corridor in response to a claim by the less than railroad and the northern carolina department of transportation that the historical protection process has led to cost the delays in capital improvement with no benefits to historical railroad and the north carolina to the attention of the baldrick council i think there is a willingness to resolve these concerns administratively and i would encourage all of the pilots involved to work toward an equitable solution to any possible disagreements th reason we must ensure that we are not looking for a solution to a problem that may not exist prior to this markup the issue of historical press of a shenanigan in back on the rail system and never raised with me or the committee and i haven't heard any hearing today as you know the amendment that i offer concerns historical designations of railroads i worked with mr young from alaska mr coble on this amendment we began to hear complaints that historical designations were impeding some of the railroads ability to main train maintained tracks in a safe manner we know that this issue is particular porton as i mentioned to alaska and to north carolina and are of course potentially other realigns around the country and again mr coble and mr young were very involved in crafting this amendment in alaska there are attempts by state historic preservation officials to declare entire stretches of lines as  historic i'm not talking about historical train stations but actual track the trains run on even monday and projects have to be reviewed by the historic preservation office costs in the road both time and money and if we go too far down this path of historic preservation bogging down necessary improvements and safety modification safety modifications of the red tape i believe we could be setting ourselves up for a historic accident we had a similar situation regarding interstate highways and we corrected this problem in safety lou when we passed it a couple years ago this amendment would give railroads exactly the same treatment as interstate highways for historical purposes and would exempt rail lines from historical designation i'm open to suggestions as how to craft this amendment to protect clearly historical stations and possibly bridges and tunnels but i do not believe that entire mile long stretches of active tract should ever be considered historic the provisions will also benefit amtrak freight and commuter lines from a policy standpoint i think we need to give department transportation a role in ensuring the protection of rail facilities of true historic interest by the same time assuring that rail safety is not compromised i hope madam chair you work with me in on this important issue in fact pursuant to discussions held during the markup of the amtrak authorization bill discussions concerning statements that the federal stork preservation process has led to costly delays in improvements in infrastructure for railroads with little or no benefit for historic preservation those complaints came from rail development  interests in alaska and in north carolina and the remedy proposed that time was to limit historical preservation to very specific facilities terminals bridges but not entire lines or corridors for railroads but we need to explore that issue in the course of today's hearing railroads certainly are deserving of historical preservation they've been at the center of our development as a trans continental economy as trans continental transportation they are along with the interstate highway system that the very basis of our prowess our economic prowess as a nation certainly one of the most vivid and dramatic examples of that significance of railroading in our history is the founding of the golden spike that links the central pacific and the union pacific connects to the united states coast to coast it's a subject of many rail stations are marvels and models of outstanding architectural achievement in engineering and construction achievement but also at the same time point out that it was the destruction of pennsylvania station in new york that was a major factor that led to the enactment of the national stark preservation act of one thousand nine hundred sixty six i remember that very well serving on the staff here i think we need to understand how the federal historic preservation process works several law does not absolutely prohibit federal action so that permit the impairment of historic properties rather several law requires that before the action occurs there should be consideration of a range of actions to mitigate or to avoid the impact consideration of alternatives that produce a similar benefit without destroying historic properties railroads are covered by  multiplicity of stark reservations two thousand three hundred plus rail properties are listed in the national register they're subject to those procedures and additional rail properties are covered because when there is a proposed federal action there will be a stark protection for sites that meet the criteria for listing those sites on the national register and even if the sites are not listed there is an issue that comes up the rail properties that are covered in the register and i have a complete list of these here include bridges tunnels and viaducts there nineteen corridors or railroads that are listed now in the national register they may be listed for their historical significance as links between important cities they may be listed for excellence in construction or for their scenic value such as the stone arch bridge in minneapolis that goes from nicolette island and which james j hill's the founder of the great northern railroad did insisted be built on an s curve so that the passengers on his freight train as they went around the curve could look back and have some something to see of significance and beauty and it was built with man cato stone which is a unique yellowish colored stone that is very attractive very also very  resistant and has survived all these well let's see that was built in eighteen ninety three and it's still with us today but it was on a national are historic places so when the great northern railroad became the be n s f and the b s f decided they no longer needed to move freight through that area that bridge wasn't destroyed it was protected it is today a bus rail pedestrian and bicycling link and thousands of people come every year to lunch on nicollet island to walk the bridge to see the beauty that railroad magnate james j hill created and that the empire builder railroad  once once traversed so so we have rails to trails because we've been able to preserve corridors that once were rail facilities and just on sunday i did the for our tenth year that too was launched in eight hundred ninety three ninety years later it was terminated rails freight rail services terminated on bicycle event on the paul bunyan trail my new cobalt hip and i did a twenty five mile ride on the trail so today we're going to hear from interests from the advisory council of the national trust but i want committed to pay attention to the administrative remedies available to deal with the problems raised historic preservation may be required for individuals that themselves may not be historically said but they're part of a corridor that is historically significant and i know there are problems that were raised behalf of alaska on behalf of north carolina in our markup on the amtrak bill if there are problems with the processing that takes time to do this and we can deal with the with the processing but i think that  can speed that process up as as we did in safety lew under the direction of the chairman then chairman young comparison has been made to the interstate highway system and and  the interstate highway system is not fifty years old the act is fifty years old there were some interests in the course of  our work on safety loose at all my goodness skies following the interstate at fifty years old could be subject to stark preservation and we won't be able to add or or change in or interchanges or add lanes or delete lanes or whatever the interstate is and fifty or one or two segments are but it's an evolving program and and so the program well then and then i think there are there are some distinctions that need to be cited and i think i think the request was