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

65–738 PDF 2011

IMPROVING AND REFORMING OUR NATION’S 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS: 

CENTRAL FLORIDA FIELD HEARING 

(112–16) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 14, 2011 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

TOM REED, New York 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

(II) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... v 

TESTIMONY 

Bruno, Hon. Frank, County Chair, County of Volusia, Florida ........................... 8 

Prasad, Ananth, Assistant Secretary for Engineering and Operations, Florida 

Department of Transportation ............................................................................ 10 

Burleson, Bob, President, Florida Transportation Builders Association ............ 12 

Whitfield, Randy M., Staff Director, Palm Beach MPO ....................................... 13 

Yarema, Geoffrey, Partner, Nossaman LLP .......................................................... 15 

Lawless, Richard P., President and CEO, U.S.-Japan High-Speed Rail ............. 16 

Stone, Cheryl, on behalf of the transportation disadvantaged community ........ 18 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Bruno, Hon. Frank .................................................................................................. 48 

Prasad, Ananth ........................................................................................................ 64 

Burleson, Bob ........................................................................................................... 68 

Whitfield, Randy M. ................................................................................................ 71 

Yarema, Geoffrey ..................................................................................................... 74 

Lawless, Richard P. ................................................................................................. 94 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Calvert, Sharon, on behalf of the Florida Alliance, written testimony ............... 21 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Audet, Normand, President/BA, Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1596; 

Blackwell, Angela Glover, Founder and CEO, PolicyLink; Braswell, Allie, 

President and CEO, Central Florida Urban League; Diaz, Denise, Director, 

Central Florida Jobs with Justice; Henderson, Wade, President and CEO, 

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; Perera, Gihan, 

Executive Director, Miami Workers Center; White, Portia Reddick, Director 

of Legislative and Political Affairs, Transport Workers Union of America, 

AFL–CIO; statement for the record .................................................................... 99 

Bryan, Ken, Florida Director, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, letter to Hon. 

Mica, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida ........................ 106 

Bustos, Sr., Timothy, on behalf of the Florida Bicycle Association, written 

statement .............................................................................................................. 108 

Castro, Hon. Anne, City Commissioner, city of Dania Beach, Florida, written 

testimony .............................................................................................................. 109 

Davis, Robert, on behalf of LOCUS—Responsible Real Estate Developers, 

written testimony ................................................................................................. 112 

Hughes, Daniel V., Chairman, Jacksonville National Cemetery Advisory Committee, letter, cost estimate, and maps, to Hon. Mica, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Florida ................................................................ 116 

Letourneau, Darla, on behalf of BikeWalkLee, written statement ..................... 122 

Lewit, Scott M., President, Structural Composites, Inc., ‘‘Restoring America’s 

Infrastructure: Composite Bridge Deck Technology—An Approach to Cost 

Reduction While Providing Stimulus to an Ailing American Industry’’ .......... 128 

Macnab, Deirdre, President, League of Women Voters of Florida, letter to 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ............................................ 131 

Smith, Doug, Commissioner, Martin County Board of County Commissioners, 

letter to Hon. Mica, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida 132 

Strickland, Hon. Harley, Mayor, city of Orange City, Florida, letter to Hon. 

Mica, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida ........................ 134 

Page

IV 

Volinski, Joel, Director, National Center for Transit Research, University 

of South Florida, written testimony ................................................................... 136 

Watson, Wes, Executive Director, Florida Public Transportation Association, 

written testimony ................................................................................................. 140 

v 


Insert offset folio 1 here 65738.001
vi 


Insert offset folio 2 here 65738.002
vii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 65738.003
(1) 

IMPROVING AND REFORMING OUR NATION’S 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS: 

CENTRAL FLORIDA FIELD HEARING 

Monday, March 14, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

WASHINGTON, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., at the 

Maitland Civic Center, 641 South Maitland Avenue, Maitland, 

Florida, Honorable John L. Mica [chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Mr. MICA. Good morning. I’d like to welcome you and call to 

order this hearing of the United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 

This morning’s hearing is devoted to the subject of improving and 

reforming our Nation’s surface transportation programs. This is a 

series of hearings that we are doing across the country. I’m Congressman John Mica. I’m pleased to chair the committee. And we 

have with us the ranking Democrat member and the leader—Democrat leader of the committee, Mr. Rahall, a gentleman from West 

Virginia. 

Also, on the committee is a ranking member of the Rail Subcommittee, Ms. Brown from Florida. Ms. Hirono, who is on four of 

the subcommittees, a nice, young lady from Hawaii, Mazie Hirono. 

