U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

30–650 PDF 2007

INTERMODALISM

(109–80)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

HIGHWAYS, TRANSIT AND PIPELINES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 15, 2006

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

CONNIE MACK, Florida

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS, TRANSIT AND PIPELINES

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California, Vice-Chair

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Bray, J. Robert, Executive Director, Virginia Port Authority .............................. 36

Grabauskas, Daniel A., General Manager, Massachusetts Bay Transportation

Authority ............................................................................................................... 22

Lynch, Tim, Senior Vice President, Federation Relations and Strategic Planning, American Trucking Associations ............................................................... 36

McLaughlin, Peter, Chair of the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority, Chair of the Metro Transitways Development Board, Hennepin County,

Minnesota ............................................................................................................. 36

Richmond, Rick, Chief Executive Officer, Alameda Corridor-East Construction

Authority ............................................................................................................... 36

Roberts, Dave, Senior Vice President, Advanced Technologies Group ................ 36

Scheunemann, Arthur, Senior Vice President for Business Development, NW

Container Services, Inc. ....................................................................................... 36

Shane, Hon. Jeffrey, Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation ................................................................................. 3

Sherry, Patrick, Professor and Director, National Center for Intermodal

Transportation, University of Denver ................................................................ 22

Siggerud, Katherine, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office .................................................................................. 22

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Berkley, Hon. Shelley, of Nevada ........................................................................... 49

Carnahan, Hon. Riss, of Missouri .......................................................................... 54

Cummings, Hon, Elijah, of Maryland .................................................................... 55

Porter, Hon. Jon, of Nevada ................................................................................... 90

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Bray, J. Robert ......................................................................................................... 51

Grabauskas, Daniel A. ............................................................................................ 61

Lynch, Tim ............................................................................................................... 67

McLaughlin, Peter ................................................................................................... 78

Richmond, Rick ........................................................................................................ 91

Roberts, Dave ........................................................................................................... 113

Scheunemann, Arthur ............................................................................................. 121

Shane, Hon. Jeffrey ................................................................................................. 125

Sherry, Patrick ......................................................................................................... 132

Siggerud, Katherine ................................................................................................ 167

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Sherry, Patrick, Professor and Director, National Center for Intermodal

Transportation, University of Denver:

IPRO307 Automated Shipping Containers, Interprofessional Projects at the

Illinois Institute of Technology, report ........................................................... 141

Mi-Jack Products, Jack Lanigan, Sr., Chairman of the Board, letter, June

28, 2006 ............................................................................................................. 156

The Thruport in 21st Century American Rail Freight Transportation, Dr.

Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Department of Economics and Geography, Hofstra

University, report ............................................................................................. 158

ThruPorting Containers and Trailers for Enhanced Transportation Capability, Laurence Rohter, P.E., Adjunct Professor, Illinois Institute of Technology, letter ..................................................................................................... 163
Page

VI

Mitra, Dr. Amlan Mitra, Ph.D, Associate Professor of Economics, Purdue

University, letter, June 26, 2006 ..................................................................... 165

ADDITION TO THE RECORD

Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Civil and Engineering, Randall

Guensler, Professor, and Michael O. Rodgers, Professor, Potential Energy

and Air Quality Benefits of Freight ThruPorts, statement .............................. 187
(1)

INTERMODALISM

Thursday, June 15, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPOR- TATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

HIGHWAYS, TRANSIT AND PIPELINES, WASHINGTON, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas E. Petri

[Chairman of the committee] presiding.

Mr. PETRI. Good morning. This Subcommittee hearing will come

to order. I would like to welcome all of our members and witnesses

to today’s hearing on Intermodalism.

The purpose of the hearing is to provide members of the Committee with information regarding the concept of intermodalism and

how intermodalism can be used to solve transportation problems,

such as congestion and freight delay.

The term ‘‘intermodalism’’ is generally considered to be the movement of a person or of freight using multiple transportation modes.

Intermodal connections link the various transportation modes:

highway, rail, air, and maritime facilities.

Economists and transportation planners have long agreed that

productivity and efficiency gains can be achieved by improving

these intermodal connections.

Our Nation’s transportation system faces ever growing demands.

About 5 trillion passenger-miles of travel occurred in 2002. Annual

vehicle-miles of travel in the United States rose by nearly 30 percent between 1989 and 1999 to almost 2.7 trillion miles. More importantly, passenger travel and freight transportation are expected

to continue to increase.

Current Department of Transportation estimates show that between 2000 and 2010, passenger vehicle travel on public roads will

grow by about 25 percent; and freight movement by truck, rail, and

water will increase by 43 percent.

Over the past few decades, Congress has increased the focus on

intermodal transportation significantly through major Federal

highway legislation, such as the recently enacted SAFETEA-LU,

TEA–21 in 1998, and ISTEA in 1991. These laws not only allowed,

but encouraged, States, regions, and local communities to consider

intermodal transportation issues as part of their transportation

planning process.

The role of States, regions, and local communities is significant,

as the Department of Transportation has a limited role in managing how funds are to be locally allocated. The Department’s ability

to set and enforce strong policies on intermodal transportation is
2

also affected by the sources of funding involved in the project and

requirements set by the other entities.

We have invited three panels of witnesses to discuss their views

on intermodalism. Our first, really, speaker, not panel, will be Mr.

Jeffrey Shane, Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy, who

will discuss the Department of Transportation’s efforts to utilize

intermodalism in transportation policy and projects. The second

panel consists of witnesses who will address how intermodalism

can improve passenger transportation. And the third panel will discuss how intermodalism is essential to freight transportation.

Now I will yield to Mr. DeFazio for any opening statement he

would care to make.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, it has

been a decade and a half since Congress passed the Intermodal

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. I participated in that, and at

the time it was considered to be somewhat visionary, particularly

for the Federal Government. You know, some States were ahead of

us in terms of planning and looking at intermodalism, but this was

a good and a new focus for the Federal Government.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe we have fully delivered on the

promise of ISTEA, nor the mandates in the subsequent TEA bills,

to move more toward a truly what I would describe as a least cost

transportation system. That is, we want to look at the most efficient system possible which is provided at the least cost. Least cost

not meaning just cheapest, but meaning that which mitigates the

most congestion, that which is most efficient for the movement of

freight. Yes, we want it to be cost effective also, but there are other

factors that should come into this.

And I am hoping that the new commission that apparently met

a couple weeks ago, while we were meeting on another subject, that

was mandated by SAFETEA-LU will look at a future which has a

real focus on efficient least cost planning, because we have created

too many artificial barriers, and part of it is the fault of Congress.

We fund programs separately. You know, the Federal Highway Administration gets a pot of funds here and the transit folks get a pot

of funds here.

We, in part, are guilty of perpetuating this inefficiency, and we

need to begin to break down those barriers, particularly in light of

what I think is going to be a permanent condition of extraordinarily expensive fuel costs. Fuel efficiency in terms of meeting

our goals of moving the American people and our commerce need

to be incorporated into this least cost planning also.

So I look forward to hearing from the panel today.

Just one caveat, Mr. Chairman. I do have time to speak on the

rule on the so-called Iraq resolution, so probably I will have to step

out for a while to do that, and hopefully we will be able to get

someone to fill my place, perhaps Mr. Oberstar, who asked for this

hearing.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Any other opening statements? If not, we will turn things over

to the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy, Mr. Jeffrey

Shane.
3

TESTIMONY OF HONORABLE JEFFREY SHANE, UNDER SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Mr. SHANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding

this hearing. It is an opportunity for us to engage in dialog about

some fundamental issues at the Department of Transportation relating to intermodal transportation.

Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement that I would ask be

admitted to the record, and what I would like to do is perhaps sum

it up in the time that I have this morning.

And I thought I would break my opening remarks into two major

sections, the first being just a brief history of the Office of Intermodalism, and then to tell you what the Office of Intermodalism

is doing.

I also want to make clear that speaking about the Office of Intermodalism is talking about only one narrow aspect of intermodalism

at the Department of Transportation. We will get into this in some

greater detail, I hope, during the give and take, but the principal

point that I want to make this morning is that quite apart from

the specific activities of the Office of Intermodalism, which I am

certainly prepared to discuss, intermodal thinking and intermodalism has embedded itself in the fabric and in the culture of the

Department of Transportation over the years.

Mr. DeFazio, I go back to the Department of Transportation Act

of 1966—not just a decade, it has been almost 40 years. Well, it

is 40 years, 1966, when the Congress, in creating the Department

of Transportation, insisted, in a provision that is still enshrined in

Title 49, that the Department ensure the coordinated and effective

administration of the transportation programs of the United States

Government. That is the first section of the Department of Transportation Act as it is codified, and that continues to be the lynchpin

of what the Department of Transportation is all about.

ISTEA, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of

1996, was a visionary piece of legislation. Secretary Mineta, whom

I am delighted to represent this morning, had a lot to do with that,

as did many members of the Congress today; and it did put a brand

new focus on the importance of intermodal thinking at the Department of Transportation, a recognition that the vision enshrined in

the Department of Transportation Act itself, back in 1966, had not

been sufficiently realized by successive administrations over time.

So the Office of Intermodalism was created in the Office of the Secretary of Transportation by statute.

I worked for the Department of Transportation in that administration and recall that we decided that the Director of the Office

of Intermodalism would be double-hatted. Secretary Skinner, I believe it was, asked that the Associate Deputy Secretary of Transportation be double-hatted as the Director of the Office of Intermodalism in response to the statutory mandate contained in

ISTEA.

Before I get to 2002, I will say that the staff of the Office of

Intermodalism, as it was comprised at that time, was drawn from

different modal administrations within the Department of Transportation, thereby attempting to give real meaning to the concept

of the office as it was spelled out in the Act, and some important
4

strides forward, I think, were made over the years by the very fact

of that office.

The Marine Transportation Security Act of 2002 created the office that I now hold, an office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy. That legislation abolished the Associate Deputy

Secretary, and so abolished the office that had been double-hatted

as the Director of the Office of Intermodalism. At that point it fell

to us to decide what would happen with the office, and we decided

to put it in the Office of Transportation Policy.

When Congress enacted the Norman Y. Mineta Research and

Special Programs Improvement Act, that legislation transferred the

Office of Intermodalism to the brand new Research and Innovative

Technology Administration. The creation of RITA, as we call it, including the Office of Intermodalism, is one of the most profound

changes in the structure of the Department of Transportation that

any of us have seen since the very inception of the Department. It

helps to enshrine not only the Office of Intermodalism, but an

intermodal approach to research and technology, and to the collection and analysis of transportation statistics in a far more intermodal way than we have ever seen before. So the Office of Intermodalism is in the right home today, where it is having a profound

effect on the way we do business at DOT.

We do everything differently as a result of the Office of Intermodalism and as a result of intermodalism being targeted by the

Congress in the way it has been targeted. The way we do authorization proposals to the Congress is intermodal. We bring together

different elements of the Department under the aegis of our Policy

Office, under the aegis of the Office of Intermodalism to ensure

that the proposals that we make to Congress reflect intermodal

thinking in a way that has never been seen before. You saw that

in the Administration’s proposal on SAFETEA, you saw it in the

Administration’s proposal on aviation reauthorization a few years

ago.

We have done a freight policy framework that is intermodal in

its very inception. The Secretary has launched a transformational

initiative, an initiative to reduce congestion on America’s transportation network, which is inherently intermodal and reflects the importance of the Office of Intermodalism and its impact on the way

the Department thinks.

There are any number of other activities that I could list at some

length, but I am already out of time, and so perhaps the best thing

for me to do would be to be quiet at this point and to look forward

to any questions that the Subcommittee may have. Thank you very

much for the opportunity to be here.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. DeFazio, any questions?

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Well, I don’t know, Mr. Shane, if you had a chance to review

some of the testimony we will get today, and hopefully either you

or—I know you are very busy—perhaps some of your staff can stay

and listen to the subsequent panels. Because I think what you will

hear from them is that it isn’t working out there in America, that

people who have intermodal ideas still have trouble dealing with

conflicting bureaucracies within DOT, and sometimes outside of
5

DOT. I think their testimony points to the need for, you know, sort

of a real focus and strong leadership at the top, and I think what

you are telling us is that demoting the Office of Intermodalism to

this new bureaucracy of RITA and out of the Secretary’s office is

going to enhance its clout and authority.

I don’t know. It sounds to me kind of like when we put FEMA

in the Department of Homeland Security bureaucracy, and, you

know, they couldn’t get their calls returned and a disaster resulted.

So just tell me a little bit more about how putting the Office of

Intermodalism in RITA—I don’t know, I mean, I have never

worked in the bureaucracy, but it just seems to me if something is

in the Secretary’s office, that is pretty much near the top; they get

access to the Secretary just like FEMA was cabinet level and they

reported to the President.

Then, suddenly, FEMA is subsumed into a bureaucracy reporting

to the head of the bureaucracy, who then theoretically communicates with the President. It seems to me we have done the same

thing with the Office of Intermodalism. There they were, able to

communicate with the Secretary and speak with the voice of the

Secretary; now they are over here in this new bureaucracy, RITA,

and they will, you know, communicate to whoever is the head of

RITA, who will communicate to some junior deputy assistant secretary, who might communicate to the Transportation Secretary or

not.

So how is this enhancement of its role and how are we going to

begin to meaningfully break down these bureaucratic walls to move

toward a coordinated least-cost effective system of intermodal

transportation?

Mr. SHANE. Well, thanks very much for the question. First of all,

we are still a stovepiped agency, and there is no getting away from

that, and we do not have the wherewithal at the Department of

Transportation to change that; those are statutory organizations

and it was ever thus. I expect that they will be around for a long

time to come.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, we would welcome suggestions on how to

break down some of the statutory barriers.

Mr. SHANE. Yes. Well, that is an interesting thought, and we

may bring you some of those. But each of the modal administrations does have its champions, both in the Congress and in the industry, and not to digress, but there are things that still are modespecific that we must do. There is no question about that. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is about the safety of

motor carriers, and while there may be some cross-fertilization, we

do need specialists for specific modes of transportation, even

though those specific modes are operating in an interconnected network and hopefully a more and more interconnected network.

But to get to your question, I mean, it is reasonable to think that

it is a ‘‘demotion’’ just by looking at the chart. What is important

to understand, I think, is that when the Secretary decided that he

would propose to the Congress the creation of this new research

and innovative technology administration, it was his intention that

he not merely create another modal administration, as we call

them. It is not a modal administration, it is a very special intermodal administration which is in a very significant way—and more
6

than any other of the operating administrations within the Department—a direct adjunct to the Office of the Secretary. I like to think

of it as the Secretary’s own operating administration.