for much broader exception than was necessary to meet the needs and i want to listen carefully to the concerns and to the obstacles and find ways that we can accomplish this without still the major means of transportation within the state of alaska and we're not asking to destroy in a historical sites in fact a lot of the sites in alaska road have already been adenike fightin are protected under my management about we are in the process of trying to replace proximity fifty bridges that need to be replaced or we're going to lose lives we are in the process was draining out the rail in areas which are extremely dangerous because in the old days we didn't have the technology nor the equipment and  dreamily important at this railroad still function on time because we can't do the work we need to do because we have different weather patterns much like minnesota and we have to have the ability to do so and we have a concern that there are those within the historical preservation group that will utilize this to imperil the ability for the alaskan road to operate and that's the purpose of my amendment and i i truly believe that we ought to bandit like we did in the highway bill to a point where there cannot be an impediment to improve the safety of passengers and freight there utilizing the railroad and as i mentioned before the railroad has been very good under the video ship and the to do the job the managers the board itself protected but a to be very nearly impossible to go through of some person under the present act itself on historical preservation was a sale they haven't taken consideration the replacement of glass was original type glass in a certain terminal that would be to me an extension of not logic but that does happen in our day society so i'm asking you to and fro from our board and the safety of those that write the train and so i do think there is room here to work this out but i don't want one law to take in and pete another agency that is trying to do what they should do for the good of the state of alaska in this nation i originally intended to have just this alaska and this program not all roads but i think all road railroads do have a problem but i'm not going to go that far if i can have some relief in alaska for this railroad which is crucial to the economy of the state and so i do think there's some room here a list of the testimony from these witnesses and let's solve a problem that can be very damaging to the state of alaska we've got a year back to balance thank you madam chairman it's a pleasure to be here on behalf of the advisory council on historic preservation council is an independent federal agency created by the national historic preservation act to advise the president and the congress and oversee the section  process it's made up of twenty three presidential appointees federal agency heads and leaders of national preservation organizations that includes the secretary of transportation in its membership section one of six of the national historic preservation act is the primary federal protection for historic properties it sets up a consultation process to evaluate the impacts of federal activities on historic properties it has limits there has to be federal involvement and in the end the process is advisory it can't stop a project over one hundred thousand cases a year go through section one zero six review all but a few of these are resolved in an expeditious manner implement section one zero six also offer a variety of tools to deal with special needs we use them regular only for cases like the one presented today the railroad industries the exemption request is not at all unprecedented several industries in the past have sought congressional action to avoid historic preservation reviews in one thousand nine hundred eighty nine the national aeronautics and space administration sought a legislative exemption from section one zero six claiming that it plays to none to burden on their programs the congress rejected it and asked the advisory council to develop administrative remedies the a c h p worked with the with the national administration to develop an agreement that still guides section one zero six compliance for nasa in two thousand and one the pipeline industry sought a legislative exemption for historic pipelines pipeline such as world wars as big and little inch pipelines the congress again rejected the request and the a c h p work with the federal energy regulatory commission to complete an exemption created through the section one zero six regulations in two thousand and four the telecommunications industry wanted a legislative exemption for cell tower construction congress again refused to grant such an exemption and the a c h p worked with the federal communications commission to develop a national agreement that streamlines section one of six reviews for cell towers and as has been noted the federal highway administration initially sought a legislative exemption for dealing with the interstate highway system but working cooperatively with the a c h p we developed they developed an administrative exemption that now covers the whole entire interstate highway system i think the message consistent after examining the issue the congress has regularly found that the basic law of section one hundred six is sound there are adequate administrative tools that exist and legit legislative exemptions are unnecessary the a c h p is prepared to work with the rail industry federal agencies and stakeholders to reach the same kind of successful conclusion to the present challenge without resort to legislative exemptions thank you issues at the attention of the committee my name is tom brooks i'm assistant vice president of projects and chief engineer at the alaska railroad and laskar road is five hundred mile long main line running from the ports of seward would here in anchorage to the interior city of fair banks we offer a full year round full passenger service and freight the railroad carry over half a million passengers in two thousand and seven and we have extensive freight operations in interstate commerce because of our service to five military bases we've been designated by the department of defense as a strategic railroad rather it was built and operated by the us government for one hundred fourteen it was sold to the state of alaska in one thousand nine hundred five and we are proud of our history and we actively support historic preservation  numerous ways these are detailed in the back of materials however the effective expansively applied historical laws and regulations in parallel our inability to maintain our railroad safely and efficiently and compromises the operation stating sharing a current problem that illustrates our dilemma very well and we have a bridge a mile post for thirty two point one that's one hundred sixty foot long and spans a small creek in a remote location two separate independent historians determine this bridge has no historic merit on its own however it has been in practical effect declared historic byard the state's historic preservation officer ship will merely because it's part of the last karun this isn't triggered an extensive bureaucratic process that's meant to preserve and protect historic structures the foundation of this bridge is failing badly and we want to replace it in two thousand and eight we can't we are currently passing around documents between the alaska railroad the federal transfer ministration the national park service and the alaska ship will we expect to obtain the required approval so the replacement can be completed in the fall of two thousand and nine in the meantime we've got to get about one hundred fifty thousand passengers  quite a bit of freight and military equipment across that bridge safely we believe we can do this but it's really expensive and very unnecessary we would like to replace have for place a bridge this season we submit that this is a misapplication of public process and squanders federal resources and federal and public funds there's really no reason that we couldn't of replace this bridge this year promise created by overzealous attempts to identify the railroad as a single historic co or and this designation automatically triggers the historic protections for this monday narrowed feature and it lacks historic