Mr. Farenthold, the gentleman from Texas, one of our newer members and joining us today coming from Texas. That’s the makeup 

of the field hearing committee members this morning. 

The order of business will be as follows. We’ll have opening statements by members, then we have a panel of witnesses. And this 

is a formal hearing. The witnesses, we try to get them to limit their 

comments to five minutes and then an opportunity for questions. 

We’ll get to them in a few minutes. 

I might also say as we open the hearing that while this is a formal hearing and we only have the opportunity to hear from these 

witnesses, the committee does welcome and invites any commentary, any suggestions, positive recommendations that we can 

insert in the record of this hearing. So everyone is welcome to participate in that regard. We ask that you do that through a Member 

of Congress, either myself, Ms. Brown or to the committee. And Mr. 

Rahall is recognized for a motion to keep the record open. 

Mr. RAHALL. I move as chairman, that the record remain open 

for those who wish to submit testimony in today’s hearing for two 

weeks. 

2 

Mr. MICA. Without objection, so ordered. Again, you’ll have the 

opportunity to submit testimony. 

Let me start by, again, welcoming everyone. Let me also take a 

point of personal privilege. We have representatives—some elected 

officials here, not the ones on the panel, but if we have any elected 

officials, would you stand and introduce yourself very briefly? 

Mr. SMITH. Doug Smith, Martin County Commissioner. 

Mr. MICA. Real loud for the record, too. 

Mr. ALLEBACH. Jeff Allebach, City of Orange City city council. 

Mr. STRICKLAND. Harley Strickland, Mayor of Orange City. 

Mr. VAN DER WEIDE. Richard ‘‘Dick’’ Van Der Weide, Seminole 

County. 

Mr. MICA. Dick Van Der Weide, Seminole County. 

Mr. MANGO. John Mango, the mayor of the beautiful City of 

Longwood. 

Mr. LACEY. Charles Lacey, mayor of Winter Springs. 

Ms. REPONEN. Bev Reponen, councilwoman Maitland. 

Ms. LUCARELLI. Jo Ann Lucarelli, City of Lake Mary commissioner. 

Mr. HUSSEY. Gardner Hussey, City of Altamonte Springs commissioner. 

Mr. WOLFRAM. Steve Wolfram, City of Altamonte Springs. 

Mr. SCHIEFERDECKER. Howard Schieferdecker, mayor of 

Maitland, also one of the beautiful cities that are involved in the 

SunRail. 

Mr. BRUMMER. Fred Brummer, Orange County Commission. 

Mr. MICA. Do we have anyone else in the back? And we also have 

representatives of—I know we have at least a representative of 

Rep. Webster. 

VOICE. Congressman Webster’s Office. 

Mr. MICA. Anyone else representing any—yes. 

Ms. LITTLE. Edie Little with Representative Hukill. 

Mr. MICA. I’m sorry, louder. 

Ms. LITTLE. Edie Little with Representative Hukill. 

Mr. MICA. OK. Representative Dorothy Hukill. 

All right. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. Yes. 

Ms. BROWN. I think the Secretary of Transportation is here. 

Mr. MICA. Who is that? 

Mr. BRUNO. Noranne Downs. 

Mr. MICA. Oh, Noranne Downs. I didn’t see her in the back. Our 

district secretary, Noranne Downs, welcome and you’re recognized. 

And I’ll also say, I don’t know if she’s in the room now, we have 

our Secretary Kopelousos, who has joined the committee staff and 

with us for about a month and a half, two months, in the interim 

from leaving as secretary of transportation to new county manager 

role. And she’s been gracious to help us in helping craft the legislation we’re about to undertake and bring together other secretaries 

of transportation. In fact, she had them in town this week in Washington working on that project. 

Again, I’m pleased to welcome you this morning to this hearing. 

Let me say that this hearing is important and it is part of a series 

of hearings. When I assumed the responsibility to lead the comVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:55 Jul 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULLCO~1\3-14-1~1\65738.TXT JEAN
3 

mittee, I felt that it was incumbent on us to pass a long-term 

transportation bill, which sets forth, of course, the policy, the 

projects, the funding formula, again, all the details, the blueprint 

for our Nation to go forward with all modes, multi-modal transportation. Sometimes they refer to the transportation bill as the highway bill. I don’t intend for this to be a highway bill. 

But I thought it would be good to hear from, not just the Members of Congress and some particular interests in Washington, but 

around the country. So we engaged on a series of hearings. The 

first hearing we held about, what, a month ago, Mr. Rahall, and 

I thought we should also do this in a bipartisan manner. It’s my 

pleasure to kick off the series of national hearings in the hometown 

of Mr. Rahall, the Democrat leader of the committee. And so we 

took the committee to Beckley, West Virginia and we were fortunate to enjoy his hospitality in his community and hear from the 

citizens of his community and then we went up to Charleston (sic), 

the capital of West Virginia. 

