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

25–917 PDF 2006

REBUILDING HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT

INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE GULF

COAST FOLLOWING HURRICANE

KATRINA

(109–37)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

HIGHWAYS, TRANSIT AND PIPELINES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 20, 2005

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

Capka, Hon. J. Richard, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation ........................................................... 4

Schruth, Susan E., Associate Administrator, Federal Transit Administration,

U.S. Department of Transportation .................................................................... 4

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Capka, Hon. J. Richard ........................................................................................... 23

Dorn, Jennifer L. (submitted by) Susan E. Schruth ............................................. 30

(1)

REBUILDING HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE GULF COAST FOLLOWING HURRICANE KATRINA

Thursday, October 20, 2005

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 2:00 p.m., in Room

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

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. PETRI. The Subcommittee will come to order. My colleague,

Mr. DeFazio, is on his way and will be joining us shortly. I would

like to welcome our members and witnesses to today’s hearings on

Rebuilding Highway and Transit Infrastructure Following Hurricane Katrina.

The purpose of the hearing is to have the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration update members

of the Subcommittee about the repair and replacement of the highway and transit systems and the restoration of vital transportation

services following the Category 4 hurricane that devastated the

Gulf Coast Region on August 29th. A number of us visited the affected areas September 18th, some 16 members of the House.

On a helicopter tour as part of that visit, I saw the tremendous

damage to the area’s infrastructure including levees, oil rigs,

bridges, and roads that was left in the storm’s wake. I also visited

the FEMA Emergency Operations Center which is about 50 yards

behind the Convention Center. It is impossible to convey the devastation that we saw, damage that is still being assessed and costs

still being calculated.

On October 6th, Federal Highway Administration and Federal

Transit Administration briefed members of the Transportation and

Infrastructure Committee on the status of transportation systems

and services in the impacted region. Because many roads were submerged for long periods of time, direct and individual evaluation is

required for each highway.

At the time of the briefing, some significant roadways in Mississippi Louisiana, and Alabama were still closed. There is substantial effort underway to restore temporary traffic to the I-10 Twin

Span Bridge between Slidell and New Orleans and to complete a

temporary U.S. 90 along the Mississippi Gulf Coast between Pass

Christian and Biloxi.

Enormous progress towards reopening major highways has been

made. Innovative contracting techniques have resulted in the re-
2

opening of the I-10 Bridge at Pascagoula on October 1st, nine days

ahead of schedule. Transit equipment and facilities in New Orleans

were particularly hard hit by the hurricane. A majority of New Orleans regional transit agencies’ bus fleets suffered water damage,

were stolen or vandalized, or were commandeered by other government agencies.

In addition, the newly opened Canal Street system was severely

disabled with all of the new trolley cars, and the track, and necessary systems suffering severe water damage. In addition to restoring and replacing transit infrastructure and equipment, a

major challenge is restoring transit service, particularly in areas

where large numbers of evacuees have settled, such as Baton

Rouge.

To ensure that these projects receive the required individual at- tention, FEMA has given a total of $48.4 million in emergency

transportation funds to the Department of Transportation. These

funds are managed by the Federal Transit Administration and are

being made available to the New Orleans, Baton Rouge, and Mississippi Coast Transit Agencies to provide public transportation

services to workers, commuters, and families in the region.

The Committee expects that assessing the full impact of the hurricane will require several more weeks and, again, this hearing is

intended to give members an understanding of the current state of

affairs. Next Thursday, the Subcommittee will follow up on today’s

hearing when we will hear from State and Local transportation officials from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.

I would like to thank our witnesses, and I look forward to your

testimony. I would yield to Mr. DeFazio for any opening statement.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling

this important hearing. I think you have outlined the subject matter very ably. We need to know the extent of the damage and the

costs of repair. Hopefully, we can find ways, either within the normal processes of funding transportation infrastructure, or through

perhaps special allocations that will be part of the disaster package

to provide funds adequate to deal with these problems.

In public, there has been some discussion of how we should reopen the Highway Bill to pay for the Katrina disaster, and there

are two problems with that idea. One is that people are thinking

of spending funds far outside the area authorized by law for gas

tax dollars not directly transportation related, and I would vigorously resist that.

Secondly, since the bill we passed, although much better than

where we were a year ago, in the end is a good bill, but it wasn’t

a great bill for America. We are still going to lose ground over the

next four years in terms of meeting the needs for congestion mitigation, management, growth, and the existing infrastructure maintenance, let alone deal with other problems that might crop up.

The funds there already were inadequate.

So my hope here is we will make a strong case that this was an

extraordinary event and that the transportation related repairs

should come out of the other disaster funds which Congress is

going to appropriate in the coming months.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
3

Any opening statements, Mr. Blumenauer?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your focusing in

on this. I find that in various subcommittees today I have been

spending most of my time on this subject, and I think it is appropriate that we do so. In addition to finding out what the situation

is now, learning from our witnesses about the extent of the activities, their progress to date and there certainly have been already

some success stories that I think have potential lessons for us to

learn about the longer term prospects for contracting in this area,

I am hopeful that you, Mr. Chairman, our Ranking Member, can

work with the other two Subcommittees that have been aggressively moving in this area on the Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee to advance some suggestions about making the contracting process more results-driven, increasing confidence in its

transparency and effectiveness of the hundreds of millions of dollars of contracts that are going to be let. We are burning through

$14 million dollars an hour that we are spending now.

There may be some lessons to be learned about some experience

that we have had in the transportation arena already that has

been very results-driven and that has raised the confidence level.

But I hope that we can think about longer term principles if we

are going to be dealing with massive reconstruction and major investment: some principles that we might be able to promulgate

with this Committee with the help of our witnesses here today

about how that money is spent and where it is spent.

I am hopeful that at some point we may get a little feedback

about my, I confess, parochial interest; it is very narrow. You alluded to the problems with part of the streetcar system. The St.

Charles Line is the oldest continuously operating streetcar in

America. I think it dates back to 1835 when it was drawn by

mules. There is tremendous opportunity based on some of the work

that this Subcommittee did with the Small Starts Provision and

looking at a very cost effective approach to streetcars, something

may be done in New Orleans to build on the reconstruction of this

historic system that could dramatically accelerate, in a very cost effective manner, the reconstruction of historic New Orleans in a

very safe and conscientious fashion.

