome our very hard-working and esteemed colleague from the south Florida area. Clay, you've been very busy organizing things over in Ways and Means, and moving things in the welfare area. But you have other concerns as well.
Mr. SHAW. Don't forget that I'm an alumni of this committee.
Page 542 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
[Laughter.]
Mr. DE LA PORTILLA. And Mr. Chairman, Representative Shaw has been helping us in working hard for Dade County. So we definitely appreciate that, and I'd like to thank him for arranging for this testimony here before this committee and would like to continue, if I may.
Miami International Airport, as I was saying, is the second airport in terms of international travel. It's number one in the Nation in terms of international cargo. Now, last year 31 million people went through Miami International Airport. Over 50 percent came from outside the United States. That number is expected to double within the next 10 years.
To this end, Metropolitan Dade County has embarked on a $3 billion expansion program for Miami International Airport, $500 million are currently underway as far as construction of Miami International Airport, and another $2.5 billion are programmed to be spent within the next 10 years at the airport. In addition, Miami International Airport moves 1.4 million tons of cargo. Out of that cargo, 80 percent is international cargo. It's the largest employment center in Dade County, providing 178,000 jobs for Dade Countians.
The seaport of Miami is the number one cruise port in the world, we had over 3.2 million passengers go through it last year, and by the year 2000 we'll have 5 million passengers go through. The cruise port of Miami, or the seaport of Miami, is also number eight in the Nation in terms of international cargo.
Page 543 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Now, we've committed $750 million to the expansion of the seaport. Between these two projects, between the airport and the seaport, Metropolitan Dade County has committed $3 billion. Now, in order for these projects to give us their full benefit and in order for us to maximize the use of these, we need to maximize the ground transportation system.
And to that extent, we're here today asking for authorization for the east-west corridor. The east-west corridor is a 21 mile corridor that runs, or will run parallel to the most congested, or one of the most congested expressways in the Nation, that's 836. And this expressway runs between the seaport and the airport. The idea of the east-west corridor is to link these two vital engines of our economy.
And vital, not just to South Florida and not to just Dade County, but vital internationally. Because again, Miami and the state of south Florida are key to international trade, as was indicated by the Assembly of the Americas, which was held in Dade County.
The east-west corridor is a project that has been hailed as a model of cooperation between Federal agencies. Every single agency in the U.S. Department of Transportation has signed on and is a participant under a memorandum of understanding in this east-west corridor. Through this cooperation, this project has progressed at an accelerated rate.
In fact, we didn't ask for authorization of this project last year, because we didn't feel that we'd be at the advanced stage that we are now. In fact, we're about toe complete the environmental impact statement this summer, and we're ready to move on to the next stage of this project.
Page 544 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
That's why we're asking that the project be authorized, and we're asking for contract authority of $100 million for this project. Now, that's not the total amount. In fact, it's a fraction of that amount. But that should carry us through this authorization period, through 1997.
The next project that—by the way, I'd like to point out that this is a $3 billion plus project, and we've done all this and progressed to the stage of finalizing the environmental impact statement in 2 years. The intermodal center is a component of this project, and the intermodal center is key to the expansion and survival of the airport.
The intermodal center has been hailed by the Secretary of Transportation as the premier intermodal center in the Nation, and it will link Tri-Rail, Amtrak, inner city rail, inner city bus, and hopefully in the future, in the not too distant future, high speed rail, if that becomes a reality.
We've gone about as far as we can with this project without using or without authorization. We're at the stage that in order to carry it through, we're going to need this authorization, sir.
The next project is the north corridor. And again, this is another vital project. Last year we were authorized and given contract authority for $15 million. What we're requesting today is that we, that authorization be retained and we be given contract authority of up to $19 million, again, to take us through this authorization period, or the end of this authorization period.
Page 545 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Once again, this is another project that by this summer we'll be ready to move into the design stages, and we would have completed the earlier stages.
The next request is basically to allow us to continue to be eligible for CMAQ funds. Again, Dade County has met Federal goals of air quality. We've applied to the EPA to go from a non-attainment area to an attainment area. And we ask this committee to support our request to keep the technical correction language that was put in Section 102 to allow non-attainment areas to continue their eligibility for receiving congestion mitigation and air quality improvement funds at their 1994 levels.
We've been utilizing these funds primarily for transit projects, which is one of their allowable, flexible uses. And we would like the subcommittee, we respectfully request that the subcommittee retain this language allowing formerly non-attainment areas to continue to be eligible for CMAQ funds. As $12 million impact for us, it is vital to the continued progress and survival of the Metro Dade transit system.
In closing, I'd like to point out that the Metro Dade Transit Agency has been a good steward of public funds. Our most recent completion, although we're here in an authorization year, but I'd like to point this out, because I think it speaks for the efficiency and efficacy of what we've done in Dade County.
And I'm here, joined by Ed Colby, who's not at this table, who's the Metro Dade transit director. But it should be pointed out that we completed a people mover project $20 million under budget and ahead of schedule.
Page 546 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
And the success that it's enjoyed has been phenomenal, the ridership has been several thousand over the ridership projected. So Dade County will continue to be a good steward of public dollars once we get to the appropriation stage, and hopefully get the appropriation.
In summary, I'd like to thank you, would like to thank our very own Clay Shaw, and I'd like to thank you and the members of this committee for allowing me this opportunity to ask for contract authority for the east-west corridor of $100 million, for authorization of the east-west corridor, for the retention of the authorization of the north corridor, and extension of contract authority of $15 million and $19 million, and for the continuation of CMAQ eligibility, so that we can continue to use these funds to maintain and monitor our clean air that we've achieved.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, sir.
Clay, would you like to make a statement?
Mr. SHAW. Thank you. I'm sorry that I wasn't here to introduce the Commissioner. He did very well on his own, I can see. And as you can see, these are very important projects that he has testified to down in Dade County, with the expansion, the very ambitious expansion of the Miami Airport. That has international significance, and great significance to trade throughout the United States, it being the gateway from the Caribbean and from all of South America. These are very important projects. I believe all were contained in the bill last year that never got over to the Senate. All of the bills that we'll be talking about here from this table this morning were contained in last year's bill, and just never made it through the Senate. So we're just, we're really asking for a repeat.
Page 547 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Turning our attention now a little bit to the north, to Port Everglades, I have David Miller, who's the Director of Corporate Communications, who will describe a project that he has. And I would ask that his full written testimony, as well as the Commissioner's full written testimony, be made a part of the record, in addition to my testimony which I previously submitted to the committee.
Mr. PETRI. Without objection, that will be done.
Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Congressman Shaw.
Mr. Chairman, committee members, I'm pleased to be here this morning. I would like to take 5 minutes to describe the Eller Drive project for you. Before we get into the project, perhaps one minute simply to give you a brief background on Port Everglades.
The seaport itself is a 1,900 acre seaport, which is located 23 miles north of Miami. And we have emerged as a major transportation hub for both cargo and cruise operations. This evolution started approximately 15 years ago, when the governing body of the seaport decided to diversify from the seaport's traditional role as a petroleum transfer facility. We've been extremely successful in that diversification processes. And in fact, we now rank as the 13th busiest container cargo seaport in the Nation. And we're the second busiest cruise port in the world, second only to our friends to the south, the Port of Miami.
In terms of cargo operations, we're confident that the cargo operation at the seaport will continue to grow through this decade. In fact, in 1994, we posted a 22 percent increase in inter-model container tonnage, compared to 1993, and we expect that to continue with important and export trade with our Latin American trading partners playing a significant role.
Page 548 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
However, current infrastructure at all south Florida seaports is reaching maximum capacity. And projects such as the Eller Drive expansion are imperative. From a cruise perspective, briefly our forecasts indicate healthy growth for the cruise operations as well. South Florida seaports are responsible for approximately 70 percent of the total cruise passenger traffic passing through Florida. And we feel that south Florida, Miami and Port Everglades, will continue to be the cruise gateway to the Caribbean.
Now, in terms of the project itself, I'd like to give you just a brief run-down, as far as the project is, we feel, a vital element to meet the anticipated growth in cargo and cruise traffic. The port's main entrance is indeed located at Eller Drive, which is the eastern terminus of Interstate 595. Unfortunately, an existing bridge causes Eller Drive to narrow to a two-lane highway approximately 1,000 feet east of the terminus of Interstate 595, which can cause severe bus and private vehicle traffic congestion, especially during peak cruise operations. Further, truck traffic can be adversely affected due to the ingress and egress of containers traveling to the Florida East Coast Railway yard, which is located northwest of Eller Drive, and the normal flow of traffic, trucks traveling to and from the interstate highway system via I–595.
In your briefing papers I submitted photographs, two aerial photographs of the seaport and the current configuration. And you may note also there was a photograph of a recent tractor trailer rig incident which occurred at the site.
The expansion project as presented today will replace the two-lane bridge with a four-land bridge, and allow the widening and realignment of the middle 4,000 linear feet of Eller Drive, to attain unrestricted four-lane access from the seaport's cruise terminals and container terminals to the interstate highway system and the Florida turnpike. Exhibit 4 in your briefing papers shows the current configuration of Eller Drive and the proposed enhancements.
Page 549 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
As the primary access road into the port, Eller Drive accommodates a diverse stream of traffic. We have calculated average daily trips on Eller Drive to be approximately 11,000. However, on weekends, especially during the cruise season, the peak hourly volume of one-way trips has been estimated to be 900. The completion of the road improvements will enhance the capacity of Eller Drive to sustain future projects that will result from future seaport development. And we expect these improvements to provide sufficient capacity through the year 2010.
To summarize, the total project is $3.9 million. We have completed preliminary engineering and environmental analysis. The project is included in the Broward County Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Program. It is currently ranked eighth on that list.
We feel that the project will enhance access to sea, rail, and air, and the interstate highway connections, all of which are within a mile and a half of the project site. The project is cost-effective, it addresses the public safety issues, and is an integral part of the development of a proposed inter-modal container transfer facility at Port Everglades, which will have a tremendous impact on the future container handling capacity of the seaport.
We appreciate your interest, and we look forward to working with you on this project.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Page 550 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Are there any questions of this panel?
[No response.]
Mr. PETRI. Are these various projects included in or approved by the Florida Transportation Department?
Mr. MILLER. In terms of our project, we are working with the Florida Department of Transportation. There is another element with FDOT in terms of a realignment of an existing highway, Federal U.S. Highway Number 1, and A1A coming through the seaport. So yes, we are integrating with the Florida Department of Transportation as well.
Mr. DE LA PORTILLA. Mr. Chairman, from our end, FDOT is the lead agency in the east-west corridor project, which includes the intermodal center. And as I mentioned, there is a memorandum of understanding between not only all the Federal agencies of the U.S. Department of Transportation, but the state and local transportation agencies.
Mr. PETRI. And it has general support within the group of representatives whose areas are covered?
Mr. MILLER. Yes, sir.
Mr. PETRI. Are your Senators aware of these projects, are they supportive of the projects?
Page 551 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. MILLER. Yes, they are.
Mr. DE LA PORTILLA. Yes, sir. From our end, there is a letter which has been submitted that includes the signatures of our delegation. Not only delegation, but the people of Dade County, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Board of County Commissioners unanimously are in support of both these projects, the north corridor project and the east-west intermodal center project, which are part of our program of interrelated projects, which was presented last year before this committee.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you all very much. We'll be happy to work with you.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, there are two other projects on which we do not have a witness available here this morning, and I'd like to very briefly walk through it with the committee.
My district, I've got one of the most unique districts in the world, I think. Because now I'm going to take you up to Palm Beach and talk about the Port of Palm Beach. You would think that I'd be sitting here talking about beach erosion, because that is my biggest threat, I think, in that my district is 91 miles of Atlantic coastline running from North Palm Beach on the north down to the port of Miami. So I've got the entrance to the Port of Miami, not the port itself. I've got Port Everglades up in Fort Lauderdale, and now the Port of Palm Beach, which is up in, really just north of West Palm Beach.
What we're asking for at the Port of Palm Beach, last year the Congress appropriated $500,000 in the DOT appropriation bill for preliminary engineering and design work that's necessary to complete aspects of road improvements. This would be an elevation of U.S. 1 right there at the port. An amount of $10.6 million is necessary to complete all aspects of the road program, and this represents only 11.5 percent of the total project.
Page 552 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
It's important to note last year that the Florida Department of Commerce and the Florida Department of Transportation committed $2.9 million towards the total capital improvement project, of which this is a part. In addition to the $500,000 appropriated to the Port by the Congress, the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, this committee, authorized $5.26 million in H.R. 4385, the National Highway System Bill. We are requesting an authorization now of $10.6 million to be included for the Port of Palm Beach in the pending legislation.
Now, going south, back to Dade County and to North Miami Beach, there is three phases of a bike patch that money were appropriated for. Due to an error that was made locally down in Dade County, the center piece was extracted. Previously, the previous appropriation was $735,000 for 1992, and $400,000 for 1993. In that this, the central part of this is missing, what we are requesting is that the $1.135 million be included in H.R. 4385, the National Highway System, be retained in the pending legislation, so that the bike path, which conforms to the highest standards of design, be restored as the critical link in the bike path.
Again, I would emphasize that this is the center section of the bike path, that construction is underway. It's critical to tie the two together to complete the project. We are again not asking for anything new. In fact, this one is unique in that it was appropriated and then was rescinded because of errors made down in Dade County. We would ask that this be part of the bill that you're structuring.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. We will be working with you on all of these projects.
Page 553 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. SHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the members of the committee for their time.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
The Honorable David Weldon, would you care to step forward?
TESTIMONY OF HON. DAVID WELDON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM FLORIDA
Mr. WELDON. I want to thank the Chairman and the ranking minority member as well as the other members of the committee for this opportunity to come before you today and speak on behalf of a project that is considered one of the top three priorities in the State of Florida by the Florida Department of Transportation. U.S. 192 is the primary hurricane evacuation route for the Melbourne-Palm Bay area, a coastal metropolitan area of over 250,000 people. It's actually the area that I live in.
U.S. 192 is four-laned on each end, but the middle section, which is shown in green on the map to my right, is 35 miles of rural two-lane road. Hurricane evacuation is a primary concern for the State of Florida. Our recent experience with Hurricane Andrew is testimony to the tremendous costs that storms can cause.
The Florida Secretary of Transportation has determined that the Melbourne-Palm Bay area is one of the two largest population areas in Florida with only one inland evacuation route, the other is the Florida Keys. And our particular inland evacuation route is two-laned throughout that entire green area shown on the map.
Page 554 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
U.S. 192 connects two of the fastest growing metropolitan areas of both Florida and the United States, connecting greater Orlando and the Melbourne-Palm Bay area I mentioned before. U.S. 192 literally connects the Disney World main gate with the Atlantic beaches. And because of this, it is heavily traveled not only by a tremendous amount of trucks engaging in commerce, but Floridians as well as out of state and many foreign tourists.
As a result, U.S. 192 is one of the most dangerous roads in Florida. Indeed, I was informed by my local state representative that representatives from Reader's Digest magazine were recently in the area and considering ranking this road as one of the 10 most dangerous roads in the Nation. Indeed, in the past 4 years, from, well, actually from 1988 to 1992, there have been 283 vehicular accidents which involved 375 injuries and 16 fatalities. One of those fatalities was the wife of a physician friend of mine, a truck crossed the median and she was killed and his daughter was paralyzed. That was a few years ago.
And recently, I was just back in my district this past weekend, and I was informed by another physician friend of mine that a colleague of his at one of the other hospitals in the community, his elderly mother and father-in-law were going to the Orlando area to celebrate their 50th anniversary, and again, a truck crossed the mid-line, the wife was killed and her husband was seriously injured. So this is clearly a very dangerous road, and badly in need of widening.
Of importance to the committee is the fact that this project is truly intermodal. It meeds the full intent of the National Highway System legislation. U.S. 192 connects several interstate highways, I–95 and I–75, as well as the Florida turnpike. It connects Orlando International Airport with Melbourne International Airport. It provides the southern route to Port Canaveral and the Kennedy Space Center, bypassing the Orlando Metropolitan area. It's also the southern evacuation route for Patrick Air Force Base.
Page 555 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Unlike many highway projects, right of way land acquisition will be relatively easy for U.S. 192 widening. Land donation commitments have been received by approximately 26 miles of the total project length of 35 miles. These include donations from the Desiree Ranch, Bull Creek Wildlife Management Area, and the St. Johns Water Management District.
Federal National Highway System legislation requires a local match of 20 percent from Florida DOT. Florida is committed to this project and has provided the necessary funding in their budget last year to provide those funds. The total project cost estimate for completion is $92 million. We are requesting $20 million in Federal funding for the completion of phase one design and phase two right-of-way.
I'd like to close by thank the committee for this opportunity to present this vitally important project for consideration, and I implore the members to include this in the National Highway System legislation. It is truly intermodal, and I urge them to do the right thing before this imaginary hurricane becomes a real one.
I thank you, and I'd be happy to entertain any questions.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Are there any questions?
[No response.]
Page 556 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. PETRI. I'd just like to compliment you on your aggressive efforts to promote this project with both state and Federal highway authorities. And we'll be here to work with you in trying to bring it forward.
Mr. Mica.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I'd just be recognized for a second, if I may. This is known as Death Alley, and it is, as Mr. Weldon has said, one of the top three priorities in the state. And we do need to pay some serious attention to this project. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Baker.
Mr. BAKER. Dr. Weldon, I'd like to ask the staff, I believe, was this on the plan last year that went to the Senate? It was not. New, bright, young aggressive leadership here before us. Okay. Thank you. We'll look at it seriously. This is something that shouldn't be allowed to continue.
Would you have your staff point out where Disney World is?
Mr. WELDON. Yes.
Mr. BAKER. Because all of a sudden you have——
Mr. WELDON. Ken will show you where Disney World is on the map, right on that road, right in there.
Page 557 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. BAKER. And so Disney World probably paid to put the little red line in. Now we have to do the green.
Mr. WELDON. Actually, this road is six lanes for a good stretch of it towards St. Cloud. And then right in St. Cloud it goes to four lanes. Then right outside of St. Cloud, right about where he is there, it goes to two lanes and goes through rural ranch land.
One of the biggest problems with this road is the amount of truck traffic on it. These are two large population centers. And the amount of trucks is phenomenal on this road. And it's a windy two-lane country road. In my opinion, it should have been four-laned about 5 to 10 years ago, actually. I don't know why this hasn't gotten a higher priority.
Mr. BAKER. Ten pounds of feathers in a 5 pound bag. But we'll work on this, Doctor, I'm glad you're here.
Mr. WELDON. All right.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I was just wondering if it might be possible for you to make sure that we get commitments from all of these members, including the Florida delegation as they come before us, to support our project and some of the other reforms that are being recommended for full funding of transportation. So we need their commitments to make this possible.
