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

45–109 PDF 2008

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 

(110–170) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2008 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A ARCURI, New York 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BOB FILNER, California 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa, Vice Chair 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Chesley, Andrew, Executive Director, San Joaquin Council of Governments, 

Stockton, California ............................................................................................. 5 

Hickenlooper, Hon. John W., Mayor, Denver, Colorado ....................................... 5 

Howard, Charles, Transportation Planning Director, Puget Sound Regional 

Council, Seattle, Washington .............................................................................. 5 

Pedersen, Neil, Chair, Executive Board, I-95 Coalition, Baltimore, Maryland .. 5 

Ritzman, James, Deputy Secretary for Transportation Planning, Pennsylvania 

Department of Transportation ............................................................................ 5 

Selman, Keith, AICP, Planning Director, City of Laredo, Texas ......................... 5 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Altmire, Hon. Jason, of Pennsylvania .................................................................... 34 

DeFazio, Hon. Peter A., of Oregon ......................................................................... 35 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 36 

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 37 

Richardson, Hon. Laura A., of California .............................................................. 42 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Chesley, Andrew ...................................................................................................... 49 

Hickenlooper, Hon. John W. ................................................................................... 54 

Howard, Charles ...................................................................................................... 76 

Pedersen, Neil .......................................................................................................... 89 

Ritzman, James ....................................................................................................... 117 

Selman, Keith .......................................................................................................... 181 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California: 

Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority, Rick Richmond, Chief Executive Officer, letter to Rep. Napolitano .......................................................... 45 

Gateway Cities Coalition of Government, Richard Powers, Executive Director, suggested comments on hearing supplied to Rep. Napolitano ............... 47 

Pedersen, Neil, Chair, Executive Board, I-95 Coalition, Baltimore, Maryland, 

responses to questions from Rep. DeFazio ......................................................... 107 

Ritzman, James, Deputy Secretary for Transportation Planning, Pennsylvania 

Department of Transportation, responses to questions from the Subcommittee .............................................................................................................. 174 

Selman, Keith, AICP, Planning Director, City of Laredo, Texas, responses 

to questions from the Subcommittee .................................................................. 182 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 45109.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 45109.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 45109.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 45109.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 45109.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 45109.006
xii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 45109.007
(1) 

HEARING ON TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 

Thursday, September 18, 2008, 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Jerry 

McNerney presiding. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

I want to start out by thanking Chairman DeFazio and Ranking 

Member Duncan for holding this hearing on transportation planning and for asking me to Chair today’s session on behalf of Chairman DeFazio. 

Transportation planning has a profound effect not only on our infrastructure, but also on our travel behaviors, the economic development of our communities, and on our quality of life. It is an issue 

that this Committee will be closely examining during the authorization of the next transportation bill which is coming up in 2009. 

Congress created the metropolitan transportation planning process 46 years ago, and much has changed in our metro areas since 

that time. State departments of transportation, the State DOTs, 

and the metropolitan transportation organizations, the MPOs, are 

the two entities that were required by law to conduct transportation planning. In 1991 Congress created State-wide transportation planning procedures and the Federal funding mechanisms 

that are still used today. 

These important planning processes provide the context for reconciling State and regional transportation needs and the Federal 

transportation goals with proposed transportation projects and activities. That is why I am particularly pleased that Andy Chesley 

from the San Joaquin Council of Governments is testifying before 

the audience today. Since I came to Congress, Andy and I have 

worked together on a number of important transportation projects 

in and around California’s Central Valley, and I know first-hand 

that Andy is a strong advocate for our region, but he also knows 

that we need to think and plan on a large scale, with input from 

everybody at all scales of government. 

My District, which includes part of the San Francisco Bay area 

and a significant portion of the Central Valley, is really a microcosm of the national transportation system. We have cities, we 

have growing suburbs, small towns, rural communities, which are 

supported by a deep-water port, an aging highway system, and a 

freight network that also serves as a commuter rail and needs upVerDate Aug 31 2005 17:05 Jul 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\45109 LINDS
2 

grading. The challenges we face regionally are the challenges we 

face nationally, but I am confident that we can find the solutions. 

Today’s hearing will focus on four key challenges to current 

transportation planning requirements. First of all, how to better 

plan the movement of freight. Secondly, how do we enable the 

States and the MPOs to incorporate regional and national priorities 

into their plans. Third, how to better integrate land use decisions 

with transportation improvements. That is a new subject. And how 

to establish performance measures for transportation planning 

processes. 

In order to examine these issues in greater detail, today’s hearing will be conducted on a modified format. Witnesses will not be 

asked to give a five-minute opening statement, but rather just to 

introduce themselves. After the Ranking Member and the Chair, 

witnesses will be asked to make short introductions. We will immediately proceed to questions. 

It is our hope that this new format will allow Members and witnesses to delve into the issues and will encourage a full discussion 

and dialogue. 

Thank you. 

I will now turn to the Ranking Member, Mr. Duncan from Tennessee, for his opening remarks. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Chairman McNerney. Welcome to your 

new position here in place of Chairman DeFazio, at least for the 

time being. 

Today’s hearing on transportation planning comes at a very critical time for the transportation community. In a little over a year, 

the existing highway transit and highway safety programs will expire. Of course, almost everyone knows that the next highway bill 

will be one of the biggest bills, perhaps even the biggest bill, in the 

next Congress. 

The information we gather today from the hearing will help this 

Committee determine what the highway and transit planning requirements will look like in the next surface transportation authorization bill. While all of us on this Committee spend a little more 

time on these issues than most Members, still, we have to deal 

with a thousand other things and so many other issues that we are 

not the experts that we have here on the panel today, and so we 

certainly need their expertise and their input here today. 

The transportation planning process involves more than just listing highways and transit projects in a State or metropolitan area. 

The planning process involves collecting input from all users of the 

transportation system, including the business community, community groups, environmental organizations, the traveling public, and 

freight operators, in making decisions to promote transportation 

projects that advance the long-term goals of the State or local community. 

Requirements for transportation planning in metropolitan areas 

and at the State level have been a part of Federal highway and 

transit laws since the 1960s; however, there are no requirements 

to look at transportation planning from a regional or a national 

perspective, and that certainly is what we need to start doing more. 

This is one of the reasons that our Ranking Member, Congressman 

Mica, has called for a national transportation strategic plan. A naVerDate Aug 31 2005 17:05 Jul 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\45109 LINDS
3 

tional transportation plan will allow us to look beyond State borders and local political jurisdictions to evaluate the impacts that 

transportation projects have on different regions of the Country, 

and in some cases the entire Nation. 

I read recently that two-thirds of the counties in the U.S. are losing population. That really surprises people in my area, because 

the metropolitan area around Knoxville is one of the really fastgrowth areas in this Country. So we need to funnel probably more 

resources and funding to the metropolitan areas, and particular the 

fastest-growing metropolitan areas, but we also need to do more to 

encourage people to live in and visit the small towns and the rural 

areas that are losing populations and are having economic problems because of that. 

In addition, we have two interstates that meet in Knoxville and 

a third that comes 37 miles outside of town, so we have millions 

of people coming through our area each year, many millions, but 

they drive through those small towns and rural areas on their way 

to and from Tennessee and coming to and from Florida and so 

forth, so we can’t ignore the needs of the small towns and rural 

areas either. So we have some difficult decisions to make and 

choices to make in the next Congress. I know that you all will help 

us to the extent that you can. 

As I understand, Chairman DeFazio has suggested that the witnesses primarily introduce themselves and try to avoid reading the 

lengthy statements that we have gotten from some witnesses, but 

I do hope that, in addition to introducing yourselves, you will at 

least take a couple of minutes to tell us what your major concerns 

are or your suggestions are, and then we can get into it a little 

more deeply on the question and answer portion. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. The Chair now recognizes the distinguished gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mica, for an opening statement. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you so much for yielding for just a minute. I 

will try to be brief. 

I appreciate the leadership shown on both sides of the aisle in 

calling this hearing. I think this is very important, and particularly 

as we start out now. We are not quite taking on the successor to 

SAFETEA-LU, but we are starting to talk about important processes in transportation, and certainly planning is absolutely critical 

to the entire process. 

As you heard our Ranking Member, Mr. Duncan, mentioned, I 

have proposed a national strategic transportation plan. Having 

served on the Committee now for almost 16 years, it is amazing 

from my vantage point—and I know Mr. Oberstar has also come 

to this conclusion—that we don’t have a national strategic transportation and infrastructure plan. I mean, how could you go about 

anything in business or undertake any enterprise without a good 

plan? Most of our States and some of our metropolitan areas have 

set forth pretty good plans, but we don’t look at this in the whole. 

I think it is absolutely essential that we develop that as part of 

our reauthorization. The key element, of course, in the planning 

process is, again, looking at the whole Country, setting our policies, 

our projects, and our priorities, and also doing that sort of from the 

bottom up. You all have your planning process. We need to incorporate our national plan that takes elements of that and prioritizes 

4 

it, sets the policy by which we will partner with you, but until we 

do that we are sort of meandering, and we have done that for a 

number of years. 

Just a couple of quick points before I close. Also in the planning 

process there are some issues that I have witnessed first-hand, and 

some of you may have had to deal with this. Our MPOs and some 

of our structures do not take into consideration the huge metropolitan areas that some of our planning must encompass, and I have 

areas where we have MPOs backing up to other MPOs and sometimes not talking. Now, some of the communication has improved, 

but we may need to look at that structure and the ability for better 

cooperation and better coverage in some of these metropolitan 

areas rather than being so split and divided. So if we come down 

a tier from the national level, we have to look at the MPO process 

level and improve that. I would love to hear your recommendations 

in that regard. 

There is a whole host of policy issues that also will help us with 

planning. Of course, we have got the big finance issue to resolve. 

But there are issues about investments, public/private partnerships 

that also can help you in your process. If that is defined by the 

Federal Government, the terms by which everybody can participate 

in this process, I think you can also move projects forward. 

The final element is actually speeding up the process. I think 

today is the day that they are opening the I-35 bridge over the Mississippi in Minneapolis that collapsed about a year ago, done on 

schedule, actually ahead of schedule and under budget, done in 437 

days or less. The normal process would take seven to eight years 

to complete that. 

If you are involved in the planning process, sometimes the local 

governments change, the players change, some of the projects get 

shelved or put behind because of politics. But you can’t proceed in 

planning or executing projects if the process takes so long, and that 

is something else I would like to see us do and hear your recommendations on. 

But if we can do the I-35 bridge in record time, not substantially 

changing the footprint of a project, there is no reason why we can’t 

do other projects in an expedited fashion. 

I look forward to working with all of you as you come forward 

with your recommendations. 

Thanks again. I yield back. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I thank the Ranking Member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for your thoughtful remarks. 

Transportation is a complicated issue, and I think we can all 

learn from each other. The point of this hearing really is to allow 

the witnesses an opportunity to instruct us on what would be more 

useful, what would be the most useful way to proceed. We need 

your inputs on making this process work for the 2009 authorization. 