So at some point, Mr. Chairman, I will probably be lobbying you

and our colleagues to maybe look at some applications there that,

for a relatively small sum of money, might have a very dramatic

impact on that community and serve as a model for our Small

Starts Legislation that might help with the other 82 communities

around the country that want streetcars.

Thank you for your indulgence.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Now, we will turn to our panel which consists of Richard Capka, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration and Susan Schruth, the Associate Administrator, Federal Transit Administration. Sir, would you care to begin?
4

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE J. RICHARD CAPKA, ACTING

ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION;

SUSAN E. SCHRUTH, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL

TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF TRANSPORTATION

Mr. CAPKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. DeFazio, members.

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss Federal Highway’s response

to Hurricane Katrina, and I would like to ask that my full statement be made part of the record for this hearing.

Mr. PETRI. Without objection, it will be.

Mr. CAPKA. Thank you, sir. First, I would like to offer my sympathy to all of those affected by the recent hurricanes and assure

you that Federal Highways is committed to expediting recovery in

the devastated areas. We work closely with the State and Local officials before, during, and we continue to do so.

In discussing our response, it is important to note that through

our day to day mission activities, our permanent Federal Highway

Division office staff has developed firsthand knowledge of their respective States and strong professional and personal relationships

with the State and Local highway officials. This provides an excellent foundation for an effective, coordinated, and rapid response.

As soon as we could reenter the affected areas, Federal Highway

sent in personnel, including staff from outside the affected areas to

work alongside State and Local officials to help assess the damage

and to facilitate response and recovery efforts. I visited the areas

with Louisiana Secretary of Transportation, Johnny Bradberry;

Mississippi Department of Transportation’s Executive Director,

Butch Brown; and Mississippi Highway Commission Chairman,

Wayne Brown.

While TV coverage, and aerial surveys, and photos of bridge and

roadway damage along I-10, U.S. 90, and other areas certainly tell

the story of Katrina’s force, they couldn’t convey the full impact of

the devastation that I witnessed. I must express my admiration for

the State and Local highway department and road crews. Despite

the fact that many of them suffered great personal loss along with

their community neighbors, these dedicated crews began clearing

debris including downed trees and power lines from highways and

bridges as soon as it was safe to do so.

Consequently, in less than a day, the States had removed debris

from their Federal aid highways to enable ready access for the first

responders.

Federal Highway employees worked shoulder to shoulder with

State highway officials to rapidly assess the damage and to shape

strategies that would provide the most efficient and effective response. We facilitated getting Mississippi and Louisiana officials

together with the Florida experts who had experience with Hurricane Ivan last year to shape strategies required to address the

bridge damage suffered along Interstate 10 and U.S. Highway 90.

We also worked with the States to expedite procedures to get

contracts underway with repairs. Incentives had been used effectively to ensure quick restoration of lost essential service. For example, Mississippi awarded a $5.2 million contract to repair one of

the highest priority roads in the region, the I-10 bridge at
5

Pascagoula, and included not only incentive if work is to be completed in less than the 31 days but also a corresponding penalty

for finishing late. I am pleased to report that this bridge reopened

on October 1st, almost 10 days ahead of schedule.

Louisiana has used a similar technique to restore initial service

across the I-10 bridge at Slidell. The first phase of the I-10 repair,

to reopen one of the two heavily damaged spans to two-way traffic,

was completed this past week on October 14th, 16 days ahead of

schedule. We strongly support these incentivized contracts, and we

will continue to coordinate and synchronize our efforts with our

other Federal agencies, and will continue to work closely with State

and Local Governments to help restore the Gulf Coast as quickly

as possible.

Finally, I would like to note that Federal Highway administers

the Emergency Relief Program which provides reimbursement to

States for expenses related to highway infrastructure damage associated with natural disasters and other emergency situations. To

date, Federal Highways has provided $10 million dollars in quick

release emergency relief funds to Louisiana and Mississippi.

While quick response is important, we are also mindful that financial accountability is also important. Federal Highways has

taken specific steps to effectively manage expenditures relating to

Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts. We will ensure that these

funds are spent wisely and that emergency relief projects comply

with the Federal requirements.

Mr. Chairman, members, thank you for opportunity to testify,

and I will be pleased to answer the questions that you may have.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you very much. Ms. Schruth?

Ms. SCHRUTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. DeFazio, members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify

today on behalf of the Federal Transit Administration regarding

FTA’s activities and progress in the Gulf Region affected by Hurricane Katrina.

The weekend of August 27th, our Nation watched with growing

concern as Hurricane Katrina strengthened across the Gulf. In her

aftermath, FTA’s response has been focused, aggressive, and ambitious. Public transportation is a lifeline for countless Americans.

From the start of the response effort, FTA has been providing onsite and hands-on technical assistance to transit agencies.

As we move forward, we are dealing with two separate but related crises. First, we need to restore service in communities devastated by Hurricane Katrina, and clearly the most significant

damage was realized by New Orleans and the Gulf Coast in Mississippi. But second, we need to expand service in communities

such as Baton Rouge and smaller rural areas that have seen their

populations increase overnight, in the case of Baton Rouge doubling overnight, because of the influx of evacuees.

In the first days after landfall, FTA coordinated with transit

agencies unaffected by the disaster and with our industry partners

to provide buses, equipment, and personnel for the immediate response. Within the first week, FTA delivered vital information into

the hands of our grantees, including how to contact local FEMA officials by state and information about how to access information

concerning financial assistance.
6

FTA detailed over 20 staff and 7 contractor teams to disaster

areas across the affected region to help local transit authorities reestablish transit service and to support the recovery effort. Within

two weeks, FTA announced it would allow transit agencies affected

by the hurricane to make use of Federal funds to buy supplies, repair equipment, or begin reconstruction without immediately having to provide local matching funds.

The Mississippi Department of Transportation became the first agency to benefit from this action, with a $6.1 million formula

grant. These funds will be used to benefit 22 transit bus operators

to buy new vehicles, pay salaries, or provide other necessities that

will help restore service. We have worked to secure a $47 million mission assignment with

FEMA for emergency relief funds for transit services in New Orleans and Baton Rouge for a period of six months. We worked to secure two 60-day mission assignments from FEMA for emergency

transit in six Mississippi Gulf counties, first for $1.4 million for

Coast Transit and the three counties it serves, and second for a

$492,000 mission assignment which will be administered by the

State of Mississippi for three rural counties north of the coast.