Mr. PETRI. I think we're fashioning a little lighter handed approach of this.
Page 558 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. WELDON. If I could just close by mentioning other thing, this project enjoys bipartisan support. Mr. Backus, who was my predecessor, was working on this project. This is something the people badly need.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.
Yes, Norman? Representative Mineta.
Mr. MINETA. I think, in answer to your question, John, the problem we had was that further south from here, in terms of the states' recommendation, was the priority way to go to 7414, and in terms of the emergency escape route. But in any event, I think Congressman Weldon makes a good point, in terms of what we have, in terms of a need.
Is there any chance that the state would do anything about over-matching? Because the problem we have is, it's going to be like last time when we had NHS. We had $32 billion of requests from all the members of Congress. And we had to shove, you talk about 10 pounds of feathers into a 5 pound bag, we had to press $32 billion of requests into a $2 billion bag.
And so the ones that had over-match, the ones that had better payback periods, whatever it might have been, were the ones that got consideration.
Mr. WELDON. The state has informed me verbally that they are prepared to do that, and actually the local state representative, Howard Fudge, has informed me that if the money to get this project, to just get the project started, is appropriated, that the possibility of the state coming in and completing the project, because of the tremendous local need, exists.
Page 559 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. MINETA. But as I understand it, you were talking about $20 million for phase one design and for land acquisition?
Mr. WELDON. To complete the land acquisition. We have 26 miles of land donation. On the western end of this project, there's an area of private homes. And so there will be some additional monies needed to complete the land acquisition. But we have about two-thirds of the land already in donation.
Mr. MINETA. Very frankly, $20 million is going to be a very, very hard nut to crack. I'm not sure we'll be able to.
Mr. WELDON. Well, I am quite certain that the state would be very, very happy to get a figure smaller than that. I think any appropriated amount will be very, very well received by the state in order to get this project rolling.
Mr. MINETA. And in response to the Chairman's question, you did say it is part of the state transportation improvement program?
Mr. WELDON. Yes. As I understand it, this would have been ranked number one, were it not for, there's a couple of interstate projects that require getting a higher ranking.
Mr. MINETA. Fuller Warren Bridge, I think, on I–95, is still the high priority for the state.
Page 560 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. WELDON. Yes.
Mr. MINETA. You're right. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Representative Weldon.
Mr. WELDON. Thank you very much.
Mr. PETRI. The Honorable Robert Dornan, welcome.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ROBERT K. DORNAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA
Mr. DORNAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What a delight to call you Mr. Chairman.
Anticipating the question and before I forget it, of our distinguished colleague from California, Mr. Mineta, everything I'm going to testify to is truly on the state's priority list. And with all due respect to my colleague who just testified before me, we know that at Disney World they have wonderful doubles, cousins, first cousins of Mickey and Minnie, but the real Mickey is in my district, as you well know, Mr. Horn, at Disney Land.
And Bristol Street, which is the project that I'd like to mention first, is the main north-south artery in Orange County, where four major road systems come together. And the City of Santa Ana has put up $28 million, committed it, of local funds. And that's why this project has always received the report of, in report language, the support of this committee, although much reduced because of the money crunch.
Page 561 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
I would like to take this opportunity, though, to testify for not only the citizens of Orange County, but the whole southern California region for three projects that we hope will be included in the National Highway System bill. One is the Bristol Street Improvement Project in Santa Ana. Number two is the Orange County Transportation Authority's Transitway System. And the third is the Transportation Corridor Agency of eastern Orange County. And all of these are not only high priority projects for the citizens of all of Orange County, but I repeat, for California and our local governments.
The Bristol Street Improvement Project, which was included in last year's House-passed NHS bill, is going to substantially, Mr. Chairman, relieve congestion on some of the most traveled highways in the whole country, the whole United States. The City of Santa Ana is located in the heart of Orange County, almost tied with San Diego County for being the second most populous in our most populated state. It's bound by four major freeways. And what we're pursing is an authorization of $107 million in order to widen this major arterial within the county, Bristol Street.
I'll submit for the record the exact streets involved. Let me point out that all of the engineering and environmental analyses have been completed on this segment of Bristol, which is more than one-third of its course, and we are ready to begin immediately. As you can tell by our strong local commitment, it is the city's highest capital improvement project over the next 10 to 15 years.
I will leave all of the other details for the record. May I point out that nationwide, this area is known as the Orange Crush because of this freeway interchange of the 5 and the 405, two of the most traveled roads, not only in California, but I repeat, again, in the Nation. We need to improve this north-south artery, Bristol Street, to help alleviate increasing pressure on that Orange Crush. Therefore I respectfully urge the committee to support an authorization of $10.7 million.
Page 562 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
The second request is the Orange County Transitway System project. It has been refined since the passage of ISTEA in 1991. The project is a bus-HOV connector to link high occupancy vehicle HOV lanes through, again, this major confluence of the 405 and the 55 interchange in Costa Mesa. The project is at the heart of OCTA's county-wide HOV and transitway system. And it is financially and politically supported by all of the citizens of Orange County.
According to the Federal Highway Administration, this interchange is one of the 10 busiest, sometimes it's six, sometimes seven, always in the top 10. And it carries almost 500,000 cars per day. It is in the vicinity of the fifth busiest airport in the Nation, John Wayne, and near the South Coast Plaza Shopping Center, which is first in the Nation for annual retail sales. And it's held that number one position for about a decade and a half. It's an amazing area of our great country.
The Irvine Business Complex just south of there, growing fast, houses more than 2,500 companies with almost 115,000 employees. And very close is the Orange County Performing Arts Center, which is rivaling Los Angeles' Performing Arts Center. Most major productions will come to Los Angeles and then to Orange County. And sometimes they are now reversing that project.
Third is the Orange County Transitway System project—excuse me, still on this, it's already completed the Federal environmental analysis and the alternatives analysis requirements. It's highly rated on a cost benefit criteria by the FTA, and it's recommended for funding in the FTA's annual Section 3(j) report. I'll put the rest in the record.
But let me point out our Orange County Transit Authority buses use this, there are 750 buses. And they are in the process of redesigning the whole network to tie in flow into this transitway system. The rest I will put in the record.
Page 563 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
And the third and last project, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this great committee, I bring to you today as a request to help us with the Eastern Transportation Corridor, what we call in Orange County ETC. This is an Orange County project that with the committee's support will become a national model for constructing new toll roads for other highly congested regions.
The staff, when our distinguished Democratic colleagues were in the majority, traveled out here, and as always, Mr. Chairman, have been highly impressed with this joint effort, I should say, bipartisan staff has been impressed. This project has been developed by the Transportation Corridor Agency, that's a public agency governed by our elected county supervisors, all of our city council members who are affected, and of course, the leadership role of our fine mayors.
The ETC is one of three current toll road projects being sponsored by the TCA. I'm asking that the subcommittee support inclusion of ETC in the National Highway System. At this time, the State of California submitted its proposed NHS routes, and the ETCA was not far enough along to be included. Since then, however, the project has increased significantly, and I'll put in the other impressive figures for the record.
I hope that all three of these projects will be considered for our country, because we are nestled right up against one of the biggest counties in America, Los Angeles, and nobody can get to our second largest county, San Diego, without traveling through the dynamic and growing Orange County, California.
Page 564 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
With that, I rest my case, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much, Representative Dornan, and your full submission will be included in the record, and we'll be looking forward to working with you.
So far as enlarging or updating the National Highway System for your last project, our policy has been to work with the state departments of transportation and the Federal Department of Transportation, and if they are agreeable to go ahead and add things to the list. If they don't, then we will review it with you.
But if the state didn't include it because they weren't far enough along on it, and now it makes sense to include it, we'll be happy to work with you in making sure that the Federal Highway takes a look at it as well.
Mr. DORNAN. On that third project, Mr. Chairman, as you well know, having served so many years on this committee, California, because of our gasoline tax, has never, with the exception of the Bay Bridges and the Golden Gate Bridge, never really gone to toll roads much. But because of this congestion in Orange County and because this is going up into the foothills and it's a brand new project, we think we're, we truly are, and your bipartisan staff has confirmed this over the years, really created an example for the Nation of how much local support there has to be in before we ask for dollars from the Federal Government.
But I come back to that Bristol Street, I sound weak to myself when I say street. It's not just a street. It is a north-south artery so important to all these major freeways that flow in a northwest to southeasterly direction that it belies the importance of this cause to merely say Bristol Street. We really need to continue with this project, and as I said, the county has committed $28 million, and Santa Ana's done a magnificent job as our county seat, carrying more than its fair share to get back some of our good tax dollars from the Feds.
Page 565 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Are there questions? Yes, Representative Baker.
Mr. BAKER. Is the toll road open now, Mr. Dornan?
Mr. DORNAN. Pardon?
Mr. BAKER. Is the toll road open now?
Mr. DORNAN. No, it is not.
Mr. BAKER. And it's supposed to be modernized, so that they can read the sticker on the car, they won't even have to collect the toll?
Mr. DORNAN. That's right. That's why I say, we hope to be an example to the country to do this state of the art, so people can go through the toll booth at autobahn speeds. No, I'm kidding.
But we hope that we will have an automated system that will help expedite, there won't be any choke points like you sometimes get out here at the toll roads going out to Dulles.
Mr. BAKER. Your other two projects are in the State STIP, the transportation plan?
Page 566 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. DORNAN. They are.
Mr. BAKER. Perfect.
Mr. DORNAN. And they would have been completed a long time ago, had it not been for Governor Brown importing a head of transportation from Massachusetts who, as you recall, commuted and never really—and then Jerry Brown won Orange County, a little known fact, over Nevil Younger. But he didn't win it by a big enough margin, so he cut us off for 8 years. And that gap of no state money really, we're still paying the price of it now. And call his 800 number and complain. I saw him on television last night.
Mr. BAKER. And since that time, you've approved a half cent sales tax, too, so Orange County is really paying its fair share now.
Mr. DORNAN. Really, it truly is.
Mr. PETRI. Other questions? Mr. Mica.
Mr. MICA. You have no toll roads in that area now?
Mr. DORNAN. No, none now.
Mr. MICA. Okay.
Page 567 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. DORNAN. And we're going to put one north-south and two east-west.
Mr. MICA. And how many interstates are in that area?
Mr. DORNAN. Well, where El Toro Marine Corps Air Station is is a confluence of 5, which comes all the way down from Vancouver at the Canadian border and goes all the way down to the Mexican border, 5 is the exact equivalent of 95 on the east coast, which comes from Maine right down to Key West. They are the two twin highways on our coasts, 5 and 95.
But 405, another major highway, comes into a Y, and this is not the aforementioned Orange Crush, that's a little further north. But where those two come together, there is El Toro sitting just to the north. And it is a major confluence. It's about 12 lanes across of active traffic at the height of the day.
Mr. MICA. Twelve lanes across?
Mr. DORNAN. Just going one way. Three of them aren't being used, and other eight coming the other way. It's amazing.
Mr. MICA. And eight lanes in another direction. I'm just trying to build my case for me later on. Thank you.
Mr. DORNAN. It's hard to visualize.
Page 568 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. PETRI. Representative, you're well known in Orange County for your aggressive advocacy of infrastructure needs in that area. And we'll look forward to working with you.
Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Chairman, some pundits and talking heads on T.V. are disproving our wonderful Speaker, Tip O'Neill's statement that all politics is local. They're saying that the November 8th election disproved that. I disagree. I'm still with Tip. All politics is local. I've got to take care of Orange County, and this is important. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
The next witness is our colleague on the committee, Bob Filner. The floor is yours.
TESTIMONY OF HON. BOB FILNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA
Mr. FILNER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be here in front of my own subcommittee and see so many of my California colleagues here. I won't blame all of San Diego's problems on the other party's governors in California, as we just heard.
I'd like to bring to the committee's attention something that I brought up in other connections, and I have a full statement for the record, if I might. And that is the matter of California State Route 905. This is a project that is critical to the economic development, not only of southern California, but of the whole Nation. And I urge you to authorize, or reauthorize inclusion of State Route 905 in the National Highway System, which this committee did approve last year.
Page 569 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
This route, 905, is the critical missing link in our U.S.-Mexico border transportation system. Today, Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out in this committee on several occasions, our sole link between the border crossing at Otay Mesa, which handles up to 50 percent of the truck traffic between the U.S. and Mexico, the sole link between that border crossing and the interstate highway system is an inadequate four land city street.
Let me repeat. Almost half a million trucks now, and that will double within the next year or 2, travel on a 5 to 6 mile stretch of an inadequate four lane city street. All of NAFTA rests on this little stretch here. If that is not brought up to full capacity and adequacy within the next couple of years, I will tell you that a lot of the hope that many people saw in NAFTA will not be realized.
We have recently expanded the border crossing facility. The Customs facility at Otay Mesa can handle all of these trucks. All the commercial traffic between the two largest cities on the U.S.-Mexico border, San Diego and Tijuana, come through this facility. San Diego, which I represent, is proud to be an integral part of the international border economy. And certainly our city and region benefits from the movement of goods and people across the border.
But recent studies have shown that only 16 percent of the goods crossing the border have a local destination. That is, most of the traffic, the overwhelming majority of the traffic, is destined for the rest of the Nation. And we expect, as I said, a doubling of that traffic within the next couple of years.
The border crossing facility, per se, can handle it. What we need is the supporting infrastructure, the road that connects the border crossing to the interstate highway system. It's approximately a $100 million project over 3 years. This committee authorized approximately 10 percent of that in its last year's bill. As it went through that process, that was further and further decreased and we got less than a million dollars for environmental studies. Although now the state and the city are upgrading that road to the best of their ability.
Page 570 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
This is in my view an unfunded Federal mandate. Our Congress and the President signed NAFTA. It is national policy to increase that trade, and yet we do not have the infrastructure to allow it to occur.
So I hope, Mr. Chairman, as we have discussed at several subcommittee meetings that this committee pay particular attention to that border infrastructure. It's crucial to the economic growth of this Nation. And with that, I'll stop and submit my full statement for the record.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much.
Are there questions of our colleague?
[No response.]
Mr. PETRI. Let me just say that we've discussed, too, we will be, we are very interested in finding out more about the problems along the California-Mexico border across the whole southern border, having some oversight hearings on NAFTA issues that come within the jurisdiction of this committee, and the infrastructure issues that you referred to. And we will be looking forward to working with you as we try to schedule some hearings or briefings later this year on that.
Mr. FILNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know you have indicated that on several occasions, and we're very pleased that that will occur.
Page 571 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Now, let's see. Our colleague Lee Hamilton is scheduled to testify in a few minutes. He may be on the way.
Dan Mica went to get his materials. Excuse me, John. The Mica family has been here longer than I have. John, are you ready or would you like to wait? All right. Then the floor is yours. Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOHN MICA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM FLORIDA
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I don't have my handouts. But they'll be on the way. I'm not scheduled until 1:00 o'clock.
But let me talk for a minute about some of our priorities in central Florida. As you may know, I have the suburban area between Orlando and Daytona Beach. It's one of the most growing areas in the United States. And we have really neglected some of our transportation needs in the past. And just because of growth and economic development considerations, have gotten into the ball park in the past few years. One of the reasons I ran for Congress was to get involved in this particular issue, because I know transportation is key to economic development.
But we have a situation where we have an area of the country that has become the number one tourist destination really for the world. And we're experiencing right now for the first time a serious decline in international visitors to central Florida. And we think that part of that is due to the congestion that's grown up. We heard testimony just a few minutes ago about eight lanes and four lane highways coming into areas. We have one interstate, I–4, that was built in the 1950s. It goes east and west across Florida. And it goes north and south through Orlando.
Page 572 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Because we have over 500 lakes in our community in just one county, you don't have a lot of alternatives as far as transit routes. Nor do we have any really through traffic roads, or alternatives, to the interstate.
Now, let me tell you what our community's done to address the problem. We have built over 60 miles of toll roads. We have no bypass. Completely community funded, to the tune, now where I think we're at a total of 80 miles, to the tune of $1.5 billion of bonded indebtedness. So our taxpayers are paying at the gas pump for Federal gas tax, then they're paying at the toll booth. I just took a short spin on part of it the other day to avoid some of the congestion, and it was $5 in tolls.
So we're paying two times. And we have the number one state priority in my estimation, and it is our top three priorities, you heard Mr. Weldon's, which I think is number three, but it is the missing link to connect our interchange, an interchange on I–4, with a greenway that's built to the east, which is again our only transit route around the Orlando metropolitan area.
So this is absolutely critical. We're asking for about $68 million, which is an 80 percent share, on the interchange. And we're also asking for assistance on some of the right of way acquisition to make this possible, so we don't have to put a toll booth at the interstate to make this possible.
Second, we're coming in and asking for some transit alternatives. And we have a couple of proposals, which I think make a lot of sense. First of all, something to take some of the one car, one person off the road. And we're asking for about, I think a total of $8 million to begin running a commuter service, bus service, on the interstate from some of the suburban areas to the urban areas.
Page 573 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
We have two lanes in most of my district on each side, a total of four lanes feeding into Orlando. That's become a death trap, it's become absolute gridlock, and people cannot move in the community. Visitors cannot move.
Let me tell you what also comprehends our situation is we have 50 percent of the people who come to central Florida come by automobile. The other 50 percent come by plane. And of the 50 percent that come by plane, they get off the plane, and we have the biggest car pool rental in the entire world, that serves 85,000 hotel rooms. So you can imagine the gridlock that has grown up in this area.
So this isn't a project of local interest. It's a project of national interest. We have some other alternatives to, again, speed up the traffic. We're looking at using some automated light and signal switches that are also in our proposal. And then we are also, the second area of priority that the state has identified is to have us participate in a commuter rail or light rail system that also incorporates the high speed rail corridor, which our area is designated for.
So we have, right now, an I–4 master plan study being completed. The cost of that is projected to address the problems to bring us to today's need, not 10 years down the pike or 20, when it's done, of $4.5 to $6 billion. That's just on the interstate. That doesn't include any of the other transit projects.
So we're multi-billion dollars behind the curve in addressing some of these transportation requirements for our growing area, and an area that contributes tremendously to the economy as far as foreign investment and foreign visitors coming into the Nation and stopping in California, stopping in Pennsylvania, stopping in New York, Washington, D.C. Again, I think these are projects of national significance, and you have a community that's done more than its share to address the problems.
Page 574 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
So with that, I've spoken over my time. And I appreciate your courtesy.
Mr. PETRI. We thank you very much. And any written statement will be included in the record.
I don't have to imagine the gridlock. I've experienced it. And I suspect a lot of other people from around the country have, because of the tremendous flow of people from abroad, and within the United States, into and out of the Orlando area, because of not just Disney World, but the other significant attractions. I appreciated the opportunity to meet some of the leading people in your area in the travel and tourism business. And we will work with you as you provide a leadership role in addressing some of these.