I am in charge of the policy administration within the Office of

the Secretary, and I see RITA as being a tool that we use in the

Policy Office in order to enhance our ability to address these issues

in a far more coherent and comprehensive and intermodal way.

That is why we don’t treat it as a demotion.

I think because—it is early days, Congressman DeFazio, to be

sure, and RITA is still something of an embryonic organization. So

I am not suggesting we have achieved this vision by any means.

But the vision seems to me one that actually will work. It will

mainstream the intermodal thinking of the Department in a way

we have not seen before. It can’t be predicated on anything but an

intermodal approach to information-gathering, the analysis of actual statistics, and certainly an intermodal approach to technology

within the Department. That is what RITA was created to do.

So when I say that the Office of Intermodalism has found the

right home, that is what I am talking about. I am talking about

RITA being a very special animal within the complex of agencies

that comprise the Department of Transportation.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right. And as I understand that, since its primary

focus is research, and the way you just described it is that I guess

what you are saying is they will propose new ways that someone

who has the authority to act—that is, either you or the Secretary—

will be better informed as to how you might coordinate across or

punch holes through some of these stovepipes so that there is a little cross ventilation or something like that. I am still a bit puzzled,

but perhaps in further questions from the Chairman and others—

because my time has expired—we will understand.

But I also would say I am sincerely interested. And I don’t want

to speak for the Chairman, but I think others of this Committee

would be interested in where you see statutory barriers that are

unnecessarily inhibiting a movement toward a more coordinated

and more efficient intermodal system would be welcome. Thank

you.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Coble.

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Shane, what are the source or sources of the funds to facilitate intermodal transportation? Where are those monies coming

from?

Mr. SHANE. They come from the various appropriations act that

respond to authorization legislation coming out of this Committee,

for the most part, and the other committees of jurisdiction. We

have some funds that are made available—not very many—for specific intermodal projects, but those, by and large, tend to be earmarked projects specific intermodal facilities, as opposed to being

able to fund a lot of intermodal activities from some of the organic

programs.

There is, predictably,—and this comes back to what Congressman DeFazio was saying—real jealousy about the use of highway

trust fund monies for other than highways; real jealousy about the

use of airport and airways trust fund monies for other than airports. When somebody builds a ramp off of a highway that is essen-
7

tially to serve an airport, we get into a big controversy over whether that should be funded from the highway trust fund or from the

aviation trust fund. And so those are struggles that continue, and

perhaps it is in those areas that legislation is perhaps most needed.

For the most part, specific intermodal facilities that are constructed pursuant to Federal grants are specifically earmarked in

the appropriations process, Congressman.

Mr. COBLE. What, Mr. Shane, do you think are the impediments

to improving intermodal freight transportation?

Mr. SHANE. The intermodal freight system is an interesting collection of both private sector and some publicly funded entities.

The ports, for the most part, do not have Federal money and infrastructure. We have the Corps of Engineers working on the water

side to dredge and ensure that we have the appropriate depth of

the channels, but on the land side, by and large, the ports are not

federally supported.

The Administration has considered a number of ideas for priming

the pump with some Federal money but, for the most part, particularly in the current budgetary environment, it hasn’t been possible

to come up with any bright ideas about how to create a new infrastructure program for ports. Ports generally have pretty good access to capital through the bonding process at the municipal level,

and that is tax-exempt funding, for the most part.

Similarly, the railroads do not have very much Federal contribution at this point; they are all private companies and they invest

private capital in the hope of making a return on that capital.

The impediments, I guess, are to see whether or not there are

more robust legislative proposals that would facilitate the funding

of intermodal facilities more readily, particularly through a discretionary funding process, as opposed to looking at specific intermodal facilities. This is the thing that I find, frankly, more frustrating than anything else in my effort to advise the Secretary on

what we should be doing.

We have, in this current fiscal year, zero intermodal—zero discretionary funding to think about intermodal facilities in the whole

complex of offices that comprise our policy shop in the Office of the

Secretary of Transportation. And if I were to make one recommendation, it would be to ensure that as the appropriations

process goes forward, I am not asking for more money than the

President has requested, to be sure.

But I am saying if some of that money can be left to the discretion of the Department in order to respond to what it is that people

at the State and local level are telling us they need, we might be

in a much better position to either find ways of funding that at the

Federal level or contributing matching funds at the Federal level,

or, failing that, coming back to the Congress with some suggestions

for new legislation that would make that funding more readily

available.

Mr. COBLE. I got you. Thank you, Mr. Shane.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Let’s see, Ms. Berkley or Mr. Taylor, would you like to ask any

questions? Why don’t you begin?

Ms. BERKLEY. OK.
8

I am sorry that I missed your presentation; I was otherwise occupied. But I am a great advocate of intermodality. I represent Las

Vegas, which is the fastest growing community in the United

States, and we are moving forward on all sorts of transportation

systems in a community that was supposed to be built out for

400,000 people and now has 1.6 million residents and 40 million

visitors a year.

So we are working on our monorail, our bus system, potential

light rail, improving the highway system. So this is important to

me, and I work very closely with my local people on my Regional

Transportation Commission, my NDOT, to make sure that we have

adequate funding.

Could I ask you to address the level of assistance and consultation that the Department makes available to local communities

that are trying to increase intermodal options? I want to make sure

that our local officials have as much help as possible from the feds.

Could you give me some idea of what your opinion is and what the

Department is doing?

Mr. SHANE. Sure. Thank you for the question. The Department,

first of all, is trying to use a bully pulpit to the greatest possible

extent. As I explained in my answer to Congressman Coble, there

is not a huge pile of money available for intermodal facilities as

such.

On the other hand, we work very closely with State departments

of transportation and with local departments of transportation in

an effort to ensure that we can help instill intermodal thinking,

help with the planning process, try to make sure that people are

taking advantage of current thinking; and, by and large, I think

that has been a fairly successful enterprise.

Ms. BERKLEY. What happens if you represent a committee that

is already thinking and needs resources?

Mr. SHANE. The resources are available, obviously, in formula

grants under our Federal surface transportation programs; airport

construction is supported, of course, by the Airport and Airways

Trust Fund and our AIP Program, the Airport Improvement Program, which is run by the FAA within the Department of Transportation; and there is an increasing effort, as I have said, to try

to do the planning of those grants, in concert with our local client

communities, in a way that brings these different projects together

in an interconnected way.

Ms. BERKLEY. I came in at the tail end of your testimony. Did

I hear you right when you said you thought that the Secretary

should have a discretionary fund?

Mr. SHANE. By and large, the amount of discretionary funds

available to the Secretary has been very small to zero in various

cycles and in this cycle.

Ms. BERKLEY. That is small.

Mr. SHANE. My office runs a program called the Transportation

Research and Development Program, TPR&D. The funding for

that, which would be available for a lot of what you are asking

about, is entirely earmarked, there is not a dime available for discretionary spending in response to what communities want.

So to the extent that members have identified those needs and

responded to them through the earmarking process, that is fine; I
9

am not complaining about that. I would enjoy some give and take,

some more give and take than we currently have in that process

to ensure that if in fact those funds are going to be earmarked, at

least they are earmarked for things that we would all agree are the

appropriate activities for the Department to be supporting. That is

not happening to a sufficient extent today, I would say.

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Mica.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for calling

this hearing in regard to our need to focus on intermodalism.

Mr. Shane, you said you don’t have a specific fund or a discretionary fund to sort of promote intermodalism, but you do have the

ability in approving projects and also directing funds, even those

appropriated to projects, by giving priority to projects that are truly

intermodal. That is your policy and that is what you are doing now,

I take it?

Mr. SHANE. Yes.

Mr. MICA. OK. One of the things that I was asking a question,

I saw in some testimony from one of the witnesses that they referred to Florida, and I guess maybe Massachusetts, may have a

State comprehensive plan that deals with intermodalism. I remember talking to Governor Bush some time ago, when they came in

asking for more money, and I said show me your plans, and they

didn’t have plans. I think they do now have plans.

But this brings me to my question, which is should that be a requirement? Should all States have developed a comprehensive

intermodal plan that we have sort of on file, that we know what

the major projects are, the intermodal efforts are? Should that be

a requirement?

Mr. SHANE. Yes, Congressman Mica. Our major funding programs do require continuous comprehensive planning. The surface

transportation programs, for example, require, as a condition for

receipt of any funding, that projects that are proposed be part of

a continuous and comprehensive planning process. There has to be

an approved plan for an airport before AIP funds are made available and——

Mr. MICA. I know, but the intermodal elements that are so

important——

Mr. SHANE. That is where the room for improvement can be

found, I think.

Mr. MICA. But I hate to ask a yes or no. Should we require that

every State have a comprehensive intermodal development plan?

Mr. SHANE. Absolutely.

Mr. MICA. OK. I have had some experience with some of the

projects over the past 14 years; some successes, but some difficulties in getting people to either be part of it. I will give you a couple

of examples. In the northeast corridor we brought intermodal the

airport, Newark Airport into the northeast corridor, but we couldn’t

get Amtrak to stop. Now, since that they have stopped and we have

service; it is a great success. That is a problem getting even a

quasi-governmental, Soviet-style run Amtrak to cooperate. That is

one problem I point out.
10

I will give you another example. We are building a small intermodal facility in one of my smaller counties, but I noticed left out

of the element, and this is to get around a region or a small area,

one of the elements left out was the only long distance service we

have, and it does make a profit and stay in business as profitable,

is Greyhound. They move people; they actually get paid; they make

money. But I notice Greyhound wasn’t part of that.

So I have folks who are trying to get around the community,

around the region, and then long distance, and I saw that Greyhound is left out of the equation. Even here, I mean, Greyhound

is down the street, but Greyhound should be interconnected to our

rail service and a bus service and any other links.

What do we do for getting the rest of the folks into the picture?

Mr. SHANE. Well, all I can say is it would be an eligible project

if a community wanted a truly interconnected intermodal facility of

that kind——

Mr. MICA. I know, but, see, you said if a community. And I will

tell you the first thing, when I proposed Greyhound come into a

bus center that we are building, they said we don’t want those kind

of people around the neighborhood. So we do have problems in getting communities on board or States on board to develop a plan

and truly have all of the elements of transportation services coming

together.

Mr. SHANE. It is difficult. We don’t, by and large, like to mandate

specific solutions for our communities. The need for greater interconnectedness and intermodalism is palpable. I have seen other examples where airports don’t want intercity buses on their property

because it discourages parking revenues and it hurts rental concessions; and that is where a lot of revenue to airports comes. So it

may well be that some additional mandate at the Federal level, as

a condition for making Federal funds available, would enhance the

intermodalism that we see at that level.

Mr. MICA. My time is up, but just one quick. In an interesting

phenomenon, I don’t know if you focused on this, but we spent

years working on developing an intermodal system at the San

Francisco Airport, the Bay Area Transit and all coming together,

and I thought this was an interesting phenomenon. I think we put

$2.2 billion into that stop, intermodal and MIC and all of that, and

then because of the higher rates—and they have to increase the

cost for people using that—a lot of the service and discount service

went over to Oakland, so they had a 30 percent drop.

But that is just an interesting phenomenon. The cost of doing an

intermodal, say, a MIC, like we are going to do in Miami, drives

your cost, but it drives passengers away. Just something we have

to think about for the future.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. MICA. I yield back.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Oberstar?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Would you please go to other members?

Mr. PETRI. Sure.

Mr. Honda?

Mr. HONDA. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
11

Two quick questions. It appears that we are moving more into

the intermodal structure, if you will. I am a school teacher, and I

know that in instruction we have compartmentalized instructions

in chemistry, math, social science, and it appears that the DOT is

pretty much set up that way and we are looking at a new concept

or a new paradigm. Structurally, how is DOT changing in order to

address intermodalism?

And then the second question I have is, I haven’t seen anything

as of yet in the written testimony addressing the greater need of

security and how we address security in the context of intermodal

movement of goods and services.

Mr. SHANE. Thanks, Congressman Honda.

The first answer is that the most profound change in the structure of the Department of Transportation that we have seen since

the Department’s inception is the creation of the Research and Innovative Technology Administration. It is not a modal administration the way we think of the other organic elements of the Department of Transportation; it is an intermodal administration. And it

is in many ways, perhaps, for the Secretary’s purposes the most

important of our operating administrations because it is a direct

adjunct to the Office of the Secretary and to the Secretary’s policy

apparatus.

I am in charge of the Policy Office in the Office of the Secretary

of Transportation, and we don’t have a huge research and technology capability within the Office of the Secretary. We need to

have more robust coordination, and not just coordination, but a

driving of research and technology throughout the Department in

ways that are going to enhance intermodalism.

That is what RITA was created to do. The collection and assembly and analysis of statistics has got to be done in a way that looks

at the transportation system as the network that it is and facilitates our policy making and our planning based on intermodal considerations. That is what RITA does. The Office of Intermodalism

is now part of RITA.

So when I say that the creation of RITA is the most profound

change to take place in the structure, I am looking at its impact

on intermodal thinking, and I think while it is still essentially an

embryonic organization—it has been around for about a year—it is

beginning to have that cultural impact on the Department of

Transportation that Secretary Mineta envisioned when he proposed

the structure to the Congress.

On the security front, the Office of Intermodalism is working on

a variety of exercises in concert with the Department of Homeland

Security. There is a national strategy for transportation security

that is in the works, and it is our Office of Intermodalism that is

supporting DHS, representing the entire Department of Transportation on that.

There is a National Infrastructure Protection Plan which the Office of Intermodalism is working on. We have a Transportation Sector-Specific Plan which DHS and the Homeland Security Council

have been working on. Again, the Office of Intermodalism is front

and center in connection with that exercise.

And then, finally, there is a Transportation Security Operation

Plan. Transportation security, needless to say, has been the subject
12

of an awful lot of administration attention, and the Office of Intermodalism is the portal for much of that work into the Department

of Transportation, working together, to be sure, with our Office of

Intelligence and Security, but it is the Office of Intermodalism that

is bringing the modal and the intermodal themes to that discussion.

Mr. HONDA. Through the Chair, with the various players you

have in this whole security picture, who drives the plan, who executes the plan, who is responsible for the ultimate—who has the

ultimate responsibility for the implementation of the plan, and by

when?

