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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–228PDF 2014

S. HRG. 112–823 

IMPROVING AND REFORMING OUR NATION’S SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS TO SUPPORT JOB CREATION AND THE ECONOMY 

JOINT FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

AND THE

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 23, 2011 

Serial No. 112–9 

Printed for the use of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gpo.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

FEBRUARY 23, 2011 

Mica, Hon. John L., U.S. Representative from the State of Florida ................... 1 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 2 

Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., U.S. Representative from the State of California ... 5 

Hunter, Hon. Duncan, U.S. Representative from the State of California .......... 5 

Brown, Hon. Corrine, U.S. Representative from the State of Florida ................. 6 

Shuster, Hon. Bill, U.S. Representative from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ...................................................................................................................... 7 

Richardson, Hon. Laura, U.S. Representative from the State of California ....... 8 

Harman, Hon. Jane, U.S. Representative from the State of California .............. 9 

Chu, Hon. Judy, U.S. Representative from the State of California .................... 10 

Waxman, Hon. Henry A., U.S. Representative from the State of California, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 113 

WITNESSES 

Knabe, Hon. Don, chairman, Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority; and Los Angeles County Supervisor, 4th District, County of Los 

Angeles .................................................................................................................. 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Villaraigosa, Hon. Antonio R., mayor, City of Los Angeles .................................. 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Czyzyk, Joseph A., chair, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce .................. 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

Hunter, Robbie, council representative, Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building 

& Construction Trades Council ........................................................................... 32 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

McKim, Cindy, director, California Department of Transportation 

(CALTRANS) ........................................................................................................ 36 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Phillips, Kathryn, director, California Transportation and Air Initiative, Environmental Defense Fund ..................................................................................... 43 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

Kempton, Will, CEO, Orange County Transportation Authority ........................ 55 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57 

Summary of Goals and Projects, December 20, 2010 .................................... 63 

Heminger, Steve, executive director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission ........................................................................................................................ 67

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 69 

Report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study 

Commission, January 2008 .......................................................................... 74 

Mayer, Anne, executive director, Riverside County Transportation Commission ........................................................................................................................ 82

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 84 

Brochure, The 91 Project ................................................................................. 88 

Statements: 

Brummett, Ronald E., executive director, Kern Council of Governments ... 115 

Pringle, Curt, chairman, California High-Speed Rail Authority .................. 120 

Pulaski, Art, executive secretary-treasurer, California Labor Federation .. 123 

Knabe, Don, chairman, Metropolitan Transportation Authority .................. 125 

Leslie, Mary, president, Los Angeles Business Council ................................ 126 

Hale, Debra L., executive director, Transportation Agency for Monterey 

County, CA; chair, American Public Works Association (APWA) ............. 143 
Page

IV 

—Continued 

Lowenthal, Bonnie, chair, Assembly Committee on Transportation ............ 150 

Rafter, Tracy, CEO, Rafter Group, Inc., Los Angeles County Business 

Federation (BizFed) ...................................................................................... 152 

Foster, David, executive director, BlueGreen Alliances ................................ 155 

Partners, BlueGreen Alliance .......................................................................... 156 

Mayer, Anne, executive director, Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), articles ........................................................................... 157–160 

Krause, Daniel, executive director; Stern, Ryan, board member; Gimbel, 

Michael, member, Californians for High-Speed Rail ................................. 161 

Ham, Robert E., director of Intergovernmental Relations, County of Imperial, CA .......................................................................................................... 164 

McKim, Cindy, director, Department of Transportation, State of California .......................................................................................................... 165–175 

Burns, Michael T., general manager, Santa Clara Valley Transportation 

Authority .................................................................................................... 176–189 

Dillard, Joyce .................................................................................................... 190 

Styers, Paul, Con-way Freight ........................................................................ 193 

Phillips, Kathryn, director, CA Transportation and Air Initiative, Environmental Defense Fund .............................................................................. 194 

Various transportation members and supporters, February 11, 

2011 ............................................................................................................ 198–203 

Okerblom, Eilene, Santa Maria, CA ............................................................... 204 

Tietz, Tom, executive director, California Nevada Cement Association.............................................................................................................. 206–208 

Vandermost, Phil, vice president of Marketing & Government Relations 

(on behalf of FP2, Inc.) .................................................................................. 209 

Lodge, Steve Chavez, director of Public Affairs, Hill International ............. 213 

Garcia, Rodrigo, vice president, Associated Professionals and Contractors 

(APAC); chairman of the board, Hispanic Engineers Business Corporation (HEBC) ............................................................................................... 214–216 

Hubsmith, Deborah A., director, Safe Routes to School National Partnership ................................................................................................................. 217 

Mejia, Genaro, PE, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) ................ 219 

Gosnell, Jim, executive director, West Coast Corridor Coalition ................. 221 

Fox, Andrew, P., mayor, City of Thousand Oaks, CA ................................... 223 

Wang, Karin, vice president, Programs & Communications, Asian Pacific 

American Legal Center; Porchas, Francisca, lead organizer, Labor/Community Strategy Center and Bus Riders Union; Walton, Gloria, executive director, Strategic Concepts in Organizing & Policy Education 

(S.C.O.P.E.); Henderson, Wade, president and CEO; and Blackwell, 

Angela Glover, founder and CEO, PolicyLink ............................................ 227 

O’Sullivan, Terence M., general president, Laborers International Union 

of North America ........................................................................................... 233 

Lantz, Alexis, planning and policy director, Los Angeles County Bicycle 

Coalition ......................................................................................................... 237 

Natural Resources Defense Council ................................................................ 240 

Rothman, Roland (Rolly), Rothman Engineering, Inc., Professional Engineers in California Government .................................................................. 245 

Cohen, Laura, western regional director, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy ....... 249 

Gallegos, Gary L., executive director, San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) .......................................................................................... 251 

Kemp, Jim, executive director, Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) ....................................................................................... 260 

Diaz, Cesar, legislative director, State Building and Construction Trades 

Council of California ..................................................................................... 262 

Greenwald, Peter, senior policy advisor, South Coast Air Quality Management District ................................................................................................. 264 

Mesnikoff, Ann, director, Green Transportation Campaign, Sierra Club .... 268 

St. Amant, David, president and chief operating officer, Econolite Group, 

Inc. ................................................................................................................. 272 

The Labor/Community Strategy Center and the Bus Riders Union ............ 275 

Giuliano, Genevieve, Ph.D., vice president, Research Education and 

Training Reauthorization Coalition (RETRC) ............................................ 279 

Friedrich, Tami, board member, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways 

(CRASH) and California volunteer coordinator, Truck Safety Coalition . 282 

Knatz, Geraldine, executive director, The Port of Los Angeles .................... 286 
Page

V 

—Continued 

Lindsay, Betsy A., president/CEO, UltraSystems Environmental ............... 295 

Goldsmith, Russell, chairman, The Los Angeles Coalition ........................... 298 

Spohn, Hon. Tim, city council member, City of Industry, California, and 

chairman, board of directors, Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority ............................................................................................................ 301 

(1) 

IMPROVING AND REFORMING OUR NATION’S 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS TO 

SUPPORT JOB CREATION AND THE ECONOMY 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Los Angeles, CA. 

The committees met, pursuant to notice, at 8.35 a.m. at the 

Brentwood Theater, 11301 Wilshire Boulevard, Hon. John L. Mica 

(chairman of the House, Committee on Transporation and Infrastructure) and Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of the Senate, Committee on Environment and Public Works) presiding. 

Representatives present: Representatives Mica, Shuster, Brown, 

Napolitano, and Richardson. 

Other Representatives present: Representatives Harman, 

Hunter, and Chu. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN L. MICA, U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Mr. MICA. Good morning. I would like to welcome you to a joint 

hearing today of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. 

Senate. The committee in the House is the House Transportation 

and Infrastructure Committee; in the Senate, the Environment and 

Public Works Committee. This is a meeting of two full committees 

of Congress and a bicameral, bipartisan hearing. 

So with that, I would like to welcome you, get everyone settled 

here, our witnesses, and Members of Congress. 

I am Congressman John Mica and I chair the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. 

There are a few more folks coming in here. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to take testimony and listen to 

public comments relating to major transportation legislation, reauthorization that will be considered by both the House and Senate 

shortly. 

Let me first say thank you so much to my co-partner in this endeavor. We both have important responsibilities and I have already 

had the pleasure of working with your U.S. Senator who chairs the 

counterpart committee in the U.S. Senate. She has been absolutely 

delightful to work with and most cooperative in this new enterprise 

of the House and Senate working in an unprecedented fashion. So 
2 

I thank her. I am pleased to be in her State. Let me yield to her 

first. 

The order of business will be after hearing from your Senator 

and my co-partner, I will introduce the members for a brief opening 

statement that have joined us today, and Ms. Boxer will recognize 

the witnesses that we have before us. 

So with that, thank you again for hosting us here today and for 

this unprecedented joint House/Senate hearing. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF CALIFORINIA 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Chairman Mica. It is indeed 

a pleasure to welcome you to California. The chairman was saying 

he got stuck in some traffic since he has been here, and I said, welcome to California, to Los Angeles. That is why we are so happy 

to have you here. We did not set that up. We get this at every 

hour. The other day I said, well, why is it so crowded? It is 2 

o’clock. We realized 2 o’clock, 3 o’clock, 1 o’clock—we have work to 

do when it comes to moving people efficiently. That is what, of 

course, brings us together. 

I want to thank all the other Members of the House who are 

here. We are so thrilled to have you and all the witnesses. It is a 

wonderful witness list. It shows how unified we are on this issue 

of a robust transportation bill. 

I know you are going to hear from Congresswoman Harman. This 

is maybe her last official bit of responsibility as she moves on to 

other challenges. But, Jane, I will miss you and I welcome you here 

today. 

Although colleagues in Congress differ on some issues—I would 

say many—we all agree that we have to create more jobs. We have 

to accelerate our economic recovery. We believe—all of us coming 

from different parties and different places on the spectrum—that 

now is the time to roll up our sleeves and get to work on a transportation bill. The chairman and I agree it ought to be a 6-year bill. 

Surface transportation improvements will definitely create jobs 

in the construction industry. Is Bettina here? Did we bring those 

signs with us? Do we have people to hold them up? Oh, OK. 

I want to do something that is rather unusual. At one of our 

hearings in Washington, Mr. Chairman and members, we were told 

by one of the union representatives that we could fill 20 stadiums 

the size of the Cowboys stadium where the Super Bowl was played 

recently with unemployed workers for a total of nearly 2 million 

people. That created a very powerful image in my mind. So when 

you are all out there—I know it is sort of hard to do. If you could 

turn around and show the Members of Congress what you are 

showing the audience; 20 of these. Look at that. Each dot represents a human being. That is how many unemployed construction 

workers we have. In California, we have about 10 percent of those. 

So it is really a shocking thing, and we wanted you to see it. 

Thank you, all of you, who helped with that. 

One of the most effective and far-reaching ways to create jobs is 

to fix our Nation’s outdated infrastructure, and we need to do it to 

remain a No. 1 economic power. Our transportation systems used 

to be the best in the world, but investments have not kept up with 
3 

the needs. We are falling behind. Again, we have to move people. 

We have to move goods. 

Now, Mr. Chairman and members, I do not know if you are 

aware of this, but 45 percent of all containerized cargo destined for 

the continental U.S. passes through our ports here in California; 45 

percent. That number is going up. Traffic through west coast ports 

alone is predicted to triple by 2035. Now, this means economic 

growth, and we are all for economic growth. But we have to be prepared for it, and we expect that freight handled by trucks is expected to double during that same period. 

These delays have a ripple effect across our Nation, and we know 

that when the delivery of goods gets tied up, just like you, Mr. 

Chairman, get tied up in traffic and I do, this is an absolute cost 

of business and it is an absolute cost to our health because of congestion and all the things that we face. The time delays and the 

health problems that come from this are just unacceptable. We foul 

the air we breathe. We create safety concerns. The California Air 

Resources Board attributes 2,400 premature deaths to diesel emissions, and it estimates that the health costs of diesel emissions 

could be as high as $200 billion by 2020. 

So when you look at all these factors and you put them together, 

it says to me—and I hope it says to everybody here—we have to 

put aside lots of our differences and move forward. By reducing 

congestion, we are going to improve air quality and our public 

health. We are going to move traffic. We are going to help business, 

and it is going to be a very smart thing to do. 

You may have heard that Chairman Mica and I decided to sit 

side by side at President Obama’s State of the Union Address last 

month. The President was very happy to see us sitting together. 

This may not seem to be a big deal to any of you, but believe me, 

forever we have been sitting separate and apart, Republicans and 

Democrats. But we decided to try something different, and it was 

really good because we started to talk to each other. We had already met in my office. We are truly working together, and I am 

also working very closely with Senator Inhofe, my ranking member 

on the committee. 

Now, I will tell you, last week we had an amazing hearing, Mr. 

Chairman. We had Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue 

sitting next to AFL–CIO President Richard Trumka, and they together sat side by side. Now, these are two guys who are on the 

opposite sides of so many issues and opposite sides of so many elections. They sat side by side with the same message. We have to 

have a robust transportation system if we are going to compete in 

the global economy. 

In closing, I want to talk a little bit about why I am so thrilled 

that you are here, Mr. Chairman, with members of your committee 

and others, in Los Angeles. You are going to hear from people 

today who have come up with a tremendous way to leverage our 

funds, and that is the key. We all know what has happened to the 

Highway Trust Fund. We know how tough it is to keep the money 

flowing. So the notion of leverage is so important. 

When the mayor and the supervisor came and with them all the 

labor and management all together, saying there is a way that we 

can take Los Angeles transportation initiative where people voted 
4 

to tax themselves—a sales tax—for specific projects, and if the Federal Government can step up to the plate and frontload those dollars, we can begin to move forward and complete all of these 

projects in 10 years rather than 30, put all those people to work, 

get lower prices because right now we know that you can get much 

better deals because of this. The sad truth is we are in this recession. The construction industry is down. When they came to me 

with this idea, I embraced it immediately because it was really a 

no-brainer. How smart is that? 

So we are able to give Los Angeles in this first tranche of fund- ing the ability to get a $500 million loan, and the cost to the Federal Government is $20 million. Now, why is it so cheap? Because 

there is an absolute stream of funding that we can count on at virtually no risk to taxpayers. 

So we started looking at the TIFIA program. We used it. My idea 

going forward—and there are many ways you could do this, but I 

love the fact that TIFIA is already in the law and we can expand 

it and move forward with this as a model. 

So I want to thank my friends in Los Angeles in local government because it is a brilliant idea. I really believe this. The chairman and I are already discussing how we can make this better. 

So this is a joint hearing. By the way, this is a rare moment. We 

do not do this a lot. It indicates our shared view that there is an 

urgent need to improve the Nation’s crumbling transportation systems to get our economy back on track. I am so delighted to be here 

today with my counterpart in the House, and I look forward to 

hearing from him and from everybody here. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you so much. Thank you again for your leadership in the Senate on this important issue. 

I might add too that this is a series of hearings that we planned, 

and we are going across the country. We have been in Columbus, 

Ohio, Indianapolis, Chicago. We were up in Oregon, over in Vancouver, Washington, Fresno yesterday, here, again graciously 

hosted in a cooperative joint hearing with Senator Boxer. We leave 

today. We will be in Oklahoma, Tennessee, Arkansas, back in Florida. Then we have several more that we plan to finish. 

The purpose of the hearings and the series of hearings is to solicit input from people who deal with the Federal Government on 

transportation issues and seek their recommendations. That is the 

reason we are here. 

The first of the hearings we actually did in Beckley, WV, and Mr. 

Rahall, who is the ranking Democrat, the Democrat leader of the 

committee—in his hometown district. So we are trying to make this 

a truly bipartisan, bicameral effort. 

Thank you again. 

The order of business, as outlined, we will continue with. 

First of all, I ask unanimous consent that members not on the 

committee be permitted to sit with the committee at today’s hearing, offer testimony, and ask questions. Without objection, so ordered. 

We are pleased today to have a very good turnout, some members of our committee and some from the area. 

Let me take first the liberty of recognizing one of the individuals 

who is a great leader. I have been out in her area on another 
5 

project. But Grace Napolitano, Representative Napolitano. I will 

recognize each of the members for several minutes of commentary 

or opening statements. You are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is a great pleasure 

being here. 

Talk about transportation. I left my house almost at quarter of 

7 this morning, and I got here late. So you understand the issue 

that we have is very, very pronounced. 

Part of what we deal with in our area, Mr. Chair and Honorable 

Senator, is that we do not have enough mass transportation for the 

working class in my area. You understand that when you see people that are driving more and more cars because they have to get 

to work or they have to get where they have to go. 

Being on this committee now for 12 years—well, for almost 3 

years now—has been a great opportunity for us to be able to see 

the inner workings, how do we work with the local entities. We 

worked with Mr. Kempton, Mr. Knabe, and sometimes Mayor 

Villaraigosa to find out how can we be more effective in getting the 

funds to do the projects like the expansion of Santa Ana Freeway 

which is a three-lane. It is called the biggest parking lot in the sky. 

It just creates a lot of environmental problems for the communities. 

So there are many, many areas that we want to ensure, like the 

movement of freight to the rest of the Nation that comes out of the 

ports, 40–45 percent of the Nation’s goods. Those are the issues 

that we face at least in my area. I can tell you that I see some of 

my adjoining members that also face these challenges. 

So I look forward to hearing some of the input, and thank you 

again for being so generous and coming to our area. I just wish it 

had been a little closer to my house. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Let me recognize another Californian who is a member of our 

committee, new on the committee, but we are pleased to have him, 

Duncan Hunter, the gentleman from California. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DUNCAN HUNTER, U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. Duncan HUNTER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Chairman 

Boxer, great to be here. 

This is my first year on this committee. I got on it for two reasons because I am from San Diego and there are two things that 

we really care about. That is infrastructure and water. I think 

those are two very important things that San Diego shares with 

L.A. Water infrastructure. People want to have clean drinking 

water,and they want it cheap. They also want to not be in traffic 

all day long every day like we see here in Los Angeles. 

We also have an opportunity, I think, to expand the maritime 

shipping lane, shipping things from San Diego, for instance, all the 

way up to Washington State, relieving congestion on the roadway 

and actually shipping goods north along the coastline. 

It is just great to be here. 
6 

What we need to learn how to do is obviously leverage private 

dollars with public dollars. The furthest down that we can push 

projects so that you are able to leverage them locally, that is what 

is important and that is the way that we are able to make sure 

that these projects are efficient and effective and that they do not 

waste money because they have oversight by people who actually 

have jobs on the line, and that is private industry for the most 

part. 

So it is great to be here. Thank you for having me and I look 

forward to the testimony. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you so much. 

Now let me yield to the gentlelady from Florida. She is the immediate past chair of the Rail Subcommittee and current ranking 

member of that subcommittee in the House. 

Ms. Brown. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CORRINE BROWN, U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Chairman Mica and Chairwoman Boxer, 

for holding this hearing today. 

I also want to say that one date that you all had—me and Mr. 

Mica talked about that during the opening of the session. I made 

it quite clear that one date don’t constitute a marriage, but it 

seems like we are moving along in the right direction. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BROWN. I am really happy about that. 

Senator BOXER. I will be sure and tell my husband you are not 

threatening. 

Mr. MICA. I will tell Pat too. The bed is already crowded. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BROWN. Let me just move on. I want to thank Los Angeles 

for hosting this hearing—the mayor. I think Los Angeles is a perfect place to have this hearing because you all have every mode of 

transportation, and without the port in Long Beach and the port 

in L.A., the United States would not have the goods and services 

they need. 

I arrived last night and I was in traffic for over an hour just 

going from a short distance. So I understand the real challenges 

that we face in this area. 

I also understand that one additional lane will not help us. We 

have to come up with ways to move people, goods and services. 

When I travel around the world, they always ask us about our 

freight rail. You all have done some very innovative things here 

with the port. I am always asking them about their high-speed rail. 

I have to tell you that it is very painful for me to be here today 

because in the next couple of days you all will probably benefit 

from the hard work that we have, and we will lose our money for 

high-speed rail and you will probably receive it. I am so distressed. 

But I know that you will leverage it and you know that for every 

billion dollars that you receive, it will generate 44,000 permanent 

jobs. So you will be able to put some of those construction people 

to work that my Florida with our Governor—no vision, no leadership. 
7 

I want to thank you all for having us here, and I am going to 

leave as quickly as I can. 

Senator BOXER. Could you tell us what you really think? 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BROWN. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MICA. Well, we can clean the record up a little. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MICA. Do not forget we have to go back there, Corrine. 

Let me yield at this time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. 

He currently chairs the Rail Subcommittee in the Transportation 

and Infrastructure Committee of the House. 

Mr. Shuster. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL SHUSTER, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Chairman Mica and Chairman Boxer, 

for having us to California. 

I hail from Pennsylvania, rural Pennsylvania. People ask why do 

you come to these big cities when you do not have the kind of problems that Los Angeles and New York and other places face. But 

people sometimes fail to realize that what happens in the Port of 

Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach affects us east of the Mississippi. I think the number is about a third of what comes into the 

Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach go east of the Mississippi, 

end up in Pennsylvania in some of our stores. So the movement of 

goods, movement of people affects the entire Nation. So that is why 

I am here. That is why I am on this committee, to try to improve 

transportation and the infrastructure for all Americans because it 

does affect us. 

Today I look out here. I know everybody here used a mode of 

transportation or used the system today to get to where we are. 

But even at home a housewife sitting at home feeding her children, 

when she goes to get that milk out of the refrigerator, it came from 

a farm. It went to the grocery store. It got to the house. So every 

day we are affected by the transportation system, and we need to 

make sure that we are improving it. 

I applaud Chairman Mica for this tour. We have been together 

now for 5 days in about six or seven cities—I have lost count—but 

going around the country, hearing the problems, and making sure 

people understand that we are going to have to do more with less. 

The dollars just are not there. But I think what we have heard 

across this country, as we have traveled, is that we can do things 

differently to speed up the process, and when you save time, time 

is money. When we look at the way that some of the States are 

able to use their dollars and use those dollars five and six times 

as much, as opposed to when the Federal Government gets involved, we have to streamline the process. It was mentioned by 

Senator Boxer to leverage our dollars with Federal dollars, State 

dollars and private dollars. That is extremely important for us to 

do and streamline the process. 

So I appreciate you folks being here today in our panels. I am 

looking forward to hearing what they have to say. We will go back 

to Washington and try to make this thing work better for all Americans. Thank you. 
8 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman. 

Let me yield to another Californian and a very distinguished 

member of our committee. She was with us yesterday in Fresno, so 

her second California hearing. Laura Richardson, Ms. Richardson, 

you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LAURA RICHARDSON, U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you very much. Madam Chairwoman, 

Senator Boxer, and Mr. Chairman Mica, first of all I want to say 

a special thank you for you coming to Los Angeles. You could have 

gone to any cities in this State, but the fact that you chose to come 

here—we appreciate it and the leadership that you have shown. 

I happen to be one of only two Democrats on the Transportation 

Committee that actually represents Southern California with Congresswoman Napolitano. So we have a tremendous responsibility 

not only as Democrats but I believe we are the only two members 

in Southern California who are actually on the committee as wall. 

So we have a heavy lift, and we look forward to all of your comments today. 

Yesterday, as Chairman Mica said, in Fresno we got an earful. 

We heard concerns about NEPA and CECWO, which I worked on 

legislation on and look forward to working with the chairman and 

the chairwoman on. 

We also heard about utilizing funds, HMT, which have just been 

wasted and not been fully utilized. 

Then finally, having a national goods movement strategy, which 

has really been a lifelong effort on my part that we have devoted 

legislation on as well. 

Today, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, all of your 

concerns. Mayor Villaraigosa and County Supervisor Knabe, you 

have been to us and you have talked about the 30/10, and I think 

to hear it firsthand with these two very important chairwoman and 

chairman is going to be critical to our success. 

To Mr. Kempton, you know I view you as the guru of the State 

of transportation that we can all learn from. So I look forward to 

your comments. 

Then finally, our new chair of the L.A. Chamber who happens to 

be a businessman in my district of general aviation—I look forward 

to hearing from all of you. 

So as I conclude, I just want to say that this bill is a bipartisan 

bill. It is a bicameral bill. We are here because we want to get it 

done and we want to get these roads and bridges and things taken 

care of. 

Finally, to my colleague in Florida, Congresswoman Madam 

Ranking Member Brown, we accept transplants from Florida anytime. So you are welcome here. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you so much, Ms. Richardson. 

Now, while she is not on the committee, it is someone I have the 

greatest respect for. We came early together to Congress, and she 

is leaving now. She will provide great leadership where she is destined to go now, but I will tell you, you could not have a finer Rep-
9 

resentative in Congress, more intelligent, determined, and someone 

who has contributed so much. She is the ranking member of the 

Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence and serves on 

Energy and Commerce. But I am just delighted. 

Did you not say, Ms. Boxer, that this may be her last hearing? 

Senator BOXER. Official. 

Mr. MICA. Official hearing. I salute you, Jane Harman, and recognize you. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. MICA. Jane. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JANE HARMAN, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you all. This is true, that this is my last 

congressional hearing, and I have to say that participating in the 

first bipartisan, bicameral hearing in Los Angeles is the best goingaway present anyone could give me. Chairman Boxer and Chairman Mica are the mass transit dream team, and I predict that they 

will finally bring the Green Line to LAX. 

[Applause.] 

Ms. HARMAN. In 2 minutes, let me just make a few points. 

First, the 30/10 initiative is a brilliant idea. Our mayor and his 

team deserve enormous credit for conceptualizing it. With unemployment in the area’s construction trades at almost 40 percent, 

this plan can create 165,000 jobs in Los Angeles starting now. 

But it is not just about Los Angeles. This initiative has the 

power to transform infrastructure financing throughout the Nation, 

creating a million jobs, good, high-paying, much-needed construction jobs. 

Second, the Government should not do this alone. We all understand why printing more money and increasing the deficit are dangerous. So what the Federal Government can do, should do is help 

bring private money to the table. Public/private partnerships, socalled P3’s, are the way to bring about innovative financing. I have 

discussed this with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood in many 

meetings that I have had with him, and he and his team are actively pursuing it. He and others tell me that Los Angeles can be 

the template for the Nation. 

There are several ways that this can happen. One is through 

TIFIA grants. These grants were inspired by the successful public/ 

private partnership of California’s Alameda corridor. I applaud 

Chairman Boxer and Chairman Mica for your willingness to explore expanding and adapting TIFIA. In my view, TIFIA should be 

amended to make private capital investment easier. 

There are also bond programs that could interest investors. For 

instance, QTIP allows program financing to come directly from private sources. The Federal Government’s role is then to provide a 

tax credit for all or a portion of the interest on these bonds. I have 

heard that QTIP may be dead but wonder if this private capital 

feature is well enough understood. This gets me to my third point. 

Let us get U.S. banks and investors involved in these projects. 

Foreign banks often play a major role in public/private partnerships, but there is no reason that domestic banks should not play 
10 

a major role. I know that some are interested. Let us get them involved. 

Finally, in closing, I believe no jobs program pending in Congress 

is more important than making this innovative financing a reality, 

and I hope that my successor, whoever she or he or may be, is listening. 

Senator Boxer, thanks for your personal comments and to you, 

Congressman Mica, as well. I depart Congress on Monday knowing 

that this issue is in good hands. 

Mayor Villaraigosa, supervisor, and MTA Chair Don Knabe, our 

local congressional delegation, including hopefully my State of the 

Union date, David Dreier, Denny Zane, Maria Elena Derazo, and 

many others have put together an incredible local coalition here in 

Los Angeles. Working together on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, it 

is sure clear to me that, yes, we can. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. MICA. Thank you so much again for your comments and for 

your service. We are truly going to miss you come Monday. 

Let me introduce another Californian who is not on the committee but has taken time to be with us. She serves on the Judiciary and Small Business Committee, the gentlelady from California, 

Ms. Chu. Welcome, and you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JUDY CHU, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM 

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. CHU. Thank you so much, Senator Boxer and Chairman 

Mica, for holding this very important hearing here in Los Angeles 

and for inviting me to attend. Although I am not a member of the 

Transportation Committee, transportation is one of my highest priorities. 

I truly believe it is one of the highest priorities for my constituents on the entire Southland. It is so important that here in November 2008 Angelinos overwhelmingly passed Measure R. Can 

you imagine during a recession residents agreed to tax themselves 

more? 

Clearly we here in L.A. recognize the need for better, more efficient transportation in the county’s largest area. Measure R will 

raise $35 billion and help complete 12 different transit projects connecting millions across this county. Our region desperately needs 

this investment. I am so proud that Angelinos are ready and willing to pay for it. 

But it is important for the Federal Government to recognize all 

the work we are putting into building a truly 21st century transportation system for the Nation’s most congested county. For decades, the Federal Government acknowledged the need for public 

transit investment, but current policy only requires the projects to 

put up a 20 percent local match, and that does not take into account any previous local investments made in the transit line. 

Areas that offered a greater match or have invested more heavily 

in the system received no reward for that work, and I think that 

is really a mistake. 

Rewarding local investment would help projects like the Gold 

Line Foothill extension which I understand Chairman Mica personally visited with Chairman Dreier just a few months ago. The coun-
11 

ty has invested $1.5 billion in building the first two phases of the 

project which will have created 14,000 jobs. After that, we will 

need a fraction of that amount to complete a line that goes from 

downtown L.A. all the way out to the county line. 

But the 30/10 plan is truly important. Thanks to Mayor 

Villaraigosa and Chairman Knabe, this is a great plan that will 

allow us to complete 12 Measure R transit projects in 10 years instead of 30. It will allow L.A. to leverage our local dollars and 

speed up our construction by decades. With the Federal Government’s help to augment this serious investment in local transportation, we can create over 915,000 private sector jobs in just a decade. 

Hopefully, we can come away from today’s hearing with one 

thought, that we can make our Federal dollars stretch further. 

That is why the new authorization bill should recognize and reward dedicated local investments like Measure R and help us build 

projects like the Gold Line and complete the 30/10 Plan. With the 

Federal Government’s help, we will create jobs, reduce construction 

costs, relieve traffic congestion, and eliminate hundreds of thousands of pounds of pollution every year. This type of reform will encourage other areas to follow our footsteps. When local communities raise their own money, the Nation and the taxpayers truly 

get the most bang for the buck. 

So I thank you for allowing me here today and I look forward to 

the testimony. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you. 

I think that concludes our members. 

Let me just make a couple of quick comments. First of all, I 

thank again Senator Boxer for helping assemble the witnesses and 

other members who have asked witnesses to come forward. We 

have a pretty extensive two panels here. We are pleased to have 

you. 

In the previous hearings that we have held, I have asked that 

individuals not read a written statement, but rather offer to us the 

provisions they would like to see in or out of the law and the legislation that we will be drafting. 

When we leave here, on the House side—and Senator Boxer has 

talked about what they are going to do on the Senate side—we are 

going to draft legislation that will determine some of the important 

components of, again, how our policy is set forth for, hopefully, the 

next 6 years. Foremost in that, of course, is the financing. If we 

had all the money in the world, we would not have a problem. We 

probably would not even be here. But we do not and we are in 

some tough economic times. 

So we have to do a couple of things: first of all, stabilize the trust 

fund. I do not know exactly how we will do that, but it has to be 

done. The second thing is there is a great deal of money not going 

out that is in different accounts. Governor McDonnell of Virginia 

came in and found $1.5 billion. We need to find every dollar available for infrastructure and good projects and get it moving. If it is 

anywhere in the system or has not been expended, that is another 

source of funds. 

The other thing is there are programs that now work, some of 

them well, some of them not well. The Senator and I have already 
12 

discussed TIFIA. I think Mr. Inhofe and others, Mr. Duncan—if we 

have programs like TIFIA that work, maybe we can even make 

them work better. So we want ideas specifically on how we can do 

these things. 

People ask for more money or raising taxes. In the rail realm that Mr. Shuster and Ms. Brown have a say over, we have $35 billion in a RIF account, sitting in a RIF account not being used— 

Railroad Infrastructure Financing. So looking at programs that we 

have now, I need your suggestions how to make that work, if it is 

a good program, make it work better, and if it does not work, make 

it work. 

So financing is a key. Ms. Harman just spoke to public/private 

partnerships. If we define those, give us the definition of what we 

should have in the law that would make the best possible relationship, not to give the store away to the private sector or some corporation, protect the public interest, but to make that work. If we 

are going to do infrastructure banking, GARVEE bonds, revise 

Build America, whatever it takes, we need those suggestions and 

we need them post haste. 

The other thing I will close with is the process. We have heard 

it over and over—and I hear it in Washington. We just heard it on 

the road. Projects that should take months are taking years. The 

Federal Government gets involved and the timeframe goes up dramatically. 

Then the other problem we have is the cost escalates, not to 

mention that the problem you also have with these mega-projects 

is that the players change. We have a game-changing situation in 

Florida right now with a new Governor. This would have been a 

done deal, but now we are into our third or fourth Governor. Governor Bush worked with previous Governors on some things. You 

had Schwarzenegger who was a very strong proponent of transportation infrastructure initiatives. So we have to compress that time 

also, consolidate some of the programs that we have. 

So those are my points. 

I am pleased to be here. I have a great partner to work with. Ms. 

Boxer has already reached out in an unprecedented fashion, and 

that is why we are here today. 

So with that, let me yield the chair to her to take the balance 

of the meeting, recognize our witnesses, and thank her again and 

your staff. Everyone has been just great in helping us put this together. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER [presiding]. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you again 

for your generous remarks. I do want to thank staff, your staff and 

mine. They are phenomenal. These things look easy when they 

come together, but there are so many parts to the puzzle. 

So we are going to get right to our witness list. We have nine 

witnesses. It is a bipartisan witness list. It is business and labor 

sitting next to each other. This is all good for the message we want 

to send out of today’s hearing. 

So I would ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be included in the record. Is there objection? 

[No response.] 

Senator BOXER. Hearing none, that will be the case. We do run 

a quick meeting here. 
13 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. I would also say you can read your statement or 

not read your statement, but the bottom line to us is you give us 

great ideas. I mean, 30/10 came from you. So if you have any more 

like that up your sleeve, this is the moment to tell us. 

So we are going to start. At the request of the mayor, we are 

going to call first on Hon. Don Knabe, chairman, Los Angeles 

County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Los Angeles 

county supervisor of the 4th District, County of Los Angeles. As a 

former county supervisor, you do us proud. So welcome, Mr. Supervisor, and please begin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DON KNABE, CHAIRMAN, LOS ANGELES 

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY; AND LOS 

ANGELES COUNTY SUPERVISOR, 4TH DISTRICT, COUNTY OF 

LOS ANGELES 

Mr. KNABE. Good morning, Chairwoman Boxer and Chairman 

Mica. It is my privilege to welcome you to Los Angeles County, the 

largest county in the United States of America. We are honored to 

have you here in this historic bipartisan effort of transportation infrastructure. 

So I would just like to outline a few things on our perspective 

as it relates to the next surface transportation bill. 

But before I do that, just sort of a brief idea of why there is congestion at 2 o’clock in the afternoon and 3 o’clock of the organization that I am honored to serve as chairman. We are the third largest public transportation agency in the United States. We are responsible for all transportation planning, coordination, design, construction, operations, bus, subway, light rail, bus rapid transit, and 

the services for all of our 10 million residents here in Los Angeles 

County in the 4,000 square miles. We partner with Caltrans and 

Metrolink to support a very extensive HOV and commuter rail network. We are also undertaking major improvements to our region’s 

highway system. We are a very important part of the Nation’s 

goods movement, as you know, and in my own district, I have the 

Ports of L.A. and Long Beach, as well as the Los Angeles International Airport. Our Metro service is about 1,500 square miles of 

service. Over 200 bus routes, 75 miles of rail lines, over 400 miles 

of carpool lanes that crisscross this great county. We have over 

9,000 dedicated employees and an annual budget that exceeds $3.5 

billion. 

But as it relates to policy issues, I think—the mayor and I were 

sort of commenting that our testimony might be redundant because 

we have heard some very positive things from the members that 

they were talking about. 

First of all, we need to recognize the importance of non-Federal 

investments in transportation. That is State, local, and private. 

Every time we go to Washington, the Feds tell us to come back 

with a revenue source. Well, the voters of this county, Los Angeles 

County, have responded three times in the last 3 decades to tax 

themselves for transportation improvements, and these three taxes, 

taken together, amount to about $1.5 billion annually. To date, the 

Federal Government has really largely turned a blind eye to the 

local leadership shown by this agency and local taxpayers, along 
14 

with others like us across the Nation. The current surface transportation program neither recognizes nor rewards this kind of priority policy or incentivizes other metropolitan areas to do the same 

thing. 

We worked very hard to put this program together. We have 

been advancing, and we would like to continue to suggest two very 

innovative financial concepts that would really help leverage local 

transportation. We call them ‘‘smart Federal dollars,’’ and we say 

smart Federal dollars because these funds coming in an era of a 

financially stressed Highway Trust Fund, as has been mentioned 

already this morning, make the most of existing dollars. 

We strongly believe that the smart, targeted, and innovative financing mechanisms can achieve two national priorities: minimize 

the impacts on the Federal budget and maximize the generation of 

new private sector jobs, particularly in the small business sector 

and particularly here in Los Angeles County where we have an unemployment rate of close to 12.7 percent. 

A new Federal approach to financing, if it is incorporated in the 

next surface transportation bill, will leverage projects at the State 

and local levels that can achieve these priorities. Our two priorities 

would be one that we have been talking to all of you about. It is 

one of qualified transportation improvement bonds and, two, the 

enhanced Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation 

Act program, TIFIA, which we have outlined in greater detail. I 

will not bore you with all the details in our written testimony. We 

believe this is a very sound approach, and the fundamentals of this 

proposal offer a very reasonable and prudent path for Federal policymakers who like all of us and all of you are struggling to craft 

a strong and meaningful surface transportation bill in a very demanding fiscal environment. 

It is very difficult to outsource a construction job or a transportation project here in America. Whether that project is a light or 

heavy rail project in Southern California or a highway improvement in Montana, the Federal Government’s investment in transportation projects is an investment in America. 

So taken together, these proposals really, I think, hold the promise of reinvigorating our Nation’s infrastructure, creating close to 

over 900,000 jobs nationwide without burdening the Federal Government with a very large bill. 

As you prepare to craft this new surface transportation bill and 

reform what needs to be reformed, we truly believe that both the 

House and Senate be mindful not to discard programs with a proven track record, programs such as the New Starts program have 

assisted many jurisdictions like Los Angeles County to address congestion and environmental problems while demanding a very significant non-Federal investment. If you are looking for a model in 

the future, we believe this is it. We should not be talking of eliminating this program. We should be discussing creative ways to expand its approach and how that can serve as a model for other 

parts of the Federal program, and we are a willing partner in that. 

We need to use the power of the Federal Government to help leverage Federal and non-Federal sources of money. 

I need to make it clear. I am not saying that we need a new Federal program for loaning money or a new Federal infrastructure 
15 

bank. We here in Los Angeles County just do not need the Federal 

bureaucracy picking winners and losers. That just does not work 

for anyone. We need flexibility. We need self-determination and the 

power to access federally subsidized financing to make these 

projects possible. 

Last, I want to make sure I say this. Our strong and sustained 

support for leveraging local dollars does not in any way mean that 

we want to diminish existing Federal assistance. You have been a 

good partner. We continue to want to work with you. 

We appreciate the opportunity to be a part of this very historic 

joint hearing and thank you for your time and attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Knabe follows:] 
16 

Testimony of 

The Honorahle Don Knabe 

Chairman 

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Autbority 

Joint Hearing Of The 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

U.S. House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure 

"Improving and Reforming our Nation's Surface Transportation Programs 

To Support Job Creation and the Economy. " 

February 23, 2011 

Good morning Chainnan Boxer and Chainnan Mica. 

On behalf of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), I 

appreciate the opportunity to join you today at this historic hearing to outline our agency's 

perspective on our nation's next surface transportation bill. 

Before delivering my testimony, allow me to very briefly describe the agency for which I serve 

as Chainnan. Metro is the third largest public transportation agency in the United States. We 

are responsible for transportation planning, coordination, design, construction and operation of 

bus, subway, light rail and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) services for the 10 million residents of Los 

Angeles County. We are also partners with Caltrans and Metrolink and Metro helps to support 

an extensive HOV and commuter rail network. We are also undertaking major improvements to 

our region's highway system. Our highways fonn the backbone of our economy and are an 

important part of the nation's goods movement system. Metro also funds street construction, 

bike paths, manages the freeway service patrol, among a number of other projects and services. 

Metro serves a 1,433 square mile service area with approximately 200 bus routes, over 75 miles 

of rail lines, and over 400 miles of carpool lanes that crisscross Los Angeles County. We have 

over 9,000 dedicated employees and an annual budget that exceeds $3.5 billion. 

Today we are at an important crossroads on federal transportation policy. The solutions designed 

more than 60 years ago are no longer sufficient to meet our needs. The federal program for 

surface transportation funding no longer works to solve the many transportation challenges we 

face as a nation and no other region demonstrates that as well as the Los Angeles metropolitan 

area The bottom line is that our transportation network is the engine of our economy and our 

ability to compete worldwide will depend on our ability to move goods and people with greater 

efficiency - both in tenns of cost and speed. 

There are several points I would like to share with you today that I believe are important 

considerations for future policy. 

1) Local Leadership 

We need to recognize the importance of non-federal investments in transportation - state, local, 

and private. 
17 

The voters of Los Angeles County have made the choice, on three occasions, to tax themselves 

to create more mobility for themselves, their families and their broader community. These three 

sale taxes, taken together, amount to approximately $1.5 billion annually. To date, the Federal 

Government has largely turned a blind eye to the local leadership shown by our agency and local 

taxpayers, along with others like us across the nation. The current federal surface transportation 

program neither recognizes this nor rewards this, nor do the current policies incentivize other 

metropolitan areas to do the same. 

2) Leveraging Local Leadership 

Metro has been advancing two innovative fmancial concepts to effectively leverage local 

transportation dollars with what I would like to refer as "smart federal dollars." I say "smart 

federal dollars" because these funds - coming in an era of a financially stressed Highway Trust 

Fund make the most of existing dollars. 

We strongly believe that smart, targeted, and innovative financing mechanisms can achieve two 

major national priorities: minimize impacts on the Federal budget and maximize the generation 

of new private sector jobs, particularly in the small business sector. 

A new Federal approach to financing incorporated in the next surface transportation bill, which 

leverages transportation projects at the state and local levels can achieve both ofthese national 

priorities. Metro is proposing two specific legislative financing proposals: (I) Qualified 

Transportation Improvement Bonds (QTIBs); and (2) Enhanced Transportation Infrastructure 

Finance and Innovation Act Program (TIFIA). 

Our proposal relative to bonds seeks to amend section 54 of the Internal Revenue Code to 

establish a new class of qualified tax credit bonds, called "Qualified Transportation Improvement 

Bonds" (QTIBs). These qualified tax credit bonds are taxable rate bonds issued by state, local or 

other eligible issuers where the federal government subsidizes most or all of the interest cost 

through granting investors annual tax credits in lieu of interest. Our initiative envisions that these 

bonds would be authorized in the amount of $4.5 billion per year over the next ten years, or $45 

billion in total. As we have proposed, QTIBs would allow issuers to finance more than twice the 

dollar value of capital improvements than is possible with traditional tax-exempt bonds for any 

given annual revenue stream. QTIBs will not only stimulate greater investment, but they will 

also take pressure off conventional federal grant programs. 

Our proposal with respect to TIFIA seeks to modify the program's structure to authorize the U.S. 

Department of Transportation to make upfront conditional credit commitments for certain large 

projects or programs of related projects that satisfy national infrastructure investment goals. We 

are also seeking to significantly increase funding for the TIFIA program and raise the credit 

limits for projects receiving assistance. From my recent dialogue with several Members of 

Congress in Washington, DC, I believe that there exists a strong bi-partisan majority to 

significantly enhance the annual funding provided for the TIFIA program. 
18 

Taken together, our bond and TIFIA proposals hold the promise of reinvigorating our nation's 

infrastructure, creating a large number of good paying private sector jobs, all without burdening 

the Federal government with a large bill. We believe this is a sound approach and that the 

fundamentals of our proposal offer a reasonable and prudent path for federal policymakers who, 

like all of you, are struggling to craft a strong and meaningful surface transportation bill in a 

demanding fiscal environment. 

3) Federal Transportation Investments Create Broad Economic Benefits 

It is difficult to outsource a construction job for a transportation project in America. Whether that 

project is a light or heavy rail project in Southern California or a highway improvement in 

Montana, the Federal Government's investment in transportation projects is an investment in 

America. 

Metro has developed an innovative bond and TIFIA proposal that will accelerate the construction 

of highway and transit projects not only in Los Angeles County, but across the nation. We 

believe this plan will generate sustained job creation, new state, local and national tax revenues, 

and promote overall economic growth. Recently, Metro requested the Los Angeles County 

Economic Development Corporation (LAEDC) to project the benefits of our innovative financial 

approach on a nationwide basis. 

The LAEDC concluded that $67.8 billion of investments in transportation infrastructure utilizing 

the innovative financing mechanisms Metro is proposing for the next federal surface 

transportation bill will yield $157.6 billion in economic activity over the course of the 

investment and generate 918,300 annual private sector jobs with total private sector labor income 

of $50.8 billion. The economic activity generated by the leveraged financing Metro is proposing 

will generate between $11.1 billion in tax revenues under the QTffis program and $5.3 billion 

under the expanded TIFIA program, approximately one-third of which will be directed to state 

and local authorities and two-thirds to the Federal treasury. This type of innovative 

transportation related financial leveraging, if implemented would be unprecedented. 

4) Conclusion 

As Congress prepares to craft a new surface transportation bill and reform what needs to be 

reformed, I believe both the House and Senate should be mindful not to discard programs with a 

proven track record. Programs such as the New Starts Program have assisted many jurisdictions, 

like Los Angeles County, to address growing congestion and environmental problems while 

demanding a significant non- federal investment. If you are looking for a model for the future, 

this is it. We should not be talking of eliminating this program, we should be discussing creative 

ways to expand its approach and how that can serve as a model for other parts of the federal 

program. 

We need to use the power of the federal government to help leverage federal and non federal 

sources of money. In the 1950s states did not have the wherewithal to finance and build an 

Interstate highway system. Today, states and local governments are much more sophisticated but 

fmd themselves in similar circumstances where financing is again the critical element. This time 
19 

however, the federal government is not paying the lion's share of the cost but must assume the 

important role of assisting with the financing. 

And let's be clear, I am not saying we need a new federal program for loaning money, or a new 

federal infrastructure bank. With all due respect to the President's proposal, we here in Los 

Angeles County do not need a federal bureaucracy picking winners and losers. We need 

flexibility, self-determination and the power to access federally-subsidized financing to make 

these projects possible. 

Lastly, I want to make it crystal clear that our strong and sustained support for leveraging local 

dollars does not in any way mean that we want to diminish existing federal assistance. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify before this historic joint hearing and I welcome the 

opportunity to answer any questions you may have. 
20 

Senator BOXER. Supervisor, thank you very, very much for that. 

Next we call on Mayor Villaraigosa. We are delighted to see you 

here, and we thank you for visiting us in Washington—you and the 

supervisor and others—and giving us this 30/10 concept. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA, MAYOR, 

CITY OF LOS ANGELES 

Mr. VILLARAIGOSA. Thank you, Madam Chair, Chair Mica, and 

Members of Congress. I rarely come to a hearing where I see as 

many Members of Congress as are present today, and I think because there is an agreement, a bipartisan agreement, on this issue 

of transportation investments and infrastructure. It is not a Democratic or Republican idea. 

By the way, Chairman Mica, I think I told you yesterday, but for 

the rest of you, while it may be novel in the Congress for Democrats and Republicans to sit together, the first thing I did when I 

was Speaker of the California State Assembly, because of the partisanship that we had there in Sacramento, was sit Democrats and 

Republicans together. Both took umbrage with that action. By the 

way, they have been doing it now for 13 years, and I am very proud 

of that because I think when people sit together, they get to talk 

and they realize they have a lot more in common than they do differences. Sometimes in politics we spend a little too much time on 

the differences. 

With respect to this proposal, let me say a couple things. 

First of all, you all mentioned the traffic in this county, and yes, 

it is true. We have the worst congestion in the United States of 

America. But, as Chairman Knabe mentioned, the taxpayers of this 

city and of this county, because we have the worst congestion, 

taxed themselves a penny and a half over the decades to investment in transportation infrastructure. In fact, when we put Measure R on the ballot, it was the middle of the recession. One ofthe 

Congress Members, Ms. Chu, was actually in the legislature at the 

time. She knows we barely passed the legislation to put it on the 

ballot by one vote in both houses. I was there day after day trying 

to get those votes. There was a great deal of opposition at the time, 

interestingly enough, and yet, on a bipartisan basis across the 

county, the people said they wanted to make these investments. I 

think when you think about the fact that it was in the middle of 

a recession that they did that, it shows that the taxpayers of this 

county recognized that we have to address gridlock, ngestion, the 

air quality that comes with it. 

Now, the chairman asked and both chairs asked that we be specific. I have a number of comments I was going to read, but instead, I do want to focus on what I would like you all to consider. 

First, we have to increase the budget authority for the TIFIA 

program, I would suggest, from $122 million to $375 million or 

higher. TIFIA has been a successful program. It needs additional 

funding. When I was in DC at one of the hearings that Senator 

Boxer chaired, Senator Inhofe delivered a letter saying that we 

have to dramatically increase the TIFIA program because of the leverage opportunities that come with it. 
21 

Second, we need to increase the share of project costs that TIFIA 

can cover. Right now, we can only use TIFIA for about a third of 

the project costs. We propose allowing TIFIA to be used for up to 

49 percent of the project’s cost. 

Third, allow the DOT to make an up-front, conditional credit 

commitment. This is like getting preapproval for a home loan. It 

would allow DOT to preapprove projects to receive TIFIA funding, 

provided they went through all the necessary environmental clearances. 

On that score, let me say something else that is not related to 

TIFIA, but is related to accelerating programs. I think we need to 

have a concurrent environmental review, not consecutive. Let me 

tell you why. We actually have tougher laws than the Federal Government here. So for us to have our environmental review, then 

yours, it just adds time to a project. That just does not make sense. 

It is the kind of thing that we do, all of us, that just does not make 

sense. 

Fourth, we need to allow the DOT to make a commitment to a 

program of related projects. Currently the DOT can only make a 

TIFIA commitment to one project at a time. Our change would 

allow DOT to make a commitment to several related projects at 

once. 

Finally, we need to allow the DOT to offer a limited interest rate 

hedge to projects that received an up—front commitment, in other 

words, preapproval. Just as homeowners can lock in on an interest 

rate and even buy down a point or two of their mortgage interest, 

this would allow the DOT to use some of the TIFIA budget to lock 

in an interest rate or buy down a point or interest for projects that 

had received preapproval. 

I want to acknowledge all of the Members who are here but particularly Jane Harman, Congressmember Harman, who mentioned 

30/10. 

One of the things that we have said to the Congress when we 

talked about the 30/10 plan, which would accelerate our transit 

projects from 30 years to 10, and create 166,000 jobs here in this 

area—by the way, the county unemployment rate is 12.5. The city 

of Los Angeles is 14.5 unemployment rate. It would create 166,000 

jobs, save 10 million gallons of gas, reduce carbon emissions by 

500,000 pounds a year, increase transit boardings by 77 million. 

Now, if we did this across the country, because this is not an earmark—this is a template for infrastructure investment across the 

Nation—we would create 922,000 jobs, according to the L.A. Economic Development Corporation, a nonprofit, independent—it did 

not come from the Mayor. It came from a nonprofit, independent 

organization that looked at what this program could do across the 

country with the amount of money that I am talking about in 

TIFIA. If we did a quality bond program as well, that could add 

and leverage, at a time of high deficits and debt, the money that 

we need for infrastructure investment. 

Finally, I want to say to both chairs, that we are in full support. 

We need to stop extending and we need a reauthorization bill that 

really addresses America’s infrastructure needs. 

According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, we have a 

$2.2 trillion need over the next 5 years. For transportation alone, 
22 

it is $546 billion. So this is an important way, another financing 

tool for us to create jobs, get people to work, and importantly, leverage what localities are doing. 

Since we last talked, Madam Chair, both Chairs, Chairman 

Mica, I now have 60 mayors behind this from the last meeting with 

you in Washington. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has unanimously come out in support of this effort, but 60 of them have 

signed on and said, we want to participate. So there is—and by the 

way, Republican and Democrat—broad bipartisan support for this 

idea. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Villaraigosa follows:] 
23 

ANT 0 N loR. V ILL A R A I G 0 5 A 

MAYOR 

Joint Field Hearing before the House CommiHee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure and the Senate CommiHee on Environment and Public Works 

Written Testimony of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa 

February 23, 2011 

Thank you Chairman Boxer, Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Inhofe, Ranking Member 

Rahall, and members of this joint committee for the opportunity to provide testimony at 

the "Improving and Reforming our Nation's Surface Transportation Programs to Support 

Job Creation and the Economy" hearing. 

America continues to suffer from high unemployment, and unemployment here in Los 

Angeles is even higher. Simply put: Americans need jobs and cities and states across 

the nation need a federal partnership to help us put people back to work, which can be 

done through smart, innovative investments in our transportation infrastructure. 

Los Angeles continues to be an economic engine for the U.S. The ports of Los Angeles 

and Long Beach handle 40% of the sea-borne containers entering the U.S. These 

goods are then moved to all 50 states via rail and truck. The gross domestic product of 

Los Angeles County alone is $718 billion, higher than all but four states (CA, TX, NY, 

and FL) and 5.5% of the nation's GOP. 

Unfortunately, Los Angeles continues to lead the country in overall delay related to 

traffic congestion. This costs the local economy an estimated $12 billion in delay, 

wasted fuel, and truck congestion. Truck congestion alone accounts for $3.2 billion of 

the $12 billion cost. ("The 2010 Urban Mobility Report", Texas Transportation Institute, 

December 2010). 

But like many cities and states across America, we are doing something about it. We 

are leading the nation with our investment in operational treatments to reduce traffic 

congestion on our streets and freeways. And we rank fourth (behind only New York, 

Chicago, and Washington, DC) in avoided delay associated with our growing 

investment in public transportation (ibid.). 

We have done this with the support of the federal government and the state of 

California, but we also have made a massive local commitment to transportation 

infrastructure. Three times the voters of Los Angeles County have supported taxing 

themselves through a half-cent transportation sales tax (1.5% aggregate), most recently 

in 2008 through Measure R. In the current fiscal year (2010-2011), our voter-approved 
24 

taxes will generate $1.8 billion in revenue that we are using to build. operate. and 

maintain a multi-modal transportation system. including robust investments in both 

highways and public transit. 

As you can see from our local commitment. we believe that one of the best ways to 

support job creation and the economy is through investment in transportation 

infrastructure. For example. soon after Measure R passed. we broke ground on a new 

busway extension. creating 2.300 new jobs. We then accelerated construction of one of 

our new light rail lines. creating another 6.900 jobs. Over the next two years. we will 

start construction on four more major rail lines. creating thousands more jobs. 

With financing assistance we and other jurisdictions could accelerate our construction 

programs and create more jobs that both would stimulate the economy directly and 

create a more competitive national transportation infrastructure that would position the 

U.S. to prosper in the 21st century global economy. 

We think this can be achieved through the creation of a National Innovative Finance 

Program for Transportation Infrastructure that creates jobs. brings in federal tax 

revenue. and leverage federal dollars through the construction of transportation 

infrastructure. Such a program would provide financing assistance to jurisdictions 

seeking to create jobs and build new highway. rail. and transit projects. 

Part of proposal is an expansion and enhancement of the Transportation Infrastructure 

Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program. We are proposing six key changes to the 

current program that we believe will create jobs by leveraging federal dollars and getting 

more local and private investment in transportation infrastructure. 

1. Increase annual funding from $122 million (SAFETEA-LU authorization) to 

$375 million/year. This would leverage up to $3.8 billion in loans annually and $7 

billion in investment each year. It also could provide funding for partial interest rate 

subsidies (see below). Obviously. higher annual funding levels would leverage even 

more investment and job creation. which we would support. 

2. Increase the maximum T1FIA share from 33% to 49%. While this reduces the 

leverage. it broadens the appeal of the program and makes it easier for more 

jurisdictions to participate. 

3. Broaden eligibility to include programs of related projects. This lets 

jurisdictions engage in comprehensive. multi-modal planning and project delivery. 

4. Authorize USDOT to make upfront contingent credit commitments for certain 

large projects or programs. This would mitigate financing risk for project sponsors 
25 

while enabling the federal government to establish rigorous criteria for what types of 

projects would qualify for upfront contingent credit commitments. The commitments 

and performance requirements could be memorialized in a "master credit 

agreement". By reducing risk, it will be easier to attract private capital and 

investment. 

5. Authorize USDOT to offer a limited interest rate hedge to a project sponsor 

receiving an upfront contingent credit commitment. This also would mitigate 

financing risk, especially for programs with multiple projects and phased 

construction. Since an actual loan cannot be executed until all federal 

environmental work is complete, interest rates may rise between the time a master 

credit agreement is signed and the loan is executed. Again, by reducing risk, it will 

be easier to attract private capital and investment. 

6. Authorize USDOT to provide a loan with a fully subordinate lien on pledged 

revenues if certain conditions are mel This would address a challenge with the 

current program whereby subordinate TIFIA loans "spring" to parity with other senior 

debt if there is a bankruptcy-related event. It is difficult or impossible to getting such 

a feature into a bond indenture. This is a barrier to getting private capital invested 

into projects through bonds. 

Our proposal has multiple benefits to the federal govemment and meets many policy 

goals articulated by Congress. 

• We can create real jobs for Americans. A national program will generate almost one 

million new jobs in the U.S. and $51 billion in income ("Federal Programs to 

Accelerate Highway and Transit Improvements", Los Angeles Economic 

Development Corporation, February 15, 2011). At a time of continuing high 

unemployment, nothing could be more important than putting Americans back to 

work. 

• We will stimulate the economy. Our proposal will generate $158 billion in total 

economic output. Direct activity will be in the construction and professional, 

scientific, and technical services, but we also will see significant boosts to many 

sectors, including retail trade and manufacturing (ibid.). 

• We will increase federal tax revenue by $10.6 billion and state tax revenue by $5.8 

billion (ibid.). While the current federal scoring methodology does not consider new 

tax revenue, we argue that it should. At a minimum, Congress should recognize that 

by stimulating economic activity federal tax revenue also will grow. In effect, there 

will be a direct return on federal investment. 
26 

• Financing programs are not earmarks. They are tools that help jurisdictions seeking 

to create jobs and build their infrastructure do so faster. To make sure that 

nationally and regionally significant projects move forward, Congress can establish 

funding criteria to make sure that the best projects get help. Of course, direct 

federal investment and grant programs are still important and need to be continued. 

• The program creates the conditions to bring private sector capital and investment to 

transportation infrastructure. Bond programs are advantageous to the federal 

government because 100% of the up-front money comes from private investors, not 

the U.S. Treasury. This means no appropriations or up-front cost to the federal 

government. This feature addresses near-term budgetary and spending challenges 

facing Congress today. 

• The program also would create incentives for jurisdictions to raise their own 

revenue. Creating a program that requires a significant local match or repayment 

from a non-federal source encourages the development of local and state revenue 

sources. The federal government remains an important investment partner, but is 

not the principal investor. 

• The program could be beneficial to jurisdictions with existing, funded long-term 

infrastructure programs. While there is an incentive to raise local revenue, even 

existing plans could be accelerated. Projects could be built sooner and Americans 

put back to work. 

• Combining significant local revenue with federal investment results in more overall 

investment in the nation's transportation infrastructure. This means more jobs and 

better transportation systems to support business and commerce. 

Our proposal has garnered growing support from a wide range of business, labor, and 

environmental leaders and groups. This includes support from national leaders such as 

Thomas Donohue, President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Richard 

Trumka, President of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial 

Organizations. Creating jobs and building transportation infrastructure can and should 

be a bipartisan issue. 

Local jurisdictions also are supporting the call for a new federal partnership. The U.S. 

Conference of Mayors has adopted a support position on innovative financing and over 

60 mayors - including both Republicans and Democrats - have signed on to a support 

letter for a national program. 

We think the time is now for Congress to enact a National Innovative Finance Program 

for Transportation Infrastructure. It would be ideal if these ideas could be incorporated 
27 

into reauthorization, but Congress should pursue stand alone legislation if 

reauthorization does not occur this year. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me directly or Deputy Mayor Jaime de la Vega at 

(213) 978-2360 or jaime.delavega@lacitv.org before or after the hearing if you have any 

questions. 

Finally, I want to express my thanks to Chairman Boxer and Chairman Mica for your 

interest and commitment to creating jobs and helping America build its transportation 

infrastructure. Your passion and leadership on these issues is just what America 

needs. We think that a National Innovative Finance Program for Transportation 

Infrastructure would be transformative for our nation and hope that Congress can 

establish such a program this year. I look forward to working with you both and your 

respective committees and am available to assist in any way that is helpful. 

Attachment: "Federal Programs to Accelerate Highway and Transit Improvements", Los 

Angeles Economic Development Corporation, February 15, 2011 
28 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Mayor. 

Now we are going to hear from the chair of the Los Angeles Area 

Chamber of Commerce. I want to make sure, Joseph, I say it right. 

Is it Czyzyk? 

Mr. CZYZYK. You got it. That is right. 

Senator BOXER. All right. Mr. Czyzyk. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH A. CZYZYK, CHAIR, LOS ANGELES 

AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

Mr. CZYZYK. Chairman Boxer and Chairman Mica and distinguished Members of Congress, my name is Joe Czyzyk and I am 

the chairman of the Board of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of 

Commerce. We are the largest business organization in Southern 

California. It is a privilege for me to appear here before you. 

First, allow me to thank you for bringing this important meeting 

here to our city, to Los Angeles. 

Second, a quick word about our history, which is an extensive 

one. It was the L.A. Chamber of Commerce back in 1890 that presented a resolution to Congress and hosted interested Members of 

the House and Senate for a tour of what we envisioned would become the Port of Los Angeles. 

Today, our Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are the largest 

in the Nation and are the backbone of trade with Asia. Our ports 

are a result of collaboration between business and our Federal Government. 

Let us not forget our LAX, the largest origin and destination airport for passenger use and the second largest air cargo airport in 

the United States, all built on a 1960s structural model with only 

one major improvement in 1984, and that was 27 years ago. 

This morning, you will hear about ways to kick-start vitally 

needed infrastructure projects here in Los Angeles County and 

across the Nation. Together we can once again become collaborators in improving our Nation’s dated infrastructure. 

You know this without me saying it: better transportation drives 

jobs. Getting goods to market faster and people to work more efficiently is critical to our Nation’s economic recovery. 

Here in Los Angeles, we are committed to reducing congestion, 

repairing and modernizing our infrastructure, and improving our 

environment and quality of life. With Measure R—and you have 

heard a lot about it and you will consistently throughout this day— 

in 2008, which the Chamber, our business organization, fully supported—we fully supported a tax increase, if you can imagine that. 

A Chamber of Commerce—and worked to help pass, the region is 

committed to investing in our transportation system. 

In our city’s history, businesses collaborated with our local officials, the environmental community, and labor, a coalition that 

again sits in front of you today united in support for a program to 

accelerate the development of those Measure R projects. 

Our county’s voters did their part by taxing ourselves. Now 

Washington must do its part. Innovative financing tools from the 

Federal Government will stretch tax dollars further without any 

major impact to the Federal budget. 

Of course, we have all been talking about TIFIA. So by enhancing and expanding the current TIFIA program, the Federal Govern-
29 

ment will meet the positive demand to finance transportation 

projects and create much-needed new jobs. A flexible TIFIA program is needed that can move forward individual projects or a unified collection of projects. I am told that an enhanced TIFIA program could see as much as a 33 to 1 return. So by investing $1 

of Federal money, as an interest-free loan against our infrastructure bonds locally, we can put up to $30 to work. 

Senator BOXER. Could you say that one sentence again? 

Mr. CZYZYK. By investing $1 of Federal money, as an interestfree loan against our infrastructure bonds, we put as much as $30 

to work. 

As a business owner, that makes good sense to me. I wish I had 

that kind of return in my business. This is the kind of collaboration 

we need from Washington. 

Specifically, the L.A. Chamber of Commerce recommends an increase to the TIFIA funding cap to reflect current demand. Existing 

funding is sufficient. The program is severely oversubscribed and 

eligible, high-quality and creditworthy projects are being turned 

away. Increasing the funding cap will help projects from California 

to Florida. That was for Congressman Mica’s benefit. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CZYZYK. This will accelerate transit construction. This will 

put people to work. 

Our Chamber also specifically supports something that we have 

not spoken about, an increase to the airport passenger facility 

charge by $2.50 to help fund the needed improvements for our 

other airport called LAX. Why not finance improvements like the 

rest of the world by charging the users? After all, that is how the 

sales tax system works, and it is fair. It is a fair way to raise 

funds. 

In conclusion, it is important to recognize that almost 45 percent 

of the goods that line the store shelves, supermarkets, and car 

dealerships around the other 49 and a half States—and the other 

half is Northern California—of this country have been offloaded 

from aircraft using LAX and ships docking at our two ports here 

in Los Angeles, then using our roads and highways to be transported to the rest of America. Our infrastructure has taken a beating, partially for being the goods movement conduit for America. 

We have stepped up by taxing ourselves to improve our infrastructure for ourselves and, unselfishly, for the rest of America. Now we 

need help from the Federal Government to get our infrastructure 

into the 21st century. 

Our Chamber will be in Washington, DC. the first week of May 

for our annual Access DC trip. We have partnered with the mayor, 

MTA, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, and other 

groups to continue advocating for these critical infrastructure investments during our visit, and we hope that many Members of 

Congress will welcome our visit, those that are here as well. 

Please remember we have collaborated successfully before. We 

need to collaborate again. 

Thank you for coming here, and I appreciate the opportunity to 

testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Czyzyk follows:] 
30 

Testimony of Joseph A. Czyzyk 

Chairman of the Board of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and 

CEO of Mercury Air Group, Inc. 

Joint Hearing of: 

Senate Environment & Public Works Committee 

House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee 

February 23, 2011 

Greater Los Angeles Veterans Administration 

IMPROVING AND REFORMING OUR NATION'S SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS TO SUPPORT 

JOB CREATION AND THE ECONOMY 

Chairman Boxer and Chairman Mica and distinguished Members of the House and Senate, my name is 

Joe Czyzyk and I am the Chairman of the Board of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, the 

largest business organization in Southern California. It is a privilege for me to appear before you this 

morning. First, allow me to thank you for bringing this important hearing here to Los Angeles. Welcome 

to our great City. 

Second, a quick word of our history ... it was the LA Area Chamber of Commerce, back in 1890, that 

presented a resolution to Congress and hosted interested members of the House and Senate for a tour 

of what we envisioned would become the Port of Los Angeles. 

Today, our Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are the largest in the Nation and are the backbone of 

trade with Asia. Our Ports are a result of collaboration between business and our federal government. 

This morning, you will hear about ways to kick start vitally needed infrastructure projects here in Los 

Angeles County and across the Nation. Together, we can once again become collaborators in improving 

our Nation's dated infrastructure. 

You know this without me saying it-better transportation drives jobs. Getting goods to market faster 

and people to work more efficiently is critical to our Nation's economic recovery. 

Here in Los Angeles, we are committed to reducing congestion, repairing and modernizing our 

infrastructure and improving our environment and quality of life. With Measure R in 2008, which the 

Chamber fully supported and worked to help pass, the region committed to investing in our 

transportation system. 

In our City's history, business has collaberated with our local elected officals, the environmental 

community and labor, a coalition that again sits in front of you today united in support for a program to 

accelerate the development of those Measure R projects. 

Our County's voters did their part by taxing ourselves, now Washington must do its part. Innovative 

financing tools from the federal government will help stretch tax dollars further without any major 

impact to the federal budget. 

One way you can help is to fully fund the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act 

m~ . 
31 

By enhancing and expanding the current TIFIA program, the federal government will meet the positive 

demand to finance transportation projects and create much needed new jobs. A flexible TIFIA program 

is needed that can move forward individual projects or a unified collection of projects. 

Specifically, the LA Area Chamber of Commerce recommends an increase to the TIFIA funding cap to 

reflect current demand. Existing funding is insufficient, the program is severely oversubscribed and 

eligible, high-quality and credit-worthy projects are being turned away. Increasing the funding cap will 

help projects from California to Florida. This will help accelerate transit construction. And this will put 

people to work. 

In conclusion, the Chamber will be in Washington DC the first week of May for our annual Access DC 

trip. We have partnered with the Mayor's office, MTA, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor and 

other business groups to continue advocating for critical infrastructure investment during our visit. 

Please remember, we've collaborated successfully before. We need to collaborate again. 

Thank you for coming here. I appreciate the opportunity to testify. 

I hope you enjoy your time in our City of Angels. 
32 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Mr. Czyzyk. We look forward to seeing you in Washington, and maybe by May we will have 

a draft bill out and we will start moving on it. 

OK. Our next speaker is Mr. Robbie Hunter, council representative, Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building & Construction Trades 

Council. Again, members, this is labor and business sitting side by 

side, and I think that is a very strong message. 

Why do you not proceed? 

Mr. Hunter. 

STATEMENT OF ROBBIE HUNTER, COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE, LOS ANGELES/ORANGE COUNTIES BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL 

Mr. Robbie HUNTER. Chairman Boxer, Chairman Mica, thank 

you for coming to California. The Los Angeles and Orange Counties 

Building Trades Council represents 150,000 construction workers 

and apprentices in the Counties of Los Angeles and Orange County. These trade workers work for privately owned construction companies in this area. 

For decades, there has been an absolute need for commuter transit and high-speed rail systems for commuters and commerce in 

California. There have been upgrades and modernization in some 

regions such as the Alameda Corridor, but these are few and have 

been less effective due to the lack of a real grid and extended support system that would maximize their potential. 

The political, business, and labor leaders of the County of Los 

Angeles and the city have made the decision that they cannot expect the Federal Government to fix the gridlock in our county and 

city. As a coalition, we stand ready and able to play the lead role 

in paying for and moving these projects forward, hopefully with the 

help of your committee. 

The building trades worked closely with Mayor Villaraigosa on 

Measure R and the Chamber of Commerce. At this time, the construction costs—and we would ask that this committee would fund 

to the level of $375 million. At this time, construction costs are 

running at 20 and 30 percent below projections, and this would be 

an absolute time for the Federal and State government and the 

county to take an opportunity here. 

The building trades and the construction industry in California— 

we are running at 40 percent unemployment. There is nothing better as a stimulus—— 

Senator BOXER. Say that again so everybody hears that. 

Mr. Robbie HUNTER. The unemployment rate among construction 

workers in California is running at 40 percent, and there is no better stimulant than to put a paycheck in a construction worker’s 

hands on a public works project. Remember, these construction 

workers are working for private companies who do the lowest bid, 

and the only way they are going to get the next bid is do it once, 

do it right with the best trained workforce. We have the absolute 

formula to make the grid here in California a success. We are asking for funding to move this forward. We will repay that funding 

from Measure R. The taxpayers and the political and business leaders and labor leaders of this area are united, and we are asking 

for your help and your support. 
33 

I have a lengthy testimony which I will not submit, and I appreciate not having to read it out. So thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Robbie Hunter follows:] 
34 

Robbie Hunter, Council Representative 

Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building & Construction Trades Council 

02.23.11 

TESTIMONY TO JOINT HOUSE SENATE FIELD HEARING ON TRANSPORTATION & 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

The Los Angeles and Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council represent 150,000 

construction trade workers and apprentices who are employed by the privately owned construction industry 

companies in this area. 