merit on its own bridgeford thirty two former own remark resents the six time we've been through this process and six two thousand and two is expensive and delays our efforts to improve safety efficiency and to serve our customers the shoestring men will ensure that their story preservation standards continue to be applied every road features with historic merit in their own right cannot because they are merely part of a railroad historic district this minute would provide the same relate to railroads it was afforded to the interstate highway system through unlike the interstate highway system the railroads have been evolving since your and since their inception and continue to do so they have been constructed expand and upgraded to serve our national transportation needs their integrity depends on continuing maintenance great so they continue to operate and move passengers and freight efficiently the alaska road is safety improvements in routine maintenance and even monday in future features such as bridge for thirty two point one or incurring a new delay in costs and the problem will get even worse in the future of the recorder is either officially declared a historic district or as in currently have a far different mission from running a safe transportation system when in closing we would gladly continue to support efforts to preserve alaska's history and history last koran and we but we must also ensure safe operations through the shoes for a minute we will continue our historic preservation efforts focusing in on truly deserving properties for moving ahead with our mission thank you for the opportunity to speak and we have to answer any questions and it's just an thank you chairwoman brown and chairman over to our ranking member schuster and distinguished members of the committee my name is patrick simmons i'm director of the rail division with the north carolina department of transportation in c d a t is blessed to have the full service rail program our program  nationally recognized for our work with the inner city passenger rail service and i'm pleased to report that the ridership on our tuesday state sponsor trains is twenty percent over the last seven months just yesterday governor easley announced that we will add another state sponsored train as soon it can be done in order to make the growing demand we are developing the federally designated southeast has speed rail corridor which we refer to as caesar that will link the northeast with the southeastern states we administer our state's highway railroad grade crossing safety program and we're proud to have partnered with norfolk southern railway and the federal railroad administration to create something called a sealed corridor later this year us d o t will report to the congress on how the sealed corridor has saved lives  railroad crossings we partner with norfolk southern c s x transportation in the north carolina railroad in an ongoing program of infrastructure investments that improve safety add network capacity and reduce travel times we partner with  operate a railroad industry safety inspection program we partner with our railroad community to do economic development projects we also partner with the virginia department of rail and public transportation and the federal highway administration and f r a and a community of some fifty state and local agencies to develop the design and environmental evaluation of cesar i'm not here today to advance our historic preservation community for i'm very proud of our community of our achievements in north carolina to preserve historic train stations equipment and our contributions to the north carolina transportation museum last year the national trust recognized our body of work and honored us with the john chafee award for excellence in public policy i am here however to point out what i believe to be a significant impediment to our nation's developing transportation policy designation of railroad corridors as historic my concern is that such a designation as significant process time  of project delivery the process the prospect of such a designation also will constrain our ability as a state to work with the freight railroad to add capacity and improve safety we are at the beginning of a new era in public private partnerships in our industry both parties wish to leverage funds from each other to add sorely needed capacity enhanced mobility adding process and cost improve again it impedes project delivery mr chairman or bad woman that the railroads are largely prodded and privately owned while the interstate network is a public asset safety lou including the exemption from designation for the interstate highway system this provision effectively places rail at a competitive disadvantage it also think public investment in how ways versus developing public private partnerships between states and railroads not leveling the playing field our program of infrastructure investment is further constrained from taking advantage of the enhanced economy efficiency and productivity that the real mode can offer already are class one railroads are wary of governmental regulation and rightfully so in this case a requirement such as the historic designation that can apply broadly across their privately owned network will produce a setting that will make the task of entering into public private partnerships all the more difficult our state has had experience as well with the facilities we've had some challenges there that we were able to negotiate and never come and go forward with those projects in good spirit in of working together however i believe that designating a railroad corridors as separate and apart from the facilities and structures as historic as significant time and cost of project development is an impediment to adding network capacity and it hansing safety i believe it will hinder our ability to foster these public private partnerships and i'm not sure that it adds materially to the body of knowledge and protects our historic resources therefore arge the committee to reconsider the a minute offered by congressman schuster and i thank you for the opportunity to be here today and will be pleased to respond to any questions thank you madam chairwoman thank you the bill we're going to stand in recess for about twenty five minutes we have a series of votes and i will be recommitting soon as the votes over thank you come back to order please and mrs merrett will get started please good afternoon chairwoman brown and distinguished members of the committee i'm elizabeth merritt deputy general counsel for the national trust for historic preservation and i appreciate if you make can you pull that mike up like this that's much better thank you actually here's what i'll do i appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today to share the national trust serious concerns about a proposed major exemption from federalist or preservation laws the national trust was chartered by congress more than a half century ago to lead the private historic preservation movement in the united states during the past two and a half decades in which i have served as in house counsel at the trust the trust has work tirelessly to implement and enforce section one zero six of the national strike preservation act and section four s of the department of transportation act the laws from which the railroads are seeking a broad legislative exemption the trust has not only as a preservation advocate in the context of individual projects but we've also been actively involved over the years in shaping regulations and programatic agreements and occasionally even legislation which is carefully designed to address complex implementation issues and special approaches tailored to specific agency needs we've described in our testimony as has the advisory council a number of examples in which these administrative solutions have been very successful in addressing precisely the kinds of concerns that the railroads have presented here the examples provided by the railroads simply do not represent the kinds of issues that congress should be dragged into resolving we urge you not to get pulled into the weeds here the federal and state preservation agencies represented at this table have the expertise and the successful models to address and resolve these concerns without