Mr. SHANE. The Transportation Security Administration within

the Department of Homeland Security, of course, has the primary

jurisdiction and the primary responsibility for securing the transportation network, and a lot of progress has been made, first in

aviation and now looking more at the surface modes and the maritime and intermodal systems. I am not sure when you say ‘‘by

when’’ what that question means. There is not a specific deadline.

The mandate is to ensure the maximum security as quickly as possible, and enormous strides have been made in the securing of our

transportation network by the work of the TSA.

Mr. HONDA. Well, I understand that, but when I say by when,

I suspect you must have a plan with benchmarks out there so that

you have some way of creating a pace by which you will attain

some sense of established security process. Perhaps that might be

a subject for the Subcommittee to address and have report back on,

since there are so many people playing in this field and there are

so many people out there in the community that expects that security is something that is paramount on our my minds, and I am

not sure that people understand how many players there are in

this whole intermodal security system.

Mr. SHANE. If I may, Congressman, perhaps I could take that

question back and supply an answer for the record based on the

National Infrastructure Protection Plan and the Transportation

Sector-Specific Plan. There is a plan, and I will give you a more

specific answer to the timing question than I have been able to do

here.

Mr. HONDA. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mrs. Kelly, any questions?

Mrs. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Shane, in the transportation authorization law that Congress

passed last year, there was an authorization that is of particular

interest to the people in the district that I represent, it is the authorization for the development of a rail link at Stewart International Airport in Orange County, New York. It would have tremendous benefit to the intermodal freight service in the Hudson

Valley.

You may not be aware of the position of Stewart Airport.

Mr. SHANE. I am, Congresswoman.

Mrs. KELLY. It is the largest BRAC’d out former Air Force base

in the United States. It has the heaviest heavy-duty runway, the

longest heavy-duty runway on the eastern seaboard, next to Cape
13

Canaveral. It is a landing site, an alternate landing site for the

Space Shuttle. It has, right there, next to the campus, a perfect

interstate and throughway cross of roads, both north and south and

east and west.

We are looking for the rail link. That rail link has been in this

authorization for almost a year. The President signed the

SAFETEA-LU into law, and we are still waiting for direction from

Washington for the next step. We need to start planning so that

we can get this rail link in.

I am hopeful that you are going to proactively collaborate with

the people that I have brought to the table on this. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is involved; the State Department of Transportation is involved; Metro North is involved; the

airport’s management is involved.

What is missing is a direction and a discussion with the Department of Transportation here in Washington, D.C. on how we get

going. And I want to know if you can provide today some assurance

that the DOT is going to make the development of that rail link

at Stewart a reality. Perhaps you would come or someone would

come up to the district and meet with all of these stakeholders.

They are ready to go and they are waiting for you.

You said in your testimony that shippers are indifferent about

how a product is delivered through a supply chain so long as there

is reliability and speed. We can provide reliability and speed out

of Stewart Airport. We need two and a half miles of rail, that is

all. We need to have someone come. Can someone come and sit

down with these stakeholders and work this out so we can get

going? We need a plan.

Mr. SHANE. I commit to you, Congresswoman, that someone will

come, and maybe that someone will be yours truly. I look forward

to hearing a lot more about this project. I wasn’t aware of the specific line item in the authorization, but I look forward to hearing

a lot more about it

Mrs. KELLY. I would hope that you would do more than hear. I

would hope that you would help us plan.

The other thing that I haven’t mentioned is that within two and

a half miles of Stewart also is the Hudson River, with a natural

deepwater port and piers that can already handle cargo. So you

have a perfect intermodal facility with water, roads, air, and rail

right there. New York needs another major airport in some capacity. This is a perfect intermodal position for the Federal Government to be looking at. I would hope that you would come and help

us get started on some kind of a coherent plan. Can I assume that

you will?

Mr. SHANE. I will. And let me say, as you describe it, it sounds

like something we should be spending a lot of time thinking about.

The system is experiencing bottlenecks throughout. We need to

take advantage of every opportunity that we have for providing relief for shippers, for transportation providers of all kinds. So I am

anxious to hear more about this and to participate perhaps in some

meetings with your constituents, and perhaps we can get something on the road.

Mrs. KELLY. Well, New York City, the State of New York, the

County of Orange County, and the people who manage the airport
14

are all waiting anxiously to have someone talk with them. I hope

you will make that visit soon. Thank you, sir.

I yield back.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Let’s see, Mr. Cummings? Mr. Oberstar?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Do you have any others on your side?

Mr. PETRI. Sure.

Mr. Marchant? No? Ms. Schmidt?

Mr. OBERSTAR. OK, I am ready.

Mr. PETRI. You are ready. I haven’t asked either, but should I

go ahead?

Mr. OBERSTAR. No, no, why don’t you, please. You were here before me.

Mr. PETRI. Well, I was here before you, but I didn’t want to

waste time. We have another two panels. But maybe one or two

kind of comments.

I understand from a lot of people who are active in the transportation industry that we, as a Country, have had a generation of becoming more efficient in transportation, and now those trend lines

are actually leveling off and dropping down, and transportation

costs are starting to eat up a greater percentage of our national effort, which is a very bad thing in terms of our standard of living

and our competitiveness if it were to continue.

So while it is not immediate and short-term in the sense that

there is a crisis staring us in the face that has to be dealt with tomorrow, if we don’t adopt long-term programs to try to figure out

how to keep the system operating and increase its efficiency, we

are going to be paying a long-term cost. In that connection, I guess

we all look to the area of intermodalism is one that will provide

greater opportunities for efficiency.

Private industry is equipped because of the way a lot of these

people who do shipping, whether it is packages at UPS or FedEx,

or goods over the road by Schneider or Hahn Trucking or these

other companies. They think more and more intermodally, so they

are tending to start driving States and the Federal Government in

an intermodal direction.

But is there anyone really driving us in that direction on the passenger side of things? I mean, I think of what is happening in Germany and Europe with their passenger intermodalism, and we see

it regionally. San Francisco Bay was talked about and Chicago has

a subway-bus-airline hub. The airports are the passenger hubs.

The planes can’t go anywhere but to the airport, but everything

else can go to the airports.

So maybe we should be doing more to encourage planning and

also helping to direct more funding to making, on the passenger

side of things, airports more efficient. It might mean people would

not have to use the roads as much if they could use buses and

trains and planes. Efficiency in a Country of our size, people are

not going to just use trains to go across the Country, they are going

to want to use planes.

But if the trains did run to the airports, they would, on a regional basis, for a couple hundred miles, then switch, and the same

thing with buses. So we could have a system that would perhaps

be more efficient. And, you know, obviously it is somewhat the
15

same thing in a little different way applies for water, harbor, and

freight rail intermodalism.

Do you have any comment on that?

Mr. SHANE. Yes.

Mr. PETRI. Are there some things—a number of people have

asked about what we can be doing to encourage breakdown barriers or change laws, which I guess is our role, to try to encourage

States and communities and local stakeholders to actually look at

this and do it.

Mr. SHANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes. I am extremely

proud of what the Department of Transportation is doing currently

under Secretary Mineta’s leadership, particularly in the context of

a brand new initiative that was just rolled out a few weeks ago

that I referred to in my opening remarks, an initiative to reduce

congestion on America’s transportation network. I mentioned earlier that I thought it was transformational.

And when I say it is transformational, I mean that, in a sense,

the Department of Transportation should always be about congestion. There is nothing exciting about that, but we have never identified congestion in the transportation system as the fundamental

impediment to economic growth that it represents.

That is what this initiative is an attempt to do, it is an attempt

to—forgive the word—market the importance of addressing these

bottlenecks as a fundamental tool in the development of our economy going forward in ways that we have never done before. And

it is not just a question of finding more money to throw at the system. We have to use technology much more intelligently. We have

to use pricing strategies of all kinds in order to calibrate the use

of the system and to make sure the revenues are available that respond to the actual demand for these facilities.

We are developing a whole variety of ideas and programs

through this initiative that I think will enable us to address these

problems, first of all, in an intermodal way, to be sure, but hopefully in a much more effective way. Among the things I am proudest of is what we are doing on the aviation side. The Next Generation Air Transportation System Initiative, which Secretary Mineta

launched about two and a half years ago, is nothing less than an

effort to overhaul the way we handle air traffic, recognizing that

we will have three times the number of operations in the sky in

20 years, and we simply cannot handle all of that traffic using the

tools that we have today. Even if technology gets to be a little better, the model needs to be changed, the operations concept needs

to be changed, and that is what the Next Generation program is

doing.

So you take that, we have a freight policy framework which has

received enormous support from the private sector, from the providers of transportation and, more importantly, from the users of

transportation, recognizing the importance of breaking down the

bottlenecks that impede the flow of goods in our system.

I have never seen quite as much attention being paid to some of

these issues as before, and I am hopeful and even optimistic that

by talking across the Country about these issues, working with

communities at all levels, we are going to get these issues on the

national policy agenda in a way that we have never seen before,
16

and we are going to be addressing them with more effective tools

than we have ever seen before.

Mr. PETRI. I think the public is clearly interested, concerned and

looking for leadership in this area. Just one example, 10, 15 percent of our Country is California, and the Governor there has started to increase his focus on infrastructure and transportation issues

dramatically in the last year or so. And, of course, California has

had a lot of pressures and problems, but they are not unique, they

are experienced to one level or another in many other areas of our

Country.

Mr. SHANE. People treat congestion, particularly as you were just

speaking of, passengers, in the passenger are as though it were the

weather, that congestion is just part of life and there is nothing we

can do about it. We can do something about it. It is absolutely

wrong not think that there is nothing we can do about it.

And people do not appreciate, except as the most personal level,

the extent to which congestion is affecting the quality of life in this

Country. In some cases it is destroying the fabric of family life because so much time is spent getting to and from the workplace. We

have a fundamental obligation to address these issues for the sake

of our people and for the sake of the quality of life that they enjoy.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Oberstar.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I compliment you on scheduling this hearing and bringing together such

a wide array of authorities on the subject matter at hand, especially our lead witness today, Jeff Shane, for whom I have the

greatest respect. He is one of the real thinkers who served in not

only the Department of Transportation, but also State Department.

His career has bridged many activities in transportation, international trade, aviation trade negotiations and, most significantly,

in the aftermath of ISTEA, being the first intermodalist.

I recall a conversation shortly after implementation of ISTEA in

about mid–1992, about June or so we had a conversation and Mr.

Shane said ISTEA really forced us all to think for the first time

about relating each of the transportation modes to the other. We

had never done that, and he said I brought this group together—

Federal Highway, railway, Federal Transit, FAA, Maritime Administration—and they had never sat in the same room and talked

with each other before. We realized that this legislation was forcing

us to think intermodally.

That was a very good thing and it warmed my heart because in

1987, after two years of hearings that I conducted in the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee with my then partner, Mr.

Gingrich, and later Mr. Klinger, drafted and introduced a bill to

create an assistant secretariate for intermodalism in the Department of Transportation, and here it was working itself out. We had

actually included in ISTEA the authority for an intermodalism office, but it was to be in the Office of the Secretary, it was to be

at a policy level.

And so Mr. Shane, Mr. Chairman, has had a very long history

of understanding the importance of this issue, this idea, this initiative of bringing the modes together to extract the best for the best

and greatest public good.
17

Unfortunately, over time,—and let me parenthetically observe

that the principal co-author of that bill and driving force behind it,

a gentleman who sat in the Chairman’s chair, is now the Secretary,

Mr. Mineta, who is very keen on including the term ‘‘intermodalism,’’ as was our then—Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Roe.

And Mr. Mineta has continued to be a strong advocate for intermodalism.

But subsequently, over time, the intermodal idea has been eroded. It was sidetracked in the National Highway System authorization in 1995. We just took it out of, well, changed, it was a requirement that there be intermodal consideration of management plans,

and that was changed to an optional role in the National Highway

System authorization.

And then the office was moved subsequently in TEA–21, and

then further in the Norman Y. Mineta Research Project Act that

created RITA. Then it sort of began slipping. It was in the Office

of the Secretary, then we had the assistant secretary, then we had

a requirement, and now it has been changed to this Office of Innovative and Technical Studies.

How can it possibly have a policy effect, except that you personally, Mr. Shane, take an interest in it? And I heard—and I listened

with great interest when Mr. Mica said, well, why should we not

have an inter—why should we not require intermodal management

plans, and you said yes, we should. But if it is buried down there

in this little office of RITA—which was a hurricane last year,

but——

[Laughter.]

Mr. OBERSTAR.—it is certainly not going to be a hurricane in this

Department—who is going to listen except you and the Secretary?

And if we leave it there and that Secretary is there and you are

gone at some future time, there will be nobody listening and paying

attention. Structure means something in government. So shouldn’t

it then, like creme, rise to the top?

Mr. SHANE. Thank you, Congressman Oberstar. First of all,

thank you for the kind words, and let me just say that——

Mr. OBERSTAR. They are not kind, they are honest.

Mr. SHANE.—our continuing dialog over these issues over the

years has been one of the hallmarks of my professional career. I

have enjoyed them enormously and I hope they go on for a long

time, and I appreciate the knowledge that you bring to all of these

issues.

But having said that, I have to disagree with you in this one respect. The Department of Transportation looks and feels dramatically different from the way it looked when the Congress passed

ISTEA. Intermodal thinking has embedded itself in the very fabric

and in the culture of the Department in a way that would amaze

you if you spent time in our inner sanctums and in our inner councils.

When we prepared SAFETEA, the Administration’s package,

which eventually became SAFETEA-LU, we had people from all of

the modal administrations sitting around the table making contributions to our thinking and we, as a result, served up a whole

variety of proposals that would have been surprising a decade before. They were intermodal. Not all of them saw the light of day
18

in the Act that finally got enacted, but I am sure that they will in

the longer term. Many of them did. And it is that kind of thinking

that informed our proposals on aviation authorization a couple of

years before that.

These are—when I said, back in a decade ago that, you know,

these people had sat around the room for the first time, now they

sit around the room together all the time. They talk to each other

all the time. The kinds of tensions that compromised our ability to

do things intermodally in the Department are no longer a problem.

The administrators of the different modal administrations look forward to working together with each other, they seek opportunities

to do that; they like each other.