For decades there has been an absolute need for a commuter transit and High Speed Rail System for 

commuters and commerce in California. There has been upgrades and modernization in some regions such 

as the Alameda Corridor. But these are few and have been less effective due to the lack of a real grid and 

extended support system that would maximize their potential. 

The political, business and labor leaders of the County and City of Los Angeles have made the decision that 

they cannot expect the federal government to fix the gridlock in our County and state as a coalition we stand 

ready and able to play the lead roll both in paying for and moving these projects forward hopefully with the 

help of your committee. 

Through a partnership these leaders introduced Measure R to Los Angeles County voters. It was not easy to 

ask a beleaguered workforce in a time of recession to approve a liz cent increase in the sales tax. 

Measure R needed 2/3,d of the voters to approve the measure which seemed to some impossibility. But the 

citizens of this County came to realize that if they did not pay for a system to get commuters out of their cars 

on the clogged freeways and clean the air, then the status quo would continue and we would build more 

freeways with more cars and congestion, none of which would improve the quality of life for residents or 

relieve the gross inefficiencies of our freeway system for business. 

In the wake of the passing of Measure R a plan emerged commonly known as the "3011 0 proposal" which 

aims to build a dozen projects in 10 years instead of the original 30. 

In seeking Federal loans and subsidies this County could speed the building of transportation projects which 

would provide tens of thousands of private jobs, reduce traffic congestion and carbon emissions. 

Infrastructure projects not only increases the productivity of the region, the projects themselves are a driving 

force for the economy. 

Construction workers reinvest their earnings directly back into the local economy through mortgage 

payments, buying consumable items supporting small businesses, paying taxes, and having health and 

retirement benefits that are provided by a private plan and not the state. 
35 

These construction workers are working for private construction companies who competitively bid with the 

understanding that the lowest and most efficient bid will win the project. 

The goal ofthese private companies and their workers are the same. Do it once .... do it right in the least 

amount of time with the most streamlined, well trained, skilled workforce possible so both the employer and 

worker will be the chosen contractor for the next project these are also the rules that the Building Trades live 

by. 

With a viable transit system in Southern California many families could be free of the need to own 2 cars or 

more. 

The cost maintenance and operation of an average car in California is over $4,000 per year. This money 

could well be used to increase the personal wealth and quality oflife for the family. The transit system 

would help relieve our nation of the chronic need to import oil. 

Because of the cconomic conditions at this time actual construction costs are at an all time low and 

competition is at an all time high. Many large projects here in Southern California are coming in at 20% and 

more below projected costs. I don't believe there are any rules that say the Federal and State governments 

cannot take advantage of this. This is a great time to build. 

As a representative of 150,000 construction workers and apprentices in the Los Angeles and Orange County 

area, I would ask your committee to consider our request to increase funding for the Transportation 

Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act. 

This is supported by Business, Labor and citizens alike. We are not asking you to pay for these projects, we 

are simply asking for loans that will be repaid with Measure R funds. 

This is a model that.! believe the Federal Government could use to show other states that if they do the work, 

then the Federal Government will support them. 
36 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so very much. 

Ms. Cindy McKim, director, California Department of Transportation, or Caltrans. We welcome you. 

STATEMENT OF CINDY MCKIM, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) 

Ms. MCKIM. Thank you. Chairman Boxer, Chairman Mica, distinguished Members of Congress, it is my pleasure to be here today 

representing the State of California. We appreciate your taking 

your time to come here to our State to seek input from us. 

I think that I do not want to repeat some of the key strategies 

that Mayor Villaraigosa and the others on the panel have already 

discussed. Suffice it to say that at the State level, we certainly recognize the need to invest strategically, improve project delivery, reward efficiency, and expand private investment and the ability to 

use new, creative financing tools for our projects. 

One of the key issues that we have had here in California—we 

are facing a huge budget deficit, as you all well know, and those 

kinds of budget deficits make transportation funding extremely erratic. Nothing bleeds project delivery efficiency than funding that 

comes in stops and starts. We certainly encourage you to do whatever you can to get a reauthorization as quickly as possible. The 

continuing resolutions are, frankly, kind of hurting us significantly, 

both at the State and local levels. 

Many of the projects that our regional agencies, our local agencies are implementing are funded by a variety of funding streams. 

It is very rare these days to see a project that is funded by only 

one funding stream. I wish that were not the case because it would 

certainly make all our lives more palatable. But at the Federal 

level, you can have several different Federal programs funding the 

same project on top of several State programs, on top of several regional and local programs. It makes trying to chase those dollars 

and administer those funds increasingly expensive and inefficient. 

One of the things we really have to do is get on top of it. 

One of the things that we are kind of struggling with is—I think 

that Congressmember Brown mentioned the Federal Railroad Administration not being able to get the funding out to projects. There 

is an opportunity, I think, for the various Federal agencies involved 

to kind of work more closely together and not have to recreate the 

rules. I think one of the problems we are seeing, particularly with 

the Federal Railroad Administration, is they are struggling to create the processes that the Federal Highway Administration or the 

Federal Transit Administration already have in place. So let us try 

to break down some of those silos. 

We recognize at the State level we need to break down some of 

those same silos here. Over the years, what we have done in transportation is put band aid on band aid on band aid to try to deal 

with issues as they come up. It has gotten so bad that now the blob 

is so full of band aids, you cannot see what is underneath. Perhaps 

the budget issues that we have confronting us will give us a unique 

and unprecedented opportunity to kind of close our eyes and pull 

the band aids off and come up with a way that we can really ensure and reward efficiency and streamline project delivery. 
37 

We need to have a system that does not discourage investment 

in maintenance and operation. One of the shortcomings from my 

perspective at the Federal level—excuse me—at the State level is 

we spend a lot of time getting projects built, funding the projects 

to get them built, and we do not provide adequate recognition of 

the ongoing costs of maintenance and operation. That is one of the 

benefits of public/private partnerships, I think, as the way to be 

able to demonstrate that managing a project through its life cycle, 

funding a project through its life cycle will result in improved efficiencies. I think anything that you can do to kind of reward that 

behavior would be of benefit. 

We have talked about goods movement. We absolutely need to 

have a goods movement strategy that works better nationally because that is a key problem for us. 

The next authorization has the opportunity to streamline project 

delivery. We appreciate Chairman Mica’s commitment to speeding 

up the time it takes to deliver Federal projects. Again, I think that 

we have an opportunity to do that by kind of breaking down those 

silos between the various Federal agencies. Extended processing 

time for environmental clearances, Federal permits and reviews 

adds to the cost of projects and delay mobility. We need to try to 

get more of those reviews and permits issued on a concurrent basis. 

California, I would like to point out, is the only State to have 

fully implemented the NEPA delegation pilot program, and that 

pilot program has saved us years in delivering projects. We would 

like to see that pilot program made permanent so that we can continue to achieve those benefits for Californians and get the projects 

out more quickly. 

We also would like to work to develop programmatic advanced 

mitigation for natural resource impacts, a more corridor-based approach, rather than the kind of project-specific mitigation strategies that we have had. The opportunity to do that mitigation banking. 

Thank you very much for your attention, and if there is anything 

I can do to help in this effort, please let me know. Thanks. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McKim follows:] 
38 

Joint Hearing of the 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative John L. Mica 

February 23, 2011, 

Los Angeles, CA 

Good morning Senator Boxer, Representative Mica, members of the 

joint committees and other distinguished guests. I'm Cindy McKim, 

Director of the Califomia Department of Transportation. I appreciate 

the opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of Governor Jerry 

Brown and the citizens of California. 

I want to provide you w'ith a clear sense ofthe transportation issues 

facing this state - the most populous in the nation and the eighth largest 

economy in the world. 

Our economy depends heavily upon a complete, efficient transportation 

system; it carries the goods, people and services that, in turn, power 

California - and America's - prosperity. Transportation's importance in 

this state and to the rest of the nation cannot be over-stated. 

California has invested heavily at the state and local level in a 

transportation system that is responsible for benefits that ripple 

throughout the economies of every other state in the nation. More than 

40 percent of containers moving into and out of America use 

California's highways, railroads, ports, and airports. With 12 percent of 

the nation's population, California is responsible for almost 14 percent 

of the nation's Gross Domestic Product. 
39 

However, California cannot do it alone. We urge Congress to enact 

visionary legislation, with a bold funding plan that meets today's 

challenges. We all know the Highway Trust Fund isn't keeping up with 

needs. In addition, the National Surface Transportation Policy and 

Revenue Study Commission has reported that the nation faces a $140 

billion annual investment shortfall with regard to maintaining existing 

transportation assets and expanding our road and transit systems to 

handle future growth. Ifwe want a viable transportation system, we are 

going to have to invest strategically, streamline project delivery, and 

reward etliciency. 

Reauthorization needs to ensure the financial integrity of the 

Highway and Transit Trust Funds. The financial integrity of the 

transportation trust fund is at a crossroads. Current user fees are not 

keeping pace with needs or even the authorized levels in current law. 

The current revenue stream will not provide the revenue or stability 

needed, especially as new fuels enter the marketplace. This 

authorization will need 10 stabilize revenues and prepare the way for the 

transition to new methods of funding our nation's transportation 

infrastructure, such as the flexibility to use creative financing tools. We 

appreciate Senator Boxer's work to strengthen and expand the T1FIA 

program. 

We need to rebuild and maintain our transportation infrastructure 

in a good state of repair. Conditions on California's (and the nation's) 

surface transportation systems are deteriorating while demand is 

increasing. This is adversely affecting the operational efficiency of our 

key transportation assets, hindering mobility, commerce, quality of life 

and the environment. 
40 

Our economic health demands that we establish goods movement as 

a national economic priority. Interstate commerce is the historic 

cornerstone defining the federal role in transportation. The efficient 

movement of goods across state and international boundaries increases 

the nation's ability to remain globally competitive and generate jobs. 

You can help by creating a new federal program and funding sources 

dedicated to relieving growing congestion at America's global gateways. 

This congestion is acting as a trade barrier and creating environmental 

hot spots. 

Our urban areas deserve enhanced mobility through congestion 

relief within and between metropolitan areas. California is home to 

six of the 25 most congested metropolitan areas in the nation. These 

mega-regions represent a large majority of the population affected by 

travel delay and exposure to air pollutants. We ask that you increase 

funding for enhanced capacity for all modes aimed at reducing 

congestion and promoting mobility in the most congested areas. 

The next authorization has the opportunity to streamline project 

delivery. We appreciate Chairman Mica's commitment to speeding up 

the time it takes to deliver federal projects. Extended processing time 

for environmental clearances, federal permits and reviews, etc., add to 

the cost of projects and delay needed mobility improvements for the 

traveling pUblic. Given constrained resources, it is all the more critical 

that these clearances and reviews be kept to the minimum possible, 

consistent with good stewardship of natural resources. 
41 

I'd like to point out that California was the only state to fully implement 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) delegation pilot 

program contained in SAFETEA-LU, which California began using in 

2007. Through this program, Caltrans has assumed most federal 

responsibilities for environmental documents and now completes routine 

NEPA documents about 14 months earlier than before. Overall project 

delivery timeframes have improved as well. California recommends that 

this successful pilot be made permanent. 

California is working to develop programmatic advance mitigation for 

natural resource impacts. The next authorization can facilitate this 

innovative strategy by allowing greater flexibility to do advanced 

mitigation based on mutually approved modeling. 

You can consolidate federal programs to improve efficiency and 

provide flexibility. The Administration's surface reauthorization 

proposal suggests consolidating 55 highway programs into five "core 

programs", along with other program consolidations in other areas. If 

this includes giving the states flexibility in making funding decisions 

that are appropriate for them, it is a good start to providing the flexibility 

we need. 

We are looking for a continued, stable, and reliable long-term 

investment strategy from Washington that can support the transportation 

infrastructure necessary to continue our nation's economic supremacy. 

No other action by Congress could serve transportation as well, create as 

many jobs, or build badly needed infrastructure as effectively as that 

action. 
42 

To reiterate, the reauthorization should include provisions to: 

• Ensure the financial integrity of the Highway and Transit Trust 

Funds. 

• Rebuild and maintain our transportation infrastructure. 

• Make goods movement a national priority. 

• Reduce congestion in metropolitan areas. 

• Streamline project delivery and extend California's NEPA 

delegation. 

• Consolidate federal programs 

We will continue working with our federal partners at FHWA, as well as 

our local transportation partners to meet California's transportation 

needs. These partnerships have been critical to our success. 

I'm grateful for the time you have given me, and I look forward to 

working with you in the future. And now. if you have any questions or 

comments, I would be glad to hear them. 
43 

Senator BOXER. Oh, there will be. We thank you very much. 

Ms. Kathryn Phillips, Director, California Transportation and Air 

Initiative, Environmental Defense Fund. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF KATHRYN PHILLIPS, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA 

TRANSPORTATION AND AIR INITIATIVE, ENVIRONMENTAL 

DEFENSE FUND 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Thank you. Thank you for inviting me to this. 

Thank you for holding this in California. Thank you for making 

such an effort to make it a bipartisan, bicameral effort. I think that 

that is extraordinarily important especially today. 

I want to note that I am representing Environmental Defense 

Fund and speaking for Environmental Defense Fund, but we are 

also a member of Transportation for America, which is a coalition 

of more than 400 organizations dedicated to transportation system 

improvements and to bringing our system up to a 21st century 

standard. So while my comments do not necessarily reflect everything that every member would believe in, I think you would find 

that there is an awful lot of consistency with what I say. But I am 

not speaking for T4 today, but there are a number of T4 members 

in the audience. 

I want to share a few thoughts regarding freight transportation 

policy and also talk a little bit about the National Environmental 

Policy Act. 

But before I do that, I also wanted to make you aware that aside 

from my professional interests that informs my testimony, I am 

also informed by having grown up in a car-dependent Southern 

California town with a father who was a long distance truck driver 

and a mother who did not have a driver’s license. So I understood 

very early on that a reliable freight transportation system is essential to the economy—it was certainly essential to our household 

economy—and that the availability of good public transit can make 

or break access to every sort of opportunity. It was the way I got 

to school. 

So on to freight. As has already been mentioned, freight is essential to our economy, so I will not belabor that. But I will note that 

the Port of Los Angeles alone provides about a million jobs in the 

Southern California region and 3 million jobs nationally. So if you 

take that and you just multiply it across the country where we 

have rail yards, ports, hubs, corridors, trucking distribution centers, so on and so forth and logistics, you will see how important 

freight is to the economy. 

But it also comes with some heavy environmental costs. It produces about half the Nation’s smog-forming nitrogen pollution and 

more than a third of the fine particulate matter pollution. It is the 

leading source of toxic diesel soot and it is one of the fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions. 

I want to also emphasize it is not just a California problem. It 

is something that we see all over the country. 

Even as the freight system drives the economy, its pollution saps 

the economy. There has already been a mention of some of the 

costs. Economists estimate that in Southern California conservatively not meeting Federal ambient air quality standards costs 

about $22 billion just in the L.A. Basin. In the San Joaquin Valley, 
44 

it is about $6 billion annually. Can you imagine? You add that up 

and that is more than California’s current budget deficit. If we had 

that money just for 1 year, what would that do? So it is very essential that we cleanup the air pollution. In this basin, freight system 

emissions linked to the Port of Long Beach and Los Angeles represent the largest single fixed source of air pollution. 

Meanwhile, demand is growing, and it is overwhelming the 

freight system. Reliability, especially in urban hubs, is uneven at 

best, nonexistent at worst, and studies show that freight users cite 

reliability as a key attribute to their transportation choices, sometimes more important than speed. 

They also—and this is I think really important—recognize the 

need to reduce the system’s environmental impacts. We have 

brought together members of environmental justice, mainstream 

environmental groups, freight system operators, freight system 

users, and we are all in agreement that you need to do something 

to reduce freight’s environmental impacts to ensure that you can 

continue to operate freight without any kind of community demands for stopping freight activity. 

So our sense is that if we simultaneously focus on simultaneously 

modernizing freight and reducing its environmental impacts, we 

are going to have a win-win situation. We have seen some of that 

happen at the Port of Long Beach and L.A. where they have been 

able to dramatically—they have come up with a really aggressive 

Clean Air Action Plan. They have been already dramatically cut 

ports emissions, and they are still looking to the future to do other 

port emission reductions. 

Now, the Federal Government clearly cannot pay for everything 

and solve all of these problems of needed improvements in the 

freight system alone. However, that money that we do spend, that 

the Government spends, it can invest in the freight system smarter 

and help ensure that national goals for the economy and the environment are met through the freight system because it both costs 

money if we do not address both things simultaneously. 

I have provided some written testimony that lists a lot of specific 

things, but I just want to mention a couple of them. 

One is if within the bill—— 

Senator BOXER. You need to summarize really fast. 

Ms. PHILLIPS. If within the bill we define project eligibility for 

the Highway Trust Fund spending in a way that emphasizes system performance outcomes, then we will be in a better place. 

I want to very quickly just talk about NEPA. 

Senator BOXER. Your time has run out. What do you want to tell 

us? What are the top three things? 

Ms. PHILLIPS. The top three things on NEPA is it is important 

to remember it is a coordinating tool. It is not the law. It is the 

coordinating tool. That is really important, and when it is applied 

properly, it brings all the community interests and all the planning 

interests together early. 

Second, few people are interested in delaying good transportation 

projects that simultaneously provide that better system and the 

better environmental outcome. 

Third, while some people have suggested that removing environmental review requirements or scaling back the requirements will 
45 

significantly hasten project completion, this is not borne out by the 

limited research. 

Really what is needed is exactly the kind of thing that has already been raised earlier, and that is, for agencies to be brought 

in as early as possible in the planning process, the community to 

be brought in as early as possible. Then we do not encounter the 

kinds of conflicts in the end. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Phillips follows:] 
46 

Testimony of 

Kathryn Phillips 

Director, California Transportation and Air Initiative 

Environmental Defense Fund 

Before the 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

And the 

United States Senate 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Joint Field Hearing on 

"Improving and Reforming Our Nation's Surface Transportation Programs 

to Support Job Creation and the Economy" 

February 23, 2011 

8:30a.m. 

Brentwood Theater at the West Los Angeles Veterans Administration Campus 

11301 Wilshire Boulevard 
47 

ChaiIwoman Boxer, Chairman Mica, Representative Hunter, and members of the 

committees, thank you for inviting me to testify today. My name is Kathryn Phillips and 

I direct Environmental Defense Fund's transportation policy work in California and at 

the federal level. Environmental Defense Fund, or EDF, is one of the leading 

organizations dedicated to protecting and preserving our nation's air, water, and natural 

resources. We do this by relying on science, economics, law and policy advocacy and we 

partner with a range of other entities, including businesses, in our efforts to develop and 

apply workable solutions to some of the toughest environmental challenges. 

EDF is also a member of Transportation 4 America, a coalition composed of more 

than 400 organizations, including many represented by members of the audience. While 

my remarks today may not reflect those of every member of the T 4 coalition, I can 

accurately say that all of us in T 4 are united in our desire to see a better, more efficient 

transportation system in this country. 

Today I will address ways to get to that better system through surface 

transportation policy, especially the federal transportation bill. I will specifically address 

freight policy, and also the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As an 

environmentalist and transportation policy analyst, my focus, of course, is on how to 

improve the environmental performance of the system. While my professional 

background is essential to this discussion's framing and substance, you should be aware 

that my thoughts are also informed by my experience growing up in a car-dependent 

Southern California town with a father who was a long-distance truck driver and a 

mother who did not have a driver's license. I understood early that a reliable freight 

transportation system is essential to the economy, and that the availability of good 

public transit can make or break access to every sort of opportunity. 

Freight Transportation 

Economic and Environmental Impacts 

Surface freight transportation-from rail to trucks to ships and barges--is the 

backbone of America's economy. It is nearly impossible to pass a single day in this 

country without touching something that benefited from that system. Our food, our 

clothing, the electronic gadgets we love and hate-all of it came to us through that 

system. 

The system also provides a plethora of jobs, from the people who help load and 

unload ships and trucks, to the people who work in logistics and figure out how to make 

sure a load gets where it needs to go. The Port of Los Angeles alone takes credit for 

producing about 1 million jobs in the Southern California region, and 3 million jobs 

nationally through its direct and indirect impacts.' 

, Port of Los Angeles. Accessed February 19, 2011: 

http://www.portoflosangeles.org/finance/economic impact.asp. 
48 

The cargo delivery has corne with heavy environmental costs. Today, the freight 

system in this country is responsible for about half the smog -forming oxides of nitrogen 

pollution and more than a third of the fine particulate matter pollution. The freight 

system is the leading source of toxic diesel soot pollution. It also stands as one of the 

fastest growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions. 

Just as the freight system helps drive the economy, the system's pollution saps 

the economy. In the Los Angeles Air Basin where we sit today, economists estimate that 

not meeting ambient air quality standards costs the people living in this basin about $22 

billion a year through health costs, premature death, lost days at work and schoo1.2 In 

this basin, emissions from ships, trains, trucks and equipment at the port of Long Beach 

and Los Angeles represent "the largest single fixed source of air pollution in the Los 

Angeles Basin."3 

Demand Overwhelms Infrastructure 

Despite the freight system's economic importance and environmental impacts, 

the system has been allowed to deteriorate. Today it carries more than 60 million tons 

per day, or the equivalent of about 2-4 million truckloads of goods, and has grown 

substantially in the last 15 years or SO.4 For instance, in the decade beginning in 1997, 

trucking ton-miles grew by 22 percent, and rail grew by 25 percent.s By 2020, that 

number is expected to grow to more than 90 tons per day. 6 Yet the infrastructure and 

operations have not kept pace. 

Our freight system's reliability, especially in urban hubs, is uneven at best, 

nonexistent at worse. You've probably heard the common complaint that it can take 

longer for a train of goods to cross Chicago than it takes to cross the country. In this 

Southern California region, the system's congestion is evident on nearly every freeway, 

but especially on those surface streets and freeways running between the ports and the 

inland rail yards and distribution centers. A 2009 study of freight modernization needs 

by the Rand Corporation found that most freight users interviewed cited reliability "as a 

key attribute in their transportation choices, sometimes more important than speed."7 

2 Hall, Jane and Vic Brajaer. The Benefits oJMeeting Federal Clean Air Standards in the South Coast and 

San Joaquin Valley Air Basins. November 2008. Accessed February 18, 2011: 

http://business.fullerton.edu/centers/iees/reports/Benefits%200f%20Meeting%20Clean%20Air%20Stan 

~. 

3 South Coast AQMD. "AQMD to Hear Public Concerns About Ports' Air Pollution During Two Special 

Meetings at Long Beach City Hall." October 24, 2006. Accessed February 18, 2011: 

http://www.aqmd.gov/newsl/2oo6/mobileboardmeetingPRhtml. 

4 Hillestad, Richard, Ben D. Van Roo, and Keenan D. Yoho. Fast-Forward: Key Issues in Modernizing the 

U.S. Freight-Transportation SystemJor Future Economic Growth. Rand Supply Chain Policy Center. 

Rand Corporation. 2009. Accessed February 18, 2011: http://www.Rand.org. 

slbid. 

6 Phillip R. Herr. Approaches to Mitigate Freight Congestion. Government Accountability Office. 

November 20, 2008. Accessed October 2009: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09163r.pdf. 

7 Hillestad, op. cit. 
49 

Despite freight transportation's economic and environmental impacts, until 

recently, the freight system-as a system-has not received the attention it deserves in 

federal transportation planning and funding. In the federal transportation bill in the 

past, it has been assumed that by providing funding for highways and roadways, freight 

transportation will be effectively addressed. In fact, this approach hasn't worked to 

effectively modernize the system so that it works better and cleaner. 

Modernize the Freight System While Reducing Environmental Impacts 

It is possible to simultaneously modernize America's freight system, improve its 

efficiency AND reduce its environmental impacts, especially its air pollution and 

greenhouse gas emissions. Not only is it possible, it is necessary. This is an opinion that 

I can confidently say is shared by a range of people who work within the freight 

industry. It is not just the opinion ofthe environmental community. And it is an opinion 

based on what we have seen in the United States and abroad: When communities, 

businesses, freight system operators and governments make simultaneously cleaning up 

and modernizing the freight system a priority, it has happened, and the ability to 

continue operating freight without work-stopping community conflict is improved. 

Just one example: The Clean Air Action Plan adopted in 2006 by the ports of 

Long Beach and Los Angeles laid out a multi-year, multi-step program to reduce those 

ports' emissions while growing its business. To date, the ports have cut port-related 

emissions by a third to more than a half, depending upon the source, and they have 

continued to update their air cleanup plans to incorporate new innovations to reduce 

emissions.s Port activity continues to be robust and is showing good recovery from the 

economic downturn. 

The federal government cannot solve or pay for all of the modernization needed 

in the freight system. However, the money the government does invest can be spent to 

get more benefit from limited dollars. It can also influence how and where others invest, 

and ensure that national goals for the economy and the environment are met through 

freight system improvements. 

Federal Transportation Bill Improvements 

The federal transportation bill reauthorization provides an important 

opportunity to make our freight system work better. The new bill can help make 

America's freight system meet demand while reducing the systems air pollution, water 

pollution and noise through targeted provisions. These include: 

• Define project eligibility for Highway Trust Fund 

spending in a way that emphasizes system performance 

outcomes, including freight movement reliability and 

environmental performance. This will encourage applying the most 

B Port of Los Angeles. "2010 Clean Air Action Plan Update Approved.' News Release. November 22, 2010. 

Accessed February 19, 2011: 

http://portoflosangeles.org/newsroom/201O releases/news 112210 eMf update.pdf. 
50 

appropriate approach to improve bottlenecks, including intermodal 

approaches. Research shows that the conflict between freight trucks and 

passenger cars in urbanized areas is one particularly insidious freight 

system slower. The best way to improve the system in these cases can 

include providing more reliable public transit options to commuters to 

reduce roadway congestion and conflict on key freight corridors. In other 

cases, investing in on-dock rail terminals or grade separations where rail 

and roadways meet would reduce conflicts between truck traffic and rail 

traffic. 

• Require the Secretary of Transportation, in 

consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency, to 

establish freight reliability and environmental performance 

standards to help inform project eligibility for federal funding. 

This will help ensure that the most serious bottlenecks are addressed in a 

way that delivers lasting-not temporary--benefits. 

• Require the Secretary of Transportation to develop 

within one year a national freight plan that identifies key hubs, 

ports, corridors and gateways whose improvement is essential 

to simultaneously meet pressing reliability and environmental 

and public health goals. This planning will help establish where special 

attention should be directed. 

• Create an Office of Multimodal Freight within the 

office of the Secretary of Transportation. The mission of the office 

should be to advance simultaneous improvements in freight 

transportation reliability and environmental impacts. Among other things, 

this office's duties would include working closely with U.S. EPA to identify 

and implement ways to reduce freight system impacts on local 

communities. 

• Establish technical assistance funds for states and 

regions to distribute to appropriate entities to develop port, 

gateway and corridor clean-up plans. Clean-up plans help freight 

system operators thoughtfully consider the best way to modernize their 

system. To get the best plan, though, often requires technical knowledge 

beyond the operators' normal range. 

• Establish a competitive grant program that 

recognizes innovation and encourages projects that 

simultaneously deliver system reliability and emissions and 

other environmental impacts reductions. Funding competitions 

established through the transportation bill have proved effective in driving 

transportation planners and engineers to work with other entities to 

develop better ways to address problems. This could be a new stand-alone 
51 

freight improvement competitive grant program. Or the same effect could 

be achieved through spending criteria assigned to formula funds. 

• Direct funding toward better data collection on 

freight system needs and impacts. DOT has improved its freight data 

collection and analysis, but there are still gaps and needs. The gaps include 

data on the system's environmental, community, economic,job and trade 

impacts. 

• Develop grants for testing and deployment of 

cleaner freight system technologies. This would be an appropriate 

inclusion in the bill's research and development section. For instance, 

American-made electric heavy-duty trucks suitable for port drayage have 

been developed. Broader in-the-field experience and demonstrations is 

needed to help test and develop greater acceptance and reduce vehicle 

costs. Incentives to employ these trucks would provide this in-field 

experience and help develop a market. Likewise, incentives to accelerate 

replacement of other freight-system equipment powered by older, highpolluting diesel engines-such as gantry cranes, yard hostlers and switcher 

locomotives-would help modernize while reducing emissions. 

• Encourage operational improvements. Operational 

improvements are "the most effective near-term source of increased 

capacity" according to the Rand Corporation. 9 They simultaneously 

improve efficiency and reduce environmental impacts. They include such 

measures as congestion pricing on freight corridors to better manage 

existing infrastructure; time-of-day port access pricing; reducing or 

changing packaging to carry more goods per trip; and improving 

intermodal access to allow use of the most efficient mode for the length of 

trip or type of cargo handled. There are various ways to encourage 

operational improvements through the transportation bill, including 

grants to demonstrate the feasibility of or to deploy certain operational 

improvements (e.g. congestion pricing), or establishing funding criteria 

that gives preference to project applicants who have demonstrated they 

have employed a suite of operational improvements. 

The list I have just presented is not exhaustive. I do hope, though, that it will 

provide some assistance as you look for ways to improve the transportation system 

while reducing its environmental and public health costs. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The Causes of Project Delay 

9 Hillestad, op. cit. 
52 

I would like to turn to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the 

continuing discussion about its role in transportation project delay. 

First, it's important to note that NEPA is a coordinating tool. That is, it doesn't 

set environmental standards; other laws do that. NEPA provides a way to make sure that 

transportation projects are consistent with our nation's environmental and public health 

protection goals. It essentially makes sure that the agencies charged with enforcing 

environmental laws, and the public that will live with the consequences of the project, 

are brought into the project planning earlier than experience showed happened before 

NEPA was adopted in 1970. 

Second, I think it's fair to conclude that few are interested in delaying good 

transportation projects that simultaneously offer better transportation options while 

also improving a community's physical and public health environment. Nevertheless, 

there is some evidence that some projects are taking longer to complete than what 

appears reasonable. 

It is hard to pin down exactly how many projects are unreasonably slow or how 

long is too long because the literature and data neither broad nor deep. Estimates for 

project lengths seem to average around 4 to 7 years, with some outliers averaging twice 

as long. A few key studies completed in the last decade identify a list of reasons for 

excessive project length, and the most common reasons tend to vary a bit among the 

studies.lO However, reasons that seem to rank high for delaying or adding time to 

projects include: 

• project redesign or design additions; 

• the need to relocate businesses; 

• project complexity; 

• lack of funding for the project; 

• local objections to the project; and 

• interagency communications problems. 

While environmental review makes it onto the extended lists, review isn't the 

most frequently cited cause. This makes sense because, in reality, very few projects are 

actually required to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)-the full 

analysis possible under NEPA. In 2001, of all highway projects that received federal 

funds, only 3 percent of projects, accounting for 9 percent of funds, had an 

environmental impact significant enough to require preparation of an EIS.n Nearly all 

10 For a good overview of two recent studies, plus her own, see Dill, Jennifer. What ltifluences the Length 

of Time to Complete NEPA Reviews? An Examination of Highway Projects in Oregon and the Potential 

for Streamlining. Paper Submitted for Presentation to the 85th TRB Annual Conference (January 2006). 

Paper revised and submitted November 2005. Accessed February 19, 2011: 

http://dot.alaska.gov!stwddes!desenviron/assets!pdf!resources!nepareviewtime.pdf.Also, for a fourth 

and most recent study, see Keck, Dennis, et al. Accelerating Transportation Project and Program Delivery: 

Conception to Completion. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report 662. Tmnsportation 

Research Board. 2010. Accessed February 19,2011: 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp rpt 662.pdf. 

"Dill, Ibid. 
53 

federally funded transportation projects have been eligible for Categorical Exclusions or 

Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSIs),'2 both of which substantially abbreviate 

any environmental review requirements. 

Dangers Inherent in Weakening Environmental Review 

Some people have suggested that removing environmental review requirements 

or substantially scaling back the requirements for transportation projects will 

significantly hasten project completion. Again, this isn't borne out by the limited 

evidence. What appears to be more successful in speeding good projects is an increased 

emphasis on bringing experts from resources agencies into the project planning phase 

early, before the project's formal environmental review begins. SAFETEA-LU Section 

6001 has encouraged transportation agencies to routinely invite environmental, land 

management and natural resources agencies to participate in all the planning studies 

early, and this appears to be helping reduce time-delaying conflict later. At least 20 of 

27 state DOTs reported that they have revised their practices to include earlier 

consultation and engagement. 13 

As one researcher concluded after reviewing other studies and interviewing 

agency staff responsible for completion of 12 Oregon-based highway projects: 

Efforts to streamline the process may not alter overall timelines significantly simply 

because deadlines are set. Instead, the most significant improvements to the process are 

likely to come from better communication and information, along with earlier 

involvement. If a streamlining effort can succeed in these areas, the formal review 

process may be shorter. Perhaps more importantly, the process could result in better 

projects and better environmental outcomes. 14 

NEPA is not perfect. But it has too often been the focus of debates about project 

delays when it hasn't been the culprit. Bad planning, poor communication and a range 

of other issues-including lack of funding for resource agency staff to produce the 

analyses needed-are also in play, and must be addressed. 

The Orange County Transportation Authority has been working to develop a 

proposal for ways to reduce barriers that add unnecessary time to project delivery. One 

reason I am very interested in this effort is that it promises to fairly address the range of 

issues involved in delay. As Will Kempton, executive director of OCT A recently testified, 

he "has specifically reassured the environmental community in California and at the 

national level that none of the recommendations from the Breaking Down Barriers 

initiative are intended to eliminate necessary environmental protections related to 

federal projects." 

12 U.S. General Accounting Office. Highway Infrastructure: Perceptions of Stakeholders on Approaches 

to Reduce Highway Completion Time. April 2003. Accessed February 20, 2011: 

http://www.gaQ.gov /new.items/ d0330S.pdf. 

'3 National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Legal Research Digest 54: Practice Under the 

Environmental Provisions ofSAFETEA-LU. Transportation Research Board. December 2010. 14 Dill, Op Cit. 
54 

That said, we have just witnessed a range of attacks on basic environmental 

protections moved through the House through the budget process. This has been 

profoundly disappointing to the environmental community and put most of us-and 

lawyers who work on environmental issues-on high alert. I worry that regardless of 

OCTA's or others' good intentions, there may be further attempts to weaken 

environmental review through the transportation bill. If that occurs, the result will be a 

resurgence of lawsuits to stop projects-the type of lawsuits that are relatively rare today 

because environmental review requires agency and community consultation. We'll get 

stuck in a cycle that feeds the court but doesn't help deliver the kind of transportation 

system America needs. 

Conclusion 

There is no doubt that Americans want clean air. We all want clean water. We 

want to be confident that future generations will be able to know the joy of discovery 

that nature offers. We also want the practical benefits that a good transportation system 

offers. We want to fix our local sidewalks, streets and bridges. We want better, more 

innovative public transit to help us manage our budgets as fuel prices rise. We want a 

freight system that provides good jobs, but doesn't poison us with toxic emissions. 

The challenge now is to push beyond the charged political atmosphere and 

deliver both a clean environment and an effective, efficient transportation system. I 

remain optimistic that can be done. I look forward to working with all of you as you 

develop the next federal transportation bill to help deliver such a system. 
55 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so very much. 

Next, Mr. Will Kempton, CEO, Orange County Transportation 

Authority, who has been so helpful to me personally over the years. 

So we welcome you. 

STATEMENT OF WILL KEMPTON, CEO, ORANGE COUNTY 

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 

Mr. KEMPTON. Thank you, Senator. 

Chair Boxer, Mr. Chairman, members, it is a pleasure to be here. 

I am Will Kempton. I am wearing two hats today. I am the chief 

executive officer of the Orange County Transportation Authority, 

but I am also chair of Mobility 121, which is a regional coalition 

of business and transportation agencies that support a common 

transportation agenda here in Southern California. 

Let me just say at the outset we know you have a difficult task. 

I think you will hear from my colleagues here today understanding 

that. You will have to balance expectations with the fiscal facts of 

life, and that is a tough task in anybody’s book. 

I will say at the outset that we do support early action on a 6- 

year bill and immediate extension of an authorization through the 

end of this fiscal year. We are happy to know that both chairs are 

in concert on that point. It is going to maintain current programmatic levels through September. It is going to provide some 

certainty, and when you are managing a capital program, you must 

have that certainty, as the Director of Transportation indicated. 

So as Mr. Shuster said, you are faced with doing more with less, 

but I think there are some opportunities in this process as well. We 

see three specific opportunities: a way to increase leverage, a way 

to be more innovative, and certainly some reforms. 

Self-help counties, the counties in California that raise their own 

local sales tax, pay for transportation, have raised billions of dollars for transportation. That is an example of leverage. Our 6-year 

plan that we have provided you copies with in the testimony costs 

about $3.7 billion, but 70 percent of those funds are coming from 

the local level. 

Innovation. You have heard about expanding and institutionalizing TIFIA. We agree with the specifics that Mayor Villaraigosa 

outlined. The 30/10 concept, Build America bonds, GARVEE bonds, 

innovative financing will allow you to stretch dollars. 

Now, reform. I want to talk a little bit more specifically about reform. We have an initiative known as the Breaking Down Barriers 

initiative. It is in concert with Administrator Mendez’ Every Day 

Counts initiative, with the chair’s 437 Plan, consistent with the 

President’s executive order, and with the House resolution 72, and 

we are coordinating with the environmental community on that 

plan because we do not want this proposal to eliminate or minimize 

environmental protections. So we will be working with State and 

Federal environmental groups to make sure that that is accomplished. 

We have about 2 dozen specific changes which we are going to 

be making available to you all in about 30 days as we finalize those 

changes, but let me give you some examples. 

First of all—you have already heard about this—extending and 

expanding the NEPA delegation. Five States granted that author-
56 

ity under SAFETEA-LU. Only California took advantage of it. As 

Ms. McKim indicated, time savings of 10 to 14 months per project. 

We have quite a database of projects that have been approved 

under this process here in California. 

Do not let the planning process delay project implementation, as 

it did during the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Why 

could we not get money out more quickly? Because we had to go 

back through the Federal process to qualify projects for those dollars. There are ways that we can fix that and we will recommend 

those to you. 

Compress and overlap the sequential activities. If you look at a 

bar chart that shows design, environmental review, design, rightof-way, et cetera, those activities can be overlapped to save time. 

We want to employ a prompt action provision. We are working with 

the environmental community on this, but some defined requirements for project-level reviews. If you can sign a partnership agreement between the regulatory agencies and the sponsoring agency, 

you can waive that requirement because in that agreement you will 

agree to schedule and other activities. 

Practical design, doing things a little bit cheaper. It is not so 

much an emphasis on standards. 

Extend the pre-award spending authority that exists on the transit side to the highway side so that you can actually begin activities 

sooner. 

These are all activities that can be done to improve project delivery, to get jobs out faster. The emphasis of our role is breaking 

down barriers so we can create jobs more quickly. 

Madam Chair, I am happy to answer any questions at the appropriate time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kempton follows:] 
57 

Testimony of: 

Will Kempton 

Chief Executive Officer 

Orange County Transportation Authority 

Orange County, California 

Before· the 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

and 

The United States Senate 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Joint Hearing on: 

Improving and Reforming our Nation's Surface Transportation 

Programs to.Support Job Creation and the Economy 

aCTA 

Wednesday, February 23,2011 

8:30a.m. 

Brentwood Theatre 

West Los Angeles Veterans Administration Campus 

11301 Wilshire Boulevard 

Los Angeles, California 
58 

Chair Boxer, Chair Mica and members of the House Transportation and 

Infrastructure and Senate Environmental and Public Works Committees,my name is 

Will Kempton and I am the Chief Executive Officer of the Orange County 

Transportation Authority (OCT A), located in Orange County, California. I am very 

pleased to be here today to share with you our ideas regarding how. the future 

transportation reauthorization legislation can create jobs, improve our economy and 

improve the lives of those who reside and travelin Southern California. 

OCT A is part of a larger coalition of Southern Califomia business and. public 

transportation entities, called Mobility 21, which I currently chair. Last week, Mobility 

21 visited Washington and set out a vision for transportation reauthorization for 

Southern California during these difficult economic times. That vision requires doing 

more with less as we address. some of the most stubborn congestion in the nation 

and creating the jobs needed to bring the economy back to health. First Mobility 21 

recognizes that, in spite of the recession, investment in transportation infrastructure 

is essential to the creation of jobs and global competitiveness. Second; we 

acknowledge the benefit of innovative financing tools to stretch local investments. 

Finally, Mobility 21 endorses the efforts of OCTA and others to expedite and improve 

the delivery of federal projects to accelerate the creation of jobs. . . 

That regional vision of transportation forms the framework for the efforts of OCT A 

and other transportation providers in Southern California to work in a new 

partnership with the federal government in these difficult times. Whether it is the Los 

Angeles 30-10 program, Riverside County's need for TIFf A funding, or OCTA's 

capital needs along with our efforts to b.reak down existing barriers to expedited 

project delivery, we hope that the federal government will continue its important role 

in the investment of transportation by supporting the kind· of regional partnership 

commitments which we are making here in Southern Califomia. . 

At OCTA we are more. than equal partners in the funding of transportation 

infrastructure projects. This year will mark the successful completion of $4.1 billion in 

locally funded transportation improvements promised to Orange County voters in 

1990, when they approved Measure M, a twenty-year half-cent local sales tax 

program. At the same. time, we are beginning implementation of. a renewed 

Measure M program that was approved by nearly 70 percent of our voters in 2006, 

and is projected to provide more than $15 billion in·new local funding for freeway, 

regionall1ocalstreets and roads, and transit improvements by 2041. 

OCT A's six-year plan for federal capital projects has previously been shared with the 

Committee Chairs and is attached to these ·remarks. It shows a list of ten multimodal 

projects intended to attack regional congestion, improve the efficiency of highway, 

transit and goods movement in and through Orange County, and improve livability in 

the most populous cities within the "County. Most importantly, the plan reflects 

OCT A's belief that a strong State and local financial commitment must lead the way 

to project funding. The total cost of this plan is $3.7 billion, with $2.61 billion, or over 

70%, being provided from antiCipated state or local revenues and user fees. 
59 

Several key projects in this plan demonstrate the strategic use of limited resources 

to provide the. largest benefit for Orange County. The plan includes two new start 

transit projects designed to improve mobility in two of the densest parts of Orange 

County: the Santa government center/downtownarea and the Anaheim 

resort/professional sports area. These two projects were developed from a regionwide OCTA planning process arid Measure M commitment to increase the reach of 

the Metrolink commuter rail system by creating urban circulator systems. 

The Santa Ana project is anticipated to be.a streetcar system that would travel along 

a major. east-west corridor providing access from the Mettolink commuter rail station 

through Santa Ana's downtown to the Santa. Ana Civic Center, state and federal 

government offices and courthouses. The system would reduce traffic congestion, 

reduce emissions, promote livability, support economic development, improve land 

use and provide a more pedestrian-friendly community in central Santa Ana. 

The Anaheim Rapid Connection project is envisioned to operate as a high-capacity 

transportation system, providing convenient and efficient transfers to Metrolink 

commuter rail, Amtrak,· bus and future high-speed train services at the Anaheim 

Regional Transportation Intermodal. Center (ARTIe). The 3.5 mile system will 

connect residents, workers and visitors to ARTIC, the Anaheim Convention Center, 

new. mixed use office and residential development in the area and the Anaheim 

Resort,including Disneyland. 

Another project from this plan will address the San Diego Freeway (1-405) in Orange 

County. This project will add new lanes to eleven miles o.f 1-405 from the Costa Mesa 

Freeway (State Ro.ute 55) to the San Gabriel River Freeway (Interstate. 605), 

generally within the existing right-of-way (ROW). 

The project is currently in .the environmental clearance .phase and there are three 

build alternatives under consideration, ranging from the addition of one general 

purpose lane in each direction, two general purpose lanes in each airection and an 

express lanes alternatiVe, which would add one general purpose lane and one 

express lane in each direction. Under this last alternative, the new express lane and 

existing high~occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane would be operated as a two-lane toiled 

express facility in each direction (consistent with the existing operation ofthe State 

Route .91 Corridor) and HOY's would ride free, or be discounted at peak hour. This 

project may provide an option for the application of innovative procurement 

techniques and potential. private investment. 

While we strongly support efforts to build high speed rail in Califomia, we also 

recognize the need to continue to make improvements to existing rail corridors in 

order to improve system efficiency and safety. Therefore, the OCT A plan also 

includes grade separation projects along the LOSSANCorridor in Orange County. 

The LOSSAN Corridor, connecting Los Angeles to San Diego through Orange 

County, is the second busiest passenger rail corridor in the nation; carrying 2.5 
60 

million passengers last year. Expanded track capacity in the lOSSAN corridor, using 

existing rolling stock, could significantly reduce travel times between San Diego and 

los Angeles and could be completed I>y 2016. Continued federal support for high 

speed rail and federal investment in rail infrastructure will aid in the. movement of 

goods and people in Southern California arid improve the economy nationwide. 

OCTA hopes that the committees will place an emphasis in reauthorization 

legislation on funding projects such as the ones contained in the OCTA plan, where 

federal goals of congestion reduction and livability are being accomplished with a 

strong local financial commitment and where there is consideration of innovative 

arrangements to leverage federal funding commitments. 

As important as project funding is, OCTA also underStands that an important key to 

creating jobs and improving the economy is efficient, expedited· project 

implementation. It is well known that federally funded projects often take an· 

extraordinary length of time--as much as 14 years:'" from the time of funding 

availability to project completion. This is time wasted in processing that slows down 

the creation of jobs . 

Any infusion of construction jobs into the economy at this particular time brings. an 

added benefit. Right now, bids on constrUction projects .at OCTA, throughout 

California and around the nation are coming in at l>etween 25 and 40 percent below 

engineering estimates; This meanS if we can the funding and build projects now, we 

can receive more benefit for the public dollarS spent. In the past year alone, OCTA 

has saved $138 million from construction bids below engineering estimates. This 

savings will be put to work to pay for other unfunded projects in the county. 

In early 2010, OCTA, led by Board Member PeterBuffa; began discussions with top 

United States Department of Transportation officials and key Congressional leaders 

regarding the opportunity to unlock 'the jobs tied up in the federal project delivery 

process and create jobs in Orange County and throughout the nation. This earlier 

creation of jobs can be accomplished without the expenditure of massive amounts of 

federal funds. 

OCTA's discussions with Congress and the Administration over the. past months 

have revealed that others in Washington share the view that nowis the. time to 

expedite federal funding and reduce the burdensome requirements long associated 

with major federal projects. The Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) "Every 

Day Counts", initiative seeks to identify and deploy innovation aimed at shortening 

project delivery. The 437 Plan of House Transportation and Infrastructure 

Committee Chair John Mica (R-Fl) is seeking to apply the goal which was achieved 

in the shortened timeframe it took to rebuild the collapsed Interstate 35W bridge in 

Minneapolis, to all federally funded projects. President Obama recently authored an 

op-ed piece· in the Wall Street Journal criticizing "absurd and unnecessary 

paperwork requirements that waste time and money" and issuing an Executive 

Order to review existing rules that stifle job creation. 
61 

The Breaking Down Barriers initiative has been a process of listening and collecting 

the experiences of OCTA counterparts in California and across the nation. OCTA 

has reached out to state and local governments, as well as key transportation 

industry and business associations such as .the American Association of State 

Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the American Public Transportation 

Association (APTA), and the U. S. Chamber of Commerce for their assistance in this 

initiative. 

OCT A has conducted over 40 confidential intelViews over the past four months with 

project implementers and trade associations in an effort to collect the widest 

sampling of recommendations as to where changes in the status guo can expedite 

project delivery. The intelViews found that delay in project delivery can be attributed 

tothe following causes: 

a. A misplaced federal focus on micromanaging in the name of good project 

control; 

b. A misplaced reliance on document length in the name of quality; 

c. A focus on processing in place of advanCing projects; 

d. A failure to adopt a federal, state, and local partnership effort to replace 

the 'highly risk-averse attitude· presently associated with federal 

oversight, 

e. An erroneous belief that delay is evidence of diligence. 

f. A failure to penalize delay and reward innovation at the federal and 

state or local level. 

The OCT A final report is still in development, but to date we have. identified more 

than two dozen changes in existing federal law, regulations; or practices which could 

speed up the project delivery process. These recommendations are grouped into 

three general areas. The first set of recommendations is intended to shift the federal 

focus to the outcome of delivery of a transportation benefit Actions supporting this 

goal include: providing for universal pre-award spending to state and local entities; 

clarifying the transportation improvement program amendment process;' extending 

the NEPA delegation authority; removing redundant steps in the environmental 

review process; and providing for modular or scenario-based conformity 

determinations. 

The second set of recommended actions would encourage federal and state or local 

project managers to team together for project performance. Actions supporting this 

goalinc!ude: the ability to enter into project and program delivery partnering plans; 

establishment of ·prompt action" provisions at key decision points in the project 

approval process; establishment of a partnering award· program to positively 

reinforce prompt project action; and creation and funding of liaison positions to move 

projects through decision chokepoints. 
62 

The third set of recommendations focus on strategies that recipients can employ 

internally, in conjunction with federal funding agencies, to reap time and cost 

savings. Actions supporting this goal would include the development of 

transportation program data bases and project information that can be universally 

accessed; the establishment of a federal grant program for innovative contract 

management; and investment in the internal capabilities to use innovative 

contracting mechanisms effectively. . 

OCT A has specifically reassured the environmental community in California and at 

the national level that none of the recommendations from the Breaking Down 

Barriers initiative are intended to eliminate necessary environmental protections 

related to. federal projects. Instead, they are designed to expedite those projects in 

an environmentally responsible way. aCTA will continue to inform and involve the 

environmental community and aU other interested parties as this initiative 

progresses. 

Three specific examples of proposed process improvements will serve to show that 

the Breaking Down Barriers initiative is not intended to eliminate necessary 

environmental requirements~ First, the report will recommend the expansion and 

continuation of the NEPA delegation which was authorized by SAFETEA-LU. 

California is the only state which took advantage of this program and after over three 

years the delegation has been an unqualified success, with statewide average time 

savings between 10-14 . monthS and median time savings between 14 and 19 

months, 

Second, the report will highlight that the planning process should not delay project 

implementation. Programming power. should be delegated to local MPO's to amend 

the Transportation Improveme\lt Program (TIP) quickly and with minimal. federal 

delay. Once projects are in the TIP, grantees should be trusted to be able to move 

forward on project implementation, even before formal grants are authorized. This is 

already true with regard to the transit formula program, but is not the case on the 

highway side. . 

Third, the report will advocate for a 'prompt action" provision in law whereby federal 

agencies would be required to act on project approvals Within a set time line. This 

provision could be coupled with a "carrot" that would waive the timeline where the 

grantee and the federal agency work together through a voluntary ·partnership plan" 

which sets clear project deadlines and' delegates project responsibility to the 

grantee. 

Again, we appreciate the monumental task facing the committees as you work to 

enact the nation's next transportation reauthorization. We look forward to working 

with you on this important and critical endeavor. Thank you once again for the 

opportunity to testify today. I would be pleased to answer any questions from the 

committees. 
63 
64 
65 

R R E T 
66 
67 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Mr. Kempton. 

Next we are so pleased to welcome Steve Heminger, executive director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Welcome, 

Steve. 

STATEMENT OF STEVE HEMINGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

METROPOLILTAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 

Mr. HEMINGER. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is wonderful to be 

surrounded by all these Southern Californians. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HEMINGER. I am also wearing two hats, as Will is, today because, as you know, I also served and was privileged to serve as 

a member of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission which was chartered by Congress to give 

you some advice on this subject a few years ago. I think our advice 

is still timely and I wanted to briefly summarize that report in 

terms of three R’s like we learned in school. The first is reform. 

The second is restructuring, and the third is reinvestment. 

I do strongly believe still that what we need in our Federal 

transportation program is a comprehensive reform. It is not a reauthorization. It is a new beginning, perhaps not a blank of sheet of 

paper because you have heard today there are several programs 

that are worth building on, but I think it is time for an entirely 

fresh look. 

Let me mention two examples. One of them is how we select 

projects. We still have a system that pretty much measures in 

terms of how many projects did we build, how much steel did we 

acquire, how much asphalt did we lay. What we really need to be 

looking at is outcomes. How much delay did we reduce? How much 

economic growth did we provoke? How much environmental benefit 

did we provide? hat is the shift we need to make. 

Second, in terms of project delivery, I could not agree more with 

the things that Will has said. The Minneapolis bridge that I know 

Chairman Mica has used constantly, a project that took 13 months 

instead of the typical 13 years, which is the average for the Federal 

Highway Administration. We do not have a process that is stopping 

bad projects. We have a process that is making good projects that 

we end up building, cost more, and take too long. 

An example in the Bay Area. We had a bridge, a new interstate 

bridge, the Benicia Crossing, Senator. We moved that bridge three 

times in the design process because the different Federal agencies 

could not agree where they wanted it. That is, in my opinion, 

where the nub of the problem is. It is not NEPA. It is not CECWO. 

It is the permitting agencies, and they need to get on the same 

page. I think in this authorization, you really need to read them 

the riot act. 

Second, restructuring. I think you were aware that our report I 

think surprisingly found that there are 108 separate program categories in the surface transportation law, and I think it is fair to 

say that if you have 100 priorities, you really do not have any at 

all. Our recommendation was to consolidate down to 10 programs. 

The President’s proposal, released a few days ago, consolidates. I 

certainly hope you will head in that direction. 
68 

My testimony covers what I would consider the holy trinity. In 

terms of my three favorite recommendations, one would be a program focused on rebuilding America, on fixing the infrastructure 

we have built, a second on global competitiveness, on goods movement and freight, and a third on metropolitan mobility which 

would focus on the economic engines that drive this country. 

Finally on reinvestment, this is where we really are in a pickle. 

As you know, the main funding source for this program is a user 

fee, but for some reason we called it a gas tax I guess just to make 

people mad about it. So we have taken a fee and called it a tax. 

Now, it is an excise tax which means that if you do not adjust the 

rate, inflation and fuel efficiency gives everybody a tax cut every 

year, and that is what has been happening. But none of you get 

credit for the tax cut. All we do is have less money to spend on infrastructure. So it is the craziest darned system that you could 

think of. 

The level of that investment that we have in the next bill is obviously one of your most important policy decisions. I am not going 

to sit here and lecture you or suggest to you what the right number 

is. Our policy commission did recommend a significantly higher 

funding level, and I think the case that we made for it is still 

strong. 

But what is undoubtedly true is that we get the transportation 

system that we pay for, and we are not paying much for it now and 

it shows. 

So let me conclude, if I could, as the Northern Californian maybe 

with a Hollywood reference. I would like to go back to the introductory remarks, and I think you both mentioned that you were sitting 

together at the State of the Union. I could not help think about the 

ending of Casa Blanca, you know, this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship. I certainly hope you write us a beautiful bill. 

Thanks very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Heminger follows:] 
69 

TESTIMONY OF STEVE HEMINGER 

EXECUTIVE DJRECTOR 

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA 

PRESENTED TO THE JOINT FIELD HEARING 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

FEBRUARY 23, 2011 

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 
70 

Good morning, Chainnan Boxer, Chainnan Mica, and members of the 

committees. My name is Steve Heminger and I am executive director of the 

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). MTC is the metropolitan planning 

organization and regional toll authority for the San Francisco Bay Area. I was also 

privileged to serve on the congressionally-chartered National Surface Transportation 

Policy and Revenue Study Commission, which published its report Transportation/or 

Tomorrow in January 2008. I attach the executive summary of that report to my 

testimony for the record. 

Like many in the transportation community, I was delighted to see the two chairs 

of these committees sitting side-by-side at the most recent State of the Union Address. It 

is commendable that you have continued to exemplify that spirit of bi-partisanship by 

convening this joint field hearing. Perhaps, as the classic movie ending goes, "this is the 

beginning of a beautiful friendship." Such a strong partnership - between the House and 

Senate, between Democrats and Republicans - has never been more essential to rescue a 

federal surface transportation law adrift on a sea of short-tenn program extensions, 

General Fund borrowing, and competing national priorities. We desperately need your 

leadership to firmly grasp the wheel and chart a new course for the nation's infrastructure 

investment programs. Our hopes are very much in your hands. 
71 

I know that in your role as senior Members of Congress, you are currently 

engaged in a debate in Washington DC about a fundamental question: what is the proper 

role for the federal government in our national life? That broad question is especially 

relevant today in the specific field of surface transportation investment. During 

construction of the illterstate Highway System, the mission of the federal government 

was crystal clear: to convert lines on a road map into miles of concrete, asphalt and steel. 

Some two decades since the substantial completion of that engineering marvel, it is much 

more difficult to discern what the federal program is up to. ill the words of our Policy 

Commission report: ''The Commission believes that surface transportation programs 

cannot fully contribute to economic growth, international competitiveness, or other 

national goals without a national investment strategy. Furthermore ... this investment 

strategy can serve as a basis for allocating funds among States and metropolitan areas to 

maximize the return on Federal investment and achieve the greatest overall improvement 

in surface transportation conditions and performance." Or as the father of the illterstate 

System put it more bluntly: "Plans are nothing; planning is everything." 

Transportation for Tomorrow recommended several areas of intense focus for a 

renewed level of federal investment; let me highlight three of them in my brief testimony 

today. First, there should be no question that Job #1 is to protect the federally significant 

infrastructure we've already built. The Interstate System is the nation's most important 

surface transportation asset, with a replacement value in the trillions. Anyone who's 

done any driving lately knows what kind of shape it's in. The nation's seven largest rail 

transit systems face a staggering repair backlog of $50 billion. Deficient bridges litter the 

landscape - sometimes, tragically, quite literally. While the elevated investment in 
72 

system maintenance during the "1EA Era" has improved conditions somewhat, we are 

still earning failing grades in the annual report of the American Society of Civil 

Engineers. We can and must do better. 

Second, if any transportation priority justifies a robust federal role better than 

goods movement, I don't know what it is. Freight flows freely between state borders and 

beyond our national borders in the global economy. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress a 

constitutional mandate "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, anc\ among the 

several states." Yet, among the 108 federal surface transportation programs in current 

law, not a single one is dedicated to goods movement on a meaningful national scale with 

all modes - rail, truck, and water - eligible for investment. The goods movement 

challenge facing the United States is too daunting for any single state to overcome, even a 

state as large and dynamic as California. The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are 

Exhibit A for a new federal focus on freight, so you've brought this joint hearing to the 

right place. 

Finally, I would be derelict in my duty as a board member of the Association of 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations if I did not make the case for a more productive 

partnership between the federal government and the nation's major metropolitan areas. 

Just the top 50 metropolitan areas generate 60% of U.S. gross domestic product. In 

transportation terms, the same areas account for 90% of all public transit commuters and 

suffer nearly 100% of urban traffic congestion. These economic engines are not firing on 

all cylinders because the federal transportation program still treats them as wards of the 

States, rather than as valuable partners in creating the nation's future economic 

prosperity. The Policy Commission recommended that a distinct federal program be 
73 

established to de-congest the flow of both people and goods in these major metropolitan 

areas, and I continue to believe that such an approach would pay huge economic 

dividends not just for those regions, but for the country as a whole. 

In transmitting his plans for the Interstate System to Congress in 1955, President 

Eisenhower stated: "Our unity as a nation is sustained by free communication of thought 

and by easy transportation of people and goods ... Together the unifying forces of our 

communication and transportation systems are dynamic elements in the very name we 

bear - United States. Without them, we would be a mere alliance of many separate 

parts." In recent reauthorization squabbles over donor state guarantees and project 

earmarking, Ike's message seems to have gotten lost. It's never too late to make a fresh 

start, however, and your committees have the goodwill and best wishes of numerous 

transportation stakeholders across the nation to do just that. 

Thank you both very much for the opportunity to testify at this joint field hearing. 

I would be pleased to respond to any questions you might have. 
74 

January 2()08 I Exe'Cutive Summary 

Preamble 

In its last major bill, Congress addressed the need guiding vision directly. 

Noting that is in the National j1\tt.'rest to 

preserve and enhance the surface transportation 

21st century." 

Congress established the National Surface Transcitizens. 

This Commission 

this charge, 

across the COUl1try intensive' 

Our findings and recommclldarions 

programs 

ANew 

Just as it helps to know your destination before 

starting off on a our Commisslon believed at 

1he outset that it is 

vision of what transportation 

system might look like --~ or at !east how we'd like 

it to funnion ~ in the middle of the 21st century. 

end allowed us to reach agreement on a surprisingly wide range of often sweeping poli~1' proposals. 

Our report, Tramp''''''ti", 

to chart a course with 

tion. It is an action 

achievement _. to 

with full faith that this goal can be reached and the 

vision realiz.t~d. 

In out viev.r, the United States could lay claim to 

best~io~dass status in surGce '''''"'I''JrtatiOlJ 

all 

IIiiI faciliti<.'s are well maintained 

.. and berween metropolita.n 

II Transportation systems ar~ appropriately 

pticed 

II Traffic volumes are balanced among roads, 

rails ilnd puhlk transit 

IIi'I Freight movement is an economic priQrity 

IIR Safety is assured 

!II Transportation and resource impacts are 

integrBted 

Create and sustain the pro-ominent surface transportation system In the world. __ 
75 

!Ill: Travel options are plentiful 

!III Rational regulatory policies prevail 

Speaking more broadly, we envision a surface 

where funding and function 

W'hen 

results, that em 

be estim3.tcd in rigorous bcnefit~cos[ analyses and 

tracked by means of performann>b3scd tlurcomes. 

\Ve euy1.';ion a system where Heeded 

__ Executive SUMmary 

In othO::f v<;ords, and as "\ve said inirhlliy, we think 

it should be the goal of this nation to 
76 

Sourcs: Energy Information Administration 

great strains on American 

n~sscs, and the greenhouse gases emitted when oil 

products are burned arc now chief 

contributor to 

Because the nation lacks a cl¢arly articulated transto guide investments ~ a.nd ,HI 

perf()rmance~based method of assessing 

Future Challenges 

Create and sust;::lIn the pre-eminent surface transportation system in the world. _ 
77 

SDurce: Rn~;jlonal Plan Association 

the traditional mOnlto affect ewr-!cngthdertaking. Estimates indicate that the US needs 

to invest M least $225 billion annu;lHy for the next" 

,0 

__ Executive Summary 

aho '.\-ill be an increasingly important 

development of future plans and 

programs <It the national 

At the same tinl';~, o\'cdy onerous and pron:~dure~ 

lxmnd environmema.l review processes can often 

the speedy and cost-conscious 

rca'''lx"",;oo improvetake about 13 years 

inithnion to completion, according to 

Higlnvay Administration, and Feckral 

'Transit Administration hgures indkate that the 

t()r N('w Starts 

-Ihat 
78 

it will be essential to reform and streamcertain environmental review requiremt'nts 

to cnsure that the large sums that must be spent 

to arc not made larger 

still delay and the consequent InBation of 

projen costs. 

For Reform 

now to Crt':J.tt' and sllstain 

in the world. Here are some 

of the of what needs to happen. 

increased Investment 

To keep America competitive, we ,ue recommending a Significant increase In investment in om national surface transportatiol1 system. 

funding shortfalls -- to maintain 

capaci tv where necessary to 

21st century ---- arc 

enormous and ominous. To dose this investment 

WI:" will need increased public funding. \x!c 

also need increased private investment. More 

rol!Jng "will need to be implemented and new and 

will 

Federal Government a Full Partner 

And if'S not just that the problem is big. lhc 

federal gQvernmenr has a strong interest in our national surhce transportation systcm. 'Ihis system 

of vita! import:mce ro our economy, our national 

Sources: Global In"51g11t World Trade Service: "TEU= Twenty~fQot·equjva!ent unit 

Create and sustain the prf>omtnont surface transportation system in the world __ 
79 

Our Il Metropolitan Mobility _. regions greater than 

quality 0flife. 

A New Beginning 

oot':' that is environmentally 

sensitive and [lne that minimizes use of our 

scarce cocrgy re;;OUfces; one rhat cases wastefu! 

traffic delays; one that supports just.·i!Hime <It'liv" 

and one that aHow;; economic development 

more signific.wt than ever seen hefore 

in history. 

First, we art' rCLOmmending that the fe.t.::rai 

with the following 10 Dew f{'deral programs: 

ill Rebuilding America .-. state of good rq)air 

If Global Competitiveness _. gaH'ways ::md 

goods movement 

__ ExecutIve Summa!)' 

1 million population 

B Connecting America ~ ('Onncctions to 

smaller cities and fowns 

II Inten:ity Passenger Rail- nt'w regional 

nenvorb in high-gw'\vth corridors 

iii Highway Safety - incentives to 

III Environmental Stewardship - both human 

and natural etl\'irOO1nt.'l\ts 

Ill! Energy Security -" drvelopment of alternative 

transportatiDn Elds 

lIB Federal Lands - providing public acce~s on 

rederal property 

!III Research and Development ~ a coherent 

national rest~arch program 

the results promised. 

officials, and other 

performance Sfatlareas outlined above 

to achieve those stan~ 

also would be Jevd·, 

'fh(> Commission ackllowkdgt'S that these re·cmn·, 

in the transportation decision-making process. In 

stl-eh an environment, we helieve Congress and the 
80 

public would be more amenable to funJillg rl1<:: 

nation's tran;o;ponatlon investment needs. 

Closure and Realignment "Olm",""!On, and 

COOI!mlSsi<lnS. -rhe new iedt:ral 

tvm principal pianareas 

outlined above and the detailed achieve 

those st~ll\dards, and would approve the national 

transportation strategic phn. 

list our major revenue recommendations hdow. 

First, we are making the following general remmmcnd.ltiol!s: 

II It is imperative that all levels of government 

and the sector contribute their approif the United St<ltt's is to have the-

" principle of user 

the core of the nation's transportation funding system for half a 

century. 

Third, we are making 

mendations with respect to !raclspC"tallOn 

in the- period bcrween 2010 

IIiI As noted above in "Future Challenges," the 

Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury projections, 

Create and sustain the pre-eminent surface transportation system in the world __ 
81 

fee for goods movement 

projects, dedication of a of nistlng 

customs duties, 

II In ad.dition, wt: arc recommending thaI 

Congn:';;s remove certain barrkrs to tolling 

and congestion pricing, under conditions 

lhar protect tit" puhlk interest. 'Olis \val giw 

states and local governments that wish w 

make the 

InteTState System to allow: 

tolling ro fund new capacity on the 

Interstaf<." System, as well as the Hexibility 

greater 

II \"(ic afC recommending that Congress enCQurage the 

including concessions, other 

surface transportation modes. Put,ik-wi-,-arc 

can Sl'fVC a mean,,; of attracting 

private investment to the surface 

pnwkkd th~lt condito protect the public inter" 

est and the movement of interstate commerce, 

_ Executive Summary 

iI 1he motor fwd fax continues to be a viahle 

cost issues can 

ri",;J.tlOtl bm should Tt'quirc a 

study to develop 

f"JI:" tn1nsirioning to the VMT fee or 

the rnotOT fuel tax to 

fund surface transportation programs, 

\'Vc bdieve that a 

important enough to mount a 

dungc; indeed Wt> bdie\'C it is to the eco~ 

nomic future of the nation and the .. veIl-heiog of 

invite' you to join turn our 

recommenda! ions into reality. It is time to ddivcr 

to the people of this nation a bur meanlngluI message: "Let's get can. 

-~,-""",,--. 

~"'_""h"""'C--
82 

Senator BOXER. I wish I looked like Lauren Bacall too. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. You cannot always get what you want. 

OK. Our last speaker—and certainly not least—is Ms. Anne 

Mayer, executive director, Riverside County Transportation Commission. 

For the benefit of our visitors, we have what we call an inland 

empire, and this is what happens. They get the results of—you 

know, we get the goods coming into Los Angeles and Long Beach 

and they go through the country through the inland empire. Now 

that my home is in Riverside County, I see the results of what that 

means. We have huge trucks beating up Interstate 10. The smog 

is fierce. It is really tough. 

I am really glad you are here because we sometimes overlook the 

inland empire, but no more. So we welcome you, Ms. Mayer. 

STATEMENT OF ANNE MAYER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 

Ms. MAYER. Thank you very much. That was quite a welcome, 

Senator Boxer. I appreciate your comments about the inland empire. 

Chairman Mica and members of the committee, we certainly appreciate the opportunity to join you today. 

I am Anne Mayer, the executive director of the Riverside County 

Transportation Commission, and like some of the others, I am also 

wearing two hats today. I am the chair of the Self-Help Counties 

Coalition in California, representing the 19 counties who have 

voter-approved sales tax measures to fund transportation programs. 

We had a lot of conversation today about TIFIA, and I will sound 

a little bit like a broken record, but I think this issue is so very, 

very important it bears repeated emphasis. For agencies like mine 

and others throughout the country, who have projects ready to go 

and who have our own revenue streams, a very simple message. expand and enhance the TIFIA program now. This program is far too 

limited for the massive amount of jobs that can be created and the 

mobility goals that can be achieved. 

A couple of specific recommendations. The first one is to expand 

the size of the TIFIA program immediately. It has a tremendous 

return. You have heard discussions today. For every dollar that is 

invested, you can get 10 times that in return in leverage of locally 

sponsored funding. 

Also, allow up to 50 percent of the project costs to be covered by 

TIFIA, including 100 percent of the preconstruction costs. Raising 

this cap provides flexibility for agencies to finance large projects. 

Third, ensure that TIFIA loans are made based on creditworthiness and on the project’s contribution to regional and national mobility systems. Southern California’s transportation network is extremely diverse and complex. Yet, each piece is dependent on the 

other, and together all modes function as a system that keeps our 

region’s and Nation’s economy moving. TIFIA should be responsible 

to all of them. While San Bernardino may need a truck lane, while 

Los Angeles may need a subway, San Diego needs a border crossing, Riverside needs a major highway improvement, if one of these 
83 

projects does not happen, our whole system fails, and when Southern California fails, the rest of the Nation fails. TIFIA cannot prefer one mode over another and must remain true to Congress’ original intent: a financial tool based on creditworthiness for projects 

with major impacts on regional and national mobility. 

The final recommendation for TIFIA is to allow TIFIA applications to pay some or all of the credit subsidy. Jobs are delayed 

when creditworthy projects—creditworthy and shelf-ready 

projects—are rejected from TIFIA because the program budget is 

too small. Self-help counties like Riverside have revenue streams 

that can supply the credit subsidy for otherwise worth projects. 

I believe all of these reforms would have broad support and benefit countless projects, but there is a very real example right here 

next to Los Angeles in Riverside County that I would like to highlight. 

The State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project is a $1.3 billion extension of the Orange County 91 express lanes through one 

of Southern California’s most notorious corridors. With a TIFIA 

loan, using design, build, construction, this project can go to construction next year, putting those workers Mr. Hunter talked about 

back to work again. 18,000 jobs can be created. $2 billion worth of 

economic output can be generated for California. We could save 

millions of gallons of gasoline and save commuters time. All of 

these can be achieved with a minimal Federal investment in a 

TIFIA partnership. I call that a good buy, but when a project like 

this will need to sit on a shelf because only four or five projects like 

it will be competitive in a program with probably a good three 

dozen applicants in a TIFIA round, that is certainly not a benefit 

for any of us. 