These emergency funds will give residents the mobility and freedom to go grocery shopping, apply for social services, or such basic

things as keeping appointments with doctors.

These are small steps but necessary steps in the reestablishment

of normal daily routines. I want to underscore the importance of

these funds for rural communities throughout the entire region affected by the disaster. Small transit agencies, nonprofit providers,

and many rural areas in the Gulf Region have seen demand increase dramatically as thousands of evacuees have joined their

communities, but they often do not have the excess operating capacity to meet that demand.

We are pleased that over 60 larger transit systems are providing

free transit passes to evacuees who have been relocated to their cities. This is not the case in the rural areas where sometimes there

is no public transportation or very small transit systems.

Our priorities for the coming months include: to carry out the

FEMA mission assignments which we have received; to work with

the Gulf States and FEMA to fund additional mission assignments

so that we may provide transit service in areas that have these relocations of evacuees; we are working to help transit agencies secure FEMA public assistance funds which will pay for reconstruction and replacement of damaged vehicles, facilities, and systems;

and we will continue our onsite technical assistance with contractor

support to the entire Gulf Region.

Finally, we will actively support the local planning process as

communities invite us to do so to ensure that transportation options are integral considerations in the future planning for the cities in the region.

As with any natural disaster, Hurricane Katrina challenged us

as public servants to deploy the substantial resources of the Federal Government in a way that works for local communities as they

strive to rebuild. Mr. Chairman, in the seven weeks since Katrina

made landfall, FTA has met this challenge, and we will continue

to do so in the coming months.
7

Thank you very much for this opportunity, and I am happy to

answer any questions.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr DeFazio, any questions? Would you care to start?

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Capka, I would just

like to get into the emergency funds: what is available; what has

been spent; and the sourcing of the funds, whether we are talking

about the emergency funds under the trust fund section or whether

we are looking at FEMA general funds for some of these emergency

funds; some of the funds you talked about that have been used for

the bridge repair and that. Is there a split, or where are they coming from?

Mr. CAPKA. Well, sir, the funds that are being used on the Federal Aid Highway System are Federal aid dollars that come

through the trust fund. Specifically responding to the damages associated with the hurricanes, those funds would be out of our

Emergency Relief Program, our emergency relief funds. We don’t

manage or we don’t pass through FEMA dollars in our Emergency

Relief Program.

We work carefully with FEMA to ensure that we have defined

the damage that is eligible under emergency relief and then damages that would have to be picked up by FEMA. So if it is on a

Federal Aid Highway road system, then it would be emergency relief. If it is off-system, then it would be up to FEMA to provide the

funding.

Mr. DEFAZIO. What about debris removal from the Federal System, is that FEMA’s responsibility or your responsibility?

Mr. CAPKA. Debris removal from the Federal Highway System

would be the emergency relief. It would be Federal Highway funds

to do that.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. My understanding is, as I recall during the

deliberations over SAFETEA-LU, there was some discussion of

oversubscription of these emergency funds in past years.

Mr. CAPKA. Yes, sir. As you are aware, we have on the first of

October of every year, we are given another $100 million to add to

the Emergency Relief Program. Our backlog to date of all the unpaid claims against emergency relief is about $610 million. So

there is a backlog.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Let me see if I understand this. So if there is a

backlog of $610 million, but we are currently expending funds, so

are we putting the Katrina work first in line and they are getting

direct reimbursement, or are they just getting credited for potential

future reimbursement when there are funds, and it is being spent

out of the State allocation?

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, the latter is more accurate than the former.

However, in every year we set aside a small amount of money, relatively speaking, of the $100 million to be available for immediate

release in the event of a major catastrophe.

This year, we provided $5 million to Louisiana and $5 million to

Mississippi, certainly a small down payment on a very large

amount of repair work that needs to be done. The balance of the

program is generally allocated to the States that have the backlog

claims against the account in a prorated share.
8

So in answer to your question, Mississippi and Louisiana have

had to use other funds to accomplish some of this work with the

promise of being reimbursed at some time in the future.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. What about when there is, say, an upgrade

involved? Sometimes if you had a bridge that was pretty well decimated that was substandard or obsolete, obsolescent, it would not

necessarily make sense to rebuild it in the same configuration.

How would that be apportioned as an obligation against future

emergency funds versus the State’s regular allocation?

Mr. CAPKA. Yes, sir, there may be cost sharing involved with respect to betterments. But in answering to your question about

some of the bridges, the first decision we have to reach with respect to emergency relief eligibility is whether the bridge, as an example, would be repaired in kind to pre-Katrina condition or replaced in kind to pre-Katrina conditions.

And we have to do an analysis of the difference between repair

versus replace, much like an insurance adjuster would do in totaling a car as an example. And if the repair cost approaches that of

replacement, then we would allow the State to replace the bridge

using ER money.

Now, once that decision—

Mr. DEFAZIO. But if it was an upgrade on the replacement, that

would be different?

Mr. CAPKA. Absolutely, yes, sir. Now, if it is eligible for replacement, the bridge would then be replaced to a standard that reflects

the current view, the current forecast of traffic requirements, loading requirements, the best of the design criteria that we are aware

of today. So we would allow the full upgrade of the bridge, using

the emergency relief funding.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Really?

Mr. CAPKA. If it is beyond current traffic projections.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right.

Mr. CAPKA. If a traffic projection called for a four lane bridge, but

they wanted to, the State wanted to go to six lanes, if that six lanes

was not justified by traffic forecast, it would a betterment to be

borne by the State and other funds.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. I assume that the Davis Bacon Waiver promulgated by the President applies also to these projects?

Mr. CAPKA. It does, sir.

Mr. DEFAZIO. I asked this question of the FEMA IG. I asked if

the FEMA IG could quantify cost savings, since here we have contracts that are being let on an extraordinary basis with large incentives for prompt completion. I don’t know how those estimates are

set to say that it would really take 30 days to reopen fully two-way

traffic on one bridge with unlimited lanes versus 20 days, who

makes those estimates and determines how big those rewards are

for early completion?

And I hope that is all done very carefully, so this doesn’t provide

a windfall when it could have readily been done in 20 days no matter what. Secondly, the IG from FEMA could not quantify and will

be looking at the no-bid contracts that are being let to see whether

or not we just end up with excess profit-taking as opposed to any

savings to the taxpayers from the suspension of Davis Bacon to

have people work at less than living wages.
9

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, in answer to and in response to your first comment about the --

Mr. DEFAZIO. Timelines.