Mr. MICA. And actually, Mr. Chairman, too, the projects that I speak about are actually outside my district. I mean, I'm speaking more on behalf of state priorities. I can be very parochial and try to ask for all the money or attention to my district problems. But we have to solve problems beyond the boundaries of the members who serve on this committee, and in the best interests of the state and the country.
So I'm trying to look at the overall picture, and even in supporting Mr. Weldon and some of the other projects that we have. But I do know the constraints that the committee and the Congress are working under.
Mr. PETRI. Are there any questions?
Page 575 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
[No response.]
Mr. PETRI. Thank you again.
Mr. MICA. I could repeat that if you need additional filler.
[Laughter.]
Mr. PETRI. All right, we'll call on you as our relief pitcher.
Mr. MICA. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the ranking member, my colleague from California.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
The Honorable Lee Hamilton, from southern Indiana.
TESTIMONY OF HON. LEE HAMILTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM INDIANA
Mr. HAMILTON. Good morning. Thank you very much. I ask that my statement be included in your record.
Mr. Chairman, I am asking your support for two transportation projects in my Indiana district. Both of these projects were included in the NHS authorization bill approved by the House last year. Five hundred thousand dollars was appropriated in the Appropriations Act for beginning work on the Ohio River Bridge. The two projects are: $10 million through fiscal year 1997 to design and construct a new Ohio River Bridge in the greater Louisville metropolitan area; and $10 million through fiscal years 1997 to design and construct U.S. 231 in southern Indiana.
Page 576 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
With regard to the Ohio River Bridge, of course, this really would be a very major project. It's a bridge across the Ohio River in the greater Louisville metropolitan area. The States of Indiana and Kentucky have agreed in principle to the construction of the bridge. They're working now to reach an agreement on the bridge corridor.
That agreement has not been concluded at this point. The $500,000 that was made available last year in the Appropriations Act is funding a major investment study by the local metropolitan planning organization. Construction of course would not begin until later in the decade.
The project would link across the Ohio River the two states and greatly improve traffic flow and stimulate economic growth. I believe so far as my state is concerned this project is the most important infrastructure project in the entire state, or at least I've been so advised. I would think it would be a comparable priority for Kentucky. Both the local metropolitan planning organization and the Indiana Department of Transportation have included the project in their long range plan.
The other project that I'm requesting money for, $10 million, is United States Highway 231, calling for the construction of a four-lane highway to replace the existing two-lane road. The two-lane road is hilly, it's winding, it's narrow. It's completely inadequate. This is an important link, linking up a corridor between Indiana and Kentucky for interstate traffic, linking I–64 in Indiana to the bridge that's now under construction named after our former colleague, Bill Natcher of Kentucky, and linking it up with the Kentucky parkway system in the south.
Page 577 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
The existing highway simply cannot handle the traffic adequately. Anybody who's traveled that would tell you that very easily. And this highway would be a great boon to economic development in Spencer County, Indiana, which is one of the poorest counties in my state. And likewise, to the surrounding communities in Indiana and Kentucky.
Spencer County, incidentally, is one of the home areas of Abraham Lincoln. It has a tremendous tourist interest, and it's capitalizing now on that interest. So expanding U.S. 231 promises to increase visitors to a very historic and scenic area.
Federal funding of both of these projects is critical. I've appreciated the cooperation of this committee in the past in including the bills in the NHS authorization bill last year. I hope that you will be able to do so again this year. Indiana is a donor state. We receive 84 cents for every dollars contributed to the Highway Trust Fund.
And we're aware, of course, that that budget is severely constrained. I think the Indiana Department of Transportation has committed state matching funds for the projects in the long term, at least, for this highway project or projects.
Both of these projects are very high priorities for my state. And I of course want to try to be helpful in advancing these projects, and I urge your approval of them, and I thank you for your consideration.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Page 578 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Are there any questions of our colleague from Indiana?
Mr. MINETA. No, other than to thank Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. HAMILTON. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, and we'll be keeping in contact with you. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Now, let's see. Are there—you want to do your thing again?
Maybe if there are no representatives who are interested in testifying we should——
Mr. MINETA. Is Mr. Mica going to testify again?
Mr. PETRI. He's willing to, but we've heard him once, and we can do it later.
[Laughter.]
Mr. PETRI. Would you be interested in suspending until 11:30 and we'll come back then? But they're not here. And I don't know what we should do. We could sit around until 11:30.
Page 579 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
All right, we'll wait until 11:10 for Mr. Farr, and then if he's not here we'll adjourn until 11:30.
[Pause.]
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Farr, the floor is yours.
TESTIMONY OF HON. SAN FARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA
Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I'm sorry I'm late. I heard that you're meeting early. That's probably a new first in this institution. Congratulations.
I'm here on a revisit from testimony I gave last year, and I recall that my colleague Bill Baker was very familiar with these issues, because we both served in the California state legislature during the Loma Prieta earthquake, which was the big earthquake in 1989. And the epicenter of that was in my district.
And since then, several transportation issues have come to light, and I'd like to briefly go over them. And I want to thank you, last year, for the support of the two projects that I'm bringing up again this year in the National Highway System bill, H.R. 4385. It enabled us to obtain some funding through the Transportation Department's fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill.
Page 580 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
The first of the projects that I want to talk about is called the Santa Cruz Fixed Gateway/Rail Project. And I'm requesting $4.75 million in Federal transit administration Section 3 new start funds for the environmental analysis and the preliminary engineering. The area I represent is essentially a mountain area, where you have a coastal plain and all the people live on the coastal plain.
It's very heavily traveled, Highway 1 is partly freewayed and partly still two-lane. It's the corridor around Monterey Bay. It incorporates the University of California at Santa Cruz, the City of Watsonville, the junction in Watsonville which is the Southern Pacific Railroad route. It also connects other rail to Monterey County. And with Fort Ord, we've just converted that into the largest base closure in the United States. And part of the re-use is a new university, and there are expected to be 25,000 students there.
So the traffic in this corridor is going to be just tremendous. And what has happened is they've all come together and decided that the best way to facilitate the use of the corridor is to acquire and to build on the existing rail system that is there. And so the basis of the Santa Cruz Fixed Gateway/Rail Project is to connect the existing Southern Pacific Railroad branch which runs approximately 30 miles from Watsonville Junction in Monterey County to the northwest along Monterey Bay to the Santa Cruz beach boardwalk and travels the north through Santa Cruz to Felton, up in the mountains.
The existing Southern Pacific line connects virtually all of the areas which are our primary generators of traffic. The only exception to using the existing rail lines would be a need for a new rail connection for the University of California at Santa Cruz. And studies have shown that the future travel times on this rail corridor would be able to compete with that of the automobile, and provide a true transit alternative to residents.
Page 581 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
The use of these existing lines makes the project feasible for a small county, and this is the smallest county in California in land size area. And fits perfectly with the unique character of the Santa Cruz county, providing a long term investment in a multi-modal transportation system. So that's the first project that I'm requesting.
And the second has to deal with that earthquake that I mentioned, and that is, the Santa Cruz bus facility consolidation. As I said, in 1989, we had a devastating earthquake in Santa Cruz County, where the epicenter was. Approximately 50 percent of all the businesses in the City of Santa Cruz and Watsonville were damaged beyond repair, wiping out a large portion of the economic base of the county. Nearly 4,000 jobs were lost overnight. Rebuilding efforts are still going on. Recovery after a natural disaster is very, very slow.
The earthquake had an equally devastating effect on the transportation system in the area. The Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District lost its major maintenance and operations facility in Watsonville, and the North County fueling facility at its Santa Cruz operating base was destroyed. The remaining functions at the fueling facility must be relocated away from their current location in a flood plain on the San Lorenzo River.
As a result, the district has been forced to lease inadequate facilities at seven different sites. These sites spread all around the county, and the distance has had an inverse impact on the transit district's operating budget.
In response to this, the Transit District has decided to consolidate its earthquake damage facilities with other leased and owned facilities. The total cost of this consolidation exclusive of the land acquisition will cost about $20 million. The Transit District is requesting $4.12 million in Federal Transit Administration Section 3 funds. The district itself will come up with a million dollars in local funding to complete the project.
Page 582 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Some might ask, for such a small county, how do you come up with a million dollars. This is the smallest transit rural district in California, which has gone out and levied locally a half cent sales tax. Essentially they are the only one, other than the Bay area counties, that have imposed that, the voters adopted it. And with that sales tax, they're able to support a local transit district that is really phenomenal. It's probably one of the models for a rural transit district in the country.
And then what they would ask is that the remaining $15 million would be supported through the FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of the Transit District's Loma Prieta earthquake reconstruction funds. As I mentioned earlier, as a direct result of the inclusion of the project in H.R. 4385 last year, we were able to obtain a million dollars in Section 3 funds through fiscal year 1995. We appreciate your support and urge continued support.
As I close, I'm reminded, seeing Mr. Mineta there, the Chair last year, and we had a funny colloquy, because I was wearing that railroad tie that made railroad noises. And I wanted to point that I was here to speak on a railroad issue. And a lot of this is also in Congressman Mineta's district. So we share this very small county, I share the southern half, he shares the northern half. And we overlap.
What we're asking for is, I think because of the uniqueness of these projects, in that they are earthquake issues and a small, rural coastal plain issue, that we do need Federal assistance. We can't go it alone. And we'd appreciate your inclusion in this year's legislation. I'd be glad to answer any questions you might have.
Page 583 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much. And any written statement will be included in its entirety.
Mr. MINETA. Well, again, to thank Sam for the fine representation he brings to the district, as well as the importance of the projects he's mentioned.
Mr. PETRI. Are there other questions? Mr. Baker.
Mr. BAKER. There's one way in and one way out of Santa Cruz. You go over the hill on a two-lane road. And the rail corridor there that connects Mr. Mineta's district is overbuilt as it is. With Santa Cruz, it's very important.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much.
Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members of the committee. I look forward to working with you.
Mr. PETRI. Representative Steve Horn, our colleague, and I think Representative Tucker will be joining you momentarily. But if you'd care to proceed, you're welcome to.
TESTIMONY OF HON. STEPHEN HORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA AND HON. WALTER TUCKER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM CALIFORNIA
Page 584 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. HORN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be here, and appear before one of my two favorite committees.
The Alameda Corridor is the basic subject. We will mention some funds for Long Beach Transit. This committee has been very generous in both areas. My colleague, Congressman Tucker, has just arrived, and it's a pleasure to be with Walter, because he's been a real leader on this issue. The bipartisanship you see at this table is but a small microcosm of the tremendous bipartisan support at all levels that the Alameda project has had.
As this committee was given a rather lengthy presentation regarding the importance of this corridor in last year's hearing process, we will keep our remarks short. You already have a very extensive hearing record.
There have been some recent developments which were not available, however, at the 1994 hearing. They show the progress of this project, first the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and the Southern Pacific, Union Pacific and Santa Fe railroads have signed a memorandum of understanding for the joint operating of the rail lines. And all financial arrangements have been settled. With this agreement, we've started using demonstration project funding from prior highway bills that this subcommittee had recommended, and was rightly concerned, had not been spent.
Before we had that agreement, we simply could not spend that money. However, on October 27th, ground was broken on the Carson Street overpass. We're moving dirt and we plan to move forward very aggressively with spending prior year Federal funding.
Page 585 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Finally, the State of California has approved a commitment of $80 million to the project. The Los Angeles County Transportation Authority has proposed reserving $355 million for the project. State and local sources are putting the dollars behind the unanimous public support.
Finally, this week, along with Congressman Tucker and several other Los Angeles area colleagues, I'll be introducing legislation that would make the bonds issued for this project eligible for tax-exempt status. It is through these bonds supported by user fees from those who use the Alameda Corridor that the highest share of the funding for this project will come.
However, we need help from this committee to make this project work. And while we recognize that the National Highway System legislation is not the place for a large-scale financial commitment to this project of national importance, I hope to work with the subcommittee as we approach the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, round two, to ensure that the intermodal part of that legislation is made a reality.
Last year the committee provided $9 million, $4 million in contract authority, $5 million in general authorization. We would appreciate a renewal of that, and any additional support among your many pressures that the committee might be able to provide. In addition, I would like, Mr. Chairman, to thank the committee for their authorization of $3 million last year for Long Beach Transit, one of the most efficient transit organizations in the country, for replacement buses. The committee recognized the importance of that request, and when they included it in the National Highway bill for $3 million in authorization, $1 million was appropriated by the Subcommittee on Transportation.
Page 586 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
So we appreciate the bipartisan support we've had from this committee, and I would now like to yield to my colleague, Representative Tucker.
Mr. PETRI. Please proceed.
Mr. TUCKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it's certainly a pleasure to be here. It's a little bit unusual to be on the other side of the table.
But it's certainly a pleasure to address the committee on which I serve, and certainly it is a pleasure for me to work side by side with Congressman Steve Horn. I thank him for reserving the time today to allow us to reiterate our strong commitment to the Alameda Corridor project.
It gives me great pleasure to testify before you and to emphasize once again the national significance of this project. I have a sheet that I'd like to submit for the record that does indicate the regional impact of the Alameda Corridor all across this Nation, to the tune of billions of dollars throughout the Atlantic Seaboard, Great Lakes, Great Plains, northwest, south central, southeast and southwest parts of our country.
Extensive testimony regarding this project has already been submitted last year, as my colleague Mr. Horn indicated, and remains a part of the record. Therefore, I am here today with my friend Mr. Horn simply to update the members, as he has already updated you. And so I'm going to just echo many of his comments on the status of the Alameda Corridor project.
Page 587 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. Chairman, and fellow members of the committee, Secretary Pena of course was here last week in front of this committee, emphasizing one of the Department of Transportation's highest priorities is indeed the designation of NHS, the National Highway System. In his testimony, Secretary Pena described the NHS as an economic tool.
The Alameda Corridor fits squarely into that idea, that the NHS will serve this Nation's most fundamental economic needs. Alameda Corridor has the key feature that make the NHS vital for our Nation's future growth, namely, intermodal connectors.
The Corridor represents the essence of the NHS, by consolidating harbor-related operations of three major railroads. Furthermore, it will eliminate highway-railroad conflicts at nearly 200 grade crossings, thus reducing pollution, traffic congestion and improving public safety. The Alameda Corridor project has been moving along very well in the last year. Mr. Horn just gave you examples of that.
I will just kind of re-emphasize those again. The railroad signed a memorandum of understanding on December 29, 1994, $80 million in state funding was approved on December 1, 1994. And back on October 27th, last year, I was able to attend the groundbreaking for the Carson Street overpass demonstration project, seeing for myself the project coming into being. So the project is moving along, well along, and certainly should be given the kind of integrity to which it is due. This is an important progress in the construction of the Alameda Corridor, as I say, it is quite remarkable.
Also, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to quickly mention my support for the request from Long Beach Transit for replacement buses, as Mr. Horn indicated. The committee recognized the importance of this request last year, which we included in the NHS bill for $3 million. And I urge to keep that amount in for the Long Beach Transit in this year's bill.
Page 588 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
But certainly all that this committee can do to support the requests for additional funding, as well as the support that is needed for the bill that Mr. Horn is going to introduce in terms of tax-exempt bond financing will go a long way towards putting this project over the top. And once again, this project is not only great for southern California and the Long Beach area, it is a tremendous project for California and indeed for the entire country.
So we're talking about, in my estimation, the most significant intermodal and the most significant public works and transportation project in this entire Nation that will bear much fruit for the entire Nation. And we certainly appreciate this time to testify. And I think it is just a stellar example of what bipartisanship can do. And certainly, that is somewhat of an anomaly these days in the House of Representatives.
Mr. PETRI. Not in the California delegation, though, which is known for its bipartisanship.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I'd like to include as part of the record the written testimony of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, which is the legal governing board of this 20-miles segment.
Mr. PETRI. It will be included in the record.
[The referenced document follows:]
[INSERT HERE]
Page 589 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. PETRI. I'd like to thank both of you. As you know, this committee was for many years led by your predecessor, the Honorable Glen Anderson, who made all of us aware of the tremendous growth and accompanying congestion into and out of the port of Long Beach. And we hear a lot of comments about Federal involvement in specific projects, and whether that's a wise or unwise course.
But there's no question that this is one example of a project that is really of national significance. People in my region of the country are interested in it, not only because they use it, but also as, if it's successful, which I believe it will be, it's going to be a model facility that can be replicated in other parts of the country as they try to integrate rail and trucking and container traffic, and move it speedily and quickly from factories to consumers all around the world.
And a lot of logistics are necessary that's going into it, and it certainly will alleviate the necessity for double decker highways and all kinds of tremendous congestion problems that you were experiencing that can be alleviated through this innovative approach.
Are there any questions? Yes?
Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kuykendall, the new assemblyman from this area, came into visit me and explained the importance of this project. And I fully concur. Unfortunately, the numbers are mind-boggling. This is a $1.5 billion——
Page 590 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. TUCKER. One point eight.
Mr. BAKER. One point eight billion dollars, of which only $700 million needs to be raised. The bill that we're addressing here is $300 million in total. So we're going to have to put ourselves on the installment plan.
Has there any proposition been advanced as to how we get from here to there?
Mr. HORN. A financial advisor and finance committee are working at a much more precise arrangement than we've had. These are estimates that we're talking about. Should we be able to secure the tax-exempt bond status, that will be immensely helpful. As you know, there are charges being placed on the various containers that will utilize this 20 mile stretch of track, which will be consolidated, as my colleague said, gets rid of 200 different obstructions that have bottled up truck traffic, automobile traffic, railroad traffic, emergency services, you name it.
Mr. BAKER. To say nothing of air pollution.
Mr. HORN. Yes, and greatly reduce the air pollution in one of the most potentially polluted areas in the United States.
Mr. BAKER. I'd like to just submit this to the group. Those of us who reluctantly voted for NAFTA because of the other Christmas tree aspects of NAFTA realize that the gateway to the Pacific Rim and our trade future is California and the west coast. And the best harbor is right here, the containerization and the swift movement of export goods, especially, that we want to be involved in, is right here in Long Beach. And both of you gentlemen are doing a good job highlighting this project for us.
Page 591 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. HORN. Well, we appreciate that. And we appreciate your understanding. I might add to that that we have a transportation center that is being established under Defense authorization that has created a great deal of excitement. Because one of the major problems the armed services faces is trying to get supplies to troops that are abroad.
And one of the great bottlenecks they found in Desert Storm on the east coast was the nature of the traffic to stacking up for weeks in the ports. And so they're taking a look at the port of Los Angeles, port of Long Beach, and the techniques that can be developed to make sure there is no more than a very brief stay in that port before they're going on the ships to the destination. So this does have some military significance.