Next I would like to recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania 

for his introduction of one of our witnesses. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to welcome 

all of our witnesses today, but particularly Mr. Jim Ritzman from 

the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Jim is the Deputy 

5 

Secretary for Planning for Penn-DOT, and that is a very challenging job. As Members of this Committee have heard me say 

many times, Pennsylvania has more road miles to maintain than 

New York, New Jersey, and New England combined, but Jim and 

Secretary Biehler have been doing a great job with the limited resources. 

I would like to welcome Jim and all of our panelists today. I look 

forward to their testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Holden. 

Now we would like to allow each of the witnesses a minute or 

two to introduce yourselves. If you have specific issues that you 

want to bring up briefly, then we will turn to questions and answers. I would like to start with Mayor Hickenlooper. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, 

MAYOR, DENVER, COLORADO; ANDREW CHESLEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SAN JOAQUIN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, 

STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA; CHARLES HOWARD, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DIRECTOR, PUGET SOUND REGIONAL 

COUNCIL, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON; KEITH SELMAN, AICP, 

PLANNING DIRECTOR, CITY OF LAREDO, TEXAS; JAMES 

RITZMAN, DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORTATION 

PLANNING, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; AND NEIL PEDERSEN, CHAIR, EXECUTIVE BOARD, I95 COALITION, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. You should have heard what they did to my 

name as I grew up throughout childhood. 

I am the mayor of Denver in Colorado. I am very grateful, Chairman McNerney, to be here, and to the Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify. 

Certainly, although planning is a concept that, as a topic, doesn’t 

really excite the passions of our citizens, often the results of planning do excite those passions. 

As mayor of Denver and as someone who, before I ran for office 

five years ago, was a real estate developer, developed a number of 

housing and restaurants in the downtown area in the metropolitan 

area, I realize that what we are about now is creating a model of 

regional collaboration, and if these models are going to succeed on 

a national level they need support of the Federal Government. 

In the next 25 years, Denver’s metropolitan population is going 

to come close to four million people, and what we have done again 

and again, whether you are talking about our fast tracks transit 

project or our regional economic development initiative, we have a 

regional cultural facilities tax, but each of these are models on 

what we used to refer to as unnatural acts between consenting 

adults. These are elected leaders from different parts of our metropolitan area looking at broader self-interest and finding ways that 

they can work together. 

I also appear today as the chair of the U.S. Conference of Mayors 

Transportation and Communications Committee. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mayor. 

6 

Next I would like to have Mr. Ritzman introduce himself, even 

though he has been also already recognized by one of our Members 

of the Committee. 

Mr. Ritzman? 

Mr. RITZMAN. Good morning. Thank you so much for the kind introduction, Congressman Holden. 

I, too, am thrilled to be here this morning and just to share some 

perspective from Pennsylvania. I am the Deputy Secretary for 

Planning in Pennsylvania, but I come from a background of transportation roles in highway safety, design, and construction, as well 

as planning, so a real focus area that I would want to share today 

further on is sometimes planning gets lost in the shuffle and only 

becomes a book on somebody’s shelf somewhere or a study. What 

we ultimately need to do is make sure and ensure that the planning activities that we do really do lead to that project delivery efficiencies and program delivery efficiencies. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Ritzman. 

Next we have Mr. Howard from the Puget Sound area. This is 

a very complicated transportation region because it includes so 

much waterways, airways, and not to mention surface transportation. 

Mr. Howard? 

Mr. HOWARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is Charlie Howard. I am the Transportation Planning 

Director of the Puget Sound Regional Council, and that organization is a metropolitan planning organization for four counties in 

Washington State, which includes central Seattle but also includes 

vibrant suburbs all the way to working forests, mountains, farmland. So we encompass quite a wide area. 

One thing, I would share Mr. Ritzman’s view that, while we are 

pretty successful in developing plans in our region, what we really 

view as success is actually implementing those plans, and so that 

is really paramount in our interest as to how we can make sure 

that our plans are delivering projects and transportation services 

that serve our public. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Howard. 

Next is a gentleman who I have had the pleasure of working 

with in my District. I know that he is feared and respected 

throughout the region. Mr. Chesley? 

Mr. CHESLEY. You are very kind, Chairman McNerney. Thank 

you very much. 

My name is Andrew Chesley. I am the Executive Director for the 

San Joaquin Council of Governments in Stockton, California. I look 

forward to speaking on behalf of the National Association of Regional Councils here and the role that metropolitan planning organizations have played in successfully delivery transportation 

projects and some of the challenges that we are facing as we move 

forward in terms of making our transportation system more successful in the future, particularly in areas dealing with situations 

such as greenhouse gas emissions, a new area for us in terms of 

tackling transportation in the future, and it is going to call upon 

us to use new tools, new partners as we move into a better transportation planning process and better transportation system. 

7 

Thank you for inviting me and having me here. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chesley. 

Next we have Mr. Selman from Laredo, Texas, who has his own 

special considerations regarding border crossing. 

Mr. Selman? 

Mr. SELMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Keith Selman. I 

am the Planning Director and the MPO director for a small MPO 

in Laredo, Texas. We have a city population in the last census of 

about 175,000. Right now our population estimates are about 2.25. 

We expect that number to increase by the next census. 

We are the largest inland port on the border between the United States and Mexico. We have over $347 billion in commerce crossing 

the U.S.-Mexican border on an annual basis. We are dealing with 

the whole gauntlet. We deal with rail, we deal with trucks—10,000 

trucks a day crossing our international bridges. We have four international bridges, five if you include the railroad bridge that is 

owned by Kansas City Southern. We have two commuter bridges 

and two bridges solely committed to the movement of commerce. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Selman. 

Next we have Mr. Pedersen, who is going to discuss the I-95 corridor. 

Mr. PEDERSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Neil Pedersen. In addition to being Chair of the Executive Board of the I95 Corridor Coalition, I serve as the Administrator of the Maryland 

State Highway Administration. I am a constituent of your newest 

Member, Congresswoman Edwards. I am also very active in the 

American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials 

Policy Development Authorization Committees and can speak 

about some issues from that perspective, as well. 

The I-95 Corridor Coalition is a coalition of 16 States along the 

eastern seaboard, and we are addressing a number of multi-State 

issues from both an operations perspective, as well as from a planning perspective. We have undertaken a vision study for the 16- 

State corridor. I think a number of the lessons that we have 

learned at looking at issues from a multi-State perspective I think 

are very appropro for the hearing this morning. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Pedersen. 

Next we will begin with our questions. The Chair will recognize 

himself for five minutes. 

Congress requires that Federally funded highway and transit 

projects just flow from metropolitan and State-wide transportation 

planning processes. I would like to ask Mr. Hickenlooper what 

ways have transportation planning requirements been helpful and 

what ways have they been a hinderance in your transportation 

planning? 

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Certainly the current transportation framework acknowledges the importance of metropolitan scale and mobility issues, but it doesn’t really motivate or support the metropolitan based transportation solutions that would be led by the various 

elected officials I was referring to in our collaborative processes. I 

think the key here is that our planning processes in metro areas, 

they are only going to be meaningful if the resources to implement 

the plan are connected to the body that is making the plan, as well. 

8 

In most metro areas, local officials are never afforded the opportunity to control or substantially influence how the bulk of the Federal resources are expanded in our region. If you look at the relative weight in a metropolitan area versus the rest of the State, we 

have in metropolitan Denver, of the $438 million in spending authority under the core highway program categories in Colorado last 

year, only $54 million out of that $438 million, so roughly 12.5 percent, is directly controlled by the metro Denver planning processes, 

even though metro Denver represents roughly half of the State’s 

population and 60 percent of its economic output. So I think that 

disparity between the transit versus highway projects, ultimately it 

promotes, to the disadvantage of the entire area, it promotes road 

investments. 

Oftentimes the cost for planning the requirements in terms of 

matches, all these things are scaled in such a way to make it more 

difficult for more integrated solutions to get funded. 

So I think we would ask for a rigorous evaluation in matching 

rules to apply uniformly to highway and transit projects for both 

metropolitan and non-metropolitan so that we enable the planners 

to make decisions that are mode neutral, that are driven by merits 

and not differentially aligned incentives, and to make sure that 

those incentives are equal all the way along and that we make sure 

that we take advantage in terms of long-term investment of some 

of the asset rich already urbanized but metropolitan areas. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. 

Mr. Pedersen, would you like to take a crack at that? What has 

been helpful and what has been a problem in the current framework? 

Mr. PEDERSEN. Having been Planning Director of Maryland State 

Highway Administration for 16 years, I go back to prior to ISTEA. 

ISTEA was really a watershed in terms of significantly increasing 

not just collaboration but partnership between the State DOTs and 

metropolitan areas and local jurisdictions. Quite frankly, from my 

perspective, observing perhaps all 50 States what has worked and 

what has not, it is where the true partnership and collaboration 

has developed, which was the spirit of ISTEA, that has been most 

successful. 

In terms of hindrances and where I believe the process has not 

worked as effectively, and it has been raised by several of the 

Members already, is that when we start to look at issues of true 

national interest, issues that are multi-State issues, particularly 

when you start looking at freight issues, the process as it has been 

set up primarily causes either States or metropolitan areas to primarily look at things from their interest, and we need to be revamping the process to really be looking much more at those issues 

that are of national interest, those projects that truly benefit and 

affect multiple States and the entire Nation as a whole. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. That sort of leads to another question I had. In the sense that freight from ports and from ports of 

entry and from centers go through localities that are required to 

make improvements in order to accommodate those, and also to put 

up with the impact of all this freight going through there, both on 

trains and on trucks. In what way do you see—anyone that wants 

to take this question—how do you see us managing the local jurisVerDate Aug 31 2005 17:05 Jul 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\45109 LINDS
9 

diction influence on this planning process to accommodate that 

large increase in freight? 

Mr. PEDERSEN. Obviously I spoke earlier about partnership being 

necessary, and using the I-95 Corridor Coalition experience as a 

starting point for the discussion, the I-95 Corridor Coalition is not 

just 16 State departments of transportation; we actually have 60 

different transportation agencies, including a number of the different metropolitan planning organizations within the 16 States. 

You have to have the dialogue. There are joint analyses that are 

taking place and partnership in terms of decisions that are being 

made at all three levels of government—Federal, State, and local 

or metropolitan level of government—in terms of joint decisionmaking that takes place. 

Ultimately, quite frankly, it takes leadership from the Federal 

level in terms of looking at the issues from a national perspective, 

but in dialogue and partnership with the States and the metropolitan areas. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Selman, I think you want to have a chance here. 

Mr. SELMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I think the mayor is correct. Capitalizing the projects 

is key, and it was mentioned earlier the timing of a project. Time 

is money, and you can lose a lot of money by taking longer to do 

a project, millions of dollars, depending on the size of the project 

and the magnitude of the project. 

We feel that the CBI program that was initiated and the two programs, the coordinated borders that was created in SAFETEA-LU. 

The formulas are sound, the mechanism is sound. Every dollar that 

you spend in a community that deals with this movement of commerce, you are facilitating that movement of commerce. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Chesley? 