Mr. CAPKA.—the contracts with incentives and whether or not

the estimates of time to complete reflect accurately the incentives

that are provided, I would like to comment by saying that these

contracts where we have had incentives were competed contracts.

And so the various contractors who bid on this work understood

the risks and the benefits going in, and our assumption is that is

reflected in the bid.

Mr. DEFAZIO. You can bid certainly on costs, but I am wondering

if they just said: There it is. We want it open as soon as possible.

Give us a bid and a number of days it will take you to do that bid.

As opposed to: We think it is going to take 30 days. You give us

a bid for doing it in 30 days, but if you can do it—do you know

what I am saying?

It seems like you might want to include both variables in a bid

and say: Okay, we want it done as cost effectively as possible, as

quickly as possible. Now, go out and give us a bid.

Mr. CAPKA. What we did, as an example, on the Slidell Twin

Span Bridge in Louisiana, the requirement was to restore two

lanes of traffic, one span in 45 days. That was the requirement

from the Louisiana Department of Transportation. The contract

also specified if you can do it sooner, we will give you $75,000 a

day to do it sooner. There is also a penalty if you take longer, and

a maximum of 15 days worth of incentive.

So if they finished in 16 days, which they did, they only got 15

days worth of incentive. So there were some boundaries put on the

incentive. That was known to all four. I believe there were four bidders on that contract. That was known to all four.

So when they submitted their bids, they understood how quickly

they could do it, what kind of equipment, what kind of hours they

would need to work, and that was all kind of cranked into the number. The lowest bid, the winning bid by Boh Brothers in Louisiana

was $31 million. Of course, they received better than $1 million in

incentives. So in effect, it was a $32 million contract to Louisiana.

The second low bid was $40 million, and you can go up higher for

the third one.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Sure. But I guess the variable here and the thing

concerning me is: Do you review? Do you have engineers from

USDOT that review the LDOT’s estimate that this Federal eligible

structure needs the 45-day window they set, whether that was reasonable? Do you know what I am saying? There are some people

that do not have a tremendous amount of confidence in some of the

Local Government down there or State Government.

Mr. CAPKA. Well, sir, what we did specifically on that particular

bridge is we brought in experts from Florida who had had similar

experience on their bridge in Escambia Bay and Pensacola. So we

brought the experts in who had firsthand experience, and we sat

them down with the officials there in Louisiana. Collectively, we

looked at—

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay, so, you are. So you are.

Mr. CAPKA. Yes.
10

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay, all right. That is good. So the second thing

is in terms of being able to apportion, calculate, or otherwise estimate what the effect of suspending Davis Bacon was on these contracts?

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, that is very difficult for me to assess at this

point.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, is there going to be a built in review process?

If we are going to do this, we ought to know whether or not it just

ends up in the contractor’s pocket or it actually saves the taxpayers

money. And if it ends up in the contractor’s pocket, even the President wouldn’t have a rationale for suspending—well, he would because they may be contributors, but otherwise he wouldn’t have a

rationale for suspending Davis Bacon.

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, I think the assurances that we have tried to

apply to the way we let contracts is to go competitive bid. Aside

from the very early emergency work that had to get done immediately, debris removal and some of that very, very early work, we

have had the Emergency Relief Program managed on a competitive

bid basis.

And so the competition among the various bidders will keep

those, the bids, low and I think that is the implied philosophy that

we are taking towards this. It will all be normalized because they

are bidding against one another, using the same labor rates that

are permissible. And so they are all on the same footing, and the

low bid will reflect the best possible price for the State and for the

Federal Government.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you.

Mr. Sodrel?

Mr. SODREL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Schruth, could you tell us which of the transit agencies were

the most affected by Katrina, and do you have cost estimates on

what it will take to make them whole, transit agency by transit

agency?

Ms. SCHRUTH. I can give you some of that information. New Orleans Transit had the most damage and partly because they were the

largest system affected by the hurricane. They had 360 buses and

approximately 60 light rail vehicles. They had over 40 paratransit

vehicles and then other support vehicles that were all under water

for a significant amount of time. They had four facilities, bus facilities and a car barn, as well as an administration facility that were

all damaged.

We had our contractors, our project management oversight contractors, engineering firms, go with NORTA to inspect their facilities. NORTA could not actually get access to their facilities until

about September 20th. We were there with them when they did

their initial inspection. We don’t have final estimates of what it

will cost. Some things will be salvageable; some things will have

to be completely replaced.

We have just decided that we also need to send a vehicle firm

down because of the undercarriage damage to buses. We are not

sure what impact that has on the whole vehicle. That was the most

significant damage. Also, obviously, the tracks can’t carry the sys-
11

tems that support the rail. I think some of the rail cars will be salvageable, but some will not. We just are not exactly sure yet.

Coast Transit also received significant damage. They had about

80 bus kiosks that were along the coast that were completely ruined. Most of their buses were damaged, and we are in the same

situation trying to figure out if they are salvageable or have to be

replaced. They had damage to their bus facility as well as their administration facility that can be repaired.

There was some damage in Miami. There was some damage in

Mobile. And then Jefferson Parish, which is the largest county next

to New Orleans, I believe lost most of its fleet which is about, I

think, 20 vehicles. So we don’t have a price yet.

Mr. SODREL. Just as a follow-up, I understand you can’t move

buildings, and I understand that you may have a limited ability to

move trolley cars, transit cars, rail equipment, but do you have any

idea why the rolling stock was not moved to higher ground when

you have several days advance notice?

You know there is a Cat 5 coming. You know your levees are

good for Cat 3. Why weren’t they moved to higher ground?

Ms. SCHRUTH. Well, I think—

Mr. SODREL. If you know.

Ms. SCHRUTH. We know that 200 of the vehicles were used by the

mayor to help evacuate folks from the City of New Orleans. And

we frankly think that New Orleans did an admirable job, to the

point that those vehicles were in service for such a long time and

so late trying to evacuate people, that the bus drivers actually had

to go to the roof of the bus facility and get rescued themselves, and

part of that was their commitment to get as many people out of the

City as they could.

The other vehicles, I don’t know. We assume that they were in

regular transit service, but at least two-thirds of them were actually being used by local officials for evacuation purposes.

Mr. SODREL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Blumenauer.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you.

I am curious about the contracting principles you had discussed

earlier with Mr. DeFazio that promote more timely performance.