Mr. RAHALL. Ton. 

Mr. MICA. Ton, T–O-N, OK. I’ll get it right. I like both of them, 

South Carolina and West Virginia. 

But from there we went on to a series of hearings around the 

country. We started after a 4:30-in-the-morning vote. I think we 

convened at 10:30 in the morning in Columbus, Ohio. We were in 

Indianapolis, Indiana. We were outside of Chicago. We flew to Oregon. Held a hearing in Vancouver, Washington. One in Fresno, 

California and then down—we had an unusual hearing in Los Angeles because it was a joint hearing between the House and senate 

bicameral and bipartisan. 

Mr. Rahall and I have a counterpart committee in the senate. It’s 

environment public works. It’s headed by Barbara Boxer and then 

also—she’s from California and, of course, we did the hearing with 

her. And then Mr. Jim Inhofe from Oklahoma. So after California 

we were in Oklahoma, both in Tulsa and Oklahoma City. We were 

in Arkansas, Tennessee—today, of course, we’re in Florida. This is 

the only hearing we’ll have in Florida. We picked this because Mr. 

Oberstar, my predecessor, last year did a hearing in Miami. We 

also have hearings scheduled for New York and Pennsylvania towards the end of the month and then we will have some hearings 

in Washington also the end of the month and hopefully begin drafting a long-term bill. 

About a week ago, with the help of Mr. Rahall and both sides of 

the aisle in our new powerful freshman class, we passed on a vote 

of the House to take the transportation portion and extension, the 

sixth extension—well, we had done six extensions of the transportation bill which expired in 2009. We took that out of the CR, the 

continuing resolution, because we’ve been funding the government, 

as you know, on sort of a hiccup basis and the last CR expired the 

4th of March. And in that was the sixth extension of the transportation bill. Again, that sets forth the policy and funding formula for 

all of our states, not a way to operate. But we managed, again, 

through bipartisan support to take out the transportation portion 

and we put it into a seventh extension that takes us to the end of 

this fiscal year, September 30th, to give some certainty, to give 

some stability to the program. 

4 

And now I know Mr. Rahall and I are fairly capable to lead the 

committee, but we weren’t able to draft the long-term bill and pass 

it by March 4th in spite of our capability. We still needed some 

time to do the long-term bill. So that’s what this hearing is about. 

This is a prelude to putting together the six-year transportation 

measure. What we hope to hear today are suggestions on how we 

can improve programs, how we can change the law to make it operate better. Some of the panelists we’ve chosen, and this is just sort 

of a sampling of folks who will tell us that, maybe you can, too. We 

aren’t here for one project or another project. We’re more interested 

in how we can improve the process, the law, the difficulties, folks, 

that incurred with dealing with the Federal Government or in putting projects together or making transportation and infrastructure 

happen. And certainly we can probably write the book on that in 

Central Florida. But there is a lot of room for improvement and 

that’s what we hope to have in this legislation. 

So today we’re looking for positive suggestions that we can put 

into law that will make the process go smoother, to get more bang 

for the buck, so to speak, and also be able to have some sound policy and it will be a multi-mode bill, not just highways, but rail, just 

about every mode. 

Concurrently we’re also going to do an FAA bill and we should 

have that before the House the last week in this—the last week in 

this month. We’ve had 17 extensions. That bill expired in 2007. 

And Mr. Rahall and I have pledged to not let that continue, but 

to try to have that wound up hopefully in the next 60 days and 

have permanent policy and legislation in place authorizing our Nation’s important aviation industry. So that’s why we’re here. The 

purpose of today’s hearing. I thank you, folks, for coming out and 

thank our witnesses in advance. We’ll hear from them in a few 

minutes. 

Now, I’m going to yield to, again, the Democrat leader, the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia for Mr. Rahall for 

an opening statement. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And indeed it’s an honor 

for me to be here in Central Florida, the district represented so 

well by you and our colleague, on my side, Representative Corrine 

Brown, also from Florida. You’ve been given the history of our field 

hearings thus far. I do appreciate the bipartisan manner in which 

you have conducted these hearings. The fact that you did come to 

my hometown in West Virginia to kick them off and the manner 

in which you have thus far lead our committee on transportation 

and infrastructure. 

You know, different regions of our country do face different challenges when it comes to transportation policies. Certainly the needs 

here in Central Florida are different than the unique needs we 

have in my terrain—rugged terrain in Southern West Virginia with 

areas very difficult to reach. 