In terms of the cost, we have funded highways at essentially 90–10 formula. This would be more like 40 percent with 60 percent really being local, should we be fortunate enough, as you say, on the installment plan, one way or the other, to get at the 40 percent. And that will be defined much more precisely in the next year or so.
Mr. PETRI. Representative Mineta.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I want to thank both Mr. Horn and Mr. Tucker for being such strong proponents of this very important project. Let me ask you, have you heard anything about Japanese or Korean interests wanting to make Ensenada a deep port? I think this is the thing that makes this so vital, because frankly, we can't afford to let that kind of effort take traffic away from the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. I've heard this as a rumor.
Page 592 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. HORN. That has been going for several years, as you know. And the question is, which one, and they are both capable of putting up the capital that would be needed to develop that as a port. But that would then completely bypass the southern California area, and send traffic across Mexico into Texas.
Mr. MINETA. Are there rail lines that go out of Ensenada that then can service coming either through—I'm not really sure where, let's say as far back as Texas or through Arizona and New Mexico?
Mr. HORN. Our understanding was they could reach as far east as Texas if they develop that port. And that's been a dream, obviously, of some in Mexico. But we have, as you know, to very efficient ports. And combined, they argue about who's first each year, it's good competition, but combined, they are the largest port complex in the United States. They are about the third largest in the world, with Rotterdam and Singapore being ahead of them when it comes, largely due to the petroleum imports at Rotterdam.
So what you say is a worry. And those ports have tried to keep pace with technological change, and they are a very attractive location to reach a tremendous amount of the American market.
Mr. MINETA. Recognizing that there's a joint powers authority, I forget what it's called——
Mr. TUCKER. Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority.
Page 593 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. MINETA. Right. Now, one of the things Mr. Shuster and I did was to fund some pieces of this in the NHS last year. But one of the conversations I had was with Mayor Riordan. I felt that he had to take a much more visible leadership role on this. And recognizing that there is a joint powers authority there. Because you have what, a $700 or $800 million shortfall in terms of how much is needed to complete the total financing package?
Mr. TUCKER. That's correct.
Mr. MINETA. And so my thought to him was that he had to really take a much more visible role in——
Mr. TUCKER. Well, let me say that we certainly appreciate both of your points, Mr. Mineta. And as Mr. Horn has pointed out, that threat has been existent. I think the threat of the Ensenada port is one of the things that somewhat encouraged the ports as well as the railroads to get off the dime and make some real substantial and real concrete progress, as they have made. And that's the point that we're making here today. We're here to update you the great and significant progress that has been made just in the last year. And it would certainly be——
Mr. MINETA. The rail portion has been pretty well put together.
Mr. HORN. The rail portion is solved in terms of having the agreements.
Page 594 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. TUCKER. Yes.
Mr. MINETA. The thing that bothered me recently, wasn't there a lawsuit brought against somebody by some of the local communities?
Mr. HORN. Well there's no question that when you have a major project, and it looks like, to use that old trite expression, the train is leaving the station, a lot of people want to get on board and solve a lot of problems. And they're legitimate problems. If you go to Downey, California, and the train is coming through town, you're going to sit there for 25 minutes. I've had that happen.
And that separates the emergency services, which are in one part of Downey, from half the population in the other part of Downey. So a lot of these things that people have had legitimate worries along those different right-of-ways will be solved by overpasses, underpasses, berming, whatever. And I think as a former mayor, Representative Tucker is well aware of the local concerns, more than most of us.
Mr. MINETA. And are those local communities willing to add a little more to the coffer if they're going to be pressing the rail through their part of town in order to be able to put the bridge through, over or whatever? Are they willing to?
Mr. TUCKER. I think that's what some of the litigation is about right now. And I believe those things are going to work themselves out, particularly in light of the fact that as you indicated, the rail piece in this whole thing is pretty much resolved. There are some little side issues that have to be dealt with and the corridor cities, certainly as Steve indicates, want to be heard before the train leaves the station.
Page 595 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
But those things will work themselves out, and we just really appreciate the consistent support of this subcommittee and indeed the full committee on this matter. And we know that if we continue to show that support that this project will work itself out, we'll get through.
Mr. HORN. I agree with my colleague. It was marvelous to see the sitting power and patience last year of this then-subcommittee Chair, Mr. Rahall, the ranking Republican at that time, Mr. Petri, and you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Shuster, Mr. Chairman, who have given 100 percent plus support to this project. And we appreciate it.
Mr. PETRI. I just had a couple of follow-up questions. One is, if this project has, and I assume it does, just the full support of both your state and the senators——
Mr. HORN. The Governor is strongly in support, the cabinet officer relevant to this project is strongly in support. The local transportation authorities are strongly in support, and as I mentioned in my comments, they put their money where their support is.
Mr. TUCKER. That's right. And just to remind the Chairman, and as Mr. Mineta point out about last year's hearing, we had at this very table a panoply of support from politicians from the Senatorial level, from the state, Federal and local level. And so when he remarked about Mayor Riordan's participation, Mayor Riordan certain has been an avid support and was involved, as I was on a couple of occasions, with some of the negotiations with the railroad.
Page 596 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
So from the local level, the state level as well as the Federal level, there's support all the way down the road.
Mr. PETRI. One other question. You mentioned in your testimony, I think, Representative Horn, that you were moving forward on some legislation having to do with raising funds through bonding for this project. Has the idea of some sort of a special use fee for the people who are shipping goods through and operating through the port been explored, and will that be a source of funding?
Mr. HORN. That has been approved by both ports, I believe.
Mr. TUCKER. Yes.
Mr. HORN. The container charge, that was part of the negotiation with the railroads and delayed it somewhat. But now everybody's on board, and that is one of the major ways to raise the funds to implement this proposal.
Mr. PETRI. Okay. Thank you both.
Mr. TUCKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.
Mr. PETRI. Representative Gordon.
Page 597 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
TESTIMONY OF HON. BART GORDON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TENNESSEE
Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mineta, Mr. Bateman, you're the hard core that have been able to withstand this hectic pace and be here today. I thank you for your time and attention.
I'll try to respect that time and be brief. I come before you today on two projects, modest projects in my home town of Murfreesboro, Tennessee, entitled the Old Nashville Highway Bridge, and the Murfreesboro Alternative Transportation System. These two projects have been approved, first in the ISTEA, they were approved last year.
And it's my hope that they will once again be approved this year. There is an abundance of documentation in your files with the plans, as well as support from the local community and the willingness of the local community to pay their 20 percent.
To give you a real quick background, Murfreesboro is the fastest growing community in Tennessee, and one of the 50 fastest growing in the Nation. And as you might expect, with that kind of growth, we're having a difficult time with congestion and with trying to get our transportation system in line.
These two projects, one is a bridge over the Old Nashville Highway for an authorization of $4 million, which is, this bridge has been determined to be a, not structurally, but what's the term, John, functionally obsolete bridge, as well as an alternative transportation system, which will incorporate some of the historic areas in Murfreesboro, as well as to take people off the main transportation sort of route, which is what we call Broad Street. I guess everybody's got a Broad Street that goes through their town. And ours is enormously crowded right now.
Page 598 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
The two areas that it will be connecting, say, is the Stone River Battlefield as well as the Rosecrantz Fortress, which was the largest earthen fort ever built in the United States. This battle, and a quick history note, there were 10,500 battles fought during the Civil War. Only 50 of those are considered to have had an impact on the outcome of the Civil War. This was one of those.
It's also, Secretary Lujan listed it as one of the 24 most endangered battlefields in the country. And a part of that is because of all this urban encroachment. And we hope that with the bridge and the alternative routes that will be provided on both sides of that river to these historic areas will again take some of the traffic off the normal transportation, which would be very beneficial to the community.
You've approved this last year at $4 million for the bridge and $1 million for the alternative transportation. And I respectfully request, and plead, that you would do the same again.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much. And we appreciate your coming forward and testifying on behalf of this particular project. The committee will look forward to working with you.
Mr. GORDON. Thank you. I think there's an abundance of documentation in the files, and I'll be more than happy to follow up. This is important to the community and this is important to me. We all represent large areas, but we only have one home. And this is my home.
Page 599 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. PETRI. Are there any questions?
[No response.]
Mr. PETRI. Thank you again.
Mr. GORDON. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Welcome back, Representative Weldon.
Mr. WELDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I realize this is a little unusual, for me to be coming back again.
But I just wanted to share with you that when I returned to my office to call the media outlets in my district to tell them that I had appeared before this committee to testify on behalf of the road widening, I was informed that last night two tractor trailers collided on the road, one bursting into flames, killing the driver. There's a large chemical spill and the entire road has been closed since last night, and they do not anticipate it being opened until sometime late tonight.
And these are the kinds of accidents that have typically occurred on the road. It's typically involved a truck. Now, we've never had two trucks collide like this before. And as I understand, it's a real disaster out there. But this, I think, makes a very, very clear case for the bad need for this road widening project. And I really thank you for allowing me to come back and share that information with you.
Page 600 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. PETRI. Certainly provides immediate corroboration for your previous testimony about the hazardous conditions on that road over the last several years, especially.
Mr. WELDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
The next panel, I see our colleague L.F. Payne of Virginia is here, and our colleague Bob Goodlatte. And gentlemen, if you'd care to take the table, along with Rob Martinez, the Secretary of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and George W. Lester of Joblink.
Gentlemen, welcome, and Mr. Payne, would you like to proceed, or Mr. Goodlatte?
TESTIMONY OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM VIRGINIA; HON. L.F. PAYNE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM VIRGINIAC ACCOMPANIED BY ROB MARTINEZ, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION, VIRGINIA, AND GEORGE W. LESTER, JOBLINK
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We very much appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today regarding the routing of Interstate 73 through Virginia.
Page 601 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
With me today is Congressman Payne of the Fifth Congressional District, whose district adjoins mine, and the route would also go through his district. Also with us is Secretary Rob Martinez, the Secretary of Transportation for the Commonwealth of Virginia, and George Lester from an organization called Joblink. He's a businessman in Congressman Payne's district.
This is an issue that we also testified before the committee on last year. And we are back again this year requesting that we receive fair treatment in the process of determining the routing of Interstate 73. The situation is that right now in the bill there is a designation for Winston-Salem, North Carolina and Bluefield, West Virginia.
Virginia has taken a very strong stand that this interstate highway should go through the Roanoke Valley of Virginia, because it would serve by far the greatest economic development needs of southwest Virginia. The routing that we propose would meet the needs of about 10 times as many people as some of the other routes that have been proposed.
In addition, this route would serve the greatest highway safety needs that we have in the Commonwealth, because the existing Route 220 between Roanoke and North Carolina is one of the most dangerous highways in Virginia. In the past few years, there have been more than 40 fatalities and more than 1,100 traffic accidents.
Finally, we believe this is the most economical route to pursue, because two of the routes involved here are on the proposed National Highway System map for Route 460 and Route 220. They would need to be, and in fact are in bad need of upgrade under the current system. And the fact of the matter is that to run it down the current, existing Route 77 is going to require major economic costs for the state with absolutely no benefit to the state whatsoever.
Page 602 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
The estimates are that it would cost about $800 million to do that. This would cost more to route it through Roanoke, but adding on the cost of upgrading Route 220 and 460, this would be less expensive than the other alternative. This is supported strongly by both Senators Robb and Senator Warner, and also strongly supported by Governor Allen as Secretary Martinez will indicate. The state transportation board voted unanimously requesting a route through Roanoke, Virginia.
So that is our hope, that the subcommittee would make the recommendation that this go through Roanoke, Virginia. And we will then work with the adjoining states to work out the details of the routes.
And at this time, I will turn the microphone over to my colleague, Congressman Payne.
Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. And I want to thank my colleague, Bob Goodlatte, for all the work he's done on this very important issue to the areas that we represent. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Mineta, Mr. Bateman, thank you for giving us the opportunity to testify today.
I have a statement that I'd like to enter into the record and just proceed for a couple of minutes, so I won't be redundant. I think Mr. Goodlatte has done a good job of explaining the project. This is a project we talked about before the subcommittee last year as we testified here. It is an extremely important project as it relates to the area that I represent.
Page 603 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
And this project would connect the Roanoke Valley and the Piedmont Triad in North Carolina. And in doing this, it would create a market of one and a half million people within a 90 minute drive, it would provide a tremendous opportunity for commerce for the area that I represent, and indeed for the entire Roanoke Valley and the area of North Carolina served.
It is badly needed to provide safe and efficient transportation for existing products, and more importantly, it is essential if we are ever to diversify our industrial base and grow by attracting new companies and growing companies. The connector now between these regions, U.S. 220, is seriously inadequate. It is on the National Highway System map that is before this committee.
The tractor and trailers use U.S. 220 in ever-expanding numbers, transporting their goods through the area. This road was four-laned some 40 years ago. It's presently dangerous for trucks and cars, as evidenced by the accident rate that Mr. Goodlatte has previously mentioned.
As this panel knows, ISTEA called for the creation of Interstate 73, which would connect Detroit with Charleston, South Carolina. And some points along the route have been designated through legislation, but not any in Virginia. And when we last discussed this project with the subcommittee, Virginia had not yet selected a route within our state to designate.
This process is now complete. A route which roughly follows U.S. 460 from Bluefield, West Virginia to Roanoke, and then U.S. 220 to the North Carolina line has been selected. And throughout the state's review process, this route ranked first in its potential for economic development to the area, and in popular support as well. The route has the potential for creating 5,000 new jobs.
Page 604 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
We firmly believe that designating this route as part of our 73 interstate corridor will improve the economy of our region, and in doing so, benefit not only our region, but our state and our Nation. And for this reason, we urge you to include the Roanoke Valley among those points along I–73 which are legislatively designated by Congress.
In order to facilitate the construction of this new corridor, we also believe it would be appropriate for this subcommittee, as in the last Congress, to help us take the first step by providing some funding for a corridor study to be conducted on that part of U.S. 220 which connects the two areas. This study would identify the most appropriate corridor along that route in which to locate a limited access highway, and could be expected to be completed in 2 or 3 years.
Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to testify today. And now I'll ask Secretary Martinez if he would continue this testimony.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Good day, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. I am Robert Martinez, I'm Secretary of Transportation for the Commonwealth of Virginia. And thank you for this opportunity to testify.
Through its actions of March 1994, further refined in February 1995, the Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board officially defined the position of Virginia on the proposed routing of I–73 through our state. The routing selected enters Virginia from near Bluefield, West Virginia along 460, connecting via I–81 to Roanoke, down 581, past Roanoke Airport, and then down Route 220 into North Carolina. This routing is fully consistent with ISTEA provisions requiring that the highway connect to Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and effectively near Bluefield, West Virginia.
Page 605 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
The board is composed of 14 representatives from throughout Virginia. Its decision was unanimous, supported by all nine Republicans and five Democrats serving on the board. The routing proposed by Virginia is also supported by our Governor, both our Senators and the two Congressmen sitting to my right on the panel. So in Virginia, the preferred corridor is a fully bipartisan position.
The corridor selection by the Commonwealth Transportation Board was done subsequent to 5 citizen information and participation meetings held in southwestern Virginia in early 1994, attended by a total of approximately 1,200 people. The corridor selected was the one which received by far the greatest level of public support. I might add that to my knowledge, Virginia is the only state between Detroit, Michigan and Charleston, South Carolina that actually conducted public outreach efforts to assess public positions prior to the state selection of a corridor.
Two economic analyses were undertaken of 12 possible corridors. A study by the Virginia Employment Commission focused solely at direct job creation. The second study, done by the Virginia Transportation Research Council, drew upon the sizeable existing literature on the relationship between transportation investments and productivity. The research council assigned a dollar value to the existing highway net and analyzed the projected magnitude of I–73 in comparison to the existing roadways. This resulted in estimates on taxable sales and adjusted gross income for the totality of cities and counties along which the corridor would pass.
As such, this study captures a broad measure of economic activity, and not just direct job creation. The corridor selected consistently out-performed all the others in both analyses. In addition to economic analyses of the 12 possible corridors, the transportation board also looked at environmental impact, traffic service, cost and level of public support. From North Carolina's perspective, I believe Virginia's preferred corridor makes infinite sense.
Page 606 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
The Virginia corridor is fully consistent with the statutorily defined need to connect to Winston-Salem. It will provide much improved access for Winston-Salem and the Piedmont Triad to the significant industrial activity in the southern regions of Route 220 in Virginia and to the Roanoke Valley. Perhaps more significantly for the Triad region, the Virginia preferred corridor would also facilitate traffic moving from and to the northeast United States via I–81.
Now, with 30 percent truck traffic, I–81 is unquestionably a massive commercial artery, even in comparison to other interstates. Obviously I don't speak for North Carolina, but we will work with them.
What Virginia is asking of this committee is relatively simple. While a project of this magnitude always generates some level of differing opinion, we have broad support within our state for a corridor running through Roanoke. All we ask is the same courtesy that was extended to our friends in West Virginia and North Carolina, namely, that I–73 be required to pass through a specific location on its way from Detroit to Charleston.
In Virginia's case, this specific location is Roanoke. Beyond such designation, the ideal NHS process should hold, as has been outlined by the U.S. Department of Transportation, namely, that it is best for each individual state working with U.S. DOT to designate the NHS system within its borders. This principle and the driving defining role provided to the states must be respected as we move forward on NHS.
Thank you very much.
Page 607 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Is there any further testimony?
Mr. GOODLATTE. Yes, I have with me today Mr. George Lester, who is a very prominent business person in Southside, Virginia. And he is here representing Joblink, which is a very important group supporting this effort. And I'd like for the panel to hear his testimony as well.
Mr. LESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am grateful for this opportunity to appear before you today to represent Joblink, a committee of 15 private citizens from three counties in the Roanoke Valley and the Piedmont Triad of North Carolina.
The counties of Franklin and Henry in Virginia and the City of Martinsville, a part of Virginia's Fifth Congressional District, so ably represented by the Honorable L.F. Payne. Rockingham County is a part of the Fifth District of North Carolina, and is represented by the Honorable Richard Burr, who joined Congress this year. Our committee is an example of community leaders from two states working together in a private initiative that we believe will enable our region to survive economically and pave the way for a bright future for our grandchildren.
Our only purpose is to promote construction of an interstate quality highway between these metropolitan areas. That's a distance of approximately 90 miles, and would fill an obvious gap in the old interstate system.
Page 608 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
We support the requests that you have heard, which include Roanoke as a designated point on I–73, and funds to begin planning studies. Over the years, Franklin and Henry County in Virginia and Rockingham County in North Carolina have watched from the sidelines as development has occurred along interstate highways in other parts of our Nation.