Mr. CHESLEY. Mr. Chairman, actually you are aware of this more 

than almost anybody. In San Joaquin County we consider the Port 

of Oakland just as important a port to us as the Port of Stockton, 

even though it may be located well outside of our regional boundaries, but when the container ship comes into the Port of Oakland, 

it unloads on the trucks, comes over into San Joaquin County 

where it is repackaged onto a train, and then shipped out from 

that. So intermodalism is a key really in terms of freight movement. We can see it in southern California as well as northern 

California. 

Local jurisdictions and regional agencies are prepared to address 

those kind of issues, but also our concern about mitigation-related 

issue such as grade-separated facilities, as well as being able to 

move vehicles in and out of communities in this way. 

What we did in northern California as a result of the trade corridor bond funding was to form a coalition with the Metropolitan 

Transportation Commission, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, and the San Joaquin Valley in terms of setting priorities 

in terms of how to redistribute the component of the $2.1 billion 

that was going to northern California. We have prepared a joint set 

of agreements on projects that covered everything from the Donner 

10 

Pass to the Martina Sub all the way down to a multi inter-modal 

facility in Kern County. 

This kind of cooperation between regional agencies in terms of 

trying to address those local impacts that come from maybe as far 

away as 350 miles from a port facility are, I think, the keys to successes, finding the right incentives for those agencies to work together. 

We had 23 counties team together on this one, and I think the 

amount of cooperation between us is really kind of a model that 

has been highlighted in the State of California’s transportation 

planning effort. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Howard? 

Mr. HOWARD. Yes. Our ports of Tacoma and Seattle combined are 

about the third-largest port in the Country, and we serve not only 

the inland northwest but the midwest and really the rest of the 

Country. So several years ago we formed what was called the Fast 

Partnership, which, again, was benefitted by corridor and borders 

money that was available. We have leveraged that money cooperatively. We developed a list of projects that were needed not only to 

support and improve freight capacity, but to help the local communities take care of the effects on their communities. 

We have been able to leverage that money into about a $568 million investment of both public and private dollars so that we can 

get that freight moving faster. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Ritzman? 

Mr. RITZMAN. Thank you. 

I have a couple comments, too. They just really fall into and almost address the first question, as well. Just the funding eligibles 

and the categories of funds I think is really important, especially 

when you are dealing with MPOs. In Pennsylvania the RPOs, we 

treat the rural side of things the same as an MPO. So when you 

are trying to explain and regionally come up with priorities, it gets 

very confusing unless you are a transportation professional who 

deals with it every day. 

So I would say some categories that are more simple, more 

broader-based are really key. Right now we are really challenged 

with our existing infrastructure, just maintaining our existing infrastructure, so whenever you pull in potential projects that I will 

say have a concern of a private nature as well as a public entity, 

it gets a little bit tricky when you are trying to come up with priorities. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

It sounds like cooperation and communication are the key here. 

What I would like to do now is recognize the Ranking Member. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I want to yield my time at this point to Ranking 

Member Mica. 

Mr. MICA. I will just ask a couple of questions. We have got some 

real experts here from some of the States and locales that have had 

to deal with, again, the Federal planning process and funding, 

which is so key. 

In Pennsylvania you just got turned down, Mr. Ritzman, on your 

I-80 proposal to toll it. It makes it a little hard to plan when you 

11 

really don’t have a handle on Federal policy as to what you can do 

with existing interstates. 

Now, who is the guy from Baltimore? Mr. Pedersen? I can’t pick 

Baltimore out, because whether it is Denver, Baltimore, or Pennsylvania, all of our interstates are basically parking lots turned 

into parking lots from Florida to Maine and across sea to shining 

sea. I challenge people to cover your eyes and say what’s the plan, 

and nobody has a clue. 

God bless Eisenhower. He had a plan, proposed a half-trillion- dollar system in 1954, when the Federal budget was $78 billion, 

and I think we are going to have to have a mega plan to deal with 

this, unless somebody has got another idea. 

And then if we just define what the Federal Government would 

do and then come up with some mechanisms of financing or allow 

you to take the asset. This is an asset actually with some potential 

for income, unlike maybe some subprimes where people can’t pay 

the debt, but you actually have some proposals that will return revenue, right? But you just got turned down? 

Mr. PEDERSEN. Correct. We have an outstanding bid for $12.8 

billion. 

Mr. MICA. That is on the Turnpike. Some States have acted. I 

know Mitch Daniels pretty well. He served up here when I was in 

the Senate with him, and he has worked on Indiana, and you can 

do things within your State with your State assets. But the problem is, again, the Federal asset, the Federal planning process, and 

assistance in being a partner. And then public/private partnerships, some of the leadership of this committee sent out an edict 

to State DOT Secretaries—was that last year?—when they said, 

don’t do anything that might not be in the public interest. 

I don’t want to be critical, because there are people going in different directions, but if we just would define the policy and the 

projects and prioritize them. 

Am I smoking the funny weed, Mr. Pedersen? Is this a good approach? Give me an idea what we should do in the planning process? 

Mr. PEDERSEN. I think if you look at what the I-95 Corridor Coalition has been underway with for a year it serves as a prototype 

in terms of trying to address the issues that you are raising. We 

have been underway with a vision exercise and developing a vision 

for the corridor. 

Part of my experience in planning is it is the process of planning 

that is important, as important as ultimately what the outcome is. 

What we are doing in terms of that process is going through and 

analyzing what conditions can be expected to be in year 2040, so 

it is truly long-term, if it is business as usual without changes, and 

then what needs to be done in terms of intervention to try to not 

have some of the very, very serious impacts we would have. 

For example, we have projected, if it is business as usual, a 70 

percent increase in vehicle miles of travel in the 16-State corridor, 

an 84 percent increase in congestion, if you can believe that, over 

today’s conditions in the urban areas within the corridor. And then 

started looking at interventions that need to be done in terms of 

whether it is land use, whether it is addressing freight issues, ways 

that we can be trying to increase passenger rail usage within the 

12 

corridor and identifying what the 16 States need to do together 

from a vision standpoint in terms of trying to address from a longterm perspective how to address what would be a totally unacceptable situation otherwise. 

Mr. MICA. One of the problems we have at the Federal level, and 

we have different jurisdiction niches, and the SAFETEA-LU successor is going to primarily handle highway and transit, but rail I 

have heard is also, both freight, passenger service, is also something that needs to be in the mix, and how it all fits together, or 

cost-effective alternatives to just paving everything over. We are 

going to have to do a lot more paving. 

Just two quick things. There is my proposal, and you can throw 

my proposal in the Potomac if you want. There is another proposal 

that we appoint a commission and study this and have the commission sort of study what would be the priorities. Quite frankly, I had 

thought of that approach, but then I thought, well, most of the people know what the problems are, most of the people know what the 

need is. It is for us to identify, again, the policy that will implement some of the projects, of course a financing mechanism, and 

then speeding up the process. 

But, again, I hope that some of you would weigh in against just 

another study commission with another report and that we do 

adopt a plan with these elements. You don’t have to answer that. 

Just do what you want to do on it. 

I think those are the two points—bringing in the other modes, 

that we have got to do. I don’t know how we do that with that, 

given our jurisdiction split, but I would appreciate if you see hope 

on the horizon. 

Mr. Oberstar is here, and he and I both pledged, I mean from 

the first day, he took over the shop and I am Tonto and he is the 

Lone Ranger, but we have committed to, no matter who is the 

President or who is in charge here, to move. The other thing is 

moving the damn bill forward next year, not a year and a half from 

next September. So we are going to do all we can. I know he is 

committed to it, and we are really going to rely on folks like you 

to weigh in on the process. Just don’t stay out there and not comment. 

Mr. PEDERSEN. If I could respond again in terms of lessons 

learned from the I-95 Corridor Coalition, we have undertaken now 

studies in the Mid-Atlantic region, New England, the northeast region of our corridor, and the southeast region of our corridor, looking at freight rail issues, and what the issues are from a corridorwide perspective, not from the perspective of any one individual 

State, and also started to look at what the benefits are of some of 

those needs that have been identified in terms of multi-State benefits. 

Some of the largest and most costly projects actually have greater benefits in the other States than in the State in which it is located. If the decisions are being made just a State or metropolitan 

level, they will be made in terms of the benefits to that State as 

opposed to from a corridor-wide perspective. 

Mr. MICA. I didn’t want to interrupt, but I can solve Skagg’s 

problem. I can come down to Florida, do a little in Florida, or we 

can do a little in Baltimore or a little in Texas, but unless there 

13 

is a comprehensive approach to this, folks, we are just taking 

pinking shears around the edges. 

I am sorry I took so long, Mr. McNerney. Thank you. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you for the questions, your thoughtful 

questions. 

The Transportation Committee has the honor of being one of the 

oldest and most distinguished committees, but also a Committee 

that operates on a very bipartisan basis. Because of the nature of 

the issues that we are facing, that is important, and it is an honor 

to be on this Committee. The Chairman of the Committee is here 

today. I would like to give him an opportunity to address the panel. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Duncan, good to 

see you here, as always, the judge whose very thoughtful presence 

on these brings a great deal of experience on the Committee, having served as Subcommittee Chair and a previous Chair on two 

Subcommittees in the previous era. And Mr. Mica, with whom we 

have worked, he has served on this Committee since his first days 

in Congress. He was elected in 1992 and started here in 1993. I 

hadn’t really thought about that image that he projected. I am not 

quite ready to see Mr. Mica on Paint or me on Silver. 

If there is a horse to ride, it is transportation. We have done 

good things since the beginning of this Congress. In fact, together 

with bipartisan support we passed the Water Resources Development Act that languished for six years, mostly because the other 

body couldn’t get their act together. But in this Congress we not 

only moved it through Committee, 920 projects, through the House, 

and eventually the Senate did the same. When the President vetoed it, the House overrode that veto. To do that you need twothirds vote. That shows what kind of bipartisanship we can get 

when we bring people together. 

That was kind of the planning process that you face. The purpose 

of MPOs should be to resolve differences at the community level. 

In 1962, in an era in the 1960s and the 1970s and into the mid1980s when we didn’t have fancy names for the legislation we 

passed, it was just simply The Highway Act. It later became the 

Surface Transportation Assistance Act. Then they got fancier with 

all these other acronyms. We need to return to those. 

But in 1962 in the Highway Bill metropolitan agencies were 

given the first authority to be engaged in the transportation planning process. Two years later in UMTA, the Urban Mass Transportation Act, MPOs were given authority to do planning on transit 

projects. In 1973, my last year as staff director of this Committee, 

we gave a directive to the States to allocate funds to MPOs to undertake the planning process. Sure, you had authority to do it, but 

you didn’t have the money to do it. 

So now you have the authority for both highway and transit. 

MPOs have funding with which to engage in the planning process. 

But the money is decided by the State. A number of questions that 

I have for you. One is, to what extent do your State DOTs respectively respect, comply with, implement your TIP, your participation 

in the STIP, or your local metropolitan area plans? 

Second, do you use the planning process as a forum within which 

to resolve land use issues and the conflicts that arise out of transportation planning? If you can’t resolve them, don’t expect your 

14 

Members of Congress to do it, your United States Senators, or the 

U.S. DOT, or your State DOT. You have got to do that. 