the need to do a hatchet job on our federalist or pervasion laws the central idea of america's historic railroad resources to our national heritage is well documented and summarized in the testimony a real corders have reflected in the find the spirit of our nation its culture history and economy as a result railroad preservation has been a long standing priority in federal law and policy we've provided for the record a list of all two thousand four hundred and eighty six railroad resources that are listed in the national register this is just a sample of all of the historic properties eligible for the national register nationwide federal district preservation laws are designed to achieve a balance between preserving the integrity of our storch resources and providing for their fish efficient and responsible continue use the fact that a rail corridor is still in use is not a reason for exempting it from consideration for preservation on the contrary when these corridors have legitimate historic significance they deserve to be included within the scope of our federal preservation laws other active transportation facilities such as airports and historic parkways are managed in a way that respects the restored character and complies with federal law the railroad should live up to the same standard of course federal preservation laws only apply when the railroads receive federal funds or permits in the absence of such federal benefits these preservation laws pose no barrier at all for the railroads to do whatever they want with their historic property even destroying it but it's not appropriate for private corporations or stay agencies to use federal taxpayer dollars to destroy historic resources without at least participating in the review process like other industries and agencies there's no showing that the railroads are or are unduly or disproportionately burdened by preservation laws that all other agencies industries follow when they receive federal funds and permits the section one of six regulations include a number of flexible tools that could be used to address the railroads concerns our testimony mentions three in particular the first is programatic agreements which are often used to streamline or eliminate review for minor actions for example the north carolina d o t recently signed a p a to streamline review for minor transportation projects throughout the state according to the north carolina ship oh well over one hundred projects per year are reviewed under this p a and all have been resolved quickly and successfully why couldn't such a ph be developed for rail projects as another example the alaska road has the p a in place that allows for the replacement of all of its fifty seven historic timber bridges further evidence that section one of six is not an obstacle to necessary upgrades the second tool under section one of six is known as program comments issued by the a c h p which comment on an entire category of undertakings in lieu of individual reviews these have been used extensively by the defense department to accomplish section one and six compliance for literally tens of thousands of historic properties the third tool is that the ac h p can exempt certain categories of undertakings from section one zero six this is the model used for the interstate system however consultation is required with the c h p to develop and craft such an approach to ensure that it doesn't sweep too broadly in the d o t is not yet initiated such consultation the devil is in the details and it should be the ac h p in the d o t rather than congress undertaking the complex task of attempting to define the scope of an exemption in addition to these administrative tools under section one i was six section four s also has streamlining mechanisms which have not been brought to bear here this is important because section four at this a more stringent law first section six zero zero nine of safety lew included a new exemption for de minimus impacts on the stuart properties and other resources protected by section four of this was a carefully crafted consensus based amendment which the national trust was actively involved in developing we believe the de minimus exemption could be used to address many of the railroads concerns regarding section four of as far as we can tell this is not been evaluated in addition f h w a s adopted detailed regulations and guidance and a number of programatic section four f evaluations which of also been used to streamline review under section four if all of these tools should be fully evaluated before a legislative exemption is considered in conclusion there are proven administrative tools available and we are confident that all of the railroads concerns can be addressed through consultation using these administrative tools we respectfully ask congress for the opportunity to show that those administrative solutions can work the national trust stands ready and willing to participate in that process thank you have served as the state history preservation officer for maryland for almost thirty years in that time we've dealt in maryland with a great many types of historic properties we have our share of the signers of the declaration of independence but we also have many sites that are in contemporary daily use and with high technological needs for example the oldest airport in the united states is in the state of maryland has started nineteen zero nine it's in continuous use today and it's been on the national register since about one thousand nine hundred eighty we have several other airports that are on the national register in the field of railroads we deal every day with the very historic where road features the first regular the regular carrier passengers and frighten the united states the be a no railroad started in maryland and we that certainly includes our rail authorities i would note with pride that in the thirty years that i've been doing the work while we have reviewed hundreds of rail road projects including where road projects and designated corridors though there has never been a piece of litigation involving those railroad projects the ms merit and mr fowler before me mentioned that there are a number of administrative remedies that perhaps have not been fully investigated here and i certainly can can testify to that from the state of maryland in maryland we use what has been referred very effective in dealing with a wide variety and diversity of types of projects however every agency has a different planning process sees the planning process for a highway is very different than the planning process for a railroad is very different than the planning process for a housing development what we do in our state is we try to take a program matic approach to those kinds of problems as opposed to a project by project review that has worked very well and as far as i've been able to see in this case that programatic approach has not been applied to some of these problems that we're talking about in order for that to work you have to have the state to start preservation office has to be willing to enter into such a program matic approaches has to be willing to make compromises and trade offs up front and likely and likewise the the state or federal agencies on the other side need to be willing and capable of carrying out those kind of sophisticated programmatic approaches they work in my long career i have unfortunately had to deal with quite a number of public projects that were subject to litigation on preservation issues the first question that the courts always ask is are there administrative remedies that will take care of this issue have those administrative remedies been utilized and have they been exhausted where this particular issue before the courts right now i think they would send us all back to the drawing board and say you have not exhausted the administrative remedies thank you very much  valid madam chairman brown chairman oberstar congressman shays stor congressman young other distinguished committee members thank you for the privilege of addressing you today on this most important topic i senior vice president of the wales shell's conservancy let me preface my remarks by drawing your attention to the wall monitors nine viju to focus on the pictorial representations of historic road features