Once a thriving industrial heartland, we have lost more than 10,000 jobs in the last 10 years, manufacturing jobs. And we have become not an economic heartland, industrial heartland, but an economic backwater now. A major reason for this decline is our poor road system. Accidents and fatalities are unacceptably high on U.S. 220. Yet our industries, including Bassett Furniture, Dupont, Vanity Fair, Tultex, Sara Lee, Miller Brewing, among others, depend upon the substandard highway for the delivery of raw materials into their plants and distribution of the finished products out.
Building an interstate highway is a lifeline for us, connecting us to two metropolitan areas, forming a region of one and a half million people, opening that vacant land currently there, and gives an opportunity for people that are under-employed and unemployed to work. The result would be new jobs, an increase in tax revenue for the local state and Federal Governments, an investment that will pay many times over and over, and provide our area and our people a future we so desperately need.
Thank you.
Mr. LAHOOD [assuming Chair]. Any of the other members at the table wish to make a statement?
Page 609 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
[No response.]
Mr. LAHOOD. I think we've concluded all the statements.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I think we have. I neglected to ask unanimous consent to introduce my statement for the record, since I did not read the whole thing.
Mr. LAHOOD. It will be entered.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you.
Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you all very much.
Mr. Mineta, did you have a question? I'm sorry.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Secretary, you've indicated that what you're proposing here would be good for North Carolina. Do they concur with what you've indicated about—we went through this thing last year, or 2 years ago, I guess, in terms of this controversy involving whether or not it goes down 220, or does it go down 77.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes, sir. As I mentioned in my remarks, obviously I don't speak for North Carolina, and we will work with them. As you may be aware, of course, North Carolina's corridor at this point does not align with Virginia's preferred corridor. It is however our view, and based on, for example, some of the extensive work that's been done by the Joblink people, among others, that in fact the Winston-Salem/Piedmont Triad area overall would benefit tremendously.
Page 610 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Because our corridor would provide them a connection not only to the Midwest, but also to the northeast. And again, that would be a more direct linkage for them to the I–81 system, which as I mentioned, has 30 percent truck traffic on it. So it is a major commercial artery.
And obviously, that's one of the arguments I'll use with my counterparts in North Carolina to try to convince them of that. And we have met already on a couple of occasions on this matter.
Mr. MINETA. And then, do our colleagues Mr. Boucher and Congressman Richard Burr concur in what you're presenting here as well?
Mr. MARTINEZ. Congressman Boucher does not concur with this view as far as I know. I've not spoken to him most recently. But his position was, preferred a different corridor. However, our corridor is fully consistent with West Virginia's corridor. And they have, their state department of transportation has officially confirmed that as well.
Mr. LESTER. If I might add, one-third of the members of Joblink are from Rockingham County, North Carolina. They represent the major employers and the citizen base of Rockingham County, which is a major part of the Fifth Congressional District of North Carolina. And they support this unanimously, for the impact it will have on North Carolina. So there is support, considerable support from the grass roots in North Carolina for this location.
Mr. MINETA. Well, that's Rockingham, but what about Stokes County, what about Surrey, what about Wilkes, Allegheny?
Page 611 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. GOODLATTE. If I might respond to that, two points that I'd make. First of all, we're only asking for the same fairness for Virginia that North Carolina has already received. We were not consulted by North Carolina regarding going to Winston-Salem. We think that's a perfectly good destination for it to go to. We just disagree on how it gets there.
And in fact, if you look at their proposed route and compare it to ours, they really can have both of these alternatives. Because Route 52 going to the northwest from Winston-Salem actually is a limited access highway right now. And it needs about a 10 miles connector to connect into the currently existing Interstate 77.
If you also look to the, really due north, but to the northeast from Winston-Salem, Route 22 between Roanoke and Winston-Salem is a very inferior road. And if you improve the direct access from there to Roanoke and then connect to the entire northeast through that routing, you are improving their transportation possibilities tremendously. And we are certainly prepared to give the citizens of Winston-Salem all the assurances they might want through this legislation, through the actions that you take, that it will continue to go through Winston-Salem and serve their community.
But this has a far greater economic benefit to Virginia. In fact, really, the proposal that they would like to have simply funnels economic opportunity through Virginia and gives us no opportunity to benefit communities like Roanoke and Martinsville, and the New River Valley that will benefit from this routing.
Mr. MINETA. You've indicated that Mr. Boucher has some differences of opinion. Has Congressman Burr indicated anything on this?
Page 612 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. GOODLATTE. I have had continuing discussions with Congressman Burr, and we have agreed to try to continue to work out those differences.
Mr. MINETA. I take it from that there isn't agreement.
Mr. GOODLATTE. There is not an agreement. Congressman Boucher supports a different route altogether, at least the last time I talked to him. He also agrees that the route, the I–77 routing, does not benefit Virginia or his district in any new way.
Mr. PAYNE. But as we've had meetings with Mr. Burr, and we've both been involved in these, and have talked about why this is beneficial to his district, I think he is looking into this, and he has not said that he is opposed to what we're proposing. It's just that he is just getting into this, and seems to be very interested in better understanding this, as well as the other route.
And I think Mr. Goodlatte has explained our position, and I think ultimately perhaps his, and that is that this would be very good for Winston-Salem and that area, because it really, they would continue to have Interstate 77 and upgraded 52, as well as this corridor. And it seems to me it represents the best of all worlds for Winston-Salem and the Piedmont Triad.
Mr. LAHOOD. Mr. Bateman.
Mr. BATEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 613 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
I'd like to commend my colleagues and our Secretary of Transportation for their presentation this morning. It certainly occurs to this member that the Commonwealth has indeed done its homework, has been very thorough, very assiduous and very fair in the manner in which they've tried to determine the merits of the routing of I–73 through Virginia.
And certainly, while this is a matter of first impression with me, I commend them on their testimony and find it very persuasive, and thank them for bringing it to us.
Mr. LAHOOD. Mr. Mineta.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Let me, while we have the good Secretary of Transportation before us, if I might take advantage of this. Recently, our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure passed legislation relative to the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority. One of the things that I'm very concerned about is the issue of the Dulles Access Road. I understand that the Commonwealth of Virginia is interested in using the Dulles Access Road. I'm wondering if you could maybe expand on that for me.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Sir, as you are probably aware, first of all, we, speaking for the Commonwealth, and I think I can speak for Governor George Allen here, we are very concerned about House Bill 1036 for a number of reasons. The fact that it would throw the bond markets into a tailspin in terms of Dulles' and National Airport's ability to finance bonds competitively, given the required 2-year reauthorization that's in the bill. We object to adding four additional Presidential appointees to the board of directors. And we feel that really the only fix that's needed is to remove the Congressional board of review.
Page 614 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
On your specific question, sir, we obviously in the past, you know, have expressed an interest that during construction periods on the Dulles Toll Road that there might be the possibility of using the access road for HOV traffic, only to build a market for HOV, but certainly that there is no, there's been no official statement of that, and there's been not quid pro quo with the airport authority, nor will there be that in any way we would ever limit development of the corridor, of the Dulles corridor, on that request.
I mean, there's been no official request to them, and I am not, there is no quid pro quo. As you may be aware, we're going to be adding another lane to the Dulles Toll Road. And just this last month, we did get the bond bill through Virginia General Assembly to allow us to proceed with that construction. There is no quid pro quo on the access road, sir.
Mr. MINETA. Will that require additional land for you to build additional lanes on the toll road site?
Mr. MARTINEZ. Fortunately, not. It will not.
Mr. MINETA. Is there any thought of either the Virginia Department of Transportation then delaying any action on this issue until after the 31st of March, when the meddlesome board of review disappears because of the Supreme Court action?
Mr. MARTINEZ. I'm sorry, delaying action on which issue?
Mr. MINETA. On the whole issue of moving forward on any action you may take on the toll road.
Page 615 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. MARTINEZ. The toll road project will proceed, sir. And as I said, there's no quid pro quo, and in our view, there's no linkage between that. We need to improve the toll road. We would be adding a fourth lane in each direction. And we will be pursuing that. And we're not, it's not going to be working as a function of what occurs with the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority.
Mr. MINETA. And so you're saying it doesn't require any more land for you to construct the fourth lane on the toll road?
Mr. MARTINEZ. Correct. We have the right of way. There is sufficient right of way for adding a fourth lane in each direction for the toll road. And that process will move forward, as it would technically move forward, the way that we do our bond financing, not as a function of what may or may not occur with Congressional activity.
Mr. MINETA. As a part of that, will you be asking for use of the Dulles Access Road during construction of the fourth lane on the toll road?
Mr. MARTINEZ. That certainly is something that we have been considering. But as I said, there's been no quid pro quo. And no linkage to activity on the toll road related to that request or related to other activities going on with the airport authority.
Mr. MINETA. Do you think that once people get used to the idea for 2 years of using the access road that once you go back to completion of construction of the toll road that people will go back to not using the Dulles Access Road?
Page 616 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. MARTINEZ. Well, sir, if that were a fact, what the process would be, then certainly if we were to request use of the access road it would have to be on the condition that once construction was completed on the toll road, that yes, HOV traffic would have to move back to the toll road. And also, unlike the previous widening of the Dulles Toll Road, we would not be opening the completed sections of the new lanes to single occupant vehicles. We would not do that. That of course was a major sort of mistake.
Mr. MINETA. That was a terrible blunder.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes, sir, that occurred the last time around.
Mr. MINETA. That was a terrible blunder on the part of VDOT to have done that at the time.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. MINETA. Even though there may be a strong agreement, let's say, between VDOT, MWAAA, Federal Highway or whoever else was involved in this, my problem is always the thought about the 17,000 people who have been using the Dulles Access Road in the meantime, whether or not we can get them back onto the toll road.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes, sir. And very respectfully, I certainly appreciate your comments on that specific item, under 1036. But I do believe that I expressed very clearly our concern about 1036 and its overall magnitude.
Page 617 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. MINETA. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you all very much.
Mr. Sisisky, the gentleman from Virginia. Please proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. NORMAN SISISKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM VIRGINIA
Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you for this opportunity to express my strong support for a project which is critically important to the people in southeast Virginia, and I might parenthetically add, to other areas in other States.
Battlefield Boulevard, also called Route 168, is an extremely congested highway linking Chesapeake, Virginia, to North Carolina. I might add that all of the highway is in the city limits of the City of Chesapeake. Some of you may even know this highway, because it's the easiest and quickest way to get from here, Washington, D.C., to the North Carolina Outer Banks.
If any of you have ever traveled Route 168, you're probably well aware of its chronic congestion. Battlefield Boulevard carries three times as much traffic as it was designed to handle. As you might imagine, congestion is worse during the tourist season, and this summer promises to be the worst ever.
Page 618 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
A solution to the overcrowding of Battlefield Boulevard simply cannot wait any longer. In the last Congress, the City of Chesapeake requested an authorization or trust fund authority of $9.5 million for improvements to Battlefield Boulevard. The NHS bill passed by the House included an authorization of $5 million.
This is really more than just an inconvenience for the people of Chesapeake, Mr. Chairman. This is a dangerous situation. Battlefield Boulevard is the primary evacuation route for the Outer Banks. That means 200,000 tourists and 39,000 North Carolina residents would all have to share the clogged two-lane highway in an emergency. And they've done that before.
The State of North Carolina has recognized this problem, and has recently begun work on improvements to Route !68, o be a continued capitalization of the SRF, a lengthening of the payback period for SRF loans from 20 to 30 years, and a provision allowing States to make negative interest loans from the SRF fund to the so-called ''hardship'' communities.
Doug MacDonald, as I mentioned, is also here today to discuss the challenges faced with the construction of the $3.5 billion Boston Harbor project, which is the largest sewerage treatment facility under construction in the United States. The Boston Harbor project is a massive undertaking. It is bringing the metropolitan Boston sewage ectors. And we feel that really the only fix that's needed is to remove the Congressional board of review.
On your specific question, sir, we obviously in the past, you know, have expressed an interest that during construction periods on the Dulles Toll Road that there might be the possibility of using the access road for HOV traffic, only to build a market for HOV, but certainly that there is no, there's been no official statement of that, and there's been not quid pro quo with the airport authority, nor will there be that in any way we would ever limit development of the corridor, of the Dulles corridor, on that request.
Page 619 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
I mean, there's been no official request to them, and I am not, there is no quid pro quo. As you may be aware, we're going to be adding another lane to the Dulles Toll Road. And just this last month, we did get the bond bill through Virginia General Assembly to allow us to proceed with that construction. There is no quid pro quo on the access road, sir.
Mr. MINETA. Will that require additional land for you to build additional lanes on the toll road site?
Mr. MARTINEZ. Fortunately, not. It will not.
Mr. MINETA. Is there any thought of either the Virginia Department of Transportation then delaying any action on this issue until after the 31st of March, when the meddlesome board of review disappears because of the Supreme Court action?
Mr. MARTINEZ. I'm sorry, delaying action on which issue?
Mr. MINETA. On the whole issue of moving forward on any action you may take on the toll road.
Mr. MARTINEZ. The toll road project will proceed, sir. And as I said, there's no quid pro quo, and in our view, there's no linkage between that. We someone who had experienced that which you have described. I'll be happy to be that attesting witness. I have experienced the difficulties involved in getting from Tidewater, Virginia and points to the north and east, to the Outer Banks of North Carolina. It is horrendous. It is something that has needed to be addressed for many years.
Page 620 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
And also I emphasize the point that my colleague makes regarding the evacuation route from the Outer Banks. That is one of the most remarkable pieces of geography in America. That rather densely populated sliver of basically sand with its permanent residency swelled in the summer months and during the hurricane season in our part of the world to more than 200,000 people makes it an extraordinarily important matter that there be an expeditious evacuation route. There is none. There will be none until this kind of a project goes forward.
And so it has the strongest kind of rationale to support the committee being in support of the project that the gentleman has described. And I thank him for bringing it to the committee's attention again.
Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Bateman.
Mr. Sisisky, thank you very much.
Mr. SISISKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank my colleague for his remarks also.
Mr. LAHOOD. Yes, sir.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Blute, a distinguished member of the committee.
TESTIMONY OF HON. PETER BLUTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Page 621 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. BLUTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and fellow members of the committee.
I am pleased to be here today to testify in support of a very important project that was included in the National Highway System Designation Act last year, and which I feel very strongly should be included in this year's bill, the Wooster Union Station Intermodal Transportation Center.
First, however, I would like to thank Chairman Petri and Mr. Rahall, and also Chairman Shuster and Mr. Mineta for moving so quickly on this legislation. It was certainly very frustrating for all of us on the committee last year to have put in so much time and effort into crafting an excellent NHS bill and getting it through the House, only to have the Senate not act upon it. Last year's bill was well-balanced and very responsible from two perspectives.
One, we were attempting it a year before we had to do it, and two, although it contained projects, the bill did not increase spending one dime. That point is extremely important, given the very tight budgetary constraints we are faced with. It is my hope that the bill we report out this year will also include projects, legitimate projects that are paid for through reprogramming from old, obsolete projects, or from transportation trust funds which are meant for specifically this purpose.
With regard to the Wooster Union Station project, last year's bill included $20 million in Section 3 FTA funds for this very important transportation initiative. This project involves the renovation of an historic train station in downtown Wooster, Massachusetts, the second largest city in New England. The plan is to transform the currently dormant train station into a modern, intermodal facility, which will accommodate passenger trains, commuter rail, buses, autos, airport shuttles, bicycles and pedestrians, making transportation throughout all of the New England region smoother and more efficient.
Page 622 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
When completed, Union station will serve as the perfect model of the intermodal concepts envisioned when ISTEA was first created. In fact, the Federal Highway Administration has already recognized the important benefits of this project, and will soon feature Union Station in a new pamphlet highlighting the 12 best examples in the country of how CMAQ funds should be used. Because in addition to the obvious transportation benefits it holds, this project will also provide tremendous environmental benefits.
Since I introduced this project to the committee last year, a major amount of progress has been made on it. The building has been acquired from Federal bankruptcy court and secured by the Wooster Redevelopment Authority. The Wooster Redevelopment Authority has also received a draft environmental impact report and has submitted the final environmental documents to the state. They are prepared to go to bid for a contract on the design phase of the project as soon as final state approval is received, which should be any day now.
The total cost of this project will be $33 million, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has pledged a significant level of support. The regional planning entity for the area has also included the project on its transportation improvement plan for the next fiscal year.
As I said, the NHS bill last year included a $20 million authorization for this project. Since we received an appropriation of $3 million in FTA funds in fiscal year 1995 to begin the project, I am seeking an authorization of $17 million for the remainder of ISTEA to assist in the completion of Union Station.
Page 623 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
This project is a top priority for me, for the State of Massachusetts, for the City of Wooster, and for the central New England region in general. I appreciate all the help and support that I have received from the subcommittee and the full committee in the past, and I ask that the committee allow this very vital project to continue, by authorizing it again this year.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Blute.
Our next panel is on its way.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, for the efficiency of time, I've been informed Mr. Souder is on the way. If I could please begin, would that be all right?
Mr. LAHOOD. Please proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. STEPHEN E. BUYER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM INDIANA; HON. MARK SOUDER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM INDIANA
Mr. BUYER. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Infrastructure. Congressman Souder, who is presently on his way, can add his two cents.
Page 624 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
But I'm asking that we continue on our project with regard to the Hoosier Heartland Corridor. Congressman John Meyers, who couldn't be with us here today, has also been a strong supporter of this project. Mr. Chairman, how well you're aware of U.S. 24, how it cuts across northern Indiana, and I think even ends up in your particular district, the Hoosier Heartland Corridor, though, is a project whereby it would link up Fort Wayne to Lafayette. So we'll cut across, when we get to Logansport, it will then leave 24 and cut on down through the Wabash Valley Basin over to Lafayette.
This is a, the Hoosier Heartland Corridor, which is part of the National Highway System, was designated by ISTEA as a Congressional high priority corridor. This project over the years has enjoyed broad bipartisan support, not only from a Democrat mayor to a Republican mayor to a Democrat mayor to a Republican mayor, all along the corridor, but it's also received support through administrations of Republican governors to Democrat governors, which now holds that office, Evan Bayh, holds this as a project of priority in the State of Indiana.
I refer to the map, Mr. Chairman, for you, so you may see it. This one here, you'll note that this project, the State of Indiana between Peru and Wabash, there is under construction a bridge across the Wabash river. Two things are happening in Indiana, so I'm going to cut to the chase quickly. In consultation with INDOT, the state is ready to let construction on two particular construction phases this fall. One is, they'll take from Peru to Logansport, they'll purchase the land as if they're going to continue with the four-lane highway. But we don't have the funds.
So what we're going to do is go ahead and lay the road for the two-lane, link it up. We've got the four-lane bridge built across the Wabash. And we think that it's prudent to go ahead and do this, and then when we get additional funds, complete the other two lanes of the highway. So that will be done at a cost of $18.1 million.