And the culture of the Department now—and make no mistake,

this is thanks to the Congress of the United States and the underscoring of intermodalism throughout the years—they are working

with each other more effectively than ever before. And sometimes

it is about a facility, sometimes it is about just looking at an issue:

human factors in the drivers of conveyances, medical certification

for a barge operator versus somebody who is behind the wheel of

an 18-wheeler.

These are the kinds of things that we are doing together in a

way that is just a fundamental part of the culture in a way we

have never seen before. That is the number one point I wanted to

make.

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is a very encouraging development. I am delighted to hear you say that, because you are so right, there was

a time 15 years ago, when these folks passed each other in the

hallway and wouldn’t recognize one another.

Mr. SHANE. The Department of Transportation Act in 1966 called

for the coordinated and effective management of the U.S. Government’s transportation program, so the very theme of the Department of Transportation was supposed to be intermodalism. We

didn’t see much movement in that direction until ISTEA and until

the Office of Intermodalism was created.

What I guess I would like to just share with you as my final

point is that the creation of RITA—and forgive me for repeating

myself—is the most profound change in the structure of the Department that we have seen since the inception of the Department,

more profound than the creation of the Office of Intermodalism

itself.

RITA is an arm of the Office of the Secretary. It is not a modal

administration, it is an intermodal entity which the Office of the

Secretary is treating as a special entity, augmenting the ability of

our Policy Office in the Office of the Secretary to make intelligent

decisions about what our proposals ought to be to the Congress,

what we should be doing in the administration of our programs,

and so forth.

If you are not looking at the transportation data in an intermodal way, if you are not driving your research program in an

intermodal way, then how are you going to support the policy-making process in an intermodal way? That is what RITA does.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Let me interrupt you at that point. That is good

to know, and with this under secretary and with this secretary will

that structure survive a personnel change? That is, will the subse-
19

quent secretary and under secretary have the same relationship

with RITA?

Mr. SHANE. That is an excellent question, and this Secretary is

determined to enshrine the cultural shift that I am talking about

that was embodied in the creation of RITA in the culture of the Department so that the answer to that question will be yes.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. Let me——

Mr. SHANE. Have we achieved it yet? No. But we are striving for

that. We have a couple of years left, and——

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, if I may pursue just one other

issue here, and I will not belabor it.

But there is the matter that Mr. Mica raised, that you responded

to, should intermodal management plans be required of the States

and of the departments. And there is a great resistance to mandates. We would all like to, in a perfect world, not in a supposititious world, like to believe that things would work as intended,

without a forcing mechanism. But if an intermodal management

approach were required, can we do it in such a way that it doesn’t

become another layer of time consumption in development of transportation initiatives?

For example, an airport wants to extend a runway to 12,500 feet

to serve cargo operations. Good idea, very important. Cargo is the

fastest growing sector of aviation, 9 percent a year; it is very profitable. But it also has a noise impact.

Shouldn’t FAA be required to get together with Federal Highway

Administration and the Federal Railway Administration, along

with the Airport Authority and State Highway Department and

considering is this the best way to extend that runway to have

cargo, have an increased impact on the noise footprint of the airport? Is there another location? Is there another city that could accommodate that freight operation?

Have you looked at all the alternatives? Do we need to have

more freight carriage out of O’Hare? Could you put it at Gary? Do

we need to have more freight at MSP? Could you put it at St.

Cloud? What would be the impacts of more trucks on the road

going to St. Cloud? What would be the impact on the air quality

of the airport at O’Hare, at MSP of more trucks, more air pollution,

shifting it out someplace else? Would that create more opportunity

for international service, long-haul service for passenger that would

be more valuable?

Shouldn’t someone be at least required to think those things

through?

Mr. SHANE. Absolutely, Congressman.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Without unnecessarily extending the time frame

within which those decisions have to be made. I think that can be

done.

Mr. SHANE. Yes. I was not in government and I am not really

sure what the history was of the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. That is the one that repealed the mandatory

requirement for intermodal management plans at the State Transportation Department level. And I don’t know whether there was

a problem with that mandate which led Congress to take it out.

But there is no question that you can’t do these major projects

today without looking at the intermodal implications. It is not
20

going to be very helpful to have a lot of cargo coming into an airport if there is no way to move it to its ultimate destination. Nobody wants cargo at the airport, they want it someplace else. So

we need an intermodal system to get——

Mr. OBERSTAR. Or shouldn’t we extend the light rail into the airport, instead of having more cars, more parking areas, and more

congestion?

Mr. SHANE. Again, what I am pleased to report you, without really fully answering the question of whether we could do with more

Federal requirements in this regard, is that more and more communities are in fact bringing these very interesting, very intermodal concepts to us. You have just heard Congresswoman Kelly

talking about the complex of projects they are trying to design for

Stewart Airport. And it is those kinds of projects that are coming

to us more and more frequently. We have Southern California looking at a whole complex of transportation facilities to continue to

move freight through that largest of our port complexes.

The Department of Transportation is reaching out to those communities, in fact, stationing our people right there at the site in

order to become one-stop shopping offices for their assistance. And

there is no question that this is the direction that we have to take

in the future.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much. We are not here to shape

legislation, but we are here to shape the ideas that will shape legislation.

And let us continue the dialog, Mr. Chairman.

And, Mr. Shane, thank you very much.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Taylor.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Secretary, I do appreciate your sticking around

this long and giving me the opportunity to ask you something that

I know affects at least two of the federally funded ports in South

Mississippi is something the railroads jokingly refer to as captive

shipper.

The Port of Gulfport, I know, and the Port of Port Bienville are

both only served by one railroad. In the case of Port of Gulfport,

there is a second railroad line, as the crow flies, less than a half

mile away that is not even connected to the Port of Gulfport. In the

case of Port Bienville, there is a railroad line approximately 15

miles away that is not served. And we call it short-term in that

both of these ports had no rail access for approximately five

months after Hurricane Katrina, because the one line that served

both of them lost bridges and, therefore, you couldn’t go east to

west. But had we, again, not been victims of captive shipper, they

would have had other opportunities.

My question is, in your whole concept of intermodalism, have you

looked at, as a Nation, making an investment to give the opportunity to some of these ports that are more or less the captive of

one railroad the opportunity to do business with another? Because

what I have experienced when the one in Port Bienville came to

me and said, look, we are down for six months, we have heavy

manufacturing that desperately needs rail access, and there is another line just 15 miles away all through government property, all

we need is some money to run that line.
21

The other railroad, you would think, would want to jump in there

and get the business, but they didn’t. And in my visit with their

lobbyist, he actually let the words captive shipper slip. And I am

sure he will go to his grave swearing it didn’t happen, and I had

never even heard the term before, but I know what it means now.

So my hunch is, with a wink and a nod, these guys aren’t competing. They will never say it and they are certainly not going to

say it before a court of law. But, so, if they are not going to jump

in and provide real competition, in our spirit of intermodalism, why

don’t we, as a Nation, look at spending a little money to provide

real competition? Because the winners are going to be these publicly owned ports, in this instance. And I think that would be

money well spent.

The other thing is that we are encountering, again, towards

intermodalism, a lot of the smaller communities in South Mississippi have been left behind as a result of NAFTA. The manufacturing plants that used to go to rural Mississippi, in truth, looking

for low-cost labor, have relocated to Mexico and other places. The

ones that stayed behind are desperately dependent on their rail

lines. There are very few of them. They are usually short lines.

And when these short lines start having major construction costs,

I have noticed in one instance the guy is just walking away from

it. So now we have got a couple of industries that need about $50

million rail improvement. The guy who owns it isn’t getting that

kind of revenue, and what happens is the few businesses that have

remained in rural Mississippi are now threatening to relocate elsewhere if we can’t come up with rail service for them.

What, if anything, has your agency looked into doing to help

those guys?

Mr. SHANE. I will acknowledge, Congressman, that this is a real

conundrum. We do not have, as you know, a program for making

major infrastructure investments into the railroad system in this

Country, with the exception of passenger rail, as you know. We do

have a loan guarantee program, the RRIF program, which is as

much as we have been able to do legislatively. The Service Transportation Board probably treats the captive shipper issue as one of

its most complex and difficult issues. There is not, quite honestly,

a program for Federal assistance that assists shippers specifically

when they are——

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, again, my point exactly. If we are looking at

intermodalism, which is several opportunities to move your product

and inter-move your product, wouldn’t you think that would be a

natural, that we ought to be looking at this? Because the private

sector is not going to step in there and voluntarily create more

competition. That is completely contrary to what they want. So if

they are not going to do it, and it benefits our ports, then maybe

we, as a Nation, ought to be looking at it.

In the second instance, I am very much opposed to spending Federal money to improve a private rail line and, in effect, benefit one

guy, the owner of that rail line. I have absolutely no problem if we

were to come up with a program that says this line serves five

rural counties; they desperately need it. If those five rural counties

want to pool together and have a rail authority, we will loan you
22

some money, because then it becomes public money going to a public purpose. And I think it is really necessary.

I think what is happening in Mississippi is not unique to Mississippi; I beg you, it is happening in rural America. And we have

got to do something to keep the remaining industries that are still

here from leaving. And that is one of the things that I think we

ought to be doing.

Mr. SHANE. Well, I appreciate the magnitude of the problem and

I appreciate your bringing it up. It is something that I think we

ought to discuss more. You will appreciate that I am not authorized, in this budgetary environment, to advocate a new funding

program for any mode of transportation other than what has already been done. But these are issues that we haven’t addressed

fully, and the private sector seems not to be coming up with solutions, so it may be that some further discussion is warranted, and

maybe some other ideas can emerge.

Mr. TAYLOR. Well, we just spent quite a few billion dollars yesterday on that transportation bill, so it is not like, as a Nation, we

are not getting involved in transportation. Maybe we are just not

getting involved in all of the right things. And I hope I have given

you a couple of things that I hope you will look into.

Mr. SHANE. Yes. Thank you.

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, sir.

Mr. SHANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you for your testimony.

And we will now turn to the second panel, which consists of Mr.

Daniel A. Grabauskas, who is the General Manager of Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority; Peter McLaughlin, Chair of

the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority and of the Metro

Transitways Development Board in Hennepin County, Minnesota;

Patrick Sherry, Professor and Director, National Center for Intermodal Transportation at University of Denver, Colorado; Ms. Katherine Siggerud, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S.

Government Accountability Office.

Thank you for being here today. We appreciate your prepared

statements, and we look forward to your summary, beginning with

Mr. Grabauskas.

TESTIMONY OF DANIEL A. GRABAUSKAS, GENERAL MANAGER,

MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY;

PETER MCLAUGHLIN, CHAIR OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY

REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY, CHAIR OF THE METRO

TRANSITWAYS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, HENNEPIN COUNTY,

MINNESOTA; PATRICK SHERRY, PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER FOR INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION, UNIVERSITY OF DENVER; KATHERINE SIGGERUD,

DIRECTOR OF PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, UNITED

STATES GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

Mr. GRABAUSKAS. Thank you, Chairman Petri, Ranking Member

Oberstar, and members of the Committee, for the opportunity to

appear before you today to talk about our South Station Intermodal

Transportation Center in Boston, Massachusetts. I would also like

to thank the Committee for your interest in this important area.
23

At the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, or MBTA,

where I serve as General Manager, we appreciate the value of a

strong intermodal network. Intermodalism means providing more

connections to transit riders to get where they want to go, thereby

delivering more choices and hopefully increasing ridership as a result.

South Station has a rich history in Boston. It opened January 1st

of 1899 as the largest train station in the world. By 1913, more

passengers were using South Station annually than New York’s

Grand Central. And by 1945 South Station made history when

135,000 visitors passed through it each day, probably driven by returning GIS.

However, by 1970 the Boston Redevelopment Authority was

planning to demolish the building and remove the tracks. A group

of concerned citizens succeeded in having it placed on the National

Register of Historic Places and the catalyst was therefore put in

place for the renewal of this intermodal facility. And in 1978 the

Boston Redevelopment Authority sold the facility to the MBTA, and

we embarked on a project to restore the former glory of South Station at a cost of about $195 million.

The rehabilitation of the station included restoration of the

headhouse, reconstruction of 11 tracks to accommodate the growing

commuter rail service, and the construction of a new bus terminal

and parking garage over the tracks. And that project was completed in 1996.

South Station for us is now, once again, the hub of transportation activity in Boston and serves, we believe, as a real model for

intermodalism. Today, more than 152,000 passengers pass through

South Station daily and six different transit modes of transportation interconnect there. You will find our subway, the Red Line;

you will find the MBTA public bus service, multi-carrier private

bus service; it is the terminus for 10 commuter rail lines; Amtrak

and the Acela high-speed trains terminate there at the end of the

northeast corridor; and the newest service for the MBTA, the Silver

Line Phase II, which is Boston’s first rapid transit system, opened

in December of 2004. The facility is also easily accessible by automobile and, lastly, we have a multitude of bike racks and work

very hard to make it pedestrian friendly.

The new Silver Line Phase II service means that for the first

time transit riders in Boston actually have direct service and a oneseat ride to Logan’s International Airport terminals. As you mentioned earlier, this is the first time in Boston we had had direct

connection, Mr. Chairman, between Logan Airport and the main

core of our subway system. We expect about 14,000 riders to hit

that number in about three years; in 18 months we have actually

exceeded 15,100 daily riders.

And I would like to take the opportunity to recognize and thank

Congressman Capuano, this Committee, the Federal Transit Administration for all of your support through the New Starts funding, which allowed this project to take place.

Further, the Silver Line now connects the financial district of

Boston to the South Boston waterfront, and the connection into

South Boston opens up a potential 30 million square feet of devel-
24

opment that has traditionally been restricted by State and Federal

permitting authorities due to parking limitations.

Also, the intercity bus terminal has been a major success. Private

bus carriers indicate that their ridership is up significantly; furthermore, that those riders make a significant contribution to Boston’s economy. For instance, in 2000, Greyhound Lines did a survey

of just 3 of the 11 carriers serving that terminal, and it was determined that the direct annual spending values were over $132 million a year.

Now, despite the activity at South Station, there are certain limitations that we are currently working to address. The new intercity

bus terminal that we built is not directly connected to South Station, and the platforms for the commuter rail lines leave our commuters out in the elements. We need to make further improvements, but as is the case with most transit agencies across the

Country, financial constraints are a reality. But I am happy to report that, like Rumpelstiltskin was able to spin straw into gold, the

MBTA is turning air into cash.