they are after all what this hearing is about many of them have been preserved to the auspices of the national historic preservation act let me assure you though i will not be offended if you divide your attention between these pictures of america's  our quote national policy to preserve establish road rights of way for future reactivation of rail service to protect rail transportation corridors and to encourage energy efficient transportation it is our t c s mission to aid in this process by identifying rail corridors that are not currently needed for rail transportation and work with communities to facilitate the conversion of these corridors in the public rail company no longer wants to conduct service to a willing trail manager this process however depends upon not only the willingness of the interim trail manager but also the willingness of the roads and there are roads are not always willing it is this context it is in this context which section one zero six provides a critical constraint to the ability of private rose to dismantle historic transportation corridors to carry out a section one o six obligation the surface transportation board imposes conditions that temporarily bar railroads seeking abandon banham an authorization for removing any historic bridges features other features that require us to engage in historic preservation consultation these preservation conditions give public agencies of attentional trail managers the time necessary to undertake the due diligence and reviews necessary to proceed with public land acquisitions and ensures that important historic structures and features that will allow for trail use and enhance a trail experience are not removed until these consultations are complete it is the center g between these two provisions of federal law that have now given us over fifteen thousand miles of active open rail trail and have we have a gal so given as many more miles of rail trail rail core this in project stage and so we opposed his extension last night i had occasion to speak to the president of one of america's railroads and he said to me marianne you can't expect roads to care for companies to care about the history about the history of roads their obligations to care about the economic of their company and the functionality of the system and i thought for a moment and i responded to him no i do expect you to care i expect you to care the very most because so much a part of that community that they have named their baseball team the altoona curse after a marvelous feat of road engineering that comes through the mountains and curves into altoona so gentlemen i will ask you to rise to your higher responsibility of protecting our heritage thank you very much thank you thank all of you for your starr the question thank you madam chair and i thank all the witnesses for their splendid testimony and i think that the frosting on the cake the icing if you will was the project i want to come to the alaska railroad issue and i have a timeline as a chairman young provided member high priority project designation for replacement of this bridge for thirty two point one in the safety lou bill and the alaska railroad undertook engineering analyses in the summer of zero seven showed the bridges in need of replacement and the railroad submitted all the environmental requirements under nepa to federal transit administration in january of this year right now in direct in march after ca determined the bridge was not eligible for a national register is what because it wasn't historic in april the state's chip shop alone not the federal government not an agency of the u s government not the congress your own state agency disagreed and determine the project would have an adverse effect because the bridge association with the alaska railroad then then the alaska railroad began a process showing that there is no feasible or prudent alternative to replacing the bridge and completed that work in april and f d a and the alaska railroad submitted that information to the national park service the four f provision for review and f t a is expected to get a response in july from from the department of interior is that correct that's our best guess yes that's not a horribly long process the problem we have is it cause us to meet the windows that we need for construction delayed and you know we can't proceed with the project under federal guidelines until all the approvals are in completed this is not in on do burton if you had started the process last summer it'd be under construction now but i think that the process is a fairly long process we did start last summer with the second evaluation of the bridge history you know that that was impeded by by the start preservation was part of the preservation process i mean it takes a while to put all that together and use a historic we were using a historical consultant to do it so that we were able to have a historic evaluation to put before the f d a until december we put that before them in early february or early january excuse me well i really don't see that the historic preservation provision because the railroad to stop take stock to make an assessment evaluate the situation go through a process that was exemption you simply want to not go through a process at all i'm sorry the the crux of the matter relates to  the whether it's prudent to do that you know it's always feasible to do so do something if the park service were to determine that it's prudent to replace said bridge we have a very difficult time for and i want to do with year according to documents that i've requested they lask a state historic preservation office and the federal railroad administration and your railroad signed a memorandum of agreement for replacement of timber bridges in the quarter of the railroad fifty seven bridges are included in the agreement the railroad agreed to train two of them in the correct that's correct it's not a burden on the possible i think that's a pretty strong obligation from our point of view mitigation measures include  of the documents in preparation of an annotated bibliography creation of a timber bridge booklet a lot of people consider timber bridges to be very significant structures very important to our past or future roading evokes the most sympathetic response of any transportation act and i don't find people getting fired up about highways but i do find them fired up about a railroad bridge covered bridge or station about a third of the cities in my district have a have a caboose or one of those old cowcatcher locomotives on display at the entrance to the city or as you depart from city on the other end  these are stark parts of our history of our past if you take just a couple of months or three months or four months to go through a process and evaluate it i don't corridors designated in storage in a historic preservation document yes or not draw the distinct between a carter and the facilities as we could have carried out our responsibilities we've had many opportunities to work with historic facilities historic structures and to work through the issues that are relevant there so we're ok there with respect to rail carders a note that  as we develop public private partnerships in this country to make investments that add capacity and safety to active mainline major railroads but that that's a distinction those railroads do need to function i mean we honor our past in many different ways but as we have these major transportation facilities there will be a need to to expand their capacity and to add  go down a pathway that adds this responsibility to the private sector and to the public sector in working with the private sector will and process will add cost and mr chairman it will make our task in the public arena all the more difficult there is another responsibility responsibility and that is to the public and to the past in the years eighteen fifty two eighteen seventy one the federal government granted to the railroads one hundred seventy three million acres of public lands that at that time and and today with representative the lower forty eight nine percent of the total land surface of the united states for the public use convenience in the subsidy and the right to own the minerals below the surface and the timber above the surface and to sell that land