Page 625 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
The other, the second, is a bridge reconstruction project on the Wabash to Huntington section at a cost of $1.4 million. Last year, we had authorization for $3 million, and what was appropriated was $2.475 million. This is a ready to go project. This is one we're talking about, are there more studies we need to do. There are some ongoing studies between the Logansport to Lafayette right now that was appropriated, and they're out in the field as we speak.
The ready to go project, this is $100 million. We don't have $100 million, I understand, in times of tight budget constraints that you're having to deal with to do that. Indiana is working in cooperation, this is almost a slow water trickling out of the faucet. But we're keeping this project alive.
And so what I'm here today, in testimony, as an update on what is going on with the Hoosier Heartland Corridor, it remains a priority, not only those on the ground, but in Indiana, but also with myself.
In particular, Mr. Chairman, I'm not coming here to this committee asking for pie in the sky. The targeted funds that are needed and required are $3.5 million. That would be the Federal share to complete these two particular projects for fiscal year 1996. And at this point, I don't know if in fact the committee is going to continue into the demonstration projects. If you do continue in the demonstration projects, then I'm asking for the $3.5 million, so we can have these two phases completed for fiscal year 1996.
If we don't, then in the alternative, I strongly urge that we continue the Hoosier Heartland Corridor in our focus for a national highway bill. And I'll be more than happy to answer any of your questions. I will note for you, Mr. Chairman, that when we submitted the criteria last year, that the cost benefit ratio for the Heartland Corridor, for every one dollar invested we received a benefit of $3.50. So this is a good project.
Page 626 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. LAHOOD. The Chair would indicate to the gentleman that the committee has not decided about demonstration projects yet, but I'm sure that we will.
Mr. BUYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Buyer.
Mr. BUYER. And Mr. Chairman, my written testimony, will you please submit it for the record?
Mr. LAHOOD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BUYER. Thank you.
Mr. LAHOOD. It will be entered in the record.
Mr. BUYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you.
I'm going to recognize Mr. Johnson and Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Souder of Indiana is on his way, but gentlemen, since you're here, please join us and offer whatever testimony in whatever order you'd like to proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. DOUG BEREUTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM NEBRASKA; HON. TIM JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Page 627 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you very much, Chairman LaHood. Nice to see you there.
Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you.
Mr. BEREUTER. My colleague, my neighbor and I, want to testify jointly on behalf of two interstate bridges between our stats, and then I have some additional authorization changes for my own state I'd like to ask for. And so we'll split our testimony on behalf of the two bridges that concern us. I'll let Mr. Johnson go ahead with one of the bridges and then I'll pick up with the second.
Mr. LAHOOD. Welcome.
Mr. TIM JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the committee today, in particular with my colleague, Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. Bereuter is going to talk about one of the two bridges, I'll talk about the other one in order to expedite our discussions today. I'd like to talk briefly with you about the Springfield bridge. And I also want to thank my colleague from Nebraska, Mr. Barrett, who was not able to be with us today, but with whom I'm working to secure final authorization for this bridge project across the Missouri River to link Niobrara, Nebraska, and Springfield, South Dakota regions.
I'm also pleased with Mr. Bereuter's continued support of the bridge project. This was originally in his district, but after reapportionment, it winds up in Mr. Barrett's district currently.
Page 628 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Previous authorization for this project was included in the Surface Transportation and Relocation Act of 1987, and the ISTEA. Additionally, an increase in authorization was also included in the NHS bill that passed the House last year for this project. The total cost of the project is $16.6 million. The Federal share is $13.3 million, of which $9.9 million has already been appropriated. And so we are down to the final $3.4 million authorization to allow for the final completion of this project.
The construction of the bridge will complete a north-south highway corridor that stretches across Canada into the U.S. and Mexico. The bridge will improve the number of grain and livestock market facilities available to farmers and ranchers in the area, increase accessibility to the Missouri River based tourist attractions, open new markets and provide additional labor markets for business, and increase coordination and cooperation of existing public services on both sides of the river.
Additionally, the bridge will provide access for the Ponca and Santee Sioux Indian tribes of Nebraska to the Indian Health hospital in Wagner, South Dakota, which has been newly constructed. Equally important to the Native American population in the area is an interest by five area tribes to join into joint economic ventures. Finalization of this project will greatly enhance the economic viability of the area Indian reservations.
The bridge project is included in both the Nebraska and South Dakota state transportation improvement programs, and approximately 56 communities and Native American tribes in Nebraska and South Dakota have pledged their support for the bridge project. Planning for the bridge is steadily progressing forward. The environmental impact statement has been signed and put into the Federal Register as of November of last year.
Page 629 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Construction plans are to be available for right-of-way acquisition by April of this year, which will allow the contract to be bid in January of 1996. The project is another instance of residents of our two states working together for many decades, and I urge you to authorize this final amount necessary to ensure the project becomes a reality in the very near future.
Mr. Chairman, there are several other projects in South Dakota that the South Dakota Department of Transportation has asked that I make requests for. And these projects are outlined in detail in my written testimony. In the interest of time, I will not go into them here. But I share the support of the South Dakota DOT for these projects, and urge your very serious careful consideration of each of them.
I want to express my appreciation for your time today, and I certainly would be glad to answer any questions that you or your staff my have. Thank you.
Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Bereuter.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, may I now speak of the other bridge——
Mr. LAHOOD. Please.
Page 630 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. BEREUTER.——which lies between our two districts. In both instances, there have been no bridges there in the past, and these are very long stretches of the Missouri River without access across. This is an authorized project, we received appropriations in two separate traunches in the past. But we need an additional $2.8 million authorized for the proposed bridge between New Castle, Nebraska area and Vermillion, South Dakota, the seat of the University of South Dakota.
In a related matter, I'm also requesting an authorization for a $200,000 preliminary study for a general route realignment from Wayne, Nebraska to the new bridge site. This will provide a major north-south access across the state connecting to I–29 near Vermillion. So it will be important not only to Nebraska, but to states south of us in north-south transportation.
The project is well along. The previous bridge is being planned by the State Department of Roads in Nebraska. This one is being planned and implemented by South Dakota Agency. Again, we're requesting a $2.8 million authorization.
Some of these bridges have been in the planning stage for actually six decades. But we have intervening World War IIs and depressions and so on and so forth. So these people have been extraordinarily patient.
I am urging, we are urging action for the additional $2.8 million. We thank the committee for its generosity in authorization, as well as appreciating the appropriations that have been forthcoming.
Page 631 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
If I may move briefly to three other brief descriptions. These relate to projects in Nebraska. I'm requesting an authorization of a half million dollars for a feasibility corridor study for a highway project to complete the remaining elements of what would be a circumferential highway around the City of Lincoln, Nebraska. Actually, the appropriators provided $400,000 last year on this project.
But we lacked the authorization, because of difficulties in the House last year, the last Congress, you know quite well. The City of Lincoln, the State of Nebraska, Lancaster County are very much involved in this process and are ready to proceed. It would take an extraordinary amount of the planning resources available to Lancaster County, far exceeding what comes during a single year, just to take on this project. And that's why the authorization is necessary.
The second item, it relates to the circumferential highway. I would like to see on the National Highway System's map a change to reflect the actual expected corridor of the circumferential highway, rather than a surrogate corridor that was initially submitted by the Department of Roads on 84th Street. So I'm not asking for an additional amount of mileage on the highway map, but simply a change. And that is supported by the Department of Roads.
And third and finally, again, a proposed change on the submitted National Highway System map, which relates to the Missouri River Bridge that I described. There's a very specific existing corridor suggested for addition on the National Highway System map.
Instead, I think I have convinced, I have convinced and have in writing to indicate that we'd like a generalized location on that map. No additional mileage, but instead, a slightly different corridor suggested for that element of the National Highway System plan which you'll be submitting to the Congress, the House for approval later this year.
Page 632 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. Chairman, those are my requests, and our joint request for the two bridges. Thank you very much. We'd be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. LAHOOD. One question that the committee would be curious about is, of both gentlemen, we assume that your Senators are fully supporting your projects and will do so in the other body at the appropriate time?
Mr. TIM JOHNSON. That's absolutely correct. The entire delegations of both states, Republican and Democrat and the governors of both states, and our respective DOTs, are fully in support of these projects and will be supported on the other side.
Mr. BEREUTER. I attest to that. In fact, sometimes the initiative for the appropriations actually come from that side, sometimes from the House side.
Mr. LAHOOD. We thank both gentlemen.
Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you.
Mr. TIM JOHNSON. Thank you.
Mr. LAHOOD. We'll recess until 1:10.
[Recess.]
Page 633 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. LAHOOD. Mr. McIntosh, we welcome you, and you may proceed with whatever statement you would like to make.
TESTIMONY OF HON. DAVID M. McINTOSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM INDIANA, ACCOMPANIED BY DICK JOHNSON, BUSINESSMAN, COLUMBUS, INDIANA
Mr. MCINTOSH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I have a longer statement that if it pleases you, I'd like to submit for the record, and I'll summarize that.
Mr. LAHOOD. It will be entered in the record.
Mr. MCINTOSH. It's a privilege to be here today to request your support to complete the Front Door project in Columbus, Indiana, a city that's very vital to my district and the Second District of Indiana. I want to note that I fully support this committee and Congress in its efforts to reduce spending in many areas, including highway projects. There will be tough choices, and we will have to make sacrifices here and in our own districts.
However, the Front Door project is a justifiable expense, as I think the record will show. And based on the economic, economic efficiency, environmental, and particularly safety effects associated with this completion, I would urge this committee to continue the project and appropriate an additional $15.8 million in highway funding to do so.
Page 634 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
The Front Door project will relive a pressing safety and traffic flow problem that's developed in Columbus. The interchange that serves that city was built in a bygone era and before many of the industrial and financial developments that have grown up in that city were in place. Since the time of the building of the original interchange, there are now thousands of people who use that to commute to work, and in addition, it is also a chief intersection to Bloomington, with the University of Indiana.
For those reasons, there have been a growing number of safety concerns, and accidents have occurred at that intersection. In order to complete the Front Door project, I am requesting $15.8 million in Federal highway funding. This amount is based on the recent estimate of the total project cost. There is a demonstrated record of keeping the project on schedule and controlling those costs. And the State of Indiana is fully engaged in the project and the local cost sharing has been identified.
The subcommittee, I know, does face a very difficult task in helping to set the Nation's transportation priorities. The Front Door project, I believe, represents a sound investment of limited resources.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the Front Door project in Columbus, Indiana. And I would be pleased at any time to address your concerns.
Thank you.
Mr. PETRI [resuming Chair]. Thank you. I've had the opportunity to visit, Columbus is a unique town. Irwin Miller is a unique individual who is responsible for a lot of, his foundation, I think, the scheme of paying for the world class architects of people will let him. And a lot of fire stations and churches and schools and other buildings are as a result, it's kind of a mecca for young architects. And the Cummings Engine Company is a leader in heavy industry in the world.
Page 635 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
And so you've got an exciting district, and we'll be happy to work with you on this project in the Columbus area.
Mr. MCINTOSH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's in that spirit that this project has been developed as a demonstration project, to show how some of the innovative architectural techniques could be applied to this type of interchange.
Mr. PETRI. The project, has it received kind of a go-ahead or the blessing of the Indiana highway, your state?
Mr. MCINTOSH. Yes, it has. They are fully in support of the project.
Mr. PETRI. And are your Senators aware of it?
Mr. MCINTOSH. Yes. Both Senators fully support it, and in fact brought it to my attention last fall.
Mr. PETRI. Good. Well, we'll be happy to work with you it.
Mr. Johnson, thank you for coming. Did you want to say something?
Mr. DICK JOHNSON. Yes, just a few words, Mr. Chairman.
Page 636 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
My name is Dick Johnson, and I'm a Columbus, Indiana business person. I represent today kind of the private sector of a public-private partnership in Columbus. And we've been working on the front door of our city, which is a corridor that connects the interstate with Columbus. We've been working on that since 1989.
There are some important things that we've been working on I'd like to just briefly mention to you. One of the problems has been the seriousness of the safety problems around pedestrians and vehicles through this corridor. And so we've been working to find solutions to that.
And we've been looking to improve the traffic flow through this growing area, increasing the efficiency of the existing infrastructure. And we've been working towards improving the functioning of this major entrance to our community. We can improve the way it works to connect the interstate to the community.
The state has been supportive of us. We have a strong commitment within our community in support of it. We've done our due diligence. We've had meetings over several years with the community, bringing people to understand what the project is. And we generally have very good support for it.
We are asking the committee to look at this and to hopefully improve our request. And we do it on the basis of merit. We think that the project stands on its own, and that its importance is very obvious.
It's important to us to finish the project, even this spring, we have construction beginning on the interchange and bridge connecting I–65 with 46. So the project is beginning just in another month. And so what we're asking for is help to really complete something that has already begun.
Page 637 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
I thank you very much for listening to my remarks.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson, and Representative McIntosh. We'll be working with you on this.
Mr. MCINTOSH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
I don't think Tim Roemer is here yet, but Rick Lazio is. If you'd like to come forward, Representative Lazio.
TESTIMONY OF HON. RICK LAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM NEW YORK, ACCOMPANIED BY CLIFFORD BRAGDON, DIRECTOR OF ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES AND CONTINUING EDUCATION, NATIONAL AVIATION TRANSPORTATION CENTER
Mr. LAZIO. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. It's good to see you again, after so long a period of time.
I know it's hectic, and I appreciate your spending the time to hear from members who have concerns. This is a concern both of myself, because Dallon College, who is affiliated with this project, is in my district. And Congressman Mike Forbes, who actually has this extension of the university in his district.
Page 638 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
I want to thank you for the opportunity to come before you today to introduce Dr. Clifford Bragdon, the Dean of the School of Aviation and Transportation, and the Director of Applied Technologies and Continuing Education for the National Aviation and Transportation Center at Dallon College, a 4-year college located in my district.
The National Aviation and Transportation Center, or NAT Center, is a unique facility that will provide new opportunities in the emerging field of intermodalism. Since it's conception in 1990, it has received broad bipartisan support in both New York and Congress. It is a model to the Nation in aviation and transportation education, and I urge you to support the authorization of $7.5 million for the completion of its next phase.
I will not elaborate any further, as Dr. Bragdon, an expert in the field of environmental and transportation planning, and obviously more qualified than I, will discuss the details of the Center. However, I would like to submit a slightly longer statement for the record. And I would ask that you consider that.
Mr. PETRI. Without object, it will be submitted.
Mr. LAZIO. Thank you. And thank you again for this opportunity, and without further ado, I'd like to introduce Dr. Bragdon.
Mr. BRAGDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Dr. Cliff Bragdon, I'm Director of Advanced Technologies and Continuing Education at the National Aviation Transportation Center, which is located in Long Island in New York. I'm testifying in support of our request for the inclusion of an authorization of $7.5 million in the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995, to continue to the development of an advanced simulation laboratory at the National Aviation and Transportation Center.
Page 639 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. Chairman, I know we have only a few minutes today, and I would like to make a case for funding of this important legislation. Therefore, I'd like to request unanimous consent that a copy of our detailed written testimony and attachments be included in the hearing record in its entirety.
Mr. PETRI. Without objection, they will be.
Mr. BRAGDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The National Aviation and Transportation Center has evolved into a preeminent and a very unique intermodal transportation resource for not only the State of New York, the northeast region, the United States, the Nation as a whole. We've been working, for example, with the cooperative organization of the northeast governors as a consortium to look at this issue on a regional basis.
Once all the phases of the National Aviation and Transportation Center are completed, it will be able to provide Federal, state, and local governmental transportation policy makers with the state of the art technology and capabilities to allow them to simulate and model all four modes of transportation, including highway, rail, air and maritime on an integrated basis. This will be the first time in the history of transportation this technology has been available.
Furthermore, it could be used to design and plan actual intermodal transportation infrastructure projects, dramatically reducing both time and cost of such projects. Also enhancing such key issues as conflict resolution relative to the development of such projects.
Page 640 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
We would also train the next generation of skilled transportation planners and researchers to integrate the National Highway Transportation System into all other modes of transportation, into a very effective national transportation network.
Specifically, Mr. Chairman, we are requesting the authorization of $7.5 million to continue the development of a $25.1 million center for advanced simulation at the National Aviation and Transportation Center on Long Island. The State of New York will provide matching funds in the upcoming fiscal year to complete phase one funding for this very innovative, unique intermodal transportation simulation tool. The balance of the project will be covered by a combination of Federal, state, as well as private sector funding.
Mr. Chairman, the primary question I want to address this afternoon is how the National Aviation and Transportation Center and the Center for Advanced Simulation will contribute to the National Highway System, and why we believe it is critical for this project to be included in this important surface transportation legislation.
First, a major component of the bill was approved by this committee and the full House last year, H.R. 4385 included highway safety, congestion mitigation, air quality improvements, and education research, development and technology transfer activities, obviously, to promote safe and operational maintenance of commercial motor vehicles in interstate commerce. We are a part of that H.R. 4385, with an appropriation to support the first phase of our initiative.
The Center for Advanced Simulation at the National Aviation Transportation Center will address all these issues, including how can transportation be used as an economic development and revitalization tool. And I want to re-emphasize that. An economic development and revitalization tool. Because we think that is the backbone for the next, frankly, the 21st century, in terms of economic feasibility and development.
Page 641 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Through the use of the most sophisticated simulation technology, the Center will allow urban and regional transportation planners, economic development officials, environmental engineers and others to actually incorporate data on all of these issues and conduct simulated transportation scenarios on how to best design and plan intermodal transportation as part of the National Highway Transportation System, whether it be in cities, rural communities or in states.
This is a resource that's never before been available to those responsible for addressing National Highway Transportation System requirements. It's state of the art, and it's the most exciting technology that's come along.
Second, the National Aviation and Transportation Center has recommended the demonstration capabilities to adapt this dual use technology from the defense areas, to solve real world transportation problems. For example, we have built the first continuous flow intersection project using a patented design and infrared technology to regulate traffic flow and improve traffic safety and air quality at busy intersections.
Now, I have a copy of the March 5th issue of the New York Times, front story in the section, showing that this is the first application of continuous flow interchange in the world. It will reduce such things as the air quality problem by 20 to 30 percent, increase traffic capacity by 50 percent.
We have nine governors and their transportation commissioners coming to see this center, and to see this intersection which has been built. And we have gotten applications and interests from 30 different countries in the last 15 days. So this is techniques and technologies that are cutting edge.
Page 642 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
As you can see, we're already contributing to the National Highway System and how it can be made safer and more environmentally beneficial for its citizens. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, when the Center for Advanced Simulation is completed in 1996, the National Aviation and Transportation Center complex, it will provide an unequalled technological resource for the Nation by contributing to the improvement of the National Highway Transportation System.