Recently, we struck a deal at South Station with Hines Development Corporation, who is interested in utilizing air rights over the

station to build a major development downtown. In exchange for

the $26 million in development rights, Hines Development Corporation, as a part of their overall development project, are going

to build a new weather-protected bus terminal connection, design

and build a bus terminal expansion which will nearly double the

number of bus gates provided for intercity private carrier service,

provide new ventilation, new track and signal modifications, upgrades to our power system, as well as improvements to our bus

rotunda. And in addition, as part of the deal, Hines will make a

number of payments that will increase the total value to the MBTA

to about $45 million in exchange for the $26 million estimated

value to upgrade the facility.

South Station air rights project is a perfect example also of transit-oriented development. The benefits, which I will mention briefly, are a direct result of our rich intermodal mix at South Station.

We are soon to embark on an $800 million mixed use project over

those air rights; $1.8 million square feet of office, residential and

hotel space, which is expected to generate about 2500 construction

jobs, 5,000 permanent jobs, $12 million in new property taxes to

the City of Boston, and $10 million in linkage payments to the city

as well.

So I am happy to report that intermodalism is alive and well in

Boston, as it has been for about the last 150 years, the Nation’s

oldest subway authority. We have been moving with bus, subway,

commuter boats since 1897. And I would just like to thank the

Committee for their attention to this matter, and I invite members

of the Committee to come to South Station at any time to show it

off. Thank you.

Mr. PETRI. So when Charlie gets off the MTA, it will be at South

Station.

[Laughter.]

Mr. PETRI. Mr. McLaughlin.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. Let

me first begin by thanking the House Transportation Infrastruc-
25

ture Committee, with special thanks to Mr. Oberstar, for your faith

in our vision for our twenty-first century transit system in the

Twin Cities. We thank you very much.

We are a Nation of people on the move, and intermodalism is one

of those things that often goes unnoticed, like our shoes being tied,

and that should be our goal: easy, seamless, connectivity in movement. I am happy to report that the Hiawatha LRT line has been

a tremendous success. It opened early and on budget. It has exceeded forecast ridership since the full line opened in December

2004. In 2005 ridership was 58 percent above preconstruction estimates, and success continues in 2006. Weekdays we are averaging

more riders than projected for the year 2020.

In a recent survey, 93 percent of LRT riders agreed or strongly

agreed with the statement: ‘‘I am satisfied with Metro Transit

Service.’’ People are riding and they like it. In fact, my wife and

I took the LRT to the hospital when we had our baby in January,

and it was terrific; it was perfect. I could pay more attention to her

in the train than I could have in the car.

Now, the role of intermodalism in this line was important. Years

ago, faced with a traditional single-mode freeway proposal, residents of the Highway 55 corridor offered a multi-modal alternative

before the term had even been invented. In the end, the Hiawatha

corridor incorporated many intermodal features, including bus connections with free transfers; bicycle amenities, including bike racks

on every LRT vehicle, bike lockers and bike racks at most stations,

and multiple bicycle trail connections, including a major link to the

Midtown Greenway, which this Committee has supported; luggage

racks; full ADA accessibility to major park-and-rides with over

1,600 spaces and plans for 900 more because of the heavy usages;

seamless transfer from the Hiawatha Line to the planned

Northstar Commuter Rail Line and the Cedar Avenue busway; recently an HOURCAR proposal similar to the Zip Car operation

here in Washington, D.C. was installed at one of the stations; and,

finally, strong integration of the LRT line at the airport.

There are several lessons of intermodalism which we are inventing locally:

One is connectivity is at the heart of successful intermodalism.

It allows us all to take maximum advantage of our infrastructure

investments and it is the answer to the charge that LRT can’t get

you everywhere you want to go.

Two, it takes hard work, hard work at both the local and Federal

levels to achieve effective intermodalism. Locally, we generated a

spirit of teamwork and cooperation among MnDOT, Metropolitan

Council, Hennepin County, and the Airport Commission, as well as

the Cities of Minneapolis and Bloomington.

federally, while the Federal Transit Administration and FAA are

both in the Transportation Department, they often speak a different language, from our experience, they have different cultures

and procedures and their own lawyers to enforce them. The addition of heightened security concerns and another Federal bureaucracy only added to the complexity and of costs. Strong, consistent

leadership across agencies, both local and Federal, is essential if

we are to achieve effective intermodalism.
26

Number three, integration of rail design into the airport master

plan is critically important. My suggestion would be that all airport

renovation plans fully incorporate robust intermodal transit connections even if no major investments are anticipated in the next

few years. It is essential to keep open the possibility for these critical connections.

And, finally, intermodalism is part of a broader set of policies affecting the pace and placement and type of development that occur

in our region. A robust intermodalism can reinforce the economic

goals of the community and allow for more intense and a more efficient use of existing infrastructure. Transportation and growth

strategies must be tied together.

We learned a few lessons out of the Hiawatha Line:

One, organizationally, control of LRT construction by the Airport

Commission—that construction on airport property—gave MAC

sufficient confidence to proceed. It assured the MAC of no downtime on any of its operations and control of the details of a complex

construction project on its grounds.

The MAC’s financial contribution to the Line produced real bene- fits for the airport. Over $1 million annually in savings on internal

airport travel alone. It also avoided the twin threats of a non-airport agency under-designing elements critical to the success of the

airport or, conversely, of the MAC gold-plating its request because

it had no financial responsibility for the request.

Just as the FTA’s firm budgetary number for the overall project

imposed needed discipline, so too did the MAC’s financial contribution to the LRT project. Splitting of construction contracts is not

without its problems, but, on balance, this arrangement proved effective on the Hiawatha Line.

Security was yet another issue where control by the MAC created

significant advantages because of the fuller integration with its

other security responsibilities.

In summary, the key lesson for us is that effective intermodalism

will require seamless transition among agencies, local and Federal,

to the same degree that the physical systems provide seamless

transitions among the modes.

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer questions later, and

we appreciate the opportunity to be here today.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Sherry.

Mr. SHERRY. Good morning, Chairman Petri, Congressman Oberstar. Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee on

this very important topic relevant to the health of our Nation’s

transportation system.

Congestion, competition, capacity, and conservation are the

major challenges facing the U.S. transportation system today.

These can only be met by adopting a serious commitment to

connectivity through intermodalism. Increased congestion on our

highways, railways, and ports, coupled with increasing fuel costs,

security threats, and competition in the global marketplace will seriously test our ingenuity and creativity. However, I believe that

the best hope for the future of the transportation in this Country

will come from the adoption of a truly intermodal system that ensures the seamless and cost-effective transport of people and goods.
27

I think we should take a minute to talk about what intermodal

transportation truly is. Many people first think of the freight industry, with containers on flat cars and water-to-land transfer materials. The definition that we use at the University of Denver is

‘‘the seamless interconnection of two or more modes of transportation to create an efficient and ethical system of transportation.’’

As I recently explained to a student of mine, intermodalism is

about connectivity. The only way to get to Denver International

Airport, for example, is to take a car or a taxi. You can take a bus

from the park-and-ride.

DIA could have been a truly intermodal airport as a rail line

runs right through the middle of the airport terminal and connects

all of the concourses. However, rail access from the city to the airport is missing. The rail right-of-way runs right along the airport,

but there is no connecting service. A truly intermodal system would

have provided a seamless interconnection between the two modes,

with resulting capital and operating efficiencies.

Faced with these challenges, faculty and researchers at the University surveyed the extent to which State DOTs engaged in intermodalism and intermodal planning. We surveyed several States

and over 325 respondents. Here are a few of our key results:

In reviewing comprehensive State transportation plans, we found

that there was an increase in attention to intermodal issues. In

terms of looking at organizational structures, DOT organizational

structures have changed to change expanding roles, with about 60

percent of them having a State office devoted specifically to intermodal planning. DOT staffs are primarily made up of highway engineers and many State agencies are still primarily highway focused. We found little support for an interest in providing training

to develop an intermodal perspective.

As a side note, other nations have begun to look more seriously

at intermodal transportation systems. We were asked by the Asian

Pacific Economic Cooperation, APEC, to help determine whether

their 21-member nation economies had the needed skills and available training programs to support an intermodal transportation

system. We identified significant gaps between training and education opportunities, and were subsequently asked by APEC to

help them develop curriculum that could be used throughout the

region.

In general, our study found few examples of intermodal best

practices. When we did, most of them involved highway construction. In terms of funding, our study showed that there was a lack

of funding for intermodal projects. Most funding and financing decisions, including prioritization, are based on local communities’

needs and are largely mode-specific.

Traffic congestion, however, in places like L.A. and Chicago may

be the result of influx of vehicles from other areas of the Country.

Thus, intermodal projects should be supported by a national transportation policy, and the funding may need to come from national

sources, as well. Currently, much funding is tied to specific modes,

which perpetuates a narrow modal approach to investment. Financing of projects should not be mode-based but, instead, based on

prioritization of traffic volume, congestion, and economic impact.
28

Summarizing the results, we identified capacity and congestion

as key components, as well as conservation of limited resources. As

one of the Congressmen mentioned earlier, rising fuel costs are anticipated to increase in their magnitude. And while the intermodal

systems demand the most cost-effective and fuel-efficient mode be

selected, it became painfully aware that during 9/11 all modes of

transportation were not interconnected. And even if you could book

a ticket or a train or a bus, you had few options because the train

was probably 30 miles away.

All of this will require a significant paradigm shift away from a

multi-modal approach to the development of a customer-driven and

user-focused approach in which the best or most efficient mode is

selected. By focusing on the performance of the mode, customers

obtain the most cost-effective choices.

The other focus of our study was on competition. We found that

the transportation infrastructure has significantly contributed to

our national economic competitiveness. I recently attended a meeting of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Working Group in

Hanoi, Viet Name, a country that has seen steady growth to almost

8 percent GDP in the last 10 years. Government officials at that

meeting were very interested in gaining skills in intermodal planning and transportation.

In conclusion, I would recommend that we increase connectivity

solutions be adopted. We recommend also that there be research on

additional funding mechanisms and establishment of an under secretary for intermodal policy and reformation of the Federal role on

a more user-focused service, and the creation of improved incentives for collaboration and coordination at the local, regional, and

State levels; finally, the development of a more effective workforce

through education and training programs focusing on intermodal

solutions and thinking.

Thank you very much. I would be happy to answer any additional questions.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Ms. Siggerud.

Ms. SIGGERUD. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Oberstar,

thank you for the invitation to testify today about intermodal solutions to the Nation’s mobility and congestion challenges. We are all

aware that anticipated increases in passenger and freight travel

have challenged the capacity on all modes of our Nation’s already

strained transportation system.

My testimony today draws on a series of reports GAO has issued

about intermodalism, by which we mean both facilities that efficiently move passengers and freight from one mode to another, and

the ability for State and local planners to select projects and modes

that are the most appropriate mobility solutions.

I will discuss, first, the challenges associated with developing

and using intermodal capabilities and, second, strategies for enhancing these capabilities. I will be drawing on examples from our

July 2005 report on intermodal projects for ground access at airports.

In looking at these and other projects, our work has shown that

the development of intermodal capabilities can provide a range of

benefits. These include: potentially reducing travel times and cost
29

for travelers and freight by making alternative transportation options available, reducing road congestion and a potentially associated vehicle emissions, and eliminating freight bottlenecks.

We found that most U.S. airports have some kind of intermodal

ground connections to either local transportation systems or nationwide bus and rail networks. Sixty-four of the 72 airports that we

surveyed reported having connections to one or more local transportation systems and 27 airports had a connection to a local rail

system such as the light rail, commuter rail, or subway.

With regard to intercity travel, 20 airports reported having connections to a nationwide bus service or a nationwide passenger rail.

Fourteen of these have access to airport, but 13 rely on shuttles to

transport passengers to the stations, which may not be convenient.

One airport, Newark International, provides access to Amtrak by

an automated people mover. As a result, Continental Airlines established a code share agreement with Amtrak whereby passengers

can purchase one ticket for a journey that includes travel by both

air and rail.

Development of intermodal capabilities in our transportation system faces challenges that stem from the lack of a specific national

goal or funding program devoted to that purpose. In addition, Federal funding is often tied to a single transportation mode. As a result, it may be difficult to finance projects, such as intermodal

projects, that do not have a source of dedicated funding. Similarly,

restrictions on the use of Federal funds at airport revenues and

charges to passengers challenge the development of alternative

transportation projects to improve airport access.

Nevertheless, turning now to projects to provide transit access to

airports, we found that some local planners were able to put together projects for a variety of Federal sources. For example, the

Hiawatha Line, which we have just discussed, used the Federal

New Starts program that funds skyway transit. The rail extension

to Portland, Oregon’s airport was financed in part through passenger facility charges. The Amtrak station at Milwaukee’s airport

received direct Federal appropriations. Finally, we also saw

projects that used the TIFIA program and two Federal aid highway

categories: the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program and the

Surface Transportation Program.

State and local planners interested in developing such projects

face other challenges that include:

First, the rigorous process established for airport and surface

transportation planning that yields publicly acceptable projects but

at some cost in terms of complexity and time.

Second, the physical constraints near an airport or other major

transportation hub offer few alternatives for expansion or new

project development, particularly in densely populated urban areas.

But it is these same areas where such facilities are likely to generate benefits that will justify the costs.

Third, multi-jurisdictional transportation corridors present special challenges in coordinating investment decisions.

And, finally, the success of facilities such as transit connections

to airports depends on providing a service that is convenient, costeffective, and reliable enough to overcome preferences for private

vehicles.
30

In looking at such challenges to intermodal solutions, we have

identified a framework that could guide Congress in developing

strategies to encourage these types of projects and capabilities.

These include, first, setting national goals that define the key Federal interests in improving transportation; second, clearly defining

the Federal role relative to the roles of State and local agencies and

to the private sector to ensure the appropriate balance of public investment when the benefits flow in part to the private sector; third,

determining which funding approaches and incentives will maximize the impact of any Federal investment and achieve the goals

I just mentioned; and, finally, evaluating performance periodically

to determine if the anticipated benefits from federally funded

projects are accruing as expected.

In implementing this framework, Congress will need to decide

whether to retain the role of the Federal Government in a funding

and oversight role, but with increased flexibility for the use of Federal funds. This strategy would preserve the current practice that

transportation projects are largely determined at the State and

local level. Or, if there are transportation problems and goals that

are so pressing that they need an increased Federal role to assure

they are accomplished, the Federal Government may need to take

a more active role to achieve that vision.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy

to take any questions.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

We have a few minutes. Those bells mean that there is a vote

on the rule, I think just one vote, so we will have to recess shortly,

but, Mr. Oberstar.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, this panel is

very instructive and very thoughtful.