So when we craft a transportation policy, I think it’s important 

to recognize that we will find that no one size fits all. And that a 

solution to our Nation’s transportation needs are critically needed 

in order to put our people back to work in good, long paying jobs 

that will make our economy more competitive and indeed continue 

the recovery upon which we are embarking today. 

5 

At the start of this process Chairman Mica and I pledged to work 

in a bipartisan fashion. We pride ourselves on this committee in 

saying that there are no Republican bridges, no Democratic 

bridges, they are American bridges. And that is certainly true 

under Chairman Mica’s leadership. A safe and moderate transportation system is one of the most fundamental services, I believe, 

that our Federal Government can provide our people. And because 

of—we’ve been unable to address it in a long-term reauthorization 

bill thus far, we have placed many of our jobs and many of our industry of this country in a financial disadvantage by not providing 

them the certainty that they need in the form of a long-term transportation bill. 

So under Chairman Mica’s leadership, I feel very confident we 

can do that and hopefully before the end of this calendar year. So 

I express my thanks to each of you for being here as well as an 

excellent turnout. Thank you, Chairman Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. And let me yield now to my partner, and 

for the members visiting, this is Maitland, Florida. Ms. Brown and 

I get to represent part of this community and are very privileged 

to hold a hearing here in the heart of our district. So Ms. Brown 

is also the former chair of the Rail Subcommittee and now is the 

ranking member of the rail committee. The young lady from Florida is recognized. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for holding this hearing and I thank my colleagues for coming. Let me just 

give one minute on a little institutional memory because when we 

was elected to Congress back in 1992 for every dollar that we— 

from Florida sent to Washington we was getting something like 77 

cents back. We worked to change that formula. And, in fact, my 

good colleague and friends from West Virginia was taking most of 

our money. We’re on the same side, that’s why I’m saying. 

But keep it in mind, transportation is very bipartisan and we 

work very closely together to move the needs of the people in this 

country. And infrastructure, in my opinion, is the key because for 

every billion dollars we spend, it generates 44,000 permanent jobs 

and that is so crucial with the downturn that we’re experiencing. 

And I’ve got to tell you, here in Central Florida we’ve got a lot of 

needs and we are very excited about working together as a region 

to address those needs. And the motto of my former military person 

was, one team, one fight. And that’s what it’s been. We’ve been 

working together in the communities to change the congestion and 

the problems that we’ve been experiencing on I–4. And everyone in 

Florida, except for the governor, Rick Scott, understands—— 

[Applause.] 

Mr. MICA. I might say, this is a formal hearing and in a formal 

hearing those who don’t—who wish to express themselves may only 

do so through their representatives. So I wish folks would refrain 

from, you know, commenting on either side. It’s just the protocol 

of our hearings, but that’s appropriate, so thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. All right. And I’m going to say what I said again. 

Everyone in Florida, except for the governor, Rick Scott, understands that we can’t add one more lane because that’s what he 

came to Congress and said, we want one more lane on I–4. We already have eight lanes on I–4. We all know that one more lane 

6 

won’t help us in any way. Any way. We have close to 40,000 people 

a day commuting from Daytona to the Orlando region going back 

and forth. 

Well, I tell you what, last week I went to Salt Lake City, Utah 

and they have the money that we turned down some years ago, and 

they are running 40,000 people a day, folks. I mean, the future of 

Florida and how we compete with our competitors is in rail. I 

mean, the idea of being able to get on a train and go from Orlando 

to Miami, 200 miles, one hour and 15 minutes is the future. And 

we work very closely together with the high speed rail project to 

get 90 percent of the funding, 90 percent. That just does not happen. Ninety percent. 

And ten percent was coming from the private sector. Eight different companies that have come to the plate have said that they 

want to partner with us. They will pay any additional costs, any 

overrides, but they just want the first option to go from the Orlando to the Miami piece. Now the Federal Government paid for 

the stay. You know, everybody in this room got an opinion, but 

facts is the hard thing to get around. 

And we did a study and, in fact, when I was coming up—I used 

to like this program, Badge 714, and Sergeant Joe Friday used to 

say, the facts, ma’am, just the facts. And that’s what we need, the 

facts on the study that we paid for, Mr. Chairman. We don’t have 

that study available and I’m asking the committee to get a copy of 

that study from the State of Florida so that we will have the actual 

factual information on the study. Can you give me the process what 

we have to do to get it? Because as we speak, the State have not 

released that information. And let me just say one other thing, I 

see all kinds of rumors about how much has been spent on this 

project. Well, I tell you, my figures show that only about $21 to $30 

million have been spent. In other words, at least $127 million coming back to the Federal Government, we’re going to make sure that 

not one penny is spent that was not obligated. 