This issue is important, not only to those of us in the transportation world, but also to those in the communities we serve. Today, 

the Riverside Press Enterprise had significant coverage on TIFIA 

on the 91 project, an editorial, an op-ed piece written in a bipartisan fashion from Assemblyman Jeff Miller, as well as 

Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal. We can see a great deal of bipartisan focus on getting these jobs, getting people back to work as 

soon as possible. 

Another issue that I would like to briefly mention is the issue of 

goods movement. We cannot let that go unnoticed. I would like to 

highlight H.R. 526 by Congressman Ken Calvert. This bill is also 

known as the ON TIME Act and provides a sensible means of providing needed funding for goods movement projects. You talked a 

lot today about needing a national freight policy and developing a 

goods movement program. This bill, as submitted by Congressman 

Calvert, and other bills like it by many other Members, have gone 

to the wayside. It is important that a bill of this type move forward 

so we can address our goods movement challenges throughout the 

county. 

In closing, thank you very much for conducting this hearing in 

Southern California, and I appreciate your leadership in addressing 

transportation policy. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mayer follows:] 
84 

Improving and Reforming our Nation's Surface Transportation Programs 

To Support Job Creation and the Economy 

Los Angeles, CA 

February 23, 2011 

Anne Mayer, Executive Director 

Riverside County Transportation Commission 

Good Morning Chairman Boxer, Chairman Mica and committee members. I am Anne Mayer, 

Executive Director of the Riverside County Transportation Commission. I am also Chair of the 

Self-Help Counties Coalition, which represents the 19 counties in California who have voterapproved transportation sales taxes programS. Thank: you for conducting this meeting in 

Southern California and inviting me to speak before you today. 

Southern California is so important as a region and so vast in terms of its size and impact that 

you could be here for weeks listening to our region's input on how vital the transportation 

network is to our future. It is vital not only to ensure workforce mobility but also to maintain and 

grow our vibrant economy. 

The Southern California transportation network of highways and railways is an integrated system 

that is only as healthy as its weakest link. A failure on one part of the system impacts the 

entirety of the network. Our collective, proactive planning efforts have identified system needs in 

the billions of dollars. While many of us have significant locally generated sales tax revenues, it 

is also imperative that we have access to federal innovative financing programs such as TIFlA. 

As has become very clear in the past few years, the current program is insufficient to support the 

financing of critical infrastructure improvements. Improvements needed now; mobility needed 

now, jobs needed now. 

Expand and Enhance TIFIA Now 

I have one clear message for Congress on behalf of Riverside County, and I am sure on behalf of 

self-help counties and agencies across the country who have revenue streams and projects that 

are ready to go: expand and enhance the TIFIA program now. This program works and is far 

too limited for the massive amount of jobs that can be created, and the mobility goals that can be 

achieved for this country. 

Let me offer several specific recommendations: 

1. Expand the size of the TIFIA program immediately. TIFIA is one of the only programs 

where you can say that for every federal dollar - ten more private, local, or state dollars 

are invested. 

2. Allow up to 50% of project costs to be covered by TIFIA, including 100% of all preconstruction costs. Today, only one-third of project costs can be covered by TIFlA; 

raising this cap provides greater flexibility for agencies to finance large projects. 

3. Ensure that TIFIA loans are made based on credit-worthiness and the project's 

contribution to a regional and national mobility system. Southern California's 

transportation network is extremely diverse and complex, yet each piece is dependent on 

the other and together all mlXies function as a system that keeps our region's - and 

nation's economy moving. TIFIA should be responsive to all of them. Whereas L.A. 
85 

may need a subway and San Bernardino needs a truck corridor, and San Diego needs a 

border crossing, Riverside needs a major highway improvement. If one of these projects 

doesn't happen, our entire regional system fails. When Southern California fails, the rest 

of the nation fails. TIFIA cannot prefer one mode over another and must remain true to 

Congress' original intent: a financial tool based on credit-worthiness for projects with 

major impacts on regional and national mobility. 

4. Allow TIFIA applicants to pay some -- or all- of their credit subsidy. Jobs are delayed 

when credit-worthy, shelf-ready projects are rejected from TIFIA because the program 

budget is too small. Self-help counties like Riverside have revenue streams that can 

supply the credit-subsidy to otherwise worthy projects. In essence, I am suggesting that 

I be allowed to pay my own way into the program if my project is worthy at ZERO cost 

to the federal govermnent. I believe this has the potential to revolutionize TIFIA. 

5. Eliminate the "Springing Lien" provisions of the program, which have the potential of 

nullifying the subordinate debt status ofTIFIA credit. 

I believe all of these reforms will have broad national support and benefit countless projects; 

however, let me give you a very real example of a project close to home that can benefit from 

these ideas. 

The State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project is a $1.3 billion extension of Orange County's 

91 Express Lanes through one of Southern California's most notorious corridors. It is paid for 

entirely by local taxpayer dollars. With a TIFIA loan it can go to construction by early next year. 

18,000 jobs can be created in the near term while adding $2 billion of economic output to 

California; save million of gallons of gasoline, and save the average commuter 75 hours per year 

of sitting in congestion. All of this can be achieved with only a $44 million TIFIA partnership. I 

call that a "good buy." However, the 91 Project must compete to be one of only 4 or 5 projects 

that will be selected out of more than 3 dozen others around the country. 

On March l't we are submitting a TIFIA program Letter of Interest seeking a loan that will 

enable the 91 Project. The 91 Project has big impacts on California jobs and our livable 

communities. The 91 corridor is the mobility artery between Riverside, Orange and Los Angeles 

Counties. It also provides an important link to the rest of the Southwestern United States by 

connecting to Interstates 10 & 15. 

This project is a poster child for the TIFIA program and a great example of the kind of 

investment crucial to our economy and creation of jobs. The TIFIA reforms mentioned earlier 

would ensure that this project can move forward without delay. More importantly, with greater 

access to this fmancial tool, agencies like mine will be more likely to invest our own local dollars 

on innovative and ambitious projects that I believe Congress wants us to do. The 91 Project is 

but one important example of many around the country, and I hope that you will consider 

adopting these changes as soon as possible. Moreover, our project is ready and could break 

ground next year. The economy has hit Riverside County especially hard and we continue to 

suffer from double-digit unemployment rates, and investment in better infrastructure will 

certainly bring a welcome return. 

Riverside and Sill! Bernardino Counties will continue to grow faster than the rest of California; 

this is an unavoidable fact and something that we openly embrace. Over 40% of all job growth in 

California between 2000 and 2006 occurred in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. 
86 

Providing affordable housing is also an important goal, and with median home values at 

$200,000 Riverside County has done so for many in the L.A. basin. 

Sustainability and Environmental Goals Can be Met by Highway Projects 

In terms of sustainability and the environment we can speak authoritatively that for Southern 

California, livability includes having a job and being able to get there without insufferable 

congestion; having options to use express lanes, express bus service, commuter rail, or ridesharing. Sustainability and smart long-term planning is an important priority in shaping our 

communities. Senator Boxer has been an unwavering advocate and champion of reducing 

harinful emissions, protecting air quality and preserving sensitive habitat When it comes to this 

issue, there are few better places than Riverside County for your committee to consider. Over a 

decade ago, Riverside County responded to its sharp population growth by launching the 

Ri~erside County Integrated Project (RCIP). This comprehensive planning effort incorporated 

transportation, housing and the environment together into one blueprint. Measure A has 

contributed over $130 million to a key component, the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan 

(MSHCP). To this day, the Riverside County MSHCP is the largest and most comprehensive of 

its kind in the nation. This.integrated effort pays dividends to the environment, and also to our 

re~on's infrastructure and the drivers who use it. 

Goods Movement Improvements Must Remain a Priority 

Finally, I would like to briefly raise a long-standing issue that should not be forgotten just 

be~use \If the .downturn in the economy. Just as I spoke earlier Southern California's mu1timodal network, one integral piece of that network is goods movement I would like to highlight 

H.R 526 by Congressman Ken Calvert. This bill is known as the ON TIME Act and provides a 

sensible means of providing needed funding for goods movement projects and does so in a way 

that will not unfairly impact economic activity, consumers or our nation's competitive standing. 

While there has been general agreement that there needs to be greater investment in freightrelated inftastrucfure, Congress has yet to advance this legislation or similar bills. Given 

Southern California's role in international commerce, please consider H.R. 526 and the need to 

make freight investments a top priority. 

The issue of goods movement is certainly relevant to the challenges faced by Riverside County 

on the 91 Freeway but also provides an important economic opportunity. The 91 corridor is one 

of three primary freight routes between the Port of Los Angeles and Port of Long Beach 

(pOLAlPOLB) and 1-15 and 1-10 (Figure 5). More than 40% of the nation's imported goods 

enter the United States through the POLAIPOLB, which are then distributed to throughout the 

country. United States container traffic doubled over the past decade and is expected to nearly 

triple by 2030 according to studies completed in July 2009. 

Southern California's rail lines and highways are already heavily congested, and with an 

expected 25% increase in regional population by 2030, port-related congestion problem will only 

get worse and will hit the 91. A recent study published by the United States Department of 

Transportation (USDOT) Bureau of Transportation Statistics identified traffic bottlenecks on the 

landside transportation system serving the nation's seaports as a critical impediment to the 

efficient movement of goods. 
87 

In 2005, the most recent year for which data on port freight activity and landside traffic delay are 

available, the POLAIPOLB was the largest port in the United States and, at the same time, 

suffered from the worst congestion in the nation, averaging approximately 72 hours of annual 

traffic delay per trdveler. Nowhere is this more evident than on SR-91, which has the worst peakhour congestion of the three primary routes serving the POLAIPOLB. 

- POlA/POLB Freight Travel 11me Comparison 

H.R. 526 wiIl generate a new source of funding for freight-related infrastructure, which is needed 

to avoid the potential of overwhelming mobility, environmental and sustainability improvements 

that are being contemplated in the new surface trarLSportation authorization bill. In considering 

the passage of a new bill, I would urge that the expansion of the TIFIA program combined with 

an added funding source such as what is contemplated in H.R. 526 could be critical in addressing 

transportation needs in areas that play an important role in the nation's economy Southern 

California being a prime example. 

In summary, self-help agencies like RCTC and the 18 other counties in California, as well as 

regional agencies across the country, have a proven track record of delivering projects that create 

jobs and meet federal policy goals if only they are given the tools and resources to do so. We 

know local and regional needs; we manage our system very well with what we have. We help 

ourselves as much as we can in spite of perennial state deficits and an uncertain federal future. 

However, this cannot go on forever. Federal partnership is needed, and needed now. Ambitious 

efforts by RCTC and other self-help agencies have accelerated projects so that many are ready 

for construction, but cannot proceed unless there is a federal component. Keep in mind that 

federal "partnership" doesn't always mean we are looking for a hand-out from Uncle Sam 

although we will never tum down the opportunity to receive that kind of support. Financial tools 

to leverage our own revenue streams will make the most of limited funds, ensuring job creation, 

congestion reduction, and environmental stewardship. Stepping up and taking responsibility for 

a truly federal issue in international and interstate commerce will pay huge dividends by 

bolstering America's economic competitiveness. I encourage Congress to find common ground 

on a surface transportation bill now. Give us the tools; we are ready to go. 

In closing I want to thank you once again for conducting this hearing in Southern California and 

for your leadership in advancing our nation's transportation policy. 
88 
89 

~~i§·~~~~rn;~~'§ r~~~~~~t.~~ 

~l~!;~ 19:~;~f[~j:'ig: ffi:g;;g;~~rHn~;~; l~i!,r,i~~!'~~·····--r.i~~J;ii ;ffi l~fJ:~! if:fJ ~J;~r,~ ~l:;a.~ill;~~g!tj n~it~·. ;~!:1i,·:Ef] if it. ·m~§:!I t;!] t~~~~· itt! ~i~ !wg;~ n~~]!wjrffi 

coastal am! inlani'ljoll centers. 

A TlflA 101m will !lnable a $1.3 billion LOCAL investment that lias lIoter backing amI 

support. 

TRANSPORTATION BENEFITS: 

W. have Ihe 7th worst commute in the nation, lor areas unde, 3 million people, congested 18% 01 tnelime 

with H hours 01 congesl;on a day"-

We waste 33 million gallons 01 gas and 39 million hours stuck in traffic at a cosl 01 $1.3 billion'" 

give Soulhern California 

in Ihe laryesl consumer market The 91 

expansion. 01 bus and rail inlhe corridor, 

2 

can move reliably 

and planned 
90 
91 
92 
93 

6 
94 
95 
96 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

What we are going to do now is I have a comment and a question. I only have one question and one comment. Then I am going 

to turn the gavel back to Chairman Mica to conclude our hearing. 

We have about an hour to question the panel, which is good. 

So my comment is, first of all, I am so proud of every witness 

here. I just have to say you just make me so proud to represent 

this great State. The leadership that has come from this panel, believe me, is noticed. 

I do not think anyone disagrees with this, but I want to sum up 

my feeling about this opportunity we have to expand TIFIA. Frankly, I think, Mayor, your number is way too modest a number because if we are going to do this on a national scale, we have to 

ramp it up dramatically. Chairman Mica and I were discussing 

this. 

I want to particularly address this to my Republican colleagues 

who are here. The beauty of TIFIA is the projects are selected by 

the local people. They are the ones that say, we need this and we 

are putting our money behind our ideas. Or in some cases, it will 

be the private sector that says, we are ready to build this, we need 

to get a loan to do it. You just heard from our Riverside County 

witness, Ms. Mayer, about this. So the beauty of TIFIA is it is not 

Washington saying what ought to be done. It is the local people 

coming to us with the resources. 

As I view the next bill, as we look at all the problems that we 

face, I thought, Steve, you expressed it very well on how it is a bizarre situation with our revenues. 

I will give you another example. More and more of us are driving 

hybrid cars, electric cars. We are not paying any gas tax. We are 

paying nothing, some of us, because we never go to the gas station 

or we rarely go. It is not right. 

We have to figure out ways. I do not have the answers. I have 

ideas, but every one of them is controversial because it is a new 

idea of a user fee. But we are going to try it. 

But let us be honest here. In complete candor, the best thing is 

for us to leverage the dollars we have because that does not fend 

off any protests or problems. The TIFIA program is so underfunded. So I am looking at this and I do not think there is any disagreement, is there, on the panel, that this TIFIA program is something we ought to work on? 

So my comment is I am going to call on all of you as we rewrite 

this law. I am very excited about it. 

Again, I want to thank all of you who came to me on the 30/10 

because without that, I would not have focused so much on it. 

The only question I have to Ms. McKim is this because the chairman and I want to know a little bit more about the NEPA delegation pilot program. I am assuming what we did in SAFETEA–LU 

is say that we would have a pilot program so that the States could 

carry out the goals of NEPA. Is that correct? Could you tell us exactly how it worked? 

Ms. MCKIM. The NEPA delegation gives Caltrans for the State 

of California the approval authority that previously rested at 

FHWA. One of the other speakers mentioned the CECWO program 

here in California is extremely stringent already. So we already 
97 

have a lot of built-in protections. So what it does is eliminates a 

duplicate process and enables us to have the approval authority 

here. FHWA does periodic audits to make sure that we are not ignoring the key provisions. So that is what is resulting—— 

Senator BOXER. OK. So just to sum that up, Mr. Chairman, we 

have something that we tried here in California—they all seem to 

think it is good—that said as long as you carry out the goals of 

NEPA, there is no point in having all these agencies coming in. It 

seems to me in our bill we ought to look at that as long as the 

State protections are strong because we do not want to give it to 

a State that has absolutely no environmental protections. But anyway, I think this is another area where we could speed things up. 

Anyway, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart and 

I will turn the gavel back to you. 

Mr. MICA [presiding]. Well, thank you. 

What we will do is hear from members. I have maybe a quick 

comment and then a quick question or two. 

I think we have heard some great ideas. We need to take them 

back. I have offered to buy the beer and pizza for the members to 

sit down. Actually I have expanded that to diet Coke too or Pepsi, 

whatever preference—but sit down and take this and try to—— 

Senator BOXER. You are in California. What about a fruit shake? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MICA. If I replied to that the way my brother-in-law who 

lives near San Jose refers to fruitcakes in California—— 

Senator BOXER. No, that was not what I meant at all. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. I said a fruit shake. 

Mr. MICA. OK. I am sorry. 

Senator BOXER. Get it straight. 

Mr. MICA. I did not say it. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, you did. 

Mr. MICA. We will have that fruit shake. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Mr. MICA. Actually, I will tell you I have been most impressed 

both in Fresno where we were yesterday and today with the quality 

of the comments and the positive manner in which everybody has 

approached our important responsibility here. 

First, I have to take a little liberty. You do not mind if I ask the 

mayor if he swears to tell the whole truth and nothing but the 

truth. You do, do you not? 

Mr. VILLARAIGOSA. We do. 

Mr. MICA. Oh, good. Then I have one quick question for you. You 

will continue to help me try to bring fixed transit into the Los Angeles Airport. 

Mr. VILLARAIGOSA. I actually was going to read that in my comments, but you told me not to read. But yes. 

Mr. MICA. He said yes. 

Mr. VILLARAIGOSA. Part of Measure R does include connecting 

the airport with the Green Line. In addition to that, Ms. Gina 

Marie Lindsay and our airport commissioner are looking at what 

we can do to address the people mover issue that you raised yesterday. Yes, I am going to go to Miami to see Miami Airport as well. 
98 

Mr. MICA. I must apologize to you publicly because I do give him 

a hard time every time I see him on that issue. But I think it is 

important. We have 68 million people landing there. It is one of the 

most important aviation centers in the world, if not the United 

States, and we have to make certain it has the most modern transportation connections. I pledge to work with you on that. That is 

out of order, but I wanted to say that. 

Then let me turn to Ms. Phillips and also Ms. McKim. On the 

environmental, now Ms. Phillips, you said something about removing or repealing or cutting back environmental protections that we 

have and a lot of people have worked hard for and feel so committed to, which I think is important. But do you not think there 

is room, one, for, say, certification similar to maybe we have with 

a pilot project where you have environmental laws that are as 

strong, if not stronger than the Federal Government and not necessarily going back maybe precertification on the environmental 

front? Not every State has that or locale. But where that exists, not 

sort of reinventing the wheel and going back on the Federal process. Could you agree to something like that? 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. No lesser standard. 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Yes, no lesser standard. I will tell you that when 

Caltrans was having to do the State legislation to allow it to accept 

the delegation, we opposed but then we lost, which often happens. 

As Caltrans proceeded to implement that delegation, they made a 

really concerted effort at various points to reach out to us to make 

sure they were doing the right thing. 

Mr. MICA. Do you feel that has been satisfactory? 

Ms. PHILLIPS. I do think they have satisfied it. So I think extending that program makes sense. I do not think you would want to 

weaken it at all, but I think extending. I think California has been 

able to demonstrate that it works. 

Mr. MICA. Well, again, the other thing too is we have done 

projects. For example, let me just close with this. 

The replacement of the bridge that collapsed between Minneapolis and St. Paul. I was on the floor with Mr. Oberstar the day 

that happened, and people were killed. There was this unsafe 

bridge that was built 40 years ago. We replaced that bridge in 437 

days. I stood on the bridge 2 weeks before it opened and said if we 

could do this project, we could do other projects within the same 

footprint. 

Now, from an environmental standpoint too, what took place 

there is we—and from reconstructing the bridge—first, we put a 

safer bridge in. We did not have a safe bridge and people were 

killed. Forty years ago, they did not give a hoot about polluting the 

Mississippi River, mitigation, any of the environmental concerns 

that we have today. We actually replaced—and it would take 7 to 

8 years, they told me, just to go through the normal process to get 

that new bridge in place. We replaced that bridge in the same footprint 7 to 8 years in advance. That means that we actually improved the quality of the Mississippi. We put in mitigation, environmental protections, and a safe bridge 7 to 8 years in advance. 

So there has got to be benefit to the environment to speed these 

things up again in the same footprint. I would hope that you would 
99 

be willing to work with us to shorten the time, not to shorten the 

requirements or dilute them in any fashion. Would you do that? 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Yes, because I think one of the things that we are 

very interested in is what Mr. Kempton has been talking about, 

and we have been working closely with him, a number of environmentalists. I think there is an opportunity here to have reasonable 

discussions and to come up with common sense solutions that still 

protect the environment and do not delay projects that are going 

to have long-term benefits. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you. 

Let me yield, if I may, to—let me see. We have Ms. Brown. We 

will go to Ms. Brown. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you very much. 

I guess I have a couple of questions because I am very interested 

in two things. I do not know whether or not we need to develop 

in the bill a one-stop superfund process to expedite projects, super 

projects. It seems like you all have done some of this and you are 

talking about it. I would like to know more about it. I am sure you 

are going to give us the information in writing. 

Mr. Mayor, I just returned from Salt Lake City, UT, and I was 

very impressed with their commuter rail. You know, it is just an 

hour and a half from here. I just left there yesterday—and how 

they are moving people and how 46 mayors up and down the coast 

that worked together on these projects and how they were able to 

expedite them in less than 3 years. So those are the kinds of programs that we are looking at, how can we expedite it and unify it. 

Other countries have done it, and we have to be able to do it so 

we can put people to work. 

I want more information about your 30/10 Plan also. 

Mr. VILLARAIGOSA. Well, let me just say we have talked a lot 

about infrastructure—and that is important—and transportation 

and moving people and goods. The other very important and maybe 

the most important aspect of acceleration of these kinds of programs and leveraging Federal dollars are the jobs that they create, 

you know, when you are looking at nearly a million jobs, by the 

way, with just going to $375 million. 

I just want to make it absolutely clear I used that number because I heard that was the number that there was a lot of discussion around. We would support a much larger program than that. 

Please understand that. I want to be clear about that. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. VILLARAIGOSA. As you heard, on a bipartisan basis, both 

Chairman Knabe and I believe that some kind of transportation 

bond program makes sense as well. 

Finally, let me just say—30/10. What it was was an opportunity 

for us. Initially we were talking about L.A., and then we realized 

this has application—just in the county, there are 19 donor—what 

did you call them? Self-help counties just in California alone. 

Across the country, there are a number of localities that have taxed 

themselves this way that are putting their investments. So 30/10, 

which we called our initial proposal for L.A., is actually the template for the national program. We incentivized localities to put up 

their own money and we leveraged that. 
100 

Senator BOXER. Do you understand now what it is, what 30/10 

is? 

Ms. BROWN. No, I do not. 

Senator BOXER. She still does not quite get it. 

Mr. MICA. I do not either and that is going to be my question. 

Senator BOXER. Just go back to square one like when you explained it to me. 

Ms. BROWN. I know all of you all understand it. 

Mr. VILLARAIGOSA. Sure. Basically what the 30/10 Plan was— 

with Measure R, we are generating $40 billion worth of revenue, 

tax revenue, over a 30-year period of time. 

Senator BOXER. Explain what the Measure R was. 

Mr. VILLARAIGOSA. Measure R was the initiative to tax ourselves 

a half penny to expand our public transportation system, repair our 

roads and highways, street repair, $40 billion generated with a half 

a penny over a 30-year period of time. 

The 30/10 plan was an opportunity for us that we said, how can 

we accelerate? Because what was happening—in fact, today driving 

here I was on the radio, and people want to know, well, when is 

the subway coming or when are you going to finish all of these 

projects that you promised? My response is, ma’am, this was a half 

penny sales tax, not a 10 penny sales tax. So it is not going to be 

done in 15 years, but in 30 years. 

So we came up with a plan that says let us accelerate the public 

transit portion of this program by leveraging Federal dollars 

through a loan program or a bond program that would accelerate 

the projects. It would reduce the costs because, as you heard, the 

construction industry today has a 35 to 40 percent unemployment 

rate, and because a lot of those projects would have been built 20 

years from now or 125, you are building them in a 10-year period. 

So you are saving money there on both counts, one, because of the 

high unemployment rate. Projects are coming in about 25 percent 

less than they used to. So that was the idea, and that 30/10 Plan 

became the template for this. 

Senator BOXER. Representative Brown, basically what we are 

doing at the Federal level, Congressman and Congresswoman, is 

we are frontloading this program for very little cost, virtually nothing, $20 million for a half a billion dollar program, because you 

know that the people have voted this stream of revenue. Virtually 

no cost to us. So you leverage this by helping them get out there 

and start it now. It is a brilliant notion, if I might say. 

Ms. BROWN. Let me ask a question. Are you familiar with the 

RIF loan program because we have $30 billion in that program for 

transit type projects? 

Mr. VILLARAIGOSA. I am not familiar with that program. 

Ms. BROWN. OK, so no one is familiar with it. 

Mr. MICA. It is rail programs and we have $35 billion in the 

fund. 

Ms. BROWN. But that is a program that I would wonder how we 

can leverage it because it is rail but it is rail transit type programs. 

It is available to the city. It is low-interest. 

Part of the problem, people have told me, with the program is 

how long it takes to actually get it OKed. 
101 

Mr. VILLARAIGOSA. That is actually true for the TIFIA program 

as well, which is why I had some specific recommendations about 

things that we could change, you know, take it to 49 percent instead of 30 where I think it is currently, cut some of the bureaucratic obstacles to connecting multiple projects, that kind of a 

thing. 

Ms. BROWN. One person mentioned to me like one agency OKed 

a study and then the other agency said, well, no I want the Army 

Corps to do it. So that does not make any sense. We need to 

streamline that process. 

Mr. KNABE. Well, a couple of things within the TIFIA process, 

even in allowing the Department of Transportation to do an upfront master credit agreement or a hedge loan kind of a situation 

for the bigger and larger projects would be a real time-saver. I 

mean, that is half the battle. 

Mr. MICA. A good suggestion. 

Let me yield now to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank all of you for your testimony today. It is loud and clear 

that the TIFIA—we need to address that as we move forward with 

this transportation bill. 

Also, I need to point out especially to my Republican colleagues 

back in Washington that these jobs we are creating by building infrastructure are not public jobs. They are private industry jobs. A 

lot of times that gets lost on members on my side of the aisle when 

we say we are creating jobs. Too, the stimulus created a lot of public jobs, but private sector jobs that are good jobs and building the 

assets in this country are extremely important. 

Mr. Knabe, you mentioned smart Federal dollars, and I do not 

think you expanded on that. Can you tell me a little bit of what 

you are talking about? 

Mr. KNABE. Well, again, it was just basically a leverage point. 

We have stepped up to the plate three times, and we are saying 

the fact that—the mayor just mentioned it—we have an opportunity, one, to create the jobs, two, to do a much better job right 

now in the bid process because of the unemployment and other opportunities out there. It is smart Federal dollars because it is a 

very minimal expense to allow this to happen because, as I said, 

every time we go back to Washington, they say come back with a 

revenue source. We have come back. We have Measure R, a 30-year 

payback. So we have this opportunity to leverage those Federal dollars up front and pay you back. This is a deal. You are going to 

love this deal. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KNABE. But, I mean, it is an opportunity that we have said, 

look it. You know, we have done this three times, not just once, not 

just the first time, but three times in 3 decades. It is a real inexpensive way for the Federal Government to be our partner, and 

that is what we want to be with you. 

Mr. SHUSTER. In followup with what Ms. Brown said about how 

do we—as Director McKim said about going to these different 

sources, it is time consuming. You are chasing dollars. I would like 

to hear specifically from the director and also from Mr. Kempton 
102 

on his experience as the Director of Caltrans and now OTCA. I 

know you all have ideas and I would like to hear all your ideas, 

but if you could just briefly talk about what you see us putting into 

law to streamline that. What does it look like to you? That is really 

what we are looking here for. I do not want to put another layer 

of bureaucracy. I would like to collapse the bureaucracy and make 

it simpler. So if you could make a comment on that, and then, Mr. 

Kempton, if you would. 

Ms. MCKIM. Well, I think the idea of consolidating some of the 

programs and then borrowing what—one of the points that Steve 

Heminger mentioned in his review, refocusing on performance will 

be a key element. 

One of the things that FHWA is trying to do is partner with 

FRA. So it can be as simple as encouraging that partnership so 

that FRA does not recreate a bureaucracy. That is probably a bad 

word to use—so that they can use the same process that FHWA already has. FTA has different kinds of funding mechanisms except 

for the fact that their transit projects—they are very similar to 

highway and heavy rail projects. So there needs to be some consistency among the Federal programs in terms of how they approach 

their oversight and administration of projects. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Kempton. 

Mr. KEMPTON. Mr. Shuster, I would say the same thing. Consolidation and flexibility are the keys. We have innumerable scores of 

Federal programs, and I think you can make a judgment as to 

which programs are best to be left, but consolidation would be absolutely critical. 

Then the flexibility. There are sometimes so many restrictions 

that come with Federal dollars. One of our colleagues from San 

Diego likes to say that for 20 percent of the money, you get 80 percent of the rules. I think that ought to be looked at as well. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much. Again, I would encourage 

all of you to submit your ideas because as we do this bill, it is going 

to take all of us. 

I would encourage Mr. Hunter. I appreciate you being here 

today. We have heard from labor across the country, especially the 

building trades, and we know you guys just want to build stuff. We 

need you in this working through this process to make sure that 

we are focused on getting the money out, building things, and you 

need to have a seat at the table. As we move this forward, let us 

make it about getting the money out, streamlining, doing more 

with less, and creating jobs for the folks in your labor union. 

Mr. Robbie HUNTER. Absolutely. In Los Angeles, we did a bond 

with the school district, a $3 billion bond. You know, often when 

people are taxed, there is a dam built in the mud somewhere and 

no one sees it. We built those schools in the communities and when 

the taxpayers here—they renewed with three more bonds. We did 

$27 million worth of projects. The last 23 schools that came in 

saved so much money, they built three new schools with the savings because of the cost in construction. We absolutely should take 

advantage of that at this time. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. Thank you all very much for coming 

out today. 

I yield back. 
103 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

I yield to Ms. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Chairman Mica. I have a lot of 

comments, not necessarily questions. But just Ms. Mayer in Riverside talked about the pollution and all of that that is going through 

my district. I have roughly 50,000 trucks a day going through my 

district, 160 Union Pacific and BNSF railcars going through my 

district. Of that, 40 percent goes to the rest of the country. So before Chairman Mica became the chair, then Chairman Oberstar 

named it the ‘‘corridor of national significance’’ because it is critical 

to the on-time delivery of those goods to the rest of the Nation. 

Now, Mr. Kempton, you talked about the agencies. I co—chair, 

if you will, along with the ranking member, the Subcommittee on 

Water and Power. There are 22 agencies that deal with water in 

Washington. So somehow can you tell us what you see—not now, 

maybe in writing to this committee and all of us. What do you see 

that can be consolidated that would help reduce the personnel handling, the different agencies handling, the different steps that you 

have to do both in terms of saving money, cost saving to the project 

managers, et cetera? 

But understand when we are sitting in committee and they come 

and give us reports, then you say, OK, what about the other side? 

There are other agencies that may have jurisdiction over that, and 

so then you have those big stumbling blocks that we do not look 

at because you know about them. We may not. So unless you point 

them out and suggest them to this committee, there is no way that 

we can do it. 

Do not forget we have budget cuts in Washington too. So those 

agencies that are going to be serving you are going to have reduced 

personnel to deal with it. So how do you tell us where we may be 

able to consolidate and be able to address that by recommending 

things that we with our legislation may be able to address? Don? 

Mr. KNABE. Every time you have a major project, there are always related projects to that major project. If you increase the eligibility to allow that under TIFIA, instead of having one project per 

loan, being able to have that project and the related projects in a 

consolidation for one application, that would save huge amounts of 

time. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. If you would put that in writing, Don, because 

that is something that we need to look at. 

The other thing, Ms. Phillips, is how do we get the railroads to 

become an active—how do we incentivize railroads to become more 

proactive in helping fund some of things that they benefit from? I 

would like that in writing because my time is short. But those are 

things I would like to hear from you in writing for us. 

Supervisor Knabe, how long did it take for the 105 to be built? 

The incentive, the cost cut? 

Mr. KNABE. Well, I think the reason they named it the Century 

Freeway is because said it took 100 years. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KNABE. But in reality on footprint and design and redesign, 

it was close to 20 years, something like that. I mean, it was just 

absolutely outrageous. 
104 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But after Judge Ferguson lifted the injunction, 

it took about 18 months? 

Mr. KNABE. Yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Roughly. So that freeway was built. 

Mr. KNABE. Lawsuits, everything. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Correct. 

Mr. KNABE. Now it contains our Green Line too that Chairman 

Mica wants to go all the way to the airport. 

Mr. VILLARAIGOSA. It will go all the way. 

Mr. KNABE. I heard the mayor. 

[Laughter.] 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. All right, guys. 

Mr. Hunter, one of the things that we know from looking at other 

projects and being abroad in some of the other countries, there are 

very few labor standards—building codes. That builds a lot of insecurity and danger to a lot of the populace. I want to be sure that 

those are built on time, right the first time. If I remember correctly, it is build it right the first time. You save money. You save 

time. Where we are earthquake prone, that is a must in our area, 

especially in California. 

The 30/10. How is that going to affect the revenue, as Senator 

Boxer was stating, that there will be less revenue because of the 

hybrids? How do we compensate for that? What do we look at? How 

do we not tax them but be able to make sure? They are using the 

roads. They are using out the highways. They are creating some of 

that traffic congestion that we talk about. So how do we look at 

being fair to the rest of the driving public that is paying for those 

highway improvements? 

Open new concepts. Within my area—I am running out of time— 

we have an organization, a company that is dealing with research 

and development with the Department of Defense to build a blimp 

and be able to take cargo from the Army, whatever Department of 

Defense’s need is, to move it into inaccessible areas, in other words, 

inside the belly of a blimp. Why are we not looking at new innovative concepts that might bring relief to that which we are now facing? 

So, Madam Senator and Chairman Mica, there are a lot of things 

I would like to have the illustrious panel give to us as—— 

Mr. MICA. We are going to allow that too. I will yield to Senator 

Boxer for a motion. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. I would ask that the record be kept open for 

2 weeks so that our terrific witnesses here can get their comments 

in. 

Mr. MICA. Without objection, so ordered. 

I would also invite members of the public that want to submit 

recommendations. We could not get everybody up here obviously. 

We jammed the stage as it is. But if you have recommendations, 

the record will be kept open for 2 weeks. I would ask that you submit them to the Senator or any of the members who are in attendance or on the respective committees. 

Let me yield now to the gentleman from California, Mr. Hunter. 

Mr. DUNCAN HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am new to 

this committee, ladies and gentlemen. So I have some basic questions. I hate to be the killjoy here, but what makes you think Cali-
105 

fornia can afford anything, even doing less with less? No one has 

talked about California’s debt and what happens to these bonds 

and what happens to the cent and a half sales tax or half cent sales 

tax if that has to be reprioritized and restructured if there is a restructuring of California’s debt obligations or if there is any kind 

of Federal assistance, which I do not think that would be forthcoming under this Congress. What would happen to any projects 

started? How would California pay for them? Anybody is welcome—— 

Mr. VILLARAIGOSA. Yes. I can respond to that. 

First of all, you are not a killjoy. That is an appropriate question. 

Measure R cannot be in any way—the revenues generated from 

Measure R cannot be appropriated by the State in any way. This 

was a taxpayer-approved half penny sales tax that the State of 

California has no jurisdiction, no ability to appropriate that money. 

Mr. DUNCAN HUNTER. What I am asking, though, Mr. Mayor, is 

you are going to have to prioritize if California is unable to do what 

it does as a State for Los Angeles. You are going to have to 

reprioritize what is important to Los Angeles. You might have to 

reprioritize that money going into shelters for unemployed people 

or something else. 

Mr. VILLARAIGOSA. It cannot be used for that purpose. 

Mr. DUNCAN HUNTER. It is untouchable. 

Mr. VILLARAIGOSA. Untouchable. In fact, in the actual measure, 

they identified the projects that you can actually spend this taxpayer revenue on. So it cannot be invaded by the State. You cannot 

even reprioritize it without a two-thirds vote, and then it can only 

be used for transportation. 

Mr. KNABE. I mean, the whole being, it required special legislation just to allow us to put it on the ballot because we had already 

maxed out our ability for a sales tax in Los Angeles County. So it 

is untouchable by the State. 

Now, the State has its other issues with transportation bonds 

statewide. You know, there is always that little caveat inside that 

says two-thirds vote of the legislature, we can put it toward our 

debt, you know, kind of thing that we have to deal with, but that 

is a separate issue. Within the confines of that legislation, of Measure R, it is strictly for Los Angeles County and strictly for 

prioritized transportation projects. 

Mr. DUNCAN HUNTER. So let us say the worst case scenario is 

California has to restructure or do something with its debt obligations and they are helped out by the Feds in some way in that restructuring. You are saying that the local municipalities, if they do 

it your way, would be safe from the State—— 

Mr. KNABE. Measure R dollars. 

Mr. VILLARAIGOSA. If they wrote their initiative in the way that 

we did, yes. 

Mr. DUNCAN HUNTER. The next question and last question to Mr. 

Kempton and anybody else who would like to answer. If you had 

to sum it up in basic speak for someone as simple as myself, if you 

had to talk about how much time and how much over budget as 

a percentage of an entire project in general that environmental regulations in California cause, what would that number be? Roughly. 
106 

We will not hold you to it, except everything you say is on the 

record. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KEMPTON. Well, Mr. Hunter, we will just go with the 13 

years if you escalated that over 4 percent or something in terms 

of project costs, but I would stress it is not just environmental regulations. It is the delivery process in and of itself, and that is what 

we are trying to address with Breaking Down Barriers. So just 

take the 13 years that it takes to get a major project done, escalate 

the cost over those years, and that will give you a sense of the time 

impacts from a dollar perspective for projects. But again, it is not 

just environmental regulations. It is delivery processes as well. 

Mr. KNABE. Entitlements, everything. I mean, it is the whole 

piece. Just being able to do concurrent environmental reviews 

would save a humongous amount of time. Not changing the regulations, just being able to do concurrent reviews would be an incredible savings. 

Mr. DUNCAN HUNTER. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Chairman Mica, I just wanted to say to Representative Hunter I am really glad that you posed this question 

because as I talk to my colleagues in Washington, this is so new 

and so different. It is a new way of thinking which is very important for our committee because we know the stress we are under 

in terms of revenues, and any new revenue source is going to be— 

some people have signed a pledge, no new revenue source. Other 

people say they are willing to look at it. But it is going to be a terrible argument. 

The beauty of this and the reason I am so happy you are here 

and you asked this question is this is a measure that the local people decided, and they went in the midst of a recession, as was stated, and said, we are willing to tax ourselves because we want these 

projects built. For us, because we know there is this revenue flow 

which—you asked your question. We know that no one can interfere with that revenue flow. For example, for a $20 million cost to 

us, they are able to get a loan of $500 million, and we know that 

money is coming behind it. 

So thank you very much for asking the question because if we 

are going to write a bill here that has a chance of passing, this is 

the type of program we are going to have to work on because we 

do not have to get any new Federal taxes. We can just deal with 

this and leverage. I think the centerpiece of our bill will be 

leveraging. 

Mr. DUNCAN HUNTER. Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. Chairman, if I may. If you try to take the Chargers and put 

them in L.A., I will vote no on everything. I am just throwing that 

out there. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SHUSTER. Just a quick question on the vote for half a penny. 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Shuster? 

Mr. SHUSTER. I know in Orange County they did it and it passed 

by like 67 percent. What was the percentage? 

Mr. KNABE. Almost 68 percent. 

I mean, there are a lot of things on that ballot people have to 

go through and vote no on. They voted yes on that. 
107 

But we realize how difficult your job is. Every time I get in an 

elevator in Washington, I see these little name tags, National Carburetor Association, National Christmas Tree Association, you 

know, National Glass Association, and they all have their little 

agenda. All that impacts when you are trying to put together all 

this legislation. So we appreciate all you do. 

Mr. MICA. Those are not even our constituents. 

Mr. KNABE. Exactly, right. 

Mr. MICA. Let me yield now—patiently waiting—to the 

gentlelady from California, Ms. Richardson. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

For the sake of the accuracy of the record, I want to refer back 

to Ms. Phillips’ testimony. In her written testimony, it says that 

while environmental reviews make it extensive, sometimes can be 

perceived to complete projects—in 2001, of all the highway projects 

that received Federal funds, only 3 percent of those projects, accounting for only 9 percent of the funds, actually required an EIS. 

Further, her testimony says that neither Federal funds funding 

transportation projects have been eligible for categorical exclusions. 

Now, we have spent a lot of time talking about the I–35, but I 

think it is important, particularly for the public, that we are accurately telling the whole story. I–35 was the first categorical exclusion. Further, I–35 had full, 100 percent funding at the point when 

they began, obviously due to the tragedy of what occurred. So I 

think in addition to us talking about the NEPA/CECWO problems, 

we also need to consider this whole thing of better utilizing categorical exclusions as well. 

Further in her testimony she stated that project redesign is part 

of the problem, relocating businesses, project complexity, lack of 

funding for the project, local objections. The one I want to ask Ms. 

McKim, Kempton, or Heminger, whoever would like to respond— 

let us spend just a moment on the interagency communication 

problems because that is also something we can work on. We have 

spent a lot of time talking about NEPA and CECWO, but the interagency communication—or give us more specific details about the 

permit problems. Which agencies would really help us to better do 

this bill? So whoever would like to chime in. 

Mr. HEMINGER. Congresswoman, Steve Heminger just to start. I 

do think you are putting your finger on it. As I said in my remarks, 

I do not think the NEPA/CECWO issue is the big villain because, 

generally speaking, in big projects in California, we clear them 

through both. We run them simultaneously. I am sure it adds some 

time. But the permit question is the real issue. That is where a 

project can sit still for months while a permit is issued. 

Now, in the case of the Minneapolis bridge, I was up there during construction. That project manager had half of his permits in 

the first week. Now, that is probably an extraordinary case. 

But someone also on the panel mentioned that some of these 

agencies may be seeing cuts in their funding and their staffing. I 

think it would be a prudent expenditure of our transportation 

funds to make sure that does not happen, to have folks dedicated 

at those agencies to our programs to have clocks on them. If they 

do not meet the clock, the permit is approved or have some appellate process that if they do not approve it within a certain period 
108 

of time, it is kicked up to some other level. There has got to be a 

reasonable way to get through this better. These are all people of 

good faith. There is no one in there who is trying to do a bad job, 

but there simply is not a priority in those agencies for speed and 

for consistency with many other Federal agencies that also act. 

Mr. KEMPTON. I would add to that, and I agree with what Mr. 

Heminger said. One of the recommendations in our Breaking Down 

Barriers initiative is, in fact, prompt action which would require a 

specific deadline for action by a permitting agency, and that is 

where a significant amount of the problem comes into play. 

But again, we are dealing, in most cases I think, with people who 

are concerned and want to do a good job. There are resources 

issues, and we need to take better advantage of a process that we 

have used here in California to a great advantage, and that is actually providing the resources agencies with staff, with consultants to 

be able to complete the required work so that it gets done more 

quickly. That is something that we can do and look to make more 

palatable as part of this process as well. 

I was asked at the Highway Subcommittee meeting last week if 

I could summarize in one word what the problem is and I said I 

could. It is trust. As we work more closely with these agencies and 

develop a greater amount of credibility, that trust factor will be 

less important. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. To your knowledge, are there any inhibiting 

factors that would preclude us from doing a concurrent system? It 

seems like everyone—the panelists agree. OK. 

My next question has to do with existing right-of-ways. Yesterday Chairman Mica and I were in Fresno, and one of the things 

they talked about is some of these projects have to go through a 

whole other approval process even though they are building upon 

existing right-of-ways. Would there be any objection to us reconsidering maybe framing those regulations a little bit better if it is on 

an existing right-of-way? Ms. Phillips or Mr. Kempton? 

Then I have one last question. 

Ms. PHILLIPS. I think the ultimate outcome is the performance 

and that is where we need to put the emphasis so that if there is 

a way to address the existing right-of-ways to ensure that you get 

cleaner air in the end, less water pollution, more protection of open 

space and wildlife, then there is room to negotiate and room to figure out improvements. I think the emphasis in all of the transportation bill funding needs to be on the outcome, on the performance. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. No but, Ms. Phillips, I am asking a very specific question, and it was a big problem in Fresno. Let us say, for 

example, Highway 5. It is already a highway. If we are talking 

about a major resurfacing project or something that is on the existing right-of-way, there have been issues of completing that. Would 

there be a general objection to us reevaluating those regulations 

specifically if it has to do with an existing right-of-way? 

Ms. PHILLIPS. The kind of example you are using—I do not see 

that there is an objection to that. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. OK. Thank you. 

My last question, Mayor Villaraigosa and Supervisor Knabe. One 

of the things in the bill included projects of national significance. 
109 

We are very grateful to the chairman and also Chairwoman Boxer 

for being here. 

Could you just allude very briefly why it is important that we 

continue that section in the bill? 

Mr. VILLARAIGOSA. Well, I think it was mentioned. I mean, we 

move 44 percent of all the sea-borne goods through our ports. Our 

airport is the largest destination and arrival and entry airport in 

the United States of America. If we were a nation, this metropolitan area would be the 17th largest economy in the world. The gridlock here and the air quality is among the worst in the Nation. For 

all of those reasons and the fact that we have a dedicated funding 

source, this is a project of national significance. 

Mr. KNABE. I would just add, I mean, just not only Measure R 

but the whole issue of the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, 

which are part of my district as well too. I sit on the Alameda Corridor Authority. That was a project that was built on time, on 

budget. But those trains go north. They do not turn left to go in 

the ocean. They turn right and go right out through your district 

and my district, and they are of national significance. We knew 

during the port strike a while back, a billion dollars a day of national economic impact to the United States of America. A billion 

dollars a day. That is a big number. So I think we have to be able 

to maintain those projects, and they are of national significance 

and they do deserve a little bit better treatment I think. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentlelady and the witnesses. 

Our last member. Again, we are so pleased with her service and 

her friendship over the years. I am pleased to recognize Ms. Harman. 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Chairman Mica. I was sitting here 

thinking that you and I and Congresswoman Brown were all elected in the same year in another century when the world seemed a 

little simpler and safer than it does now. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. HARMAN. I am going to leave it to you much younger colleagues to figure all this out. 

But I want to observe what an excellent hearing this is. All of 

the information has been substantive. There have been specific 

ideas put forward, as you requested, about improving TIFIA and 

other programs. 

That leads me to ask one question, mindful of your time and everyone else’s time. But it is in relation to the issue I raised in my 

brief comments, and that has to do with P3, public/private partnerships. I do not think we had enough conversation about that. 

President Obama has been talking about the fact that the private 

sector is ‘‘hording’’ would be a tough word, but at least holding onto 

about $2 trillion in capital which is not being invested at least 

presently into worthy activities. Congressman Shuster pointed out 

that the jobs we are talking about here are private sector jobs. 

That is worth underscoring. Private sector jobs, not public jobs. 

My question is, do we not have an opportunity here to cause U.S. 

banks and others to part with some of that $2 trillion—I am sure 

we would take a small percentage—to leverage the Measure R revenues, which our taxpayers on an overwhelming bipartisan basis 

have volunteered, to build these private sector jobs? Is TIFIA a 
110 

best way or the QTIP program which has to do with bonds or some 

new bond program, an additional way? 

But bottom line, should we not focus more on public/private partnerships as the way to get this done fast? 

Mr. VILLARAIGOSA. Without question, Congressmember Harman. 

We have been meeting over the last 18 months as we put together 

the 30/10 Plan with investment banks, and very importantly, 

across the world, investment banks and public/private partnerships 

are working with government to build the infrastructure that they 

need and that we need here in the United States. I said it is a $2.2 

trillion need. We were at Lazard in November, I believe, and they 

are very interested. So is J.P. Morgan. Almost all of the investment 

banks see the opportunity that comes with a public/private partnership, again leveraging local dollars with Federal dollars to move 

projects and accelerate them as we speak. 

Mr. KNABE. Well, I would only add that I think if you could within the surface transportation bill build in the legislative relief necessary to do P3 projects. I mean, the problem we had—we just did, 

as Congresswoman Richardson knows, the new courthouse in Long 

Beach where we came together, county/State. But we did not have 

legislative relief, and it took forever. So if the legislative relief to 

encourage, incentivize P3 projects could be in this transportation 

act, that is one major step forward that you do not have to go back 

and fix the problem and create and go back through another legislative process to pull it off. 

Ms. HARMAN. I am sure you agree, Mr. Czyzyk, that local businesses, local banks might find a huge opportunity to earn an appropriate return helping put Los Angeles construction workers and 

U.S. construction workers back to work. 

Mr. CZYZYK. The business community has always been willing, 

for years, to enter into these public/private partnerships. There 

have been some reluctancies on the side of government and sometimes the arrangements have not been as good as they perhaps 

could have been. But there are existing public/private partnerships 

that exist today in other names. For example, most airports around 

the United States are built—the terminals are built with airline 

dollars, and it is quite simply where an opportunity is given to an 

airline or to another business to develop a facility, given 30 years 

to do that, and then the facility is turned over lock, stock, and barrel to the government authority. That in itself is a form of public/ 

private partnership, and that could take place on our roads and 

highways as well. 

There was some contemplation a few years ago of building a separate lane on the 710 Freeway that could have been financed in a 

private/public partnership type of arrangement, although because 

of the inability to come to an understanding between the investors 

and the government agencies at the time, it did not happen. 

But with the willingness of all three elements to work together— 

and when I say the three elements, I am referring to government, 

labor, and business—these public/private partnerships can happen. 

I cannot speak for all the banks, but there is a few trillion dollars 

that is out there that can be invested. If there is a willingness on 

the part of the constituents to do it, I am sure that a lot of infrastructure improvement can be made in that regard. 
111 

Ms. HARMAN. So just let me conclude, Chairman Boxer and 

Chairman Mica. 

I obviously leave Congress with this issue in good hands. We are 

going to extend the Green Line to LAX and we are going to leverage private money and we are going to do it right now on a bipartisan basis. I just want to thank all my colleagues for the honor 

of serving with them over the years. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. MICA. Thank you again, Representative Harman. 

As we conclude here, I think everyone has had an opportunity for 

participation. As I said, we welcome from those who could not be 

on the formal panel with us to submit for the record their ideas, 

suggestions, recommendations through their Representative or 

Senator. 

I cannot again thank Senator Boxer enough for her hospitality in 

hosting us today and her leadership in the U.S. Senate on our first 

public effort here together, an example hopefully we are setting to 

draft and complete for the country probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that will affect our economy in the future. 

So thank you again. 

I opened and let me hand you the gavel, if you would have any 

comments. I will yield to you, and then if you could please close the 

joint hearing. 

Senator BOXER [presiding]. Well, this is a very important moment in time, given where we are in our country and all the problems we face and the rancor, that we are here together, Mr. Chairman, with colleagues from both sides of the aisle. It really is an important signal that we are sending, and I hope the people of Los 

Angeles feel very proud because what really brought us here is the 

just amazing leadership this community has shown on this critical 

issue. As I leave here, I think what we have gotten from this incredible panel—and I am sure, Mr. Chairman and members, you 

are getting ideas from all over the country, and I am very anxious 

to hear from you about all the different ideas that you have 

learned. But I feel that I have been given a very solid road map 

on how to proceed. 

I am going to keep in my mind a couple of things, the first one 

that I thought Jane Harman laid out so beautifully. We can leverage. At this tough time when we have very tough financial problems, we can leverage dollars from the private sector, from local 

government, from State government, from wherever it comes. We 

can do it at very little risk, at virtually no risk to the taxpayers. 

So leverage is to me the centerpiece of what we are going to do together. 

The second thing I will keep in my mind—and I hope everybody 

will—is those unemployed construction workers and also the businesses that they formerly worked for who have very little work 

right now. We have a housing crisis and it is not yet fixed. Let us 

put it that way. Some tough times still remain in that front. So 

what are we going to do with essentially 20 stadiums filled with 

unemployed construction workers? I thank Mr. Hunter for being 

here with the Chamber of Commerce, labor and commerce together. 
112 

So I think if we keep in our minds the way to do this efficiently, 

the way to stretch our dollars, the way to be fiscally responsible 

and still meet our demands that we have on us for a top-notch 

transportation system and the unemployed workers and the construction businesses that need us to act, I think we are going to 

come out with something very, very good. Look, there will be some 

tough patches ahead, and we are not going to agree on every single 

thing. We know that. But I think on the big issues, we do agree 

and we do see eye to eye. 

So with that optimism, I close this hearing and I thank everyone 

for attending and I thank our excellent panel. 

[Applause.] 

[Whereupon, at 11 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:] 
113 

(li:ongrc55 of tbc Wnttcb ~tatc5 

jQouse of l\cprr:sentatiiJes 

MllIll5i)ington, :WI[ 20515-0530 

HENRY A WAXMAN 

30Tfl D!~If-IIC1, CALIfOBNli\ 

Opening Statement of Rep. Henry A. Waxman 

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Joint U.S. Senate and House Field Hearing 

"Improving and Reforming our Nation's Surface Transportation 

Programs to Support Job Creation and the Economy" 

February 23,2011 

Thank you Chairman I30xer and Chairman Mica for convening this hearing in Los Angeles. I 

welcome you to the 30th Congressional District, which I am honored to represent. I 

particularly want to express my appreciation to Senator I30xer for her long-time dedicated 

work to address our challenging transportation issues. 

Today, we sit at the West LA Veterans Campus. Ten years from now, if all goes as planned, 

it will he the interim terminus of the Westside Subway Extension. I3ut today it is the heart 

of some of the worst congestion in the region and just miles from one of the most congested 

interchanges in the country. 

These traffic bottlenecks are a drain on our economy, our productivity, and our health. 

That is why I strongly support the hold vision Los Angeles County has adopted to chart a 

path forward. With the approval of Measure R in 2008, an overwhelming two-thirds of Los 

Angeles County voters supported a tax increase for a bold initiative to dramatically expand 

and integrate the County's transit system. Mayor Villaraigosa has propelled the plan with 

his "30/10" initiative, which has as its ambitious goal the completion of30 years of projects 

in the next 10 years. 

The impact of Measure R cannot be overstated. Already projects like the Expo Line to Santa 

Monica, the Crenshaw line through Culver City, the Gold Line Foothill Extension, and the 

Green Line extension to the airport have taken leaps from concept to construction. 

Likewise, the cornerstone Westside Subway Extension and Regional Connector projects 

have achieved environmental clearance for Preliminary Engineering and Design. Indeed, 

the President's Fiscal Year 2012 budget places both projects in the pipeline for a future Full 

Funding Grant Agreement. 

The jobs are ready and the riders arc eager. The missing ingredient is a bold 
114 

transportation reauthorization bill that will empower LA County to leverage Measure R 

revenues and properly finance the biggest physical, economic, and environmental 

transformation of a generation. 

Now is the time to invest. Now is the time to put forward creative plans like the 

Infrastructure Bank, expansion of the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and 

Innovation Act and other dynamic proposals that will move us forward. Now is the time to 

shore up the New Starts program and the state grant formulas that enable high density 

areas like the Westside of Los Angeles keep up with growth. 

Stagnation is not an acceptable option. I look forward to working with you to build a better 

future for the county, the state, and the country. 
115 

Kern Council 

of Governments 

February 22, 2011 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer, Chairman 

Environment and Public Works Committee 

United States Congress 

112 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Subject: Proposed Surt~lee Transportation Reauthorization Priorities 

Dear Chairwoman Boxer: 

Kern Council of Governments thanks you for seeking input on the proposed surface 

transportation reauthorization. As a large, geographically diverse metropolitan planning 

organization, Kern Council of Governments is required to coordinate a continuous, 

comprehensive and cooperative planning process that serves three distinct economic regions. Our 

geographic and economic diversity requires solutions for all transportation modes. 

Kern Council of Governments is submitting a statement for the committee's consideration on 

four policy areas addressing the proposed surface transportation act. The policy areas of concern 

include preserving short-haul rail lines, National Environmental Protection Act process 

streamlining, identifying sustainable transportation revenue sources and support for high-speed 

rail development. 

Each of these transportation policy issues is important to the Kern region in order to maintain our 

diverse economy. A reliable transportation funding source will allow for needed goods 

movement and congestion relief projects. NEPA streamlining will assist in moving projects 

forward to construction in a timely and efficient manner. Freight rail is an essential option for the 

region to move manufactured and agricultural goods to market. High-speed rail will improve air 

quality, increase economic development opportunities in communities that suffer from chronic 

unemployment and increase mobility in Central California. 

Thank you for allowing Kern Council of Governments the opportunity to provide input to the 

national transportation policy discussion. If you require additional information or wish to discuss 

these issues further. please contact me a 661-861-2191 or at rbrummcttr(vkcrncog.org. 

Sincerely. 

Ronald E. Brummett 

Executive Director 

Kern Council of Governments 

1401 19'" Street, Suite 300, Bakersfield, California 93301 (661) 861·2191 Facsimile (661) 324·8215 TTY (661) 832·7433 

www.kerncog.org 
116 

Kern Council 

of Governments 

CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL SYSTEM 

Development of high speed rail provides many benefits to both local and regional 

economies. Documented benefits of implementing high speed rail throughout world 

include job creation and increases in both regional and local economic activity. These 

same economic benefits could be available to the Kern region and throughout other 

regions in the United States. 

Construction of a high speed rail system in California would provide 300,000 jobs. Many 

of those jobs would be in Central California chronic unemployment. In the vicinity of 

HSR station, there would be increases in office space helping to generate economic 

activity. Along with the new office space, jobs would be created by the construct of new 

residential units and new hotels. Development of this type supports the Federal 

emphasis on sustainable communities. 

California is systematically developing a high speed rail system that will serve 95 

percent of all Californian. Voters in California approved a $10 billion bond to finance 

construction of the first phase of the system. The Kern Council of Governments 

supports the location and funding of a high speed rail system in California beginning 

with the initial segment in Central California. 

• Provide federal funding for high speed rail systems that benefit local and regional 

economies, support sustainable communities and enhance the environment. 

• Focus Federal funding on high speed rail systems that enhance regional mobility 

and increase economic activity in high unemployment areas. 

Contact: Ronald E. Brummett, 

Kern Council of Governments 

661-861-2191 

rbrummett@kerncog.org 

Kern Council of Governments 

140119'" Street, Suite 300, Bakersfield, California 93301 (661) 861·2191 Facsimile (661) 324·8215 TTY (661) 832·7433 

\oVWW.kerncog.org 
117 

J<ern Council 

of Governments 

FREIGHT RAIL LINE NOTIFICATION AND PROTECTION 

Short haul rail lines are an essential part of the greater freight rail system. Short haul 

line operators are abandoning usable section of rail lines and are not required to 

conform to National Environmental Quality Act (NEPA) requirements or to notify 

metropolitan planning organization of the intent to abandon a rail segment. 

Short haul railroads' hold monopolies over rail shippers and receivers; constantly 

increase rates, tariffs, etc. forcing them to ship by truck. These actions are contrary to 

the intent of the 1980 Staggers Act that deregulated railroads in order to increase 

competition. Central Valley rail shippers & receivers have seen fees, charges and rates 

increase as much as 2,000 percent in one year for handling the same volume of railcars 

as the previous year. As rail traffic decrease on the short haul rail lines, they are then 

abandoned, removed from operations and the track sold for scrap. 

The systematic removal of short haul rail segments has significant environmental and 

economic impacts to the local region. Environmentally, the removal of a rail option 

increases the amount of goods shipped by truck impacting local air quality. Economic 

impacts include the reduced options for shippers and receivers and increased 

maintenance costs for both local roads and the state highways due to increased truck 

traffic. In contrast, highways that are abandonment, relocated or newly constructed 

required environmental documents to made available for public review and comment. 

Kern Council of Governments recommends the following items be addressed in the 

surface transportation act. 

Revise short haul rail abandonment regulations to require short-haul rail line 

operators to notify transportation planning agencies and metropolitan planning 

agencies of their intent to abandonment a segment of rail line. 

Require short-haul rail line operators to file environmental and economic impact 

reports address local and regional issues in accordance with NEPA. 

Contact: Ronald E. Brummett, 

Kern Council of Governments 

661-861-2191 

rbrummett@kerncog.org 

Kern Council of Governments 

140119'" Street, Suite 300. Bakersfield, California 93301 (661) 861-2191 Facsimile (661) 324-8215 TTY (661) 832-7433 

www.kerncog.org 
118 

I<ern Council 

of Governments 

NEPA STREAMLINING AND REGULATORY REFORM 

Under current federal law, the National Environment Protection Act (NEPA) requires that 

Federal resources agencies (Fish and Wildlife, Environmental Protection Agency, et. al.) be 

given an opportunity to review and comment on environmental documents developed for 

specific projects. However, NEPA regulations do not set a time limit for a Federal resources 

agency to return comment on the environmental document. 

The Kern Council of Governments and the City of Bakersfield waited 4 years for comments 

from Federal resources agencies on the Kern River Freeway Project. Project planning and 

development requires the expensive and time consuming process of developing of a federal 

environmental document and a state environmental document. 

Kern Council of Governments recommends the following items be addressed in the surface 

transportation act. 

Change federal NEPA regulations to set a specific review time in which Federal resources 

agencies are required to provide comments to the project sponsor. The time limit could be 

six (6) month or one (1) years as long as there is a defined time for review. 

Permit integrating state and federal environmental impact studies without compromising 

environmental standards, to avoid project cost increases that occur due to lengthy 

processes. 

Contact: Ronald E. Brummett, 

Kern Council of Governments 

661-861-2191 

rbrummett@kerncog.org 

Kern Council of Governments 140119") Street, Suite 300, Bakersfield, California 93301 (661) 861·2191 Facsimile {661} 324·8215 TTY (661) 832·7433 www.kerncog.org 
119 

Kern Council 

of Governments 

SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION REVENUE 

There is a growing recognition that sustainable transportation infrastructure requires an 

established reliable, sustainable and growing funding system to finance our aging and 

underfunded transportation infrastructure. This is a nationwide challenge. Although 

borrowing of expected future revenues can accelerate the delivery of priority projects, 

the resulting debt service must be kept at a level so as not to jeopardize future 

transportation programs. This is a short-term solution and is not sustainable. We cannot 

borrow our way out of this problem. 

Kern Council of Governments recommends the following items be addressed in the 

surface transportation act. 

• Transportation funding should rely on direct user fees so that there is a strong 

relationship between the use of the system and how the user pays for the system. 

As a transition to a vehicle miles travel fee system, a suite of interim fees can be in 

the form of a gas tax, auto insurance surcharge, tire tax surcharge or other user 

based mechanisms. 

• Technologies that move toward a vehicle miles travel system of fee collection, 

should begin within two years beginning with the truck industry which already pays 

mileage based road taxes based on travel in each state. 

• Design/build, public/private partnerships opportunities and other innovative financing 

opportunities should be authorized and/or expanded. 

• Support incentives for interregional, cooperative approaches to fund transportation 

corridors, communications facilities and economic opportunities. 

Contact: Ronald E. Brummett, 

Kern Council of Governments 

661-861-2191 

rbrummeU@kerncog.org 

Kern Council of Governments 140119'" Street. Suite 300, Bakersfield, California 93301 (661) 861·2191 Facsimile (661) 324·8215 TTY (661) 832·7433 

www.kerncog.org 
120 

TESTIMONY BY THE HONORABLE CURT PRINGLE, 

CHAIRMAN OF THE CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAil AUTHORITY 

Submitted to the: 

JOINT HEARING OF THE U.S. SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITIEE AND 

THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITIEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

Joint Field Hearing: Improving and Refarming aur Nation's Surface Transportatian Programs 

to Support Job Creation and the Economy 

Wednesday, February 23,2011 

9:00am 

West los Angeles Veterans Administration Campus 

11301 Wilshire Boulevard 

Los Angeles, California 

It gives me great pleasure to offer testimony today on behalf of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, 

on behalf of the state's high-speed train project, and on my own behalf as a Californian. 

One cannot discuss our state's transportation systems and our future transportation needs without 

including high-speed rail. That is because the population of our state is projected to grow by a full third -

from approximately 38 million people today to 50 million people by the year 2030. To accommodate 

that growth while maintaining our economic strength, California will need more road capacity, more 

airport capacity, and high-speed rail as another transportation option. Simply put, the continued health 

of California's economy relies of being able to move people and goods efficiently within our state - from 

international origins, through our ports, from Northern California to Southern California. 

There is no project that has more potential to serve as a backbone for California's future transportation 

needs than the state's high-speed train project. It is a true high-speed train project, not one of 

incrementally improving existing passenger rail lines, but of constructing entirely new infrastructure to 

allow operating speeds of 220 miles per hour and a travel time from the Los Angeles Basin to Silicon 

Valley and the Bay Area that competes with air travel. 

The benefits of the system we are planning - to connect the two largest population centers in our state 

which are two of the largest in our nation - are impossible to overstate. In the near-term it means true 

economic stimulus and job creation. In the long-term, this system will bring efficiency to our economy 

and improvements to our environment. In a time of staggering unemployment figures, one must view 

infrastructure investment as a prudent means of job creation. In fact, especially during challenging and 

economically difficult times, it is the appropriate time to invest in infrastructure for our future. 

With the California high-speed rail project, we do not use over-inflated multipliers to estimate job 

creation, but instead use a figure more conservative than the federal government and more 

conservative than transportation advocacy groups: 20,000 jobs per $1 billion in investment. That is, 

20,000 jobs defined as a 40-hour work week for S2 weeks - over the life of that investment. We 
121 

currently have $5.5 billion available to begin construction of our system, which is a combination of 

federal and state dollars, and that will mean nearly 110,000 job-years over the five years we have 

scheduled to expend these funds. An average of 22,000 jobs per year employing construction laborers, 

equipment operators, construction managers, cement masons and concrete finishers, electricians, 

accountants/auditors, civil engineers and more. The bulk of those jobs will be in our Central Valley, 

which currently has the dubious distinction of being home to some of the highest unemployment rates 

in the nation. 

There are many reasons the High-Speed Rail Authority chose to begin construction of the Los Angelesarea - to - Bay Area system in our Central Valley. The Central Valley constitutes the backbone of our 

statewide system, where we will have true high-speed rail travel on dedicated tracks unlike in urban 

areas where the trains will travel at slower speeds and, in some cases, potentially share track with 

regional passenger rail services. Also, beginning in the center gives us the flexibility to build either north 

or south as more money becomes available. Another reason to begin where our system will be straight, 

flat, and relatively inexpensive is to dispense with the typical engineering learning curve where we can 

get more track mileage from the initial federal investment. 

There is no denying that building this system will have impacts on California communities. One cannot 

build a piece of infrastructure of this size and scope - one that stretches nearly the entire length of the 

most populous state in the union - without having impacts. Our goal is to avoid those impacts where 

possible, and where not possible to mitigate them. 

Make no mistake, building more freeway lane miles and more airport capacity would be more costly and 

would have a greater impact. 

Unlike spending on roads and spending on regional commuter transit, investing in true high-speed rail 

systems will bring a profit and will therefore not require ongoing government subsidies for their 

operations and maintenance. That is true of the high-speed rail experience around the world. According 

to the UIC, which is the international authority on rail, every existing high-speed train system in 

operation around the world generates a profit from its operations. Two lines - the Tokyo-to-Osaka and 

Paris-to-Lyon lines have even made enough profit to pay back the cost of their initial infrastructure 

investment. We see examples around the world of successful public-private partnerships, utilizing 

private sector dollars, in high-speed rail development and operation. 

This will also be the case in California, where private companies and consortia have informally told the 

Authority for years that they plan to participate and invest in California when the time is right. For that 

time to be right, the private sector must first see a public sector commitment. The voters of California 

have done that, by approving $9.95 billion in bonds for the development of a high-speed rail system. 

Now, the federal government must show the same vision and commitment. 

What that means, honorable members of the committees, is a long-term, ongoing plan for funding the 

development of this mode of transportation. Long-term projects like these cannot be successfully and 

efficiently built with annual appropriations. They must be viewed with a longer lens if they are to come 

in on-time and under-budget, which is what the people of our state expect. 

Setting this long-term vision would send the signal to the private sector needed to lure its investment, at 

which point our goal will be to transfer risk to the private sector and away from the taxpayer. I 
122 

encourage Congress to foster an environment that allows for the private sector to participate and to 

accept the risk associated with developing and operating these systems, 

No project of this magnitude has ever been without its concerns, some of which are welcome and very 

legitimate, I have no doubt that President Lincoln faced the same challenges in his pursuit of the 

transcontinental railroad, or that President Eisenhower faced them in his pursuit of the interstate 

highway system we all enjoy today, 

High-speed rail now represents a true opportunity for the United States to invest in the infrastructure 

that will support the successes of our grandchildren and their grandchildren - and California remains in 

the best position to lead us there, Federal partnership is a necessary component of that effort, and I 

thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony today, 
123 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

u.s. Senator California 

112 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

II 

February 18, 2011 

RE: Joint Field Hearing of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in los Angeles, 2·23-2011 

Dear Senator Boxer: 

The California labor Federation strongly supports the continued federal funding of high speed rail 

systems in California and across the nation. president Obama has challenged the nation to build a 

21st century infrastructure that will solidify our country's position on the leading edge of global 

competiveness, This is our "Apollo moment" and we must all rise to the challenge. 

There are some who doubt the promise of high speed rail, They doubt that Americans can once 

again be on the cutting edge of technology, infrastructure, innovation and growth, Florida Governor 

Rick Scott recently rejected $2 billion in federal funding to build high speed rail in his state. 

The $2 blilion Florida rejected could be used immediately in California to break ground on high 

speed rail and make the President's vision a reality, 

A coalition of business, labor and government is already working together to make the vision of 

high-speed rail a reality in the Golden State. California has already made substantial investments in 

a high-speed rail system and is well prepared to receive and use federal funding, California is the 

only state in the nation that has passed a bond measure that will devote $9 billion to high-speed rail 

construction in coming years, 

High-speed rail create new opportunities for economic growth. Businesses will benefit from the 

improved movement of goods and people throughout the state, Rail will increase the speed of 

deliveries and ability of businesses to attract workers from all over the state. Tourism will flourish as 

visitors and residents explore California 1110re quickly and easily than before. 
124 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

February 18, 2011 

Page Two 

The economic downturn has had a devastating impact on working people in California, and recovery 

is projected to lag behind other states. The construction and operation of a high-speed rail system is 

projected to create 160,000 construction and 450,000 permanent jobs. For every $1 billion invested 

in high speed rail, 20,000 new jobs are created. The creation of new jobs will bring new life to the 

construction industry that has seen jobs losses of 20% and higher in recent years. Thousands of 

working families that feared long-term unemployment would have new opportunities for permanent 

jobs created by the high-speed rail system. 

This is the economic engine we need to drive recovery and put us in the lead of innovation, growth 

and development of new industries. 

In addition, high-speed rail will eliminate 12 billion pounds of environmentally damaging emissions 

each year-the equivalent of removing 1 million cars from our roads. The immediate improvements 

in air quality are huge, as are the long-term benefits to our state and our planet. 

California has a reputation as a state of visionaries -- for good reason. When we see a challenge, we 

rise to the occasion. We stand ready to become the first state in the nation to fully realize high-speed 

rail's promise. 