Furthermore, the National Aviation and Transportation Center will be providing a specifically skilled work force of men and women who will make the Nation's highway transportation system and all other transportation systems work effectively through the use of new technologies and new approaches that have never been envisioned in the technological community of transportation.
We're extremely proud to make this significant contribution to the National Highway and Transportation System, and our national effort to promote intermodal transportation improvements. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we would urge that you and your subcommittee include $7.5 million in the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 so that the National Aviation and Transportation Center can continue to be partners with you in the further development of the National Highway Transportation System.
I have presented two pictures, one showing the NAT Center master plan, and the second rendering is the Advanced Simulation Center, which we're proposing. And the first phase of that will be incorporated in the existing building, which was constructed in 11 months, 64,000 square feet, and done within budget.
Page 643 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
So we feel that this is a laboratory for technology, for economic development and for revitalization of the National Transportation System.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. You've put your finger on a very important thing, and that is that we can pass all the laws we want and make all the amendments we want for social safety nets. But those are just words on paper. If we don't have the infrastructure to actually do the job to deliver the goods and to produce them, those sorts of promises don't amount to very much.
So we're very eager to see our transportation sector move forward, and become ever more efficient. A lot of people aren't aware of the fact that over the last few years, transportation has been taking up a smaller percentage of the total national pie. As medical services, for example, have been expanding, we've almost been paying for that expansion out of the greater efficiencies in our transportation infrastructure. And we'd like to see that continue, because it makes our country more competitive overall.
One other point, I think you're probably aware that there was recently a long study in some international magazine about development efforts in India, which is opening up. And there they thought they could attract new investment by tax breaks, and discovered after a while that infrastructure investment was much more important.
Because people don't mind paying taxes if they're making money. But just giving them breaks if they can't make any money because there aren't the roads and the communications and the skilled personnel to operate and make their investment pay off, it doesn't really do the job. So I think this is a very important area, and you're clearly going to provide increasing leadership in it. And we thank you, and we'll be working with you.
Page 644 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. LAZIO. If I could just add, on the Budget Committee, we're trying hard to protect places like the NAT Center, trying to represent the things that Dr. Bragdon was talking about. And in an area like Long Island that probably is unparalleled in terms of how hard it was hit between the recession and defense cutbacks, this is a real beacon for hope for us.
We're looking forward to using what we have as our assets, namely our intelligence. We have a great population in terms of education, and we're trying to get on the cutting edge and make a comeback. And we need the committee's help for that.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you both.
Representative Tim Roemer of Indiana, I think we've discussed what you're going to testify a couple of times before, and we're eager to have you testify and put your proposal on the record here today.
TESTIMONY OF HON. TIM ROEMER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM INDIANA, ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM PEMBERTON, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, TRANSPO
Mr. ROEMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm delighted to be here, and Mr. William Pemberton from South Bend joins me, who is the Chairman of the Board of TRANSPO. I think this just confirms by Bill coming to Washington to testify with me and answer some of your questions the strong commitment from the local community on this project. And as you know, Mr. Chairman, a number of local people came by to see you in your office as well, too, to discuss the importance of this project with you.
Page 645 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
I would like to thank you and Mr. Rahall and others on the committee for giving me an opportunity to present today a progress report on the urban intermodal transportation facility in South Bend, and the request for authorization for moving into the second phase of this project. The first phase was presented in the 103rd Congress and was funded. Construction and procurement work proceeds on the initial stages of phase one, and we have made great progress in refining the overall plans for completion of the project.
The project was inspired by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, and by the current and projected transportation needs in our area of northern Indiana. The South Bend Public Transportation Corporation, known as TRANSPO, which serves both South Bend and Mishawaka, put together a plan which links the key transportation elements of our area into one single intermodal facility. This facility, located at the edge of downtown South Bend, will combine the terminal for TRANSPO as well as Amtrak and airport transfer.
The projected remaining cost is roughly $16.8 million. Our request is for roughly $11.7 million, with the remaining $5 million, Mr. Chairman, being obtained through local funding sources.
This is more than bricks and mortar. In addition to providing a convenient and coordinated, as well as practical, interface between the various modes of transportation, it will create jobs, develop human resources, promote equity, spur economic development, contribute to environmental improvement, and enhance the quality of life for our citizens in northern Indiana.
Page 646 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Land for the intermodal transportation facility has been purchased and the site has been cleared, and engineering studies now are underway for the construction phase of the facility and accommodations for Amtrak. Funding for the second phase of the intermodal system in fiscal 1996 will activate the heart and core of this project.
In this phase, TRANSPO seeks to: one, prepare track, platform and passenger accommodations for relocation of the Amtrak station into the new intermodal facility; two, acquire zero emission backup vehicles for the central business district, and zero emission vehicles for radial routes to and from the intermodal facility, which will run at 5 minute intervals during peak hours; and thirdly, acquire the remaining necessary land adjacent to the urban intermodal facility.
The concept, when fully implemented, will offer a living laboratory for further technological development, as well as a model for other small and medium sized cities seeking to upgrade their public transportation utilization. Developed in cooperation with state, local and Federal planning authorities, the plan not only addresses regional and national transportation concerns, but environmental infrastructure and urban resource issues as well.
Here are the three examples, and we talked about all three of these in your office, Mr. Chairman. One, by reducing automobile traffic in the downtown area, substituting free zero emission public transportation, the project reduces central business district congestion, fuels consumption and hydrocarbon emissions. Second, the investment in energy of the project itself already has created new enthusiasm for economic development in a once decaying area surrounding the facility, and has stimulated planning for other new projects throughout the area.
Page 647 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
An aside to this point, Mr. Chairman, is this an area where people were writing off future economic development a few years ago. Now, we have three or four different businesses that have committed funds and resources to new projects in this area, as well as some existing businesses and museums that have committed to stay in this area, rather than move to a county or suburban area.
Thirdly, considerable public interest is focused on the prospect of a modern, convenient, centrally located, safe and well-lighted Amtrak station. The current station is only a shed, totally without amenities, difficult to find, inadequately lighted and unsafe. Ridership will increase significantly with the new facility.
I am forwarding with my testimony an updated report on the project which should be helpful to you and members of the committee. I have three of those right here for you to peruse. I'd like to again thank the members of the committee for this opportunity to testify on this very, very important project, and express my hope that you will give every fair consideration for our request today.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Mr. Pemberton, do you have anything you would like to say?
Mr. PEMBERTON. I would like to thank the committee and the Chairman for allowing me to be here today. I would like to make the point that this project is extremely important to the community. We've had leaders from the entire community, including the surrounding area, communicate to people here in Washington about how important it is.
Page 648 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
And we're at a point where we would like to bring the project to completion, and culminate the process that really has the support of the entire community. A couple of things that are extremely important are the facts that, as Congressman Roemer has mentioned, that it will definitely help for the problem that we have in the Studebaker Corridor.
It will certainly help with the economic revitalization of that area. It will serve as an anchor for the future development and the present development that's happening now. And I think most importantly, it will bring zero emission buses to the community and help us with some of the clean air problems that we've had in the past.
Mr. PETRI. Could you tell me, just for the record, if the Indiana Transportation Department is supportive of this?
Mr. PEMBERTON. I think in your packet here you'll see a letter from the Indiana Department of Transportation, from Mr. Popool, in support of the project.
Mr. PETRI. And the members of what we call around here the other body, have they been apprised, Senators Coates and Luger?
Mr. ROEMER. Yes, they have. Both Senators Luger and Coates have been supportive of this project in the past. And very vocally supportive of it. And I think that they have already written letters to you and Mr. Wolfe to support this project this year.
Mr. PETRI. Very good. An awful lot of people visit South Bend, at least during certain sports seasons of the year, there are tremendous crowds there and at other special convention times in that community. I understand that this is an important project for your growth, and your future.
Page 649 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, on that point, I think that's one of the keys to continuing funding of this project. It is started, it has received funding from Congress in the past. And we have a brand-new Football Hall of Fame that will bring new tourists and citizens into South Bend. We have Notre Dame football games, and we have a century center which brings in between 300,000 to 400,000 people a year to visit downtown South Bend and the surrounding areas.
With those three things going on, this project is vitally needed, not only to keep up with that traffic, but to anticipate future growth. And we strongly recommend to the committee that they continue to fund it.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, and we'll be working with you on it. We appreciate your coming here today, and you, too, Mr. Pemberton.
Mr. PEMBERTON. Thank you very much.
Mr. ROEMER. Thank you very much.
Mr. PETRI. I think if we proceed, we can beat the clock here, and therefore I'd like to welcome our highly respected colleague from the Garden State, the Honorable Marge Roukema.
TESTIMONY OF HON. MARGE ROUKEMA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM NEW JERSEY
Page 650 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Thank you. I'm glad that you recognize the Garden State here.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent——
Mr. PETRI. People don't know how beautiful your state is, because like me, they just drove up and down the New Jersey turnpike and saw those oil refineries and what used to be kind of wasteland. And now it's a beautiful grassland, the Meadowlands.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. People find it difficult to believe, particularly in the area on Routes 4 and 17, that I'm about to testify on, and the terrible traffic jams that have in the most densely populated state in the Nation, they find it hard to be believe that as we move westward we still have farms and sheep and cows in my district.
But, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent for the complete statement to be inserted into the record, and certainly, Mr. Chairman, you remember because you were here last year when I testified, and when this committee acted favorably on the requests that we had with respect to the interchanges of Routes 4 and 17 in Paramus, New Jersey.
Mr. PETRI. Without objection, that will be done.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. It is the most densely populated region of the most densely populated state in the Nation. And it has been recognized, certainly by this committee and others, both here and on the Senate side, that this is a very worthy and high priority project for this committee, and certainly for the State of New Jersey.
Page 651 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
I won't go over the statistics about the volume of traffic, but it is absolutely devastating, the density of traffic volume in this region. I think that the action that this committee took last year certainly verifies the need. But it is my understanding, I mean, it justifies the project.
It is my understanding that you were reviewing this and expanding the authorization levels, and you have a new procedure here with respect to the agenda as you're setting it out. So I wanted to restate the issue for you, and also point out that in addition to the data that has already been submitted to this committee justifying the need here, that last week, Governor Whitman unveiled her latest transportation program, and a program that did include $13.5 million for pre-construction work on this very project.
But as you know, New Jersey, or any state, is expected to conduct these things by themselves. It is a project worthy of the partnership approach that the committee takes. And so I would resubmit our needs here, that the interchange is estimated by all proper authorities, recognized authorities, to cost a total of $90 million. Given the current 1995 appropriation of $15 million, officials on the ground in New Jersey tell me that they need another $53 million in Federal funds to keep this project going.
I think, Mr. Chairman, the statistics speak for themselves. We have the documentation here for your interest and for your information as to how that $53.5 million breaks down. It includes design stage, for which we were originally authorized. It includes $10.5 million for additional land acquisition, and it includes an estimate of over $30 million for the phase one of construction. And I think that pretty much completes the project.
Page 652 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
But again, Mr. Chairman, I have to stress that this has not only had a devastating economic impact on the region, but it is definitely a region where there are so many accidents, it is really a safety hazard and a recognized one, and adding up untold amounts of dollars to pay for the consequences of the lack of safety at this interchange.
Mr. PETRI. Well, thank you. Your New Jersey Department of Transportation, I take it, is aware of the problem and supportive of this?
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Oh, yes, oh, yes. Absolutely. It is in strong support. We have the strong support of every level of government, as was indicated both last year, and recommitted this year. Both the local, the county, the state, and of course the action that your committee took last year at the Federal level.
Mr. PETRI. And are Senators Lautenberg and Bradley——
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Strongly supportive. Strongly supportive.
Mr. PETRI. Very good. Well, we'll be looking forward to working with you in one way or another as this process moves forward.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. I also note that you have two of my colleagues from New Jersey who work with you on the committee, and I think they will certainly testify to the essential importance of this to the economy of New Jersey.
Page 653 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much
And I think with that, we'll adjourn until around 2:00 o'clock or 2:05, in that range, and be back to try to finish the remaining four panels. This hearing is suspended, it's recessed for 10 minutes.
[Recess.]
Mr. PETRI. Representative Dan Schaefer is here from Colorado to discuss the Denver metropolitan area southwest corridor. And Representative, the floor is yours, proceed as you wish.
TESTIMONY OF HON. DAN SCHAEFER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM COLORADO, ACCOMPANIED BY DICK REYNOLDS AND TOM BURNS
Mr. SCHAEFER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the time. I'll be very brief. I know what it is when a member of Congress comes before one of these committees.
I would first ask unanimous consent that some letters that I have here in support of this particular project be submitted as part of the record.
Mr. PETRI. Without objection, so ordered.
Page 654 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
[The referenced materials follow:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. SCHAEFER. And my two people here, Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Burns, Mr. Burns being the Mayor of Engelwood, will probably carry most of the load here this morning. And I just want to say to you that there are very few transportation districts in this country that are developing a rapid transit, or in this case light rail. It goes all the way through my district.
And they have got it situated now where the RTD board, which would be doing this out there, is certainly in support of this. At one time they were not. But that has changed. And so all the mayors in the particular areas are certainly in support of this issue and this transportation route.
As you know, in many of the situations in our inner cities, we have tremendous problems with transport. And the way that the city and county of Denver and the State of Colorado is growing in the last 3 years, approximately 95,000 people per year coming into the state is really starting to clog everything up. And we have to look at other ways to do this. And so in saying that, I would just ask consent to have the rest of my statement made part of the record, and would turn it over to either Mr. Reynolds or Mr. Burns, whoever wishes to go.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. It will be made a part of the record.
Gentlemen.
Page 655 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. REYNOLDS. Thank you. My name is Dick Reynolds. I'm Acting General Manger of RTD, Regional Transportation District, in Denver. I appreciate the opportunity to be before you today, and I'd like to ask for a few things. We'd like to request your assistance in advancing one part of the southwest, one part of our rapid transit system, that namely being the southwest corridor.
In October of last year, we opened a 5.3 mile light rail system. We opened the project both on time and on budget. It's the central spine of our system. It's been immensely successful. Our ridership is so much over our projections that we've recently had to order six additional light rail cars, which we expect to get next January.
We spent about $116 million on this project, and it was entirely financed by local funds. There were no Federal dollars involved in that project at all.
Right now we are conducting the preliminary engineering and the environmental impact statement for the southwest corridor. This 8.7 mile extension would go from the central portion of Denver, where the line laves off right now. It would go down to the cities of Engelwood, Sheraton and Littleton. It would provide service to the very southern portions of our district, to Douglas County, the fastest growing county in the area. We expect that the ridership will be about 9,000 passengers a day on opening day, but that will grow very quickly to over 20,000 passengers a day by the year 2015. It's a very rapidly growing area where this line will go.
Last year in the NHS bill we received authorization and report language that directed the FTA, the Federal Transit Administration, to count some of the prior expenditures on our line, and also count this as local match and over-match for the light rail system. In addition to the $116 million of local funds we've expended on the central corridor, we've also expended, that is, RTD has expended, almost $14 million on the southwest corridor already. This was used for right-of-way acquisition. We own the right-of-way already, all the way to the southern end of the line. And it was also used for railroad separations and grade separations.
Page 656 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
By including the previous local RTD expenditures for the central light rail line and the southwest expenditures we've already made, RTD is looking for a Federal match of about 46 percent, and certainly much lower than some other projects might be. We are once again requesting Congressional authorization for this project, and quite frankly, in recognition of the severe financial restraints that you have upon this committee, we're requesting a $15 million appropriation to do the final design, do some railroad relocation, some preliminary property acquisition for some small portions, and also to fund jointly, which Mayor Burns will talk about, a project with a private developer which we think is a joint public partnership.
RTD believes that this project has a great deal of fiscal responsibility. It certainly has a very high level of commitment from the local community. It has good technical merit. The air quality benefits of it are very strong. The project is ready to go. It has a large degree of public support. And I think most importantly, it will help us meet our region's terrific growth that we've had out there.
We are seeking your support at this point, and inclusion of this project in the report language, and also the report language that includes the prior expenditures. Thank you for your consideration.
Mr. BURNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee and I'm the Mayor of Engelwood, Colorado, which is one of the three cities along the reach of the southwest rail line.
As the previous speaker has said, we are redeveloping the area around the Cinderella City Shopping Center in our area. This particular southwest rail line was designated as Denver's regional priority rapid transit corridor in 1987. It's been actively sponsored, not only by local transit districts, but by community groups and local businesses and residents of the southwest corridor. And letters of support are a part of the record.
Page 657 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
More than 300 individuals have testified at RTD board meetings in the past few months in support of this project. And a recent public opinion poll conducted by a local television station showed 72 percent of the region's residents favored the extension of light rail.
We have selected a development company called Miller Kichel Company to develop a 50-acre regional shopping center in Engelwood called Cinderella City. When this was built 25 years ago, it was reputed to be the largest shopping center in the United States. It has fallen into disuse because of competition, because Equitable Life Insurance, which is the primary owner, has not kept it up to snuff.
Our proposal is to take it all down, it's $1.3 million square feet, and start over with a new development. Miller Kichel has designed a multi-modal RTD stop in this area, and it includes 650 car parking lot, a bus transfer, an 8-bay bus transfer and the light rail transit system, which is a major part of this development.
U.S. West Communications has selected a site near the southern terminus of this light rail for a new 4,000 employee office. Two-thirds of the employees that work at this facility now use the transit service. The planned southwest rail line was a major factor in making this decision by U.S. West.
In addition, it's been supported by businesses in Littleton, which is immediately south of Engelwood in the metro area, as well as Arapaho Community College. This college has 13,000 students, and in 20 years, expects to have 20,000. It is located on one of the stations proposed for this line.
Page 658 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Littleton, Engelwood and Sheraton, the three cities on this line, cooperate very closely with each other. They have a tri-cities agreement to improve the south Santa Fe Reach, the road alongside the rail line. And Engelwood and Littleton both serve a regional wastewater treatment plant that serves 240,000 people on the south metro area of Denver.
Also the Denver Metro Mayor's Caucus, of which I am a member, has actively supported this light rail project. You have a copy of the resolution in your record, and all the cities that belong to that caucus.
By the year 2015, traffic volumes on South Santa Fe Drive in the southwest corridor will increase over 150 percent from 1990, far exceeding the capacity of these planned improvements. Cinderella City, that I talked about, is the only regional shopping center in the front range of Colorado, from Fort Collins to Pueblo, that is on a rail line.
That's another reason why it's so important to have this light rail line there. It's similar to something like Pentagon City, in Washington, D.C., that you can access with the rail line. So it is a unique feature that will improve this area and be an integral part of this redevelopment.