To what extent are other Federal agencies in consultation with you

to talk about utilizing the same techniques to make sure that people who are providing other services and activities have contracts

that are structured similarly, that are pointed towards delivering

efficient outcomes?

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, I am not personally aware of interagency discussions of contracting techniques other than what is provided

through the FAR and the Federal Acquisition Regulations that we

do have as guidance. We also have within the Emergency Relief

Program, we have our own principles that we use when we are contracting. And so we basically followed the procedures that we had

in place.

Now, if there are some discussions in terms of lessons learned,

and certainly we had many from last year that we employed this

time around, there are many opportunities for us at those lessons

learned forums that will certainly take place to share those, the

good news and the challenges that were out there.
12

I would say we are integrating and incorporating these lessons

learned as we go along. We are not waiting until the very end. But

personally, I have not been personally involved in those kinds of

discussions with other Federal agencies.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of the notion of

lessons learned and that we are not waiting but we are trying to

incorporate it as we go along, I would hope that there may be a

way, as we are discussing with our other subcommittees a variety

of other projects and contracts, to be able to explore the extent to

which there are contracting techniques that are cost-based with incentives for performance. Hopefully, we are getting to a point now

where these are all routinely subjected to competitive bidding.

I am pleased that even though you were talking about quick

turnaround for projects that were vital to the recovery effort, they

nonetheless were subjected to perhaps truncated but nonetheless

competitive bid. I think that is an important lesson for us in terms

of being able to deliver to the taxpayer.

We are in the process of looking at billions of dollars in contracts.

We have, I think, $25 or $30 billion as yet that is unobligated. We

have authorized it, but it is not really in the pipeline. Maybe this

is something we could help with to try and zero in on how the rest

of these contracts are going to be executed, look at the good example from our friends in Transportation, and see if they could have

broader application.

My other area of inquiry deals with the extent to which facilities

that are going to be designed and relocated and that we are making sure that, again apropos to Mr. DeFazio’s point about maybe

in some cases it makes sense to upgrade or not give people the best

state of the art facility from 1956, we are paying attention to the

typography, the hydrology, the geology, so that we are not putting

things back in harm’s way, that we are looking at new standards

and new placement.

Is that part of the thinking from either of your agencies at this

point, or is that beyond the scope of what you feel you are able to

do now?

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, that is absolutely part of our looking forward

and the recovery work that we are taking, particularly the permanent repairs. Examples of the permanent repairs are the bridges at

Biloxi and Bay St. Louis. We did not have an opportunity nor the

materials to go in and do a rapid repair like we did on the Slidell

Bridge to get things just back up and running.

So the next step is to fully replace those two bridges. We have

had design conferences in Mississippi to work with the Mississippi

DOT, bringing experts in from our office in Washington to review

exactly that.

What are the new design criteria that need to be established to

ensure that we have the clear freeboard, that we won’t have storm

surge issues with bridges in the future, or what are the design adjustments that need to be made? So we are collecting that information now.

And in fact, we had this design conference in Mississippi that

will allow them to move forward in a design-build way to issue a

request for proposal before the end of this month, using those en-
13

hanced design requirements. So we are doing that with respect to

the repairs and recovery work that we are doing right now.

In addition, we are looking further. We are looking forward into

other areas that may be susceptible, may not have had a hurricane

problem this year, but what about other locations that might be

vulnerable. And so we are looking at other inventory bridges to see

where that might occur and then to look to see if there might be

a retrofit program that would be appropriate to handle those

bridges before the event occurs.

So we are trying to take these lessons learned, incorporate them

as we go along, and as importantly look to the future to where

other areas may be vulnerable and apply those as well.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you very much. I am curious, Mr.

Chairman, about taking it a step a little further in terms of the

larger environmental context. We find that there has not been the

greatest sensitivity, shall we say, to the preservation of wetlands,

the sense of how natural design can buffer the impacts of nature,

and I would be curious how far that philosophy that you articulated extends to a broader environmental sensitivity that has not

necessarily been evidenced with much of our federally financed infrastructure in the region.

Mr. CAPKA. Sir.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you.

Mr. PETRI. Representative Taylor?

Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Secretary. I

apologize for running late.

A couple of things I would like to ask you. I noted with interest

your talk of the replacement of the Biloxi and Bay St. Louis

Bridges, and I do want to thank you for what is being done, as we

speak, to get Highway 90 in Harrison County, that is the County

where Biloxi is, operable again as quickly as possible. As you note

from your visits down there, we have Highway 90 which parallels

the coast, and then you go 10 to 15 miles inland parallel to that

is I-10.

So if you happen to have lived in a place like Bay St. Louis, and

you now want to visit your neighbor three miles as the crow flies

over in Pass Christian, you have probably got off the top of my

head a 25 to 30 mile drive instead of what used to be a 2 mile

drive. Same thing on the other side, not quite as bad getting from

Ocean Springs to Biloxi but substantial.

Since a significant portion of our revenue is from tourists, gaming, casinos, and hotels, and since a significant portion of that does

come from Louisiana and New Orleans in particular, what would

be the mechanism, if any, and is there historic precedence after

other disasters of trying to apply for some sort of ferry, either car

or passenger, between Bay St. Louis and Pass Christian, between

Biloxi and Ocean Springs in the approximately two years it is going

to take to replace those bridges?

I am told that even in this design-build that we are looking at

18 months. There obviously has to be some time for the competition

to take place, and there is obviously going to be some wiggle room

on both ends of the contract. So we are looking at two years of significant inconvenience to people’s lives. Is there a precedent after

previous storms for doing that.
14

And the third thing I would ask you to look at, in addition to the

ferry service, is one of the good news stories is that the railroads,

apparently since their bridges were pre-stress and since they intend on just replacing them as they were, think they can pick up

a significant number of the sections of those bridges and just put

them back in place and have the rail line going in six months instead of two years.

Is there precedence for ever using the railroads to transport vehicles across that body of water, let them dismount, and get back on

the highway as an alternative to a passenger ferry or a car ferry?

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, with respect to your first question about ferries,

I am not aware of the precedent, but I am aware that it would be

eligible to receive Federal support from the Emergency Relief Program to work a ferry. I do know that Mississippi and Alabama

have been conferring over the possibility of Mississippi picking up

some ferries from Alabama to work that.

Mr. TAYLOR. How was that initiated? What is the process for

that?