We urge you to redirect Florida's funding to California and to authorize on-going funding of high 

speed rail projects in California and across the nation. 

Sincerely, 

Art Pulaski 

Executive Secretary-Treasurer 
125 

Los Angeles County 

~ Metro "',"~'~"~","~",",-~ 

March 9, 2011 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

Chair 

One Gateway Plaza 

Los Angeles, CA 9°012'2952 

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

SD-410 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chair Boxer: 

Don Knabe 

Chair 

213.922A590 Tel 

21l922.4S94 Fax 

On behalf of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), 

I want to convey my appreciation for providing Metro with an opportunity to testify before 

the joint transportation hearing held in Los Angeles County on February 23, 2011. The 

hearing offered a welcome opportunity for myself and other major transportation 

stakeholders in the State of California to discuss the importance of reforming and 

improving our nation's surface transportation program, while concurrently keeping our 

focus squarely on the importance of job creation. 

Following my testimony, I was asked to provide a detailed explanation of the 

enhancements our agency is recommending for the Transportation Infrastructure 

Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program and our suggestion with respect to a new 

transportation bond program. I am pleased to provide the attached document which 

details our specific requests with regard to the existing TIFIA program and our proposed 

bond program. Our agency is very pleased with our ongoing dialogue with your 

committee staff on these proposals and would welcome additional comments that can 

further strengthen our proposal. 

Metro very much looks forward to working with you and your colleagues in the U.S. 

House of Representatives and U.S. Senate to advance a mUlti-year surface 

transportation bill. Please let me know if I can be of assistance as you work together to 

promote mobility across all modes of transportation in our nation. 

DK:jm 

Enclosure 
126 

Executive Officers 

Jacoblip;'l,Chairman 

Pwmas 

~:aa~n~~rt::."t~g!~:ast Chai""an 

i\I't"e.~~~~~rtI, Vice Chairman 

Richard Ziman, Vice Chairman, Chairman's Circle 

AmenCimValuePartners 

tb~'l~~~e~~;,~~~ee;\Ir>r'1 

Chairman's Circle 

M<l'yCOI\er1,fAlA.Genslet 

fo .... tClt\' 

s<>,"",J.P."'o'ga .. I"vut"'''''t'''91r1!·.1n~· 

PW.$hWdycl"',Ali'ICO 

G·"9Vllkt!',"'''~hrlan''P.rt".,. 

February 22, 2011 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

US Senate 

112 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Boxer: 

The Los Angeles Business Council (LABC) asks that you support AMERICA 

FAST FORWARD, a national effort to improve the way we finance 

transportation projects so that our cities and states can access capital and create 

jobs now. This initiative will leverage private capital to create on million 

private sector infrastructure jobs nationwide, empower local communities with 

forward looking llnancing tools and docs so in a way that does not add to the 

national deficit. 

AMERICA FAST FORWARD: 

Will create jobs right now by empowering local communities. 

is a new and innovative way to support tens of thousands of Main 

Street American businesses. 

will leverage private capital to create one million 

private sector inlrastructure jobs nationwide. 

The LABC has a long history in supporting transportation infrastructure 

projects that will create and retain jobs in our region. We were the initial 

business organization to support Metro's Measure R program, and the Mayor's 

JOIl 0 Initiative. 

AMERlCA FAST FORWARD will create jobs by empowering local 

communities with forward-looking linancing tools that will allow them to 

focus their own communities resources directly on the priorities that will best 

lead to real job creation right now, and does so in a way that does not add to 

the nation's budget problems. 

AMERICA FAST FOR WARD empowers local communities by giving them 

the decision-making authority when it comes to identifying what jobs 

initiatives will best serve the priorities of their communities. Second, 

AMERICA FAST FORWARD will not harn1 the federal budget as the federal 

government will provide AMERICA FAST FOR WARD JOB CREDIT 
127 

GUARANTEES and only where there are locally-based and dedicated funding streams to 

guarantee that federal taxpayers are made whole for any credit that is provided. Moreover, credit 

amounts will be capped well below the projections of the dedicated funding source. Third, 

AMERICA FAST FOR WARD allows communities to issue AMERICA FAST FORWARD JOB 

BONDS for local jobs initiatives with a tax credit in order to secure favorable financing terms so 

that as large a percentage of public resources are in fact directly supporting immediate job 

creation at the local level. And, fourth, the AMERICA FAST FOR WARD credit and bonds will 

only be made available in instances where there is real accountability in terms of a specifically 

identified initiative that will result injobs. 

For the reasons above, the LABC asks you to support AMERICA FAST FOR WARD. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Mary Leslie 

President, LABC 
128 

America Fast Forward 

Proposed Federal Financing Tools 

To Stimulate Transportation Infrastructure Investment 

March 9,2011 

The Problem: Trust Fund Eroded by Flat Fuel Taxes and Increases are Off-the-Table 

Highway Trust Fund (HTF) revenues have been declining because fuel tax revenues are flat. 

Per-gallon taxes do not keep pace with any measure of mobility: Population, inflation, and 

especially vehicle miles all grow faster than the consumption of increasingly costly fuel. In 

fact, the Congressional Budget Office has projected that the HTF's Highway Account could 

run dry in Fiscal Year 2012 and the Transit Account will run dry in Fiscal Year 2013. The 

following graph illustrates the projected decline in Federal highway and transit obligations 

through 2017 based on current HTF revenues with no General Fund relief. 

Estimation of Federal Highway and Transit Obligations 

Through 2017 Based on Current Trust Fund Revenues 

• HlghwaV Obligations ~" Transit Obligations 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Source: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2011 (AASHTO) 

2017 

This nationwide infrastructure investment gap has become a big and growing problem 

with dire consequences. In the short-term, this problem will contribute to unemployment 

and a sluggish economy. In the long-term, economic growth, competitiveness, and overall 

quality of life will suffer. Since fuel tax increases appear to be politically unrealistic for the 
129 

foreseeable future, we propose a creative way to employ private capital investment for 

targeted mobility needs. 

Solution: Federal Financing Support to Leverage Local Funding 

While we wait for policy makers to decide how to address the fundamental problem of lack 

of revenues for infrastructure investment, there are short/medium-term financing 

initiatives that could help significantly and would not be budget busters --> the sorts of 

credit and tax incentives proposed herein. 

The federal government has various policy tools at its disposal to encourage investment in 

targeted sectors. These include: 

• Direct grants to reimburse capital costs; 

• Credit assistance in the form of loans and guarantees; 

• Regulatory reforms to accelerate development and reduce costs; and 

• Tax incentives to reduce borrowing costs. 

Together, these tools can be used to design a balanced strategy for advancing major 

infrastructure investments. 

This policy brief outlines the two federal policy tools that could be used to maximize the 

leveraging of local revenues: 

A. a new tax-preferred bonding program for surface transportation (Qualified 

Transportation Improvement Bonds, or QTlBS);and 

B. an enhanced Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) 

federal credit assistance program. 

These financing tools will not replace the existing federal assistance program structure for 

state and local project sponsors. Rather, making them available should incentivize 

jurisdictions that are willing to impose fees and taxes on themselves in order to undertake 

transformational investments. In this way, the federal government can encourage 

significant state and local investment in sustainable transportation solutions while limiting 

the federal budgetary commitment. 

The following pages provide a table summary and general explanation for both QTIBs and 

TIFIA. 
130 

A. General Explanation of Qualified Transportation Improvement Bonds 

(QTlBs) Proposal 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1. Amend section 54 of the Internal 

Revenue Code to establish a new 

category of qualified tax credit 

bonds for surface transportationcalled "Qualified Transportation 

Improvement Bonds" (QTIBs). 

2. Authorize the issuance of 

$45 billion ofQTIBs by state and 

local governments sponsoring 

eligible projects over a lO-year 

period. 

3. Authorize the Secretary of 

Transportation to allocate 65 

percent of the total issuance 

volume to sponsors of certain large 

public transportation projects. 

Would create a sixth class oftax-preferred 

bonds called qualified tax credit bonds 

specifically designed to stimulate greater 

investment in surface transportation 

infrastructure projects. By subsidizing most or 

all of the interest cost of infrastructure bonds, 

the federal government can more than double 

the amount of investment generated by local 

and state revenue streams. 

A national program of $45 billion would: (1) Be 

a meaningful supplement to the existing federal 

programs supported by the Highway Trust 

Fund; and (2) Be phased in over 10 years ($4.5 

billion per year) in order to meet the funding 

needs of multi-year capital programs and 

cushion the budgetary impact of the tax credits. 

The estimated scored budget cost of the 

national program is about $10 billion (net tax 

expenditures over the 10-year budget window). 

The Secretary of Transportation would allocate 

65 percent of the volume cap ($29.25 billion 

over 10 years) to "mega projects" that meet 

certain national investment policy goals, cost at 

least [$1 billion]. and receive not more than [30 

percent] of their capital funding from federal 

grants. 
131 

, , 

4. Direct the Secretary of 

Transportation to allocate the 

remaining 35 percent of the total 

issuance volume to the states by 

formula. 

5. Authorize QTlBs to have a 

maximum maturity equal to the 

lesser of 3 5 years or that term 

which would result in the 

discounted present value ofthe 

bonds equaling 20 percent ofthe 

maturity value. 

6. Authorize the issuers ofQTIBs to 

elect to receive refundable tax 

cl'edits that they can present to the 

Treasury for cash reimbursements. 

The Secretary would allocate the remaining 35 

percent of the volume cap to the states by 

formula. The states would select eligible 

projects to benefit from the federal subsidy. 

The projects could be any surface 

transportation capital investment costing at 

least $10 million and otherwise eligible for 

assistance under either title 23 or chapter 53 of 

title 49. Of the $15.75 billion allocated over 10 

years for these purposes, half would be 

allocated to all the states according to their 

share of the national population and half would 

be allocated to "low density" states according to 

their share of the total population of all low 

density states (those states with a population 

density less than the national average of 87 

persons per square mile). 

Because of the long-term nature of 

transportation assets and their extensive public 

benefits, this provision would enable QTlBs to 

have a longer final maturity date than existing 

qualified tax credit bonds for other purposes. 

The longer the maturity, the greater is the 

I 

effective federal subsidy. However, the final 

maturity date could not exceed the lesser of35 

years or such shorter term resulting in an 

effective non-federal share (equal to the present 

value of the bond principal) of 20 percent 

Allowing the state and local issuers of QTIBs to 

present refundable credits to the Treasury for 

cash allows the bonds to be sold to investors as 

taxable interest-bearing obligations, greatly 

enhancing their marketability over bonds 

paying investors interest in the form of tax 

credits. This refundable credit "direct pay" 

mode was authorized by Congress in 2010 for 

most of the tax credit bond programs. It 

allowed the bonds to be sold at a lower required 

return to the investor, achieving a greater 

investment effect for the tax credit cost. I ______________________________ -L __________________________________ ~ 
132 

General Explanation QTIBs: Detailed Description 

This proposal calls for the creation of a new category of qualified tax credit bonds - called 

Qualified Transportation Improvement Bonds (QTlBs) as follows: 

1. Amend section 54 of the Internal Revenue Code to establish a new category of Qualified 

tax credit bonds for surface transportation. This provision would create a new class of 

qualified tax credit bonds, called "Qualified Transportation Improvement Bonds" (QTlBs). 

Qualified tax credit bonds are taxable rate bonds issued by state, local or other eligible 

issuers where the federal government subsidizes most or all of the interest cost through 

granting investors annual tax credits in lieu of cash interest payments from the borrower. 

Qualified tax credit bonds differ from other federally-subsidized bonds such as Build 

America Bonds in several important respects: 

The permitted purposes are more narrowly defined; 

The issuance volume is legislatively capped; 

The maximum interest rate subsidy is set daily by the U.S. Treasury; and 

The maximum term of the bonds is set monthly by the U.S. Treasury. 

Congress to date has authorized qualified tax credit bond programs totaling in excess of 

$36 billion for forestry conservation, renewable energy projects, energy conservation, 

qualified zone academies and new school construction. QTI13s would represent a sixth 

class of such bonds, targeted at surface transportation capital projects. 

2. Authorize the issuance of $45 billion of QTlBs by state and local governments 

sponsoring eligible projects over a 10-year period. QTIBs would be authorized in the 

amount of $4.5 billion per year over a 10-year period, or $45 billion in total, as shown in 

the table below. Unissued amounts could be carried forward to future years. The 

estimated scored budget cost derives from the net federal tax expenditures (foregone 

receipts) associated with the annual tax credits. Over the 10-year budget window, that 

budget impact is estimated to total just over $10 billion assuming the issuance of $45 

billion of QTlBs according to the schedule shown.1 

FFY Max. Cumulative Net Fed Tax FFY Max. Cumulative Net Fed Tax 

QTlBs Expenditures QTIBs Expenditures 

Outstanding (Annual Score) Outstanding (Annual Score) 

2011 $4.5 billion $0.2 billion 2016 $27.0 billion $1.1 billion 

2012 $9.0 billion $0.4 billion 2017 $31.5 billion $1.3 billion 

2013 $13.5 billion $0.6 billion 2018 $36.0 billion $1.5 billion 

2014 $18.0 billion $0.7 billion 2019 $40.5 billion $1.7 billion 

2015 $22.5 billion $0.9 billion 2020 $45.0 billion $1.8 billion 

1 In addition to assumptions about the pace of bond issues and redemptions, the estimated net tax expenditures depend 

on the tax credit rate and the average marginal tax rate of bond investors. 
133 

The chart below illustrates the fiscal impact of the program proposal. including the 

derivation of the estimated scored budget cost. 

Proposed Qualified Transportation Improvement Bonds: 

Estimated Fiscal Impact of $45 Billion Program 

(Dollars in Billions) 

$50 10 Vear Budget Window Outstanding 

I 

The orange bars show the outstanding principal amount of QTlBs, assuming the 

maximum amount of bonds authorized each year ($4.5 billion) is issued over the 10-

year authorization period (2011-2020). The outstanding principal amount would 

grow by $4.5 billion each year, leveling off at $45 billion upon the issuance of the 

bonds authorized for 2020. The bonds would have a maximum term of 35 years, 

meaning that they would be retired during the 2046-2055 time period. 

• The blue line shows the ~ tax credits paid out by the Treasury over the life of the 

bonds. This annual amount is determined by mUltiplying the tax credit rate by the 

outstanding principal amount of bonds. In this example, the annual gross tax credits 

peak at $2.55 billion per year when the outstanding principal amount of bonds 

reaches $45 billion (assuming a 5.67% interest or tax credit rate on the bonds in this 

example). 

The red line shows the net tax credits paid out by the Treasury. These payments 

equal the gross tax credits minus the federal taxes realized by the government 

because the tax credits received by the bondholders are treated as taxable interest 

income (the QTlBs are taxable bonds). This "net tax expenditures" line represents 

the net effect on federal revenues of the QTlBs. In this example, the average 
134 

marginal tax rate of the bondholders is assumed to be 28%, meaning that the net tax 

expenditures are 72% ofthe gross tax credits, peaking at $1.84 billion per year 

during the 2020-2045 time period. 

• The estimated budget cost of the QTlBs program proposal is represented by the 

pink bars. They show the cumulative net tax expenditures over the 10-year budget 

window. This estimated scored cost of the national program is $10.1 billion. 

3. Authorize the Secretary of Transportation to allocate 65 percent of the total issuance 

volume to sponsors of certain large public transportation projects. The Secretary of 

Transportation would allocate 65 percent of the volume cap ($29.25 billion over 10 years) 

for public transportation "mega projects" with significant regional and national benefits 

that: 

• Promote safety, economic competitiveness, livability and environmental 

sustainability; 

• Have capital costs of at least [$1 billion]; and 

• Receive not more than [30 percent] of their funding from federal grants under title 

23 or chapter 53 of title 49. 

By providing these major projects with tax subsidies, the federal government can leverage 

state, local and private resources to undertake transformational investments while 

spreading out the fiscal impact over a longer time period commensurate with asset lives 

and public benefits. 

4. Direct the Secretary of Transportation to allocate the remaining 35 percent of the total 

issuance volume to the states by formula. The remaining 35 percent of the national volume 

cap would be used to finance any highway or transit capital project eligible under title 23 

or chapter 53 of title 49 having a cost of$10 million or more (qualified transportation 

improvement projects). Half of this volume would be allocated among the states based on 

their share of the nation's population. The other half would be allocated according to the 

share of aggregate population among those states having a population density not greater 

than the national average of 87 persons per square mile. Each state would select the 

projects to receive volume allocation from its portion of the 35 percent formula 

distributions. 
135 

Summary of Proposed Allocation of QTlBS 

($ in billions) 

Discretionary Allocation-Mega Projects $ 29.250 

Formula Allocation by Population-All States $ 7.875 

Formula Allocation by Population-Low $ 7.875 

Density States 

Total $ 45.000 

65.0% 

17.5% 

17.5% 

100.0% 

5. Authorize QTlBs to have a maximum maturity equal to the lesser of 35 years or that 

term which would result in the discounted present value of the bonds equaling 20 percent 

of the maturity value. Consistent with the existing qualified tax credit bond programs, the 

Treasury Department would set the maximum reimbursable rate for the bonds marketed 

each day such that the bonds can be sold at their face (par) amount, without interest cost to 

the issuer. Every month, the Treasury would establish the maximum permitted final 

maturity that would result in the discounted present value of the bonds equaling 20 

percent of the maturity value (Le., an effective 80 percent federal share, consistent with 

other federal surface transportation assistance programs) provided that in no case would 

the bond maturity extend beyond 35 years. While this is a deeper federal subsidy than the 

50 percent level for other types of qualified tax credit bonds, it is justifiable based on the 

long-lived nature of transportation infrastructure investments and their substantial public 

benefits. 

6. Authorize the issuers of QTlBs to elect to receive refundable tax credits that they can 

present to the Treasury for cash reimbursements. In 2010 Congress authorized issuers of 

most types of tax credit bonds to elect to receive refundable tax credits that they could 

present to the Treasury Department for cash. This feature allows the bonds to be sold to 

investors as taxable interest-bearing obligations, substantially enhancing their 

marketability over bonds paying investors interest in the form of tax credits. The 

refundable credits allowed the bonds to be sold at yields 1 % t02% lower than bonds with 

non-refundable credits. 

Non-Refundable Tax Credits 

A non-refundable tax credit may only be applied by the recipient (bond investor) against 

federal income taxes and certain other federal tax liability. For a long-term investment like 

a bond, the investor faces substantial tax uncertainty in future years. If the investor does 

not have taxable income, the credit has no current value, although it may be carried 

forward to a later year. Non-taxable investors would have no demand for this product. 

While tax credits may be stripped from the underlying bonds and marketed separately, 

today there is no established market for such tax credit strips. For these reasons, the 

market is extremely limited for non-refundable tax credit bonds, and there is virtually no 

secondary market (no liqUidity). Market data point this out: Under the largest existing tax 

credit bond program ($22 billion authorized for Qualified School Construction Bonds, or 

QSCBs), only 20 percent of the 2009 authorized volume was sold in the first 12 months. 
136 

Refundable Tax Credits 

Refundable tax credits may be presented by the recipient to the Treasury for cash, 

eliminating the tax risk to the investor. Under a refundable tax credit bond, the issuer sells 

the bonds as standard interest-bearing taxable-rate obligations, and the issuer (rather than 

the investor) is entitled to receive a cash rebate from the Treasury. This simplifies the 

marketing process and opens up enormous sources of capital from institutional investors 

who pay little or no federal income tax, including pension funds, endowments, life 

insurance companies, and foreign investors. The Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment 

(HIRE) Act of2010 allowed some $30 billion of school construction, qualified academy, 

clean renewable energy and energy conservation tax credit bonds to be issued with 

refundable credits. 

Federal Interest Subsidy & Tax Credit Refundability 

For qualified tax credit bonds, the Treasury sets a daily rate for its interest rate subsidy for 

bonds priced that day. The index level is supposed to allow issuers to borrow without 

interest cost. The current rate is approximately 5.4 percent.2 The actual yield required to 

attract an investor may be higher or lower than the Treasury index, depending on credit, 

liquidity and other factors. If higher, the issuer typically pays a "supplemental coupon" of 

cash to augment the Treasury reimbursable rate. If lower, the Treasury reduces its subsidy 

rate for that issuer to the market yield. There was a dramatic impact on required investor 

returns on Qualified School Construction Bonds when Congress, through the HIRE Act of 

2010, converted most of the qualified tax credits from non-refundable to refundable. On 

average, making the credits refundable saved issuers 110 basis pOints (1.1 %), and 

sometimes as much as 2% to 3%, in annual interest cost compared with the yield required 

for non-refundable credits. Two and a half times the dollar volume of bonds was sold postHIRE ($6.0 billion) vs. pre-HIRE ($2.4 billion) over similar time periods, reflecting in large 

part the improved marketability of the bonds. For the $6.0 billion of post-HIRE QSCBs sold 

thus far by 402 school districts, making the credits refundable is saving approximately $1.1 

billion in unnecessary interest expense over the life of the bonds. 

Implications for the QTlB Program 

Refundable tax credits will be important-perhaps essential-for efficient execution of a 

large new tax credit bond program. It opens up the market for huge institutional buyers, 

like CalPERs and TlAA-CREF. Making QTIB tax credits refundable should not produce a 

materially-higher scored cost due to an "acceleration effect" (as was calculated for the HIRE 

Act tax credit conversions) since the proposed QTIBs issuance schedule is extended (and 

tax expenditures are deferred) by authorizing only 10 percent of the total bond volume to 

be issued each year. Even with refundable credits, the federal index for reimbursement 

rates still has covered only 92 percent of the average interest cost, rather than 100 percent 

2 The Treasury·set QTCB rate as of 3·9·11 was 5.38%. 
137 

as Congress intended. If legislation were to require the use of non-refundable tax credits, 

there are three possible outcomes: 

o The Treasury index could be adjusted to a higher yield to properly reflect the 

market clearing rate for less liquid non-refundable tax credits (this could 

increase the scored cost by about 25 percent); 

o A centralized nationwide conduit issuer of tax credit bonds could be established 

to help create a secondary market for the non-refundable tax credits, thereby 

improving liquidity and reducing the required yield; or 

o The issuers of bonds with non-refundable tax credits could be forced to pay 

supplemental coupons, which would significantly diminish the financial benefit 

of the tax subsidy to project sponsors. 
138 

B. General Explanation Transportation Infrastructure Finance and 

Innovation Act (TIFIA) Proposal 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

, , 

1. Increase program funding from Would allow TIFIA to expand from -$1.2 billion 

$122 million (SAFETEA·LU to -$3.75 billion/year of loans, responding to 

authorization) to at least $375 heightened demand for program assistance. 

million per year. Additional funding would better support partial 

interest rate subsidies (as described in #5 

below). 

2. Increase the maximum T1FIA Given continuing uncertainty in the tax-exempt 

share from 33% to 49%. bond market, would allow TIFIA to fund a 

greater share of project costs - provided the 

TIFIA loan achieved an investment grade rating 

(BBB rating category or higher) and was backed 

by a senior lien on pledged revenues. 

3. Broaden eligibility to include Would extend to all eligible surface modes the 

programs of related projects. current provision for freight / intermodal 

connector projects, allowing the general 

$50 million size threshold to be met through a 

portfolio of projects backed by a common 

security pledge. 

4. Authorize DOT to make upfront Would make TIFIA assistance more predictable 

"Master Credit Agreements" for for larger, multi-year phased capital programs 

larger projects and programs. by giving an upfront conditional commitment 

(through a Master Credit Agreement), with 

actual loan funding subject to satisfaction of all 

necessary federal requirements (such as credit 

rating, environmental approval, etc.). Qualifying 

projects also would need to meet certain criteria, 

including receiving not more than [30 percent] 

of funding from federal grants and haVing a 

minimize size of [$1 billion]. 
139 

, , , ' 

5. Authorize DOT to offer a limited 

interest rate hedge for Master 

Credit Agreements. 

6. Eliminate the "Springing Lien" for 

certain types of secured loans. 

Would cushion the financing risk for projects 

receiving an upfront conditional commitment 

(as described in #4 above) resulting from rising 

interest rates between the dates of executing the 

Master Credit Agreement and finalizing the 

underlying loan agreement(s). This would be 

accomplished by allowing DOT to use [25 

percent) ofTlFIA annual funding to buy down 

the prevailing interest rate in such 

circumstances by up to [1.0) percent. 

Would allow investment grade TIFIA loans to be 

truly subordinate where they are payable from 

pledged revenues not affected by project 

performance, such as local/regional taxes or 

system revenues. Such fully subordinate loans 

would have to receive an investment grade 

rating and be capped at 33 percent of project 

costs. 
140 

General Explanation ofTIFIA Proposal: Detailed Description 

This proposal would amend chapter 6 of title 23, United States Code, to modify the 

Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TlFIA) program as follows: 

1. Increase annual funding from $122 million (SAFETEA-LU authorization) to at least 

$375 million 3 This responds to expressed demand for TIFIA assistance and enables DOT to 

provide greater financing assistance to a larger volume of major projects. The $375 million 

subsidy funding level could support annual credit commitments (face amount of loans) 

totaling approximately $3.75 billion, assuming an average program subsidy rate of 10 

percent. It is assumed that most loans would continue to be made at the Treasury rate 

(with no interest rate subsidy and a 10 percent average credit risk subsidy, as occurs 

today). However, if Congress authorized the use of limited interest rate subsidies for 

certain projects, as described below under item #5, then the average subsidy rate would be 

somewhat higher - perhaps in the 15 to 20 percent range. In that case, unless Congress 

also approved even greater annual funding, the supportable loan level might be limited to 

$2.0-2.5 billion. 

2. Increase the maximum TIFIA share of project financing from 33 percent to 49 percent. 

IncreaSing the TIFIA share would help more projects achieve financial feasibility. As long 

as project reliance on federal grant funding is minimal (e.g., below 30 percent), TIFIA 

assistance still would generate considerable private and other non-federal co-investment. 

Any loan greater than 33 percent of eligible project costs would need to have a senior 

(rather than subordinate) lien on project revenues, and should be investment grade (rated 

BBB- or higher). 

3. Broaden eligibility generally to include programs of related projects otherwise eligible. 

This would put other TIFIA-eligible surface projects on a similar footing as freight-related 

intermodal projects, for which eligibility was broadened under SAFETEA-LU to include a 

series a/related projects. Specifically, this provision would explicitly extend TIFIA eligibility 

to multi-project capital improvement / renewal programs involving major reconstruction 

and/or rehabilitation that improve system performance by supporting a state of good 

repair. 

4. Authorize DOT to make upfront contingent credit commitments for certain large 

projects or programs of related projects. The TIFIA program offers financing secured by 

revenues generated by or dedicated to individual projects. Under current law, before the 

execution of an agreement that commits credit assistance, a project sponsor must receive 

its final environmental approvals, have detailed cost estimates pursuant to a substantial 

3 By way of comparison, the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission recommended in its 

report to Congress increasing annual TIFIA subsidy funding to $300 million per year. while the President's FY 2012 

Budget proposes annual subsidy funding of $650 million to fund surface transportation loans ($450 million for TIFIA and 

$200 million for the National Infrastructure Bank). 
141 

level of design / engineering work or an executed construction agreement, and have a 

complete plan of finance with all other financial commitments in place. This provision 

would authorize DOT to make upfront contingent credit commitments for certain large 

projects or programs of related projects that will be phased in over a period of several 

years, by means of a Master CreditAgreement. This provision would be limited to that 

subset ofTIFIA eligible projects that satisfy certain more rigorous criteria, described below. 

The Master Credit Agreement would mitigate financing risk for such large initiatives by 

committing DOT to providing one or more future loans or other federal credit instruments 

for eligible projects, subject to satisfaction of necessary federal requirements and 

availability offuture program funding. Actual loan draws under the Master Credit 

Agreement would be contingent upon the recipient project(s) meeting all relevant federal 

requirements, including the federal planning and programming requirements and the final 

environmental approvals under the National Environmental Policy Act Furthermore, DOT 

could enter into a Master Credit Agreement only if dedicated revenue sources have 

received any necessary state or local approvals and can be committed to the eligible 

projects. 

In order to qualify for an upfront contingent credit commitment, a project or program of 

related projects must: 

(a) Be a [public transportation capital] project or program that significantly 

enhances safety, economic competitiveness, livability and environmental 

sustainability; 

(b) Receive not more than [30 percent] of its funding for capital costs from 

federal highway or transit capital grants (made available under title 23 or 

chapter S3 of title 49); and 

(c) Have total eligible project costs that equal or exceed [$1 billion]. 

In this way, the Master Credit Agreement will be targeted to that subset ofTIFIA-eligible 

projects and programs with the greatest scope and complexity. 

S. Authorize DOT to offer a limited interest rate hedge to a project sponsor receiving an 

upfront contingent credit commitment The use of a Master Credit Agreement, as described 

under item #4 above, is intended to facilitate the financing of major initiatives with very 

large public benefits that must be phased in over a period of years. Authorizing DOT to 

make contingent commitments for phased programs mitigates selection risk in future 

years, and provides pUblic and private funding partners with assurance that federal 

financing assistance will be made available when needed, subject to funding availability 

and other conditions. 

This provision authorizes DOT to further mitigate financing risk for such large initiatives by 

offering limited interest rate subsidies. Although DOT could provide an upfront contingent 

commitment through a Master Credit Agreement under this proposal, it cannot execute an 

underlying loan agreement and lock in the loan interest rate until the recipient project(s) 
142 

has met all federal requirements, including receipt of a final NEPA decision. The TIFIA loan 

interest rate, which is a key feature of the financial plan, might rise significantly between 

the date of the Master Credit Agreement and the execution of the underlying loan 

agreement. Since such a rise would negatively impact the project financial plan, DOT could 

"buy down" the then-higher interest rate, using the interest rate that prevailed at the time 

of the Master Credit Agreement as a benchmark. In order to ensure that this interest rate 

hedge is used sparingly and does not crowd out DOT's ability to fund other project loans, 

the provision could be capped. For example, Congress could specify that not more than [25 

percent] of the TIFIA program funding be used for this purpose and establish a maximum 

interest rate subsidy (e.g., authorize DOT to subsidize the interest rate up to 100 basis 

points, or one percentage point, below the prevailing Treasury rate at the time the loan 

agreement is executed and funds are obligated). 

6. Authorize DOT to provide a loan with a fully subordinate lien on pledged revenues if 

certain conditions are met. Currently, DOT may make "functionally subordinate" TIFIA 

loans with a secondary or junior claim on pledged revenues, thereby enhancing the credit 

quality of senior debt obligations and facilitating their access to the capital markets. But 

such TIFIA loans must "spring" to parity with the senior debt if there is a bankruptcyrelated event (default leading to bankruptcy, insolvency or liquidation). This nonsubordination or "springing lien" provision was intended to reduce the likelihood of federal 

losses associated with project financings backed by relatively risky project-based 

repayment sources or other features leading to lower credit ratings (e.g., start-up toll 

roads). 

However, it also has made it problematic for governmental borrowers with ongoing capital 

programs and outstanding senior bonds to take advantage of the TlFlA program's flexible 

payment features. This is because it frequently is very difficult or impossible to work a 

junior TIFIA loan with a springing lien into an existing bond indenture. Having to issue a 

TIFIA loan on the senior lien instead, on parity with other senior bondholders, significantly 

reduces the value of the TIFIA financing subsidy. 

This provision would authorize DOT to make a fully subordinate TIFIA loan to a 

governmental borrower with a tax-backed revenue pledge or a system-backed pledge of 

project revenues that enables the TIFIA loan to achieve an investment grade rating. In 

addition, the fully subordinate TIFIA loan could not exceed 33 percent of total eligible 

project costs. The non-subordination or "springing lien" provision would remain for other 

projects and credit structures. 
143 

AME"RlCANPUStJCWQRKS ASSOCIATION 

Improving and Reforming 

Our Nation's Surface Transportation Programs 

To Support Job Creation and the Economy 

Statement of 

Debra L. Hale 

Executive Director, Transportation Agency 

For Monterey County, CA 

Chair, APWA Transportation Committee 

Joint Hearing of the 

House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

And the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

February 23, 2011 
144 

Chairwoman Boxer and Chairman Mica, thank you for the opportunity to submit 

testimony for this joint hearing of the House Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. 

I am Debra Hale, Executive Director of the Transportation Agency for Monterey County, 

California and Chair of the Amcrican Public Works Association's (APWA) 

Transportation Committce. APWA is an organization dedicated to providing public 

works infrastructurc and services to millions ofpeoplc in rural and urban communities, 

both small and large. Working in the public interest, APWA mcmbers plan, design, 

build, operate and maintain our vast transportation nctwork, as well as other key 

infrastructure assets essential to our nation's economy and way of life. I submit this 

testimony on bchalf of APWA 's 29,000 members. 

Every community has a stake in thc nlture of our transportation system. Local 

governments own about 75 percent of the nearly four million-mile roadway network and 

nearly 51 percent of the nation's bridges (nearly 300,000 bridges under local control) and 

manage about 90 percent of the transit systems. With nearly every trip beginning and 

ending on a local road, street or sidewalk, a strong local-state-fedcral partnership is key to 

ensuring a safe, seamless and efficient multi-modal transportation system. 

Investment in transportation projects is a proven way to boost the economy. Every $1 

billion invested in transportation generates an estimated 27,800 jobs and up to $6 billion 

in additional gross domestic product. Our nation cannot remain economically 

competitive with the rcst ofthc world ifour transportation systcm is lcft inadequate and 

crumbling. Investmcnt to improve and repair our dcteriorating surface transportation 

network will build the foundation for long-term and sustained economic growth. A 

continued federal role in the funding of our national, regional and loealtransportation 

systems is critical to job-creation, economic hcalth, safety and welfare of our country. 

APW A recognizes the critical need for increased investment at the national level to build 

and maintain our nation's transportation network. We have continually spoken in favor 

of more nmding through multi-year federal authorizations for highways and arterial 

strects in urban areas and major county roads in rural areas, for bridges and for public 

transportation. 

We have supported the usc of motor fuel tax revenues for purely transportation purposes, 

supporting firewalls and guaranteed funding and striving to avoid diversions ofthcsc 

funds to non-transportation programs. 

Consistently, we have cited the gap that is growing bctwccn transportation nceds and 

motor fuel tax revenues, and wc havc urged that gas taxes be adjusted upward to close 

this gap. Wc believe a tunding and financing crisis is upon us, and that we must act 

accordingly. 

There is an urgent need for more state and federal funds for local transportation system 

improvemcnts. The nccd for strect and bridge improvements is overwhelming where 
145 

aging infrastructure is deteriorating and congestion levels arc incrcasing. In addition, thc 

need to make our transportation system safer for all users, motorists, pedestrians and 

bicyclists is a top priority for local officials. 

We urgc the Congress to act quiekly to pass a multi-year surface transportation bill which 

will providc long-term, sustained and sustainable revcnue sourccs and the funding 

neccssary to meet the needs of our aging transportation system. This will create jobs, 

reinvigorate our economy and strengthen our global eompetiveness. To achieve this: 

first, revenue sources must be clearly identified and dedicated to providing funding for 

the full costs of construction, operation, maintenance, preservation and reconstruction of 

national and regional multimodal surface transportation systems to move people and 

goods to serve our economy, support healthy communities and protect our environment. 

Moreover, local governments should receive federal and state funding support for the 

costs these entities incur in providing the local network that gives people and businesses 

access fTom their neighborhoods to the regional and national transportation systems. 

We believe that achieving stable, sustainable, long-tenn fimding for our transportation 

needs requires implementing a mix of financing approaches and mechanisms, including 

the following: 

Raise the Motor Fuel Tax and Index It 

APW A recommends that the current federal motor fuel tax rate be raised to restore the 

purchasing power lost to inflation since its last increase in the 1990s, and then index it to 

automatically adjust on a timely interval using an appropriate index such as the CPI. 

Vehicle-Mileage Fees 

APW A supports incentives to develop new concepts to offset revenue losses caused by 

more fuel-efficient vehicles. One such concept is the vehicle-miles driven approach in 

addition to gas taxes or in lieu of gas taxes. This is a technology-driven application that 

records vehicle miles driven to allow equitable payment of a fee to the state or federal 

government, based upon an established rate per vehicle-mile driven. The most efficient 

approaches arc yet to be determined, but these concepts are worthy 0 f review and 

consideration. 

Expand Access to Innovative Financing Tools 

APWA recommends further expansion of the usc of financing mechanisms such as Public 

Private Partnerships, tolling, congestion pricing, and "pass through financing." The latter 

has proven to be quite successful in states such as Texas. Cities and counties arc stepping 

up to design, construct and fund highway improvements in urban areas using revenue 

bonds backed by guaranteed revenue streams. The cities and counties in so doing arc 

also guaranteeing their own revenue streams to help ensure low interest rate financing of 

these specific projects. 

Utility System/Enterprise Funds Model 

APWA recommends that the federal government look at transportation funding in the 

same way that cities look at utility systems and enterprise funds. The essence of this 
146 

approach would bc for thc fcdcral govcrnmcnt to crcatc an independent entity that would 

be given the authority to oversee an ongoing revenue stream, such as periodic inereascs 

in the gasoline tax, tolls or vehicle mileage fees, to fund transportation needs without the 

requirement for Congressional action, but with Congressional oversight. This would also 

be similar to the mechanism used to finance local watcr or sewer systems, storm drainage 

utilities, or municipal utility districts. A portion of that steady revenue stream could be 

used to finance bonds for needed improvements or expansions of the assets of the 

enterprise, while the remainder could be used to finance investmcnts over time. An 

example at the federal level is the US Postal Service, in which revenues arc proposed on 

a regular basis based on financing needs, managed by a quasi-independent Board of 

Directors. 

Incentives for Local Financing 

APWA supports federal incentives for state and local financing of our transportation 

system. Many cities arc contributing to the financing of local roads and bridges, state 

highways, interstates and commuter rail and bus transit through voter-approved sales 

taxes, bond programs, transportation impact fees, stepped up maintenance programs, and 

dedicated taxcs. Others arc providing rights of way, matching nmds and assisting with 

the environmental review process. 

The leaders of our local govcrnments need to be given incentives to continue such actions 

on a wider basis. They must know that the ncw funds generated arc used strictly for local 

purposes, that their projects arc given a higher priority than allowed by traditional 

funding programs, and that their dollars arc being leveraged at a higher level as specific 

projects arc funded. With these additional funds, these cities have leveraged their dollars 

and have sold bonds that arc financed by the new revenue streams to improve their local 

street nctworks. But in some areas, the state or local restrictions discourage such local 

transportation financing. 

Next, our priorities tor surface transportation investment are as follows: 

Protection and Preservation 

APWA recognizes the preeminent importance of capital reinvestment in transportation 

infrastructure. Maintaining and improving road and bridge conditions and roadway 

operations will reduce congestion, improve safety, protect the environment and promote 

economic development. Protection and preservation of the existing system, therefore, 

should be the highest priority of reauthorization. 

In addition to increased investment in roadway maintenance, APW A also supports 

increased investment for the Highway Bridge Program to address the nation's highway 

bridges classified deficient. APWA supports increasing the minimum set aside lor offsystem bridges to aid communities to meet the enormous need for bridge maintenance 

and repair. 
147 

Goods Movement 

The successor to SAFETEA-LU should reflect investments to ensure the effective 

functioning of a National Highway System that supports intercity, interstatc and 

commercial goods movemcnt corridors. Support of goods movement is critical to local, 

regional and national economic development and job creation. 

Both at the level of international trade and household distribution, incrcases are cxpected 

in freight movement. Increases in US maritime tradc will lead to more domestic freight 

movements. The national freight system is multi-modal and the cOimections betwcen the 

modes (port-rail, port-highway, highway-rail) must be enhanced to support this coming 

growth. Stratcgies should includc a focus on additional capacity, safety improvements to 

minimize intermodal conflicts or delays, efficiency improvcments to reduce supply chain 

costs and environmental impacts, and rcgulatory changes to delivcr projects faster. As 

more Internet commerce is conducted, freight and light-duty commcrcial vehicles trips 

increasc to bring those purchases to the delivery point. Federal funding needs to reflect 

this growing need for infrastructure to support the movement of goods throughout and 

outside of our nation. 

Safety 

APW A supports increased investment through a strong corc safety program aimed at 

improving road and bridge conditions and roadway operations on all public roads and 

publicly-owned bicycle and pedestrian trails and pathways in order to reduce motorist, 

pedestrian and bicyclist injuries and fatalities. APWA supports requirements for highway 

safety plans and that they be dcvclopcd in consultation with local officials. APWA 

supports requircments that funding dccisions and project priorities be data-driven and 

based on strategic and pcrformance-based goals. APWA also supports improvements in 

data collcction and sharing and increased investment for research. 

Rural roads havc significant safety improvement needs. APW A supports increased 

funding for the High Risk Rural Road Program which targets needed investment for 

construction and opcrational improvement projccts on the nation's high-risk rural roads. 

APWA supports increased funding for the Safe Routes to Schools Program to provide 

additionalnecdcd financial assistance to state, local and regional agencies to implemcnt 

projects to improve safety in the vicinity of schools. 

Solutions to Urban Congestion Problems 

APWA members have witnessed an increase in thc level of congestion in most urban 

areas over the past tcn years, caused primarily by a significant increase in the vehicles on 

the highways and city strcets in urban areas, and by the increasing number of miles 

driven annually by the average motorist. While vehicle miles traveled are increasing, new 

or expanded roadways have not kept pace with demands. This trend is continuing 

without much relief in sight, rcsulting in increased delay during peak traffic periods, 

extended pcak periods, longer travel times to and from work, and greater risks for 

collisions while traveling on the roadways in urban areas. 
148 

APWA supports federal and state legislation that provides solutions to the growing urban 

congestion problem. More funds are nceded at thc national and state level to address 

urban transportation Facility shortE!lls. 

APW A members struggle daily to facilitate tratTtc flow in their communities with limited 

success. National and state legislation is needed to provide funding for programs that 

maximize highway and city arterial street construction, and public transportation in urban 

areas to relieve traffic congestion in urban areas. 

Energy Independence through Multimodalism 

APWA supports continuation of programs that promote multimodal transportation such 

as the Congcstion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvcment Program and the 

Transportation Enhancements program (provided projects are strictly limited to those that 

are related to surface transportation). Both of these programs have allowed communities 

to consider a diversity of projects eligible for federal funding. 

Continuing SAFETEA-LU's emphasis on multimodal approaches to transportation 

programs is critical to improving our energy independence, improving mobility and 

promoting responsible transportation dccision-making. We need to reduce our 

dependence on foreign oil, as well as the need to reduce the production of greenhouse 

gases. This mandate places new emphasis on the importance of investing in commuter 

rail and bus transit. Transit Funding in the past has not been on a level playing field with 

highway and road investments. The time has come to increase our investment in 

commuter rail and bus transit. The investment in passenger rail, in particular, can have 

important cross benefits for freight movement via our national rail systems. 

Flexibility 

To best meet national, state and local transportation needs, APWA urges increased 

flexibility to use federal funds on a range of transportation alternatives, as well as more 

flexibility in allowing for contingencies in the planning and funding processes. Without 

latitude for local flexibility in determining funding sources and amending plans, 

communities lose the ability to move to the next project in line if an unforeseeable 

problem develops with a particular project. APWA encourages Congress and the US 

Department 0 f Transportation to retain and expand flexibility for state and local 

governments through value added processes, less prescriptive regulations and more 

timely eoordination between federal agencies that implemcnt Federal transportation and 

environmental legislation. 

Streamlining of Regulations 

Federal and state oversight must be streamlined to ensure the most etTtcient usc of limited 

federal, state and local fiscal resources. Legislation is needed to address the problem of 

project delays and rapidly escalating eosts associated with regulatory requirements from 

the numerous federal regulations and agencies. Specific time lines for project reviews and 

findings by federal and state regulatory agencies for all transportation improvement 

projects would dramatically reduce the overall time to move a transportation project 
149 

through design to construction. APW A supports Congressional actions to streamline 

project delivery as well as allow alternative methods of project delivery. 

We thank you for holding this hearing and are grateful for the opportunity to submit this 

statement. We look forward to working with you as you complete work on a multi-year 

surface transportation authorization that repairs, rebuilds and modernizes our 

transportation system, and strengthens our economy and creates jobs. 
150 

CHIEF CONSULTANT 

JANET DAWSON 

PRINCIPAL CONSULTANT 

EOIMAI 

SENIOR CONSULTANT 

VICIORIA ALVAREZ 

CONSULTANT 

cAssrmhl\! 

Qlaliforuht 1!Irgislafurr 

MEMBERS 

KEVIN J'l;;PFfllES, VICE CHAIH: 

KATCHO AC>fI\OJ'AN 

BOB BLUMENFIELO 

SUSAN BONIllA 

JOAN aUCHANAN 

M.KEENG 

WARREN FURurANl 

CATHLEEN GAlGIANI HOWARD POSNER 

CDMMTTTEE SECRETARY 

DENISE PlANTS ASSEMBLY COMM11TEE ON TRANSPORTATION ~~F"~~E~ HONNIF LOWENTHAL, CHAIR CHRIS NOHBY 

ANTHONY PORTANTINO 

JOSE SOLORiO 

February 22. 20 II 

The lIol1omble [larbara [loxer, Chair 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

I Jnited Swt($ Senate 

410 Dirksen SenHte Orlite Building 

Washingt(lIl. DC 20510-6175 

The 1-10nornblc John Mica, Chair 

Commiltcc on Transportation and Infrastructure 

United States lIouse of Representatives 

2165 Rayburn !louse Office Building 

Washington. D.C. 20515 

DeHI' Senator /3oxer and Congressman Mica: 

As Chairman (,I' the Californiu Stall' A~$Clllhly Transportation Committee. I write to urge your 

prompt consideration of CaIifbrnia's priorities relative to lIuthorization of a iederal sllrfacl: 

It'(U\spoJ'tatioll act. 

Cali!tmlia's transportation needs arc great. Our aging infmstruc!ure, growing popUlation. and 

eroding dollar together present unprecedt:'llted chullenges. Now. perhaps more than ever. we 

need Congress to provide clear policy direction for 11 sllstainable. comprehensive transportation 

system that meets the following major goals: 

• Aging. dcterioruting facilities mllst be restored to a state of good repair: 

• Enleient goods movement must he a national economic priority; 

• The lise of roads. rails. and public tnlllsit must be integrated and balam;"d: and 

• Satety and security must he emphasized. 

Finally. thest! !,!ouls lllust be I'l,ulized with it renewt)d cOll1mitmcntto environmental stewardship. 

oro this end. Congress must act now to establish ledet'll! transp()r1ation policks that (Ire ttllly 

funded. Current per-gallon fees arc insufficient and altel'l1Htivc means of boosting the Highway 

and Transit Tl'ust Funds must he idcntil1cd. immediately. Furthermore. I urge Congress to enact 

s:rArEcAPIToL:~p:aeiix·942849. SACRAMENTO. CA 94249·oi 16 

PHONE:(916) 310·2093 FAX: (916) 311),,2193 
151 

legislation to study the fea.~ibility of developing a transportation revenue source based on vehicle 

miles traveled, in order to facilitate the creation of a reliable and steady trunsportati(m funding 

mechanism for surfilce transportation infrastructure. As you know, Califoruia is a leader in 

linding emission free solutions for travel and transilioning to an alternative transportation 

revenue bllse .. onc not dependent on fuel consumption--will further our policy gOllls. 

Crafting the federal surface transportation authorization is a daunting task and California stands 

ready to be your partner in this endeavor. Californians have repelltedly demonstrated their 

commitment to transportation. The most recent example of this commitment is voleI' approval of 

neady $30 billion in statewide transportation bond measures. Moreover, eighty-five percenl of 

Californians live in "self-help" counties-that is, counties that have voted to impose local sales 

tuxes to support transportation. These counties annually contribute nearly $3.5 billion lowards 

California's transportation systems. 

Additionally, California is in the midst of some ofthe largest, most complex, most ambitious 

public works projects in the nation. For example, Los Angeles is working to complete thirty 

years' worth of major transit projects in ten years. Construction of the East Span (Jf the San 

Frallcisco-Ollkland Bay Bridge is progressing steadily, and engineers arc racing to meet strict 

federal deadlines for construetion of a high-speed passenger rail system. which will be the largest 

public works project ever in the nation. 

1 am hopeful that you and your colleagues will be successful in enllcting transportation 

authorization in the coming months. Plcase feci free to contact me if I can assist you in any way. 

BONNIE LOWENTHAL, Chair 

Assembly Transportation Committee 
152 

Los Angeles 

County 

Business 

Federation 

Strengthening the Voice of Business 

Written Statement for 

Joint Field Hearing 

House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

"Improving and Reforming our Nation's Surface Transportation Programs to 

Support Job Creation and the Economy" 

February 23, 2011 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on national, state and local transportation priorities. The Los 

Angeles County Business Federation (BizFed) - representing more than 70 premier regional organizations 

with nearly 110,000 businesses across LA County - thanks you for your leadership and commitment to 

advancing crucial transportation issues vital to our country. BizFed is dedicated to working with Federal, State 

and Local leaders and stakeholders to advance our common transportation goals and accelerate sustainable 

and responsible job creation and economic growth. 

National Urgency 

It is clear that the Nation's surface transportation infrastructure is facing an increasingly urgent crossroads. 

Population growth, fiscal constraints, unstable energy supplies and increasing 21 st Century global 

competitiveness are placing unprecedented demands on America's already strained transportation systems. 

Congestion levels on the nation's roadways tripled between 1982 and 2005. By some estimates, Americans 

now waste 4.2 billion hours and 2.8 billion gallons of fuel each year stuck in traffic - that's nearly one full 

work week and three weeks' worth of gas for every driver. The estimated economic drain on our country is 

massive: $78 billion a year and nearly 18% of every American household's annual expenses, 

Traffic on more than 50 percent of our interstate highways is now estimated to exceed 70% of capaCity, and 

nearly 25 percent of all highway miles are at more than 95% capacity. The direct cost of highway bottlenecks 

- most of them at urban interstate interchanges - to the nation's truckers moving America's essential goods is 

estimated by the Federal Highway Administration at $7.8 billion a year. 

BizFed's broad-based regional member businesses driving Southern California's economy have consistently 

ranked transportation issues among their very top priorities each of the past three years, jmpacting their 

bottom lines, abillty to attract and retain qualified workers and remain competitive in an increasingly global 

market. 

The enormous economic cost of this growing congestion is also rippling across all sectors of the country. 

Businesses struggle to get products to market in a timely manner. Employees are sapped by longer and longer 

hours commuting, Consumer spending is curtailed with the rising costs. Billions of hours and dollars are 

evaporating in lost productivity. Job creation is slowed. Faltering economic growth has been exacerbated, 

Construction costs to local, state and federal governments are rising. 

LoS Angeles County Steps Forward 

Beset with all of these problems, LA County voters took an extraordinary step in 2008: Nearly 70 percent of 

voters agreed to increase their own sales tax V2 cent to raise nearly $40 billion over the next thirty years to 

finance investments in our transportation infrastructure. With our region and nation mired in an agonizingly 

stubborn economic crisis pinching the pocketbooks of all consumers, it was an astoundingly loud-and-clear 

message from our residents: Our transportation system needs to be fixed NOW - and WE wi!! pay to fix it. 
153 

Strengthenir.f:J 

Los Angeles 

County 

Business 

Federation 

Voi;:;e of Business 

Two-thirds of the revenue under this voter-approved "Measure R" is dedicated for public transit 

improvements, and 35% is dedicated to construction of 12 new rail and bus way lines. Projects include 

completion of the Westside Subway Extension, an Orange Line bus way extension, a Sepulveda Pass Transit 

Corridor, a Crenshaw/LAX Transit Corridor, a South Bay Green Line Extension, a West Santa Ana Transit 

Corridor and a Regional Connector Transit Corridor. In total, a half-dozen new and extended light rail systems, 

several new Bus Rapid Transit lines/ and an expansion of our bus fleet. 

In a testament to Local officials' responsiveness to voters, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation 

Authority (MTA) Board adopted an Implementation plan In 2009 to build these 12 projects over the next 30 

years with the majority of funding from voters' own pocketbooks. Additional local, state, and federal funding 

commits $18 billion to these massive improvements and advances. 

A New Approach - with National Impact 

It has become increasingly clear, however, that our region and, indeed the nation - do not have the 

economic luxury of waiting three decades to see completion of these projects. While billions of dollars in new 

tax revenue is now flowing in from LA County residents under "Measure R," acceleration is needed. 

While there are clearly many national transportation issues that need to be addressed and aligned with the 

current budget realities of the Administration and Congress, LA County is proposing an innovative proposal 

that could hold a key to accelerating transportation projects across the entire country - reducing potential 

project costs, incentivizing local transportation agencies' efforts, leveraging capital, creating jobs, reducing 

congestion and carbon emissions, and dramatically enhancing economic and environmental benefits. 

BizFed is strongly supportive of efforts in the next transportation authorization bill to advance 

innovative financing tools and mechanisms such as those being proposed by the los Angeles 

County MetropOlitan Transportation Authority (Metro). 

Specifically, Metro's proposal seeks TIFIA program enhancements to enable USDOT to make an upfront credit 

commitment at an earlier stage of project development for certain projects that satisfy national infrastructure 

Investment goals. In LA County, this would mean Metro would seek up to $2.5 billion of TIFIA-IIke fiexlble 

financing for its "Measure R" transportation projects. While the TIFIA program is funded at about $110 million 

annually, the President's Fiscal Year 2012 Budget proposes a four-fold funding increase. 

Metro's proposal also seeks legislation to create 2 new category of qualified tax preferred bonds. These bonds 

would provide a 100% interest rate subsidy (the same level approved by Congress for school construction 

Build America Bonds In ARRA) to be paid In the form of federal tax credits to bond holders, This "Transit 

Improvement Bond lt program is proposed for transit projects of at least $1 billion in size in federal nonattainment areas. In LA County, Metro would seek to issue approximately $5.9 billion in municipal bonds in 

the private capital markets and pay back the principal with "Measure R" funds. 

Such new federal financing tools will create an incentive for local governments across the nation to raise local 

funds and increase their share of project construction costs. Today, local governments can seek up to 80% of 

project funding from the U.S. This proposal flips this around so that local government contributes a much 

higher percentage of total project funding, 

This innovative concept has broad regional support, as well as support from national leaders, including 

Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, our California Senators, U.S, Chamber of Commerce President and 

CEO Thomas J. Donohue, and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. Roy Kienitz, Under Secretary for Policy, 

USDOT has said "The ... program may weI! be at the vanguard of transit planning and system development .. 

Indeed, President Obama has referred to it as a mode! of local self-reliance and federal encouragement, "a 

template for the nation." 

i . ~ 
154 

Los Angeles 

County 

Business 

Federation 

Strengthening the Voice of Business 

In Conclusion - A National Model 

Los Angeles County is not looking for a handout; we are seeking a way forward and in 50 doing are proposing 

an innovative solution that holds national promise. In essence, there is no better deal that the federal 

government could strike than to pay a Fraction of the share of the cost in order to leverage significant benefits 

in the national interest. That interest includes infrastructure that supports a thriving economy (jobs), 

infrastructure that yields benefits in reducing reliance on foreign oil (energy), and infrastructure that supports 

a reduction of our carbon emissions in one of the largest metropolitan areasin the world (environment). 

The federal government has the opportunity to create this type of a leveraged, strategic investment in dozens 

of states and hundreds of cities around the country by using our model. Business strongly supports this 

program because it is truly an INVESTMENT approach, rather than blind spending. 

Investments in transportation construction - both through employment and purchases moving through the 

economy - generate more than $244 billion in total annual U.S. economic activity, nearly two percent of the 

nation's Gross Domestic Product (GOP), Innovative federal investment strategies in transportation can assist 

in addressing the existing federal fiscal realities by producing new revenues. 

As a key national goods-movement hub, Los Angeles County can be the successful model for a pilot program 

for a new era of innovative federal financing tools, For thousands of business owners and their families 

across Los Angeles County, this is a vital issue. For thousands of regions across the country grappling with 

similar issues, this is a visionary way forward. 

Once again, BizFed supports your efforts to address the nation's' surface transportation issues and 

ensure equitable, innovative and sustainable solutions for our country, Your leadership is greatly 

appreciated. 

Tracy Rafter 

BizFed, CEO 

Rafter Group, Inc. 

I? T? 11 
155 

September 20, 2010 

Dear Representative: 

On behalf of the B1ueGreen Alliance and our more than 9 million union and citizen members working 

together to build a clean energy economy, I write to ask for your support on H.R. 5967, the Clean Ports Act of 

2010, introduced recently by Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York. The Act currently has 75 co-sponsors. 

Greening our ports and cleaning up our environment is not a burden that should fall on hard working truck 

drivers already suffering under low wages and deplorable working conditions. More than 100,000 U.S. port 

truck drivers toil every day in dirty diesel rigs and effectively earn less than federal or state minimum wages. 

Many are without health insurance, and are misclassified as independent contractors, making them exempt 

from almost all legal protections for employees, including the right to form a union. 

At the same time, eighty-seven million Americans live and work near these ports in regions that violate 

federal air quality standards, resulting in much higher rates and risk of asthma, cancer, and respiratory 

illnesses. 

J encourage you to support the ports across the country that are trying to address these problems. For 

example, before industry lobbyists took the Port of Los Angeles to court and gutted its U.S. EPA-award 

winning Clean Truck Program, 8,500 clean diesel and alternative fuel vehicles had been put in service, 

emissions had been reduced by 80 percent, and most drivers' wages were on the rise. 

We have seen the obvious success of the L.A. Clean Truck Program, and this bill will help right a great 

injustice when that program was halted. A broad coalition of stakeholders has been and will continue to 

support efforts to clean up America's ports and make sure companies, not truck drivers, are the responsible 

parties to maintain, upgrade and update to cleaner, more fuel-efficient fleets. This legislation will allow 

programs in other states to finally move forward and become success stories in their own right. 

The Clean Ports Act of 20 1 0 would permit ports to implement these types of programs and allow trucking 

companies to purchase and maintain new, clean trucks, as well as hire their drivers as employees instead of 

misclassifying them as independent contractors. 

We can help forge a path towards economic recovery by creating good, green jobs while also cleaning the air 

millions of Americans breathe. 

Please become a cosponsor of the Clean Ports Act of 2010. Thank you for your time and consideration. 

Sincerely, 

David Foster 

Executive Director 

555 11th Street NW Sixth Floor Washington, D.C. 20004 202.706.6900 
156 

Partners 

CWA 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

Chairman, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C 20510-6175 

Subject: Public comment regarding #Improving and Reforming our Nation's Surface Transportation 

Programs to Support Job Creation and the Economy ~ Joint Field Hearing with the Senate" 

Right now, more than 100,000 U,S, port truck drivers toil every day in dirty diesel rigs and effectively earn 

less than federal or state minimum wages-many without health insurance-and are exempt from legal 

protections for employees, including the right to form a union. 

Meanwhile, 87 million Americans live and work near ports in regions that violate federal air quality 

standards, resulting in higher rates and risk of asthma, cancer and respiratory !!lness, 

The EPA-award winning LA, Clean Truck Program, before it was halted as a result of pressure from special 

interests, saw 8,500 clean diesel and alternative fuel vehicles put in service, emissions reduced by 80 

percent and workers' wages on the rise, 

Reauthorization should include provisions as set forth in Rep, Jerrold Nadler's Clean Ports Act of 2011 (H,R, 

572, with S4 current cO~5ponsors) to ensure programs like the l.A. Clean Truck Program-and programs in 

other clties-move forward, This legislation would empower, but not mandate, local ports to adopt 

reqUirements for motor carriers and vehicles that are reasonably related to the reduction of environmental 

pollution, traffic congestion, improving highway safety, and the efficient utilization of port facilities. 

A broad coalition of labor, environment, business and social justice groups supports this effort to clean up 

the ports and make sure that companies, not truck drivers, are responsible for maintaining, upgrading and 

updating to deaner, more fuel~efficient fleets, 

The BlueGreen Alliance-a partnership of the nation's biggest labor unions and most influential 

environmental organizations, uniting more than 14 million members and supporters dedicated to building 

a dean energy economy-sent a letter to Congress last September urging members to support the first 

iteration of this legislation, the Clean Ports Act of 2010 (H.R. 5967). Congressman Nadler re-introduced the 

Clean Ports Act for the li2th Congress, and we strongly fee! his approach would green our ports and 

protect the rights of working men and women, 

We believe the provisions ofthi5 crucial legislation should be incorporated into a comprehensive 

transportation reauthorization bill. We look forward to working with Congress to pass a transportation bill 

this year that creates good, green jobs and reduces pollution and dependence on foreign oil as we move to 

mmJJfI;\t¥ a dean energy future. 

2828 University Ave SE Suite 200 

555 11 th Street NW Sixth Floor 

Minneapolis, MN 55414 

Washington. D.C. 20004 

612.466.4479 

2027066900 
157 

Maillng 

Rivtlrside CounlyTronsportallon Commission 

March 7, 2011 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 410 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

Dear Chairman Boxer: 

• Riverside, CA 

92502·2208 

.. WVV"N.rdcorg 

Thank you to you and Chairman Mica for the opportunity to testify before you at the February 23, 2011, jOint 

field hearing in Los Angeles, California. My written and oral testimony discussed the need for Transportation 

Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (T!FIA) investment in Southern California, as well as some policy 

reforms to the program. I would like to submit the three articles enclosed for the hearing record that ran in 

the Press Enterprise on the day of the hearing. The articles discuss a major project in the Inland Empire that 

stands in immediate need of a TIFIA loan and is an example of the types of job creating infrastructure 

projects that can be accelerated through TIF1A and leveraging local dollars. 

Thank you for your work on national infrastructure financing issues. I am appreciative of your recognition of 

the Inland Empire as a critical region for California's and the nation's economic future. Also, I am grateful for 

the work of your excellent staff, Please jet our staff continue to be a resource to you during the 

development of the next surface transportation authorization bilL 

Sincerely, 

Executive Director 

Enclosures 
158 

Washington should help accelerate 91 ,project 

BY JEFF MIUER 

AND BONNIE LOWENTHAl 

I fyou want an example of 

bipartisanship in the state 

Legislature, look no further than the very successful 

drive to create 18,000 jobs in 

the Inland Empire. 

Say what :tau will about . political party contlict: The 

reality is, when ther~'s a real 

opportunity to deliver jobs, 

as was the ease for the 91 

Freeway widening project, 

partisanship flies right out 

, the window. 

PARTISANP NO 

proval in both houses. 

So how did this bring bipartisanship to Sacramento? 

With unemployment in 

Riverside County hovering 

around 14percent, a project 

that creates thousands of 

jobs and uniocks ,a.major 

highway bottleneck will al- ways find support from business interests, trade, uniqns 

and countless citizens who are tired of sitting in traffic. 

It's :in easy thing to vote for 

regardless of which side of· 

the aisle you sit on or what 

!iistrict you call home. 

It's not a grant or a dreaded 

earmark. It is low-cost borrowing that saves local taxpayer dollars,. while only 

costing the federal budget 10 

percent •. ·of. the total' loan 

amount. But in· the erid, 

federai coffers will get inore 

than a full return on this 

investment) as construction 

of the 91 is expeeted to provide a $2 billion, jolt of 

economic activity. 

Congress created TIFlA a 

number of years ago to make 

ed entirely in Corona, it will 

create California jobs and 

makN:ommunitles more livable throughout a region of 

more than 17 million people. ' 

In addition to linking Riverside, San Bernardirio, .or-

:inge and Los 'Angeles coun- ties, the 91 provides 

important connectivity:to Interstates 10 and 15, thereby 

playing a. big role in in- terstate commerce. ' 

WEAKEST LlNKP 

finanCing easier for expcn- Southern California'S netsive large~scale infrastruc~ work of freeways, rail lines, 

ture projects like the 91. But and bus routes function as In fact, widening the 91 . A CRUCIAL LOAN .the need to' finance big .an integrated system 3lld is 

. Freeway through Corona is a The kind of success we projects throughout the na- only 'as healthy as iti; weak· 

perfect example bf getting achieved in Sacramento now tion' nO\v means there are estllnk. A failure onone part 

things done by working to- needs'to be replicated in moreprojectschasingTIFIA bf the system impacts·the· 

gether. Last year we worked Washington. RCTC is seek. dollars. than. available. We :entirety of the netw()rk 

together to gain approval of ing a Transportation Infra- believe the!ll should be on .. On 'behalf of a wide·array. 

As~embly Bill.2098 to give the struc.ture F'immeing innova; the to(1o(the list. of Republican, Democratic, 

Riverside County Transpor- tion Act (TIFIA) guaranteed BROAD BENEFITS third-party and indepel!oimt·! 

tation Commission. (RCTC)· loan ·so that construction· voters, and anyone· who; 

flexibility in constructing a crews can break gro11nd on In the long term, Congress ri~eds to get.aroul)dS~nt))- : $1.3 billion widening of this new general purpose lanes, . needs to fund T1FIAat a ern California, we urge ·U.S. " congested corridor. . . exp;mded interchanges~ a higher levelso more projects Transportation Secreta'ry.' 

Our bill initially ran into better connection from the can he built and thousands, Ray LaHood to get'- Il~opl<:,: 

obstaCles, but lit soon.fo)lDd ,9li·td tne 1-15 and the exten- more can get back to.work.ln· workihginRiversid'0COunty i 

co"spo,!sors·froIl1,hoth'sides· ;sion of the·91 Express Lanes. the short term, what's need- and Southern Califorliia ,by.;' 

lofttie aisle: .By the timeitfroril 'Orange County. Over·' edis for the federal Depart- approvingTIFIA dOllarS'::fir; 

madeit to the.governor's. alVthe project provides a ment of Transportation to the State' Route 91Corridor" 

desk,"54 members .of the reliable Unk between South- approve RCTC'sTIFIA.appli- Improvement Project .. ' .... ·:' ; ASSembly and every mem-' ern California's inland and cation so that local residents For more information; go i .. ~(lf of. RjY~fsiqe .CountY'sco.a~taJurQancen,ter§" h','.".' . p.r.,.9i, .. ~,.c.,. ,.~., ... w .. . ,.61 . . JilldSehate', dele~ .. ATIFIA',loan':wil!' aliOw,: 

ped on as co-spon-.' RCTC: to :obtajnmore .iilim: .:. " the :\ 

... filial "ersion of,the$400 million inpwatl:fi~: .. 

~i1I;r<ic~iv~~unani!'0ous ap- Iiancing tolluild'9le:p.roject!: 
A2 • WEDNESDAY, february 23, 2m1 REGION.,: TIlE PRESS-EN

\ 

IN THIS SECTION lOClLNEWS: IN SECTION C tflCAt HEWS: PABESA2-A9 . ,MORENO ' 

.... , ........ 

lOCAl HEWS: PASH3 

lVLIS1lNGS , ..................... : .. , .... , ...

COMICS .... , ................. :., .... , .. " .. ,.: 

;- "1,";," ",t':;! '.- ',,,, :' _ . . -:.,'. ,'.> , 

SlJOOI(U ................ _,., .... ".,', ....... , .

CflQSSWOAD ............ , .......... '.,:, ....

, 08JTUAflIES .... , .. " ........ , ...... , ... , .. , ..

t '. .... ':1' d t" 'd' t· I'll .';. :: ;",:U:I' '. ··0' . ·.,ane

,:., , .. ',::<".,. '.":::" .. ; : "'::", ,:." . ..:,' :;. . -'." .::<:< i'" .:,' ,'" '<'- .. ' f :', • "- .", :-. <', 

IlIOJlWAY91: OffTCiillfai\iJbtiSiooss'Jead/lrS are Couno/ ijne to', the ; money; ·.Ipeal.officials via col

"'; " •... ".,;;.,: .. /. h' ( • ";:. futerstate'15lirid'a g'enerru·sald .. , .... :.,. uSingtheexpies

seekiI1gS400mnliOOmkiW-interest federaimOneY'uselanefi'oi,iithecQuntyUrie" Part of'making the'pitcb Jlljr tQ tb()sealr

EARIU TO' BY DUllllEGlEJ The federruloan PrQgrnm.is to ill.Rlverslde. fOr the outli\led iJi. ' . . . ' fl'l' . . Boxer,Feinstein,. " . . ..... .... ., The final piece,bf fundlilg Ibw:mt"restway to pay fQr .':' "and. LaHOO<l. from the.Moli·" --MU' 8[UM' .'. CoO $l.3Wllon prOject'.to 'majlil'il!<jnstrucUonproj,{ctS: fiideia110an day Mominir Group '-a· " .' [, • . .add .lanes to Highway 91 .in. . JJl!'cto ':33perceIlt: tli;it,' Dusiness leatl:';, 

'J1AN'lltll'tISJEIN 

.. ..... ',: . .'. Coroila,.wUIc'ome.'·fr'om a 'projeet:ll. said. They ers ,,;.. is the region's. 

I. ttoOkthe. RIV'ers .. ldeMetro hlglilYCOill .. ·p<! ..•... ... : .. '.:.b<l.:.l1'OW .. ;. ' ...... ed.l.,t.bO.U,g. Q.t.h.!'.te ...rms. . ar.e. turn. in .... g in a. . Unem .. · Ploynierit.ra.'te.· 'aI .. Museum two decades to Io.an prograrti, can" a requestlo . jobcreating'potential -- "CO '.' alitass'lnorethan $$30,000' CountY .,transjJot'fatioii'-:iiffi·"·!(Iaryi 'Ltjs); federal' money 'get ''inVited to 'submit' all' project: Officials estimate- ; in Ihltrust fmid, . ','i',·.:' "cCJilI(j!t!)e':'!,o1il,i!rl,fteiI, but olnctarapPllcll"iqn .. ' ..... ' 'SOO!lermanel!t'jobs will be variesbY,tlay

·.It took Iess,than one year .' 'Transpottatioll plliriners,,;uself';',oo"leverage . private" "Wehilire to tell Q'ur SIOrY created';lly' the project, as' 4,7 perce!!t ,'()n 

aitdune.dud tbe'Stat 'l'l;ek ;elected'omcill!$ of. the 91' iii· 20 . pageS;'-, said' Anne' !iusfi\esses loCate alollg the cordijlg to the F

.eXhibit..:... towlpe;it()ut'and bal'id:'''pr6j<;ict,,$4431-11l1li()nwolj!d' director of· '91 coITidor:Addlngthe lanes 

leave the muSeum Julld ingtogethi;,r:toeilC6Uiage' .b<:Hlitn;naxinium,lOCal offl-··:tbe trallliporilitionc0mn11s· Will als6reduce congestion, . The rema,hi

$84,000 in thcte<i: '. U,S.SeertitarY of'lT:irl§poi'-' C\a1seouldoutrow, 'said to scll oUr officials believe. .' will 'l

. This eXhibit vias supposedtation RaY j,alidodailtlCalFJ'ohn·Standiford,deputydi- stOry." .. ", .'l:be·' benefits make it atbrougb the sal

to'ilraw' 40,000 yisltors,)Jut lomia Blirbara·:Baxer'.:reiitpr 'Of . the' Rlirersldl'i :'l'M. pr<>posal is ·due· to . perfee! clioice. for a fedeial backed by the to

will be luckylogeU,OOO. II sup- COllnty Transportation federal officials on Marcb 1. loan. aimed at helping lm- County srues tax 

was supposed to gross port . their pJans for Comll1iss)pR . . . Last year"about $1.2 billion prove infrastructure, om, also, be. 