Now one thing, as I close, I have been very depressed. I keep 

thinking about all of the jobs that the people could have with 12 

percent unemployment. I know everybody in this room have a job, 

but we have 12 percent unemployment. What does that mean, over 

2 million Floridians are out of work, good jobs, construction jobs, 

railroad jobs, so I—five minutes before Friday, five minutes before 

5:00 I got a call from the secretary, at least they’re putting the 

money out, but we have an opportunity to compete. So as the minister said, there’s still a ram in the bush, or in other words, there’s 

still a dog in the fight and we’re still in it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Let me yield now, and I thank her for coming probably the furthest, from Hawaii. A young lady from Hawaii. She serves on four 

of our six subcommittees, Ms. Hirono. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and aloha everybody. 

The AUDIENCE. Aloha. 

Ms. HIRONO. It’s great to be here. I’m sure many of you have visited Hawaii. Hawaii and Florida have quite a few things in common and the chairman tells me that this weather, for example, 

7 

which is really gorgeous is very much representative of what I experience whenever I get to go home, but also our reliance on tourism. We have a lot of issues in common, so I’m glad to be here. I 

have served on the transportation and infrastructure committee 

going on five years now and one of the major aspects of this committee that really enables us to work together is that every single 

one of the members, 435 Members of Congress, have—represent 

districts where transportation needs are at the top of the list of 

both projects and issues that we need to address. So it does make 

for a very bipartisan effort. 

And in Hawaii for the first time in decades and decades, we are 

on our way to providing light rail. We don’t have a mass transportation system in Hawaii, except for buses. And, of course, we have 

a very unique situation in Hawaii in that we have islands and you 

can’t get from one island to another by driving. Every single state, 

every region has unique needs and we have common issues, too, 

such as how are we going to pay for our transportation. So these 

kinds of hearings are really important for us to see literally on the 

ground your thoughts, your concerns, your ideas that I hope we can 

reflect in this massive transportation bill that we will be working 

on under the chairman’s leadership. 

So again, I’m here to hear what you have to say and as we say 

in Hawaii, Mahalo Nui Loa. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Let me recognize now, the gentleman from Texas. As I said, he’s 

a new Member of the Committee, part of that new powerful class 

that’s entered Congress. 

Welcome, sir, you’re recognized. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I’d like 

to thank everyone in Central Florida for their hospitality. I’m a 

regular visitor to Central Florida. I’m here pretty much every year 

for long as I can remember. College, visiting the theme parks and 

as a radio talk show host coming to spring training for baseball. 

So it’s good to be back in what I would consider one of my second 

homes, Central Florida. 

Texas and Florida have a whole lot in common. We understand 

how difficult it is to get things done and how Federal dollars come 

with Federal red tape and Federal red tape even comes to private 

projects without Federal dollars. And part of what I feel our freshman class was elected to do was to come get Washington out of 

your hair and that’s one of the things we’re doing. 

The other thing, I think as freshmen, we were sent to Washington to do was listen. There’s a broad feeling that Washington 

has lost touch with the folks back home and the freshman class is 

committed to listening. One of the things we were able to work 

with the leadership to do is get a schedule together. They gave us 

as much time back home as possible. One week a month we typically will be free to come home or travel the country to learn what 

the folks who elected us want us to do. And that’s the reason I’m 

here, to listen to you to know what you guys want done or probably 

more likely what you want undone with the Federal Government. 

Thank you very much for coming out to listen, everyone in the 

audience. And to our panel of witnesses, I look forward to your 

8 

input. Thank you. God bless Texas. God bless Florida and God 

bless America. 

Mr. MICA. I think that concludes our opening statements. And 

we’ll turn now to—we have one panel of witnesses and as I said, 

this is representative of the—of some various topics that we need 

to address and this long-term bill. And what I’ve done in the other 

hearings is I tried to get folks not to read a prepared statement, 

but to try to give us the top points that they would like to see. 

Again, we are going to be sitting down at the end of this month, 

the beginning of next month and crafting new Federal law, new 

Federal guidelines, a blueprint for the next six years, probably for 

the next decade because it takes a couple of years to pass a new 

bill and enact another one after they expire. So it does take a while 

to get these things passed and we want as much positive reform 

and as many positive provisions as we can in this legislation to 

move forward. 

So with that, again, let me welcome our witnesses. I won’t introduce them all at once here. We’ll introduce them individually, then 

the order of business, we’ll withhold questions until we’ve heard 

from the whole panel and then we’ll open it to questions from 

members. 

So with that, our first witness and no stranger to Central Florida 

is Mr. Frank Bruno. He’s served as the chair of the county council. 