Ms. Siggerud, that has got to be a good Norwegian name, no?

Ms. SIGGERUD. Absolutely.

[Laughter.]

Mr. OBERSTAR. Must be an escapee from Northern Minnesota.

Ms. SIGGERUD. Yes. I grew up there.

Mr. OBERSTAR. You did? Oh, all right.

[Laughter.]

Ms. SIGGERUD. How did you guess?

Mr. OBERSTAR. All right. Very, very thorough, in GAO’s typical

fashion of examining the issues in-depth and making very constructive suggestions. I like your flowchart of movement of persons from

home to destination and back. I think that is exactly the kind of

thinking we need to have.

And Peter McLaughlin, Mr. Chairman, I have known for 25

years. He was in the vanguard of proposing light rail at a time

when folks could hardly think past the ox cart. And, unfortunately,

he was ahead of his time and people weren’t ready for Peter

McLaughlin except for me. I was. We couldn’t get enough others to

do the right thing. But now that dream of light rail is in place, and

you have rightly outlined how it should work.

The airport at Minneapolis-St. Paul should not be the largest

parking facility in the State of Minnesota. There is parking for

nearly 16,000 vehicles. Why do we need that? Why can’t we have

effective light rail with bus connections and others to get people off
31

the roadways and arriving in a sensible fashion, with a good frame

of mind to fly to their next destination?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Oberstar, I am afraid that

cow got out of the barn during that period when we couldn’t get

enough other people to support the plan. But the airport is now facing real restrictions on space, additional space that they have

available. They have embraced the presence of rail in the airport

and with the help of the Northstar corridor, which will connect directly to Hiawatha, the central corridor, which we are hoping to be

in preliminary engineering this year, which will connect St. Paul

and take people right to the airport. We think that a mode change

is in the works.

Mr. OBERSTAR. And the Rush Line corridor, which will go up

north——

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. OBERSTAR.—into Wabasha County, the fastest population

growth corridor in the Midwest, and get more people off the roadways, instead of having that traffic jam that extends 50 miles from

downtown Minneapolis.

I have one question, Mr. Chairman, for the panel.

You listened to the exchanges we had with Mr. Shane. You heard

him say that RITA, organizationally, is the best place for the intermodal activity. Do you agree with that? And let me put the question another way. Wouldn’t it be more effective if policy were directed from the Office of the Secretary, the premier policy formation center of power in the Department?

Ms. SIGGERUD. Mr. Oberstar, I will take a crack at that. In our

view, attention to intermodalism at the Secretary’s level is in fact

appropriate. We have not looked at the effect of the movement of

the Office of Intermodalism into RITA. I do want to mention we

have some ongoing work looking at the RITA organization to be reporting out this August that I hope will maybe shed some light on

this issue.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you.

Mr. Sherry?

Mr. SHERRY. I agree. I am confused about what is going on with

the Office of Intermodalism. Even over the last year or so their

budget is sort of nonexistent. If intermodalism is so important to

RITA, why isn’t the Department head of RITA here at the hearing,

I guess would be one question. There seems to be some concern

there. I am concerned that intermodal is not even mentioned in the

new framework that is being put out as the freight policy. So I

would like to see it at a much higher level directing and coordinating policy. Thank you.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. McLaughlin, you talk about different culture,

different language, different time lines. And when the agencies get

together, they don’t even understand each other. What do you

think?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Oberstar, it takes an

enormous amount of energy to get the Federal agencies to work together. And while there may be agreement at the upper levels, as

the earlier witness from the Department of Transportation indicated, when it gets out to the people with whom we are really dealing on a day-to-day basis, it takes enormous energy on our part,
32

on the part of our congressional allies, others in State government

to make these things come together.

So we do need a better emphasis. I don’t know what the particular blueprint ought to be at the Federal level, but it needs to be

at the highest levels of the organization that intermodalism is embraced, and then it can be carried out so that the energy that we

have to put in to get people to cooperate at the local level doesn’t

have to be so great. I mean, that is their problem.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you.

Mr. GRABAUSKAS. I can actually perhaps address it with the

same challenge we had in Massachusetts. Two years ago our legislature and Governor Romney worked together partly out of the

same kind of frustration, for the lack of communication amongst

agencies, authorities, and the alphabet soup of transportation players, and passing pretty significant legislation which gave directly

to the Secretary or Transportation in Massachusetts greater coordinating powers, including positions or seats on various authority

boards, in some cases as chairs of those boards, and knit together,

for the first time really in Massachusetts, we are modeling as a

true DOT.

And I can tell you that even over the last couple of years intermodalism, multimodal thinking, whether from bike-ped through

transit, water transportation, and obviously—as we will discuss, I

guess, at the next panel—freight, and so on, is, I think for the first

time in Massachusetts actively being discussed, and there is no

question that the fact that it is operated directly out of the Office

of the Secretary and a new Office of Transportation Planning,

which is spoken to in the legislation as it must be multimodal in

its thinking, has been a great benefit for us.

Mr. OBERSTAR. So the higher the level of policy involvement and

oversight, the better the outcome.

Mr. McLaughlin?

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Oberstar, I just wanted to

add the military presence at airports, at many airports, adds a

whole additional level of complexity. That should be noted in our

testimony today.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you.

Mr. PETRI. Well, we have about a minute and 29 seconds to get

over and vote, so we will recess. But let me just leave you with a

question to think about for the panel, and we will get back. And

I know you probably have lunch plans, but we will try to recommence right at noon.

And that is that we are talking about trying to change the infrastructure to promote intermodalism in the bureaucracy, to promote

intermodalism. What about channels of communication so the public can demand intermodalism more easily? I can’t buy a ticket very

easily on the Web or from a travel agent on an airline and on a

bus and on a train. There are a lot of structural barriers in terms

of communication and linkups. When you go to Europe, it is all one

ticket, it goes to Frankfurt and then it goes to Cologne or whatever.

Should we be thinking about the barriers that exist beyond our

little envelope and out in the real world? If those were broken

down, wouldn’t the public demand a lot more intermodalism?
33

We will recess and come back if you have any thoughts in that

regard.

[Recess.]

Mr. PETRI. Several of my colleagues are on their way, but they

have agreed, since it was my question and I am here, that you can

answer it, if you would care to respond. Who would like to start?

Mr. GRABAUSKAS. You mentioned Charlie on the MTA, Mr.

Chairman. Our new automatic fare collection system, which is a

smart card technology that we are introducing in Boston, by next

January we will eliminate the token as a currency of the system.

We are not only utilizing this new smart card technology within

the MBTA, but have actively reached out to other regional transit

authorities throughout Massachusetts in sort of a co-branding.

So an individual in a city that is not served in one of the 175

communities that the MBTA serves, but one of the dozen or so regional transit authorities that serves the rest of the Commonwealth

of Massachusetts, we would actually have a Charlie card be a one

passport item to allow for travel by bus, typically from one of the

other regional transit authorities into the MBTA system and vice

versa, and it would be utilized and recognized by both.

In addition, we have had conversations with some of the private

bus carriers in the State who are also interested in having the

Charlie card be an additional passport, if you will, or ability to pay.

So we are looking for that. But I think several of us were talking

about during the break there are a number of hurdles that, when

you get beyond other modes and, ,for instance, the airports and

things, that it is a challenge, and I don’t think we have certainly

come up with that answer yet in Boston.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to say I was the

author of the provision and State law, when I was a legislator, that

said that we would have the bus—if there were a train system, an

LRT system created, it would be run by the same people who ran

the bus station. So that creates the integration there. And we have

got the total interoperability between those two operations. So I

think that is a fundamental building block.

Number two, I have been promoting, trying to get cooperation between the airlines and the people who run the transit system to

promote the train on the planes. People who are coming in, find a

way to get a dollar off or a half price ticket into their hands as people are coming in or as they are leaving through the travel agents.

We are trying to promote that. It has taken a little bit of work because, again, we have multiple agencies. And I am still fighting

with the Airport Commission to get more signs, frankly, at the airport to direct people down to the train. So those are the sort of detail level things.

Structurally, I think you have got to create it and invent it right

there at that level right now. There is not some sort of grand fix

for it.

Mr. SHERRY. Thank you, Chairman Petri. I think being able to

buy a ticket to go through multiple modes is a great idea. I don’t

have any specific suggestions about how to do that. I think the

other piece of the equation, short of the buying of the ticket—and

I am understanding that there are some impediments to being able
34

to do that in terms of the cost-sharing between the different agencies.

Short of that, I think being able to go and get information and

plan a trip would be an important intermediate step. I was just in

New York, and I was able to log on to HopStop and plan a trip to

Secaucus using a bus and a train and the Metro all on one Web

site. And that, to me, is something that could be further encouraged and incentives could be created for agencies and public organizations to provide that information more specifically.

And the final point I would make is I think we should not stop

at just buying tickets for people. But what about our baggage? I

was saying at the break that I was in Vienna recently, and I

walked out of the hotel room, across the street, I checked in for my

flight to Dubai at the counter in Vienna and was able to check my

bag all the way through and get on the train all in one place. So

I would like to encourage us to think even broader still, to be able

to take care of bags and people and get them to where we are

going. Thank you.

Ms. SIGGERUD. Mr. Petri, you asked about a comparison with Europe and the ability to move freely and purchase tickets in comparison with the United States, and I would point out that we

know of only one instance in the United States where it is possible

to code share, and that is at Newark Airport, between Amtrak and

Continental Airlines.

We did look at the European example in our work, and I think

there are two differences that are important to point out.

First is that the intermodal capability at airports and other facilities has come as a result of a conscious EU and government investment in those capabilities in Europe, as well as the capital support to build those facilities from EU and from the member governments.

The second is that the EU did put together a EU-wide task force

to look at connectivity issues at airports and rail, and it made a

number of recommendations, including in the area of ticketing,

which you mentioned, trying to make it easier to do either code

shares or simply movement from one mode to another. It also made

recommendations with regard to some of the security challenges in

having these intermodal connections. And, finally, it made some

recommendations with regard to handling baggage more effectively

to make it more convenient for passengers. That may be something

we want to look at here.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. I have flown to O’Hare and gotten to it

on the subway and taken a bus from O’Hare up to Mitchell Field

in Milwaukee or over to Madison. They have a wonderful intermodal center, but I don’t think the average passenger on an airplane is even aware of it; it is sort of hidden away and there are

not many signs directing you to it, and it seems to be more for people who don’t have cars and lower-income people. At least that is

who I have observed as I have used it, even though it is a wonderful facility.

So somehow we need to figure out how we can increase consciousness throughout the traveling public of the options that even

already do exist, because if they are more widely used, that will
35

foster interconnective thinking. If people say, well, we do it and no

one uses it, then why should we bother doing it?

I think there are various people like Greyhound stopping at train

stations and airports, and even if it is just for a few minutes, there

are a lot of restrictions on what kind of vehicles are able to achieve

access to these facilities. So we talk intermodalism and we plan

intermodalism, but people who want to be intermodal are prohibited from providing these services in many instances. So I think we

probably should be a little more aware of that and figure out ways

of at least removing barriers to existing intermodal opportunities

that don’t cost any Federal money.

Mr. MCLAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, I think your comments are

right on point. I think the citizenry is ahead of us in some measure. In our example, it was the citizen advisory committee that

said we want bike racks on the train. Now, the train professionals,

the engineers, they weren’t really—they knew all the problems that

come along with bike racks on trains and they are thinking Minnesota. You are from Wisconsin, you know how cold it is.

But I will tell you virtually every time I am on the train, even

in the winter, there is somebody with a bicycle on there, and it has

really increased the reach that the train can have, because people

can ride from their home to the train and then off to where they

go.

So I think we need to be listening to people, because if they get—

there is an excitement about this and we are creating a new way

of moving about after a period where the car was the only way. We

are creating the new way of thinking and moving in this Country,

and we need to be listening to people who are there on the ground,

because they have got some great ideas.

Mr. PETRI. Very good. We thank you very much. We appreciate

your written statements.

And we will now turn to the third panel, which has been very

patient. We apologize for the delay. It consists of Mr. J. Robert

Bray, Executive Director of Virginia Port Authority; Tim Lynch,

Senior Vice President, Federation Relations and Strategic Planning

of the ATA, American Trucking Association; David Roberts, Senior

Vice President, Advanced Technologies Group; Rick Richmond,

Chief Executive Officer, Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority; and Mr. Arthur Scheunemann, who is Senior Vice President for Business Development of NW Container Services, Inc.

As with the previous panel, we thank you for your prepared

statements, and we invite you to summarize those comments in

about five minutes, beginning with Mr. Bray.
36

TESTIMONY OF J. ROBERT BRAY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA PORT AUTHORITY; TIM LYNCH, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, FEDERATION RELATIONS AND STRATEGIC PLANNING,

AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS; DAVE ROBERTS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES GROUP;

RICK RICHMOND, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ALAMEDA

CORRIDOR-EAST CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY; ARTHUR

SCHEUNEMANN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR BUSINESS

DEVELOPMENT, NW CONTAINER SERVICES, INC.

Mr. BRAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We are honored

to be here today and think this is a very important time for America.

Let me talk a little bit about what is going on in the containerized shipping world.

If you look at what has happened in America over the last 10

years, it has been absolutely phenomenal. We in Virginia have seen

air cargo double in that period of time. The West Coast, the cargo

moving through there, of course, is legendary.

Now, what happened somewhat recently was that in 2002 there

was a work stoppage on the West Coast. A lot of the Wal-Marts

and Home Depots of the world said they were going to wait it out.

Some other ship lines began to come through the all water Panama

Canal to the East Coast, and when they adjusted their schedules

by a couple of days, they found it was just as efficient and just as

cost-effective as it was shipping through the West Coast.

Now, that shifted a lot of Far East cargo to the East Coast, and

about 80 percent of that cargo has stayed. That has, of course, exacerbated the problems we have with the intermodal part of the

transportation chain.

Congress did something most recently with the SAFETEA-LU

legislation that created corridors of national significance, one of

which is the Heartland Corridor, which will serve Ohio, West Virginia, and Virginia. Congress appropriated nearly half of the funding for that corridor, and together with Norfolk Southern, the

States of Virginia, West Virginia, and Ohio have found the rest of

the money. Construction will start momentarily on that corridor,

and, when it is completed, it cuts the transit time from the Port

of Virginia into the Midwest by a day and a half and saves some

230 miles. That will help us move more cargo by rail, which obviously has got to be some part of what we are going to do to mitigate the congestion that containerized cargo brings.