, $800,000, ,but wpn't' crack '$40Q milliol) lI'pm aloaJ;lproc' !;If''approved; !the federru ':iIi Ioatisw€re available Iia- 'clalssaid: .' general purpose 

$200,000. y gives the, ree, ,The loan als,o 91.. .. ,. .. 

brought ,·$trate".llJcalOffiClals believe irt9

er recogm tlOn,' -;-', even.ll.lU!te will pay foritgelf, . dllegley@PE.com 

though several blocks selr . """ . . t, ...... ", .. ,,;".,0,.;., .. ,. , ...... ', , .... ' ,c.· •. • " ,-::;. " .. '." "'" . . "," 
160 

"--"-" "- --.-----.---"""-~---

QURVIEWS" I 

!~!'~'·~!hf crucial for both local drivers .. ~~!~!~~yJ and international I 

trade. But Riverside County's plans to improve the I 

clogged freeway need federathelp to succeed. And 'I 

the federal Transportation Department should provide 

the financial aid the project l'equir~s. I 

Countytransportation officials ports of Los Angeles and Long I 

plan to make a pitch for the Beach, which handle about 40 federal money at a joint House- percent of the nation's imported I Senate transportation hearing in goods. That cargo" flows from the I 

Los Angeles to· ports to the rest I 

day. The River- Th H' h 91 of t1}e nation - side County e Ig way through River·, 

Transportation improvements are side County on I Commission's Highway 9L 

$1.3 billion High· read\1 to go if the Southern Cali. Ii way 91 project J fornia residents 

needs a $400 mil· federal government should not be lion federal loan h h stuck with trafOc 'I to complete Its n· comes t roug , congestion and 

nancing" The air pollution so I 

plan calls for extending toll lanes that people e!sewhere in the na·

I

, from the Orange County !me to tlOn can buy cheap consumer' Interstate 15, adding one general. goods. The federal government purpose lane in each direction has a duty to help ease the local 

and improvements to inter· burdens of international trade, 

changes along the route, The Riverside County voters have commission would repay the fed· already done their share, Nearly eral loan out of toll lane revenue" two thirds of the funding for the But the plan faces stiff compe· project would come from Mea" tilion for federal money, and sure A, the local half·percent Riverside's request would eon· sales tax to fund transportation I sume about a third of the credit improvements" But the federali available this year through' the loan still plays a crucial part in! federal Transportation. Infra· smoothing the freeway flow, , structure Finance and Innovation The transportation commis·1 Act. Last year, 39 projects com- sian hopes to startcallstructlon in I 

peted for funds from the pro· 2012,butthatdatewouldslipbyat. 

gram, but only four received least a year without the loan" II' 

money. Other federal transportation 

Those are lough odds, certain· money would not he enough to I 

ly, but Highway 91 warrants the makeupthedifference,-evenifthe 

federal government's help, The county diverted federal funds, 

free\vay is the main route from from every other local project. I Riverside County to the coast, Getting that mueh private credit I 

serving one olthe most populous would be hugely expensive, if not I 

metropolitan areas in the nation, impOSSible" Scaling back the The route see, more than 280,OQO project to cut costs would still vehicle trips a day. and the leave drivers caught in a frustrat- commission estimates that the lng bottleneck. , improvements could save lhe avo The Highway 91 improve· I erage commuter 75 hours of driv- ments are ready to go if the! 

ing time a year" Those pOints government comes through" I alone should grab federal atten· Southern California drivers al· tion. ready face enormous traffic ab· The highway is also one of the staeles without adding federal 

primary trade corridors from the inaction to the list 
161 

February 21, 2011 

To: 

The United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Senator Barbara Boxer, Chair 

The United States House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

Congressman John Mica, Chair 

Written Testimony for the joint Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and House 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Hearing in Los Angeles on February 23, 2011 

Thank you both for inviting Californians For High Speed Rail to submit written testimony to the joint Senate 

Committee on Environment and Public Works and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing 

in Los Angeles on February 23, 2011. We are excited that you have chosen Los Angeles as the setting for this 

session, as this city Is well on its way to showing what can be done when transportation improvements and 

urban development are accomplished together. Bold new infrastructure initiatives, such as the local funding 

from "Measure R," passed by over two-thirds of the county's voters in 2008, along with Mayor Villaraigosa's 

"30/10 Plan" to accelerate transit projects, including many that will connect to the California High-Speed Rail 

(CHSR) project, will cement Los Angeles as the southern anchor of CHSR system. 

The CHSR project compares favorably to the market served by America's first fast train route, the North East 

Corridor (NEe), which connects Washington D.c., New York, and Boston. Similar to the NEe's transformative 

impact on commerce and travel (which will be furthered with additional investments in 21st century highspeed rail infrastructure), the route between Southern California and the Bay Area will reshape cities around 

each station by revitaliling their downtowns, while providing relief to many of the state's most congested 

freeways, including Interstate 5 and California State Route 99. Just as the fast trains introduced at the end of 

the last century have handily cornered over 50% of the air market between NEC cities, true 21st century hlghspeed rail will introduce Californians to an attractive new alternative to the over-crowded gates and runways 

that comprise the nation's 2nd busiest air market. 

The costs of subsidizing the status quo to meet California's growing population and commercial demands are 

staggering. Californians For High Speed Rail agrees with the assessment of the former Executive Director of the 

California High-Speed Rail Authority, Mehdi Morshed, who wrote in 2009 that, "According to the Authority's 

updated business plan ... high-speed trains will alleviate the need to spend nearly $100 billion to build about 

3,000 miles of new freeway, five airport runways and 90 departure gates during the next two decades." 

Private business also recognizes the value in moving people more quickly and efficiently in this market. The 

Japan Bank for International Cooperation announced in January 2011 that it would be willing to finance half of 

the CHSR project's cost, an amount equal to about $213 billion. This offer from the Japanese is no high-stakes 

bet. Their more than 46 years of operating the Shinkansen high-speed train network has demonstrated time 

and again that large profits come to regions that are connected by clean and fast trains. Additionally, China and 

C:llifol"lliau<; For High Sp('('d Rai!' IS2 (luHani S1. #322. San Frandsco. (' \ 94,05, \H\\,\:,("<l..$h,r.org· (15) 658-5322 
162 

several international consortiums have also expressed great interest in participating in the construction and 

operation of the CHSR system, indicating the great feasibility of high-speed rail in California. 

The first segment of our 520 mile system to break ground is an ideally located corridor, approximately 120 

miles in length, in the center of the state, between Fresno and Bakersfield. This area, hit hard by the current 

economic downturn, has some of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. The 80,000 jobs that will be 

created in the near-term as a result of the initial construction of this segment will greatly help to stimulate the 

economy of the region. 

Just as the NEC does not begin or end in Baltimore or Wilmington, Bakersfield and Fresno comprise the 

midsection of California's full high-speed rail line between the Bay Area and Los Angeles. Californians For High 

Speed Rail applauds the plan to start construction of our high-speed rail system outward from the center of the 

state, where planning and engineering are further along than in the large urban areas, in which more complex 

issues still need to be resolved. Furthermore, this first segment is the lowest cost-per-mile section of the 

project. The more track that can be laid initially, the greater the momentum for the project, which in turn will 

help to attract private investment. 

Californians are not averse to rail travel as our reputation as an automobile paradise might lead one to believe. 

California's three intercity corridor trains have been whetting the appetites of in-state travelers and tourists to 

the prospects of high-speed rail for nearly two decades. California's tradition of rail popularity is backed up by 

the numbers, as nearly haifa million passengers in December 2010 boarded our state's trains, which are 

consistently ranked the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th in ridership in the country. 

A commitment to the success of high-speed trains should be a crucial component of our national security 

policy. Rising oil prices, brought on in no small part by new rounds of destabilization within many of the world's 

oil producing nations, threatens to cripple our economic recovery, just when the private sector is poised for a 

rebound. High-speed trains are the only mode of transportation that can effectively move large num bers of 

people on domestically-produced electricity. California's system has the potential to reduce our dependence 

on foreign oil by up to 12.7 million barrels per year and eliminate as much as 12 billion pounds of greenhouse 

gas emissions annually.' The CHSR project will also utilize renewable power generation to supply electricity for 

the system, opening up new green-collar jobs for California's high tech workers. 

Much of the same technological know-how that has been perfected by California's aerospace industry is 

utilized in the development and construction of high-speed rail systems. Building the CHRS from Los Angeles to 

San Francisco will be one of the most monu mental pu blic-private projects ever undertaken in North America, 

resulting in 100,000 construction-related jobs each year that the system is being built.' From state-of-the-art 

signaling systems, to efficient and aerodynamic trainsets, to 21st Century construction methods, our project 

will keep America's most precious resource - the physical and intellectual prowess of its workers - active, 

prosperous, and secure. 

Californians For High Speed Rail requests that your committees take every measure to ensure that California 

becomes home to this 21st century, true high-speed rail corridor, along with other critical high-speed rail 

projects around the United States. You can help us provide relief to our state's over-crowded airports and road 

networks while we reduce our consumption of foreign oil and our production of greenhouse gasses. The 

passenger demand is strong and getting stronger; the private sector commitment is strong and getting 

stronger; and the determination to build the entire line between Northern and Southern California is 

I California High-Speed Rai! Authority, "Project Vision and Scope," httn://ww\\',cahigh~~~,-dJjli!,C;l,g'W!Rroj~'d \ il'.l.QJl .. :-<.tiD.S> 

'Ibid. 

Califorllian'l F{JJ' lIigh ~1H'('d Rail· 182 IIrn\;lrd ~t, fd22. ""an 1- nlndlo(o. C \ 9-l10S' \,,\\~.tll.-Sh,r.or·g· (-"~l (158~5321 
163 

unwavering in California. With your support, we can look toward a brighter future; one that includes trains 

whipping across the state at speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour. 

Thank you for your consideration of our pursuit to establish true high-speed rail in California. 

Written testimony submitted by the following people from Californians For High-Speed Rail 

Daniel Krause, Executive Director 

Ryan Stern, Board Member 

Michael Gimbel, Member 

Californian, FH!' ffi~h Sp('NI Rllit 'IS2 Howard St, #.n2. San FnHH.'i.'H'(I, C\ 9-'105· \y,\\\.ca-lh~II·.()I·g· (-'I::;) 658 N 5322 
164 

Testimony orRobert E:. Ham, Director of Intergovernmental Relations 

County oflmperial, California 

Before the Senate Committee on Environmentand Public Works and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

l.os Angeles, CA February 23, 2011 

Imperial County is located in southeastern California along the border with Arizona and the Republic of Mexico. Our county has about 

175,000 residents and is separated by a fence from the mega-city of Mexicali, Mexico that has a population that exceeds one million. 

Imperial County is by most measurements the poorest county in California and among the poorest in the nation. Not long ago we became the 

national poster child for "distressed communities" when it was widely reported that our unemployment level had reached over 30%. ror a 

brief few days, all of the networks, cable stations, and national pllblications had news teams here so they could me a story from "ground 

zero" in the recession. 

The teams came and went, and Imperial County is still suffering from high levels of unemployment and poverty, and much of it is fueled by 

failed federal programs and federal inaction. As a community that is located on the Mexican border, one can expect that we fee! the impacts 

of illegal immigration. That is true, but we also prosper from the effects of legal immigration. 

As 1 mentioned, Mexicali is a city of one million people, 70% of them are authorized to cross legally into the United States to shop, to 

vacation, to work, to conduct business, to attend private schools, and to visit relatives. This trans-border visitation is able to provide a 

significant boost to our local economy, and jobs for Ollr local residents. Because of our ability to attract shoppers from Mexico, our small 

community is home to 3 Super Wal Marts, as well as a large regi{lnalmall with 3 anchor department stores 

All of this should be good news, but we are rapidly lOSing these shoppers and visitors because our outmoded and ineffiCient Land Port of 

Entry is resulting in wait times to cross into the United States of 1 hour on a regular basis, and waits up to 2 hours are becoming more and 

more common. This is occurring, not only in the passenger vehiCle lanes, but in the pedestrian lanes as well. Imperial County also 

experiences around 130 days of 100 degree-plus temperatures each year. Early morning temperatures in the high 90's are normal for the 

Valley. As a result, we see school children waiting over an hour in this heat each morning on their way to reach their private-school 

classrooms. 

We Jre also finding that many potential shoppers, when faced with a one or two hour wait to cross into the United States, arc opting to st.:'1y 

in Mexico to shop. This is costing us tax revenue and jobs. Our local transportation planning agency did a study in 2007 of the lost economic 

opportunity that can be attributed to the long wait times at the border and they scored this at $1.6 billion dollars each year in economic 

opportunity to the Imperial and Mexicali Valleys. 

5 years ago, the General Services Administration began ti.llklng to the community about plans to modernize the Calexico West Port of Entry 

which was built in 1974 when Mexicali and Calexico were still know as the "twin cities" Ohviously, this ancient port is way overdue for an 

expansion and modernization. For the last 3 years, we as community worked diligently with GSA and CBP to design an optimal port design 

and finalize the environmental clear<lnce. 

Last yei1f we W{,fe thrilled when President Ob<lma included $84 million for the first phase of construction of this long-awaited stimulus to 

our local economy. GSA was making plans to award the bid and begin construction of phase one later this summer. Now we arc facing a 

situation where many in the Congress are seeking to make major cuts to the existing budget, and the President announced a spending freeze 

gOIng forward. Unfortunately for Imperial County, the Congress never appropriated the President's $84 million request that would enable 

GSA to build this new efficient land port of entry, and the President failed to include the remaining $190 million for phase 2 construction in 

his Fiscal Year 2012 budget proposaL 

1\11 of the hopes of our local economic recovery taking place along with the reconfiguration and enlargement of the old port arc quickly 

fading away. Our hopes that shorter wait times would spur our retail recovery arc gone. $14-plus million that has been spent on 

environmental clearance and land acquisition arc going to be for naught and our economy will continue to suffer because the federal 

government wilJ not build their own facilities in a manner that allows them to effectively carry out their mission. 

In additjon to the negi.ltive impacts to Ollr economy of these long wait lines along the fence that separates Mexicali from Calexico there is a 

significant additional health impact that is caused by the cumulative impact of thousands of cars idling in triple digit heat for one and two 

hours while waiting to clear customs and immigration. Jmperia! County is classified as serious non-attainment for PM-l0 and other 

pollutants. EPA makes us responsible for developing plans to get our air quality into compliance, yet the Congress through inaction in 

completing this project simply puts up more barriers to our ability to reach these goals, 

In summary, the greatest infrastructure need that \.,.'i!l also provide a Significant improvement to local Job creation and economic gmwth is to 

fund the completion of the long promised reconstruction/expansion of the Calexico West Land Port of Entry improvements. 
165 

STATE OF CALIFORNlA:BlJSlNESS TRANSPORT ATION AND HOUSING AGENCY 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 

P,O, BOX 942873, MS-49 

SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001 

PHONE (916) 654-5266 

FAX (916) 654-6608 

TIY711 

www.dot.ca.gov 

March 9, 2011 

The Honorable John Mica 

Flex your power,! 

Be energy efficientl 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

Chair, Committee on Environment Chair, Committee on Transportation 

and Public Works 

United States Senate 

112 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

and Infrastructure 

United States Congress 

2187 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Joint Hearing of your committees on 

February 23, where I spoke about the transportation issues California is facing and ways we can 

work together to address them. You extended the hearing record to March 9 and asked for 

legislative proposals for the next authorization of the highway bill. Accordingly, we have 

prepared specific recommendations in the following areas: 

• Ensure the financial integrity of the Highway and Transit Trust Funds. 

• Rebuild and maintain our transportation infrastructure. 

• Make goods movement a national priority. 

• Reduce congestion in metropolitan areas. 

• Streamline project delivery and extend California's NEPA delegation. 

• Consolidate federal programs. 

As you can see from the attached recommendations, we took your request seriously. As an 

example, we consider it essential that the federal delegation ofNEPA authority to California be 

made permanent. In lieu of proposing additional revenue generating mechanisms such as 

indexing the gas tax, we have made recommendations for flexible and alternative funding. 

My staff and I are available to respond to any questions you may have on these 

recommendations. Please contact Mr. Brad Mettam at the above address, by telephone at 

(916) 654-2936 or by email atbrad.mettam@dot.ca.gov. 

Sincerely, 

~~ C/JI!... C~DY McKIM 

r- Director 

Enclosure 

"Caltrans improves mobility across California" 
166 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer and The Honorable John Mica 

March 9, 2011 

Page 2 

c: Senator Dianne Feinstein 

Secretary Ray LaHood, U.S. Department of Transportation 

Victor Mendez, Federal Highway Administration 

Walter C. Waidelich Jr., Federal Highway Administration 

John Horsley, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

"Ca/trans improves mobility across California" 
167 

Recommendations for the Surface 

Transportation Reauthorization Bill O:rltnuur 

Ensure the financial integrity of the Highway and Transit Trust Funds 

Increase the amount a)lailable under the ilFlA 

program, 

Allow privatization of Safety Roadside Rest 

Areas, Park and Ride lots, and other facilities. 

Provide federal authority to impose tOiling as.a 

revenue stre!'l(n. 

Authorize a bond funding program, similar to 

Build America Bonds (BABs). 

Make movement a national 

Incorporate a mea$L.refne'lt 

contribution to national goods movement goals 

as parfof the federal distribution formula. 

Develop competitive fund for high-priority 

national goods movement projects. 

The T1F.IA program has provided loim gUarantees to slimitecj 

nllmberofprojects, restricted primarily by the capon the 

amount available. . 

Public-private partnerships are needed to help deliver 

essential services to the traveling public. 

States need every .available revenue source to leverage state 

and federalf,mds for capacity in<;reasing projects and other 

purposes. 

BABs provide states with an option to access the corporate 

taxable bond market, whlch is broader and deeper than the 

tax-exempt market. 

Goods movement on in as 

goods movement cOl)tributes significantly to the 

deterioration of the highways and the congestion around 

ports of entry. These States provide aservice to tlie national 

economy at a cost in facility maintenance, repair, and 

replacement. 

Existing funding mechanisms need to be revised to reflect 

the significance of freight movement on a national basis. 

Project improvements for goods movement have a positive 

impact on the corridor being improved as well as on a 

system wide basis. This would provide a mechanism to 

ensure that freight projects receive a higher priority and 

funding levels that would enhance the movement of people, 

goods, information and services. A national formula could 
168 

Include port planning in the current criteria 

for existing planning grants to allow for 

funding of Port-to-Corridor Management 

Plans (P2CMPs). 

be developed for programming projects and receiving 

resources from multiple funding sources, i.e., Priority Index 

Number and utilize consistent cost/benefit criteria. 

The funding of P2CMPs will allow local, state, federal and 

private sectors to coordinate and develop these plans to 

identify and fund projects along these P2CMPs to deliver 

projects, similar to California's CSMPs. In California, the four 

main P2CMPs are Los Angeles-Long Beach/Inland Empire, 

Bay Area, San Diego/Border and the Central Valley. 

Reduce rnnapctin,n in m,etr'oEtolita,n areas 

Provide incentives for 

pricing. 

congestion 

Change 23 USC 135 Section 135(d)(1 )(E) to 

add to this planning factor "the integration of 

land use and transportation, including 

consistency with development patterns." 

Encourage the application of congestion pricing the 

nation's most congested metropolitan areas by providing 

funding incentives. 

This would allow states and regions more flexibility to 

support and provide incentives for integrated land use, 

transportation and housing planning that utilize the latest 

travel forecast data, along with the latest modeling tools, 

and that identify alternative/preferred scenarios that reduce 

congestion within and between metropolitan areas. 

The State of California has implemented its statewide 

California Interregional Blueprint, and six of the 25 largest 

metropolitan areas in the nation have participated in 

Regional Blueprint Planning efforts that consider land use 

and transportation while evaluating travel within and 

between metropolitan areaS. 

These Blueprint programs promote the linking of 

transportation, land use and housing through the 

development of visions for future growth based on the 

latest modeling tools that identify alternative/preferred 

scenarios that reduce congestion within and between 

metropolitan areas. 

Streamline and extend California's NEPA 

Allow states to have permanent NEPA 

delegation after successful completion of pilot 

program and indude Section.6005 Air Quality 

Conformity Determinations. 

Allow the Use of the TEA conformity exemption 

This would and in the future, 

to assume permanent NEPA delegation. It would 

permanently remove redundant reviews by both Federal 

Highways Administration and Caltrens. 

FHWA retained Air Quality Determinations under SAFETEALU Section 6005, but not under Section 6004. Further 

delegation of Air Quality Conformity determinations 

streamline approval of documents under Section 6005. 

The law and EPA's conformity regulations currently exempt 
169 

for historic raifroad structures. 

Make TEA more ffexible. 

If a proposed project is included in the air 

quality conformity determination for a Regional 

Transportation Plan, no further action should 

be required to meet the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act of 1990. 

Allow IIIEPA approval if the final quality 

conformity determination is made before 

project construction. 

Remove funding plan barriers to NEPA 

approval. 

Allow a state's environmental documentto be 

.adopted by.thefederalleadagency f6r 

purposes of NEPA compliance, if a state's 

environmental. review has been completed 

prior tofederalizati.on of a proposed project. 

New projectS located within an area which had 

previously completed NEPA clearances should 

be exempt from further NEPA and associated 

federal environmental legislation reviews, if no 

new right-of-way is required for the 

construction of these projects. 

most TEA projects from conformity requirements, but 

explicitly prohibit use of the eXemption for TEA projects 

affecting historic railroad structures. Historic issues with 

railroad structures should be dealt with through the 

standard 106 and 4(f) processes, and not through a 

conformity exemption, unless the project would in fact not 

be neutral for air quality purposes. 

Expand the TEA category for wildlife passage to include fish 

passage. 

Regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations are required 

to provide analysis on air quality conformity as part of the 

approval process for their Regional Transportation Plan. 

Because air quality conformity is best addressed at regional 

levels, it is a duplication of effort and ineffective for projects 

to require additional conformity determinations. 

This wQuld allow final design to continue white additional 

conformity requirements are completed. Since final 

approval for construction could not occur during a lapse, 

this change would not result in any actual impacts to air 

quality conformity. 

Allow projects to continue through NEPA approval even If a 

Long Range Plan is temporarily no longer financially 

constrained due to the current volatile economic situation. 

This could be done by allowing NEPA approvals while Long 

Range Plans are being amended, as long as the project is 

proposed to remain in the amended Plan. 

This would avoid the delays in project delivery when world 

or national economic situations temporarily affect 

transportation funding. 

The State of California has implemented legislation that 

duplicates NEPA al)d applies even more stringent 

requirements, i.e., (;EQA defines a signifitant impact as one 

fOf)Nhlch a "filir argument~ can be made. Other "tates have 

Similar state environmel)tat laws. Allowing the federal lead 

to adopt the "mini~NEPA"document ratherthanpreparing 

and approving a separate NEPA dO.cument would avoid 

duplication of effort. The adoption could be similar in form 

to a re-evaluation and would hot require public circulation. 

If a state DOT purchased right-of-way under federal 

authorization, new projects located within that right-of-way 

should not result in additional impacts to the environment. 

For example, if a DOT purchased a new freeway alignment 

with a 100 foot median, then decided to widen in the 

median,it would not be required to mitigate again for 

"habitat" if endangered species utilized that land in the 

future. 

This would include making existing right-of-way exempt 
170 

Allow at-risk detailed design prior to NEPA 

completion 

Allow advanced right-of-way acquisition. 

Eliminate or modify the Efficient Environmental 

Review Process that was established under 

Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU. 

from consideration as "habitat" under the Endangered 

Species Act. Currently, endangered species such as San 

Joaquin Kit Fox, Desert Tortoise, and Tipton Kangaroo Rats 

often utilize the medians and shoulders of busy highways as 

foraging habitat. While this habitat is marginal at best, the 

law as currently interpreted requires that agencies purchase 

replacement habitat for these impacts. This modification 

would hold agencies free from retribution for incidental 

harm caused by routine maintenance and construction 

within existing right-of-way. 

During the NEPA process, a Preferred Altern;ltive may be 

identified in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS). Current federal regulations do not allow the use 01 

federal funds to begin ':detailed design" prior to the Record 

of DeciSion, which results in unnecessary delay in the 

project delivery process. Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU, 

Efficient Environmental Reviews for Project Decision 

Making,provided some relief from these restrictions, but it 

still limits design to only those elements that relate to 

environmental issues, environmental mitigation, or 

environmental permits. Flexibility is needed so that the 

state DOTs may continue to move forward with the project 

development process In a timely fashion using both federal 

and non-federal fund,ng - at their own financial risk - prior 

to the finalization of the NEPA process. 

Advanced right-ai-way acquisition is intended to provide for 

the preservation of corridors for future roadway expansion. 

Corridor preservation's goal is to minimize development in 

areas that are likely to be required to meet transportation 

needs in the future. Current federal environmental 

restrictions make it extremely difficult to identify and 

preserve transportation corridors for the future. Corridors 

must be part of a fiscally-constrained Long-Range Plan in 

order to use corridor preservation funds. It is often difficult 

to get FHWA to participate in preparing an environmental 

document for a project that will be built 15 or 20 years in 

the future. Most of the right-of-way acquired now is for 

Widening or expansion projects on existing facilities, as 

opposed to projects on new alignments. In these cases, the 

decision regarding the location of the transportation 

improvement has already been made - thus, there is almost 

zero chance of biasing the NEPA process. Typically right-ofway acquisitions are "environmentally neutral" events - in 

other words, no damage is done to the environment as a 

result of simply purchasing a plot of land. 

SAFETEA-LU created a new Efficient Environmental Review 

Process (Section 6002). While the intent of the section to 

promote early coordination was admirable, the procedural 
171 

Establish a priority for infrastructure projects at 

federal permitting agencies that includes firm 

deadlines. 

Allow program-I~Velr~imburserl'1entabilityfor 

state's oversight of local agency projects. 

Revise the federal transparency reporting 

process. 

requirements of Section 6002 are duplicative afalready 

existing environmentalll,ocesses. This duplication has lead 

to less efficiency and. more confusion during the NE!>A 

process. An altern.ate approach. would be take make. the 

Section 600:Zprocess optional, rather than mandatory. If 

Section 6002 is kept, a SUbsection should be ad!Jed to the 

process that bars a particlpating agency from ralsln& 

substantive issues during the permitting process that it 

should have been .aware of and raised durirtgtheNEPA 

process. 

The acquiring of federal permits represents a significant 

component of the time required to deliver a project. This 

requires a significant investment of resources, and erodes 

the value of available funds. Federal agencies should be 

given a firm, limited time to provide permits, and an 

automatic appeal process for transportation infrastructure 

projects should be instituted when permit reviews exceed 

that time that is external to the permitting agency. 

The stewardShip. agreement between FHWA and Caftrans 

delegates certain oversight responsibilities of the local 

agencies frorn FHWA to Caltrans. The Stewardship 

agreement also states that some of these oversight 

responsibilities cannotbe further delegated to local 

agenciesi~ California. The oversight of these localagency 

proJec!s cost over $35 million.to California whkh is not 

reimbursed by FHWA. This is a costthat California can no 

longer afford. Since local programs have beet'\ identified by 

FHWA asa"high risk", the expectatiorion the oversight has 

only been increasing. FHWA acknowledges these costs to be 

ellgibleforreimbursement provided the cost is charged to 

individual projects. Since at any given time. there are about 

5000 locally admiDistered projects, charging Calv~ns' 

oversight to these projects is not feaSible. We propose to. 

allow states to collect reimllursementsforoversight on a 

Single project designated for oversight cost. 

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act's Subaward Reporting requires the state to report certain data 

after the end of each month on ALL federally funded 

projects. 

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has 

completed three cycles of report. It has been burdensome 

and confusing at times to comply with this new federal 

reporting requirement. The data submitted has the 

potential to be incomplete or incorrect We feel this 

reporting requirement can be met more efficiently if the 

sub-awardee information is included in FHWA's Financial 

Management Information System transactions. The states 

will report this data at the time of requesting authorization 

5 
172 

Properties under 100 years of age would be 

exempt from evaluation under Section 106 of 

the Historic Preservation Act. 

Eliminate duplicate evaluation of historic 

properties. 

Exempt routine maintenance and restoration 

projects from Section 106 of the Historic 

Preservation Act. 

States need the ability to do programmatic 

advance mitigation for natural resource 

impacts based On mutually approved modeling, 

rather than having to connect mitigation costs 

to already designated projects in federal plans. 

Consolidate environmental mitigation 

negotiations. 

for projects (not after the authorization). This will ensure 

100 percent completeness. The data received by FHWA will 

be uniform throughout the nation. 

As America ages and construction techniques improve, a 

greater number.of properties will reach the current age of 

SO years without major modifications. Continuation of this 

standard would significantly increase the time and expense 

for compliance with the Historic Preservation Act. By 

modifying the evaluation criteria from 50 to 100 years, you 

would move beyond an individual person's lifetime and into 

the realm of history. It would save both time and resources. 

The law as currently written has duplication of effort. 

Historic properties are evaluated and protected under 

Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act and require a 

redundant evaluation under Section 4(f) of the Department 

of Transportation Act. 

Projects which replace existing pavement (overlays, slab 

replacements) would be exempt from further analysis under 

Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act. These projects 

result in minimal additional disturbance of "native soils." 

This modification would result in ,a reduction of time and 

effort on routine road maintenance. 

By allowing states to develop and implement a statewide 

advance mitigation program, states could (a) reduce project 

delays, (b) reduce mitigation costs and (c) improve 

mitigation quality. GreatH flexibility to do programmatic 

advance mitigation, rather than project specific, in the next 

authorization would facilitate this innovation. 

Dnce NEPA is completed and a Biological Opinion issued by 

US Fish and Wildlife Service, any modifications to 

Endangered SpeciE:s listings or refinements to project 

footprint would not require the issuance of a new Biological 

Opinion. FHWA or their designee via delegation would 

provide USFWS with an administrative amendment which 

would include additional provisions to address any 

modifications to the project. USFWS would not be required 

to perform any action, other than acknowledgement of the 

amendment. Any projects changes which tequire a 

supplemental NEPA document would not apply to this 

provision. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service negotiates a specific mitigation 

ratio based upon the quality of impacted habitat. At the 

time the Biological Opinion is issued, less than 3D. percent of 

design work is completed. Often minor refinements will 

result in changes within'the area of impacts, I.e., originally it 

was 5 acres and now it is 6.5 acres. This change in area 

would require that formal consultation with USFWS be 

reopened and a formal amendment to the Biological 
173 

Man made water conveyance systems should 

be exempt from consideration as "waters of 

the U.S." 

Streamline the federal Transportation 

Improvement Program (TIP) Amendment 

process. 

Change the period of the TIP /STIP from four 

years to five. 

Adopt provisions that pHow projects that are 

funded thro\lgh multiple federal programs to 

use only the rules, restrictions and reporting 

requirements of the largest contributing 

program. 

Provide clarification under Section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act that for 

public properties to be considered as a 4(f) 

property under recreational use, the primary 

function of the property must be recreation. 

This modification would specifically apply to 

portions of State and National Parks and 

Forests which are not primarily used for 

recreational activities. 

Currentenvlrohmental policy includes "No net 

loss to wetlimds". Allow for enhancement to 

existing wetlands to be counted as "mitigation" 

Opinion issued. As the N~PA lead agency, it is appropriate 

forFHWA or its designee to prepare an administrative 

amendmentwhich modifies the impact are.a and increases 

the mitigation required to reflect the ratios agreed in the 

original Biological Opinion. This would save time an9. effort 

at both agentles ana solidify the agreements madeaurlng 

the NEPA process. 

Currently canals and ditches can be considered as "waters of 

the U.S." under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Moving 

a concrete lined ditch could trigger the NEPA 404 process 

and result to greater impacts to historic and natural 

resource in an attempt to avoid impacts to these features. 

This change would reduce time and costs associated with 

project delivery. 

Curtentregulations require that many relatively minor 

changes to project cost, scope, or schedule require time 

consuming and paperworkcintenSive amendments to the 

TIP. This can occur as a result of relatively minor changes to 

project limits (as little as over a tenth of a mlle),or,changes 

in project cost (regardless of the amount of change). 

RelaXing the requirements for amenclments will gre<ltly 

expedite revisions and save resources. 

Current regulation requires the TIP/STIP to cover four years 

and be updated at least every four years (California updates 

every two years, to have a pool of programmed projects to 

draw on). If the period of the TIP/STIP were increased to five 

years, with an update at least every four years, it would cut 

In half the workload of Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

and states for updates. 

Individual project funding packages are sometimes made up 

of several different sources; each applied to the portion of 

the project that is appropriate for that source. Each source 

has .'ts own set of rules, schedules, restrictiol)s and reporting 

requirements that qUiCkly complicate project delivery. 

Currently school playgrounds are often determined to be 

4(f) properties because they allow public recreational 

activities during non-school operation. The use of schools 

for "recreational" activities is secondary to their primary 

function, but because of this use impacts to parking lots and 

other school properties is often deemed a 4(f) impact. 

In addition to this, our National Parks are served by highway 

systems. Often minor maintenance work, including 

rehabilitation can result in 4(f) impacts even when the only 

impact may be realignment of an existing driveway. 

If a project impacts a wetland of marginal quality, current 

mitigatipn would include acquisition of "credits" at a bank 

which has created wetlands by expansion of eXlsting 
174 

for impacts to wetlands. 

Broaden and extend the option to use 

warranties in highway construction contracts. 

Allow federal funds to be used for mitigation 

banking/advanced mitigation. 

Remove environmental and right-of-way 

requirements for any Non-infrastructure 

Projects. 

systems, or involve creation/expansion of wetlands at 

another location. this proposal would expand the potential 

to include "enhancement" activities to count towards 

wetland impacts more expllcity. If you impacted an acre of 

wetlands you could restore 5 acres of poor quality to good 

quality via a management plan. This process would help 

improve the overall quality of existing wetlands and 

encourage. DOTs to adopt management programs which 

Army Corps of Engineers could approve to gain "eredits" 

towards future impacts. 

Currently, federal regulations allow for warranties to cover 

specific products or features of a construction project (such 

as the pavement), but are not allowed to cover an entire 

project. Recently, as part of changes made to federal 

regulations to accommodate design-build contracting, the 

warranties section of the Code of Federal Regulations was 

amended to allow Ilgeneral project" warranties on designbuild projects on the National Highway System, which 

covers all parts of a construction project. In addition, 

projects developed under a public-private agreement may 

include warranties that are appropriate for the term of the 

contract or agreement, which could be many years. These 

allowances have not been made for traditional design-bidbuild projects, which are still restricted, as noted above, to 

specific products or features. 

While general project warranties will likely not be used on 

all traditional design-bid-build projects, their use could 

encourage innovation in construction processes or the 

products that are used since the potential for failure would 

be covered by the warranty. Finally, even the general 

project warranties allowed for design-build projects are 

permitted only for short periods of time, or as the 

regulations state, "generally one or two years." 

Unfortunately, one to two years is not typically long enough 

to determine if a roadway or bridge structure has been built 

correctly. A more appropriate minimum length of time for a 

warranty would be in the range of five to 10 years. 

For example, TEA shares could be used to fund advanced 

mitigation and projects could reimburse those funds when 

capital funds are available. This change would allow for 

expedited permitting under existing laws/regulations and 

would provide immediate relief without requiring any 

changes to federal funding levels. 

For example, the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program 

consists of infrastructure and non-infrastructure (NI) 

programs, and both programs are currently delivered using 

the process for typical construction projects. However, the 

NI Program is a program that provides for the education, 
175 

For proje~ts!Jnder $3 million, use a one 

component process for issuing authorization to 

proceed. 

encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation of SRTS 

programs in local communities. These types of activities are 

non-construction work that should not require NEPA 

clearance or right-of-way certification as currently required. 

Delivery of the NI program can be streamlined by handling it 

similar to FHWA State Planning and Research, Partnership 

Planning and FTA State Planning and Research Grants which 

are discretionary grants awarded through a grant 

application solicitation process similar to the SRT5-NI 

Program. 

This change would provide authorization for preliminary 

engineering, right-of-way, and construction in a single 

action. Becausethls w.ould .only apply to smaH.projects, it 

would expedite the process and allow .the pr.ojects t.o move 

between phases eaSily. 

:·rih~i·rt;. ;ii:f;E ,r:!.~rr;~!:i;t~~, ~~}t.=r.i. iii·;r.:1~r;~·m:~ !J r;:[;:.Jr: ~1~~'~: . 

ill;mn1 ~n!:~tr:lli~~!j;!1:~):!l~t.;-·;r)J;m m:;:~~:~r~m t=~r.:!:i iT;li=m·::·n:~E'~ 

riJrg~':;i;i ~m;:it!T:1~::lli1;t~i: ·t~:·r! ~r;r.~~~n~;tn::~.· ;~1;;mdjrf.~r.;i:;i:i;! ·f~;f.:~~!!~;!j!!;br··!::! ;:!"!:i:;;i: 

f~E:~~!:~E::] t;;;· ;:! ~1;J:~.,~':·~r;j:~E!~~t5: iJ i"r.r.:f.r" ~lh!:~::i.r~! 11l:i'i[~g:i'm ITt:! ~E!. f~!;Ht~t-;~i; 

:f.~1, :ir,!:;i·!;~E'#;~· :t~if~!jf.!:r~~i~i ~?~;~~!;;~jl'#iE;~;' ::ilb;~;; ;!;;~r,rt~i'!·~ :~·~·g;tg;t~i;;: f.~~ :';'f:~1f~~;:· 

r.:! ;¥~~f,:; ;~=~~~;!i:.;;r,;~i ;t f,lF!~H~t;;~~~~~!~~ il~~! ~;~i1:!;!:~:i:i"1;t~:~.·;~¥- ~~:~'!,!"~f.~~;;r,:~!~.;~?;;r~; 

g;j;ilr,!' ,~;if!:~;;ti f~l;~l~iil:!i !.i'! ~!.fij~~~~i;~t:~~~:L1S;f.. ·fi·f!.f.~ ·~~f~i{~l:~'~ ;!~f.!;;g!j ~i:i ~~g; 

gtf,g:g!.f!,g~!Jffi~;fi.; ~~~i':ltr~;gi; f!I!'!!:i:!i ~:~~fi ~f:nmg;~i;~~i~rt~!~i;!;. ~r.~! !Jl~gi;ill:f!:H· 

~n:i:fg,!:ti; m:~~g:tll!'ijil rig·!~ L~i!,ig:;ill 'i: r.it~J!ii;rL.: ~~;;~iJg'gi ~1!~1~~.fig;r~if::~ H:;: ;ii·~[.;g: 

r:::E:f.~!,1;i::!j: t!] ~f;l1·rr.[.;~g;-r [,jgi.i:i.:. ;:!:rn;;r;n:~~ tl~f':· .fi:fJ iJ,r;r..:~~r;:¥rrr.i;, 
176 

&""" ~.m", Volley Transportation " ... Authority 

February 18, 2011 

The Honorable JOhl1 Mica, Chairman 

House Transpoltation and Infrastructurc Committee 

2165 House Rayburn Office Building 

Washington,DC 205[5 

Dear Chairman Mica: 

On behalfofthe Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), I am submitting this letter 

regarding federal smface transpoltation authorization for the record in cOIUleetion with the joint 

field hearing being held on February 23, 20 J I, in Los Angeles by the House Committee on 

TranspOltation and Infrastructure, and the Senate Committee on Envirollment and Public Works 

titled "Improving and Reforming our Nation's Surface Transportation Programs to Support Job 

Creation and the Economy." 

By way ofbackgt'Ound, VTA is a special district that was crcated through the enactment of state 

legislation to perform a wide variety of multimodal transportation functions tor the residents and 

communities of Santa Clara County. We: 

• Operate a bus and light rail system. 

• Plan, design and construct highway and public transit capital improvement projects. 

• Serve as the congestion management agency (CMA) for Santa Clara County, thereby 

leading ollr area's efforts to link transportation and land-usc planning. 

• Prepare the countywide tral1spOltation plan. 

• Establish om county's project priorities for local, regional, state, and federal funding. 

• Participate in six multi-county pmtnerships to provide regional rail and bus service in the 

San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area. 

• Implement local transportation sales tax programs that have been approved by our voters. 

Santa Clara County spans 1,335 square miles at the southern tip of San Francisco Bay. It is 

home to "Silicon Valley," all area critical to the economic vitality of Ollr nation, California and 

the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area. Santa Clara County encompasses IS cities, 

including San Jose; has an estimated population of more than 1.8 million, the largest in Northern 

California; has the largest employment base in the Bay Area; and is home to more than 6,600 

high technology companies. With a population nearing 1 million, San Jose is the largest city in 

Northern California, the third largest in the state, and the 10th largest in the United States. 

Using federal funds, VT A has successfully construe-ted numerous transportation capital 

improvement projects, including several segments of our 42-mile light raiJ system, and a myriad 

of improvements to state highways and interstate routes in Santa Clara County. Major projects 

that we are cUl'rently advancing include: 

3331 liorlh fi!51 Siree! • Son Jm, CA 95134-1906· Adminiliralion 40U1U555· (~stom'r Service 408.321.2300 
177 

The Honorable John Mica 

February 18,2011 

Page Two 

An extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) regional rail system to Silicon 

Valley. 

Bus rapid transit (BRT) projects along three heavily traveled corridors. 

• High-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes or "express lanes" in two major transp0l1ation 

corridors. 

Operational improvements in 11 freeway corridors. 

• A $160 million Countywide Bicyc1elPcdestrian Improvement Program. 

• A Sustainability Program to improve our cnergy efficiencies and reduce grecnhouse gas 

emissions. 

In gcncral, VT A is dcveloping a wide range of capital investments across all modes to reduce 

congestion, to maintain our existing transportation infrastructure in a state of good repair, and to 

enhance safety and reliability. Therefore, new federal surface transp0l1ation authorization 

legislation to replace the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) will significantly impact VTA's ability to carry out our 

various programs, especially during thcse difficult economic times. 

Funding Levels and Partn~1',sltipJi 

Undcr SAFETEA-LU, thc overall funding level for highways, public transit, highway safety, 

motor carricr safety, and transportation rcscarch during the lcgislation's six-year life was $286.4 

billion. While this amount was greatcr than previous authorizations, it fell short of the level of 

federal investment needed to maintain our nation's existing transportation infrastructure, as well 

as to expand its capacity in order to keep up with the steadily growing demand for transportation. 

In the case of Santa Clara County alone, we have identified more than $20 billion in unfunded 

transpoltationllccds in our 25-year countywide plan. 

Thcrefore, providing sustained federal investment in our nation's transportation infrastructure 

that is adequate to meet the significant needs of highways, public transit and other transportation 

modcs must be front-and-center in the debate concerning successor legislatioll to SAFETEA-LU. 

Along this line, VT A recommends that Congress use the next authorization cycle to develop 

long-term strategies for generating sufficient federal funding that will enable a robust national 

program at the levels proposed by President Baraek Obama in his FY 2012 budget. 

Clearly, the federal govel'lllncnt canllot fund oU[' nation's transportation needs alone. Adequate 

funding requires a partnership between all levels of government, perhaps even a strongcr one 

than the partncrships that have existed in thc past. In the case of Santa Clara County, oU[' votcrs 

have approved six local sales tax measures to fund transpoltation since 1976, several by more 

than a two-thirds majority. We ll1'ge Congress to look for ways to rcward those regional/local 

areas, slIch as Santa Clara County, that have stepped up and provided significant new resources 

for transp0l1ation through votcr-approved tax measures, and to incentivize others to do the same. 
178 

The Honorable John Mica 

February 18, 20 II 

Page Three 

Along these lines, we support the proposals that have been offered by the Los Angeles 

Metropolitan Transportation Authority to modify the TranspOltation Infrastructurc Finance and 

Innovation Act Program (TIFIA) to allow for upfront conditional credit commitments for largcscale projects or for programs of related projects, and to establish a new category of qualified 

tax-credit bonds for sUlface transpOltation projects. 

Furthermore, VTA hopes that new federal surface transportation authorization legislation will 

not limit the ability of state and local governments to find other innovative ways to finance and 

expeditiously implement transportation infhstructure projects. Tolling and pUblic-private 

partnerships (PPP), for example, offer new opportunities to help manage traffic and geneMe 

revenues, and we have been looking carefully at how thcsc tools might bc applied in Santa Clara 

County. As these concepts are in the development stage, we belicve federal law and policy 

should encourage experimentation to allow us to gain valuable experience with these potential 

innovative solutions. In a new authorization bill, we favor extending and consolidating the 

variolls SAFETEA-LU pilot and demonstration programs, and monitoring projects for lessons 

learned before imposing any new constraints and requirements. We also recommend that the 

U.S. Department of Transportation be allowed to defer to state law which, in California's case, 

has recently authorized several demonstration projects in this area that need time to advance and 

be evaluated. 

New Starts/Small Starts 

Santa Clara County is making a substantial commitment to bringing BART to Silicon Valley. In 

general, this 16-mile project consists of extending the BART regional rail system south fl:om a 

future Warm Springs Station in thc City of Premont in Alameda County, through the Cities of 

Milpitas and San Jose in Santa Clara County, to a terminus at the Cal train Commuter Rail 

Station in the City of Santa Clara. 

VTA is seeking federal New Starts funding for the first phase orthe project-a 10-mile, (wostation extension from BART's future Warm Springs Station, which is now under construction 

and scheduled to open in 2014, to a new Bcrryessa Station in northeast San Jose. The New Starts 

candidate project contemplates $900 million in federal funding, or 36 percent ofthc $2.5 billion 

total cost of the project in year-of-expenditure dollars. The remaining 64 percent would be 

provided through Santa Clara County's 2000 Measure A local transportation sales tax and the 

state Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP). It is important to point out that the residents of 

Santa Clara County have voted on two separate occasions, with a two-thirds majority, to tax 

themselves in order to provide capital, operating and maintenance funding for this critical Bay 

Area regional project. 

In December 2009, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) approved advancing the BART 

Silicon Vallcy Project into the New Starts Program for preliminary engineering, and we are 
179 

The Honorable John Mica 

February 18, 20 II 

Page Four 

anticipating FTA's approval for the project to move into New Starts final design early next 

month. We were certainly thrilled to learn that the BART Silicon Vallcy Project was 

recommended for a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) in the President's FY 2012 budget 

and in FTA's Annual Ncw Starts Report. 

As you know, the New Starts Program is discretionary and, thus, requires that there be 

procedures and criteria for project evaluation. For the last decade or so, FTA's New Starts 

project evaluations have been dominated by a cost-effectivencss metric that has a number of 

weaknesses, such as: 

1. Cost effectiveness is based solely 011 travcl time savings and, therefore, fails to take into 

account the non-travcl-time-related benefits of New Statis projects, such as land-use, 

economic development, community, and environmental bcncfits. 

2. Highway user benefits are not factored into thc calculation of "transportation systcm USCI' 

benefits" (TSUB). The TSUB number rcflects the benefits only to transit users and, 

therefore, is a limited measure of UScI' bcnefits, 

3. Thc brcakpoints for dctermining a project's cost-effectiveness rating do not account for 

differences in cost of living, thereby disadvantaging mban areas with higher costs of 

living. 

4. To enhance thcir ratings and meet the thrcsholds, a New Starts project sponsor may have 

no choice but to delete key elements from its project to cut costs-clements that would 

enhance a project's long-term benefits and that may end up having to bc added back in at 

a higher cost after the original project is built and in revenue service. 

5. Because cost effcctivcncss is based on the total projcct cost and not on thc relative valuc 

ofthc fcderal invcstmcnt in the project, it does not give a tme indication of what the 

federal investment in the project is actually buying and discourages local project sponsors 

from paying for project enhancemcnts with non-New Starts moncy_ 

G. The baseline used in cost-effectiveness calculations is sUbjectivc and not consistently 

applied across the Unitcd Statcs, 

For these reasons, VT A was pleased to sce thc rccent policy changcs advanced by FT A, which 

give other project justification criteria, such as land use and ceonomic developmcnt, greater 

weight in the evaluation process. We understand that FTA will be undertaking a rulemaking, 

through which the cost-effectiveness measure may be changed to covel' a broader set of benefits. 
180 

The Honorable John Mica 

February 18, 2011 

Page Five 

VTA generally supports the elimination of the cost-effectiveness index as proposed in the 

Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009. If that cannot be achieved, then we 

recommend that cost effectiveness not be used as the sole determinant of project justification, 

and that it be redcfined as a composite measure that covers a full range of project benefits, not 

just user benefits. A new measure should be simpler to compute and more explainable to 

decision-makers and the public; the No Build Alternative should serve as the baseline; and the 

cost component should take into account only the federal New Starts investment in the project, 

rather than total project cost. 

The BART Silicon Valley Project is oU!' third experience with the New Starts process. VTA 

remains concerned that it takes too long for projects to navigate through this complex and 

cumbersome process from alternativcs analysis to FFGA, resulting in increased costs and risks 

for local project sponsors. FT A's recent use of a "roadmap" to layout deliverables and 

schedules has been a positive step, and certainly helped us make significant progress in 

addressing issues and advancing our BART Silicon Valley Project. 

Yet the process treats all New Starts projects the same, evcn in those cases, such as with our 

BART Silicon Valley Project, whcre FTA is a minority participant. We believe the New Starts 

process should be modified so that it considers in a meaningful way situations where local 

communities have stepped forward with significant non-federal resources to fund their projects. 

Along thcse lines, we recommend reducing the scope of the risk assessment and waiving celiain 

FTA reviews for projects with a low New Starts share. In addition, we support the New Starts 

steamlining proposals in the Surface Transportation Authorization Act of2009, including 

eliminating alternatives analysis as a separate phase, creating a single point of approval for entry 

into the New Starts Program, and creating an Office ofExpeditcd Project Delivery. 

Metropolitan Mobility 

VT A believes the currcnt federal smfaee transportation program needs to address the unique 

challenges facing our nation's growing metropolitan areas. To this end, we support a modeneutral Metropolitan Mobility Program, drawing on the concept outlined in the National Surface 

Transp0l1ation Policy and Revenue Study Commission's Report. This new program should be 

targeted to the regionalliocallevel by providing metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) 

with the discretion to choose the best projects that meet their unique mobility needs and 

challenges, subject to consistency with national goals and criteria. Tn order for this new program 

to succeed, we recommend that the funding be provided to MPOs based on a fOrmtlla allocation 

so that they can conduct their planning with some expectation that federal resources will be 

available for their needs. 
181 

The Honorable John Mica 

February 18, 2011 

Page Six 

Projects of National and Regional SigniJicance 

Dense, mctropolitan areas, such as the Bay Area and Silicon Valley, have complcx, largc"scale 

projects that are critical to reducing congestion and improving mobility across a region or subregion, and yet willncver hc built undcr current federal funding processes, which arc structured 

to provide small amounts of funding over a long period of time. One such cxample in Santa 

Clara County is our Statc Routc 152 Realignmcnt Projcct. State Route 152 is a vital goods 

movement, commutcr and recreational artery. It links the Central Valley to: (a) urbanized 

Silicon Valley to the north; and (b) coastal Montercy Bay to the south. Howcver, State Route 

152 is a narrow, winding, substandard, two "lane rural roadway for a stretch of roughly 15 milcs 

and, as such, cmmot accommodate the significant volumc of commercial truck and automobile 

traffic that travels through this arca on a daily basis. The result is severe traffic congestion and 

significant safcty problems. Thc $500 million project calls for constructing a new four-lane 

expressway aligmncnt for State Route 152 to be located in both Santa Clara and San Benito 

Counties to scrve as the main east-wcst travel corridor for the area. However, therc currently is 

no surface transportation program at the federal program that would accommodate a project of 

this magnitude. 

Congress took an initial step at trying to address this problem in SAfETEA-LU with the creation 

of the Projects of National and Regional Significance Program. Unfortunately, thc funding for 

this program was inadequatc and it was earmarked through the political process. VT A hopes that 

the ncxt federal surface transportation authorization bill will provide meaningful financial 

resources for large-scale projects by evolving the Projects of National and Regional Significance 

Program into a lllultimodal competitivc grant program modeled after thc best features of the 

discretionary New Starts Program, with funding being allocated to those projects that perform 

well against a set offederal investment criteria. 

Public Transit 

VTA supports the American Public Transportation Association's (APTA) proposals to simplify 

the Fixed Guideway Modcrnization Formula Program and to establish a new program to provide 

federal opcrating funds on a temporary "emcrgency" basis to assist public transit agencies during 

challenging economic times so that they can avoid crippling service cuts, fare increases and job 

layoffs. VTA also suppOlis the elimination ofthe BuslBus Facilities Discretionary Program and 

allocating any funding that would have gone to this program to public transit agencies through 

the Section 5307 Urbanizcd Area formula and Section 5311 Rural Formula Programs. 

Energy Efficiency and Climate Chang& 

As you are well aware, there is widespread attention being given to energy efficiency and 

environmental sustainability, particularly as thcy relatc to greenhollse gas emissions and global 
182 

The Honorable John Mica 

February 18, 2011 

Page Seven 

climate change. In response, many public agencies, businesses and individuals are proactively 

taking steps to improve their energy efficiencies and to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. 

In om case, VTA is implementing a comprehensive Sustainability Program that is designed to 

modify our business practices and processes in a way that would conserve natural resources, 

reduce our greenhouse gas cmissions, prevent othcr types of pollution, and increase our use of 

renewable energy and materials. One of the key clements of our Sustainability Program is the 

conversion of our headquarters facility, our three bus operating divisions, and our light rail 

operating division to solar energy. We also are committed to replacing our older buses when 

they reach retirement age with clean-fuel technology. Thercfore, we support a new separate 

Energy Efficient Transit Facilities Program as proposed in the Surfacc TranspOliation 

Authorization Act of2009. However, because it is difficult to plan for funding from 

discrctionary sources, we recommend that this program be formula-based to allow public transit 

agencies to commit to making long-term investments in new technologies to reduce energy usc 

and emissions. 

High-Speed Rail 

Finally, thc voters of California pass cd a $10 billion bond measure in November 2008 to help 

build a true high-specd rail system in our state. As a mem ber agency of the Peninsula Corridor 

Joint Powers Board, which oversees the Caltrain Commutcr Rail Scrvice, and as a partner with 

the City of San Jose in developing the Diridon Station Area in downtown San Jose, VTA is 

actively involved in California's high-speed rail efforts. Therefore, wc strongly support 

committing $53 billion for high-speed, intercity rail over six years as proposed in thc President's 

FY 2012 budget. Furthermore, we cncouragc that a portion ofthese funds be dedicated to large 

intermodal projects such as the Diridon Station, which will offer efficient and convenient 

passenger cOlmections to high-speed rail; the BART system; and at least seven other intercity, 

regional and local rail and bus systems. 

Thank you for your leadership 011 important national transportation issues, which impact our 

economy, environment and quality of life. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our 

comments on federal surface transportation authorization legislation, and look forward to 

working with you to pass a robust and innovative new federal surface transpOltation law to 

replace SAFETEA-LU. 

Sincerely, 

'lIkI~/~ Michael T. Burns 

('Jeneral Managcr 
183 

& 

~,m" ... " "." Valley Transportation Authority 

February 18,201 I 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer, Chairperson 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

112 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairperson Boxer: 

On behalforthe Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), I am submitting this lettcr 

regarding federal surface h'anspOltation authorization for the record in connection with the joint 

field hearing being held on February 23, 2011, in Los Angeles by the House Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

titled "Improving and Reforming our Nation's Surface Transportation Programs to SUPPOlt Job 

Creation and thc Economy." 

By way of background, VTA is a special district that was created through the enactment of state 

legislation to perform a wide vadety of multimodal transpoliation functions for the residents and 

conmmnities of Santa Clara County. We: 

• Operate a bus and light rail system. 

• Plan, design und construct highway and puhlic tl'ansit capital impl'Ovement projects. 

• Serve as the congestionll1anagement agency (CMA) for Santa Clan~ County, thereby 

leading our area's efforts to link tt'ansportation and land-usc planning, 

• Prepare the countywide transportation plan. 

e Establish our county's project priorities for local, regional, state, and federal ftll1ding. 

• Pm1icipate in six multi-county partnerships to provide regional rail and hus service in the 

San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area, 

• Implement local transportation sales tax programs that have been approved by our volers, 

Santa Clara County spans 1,335 square miles at the southern tip of San Francisco Bay. It is 

home to "Silicon Valley," an area critical (0 thc economic vitality of our nalion, California and 

the San J osc-San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area. Santa Clara County encompasses 15 cities, 

including San Jose; has an estimated popUlation of more than 1.8 million, the largcst in Northern 

California; has the largest employment base in the Bay Area; and is home to more than 6,600 

high technology companies. With a popUlation nearing I million, San Jose is the lurgest city in 

Northern California, the third largest in the state, and the 10th largest in the United States. 

Using federn! funds, VTA has successfully constnlcted numerous transportation capital 

improvement projects, iucluding several segments of our 42-mile light rail system, and a myriad 

of improvements to state highways and interstate routes in Santa Clara County. Major projects 

that we are currently advancing include: 

3331 lIorth first llreel . Ion Jo", (A ~SI34·1906 ,Adminis!ralion 408.321.5555· (ustomer Servite 408.321.2300 
184 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

February 18,2011 

Page Two 

An extension of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) regional rail systcm to Silicon 

Valley. 

Bus rapid transit CBR'!') projects along three heavily traveled corridors. 

• High-occupancy toll (I lOT) lanes or "cxpress lanes" in two major transportation 

corridors. 

• Operational improvements in II freeway corridors. 

• A $160 million Countywide Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvement Program. 

A Sustainability Program to improve our energy efficiencies and reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

In general, VTA is developing a wide range of capital investments across all modes to reduce 

congestion, to maintain our existing transportation infrastructure in a state of good repair, and to 

enhance safety and reliability. Therefore, new federal slll'facc transportation authorization 

legislation to replace the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) will significantly impact VTA's ability to carry out out' 

various programs, especially during these difficult economic times. 

Funding Levels and Partnerships 

Under SAFETEA-LU, the overall funding level for highways, public transit, highway safety, 

motor carrier safety, and transportation research dming the legislation'S six-year life was $286.4 

billion. While this amount was greater than previous authorizations, it fell short of the level of 

federal investment needed to maintain our nation's existing transportation infrastructure, as well 

as to expand its capacity in order to kcep up with the steadily growing demand for transportation, 

In the case of Santa Clara County alone, we have identified more than $20 billion in unfunded 

transpOliation needs in om 25-year countywide plan. 

Therefore, providing sllstained federal investment in our nation's (ransportation infrastructure 

that is adequate to meet the significant nceds of highways, public transit and other transportation 

modes must be front-and-center in the debate concerning successor legislation to SAFETEA-LU, 

Along this line, VTA recommends that Congress use the next authorization cycle to develop 

long-term strategies for generating sufficient federal funding that will enable a robust national 

program at the levels proposed by President Daraek Obama in his FY 2012 budget. 

Clearly, the federal government cannot fund our nation's transportation needs alone. Adequate 

funding requires a partnership between all levels of government, perhaps even a stronger one 

than the partnerships that have existed in the past. In the case of Santa Clara County, our voters 

have approved six local sales tax measures to fund transportation since 1976, several by more 

than a two-thirds majority. We urge Congress to look for ways to reward tbose regional/local 

areas, such as Santa Clara County, tbat have stepped up and provided significant new resources 

for tl'anspol1atioll through voter-approved tax measures, and to incentivize othcrs to do the same. 
185 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

February 18,2011 

Page Three 

Along these lines, we support the proposals that have been offercd by the Los Angeles 

Metropolitan Transportation Authority to modify the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and 

Innovation Act Program (TIFIA) to allow for l)pfront conditional credit commitments for largescale projects or for programs of related projects, and to establish a new category of qualified 

tax-credit bonds for smfacc transportation projects. 

FUl1hermore, VTA hopes that ncw federal surface transportation authorization legislation will 

not limit the ability of state and local gove1'l1ments to find other innovative ways to finance and 

expcditiously implement transportation infrast1'llcturc projects. Tolling and public-private 

partnerships (1'1'1'), for example, offer new opportunities to help manage traffic and generate 

revenues, and we have been looking carefully at how these tools might be applied in Santa Clam 

County. As these concepts arc in the development stage, we believe fcderal law and policy 

should encourage experimentation to allow us to gain valuable experience with these potential 

innovative solutions. In a new authorization bill, we favor extending and consolidating the 

various SAFETEA-LU pilot and demonstration programs, and monitoring projects for lessons 

leal'lled before imposing any new constraints and requirements. We also recommend that the 

U.S. Department ofTnmsportation be allowed to defer to state law which, in Califomia's case, 

has recently authorized several demonstration projects in this area that need timc to advancc and 

be evaluated. 

New Starts/Small Starts 

Santa Clara County is making a substantial commitment to bringing BART to Silicon Valley. In 

general, this 16-mile project consists of extending the BART regional rail system south from a 

future Warm Springs Station in the City of Fremont in Alameda County, through the Cities of 

Milpitas and San Jose in Santa Clara County, to u terminus at thc Caltrain Commuter Rail 

Station in the City of Santa Clara. 

VT A is seeking federal New Starts funding for the first phase of the project-a 1 O-mile, twostation extension from BART's future Warm Springs Station, which is now under construction 

and scheduled to open in 2014, to a new Bcrryessa Station in northeast San Jose. The New Starts 

candidate project contemplates $900 million in federal funding, or 36 percent of the $2.5 billion 

total cost of the project in year-of-expenditure dollars. The remaining 64 percent would be 

provided through Santa Clara County's 2000 Measure A local transportation sales tax and the 

state Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP). It is important to point out that the residents of 

Santa Clara County have voted on two separate occasions, with a two-thirds majority, to tax 

themselves in order to provide capital, operating and maintenance funding foJ' this critical Bay 

Area regional project. 

In December 2009, the Fedcral Transit Administration (FTA) approved advancing the BART 

Silicon Valley Project into the New Starts Program for preliminai'Y engineering, and we are 
186 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

February 18, 2011 

Page FoUl' 

anticipating FT A's approval for the project to move into Ncw Starts final design early next 

month. We were certainly thrilled to learn that the BART Silicon Valley Project was 

recommended for a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) in the President's FY 2012 budget 

and in FTA's Annual New Starts Report. 

As you know, thc Ncw Statls Program is discretionary and, thus, requires that there be 

procedures and criteria for project evaluation. For thc last decade or so, FTA's New Statls 

project cvaluations have bcen dominated by a cost-effectiveness metric that has a number of 

weaknesses, such as: 

I. Cost effcctiveness is based solely on travel timc savings and, therefore, fails to take into 

account the non-travel-time-related bcnefits of New StallS projects, such as land-use, 

economic development, community, and environmental benefits. 

2. Highway user bencfits are not factored into thc calculation of "transportation system user 

benefits" (TSUB). The TSUB number reflects the benefits only to transit users and, 

therefore, is a limited measure of lIser benefits. 

3. The breakpoints for detcrmining a projcct's cost-effectiveness rating do not account for 

differences in cost ofliving, thereby disadvantaging urban areas with higher costs of 

living. 

4. To enhance their mtings and meet the thresholds, a New Starts project sponsor may have 

no choice but to delete key eicments from its project to cut costs-elements that would 

cnhance a project's long-term bencfits and that may end up having to be added back in at 

a higher cost after the original project is built and in revcnuc scrvicc. 

5. Because cost effectiveness is bascd on the total project cost and not on the relativc value 

of the fcdcral investmcnt in the project, it does not give a tme indication of what the 

federal investment in the project is actually buying and discourages local projcct sponsors 

from paying for project enhancemcnts with non-New Starts money. 

6. The baseline llsed in cost-effectiveness calculations is subjective and not consistently 

applied across the United States. 

For these reasons, VT A was pleased to see thc rcccnt policy changes advanced by FTA, which 

give other project justification criteria, slich as land use and economic development, greater 

weight in the evaluation process. Wc understand that FTA will be undet1aking a rulemaking, 

through which the cost-effectiveness measure may be changed to cover a broader set of benefits. 
187 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

February [8,201 I 

Page Five 

VT A generally SUPPOlls the elimination of the cost-effectiveness index as proposed in the 

Surfacc Transportation Authorization Act of 2009. If that cannot be achieved, then we 

recommend that cost effectiveness not be used as the sale determinant of projcct justification, 

and that it be redefined as a composite measure that covers a full range of project benefits, not 

just user benefits. A new measure should be simpler to compute and more explainable to 

decision-makers and the public; the No Build Alternative should serve as the baseline; and the 

cost component should take into account only the federal Ncw Starts investment in the project, 

rathcr than total project cost. 

The BART Silicon Valley Project is aU!' third experience with the New Starts process. VTA 

remains concerned that it takes too long for projects to navigate through this complex and 

cumbcrsome process from alternativcs analysis to FPOA, resulting in increased costs and risks 

for local project sponsors. ITA's recent use ofa Hroadmap" to layout deliverables and 

schedules has been a positive step, and ccrtainly helped us make significant progress in 

addressing issues and advancing our BART Silicon Valley Project. 

Yet the process treats all New Starts projects the same, even in those cases, such as with our 

BART Silicon Valley Project, where PTA is a minority participant. We believe the New Statls 

process should be modified so that it considers in a meaningful way situations where local 

communities have stepped forward with significant non-federal resources to fund their projects. 

Along these lines, we recommend reducing the scope of the risk assessment and waiving certain 

PTA reviews for projects with a low New Starts share. In addition, we support the New Statis 

steamlinillg proposals in the Surfacc Transportation Authorization Act of 2009, including 

eliminating alternativcs analysis as a separate phase, creating a single point of approval for entry 

into the New Starts Program, and creating an Office of Expedited Project Delivcry. 

Metropolitan Mobility 

VT A believes [he current federal slll'face transportation program needs to address the unique 

challenges facing our nation's growing metropolitan areas. To this end, we support a modeneutral Metropolitan Mobility Progranl, drawing on the concept outlined in the National Surface 

Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission's Report. This new program should be 

targeted to the regional/local level by providing metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) 

with the discretion to ehoose the best projects that meet their unique mobility needs and 

challenges, subject to consistency with national goals and criteria. In order for this new program 

to succeed, we recommcnd that the funding be provided to MPOs based on a formula allocation 

so that they can conduct their planning with some expectation that federal resources will be 

available for their needs. 
188 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

February 18, 20 II 

Page Six 

projects of National and Regional Significance 

Dense, metropolitan areas, such as the Bay Area and Silicon Valley, have complex, large-scale 

projects that are critical to reducing congestion and improving mobility across a region or subregion, and yet will never be built under current federal funding processes, which are structured 

to provide small amounts offunding over a long period of time. One such example in Santa 

Clara County is our State Route 152 Realignmcnt Project. State Route 152 is a vital goods 

movement, commutcr and recreational arlcry. lllinks the Central Valley to: (a) urbanized 

Silicon Valley to the north; and (b) coastal Montcrey Bay to the south. However, State Route 

152 is a narrow, winding, substandard, two-lane rural roadway for a stretch of roughly 15 miles 

and, as such, cannot accommodate the significant volume of commercial truck and automobile 

traffic that travels through this area on a daily basis. The result is severe tramc congestion and 

significant safety problems. The $500 million project calls for constructing a new four-lane 

expressway alignment for State Route 152 to be located in both Santa Clara and San Benito 

Counties to serve as the main east-west travel corridor for the area. However, there currently is 

no sl1l'face transpoliation program at the federal program that would accommodate a project of 

this magnitude. 

Congress took an initial step at trying to address this problem in SAFETEA-LU with the creation 

of the Projects of National and Regional Significance Program. Unfortunately, the funding for 

this program was inadequatc and it was carmarkcd through thc political process. VTA hopes that 

the next federal surface transportation authorization bill will provide meaningful financial 

resources for large-scale projects by evolving the Projects of National and Regional Significance 

Program into a multimodal competitivc grant program modeled after the best features of the 

discretionary New Starts Program, with funding being allocated to those projects that perform 

well against a set of federal investment criteria. 

Public Transit 

VTA supports the American Public Transportation Association's (APTA) proposals to simplify 

the Fixed Guideway Mode1'l1ization Formula Program and to establish a new program to provide 

federal operating funds on a temporary "emergency" basis to assist public transit agencies during 

challenging economic times so that they can avoid crippling service cuts, fare incre[lses and job 

layoffs. VTA also SUppOlts the elimination of the BuslBus Facilities Discretionary Program and 

allocating any funding that would have gone to this program to public transit agencies through 

the Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula and Section 5311 Rural Formula Programs. 

Energy E:fI~~lency and Climate Chat~ 

As you are well aware, there is widespread attention being given to energy efficiency and 

environmental slistainability, particularly as they relate to greenhollse gas emissions and global 
189 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

February 18, 20 II 

Page Seven 

climate change. In response, many public agencies, businesses and individuals are proactively 

taking steps to improve their energy efficiencies and to reduce thcir greenhousc gas emissions. 

In our case, VTA is implementing a comprehensive Sustainability Program that is designed to 

modify our business pruetices and processes in a way that would conserve natural resources, 

reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, prevent other types of pollution, and increase our use of 

renewable energy and materials. One of the key elements of our Sustainability Program is the 

conversion of oW' headquarters facility, our three bus operating divisions, and our light rail 

operating division to solar energy. We also are committed to replacing our older buses when 

they reach retirement age with clean-fuel teclmology. Therefore, we support a new separate 

Energy Efficient Transit Facilities Program as proposed in the Surface Transportation 

Authorization Act of2009. However, bccause it is difficult to plan for funding from 

discretionary sources, we recommend that this program be formula-based to allow public transit 

agencies to commit to making long-term investments in new teclmologies to reduce energy use 

and emissions. 

High-Speed Rail 

Finally, the voters of California passed a $1 0 billion bond measure in Novcmber 2008 to help 

build a true high-speed rail system in our state. As a member agency ofthc Peninsula Corridor 

Joint Powers Board, which oversees the Caltrain Commuter Rail Serviec, and as a partner with 

the City of San Jose in developing the Diridon Station Area in downtown San Jose, VTA is 

actively involved in California's high-speed rail efforts. Therefore, we strongly support 

committing $53 billion for high-speed, intercity rail over six years as proposed in the President's 

FY 2012 budget. Furthermore, we encourage that a portion ofthcsc funds be dedicated to large 

intermodal projects stich as the Diridon Station, which will offer efficient and cOllvenient 

passenger connections to high-speed rail; the BART system; and at least seven other intercity. 

regional and local rail and bus systems. 

Thank you for your leadership on important national transportation issues, which impact OUl' 

economy, environment and quality of life. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our 

comments on federal surface transportation authorization legislation, and look forward to 

working with you to pass a robust and innovative new federal surface transportatiolllaw to 

replace SAFETEA-LU. 

Sincerely, 

Michael T. Burns 

General Manager 
190 

Comments to the Joint Field Hearing on Surface Transportation due 3.9.2011 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Public expectation is to reduce congestion and calm traffic. Accordingly the voters of 

Los Angeles County passed local sales tax Measure R for traffic relief and 

transportation upgrades including synchronizing traffic signals, repairing potholes, 

improving freeway traffic flow and keeping senior/studenUdisabled fares low (transit) 

with some new transit projects added. The bottom line was for community traffic relief 

and a better quality of life. 

The City of Los Angeles is the 800 pound gorilla. 

The reality of living in the City of Los Angeles is that the focus on the State of California 

required General Plan and its Elements to plan, mitigate and monitor municipalities has 

failed. The City has not updated plans or monitored mitigation measures and continues 

to approve transit projects that are not even considered in the General Plans or the 

Community Plans. 