Then, for Seattle area, Mr. Howard, when the monorail project 

was alive and well I went out to Seattle to meet on a wide range 

of transportation issues, but that was one of them, and I was impressed with their project permitting procedure that held promise 

of compressing 45 months of permitting into 45 weeks. We were 

working on the same concept in fashioning what became the 

SAFETEA-LU legislation. Then Chairman Young asked me to lead 

this effort and craft a permit expediting streamlining process. 

What I had in broad outline is what Seattle was, in fact, preparing 

to do had they been able to carry out the monorail. 

So now the question is, have you, in the Puget Sound area, applied the lessons learned from that aspect, that is the permitting? 

Have you had success in consolidating all the permitting entities 

into one group at one time with a horizontal approach rather than 

a vertical approach? In the past the model was that each agency 

had a crack at it sequentially. That stretched out and still does 

stretch out the permitting process over years rather than weeks. 

We can’t have transit projects waiting 14 years on average before 

they actually deliver services to people. We can’t have metropolitan 

areas redesigning their interstate system within the MPO and take 

ten years to do it. That is outrageous. 

Mr. Mica earlier—I heard while I was engaged in another meeting—referring to the I-35W bridge. Well, that was done in a matter 

of less than 12 months, actually. You can do them when you have 

got 100 percent Federal funding, when you don’t have to do an environmental impact statement because you are in the same footprint as the previous bridge, when you don’t need a slough of permits from Federal, State, county, township, city officials, and when 

you have the funding with which to provide incentives to the contractor to deliver the project ahead of time. That is nice formula, 

but we can’t do that everywhere. 

All right. I have laid out some questions. I want to hear about 

permitting, I want to hear about connection with land use, I want 

to hear about the responsiveness of State DOTs to the local planning process, and whether not having the funds to implement 

makes a difference in your planning process. 

Mayor Hickenlooper, we had a great time in your city. 

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Thank you, Congressman. We had a pretty 

good time, ourselves. We appreciate all that. It was a remarkable 

week. 

You know, if I could just touch on that a little bit, certainly in 

terms of the link between land use and transportation, and I think 

also the connection between the State Departments of Transportation and the local collaborative MPOs, the Federal Government 

can certainly play a stronger role in providing the incentives to 

make sure that that planning isn’t just a plan that ends up on the 

shelf and that the planning incorporates approaches to land use. 

Again and again, whether you are talking about issues around 

land use or economic development, energy or environmental factors, most of those have local government authority over them, and 

that ability to integrate land use and energy and economic development, climate, these goals, putting them all together, is the natural 

15 

purview of an MPO, and I don’t think that metropolitan areas want 

to take away the power of State Departments of Transportation. I 

think what we want to do is make sure that everyone is working 

together and that we do have that collaborative approach. 

We spent an awful lot of time when we passed our fast tracks, which is 119 miles of new track, $4.7 billion transit initiative—I 

am sure you heard about it while you were out there. We ended 

up getting all 32 mayors in our metropolitan area—there are now 

38. Municipalities keep springing up like mushrooms out there. 

But those 32 mayors from big cities and the small little towns, Republicans and Democrats, in the end we were able to get all 32 

mayors unanimously to support a 4/10ths of a cent sales tax increase to build this project fast tracks, and that took a remarkable 

amount of collaborative discussion about people’s broader self interest. Even if a little town doesn’t get a light rail segment that comes 

right into their town, their citizens still benefit by having the congestion mitigated, even though we still don’t have a good performance measure of congestion mitigation or congestion. 

I think the Federal Government can play a real role by getting 

more of the allocation and authority within the local MPOs, within 

the local governments, that you can create an incentive whereby 

people are incentivized to collaborate. Same way that we should be 

doing our plannings around land use, we should also be looking at 

how can we make sure—the City of Denver is going to roll out a 

strategic transportation plan in the next month that is going to 

stress, instead of just measuring car trips, it is going to be really 

looking at person trips and all the different—whether it is by bus, 

by light rail, in a car, by bicycle, whether it is pedestrian. 

How do we look at each one of these as travelsheds, just like you 

would think about a watershed? What are we really trying to get 

to? What are the end results, whether it is land use or economic 

development? How do we get all these factors in a real, measurable 

way? That leads ultimately to the whole notion of performance 

measurements and ultimately what—you know, I spent 15 years in 

the restaurant business. You learn very quickly there two things. 

One is that there is no margin in bickering, and I think this Country as a whole, we just don’t have the luxury any more of having 

all these squabbles over these issues. We have got to get more 

quickly and more effectively to the final issue. And you also learn 

that what gets measured is what gets done. I think we need to, 

again, have some Federal help there getting some performance 

measurements around things like congestion. 

It does come back to land use. I think that becomes a key part 

of all of this is where does the real benefit come. We can get the 

people that have authority over land use, and that is not even just 

mayors, it is city councils, it is the MPOs together making their 

plans. Make sure that they have some funding around that; then 

you can really make some progress in it. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Howard? 

Mr. HOWARD. Sure. Representative Oberstar, I will answer your 

questions I think in the order that you asked them. 

You talked about the State respecting our TIP process. We have 

got an excellent working relationship with the State of Washington 

and the Washington State DOT, so they are our partners at the 

16 

table. But, that being said, we have got to recognize that we make 

decisions in our region on only about 6 percent of the Federal dollars that come to our State, and we take that role very seriously. 

That is the congestion mitigation, air quality funding a portion of 

the surface transportation program and the transit programs that 

we receive. But 6 percent of the highway dollars are our purview. 

So I think the mayor mentioned earlier the same situation in 

Denver. We focus that money on implementing our plan, but it is 

kind of hard to take responsibility for implementing our plan when 

so few Federal dollars are actually decisions made at our regional 

table. 

The issue about land use, I didn’t mention it during my introduction but the Puget Sound Regional Council has three functions. We 

are a land use growth planning agency, and that function comes 

from State law through our State’s Growth Management Act. We 

are an economic development agency, and we are a transportation 

planning agency. Those three functions fit very, very well together. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I think they are essential. That is a great model 

we ought to have replicated across the Country. 

Mr. HOWARD. Right. And my boss, Bob Drewel, has often said 

that where you have got land use and transportation there is an 

economic nexus there, and so you have to treat those three all together. So we have tried to integrate our work programs for those 

three areas. 

Our State did adopt a Growth Management Act in 1990, and that 

Growth Management Act did not take land use planning authority 

away from local governments; it kept the authority at local governments. It is a bottoms-up process. But it required that local plans 

be consistent with each other and consistent with the regional plan 

that we collaboratively developed. And so our role is to develop that 

collaborative regional plan that sets out growth policies for our region, and so decides things like population allocations, job allocations, environmental policies, and other things like that. And so we 

are intimately involved in the land use transportation linkage. 

Professionally, all transportation planners are engaged in the 

practice of land use planning. Land use drives transportation. 

Transportation, in turn, drives land use. I have often said that 

transportation is a land use, and so making transportation decisions is making land use decisions. 

So I think those things have to be very much wedded together, 

and in our State we have found the mechanism to do that. 

On project permitting and specifically related to the monorail, I 

know the monorail project was helped because it was a one-jurisdiction project, so it was totally contained within the City of Seattle. City of Seattle was the permitting authority, and it had been 

approved by the voters of Seattle. 

One of the key things to the monorail project and other projects 

in my experience has been when they are fully funded it is pretty 

easy to proceed. Often what my experience has been when projects 

are not fully funded is when we have delays in the process, and so 

when you don’t have the funds identified to proceed it is awfully 

difficult to just shorten that time to implementation because you 

need to find the money. 

17 

So we have had quite a bit of success in working with our environmental agencies. We have a group at the regional council that 

we pull together of all the permitting agencies. They sit through 

our planning processes. They review our plans. Our hope in doing 

that is that we can deal with some of the major sticking points 

when you get to a project like secondary and cumulative impacts. 

We can address that early in the planning process when it can be 

addressed and when it is best addressed. We have involved them 

in our land use planning, in our policy setting. We have involved 

them in our transportation planning. 

One of the issues that we do face, though, is that the permitting 

agencies have little time to spend in the planning process, and so 

their focus is and they are staffed to review projects and to provide 

permits, and so it is very difficult for them to find the time and 

the dedication to participate in our planning processes. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Others? But I have to ask you to compress your 

response because I have gone well beyond eight minutes now. 

Mr. Chesley? 

Mr. CHESLEY. Mr. Chairman, you are very familiar with the California process, and in California many of my compatriots across the 

Country would like to have the same kind of relationship with our 

State Department of Transportation that we have as an MPO. We 

provide an excellent model for others. Out of the State’s capital 

program, 75 percent of the projects are determined by MPOs and 

regional agencies across the State. 

On the land use side, I have to echo—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Then does the State commit the money to the 

plan that you have developed? 

Mr. CHESLEY. Well, to the extent of the resources available, yes. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Okay. 

Mr. CHESLEY. And we have been very successful in making that 

happen. 

On the land use side, we are in the process of trying to get up 

to speed with the Puget Sound and Portland areas on that. The 

Sacramento Area Council of Governments and its blueprint process 

has proven to be the model in California. As we move forward with 

things like Senate Bill 375 dealing with greenhouse gas emissions, 

we are finding more and more State authority to become involved 

in land use decision-making on a higher level, not at the level of 

where the Wal-Mart goes but at the level of how we develop growth 

policies across our region for affordable housing and for economic 

development opportunities. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And then serve those compact growth policies 

with light rail or commuter rail or rapid bus transit? 

Mr. CHESLEY. That is right. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. If you don’t do that, then people don’t buy into 

the process. 

Mr. CHESLEY. That is right. In fact, that is the only way to be 

successful in these particular efforts, and that is a challenge. I 

mean, there is no question that is a huge challenge for us. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. In the Sacramento area it certainly is. I see that 

regularly. 

Mr. CHESLEY. Yes, and that is actually the model that the rest 

of us are using. 

18 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Ritzman? 

Mr. RITZMAN. Thank you. 

In Pennsylvania we use what’s called the Financial Guidance 

Work Group, and as we start to update our STIP, our four-year 

STIP—we do that every two years—we pull a committee together 

comprised of our local Federal highway administration office, a couple of our regional district executives, MPO partners, and rural 

planning organization partners, and we look at every category of 

Federal funds, come up with a needs-based formula for how to distribute that across our State into the 23 different regional planning 

organizations that we use. 

So we have those hard discussions of making people think Statewide. We do have a small reserve, 20 percent of the highway funds, 

for our Secretary’s discretion. We call those spike funds, so that 

when there is a big project, a big bridge in a region, that we can 

help assist in those projects. This last TIP update, all those spike 

funds went to structurally deficient bridges. That is how much in 

need we are for those types of funds. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Essentially you have a biennial update? 

Mr. RITZMAN. Update, correct, and we go through every category 

of funds and figure out a fair distribution of those funds. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is good. 

Mr. Selman? 

Mr. SELMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just like my friend here, to the extent the resources are available 

we are respected, the answer there. The other two are yes. 