Mr. CAPKA. The Mississippi Department of Transportation would

determine what is in the best interest from their perspective, and

then they would apply for emergency relief funding to cover the operations of a ferry.

Mr. TAYLOR. And off the top of your head, what is the reimbursement ratio on that?

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, off the top of my head, I am not quite sure, but

it would probably be cost shared 80-20 percent, more than likely,

because it is a long term operation of a ferry, but I would have to

get back with you on that specifically.

Mr. TAYLOR. Would you, please?

I know years ago the railroads were touting loading vehicles on

trains and running that train from a place like New York or D.C.

down to Florida. So obviously, that type of equipment exists. Is

there precedent for a shorter haul doing the same thing, but a

shorter haul of only a couple of miles, again getting from one side

of Bay St. Louis to the other, getting from one side of Biloxi Bay

to the other, since those bridges will be up and running as far as

rail lines, hopefully within the next six months?

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, again, I am not sure about the precedent. I am

not an expert on the rail. I do know from the discussions that Mississippi and Alabama have, or at least the deliberations in Mississippi, they are considering cycle time. How long it would take to

get cars using a ferry or in the suggestion that you have made

using some kind of rail transport, the cycle time, and then comparing it to what the detour cycle time might be. So I know that they

are trying to analyze that.

The second piece of information I think they are waiting for are

the proposals that come in from the contractors on this designbuild, to see what kind of time frames they are looking at for the

replacement of the bridges, and then I think they will have all the

information they need to make their best decision.

Mr. TAYLOR. I am a big believer in making the most of whatever

hand you are dealt, and obviously we have been dealt a pretty bad

hand.
15

One of the good things that this Committee has done in the past

couple of years is work with myself and others in passing legislation that said if a bridge is within X number of miles of a navigable

waterway, and it is going to be destroyed anyway, of making it in

the national interest that that bridge and the rubble from that

bridge be taken offshore and doing some beneficial use with it,

being the construction of a jetty, a fishing reef, estuaries, or protection of coastal marshes from erosion.

It is the law of the land. I can’t remember if we passed last session or the one before that, but it is on the books.

I would sure ask for your cooperation in the case of those two

bridges in Mississippi. I hope this is a one time, once in a lifetime

event. I hope I don’t see the next Biloxi Bridge and the next Bay

St. Louis Bridge end up like the last two. But since it is, hopefully,

a once in a lifetime event, I would sure hope that we make good

use of this and take that in the case of the Biloxi Bridge off of Deer

Island which is a State owned island near shore which has been

eroding significantly, and try to put a barrier out there to keep it

from washing away.

In the case of the Bay St. Louis Bridge, we have a precedent just

in the past couple of years of taking an interstate bridge that was

replaced. We took it offshore and made a fishing reef out of it. And

I would hope in your capacity that you would help, and cooperate,

and encourage that as well.

I just happen to have met with the head of the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources at lunch today. He is very much interested in this. In fact, he has already applied for the permits

through the Corps of Engineers. The Corps is on board. The State

is on board. I hope our Nation will be on board towards this effort

as well.

Mr. CAPKA. Yes, sir, we will ensure that the consideration is

given in the deliberations that lead up to these proposals that come

in and are affected in terms of the bridge replacements.

Mr. TAYLOR. I have got a town meeting in Biloxi Monday night,

and I am sure one of the questions is going to be how big, talking

about wide, the new bridge will be, how many lanes. I have already

been told by the Coast Guard that is going to have an 80 foot clearance vertically. Can you tell me how many lanes I can report to

these folks that you all have agreed upon for the new bridge?

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, I would like to report back to you on that. My

understanding is that at Biloxi it would be a six lane bridge, and

they are landing the bridge so that the footprint changes either on

the Ocean Springs side or the Biloxi side would be minimal. But

I would like to get back with you with the specifics on how all that

is shaping up and to confirm that it is, in fact, six lanes.

Mr. TAYLOR. Okay, and if you could provide me any additional

information. A fairly common topic in my town meetings is the

need for ferry service. It comes up, particularly in those areas fairly

often, and if I could report to them whatever progress you are making along that, I am sure they would appreciate it, and I know I

would appreciate it.

Mr. CAPKA. Yes, sir, and I will be sure to pass that on to the Mississippi Department of Transportation as well.
16

Mr. TAYLOR. I guess the very last thing I would want to mention,

and again we are very grateful for the help we are getting from you

and from all the other National agencies.

One opportunity that has recently presented itself is, as I am

sure you know, prior to the storm, the casinos by law had to float.

It is a holdover from the old days when they went from riverboats

that had to be underway, then to riverboats that were docked, to

barges that were docked, but the key word was that they had to

be over water. That law has been changed. Governor Barbour

signed that law change, I think, yesterday that allows them to

come 800 feet inland.

Before, Highway 90 did have some fairly significant bottlenecks

near the casinos for obvious reasons. You couldn’t go south because

the casino was there; you couldn’t go north because of the existing

dwellings that were there.

A lot of that landscape has changed. I do think the movement of

the casinos to the north side of the road does present some opportunities on the south side of the road to move traffic a bit more

rapidly for the people trying to make haste going from east to west

or the other way around. I would hope your engineers are keeping

that in mind for these changes so that when we rebuild Highway

90, we do it right the first time.

Mr. CAPKA. Yes, sir, the Highway 90 is being restored in phases,

and the first two phases are to do the essential repairs just to get

all four lanes open and operating. And so they are going to go back

in immediately to try to get that done as quickly as they can to

support the recovery effort.

The last phase of Highway 90 would be the complete restoration

to the appropriate standard. It would be at that time that the Mississippi Department of Transportation would then have to figure

out whether they need to do just an alignment, whether they would

need to make some other alterations in how Highway 90 was to

run between Bay St. Louis and Biloxi. At that point, I think there

will be opportunities to discuss exactly how that would occur.

Mr. TAYLOR. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for

being here, Mr. Secretary.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. DeFazio, do you have something?

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To Ms. Schruth, we had some discussion on the highway side

about emergency apportionment that we have as part of the formula even though it is oversubscribed. I understand there may be

some, and I was surprised here.

I hadn’t heard that the Transit folks had done such a great job

in evacuating, and that is heartening to hear. I assume that was

done under local authority, and I guess there is a question of

whether or not that is a reimbursable activity since they were operating outside their normal charter, is that correct?