He’s been involved in numerous transportation initiatives in Central Florida and a leader, not only locally, but statewide. 

Good morning, Mr. Bruno, welcome. And you are recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. FRANK BRUNO, COUNTY CHAIR, 

COUNTY OF VOLUSIA 

Mr. BRUNO. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman Mica and Ranking Member Rahall, 

and the Members of this Committee for the opportunity to provide 

testimony at this field hearing on improving and reforming our Nation’s surface transportation programs. 

I represent Volusia County, which is framed by the Greater Daytona Beach area with 46 miles of beaches on the east and the St. 

Johns River and the outskirts of Orlando to the west. The County 

has a population of about 500,000 and encompasses 16 municipalities within a geographical area the size of the state of Rhode Island. 

The national recession has hit our Nation and Volusia County 

hard. Locally, businesses small and large have closed. Our residents have lost their jobs and have had their hours or benefits reduced and some have even lost their homes. The economic slump 

hurts tax revenue while demand for government service increases. 

We cannot rely on spending alone. 

Here’s our solution. Volusia County has moved forward with 

partnerships, responsible spending and careful decision-making. 

How have we accomplished this in the middle of the most difficult 

economic conditions our Nation has experienced in more than 70 

years. Similar to the goals of this Congress, it did not start with 

more spending. We have adopted this model of governance to solve 

transportation and infrastructure projection. 

9 

As everyone here knows increases in infrastructure needs do not 

always decrease in tough economic times. I’d like to give you four 

examples of partnerships that we’ve had in Volusia County: A cost 

sharing venture with the City of Port Orange and the county and 

the state; the four-lane South Williamson Boulevard, that’s a $11.8 

project, without this partnership this would have remained two 

lanes for the foreseeable future. Dunn Avenue extension over I–95. 

It’s a $10.3 million unique partnership with the Federal, state, 

county, city and private participants which advance the construction by more than ten years with a major overpass providing much 

needed economic stimulus. The City of Daytona Beach Shores traffic signalization upgrade on Dunlawton is a $300,000 project. It 

was a city-led project funded equally by contributions from the city, 

the county and FDOT financing the Central Florida commuter rail 

system, we call SunRail, 61 miles route linking DeLand to Downtown Orlando. This is a partnership between Volusia, Seminole, 

Orange and Osceola Counties, the City of Orlando, the state and 

the Federal Government. This takes thousands of cars off of our 

highways and creates over 13,000 new jobs statewide. 

I’d like to talk briefly about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which we found extremely challenging to 

execute and implement. Since 2008 the Florida Association of 

County Engineers and Road Superintendents, FACERS, and the 

National Association of County Engineers, NACE, have worked towards streamlining the Federal Aid Program for projects for Local 

Public Agencies. The main issue for us involves having to meet the 

entire gamut of Federal regulations for projects that may be as little as $50,000. 

In April 2009, NACE—I’m sorry. In April 2009, NACE adopted 

a policy to develop and advocate legislative language changes to the 

next transportation and authorization bill to improve the efficiency 

of implementation of the Federal Aid Program by local governments. We believe that just as the Federal Government needs to 

push down projects to the states and local agencies, there is a level 

of local projects that should be even further delegated and exempted from the state management to reduce redundant oversight and 

increase flexibility and efficiency. 

The 112th Congress and the committee has an opportunity to 

create more flexible framework for state and public agencies to accomplish transportation projects by, one, streamlining the project 

approval and fundraising process for infrastructure projects; two, 

having the Transportation Reauthorization Bill create legislative 

support and incentives for public private partnerships; three, develop a more holistic approach to defining regional projects that 

consolidate individual segments and allow maximum flexibility to 

apply project savings as they are created; and four, create an exemption level for the smaller projects that do not require Federal 

or state oversight to streamline their implementation process, thus 

save on overall costs. 

In closing, I want to express my thanks to Chairman Mica for his 

interest and commitment to creating jobs and helping America 

build its transportation infrastructure. Your passion and leadership 

on this issue is just what America needs. We think that a recovery 

strategy based on innovative, regionally-based approaches and 

10 

partnerships is just what America needs most. We think that such 

an approach would be transformative to solving the problems of our 

Nation in a timely and ultimately fiscally efficient manner. And we 

hope that this Congress can work towards developing such a plan 

this year. I look forward to working with you both and your respective committees and will be available to assist in any way that is 

helpful. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony. We will now turn to the 

second witness, who is Ananth Prasad. Mr. Prasad serves as the 

Assistant Secretary for Engineering and Operations for the Florida 

Department of Transportation. 