I think the small MPO is the perfect conduit for this type of land 

use and transportation nexus and activity. Our city council makes 

up almost a full majority of our local MPO. They are the ones that 

have land use regulatory authority. The very mindset that they are 

coming to the table with is that: where is land use going to be 

played into a transportation project. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Okay. Mr. Pedersen? 

Mr. PEDERSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

If you were to speak to the six MPOs in the State of Maryland, 

I think you would get a response from all of them that we have 

an excellent working relationship in terms of both elements to plan 

and the priorities that we have consensus. The issue is lack of resources. Every single one of the six MPOs would say that the State 

does not provide them with enough money. Every single one of 

them would say that other parts of the State are unfairly getting 

too much of the money. So we find ourselves in the position of trying to have an unequal amount of unhappiness among the various 

parts of the State. 

In terms of the process to coordinate with land use issues, we 

have some of the strongest State legislation in terms of coordination between State and local jurisdictions on land use plans. We 

find we have the decision-making—and this is the case in almost 

every State—being at the local level, that from a State level or 

from the use of Federal funds it really becomes what incentives 

and disincentives you provide in terms of transportation funding 

availability that is made available. 

So, for example, we want to significantly increase transit ridership. We have incentive programs for transit-oriented development. 

19 

We make decisions in not making transportation improvements 

outside of planned areas of growth, and we allow the congestion to 

grow in those areas because we don’t want to be providing incentives for further development to be taking place where it is not 

planned. 

In terms of permit expediting, the key issue from my perspective 

on that is being able to get the engagement of the actual decisionmakers in the other environmental resource agencies at the time 

that you need them to be involved and to be getting timely decisions. Unfortunately, either the lead Federal agency, the U.S. Department of Transportation, or the State Department of Transportation or implementing agency does not have the authority to be 

getting those decision-makers involved and to be making timely decisions. That is where we could really be using Congress’ help. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I invite you, in light of that comment, to review 

the language in the current law, all of you. We are making policy 

decisions for next year right here in this room as you speak, so give 

us your thoughts about how that language should be adjusted and 

improved. If you have had success in Maryland, I suspect it is due 

to Mr. Shiner. Isn’t he engaged with you? 

Mr. PEDERSEN. He definitely is in the I-95 Corridor Coalition, 

and we are very fortunate to have him as our executive director. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. He did a brilliant job with the National Scenic 

Byways program. We are grateful eternally to him. 

All right. I want to compress this in maybe a minute and a half. 

Of the interstate, 15 percent is located in urban areas, but 50 percent of the vehicle miles traveled on the interstate is in urban 

areas. That is where we have to concentrate effort if we are going 

to unlock the congestion problems. 

Of the $78 billion in congestion cost that the Texas Transportation Institute cites in their annual report, 100 percent of that occurs in the 68 major metropolitan areas of this Country. Now, in 

the SAFETEA-LU legislation I proposed a mega projects program 

where we would allocate something in the range of $7 billion to addressing congestion in those areas and let the project areas be selected by the Department of Transportation. 

Well, by the time we got through conference with the Senate that 

was emasculated. It was cut up and shredded into little pieces of 

what we had. In fact, the money was cut from $7.5 billion to $3 

billion, and then it was divided between the House and the Senate, 

and then it was sub-allocated by Senators and House Members 

until it was all piddled away and there was no effect. That is not 

going to happen next time. 

We have to have like a laser beam on these congestion points in 

the Country. We are going to craft a process by which the biggest 

effort, biggest success, biggest reduction of congestion can be done 

with an entity in a process that doesn’t involve the House or the 

Senate or the DOT of the U.S. Government or the States, and select those areas and then target the money to them and make a 

really significant impact. If we don’t, we will have failed this Country. That has to involve intermodal and multi-modal and transit 

and trollies and street cars and high-speed rapid bus and adjusting 

the interstate system and incorporating freight transportation 

20 

movement in those areas and deal with it and unlock this congestion. And the planning process is foundational portion of it. 

We need your best ideas as we go forward to craft the next legislation. 

I thank my colleagues for their patience. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I want to thank the Chairman for coming 

down and participating in this hearing. He has more insight, I believe, on this issue than anyone. 

Next I would like to recognize the Ranking Member for his questions, Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, Chairman Oberstar said some kind things about me, 

as he has done so often. I will tell you, I have had the honor and 

privilege of serving on this Committee for 20 years, but that pales 

in comparison to his, I think, now 44 years, counting his time on 

the staff. 

I will say this. I doubt there has ever been a Chairman of this 

Committee in the entire history of the Congress that has been 

more knowledgeable and more dedicated, more knowledgeable 

about the work of this Committee and more dedicated to the goals 

and work of this Committee, than Chairman Oberstar. It has been 

a real honor to serve with him. 

I am already running late to meet with a group of military families, and so I am not going to be able to ask my questions, but I 

would like to make a few comments. 

I will start out, Mayor Hickenloop, just by saying that my father 

was city law director for three and a half years and mayor for six 

years, and so from the time I was eight until I was seventeen I partially grew up at City Hall, and I became convinced that being the 

mayor of a large city is about the most difficult job in this Country. 

We found out that I think, at that time—it may have changed 

now—but we found out that everybody and his brother wanted to 

be a fireman or a policeman, and the day after they went on the 

force they wanted a promotion or a raise. I don’t know if it is still 

the same or not. 

Are you any relation to the former Senator Hickenloop from 

Iowa? 

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Yes. He was my great-uncle. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Is that right? My mother was from Iowa and moved 

to Tennessee after college. 

I have always said that there is a very legitimate Federal interest in the work of this Committee in every aspect, but on highways 

I have used the roads and highways in every one of your States 

and my constituents have, and vice versa. People from Colorado 

and Pennsylvania and Washington State and California and Texas 

and Maryland, they come to Tennessee. 

The staff will be submitting some of my questions, if they are not 

covered later on, but you heard in my opening statement one of my 

questions is how we handle our transportation funding when we 

have two-thirds of the counties in the U.S. losing population. I 

know Mayor Hickenlooper has expressed his frustration about insufficient resources and then too little input. I assume that he is 

speaking on behalf of all of the mayors who feel that way. But 

then, by the same token, even the people from the rural areas in 

21 

Colorado come to Denver to shop or go to ball games and so forth, 

so it is fair, I guess, that they have some say. 

Mr. Ritzman, we had your governor in here two or three months 

ago, and he was mainly talking about the problem of the structurally deficient bridges, and so I would like to know what kind of 

progress you are making on that. 

Mr. Howard, I read all your statements, and this target zero 

thing is certainly a legitimate goal, to have no debts and no disabling injuries by the year 2030. I would like to know a little bit 

more about that, what steps you are taking and how much progress 

you have made. My impression is you just sort of barely got into 

that, but boy that would certainly be a great goal. 

I was on the Oprah Winfrey show a few years ago because they 

had this expert talking about how we were going to start having 

a crash a week on airplanes, and I was taking the other side, and 

I said, Unfortunately, we have more people killed in three and a 

half months in the Nation’s highways than in all of the U.S. aviation accidents combined since the Wright Brothers flew in 1903. It 

is an amazing situation. But boy, this goal you have got, if we 

could even come close to it, it would really be something. 

I will just stop right there. 

I will say to Mr. Selman, you hit my pet peeve or the thing that 

bothers me the most, and that is these projects take far too long. 

The main runway at the Atlanta Airport took 14 years from conception to completion. It took 99 days of construction, but they had 

to get all of those approvals. So in the last highway bill we tried 

to do some environmental streamlining, because that is where most 

of the delays are. I don’t know how successful we have been on 

that. Maybe you could submit something on that. 

But also another thing that we are hearing about, I have never 

fully understood what is the controversy about this trans-Texas 

corridor. I don’t know whether that affects you as much, but maybe 

you could give me some help on that. 

At any rate, I have to run. I appreciate all of the testimony I 

have heard so far. All of you all know a lot more about this stuff 

than I do, but I think and hope that my concern about these challenges and problems is as great as yours, and I thank each of you 

for taking time out of your very busy schedules to be with us today. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I want to thank the Ranking Member for his 

thoughtful questions, and I look forward to the answers that are 

produced in accordance. 

Next I would like to recognize my colleague from California, Ms. 

Richardson, who inhabits Long Beach and one of the busiest, if not 

the busiest, ports of our Nation. 

Ms. Richardson? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Howard, my introduction that just occurred is very pertinent 

to the question that I am going to ask you. I represent the two 

largest ports in this Nation, the Port of Long Beach and the Port 

of Los Angeles, and my question to you is, it is my understanding 

that in Washington there was a consideration of a container fee. 

Given the fact of the inability to really fund all of the projects that 

we have and the impact of what goods movement has on our transVerDate Aug 31 2005 17:05 Jul 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\45109 LINDS
22 

portation corridors, could you share with me in two minutes or less 

how that came about and what you did? 

Mr. HOWARD. Sure. One of our State legislators, and actually a 

State legislative committee, had proposed a container fee on containers within the State that are coming in and out of our ports. 

That was a bit controversial because of the competitive position 

that our ports face with other ports, not only L.A./Long Beach but 

Mexico and Canada. So that was studied as a potential funding 

source, and it is still being considered, but not acted on. 

I think the feeling is probably that if this were to be done nationally to put all ports on the same footing, that that probably would 

be a much more welcome idea. 

Everybody recognized the need for the funding, because the 

money that that fee would have supported would have funded very 

important freight project. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Well, Congresswoman Grace Napolitano and 

the Chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Committee, Mr. 

Elijah Cummings, and other Members were present at a hearing 

in Los Angeles, and I intend on bringing something forward on that 

matter, myself. 

My second question is for you, Mr. Pedersen. I am sure you saw 

all in the news of what happened in California, the recent Metro 

as well as freight train wreck that we had. I wanted to get your 

thoughts of coming from a local government perspective, what are 

your commuter rail in conjunction with freight rail, and also passenger? It is my understanding that commuter rail does not come 

to the same standards that these other sections have. What are 

your thoughts in terms of how you cohabitate and what projects effectively need to be done. 

Mr. PEDERSEN. Maryland is very committed not just to the commuter rail system we have, but actually growing it. We have 

MARC. Our commuter rail system is called MARC, a very aggressive expansion plan associated with it, as well. 

Our greatest challenges on that, quite frankly, are dealing with 

the private railroads in terms of sharing the track. We have had 

some significant safety issues. We, unfortunately, had a very serious crash several years ago just north of Washington, D.C. We are 

constantly working with the private railroad companies in terms of 

the safety issues that we have associated with the shared track, as 

well. 

But it is a huge challenge, and anything that Congress can be 

doing to be helping us in terms of recognizing the priority of commuter rail and shared track and safety issues we would welcome. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, gentlemen. If you could supply this 

Committee with further information on both of those issues, I 

would appreciate it. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Ms. Richardson. 