Housing density was created without the allowance for parking. (Parking and its 

relationship to the Clean Water Act takes importance in contamination issues.) 

Residents are trapped and pigeon-holed in small neighborhoods without the metropolis 

feel with freedom of movement. It took 2 hours to drive to San Diego for a day trip and 

now it takes 2 hours to get from one side of town to another and even longer to get from 

one end of the county to another. 

Downtown Los Angeles is the gauge of transportation planning and the transit is 

excellent in the surrounding 3-5 miles. There are approximately 32 continuous census 

tracts of low-to-moderate income that keeps the region dependent on transit. 

But most of Angelinos do not live in that concentrated Downtown area. That is the 

overall plan-to confine Angelinos to just a few blocks to live, work and play. 

They live in the neighborhoods and suburbs and the needs are different. People have 

children and buy groceries. 

Automobiles are the key mode of transportation. 

The building boom allowed overweight trucks to surface our streets. The street policy is 

poor. Neither the truckers nor the City repaired any street damage or underground pipe 

damage. 

We have too many potholes. 
191 

The Complete Streets concept is embraced in Los Angeles. Bicycles are fun, but they 

do not get one to work. Only in safe neighborhoods can children ride them to school 

because there are no safe passages to school. Children are overcome with being 

protected from drugs dealers and harassment to and from school. 

Pedestrian-minded street design is not practical unless you live in a village. 

Los Angeles needs innovation in the automobile industry. We are automobile designers 

here. 

Creativity is called for. We need innovation in fuel usage. We need innovation in traffic 

management. We need innovation in road materials. We need innovation in goods 

movement. We need innovation in air quality solutions. 

The region has a history in innovation. It needs new breath with free market factors. 

The State has enacted AB 32, SB 375 and SB 97 to address Climate Change. 

Regional planning becomes important, so local government planning is needed even 

more so. 

We do not have that. Instead, we have big plans for transit with no feasibility studies 

and fiscal studies to maintain such large projects. We, citizens, are left out of that 

process as regional needs are not included in local government meetings open to the 

public. A layer of government has been formed, without representation by a vote of the 

Citizens. 

The City of Los Angeles is in a fiscal crisis. We do not follow the surrounding cities to 

know if they are in the same position. 

The Metro Gold line is visible from our home. Only two cars run day or night and, 

recently, only one car ran during the day. Though the line may need more than two 

cars during peak times, none are added. 

Why spend millions of dollars without a cost-benefit analysis, short-term and long-term 

to warrant the expansion any rail or start a regional connector. There are too many 

destinations in the Southern California area to warrant both bus and rail transit as the 

answer. 

Methane and the other toxics are an issue in Los Angeles because we are basically one 

giant oilfield. Health and safety are never mentioned, but are the responsibility of the 

municipalities and their planning. 

The wise use of transit dollars is needed to reach those without transportation to use the 

service to work or go to school. Local bus needs supplied by such programs as DASH 

are underserved. Personally, it takes a 45 minute walk from the transit drop to my 

home in the nearby hills (where we have a few of City Hall.) 
192 

Emergency considerations such as earthquakes and fires should be considered. It is 

here where recreational trails playa role. 

The Federal government needs to focus on the commerce aspect of transportation. 

The City of Los Angeles and the surrounding region playa role in national commerce 

and trade. 

We need to address our need for a manufacturing base which will attract more trucking. 

We need to address our goods movement, which will attract more trucking. 

We have the ports and the airports. 

We cannot look to construction as the solution to employment. The busted housing 

boom has done that already and has left many depressed. 

The City of Los Angeles is creating commodity markets (without regulation) for parking 

credits in the area of transportation. The City is becoming a financial market itself. That 

is the vision for our future by our elected officials. 

Back to the basics-create systems that reflect an opportunity for the open market and 

economic development, consider the needs of the private citizen (and family), not add 

another layer of bureaucracy for the local governments to control and tax, and not 

burden the citizen with debt. 

Joyce Dillard 

P.O, Box 31377 

Los Angeles, CA 90031 
193 

rRflCHT-VVHTfRN 

Hello my name is Paul Styers. I have been in the Iransp0f'tatiorl industry for 

over 20 yrs. I am currently the Service center' ~lanager in Los Angeles for Con-way 

Ive employ over 2300 "mployees in CA at 42 facilities. This morning I 

want address briefly an issue of impof'tance to my company and to the trucking 

industry. The industry which carri€s more than two/thirds of the Freight in this 

country every day. 

I believe it is a classic exampl" of unnecessary government red tape undermining 

the productivity of a vital U,S. industry thilt can be fixed with a low cost 

policy solution rather than a grand pr'ogram. 

What 1 am referring to is a law passed by Congress in 1991, as a part of a 

surface transportation bill, that stripped the states of their authority to 

regulate what tr'uck confillw'atioflS can safely op~f"ate on their high"ays. There 

"as no crIsis or gl'eat publiC outcry. Rather, some folks in washington decided 

that they l>Jef"e Hiser and better suited to make such deciSions. 

Since 1991, states have been prohibited from expanding the list of highways that 

can be open to "hat are called "triples" or lIny other combination of trucking 

equipment, 

This undermines our' ability to be mON? efficient in moving freight, which 

undercuts U,S. munufacturers in Horld markets. 

It ignores the l'emari<able safety !'ecor'd established on the roads where such 

equipment is s till permitted. 

It pt'events the trucking industry ft'om reducing fuel consumption and reducing 

emissions. 

And it stops us from mov ing the same amount of freight with fe\~er truck s on the 

road. 

I believe the california DOT is better qualified to determine \>Jhich truck 

configurations are best suited fol' our highNays than are administrators 

Washington. I hope you "ill include language in the sUI'face tr'anspof'tation bill 

that restores their power to make such decisions. 

Thank you for the opport,rnity to express my view, 
194 

March 8, 2011 

The Honorable John Mica 

Chainnan 

EDF 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

DEFENSE FUNDFfndlng the WIIYII that work 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

Chairwoman 

Environment and Public Works Committee 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Mica and Chairwoman Boxer: 

Thank you for inviting me to testify at the February 23n1 field hearing in Los 

Angeles. I am sending this letter as an addition to that testimony to address a question 

about which Rep. Grace Napolitano asked me to respond in writing to the committee. 

Also, I offer specific suggestions for ways to improve environmental review for 

transportation projects. 

Question from Rep. Napolitano 

Rep. Napolitano requested suggestions to ensure that railway companies 

cooperate in improving transportation sYstem perfonnance, including environmental 

performance and congestion reduction. I will restrict my comments to freight rail and 

the freight sYstem beca use it presents some of the greatest rail-related environmental 

challenges. 

Moving goods by rail, especially when the distances covered exceed 300 to 500 

miles, is more efficient than moving goods by truck. A train carrying hundreds of 

containers is essentially taking the equivalent of hundreds of trucks off the highway. 

Corridor wide, moving freight by rail is less polluting per container.' 

However, locomotives and rail equipment still emit large amounts of pollution, 

with older engines polluting a great deal more than newer ones. Locomotive engines are 

durable and often used for 30 years, or more. Once a locomotive is retired from longdistance line-haul service. they are often still used in rail yards as switchers. to move 

railcars and dismantle and build new trains, ensuring that old. high-polluting engines 

stay in service longer. As a result. rail yards can be dangerous diesel hotspots. with linehaul, switcher, and service locomotives, cargo handling equipment. and trucks all 

operating in a centralized location. Workers and residents near rail yards suffer the 

consequences of these emissions. 

SllCrilft1(Jnto prquct offioo· 1107 9th 51 .. Sulto 540· SDCIUmeI'IIG, CA Q5814 

Tel 918""'92-7010· Fat916-440,·314'· WNWCf'lWOI'\ftIentaldcl~ 

New Vo:rt., NY • Waahinglo:n. DC, Oaktand. CA . Beutler, CO ' RQ/ejgl\, Ne . AOS!Il1. lX . BOGton. MA Project olflCes: Los A.NjJeCes. CA· B~ing. O\ina 
195 

For example, Barstow, California has one of the busiest rail yards in the state, 

with 100 to 130 trains passing through each day. Locomotive traffic accounts for about 

97 percent of the diesel pollution in the yard. The other 3 percent comes from trucks and 

other equipment. People living closest to the rail yard face 25 times higher risk of cancer 

from air pollution than people living a mile and half away.;; 

Federal transportation policy can and should be designed to encourage an 

intennodal freight system that emphasizes energy efficiency and reduces external costs 

to society, such as environmental damage, public health degradation and dependence on 

insecure energy supplies. In my written testimony previously submitted, I 

recommended nine elements that, if incorporated into the transportation bill, would 

improve freight system reliability and environmental perfonnance. To those I would add 

two others that specifically address rail and that, I believe, would encourage railway 

cooperation to improve service and reduce external impacts. These are: 

• Create incentives for rail yards to develop and implement 

emissions clean-up plans. Incentives could include expanding 

eligibility for federal transportation bill dollars to intennodal rail yard 

improvements that are included in a rail yard clean-up plan, and that will 

reduce emissions while also improving total system perfonnance. The 

clean-up plan would have to have been certified by a state or federal 

environmental protection agency as sufficient to deliver significant 

emissions reductions when implemented. 

• Restrict any federal spending on rail improvements to those 

projects that will deliver the dual benefits of improved system 

reliability and measurable emissions reductions. There are 

certainly more freight improvement projects, and more rail projects, in 

need than there are public dollars. Given this, the projects that deliver the 

greatest system benefit, and the grcatest reduction in environmental and 

health burdens, should be prioritized when federal funding is distributed. 

Additional Comments on Environmental Review 

As I noted in my written testimony, projects can be delayed for many reasons that 

have nothing to do with environmental review. Additionally, the published research 

suggests that simply setting stricter time limits on agency review will not likely solve 

project delay issues associated with environmental review. Focusing on ensuring early 

involvement by reviewing agencies and better communication between transportation 

agencies and reviewing agencies will likely result in less delay and better projects. It is 

also notable that a relatively small percentage of federally funded projects go through 

full National Environmental Policy Act review. 
196 

There are specific ways the transportation bill can help reduce unnecessary 

project delays that may be linked to the NEPA process without compromising bedrock 

environmental review laws. Listed here are three ways;iii 

• Increase the use of Mitigated Findings of No Significant Impact 

(FONSIs). Following CEQ Guidance issued on January 21, 2011 (Federal 

Register Vol 76, No. 14, pg. 3843-3853), many transportation projects 

could be advanced in a more timely way under Mitigated FONSls, avoiding 

the need to prepare a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement. 

Mitigation commitments should be explicitly described as ongoing 

commitments with measurable performance standards and adequate 

mechanisms for implementation, monitoring, and reporting. Agencies 

should provide for public participation and accountability in development 

and implementation of mitigation and monitoring efforts decried in their 

NEPA documentation. This could be done through both project-level 

initiatives and through programmatic agreements. 

• Create a set-aside of a fixed percentage of Highway Planning 

and Researeh (HPR) and metropolitan planning formula ftmds 

and/or other transportation formula funds to ensure land 

management, environmental, and resource agency involvement 

in state and metropolitan planning and project reviews. This 

would help ensure that federal and state resource agencies are adequately 

funded to allow them to engage in the state and metropolitan planning 

process so environmental issues can be avoided and addressed earlier in 

the process. 

• Create new incentives for timely project delivery without 

imposing time limits on agency transportation project reviews. 

Congress should consider the recent proposal offered by the Brookings 

Institution to allow the U.S. DOT to maintain an incentive pool to reward 

states and metropolitan areas that consistently deliver projects on time 

while meeting or exceeding environmental standards.i

• 

I hope these comments are helpful as you and your staffs and committees develop 

transportation bill proposals. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and to 

provide additional thoughts. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further 

assistance. 

Sincerely, 

Kathryn 

~~ Phillips 

Director, CA Transportation and Air Initiative 
197 

"Freight Railroads Offer a Smart, Effective Way to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions." Association of 

American Railroads, December 2009, 

http://www.aar.org/-lmedlalAARIBackgroundPapersIRRs%20and%20Greenhouse%20Gas%20Emlsslon 

s%20%20Dec%202009.ashx (accessed February 20tO). 

" "Barstow rail yard emissions seen as increased risk of cancer." Barstow Desert Dispatch, May 200B, 

http://www.desertdlspatch.comlnewslbarstow-3294-increased-railyard.hlml (accessed February 2010); 

referencing the "Health Risk Assessment for the BNSF Railway Barstow Rail Yard." Califomia Air 

Resources Board, June 2008, http·IlWWW.alb.ca.govlrailyardlhralbnsf barstow finat.pdf (accessed 

February 2010). 

UJ These are derived from testimony presented by Michael Replogle to the House Subcommittee on 

Highways and Transit on February 15, 2011. That testimony, endorsed by EDF, conlalns additional 

delails and proposed project delivery reforms. 

Iv Puentes, Robert. "Moving Past Gridlock: A Proposal for a Two-Year Transportation Law.' Brookings 

Institution. Washlngton,DC. December 2010. 
198 

The Honorable John Mica 

2 J 87 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Nick Rahall 

2307 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

February II. 2011 

The Honorable John Duncan 

2207 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Peter DeFazio 

2134 Rayburn House OHke Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Representatives Mica, Rahall, Duncan and DeFazio: 

Our nation urgently needs a transportation policy that helps make America energy independent 

and cuts pollution that harms public health, while also meeting our country's infrastructure and 

mobility needs, In his recent State of the Union speech, President Obama called for investment to 

repair our roads and bridges and to develop world-cIass system of intercity and high-speed raiL 

On behalf of our millions members and supporters nationwide, we urge that you develop a 

transportation policy that can achieve these critical national objectives. A policy that achieves 

these goals will improve our economy, protect our environment, and put Americans to work. 

Transportation in the U.S. presents a major energy challenge, responsible for nearly 70 percent 

of our oil consumption. In some regions, transportation produces more than two-thirds of healththreatening smog pollution. Faced with spiking gas ptices, increasing congestion and the need to 

prevent more devastating oil spills, it is clear that Congress must act to make our transportation 

system cleaner and more efficient. To meet the critical challenges before us, we respectfully urge 

you to include the following elements in transportation legislation that your committees draft: 

• Set a national goal to reduce oil consumption rrom transportation. 

Establishing a national goal for reducing oil dependence from transportation will guide federal, 

state, and local governments to direct policies and investments and measure progress towards our 

crucial national security and environmental objectives. 

o Require states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations to set corresponding. 

transportation goals, and demonstrate how investment plans will achieve them. 

o Reward significant progress toward goals with funding and policy incentives. 

Reform transportation planning to consider impacts on oil consumption, air pollution 

and local land use. 

Aligning regional and state planning requirements for both passenger and goods movement with 

national energy and environmental objectives will help ensure leveraged, effective use of scarce 

taxpayer dollars. 

o Require state and metropolitan transportation plans to assess and reduce oil use and 

global warming pollution. 

o Require states and metropolitan planning organizations to coordinate transportation plans 

with existing and planned local land uses to maximize system efficiency. 
199 

o Develop a national freight strategy that simultaneously modernizes freight transportation 

and reduces freight transportation's environmental impacts. 

Increase investment in transportation choices and encourage innovation 

Increasing funding for clean and efficient transportation modes and encouraging innovative 

strategies that can increase system efficiency are critical to delivering reductions in oil 

consumption and pollution. 

o Increase investment in all forms of public transportation, allowing both new and existing 

systems to expand and improve service for more Americans. 

o Increase investment in active transportation, including infrastructure to support biking 

and walking. 

o Empower states, regions, and cities, including through research and pilots, to apply 

innovative pricing and tolling stratcgies. 

It is critical that Congress and the Administration act to reduce oil consumption and pollution 

from transportation, investing limited dollars on policies and strategies to build a 21 st century 

system that makes America safer. cleaner, more secure, and more prosperous. We look forward 

to working with you to get the job done. 

Sincerely, 

Therese Langer 

Transportation Program Director 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 

Lynn Thorp 

National Campaigns Director 

Clean Water Action 

Seth Kaplan 

Vice President for Policy and Climate Advocacy 

Conservation Law Foundation 

Robert Dewey 

Vice President for Government Relations 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Kathleen Rogers 

President 

Earth Day Network 

Charles Griffith 

Clean Vehicles and Fuels Director 

Ecology Center 
200 

Anna Aurilio 

Director. Washington DC Office 

Environment America 

Jan Lars Mueller 

Senior Policy Director 

Environmental and Energy Study Institute 

Kathryn Phillips 

Director. Transportation and Air Initiative 

Environmental Defense Fund 

Tieman Sittenfeld 

Legislative Director 

League of Conservation Voters 

Jackie Douglas 

Director 

LivableStreets Alliance 

Scott Slesinger 

Legislative Director 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Roben Bendick 

Director of US Government Relations 

The Nature Conservancy 

Kevin Mills 

Vice President of Policy 

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy 

Debbie Sease 

National Campaign Director 

Sierra Club 

Jennifer S. Rennicks 

Federal Policy Director 

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy 

Nat Mund 

Legislative Director 

Southern Environmental Law Center 

Michelle Robinson 

Director. Clean Vehicles Program 

Union of Concerned Scientists 
201 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

112 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable James Inhofe 

453 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Senators Boxer, lnhofe, Baucus, and Vitter: 

February II, 20 II 

The Honorable Max Baucus 

511 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable David Vitter 

516 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Our nation urgently needs a transportation policy that helps make America energy independent 

and cuts pollution that harms public health, while also meeting our country's infrastructure and 

mobility needs. In his recent State of the Union speech, President Obama called for investment to 

repair our roads and bridges and to develop world-class system of intercity and high-speed rail. 

On behalf of our millions members and supporters nationwide. we urge that you develop a 

transportation policy that can achieve these critical national objectives. A policy that achieves 

these goals will improve our economy. protect our environment, and put Americans to work. 

Transportation in the U.S. presents a major energy challenge, responsible for nearly 70 percent 

of our oil consumption. In some regions, transportation produces more than two-thirds of healththreatening smog pollution. Faced with spiking gas prices. increasing congestion and the need to 

prevent more devastating oil spills. it is clear that Congress must act to make our transportation 

system cleaner and more efficient. To meet the critical challenges before us, we respectfully urge 

you to include the following elements in transportation legislation that your committees draft: 

Set a national goal to reduce oil consumption from transportation. 

Establishing a national goal for reducing oil dependence from transp0l1ation will guide federal, 

state, and local governments to direct policies and investments and measure progress towards our 

crucial national security and environmental objectives. 

o Require slates and Metropolitan Planning Organizations to set corresponding. 

transportation goals, and demonstrate how investment plans will achieve them. 

o Reward significant progress toward goals with funding and policy incenti ves. 

• Reform transportation planning to consider impacts on oil consumption, air pollution 

and local land use. 

Aligning regional and state planning requirements for both passenger and goods movement with 

national energy and environmental objectives will help ensure leveraged, effective use of scarce 

taxpayer dollars. 

o Require state and metropolitan transportation plans to assess and reduce oil use and 

global wanning pollution. 

o Require states and metropolitan planning organizations to coordinate transportation plans 

with existing and planned local land uses to maximize system efficiency. 
202 

o Develop a national freight strategy that simultaneously modernizes freight transportation 

and reduces freight transportation's environmental impacts. 

• Increase investment in transportation choices and encourage innovation 

Increasing funding for clean and efficient transportation modes and encouraging innovative 

strategies that can increase system efficiency are critical to delivering reductions in oil 

consumption and pollution. 

o Increase investment in all forms of public transportation. allowing both new and existing 

systems to expand and improve service for more Americans. 

o Increase investment in active transportation. including infrastructure to support biking 

and walking. 

o Empower states, regions, and cities, including through research and pilots, to apply 

innovative pricing and tolling strategies. 

It is critical that Congress and the Administration act to reduce oil consumption and pollution 

from transportation, investing limited dollars on policies and strategies to build a 21" century 

system that makes America safer. cleaner. more secure. and more prosperous. We look forward 

to working with you to get the job done. 

Sincerely. 

Therese Langer 

Transportation Program Director 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 

Lynn Thorp 

National Campaigns Director 

Clean Water Action 

Seth Kaplan 

Vice President for Policy and Climate Advocacy 

Conservation Law Foundation 

Robert Dewey 

Vice President for Government Relations 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Kathleen Rogers 

President 

Earth Day Network 

Charles Griffith 

Clean Vehicles and Fuels Director 

Ecology Center 
203 

Anna AUl'ilio 

Director. Washington DC Office 

Environment America 

Jan Lars Mueller 

Senior Policy Director 

Environmental and Energy Study Institute 

Kathryn Phillips 

Director, Transportation and Air Initiative 

Environmental Defense Fund 

Tiernan SittcnfeJd 

Legislative Director 

League of Conservation Voters 

Jackie Douglas 

Director 

LivableStreets Alliance 

Scott Slesinger 

Legislative Director 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

RobeIt Bendick 

Director of US Government Relations 

The Nature Conservancy 

Kevin Mills 

Vice President of Policy 

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy 

Debbie Sease 

National Campaign Director 

Sierra Club 

Jennifer S, Rennicks 

Federal Policy Director 

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy 

Nat Mund 

Legislative Director 

Southern Environmental Law Center 

Michelle Robinson 

Director, Clean Vehicles Program 

Union of Concerned Scientists 
204 

Statement for the Record 

Mrs. Eilene Okerblom 

Santa Maria, California 

For the Joint Field Hearing 

House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee and 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

February 23, 2011, Los Angeles, California 

Chairman Mica, Chair Boxer, and members of the Senate Environment and Public Works 

Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I appreciate the 

opportunity to submit this statement to the record of your hearing held in Los Angeles on February 

23 this year. I urge you to address and solve the epidemic of teen driving deaths and injuries that 

occur with alarming frequency every day in our country as you address priorities and write this 

important surface transportation bill. Since the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act, A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) was passed in 2005 there have 

been more than 36,000 deaths on our roads and highways involving teen drivers. 

I'd like to tell you about my 19-year-old son. His name is Eric and you would have loved him. 

You could not help but love Eric. 

Eric was gentle, compassionate, mindful, wise, sensitive, and genuine. He was also brilliant, 

athletic and talented. He was a National Merit Finalist, a science researcher, and scored a perfect 

800 twice on the SAT verbal. He played tennis and soccer and was a seven-time varsity letterman. 

He was an excellent snowboarder, wakeboarder and ran a marathon at age 16. Eric loved being 

outdoors and climbing mountains. He was a gifted musician. Photography and art were among his 

many talents. 

Despite all his gifts and abilities, he was humble and grateful. He was a blessing to me, our family, 

our community, and the world. Eric finished his first year at Berkeley, majoring in molecular 

biology. He was home for the summer, having returned from studying Spanish in Nicaragua. 

On a Saturday in July 01'2009, our family had spent the morning hiking. That afternoon, Eric went 

out for his routine bicycle ride. Be planned to join the Berkeley Cycling Team when he returned to 

school in August. Erie was riding on a straight unobstructed road in broad daylight. He was clearly 

visible to any driver for 45 seconds. He was struck from behind by a teenage driver traveling 

60mph. The driver did not brake or swerve to miss Eric. He was hurled 140 feet to a violent and 

brutal death. 

The driver, a former schoolmate since kindergarten. denied any distractions. Later, court ordered 

phone records revealed both incoming and outgoing texting at the time of Eric's death. 

The loss of my beloved son is beyond grief It is inconsolable, untouchable and wordless. The 

importance of this story is that Eric's death was not an accident or a chance event. It was not 

unavoidable. He was needlessly and violently killed by a distracted teenage driver. 

Sadly, Eric's death is not an isolated event. In 2009, 476 people were killed in crashes involving 

teen drivers in California. Over the past five years, California crashes involving teen drivers 
205 

claimed 3385 lives. Nationally. since 1999, more than 90,000 people have been killed in crashes 

involving teen drivers. 

Strong, effective state laws on teen driving - often called Graduated Driver Licensing laws or GDL 

- arc proven to prevent crashes. injuries, and deaths. If every teen in every state were subject to 

comprehensive GDL laws, far fewer parcnts would experience the grief of losing a child in a 

preventable crash. Right now, however, most states' GDL laws do not meet the standards 

recommended by safety experts including the National Transportation Safety Board, the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Federal legislation - the 

Safe Teen and Novice Driver Uniform Protection (STANDUP) Act - was introduced in the III th 

Congress that would encourage states to improve their teen driving laws to meet lifesaving 

standards. I am a strong supporter of the provisions in the ST ANDUP Act, which will prevent 

thousands of needless injuries and deaths across all 50 states. 

I could not save my own child. AliI can do now is stand up for protection of other lives. My son's 

life is gone, and I am telling his story with the hope some meaning can be attached to his death. I 

urge the members of this committee to include a strong safety title in the surfaee transportation 

reauthorization, including the provisions of the STANDUP Act, so that every teen in every state 

will be protected by comprehensive and lifesaving teen driving laws. It is also important that 

provisions be included in the reauthorization to encourage all states to adopt texting-while-driving 

prohibitions for all drivers. 

My message is as personal as it can get. My son is dead because an inexperienced young driver was 

not focused on the driving task at hand. My hope is that in sharing the life and death of my precious 

son, you will feel the sacredness and fragility of life and know the power and responsibility we all 

have when we get behind the wheel. As elected officials and leaders of important committees in 

Congress, you have the ability to save lives by including the provisions of the STANDUP Aet in the 

surface transportation bill. I urge you to do so for my son, for your children and for every child in 

every statc. 

Thank you for your attention to these extremely important safety issues. 
206 

March 8, 2011 

Ms. Kathy Dedrick 

Senior Policy Director for Transportation 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510-6175 

Kathy, 

Thank you for the invitation to the recent Joint Field Hearing in Los Angeles. We again 

encourage Congress to pass a long-term Transportation Reauthorization Bill. I also thank you for 

meeting with me and David Hubbard of the Portland Cement Association last year to discuss life 

cycle cost dynamics for inclusion in a new bill. As you likely know, I submitted a written 

statement in advance of the hearing. This letter supplements my prior submission encouraging 

adoption of a bill that includes "Life Cycle Budgeting" - a process that evaluates the total longterm costs of infrastructure projects. This ensures that our highways and roads are planned, 

designed, and budgeted with the full costs of projects in mind resulting in maximization of value 

of investment over the total lifetime of the structure. 

The California Nevada Cement Association and its members strongly support the passage of a 

new multi-year transportation bill consistent with Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

Chairman Mica's recent statement of need "to develop a fiscally responsible, long-term 

reauthorization of transportation programs to create jobs and build ollr nation's infrastructure". 

A multi-year commitment is critical to maintain continuity in transportation investment and job 

preservation. Without continued highway and transit investment, construction companies and 

material suppliers in California may be forced to layoff additional workers. California 

construction unemployment is already high (42% in some parts of the state) and the performance 

of California roadways ranks 48,10 in the nation. As such, there is growing urgency to secure 

established federal transportation funding that state employers and citizens can depend on to both 

return people to work as well as improve our stressed highway system. 

New transportation legislation is a tremendous opportunity for transformational strategies to be 

"fiscally responsible". A simple and solid strategy to improve and reform our nation's 

transportation programs through a multi-year bill should implement the tenets of robust L{le 

Cycfe Budgeting to ensure efficient and effective investment. As set forth below, we believe 

implementation of this principle will better assure that public investment is durable and 

sustainable. 

Conversely, focusing narrowly on initial costs, agencies tend to select pavement solutions that are 

cheaper up front, but have higher maintenance, preservation and rehabilitation costs that exhaust 

budgets over time. In addition, by reducing the frequency of maintenance, lane closures are 

avoided thus reducing traffic delays, improving vehicle fuel efficiency as well as decreasing 

vehicle emissions directly related to construction traffic. When employed correctly, Life Cycle 

Budgeting will help break the burdensome drain of maintenance demands and allow for true 

improvements to the nation's transportation system. It is a clear win-win when coupled with 

improved transportation flow and reduced vehicle emissions. 

24657 Via Melinda Yorba linda, CA 92.887 (714) 694-0800 tom.tietz@cncement.org 
207 

The implementation of effective Life C)de Budgeting incorporates three simple policy steps. 

each of which are currently in use at the state DOT level by leading officials in several states 

across the country: 

I. A comprehensive. 50-year life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) to account for the full, longterm costs of these projects including initial construction. discounted future costs such as 

maintenance. user costs, reconstruction, rehabilitation, restoring. and resurfacing costs for 

the life of the project; 

2. Use of AASHTO's Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPOG) to 

optimize the engineering efficiencies of road designs and prevent roads from being overdesigned. thus lowering construction costs: and 

3. lncentivize the use of Alternate Design/Alternate Bid (ADAB) techniques to increase 

competition, drive innovation, and control costs. 

Taken together, these three steps can result in substantial savings on a national level. Studies in 

Indiana have attributed savings of $23 million in one year alone to the use of MEPDG in that 

state. In Missouri, the state DOT reportcd that the average pavement costs for alternate bid 

projects were between 14 percent and 17.4 percent lower than for non-alternate bid projects. [n 

Louisiana, projects using alternate bidding techniques came in about 9 percent below estimates, 

while traditionally-bid projects were about 20 percent above estimates. 

We are committed to these principles and are ready to discuss them in further detail. Thank you 

for your continuing dedication to creating a healthy transportation bill that will strengthen our 

nation's economy for years to come. 

Respectfully, 

Tom Tietz 

Executive Director 

24657 Via Melinda Yorba Linda, CA 92887 (714) 694-0800 rom.tietz@cncement.org 
208 

Written statement for the Joint Field Hearing of the House Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in Los Angeles on February 

23,2011 

With the California construction unemployment above the national average of 22.5% and the performance 

of California roadways ranking 48th in the nation, there is growing urgency to secure established federal 

transportation funding that state employers and citizens can depend on. In this light, the California 

Nevada Cement Association urges the passage of (H. R. 662) to maintain continuity in transportation 

investment and job preservation. Without continued highway and transit investment construction 

companies and material suppliers in California may be forced to layoff additional workers. This bill will 

bridge the critical gap between now and the new multiyear transportation bill. 

A recommended strategy to improve and reform our nation's transportation programs in a future multiyear bill is to implement the tenants of robust life cycle cost analysis to better assure public investment is 

durable and sustainable. Current cost analysis for selecting pavements is often based on the initial cost of 

materials and construction rather than the total cost of the pavement over its life. By focusing narrowly on 

initial costs, agencies tend to select pavement solutions that are cheaper up front, but have higher 

maintenance, preservation and rehabilitation costs over time. This strategy, if employed correctly, will help 

break the cycle of budgets being overly burdened by repair and rehabilitation demands and allow for true 

improvements to the nation's transportation system. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Tom Tietz 

Executive Director 

California Nevada Cement Association 
209 

Fp'I, Inc. 

7400 Ansqua Dr. ~liII,TX78750 

FOR PAVEMENT PRESERVATION 

Testimony of 

Phil Vandennost, Vice President of Matketing &: Government Relations 

Western Emulsions (on behalf of FpZ, Inc.) 

before the 

Senate Envirorunent and Public Wolks Committee 

and 

House Transportation and Infrastructure 

Joint Hearing on Improving and Refonning our Nation's Swface Transportation 

Progrnms to Support Job Creation and the Economy." 

Los Angeles, California 

February 23, 2011 

Chainnan Boxer and Chainnan Mica and Members of the Committees, thank you 

for the opportunity to testify today before the Senate Environment and Public Works 

Committee and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and to provide ideas 

on improving and refonning our Nation's Surface Transportation Programs. I am pleased 

to have this opportunity to talk about how pavement presenration will improve our nation's 

surface transportation infrastructure as well as create jobs for Americans. 

About Western Emulsions and FP2, Inc. 

I am Phil Vandennost, the Vice President of Marketing &: Government Relations for 

Western Emulsions, Inc. Serving the Western U.S. with operations in California, New 

Mexico, Arizona and Montana, Western Emulsions Inc. is a leading innovator and supplier 

of specialty patented and standard asphalt emulsions used for pavement preservation, repair 

and restoration projects. The Company assists public agencies and ovmers of infrastructure 

in developing sustainable and cost-effective solutions to maintaining and recycling their 

asphalt pavements. 

Today, I am testifying on behalf of fPl, Inc. fPl, Inc. is a trade association for the 

pavement preservation industry representing contractors, material suppliers, and equipment 

manufacturers. Our mission is to promote the importance of protecting and preserving the 

huge investment in pavement infrastructure. Our association members include the Asphalt 

Institute, Asphalt Emulsion Manufacturers Association, National Asphalt Pavement 

Association, International Grinding and Grooving Association, Asphalt Rec}cling &: 

Reclaiming Association, and the International Sluny Surfacing Association. Ergon Asphalt 

and Emulsions, Inc., Western Emulsions, Colas, All States Asphalt, MeadWestvaco, 

Bergkamp Inc., Viking Construction, and Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry are also members 

of the association. 
210 

Pavement preservation is the use of cost-effective treatments, practices, and 

strategies to maintain and improve the condition of our highway pavement infrastructure. 

Examples of the treatments are asphalt crack sealing, slurry or micro-surfacing, thin and hotmix asphalt overlay, concrete joint sealing, diamond grinding, and dowel-bar retrofit. 

Pavement Preservation 

A good highway system is a critical component of a healthy economy and essential 

for global competitiveness. Our country's economic vitality depends on its highways to 

move people, goods and services, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week To serve its purpose, our 

highway system must be in good physical condition and provide a high degree of 

connectivity and efficiency. 

Preserving our investment in the nation's existing road infrastructure is one of the 

major issues facing this OJrnrnittee as it writes the next surface transportation 

reauthorization bill. According to the u.s. DOT, through 2025, the U.S. faces a $189 billion 

shortfall in the cost to maintain urban roadways in their current condition and a $375 billion 

shortfall in the cost to make significant improvements to urban roadways. 

The United States highway system, valued at over $1.75 trillion, has been steadily 

deteriorating forcing a growing need for additional investment in this valuable infrastructure 

asset. Allocating resources to build and rebuild roadways and bridges is not the solution, 

however, unless we are serious about preserving and maintaining this fundamental 

investment. 

In 2005, the Federal Highway Administration said that "pavement preservation 

represents a proactive approach in maintaining our existing highways." Absent clear 

direction from OJngress, too many States have taken a worst-first strategy of maintaining 

their roads. Historically, they have dedicated resources to the most deteriorated roads that 

require costly resurfacing, rehabilitation and restoration repairs or total reconstruction. 

Instead, States should adopt system-wide pavement preservation programs that can extend 

the service life of highways. This approach is known in the industry as keeping good roads 

good. 

Surtace Transportation Reauthorization Bill Proposal 

As the OJngress considers reauthorization of the surface transportation programs, it 

is critical that pavement preservation be included in the legislation as a tool available to 

States and localities. Our proposal explicitly clarifies that States and localities would be 

permitted to use their federal-aid highway funds for pavement preservation programs and 

activities. FHWA has developed a definition for pavement preservation that our industry 

supports a program employing a network level, long-term strategy that enhances pavement 

perlorrnance by using an integrated, cost-effective set of practices that extend pavement life, 

improve safety, and meet motorist expectations. Pavement preservation activities cannot 

result in structural or operational improvements beyond the originally designed strength or 

traffic capacity of highways and roads except to the extent the improvement occurs as an 

incidental result of the preservation activity. 
211 

There is no revenue cost to this proposal. Each dollar spent on preselVation 

activities will save approximately six to ten dollars in major rehabilitation! reconstruction 

costs. 

Highwaypavement preselVation provides significant benefits. According to 

AAS!fl'O's 2009 Rough Roads Ahead report, "maintaining a road in good condition is 

easier and less expensive than repairing one in poor condition. Costs per lane mile for 

reconstruction after 25 years can be more than three times the cost of preselVation 

treatments over the same 25 years and can extend the expected service life of the road for 

another 18 years." 

Pavement Preservation I. 

EXa-Il-.nt 

'" j Good 

r_ 

I Poor 

&! 

v...., Poor 

0 

D 

Coat Effective 

:40% 

"lin Oua.tty 

Drop ~ ~ 

Spending $' on p8V8rnent p........-vatlon 

b~ thl. point .. ..... 

~ ... .. ellrnlnat.ea or 

~ 26~ot~f!!- _ .......... . """''''''''' delaye upanellng 

.. '0 $'14 on 

: rehabilitation or 

I ~AlCtlon 

.010% Drop I here.. .~ 0 

,"Quallt,,:....... __ .... ---'''''''''''''''' ~_ot Uf9 

.. 10 1 • 20 

T1 ..... (V ..... '

Jobs. On average, pavement preselVation projects support approximately 25% more jobs 

compared with new construction or rehabilitation projects. Pavement preselVation projects 

are uncomplicated, ready to implement, labor-intensive, and can put Americans back to 

work immediately. 

Safety Improvements. Pavement PreselVation improves the surface characteristics of the 

roadway and slows deterioration of roadway surfaces, thereby providing motorists with 

substantially safer driving conditions. 

Increased productivity. Pavement preselVation keeps good roads good, thus: decreasing 

traffic congestion due to poor road conditions; increasing delivery efficiency, and improving 

the reliability of goods movement. All this ultimately increases the productivity of u.s. 

industry. 

Environmentalsustainability. Sustainable pavements last longer, extend the return on 

original pavement investments, deplete fewer raw materials, and help consume waste 

materials, reduce fuel consumption and emissions, facilitate motorists' safe and 

unintenupted trips, and reduce overall life-cycle costs. 
212 

Motorist impact. Pavement preservation takes significantly less time and resources than 

rehabilitation. Thus, pavement preselVation results in improved mobility, reduced 

congestion, and safer, smoother, longer lasting pavements for the public. 

W, Inc. looks forward to working with the House Transportation and 

Infrastructure Committee on the surface transportation reauthorization legislation pres elVes 

and maintains the nation's infrastructure investment in our highway network 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. 
213 

To the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on 

Environment and Public Works, 

To the Honorable Senator Boxer and Transportation Committee Chairman Congressman John Mica, 

Hill International fully supports improving and reforming our nation's surface transportation programs 

to support job creation and the economy. As we have seen around the globe, when infrastructure is 

neglected and deteriorates, so does its occupying society. Hill International stands ready to continue its 

support of infrastructure programs all across the United states. A great team will only win with the right 

players. America has the individuals poised to renew our infrastructure. When our elected officials make 

their decisions related to our transportation mission, we as Americans are prepared once again to lead 

the world in economical revitalization. 

Steve Lodge 

Steve Chavez Lodge 

Director of Public Affairs 

Hill International 

18100 Von Karman #700 

Irvine, CA 92612 

949-748-5486 direct 

949-474-8427 fax 

949-246-9382 cell 

,!:,,!:!w.hillintl.cQIIi 

I1IU 

Hill International 
214 

APAC~ASSOCIATED PROFESSIONALS AND CONTRACTORS 

February 22, 20 II 

House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on 

Environment and Public Works 

RE: High Speed Rail Disadvantage Business Enterprise Participation 

AP AC POSITION 

The Associated Professionals and Contractors (APAC) is an organization of small, 

disadvantaged, minority, women and disabled veteran business associations in California. 

APAC, feels that the State of California and the Federal Railroad Administration's 

response to the DBE community is totally unacceptable because it does not require OBE 

goals. We strongly urge our elected Federal Government officials, U.S. Congresspersons, U.S. 

Senators and the U.S. House of Representative's Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to 

immediately require that Federal Rail Administration, FRA adopt the statutory requirements 

under 49 CFR, Part 26, (DBE Program) and mandate its implementation with the California 

High-Speed Rail Project. 

There is no reason why the High-Speed Rail cannot be placed under 49 CFR, Part 26. It 

would not be setting precedence. The program is already developed, utilized and has been 

successful for many years. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the various disparity studies 

conducted throughout the state clearly show there continues to be discrimination against 

small-, disadvantaged-, minority- and women-owned business enterprises in California. 

Caltrans has not met its race-conscious or race-neutral goals in the past five years even with 

ample pools of qualified small, minority and women owned businesses. It is offensive to the 

ethnic minorities in California (constituting 50% of the State's demographic population) to 

not have a meaningful and inclusive OBE program - especially in a Slate where we are the 

majority tux payers. 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND HIGH SPEED RAIL 

The Federal Rail Administration (FRA) receives its High-Speed Rail funding through the HighSpeed Ground Transportation Act of 1965. The Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 supported 

the development of the nation's intercity rail passenger system and continuing support of rail 

Ii'eight programs. The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of2008 created new 

railroad investment programs, reauthorized Amtrak for five years and affirmed Federal 

Government involvement in developing the nation's intercity passenger rail system. This 

included providing guidance and analysis of intercity passenger rail services and high-speed rail 

(HSR). 

The 1964 Civil Rights Aet and the extension by the Commission on Civil Rights specifically 

developed the OBE program to prevent discrimination in "Federally assisted programs" and 

is the basis for the U.S. DOT OBE program. Federal agencies, FHW A, FTA, FAA and 

subsequently their recipients of Federal Government funds i.e., Airports, Bay Area Rapid Transit 

11 Embarcadero West, Suite 210 ~ Oakland, CA 94607510557-3810 
215 

(BART), L.A. Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) etc, agree to abide by certain 

requirements upon accepting Federal Government funds (even if only one (I) dollar of Federal 

Government funds is accepted). One of the specified conditions is the 

administration/implementation of the DBE Program. 

Unfortunately for California disadvantaged businesses, the FRA was never included under 49 

CFR Part 26 and therefore does not have to develop or administer a DBE program. The FRA 

office of Civil Rights states that it "fully supports" the objectives of the DI3E program and all 

FRA's grantees are required to avoid discrimination in contracting. This language is posted 

on the DOT website under Disadvantaged Business Enterprise. Therefore in the spirit of FRA 

supporting the objectives of the DBE program. we strongly urge you to immediately require that 

FRA adopt the statutory requirements under 49 CFR. Part 26, (DBE Program) and mandate its 

implementation with the California lligh-Speed Rail Project; we have experience that unless the 

DI3E programs are mandated. they are not implemented. 

Submitted by, 

Rodrigo Garcia, 

Vice President 

323 265-1443 
216 

Rodrigo T. Garcia 

Monterey PL. California 

Phone: 323 265-1443 

Frank Avila 

Chicago, l!linois 

Percy Ouran, III 

Los /\ngclcs, California 

Fernando Erismann 

New York. New York 

Du\'id 'faldonado 

S,1!) Oiqw. California 

l'lit'haci Trujillo 

Executive Officer 

www.C!IEBC.org 

! 20 S. Eulclid Avenue 

PasnJena. CA 91 ! 0 I 

Phone: 626 683~9725 

eHEBC 

Hispanic Engineers Business Corporation 

March 13, 2011 

House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Subject: "Improving and Reforming our Nation's Surface Transportation 

Programs to Support Job Creation and the Economy." 

The Hispanic Engineers Business, HEBC is a Global Business Cluster for the 

purposes of promoting the economic development of technological businesses 

throughout the nation. We wish to go on record with two recommendations to 

improve the participation of small business in the improvement ofthc nation's 

surface transportation programs and, in turn support job creation and the 

economy. 

The first is to remove any restrictions in federal regulations which would not 

allow the concurrent utilization of Local or State Small Business Enterprise 

Programs togcther with the federal Disadvantage Business Enterprise program. 

An example are Caltrans projects which have been federalized by receiving 

federal funding; Caltrans claims that DOT does not allow Caltrans to impose 

SSE goals on federalized projects. This is an unwarranted penalty on small 

businesses which arc ready and able to undertake professional and construction 

contracts but arc impeded to do so by this policy. It will also hold true with 

local transportation agencies which are receiving local funding and wish to 

leverage their funds by applying for federal funds. There is no good or fair 

reason for the federal government to impose such restrictions on state or local 

agencies as long as the agencies can meet all the federal requirements. 

The second is to allow local and state agencies to utilize to negotiate and award 

firm fixed price contracts for federalized projects where the contract amount is 

$1 million or less for professional and engineering service contracts. The 

federal government utilizes hybrid type contracts with firm tixed price elements 

on various contracts. There should be no requirement for small firms to audited 

to establish their overhead rates provided the rates are reasonable and within like 

industry fees. The burden to small business to provide cognizant audits is a real 

lime and cost barrier to small business firms completing with major firms and 

provides no benefit to the federal government; it is government waste and a 

small business killer. 

Sincerely, 

r2t..~L 

Rodrigo T. Garcia, P.E. 
217 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF 

DEBORAH A. HUBSMITH 

DIRECTOR 

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP 

FOR THE 

Joint Field Hearing of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

HEARING ON 

"Improving and Reforming our Nation's Surface Transportation Programs to Support Job 

Creation and the Economy" 

February 23, 2011 

Chairman Boxer, Chairman Mica, and Members of the Committees: 

Thank you for inviting the Safe Routes to School National Partnership to present written 

comments for the Los Angeles hearing on improving and reforming our nation's surface 

transportation program to support job creation and the economy. 

The Safe Routes to School National Partnership is a network of more than 500 organizations, 

government agencies, professional groups and schools that are seeking to make it safer and 

easier for children and families to walk and bicycle to schools. 

Background 

Currently, 12 percent of trips in the United States are already made by walking and bicycling, 

and the use of these modes of transportation in America is on the rise, increasing 25 percent 

since 2001. For many Americans, walking and bicycling is a necessity, as one-third of 

Americans don't own cars, including children, the elderly, people with disabilities, and lowincome individuals. 

The federal Safe Routes to School Program was created in 2005 through SAFETEA-LU. The 

goals of the program relate to improving safety and increasing opportunities for children to 

safely walk and bicycle to schools, which reduces traffic congestion. The program was funded at 

a level of $612 million over five years, representing just 0.2 percent of the federal transportation 

budget, and has been continued at an annual level of $183 million into 2010 and 2011. More 
218 

than 10,000 schools and communities have benefited from the federal Safe Routes to School 

funding across all 50 states. The program is building sidewalks, pathways and safe street 

crossings that serve children while also improving safety for other community members. 

Benefits of Safe Routes to School 

Infrastructure and Safety: For just 0.2% of the federal transportation funding, Safe Routes to 

School is helping to improve safety around more than 10,000 schools nationwide-critical since 

one-third of children's traffic deaths occur when kids are walking and bicycling and are struck by 

cars. The infrastructure improvements made through Safe Routes to School are targeted to 

address high-risk areas where a lack of sidewalks and crosswalks, traffic volumes and traffic 

speeds create unsafe conditions for children. Simply adding a sidewalk reduces by half the risk 

that a pedestrian will be struck. For each collision avoided, communities save money and 

tragedies are avoided. 

Economy and Jobs: Safe Routes to School is a smart use of dollars-making a one-time, lowcost investment like adding sidewalks can reduce long-term school busing costs and ease 

financial burdens on school systems. A recent study of jobs through transportation infrastructure 

in Baltimore, Maryland showed that pedestrian and bicycle construction projects generated 

nearly twice as many jobs as roadway construction. In addition, studies show that trail projects 

increase local business revenues and create more jobs. Communities of all shapes and sizesrural, suburban and urban-are competing for these dollars, and in some small towns Safe 

Routes to School funding has resulted in the town's first set of sidewalks-which also helps 

support access to local businesses. 

Traffic: Approximately 15-25% of morning traffic is generated by parents driving their kids to 

school, so the choices parents make about the trip to school affect other drivers trying to get to 

work. Nearly half of kids that live between one-quarter and one-half of a mile from school are 

currently driven to school, and the most commonly cited reason for driving is a lack of safety. 

These short trips can be shifted to walking and bicycling with Safe Routes to School, easing the 

morning commute. 

Childhood Obesity: A lack of physical activity among children has fueled the childhood obesity 

epidemic, which has huge economic costs to America as more children develop diseases like 

type II Diabetes. Safe Routes to School infrastructure gets children moving, creating an 

opportunity for daily physical activity and improved health through self responsibility. 

Recommendation 

We urge the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Environment 

and Public Works Committee to continue dedicated funding for Safe Routes to School in the 

nex1 surface transportation bill authorization. We also support the continuation of the 

Transportation Enhancements program. These programs improve safety, create more jobs, and 

help create a thriving economy for America. 
219 

Joint Field Hearing of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Written Statement 

Genaro Mejia, PE 

To Committee Chairs Barbara Boxer and ,John Mica and Committee Members: 

As a Civil Engineer, a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and a 

concerned citizen, I thank the Committee for conducting this hearing and urge the committees to 

support funding for high speed rail and the establishment of the national infrastructure bank as 

currently proposed in the President's 2012 budget. Transportation and infrastructure arc the 

backbone to any thriving city, state, and country. Los Angeles is prime example of this and is 

home to a complex transportation system that includes Los Angeles International Airport and the 

Los Angeles-Long Beach Port complex, two of the busiest and biggest hubs of transport and 

commerce in the world. 

According to the Urban Mobility Report by the Texas Transportation Institute commuters in 

2009 within the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana spent SIS million hours in tratTIc wasting 

406 million gallons of gasoline at a cost of $12 billion in lost time and productivity. In 20 II 

unemployment is nearing with no signs of congestion improving, Los Angeles cannot atlord to 

experience these types oflosses. 

In 2008, as the economic recession battered California and thc country, gas prices in thc state 

peaked at $4.60 per gallon in the summer and dropped towards the end of the year to about $2.00 

per gallon. By the time the November 2008 elections came around, Californians and Angelenos 

were ready to change the future of transportation in their state and community by reducing their 

dependence on fossil fuels. 

That year, California and Los Angeles County voters passed two important transportation 

measures: Proposition IA and Measure RoO Proposition 1 A (Sale, Reliable High-Speed Passenger 

Train Bond Act for the 21 st Century) approved the issuance of $9.95 billion in general obligation 

bonds to partially fund the California High Speed Rail project. Measurc R (Tramc Relicf and 

Rail Expansion ordinance) resulted in a ha1!~cent sales tax increase that, over 30 years, will 

produce an estimated $40 billion in revenue. 

At this time California High Speed Rail and the Measure R program are working to provide a 

sustainable, ef1icient and reliable form of transportation that will reduce the States dependencc 

on fossil fuels. The California High Speed Rail Authority has received various federal grants 

totaling approximately $5 billion, plans are underway to build the first segment from Fresno to 

Bakersfield and complete the environmental process for the other segments to complete the first 

phase from Los Angeles to San Francisco. Similarly, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan 

Transportation Authority (LAMT A) has been working towards completing dozens of highway 

and transit project funded by Measure R, these projects are meant to improve mobility and 

transportation options throughout the county. To help accelerate the construction of key project 

LAMT A has been proposing a 3011 0 initiative which would leverage revenues from Measure as 

collateral for a federal loan that could be tundcd by a national infrastructure bank. 
220 

In closing, at a time when the economic reality was bleak for many voters, the face that both the 

proposition and the measure passed indicates the voters' demand for dramatic improvements to 

the public transportation system and a desire for a sustainable, efficient, and reliable fonn of 

transportation. I urge the Committee to take similar steps and continue the momentum started in 

2008 by supporting funding for high speed rail and the establishment of a national infrastructure 

bank as currently proposed by the President 2012 Fiscal Budget. 

Thank you, 

Genaro Mejia, PE M.ASCE 
221 

WEST COAST CORRIDOR COALITION 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE NEXT 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION 

MARCH 1, 2011 

JOINT FIELD HEARING SENATE EPW AND HOUSE T&I COMMITIEES 

THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE TESTIMONYTO THE JOINT HEARING OF THE HOUSE 

COMMITIEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE SENATE COMMITIEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS ON THE NEXT AUTHORIZATION FOR TRANSPORTATION. THE WEST 

COAST CORRIDOR COALITION IS SUPPORTIVE OF A NEW MULTI-YEAR TRANSPORTATION 

AUTHORIZATION BILL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 

THE COALITION RECOMMENDS THE NEW TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIZATION BILL INCLUDE SPECIFIC 

RECOGNITION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF A NATION-WIDE COORDINATED AND INTEGRATED FREIGHT 

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IN ITS ROLE OF SUSTAINING AND GROWING THE AMERICAN ECONOMY. WE 

RECOMMEND THERE BE AN INVESTMENT STRATEGY AND FUNDING SUPPORT FOR SUCH A SYSTEM 

WITH SPECIAL RECOGNITION OF THE ROLE OF KEY FREIGHT AND TRADE CORRIDORS AND GATEWAY 

FACILITIES, SUCH AS PORTS AND SIGNIFICANT BORDER CROSSINGS, AND FEDERAL FINANCIAL SUPPORT 

FOR THEIR ROLE IN THE NATIONAL ECONOMY THROUGH THE CREATION OF A NATIONAL FREIGHT 

MOVEMENT PROGRAM. IT IS WELL RECOGNIZED THAT AN EFFECTIVE NATIONAL SYSTEM FOR THE 

MOVEMENT OF FREIGHT BETWEEN REGIONS AND STATES IS CRUCIAL TO THE NATION'S ECONOMIC 

COMPETIVENESS IN THE GLOBAL ECONOMY. SYSTEM CONNECTIVITY, RELIABILITY AND FLEXIBILITY ARE 

KEY ATIRIBUTES OF THIS NATIONAL NETWORK. THE WEST COAST TRANSPORTATION NETWORK 

SUPPORTS THE MAJORITY OF NATIONAL FREIGHT IMPORTS THAT PASS THROUGH TO OTHER PARTS OF 

THE COUNTRY. YET OUR STATES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE HAD TO BEAR THE PRIMARY 

FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROVIDING THIS "SERVICE" TO THE REST OF THE COUNTRY AND FOR 

BEARING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS SUCH A ROLE CAUSES. 

DEVELOPING THIS SYSTEM REQUIRES IMPROVED PUBLIC PRACTICES, STRATEGIES AND COOPERATION 

WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO ACCOMPLISH THIS STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE. 

THE COALITION URGES THAT THE AUTHORIZATION BILL INCLUDE PROVISIONS THAT RECOGNIZE KEY 

INTERSTATE FREIGHT CORRIDORS. FURTHER, THE AUTHORIZATION BILL SHOULD ALSO RECOGNIZE AND 

SUPPORT THE ROLE OF MULTISTATE COALITIONS, WHICH INCLUDE BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE 

STAKEHOLDERS, TO PROVIDE COORDINATION AND INTEGRATION FUNCTIONS TO DEVELOP THESE KEY 

NATIONAL CORRIDORS. THIS WOULD BUILD UPON PREVIOUS PROGRAMS SUCH AS THE CORRIDORS OF 

NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND CORRIDORS FOR THE FUTURE; BUT, ADDS AN IMPORTANT 

INSTITUTIONAL COMPONENT. 
222 

THESE MULTISTATE COALITIONS, THROUGH THEIR MEMBERS, CAN DEVELOP CORRIDOR PLANS, 

IDENTIFY PRIORITY FREIGHT PROJECTS IN AN INTEGRATED, COORDINATED MANNER, SPREAD BEST 

PRACTICES MORE QUICKLY AND IMPROVE INTERAGENCY COMMUNICATIONS. COALITIONS SUCH AS 

OURS, THE 1-95 COALITION, NASCO AND OTHERS HAVE PROVEN TO BE SUCCESSFUL EFFORTS AND WE 

URGE CONTINUED RECOGNITION AND SUPPORT FOR SUCH PROGRAMS. 

RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS SHOULD BE LINKED TO PROVIDE FUNDING TO THOSE GATEWAYS AND 

CORRIDORS WHERE IMPACTS/DEMAND WILL BE THE MOST INTENSE SUCH AS THOSE LOCATED ON THE 

WEST COAST. 

WE RECOMMEND THE NATIONAL FREIGHT PROGRAM SUPPORT EXISTING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 

PROCESSES TO ALLOW STATES AND REGIONS TO DEVELOP PERFORMANCE-BASED PLANS AND 

PROGRAMS. THIS PROGRAM SHOULD ALLOW FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE FREIGHT INVESTMENTS ACROSS 

MODES WITHIN THE CORRIDOR. SUCH FUNDING SHOULD ALSO ALLOW FOR THE MITIGATION OF 

GOODS MOVEMENT-RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. 

THE INTEGRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND CLEAN, GREEN AND SMART 

STRATEGIES WILL ALSO BENEFIT FROM BEING DEVELOPED IN THE CONTEXT OF THESE MULTI-STATE 

CORRIDORS IN MANY INSTANCES. THEY ARE IMPORTANT COMPONENTS IN NOT ONLY FREIGHT 

PROGRAMS BUT OTHER MOBILITY STRATEGIES AS WELL SUCH AS THOSE TO SUPPORT 

IMPLEMENTATION OF ALTERNATIVE FUELS TO REDUCE OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL. 

THE WEST COAST CORRIDOR COALITION IS A MULTI-STATE COALITION OF TRANSPORTATION 

ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDING STATE DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION IN ALASKA, WASHINGTON, 

OREGON AND CALIFORNIA, NUMEROUS METROPOLITAN PLANNNING ORGANIZATIONS, PORTS, PRIVATE 

PROVIDERS AND OTHER STAKEHHOLDERS. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION OR QUESTIONS PLEASE CONTACT JIM GOSNELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WEST 

COAST CORRIDOR COALITION-213 716-2296 OR EMAIL AT jim.gosnell@westcoastcorridors.org. 
223 

Statement for the Record 

Andrew P. Fox 

Mayor 

City of Thousand Oaks, California 

Joint Field Hearing 

House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

United States House of Representatives 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

"Improving and Reforming our Nation's 

Surface Transportation Programs 

to Support Job Creation and the Economy," 

Los Angeles, California 

February 23, 2011 
224 

Chairmen Mica and Boxer, I am submitting this statement for the record on behalf of the ~ 

1011SR. 23 Regional Transportation Corridor Project- "A Corridor of Regional Significance" 

which is the number one priority of the City of Thousand Oaks, the Ventura County 

Transportation Commission and our Congressman, Elton Gallegly, in the reauthorization of 

SAFETEA LU. This Project truly reforms and enhances a critical regional transportation 

corridor, resulting in local job creation and an improved economy. 

My name is Andrew P. Fox and I am the Mayor of the City of Thousand Oaks, California. On 

behalf of the City, I would like to express our sincere appreciation for inviting us to attend the 

joint committee hearing in Los Angeles to discuss the next authorization of the highway, transit 

and highway safety programs bill. The City is pleased to present to both Committees this 

Statement for the Record to introduce the Committees and Congress to the U.S. 101IS.R. 23 

Regional Transportation Corridor Project- "A Corridor of Regional Significance." 

The U.S. 1011SR. 23 Regional Project provides a critical link between east-west State Route 

118 and U.S. 101 and north-south Interstate 5 and Interstate 405, connecting Los Angeles, 

Ventura, and Santa Barbara Counties. The U.S. 101 and State Route 23 serve as vital freeways 

in the City of Thousand Oaks and provide access to both residents and commuters locally and 

regionally for the purposes of employment, recreation, travel, and goods movement. The U.S. 

101 is also one of two primary routes connecting Northern and Southern California. The 

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) estimates that 800,000 vehicles travel 

through this regional corridor daily. 

In May 2008 Caltrans completed Route 23 Freeway widening on both north and south bound 

lanes as an essential component in relieving traffic congestion not only locally but within the 

region. Currently, State Route 118 freeway is being expanded. The proposed U.S. 101/SR. 23 

Regional Project is essential to maximize the full benefits of the State Route 23 Freeway 

Widening Project and State Route 118 expansion. 

The $30 million request, using the 101/23 interchange as the centerpiece, includes conversion 

of auxiliary lanes to mixed-flow lanes, addition of northbound lane, realignment and widening of 

ramps at the interchange, seismic retrofit of existing structures, installation of stormwater 

treatment devises, and construction of soundwalls and retaining walls in various locations. 

During Caltrans review of the Project in September 2010, they included additional 

modifications to the scope of work. The scope of the Project was expanded to include the 

widening of the Moorpark Road undercrossing/bridge. This will allow the addition of one lane 

Northbound on US 101 through the Moorpark Road interchange. Traffic modeling indicated 

that this location was a major choke point in the corridor. By widening this bridge, traffic 

congestion through the U.S.1 01 ISR. 23 Regional Project is drastically improved. 

The 101123 Interchange is on the California State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). 

The local regional transit authority, Ventura County Transportation Commission, designates this 

vital Project as its top/number #1 priority for the region. The 101123 Interchange is also the QD!y 

Page 1- Thousand Oaks, CA- Statement of Record- February 23,2011 
225 

pending highway project for the County and an important part of the overall passenger and 

commercial regional mobility that benefit businesses, commuters and residents from Santa 

Barbara to Los Angeles rely heavily on. 

This Project is critical to: 

• Congestion Reduction- There are approximately 90 million hours delay per year 

estimated by Caltrans at the 101/23 Interchange, the busiest interchange in Ventura 

County. The Regional Project is designed to improve traffic speeds and minimize delays 

experienced by drivers while improving levels of service for State Route 23 as well as the 

U.S. 101 and 118 freeways during peak travel hours. 

Economic Growth and Development in the Area- Thousand Oaks and the surrounding 

region are home to large corporations and business operations. Amgen, Bax1er 

Bioscience, J.D. Powers and Associates, Teradyne and Skyworks Solutions house their 

corporate offices in this area. BMW, Countrywide, Anthem Blue Cross, Verizon and Dole 

are also located in this regional corridor. 

• Air Quality and Noise Pollution- Reducing congestion will have positive effects on air 

quality. Proposed soundwalls would mitigate noise for 400 residential homes and 

businesses adjacent to the 101 Freeway. 

• Generate Economic Benefits- With increased mobility, the region can further expand 

business opportunities, facilitate the flow of truck-borne commodities and promote 

efficient commute times for employers. Enhanced traffic flow also contributes to greater 

interstate commerce, especially from the region's deep water port- Port Hueneme. 

Improved economic benefits will not only be generated locally but assist with industries 

and businesses dependent on providing services and transporting goods throughout the 

state and even beyond. The Project itself will create approximately 2,350 construction 

jobs. 

• Goods Movement- The 101/23 Regional Transportation Corridor has key industries, 

manufacturing facilities, agriculture, and corporations which rely heavily on moving their 

products, services, and employees in a timely and efficient manner. Improvements to the 

101123 Regional Transportation Corridor are essential to support goods movement to 

and from the region. Port Hueneme, located within the region, is the only commercial 

deep-water harbor between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The Port serves 

international businesses and ocean carriers from the Pacific Rim and Europe. The Port is 

used as both a shipping and receiving port for goods and products transfer throughout 

the nation. The port primarily imports/exports fresh produce (De/ Monte, Sunkist, Chiquita 

Bananas) and automobiles (BMW, Jaguar, Land Rover, Va/va.) Designated as Foreign 

Trade Zone #205, the Port moves $7 billion in cargo every year, according to the Port of 

Hueneme. It is considered a major U.S. entryway - one of the busiest banana importing 

ports and among the top 10 automobile importing ports. The Port's business activity 

Page 2- Thousand Oaks, CA- Statement of Record- February 23, 2011 
226 

generates more than $650 million a year for the Ventura County economy and 4,500 

jobs, directly or indirectly. 

• Homeland Security- The region's Point Mugu Naval Base Ventura County is considered 

a strategic training base for the U.S. Navy Pacific Seabees and California Air National 

Guard. The Department of Defense runs various missions including combat and weapon 

systems testing. The Navy's combat skilled construction force serves around the world in 

support of military construction requirements. Established in 2009, the "OxnardThousand Oaks Urban Area Security Initiative" or UASI includes four core cities -

Thousand Oaks, Camarillo, Oxnard, and Ventura. Through the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security's (DHS) designation, it identifies the coastal regional as extremely 

vulnerable to terrorist attack. The UASI has a number of characteristics that make it 

vulnerable to terrorist attack including three military installations and four airports 

including the Point Mugu Naval Air Station. The UASI is traversed by the U.S 101 

Freeway. As the only highway in the UASI and through the coastal part of the County, it 

serves as the primary vehicular thoroughfare for mass evacuation or critical response. 

The U.S. 101 is also one of the two major North-South routes in California, thus affecting 

major statewide evacuation. 

The U.S. 101/S.R. 23 Transportation Corridor Project is a valuable transportation project that 

will have significant benefits not only for the City of Thousand Oaks and Ventura County 

residents, businesses and commuters but also for the larger region of Los Angeles and Santa 

Barbara Counties. It has broad support from State legislators, local officials, educational 

institutions, and the business community. 

The Congress, via Congressman Gallegly, has appropriated to date $927,500 (FY 2009: 

$427,500 and FY 2010 $500,000) toward the Project. In 2010, the City of Thousand Oaks 

received $5.2 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding via Surface 

Transportation Funds from the Ventura County Transportation Commission. The City has 

embarked on the design phase of the Project with the help of these funds. Approximately 35% 

of the Project's design has been completed with final completion anticipated by Fall 2011. The 

project will be ready for construction in 2012. 

Chairmen Mica and Boxer, we appreciate your continued support in learning about the needs of 

cities and counties in Southern California. We look forward to continuing to work with both 

Committees during the reauthorization process. 

Should the Committee or its staff have questions or desire additional information about the U.S. 

101/S.R. 23 Regional Transportation Corridor Project or the City of Thousand Oaks, please feel 

free to contact Legislative Affairs Manager, Mina M. Layba at 805-449-2109, or 

m layba@toaks.org. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Page 3- Thousand Oaks, CA -Statement of Record- February 23, 2011 
227 

Statement for the Record 

Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works and 

House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure 

Los Angeles, California Field Hearing 

"Improving and Reforming our Nation's Surface Transportation Programs to Support Job 

Creation and the Economy" 

February 23, 2011 

The undersigned organizations appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement for the record 

to express our priorities for the reauthorization of the surface transportation bill. 

Transportation provides access to opportunity for millions of people, and thus, the bill has the 

potential to serve as a key component in addressing poverty, unemployment, and equal 

opportunity goals. As organizations that represent persons of color, women, children, individuals 

with disabilities, gays and lesbians, older adults, labor unions, major religious groups, civil 

libertarians, and human rights organizations, we are committed to ensuring that transportation 

investments are equitably targeted to the people and places that need them the most. 

Our transportation policy has the potential to expand economic opportunity for low-income 

individuals by connecting them to jobs and creating, training, and retaining underrepresented 

workers in bighway construction, transit, and rail projects. It also has the potential to exacerbate 

some communities' isolation from jobs and resources. At a time of high unemployment and 

unprecedented income inequality, equity in transportation policy is one of the most pressing civil 

and human rights issues our nation faces. 

We believe that equal access to affordable transportation is a fundamental civil right and that 

several core principles must be adhered to in federal transportation policy. First, federal policy 

must create affordable, available, and accessible transportation options for everyone, regardless 

of income, race, age, disability, background, or ZIP code. Second, transportation policy must 

create, protect, and ensure equal employment opportunities in the transportation industry. Third, 

federal transportation investments must promote healthy, safe, and inclusive communities with 

housing opportunities for families of all incomes. Fourth, equity requires that decisions regarding 

the public dollars invested in transportation must be made by bodies that represent all 

constituents equally. Finally, there must be strengthened civil rights enforcemcnt to ensure 

access to transportation, as well as prevent dispropoliionate negative impacts on disadvantaged 

communities. 

The federal surface transportation program is an important and essential source of funding for 

providing safe and reliable transportation service and improving the Los Angeles region's 

highways, roads, and public transportation conditions while ensuring fair access to quality jobs 

and contracting opportunities. 

Transportation and the Los Angeles Region 

With over 12 million people, the Los Angeles metropolitan area is the second largest urban area 

in the nation. However, the region's current transportation infrastructure does not meet the needs 
228 

of its residents. The average Los Angeles commuter spends 72 hours stuck in trallie every year. 

the worst in the eountryI The consequences of a lack of transportation options reach far beyond 

commute ti~e--4 7 percent of Los Angeles commuters report that (rame has negatively affected 

their health. 

Far too many Angelenos do not have access to reliable. affordable transportation. leaving them 

isolated in neighborhoods located far from jobs. grocery. stores. quality schools and health care 

clinics. with no way to connect to these vital opportunities and services. This is particularly the 

case for low-income people and communities of color in Los Angeles, where almost 85 percent 

of public transportation users in Los Angeles are people of color and 65 percent have family 

incomes under $15.000. J 

Transportation Equity Fosters Employment Growth and Promotes Equal Job Opportunity 

According to the Brookings Institution, by 2006, 45 percent of jobs in our 98 largest metro areas 

were located more than 10 miles from the urban core.'1 While jobs are increasingly moving to 

suburbs and remote exurbs, affordable transportation options to and within these areas have not 

increased at the same pace. As a result. many lower-income and minority people living in rural 

communities, small towns and urban areas arc often isolated from job opportunities. 

Most of the outlying areas where an increasing percentage of American jobs are located arc 

reachable only by car. This dispropOt1ionatcly harms people of color: 19 percent of African 

Americans and 13.7 percent of Latinos lack access to automobiles. compared with 4.6 percent of 

Whites.s Lack of public transportation also impedes efforts to reduce poverty-three out of five 

jobs that are suitable for welfare-to-work participants are not accessible by public 

transportation." 

Our next major federal investment in surface transportation will create hundreds of thousands of 

jobs in the transportation sector. States and regions with diverse public transportation options 

have better job growth and economic development. By improving the Los Angeles region's 

transportation network. Congress can help create good paying and much needed jobs. 

Investments in transportation can and will create jobs and stimulate the economy. Given the level 

of unemployment and high poverty levels. the next transportation bill should ensure fair access 

I "In Depth: 10 Worst Cities For Commuters." Forhes. [nco Retrieved from: 

http://www.forbcs.com/2008/04/24/cities-commute-fuel-forbeslifecx_rnw _ 0424realestate3 _slide _ 3,html?thisSpeed~unde fi ned 

2 "Los Angeles ranks high in 'commuter pain' study, but things could be worse." '.os Angeles Times, 30 June 2010. 

Retrieved from: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/20 I O/06!los~angelcs-ranks-high-in-commllter-pain-studybut-th ings-coul d -sti II-be-worse ,htm I 

.1 Geoff Ray, "LA Bus Riders' Union Rolls Over Transit Racism," Race. Poverty & the environment. Winter 

2005/2006, 

4 Elizabeth Kneebone, "Job Sprawl Revisited: The Changing Geography of Metropolitan Employment," 

Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings. April 2009. al 

http://www ,broo ki ngs,ed ul -I m ed ia/F i I es/rei repo rts'2 009iO~06, job , sprawl_knee bone/2 0 090406 ..i obsp ra wl __ k ncebo 

ne,pdf. 

5 Brookings Institution and UC' -Berkeley. "Socioeconomic Differences in Household Automobile Ownership Rates" 

at http://gs pp i, berke I ey ,ed ul faculty 1 sraphae I/beru bedeaken ra phael, pd f 

" Surface Transp0l1ation Policy "Transportation and Poverty Alleviation" al 

!illJiL'.~~llilJ.lli!ili!U\.l!J2D!I@J£till.<;:ilim.~!h;!ill referri ng to stud y by the Volpe I nsti tute, 
229 

to all Angelenos-regardless of race, gender, income, disability, and ZIP code-to quality jobs, 

workforce development, and contracting opportunities in the transportation industry. 

The Los Angeles region needs an enhanced transportation network that improves mobility of 

both people and goods. Los Angeles, like many of our nation's port communities is facing a dire 

situation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 87 million Americans live 

and work in regions ncar major port facilities that violate federal air quality standards. Each day 

they are exposed to toxic diesel exhaust from polluting port trucks, which arc contributing to 

deadly diseases like asthma, heart disease, and cancer. Over 100,000 U.S. POlt truck drivers toil 

everyday in dirty diesel rigs, without adequate safety protections. 