that's an enormous gift bestowed upon the rails in the public interest to be managed by the private sector and so now the public taking the language from safety lew corridors can be protected under that language and are protected one hundred fifty miles of the pennsylvania turnpike under that language are protected sixty miles of the columbia oregon river highways are protected thirty miles of alligator alley in florida are protected so i leave you there for that for the moment to think about about that language seventy s and i believe everything i've seen is that there's been a tremendous repayment to the public good into the better government by many as there are many various ways from shipping our troops for free on a rail system to  the railroad putting those rail lines where they went through the value of the federal lands that were retained by the government increased in value and the government sold them to various things so there i don't know if we can maintain to make that argument that there hasn't been a significant payback to the federal government to america over the years so i would make sure we put that on the record and we need to can that as we move forward with this i don't think anybody's and in   in section the section one of the six of the process would remain in effect under my amendment and doesn't that alleviate any of your concerns regarding protecting historic bridges tunnels and stations  as i understand your amendment that is correct it would not affect the application of section one of six the four s process of the department transportation act is a very important historic preservation law in the in the federal establishment and we are supportive of retaining its protections as appropriate it is more inflexible than section one zero six is and i would certainly not advocate  support changing that without a very careful examination of what kind of flexibility does exist under the current law to meet the needs that the that the railroads are putting forward and i think the  idea behind the amendment that myself and mr young are putting forward is not to necessarily eliminate the ability to identify corridors but to to to limit it and to make it so that it's not on a state by state or local community by local community allowing d o t to have that say as an extremely important to the national transportation system and the safety of that system mr simmons can you talk a little bit about more more specifically public private partnerships being hindered can you speak specifically things moving forward now or that are just over the horizon the we are concerned about that this may cause a significant problem yes or mr schuester one of the challenges that we have taken up in our state is to develop a future speed rail network our role has been to bring forward the environmental documentation the environmental and pulmonary engineering on the carter that stretches today from washington d c through richmond virginia to raleigh down to charlotte north carolina there are other legs of that carter that extends out to savannah to atlanta east to hampton roads for us to be able to actually construct on a date certain we will need an agreement with the freight railroads in this case b c s x and norfolk southern does well as our own state owned railroad the north carolina railroad and that's a challenging group to work with they're very interested in their business interests not to the exclusion of history because each in their own way they celebrate that and work with that but to apply designation to the corridor today we are on the cusp of a designation from petersburg to riley and i don't know how far that would expand and i don't know that i'm in a position to provide assur to our class one railroads that it would extend further and i think that while there may be process in place an appeals mechanism it still makes the issue of bringing that to bear fruit to actually be able to make the investments to add capacity to those mainline railroads that provide for passengers in freight will be all the more challenging and all the more difficult and i'll   thank john for his for his knowledge for his guidance his support and especially his friendship over the past couple of months became the real subcommittee chairman and knew something but not didn't have the kind of knowledge  so he gave me a quick education on the notes and crannies in the details of it so he's been with the committee five years and he'll be greatly missed and i'm sure we'll be hearing from him from time to time when union pacific has issues that  under question and i'm not mistaken of fifty bridges but mr brooks your testimony indicates that designating the alaskan railroad at historic district adds so identically to project schedules and costs and in your safety and in dan's me an operational improvement but protection of historic resources important is required by law how do you propose that the minimum ensures the historic resources that will continue to be protected is being offered by mr schuester myself well what we adverse effect on a historic resource it wouldn't have to go through what else excuse me for a half in addition the river accord or issue new cast a pretty wide net when you talk about a record or and you end up  let's say the railroads you know north carolina wherever it may be and you go through this process and the ship zero or one of the historical groups says no actually i don't know for sure i know that our appeal processes have always ended up in the hands of historians you know the park service or our ship although you really don't have an appeal to an outside source say this well i think the standards under the national historic preservation effort are being expanded widely and applied much more vigorously for example although we've had federal funding for a number of years we didn't have any need to exercise before a frost this before two thousand and two since then we've been through it six times and talking to the timber bridge in the year which covers the one  six process even though we have an iou in place there whenever we do impact a timber bridge adversely we do have to then follow it up with forest process so we're still not out of that for whatever whatever structures we have madam chairman what i'm a little concerned  because we have a individual on the ship aboard that we have another historical area in the state that being proposed to be adversely affected and it seemed to me that there was an indication  there was many some some transfer of dollars into the state program there may be not be as much of an objection that goes back to my there should be somewhere along the line people have a right to appeal outside of those  interested in that issue because i want to believe in protecting historical value but when i have a railroad it has to move all my troops and move my my my gravel and move my my fossil fuels and move my my food and move everything only real form the rail transportation i don't want to see another agency within the federal government has been codified by the congress say oh no you can't do that but maybe we'll help you out i don't think that's fair i think there ought to be a way that that there is an outside source is all right this is really is not going to hurt historical aspects of it it's not going to change the railroad adversely historically and maybe we ought to go forth with i don't say who they appeal to i don't know i'm going to ask my counsel to look into this because i think that's crucially important in this process that we know that there is somebody could make that decision outside of historians why should they have story and when you want to do something have the right say no and stop the process is if if i'm reading your career your question correctly the question of what is or is not historic is a decision that's made by the people that have the authority and the responsibility and the expertise to determine historic significance so in that section one of six process is the status or preservation officer and then the keeper of the national register and i'm a manner of not not having said that where we are we want to make it improve we want to replace a bridge and that status dorrigo officers know you can do it where does the railroad go well first of all this data start preservation