Next the Chair will recognize Mr. Coble, the gentleman from 

North Carolina. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is good to have you gentlemen with us this morning. Mr. Howard, one time I was formally stationed with the Coast Guard in Seattle, and I am very high on your city and very high on the northVerDate Aug 31 2005 17:05 Jul 08, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\45109 LINDS
23 

west generally, for that matter. I know the other cities represented 

here are equally favorable, but since I am most familiar with the 

northwest I will examine Mr. Howard. 

I arrived late. You may have already touched on this, Mr. Howard, but what are some of the unique challenges getting cooperating port and freight movement into a metropolitan transportation 

plan? 

Mr. HOWARD. Well, we have touched a little bit on some of those 

issues during some of the other testimony, but the interaction of 

the freight local communities is a very large issue, and so the idea 

of the railroads and the freeways that pass through local communities, when you get increased volumes you get increased impacts, 

and so there is a lot of concern there. We recognize the need to 

make some of those improvements to local systems and to mitigate 

some of the impacts of freight on local communities in order to 

allow the freight to expand. I think that was one of the bigger 

issues. 

The other is finding money to implement the rail and highway 

projects that are needed to move freight through our region. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan, touched 

on the target zero issue, Mr. Howard. What are some of the strategies you are examining to achieve the target zero objectives? 

Mr. HOWARD. We are working with our State Highway Traffic 

Safety Commission on that. Most of the strategies are behavioral 

strategies dealing with speeding, impaired driving, youth driving, 

and other concerns. In our region we have a very large pedestrian 

fatality rate, and so we are doing some special work to figure out 

what we can do to mitigate that. But it is focusing attention on 

where the largest numbers of deaths and disabling injuries are 

coming from. 

Mr. COBLE. And, finally, what are some of the funding mechanisms that the Puget Sound Regional Council has utilized to pay 

for its transportation infrastructure? 

Mr. HOWARD. We have a number of sources. Our State legislature has stepped up in the last several years with two State gas 

tax increases and funded a number of projects, and so we have a 

lot of State-funded projects that come through the gas tax. We have 

local sales tax which supports our transit systems, and we do allocate the surface transportation program and congestion mitigation 

air quality Federal highway dollars to priority projects in our plan. 

Mr. COBLE. Now, before my time expires, does anyone else want 

to weigh in on either of those issues? Yes, sir? 

Mr. CHESLEY. The Port of Stockton is the second-largest inland 

seaport on the west coast. One of the challenges that we have had 

in our dealing with port-related planning is that a lot of the improvements that are necessary to get a ship to the port occur outside of our regional boundaries. They occur in the channel. They 

occur in the San Francisco Bay. They can even occur in relationship with the Coast Guard. So the amount of input that comes into 

the Port of Stockton is oftentimes something that is outside of our 

regional transportation planning process and something that is 

hard to recognize and quantify. 

24 

We found that to be a bit of a challenge as we have gone through 

looking at improvements to the channel that occur outside of our 

normal purview. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. 

Yes, sir? 

Mr. SELMAN. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we see at the 

Laredo MPO, we deal almost exclusively with the mobility of commerce, moving commerce through our community. The rail lines bisect some of our most disadvantaged neighborhoods, and yet those 

who live in those neighborhoods receive absolutely zero benefit 

from those rail lines. 

What used to happen in the City of Laredo, if you go back 20 or 

even 30 years, although the rail lines have been there over 100 

years, 20 or 30 years, one or two whistle-blowers coming through 

the neighborhood per day that was maybe a quarter-mile long was 

not that much of a disturbance to the neighborhood, even something to be watched and waited on. Now, when you have 12, 13, 

15 trains coming through the same neighborhood, each of them a 

mile long, it is a huge impact on those neighborhoods and the people that live there. 

Again, it is a true EJ issue. They get no benefit and receive all 

the negative impacts. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SELMAN. Quickly, if I may, the question that was asked earlier, what we are seeing—and Mr. Ritzman put this on the table, 

and I think what you are going to see is that local entities will end 

up having to solve projects of national significance. We have done 

that with our weigh and motion system on our bridges. We have 

done that. Right now we are looking at adding toll booths to the 

bridge system in order to meet the needs of that commerce coming 

across the border, because we see the impacts. We live them daily. 

Those trucks rumbling through your community impact everything 

from signal timing to neighborhoods to infrastructure, size of pavement. From top to bottom, those trucks impact you. 

Mr. COBLE. My time has expired. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Pedersen wanted to raise a question, if you would permit him to do 

that. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Yes. 

Mr. PEDERSEN. Speaking for the I-95 Corridor Coalition and the 

rail studies that we have done, in particular, along the eastern seaboard the greatest challenge we have right now are some very old 

infrastructure that, if certain critical links fail because of their condition, it will have dire consequences, and the investment is not 

being made. We need to be looking at that. 

The second largest almost challenge to that is the need to be able 

to accommodate double-stacked rail in some very old tunnels, in 

particular, that are incapable of doing that and the capital not 

being available from private railroads to be able to address those 

issues. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I thank the gentleman for his participation. 

Next I would like to call on my colleague from New Jersey. You 

are recognized for five minutes. 

25 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for being 

here today. As you know, New Jersey is probably one big transportation hub. 

I have a question. I would just like to get your opinion if you ever 

dealt with this—the process of design build and operate. Do you 

consider that when you do your planning? And what do you think 

of a concept like that? Mayor, if you could? 

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Certainly the concept, design build, has a 

great deal of benefits. When I was in the private sector we would 

consistently use it because it does give you so much more time 

that, even though you don’t have quite the same control over the 

contractor, the overall savings again and again are proven out. 

We are looking at design build on a larger level with fast tracks 

concept and actually beginning to look at some partnership possibilities with one firm designing, building it, and then helping be a 

partner in the operations, as well. We believe that there are significant savings there, as well. 

Mr. SIRES. Yes? 

Mr. RITZMAN. Thank you. In Pennsylvania we have extensive experience with the design build, not with the design build operate, 

primarily on the highway side. There are, again, some really good 

financial incentives just having a specific designer working with 

the specific expertise of a certain contractor, so that is a real big 

cost savings, as well as it seems to work a whole lot better with 

an engineer working directly for the construction firm rather than 

a State intervening in between. 

Mr. SIRES. Mr. Howard, have you had experience with it? 

Mr. HOWARD. No. 

Mr. CHESLEY. I would just say ditto to the comments that have 

been made here. 

Mr. SIRES. Mr. Selman? 

Mr. SELMAN. I agree. Ditto. 

Mr. SIRES. Okay. 

Mr. PEDERSEN. If I could just add, another significant benefit 

that we have seen in design build is that we have far fewer claims 

from the construction contractors, and task force we end up having 

more cost certainty when we start out on a project. I think that is 

a significant benefit that we have seen. 

We are starting to get into the area of design build operate. We 

do not have a lot of experience with it. The biggest reservation associated with it is because of the uncertainty looking out over a 

longer period of time. You end up paying for that uncertainty, as 

opposed to the risk being absorbed by the government agency when 

it is just design build rather than design build operate. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you. And I must compliment you. Sometimes 

I drive Union from New Jersey. You are doing a lot of work on that 

95. I don’t know whether it is design build and operate, but they’re 

doing a lot of work. 

I was just wondering, when you do your planning—and I am a 

former mayor and former assemblyman—one of the things that we 

always seem to fight, New Jersey Transit and some of the other 

agencies, because when the planning is done they sometimes don’t 

take in consideration the local input. We won a big battle in the 

northern part of the county. They wanted bus lines. 

26 

Obviously, we are so congested—and I am talking a few years 

ago—we wanted light rail. We finally won. I was just wondering, 

when you encounter such strong local consideration that want to be 

considered, how do you deal with it, because those are the things 

that stop the projects beyond DEP. Those are the things that really—you know, the differences on what kind of transportation you 

want to put in order to move people in and out of that area. 

Mayor, how do you deal with that? 

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Our goal has always been to get everyone at 

the table, and the Department of Transportation has to be at the 

table, as well, but ultimately there has got to be a process by which 

all the constituents are represented and there has to be some incentive so that they come quickly to conclusions and make the decision. 

The most important thing is sometimes, whether it is one decision or another, people can get very heated and emotional, but ultimately you have got to make a decision, you have got to move forward. That is the biggest cost to not just Denver but I think most 

metropolitan areas is that we end up getting in this logjam without 

clear authority and without a clear enough process. 

I think the key to the process, again, Federal Government can 

provide incentives to make sure that everyone does work together 

and that everyone does accelerate their conversations to the point 

and say, This may not be my first choice, but in the broader good 

I am going to go along with this larger collaboration. 

Mr. SIRES. Pennsylvania? 

Mr. RITZMAN. Sure. I think one of the things that is so important 

is to really take time to listen up front, because all too often you 

realize in some projects that you have to listen later on what the 

implications are. But just taking the time to listen up front. 

Our Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, which is 

five counties from Pennsylvania and five counties from southern 

New Jersey, have collaborated on what’s called a Smart Transportation Handbook. What that basically is is making sure that we 

really listen to the community voice and understand what a transportation problem is we are trying to solve before moving forward. 

Mr. SIRES. Mr. Chairman, could I have just one more minute? 

I know New Jersey was working with Pennsylvania on direct line 

into New York rail. Where is that at, because I asked your governor the other day and he says they are working on it. 

Mr. RITZMAN. I would probably stay that, too. I can get some better details for you. Those kind of things are just so expensive, and 

there is not a whole lot of optimism on how you ultimately try to 

achieve the actual implementation of those kinds of projects. Great, 

great projects, definitely needed, but it is just things that are financially not able to get to at this point. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. 

Next I would like to recognize the gentleman from Ohio. Mrs. 

Schmidt, you are recognized for five minutes. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I only 

have a couple of questions. 

27 

One is for The Honorable Mayor of Denver, Mayor Hickenlooper. 

I briefly glanced through your testimony, and one of the things that 

you say is that there is a disconnect between planning and resource 

allocation. I think you have pointed to the obvious, but how do you 

think this problem can be remedied? 

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I would like to see, again, a mode neutral 

calculation in terms of where Federal resources go. If we are going 

to have an MPO going through and making the plans, the MPO 

has to have a significant role in how the Federal resources are allocated. It can’t all come through the State. Obviously, there is a 

number of expenditures that the State is the best decider and able 

to bring rural counties together in an efficient way, but in our metropolitan area they are an important voice but they are not the 

only voice. I think making sure that the MPO has a more significant role in how the resources are allocated. 

To say that you are going to do a plan and then someone else 

over here is going to fund it, A, what it does is it takes authority 

away from the planning organization. It means they don’t get the 

high octane civic leaders and the attention that they should gets 

put off to the side a little bit because ultimately the funding comes 

from this other place. If we could connect the planning and the 

funding together, A, you get a better—well, first you get better 

plans, right, because people are paying a lot more attention to it; 

and, B, you get much larger participation, from the State all the 

way down. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Follow-up to that: I know that in your testimony 

you are the head of the Mayors Association. 

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I am the Chair of the U.S. Conference of 

Mayors’ Transportation and Communications Committee. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Right. And is this your personal view, or is this 

the view of all of the mayors in your group that reflect the United 

States. 