The Port of Los Angeles' Clean Truck Program put 8,500 new clean diesel and alternative fuel 

vehicles into service, and emissions were reduced by 80 percent in the surrounding communities. 

It is important that our federal surface transportation program support innovative approaches that 

alleviate freight chokepoints, put the Los Angeles region on a path to economic prosperity, all 

while cleaning the air, improving public health and ensuring that port workers and drivers have 

quality, high-road jobs. 7 

Transportation Equity Means Affordable, Available, and Accessible Transportation 

Options 

Our civil rights laws bar employers, federal, state, and local governments and public 

accommodations from discriminating in access to health care, employment opportunities, 

housing, education, and voting (among others). Although our laws promise to open doors to 

opportunity, this is a hollow promise for people who are physically isolated from jobs, schools, 

stores that sell healthy food, and health care providers. As our metropolitan areas have expanded 

and jobs and services have become more diffuse, equal opportunity depends upon equal access to 

affordable transportation. 

Transportation investment to date has produced an inhospitable landscape for low-income 

people, people with disabilities, and the elderly. People of color are disproportionately 

disadvantaged by the current state of transportation. The cost of car ownership, underinvestment 

in public transportation, and a paucity of pedestrian-friendly-and bicycle-aceessiblethoroughfares have isolated low-income people and struggling families from jobs and services. 

This is the civil rights dilemma: Our laws purport to level the playing field, but our 

transportation choices have effectively barred millions of people from getting across it. 

Traditional nondiscrimination protections do not protect the person for whom opportunities are 

literally out of reach. 

For this reason, our transportation policy should expand and improve access to people for whom 

the cost of car ownership is prohibitive and for those who may depend on public transportation, 

including older adults, people with disabilities. people in rural areas, and low-income people. 

The Los Angeles region's transpOltation policy needs to support a wide range of choices and 

7 Rebecca Smith. Dr. David Bensman. and Palll Alexander Marvy. "The Big Rig: Poverty, Pollution, and the 

Misclassification of Trllck Drivers at America's Po.is: A Survey and Research Report," aI 

http://www. ne! p.o rgfpage/ -/ J llstice/Poverty Po II utio nand M i sc I ass i fication. pd f.' nocd'j"- I 
230 

users. not just car travel on highways and roads g Seniors or persons with disabilities may not be 

able to use or may not want to drive. New highways exacerbate transportation inequities by 

extending the gaps between housing and jobs. An equity agenda should favor fixing existing 

infrastructures and incentivizing fill-in development in metro areas. 

In Los Angeles. quality jobs. affordable housing. grocery stores and other retail. critical 

supportive services. quality education. and health care facilities are very decentralized. Lack of 

access to affordable and reliable transportation has been cited as one of the biggest hurdles to 

finding and keeping ajob. particularly for individuals with limited income. single parents. and 

others transitioning to work. 9 Because of the cost of car ownership. which averages $9.500 per 

year 10. some Angelenos cannot afford to purchase or maintain a car. The Job Access and Reverse 

Commute (JARC) program addresses this barrier by providing funds to support the development 

of new transportation services. services that fill gaps in existing services. or the promotion of 

transportation use to employment and related destinations. I I The JARC program seeks "to 

improve access to transportation services to employment and employment related activities for 

welfare recipients and eligible low-income individuals and to transport residents of urbanized 

areas and nonurbanized areas to suburban employment opportunities.'-I2 

The New Freedom program was designed "to provide additional tools to overcome existing 

barriers facing Americans with disabilities seeking integration into the work force and full 

participation in society:·I) We support the goal of the .IARC and New Freedom programs of 

improving access to transportation services to employment and employment-related activities for 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families recipients and eligible low-income individuals in rural 

and urban areas . .IARC and the New Freedom programs should be fully funded in the next 

transportation bill. so that the Los Angeles region can continue to use funds to. among other 

things. assist low-income individuals to gain access to employment opportunities through such 

solutions as car loan and purchase programs. 

A decade ago. elimination of federal operating funding for public transportation systems serving 

communities of more than 200.000 people forced states and regions to make up for the federal 

cut. The result has been that many states and regions struggle to provide adequate public 

transportation service. Even more. the federal support for building of new transit facilities (i.e. 

new light and heavy rail lines) and the lack of commensurate support for maintaining and/or 

expanding existing public transportation service incentivizes regions to spend money on new 

g Surface Transportation Policy Project. Transportation and l'mwt)' Allel'iutiol1 

http>;':wwv.;.transact.org/librarv/factsheets,povertv,asp referring to study by the Volpe Institute. 

9 Community Transportation Association, Employment Transportation Briefs: A Guide to Job Access and Reverse 

Commute Programs. http:i,web 1.ctaa.org/\vebmoduies/webartic\csiarticletiJeslA Guide 10 JARC.pdf 

10 Your Driving Costs. AAA. Retrieved from: 

http:// www.aaaexchange.com!m a i nlDe fau It.asp?C ategoryl D~ I 6& Su bC ategory I D~ 7 6& C on tent I D~ 3 5 3 

I) Community Transportation Association, Employment Transportation Briefs: A Guide to Job Access and Reverse 

Commute Programs, http:"webl ,ctaa,org!webmodules!webartic1es,articictilcsIA Guide to JARC.pdf 

" U,S. Department of Transportation. Federal Transit Administration. FTA Circular 9050, I: The Job Access and 

Reverse Commute (JARC) Program Guidance and Application Instructions, May 1.2007. II, I, 

13 U.S, Department of TranspOt1ation. Federal Transit Administration. FTA Circular 9045.1: The New Freedom 

Program Guidance and Application Instructions. May 1.2007. 11,1, 
231 

infrastructure even as they cut existing public transportation service. This is a threat to mobility 

and economic prosperity in the Los Angeles region. 

Transportation Equity Promotes Healthy Communities 

Transportation decisions contribute to economic and racial segregation in our metro areas. 

Emphasis on one-use highways (without sidewalks, bicycle access, or rapid bus routes) 

contributes to this segregation and severely restricts housing choices for people with disabilities, 

low-incomc people, and scniors. When a community is car-dependent, those who cannot afford 

automobiles or lack the ability to drive cannot live there even if housing is affordablc. 

With respect to community health, emissions from traffic congestion and heavily used 

transportation facilities (i.e, bus depots and seaports) increase the rates of asthma for nearby 

residents. Chronic diseases create significant financial and social burdens for communities. 

Public transportation creates healthier communities, ultimately reducing air pollution, which 

disproportionately affects low-income neighborhoods and communities of color, encouraging 

people to walk more, and increasing access to jobs. Thoughtfully crafted federal infrastructure 

investmcnts can help remedy disparities among low-income people and communities of color 

that are a result of poor air quality, unsafe roads, missing sidewalks and bike paths. Promoting 

healthy and safe communities should be a priority in the upcoming surface transportation bill. 

Transportation Equity Requires Equitable Decision-Making Power 

Our transportation policy has been made by bodies that do not represent all constituents 

equally. I A more equitable transit system is only possible if low-income people, people of color, 

and people with disabilities have meaningful representation in local decision-making bodies such 

as metropolitan planning organizations. Everyone should have a seat at the table when 

transportation policy is developed and funds are spent. 

Transportation Equity Requires Meaningful Civil Rights Protections 

Transportation policy has always played a central role in the struggle for civil and human rights. 

Practical access to transportation helps ensure access to good schools and housing, basic services 

like health care, and the acquisition of job skills and employment opportunities. Conversely, the 

absence of affordable, available, and accessible transit threatens the civil rights of millions of 

Americans. Past investment has disproportionately benefitted people in outlying areas, leaving 

many low-income Americans out of reach of jobs, and forcing others to exhaust their budgets on 

transportation at the expense of other needs such as health care, housing, food, and education. 

Enforcing civil rights protections to ensure fair and equitable access to the benefits of our 

transportation system, and prevent disproportionate negative impacts on disadvantaged 

communities are a priority of civil and human rights organizations. 

We urge you to support transportation investments that focus on equity. We look forward to 

working with you and your staff in crafting a bill that addresses the needs of all communities. 

14 Thomas W. Sanchez "An Inherent [lias? Geographic and Racial-Ethnic Patterns of Metropolitan Planning 

Organization Boards." Accessed from: http://www.brookings.eduireports/2006!O 1 transportation .. sanchez.aspx 
232 

Asian Pacific American Legal Center. a member of Asian American Center for Advancing 

Justice 

Karin Wang. Vice President of Programs & Communications 

Los Angeles. CA 

Labor/Community Strategy Center and Bus Riders Union 

Francisca Porchas. Lead Organizer 

Los Angeles. CA 

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) 

Thomas A. Saenz. President and General Counscl 

Los Angelcs. CA 

Strategic Concepts in Organizing & Policy Education (S.C.O.P.E.) 

Gloria Walton. Executive Director 

Los Angeles. CA 

*** 

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights 

Wade Henderson. President and CEO 

PolicyLink 

Angela Glover Blackwell. Founder and CEO 
233 

Statement of Terence M. O'Sullivan 

General President 

Laborers International Union of North America 

Submitted for the Record to the Joint Field Hearing of the 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and 

House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

"Improving and Reforming our Nation's Surface Transportation Programs to 

Support Job Creation and the Economy." 

Wednesday, February 23, 2011 
234 

Chairwoman Boxer and Chainnan Boxer: 

I want to thank you for holding the Joint Field Hearing of the Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works and House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure entitled, 

"Improving and Refonning our Nation's Surface Transportation Programs to Support Job 

Creation and the Economy." I would like to take the opportunity to submit this statement for 

inclusion in the record. 

The Laborers International Union of North America represents a half-million workers in 400 

Local Unions across the United States who go to work every day to build America. LIUNA 

members - and the millions of construction workers like them - build our highways, our mass 

transit systems, our bridges and dams, our airport runways and our schools. We maintain sewer 

systems, dig tunnels, retrofit skyscrapers to emit fewer greenhouse gases, build pipelines that 

carry natural gas and oil and erect windmill farms. 

You already know about the crisis facing America's surface transportation system - bridges that 

are too old or too small to safely handle the demands of modem commuting and commerce, 

roads that are full of damaging potholes or so congested that they literally bring the movement of 

people and goods to a halt. 

This transportation system was once the envy of the world. Now, in many ways, it is a relic. Yes, 

we have managed to get by with repairs and half-measures. For 50 years, that was good enough, 

but it is not good enough now. Around the world, other countries are, by an order of magnitude, 

investing more and building more. And these countries, China and India among them, aren't just 

replicating something we already have - they're improving on it, with superhighways and bullet 

trains that are still only on the drawing board here. 

Today, I want to talk about the people who take what's on that drawing board and make it realthe people who build America. A job in construction isn't easy - it can mean working in frigid 

cold or blistering heat, perfonning labor that leaves one aching and exhausted at the end of the 

day. And, while many receive plenty of training and preparation, construction workers still face 

danger every day on the job. 

However, these jobs can also be rewarding ones. Financially, highway and bridge work can 

provide a man or woman with enough income to buy groceries, support their family and save 

toward a child's college education. They also include benefits that allow families to pay their 

medical bills and put money toward retirement. A good construction job provides the ability to 

shop at local businesses and dine at neighborhood restaurants - in short, it provides a worker 

with the chance to make a positive contribution to their community and society. 

They can also be rewarding in another sense, one that goes beyond wages and benefits. Many of 

the laborers I meet followed their father or grandfather into the building trades. They saw 

firsthand that a construction job can be a good job and want to carry on a rich tradition. Plus, 

with this work comes pride - the ability to point to an enonnous bridge or highway and tell your 

children, "I built that." 
235 

Unfortunately, that special opportunity is all too rare today. We aren't building what's needed 

and, as a result, we aren't creating jobs at a time when they're also needed. 

America's construction workers are mired in a crisis that is trumped only by the Great 

Depression in its severity. Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Labor pegged construction 

unemployment at 22.5 percent. Nearly 2 million men and women cannot find work in the 

industry - and this number doesn't include those who have simply given up. Whatever recovery 

is happening in the rest of the economy, the construction industry hasn't seen it - the number of 

construction jobs in America today sits at a IS-year low. 

Here in California, the numbers are staggering - over 400,000 construction jobs have 

disappeared in the past four years. This is tragic considering the amount of work that needs to be 

done. Thirty percent of our bridges are deficient or obsolete, two-thirds of our major roads are 

crumbling and, as anyone who's visited here knows, our city's highways are congested to the 

breaking point. This situation isn't good for business, for working people, or anyone else. 

The only way to address this situation - and the only way to create the construction jobs this 

country needs - is through strong, smart federal investment that comes with passage of a new 

surface transportation bill. 

Continuing to pass extension after extension will not be enough - while that will make sure 

potholes get patched and emergency repairs are made, it will do nothing to fix the serious longterm problems facing our roads and bridges and it will do lillie to create new jobs. Without a 

long-term, comprehensive bill, contractors will once again be forced to delay purchasing new 

equipment or hiring large numbers of new workers - both of which limit our economy's ability 

to grow. 

Members of the Laborers' International Union have been urging Congress to pass a fully-funded, 

long-term bill for three years now through our Build America campaign. This effort has shown 

that the men and women who build this country are ready to work today, but they can't do so 

unless the jobs are there. 

That is why we hope that the committee will do its job by acting on a bill this year that would 

fully invest in our nation's roads and bridges. The members of LIUNA strongly support 

President Obama's call to outbuild our global competitors and we embrace both his call for a 

$5S6 billion, six-year bill, as well as an immediate, $50 billion investment in roads, rails and 

runways. The president's plan represents a long-term investment in the workers of today, as well 

as America's future. We can ensure the success of both by passing this desperately needed 

legislation. 

While I understand there are significant divides over how to pay for such an investment, I want 

to underscore that this is a tremendous problem facing our country and that part of what makes 

America so great has been its willingness and ability to tackle the big problems. The Highway 

Trust Fund has been a successful model of user-supported investments into our transportation 

infrastructure. Unfortunately, demand has outpaced the Fund's ability to provide a sufficient 

level of investment. Congress must be willing to consider increasing raising the federal gas tax 
236 

in order to assure that sufficient funding is available to address the Nation's critical 

transportation needs. 

America saved the world from fascism, protected it from communism, landed a man on the 

moon, created the Internet and built the greatest highway system in the world. Today, no one 

looks back and wonders whether these achievements were worth their cost in dollars. 

We face a similar situation today and now is not the time to be timid or play politics. It is time to 

be leaders and statesmen. We can address the crises facing our transportation systems and our 

construction industry all at the same time. Our hope, as the men and women who build America, 

is that you and other political leaders can join together and pass legislation that would stand as 

one of the great legislative achievements of our time. 

If you pursue such a bill, the men and women of LIUNA will support you in every step of the 

way. We are ready to work, and we are ready to build America. 
237 

;'." ..•..•.. Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition 'V 634 S. Spring Sl. Suite 821 

"~.' Los Angeles. CA 90014 

...... Phone 213.629.2142 

'. .>" .. Facsimile 213.629.2259 

'''' \Xi:). www.la-bike.org 

LACBC 

March 9. 2011 

RE: LOS ANGELES FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION HEARING - NEXT FEDERAL 

TRANSPORTATION BILL 

DEAR CO".;GRESS,vlAi': MICA, SE1\I\TOR BOXER !\1\D HO".;ORABLF MEIvHlERS OF THE 

HOUSE CO"lvllTTEE 01\ TR:\".;SPORTATION AND 11\rRi\STRUCTURE 

TIlE LOS ANGELES COU1\TY fllCYCLE COi\lITION IS A ".;ON-PROrIT, ~l[MBERSHIPBJ\SED ORGANIZATIO".; TIII\T WORKS TO BUILD A BETIIR, ,vlORE [liKE-ABLE LOS I\NGELES 

COU)\iTY THROUGII ADVOCACY, EDliCATI01\, i\\:D OUTREACH WE ARE WRITING TO 

CmlM[)\iT ON THE JOINT FIELD IIEI\RINC OF THE HOUSE COMMITrEE FOR 

TRA1\SPORTi\T[O)\i '\ND INFRASTRUCfURE A1\D THE SE)\i:\T[ CO:vL\IITTEE ON 

E\:VIRO".;ME1\T Al\:D PUBLIC WORKS, HELD FEBRlI!\RY 23, 20ll, ON "IMPRO\'I\:G i\\:D 

RIJORMING OUR \:/,:nOl\:'S SURFACE TRANSPORTAT[01\ PROGRA\lS TO SUPPORT JOB 

CREATION A1\D THE rcO\:O\lY." SPECIFICALLY, "VE WOULD LIn: TO El\:COURAGE YOUR 

CO,\lMITITES TO I\:CORPORA TE LOl\:C-TERM TRAl\SPORTATION Al\:D PUBLIC HEMTII 

COALS I~ THE NEXT FEDERAL TRi\~SPORTATIO)\i BILL BY PROVIDlNC METHODS TO 

IMPROVE SAFETY AND COl\:STRUCT FACILITIES COR ACTIVE TR\".;SPORTATION \10DE5, 

SUCII AS BICYCLING AND WALKI\:G 

TRADITIO~;\LL Y, STATES RECFlVI\:G FEDERAL FUNDING HAVE HAD LIlTLE 

ACCOU".;TABIi ITY FOR THEIR TRANSPORTATIOl\: SPE)\il)I:\G AND THE EFFECTS OF 

THESE TRi\\:SPORTATIO\: POLICIES HA VE BFI=~ DEVASTATI~C; TI IE COl INTRY'S CAR 

DEPE\:DE~CE liAS LED TO t\~ Il\:CRF;\SE 1:\ IIRBAN SPRAWL, COM'VIUTE TIMES, AND 

TRAFflC CO\:GFSTIO~; LOS ;\~GELl:S RESIDE:\TS /\LO\:E SPEND \\OI\E THI\l\ 490 

MILI.lON HOURS Il\: THEIR C;\RS EACH YEAR. AS AMERICAl\:S GROW ~1()RE REUf\~T ON 

TilElR C;\RS, THEIR PHYSICAL ACTIVITY LEVELS DECLl~E -- AND So. TOO, DUES THEIR 

IIEAUI L COROl\:;\R Y HL\RT DISEASE IS THF LEADING CAlISE OF DEAr! I fOR RESIDENTS 

OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, i\~D HEART DISL'\SE AND STROKE TOGETHER ACCOUNT 

lOR APPROXl,\lAIU Y 40% OF ALL DEATI IS IN TilE COUl\:TY Il\: ADDITION, AIR 

POLLUTION COSTS I\: T!-IE LOS ANGELES AREA ARE ESTL\l:\TFD AT OVER $22 BILLION, OR 

$l,250 PER PERSCN PER YEAR. 

OUR \iATION'S TRA~SPORTi\TIO\i DECISIONS H;\ \'E BEE\i l\:EEDLESSL Y 

DESTRUCTIVE, BUT THE RESULTS !\RE NOT IRREVERSIBLE ",OW IS THE TIME TO TAKE 

/\CTION. THE ITDER!\L GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER LED O~ PUBLIC HE/\LTII ISSUES, BUT 

IT I lAS THE OPPORTU~ITY TO DO SO l\:OW. THE NEW TRANSPORTATION BILL CAN 

AND SIlOllLD BE ;\ TOOL TO El\:COUR.\GE ALL A"lERIC\NS TO [NGACE IN ACTIVE 

TRANSPORTATIOl\ BY BIKIl\C AND WALKINC REGULARLY. STUDIES I IA VE SHOWN TIlAT 

AS LITTLE AS 30 \llNUTES OF MODERATF: PHYSICI\L i\CrWITY EACH DJ\ Y, [VEl\: WIlEN 
238 

LACBC 

~ Page 2 0[3 

BROf.:[:\ I:\TO SIIORT, 10-;\U:\LITE INTER \AIS, Ci\:\ LEAD TO SLIBSTA:\TL\L IIEALTII 

BE:-":EFITS, A\IERIC;\NS C\:\ \lIlT THESE GOALS BY Blf.:l:\C; OR WALf.:Ic.:C; Tel \\'ORf.:, 

SCI IOOL, TRA:\SIT, X\D OTI IFR POPUl.AR DESTINxno:-..:s, TillS ACTIVITY C\N RED! ICE 

;\\IERIC\:\S' RISK OF CI IRO:\IC DISEi\SES, I:\CLlIDI:\C HEART DISEASE AND STROKE 

BIKINC; A:\D \\','\LKI:-":C ARE ALSO EXTRE\1FLY BENEFICIA[ fOR CHILDREN BECi\LISE TI lEY 

CAN HELP REDUCE Cll!LDI IOOD OBESITY A:\D TYPE II Dli\BETES RATES 

THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT PFOPLE ARE FAR ;\IORE LIKELY TO BIKE 

AND \vALK WIlEN CITIES A;-":D COlINTII,S CREATE STREETS WITII QUALITY BICYCLE AND 

PEDESTRI!\0: fACILITIES, BIKE [/\NE5 AND \Vi\LKINC ROUTES Til AT CONNECT I IOMES TO 

BUSI:-":FSSFS, SCHOOlS, TRANSIT, AND RECREATIONAL /\REAS ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO 

HIKE AND Wi\LK IN THEIR E\'FR YDi\ Y LI\ES. TIl ESE fACILITIES ARE PARTICULARLY 

I~IPORTi\NT FOR THOSE Ai\IERICANS WHO ARE UNABLE TO DRI\'F, INCLUDING 

CHILDREN ;\ND THE ELDERLY TIIEREFORC, IT IS CRITICAL THAT \VE CREATE BICYCLE 

AND PEDESTRIAN I'J\CILITIES THAT AILu\\' I\LL RESIDENTS -- WI!ETIIER 8 YEARS OLD OR 

80 -- TO FEEL SAFE AND CO,\1I0RTABLE BIKING IN ADOITIO:\, PEDESTRIAN AND 

CYCLIST SAl"E'll' I\IPORTANCE IS P,\]{i\MOU:\T -- ALTllOlIGI I \\';\LKING ,\NO BIKING 

ACCOUNT lOR ONLY 3J°/c, ur COM~IUTE TRIPS, OllIS DOES NOT CO:\SIDER liO"'\, 

~IANY PEOPLF BIKE OR WALK TO SCHOOL, ACCESS TRANSIT, RUN ERRAc.:DS ETClIN THE 

liS, YET l21'K, 01 ALL TR:\fHC FAI'i\I.lTILS I\R[ PEDESTRL\"S i\0!D CYCLISTS. WEIIDESIG:-":ED L\ClLITIES. INCLUDINC; OfSICNATED BIKE li\0:ES AND C00JTINUOllS 

SIDEW!\LKS, C\N GRFATTY INCREASE SAFETY LEVELS FOR AIL USERS. INDEED, Sf\IPLY 

ADDINC A SIDEWAl.K TO ;\ STREET CllTS Till' RISK TI fAT A DRIVER WILL lilT A 

PEDFSTRIAN IN IIALI' 

CURRENTLY, CMIfORNli\ IS DE\TLOI'INC; INN()\',\TIH LOi'\C-lTR:-'1 SOLUTIOi'\S 

TO TRAi'\SPORTAIICll\ AND PUBue HEAlTH ISSLIES. INSPIRfD BY SIl 375, C-\UFORNIA'S 

Li\ND,\IARK EMISSIONS REDUCI'IO;-":S LAW, PllIlLIC I lEAI'll I LEADERS, ELECTED OITICIALS, 

LOCAL POLlCY\1AKERS, :\l\[) THE PUBLIC IL\ VI' COylE TOGETHER AND ARE I0:VESTINC 

10: BICYCLE !\ND PEDESTRli\N INFRASTRUCTURE, REVITALIZE LOCAL ECONOMIES, A0:0 

INCREASE TRN\SIT SYSTEM ElITCIWF:-":ESS. O'fflER STATES ME SIMILARLY VIOTIVATED 

TO ADDRESS THFSF ISSUES. /\S A WHOLE, IIOW[\,[R, TIlE COt INTR Y IS LOOKING TO THE 

FEDERAL GCWFRN\1ENT FOR lEADERSHIP ON TIllSE ISSUES, AND IT NEEDS YOUR 

GUIDANCE \IOVING FOR\\'ARD 

LOS ANC;ELES'S 30/10 INITIATI\E IS POISED TO BECmlI J\ TRANSPORTATION 

FUNDl"iC i\.IODEL FOR THE NATION, /\ND \\r\NY OTIIER ]LlRISDICTIOM Will LIKELY 

FOLLOW LA'S LEAl) WI lEN PLAN,\,I'\'G FOR run IRE TRANSPORTATION PRO JECTS 

THEREFORI, IT IS CRITICi\L THAT TillS fLlNDIc.:C; INITI,\TIVE AND TIlE NE\V 

TRANSPORTATION BILL INCOURAGE STATES AND CITIES TO fRICCI \10RE BIKING AND 

WALKING I~H,ASTRUCnIRE. BY I~IPROVI:\G F;\CIUTIES ,\0:1) GIVINC ['EOI'Ll' BETfTR 

OPPORTUNITIES TO Bin: i\ND \V:\If.: IN TIIElR Di\lLY LiVES, TilE MW TRANSPORTATIO:\ 

RiLl. CAN ],\1I'RO\'[ TilE ,\,AII00:'S IIL\LTII, REDUCE lIU\ITH C:\RE COSTS 
239 

Page 3 of3 

SIGNIHC!\:--;TL Y, AND SAVE TIlE LIVES OF ,'vllLLlO0:S Of /\~lERICANS, WE ASK YOU TO 

CONSIDER TIIESE GOAlS AS YOU DRi\lT THE 1\EXT FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION BILL 

SINCERELY, 

/ /' / 

/4~L<iS 

ALEXIS LA:--;T7 

PLAN:--;ING AND POLlCY DIRECrOR 

LOS ANGELES COU:--;TY BICYCLE CO:\LrnO:--; 
240 

Statement of 

The Natural Resources Defense Council 

on 

Improving and Reforming our Nation's Surface Transportation 

Programs 

Submitted for the Record 

los Angeles Field Hearing 

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

United States House of Representatives 

Wednesday, March 9t

h, 2011 
241 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is pleased to offer this statement to the Subcommittee 

for the hearing on issues related to improving and reforming our nation's surface transportation 

programs. 

NRDC is the nation's most effective environmental organization. Founded in 1970 by a group of law 

students and attorneys, we use law, science and the support of 1.3 million members and online activists 

to protect the planet's wildlife and natural places and to ensure a safe and healthy environment for all 

living things. 

Background 

Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush have each called for 

reductions in energy use and oil dependence. However, our overwhelming reliance on oil as a 

transportation fuel coupled with few economical and convenient alternatives to automobiles for moving 

people and goods have made America's oil dependence difficult to break. Nearly 70 percent of our 

national oil consumption occurs in the transportation sector, and passenger vehicles and light trucks 

account for more than 45 percent of u.S. oil demand. 

This has a significant impact on the U.s. economy. In 2008, the US imported $357 billion worth of foreign 

crude oil, equivalent to 2.3 percent of GDP. This was a major driver of our country's massive trade 

deficit, accounting for 16 percent of all import spending. Furthermore, every recession over the past 35 

years has either been preceded by or concurrent with an oil price spike. 

The impact of our dependence on autos and oil has broader impacts on our society. Auto commute 

times in metropolitan areas have risen steadily over recent decades. Between 1997 and 2007, the 

average annual mileage driven per capita increased by 7 percent. Americans now spend more time 

commuting than vacationing. Transportation costs have grown over the last few years, and are now the 

second highest expense for most American families. In highly automobile-dependant suburbs, 

transportation can consume as much as 25 percent of a household budget, compared to just 9 percent 

in neighborhoods nearby to public transportation. 

Federal transportation policy is critical to our success in changing any of these trends. To cut our 

dependence on oil, the United States must embark on a comprehensive effort to both break oil's 

monopolistic grip on fuel for the light-duty vehicle fleet and open the market to vibrant competition 

among transportation options. The latter goal is where federal transportation policy can playa major 

role. Transportation choices are absent in many neighborhoods even though there are fiscally 

responsible measures that would facilitate their delivery to more consumers. 

Especially with the struggling economy, persistently high unemployment, and gasoline and diesel prices 

starting to rise again, reducing oil dependence can yield Significant benefits, including lowering the 

economic vulnerability that comes with volatile fuel prices. Decreasing oil consumption also enhances 

America's national security by reducing dependence on sources of oil that are politically unstable or 

controlled by unstable or hostile national governments. Lastly and not insignificantly, reduced oil 

consumption decreases both air pollution and the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that cause global 

climate change. 
242 

Policy Recommendations 

NRDC respectfully offers the following suggestions for improving the environmental performance of our 

transportation system. We believe that these reforms are an essential part of a broader set of 

improvements that must be made to improve the overall outcomes yielded by our federal 

transportation policy and transportation investments. In addition to better environmental and energy 

performance, these outcomes include improving mobility and accessibility, supporting increased 

regional economic activity, creating more direct and indirect jobs, and lowering transportation costs for 

families and businesses, among others. 

1. Develop and Implement Federal Policy Objectives for the Progrom with Clear Accountability 

for Achieving Them 

A renewed transportation program should include a set of national policy objectives. Among other 

measures, these objectives should include: 

Reduced oil dependence 

Better air quality achieved by reductions in smog, soot and carbon pollution 

Improved water quality achieved by lower stormwater pollution runoff 

Better wildlife protection achieved by reducing habitat loss and fragmentation. 

National objectives should be complemented by commensurate state and regional objectives, explicitly 

written into long-range plans and transportation improvement programs. To hold states and regions 

accountable for objective-setting and achievement, we must offer incentives in the form of preferential 

matching and special funding for projects and initiatives that comply with these standards. 

As additional incentives for transportation officials, the new federal program should include large meritbased, competitive initiatives such as the TIGER program and the Administration's newly proposed 

Transportation Leadership Awards program. These programs will leverage federal investments by 

spurring virtuous competition and driving innovation and reform among a large pool of applicants. 

2 Expand and Diversify Program Financing Options That Provide New Revenue and Support Oil 

Reduction 

There is a broad consensus that the federal transportation program is underfunded. This yields several 

problems that pose a threat to the nation. First, maintenance and repairs have been deferred. Bridges, 

roads and transit lines are aging and desperately need fixing. In addition, the transportation system is 

incomplete. It includes a world-class interstate highway system but lacks adequate intercity transit links 

as well as public transportation networks and street grids in metropolitan regions. 

To finance a tranSition to a less oil-dependent, cleaner transportation system that tackles these threats 

three kinds of tools must be used: 

New revenue-generating measures, speCifically gasoline tax increases and increased tolling of 

facilities 
243 

Financing mechanisms that leverage public investments, such as a federal infrastructure bank, 

public-private partnerships and merit-based, competitive programs that spur innovative, 

effective initiatives and projects 

Expansion of the program, however, must be contingent on wholesale overhaul of the program to 

ensure that it is performance-driven, effective and efficient. A larger, better-financed transportation 

program should yield better outcomes including reduced oil dependence, lower air and water pollution 

levels, and reduced loss and fragmentation of wildlife habitat. 

3 Reform Transportation Planning and Review to Accelerate Project Delivery and Promote 

Environmental Performance 

Both the current federal transportation planning process and the project review process can improve 

the quality of a transportation project in important ways to better achieve mobility improvements, as 

well as economic development, environmental, health, and energy goals. However, unnecessary delay 

during the planning, design, and delivery of a sound transportation project harms taxpayers, the 

economy, and the environment, in addition to local mobility and access. 

Some of the largest causes of delays in federally supported transportation project delivery are related to 

insufficient funding, project selection disagreements, and design challenges. On the other hand, delays 

related to environmental and preservation laws account for only a small share of total transportation 

project delays. In most cases delays from environmental review occur in the most complex and/or 

controversial projects, which often would result in significant unmitigated environmental impacts. 

A new transportation authorization bill should include reforms to simplify the project development 

process and improve planning and project delivery. However, such changes MUST retain safeguards 

established by NEPA that are designed to protect the environment and ensure that the public has an 

adequate opportunity for involvement in their local transportation plans and decisions. In particular, 

reforms can be made to reduce duplicate processes, increase the effectiveness of initial planning and 

transportation project reviews, create incentives for timely project delivery, and focus resources on the 

most effective transportation investments and solutions. 

Below are five principles for reforming the transportation planning and review process that 

environmental organizations feel would improve project delivery without compromising bedrock 

environmental review laws. 

Create new incentives for meeting project delivery time goals without imposing time limits on 

agency transportation project reviews 

Create new incentives for closer linkage between the transportation planning process and the 

project review process 

Increase the use of Mitigated Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Mitigated 

Categorical Exclusions (CE) 

Encourage greater design flexibility for transportation projects to avoid from the outset 

environmental impacts that would need mitigation 

Consider further steps to integrate transportation planning with project reviews, building on 

initial steps taken in SAFETEA-LU 

Conclusion 
244 

NRDC appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of our members concerning our 

mutual concern for how to reform the federal transportation program to deliver higher quality, safer, 

cleaner, more efficient, and more cost-effective transportation projects to taxpayers and communities 

across the country. We welcome the opportunity to further discuss our policy suggestions and their 

possible development and implementation with you and your staff. In so doing, we will maximize our 

ability to build critical transportation infrastructure that can create jobs, improve the economy, and 

reduce energy use and environmental impacts in a way that most effectively and efficiently serves the 

transportation needs of the American people. 

Contact: 

Deron Lovaas, Federal Transportation Policy Director 

202-289-2384 (office) 

dlovaas@nrdc.org 
245 

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS 

IN CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT 

~ 

February 23,2011 

Honorable Barbara Boxer 

Chair, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Honorable John Mica 

Chair, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

2165 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washif!gton, D.C. 20515 

RE: Professional Engineers In California Government 

Febl'Ullry 23, 2011 - Joint Field Hearing 

Improving and Reforming our Surface Transportlltion Program.s 

to Support Job Creation ,and the Economy 

Dear Senator Boxer and Representative Mica: 

The following,written testimony is submitted on behalf of the Prof.essional Engineers in 

California Government (pECG); PECO represents 13,000 state-employed engineers and related 

professionals. Included among their responsibilities are designing and inspecting California's 

state highways and bridges. 

PECG is a foUnding member of the National Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Unions (NASH1U), which is a coalition of 3 8 unions and affiliates from 20 states lind the 

District of Columbia representing hundreds of thousands of state and locally employed public 

transportation workers from throughout the United States. PECG and NASHTU are dedicated to 

ensuring that federal transportation dollars are spent on safe, cost-effective projects that serve the 

public interest. 

PECG and NASHTU have souiPlt'two pro'1sions in the surface transportation reauthorization 

designed to ensure that transportation projects are built safely and cost effectively. The first 

provision is encompassed in H.R. 328 (Filn~r). which would require public employees to 

perform the construction inspection on federally funded state and local transportation 

projeets to ensure that the work performed complies with the plans and specifications, 

construction and seismic standards are met, projects meet safety requirements, and the materials 

used will stand the ~est of time:-

HEADaUARTERS: 

LOS~GELES: 

SAN FRANCISCO: 

TELEFAX: ' 

445 Capitol Mall, Sulle 501, Sacremenio, CA 95814 • (916)448-0400 

130 N. Brand Boulevard. SuMe 301, Glendale, CA 91203 • (818) 500-9941 

1 Sutter Street, flulle 800, San Frandsco, CA 94104 • (415) 881-5720 

Haadquar\ers (910) 443-0489; los Angeles (818) 247.2348; San Franefsco (415)861·5360 
246 

Testimony Submitted for the Record 

Professional Engineers in California Government 

February 23, 2011 - Joint Field Hearing: Improving and Reforming our Surface Transportation 

Programs to Support Job Creation and the Economy 

Page 2 

When the construction inspection function is outsourced to a private company, there is no longer 

a representative of the public inspecting the work as it is being performed. David M. Walker, the 

former Comptroller General of the United States from 1998 to 2008, described the issue in a 

2007 New York Times article: "There's somethiDg civil servants have that Ihe private sector 

doesn't, and that is the duty orIoyalty to the greater good - the duty ofloyalty to the 

collective best interest of all rather than the interest of a few. Companies have duties of 

loyalty to their Ihareholders, nol to the country." 

Private contractors inspecting the work of other private contractors has resulted in many high 

profile disasters throughout the country, including Boston's Big Dig (where a concrete slab from 

a tuMel ceiling fell and killed a woman), the Los Angeles Red Line Subway (Hollywood 

Boulevard collapsed), the 8-805 interchange in San Diego (10,000 defective welds on a seismic 

retrofit project), and many other projects. Outsourcing inspection threatens public safety, 

increases project cost and can delay project completion. 

The second provision we would recommend for inclusion in the surface transportation 

reauthorization is a requirement that state and local transportation departments perform a 

cost comparison analysis prior to outsourcing work. In California, state budget numbers 

reveal that a Caltrans engineer costs the taxpayer $113,000 (including salary, benefits and 

overhead) per year, while a private engineer performing the same function costs the state 

$226,000 per year plus the cost of advertising and awarding the contract. Instituting this 

common sense provision in the reauthorization and prohibiting outsourcing if it is more costly 

than having services performed by civil servants will ensure that federal transportation dollars 

are spent cost effectively. 

These two legislative proposals essentially mirror the Office of Mansgement and Budget's 

efforts to reign in federal government contracting. The OMB guidance mandates that federal 

agencies use federal employees - not private contractors - on inherently governmental and 

critical functions and to perform a cost comparison prior to outsourcing. To prevent the waste of 

federal dollars, similar contracting guidelines should also apply to state and local 

government contracts paid for in full or in part with federal funds. 

Design-build procurement and so-called pUblic-private partnerships, which have proven to waste 

transportation funds, eliminate competitive bidding, delay projects and allow private contractors 

to inspect and approve their own work without meaningful public oversight should also be 

discouraged. 
247 

Testimony Submitted for the Record 

Professional Engineers in California Government 

February 23, 2011 -Joint Field Hearing: Improving and Refonning our Surface Transportation 

Programs to Support Job Creation and the Economy 

Page 3 

Design-build lumps design, construction, and sometimes inspection of a highway project into a 

single contract that is awarded not through competitive bidding, but through a process that 

allows subjective factors to be considered significantly more important than cost. In California, 

the design-build State Route (SR) 22 project added two lanes in each direction on a Southern 

California freeway. The project was to have been completed in late 2006, but work-related road 

closures were a weekly occurrence in 2007 and continued until the end of 2008. When SR 22 

became a design-build project, the cost increased from $271 million to $606 million. 

Design-build also typically allows the private contractor to inspect and sign off on their own 

work while the public agency performs an "oversight" function, frequently with another 

contractor. On-site inspection should not be perfonned by a private inspector whose primary 

obligation is to the success and profitability of his company or business partners - not public 

safety and project quality. 

Despite major public-private partnership (P3) disasters across the nation, foreign, multinational companies and Wall Street investment houses continue to use P3s to suck huge profits 

out of the transportation system while inflicting outrageous tolls on motorists through P3 

contracts that typically forbid improvements to parallel public roads, increasing traffic 

congestion. 

To date, California has authorized three major P3 projects. All three have been disastrous for 

taxpayers. 

SR 91 Express Lanes - In 2002, the Orange County Transportation Authority had to buyout 

this public-private partnership tollway because of a non-compete clause that prohibited 

improvements on the non-toll lanes. Taxpayers were forced to "assume the turnpike's debt of 

$135 million and pay the company $72.5 million in cash," in large part because design-build 

increased the cost from $57 million to $130 million. 

SR 125 (San Diego ToU Road) - In 2003, this public-private partnership toU road was supposed 

to cost $360 million and be completed in 2006. Instead, costs ballooned to $843 million and the 

toU road did not open until November 2007. Legislation in 2006 extended the tolls for an 

additional ten years to pay for cost overruns, requiring the public to pay the private owners 

"hundreds of millions of dollars in additional toUs," according to California's Department of 

Finance. Despite the bailout, SR 125 is now in bankruptcy and in default on hundreds of 

millions in federal TIFIA loans. 
248 

I have recently left my position as Vice President of the Los Angeles - ACEC due to economic reasons. 

Although I am not currently involved on the board of ACEC, I would very much like to have this e-mail 

read by the honorable Senator Boxer and others on the joint committee. 

I am a principal in an SBE / WBE small business civil engineering firm. We are from what I hear in the 

national news - an essential part of the backbone of America and its engine for future economic 

growth. We are not a DBE firm as my hard working wife and president ofthe is not a registered 

engineer. 

We have strong concerns that, locally - as soon as any federal money is identified as a funding source 

for any project, for the most part, small businesses such as ours are shut out of the teaming or set aside 

process. With this roadblock, we are not able to team as an SBE / WBE and grow as we would like - and 

as many political minded people seem to think we are doing at this time. 

We ask that your bill have wording in it to support all small businesses MBE/WBE/SBE/DBE are treated 

equally and given the opportunity to participate in all federally funded projects. 

In advance, I appreciate the opportunity to voice my opinion. 

Roland Rothman, P.E. 

Roland (Rolly) Rothman 

Rothman Engineering Inc. SBE/WBE 

205 South Broadway, Suite 206 

Los Angeles, CA 90012 

(office) 213-621-3155 ext. 201 

(fax) 213-621-3105 
249 

rails·to·trails 

conservancy 

March 9, 2011 

Representative John Mica 

Chair, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

U,S. House of Representatives 

Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2165 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairmen Mica and Boxer: 

Senator Barbara Boxer 

Chair, Committee on Environment and Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 410 

Washington, DC 20510 

Thank you for providing this opportunity to contribute to the record for the Joint Field Hearing on 

Improving and Reforming our Nation's Surface Transportation Programs to Support Job Creation and the 

Economy. 

To meet the nation's need for mobility during tough economic times, governments must work harder than 

ever to make the most of every tax dollar spent. With fewer federal transportation dollars available, active 

transportation (walking and bicycling) investments stand out because they can be completed at low cost, 

are highly popular and significantly improve mobility. 

Bicycle and pedestrian investments are an extremely cost-effective way to manage most short trips of 

three miles Dr less that make up nearly half of the trips taken in America. We cannot afford for capital 

spending to pull in different directions, so federal transportation expenditures that create multiple benefits 

should be prioritized. Active transportation furthers mobility goals (greater safety, less congestion, better 

use of transit services) at the same time that it creates jobs and vital economies and reduces pollution and 

oil dependence. 

In particular, increased investment in trails, bicycling and walking means: 

Balance: A recent national poll found that nearly three quarters of Americans feel they "have 

no choice but to drive as much as" they do, and two-thirds "would like more transportation 

options." Federal investment in active transportation provides greater travel choices for the 

public. Safe and convenient bicycling and walking facilities also enable us to make the most of 

public transportation investments by effectively increasing service areas and reducing travel 

times to transit services. 
250 

Jobs: Design, engineering and construction of walking and bicycling facilities such as trails 

creates more good jobs per doliar than do other transportation projects, while keeping the 

profits closer to home. 

Local economic development: Trail and bicycling networks are a boon to local economies, 

resulting in increased tourism, property values and business activity. 

Positive returns for federal budget: Active transportation investments save the federal 

government money by reducing the need to build more expensive transportation 

infrastructure, cutting federal health care costs, creating jobs and increasing productivity. 

Reduced oil dependence: Automobiles are responsible for 40% of U.S. oil use. Cutting miles 

driven-and reduced congestion with fewer cars on the road-is among the best ways to 

manage our oil-related economic, environmental and security vulnerabilities. Shifting short 

trips to bicycling and walking could save 4 to 10 billion galions of fuel each year. High gas prices 

can result from concern about marginal scarcity of oil, so even modest reductions in demand 

can help relieve upward price pressure. 

Reduced pollution: Shifting short trips to non-polluting modes reduces air pollution by even 

greater margins by eliminating cold starts, the most polluting part of the drive. 

Human health: Active transportation integrates increased physical activity into daily routines, 

the best way to ensure that more Americans meet the Surgeon General's recommendations for 

physical activity. The resulting reduction in obesity and other diseases associated with 

inactivity could save billions of dollars in health care costs each year. 

Relatively modest federal investments in active transportation can leverage other resources to help realize 

these benefits. Core federal programs that deliver these benefits include Transportation Enhancements 

(TE), Safe Routes to School, and the Recreational Trails Program. Continuation of these programs-- with TE 

as a mandatory set-aside within the Surface Transportation Program-- is critical to the success of and public 

support for a new transportation bill. 

In addition, innovative policy advances could enable even more strategic deployment of scarce dollars. In 

particular, building on the lessons of the Non-Motorized Pilot Program in SAFETEA-LU (section 1807), the 

Active Communities Transportation Act (HR 4722 in the lllth Congress) would provide concentrated 

investments to complete active transportation networks to shift trips to bicycling and walking. By building 

on past projects and strategically filling gaps in our systems, we can provide substantial mobility benefits 

for modest investment while at the same time delivering remarkable economic, health and energy benefits. 

Sincerely, 

Laura Cohen 

Western Regional Director 

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy 
251 

Written Statement for the Record 

Gary L Gallegos, Executive Director 

San Diego Association of Governments 

401 B Street, Ste. 800 

San Diego, CA 92101 

Before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

and the U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Improving and Reforming Our Nation's Surface Transportation 

Programs to Support Job Creation and the Economy 

February 23, 2011 

8:30 a.m. 

West Los Angeles Veterans Administration Campus 
252 

Thank you, Chairwoman Boxer and Chairman Mica for providing me with the opportunity to 

submit written testimony at this very important Joint Field Hearing, I look forward to working 

together with both Committees as we discuss the future of transportation policy, In light of the 

current economic situation facing many of our state and local governments, my testimony will 

focus on innovative federal-level financing for transportation infrastructure projects, I will 

highlight efforts to provide additional investment in corridors that facilitate goods movement, 

improve and streamline transportation programs, and identify the region's priorities for the next 

federal surface transportation authorization, 

I am Gary L Gallegos, Executive Director of the San Diego Association of Governments 

(SANDAG), SANDAG is a statutorily created consolidated agency serving the more than three 

million residents of the San Diego region, We serve as the region's federally designated 

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and we are recognized by the State of California as 

the Regional Transportation Planning Agency for San Diego County, 

SANDAG responsibilities reach far beyond what is required by the federal government for an 

MPO, Most importantly, and unlike many of our Council of Governments and MPO colleagues 

nationwide, SANDAG has the authority to decide and direct where state and federal funding in 

the region will be used, Vesting this degree of authority within the regional planning agencies is 

what has helped SANDAG become so successful at moving infrastructure projects, 

Innovative Financing: Leveraging Federal Resources 

Despite the tough economic times that we are facing, the San Diego region has continued to 

invest in our infrastructure to keep it in a state of good repair and to ensure that our 

transportation investments not only create short- and mid-term jobs, but continue to support 

continued economic vitality in our communities over the long-term, In order to do so, the 

region's voters approved a half-cent local sales tax program known as TransNet This funding 
253 

source has been instrumental for major infrastructure projects in San Diego County for more 

than two decades. The $14 billion TransNet program will fund highway, transit, local streets, 

non-motorized, and other projects in San Diego County through 2048. 

At the state level, California voters approved nearly $20 billion for transportation investments in 

2006. Proposition 1 B included $2 billion to improve California's trade corridors - ports, 

highways, freight rail, and border crossings - and an additional $1 billion in funding for goods 

movement emission reduction projects. 

While California and local regions have invested heavily in infrastructure, there remains a clear 

need for greater federal investment in transportation. In a time when we are focusing on doing 

more with less, federal financing programs, such as the Transportation Infrastructure Finance 

and Innovation Act (TIFIA), have become one of only a few methods available in this country to 

advance major transportation projects. The TIFIA program provides federal credit assistance in 

the form of direct loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit to finance surface 

transportation projects of national and regional significance. TIFIA credit assistance provides 

improved access to capital markets, flexible repayment terms, and potentially more favorable 

interest rates than can be found in private capital markets for similar instruments. TIFIA helps 

advance qualified, large-scale projects that otherwise might be delayed or deferred because of 

size, complexity, or uncertainty over the timing of revenues. Each dollar of federal funds can 

provide up to $10 in TIFIA credit assistance - and leverage $30 in transportation infrastructure 

investment. 

In our region, SANDAG is pressing ahead with several important trade corridor improvement 

projects, including a third border crossing project in partnership with Caltrans. The new Otay 

Mesa East Port of Entry (POE) and its connecting highway, State Route 11, will help reduce 
254 

traffic delays at the existing San Ysidro and Otay Mesa POEs, and it will provide an alternative 

crossing for commercial traffic. 

The need to improve our region's border crossing capacity stems from steady growth in global 

and regional economic integration. Our region is forced to squeeze people and goods through 

border infrastructure that was sized for a much smaller and significantly less security-conscious 

economy. The existing San Ysidro-Puerta Mexico POE is the busiest international land crossing 

along the U.S.-Mexico border. The Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay POE continues to accommodate 

the third highest dollar value of trade among all southern border POEs. Northbound peak wait 

times at these existing facilities can routinely last for more than two hours for passenger 

vehicles, and commercial truck drivers have often logged four hours in line. 

Our research shows that California loses $3.9 billion per year due to these border crossing 

delays, and the lost economic opportunity in San Diego alone exceeds $3.3 billion per year. The 

construction of this project is expected to provide 8,200 jobs in our region for a total of $464 

million in labor income. The San Diego region is the gateway for approximately 40 percent of 

containerized trade entering the United States, and the San Diego/Imperial border region hosts 

the third busiest border crossing in the United States. 

The Otay Mesa East POE will be a major commercial portal for US exports (8.3 milioRmiliion 

export tons and 6.2 million import tons in 2007 moved across the current congested crossing). 

This POE will become an important trade gateway of national significance, but it is also a 

significant regional gateway, as Mexico is California's number one trading partner. California 

farm and food products are key exports; this Project will facilitate NAFTA trade and US exports 

in particular. This aligns the Project with the Administration's aggressive export promotion 

program as part of the nation's economic recovery plan. 
255 

Arguably, a new international border crossing is a federal responsibility. However, the traditional 

funding agency for border and other federal projects, the General Services Administration, does 

not have the resources to construct the necessary infrastructure to support the additional 

capacity. Yet trade is the fastest growing component of the San Diego regional economy. In 

our situation, we have a case where border users are willing to pay for timely travel across the 

international border, due to the value travelers placed on time. With this in mind, SANDAG is 

working to provide the much needed infrastructure with minimal federal resources and will be 

able to do so only through the assistance of innovative programs such as TIFIA and tolling. 

As partners with the federal government, we can work together to build projects that are in the 

best interest of our region, and more importantly, our nation. Metropolitan areas like San Diego 

are the economic engines of the nation. Our challenge is to compete and trade with other metro 

areas around the world for jobs, industry, and commerce. 

The Region's Rail Lifeline: The LOSSAN Coastal Rail Corridor 

The only viable rail corridor connecting the San Diego region to the rest of the national rail 

network is the coastal railroad corridor known as LOSSAN (Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis 

Obispo Rail Corridor). The publicly-owned rail line, built in the early 1880s, is shared by intercity, 

commuter, and freight rail services, and delays in one area can often result in a "domino effect" 

rippling through to other parts of the corridor. The LOSSAN Corridor is the second of busiest 

intercity passenger rail corridor in the nation; it carries approximately 2.5 million passengers 

annually on Amtrak intercity trains, exceeded only by the Northeast Corridor. 

SANDAG supports prioritizing the current federal high-speed rail programs to enable greater 

investments in existing high-speed intercity rail corridors with proven ridership. Ensuring the 

efficient movement of passengers and freight on this corridor relies on two key improvement 

programs: double tracking the rail line, and replacing and maintaining rail bridges and other 
256 

aging infrastructure. SANDAG is currently implementing several double tracking projects, bridge 

replacements, and other improvements to the LOSSAN Corridor; these are being funded by our 

TransNel local sales tax revenue program and partial state and federal revenues. 

In addition to providing faster travel times for the COASTER commuter rail passengers within 

the region, these improvements will help better connect Los Angeles and San Diego - the two 

largest cities in the state of California, and respectively, the second and eighth largest cities in 

the nation. Current train travel time between San Diego and Los Angeles is 2 hours and 45 

minutes, significantly slower than driving alone in the rush hour. Current California High-Speed 

Rail Authority (CHSRA) plans call for the Los Angeles Inland Empire - San Diego segment to 

be the last corridor section to be built in the statewide high-speed train system, at a cost of 

approximately $6 billion and with construction beginning no earlier than 2020, dependent upon 

funding availability. 

Directing additional federal high-speed rail funding to the existing LOSSAN intercity rail corridor 

will allow for competitive train travel times at a cost significantly less than current CHSRA plans 

and at far less time than currently proposed. An investment of approximately $800 million to 

expand track capacity in the LOSSAN Corridor. primarily in San Diego County, would allow a 

reduction in travel time by train from San Diego to Los Angeles to 1 hour 50 minutes, and this 

could be could be completed by 2016. These reduced travel times also can be accomplished 

with existing rolling stock and locomotives. 

The LOSSAN Corridor and the new Port of Entry described above also are two critical trade 

connections that are part of a national goods movement system. The projects highlighted are 

among the many needed in California and in other states to ensure the movement of goods for 

our nation's economic well-being. Federal leadership is needed immediately to leverage the 

valuable investment made by state and local partners on these economically critical corridors. 
257 

Improving and Streamlining Transportation Programs 

In addition to financing tools, we must look at ways to streamline the delivery of major 

infrastructure projects. I applaud the Administration's proposed "Every Day Counts" initiative 

and Chairman Mica's priorities for streamlining federal program and cutting red tape with 

the next authorization. There are several opportunities that exist to reduce project delivery 

time, while continuing to maintain and enhance the environment and quality of our projects. 

Like the adage, "time is money," it is widely known that the longer a project takes to build, 

the more costs are incurred. Through streamlining we can save millions, while focusing on 

delivering the project's benefits to the user. We should encourage partnerships and 

commitments between stakeholders and provide meaningful timelines for the environmental 

review and permitting processes. 

SANDAG supports making permanent the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Pilot 

Program that was originally authorized under Section 6005 of SAFETEA-LU. The Program was 

created to determine whether delegating Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

responsibilities for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and for project-specific 

conSUltation and coordination responsibilities under other federal environmental laws would 

accelerate project delivery while maintaining federal environmental protection. California 

entered the Program in July 2007, and it has proven to be a cost-effective and efficient tool, 

while preserving the integrity of the environmental process. It saves time by eliminating projectby-project environmental review by the FHWA and by allowing the California Department of 

Transportation (Caltrans) to consult directly with federal resource agencies. In implementing the 

program, Caltrans developed rigorous quality control procedures, initiated an annual training 

plan for review by FHWA, and is subjected to periodic FHWA audits. In the first three years of 

Program implementation, Caltrans reports that the median timeframe for completing the 
258 

environmental process for routine environmental documents has been reduced between one 

and two years. 

SANDAG also supports the creation of a new streamlined environmental review and permitting 

process for major transportation projects in metropolitan areas that are developed within the 

corridor right-of-way of an existing facility, previously certified to be in compliance with both 

state and federal environmental laws. A new program such as this would enable us to ensure 

we can make timely improvements to our existing highway and transit corridors to keep them in 

a state of good repair. It also would allow other enhancements, such as tolling and systems 

management, to be implemented within the existing footprint of a transportation facility. As with 

the NEPA delegation program, a new pilot program could be authorized in the next federal 

surface transportation act to allow metropolitan regions such as San Diego to test innovative 

ways to accelerate these types of "infill" transportation projects. 

Priorities for Next Authorization: Focused Funding = Focused Results 

Due to our region's proximity to the border there are many issues that we must contend with to 

ensure the free flow of goods and people across the U.S.-Mexico border. To help address these 

issues, SANDAG supports the continuation of certain focused funding programs, specifically the 

Coordinated Border Infrastructure (CBI) program prescribed under SAFETEA-LU, which 

provides dedicated funding for border projects in the region. From 2005 to 2009, CBI funding to 

border states totaled approximately $833 million. The CBI program provided the region with an 

estimated $109 million for State Route 905 connecting the region's existing POEs, the San 

Ysidro Intermodal Center, and to the Interstates 5 and 805 corridors, connecting the border 

region to metropolitan markets to the north. Continuation of the CBI program will enhance the 

economic benefits of trade that our land ports of entry have facilitated with Mexico. Importantly, 

the CBI program allows regions to address the challenges related to the facilitation of 
259 

international trade through our border communities, and ensure the federal government 

continues to be a partner in border-related transportation improvements. 

Summary 

The next federal transportation authorization should be a well-designed planning and funding 

program that ensures federal dollars are aimed at leveraging state and local investments, 

provides flexibility to respond quickly to changing economic and environmental conditions, and 

maximizes economic growth and competitiveness. 

Earlier this month President Obama said, "To win the future, America needs to out-educate, outinnovate, and out-build the rest of the world." Prosperity and growth in the U.S. economy is 

linked to the ability and aptitude of our nation's cities and regions to adjust, develop, and deliver 

effective and competitive transportation programs. Our region serves as an economic driver that 

will be a critical to the success of our country. 

On behalf of SANDAG, I thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony at this Joint 

Field Hearing. SANDAG remains committed to working with the federal government and our 

state government to deliver high-caliber infrastructure projects to rebuild America. We strongly 

feel these investments and policy measures will put us on a path to economic recovery and 

prosperity well into the 21" century. 
260 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

House of Representatives Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

February 23, 2011 Field Hearing 

Los Angeles, California 

Written Testimony of Jim Kemp, Executive Director 

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments 

I very much appreciate Senator Boxer and Congressman Mica and your staffs holding a hearing in 

southern California to seek input about the transportation needs of our particular region to assist in 

your deliberations toward enactment of a new surface transportation bill. It is important that the 

needs of all areas of the country are considered. 

In 2008, Caltrans and transportation agencies throughout California worked together to reach a 

consensus on prinCiples that will best serve our state and we believe need to be incorporated in 

the next federal transportation bill. The California Consensus Principles on Federal Transportation 

ReauthoriZation are as relevant today as when they were first drafted because the problems they 

seek to address have only become more acute during the intervening years. 

The highest national transportation priority continues to be securing and stabilizing the integrity of 

the Highway and Transit Trust Funds. Without a predictable federal transportation revenue source, 

regional agencies like the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments will find it 

exceedingly difficult to develop the large scale transportation infrastructure improvements 

necessary to sustain and grow the national economy. While the recent ARRA stimulus funds 

provided a needed boost to state and local transportation programs, this one-time funding does not 

replace the need for sustained, multi-year investment that large projects require for delivery. 

OUf region has been working for more than a decade to identify, fund and construct solutiOns to 

address increasing traffic congestion on the US 101 in southern Santa Barbara County. The 101 

freeway is the main economic artery for the entire central coast of California. As one of only two 

north south highways in California that connect the Los Angeles and Bay Area metropolitan 

regions it is a vital transportation link of state and national significance. 

In 2008, Santa Barbara County voters passed Measure A with 79% support and agreed to tax 

themselves to pay for critical transportation infrastructure needs over the next thirty years. The 

highest regional priority in the Measure A Investment Plan is eliminating the sixteen mile long twolane bottleneck on the US 101 Highway by widening the freeway. To match the public commitment 

of $140 million in Measure A funds, the SBCAG Board of Directors recently approved a Measure A 

StrategiC Plan that commits an additional $150 million in STIP and RSTP funds to the 101 

widening effort over the next ten years. The total cost of the project is estimated to be $420 

million, so Santa Barbara County taxpayers will contribute nearly 70% of the funds needed to 

improve this important federal highway. ! believe it is entirely appropriate to expect our federal and 

state partners to contribute the remaining funds to help us finish this large project 
261 

The other counties in California's central coast that also rely on US 101 to sustain their local 

economies, San Luis Obispo, Monterey and San Benito County, have all joined with Santa Barbara 

County to form the Central Coast Coalition to raise awareness of the national importance of this 

highway. The agricultural products grown in this area provide produce to markets across the 

country and the military bases in the central coast need adequate support infrastructure to ensure 

their national defense mission. 

The other California Consensus Principles represent a departure from the norm and will require 

new thinking about the federal government's role in transportation but they are focused on 

maximizing available revenue to ensure the highest priority regional transportation needs receive 

the federal funding they deserve. 

I would like to focus my brief comments on two principles that are closely related: performancebased decision making and funding flexibility. According to the Transportation Policy and Revenue 

Study Commission, there are over 100 distinct federal surface transportation funding programs that 

are currently authorized. Each program represents a "silo" with its own narrowly defined objectives 

and set of rules and regulations that limit the types of projects that can be funded. 

This model for the federal role in transportation is obsolete and creates many problems: 

It skews transportation planning and encourages states and local governments to 

chase after dollars that are available rather than making sound investment decisions 

and implementing the best solutions 

Complying with the tangle of regulations diverts resources and slows down project 

delivery 

Many projects are funded from multiple sources and creating a coherent funding 

plan which meshes these sources becomes an enormous challenge. 

Smaller jurisdictions-including some that I represent--are effectively shut out of 

most federal programs because they don't have the resources to manage these 

projects 

In conclusion, I would urge that federal funding programs in the next surface transportation bill be 

designed to address broad policy goals: reducing congestion, goods movement, safety, reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions. Reduce the regulations and the number of programs and increase 

flexibility. Unfetter states and local governments and empower them to make sound decisions on 

the most effective strategies for meeting federal policy goals. And finally, hold us accountable for 

the use of these funds by establishing performance standards and focusing investments on 

outcomes. Federal programs should be designed to encourage desired results and to incentivize 

appropriate investments in transportation at the state and local level. 

We value our partnership with the federal government and believe that there are national interests 

served by a continued strong federal role in transportation policy and funding. It is our hope that 

these interests will be better addressed through new thinking as Congress crafts the next surface 

transportation authorization bill. 

If you have any further questions about this testimony, please do not hesitate to contact me at 

(805) 961-8900. 

Sincerely, 

v' 

Jim Kemp 

Executive Director 
262 

.$tate ~uilbing anb <!Construction {[rabes <!Council ROBERT L. 8ALGENORTH 

February 22, 2011 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

United States Senate 

112 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

of <snLiforntil 

('lii/!It,!",-.! h.\ 

SUlDlNG ANO CONSTRUCTION 'l'AAOES 

DEPARTMENT 

AFL • CIO 

JAMES W. KELLOGG 

S£CRH4/tY·H!EolSIJII.I'.R 

RE: Joint Field Hearing of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Dear Senator Boxer: 

On behalf of the 350,000 members of the State Building and Construction Trades 

Council, AFL-CIO I write to express our strong support for continued federal funding for 

California's efforts to build the nation's first high speed rail system, 

California is facing record unemployment that far outpaces the national average and the 

hard working members of the State Building and Construction Trades are among the 

hardest hit Our members are experiencing an average of 35% unemployment that will 

only grow as this year progresses. Califomia's high speed rail project is at its core a 

badly needed jobs program Ihat is projected to create 160,000 construction jobs and, 

when fully operational, 450,000 permanent jobs. For every $1 billion invested in high 

speed rail it is estimated that over 20,000 jobs will be created, Furthermore, the jobs 

created by investment in high speed rail will be good paying jobs that will help provide 

middle class livelihoods to the workers involved in the construction. 

In addition to the obvious job creation benefits of this important project, the positive 

environmental impacts of a high speed fail system are extraordinary, The creation of a 

high speed rail system in California wi!! eliminate 12 billion pounds of enVironmentally 

damaging emissions each year. This is the equivalent of removing one million cars 

from our roads. The immediate improvements in air quality that will result from this 

project are only now beginning to be understood. 

California leads the nation in terms of preparation and readiness to build a high speed 

rail system and to receive federa! money to help with that construction, The passage of 

Proposition 1A in November 2008 provides $9.95 billion in state funding for our high 

speed rail project. That PropoSition also created a High Speed Rail Authorily that is 

charged with overseeing the project and dispersing the funds to construct it. That 

authority operates with a full board, staff, and executive director and has already made 

the first critical decision about where to build the first leg of the system. With a state 

. S.;crsm8NO, CA 058'>1· [9161 rt i lJ·33iJ2 F;\X (9113) /i!;3-a20,~ 
263 

funding guarantee and the High Speed Rail Authority in place California is poised to 

begin meeting its goal of creating a high speed rail system. 

Unfortunately, there are policymakers throughout the country and in California who 

doubt that a high speed rail system can be built and that it is even necessary. Just last 

week, Governor Rick Scott of Florida turned down almost $3 billion in federal funding to 

help begin building a high speed rail system in his state and admitted just today that he 

didn't even consult with his own Department of Transportation before making that 

terrible decision. While we believe that this is a shortsighted view to take, we stand 

ready to receive Florida's share of federal funds to use on our own high speed rail 

project. We believe that the time has come to look forward and create a mass transit 

system for the 21 st century that will help create jobs and preserve our environment. 

California needs this project for both the positive environmental impacts it will create 

and for the thousands of good-paying jobs that the state desperately needs. We urge 

you to help meet President Obama's goal of achieving a high speed rail system in our 

country that, we hope, will start in California. Please remember his goal as you discuss 

the future of the nation's surface transportation programs at your hearing Wednesday 

and throughout the year. 

Si.n7)eIY, 

/ I /1 . )f'i . i Jtft .. f4o/) ~esavDiaz {.. 

legislative Director 

CD:cmh 

opeiu#29/afl-cio 
264 

South Coast 

Air Quality Management District 

Testimony of Peter Greenwald 

Senior Policy Advisor 

South Coast Air Quality Management District 

Joint Field Hearing of 

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee & 

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

Los Angeles, CA 

February 23, 2011 

Chairman Boxer and Chairman Mica -

We wish to express our appreciation for your choice of Southern California as one of the stops 

on your listening tour. As a key international goods movement gateway for the nation, with a 

large and growing population, Southern California faces enormous surface transportation 

challenges. These challenges create impacts nationwide. Within those ehallengcs lie 

opportunities to implement solutions that will benefit the nation in many ways. The title of the 

hearing, "Improving and Reforming ollr Nation's Surface Transportation Programs 10 Support 

Job Creation and the Economy," highlights the fact that surface transportation projects can bc a 

major impetus for jobs and economic growth. Such projects can also, however, be a critical part 

of efforts to achieve efficiency, energy security and reduce pollution by moving the nation 

toward cleaner, domestic fuel sourccs, and away from imp0l1ed fossil fuels. 

The South Coast Air Gua/itv Management District 

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) is the air pollution control agency 

for all of Orange County and the urban portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino 

counties. This area covers over 10,000 square miles and is home to almost 17 million residents. 

If our four-county region were a state, it would be thc fifth most populous. With the largest port 

complex in North America, and several international airports, transportation plays an integral 

part in our lives, economy, and environment. 

While the South Coast Air Basin has made substantial stridcs in reducing air pollution, the region 

still has the most unhealthful air in the nation, with serious public health impacts. Ozone and 

tine particulate pollution in the South Coast Air Basin causes over 5,000 premature deaths each 
265 

year, and hundreds of thousands of cases of asthma and other respiratory diseases. In addition 

to health impacts and health costs to our residents. higher costs are also faced by industry due to 

lost workdays and lower productivity. 

Emissions from mobile sources such as cars. trucks. buses. trains. planes and ships are the 

primary cause of our air quality problems. Recognizing the impact of transportation, AQMD has 

worked closely with transportation agencies. ports and other stakeholders, locally and nationally, 

to find ways to modernize our passenger transport and goods movement systems so as to expand 

our economy, reduce congestion, and protect the environment. 

Air Quality Challenges 

Federal law establishes health-based National Ambient Air Quality Standards with enforceable 

attainment deadlines. In order to attain these standards in a timely manner. mobile source 

emissions in our region must be reduced substantially. By 2023, emissions of one key pollutant, 

nitrogen oxides. must be reduced by over r,vo-thirdv beyond levels IFe expect to achieve with 

present regulatory programs and traditional technologies. Further emission reductions will be 

needed in the 2030 timeframe. The tie to transportation is direct: mobile sources such as cars. 

trucks, locomotives and ships create 90% of nitrogen oxides emissions in our region. 

The challenge of reducing mobile source cmissions is one that will require collaborative 

solutions by many parties, including the fcderal government. Federal, state and local 

transportation agencies have a clear interest in ensuring air quality attainment, since sanctions 

(including cut-otr offederal transportation funds) may bc imposcd if the region fails to meet its 

obligations under the federal Clean Air Act. Federal assistance is needed because state and local 

authority to regulate emissions from some transportation sources (such as locomotives) is 

restricted. And. as is described below, federal funding and policy support will be needed to 

develop and deploy the next generation of clean transportation intrastrueture and technologies. 

Recommended Policies 

Emission reductions o{the magnitude needed in our region will require deployment olclean 

energy technologies for the vehicles we drive, the infrastructure we build, and the equipment 

we use to build them. To comply with federal air quality mandates. the region will need broad 

deployment in the 2023 to 2030 timeframe of zero and ncar zero emission transport equipment. 

such as vehicles powered by electric, hybrid electric and other clean energy technologies. 

In addition to cleaning the air, deployment of clean energy technologies will serve important 

national interests such as energy security. avoiding energy price shocks, creating clean-tech jobs, 

allowing cargo grov.th that brings logistics jobs. fostering public support for capacity-enhancing 

transport infrastructure, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Federaljimding. policy. and regulatory sllpport is ncededjiJr transportation inji'astructure that 

enables. incentil'izes and lIIilizes clean enagy technologies. There is no doubt that we need to 
266 

invest in our aging infrastructure for a strong economy and a better quality of life. This should 

be viewed as an opportunity to invest in a manner that will simultaneously serve mobility, 

energy, economic, safety, and environmental needs, so that project benefits are magnified. 

Federal surface transportation policies should address on-road. rail. passenger andfreight in a 

coordinated fashion. Our entire surface transportation system is interconnected. Cargo travels 

from ship to truck to rail to truck. Commuter trains share tracks with freight trains. Trucks share 

highways with passenger vehicles. These circumstances can lead to safety risks, congestion, and 

pollution. 

Consider, for example, the [-710 freeway the major artery between the ports of Los Angeles 

and Long Beach to the south, and intermodal railyards and transload warehouses to the north and 

east. Every day, thousands of trucks share the [-710 corridor with passenger vehicles. A drive 

on the freeway surrounded by 18-wheelers can be claustrophobic if not frightening. There are 

serious congestion and safety problems, and diesel pollution from trucks causes significant 

health risks to people near the freeway. 

But just as there are multiple problems resulting from the existing transportation system, there 

arc projects that could provide multiple beneflts. Many of these projects could serve as models 

for actions in other areas of the country. Below, we highlight three areas for federal action. 

Key Projects & Programs Needing Federal Support 

1. Dedicated /-710 Truck Lanes. A potentially ground breaking project currently under 

development would create dedicated truck lanes along the 1-71 0 freeway. Under one alternative, 

the truck lanes would be dedicated solely to zero-emission trucks. The project would improve 

freight velocity, reduce passenger vehicle congestion, improve safety, and greatly reduce 

emissions in a highly impacted area. 

A variety of technologies are possible for zero- or near-zero emission trucks. One technology 

being considered for the 1-71 0 would provide for hybrid-electric or all electric trueks powered 

from overhead catenary wires or electromagnetic coils in the roadbed. Such systems are being 

developed now, and could be installed in our region as a demonstration project to showcase how 

clean technology could work nationwide. Hybrid electric trucks could run on electricity while 

traveling in the 1-71 0 truck lanes, charging their batteries at the same time. And when the trucks 

leave the electrified corridor, they could run either on electricity or conventional fuel. 