But let me say this. One of the major factors in our growth in

Virginia has been the location of distribution centers. We have distribution centers, some 72 in number, and some of the major companies are Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Target, Cost Plus, Dollar Tree,

and others. Those facilities, in general, are located within 30 miles

of the port. That means that all of that cargo will move by truck.

One of the things that the Heartland Corridor will do is Norfolk

Southern has worked with the States—again, Ohio, West Virginia,

and Virginia-to locate intermodal yards within those States but,

generally speaking, in areas close enough to the port that they

have not in the past been served by rail. Because, as most of you

know, rail only is probably effective if the cargo is moving about

500 miles. Norfolk Southern has a new slant on this, and we hope
37

they are successful, because it will help the Commonwealth greatly.

The last thing I want to say to you is that we in Virginia have

interstate connections at all of our ports save one, and, unfortunately, that is the largest. That facility has a dual access road that

was built by the State that connects the Interstate 64 system, but

they are the kinds of connections that we need to look at nationwide when it comes to servicing ports. We are a Nation of consumers, unfortunately at the moment. About 90 percent of what we

handle in this Country moved through 10 major maritime gateways, and we begin to need to look at this thing as a piece of a

puzzle that serves the entire Country.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would be glad to answer

any questions you all might have.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much for a very good summary.

Mr. Lynch.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Higgins, Congressman Carnahan, and the other members of the Subcommittee. My name is Tim Lynch, and I am a Senior Vice President with the American Trucking Associations.

ATA is the national trade association for the trucking industry,

representing more than 37,000 motor carriers through our federation of State associations and industry segment conferences. In

that regard, I am also appearing today on behalf of one of those

organizations, the Intermodal Motor Carriers Conference, which

represents companies that are specifically engaged in intermodal

transportation or related motor carrier support services.

We appreciate the opportunity to present our views on this very

important subject. Congestion throughout our Nation’s infrastructure is quickly becoming one of the most important public policy

issues facing Federal, State, and local governments. This hearing

on intermodalism is one of a series of hearings held by the Subcommittee to address those concerns. We commend you for focusing

attention on these issues and certainly the subject of today’s hearing, the role that intermodalism can serve in relieving congestion

and contributing to an efficient freight delivery system.

The trucking industry supports intermodalism and encourages

policies that promote increased movement of containers and trailers by rail. In fact, trucking companies were among the early

innovators and users of intermodalism in this Country. Package

companies like UPS, less than truckload companies like Yellow,

and truckload companies like J.B. Hunt were pioneers in seeing the

value of partnering with the Nation’s railroads to efficiently and

productively move freight.

In 2005, 11.7 million trailers and containers moved in rail intermodal service. The Association of American Railroads recently reported that intermodal traffic is now the industry’s highest revenue

business segment, surpassing coal for the first time in 2003. And

while that is certainly a positive development for our transportation network, it is important to understand both the potential for

and limitations of intermodal growth going forward.

Today, rail intermodal comprises just 1.3 percent of the total

freight market. This compares to a 68 percent market share for

truck-only services. Global Insight, an economic consulting firm,
38

projects that rail intermodal tonnage will increase nearly 80 percent from 2004 through 2016.

Yet, even with that impressive growth number, rail intermodal

will only account for under 2 percent of the domestic freight market at the end of that period. Why? Part of the answer is the very

nature of our transportation and supply chain system. A large percentage of freight is simply not transferrable to the rail network.

To be profitable, rail intermodal requires large volumes of freight

and a significantly long length of haul. Those types of markets are

limited. Only 8.6 percent of freight tonnage moves more than 750

miles in this Country, and even freight movements over 500 miles

comprise less than 14 percent of the freight market.

Another factor is the split of intermodal freight between domestic

trailers and international containers. The rail industry has put a

significant portion of their investment eggs in the international

container business basket. That means port facilities. At the same

time, the rails have reduced the number of interchange points for

trailer transfer. Take, for example, freight that might be moving

from Chicago to the East Coast. It makes little sense for a customer in Western Pennsylvania to ship their trailers east to the

Port of Philadelphia to get on a rail to go to Chicago and then come

back east another 150 miles to a customer in Indiana.

I won’t belabor the well documented service challenges faced by

the rail network. Suffice to say the trucking companies operate on

a very tight service deadline with their customers and, thus, cannot

wholly rely on a transportation partner that does not. Many trucking companies today are offering guaranteed service to their customers and cannot afford, literally cannot afford no payment on a

trailer or a loss of a customer.

I would now like to move and address the issue of freight corridors, and specifically the portion of SAFETEA-LU dealing with

projects of national and regional significance. We strongly support

a focus on freight corridors and a PNRS framework.

While some of the projects funded under the PNRS program are

meritorious, the most critical needs have not been addressed. A

2004 analysis by Cambridge Systematics for the American Highway Users Alliance identified the top highway bottlenecks in the

Country. A similar report was prepared by FHWA. None of the bottlenecks on either of those lists received funding under the PNRS

program.

Going forward, we would suggest that a greater share of Federal

funds be dedicated to these freight corridor projects and that more

planning be undertaken on the needs of freight movements. In

order for this program to be as effective as we think it can be, we

also would suggest a more rigorous selection process.

The explosive growth in global container trade moving through

our maritime port system comprises the largest growth component

in domestic intermodal transportation. Unfortunately, in addition

to the almost universal challenges of limited funding, land resources, and environmental impacts that confront most transportation expansion and improvement projects, systemwide institutional operational inefficiencies affect port continue to restrain

much needed cost-effective freight capacity improvements.
39

Having said that, we want to thank the members of this Subcommittee for their efforts in addressing many of those problems

in their consideration of SAFETEA-LU. Establishing clear Federal

requirements regarding the overall safety, the Roadability issue of

the 750,000-plus container carrying chassis that move on America’s

highways has long been a critical concern of the intermodal motor

carrier industry. Much progress has been made, but we would ask

that the Congress continue to prod FMCSA to move the internal

development and improvement process.

Finally, ATA and its intermodal conference would like to publicly

thank officials at the Port of Virginia, Virginia Port Authority for

their leadership role in establishing port-wide efficiency movements

which have greatly streamlined and improved container intermodal

interchange operations. Virginia Port officials included the motor

carrier community in their planning and, as a result, this all-inclusive approach to port management changes implemented by Virginia now serve as an industry benchmark.

And I would have said that even if Mr. Bray was not sitting directly next to me.

[Laughter.]

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement, and thank you very

much for giving us the opportunity to present our testimony.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Roberts.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, members, thank you for inviting

me. I am Dave Roberts, Senior Vice President of General Atomics,

a San Diego company.

We are leading a team that, under contract to the Port of Los

Angeles, is exploring the benefits that magnetically levitated, or

Maglev, transportation systems might bring to easing congestion

and reducing pollution in the movement of freight shipping containers from the port to intermodal transfer stations.

Maglev, which this Committee has supported for many years, as

you know, utilizes vehicles that are both levitated and propelled by

the use of electromagnetic forces. As a result, they are very quiet,

but, most importantly, they emit no local pollution. Systems of this

type are in operation in both China and Japan, and are being developed worldwide.

As the members of this Committee are well aware, some 43 percent of the goods entering the United States pass through the Ports

of Los Angeles and Long Beach. This is a freight container equivalent throughput of more than 8 million containers, technically

known as 14 million TEU per year. The port exports this to double

by the year 2020.

The port obviously has an important national function, but it is

also a vitally important part of the economy of Southern California.

However, the movement of this growing number of containers

through the dense urban areas that surround the Los Angeles

Basin impose serious burdens of congestion and air pollution. Diesel particulate emissions in particular are viewed as an increasingly serious threat. The challenge for the port, therefore, is to

handle this increasing throughput without adversely affecting surrounding communities.
40

One major facility to accomplish this is, of course, the Alameda

Rail Corridor, with which this Committee is well familiar. And the

port has created and is planning to create more intermodal transfer

facilities to allow transfer to trains using the corridor, as well as

to long-distance trucks. However, the intermodal facilities are

about five miles away from the port itself. To move containers from

the port to these facilities by road would involve more than one

million truck trips per year in this very small area, a major added

burden to both highway congestion and air pollution, and a source

of great concern to local residents.

Because of this, the port is exploring alternative systems for the

container transfer. One of those is what we might consider a magnetically levitated conveyor belt, which is what we are examining.

Our system has been under development for several years, and

a full-scale test track is in operation at our San Diego facility. In

fact, Congressman Oberstar had the opportunity to see it some

time ago. The program is funded by the Federal Transit Administration, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, and industry. The levitation system we use is unique and uses permanent

magnets, which makes it a much simpler system. It is a technology

that was originally developed at the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Livermore Labs and has been licensed by GA. And, as I

noted earlier, the use of magnetic levitation makes systems quiet

and non-polluting. The system also embodies a number of engineering features that create great safety.

The port asked us to study the feasibility of using a Maglev system of this kind to transport 5,000 containers a day between the

port and the intermodal facilities at the Alameda Corridor. We

have recently completed the study and have concluded that our

system can transport containers at the required rate safely, quietly,

efficiently, and, very importantly, with no emissions, and what appear to be attractive operating economics. The automated system

will feature two parallel guideways, would transport containers,

each on an individual carriage, at speeds up to 90 miles an hour

at 20-second headways. The onloading and offloading would be accomplished by bridge cranes.

While more engineering is needed to flesh out the details of this

system, we are encouraged that a system of this kind will be able

to make important contributions to overcoming some of the barriers

that occur, in this case, to the efficient utilization of the intermodal

facilities.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. And because it is

magnetically levitated, it is 30 seconds early.

[Laughter.]

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Richmond.

Mr. RICHMOND. First, I want to add our thanks to everyone else

for the Committee’s work on SAFETEA-LU bill and specifically inclusion of our ACE Project as one of the projects of national-regional significance. And I particularly want to thank you, Chairman Petri, and also Ranking Member Oberstar for taking the time

to visit our area and seeing firsthand the problems that we have

to deal with, as Mr. Roberts has given good introduction to, with

the movement of freight in and around the L.A.-Long Beach ports.
41

I also want to thank Mr. Oberstar for inviting us to testify and

present some material today.

Next slide.

Obviously, our freight problems start and finish at the Ports of

L.A. and Long Beach. They are number one and number two in the

Nation for containerized traffic combined; they are number five in

the world.

Next slide, please.

As has been mentioned, they account for about 40 percent of all

containerized traffic coming in or leaving the United States. As has

also been mentioned, if the system were allowed to work on its

own, about half these containers would leave the ports on truck

and half would leave on rail, as determined by the distance that

they would need to travel.

Next slide.

On the rail side, we have a 300-mile mainline railroad network

saved by two Class I railroads. This area, the rail network in the

metropolitan area covers a four-county area in the Los Angeles

Metro area. You see the Alameda Corridor coming up from the

ports, and then to the east is the two mainline distribution systems

to the east. The area that I work and represent is actually the area

shaded in the green portion in Los Angeles County.

Next slide.

While 50 percent of the traffic should end up on trains, frankly,

it doesn’t, and one of the reasons, as shown here, as you can see,

operating a rail terminal at ports is very land-intensive and, frankly, the land just isn’t available for the volume of traffic that needs

to be handled at the location on rail. So, as a result, about 10 to

20 percent of these containers have to move out of the ports on

truck.

Next slide.

And this is what we get. This is the southern end of the Long

Beach Freeway. It is, as you can see, heavily, congested; 37,000

truck trips a day on this section of freeway. We have had, in addition to, obviously, the congestion problems, the mix of automobile

and truck traffic creates safety problems, and we have had about

a 17 percent increase in truck-related accidents over the last three

years.

Next slide.

Rail is an obvious answer, and that was the impetus behind the

investment in the Alameda Corridor. The good news for us today

is that over 30 percent of the containers moving in and out of the

ports are carried on the Alameda Corridor. That is actually an increase in the number of trains in the last year of 17 percent and

an increase in the number of containers on those trains by 34 percent. We are getting more trains and longer trains on the Corridor.

The Corridor represents about 7,000 container moves a day, which

basically translates into 7,000 truck trips that don’t have to go onto

the Freeway.

Next slide.

Unfortunately, the problem doesn’t stop with the Alameda Corridor. As you probably know, not much was done at the outpoint

of the Alameda Corridor’s inception to deal with the network east

of its terminus. Ninety percent of the trains that operate on the Al-
42

ameda Corridor come from or end up on the rail lines heading east,

because those are the connections to the national system.

We, in our area, started about five or six years ago to try to deal

with it and we have adopted a program that is described on this

slide, which basically is a combination of grade separations, trying

to apply advanced technology to the movement of traffic, where we

are not going to be separating roads, and also safety improvements.

It is budgeted at about $950 million, the first half of which was

funded. Forty percent of that funding came from the T–21 program,

which got us started.

Next slide.

The first thing we did was to get to the safety problems. We have

completed, a couple years ago, safety improvements at 39 crossings.

Next slide.

I mentioned the traffic diversion program. This is a combination

of traffic signal and train prediction technologies which will hopefully give us the ability to move traffic around blocked crossings

whenever it makes sense. It is a fairly sophisticated application.

We are doing a test application right now in the City of Pomona,

and we hope by this summer to be able to expand the use of this

to other locations in our area.

Next slide.

A significant part of the program is grade separations. As I mentioned, we have 21 in the program, 11 in the first half of the program, which is funded; 10 in the second. One is completed.

Next slide.

Five more are in construction, and they will be completed in the

next 12 to 18 months.

Next slide.

Two more are out to bid and two more are designed and ready

to go to construction with additional funding.

Next slide.

Just to briefly conclude, as I mentioned, we still are deficient in

the second half funding for the project. Our goal, frankly, is to

work at both the Federal and State level. We think very strongly

that some form of a permanent and dedicated funding program to

the issues of goods movement infrastructure, particularly in major

ports areas, is not only needed, but well justified.

And the reason we feel that way is that it is an activity that,

frankly, generates a tremendous amount of revenue; it generates

revenue on both the public and the private side. It generates revenue at all three levels of the public side: it generates Federal revenue through customs, it generates State revenue through income

tax and business taxes, and it generates income, as mentioned, at

the ports areas.