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Well, I am not sure if you have a view of all 

of Congress. It is hard to get everyone all on one page, but yes,—— 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. But it is out of your conference? This is their—— 

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Yes, this is out of our conference, so this is 

the position of the mayors. I think that universally, again, we respect the State Departments of Transportation, but we recognize 

that there has got to be a shift in terms of how that funding comes 

down to metropolitan areas. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. And then this is for the open panel, and it is 

something I am not sure was covered in any of the testimony, but 

one of the things that we are realizing is that there is a shortfall 

in funding for all kinds of transportation issues. Do you all have 

any suggestions towards how to correct that shortfall? 

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Just very quickly, because I have spoken 

enough, but part of it is the public has to believe. We are not making jobs. We are not throwing money at something. We have got 

to be more transparent and more creative, but we have got to deliver what people want. Again, this all comes back to that planning 

process. 

I spent 15 years in the restaurant business. I hate taxes. I viscerally hate taxes. We have now passed 13 successive initiatives, 

something quite large, because each time we are spelling out. They 

28 

are almost all infrastructure, but we are spelling out exactly what 

we are going to deliver for those taxes and looking at it as an investment. I think the reality is that we as a Country have to recognize we are falling woefully behind, and it is going to affect not just 

our quality of life but our economic future. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. 

Mr. CHESLEY. The National Association of Regional Councils has 

taken a position that we are going to need to, at least in the short 

term, address the shortfall in the gas tax through a gas tax increase, as well as addressing this through indexing, as well. But in 

the long term this is not the answer to our transportation issues. 

We are going to have to switch over, maybe gradually, but switch 

over to a more user-based system that actually closely addresses 

the actual use of the system against what we are actually paying 

into it, both as individuals, corporate interest, whatever. That is 

going to have to be the way we proceed in the future on this. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Yes, sir? 

Mr. PEDERSEN. I am speaking personally, as opposed to on behalf 

of either the State of Maryland or the I-95 Corridor Coalition. I believe, first of all, I agree with my colleague that we need to be moving more to a vehicle miles traveled basis for taxation, at least of 

the usage of the roadway system, itself. But probably more importantly, the biggest challenge we have in front of us is greenhouse 

gas emissions, and we need to be moving to carbon basis for taxation for transportation. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. I don’t have any other questions. 

Yes? 

Mr. SELMAN. It sounds like a brainstorming type question, so I 

will answer it as if I am brainstorming. 

I don’t think vehicle registration should be tossed out as an option. I don’t think drivers license and permitting should be tossed 

out as an option. Fuel tax is something that is a little bit harder 

pill to swallow, given the increase in fuel. 

I just wanted to toss those two out, as well as vehicle miles traveled and the technologies that exist for making those determinations, sending proposal’s bills in the mail in terms of their user 

fees, those types of things. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. Yes, sir? 

Mr. RITZMAN. I guess I will just chime in and agree, but I guess 

the point I want to make is just there are tremendous system preservation needs that we have, and part of me says I don’t care how, 

we need to be able to deal with not only what people want but just 

the basic infrastructure that we currently have and to keep that 

operating efficiently and safely. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for indulging me in that question. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I thank the gentlewoman for raising that difficult and important question, and for the panel for attempting to 

answer it. 

Next I would like to recognize again my colleague from California 

and a mentor, a good friend Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am sitting, listening, 

getting all kinds of ideas. I have got notes. I have got a ton of questions. I won’t have the time to ask them all. 

29 

I would like to answer for the record a memo from the Alameda 

Corridor East Construction Authority from my area, as well as a 

Gateway Council of Governments’ input into this topic. 

I will leave that aside except for one area that they are asking 

that the organizations such as Americas Gateways and Trade Corridors, the CAGTC, that they be more recognized and heard, because they do know the impact of trade corridors and the impact 

on the communities, themselves. 

Which brings an idea to mind that has been bounding around. 

It has been brought to my attention. That is that the next TEA bill 

should include to establish a Federal Freight Trust Fund that is 

tailored to recognize the unique position of freight or goods movement projects in our Country and the burdens they create on our 

local communities. 

Any ideas or recommendations? Let me tell you, I was listening 

to the gentleman that said he has got a number of trains. I have 

160 daily going through my area, 54 grade separations, of which 

only 20 are going to be grade crossings. Only 20 are going to be 

separated. I have a major impact. So while it is wonderful to hear 

your presentations, I am dealing with ten times the amount of impact in my area. 

I understand Mr. Oberstar has a great vision. I am glad he is 

preparing for this. And I agree with Mr. Mica about a mega plan. 

What can we come up with, gentlemen, because I agree. Going to 

the mega areas, to the big metropolitan areas, L.A. County has 12 

million people. All the money goes there and maybe to the State, 

and we get a little bit to our local areas, so the local communities 

need to be able, the COGs that represent—my two COGs represent 

60 of L.A. County’s 70-some-odd cities. They have a foundation. 

Maybe we could start putting the money into them because they 

know what the needs are and they can actually be prepared to do 

like he said, the plan and design. 

I would like some information from you about what you think 

about the Federal Trust Fund being set to be able to deal with the 

impact of goods movement. Let me tell you, I have been sitting in 

this Committee for a number of months listening to the railroad 

say they want to move goods but not passengers. They make the 

money on goods movement. Well, guys, they go into my area impacting us; I want to be sure they are at the table helping my community deal with the congestion, with the safety issues, with all of 

that. 

It is open, gentlemen. Mr. Selman? 

Mr. SELMAN. I think you are right on target. There is an absolute 

need to move this commerce through this Nation, in this Nation, 

and out of this Nation, and in order for us to continue to be very 

competitive on a worldwide scale, we must spend on the movement 

of commerce. 

Mr. PEDERSEN. Whether it is a separate Freight Trust Fund or 

a carve-out of the Highway Trust Fund, I would agree that we need 

to be allocating money specifically to be addressing freight needs. 

A big concern is how that money gets allocated and what it gets 

allocated to, and there needs to be a performance basis associated 

with allocation of the money so that it is based on rational decision-making process in terms of addressing what the greatest 

30 

needs are and, most importantly, where the greatest benefit will be 

achieved. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Anybody else? 

Mr. HOWARD. Yes, I agree that there probably isn’t another single more important national issue than moving freight from a 

transportation perspective, and so I think we need to figure out 

how to get those projects funded, and so I think that is a definite 

national interest. 

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. And I think what you are getting, we in 

Denver and many of the urban areas, the metropolitan areas, the 

old freight yards are now becoming redeveloped and becoming very 

trendy with lots of multi-family housing in them and jobs and all 

this stuff, and yet we have in Denver 110 coal trains go through 

every single day, and they are a mile long. That issue of what does 

it take to get freight so it can go more efficiently and also be less 

of a hazard to our citizens, how do we fund that I think is a pressing question, and I support your looking into it. 

Mr. RITZMAN. And I agree. I think everybody recognizes the increasing need for us to focus on goods movement, whether it is 

freight or trucking. I would say the only reservation is with regards 

to, again, where that money comes from and just the concern for 

the scarcity of resources to deal with those kinds of projects. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, gentlemen. 

I didn’t add that the freight going through my area is expected 

to triple, so not only is it going to be 160 trains; I am going to have 

close to 500 a day. That means one train every ten minutes. Imagine that pollution in your area, that safety concern, and those 

things that you, as directors of all the different agencies, would 

have to deal with. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to submit some other questions for the record. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Platts. 

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I apologize for my late arrival. I just wanted to thank each of the 

witnesses for their written testimony, for my staff and me, and also 

just to share a comment with the fellow Pennsylvanian. Mr. Secretary, thanks for being here. I have had the pleasure and sometimes the challenge for about 12 years to serve as a voting member 

of my local MPO and appreciate the planning process and the fouryear TIPS and the balance and what’s getting on, has come off, 

what can move in that time period, what can’t, and realize, especially in challenging financial times at the Federal and State and 

local level, that this planning process is not an easy one, and that 

prioritization within that process is sometimes very difficult. 

I don’t uniquely speak to Pennsylvania, but we have been able 

to put in place a great, I think, process of our local officials, our 

State officials, and our State Department, Penn-DOT, working 

hand-in-hand to try to make that as seamless a process as possible. 

I know in all corners of the Country different approaches, but I 

think we are all after the same end result, which is that we are 

being smart with the resources we have and looking long-term for 

what our needs are going to be and how we meet them. 

31 

I appreciate each of you being here today and, most importantly, 

what you do every day in your respective positions. 

With the I-95 Corridor and Mr. Pedersen, we are looking to try 

to replicate what you have done on the I-81 corridor. We are in the 

early stages. I know my Deputy Chief of Staff has interacted with 

your organization and members in how to take a better regional 

approach to our 81 corridor as you and others have done in I-95, 

so I appreciate that assistance, as well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 

his brevity. 

Next I would like to recognize Ms. Edwards, the gentlewoman 

from Maryland. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pedersen, it is 

good to see you today, too, and all of our witnesses. 

I have the distinction, pleasure, of having sat in traffic for 20 

years on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge Corridor. I think it is a challenge. I mean, these planning processes in metropolitan areas, in 

particular, I mean, we are crossing—whether we are talking about 

the D.C. jurisdiction or Virginia or Maryland, the challenge of balancing land use decisions that are very, very local with how you 

make investments in transportation to accommodate a corridor 

that stretches from Maine down to Florida. So I appreciate the 

challenge of your coalition, Mr. Pedersen. 

I would like to reflect on the planning decisions, say, of a decade 

ago, because I also had been really engaged with our local communities in the planning of the Wilson Bridge reconstruction and how 

to relieve both commuter traffic on the bridge so that we could actually accommodate the kind of commercial traffic that travels I95. I have been part of those processes for ten years, you know, 

morning, noon, and night meetings. I think that when I look back 

on it I remember the folks who argued so vociferously against rail 

over the Wilson Bridge as a way to relieve some of the commuter 

congestion. These are the same folks who today now want rail once 

we have got the bridge up, even though it is rail ready. 

I am curious about what we might do in our planning processes, 

particularly in these metropolitan areas, so that we can reflect on 

some of the process and the decision-making that has led to some 

actually maybe not-so-helpful decisions it turns out a decade later, 

because, for example, in this corridor, if we go to add rail, which 

I would love to do, to relieve that traffic, because it continues to 

be a problem on the bridge, it is like starting not from scratch, because it is a new bridge and it accommodates rail, but we certainly 

won’t do it in the value for dollar that we could have if we had engaged in that process at the outset. 

I want to have each of you reflect on ideas in the planning process that might alleviate that. 

In addition, I am curious about these new sort of fee structures, 

public-private arrangements for developing roadways, railways, 

etc., and what that means to all of our populations, low-income people, moderate-income people who are subject to those sort of fee 

structures, and whether there are some fairness questions that are 

involved. 

32 

I am also curious about incentivizing land use so we can’t control, at the Federal level, land use decisions locally, but are there 

things that we could do to actually incentivize positive land use decisions as they are related to transportation and things to deincentivize the negative uses? 

And then, lastly, I want to know what it is that we can do to 

incentivize also coordinated planning processes, because the competition among jurisdictions is so significant that if there is not 

anything that we might encourage at the national level to encourage coordination, then there is little to be gained from some jurisdictions in doing that. 