Ms. SCHRUTH. We issued policy guidance that the emergency use

of transit vehicles was in the public interest, and we were supportive of that. It would probably be considered incidental use which

would be the typical determination we would make for the use of

transit vehicles, so.

Mr. DEFAZIO. So it would be federally eligible?

Ms. SCHRUTH. Yes.
17

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay. Do you feel that we need to look on the transit side at setting up some sort of-I don’t know where the funds will

come from. Of course, you are not providing operating dollars,

right?

Ms. SCHRUTH. We do for areas under 200,000.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay, but for New Orleans, they wouldn’t be eligible?

Ms. SCHRUTH. Right.

Mr. DEFAZIO. They could apply to FEMA, I guess, for the costs

of operating those buses to evacuate people, is that correct?

Ms. SCHRUTH. Yes, at DOT or ESF-#1, Emergency Support Function 1, which is the Department of Transportation. We receive the

mission assignment from FEMA. So we are actually the contracting

agency with NORTA who will provide service in both Baton Rouge

and in New Orleans. It is FEMA Funds, and it is FEMA. It is a

Stafford Act Program.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, that is what you are talking about, the restoration. I am talking about the actual evacuation costs and those

sorts of things in the future. I am trying to get at the point of

whether there is any impediment here. We don’t ever want a local

jurisdiction to hesitate to use whatever resources they have to get

out of harm’s way because they are worried what it costs.

Ms. SCHRUTH. We can make that clearer. I think we have sponsored drills and have paid for about 90 of them around the Country, specifically to get transit at the table so that they are part of

the evacuation process.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Okay, that is good. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Just a few final questions.

We are having next week a panel of State and Local transportation officials from the affected areas. You both had experience in

dealing with a variety. This is not the only disaster, unfortunately,

that we have encountered, and you coordinated transit things in response to 9/11 at the Federal level in Manhattan for some time.

Could you characterize at all the level of cooperation that you are

getting between Federal and State officials in dealing with the

transportation issues to maximize return of service?

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, I will take the first stab at your question and

then pass it on to my transit colleague here. I think the cooperation

communications have been excellent between our Federal Highway

Division Offices that exist in each State and their counterpart

State agencies.

Are there disagreements? There are always disagreements as we

go forward, but the communications are there so that we are constantly looking at the challenge ahead and focused on meeting the

requirements. I would say it is reflective, I think, of the fact that

we do have a division, a Federal Highway Division Office in each

State.

So when the emergencies occur, the players know one another,

and it is not a pickup team going after the task at hand. Unprecedented challenge with respect to the damage that we have seen

here, and the widespread damage, and the type of damage. The

flooding in New Orleans really did close access to a lot of the highway systems just because it was underwater, and we certainly had
18

to wait for that to abate. In Mississippi, just the widespread devastation. And so cooperating with the State agencies was absolutely

essential, and I thought was done very well.

Ms. SCHRUTH. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think one of the positives

that comes out of emergency situations is the focus on getting the

job done, and I would say that was true in New York. I was lucky

enough to be in Atlanta during the Olympics when we brought

1,400 transit buses in.

And I would say the same here, that there is tremendous cooperation. FTA works extensively with FEMA in providing funding

for the transit assistance, and I think we have found FEMA to be

responsive. We don’t always agree. They are the experts on the

Stafford Act. So they have had to educate us a little bit.

But I think that we have been on the ground. We don’t have division offices as Federal Highway does, but we were able to deploy

staff rapidly and have them in place, and we do have strong partnerships with the State DOTs as well as the major transit systems.

So I think it has worked very well. I think it is staff-intensive but

has, I think, paid off to the benefit of the communities affected.

Mr. PETRI. I don’t know if you can respond to this with much

precision, but if you can just give us a rough idea, too. When an

emergency like this happens, there is clearly an initial phase where

nothing is happening, that the roads can’t be used and so on. Then

there is a period when emergency service has been restored, but

you are not back to normal. And then, you are back to normal.

Where are we in this? I assume that we are somewhere in the

emergency service has been restored. Basically, is the area open to

travel, even if inconvenient, now throughout the region.

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, I would say we have restored the essential traffic. If you were to look at the traffic even now backing up, waiting

to cross the I-10 Bridge at Slidell, both going in and out of the New

Orleans area, there is a lot of congestion as recovery traffic is going

in and out.

So we are nowhere near being back to normal, but we have

opened up Interstate 10 so that traffic can traverse. We are in a

position by the end of the month where Highway 90, with the exception of one bridge at Henderson Curve, will be open for traffic,

one lane each direction to support the return of residents and the

recovery efforts that would need to take place.

The major pieces of infrastructure are functioning now. It will

take a while before they are back to normal just because of the

length of time it is going to take to restore bridges, something as

significant as the Slidell Bridge, the Twin Span.

There also, the final work won’t be done on roads until recovery

is practically complete. Because of the construction loading on

these roads, there is going to be collateral damage. So one of the

reasons why we determined that phasing the recovery of Highway

90 was a reflection of the fact that we knew that the heavy traffic

was going to cause some damage.

So we decided to wait for the ultimate permanent repair at the

end of the recovery effort. As we are phasing, the short answer to

your question is we are still in the minimum operation. We are recovering, but I think we have restored the essential service.
19

Ms. SCHRUTH. I think from the transit perspective, Mr. Chairman, we have some areas of the Southeast which would still be in

a disaster state, and part of that is because evacuees who had mobility in New Orleans have been relocated to areas that have no

public transportation, and a lot of these folks came without any

kind of their own transportation. That is a problem area that we

are still working on.

Obviously, the most significant example of that is Baton Rouge,

and FEMA has supported a six month increased transit service in

the Baton Rouge area. They are doubling the number of vehicles

in their fleet. They have about quadruple the demand on their system that was there the day before Hurricane Katrina struck.

I think along the Gulf Coast, the system will come back more

rapidly than in New Orleans. The service that is being provided

right now with FEMA assistance is different service than what existed there before, but it is actually serving the needs of evacuees

and residents. A lot of the roads were damaged.

So their previous routes aren’t really passable at the moment,

but that will be a shorter term solution. And then, obviously, New

Orleans where you have major systems destroyed, major assets

having to be replaced, that will be a much longer term resolution

and will somewhat be determined by how New Orleans decides to

rebuild itself.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Boozman?

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize that I was

late and didn’t get to hear the majority of the testimony. I was in

a markup in another committee concerning our veterans.