So we believe this endeavor lends itself to a better way of funding it, which would have the side benefit of removing these rather

massive requirements for funding from the general competition and

presumably free up the general revenues for transportation to

other less specific transportation investments.

With that, I would conclude and thank you very much.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Scheunemann.
43

Mr. SCHEUNEMANN. Chairman Petri, I am Art Scheunemann,

NW Container Services, Seattle, Washington, Portland, Oregon.

Members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here today to share a little bit of our insights on improving freight and goods movement through intermodalism.

I would also like to recognize and thank Mr. DeFazio for his tireless efforts and support in improving freight and goods movement

in the Pacific Northwest, and also Mr. Oberstar for taking time last

year to come to the PNW and tour our facilities and see firsthand

how short-haul intermodal rail operations actually can improve

freight and goods movement.

NW Container has been in business since 1985, providing containerized short-haul intermodal rail logistics services. Our mission

is to improve freight mobility in the Pacific Northwest, California,

other parts of the Country a our business grows, by providing

intermodal or multimodal transportation solutions to customers

utilizing rail, truck, and barge. The business model is built on a

network of privately owned intermodal facilities capable of building

and deploying unit trains for short-haul rail service, typically 300

miles or less.

We have also entered into some public-private partnerships with

ports and public entities that share this mission and embrace this

type of operation. We currently operate five intermodal facilities in

Washington State and Oregon, ,linking the major West Coast ports

of Seattle, Tacoma, and Portland to ports and cities and facilities

in the east and Washington and Oregon.

Next year we plan on opening a facility in Eugene, Oregon to

connect that important agricultural and wood products export area

with the ports that I mentioned above, and we are in discussions

with the Port of Oakland at this time to establish an intermodal

short-haul rail corridor that would service the San Joaquin Valley

of California.

We are primarily a hook-and-haul intermodal rail operation, but

we are not a railroad. We contract for dedicated line haul capacity

and engine power with the Union Pacific Railroad or the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. We own our own equipment

and facility assets, including a fleet of 40 custom-built double-stack

container cars, a fleet of 100 Drey trucks capable of moving 250

containers each direction on the trains daily between our facilities.

In 2005, we moved 85,000 intermodal loaded containers via our

system. That figure represents about 6.2 percent of the total volume that moved through the ports of Seattle and Tacoma, and the

majority of the cargo moved on the Seattle-Tacoma-Portland I–5

corridor. Viewed another way, it represents 85,000 truck trips that

were shifted to rail, freeing up valuable highway capacity for people movement and other freight and goods movement.

NW Container believes that there is great opportunity to take

this business model and expand the footprint into other regions of

the Country. As I mentioned, we are working with the Port of Oakland to develop a service between Oakland and the lower San Joaquin Valley. This is a perfect area because of the tremendous volumes of food and agricultural exports, and, at the same time, major

U.S. import retailers have located mega-distribution centers in
44

those areas to service their retail trade or reposition containers for

movement on long-haul eastbound trains.

Unfortunately, the majority of the San Joaquin agricultural exports are trucked in and out of Los Angeles, the Ports of L.A. and

Long Beach. A better model would be for retail shippers to move

loaded containers from steamship carriers, calling on the Port of

Oakland as an alternative, to their distribution centers in the San

Joaquin Valley via short-haul rail. There, agricultural shippers

could utilize the equipment to move loaded export containers back

out. In this case, the Port of Oakland provides a competitive alternative because it is not faced with the capacity and the congestion

issues experienced at the Ports of L.A. and Long Beach.

This is just one example of how the model can work in other

parts of the Country. However, a critical element is the future viability and the willingness of the major railroads to provide shorthaul service and short line service at reasonable rates. We think

that we share the same concerns that many in the intermodal

transportation industry have expressed in recent months. Real

questions continue to be raised about the major railroads industry’s

obligation to serve its customers and the Nation’s transportation

needs. NW Container and our short-haul intermodal rail service,

like many short lines around the Country, is completely dependent

upon Class I railroad service and capacity.

We recognize that the Class I railroads represent a private sector

network and, therefore, need to be profitable to their shareholders.

However, we also suggest that there needs to be viable inter-state

and inter-region infrastructure and service to meet the needs of

shippers where the only alternative is to truck cargo or close business.

We believe that serious attention needs to be focused on how

inter-state and inter-region service can be maintained and enhanced. The significant investment that States and other public entities make in improving infrastructure—overpasses, grade separations, port infrastructure, etc.—which contribute to the railroads’

increased efficiency and velocity must have a measure of inter-state

and inter-regional return.

As noted above, we believe our intermodal model has great hope

for the future and can be duplicated nationally, and we believe the

future of inter-state and inter-region transportation efficiency is dependent on competitive innovation such as short-haul rail service.

Thank you.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Carnahan, any questions?

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate your remarks, all of you. In particular, I wanted to

get your reaction to the GAO recent report on intermodal transportation, and there are two summary findings, I guess, that came out

of that. One was that we really needed to increase flexibility to develop intermodal funding, and also to shift the Federal transportation policy maybe away from the emphasis on State and local

planning and involve the Federal Government more in planning

and funding. And those are some substantial changes in the way

we have gone about transportation policy in the past, and wanted
45

to get your thoughts about that in general, but also how it may affect your particular industries.

Mr. LYNCH. I will take a shot at that one.

Congressman, I think the issue of the Federal-State-local relationship is one that is probably undergoing a lot of analysis right

now and review. You look at my office is on the Beltway, and I look

out my window and I see the Woodrow Wilson Bridge coming to at

least part completion. The funding for that was forever looked at

as basically a localized project. The delegations in Virginia, Maryland, and D.C. were the ones principally involved in pushing for it,

and yet it carries a tremendous volume of traffic up and down the

East Coast on I–95.

We sort of have to get away, and to the extent that the GAO report gets into this, we have to get away from this kind of mentality

of just localized congestion points and understand that those congestion points, those bottlenecks, are typically part of a corridor

that runs through many States. So whether that should be a more

regional approach, you know,—I mean, I think it sort of has to be

looked at almost by project by project, corridor by corridor. But

clearly I think we have to start looking at that in a much, much

different light than we have in the past.

Mr. RICHMOND. I can just add a little bit. Again, our focus is not

on intermodalism across the board, but we are primarily concerned

with the issues of freight movement. And I can say that there

would be real benefits from more flexibility in the funding. We are

really locked into trying to compete basically, under the highway

program, for the work that we do, which has huge demands and

tends to largely be directed jurisdictionally. State highway departments are often typically responsible for certain elements of the

system and the funding usually ends up in those elements, and if

you don’t happen to be in that group, that club, sometimes you

don’t get as much attention as I think maybe you would deserve

on a pure basis of the degree of problem and the value of the solution type thing.

So increased flexibility in funding and a focus on intermodal,

particularly as it pertains to freight, would be valuable to us.

Mr. BRAY. I would like to echo that. If you look at what we have

accomplished with the Congress in the Heartland Corridor, that is

a great start. It involved three States. But if you come back to just

the Port of Virginia by itself, 55 percent of what we handle ends

up in the Midwest. So it is truly regional. And I would encourage

you to think about this in terms of a nationwide issue, and not

strictly a regional issue, because these ports move cargo for all

Americans. And if somehow or another the bureaucracy focuses on

just what is good for Virginia, that misses the point entirely.

So based on what Congress has started to do with the SAFETEALU legislation, I think it probably is a good thing, but we need to

be very careful how we approach it.

Mr. SCHEUNEMANN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to expand on

that. And I think this Committee should be commended, as well,

for taking a long view on this last year, when you developed and

passed and put forth the short-haul intermodal pilot program that

Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Oberstar supported as well.
46

I think, from our perspective, there has to be a national foundation. I spend as much of my time on the road consulting other parts

of the Country, private sector entities, public entities, ports, local

jurisdictions on how an intermodal short-haul rail system can

work, when typically it is not a business model that is duplicated

in many places. It is a region-by-region effort, but it has to be, I

think, supported by a national policy that, as the gentleman to my

right said, the goods that move in this Country move everywhere,

not just east and west, not just north and south; it is a complete

system. And I think we have to have a national intermodal policy

that supports that.

Mr. ROBERTS. Congressman Carnahan, I am not an expert in the

matter, so I would just make a very brief remark. It is my observation, my impression that in the case of the ports, for example, they

have considerable ability to self-fund certain things, rebonding

mechanisms, as was discussed earlier. But as was noted, they are

performing a function on behalf of the whole Nation, and I am sure

there are many circumstances in which Federal supplementation of

what they can do is highly desirable.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Miller, any questions?

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I represent part of Southern California. I was at the harbors two

weeks ago and reviewing how that process occurs and facing the

reality that within the next 14 years the traffic is going to double

or triple from the harbors. As Mr. Petri is aware, we had, we

thought, fought very successfully to bring about $900 million home

for Alameda Corridor, which would include four counties—L.A.,

San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange County—and a dispute

with the Senate, as Mr. Petri is well aware of, in the last few days

of that bill being passed, eliminated that $900 million down to $135

million.

Mr. Richmond, I know you are really, really acutely aware of the

situation we face. For those of you who haven’t been in California,

in that area, it is not only train, it is truck. I mean, it is very, very

obvious that we are the center for imports and exports for most of

this Nation. When you drive on either the 91 Freeway, the 5 Freeway, the 60, the 10, especially the 210. When you get to 210 down

near the harbor, it is just—it is stopped all the time with just

trucks going in.

And they have changed that even to go 24 hours a day to allow

trucks to come in and out to try to minimize some of the impacts

that our freeways are facing and the at-grade crossings, the

amount of time that individuals and commuters and the concept of

being able to haul goods via truck spend sitting at these at-grade

crossings is costing a tremendous amount of money and a tremendous amount of time. I know there is one at-grade crossing in Riverside that, in recent weeks, has been averaging stops up to two

hours. People wait just to get through this one intersection because

train traffic is so bad.

Rick, what do you think it is going to take in the immediate future to try to mitigate some of our problems that we face there?

And by mitigating our problems, we help move goods to the rest

of this Nation, so there is more of a benefit than just helping the

people who are impacted by the trucks and by the trains, it is a
47

matter of getting those trucks and trains to their destination on

time, and the cost associated with delays that they face in that

process. What do you think it is going to cost in our region to resolve this problem?

Mr. RICHMOND. There has been working going on in the last six

to twelve months to put a number around what we call a medium

term program, which is sort of a ten-year time frame, and it ranges

in the neighborhood of $10 billion to $15 billion. Now, a portion of

that, probably a significant portion, has a potential for revenue financing. Some of it are improvements that can be made within the

ports. And, as has been mentioned, they do have some capacity for

raising revenue.

But a large portion of that is probably outside the current revenue-raising possibilities. Just the grade separation mitigation program alone, which, in our case, doesn’t eliminate grade crossings,

it just takes about half the worse and takes care of half, and, similarly, in the outlying areas. That is about a $2.5 billion program

unto itself, and right now there is no provision for revenue financing.

I mentioned earlier that I think there is a compelling case that

can be made for setting up some form of a program that is keyed

to this problem, and it is not just in Los Angeles, obviously, it exists in other port of entry cities. And I think there are opportunities to provide incentives potentially from the Federal level to make

a voluntary program that locales could opt in or opt out of if they

were willing to come to the table with resources themselves.

We in California, as you know, have on the ballot for November a bond issue. It includes $2 billion specifically for goods movement

and another $250 million for grade separations. We hope it passed,

and we are going to work hard to see that. But I think there is a

recognition that the State and the locals have a part to play in this,

and my hope is that there is a partnership with the amount of commerce involved in this, the revenue that is generated, that there is

a way to get it done and take it out of, again, the sort of crushing

competition that goes on with all the other needs for general transportation investment, which are overwhelming, as you well know

from your activity on the Committee.

Mr. MILLER. When people go to Wal-Mart to buy a TV or they

buy a new refrigerator, or you go to the store to buy a new pair

of tennis shoes, as that continues to grow from a consumer perspective, those goods are going to come in from the Pacific Rim, they

are going to come in from the L.A.-Long Beach Harbor. And California realizes that is happening, and this Country faces many

types of disasters. We faced Katrina; we continue to look at the

hurricanes and wonder how that is going to impact our Country.

California, in a fashion, is facing a transportation disaster in the

next three to eight years, I would imagine, by the way the harbors

are expanding.

You would have to be there, Chairman Petri, to realize. I know

you have been there before, we have had you down. But when you

sit on those freeways—I drive from LAX from Diamond Bar every

week, and rarely—and I have to get up about 4:00 in the morning

to do it to get here in time to vote—rarely do I not listen to the

news and they talk about a truck accident on the 91 Freeway, or
48

the 710 or the 5. And those truck accidents, 90 percent of the time

or greater, are associated with hauling goods from those harbors.

Like I said, I went down there the week before last. I was out

at the Long Beach Harbor, and it took me from the 105 going down

the 710, it took me 35 minutes on that one short stint, just to get

down to the harbor, because trucks were backed up because they

could not get in. And then it took me a good 20 minutes to get out

because they were trying to get back out of the harbor. And that

doesn’t include the trains that are loaded and moved out.

And I think it is incumbent upon Congress, Chairman, that we

really look at the impact that States like California and others

with major harbors are going to face, realizing that we cannot afford to allow a transportation disaster to occur, because it is a tremendous hit on our economy. Consumers, when they want to go to

the store and buy something, they expect it to be in the store. The

only way that is ever going to happen is if we make sure that those

goods are on trucks and delivered to their site, or on a train and

delivered to their site.

So I thank you for having this hearing today. It is something

that, whenever we do, I try to spend time here. Today has been a

very bad day and it has been a bad week for all of us, but this is,

in my opinion, in our region, probably the most significant issue

that we are facing and going to have to face and deal with in the

near future.

And, Mr. Richmond, I look forward to continue working with you

in the future and trying to mitigate, as best we can, with a cooperative fashion from the Federal, State, and local government to mitigate the problems that we face in moving goods and the problems

that our commuters face trying to just go about their daily lives.

I yield back. Thank you.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. And it may be a regional problem, but it

is a national problem as well, because the delays and the resultant

inefficiencies in the movement of 40 percent of the Nation’s goods,

at least in that category, through that port result in higher costs

for all Americans, and there is no getting around it.

We thank you all very much for your contribution, and we look

forward to working with you not to lament the problems, but to

solve them.

This hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:57 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191

Æ