Welcome, sir, and you’re recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF ANANTH PRASAD, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR 

ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT 

OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. PRASAD. Chairman Mica and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the invitation and the opportunity to discuss ways 

to improve and reform our Surface Transportation Program. 

We at Florida Department of Transportation work every day to 

provide a transportation system that helps people move people and 

goods across the state and the Nation, boosts economic prosperity 

and growth, all while improving Floridians’ quality of life. 

My testimony this morning, I want to focus on the following 

goals: First, maximizing the rate of return, the reduction of the 

number of Federal transportation programs, cutting government 

red tape, streamlining project delivery, expansion of private sector 

investment and other creative financing alternatives and adoption 

of performance and accountability measures. 

Building and investing in our infrastructure is fundamental to 

our state and our Nation’s economic future and growth. The faster 

we can move people and goods to their destination, the faster our 

economy recovers and more prosperous our Nation will be. But 

with scarce resources and dollars, we must be vigilant to insure 

that we must invest only where taxpayer’s money will be put to 

good use. 

Florida is a donor state and historically has received 86 cents on 

every dollar we send to Washington. This has to change. The goal 

of the new Federal reauthorization law should be one that is formula-driven which provides flexibility so that the donor states can 

achieve a higher rate of return without negatively impacting what 

can be delivered. We applied the no earmark stance, but let’s take 

it one step further, let’s look at all the earmark funds that have 

been done in the past, but have not been committed. Just in Florida alone that amounts to about $100 million. And I’m sure nationally it’s in hundreds of millions. 

Over the years, the Congress has asked state departments of 

transportation to do more things with fewer resources. With the 

downturn in the economy, it’s time to tighten our belt. This is exactly what we’re doing in Florida. Instead of funding more than a 

hundred individual programs in the next transportation bill, we 

should focus on a few core programs which will grow our economy. 

We must give serious considerations to whether—when resources 

11 

and dollars are at a premium—spending money on a sidewalk, bike 

trails, beautification, and other projects like these is the most prudent use of taxpayer money. 

Unnecessary Federal mandates and regulations stifle efficiencies, 

force states to spend transportation dollars on unrelated initiatives 

and delay critical transportation projects. We must eliminate these 

mandates and regulations that hinder investment, from both public 

and private sectors, and in essential transportation projects. Mr. 

Chairman, I want to make mention one specific example, the 

Davis-Bacon Act. It requires states to pay prevailing wages on public works projects. 

In Florida, we just about meet or exceed the prevailing wage rate 

because the market requires us to pay that higher wage rate. Furthermore, this Act is not flexible. It does not contemplate any flexibility as to the type of work, duration of work or dollar amount of 

the contract. The Davis-Back Act applies to contracts in excess of 

$2,000. I didn’t misspeak. It’s $2,000. So let’s look at adjusting 

that. 

The real cost of the Davis-Bacon Act often is the mountains of 

paperwork and compliance costs imposed on the state DOTs. If we 

write the new bill to allow DOTs just like Florida, to certify that 

we’re complying with the Davis-Bacon Act, we can provide more 

services at a lower price. The bottom line for these mandates takes 

away precious resources, which could otherwise be dedicating 

building new roads and bridges and improving our aging infrastructure. A streamlined delivery of transportation improvements 

will result in immediate cost savings. Mr. Chairman, one bold idea 

we’d like to offer is, to allow by FHWA, to substitute state procedures for environmental review and compliance, acquisition and relocation, other programs when states can demonstrate that their 

laws, procedures, practice and safeguards meet or exceed Federal 

standards. At the end of the day we at the state level are held accountable for our decisions we make each and every day. 

Increasing the gas tax is not an option. However, as we all know, 

the Highway Trust Fund is increasingly being asked to fund more 

programs with fewer dollars. Therefore, we must all work together 

to bridge this gap. 

Florida currently has eight Public-Private Partnerships underway valued at about $3 billion. It has helped us to finance large 

projects such as I–595, the Port of Miami Tunnel and the I–75 iRox 

project. Florida has shown through partnership with private sector 

that we can afford better transportation options, provide projects 

faster and deliver them under budget. 

Mr. Chairman, we must have a national plan on tolling and be 

afforded the flexibility to toll new capacity on the interstate and 

major bridges on Federal highways in order to stretch the traditional funding that much further. One final point on funding, let’s 

expand the Special Experimental Project such as SEP–14 and 

SEP–15, which have been quite successful for states to pursue privatization opportunities where it makes sense. And finally, the 

Federal program must evolve from the prescriptive nature to one 

that is performance driven, one that is based on performance measures. 

12 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership and your interest 

in identifying ways to improve and reform our Nation’s transportation system and we stand ready to work with you and the Members of the Committee to develop new legislation that provides a 

roadmap to the future. Thank you. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony. 