We thank you very much for your time, and urge you to assist us in the funding that RTD requests.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Page 659 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Representative Rahall, do you have any questions?
Mr. RAHALL. No.
Mr. PETRI. Have your proposals been vetted by the Colorado Transportation Department? Are they in support?
Mr. BURNS. Yes, very much so. We have, in addition to the light rail line, we're working closely with the Colorado Department of Transportation on improvements on South Santa Fe that are being done now. This area of Denver has been frankly neglected for 30 or 40 years. It's an area that gets a lot of heavy industrial and commercial use. It has a lot of unattractive buildings alongside of it. Engelwood has a golf course right next to it that has improved and expanded.
And the commercial community members are telling me that they are looking favorably to redeveloping this reach, which Engelwood is very interested in. And it's getting a lot of heavy use because Douglas County, just south of our County of Arapaho, is one of the fastest expanding counties in the United States. And a lot of those people are using the South Santa Fe area to access the downtown area. And light rail will improve it.
Also, South Santa Fe is not a freeway. It has a lot of stop and go traffic at stoplights, which increases congestion and pollution. So we need the rail line to augment that problem, too.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, in addition to what Mayor Burns says, the metropolitan planning organization known as DRCOG, the Denver Regional Council of Governments in Denver, also approved this project by a vote of 34 to 2. The state, Colorado Department of Transportation has also given us a letter of support and I think it is in your packet.
Page 660 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. PETRI. And are your Senators familiar with it, and in support of it as well?
Mr. BURNS. As I understand, yes, Mr. Chairman, I believe that they are. We have two Republican Senators now, as you know.
Mr. PETRI. Both pretty independent.
[Laughter.]
Mr. PETRI. Well, thank you very much.
Representative Reed, I apologize for not scheduling you a bit sooner, but we're eager to hear your testimony, and please proceed.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JACK REED, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM RHODE ISLAND
Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Chairman Petri and Mr. Rahall, for giving me an opportunity to talk about a very important project for the State of Rhode Island. I understand the committee has not made any decisions yet about including specific projects on the National Highway System Bill. But we have a project that is very worthy of your consideration. I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak about it.
Page 661 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
I have a prepared statement I would like to submit for the record, and I would like to if I may, summarize.
Mr. PETRI. Without objection.
Mr. REED. Rhode Island's economy, like many places, is at a crossroads. We've lost a great deal of industrial base, we've lost the jobs that are necessary to maintain a good standard of living for our people. We are facing increased economic competition for overseas. And we are desperately trying to get into the world market.
And we have, I think, a unique opportunity to do so. There is a naval facility on Narangansett Bay, Quonset Point Davisville, which is being turned over to the state in the base closing process. And that offers a unique opportunity to develop a modern, intermodal port which will be a window for us into world trade, and indeed, I think the engine for economic growth for not only Rhode Island but the northeast region over the next several decades.
This is a proposal, the development of this port, that has already been tested and evaluated by the University of Rhode Island in the great hope that it will generate good private sector jobs and revenue for the foreseeable future. It is a project that has strong bipartisan support.
Last year, Mr. Makeley and I were both very active in supporting this project. The senior Senator and the junior Senator are supportive. Our governor, our new Governor, Republican Lincoln Almand, is a strong proponent of this project. In fact, this is his number one economic development issue in the state.
Page 662 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
We are going forward with strong support from the environmental community, business community, and we feel this is a tremendously important project with broad based support. The reasons for the optimism is that Davisville Quonset Point offers some unique facilities. It has a pier system which is used to support and berth aircraft carriers.
So it can accommodate all the largest vessels that may be sailing on the sea. It is in close proximity to the trade routes. In fact, it's a day and a half closer to sailing time to Europe than the other major ports on the east coast. It has an airfield built for military transports on the property. All the property is fully serviced by on-base freight rail system already. It has direct connection, or will have direct connection to Route 95.
In fact, it's an ideal candidate for an intermodal port, with one glaring exception. The freight system that serves Quonset Point Davisville is hopelessly out of date. And unless we fix up this freight system, we will never be able to develop the port.
And there's two major conditions which affect the freight system. First, there are obsolete bridges along the way, too small to accommodate the double and triple stack cars that are essential to modern rail services. And second, Amtrak has begun a very aggressive electrification project. If that electrification process goes forward, they will further restrict the clearances and further prevent the freight service from operating out of the port.
The proposal, one that has been advanced and embraced by all Rhode Islanders, is create a separate third track for about 22 miles from Davisville to the point it marries up with the Conrail system. And in that process of that project of raising bridges or lowering the road beds that can accommodate these types of modern rail carriers.
Page 663 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
This responsibility is going to be borne by the State of Rhode Island, but they are looking for, and I think genuinely and sincerely should receive, Federal support, principally because of the economic condition of Rhode Island, but also because the electrification project, which is a major reason why we will not be able to develop our freight system, is a Federally sponsored project.
Amtrak is using Federal dollars to electrify the system. We should have the opportunity to use Federal dollars to get our freight system in order. In fact, the environmental impact statement that Amtrak has prepared requires them to contribute to the process of this third rail system to modify the impacts.
Last year, this committee was very supportive of our efforts, and authorized $5 million for bridge work in conjunction with the National Highway System bill. In addition, the appropriators provided $5 million in appropriations for work on the third track. This year, the administration has recognized the value of the project and has included within their budget $10 million to help match state funds to get the project done.
Mr. Chairman and ranking member Rahall, in all my days and not that long, but this is the most compelling project I've seen that will actually help a state and region to make economic progress, to lure private industry, to create a regional economic development plan that will help all the citizens of Rhode Island and southeast New England.
I urge your consideration, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Page 664 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. I'm told the Department of Transportation has expressed interest in this project in the past, and it clearly does have strong support in Rhode Island. And we're eager to work with you on it, if we get the chance.
Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Representative Ortiz, would you care to step forward?
TESTIMONY OF HON. SOLOMON ORTIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS, ACCOMPANIED BY EDWARD L. WEEKS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, BROWNSVILLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND JIM KRUSE, PORT DIRECTOR AND GENERAL MANAGER, PORT OF BROWNSVILLE
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Mr. Rahall, I would like to introduce to you two prominent members of my Congressional district who are here today to testify in support of several high priority transportation projects in my Congressional district.
Mr. Ed Weeks is the President of the Brownsville Chamber of Commerce, and Mr. Jim Kruse is the Port Director and General Manager of the Port of Brownsville. Mr. Weeks is here to present testimony on interstate access and the completion of Interstate 69 and I–37. Mr. Kruse comes before you today to ask your support for the Port of Brownsville's three high priority surface transportation improvement projects, the Brownsville Railroad Relocation project and two important railroad rehabilitation and access projects. May I introduce to the subcommittee Mr. Weeks and Mr. Kruse.
Page 665 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. WEEKS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
I am Edward L. Weeks, President of the Brownsville Chamber of Commerce. Brownsville is the front door of the North American Free Trade Agreement. And we realize that NAFTA will be successful only if the proper transportation infrastructure is in place. Ours is an economically poor area, with the highest poverty rate and the lowest per capita income in the Nation. Yet NAFTA and expanding trade has put enormous strain on our transportation infrastructure. And the need is beyond our local ability to respond.
The need has a national impact, because the goods from all 50 states flow through our area into Mexico. Thus, we come to you today with sincere requests for transportation funding, and with the appreciation for what the subcommittee has done in the past.
The development of the National Highway System is essential to the economic well-being of our Nation. Inclusion of the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas in the National Highway System is not only important for the Rio Grande Valley, but our Nation as well. The implementation of the North American Freed Trade Agreement will only be successful if the proper transportation infrastructure is in place. The lack of proper infrastructure will destine our area to a less than desirable standard of living. Examples of this are evident throughout the world.
Both the Brownsville and the McGowan MSAs, even with top growth ratings in the state, cannot provide enough jobs to keep pace with our growing labor force. This condition is only one reflection of the rapid population growth in our area. The education systems are overcrowded, and our people suffer from lack of medical facilities to adequately care for them.
Page 666 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
The Valley of Texas is pleased to play a vital role in the successful implementation of NAFTA. We can only do so, though, if we are given the tools to accomplish our job. A simple look at the map of the North American continent will identify the extreme importance the location of the Rio Grande Valley has. The City of Brownsville has used the slogan, crossroads of the hemisphere. And today, that statement is even more accurate than ever. The lower Rio Grande Valley has been referred to as the front door to mutually beneficial trade with Mexico. However, again, we do lack the necessary tools to play our part. We do not have access to an interstate highway system.
The valley transportation needs have been ignored for decades, while the rest of the country developed an infrastructure system that allowed them to reap the dividends. Well, past is past. We can still determine the future. And we need to include the Rio Grande Valley and the national interstate system, and we need to begin now.
The border area of the United States, specifically the southern border, has not received a fair shake in terms of development. A primary reason for this is the tendency of government to look in terms of just our side. The lower Rio Grande Valley is comprised of over two and a half million residents in a 60 mile area along the border. If those two and a half million people were located just on the U.S. side of the border, the lower Rio Grande Valley would be one of the top 20 largest metro areas in the Nation.
The economy of the U.S. border cities on the lower Rio Grande River, or Rio Bravo, as it is called in Mexico, is interdependent on both countries' economies. The purpose of NAFTA was to intertwine these economies to benefit both our countries. This will only happen if we have the infrastructure to allow it to happen.
Page 667 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
The development of NAFTA trade quarter must take into account the infrastructure and developments on the Mexican side. Currently, the state of Tamalipus, Mexico, is developing a transportation plan to improve and build connections from Mexico City, Tampico, and Cuidad Victoria to the lower Rio Grande Valley. The closest route from Mexico City to the United States is through the State of Tamalipus and the Rio Grande Valley. As a colleague of mine has often stated, the Rio Grande Valley is like the neck of an hourglass. We can either be an enhancement to international trade, or a deterrent.
We believe that the two metropolitan areas in the Rio Grande Valley, the Brownsville, Harligen and McGowan Edinburgh Mission MSAs are the largest MSAs in the country not currently being served by interstate highway. The Port of Brownsville is the only deep water commercial port not presently served by an interstate highway. We're not asking for special treatment, just equal treatment.
The lack of an interstate highway system puts us an economic disadvantage, evidenced by our two MSAs consistently having unemployment at over twice the national average. We have phenomenal population growth, the highest poverty rate and the lowest per capita income rate in the Nation. We need the jobs and revenues that business can provide to help us cure this serious problem.
Interstate access is constantly one of the key questions in every company site location survey. Many site locators have favored other areas over the Rio Grande Valley for the transportation factor. The net result has been a loss of employment opportunities and revenue in this area that is one of the poorest in the United States.
Page 668 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
We realize that Congress has said no new interstates. We're not asking for a new interstate, just the completion of I–69 that presently terminates in Indianapolis. In reviewing the current interstate system, it is unusual for an interstate to terminate before it reaches a natural barrier, such as a border or an ocean.
In the case of I–37, it terminates 150 miles short of the natural termination. We are asking that you consider completion of this section of I–37 from Corpus Christi to the lower Rio Grande Valley. The existing infrastructure along U.S. 77 will require very little to upgrade to interstate standards. It's already a four-lane divided highway with limited access. The building of overpasses and bypasses around a few locations will bring about the necessary changes.
Additionally, the construction of this portion coincides with the goal of Interstate 69's completion from Indianapolis to the border. Realizing the approval and building of such a project is time consuming and tedious at best, we must begin now.
In conclusion, someone asks me what do we want, the simple answer is we want a solid red line on the map at 65 mile an hour speed limit size. Thank you, and I welcome your questions.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Mr. Kruse.
Page 669 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. KRUSE. Chairman Petri and Representative Rahall, good afternoon.
My name is Jim Kruse and I'm the General Manager and Port Director of the Port of Brownsville, Texas. And the purpose of my testimony is to urge this subcommittee to include funding for three of the Port's highest priority surface transportation projects in the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995.
While the Port of Brownsville concurs very strongly with the remarks just made by Mr. Weeks, I'm here specifically to request authorization of an additional $7.1 million to cover the final costs of the Brownsville Railroad relocation project, which would be $3 million, and the balance to cover the costs of two important port road and port rail infrastructure projects for $4.1 million that have relevance to components of the National Highway System in the Brownsville area.
In the brief few minutes that I have this afternoon, I hope to make the case for why these three important projects should be included in the bill that is pending before your subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, in order to keep within the committee's allocation of time, I would ask that I be allowed to present an abbreviated version of my longer written testimony, and that my full statement, with all the attachments and exhibits, be printed in the hearing record.
Mr. PETRI. Your full statement will appear in the record.
Mr. KRUSE. Thank you very much, sir.
Page 670 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Mr. Chairman, the Port of Brownsville is truly one of the most important international gateways for the transport of U.S. products and services to new markets in Mexico and Latin America. Despite recent economic setbacks in Mexico and along the U.S. side of the U.S.-Mexico border, the Port of Brownsville is uniquely positioned on the Gulf of Mexico and the land border with Mexico to provide a wide range of surface transportation options to manufacturers and other businesses that are looking to move their products to Mexico.
And regardless of one's position on the North American Free Trade Agreement, it is vitally important to the effective implementation of this trade agreement and to the economy of south Texas and to the Nation that the Port of Brownsville surface transportation infrastructure improvement requirements be given high priority during the consideration of any national surface transportation initiative in the Congress.
To this end, Mr. Chairman, there are at least three principal reasons why the three surface transportation projects discussed earlier should be included in the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. The first is, despite the economic difficulties confronting Brownsville area residents, the citizens of Brownsville and the Port of Brownsville have put their hard-earned dollars on the table to improve the physical and education infrastructure of the entire area. More than $400 million in tax and revenue bonds have been approved to carry out the highest priority infrastructure improvements in Brownsville, including infrastructure improvements at the Port.
So neither the Port nor the surrounding Brownsville community have been sitting idly by, waiting for the Federal Government to pay for the lion's share of its needs. But the $7.1 million being requested for inclusion in your legislation represents that portion of the Port's overall financial plan that it cannot accommodate within its own scarce resources.
Page 671 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
Item two, the Brownsville Railroad Relocation project and the two access rail and road improvement projects will have a significant positive direct and indirect impact on two important components of the National Highway System, farm to market road 511 and highway 48. In short, the three projects meet one of the critical criteria set forth by the subcommittee in determining which projects should be included in the bill, the relevance and applicability of the projects to the National Highway System.
In fact, we are confident that all three projects meet all 20 of the criteria being utilized to weigh the merits of projects under consideration for inclusion in this important legislation.
And item three, the Brownsville Railroad Relocation project and the port access road infrastructure improvement project have both already enjoyed strong support from the Congress in the past. Funding for the Brownsville Railroad Relocation project has been approved in appropriations acts over the past decade, and will be completed with the $3 million being requested in this bill, while the port access road project received the support of this committee in last year's National Highway System Designation bill, H.R. 4385, for $1.68 million.
In short, two of the three projects being requested for authorization in the National Highway System Designation bill have already passed Congressional scrutiny, and have a track record of financial support in the Congress. Mr. Chairman, we would be remiss if we did not publicly thank our great Congressman, Representative Solomon Ortiz, for his steadfast support for the Port of Brownsville and its programs. His support for our three projects is probably the most important testimony that any of us could present to this important subcommittee.
Page 672 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
In closing, we urge the subcommittee to grant our request, and include the full $7.1 million recommended for these three critically important surface transportation improvement projects that will not only help our port, but help the National Highway System as a whole.
Thank you very much.
Mr. LAHOOD [assuming Chair]. Thank you very much.
Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LAHOOD. Mr. Rahall.
Mr. RAHALL. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate Congressman Ortiz' testimony, and he has spoken with me on this a number of times. He's a big pusher of this project, and I appreciate his leadership on it, bringing his constituents today as he has.
Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you. We thank the subcommittee, because you all have been very understanding to realize the enormous problems that we have in moving hazardous cargo and the congestion of traffic and other problems. But this subcommittee has always been very understanding and we thank you very much.
Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you very much.
Page 673 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Coleman. Welcome.
TESTIMONY OF HON. RONALD D. COLEMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS
Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee.
I appreciate very much the opportunity to testify before you today regarding the National Highway System reauthorization. I hope you're not going to be as alarmed as Mr. Rahall was last year when he saw the numbers. But I have tried over a long period of time to advise this subcommittee and the full committee of the total impact, the so-called out year dollars, as we used to call it in the Armed Services Committee, so you know the cost, the estimated current costs, in 1995 dollars, of these projects.
You and I are realists about the amount of money we have every year in order to deal with it. I serve as the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation. We know the limitations, certainly. All I can suggest to you is that in this time, of course, we'll be subject to intense scrutiny.
In my full statement that I would submit for the record, Mr. Chairman, I would simply suggest that it's critical to the future of efficient trade and transport between Mexico and the United States and Canada that we've got to begin to address infrastructure needs along the U.S.-Mexico border as well as the United States-Canadian border. We've made that point eminently clear in the appropriations language over and over again. I know that this subcommittee has dealt with the issue many times.
Page 674 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
I noted with some interest statements about the border in the testimony just preceding mine. That's only 720 miles distant from my part of the border of Texas. They are at the very southern tip, we're out in the far western reaches of the U.S.-Mexico border. We're closer to San Diego, really, than we are to Brownsville.
I would hope that when you assess it, in terms of the big picture, each of the projects, I hope you'll look at it as being really, in terms of distance. Sometimes when you look at a map, it's harder to recognize that Congressman Jim Chapman's district is closer to Chicago than it is to mine. He claims he's from Texas. I haven't figured that one out.
All I wanted to do was give you these projects. They're in the statement, I've submitted them for the record. I'm trying very hard to get the specific data. I have asked all of the agencies, I know that you're going to be looking again, and we will be providing those for the record very quickly. I asked a number of the agencies, city, county, state, if they would provide the specifics and the data and the amount that they could actually expend in any one given year.
You and I know one of our biggest problems is keeping dollars in the pipeline. We can't afford to do that any more. The Appropriations Committee and this Committee on Public Works last year made a commitment I think to the Congress and to the American people that we recognized and understood that is not our goal in the Congress, that we intend to only provide funds that can actually be utilized in the best possible way, especially in a time of tightening dollars.
Page 675 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 5 Of 6
I appreciate very much the opportunity to testify. I won't take up any more of your with the specifics unless you have questions.
Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Coleman.
Mr. Rahall.
Mr. RAHALL. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. COLEMAN. And I appreciate your consideration that you also gave at the last session, and I'm very appreciative that there was a recognition by this particular subcommittee that these are extremely important issues to deal with in terms of transportation, internationally.
Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you very much.
The subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
[INSERT HERE.]
Next Hearing Segment(6)