officer cannot say no you can't replace the bridge under section preservation officer says this property is eligible for the national register that then requires the federal agency that's providing the money if the if the railroads doing it but with its own funds there's no there's difficult to change that because it was a federal railroad but it but it's and it was transferred to the state correct now who has a responsible because there were are federal dollars involved so that puts it under the  jurisdiction of historical definition and back again he wants mr brooks once put a bridge in the state historical or the federal restorable people say no what recourse do they have well again as i understand it the current federal an interest in the alaska railroad is only if the federal transit administration of the federal railroad administration provides funding or if perhaps they need a corps of engineers permit in order to replace it with ridge so there then are covered because there are a corps of engineers means that are under the federal jurisdiction and mr brooks is right road can't build a bridge you know well no because the corps of engineers has to consider the impact of giving the permit on the historic property but but in the end the corps of engineers can say it's more important to give this permit to to replace the bridge and there's nobody the advisory council that stays dark preservation officer the secretary of interior the national park service no one can say no to that that's the decision of the corps of engineers now we go through this process and we have a building season the last ninety days were set off more than ninety days and chairman brought this up were set off a year and the train bridge collapses who has a responsibility is it mr brooks the last the road is a historical society is a  liability for those hundred fifty people to bottom of that that canyon because the bridge wasn't thinks because it could possibly have to be historical who's responsible i don't quite feel equipped to answer that question you mean you're not responsible and you held it up now because our new poll held it first of all i would suggest that if one debate spends all their time debating whether or not the property is significant that that often is is the major reason that the process is is protracted we don't disagree with the idea of it being historical we disagree with ability to not to improve it so it's safe but that's all we're trying to do my wife just walked in  told me to be quiet so go read it the process or can can work efficiently if people sit down and say ok this is a historic property and now let's see what we can do with it and the federal agency that is funding or approving the project is in control of the time if the federal agency says we don't want to talk anymore about this the sh is being obstructionist they can terminate the process they can get advisory comments from the council and then they can go forward and approve the project that's a dream world if one person one individual and ship will says no the railroad cannot fix that bridge and that's what we're trying to future needs of this nation well madam chairman we have already started to address that in case by case situations with regard to lines that require tunnel enlargement for clearances for  modern freight equipment and so on i would suggest that the federal agencies that are responsible for funding and overseeing this the federal railroad administration federal transit administration work with the advisory council the national conference of state a store preservation officers and the railroad industry and deal with this in a program matic way much the way we dealt with the interstate highway system we are concerned  as much as anybody else's and having an efficient transportation system and we don't want preservation to be an impediment to that you did not answer mr young squashed and i didn't understand the answer to the question  he is indicating that what procedure is in place when one person is black and i mean to me safety is number one and so the question is what procedure is in place if you have a facility that is structurally physically not safe and you are running trains on it and then you have a process this is holding  is because of the different agencies how can we have a one stop process to exit with at the time i guess that's what we're asking here all right first in emergency situations are exempt from section one zero six in order to meet in emergency situations such as the imminent threat to safety for a bridge that substandard but as i was saying under the section one hundred six process the federal agency and asked to be federal agency involved if it's a funding agency such as f t a and the situations that i understand they are in complete control of the process they can say the sh pos role is purely advisory the s h b o says it's historic and the f d a says it's not the f d a can move forward based on that if the s h b o says i don't want you to tear the bridge down and the f d a says we don't agree with you they can terminate this consultation process they can get advisory comments from my agency that have to be delivered within forty five days of request and then it's up to the secretary of transportation to decide what to do with it and the secretary can say rail safety is more important it would be nice to save this bridge but we're not going to do it thank you very much a c h p for your comments we're moving forward mr lu you want to comment on that the question did you hear the question no i did not ma'am but did you get my question no i didn't ok what i said it was over the next ten years it's going to be a real conflict between the passion a really  for as in crete the increase in radishes and how do we balance a two bit preserving historic and move in the system for what the the best solution to that and my opinion is the one that we've used my state and around the country for several decades and that is the administrative programmatic approach under the programmatic approach you try to avoid project by project view and instead look at entire programs those entire programs may involve large geographic areas like a corridor or they may involve multiple projects that are highly repetitive and highly predictable in terms of what the nature of the project is and what the nature of the solution to the historic preservation program's problems are what programatic approach does is to essentially allow the railroad agency and roads in this case to self monitor and carry out the preservation planning phase itself now they've got to do it according to decent standards but the agency the railroad agency does the work itself and only comes to the status toward preservation officer or the advisory historic preservation for problems that cannot be resolved in accordance with an agreement those agreements in my state we probably have right now fifty such program out agreements with things from our housing agency to our transportation agency they work but the agency implementing them has to take the process seriously and has to own the preservation planning process we don't want to be the preservation police we don't have the time or money to look over agency shoulders and if we can get them to do it themselves that's what we want  say that they plan to abandon it two years hence or what have you or they can discontinue service on it and not run or provide any service and then abandon it in a thirty day period of seeking and what they call an exemption and our way of slowing down that process anough so that public agencies have an opportunity to put together funding packages build community support turn to congress or their states for tea money  whatever it allows it it prevents the dismantling of those key features may we talk about a trestle as it were just a historic preservation facility it's also the way you get from one part of the corridor to another part of corridor the tunnel is how you get from one part of the quarter to the other part of the corridor if those facilities fall into disrepair or allowed to be dismantled if that stone for instance on the stone arch bridge was allowed to be sold off to private sector because the road owned and sent they had a good market for those features you can't separate zillah ts on