But as I go home and, in fact, I was in an earlier meeting today

concerning the Corps’ efforts with Katrina and things. I hear about

gasoline prices. I hear about health care. But right up there at the

top is a real concern in my District, and I think a real concern on

the part of Congress and the American people that the funds that

we have allocated in going down for relief are going as they need

to be gotten to, spent in the correct way.

Can you talk to us a little bit and reassure us some of the mechanisms that maybe we can have even greater transparency in those

dealings than we normally have; some of the things that we are

going to be doing to reassure us as a Committee, reassure my constituents, reassure the American people that those funds are going

to be spent in the correct way; and maybe some of the things that

you are going to institute to make sure that we have a mechanism?

We are talking about a lot of money.

Like I say, I know that the Committee, and I know that my constituents are very concerned that we do have good oversight and

that you have got a plan in place to make sure that that money

goes where it is supposed to go.

Mr. CAPKA. Yes, sir, I would like to take the first opportunity to

respond. First of all, from the Department level, the Secretary has

made it clear to all of us that the management of the fiscal resources that we are given is top priority, and he has established

a team headed up by our Department’s Chief Financial Officer to

oversee the expenditure of resources across the Department.

So the emphasis has been placed by Secretary Mineta. Specifically, within Federal Highways, we are also very cognizant of the
20

responsibilities that we have to be good stewards of the Federal

dollars over which we have control and have oversight.

The first thing we do is to identify, for an example with our

emergency relief funding that we will be managing, and is to ensure that the money is being spent on eligible work. That is the

first criteria because there is a lot of good things out there that

could use money, but we need to make sure it fits the requirement

for being eligible.

And then secondly, we have controls in place where the actual

disbursements are not made on the emergency relief until we have

legitimate bills that need to be paid. So the money isn’t paid up

front. The money is disbursed as the expenses are incurred.

Secondly, in the contracting mechanisms that we are using, we

very much focus on the competitive bid process to ensure that the

work to be done is given an opportunity to see the best and the

most efficient way of expending dollars. And so we focused on ensuring that the competitive bid—once we were out of the absolute,

out of the starting block kind of requirements of getting debris out

of the way, we settled down to the competitive bid process. That

is another technique to ensure that the process itself yields the

most efficient use of the Federal dollars that we do have, sir.

Ms. SCHRUTH. We are currently administering $48.5 million of

FEMA funds through contracts with local transit agencies and the

Mississippi State DOT. We have an existing oversight program

which we are tailoring to these situations. We have staff currently

detailed to the regions. So we have an onsite presence, both for

Mississippi and in Louisiana are certified contract administrators.

We have major engineering firms that we have under contract also

present in the region.

So I think we are providing a higher level of oversight than we

typically would. And the IG is married to us, apparently. They

have spent a week there already just wanting to see what we think

we are going to be doing. So I think, as Administrator Capka said,

this is a high priority for us, that we know that we are spending

the taxpayers’ dollars, and we will do everything we can to make

sure it is spent well.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Again, thank you very much. I really do appreciate your hard work, and I know that you are doing your very

best. This is a difficult situation. So thank you very much.

Mr. CAPKA. Thank you, sir.

Mr. PETRI. One last question, you may have covered this but just

again. Do you have an estimate, Mr. Capka, as to the total cost of

the hurricane damage in the transportation area in the Gulf Region and what the Federal cost or percentage of that cost will be?

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, I can’t give you a final cost this afternoon just

because it is a moving target, and we are doing some evaluations.

But to give you an idea of what the States have requested, and of

course we have to go through the process that I just described just

a short minute ago about determining eligibility: Louisiana has requested $1.5 billion in emergency relief support. Mississippi has requested on the order of $700 million in terms

of Federal, and that is all 100 percent Federal. Alabama has been

around less than $25 million, and I would say Florida less than

$100 million as a result of what occurred over in their area. That
21

is what they have requested. We are in the process of going

through those in detail and ensuring, first of all, that they meet

the criteria for the Emergency Relief Program, and then secondly,

to ensure that our estimates and their estimates are on track.

So we are in the process of doing that internally, and we should

have something that we will be happy to work with you here in the

very short future.

Mr. PETRI. Yes?

Ms. SCHRUTH. The infrastructure replacement for our transit will

be paid for by FEMA under the Stafford Act. And so we are working with the transit agencies to develop applications for public assistance, and we do have our contractors down, making estimates

just so we can be aware of what we think that will be and to help

them put these packages together.

But I know New Orleans has not submitted an application yet.

I think that Coast Transit has had preliminary conversations with

FEMA, and we have been there, but I don’t really know the final

figure.

Mr. PETRI. Just a follow-up, could you give us a feeling? You

mentioned the numbers they had requested and said, obviously,

you have to trust, or verify, or whatever the phrase is, to check it

out and make sure that it is, in fact, necessary and related to what

happened.

Can you give us a feeling? This isn’t the first disaster. These

sorts of requests must have been dealt with on many occasions in

the past. Do you have a range? Are they almost always fully granted, or is it cut back by a third or half, or is it just all over the field?

Mr. CAPKA. Sir, I can maybe walk you through the process that

we use. I can’t give you a percentage of what I think our estimate

of the emergency relief requirement will be. But as an example, a

big question is: Do we use emergency relief money to replace and

rebuild the new Slidell I-10 Bridge, or is that going to be a mix of

emergency relief, and state, and other dollars to do that? We need

to get the engineering reports in on the condition of the bridge so

we know what the repair requirement is, and we are working this

with Louisiana.

While they have assumed that the bridge needs to be replaced,

we need to again, as you pointed out, verify that that is an appropriate thing for the Emergency Relief Program. It is certainly appropriate from what the bridge requirements are but specifically on

the Emergency Relief Program. And I would say there are some

other estimates, too, that are out there of damage that are being

anticipated as opposed to damage that exists.

In terms of inundated roads that have been under water for

quite some time, the questions are: Is the base course, the foundation for the road damaged to the point where it needs to be replaced, or will the roads dry out and be fine?

So there are those kinds of issues that make it extremely difficult

for us at this point to converge on a number today. We are working

very hard to do this, but those are the kinds of issues that are out

there, and some issues we have absolutely no difference with the

States. Working shoulder to shoulder with them, we are able to

work through those. But there are some other items that we do

need further analysis on.
22

Mr. PETRI. Thank you both very much. I appreciate your willingness to be here and your testimony today. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32Æ