I know I have thrown out a lot of questions, and we can answer 

them on or off the record, but over these next several months it 

would be good to hear from you on these. 

Mr. PEDERSEN. If I could go first, particularly since I was involved in the Woodrow Wilson Bridge planning since 1989 along 

with you, reflecting back on looking at it from 2008, how we should 

have done it differently, we did not do nearly enough joint land use 

transportation planning right from the very beginning, in terms of 

looking at the kind of transit-oriented development that should 

have been taking place within the corridor to ultimately be able to 

support the transit line that we all want ultimately to be on the 

bridge. 

I think it is only now that some of that land use coordination is 

actually starting to occur that probably should have been occurring 

as long as 20 years ago. 

So the requirement of, as projects are being developed, looking 

at especially multi-modal projects of the type that we are talking 

about, what needs to occur from a land use perspective to be able 

to ultimately support transit is key. 

In terms of fairness of public/private partnerships, private financing, I think it is an issue that needs to be very carefully looked 

at on a case-by-case basis. There are studies that have shown that 

in some corridors the usage of facilities that have been funded that 

way have been across the socio-economic perspective. There have 

been other corridors where transit has been subsidized in order to 

address the fairness issues, but it is clearly an issue that has to 

be looked at as these proposals come in. 

In terms of incentivizing land use, using the Maryland example—— 

Mr. MCNERNEY. If I could interrupt, votes have been called and 

we have eight minutes, so please, witnesses, make brief remarks. 

Thank you. 

Mr. PEDERSEN. I would just very quickly say that, again, to the 

extent that there can be incentives, particularly for transit oriented 

development, that is probably going to be the single best mechanism by which we can be increasing transit usage. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. CHESLEY. I am not sure about the bridge in question here, 

but one of the questions with multi-modal options in a corridor is 

just what the mayor has been talking about here, and that is the 

strictures that tend to come about because of different funding 

sources relating to different modal activities. We can reduce some 

of those barriers, we can reduce some of the impediments to being 

33 

more innovative in terms of putting two modes together, three 

modes together in a similar corridor. 

There actually is some pretty good research out there about the 

impact of fees on low-income individuals. I turn to the San Diego 

experience with the congestion corridor down there, where the primary use of paying the fee on the corridor has been among parents 

trying to get home quickly enough for day care purposes. That is 

where we see actually the value of time being expressed in terms 

of folks who may not be as high-income as some of the folks we 

normally would think about. 

I will save the rest of the time for comments from the other 

Members. Thank you. 

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. You know, if I could just say quickly, we 

haven’t talked much about TODs, but in terms of the mistakes we 

made in the past we need more elected officials like yourself that 

have been through the process to come up and make sure that we 

keep those and be transparent about our failures as well as the 

successes. There should be some way of memorializing. I am not 

sure how that would work. 

But TODs, if we get everybody as part of this planning process 

looking at how to utilize in a really comprehensive and integrated 

land use planning approach around these new stations. Our fast 

tracks system in Denver, we are putting 57 new stations in, roughly over half of them are in old brownfields sites here we can really 

change the density. That is where we need to be talking about affordable housing, making sure that everybody has access to this incredible investment we are making. 

Anyway, I want to thank all of you for the chance to be here, and 

look forward to working with you in the next year with all the 

mayors and with all Congress to make sure we get some of these 

things fixed. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Does the gentlewoman yield? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I want to thank the witnesses. It has been 

instructive. I know it takes a lot for you to come out here, and I 

appreciate that. 

Members have 30 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks, including questions which may be submitted to the witnesses. 

This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

34 


Insert offset folio 8 here 45109.008
35 


Insert offset folio 9 here 45109.009
36 


Insert offset folio 10 here 45109.010
37 


Insert offset folio 11 here 45109.011
38 


Insert offset folio 12 here 45109.012
39 


Insert offset folio 13 here 45109.013
40 


Insert offset folio 14 here 45109.014
41 


Insert offset folio 15 here 45109.015
42 


Insert offset folio 16 here 45109.016
43 


Insert offset folio 17 here 45109.017
44 


Insert offset folio 18 here 45109.018
45 


Insert offset folio 19 here 45109.019
46 


Insert offset folio 20 here 45109.020
47 


Insert offset folio 21 here 45109.021
48 


Insert offset folio 22 here 45109.022
49 


Insert offset folio 23 here 45109.023
50 


Insert offset folio 24 here 45109.024
51 


Insert offset folio 25 here 45109.025
52 


Insert offset folio 26 here 45109.026
53 


Insert offset folio 27 here 45109.027
54 


Insert offset folio 28 here 45109.028
55 


Insert offset folio 29 here 45109.029
56 


Insert offset folio 30 here 45109.030
57 


Insert offset folio 31 here 45109.031
58 


Insert offset folio 32 here 45109.032
59 


Insert offset folio 33 here 45109.033
60 


Insert offset folio 34 here 45109.034
61 


Insert offset folio 35 here 45109.035
62 


Insert offset folio 36 here 45109.036
63 


Insert offset folio 37 here 45109.037
64 


Insert offset folio 38 here 45109.038
65 


Insert offset folio 39 here 45109.039
66 


Insert offset folio 40 here 45109.040
67 


Insert offset folio 41 here 45109.041
68 


Insert offset folio 42 here 45109.042
69 


Insert offset folio 43 here 45109.043
70 


Insert offset folio 44 here 45109.044
71 


Insert offset folio 45 here 45109.045
72 


Insert offset folio 46 here 45109.046
73 


Insert offset folio 47 here 45109.047
74 


Insert offset folio 48 here 45109.048
75 


Insert offset folio 49 here 45109.049
76 


Insert offset folio 50 here 45109.050
77 


Insert offset folio 51 here 45109.051
78 


Insert offset folio 52 here 45109.052
79 


Insert offset folio 53 here 45109.053
80 


Insert offset folio 54 here 45109.054
81 


Insert offset folio 55 here 45109.055
82 


Insert offset folio 56 here 45109.056
83 


Insert offset folio 57 here 45109.057
84 


Insert offset folio 58 here 45109.058
85 


Insert offset folio 59 here 45109.059
86 


Insert offset folio 60 here 45109.060
87 


Insert offset folio 61 here 45109.061
88 


Insert offset folio 62 here 45109.062
89 


Insert offset folio 63 here 45109.063
90 


Insert offset folio 64 here 45109.064
91 


Insert offset folio 65 here 45109.065
92 


Insert offset folio 66 here 45109.066
93 


Insert offset folio 67 here 45109.067
94 


Insert offset folio 68 here 45109.068
95 


Insert offset folio 69 here 45109.069
96 


Insert offset folio 70 here 45109.070
97 


Insert offset folio 71 here 45109.071
98 


Insert offset folio 72 here 45109.072
99 


Insert offset folio 73 here 45109.073
100 


Insert offset folio 74 here 45109.074
101 


Insert offset folio 75 here 45109.075
102 


Insert offset folio 76 here 45109.076
103 


Insert offset folio 77 here 45109.077
104 


Insert offset folio 78 here 45109.078
105 


Insert offset folio 79 here 45109.079
106 


Insert offset folio 80 here 45109.080
107 


Insert offset folio 81 here 45109.081
108 


Insert offset folio 82 here 45109.082
109 


Insert offset folio 83 here 45109.083
110 


Insert offset folio 84 here 45109.084
111 


Insert offset folio 85 here 45109.085
112 


Insert offset folio 86 here 45109.086
113 


Insert offset folio 87 here 45109.087
114 


Insert offset folio 88 here 45109.088
115 


Insert offset folio 89 here 45109.089
116 


Insert offset folio 90 here 45109.090
117 


Insert offset folio 91 here 45109.091
118 


Insert offset folio 92 here 45109.092
119 


Insert offset folio 93 here 45109.093
120 


Insert offset folio 94 here 45109.094
121 


Insert offset folio 95 here 45109.095
122 


Insert offset folio 96 here 45109.096
123 


Insert offset folio 97 here 45109.097
124 


Insert offset folio 98 here 45109.098
125 


Insert offset folio 99 here 45109.099
126 


Insert offset folio 100 here 45109.100
127 


Insert offset folio 101 here 45109.101
128 


Insert offset folio 102 here 45109.102
129 


Insert offset folio 103 here 45109.103
130 


Insert offset folio 104 here 45109.104
131 


Insert offset folio 105 here 45109.105
132 


Insert offset folio 106 here 45109.106
133 


Insert offset folio 107 here 45109.107
134 


Insert offset folio 108 here 45109.108
135 


Insert offset folio 109 here 45109.109
136 


Insert offset folio 110 here 45109.110
137 


Insert offset folio 111 here 45109.111
138 


Insert offset folio 112 here 45109.112
139 


Insert offset folio 113 here 45109.113
140 


Insert offset folio 114 here 45109.114
141 


Insert offset folio 115 here 45109.115
142 


Insert offset folio 116 here 45109.116
143 


Insert offset folio 117 here 45109.117
144 


Insert offset folio 118 here 45109.118
145 


Insert offset folio 119 here 45109.119
146 


Insert offset folio 120 here 45109.120
147 


Insert offset folio 121 here 45109.121
148 


Insert offset folio 122 here 45109.122
149 


Insert offset folio 123 here 45109.123
150 


Insert offset folio 124 here 45109.124
151 


Insert offset folio 125 here 45109.125
152 


Insert offset folio 126 here 45109.126
153 


Insert offset folio 127 here 45109.127
154 


Insert offset folio 128 here 45109.128
155 


Insert offset folio 129 here 45109.129
156 


Insert offset folio 130 here 45109.130
157 


Insert offset folio 131 here 45109.131
158 


Insert offset folio 132 here 45109.132
159 


Insert offset folio 133 here 45109.133
160 


Insert offset folio 134 here 45109.134
161 


Insert offset folio 135 here 45109.135
162 


Insert offset folio 136 here 45109.136
163 


Insert offset folio 137 here 45109.137
164 


Insert offset folio 138 here 45109.138
165 


Insert offset folio 139 here 45109.139
166 


Insert offset folio 140 here 45109.140
167 


Insert offset folio 141 here 45109.141
168 


Insert offset folio 142 here 45109.142
169 


Insert offset folio 143 here 45109.143
170 


Insert offset folio 144 here 45109.144
171 


Insert offset folio 145 here 45109.145
172 


Insert offset folio 146 here 45109.146
173 


Insert offset folio 147 here 45109.147
174 


Insert offset folio 148 here 45109.148
175 


Insert offset folio 149 here 45109.149
176 


Insert offset folio 150 here 45109.150
177 


Insert offset folio 151 here 45109.151
178 


Insert offset folio 152 here 45109.152
179 


Insert offset folio 153 here 45109.153
180 


Insert offset folio 154 here 45109.154
181 


Insert offset folio 155 here 45109.155
182 


Insert offset folio 156 here 45109.156
183 


Insert offset folio 157 here 45109.157
184 


Insert offset folio 158 here 45109.158
185 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 159 here 45109.159