the quarter from the quarter itself they are part of the quarter and so we need to keep them intact long enough for public agencies they  would you all be willing to sit down and discuss how we can solve this problem though this bill come to the floor on behalf of the a c h p we'd be delighted to madam chairman what about you m i understand mr list i didn't understand last part of your response to ms brown mr brooks she said we would but what we feel like we have an immediate issue you know we do have a number of bridges that are out there in need of replacement and although we have an agreement to move or just for the one of six process we do not have anything in place for four aft and that is an impediment to our work w ell whether you want to sit down talk about a solution or not is up to you but the alaska railroad can ask the keeper of the national register to determine whether or not the railroad is in fact historic and the railroad has not asked for this determinations far as i have been able to determine so well are you aware of that authority we are aware that we can a where it is historic going to be there some process involved in the defacto position of our ship always that we are historic and that's the way we've been treated when we got to the example today bridge for thirty two point one to repair our bridge we simply went directly to fore you're really not answering the question of whether you want to talk further you've got an immediate problem but your immediate problem is about to be resolved one way or another i can imagine that the that the department will go ahead with it so it's up to you whether you want to sit down and talk about things and specifics but let me there there is there is appeal there are opportunities and this merit i'd like you to to expand upon that there's a there's a claim on the part of of the asco railroad and implicitly by north carolina that there is no appeal from from the decision of one person but there is an appeal process throughout the whole historic preservation describe this rescue to elaborated on what mr fowler said when the question is whether a resource is eligible for the national register of historic places there is an appeal to the keeper of the national register in the national park service when the question is whether the bridge should be replaced under section four after that the final decision belongs to the federal agency in the transportation department federal transfer administration or federal railroad administration whoever's providing the funding and the the fact that a resource is determined eligible for the national register does not determine whether it can be replaced or altered as mr fowler said that just requires consideration of alternatives but it doesn't prohibit replacement or alteration at agreement for replacing the fifty seven timber bridges on the alaska railroad is a perfect example of that of how section one of six even when resources are are determined to be a sturrock does allow for upgrades and needed improvements mr brooks you disagree with that  i do not agree that there is process there is in fact process my point is as applied to a court or as opposed to a distinct resource such as a bridge or a facility or a structure that that th n can bradley and in our case it transcends two states i think that because our carter transcends six or seven states as it goes from washington to across the south and southeast that we are on the cusp of a federal issue one that goes beyond the issue of whether the state department of transportation is in conversation and working hand in glove with the state office i think we are and we've demonstrated that but when you look at the broader application of this that's the challenge that i foresee and would appreciate some guidance and facilitate to make t aspects facilities considered historic you are concerned about the process you have to go through it takes so long to get there is that largely right but it's very close  make the distinction and i'll use the example that we have on cesar between raleigh and petersburg or raleigh and richmond we're doing work today we're studying analyzing a carter that's about a thousand feet wide we've identified every structure in it we've documented a an additional difficulty for us to ever build something in the current law and then chairman young and i spent a great deal of time on this  and i particularly i undertook to negotiate over a period of six or seven months with all the various parties on this project streamlining to simplify the process and one of these was w ith respect to historic sites and the language of the current laws says quote with respect to historic sites the secretary may make sector of transportation many may make a finding of de minimus impact i think this is very important for your purposes only if the secretary has the term and in accordance with the consultation process required under the national stork preservation act that the transportation program a project will have no adverse effect on the historic site or there will be no historic properties affected by the program or project the finding of sect of the secretary has received written concurrence from the applicable state to start preservation office or tribal or preservation officer cetera et cetera participating and the finding of the sector has been developed in consultation with parties consulting is part of the process that's current long do you have a problem with that could you put the first part of the question together first part of the question as i read all the current language of the law and right and the and the question is do you have a problem with applying current law to your current project and i'm sorry could you read the first couple  lines again please oh my goodness it's a long section here and just the secretary may make a finding of the minimize impact of the secretary has determined in a court in accordance with the consultation process required on the national start preservation act that the transportation program a project will have no adverse on the historic site or there will be no historic properties affected by the transportation program or project the the problem we have with that is the effect of the historic district  gathers in features of the railroad bridges tunnels buildings that wouldn't then that have no historic merit on their own it's their merit it is because they are part of the alaska road historic district and dominion this finding if there if we do something that impacts one of those contributing elements then the there is a finding of adverse effect and it does trigger the forest process that's the problem that we have we're not going to overturn current law say that we're not going to go back and rewrite federal highway act so you need to find something that says that the speed of sit down and talk to each other talk to us talk to mr holder i miss america and find something that speeds up this process and do it fast because we're going to bring this bill to the house floor next week and we upgrade the railroad where every possibly can for safety purposes because it will expand if we're allowed to do that because i think we'd be doing a disservice my amendment is very simple as you know it all it does is adopt the i we save the bill all it does a little bit it doesn't expire doesn't add anything else to it and i want to make sure that we do protect the historical sites but when it comes to a wooden bridge that it's not safe it goes back to two and it's been decided that groups are concerned about getting the secretary of transportation to be the final authority on this matter but we do have the existing law and we do have language that was that was thrashed out at great when we have to file whatever doctrines you have to file with the rules committee in order to bring the bill to the floor recommendation go in the room lot to do and don't come is not an option and we all be happy we can move forward in that we can just work it out and not have to have a happy i want to think and witness for their testimony and the members for their questions again the members of this committee may have additional questions for the witnesses and we ask you to respond to these in writing here rep will be held open for fourteen days for miller's which is to make