The developers olthese technologies. however, need a clear signalfrom the government that a 

market will exist that justifies their development costs. This should be done through federal 

incentives and regulatory policy. 

2. Port Zero Emission Container Transport. A project similar to the J-71 0 is being considered 

by the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to move containers to near-dock rail yards about 

five miles north of the ports. Due to the critical nature of such projects for air quality attainment 
267 

and reduction of local health risks, AQMD has set ~- as a top priority for this yearcommencement of a demonstration of a zero-emission container movement system by the ports. 

Federalfimdinf; assistance for development and deployment o{needed technologyfi)r such a 

demonstration would provide important impetusji)r the project. This project could also be a 

model for swift, sustainable freight transport nationwide. 

3. Rail. Other projects that would provide mobility, energy, economic and environmental 

benefits include incorporating electrified technologies into any expansion of our rail system -

rather than using traditional diesel-powered locomotives. Electric rail is in use around the world 

today for both freight and passenger service. 

In addition, shorter-term federal actions for rail are needed. Most importantly, we need to 

expedite routing of the cleanest diesel locomotives to areas with air quality challenges. The 

federal govemment should accelerate deployment to highly polluted areas of locomotives 

meeting U.S. EPA 'Tier 4" standards. The railroads have demonstrated that such preferential 

routing of clean locomotives is feasible, and the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, as part of 

their efforts to "grow green," have set acceleration of Tier 4 locomotives as a goal. 

Conclusion 

These are just some of the many clean technology and infrastructure projects that could benefit 

air quality while building our economy, reducing congestion, and maximizing mobility. These 

projects entail substantial capital expenditures, but they will provide long-term benefits to the 

nation. They will also support private sector interests, creating opportunities for public private 

partnerships. 

Thank you for soliciting input Irom local stakeholders on the challenges we face. We look 

forward to working with you on surface transportation authorization legislation to help ensure 

that our nation's transportation system is strengthened, jobs are created, and the environment is 

protected. 
268 

SIERRA 

CLUB 

fOUNDED 1892 

Statement for the Record of 

Ann Mesnikoff 

Director, Green Transportation Campaign 

Sierra Club 

Regarding 

"Improving and Reforming our Nation's Surface Transportation Programs to 

Support Job Creation and the Economy." 

Joint Field Hearing 

Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, United States House of 

Representatives 

Los Angeles, California 

February 23, 2011 
269 

Introduction 

I applaud the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the House 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for holding to day's joint hearing 

on improving and reforming our nation's surface transportation infrastructure. 

Indeed, investing in and reforming our transportation infrastructure is critical to 

achieving two national goals: breaking our addiction to oil and creating jobs. By 

repairing and maintaining our crumbling infrastructure and providing Americans 

with transportation choices, we can reduce our dependence on oil and improve our 

economy. 

Investment in transportation infrastructure is desperately needed. 

Our transportation system is dilapidated and outdated. According to the Federal 

Highway Administration, more than 27% of the lane miles of the interstate highway 

system are in less than good condition and nearly 25% of our bridges are 

structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.1 

To help convey the crumbling state of our transportation infrastructure, last week 

Sierra Club released an updated interactive "Fix-it-First" map on our website that 

allows readers to see the condition of roads and bridges in each state. 2 Overall, 

141,896 bridges-24% of the total bridges nationwide-12,730 miles of interstate 

highway-27% of all interstate highway miles-and 48% of other roads, or 

145,071 miles of other roads, are in need of maintenance and repair. 

In their "Report Card for America's Infrastructure," the Association for Civil 

Engineers graded America's roads as a D-, bridges as a C and transit as a D. To bring 

our infrastructure up to speed, the ASCE identified the need for a $2.2 trillion 

investment in America's infrastructure over the next five years. 3 

Investment in our nation's transportation infrastructure is clearly necessary. In 

constrained financial times, repair and maintenance must be prioritized over 

building of new and unnecessary highways. 

We were encouraged to see President Obama's proposed budget for Fiscal Year 

2012, in which he outlined a transportation authorization that included a strong 

"fix-it-first" component. 

Breaking our addiction to oil with transportation choices 

I Federal Highway Administration. Highway Statistics. 2008. 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinl(1rrnation/stati>tics/200R/hm64.cfm 

2 Sierra Club. "Fix it First!." 2011. ilttp:llwww.sierraclub.org/transpnrtationlfixitfirst/default.aspx 

3 American Society of Civil Engineers. "2QOCJ " 2009. 
270 

Our addiction to oil has devastating consequences for our public health, economy 

and our wild places. Recently we have seen the damage inflicted on our 

environment from the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the pain caused to drivers at 

the pump during gas price spikes, and the threat to public health caused by tailpipe 

emissions. 

Today, the transportation sector is responsible for more than 70% of our nation's oil 

use.4 Nearly two-thirds of oil in the transportation sector is used by light-duty cars 

and trucks. 

While strong fuel efficiency and emissions standards will make new cars 

increasingly more efficient, investments must be made to give Americans choices for 

how they travel between home, work, school and leisure. According to the United 

States Census Bureau, only 54% of Americans have access to public transportation. 

Those without access to public transportation remain shackled to the gas pump and 

susceptible to the squeeze of high gas prices, with no choice but to remain 

dependent on oil. 

Oil dependence and lack of transportation choices also has a profound impact on the 

well-being of American families and the economy. 

According to the US Census Bureau, transportation is the highest household expense 

behind housing for most American families, averaging 19% of family household 

budgets. For low-income families, this transportation costs surpass housing at 55% 

of the annual household budget. Meanwhile, Americans with access to good public 

transit spend only 9% of their annual household budgets on transportation. 

Our dangerous oil addiction also drains over half a billion dollars from our economy 

each day to pay for foreign oil, posing a threat to national security. 5 This is money 

that could be invested in local economies, but our oil-dependent transportation 

system and lack of other transportation choices forces Americans to send this 

money overseas to countries that are unstable or hostile to the United States.6 

We need a transportation system that breaks our addiction to oil while providing 

transportation choices to all Americans. 

Creating jobs through transportation investment 

Investment in transportation infrastructure creates jobs. Millions of Americans have 

helped build, maintain and operate our network of roads, bridges and transit 

, Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Review. 2009. 

, American Security Project and Sierra Club. "Ending Our Dependence on Oil." 2010. 

http:// a meri cansecuri typroject. nrgl wp-eontent/up loads/20 I 011 OlE n ct i ng-cQP r -Depende nee-on-Oi I. pct f 

6 American Security Project and Sierra Club. "Ending Our Dependence on Oil." 2010. 

http://americansecllrityproject.org/wp-content/uploads/20 I Oil O/Ending-our-Depende nce-on-Oj I.pdf 
271 

systems. Further investment in transportation infrastructure - both repair and 

maintenance and the construction of alternative modes of transportation, such as 

biking and walking - can create thousands of new jobs at a critical time. 

Repairing and maintaining our current infrastructure creates more jobs than 

building new road capacity because it is more labor intensive and places money in 

the economy more quickly. 

Similarly, investment in public transportation and other transportation alternatives 

can create more jobs than new road capacity. In an analysis of spending under the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Smart Growth America found that public 

transportation projects created nearly twice as many job hours per dollar invested 

as spending on new highway infrastructure projectsJ 

Investing in 21 5t century transportation infrastructure that provides transportation 

choices is key to both reducing our dependence on oil and in creating new jobs that 

will stimulate the economy and keep America competitive in the 21st century global 

economy. 

Conclusion 

Our nation's transportation system is at a crossroads - we can continue to fuel our 

addiction to oil or we can achieve transportation, climate, and public health 

objectives by planning strategically and prioritizing investment in low and nocarbon, oil-saving transportation choices. 

We must invest in 215t century transportation infrastructure that breaks our 

addiction to oil and provides transportation choices to all Americans while putting 

the countly back to work. We look forward to working with members of the 

Committees to achieve these goals. 

7 Smart Growth America. What We Learned From The Stimulus. 2010. 

http://www.slllartQrowthamerica.org/rcsearch/what-we-learnecl-froll1-the-Slinllllusl 
272 

STATEMENT OF 

David St. Amant 

President and Chief Operating Officer, Econolite Group, Inc. 

Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITS America), Board Member and Chairman of ITS 

America's Campaign for Intelligent Transportation Solutions 

BEFORE THE 

House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

HEARING ON 

Improving and Reforming Our Nation's Surface Transportation Programs to Support Job 

Creation and the Economy -Joint Field Hearing with the Senate 

February 23, 2011 
273 

Senator Barbara Boxer, Chairman of the Senate's Committee on Environment and Public Works, and 

John Mica, Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I am honored to 

join you today to discuss our Nation's next Surface Transportation bill and how this bill can help improve 

and reform our Nation's Surface Transportation Programs to Support Job Creation and the Economy. 

At a time when governments at all levels are being asked to do more with less, investing in ITS 

technologies will ensure that our transportation system is safer, more efficient and user-friendly, and 

supports job creation and economic growth while getting more bang for the buck for our transportation 

dollars. 

We cannot afford to simply build our way out of our transportation challenges. We need to invest 

smarter - using technology to connect transportation modes, expand traveler choices, improve traffic 

management, and keep our nation's infrastructure in a state of good repair. Technology is essential for 

getting the most out of our existing transportation network. 

As we seek to transition to a more accountable, performance-based transportation system, ITS 

technologies are essential for providing accurate, real-time traffic and multi modal transportation system 

information to measure performance, as well as the tools to actively manage the transportation 

network to improve results. 

State and local agencies that are considering new financing alternatives are increasingly turning to 

technology to improve efficiency and user convenience, from electronic tolling, smart cards and 

dynamic pricing systems to future alternatives like a VMT-based user fee that could vary by time of day, 

congestion level or other factors. 

And high-tech solutions are cost-effective and quick to deploy. For example, smart traffic Signals that 

change based on real-world conditions are returning $40 to the public in time and fuel savings for every 

$1 invested, reducing travel delays by 25 percent and C02 emissions by up to 22 percent. 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found the benefit-to-cost ratio of a nationwide real-time 

traffic information system to be 25 to 1, with a $1.2 billion investment returning more than $30 billion 

in safety, mobility and environmental benefits. In general, ITS-enabled operational strategies have 

been found to have a 9 to 1 benefit-to-cost ratio, more than 3 times that of traditional construction 

projects. 

Recent studies have shown that investing in ITS technologies creates a network effect throughout the 

economy and stimulates job creation across multiple sectors, from the high-tech, automotive and 

consumer electronics industries to green jobs, engineering and telecommunications. The report also 

found that ITS investments provide a foundation for long-term benefits including government cost 

savings, economy-wide productivity, and an improved quality of life. 
274 

From cars that avoid crashes and Smart Highways that reduce gridlock to freight management systems, 

stress-sensing bridges and buses that provide real-time information to commuters, ITS technologies are 

here today. 

As Congress works to reauthorize surface transportation programs, we need to do more to incentivize 

the deployment of these and other technology solutions instead of continuing to fund only ITS research. 

The Smart Technologies for Communities Act, which is being introduced in the U.S. House of 

Representatives by Congressmen Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Russ Carnahan (D-MO), would establish 

several competitively selected model deployment communities for existing transportation technologies, 

which could also serve as real-world research and testing sites for advanced ITS solutions that are 

nearing deployment such as VMT-based user fees and a wireless communications system between 

vehicles that could help drivers avoid crashes. 

The U.s. Department of Transportation estimates that this connected vehicle network could potentially 

prevent or mitigate the impact of 80 percent of unimpaired vehicle crashes, saving thousands of lives 

each year while providing significant mobility and environmental. 

The Smart Technologies for Communities Act will advance the deployment of 21st century technologies 

that are vital for creating a safer, more efficient transportation system, spurring job creation, and 

improving our nation's economic competitiveness while generating a greater return on our 

transportation investment. 

We hope you will consider including this initiative in the transportation reauthorization bill as one 

critical step toward modernizing our transportation system and helping the U.S. reclaim its role as an 

innovation and economic leader. 

dstamant@econolite.com 

714-630-3700 ext. 212 
275 

Statement for the Record 

House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure 

Los Angeles, California Field Hearing 

"Improving and Reforming our Nation's Surface Transportation Programs to Support Job 

Creation and the Economy" 

February 23, 2011 

Transportation, or inadequate access to transportation, has an impact on all regions of this 

country - rural, urban, and suburban. As the backbone of American infrastructure, 

transportation is vital to our economy. The Federal Surface Transportation Authorization Act 

(FSTAA) has proposed much-needed investment in the development and improvement of our 

aging transportation infrastructure. As we proceed, however, we must ensure that this 

significant investment moves us forward together rather than exacerbating existing inequity. 

Equitable transportation increases the ability for people to support themselves and their 

families by providing access to good jobs, and it increases the workforce available to employers. 

Access to transportation also ensures that people can improve their health - by reducing traffic 

congestion and pollution, by improving access to a wider range of healthy food options, and by 

increasing access to medical care. 

Funding for Transit Operations 

We encourage you to allocate transit funding to operate transit systems across the country. 

The nation and Los Angeles face major transit questions-as money gets tighter, some transit 

agencies are truly strapped, but MANY are choosing to invest in expanding capital projects 

instead of maintaining existing transit service. The Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation 

Authority (MTA) is a perfect example of an agency that prioritizes multibillion dollar capital 

expansion over sustaining and expanding the existing bus system. On MT A's chopping block are 

plans to cut 11 bus lines and truncate 16 lines of which thousands will experience elimination 

of weekend and midday service and in many cases buses will run only once an hour. "Most of 

these cuts are concentrated in South Los Angeles, where a high number of Black and Latino, low 

income bus riders live," said Esperanza Martinez, BRU organizer. These cuts come at the heels 

of the 388,000 hours of bus service cut by MTA last year! 

Last year many cities across the country suffered cuts including but not limited to the firing of 

1000 transit workers in Chicago, the elimination of 66 bus lines out of 133 in Atlanta and 34 

bus lines eliminated in New York City and its boroughs. In 2009, over 97,000 transit workers lost 

their jobs because of massive cuts in bus and train service throughout the country and the 

numbers for 2010 are prOjected to be much higher. 
276 

Over the past year nearly 90 percent of transit systems have had to raise fares or cut service 

and among the 25 largest transit operators 10 raised fares more than 13 percent', As a direct 

result of these service cuts 97,000 transit workers lost their jobs in 2009 and by September 

2010 an additional 78,000 jobs were lost,' In addition to the direct jobs lost by cutting transit 

service $1 in service cuts resulting from operating deficits yields $10 in local economic loss from 

lost wages and increased transportation costs,' $10 million invested in transit operations 

produces $30 million in increased business sales, This 300% multiplier means both additional 

jobs in the local economy and increased sales tax revenues for state and local governments.' 

Fortunately recent data demonstrates that funding transit, and especially transit service, not 

only helps address the most basic needs of low income communities but it is also one of the 

best forms of job creation and economic stimulus, A report by the Transportation Equity 

Network showed that if 20 metropolitan areas shifted 50% of their highway funds to transit 

they would generate 1,123,674 new transit jobs over a five-year period for a net gain of 

180,150 jobs over five years all without a single dollar of new spending. 5 More importantly, 

transit operations funding has proven to outperform investment in transit capital. 

The Bus Riders Union and the Transit Riders for Public Transportation urges your leadership in 

the upcoming FSTA to secure funding for transit operations, 

Bus Riders Union Opposition to the 30-10 Plan 

We encourage you to not support the current 30-10 proposal being put forth by the MTA 

leadership, Through the 30/10 Initiative, LACMTA is asking to borrow $8,8 billion from the 

federal government to accelerate 12 mass transit projects outlined in California's AB 2321 and 

the Y, cent county sales tax Measure R (both passed in 2008) and LACMTA's own 2009 Long 

Range Transportation Plan, 

As you may know, the Bus Riders Union Title VI consent decree with lACMTA (1996-2006) 

redressed a pattern of civil rights harms to los Angeles County bus riders -- who are 80% of the 

totailACMTA rider ship and 90% people of color caused by LACMTA's over-spending on rail 

construction and severe under-resourcing of the bus system, We believe the 30/10 initiatives 

threatens to repeat the very same civil rights harms from our previous lawsuit by front-loading 

1 http://t4america.org/resources/strandedl 

2 Industries at a Glance: U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics 

3 Orain & Associates, and Byrd, R. "Using Public Transportation to Reduce the Economic. Human and 

Social Costs of Personal Immobility" 1998 

4 Cambridge Systematics, Inc & Economic Development 

Research Group "Qualitative Analysis of Public Transportation's Economic Impact." 1999 

5 Transportation Equity Network: More Transit = More Jobs 
277 

billions of dollars worth of rail construction through debt-financing at the expense of the bus 

system. We urge the federal government to reject LACMTA's request for billions of dollars in 

loans to accelerate this set of projects for the following reasons: 

30/10 will gut the bus system, the backbone of public transit in LA: With 80% of 

MTA's total boardings, the bus system is the backbone of the transit system. Yet 30/10 

promises no concrete improvements to bus riders. This year, MTA has already 

implemented the second 20% fare increase in three years and plans to eliminate 

388,000 hours of bus service -- amounting to an attack on bus riders whose average 

annual household income is $12,000. MTA's 2009 Long Range Transportation Plan calls 

for continued bus service cuts and 14 fare increases over the next 30 years, supposedly 

necessitated by ongoing deficits in the their bus operations budget. How can an agency 

claim it is consistently running deficits that require draconian fare hikes and bus 

service cuts while simultaneously claiming that its credit is so strong that it qualifies 

for a 30-year, $8.8 billion loan? 

30/10 focuses on rail expansion despite its failed results. A recent Los Angeles Times 

story ("Metro Rail to mark its 20th anniversary", July 23, 2010) cites two transit policy 

experts' opinion that MTA's $8 billion investment in rail construction since 1985 has 

come at the expense of the bus system and driven down ridership, costing the agency at 

least 1.5 billion boardings in the period from 1985-2006. According to figures from the 

Federal Transit Administration, the MTA has fewer passengers in 2009-after $8 billion 

spent to build 79 miles of rail - than it had before rail construction began in 1986 even 

though LA County's population increased 20% in this time period. Rail construction in LA 

County is qUite simply bad policy and a major borrowing scheme to continue it should 

be stopped in its tracks. 

30/10 will drown the agency with debt, exacerbating the already existing operations 

budget crisis. LACMTA already spends millions each year on paying off debt from past 

rail construction, money that could otherwise be spent on operating the bus system. 

What will happen when the MTA squanders 30 years of sales tax revenue into 10 years. 

and does nothing for the bus system in that period? Then when people come back in the 

11th year, the 15th year, the 25th year, a new MTA board will say, "Whoever spent 30 

years revenue in 10 years bankrupted the agency. We have no funds for operations, no 

funds to reduce fares, no funds to increase service, we are in a permanent spiral of 

service cuts and fare increases"-- until the MTA goes bankrupt altogether. We support 

deficit spending for hospitals, schools, and mental health clinics but not to reward 

boondoggle rail projects at the expense of the MTA's ridership. 

Expanding mass transit funds, especially earmarked transit operations and bus capital 

funds, is an alternative. We support a dramatic re-prioritization of funds from the 

federal surface transportation bill from highway to public transit-80% to transit and 20% 

to highways would be a perfect flip of the current formula. We also support a 50/50 split 
278 

between bus and rail in the federal expenditures, and a 50/50 split between capital 

projects (construction) and operations-drivers, mechanics, service increases, fare 

decreases. If the MTA would share the existing Measure R sales tax funds as they have 

pledged--giving at least 20% of those funds to bus capital and operations--and work with 

us to get 50% for rail and 50% in bus funding from Congress, we would be supportive of 

some of their plans. And in this case, MTA would not have to borrow from the federal 

government because additional federal funds would be available through the reauthorization of the surface transportation bill. 

• LACMTA cannot be trusted with this money-their track record demonstrates they 

WILL starve the bus system. We know well from our 10-year civil rights court battle that 

even under federal supervision, LACMTA aggressively fought, delayed and/or fell short 

in virtually every aspect of bus expansion ordered by the courts. Given this long track 

record of disregard for the rights of mostly Black, Latino, Asian/Pacific Islander and 

"profoundly poor" (in MTA's own words) bus riders and the striking similarities between 

today's conditions and those that sparked our lawsuit, we can only assume that 

accelerating the Long Range Transportation Plan through such a loan will accelerate 

MTA's attacks on those same bus riders. 

• LACMTA's adversarial relationship with 500,000 bus riders. Contrary to what the MTA 

may say, the BRU does not have an inherently adversarial relationship with the MTA. 

We reach out to them all the time with poor results. Sadly, it is the agency that has an 

adversarial relationship with 500,000 bus riders. This spring, bus riders testified they 

wanted a public hearing on the fare increase. The MTA flatly and repeatedly denied this 

basic request. People testify that they cannot afford - on a household income of 

$15,000 or $20,000 or $25,000 for a family of 4 or 5 or 6 -- one or two bus passes with a 

monthly increase of $13 or $26. In response, the MTA Board and staff sit cold and 

heartless and say they have a budget shortfall after asking the same low-income people 

to pay Y, cent more in sales tax - now totaling 1 Y, cents on every dollar -- to the MTA. 

We ask the MTA to slow down some rail projects so they can build some rail and also 

expand the bus system. They refuse. It is in this context of contempt for their own 

customers that people see the MTA as a rail construction agency rather than a public 

transportation agency and why this request to the federal government for a loan on 

future revenues is at once cruel, bizarre, and fiscally irresponsible. 

We look forward to working with you to ensure equitable investments in the next federal 

surface transportation act. 

The Labor/Community Strategy Center and the Bus Riders Union 
279 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

Improving and Reforming our Nation's Surface Transportaiton Program to Support Job 

Creation and the Ecollomy: 

Los Angeles, California Field Hearing 

Written Testimony of 

Genevieve Giuliano, PhD. 

Submitted for the Record 

Director, METRANS Transportation Center 

University of Southern California 

And 

California State University, Long Beach 

Vice President, Research Education and Training Reauthorization Coalition 

Wednesday, Feburary 23, 2011 

Brentwood Theater, Los Angeles 

On behalf of the Research Education and Training Reauthorization Coalition (RETRC) I 

welcome the opportunity to submit written comments to the House Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure. RETRC is a non-profIt organization established by university transportation 

research centers throughout the US to promote federal support for research, education, training 

and technology transfer. 

Our transportation system is critical to US long term economic health and global 

competitiveness, yet we are falling further behind each day in maintaining our system in good 

repair, solving capacity and other problems, developing and applying new technologies, and 

training the next generation workforce. 

University research, education and training is the foundation on which new technologies and new 

solutions to transportation problems are built. It will not be possible to increase the e1Ticieney of 

our transportation system or catch up to our competitors around the world without a strong and 

focused university research and development program. University research creates the new 

knowledge that results in more etlicient system management, better strategies for public-private 
280 

partnerships, cleaner and more fuel efficient vehicles, and a host of other innovations. 

Universities train tomorrow's transportation industry leaders, and our most etTeetive form of 

technology transfer is to get highly trained students into government and industry. 

Despite the importance of transportation to the US economy and its people, relatively little is 

invested in transportation research and development. The University TranspOitation Center 

(UTC) program at the US Department of Transportaiton (USDOT) is the only federal university 

transportation research program, and it is currently funded at about $76 million per year. 

First established in 1987, the UTC program includes 60 centers at 120 universities. It is a 

program that represents a small investment with a large payoff. On average, UTCs generate $3 

in state and local dollars for every $1 in tederallunding, leveraging the federal investment into a 

$228 million research and education program. Every year, these 120 universities graduate 

thousands of undergraduates and graduates who enter the transportation workforce with state of 

the art skills and knowledge. Every year, new knowledge is generated by faculty and researchers 

in many fields of engineering, business, planning, and management. 

The UTC program is critical to the USDOT. Each UTes program is aligned with one or more 

of USDOT's goals of ensuring safety, economic competitiveness, state of good repair, livability 

and sustainability. UTCs are accountable via stringent reporting and performance requirements, 

with the demonstration of tangible program outcomes among the most important. 

UTCs are also critical to states and localities. The UTC program recognizes that local needs and 

conditions vary substantially from place to place. Local economic conditions, popUlation 

characteristics, growth rate, climate, and a variety of other factors all have intluence. The 

geographic range ofUTCs enables them to contribute to local and regional problem solving, and 

the presence of federal funding provides an attractive match for liscally constrained states and 

local governments. 

Each UTC can point to numerous examples of how it has contributed to solving transportation 

problems and training the next generation workforce. Here are just a few examples ii'om the 

METRANS Transportation Center. None of these accomplishments would have happened 

without the support of the UTC program. 

Contributions in Research: 

• More efJicient train scheduling method,for complex and congested rail networks. As our 

freight rail system continues to increase traffic volume, more of the system approaches 

capacity, and more precise strategies for routing and scheduling trains are required. 

2 
281 

huck lolls for managing conRestion and increasing safety: Trucks contribute 

disproportinately to congestion in large metropolitan areas, and accidents are more 

frequent on congested highways. Truck tolls would reduce congestion and increase 

safety while generating funds for highway improvements. 

• Improving pedestrian safety in cities: Pedestrians face many hazards in congested cities. 

By designing safe walking routes to school and safer pedestrian traffic and train 

crossings, more walking trips are encouraged. 

• More effit.;ienr operations/or urbanfi"eight: More emcient truck routing, chassis pools, 

extended terminal gate hours, truck appointment systems, and short sea shipping may 

reduce highway and terminal congestion and also reduce air pollution. 

Contributions in Education and Training: 

• Global Logistics Specialist: A training program for working professionals in 

international trade and supply chain management that has trained over 1,000 students, it 

is now otlered online and as an international training program. 

• Goods movement short courses: Training for public agency staff in goods movement 

planning and management; about 40 persons trained each ycar. 

• Transportation ,\}'stems ManaRement certificate: A certificate and field concentration for 

masters dcgree students in civil engineering, industrial engineering, urban planning, 

public policy, and public management. 

As you gather information in these field hearings and develop the new surface transportation 

authorization, I urge that you consider the great value of the UTC program and continue its 

federal funding support. I am happy to meet with Committee Members to answer any questions 

or provide further information on the UTC program. 

Respectfully Submitted 

Vice President. RETRC 

3 
282 

Hello. my name is Tami Friedrich. I am a Board member of Citizens for Reliable and Safe 

Highways (CRASH) and the California volunteer coordinator for the Truck Safety Coalition. I am 

also a resident of Corona, California. I have been involved with the Truck Safety Coalition since 

my sister Kris, brother-in-law Alan, niece Brandie, and nephew Anthony were all killed in a crash 

involving an overturned gasoline tanker truck. I am just one family member representative of 

the more than 4,000 people who lose their lives every year in truck related fatalities. 

There are many areas of concern in the trucking industry that myself and the Truck Safety 

Coalition are concerned about and we urge Congress to act. 

There is an effort to increase federal truck weights from 80,000 to 100,000 Ibs. Not only do 

heavier trucks affect our roadways, they become much more dangerous. Heavier trucks will 

become even more deadlier than they are now. I hate for more people to have to suffer the 

trauma that my family has endured. The Truck Safety Coalition support the bi-partisan Safe 

Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act (sHIPA) which would freeze truck weights on the 

national Highway System as well as retain the 1995 legislated freeze on longer combination 

vehicles (LCV's), triples and long doubles. There should be no exemptions or so-called pilot 

programs to allow heavier and longer trucks. So-called pilot programs seem to have no end and 

once one is granted it is more difficult to stop others from being passed. 

Fatigue is a major safety problem and contributes to up to 40% of all fatal truck crashes. The 

new proposed hours of service rule helps to reduce the safety gaps in the current rule. Under 

the current rule truck drivers can drive 77 hours a week and work up to 84 hours per week, more 

than twice the normal 40 hour work of most working Americans. I urge Congress to allow the 

rule making process to proceed uninterrupted, and I urge the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration to issue a rule with a maximum of 10, and not 11, maximum driving hours. 

The requirement of Electronic On-Board Records in all commercial motor vehicles will help to 

reduce truck driver fatigue by eliminating fraudulent paper log books and help to improve the 

hours of service enforcement. Truck drivers are often pushed to drive longer hours to get the 

job done. EOBR's will help to protect the safety of truck drivers and the motoring public. 

Many of the factors that I have described above could have helped to prevent the crash that 

took my family's lives. 

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you today about such important safety 

issues. 

Tami Friedrich 

14131 Spruce Grove Court, Corona, CA 92880, 951-279-0676, tamitrakh@sbcglobal.net 
283 

.. A , TRUCK S. SAFETY ---- COALITiON ----

Parents Against Tired Truckers and Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highwavs 

Every year about 4,000 people are killed and 100,000 injured in large truck crashes. The Truck Safety 

Coalition (TSC) is the only nonprofit organization devoted solely to reducing the number of deaths and 

injuries caused by truck-related crashes and providing compassionate support to truck crash survivors and 

families of truck crash victims. We are a partnership between the Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways 

(CRASH) Foundation and Parents Against Tired Truckers (P.A.TT.), and we work together with truck crash 

victims and survivors to inform and update the public, policy-makers, and the media about truck safety 

issues crucial to improving truck safety laws and regulations. We urge Congress to act on the following 

issues: 

Oppose Industry Efforts to Increase Federal Truck Weights from 80,000 to 100,000 Ibs. 

Research shows that excessively heavy trucks are more deadly and more destructive. The 

numerous dangers intrinsic to heavy trucks include longer stopping distances, more loss of control 

crashes, and increased risk of rollovers. 

According to statistics from the U.S. Bureau of the Census and the Federal Highway 

Administration, increases in truck sizes and weights always result in more bigger, heavier trucks 

than before, not less. 

Allowing trucks weighing 97,000 pounds or more on U.S. roads and bridges would radically 

increase damage to highway pavement and bridges. Overweight trucks create a disproportionate 

level of damage to our roads and bridges, consistently documented in research studies conducted 

by the states, the federal government, and the National Academy of Sciences. 

The TSC supports the bi-partisan Safe Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act (SHIPA) which 

would freeze truck weights on the National Highway System as well as retain the 1995 legislated freeze 

on longer combination vehicles (LCVs), triples and long-doubles. 

The TSC opposes any special interest exemptions or pilot projects to subvert federal weight laws, 

including S. 112 which would exempt Maine and Vermont and the Safe and Efficient Transportation 

Act (formerly HR 1799) which would undermine current federal standards. 
284 

Do Not Oppose the Proposed Hours of Service Rule. 

Fatigue is a major safety problem in the trucking industry. The National Transportation Safety 

Board (NTSB) found that driver fatigue is a factor in up to 40% of all fatal truck crashes. Revising the 

current hours of service (HOS) rule for truck drivers is essential to improving truck safety on our 

highways. 

The current HOS rule allows truckers to drive and work excessively hours with only minimal time 

off duty, contributing to driver fatigue and resulting in crashes. Under the current rule, truck drivers 

can drive 77 hours a week and work up to 84 hours a week, more than twice the normal 40 hour 

work week of most Americans. 

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) 

takes corrective action to reform the current HOS rule which will result in making highways safer and 

reducing truck driver fatigue. Although the proposed changes in the NPRM would not produce an 

optimal HOS rule from the standpoint of safety, the NPRM remedies a number of the factual, 

scientific and legal problems that plagued the issuance and successive re-issuance of the current HOS 

rule. 

Previous cost-benefit analyses for the current HOS rule derived large economic benefits by 

eliminating the need for the trucking industry to hire over 60,000 drivers. The NPRM takes 

corrective action by limiting the maximum number of hours a trucker can drive and work and 

thereby restoring an estimated 44,000 trucking jobs to payrolls by reform of the current HOS rule. 

Require Electronic On-Board Recorders in All Commercial Motor Vehicles. 

The TSC supports regulatory and legislative efforts to require electronic on-board records (EOBRs) in 

all commercial motor vehicles (CMVs), including the proposed rule issued by the FMCSA in January 

2011. 

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

have repeatedly cited driver fatigue as a major factor in truck crash causation. EOBRs which 

objectively document driving time and on-duty status will help reduce driver fatigue, eliminate 

fraudulent paper log books, and improve hours of service (HOS) rules enforcement. 

Paper logbooks, commonly referred to as "comic books" because they are widely falsified by truck 

drivers and their companies, are inefficient for truck drivers and trucking companies and ineffective 

for law enforcement. 

Currently, EOBRs are required in all European Union countries as well several countries in South 

America and Asia. 

Increase Minimum Insurance Levels for Motor Carriers. 
285 

Minimum levels of insurance for trucks and motor coaches have not been increased in over 30 

years and are woefully deficient Consequently, a very large portion of the damages and losses caused 

by the trucking industry is imposed upon the American motoring public. 

If the industry were to be required to absorb the losses it causes, there would be significant 

changes in the industry which would result in safer highways for all. 

In 1980, when Congress deregulated the trucking industry, it set the absolute minimum insurance 

level for motor carriers of property, persons, and hazardous materials at $750,000, $5,000,000 and 

$5,000,000, respectively, and gave the Secretary of Transportation authority to increase amounts to 

achieve the intended purposes of providing compensation to truck crash victims and causing insurance 

companies to provide effective underwriting so that the insurance market would provide incentives 

for safe operations of motor carriers. 

The5ecretary has never increased these bare minimums set by Congress, and these low amounts 

have provided less and less of an incentive over the years to operate safely and have become almost 

insignificant when compared to the damages caused by the huge trucks now allowed on our highways. 

The TSC urges Congress to direct the U.s. Department ofTransportation (DOT) to begin a 

rule making on this issue and to increase insurance requirements every two years. 

Issue Overdue Safety Standards on Rear and Side Underride. 

In an underride crash, a passenger vehicle goes partially or Wholly under a truck or trailer, 

increasing the likelihood of death or serious injury to the passenger vehicle occupants. It is estimated 

that front, side or rear underride occurs in 50 percent of all fatal crashes. 

The T5C urges Congress to direct the DOT to require all trucks and trailers to be equipped with 

velocity-sensitive, energy-absorbing rear impact guards and side panels mounted lower to the ground 

(16 inches) to effectively protect car occupants from death and injury in rear and side impact crashes. 

Proven safety technology is available. 

Reduce Speed Limits for Trucks and Require Speed Governors be set at no higher than 65 mph. 

High travel speeds increase truck stopping distances, which already are much longer than those of 

cars. A large truck going 75 mph takes approximately one-third longer to stop compared with one going 65 

mph. (IIHS) 

Speed exacerbates the size and weight differences between large trucks and passenger vehicles, 

leading to more severe crashes. (IIHS) 

The European Union, Australia and Japan, among other countries, already require speed governors in 

large trucks. 

fOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT JOHN LANNEN AT 703-294-6404. 
286 

Written Testimony 

(if 

Dr. Geraldine Knatz 

Executive Directar 

The Port of Los Angeles 

on 

Improving and Reforming our Nation's Surface Transportation Programs to 

Support .Job Creation and the Economy 

February 23,2011 

Joint Field Hearing 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

and 

United States Senate 

Commillee on Environment and Public Works 
287 

The Port of Los Angeles 

Dr. Geraldine Knatz 

Testimony 

The Port of Los Angeles (Port) appreciates this opportunity to provide written testimony regarding 

priorities and requirements for critical transportation infrastructure programs needed to bolster the 

nation's economy and create jobs, As wc look at the Port. we see that m'er the decades. wc'vc 

become more than a seaport we are a hub of intennodal transportation and commerce -- which is 

why this joint hearing is so important to us. 

Whether it is by sea. highway or rail. we interconnect with the transportation networks that keep 

goods moving across the country. More than 95 percent of all goods entering the U,S, arrive by 

waterborne transportation. and the Port of Los Angeles is a major gateway for these international 

goods. Together with the Port of Long Bcach, we are responsible for moving 43% of all U.S. 

inbound waterborne containers through our facilities and out to destinations across the nation. These 

containers are moved primarily on three freeways, two rail connections. and the Alameda Corridor. 

We arc also known as "'America's Port" because every congressional district in the U,S, either 

imports or exports goods through our Port Complex, Indeed, we have a saying at the Port: if YOU 

bought it. WE brought it. So in that context. any investment at the Port that improves the movement 

of goods is an investment that benefits the entire nation that depends so heavily on our services. 

As America's premier port, we have a strong commitment to developing innovative. strategic. and 

sustainable operations that benefit the economy. as well as the quality of life. for the region and the 

nation it serves. We appreciated the title of this hearing, "Improving and Reforn1ing ollr Nation's 

Surfaee Transportation Programs to Support Job Creation and the Economy," as the Port generates 

919,000 regional jobs and $39.1 billion in annual wages and tnx revenues. On a national basis. our 

Port generates more than 3.5 million jobs. With far-sighted strategic planning. the Port sets the 

standard for its excellent facilities and financial stability. The Port is not tax supported: instead our 

revenue is derived from fees from a variety of shipping services, and our strong financial 

perfonnance has been recognized with a AA+ bond rating -- the highest credit rating assigned to 

any U,S, seaport operating without taxpayer support. 

The Port of Los Angeles is a national asset and we want to continue to be part of the national 

solution to the recent economic downturn. We are putting people back to work and doing our part 

to help President Obama meet his goal to double national exports over the next five years. 
288 

The Port of Los Angeles 

Dr. Geraldine Knatz 

Testimony 

Container traffic at the Port of Los Angeles surged 16 percent in 2010, with a record number of 

exports. Port exports rose 10.3 percent in 2010 to ] ,841 ,274 TEUs (twenty-foot equivalent units) 

compared to 1,668.911 in 2009 and surpassed the previous container export record of 1,782,502 

TEUs set in 2008. Meanwhile, imports increased 12.8 percent in 20 I 0 (3,973,933 TEUs) compared 

to 2009 (3,524,386 TEUs). The 20]0 volume gains far surpassed our initial estimates, and we've 

been able to facilitate export opportunities in the past year through our Trade Connect Export 

Workshops that assist businesses throughout the region learn the basics of exporting, including 

costs, risks, finding overseas markets, trade tinancing and logistics. These workshops increased our 

networking with manufacturing and export businesses and we plan to continue that momentum as 

trade volumes grow. 

This growth is good news - for us, and for the country. However, it doesn't mean we can simply 

sustain the status quo. This growth creates new demands on our infrastructure, requiring increased 

investments in port facilities, interconnecting road and highway systems, rail networks and 

investments in new technologies that increase eiliciency and improve the movement of goods. 

There remain significant challenges to overcome, and it is in these areas that we hope the 

Committees, Congress, and the Administration can continue to demonstrate leadership in making 

strategic federal investments to support the Southern California Trade Corridor system and the local 

and regional solutions we are already implementing. 

Two critical points I'd like to make: 

I. Federal Funding for Transportation Related Projects at the Port: We realize how limited 

funding is. p3lticularly for this year. We have managed to do more with less, but adequate 

infrastructure is crucial to our ability to help grow and sustain the Port's business and 

support one of the largest economic engines in California, and indeed. throughout the 

country. Financing port infrastructure is an investment in future national economic growth. 

2. To simultaneously address existing transportation system inefficiencies, accommodate 

projected future traffic growth, and reduce emissions, the Port has expended hundreds of 

millions of dollars over the last ten years on crucial, intermodal transportation system 

projects of national significance. The Port is currently investing over $] million dollars a 

day in our Capital Improvement Program. These investments mean JOBS. 
289 

The Port of Los Angeles 

Dr. Geraldine Knatz 

Testimony 

Transportation infrastructure at the Port includes sea. land and rail: 

I. Main Channel Deepcning: While we realize the focus of this hearing is surface 

trallsportatioll. all thrce modes are integrally tied to the goods movement and the creation of 

jobs at the Port. and we must address our immediate need for fcderal help with the Main 

Channel Deepening. This project to dcepen the channel to -53 feet was started in 2002 and 

is necessary to kcep up with investments being made abroad - in Canada. Mexico and 

Panama to compete for thc ncwest class of containcr ships. Because of environmental and 

legal challcngcs the project was delayed for 5 years and during that time pcriod our project 

costs went up. The total projcct cost is now $378.7 million. Port-share $314.4 million and 

federal share $64.3 million. As a result, the cap of the initial WRDA authorized federal 

share needs to be incrcased by $3.6 million and the Port will be investing an additional 

S 112.4 million, which will complete thc project. Since we have already startcd the project 

and cxpect it to be completed by 2012. this is an urgent rcquest. 

2. TIGER II GRANT for West Basin Railyard: The Port was the recipient of the TIGER 11 

Grant in the amount of $16 million dollars to accommodate thc increased loading of trains at 

thc Port and reducing 1,150 daily truck trips to and from off-dock railyards. The project will 

provide 2,000 construction jobs. sustain 318.000 new trade-related jobs for the region and 

generate $1 billion in annual state revenues by 2030. We undcrstand that this project, along 

with many other TIGER II grant rccipicnts. is jeopardized by the threat of rescission of 

funding from thc FY 20 II Continuing Resolution. We urge opposition of that amendment 

and ask that thc Committee do everything in its power to keep the federal commitment to 

this grant obligation. 

3. South Wilmington Grade Separation: This project is an essential element to improving the 

safety of Port's transportation infrastructure that will eliminate a conflict bctween vehicles, 

trucks and trains. This vital highway project that will provide a key grade separation of a rail 

line that connects to the Alameda Corridor. and will providc for better access for trucks to 

the 1-110 and Harry Bridges Boulevard. a National Highway Systcm Intermodal Connector 

Route. The 1-110, SR 47. and 1-710 (via the Gerald Desmond Bridgc) carry approximately 

30% of all U.S. containcrs. The total project cost is $73 million and the Port has already 

secured funding for approximately $41 million, and is in need of roughly $32 million in 

federal funds. 
290 

The Port of Los Angeles 

Dr. Geraldine Knatz 

Testimony 

4. 1-110 Connectors Program, I-I! 0 NB ! C Street Interchange (C Street Project): This project 

improves a poorly operating arterial interchange connection to the 1-110 at C Street. It will 

create a new, direct connection to Harry Bridges Blvd., a National Highway System 

lntermodal Connector and major arterial for port traffic. The 1-110 carries 10% of all U.S. 

waterborne container volume. The C Street Project will create 1,540 full-time employment 

one-year jobs and sustain 318,000 new trade related jobs. The total economic one-time 

benefit will be approximately $193 million in economic output; creating $63 million in 

wages; $5.31 million in state taxes; $0.88 million in local taxes; and the regional 

improvements will sustain $1 billion in annual state revenue by 2030. The total project cost 

is approximately $29 million and the Port has already secured $18 million in funding. We 

require $11 million in federal funds. 

To support the local and regional efforts of the Port of Los Angeles, Port of Long Beach, and our 

regional partners throughout Southern California and the nation, we would recommend that 

Congress take bold action. We urge Congress in the next authorization of a new federal surface 

transportation bill to directly address the needs of international gateways. including major ports, and 

freight and trade corridors. We have supported the efforts of our association pm1ners such as the 

American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the West Coast Ports Collaborative, and the Pacific Maritime 

Shipping Association (PM SA), as well as our Southern California regional partners in proposing 

key provisions for the next surface bill including: 

Establish a national transportation vision and planning framework: 

For nationally important trade corridors, it is essential that we have a national vision and 

corresponding organizational changes and funding levels, including establishment of a national 

multimodal freight focus within the Office of the Secretary. The U.S. needs to have a national 

strategy on transportation. Canada has done this well and if we don't plan for a national 

strategy, they will take our cargo away. 
291 

The Port of Los Angeles 

Dr. Geraldine Knatz 

Testimony 

Integrate freight infrastructure policy with national trade policy as well as environmental 

policy: 

Central to a viable United States trade policy. is the investment in transpOltation infrastructure 

supporting our national system of ports and system of trade corridors. We are pleased that the 

Departments of Commerce and Transportation havc cntcred into an MOU to facilitate a closer 

working relationship. This should be a first step followed by the linkage of trade policy 

development with focused and strategic investments in transportation projects in order to 

facilitate exports of America's goods and enhancing our global competitiveness. 

The U.S. Department of Transportation should also establish coordination protocols with the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Energy to ensure simultaneous 

and continuous invcstments in freight related infrastructure and environmental programs 

targeted to reducing emissions n'om containcrizcd ships. railroad engines. and trucks. We necd 

to look at new techno logics like all electric or hydrogen fuel cell hybrid electric trucks and rail 

electrification strategies using existing right of way. The added bencfit of this coordination 

could lead to expedited environmental approval and development of nationally important 

projects like thosc planned for the San Pedro Bay Port complex. 

Institute fundamental changes to existing federal transportation planning and funding 

systems: 

Congress should consolidate the existing 108 federal programs into 10 multi modal and strategic 

programs. and utilize performance/merit-based project selection to maximize the return on 

federal dollars in these tough economic times. 

Implement a new federal funding account dedicated to the investment in freight related 

infrastructure, with priority allocations to projects of national significance: 

The new program should select projects through merit-based criteria that identify and prioritize 

projects with a demonstrable contribution to national freight etliciency. Priority funding 
292 

The Port of Los Angeles 

Dr. Geraldine Knatz 

Testimony 

allocations should be directed to projects of national significance and regional significance. 

Ports should be eligible to receive funds in two manners: I) a direct payment by formula to 

individual port authorities, and 2) a discretionary grant program awarded at the federal level 

for larger projects of regional and national significance. 

Direct Payment: Formula funding directly to the Ports provides a reliable source of 

revenue for infrastructure modernization, infrastructure maintenance, and projects to 

mitigate environmental impacts of transportation related activities. Ports have extensive 

experience with bond financing and public-private partnerships, and should be allowed 

to use formula funds as capital for innovative financing to better leverage the federal 

investment in our port-related infrastructure. 

Discretionary Grants: Most major port-related freight movement projects that alleviate 

congestion and promote efficiency cross intrastate and interstate jurisdictions. Project 

costs can be high and benefits widely diffused. We believe projects with significant 

regional and interstate impacts should be approved for funding comprehensively at the 

federal level based on criteria that consider economic, environmental, congestion 

mitigation and safety benctits. We suPPOtt a federal awarded discretionary grant 

program that can be used to fund a genuinely national freight policy. 

Expanded Eligibility and Set-Asides: The Port supports modifying eligibility requirements to 

allow our participation in key surface transpOltation programs. Within the range of historic surface 

transportation programs, port and/or freight projects have often not been considered eligible for 

funding, or have not been prioritized for federal funds by state and local officials. 

Eligibility: Provide for expanded eligibility of port-related freight and intermodal 

projects under Title 23 of the US Code, specifically under the Surface Transportation 

Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), and TIFIA programs. 

Reliable Funding: The Ports also propose that where practicable port and intermodal 

projects should receive a required minimum level of funding or set-aside under key 
293 

The Port of Los Angeles 

Dr. Geraldine Knatz 

Testimony 

surface programs, State and local transportation improvement plans should include a 

freight component. 

Increase funding for Section 1301, Projects of National & Regional Significance (PNRS), 

focusing on already identified projects and new nationally important mega-projects: 

Several components of the Southern California trade corridor are identified within the PNRS 

program: 1-710 corridor, the Gerald Desmond Bridge, and the Alameda Corridor East. Funding 

for these projects of regional and national significance should be significantly increased in the 

next authorization bill. 

Incorporate Regulatory Reforms to Facilitate Expedited Project Delivery: 

There appears to be an evolving consensus among key transportation agencies on a range of 

federal regulatory reforms to assist to bring projects online quicker. Examples of these federal 

regulatory reforms include the following: (a) extend the NEPA delegated authority provided for 

by SAFETEA-LU: (b) provide for universal "pre-award" spending to state and local agencies, 

including port authorities; (c) remove redundant steps in the environmentai review process; (d) 

establish specific deadlines for key regulatory decision points and if federal agencies do not 

meet the deadlincs, the project requirement would be deemed approved; and (e) establish a 

Department of Transportation grant program supporting innovative contract management. 

The Port has made significant investments to improve air quality, support clean fuel programs, and 

to fund technology programs to help achieve our environmental goals, We cannot afford to lose 

ground, On the environmental front, we recommend that Congress support funding for programs 

that will sustain efforts to green the freight industry, Specifically, we recommend that Congress 

support funding for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) and for transportation 

electrification programs. such as those enacted in last year's Energy Independence Act and funded 

in the stimulus, 
294 

The Port of Los Angeles 

Dr. Geraldine Knatz 

Testimony 

Conclusion 

Southern California is America's trade corridor. Being America's number one trade corridor means 

significant challenges for the region's environment and infrastructure. While the Port and our 

regional partners have made significant strides in dealing with these challenges. continued federal 

funding and policy support for the Southern California trade corridor is necessary to keep America 

competitive. 
295 

Betsy A. Lindsay, President/CEO, UltraSystems Environmental 

Make an Historic Investment in and Reform of Surface Transportation, l3ecause the President 

recognizes the importance of a modern transportation infrastructure to the growth and competitiveness of 

the economy, the Gudget proposes a historic six-year surface reauthorization package. Adjusted for 

inflation, this investment represents an increase of about $35 billion per year, or 60 percent on average, 

over the previous six-year authorization period. The proposal also seeks to reform how these Federal 

transportation dollars arc spent so that they are directed to the most effective programs and projects. It 

will give States and localities added flexibility while holding them accountable for performance and 

make Federal funding decisions based on more sound and inclusive transpOltation plans, The plan 

provides a $50 billion funding boost in the first year to spur job creation when we need it most, and to lay 

a foundation for future economic growth through greater and safer transportation choices for Americans 

and increased business development in communities. Finally, transportation programs are reformed to 

increase accountability and efficiency and deliver cost-effective infrastructure projects. Specifically, the 

planwil1: 

Invest ill High Speed Rail. The Administration's reauthorization provides $53 billion over six 

years to continue construction of a national high speed and intercity passenger rail network, 

putting the country on track toward a system that gives 80 percent of Americans access to highspeed rail within 25 years. This proposal will connect communities, reducc travel times and 

congestion, and creale skilled manufacturing jobs that can't be outsourced. And, for the tirst time, 

it will place high-speed rail on equal footing with other surface transpOltation programs. 

Leverage Our Investments Through a National Infrastructure Bank. The Administration's six 

year plan would invest $30 billion to found a National Infrastructure l3ank (1-l3ank). The I-Bank 

would leverage this Federal investment by providing loans and grants to support individual 

projects and broader activities of signiticance to our Nation's economic competitiveness. For 

example, the l3ank could support improvements in road and rail access to a West Coast port that 

benetit farmers in the Midwest, or a national effort to guarantee private loans made to help 

airlines purchase equipment in SUppOlt of the next generation air traffic control system 

(NextGen). A cornerstone of the I-Bank's approach will be a rigorous project comparison 

method that transparently measures which projects offer the biggest "bang for the buck" to 

taxpayers and our economy. This marks a substantial departure from the practice offunding 

projects based on more narrow considerations. 

Provide "Transportation Leadership Awards"' to Spur Smart R4orms. The Administration's sixyear reauthorization plan would dedicate nearly $32 billion for a competitive grant programs 

designed to create incentives for State and local partners to adopt critical reforms in variety of 

areas, including safety, livability, and demand management. Federally-inspired safety reforms 

such as seat belt and drunk-driving laws saved thousands of American lives and avoided billions 

in property losses. This initiative will seek to repeat the successes of the past across the complete 

spectrum of lranspoltation policy priorities. The Department will work with States and localities 

to set ambitious goals in different areas - for example, passing measures to prevent distracted 

driving (safety) or modifying transportation plans to include increased transportation options that 

cut commuting time, ease congestion, reduced oil consumption, lower greenhouse gas emissions, 

and expand access to job opportunities and housing that's affordable (livability). Funding 

decisions will also be tied to the adoption ofrefol'ln. 

Adopt A "'Fix It First" Approachfor Highway and Transit Grants. Key elements ofthe nation's 

surface transportation infrastructure -our highways, bridges, and transit assets -fall short of a 
296 

state of good repair. This can impact the capacity, performance, and safety of our transportation 

system. The Administration's reauthorization proposal will underscore the importance of 

preserving and improving existing assets, encouraging its government and industry partners to 

make optimal use of current capacity, and minimizing life-cycle costs through sound asset 

management principles. Accountability is a key element of this system: States and localities will 

be required to report on transportation condition and performance measures. 

InveSI In /o,{ore Livable and Suslaillahie Communities. A livable community is a place where 

coordinated transportation, housing, and commercial development give people access to 

affordable and environmentally sustainable transportation. The Administration's reauthorization 

proposal puts forth a transformational policy shift to achieve more livable and sustainable 

communities through increased investments in transit. a new livability grant program in the 

Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, and a competitive 

livability grant program for States and localities to deliver on sound, data-driven, and 

coJlaboratively-developed transportation plans. This will be coordinated through the 

Administration's multi-agency Palinership for Sustainable Communities. 

Consolidate Highway Programs. The Administration's proposal would consolidate over 55 

duplicative, often-earmarked highway programs into five streamlined programs. This would give 

Statcs and localities greatcr flexibility to direct resources to their highest priorities. In the interest 

of taxpayer value and accountability, that flexibility wiJl come with reformed requirements on 

States to establish and meet performance targets tied to national goals and to move towards 

rigorous cost benefit analyses of major new projects before they are initiated. 

Ensure Ihal AllY Surface Transporlalion Plan is Paid For. The cun·cnt framework for financing 

and allocating surfacc transportation investments is not financially sustainable, nor does it 

adequately or effectively allocate resources to meet our critical national nccds. The President is 

committed to working with Congress on a bipartisan basis to cnsure that funding increases for 

surface transpoliation do not increase the deficit. In order to cncourage all parties to work 

together to enact such a solution, consistent with thc recommendation of the National 

Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, the Budget proposes to make all programs 

included in surface transportation reauthorization subject to PAYGO (i.e., outlays classified as 

mandatory). This is intended to close loopholes in budgetary treatmcnt and support the important 

goal of generating broad, bipartisan consensus for a fiscally responsible plan. 

Modernize the Aviation System. The Budget provides $1.24 billion for the Next Generation Air 

Transportation System, the Federal Aviation Administration's multi-year effort to improve the efficiency, 

safety, and capacity of the aviation system. This will help the country move from a national, groundbased radar surveillance system to a more accurate satellite-based one which will result in the 

development of more efficient routes through airspace. This, in turn, would allow more planes to fly, 

reduce delays, save fuel, and improve overall safety. To assist those airpolis that need the most help, the 

Administration proposes to focus Federal grants to support smaller commercial and general aviation 

airports that do not have access to additional revenue or other outside sources of capital and reduce grants 

for larger airports. At the same time. the Budget would allow larger airports to increase non-Federal 

passenger facility charges, creating the nexibility to generate their own revenue as they see fit. 

Bring Next-Generation, Wireless Broadband to All Paris of the Country. The advances in wireless 

technology and the adoption of and reliance on wireless devices in daily commercial and personal life 

have been dramatic. High-speed, wireless broadband is fast becoming a critical component of business 

operations and economic growth. The United States needs to lead the world in providing broad access to 
297 

the fastest networks possible. To do that, however, requires freeing up underutilized spectrum currently 

dedicated to other private and Federal uscs. To that end, the Budget proposes legislation to providc 

authority for "voluntary incentive auctions" that will enable spectrum licensees to auction the rights to use 

their spectrum in return for a share ofthc proceeds. This step is critical both for reallocating spectrum 

and re-purposing it over the coming decade to greatly facilitate access for smart phones, portable 

computers, and innovative technologies that are on the horizon. Voluntary incentive auctions, along with 

othcr measures to cnable more efticient spectrum management, will generate more than $28 billion over 

the next 10 years, providing funds that will enable us to: 

Build an interoperable wireless broadband network lor public safety that would allow for 

seamless use by first responders across thc country and reserve additional spectrum for public 

safety use. 

Expand high-speed, wireless broadband (0 rural America, complementing the Federal 

Communications Commission's reform of its Universal Service Fund. 

Establish a Wireless Innovation Fund to accelerate the rcsearch and development of cutting-edge 

wirelcss technologies and applications. 

Taken together, these investments will give more Americans access to the data networks that will be 

central to future economic grow1h and job creation. And nearly $10 billion ofthc funds generated from 

spectrum reallocation will be used for deficit reduction. 

Invest in Modern Electricity Delivery Infrastructure. The Budget continues to support the 

modernization of the Nation's electrical grid by investing in research. development, and the 

demonstration of smati-grid technologies that will spur the transition to a smatier, more efticient, secure 

and reliable electrical system. The end result will promote energy- and cost-saving choices for consumers, 

reduce emissions, and foster the growth of renewable energy sources like wind and solar. In addition, the 

Budget supports the Power Marketing Administration to rcliably operate, maintain, and rehabilitate the 

Federal hydropower and transmission systcms. 

Invest in Water Infrastructure. The Budget provides funding of $1,5 billion for construction work by 

the Corps of Engineers for projects with high economic returns, dam safety work, projects that address 

public safety needs, and those that restore signiticant aquatic ecosystems. The Budget also supports 

increases in receipts to help pay for additional investments in the inland waterways. The Budgct reflects 

an Administration emphasis on reliability and safety of existing Federal water rcsources infrastructure, 

and gives priority to the opcration and maintenance of key projects that contribute to our national 

economy, such as the inland waterways with the most commercial usc and the major coastal harbors and 

their channels. Thc Budget provides funds for the Bureau of Reclamation to advance water conservation 

activities and cffOlis to bring reliable watcr supplies in Western States. The Budget also provides $2.5 

billion total for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Water and Drinking Water State 

Revolving Funds (SRFs). As part of the Administration's long-term SRF strategy, EPA is implementing 

a Sustainable Water Infrastructure Policy that tocuses on working with States and communities to 

enhance technical, managerial, and financial capacity. For the Department of Agriculture'S water and 

wastewater grants and loans, the Budget proposes a $1.2 billion program level to maintain assistance for 

water intrastructure in rural America. 
298 

The los Angeles Coalition __ Jalfud L aJ.&I 

FOH THE ECONOMY & JOBS IN THE LOS ANGELES REGION 

Joint Field Hearing of U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public 

Works & House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

"Improving and Reforming our Nation's Surface Transportation Programs 

to Support Job Creation and the Economy" 

Written Statement of Los Angeles Coalition for the Economy and Jobs 

Chairman Russell Goldsmith 

February 23, 2011 

On behalf of the Los Angeles Coalition for the Economy and Jobs, a bipartisan 

alliance of Los Angeles leaders in business, labor, academia and non-profits, 

ranging from the AFL-CIO, UCLA USC, The United Way, Warner Bros., 

Universal Pictures, Edison International, City National Bank and many more, I 

would like to submit the following comments regarding the significant role Los 

Angeles can play with supporting our nation's efforts to generate jobs, improve 

mobility, reduce vehicle emissions, and create strong and sustainable community 

development. 

Today, the Los Angeles Coalition applauds the leadership of Senator Boxer and 

Congressmember Mica for addreSSing economy-wide barriers, such as our 

deteriorating infrastructure, that continue to hamper the productivity and growth 

of our nation. The Los Angeles region is America's most important international 

gateway, hosting a vibrant culture, a diverse population and a strong economic 

foundation that supports more than 10 million residents. Our nation's long-term 

prosperity depends, to a significant degree, upon the success of LA's regional 

economy and the ability of its infrastructure - seaports, airport and transportation 

network - to efficiently facilitate the flow of goods and people throughout the 

region and our country. Unfortunately, our region continues to face some of the 

worst traffic congestion in the United States, severely impacting productivity and 

economic growth. 

Every year, according to a 2008 study by the Rand Corporation, Angelenos 

spend on average 70 hours a year stuck in traffic. Congestion delays impact 

productivity, significantly increase the costs for business, harm the environment 

and damage our overall quality of life. This congestion continues to cost Los 

Angeles nearly $10 billion annually. It's more and more difficult and expensive to 

shoot movies here, to transport and deliver goods, and get to and from work. 

The longer our workforce sits in traffic, the more unproductive and economically 

un competitive our region and nation becomes and the fewer people we employ. 
299 

This enormous burden will continue to Increase unless senous actions are taKen 

now. I would essentially like to make three points: 

1. Across the spectrum of Los Angeles and throughout our countryRepublicans and Democrats, business and labor, environmentalists and 

non-profits - there is growing support for more innovative and aggressive 

action by local, state and federal government to improve the transportation 

infrastructure of the nation and cities like Los Angeles. The 2008 passage 

of Los Angeles County's Measure R, which raised taxes on its 10 million 

residents for its transportation network, was a reflection of that sentiment 

and that our county, which would register as the 9th most populated U.S. 

state, recognizes the immense economic and environmental importance of 

reducing congestion through infrastructure investment. 

2. When you consider the billions of dollars the residents of Los Angeles 

committed to achieving that critical objective and the fact that a much 

broader region would benefit from it - a region that contains 5% of the 

U.S. population, LA County's 30/10 plan to rapidly accelerate our region's 

12 most vital transportation projects, should provide our federal leaders a 

pathway forward for our national transportation policy. That acceleration 

would provide a far greater benefit to the broader region and our nation at 

a minimal cost to the federal government - far below what Washington 

normally contributes. The financial mechanisms proposed by 30/10 are 

innovative, critically important and warranted in light of a stagnant U.S. 

economy and the particularly high levels of unemployment throughout the 

country, more importantly Los Angeles County. In fact 30/10 alone would 

generate more than 165,000 quality jobs and then more than 500,000 jobs 

throughout Measure R's lifetime. 

3. This new model should be a compelling catalyst for other communities 

throughout the U.S. to challenge themselves to generate local revenue to 

invest in their piece of our nation's infrastructure. The underlying financial 

concepts of 30/1 0 should be incorporated into a new federal initiative, 

which we would call the "National Infrastructure Challenge." This federal 

program, which our Coalition would urge you, Senator Boxer and 

Congressmember Mica, to introduce in Congress, would provide the 

financial incentives to accelerate much needed infrastructure investments 

throughout America. It would be modeled somewhat like "Race to the 

Top" - except this new program would require the majority of funding to 

come not from Washington, but as 30/10 proposes, from local regions. As 

30/10 demonstrates, leveraging a variety of innovative financing tools 

would leverage a federal funding ratio of 20-35%, rather than the current 

federal ratio maxing out at 80%. 30/10 shows how to dramatically 

increase the efficacy of federal funding to reasonably accelerate 

improvements to America's crumbling transportation infrastructure. 
300 

As the 8th largest economy in the world and the leading economic engine for the 

United States we must seek out innovative and effective initiatives that allow us 

to compete in today's global economy. Strengthening our infrastructure will 

provide the necessary foundation and be the needed catalyst in supporting 

California's role as a leader in just the sort of industries we need to grow our 

economy; industries like information technology, entertainment, international 

trade, financial services, agriculture, biotech and much more. It is imperative that 

we must continue to work together to implement sound policies that grow the 

larger economy and create employment activity, while dynamically protecting our 

nation's leadership role and optimizing its competitive advantages. 

Our Coalition urges for the continued advancement of those core policy 

principles proposed by Mayor Villaraigosa and taking yet another innovative idea 

from California and extending its promise through a broader new program - the 

"National Infrastructure Challenge" to allow other communities throughout the 

U.S., like Los Angeles did, to engage and contribute much more toward creating 

a vital and cost-effective new partnership with Washington to rebuild and renew 

America's transportation infrastructure to meets the needs of the 21st century. 

Thank you very much. 
301 

,,-,ORR/flO es _A_,_a_m_e_d_a_C_O_r_r_id_O_r-_E_a_s_t _C_o_n_st_r_uc_t_io_n_A_u_th_o_r_it_Y __ 

~ ~o 4900 Rivergrade Rd. Ste. A120 Irwindale, CA 91706 (626) 962"9292 fax (626) 962·3552 www.theaceproject.org 

r;C1jONP.~ 

Board Members 

Tim Spohn 

Chair 

Industry 

David Gutierrez 

Vice Chair 

San Gabriel 

Michael Antonovich 

Los Angeles County 

Gloria Molina 

Los Angeles County 

Steven Atchley 

Pomona 

Frank Gomez 

Montebello 

Tom King 

SGVCOG 

Patricia Wallach 

EI Monle 

Paul Eaton 

Ex Officio 

SANBAG 

Rick Richmond 

Chief Executive Officer 

WRITTEN STATEMENT 

Of the Honorable Tim Spohn 

City Council Member, City of Industry, California, and 

Chairman, Board of Directors, 

Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority 

Submitted to a joint field hearing of the House Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

titled "Improving and Reforming our Nation's Surface Transportation Programs 

to Support Job Creation and the Economy," held in Los Angeles, California on 

I'ebruary 23, 20 I I. 

The Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority Board of Directors 

appreciates the opportunity to submit written testimony concerning the Alameda 

Corridor-East project in eastern Los Angeles County, the significance of federal 

support for the project and our suggestions for a national surface transportation 

authorization program that will supportjoh creation and strengthen economic 

recovery. 

International trade and domestic goods movement are vital to the economic 

health of Southern California and our nation. The San Pedro Bay ports handle 

almost half of our nation's shipping containers, approximately three-quarters of 

which are destined for markets outside the Southern California region. As a 

result, freeways in the region are heavily traveled by trueks and upwards of 100 

freight trains a day traverse the region. with more than 90% of this freight rail 

traffic heading east. Absent signilicant investment in improvements to the 

region'S goods movement system, freight traflic chokepoints will continue to 

impose significant economic and environmental costs on the nation and regiona condition which may be exacerbated when trade volumes pick up as our 

economy recovers. Providing support for the region's goods movement system 

will be key to long-term sustained economic recovery, both for the region and for 

our nation. 

To facilitate goods movement while mitigating community and environmental 

impaets, the Southern California region has supported a multi-modal strategy 

which includes encouraging freight movement on trains rather than on trucks 

which must travel eongested freeways. This strategy is exemplifIed by the 

opening nearly nine years ago of the Alameda Corridor, a 20-mile, gradeseparated freight rail expressway. While the Alameda Corridor resolved a key 

bottleneck between the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and the 

transcontinental rail yards east of downtown Los Angeles, nearly all freight rail 

traffic continues to the east. crossing urbanized areas in Los Angeles, Orange, 

San Bernardino and Riverside counties. Recognizing the national significance of 

the Alameda Corridor-East Trade Corridor. Congress designated it as a National 
302 

Han. Tim Spohn. Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority 

Statement Submitted to Senate-House field hearing 

February 22, 20 II 

High Priority Corridor in TEA-21 and as a Project of National and Regional Significance in 

SAFETEA-LU. FederaL state, county and local funding has been provided to support a program 

of constructing grade separations at the busiest crossings as well as efforts to improve safety. 

reliability and throughput. 

The Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority in eastern Los Angeles County has made 

remarkable progress since being established a decade ago. with safety improvements completed 

at 39 grade crossings and 14 grade separations either completed. under construction, or funded 

and ready to commence construction later this year. The six grade separations cxpected to start 

construction this year will create nearly 12.000 much needed jobs. mostly in the construction 

sector where workers have been especially hard hit by the recession. Our success in completing 

these projects has encouraged similar rail-highway crossing improvement efforts in our 

neighboring counties to the south and east. 

In total, nearly $1.5 billion in federal, state, local and railroad funds has been committed to the 

Alameda Corridor-East project in the San Gabriel Valley. While typical highway projects are 80 

percent Federally funded, the Federal funding share of the Alameda Corridor-East project in the 

San Gabriel Valley stands at just under 15 percent. To help complete the remaining grade 

separation projects in the San Gabriel Valley. the Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority 

supports the establishment through the surface transportation authorization legislation or through 

standalone legislation of a national freight infrastructure investment program or Freight Trust 

Fund for designated freight corridors and gateways. 

The Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority is a founding member of the Coalition for 

America's Gateways and Trade Corridors in Washington. D.C. The Coalition has worked with 

Congress over the past decade to seek a permanent Freight Trust Fund specifically designated for 

freight projects. which often have difficulty competing for funding with traditional highway 

projects because freight projects often involve multiple modes. typically cross between state and 

local jurisdictions and often are constructed in phases. To maximize the effectiveness of this 

source of funding. it is important that the Freight Trust Fund be dedicated, firewalled and have 

sustainable revenue sources. 

Specifically, the Coalition for America's Gateways and Trade Corridors supports the 

establishment of a Federal Freight Trust fund along the following principles: 

Revenue should be assessed based on benefit from the freight transportation system; 

Increases in goods movement should yield increases in revenue; 

All potential funding mechanisms should be considered, including traditional highway 

user fees, tolls. custom and cargo fees; 

• Funding priority should be given to federally designated Projects of National and 

Regional Significance; 

• Funding should be available for multi-jurisdictional projects and eligible recipients 

should include states, port authorities. municipalities and units of local government, such 

as the Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority; 

• Funding should be distributed based on objective. merit-based criteria; 

• Funding should be available to support approved projects through to completion. similar 

to the process available to transit projects with approved Full Funding Grant Agreements. 
303 

Æ 

Hon. Tim Spohn, Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority 

Statement Submitted to Senate-I louse field hearing 

February 22, 2011 

In addition, the A lamed a Corridor-East Construction Authority supports the following 

recommendations with regard to a national freight infrastructure investment grants program: 

Roadway-rail grade crossings should be explicitly identified as eligible projects under a 

national freight infrastructure investment program. Grade separations in built-out urban 

areas such as Southern California are essential multimodal components in the goods 

movement system, which improve safety and reliability and mitigate community impacts. 

As mentioned above, the proposed grade separation projects along the Alameda CorridorEast Trade Corridor in Southern California have been recognized by Congress as Projects 

of National and Regional Significance and as essential components of a National High 

Priority Corridor. 

A national freight infrastructure investment program should supplement and not supplant 

the overall level of funding necessary for a robust federal surface transportation program 

for highway and transit projects across the nation. 

A national freight infrastructure investment program shou Id address reasonable and 

equitable distribution of resources to freight corridors and gateways depending on 

program revenue source, which is yet to be defined, and based on the magnitude of their 

importance in advancing interstate and foreign commerce, promoting economic 

competitiveness and job creation, improving the efficient mobility of goods, and 

protecting the public health, safety and environment. 

Even with the current downturn in trade, which is likely to be cyclical in nature, the impact of 

goods movement continues to impose a heavy burden on Southern California's transportation 

infrastructure as well as on the health of the region's residents. Among Californians who are 

exposed to dangerous levels of diesel emissions, more than 80 percent reside in the five Southern 

California counties. More than 1,200 residents of Southern California die prematurely every 

year due to the effects of goods movement. 

A federal surface transportation bill which includes a national freight infrastructure investment 

program offers the opportunity to directly and indirectly support job creation, especially in the 

well-paying construction and goods movement sectors, as well as to strengthen long-term 

economic recovery by supporting the more efficient movement of American exports and imports. 

The Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority is prepared to continue to work with our 

regional, state and national partners, stakeholders and legislators to help establish a national 

freight infrastructure investment program. We appreciate the attention paid to the challenges of 

goods movement, pal1icularly in Southern California where the traditional transportation issues 

of mobility, air quality, safety and maintenance of infrastructure are inextricably intertwined with 

the impacts of accommodating more than 40 percent of the nation's containerized, water-borne 

international trade. 

In closing, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Chairwoman Boxer, Chairman 

Mica, Congresswoman Grace Napolitano and Congressman Gary Miller. Senator Boxer was 

instrumental in providing the earliest significant funding for the Alameda Corridor-East project 

through the TEA-21 legislation nearly a decade ago, Chairman Mica took the time to tour the 

Alameda Corridor-East project last fall and Congresswoman Napolitano and Congressman 

Miller have been longtime leading advocates of the Alameda Corridor-East project as members 

of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We thank them for their 

leadership and support.