And we’ll recognize one of our state transportation leaders, Bob 

Burleson, and he serves as the President of the Florida Transportation Builders Association. Welcome, Mr. Burleson, and you’re recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF BOB BURLESON, PRESIDENT, FLORIDA 

TRANSPORTATION BUILDERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BURLESON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to 

you and Members of the Committee. 

My name is Bob Burleson. I am President of Florida Transportation Builders which represents the construction industry—the 

transportation construction industry in Florida. I particularly appreciate the opportunity to testify at this field hearing and I’m particularly honored to appear before you, Mr. Chairman, in our home 

state. The main concern of our industry is the uncertainty of funding, which is making it extremely difficult for contractors and 

DOTs to plan and program projects over the next several years. 

Contractors are currently postponing decisions, such as purchasing 

new equipment or hiring new employees because they’re unsure of 

the direction the program will take. Timely enactment of a multiyear surface transportation bill with dedicated and predictable levels of funding for maintaining and constructing our Nation’s highways, to restoring confidence in our industry and is also, in my 

opinion, the key to our economic growth and job creation throughout the United States. 

I certainly understand that asking for increased investment in 

transportation infrastructure at the same time Congress is trying 

to decrease overall spending and reduce our deficit is difficult. I believe first and foremost we must get our deficit under control. 

There’s no greater threat to our country than the rising debt. We 

must align our transportation spending with the revenues coming 

into the Highway Trust Fund. As with all other areas of both our 

personal lives and government we have to live within our means. 

Someday in the future I hope we will certainly address the need 

to increase those revenues. Until that time we cannot spend more 

than we take into the trust fund. That requires us to set priorities, 

streamline the process and work smarter. I certainly recognize that 

transit plays an important role in moving individuals from place to 

place, particularly in our urban areas. I would ask that you consider allowing the Highway Trust Fund to revert back to its original purpose of building and maintaining our interstates and other 

Federal highways. Transit is needed and deserves a dedicated 

funding source of its own. Until that is established, transit should 

obtain its fund from general funding. That would provide a substantial increase to highway funding. 

We must protect and maintain the investment we have in our 

national highway system. I urge you to minimize the number of 

funding categories and Federal programs through which funds are 

13 

distributed. We cannot afford to fund such non-basic items as landscaping, bike paths, transportation museums, to name a few, in 

these economic times. 

Much has been discussed about Public-Private Partnerships and 

Florida has been a leader in Public-Private Partnerships. We must 

allow tolling of any added capacity on our interstates and other 

major Federal highways. We cannot view PPPs as only a source of 

capital for future projects. The PPPs must bring their own revenue 

source, generally tolls, to the table. Simply speeding up the start 

of a project by borrowing money from a private investor with the 

only source of repayment to the investor being future year’s revenue does not create a bigger pool of funding. We simply kick the 

can down the road. As I’ve said before, now more than ever, we 

must pay for what we do. 

The past two surface transportation reauthorization bills have 

included project streamlining provisions and to date, projects still 

take nearly two decades to complete. The GAO says there are as 

many as 200 major steps involved in developing a transportation 

project. I hope that this new bill will contain some real progress in 

streamlining project delivery. 

Mr. Prasad mentioned the Davis-Bacon Act and I’d like to mention just one area. Many of the rates that have been established 

in Florida early in 2009 make perfect sense. But we have other 

rates that are way out of line. We have examples where the mandated rate for a laborer is more than the rate for a crane operator. 

This makes absolutely no sense. These type of wage decisions only 

serve to raise costs when we need to use our resources as wisely 

as possible. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Federal gas tax has served us well 

for a long time as a funding mechanism. We must develop a new 

type of funding mechanism. It must continue to be a true user fee. 

It must include a way to charge alternative fueled vehicles. I would 

encourage the Committee to consider a serious study of vehicle 

miles traveled or VMT as a new funding source with a goal of going 

to a VMT system nationwide by 2020. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate the opportunity. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

And we’ll hear now from Mr. Randy Whitfield and Mr. Whitfield 

is the Staff Director of the Palm Beach Metropolitan Planning Organization and serves as executive secretary to that board. Welcome and you’re recognized, Mr. Whitfield. 

TESTIMONY OF RANDY M. WHITFIELD, STAFF DIRECTOR, 

PALM BEACH MPO 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Chairman Mica and Members of the Committee. 

I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to testify at this hearing 

in consideration of the next Surface Transportation Bill. I’d like to 

address several points today related to transportation funding, the 

need for flexibility in meeting those transportation demands and 

the process involved in providing mobility. 

Transportation funding is currently divided among a number of 

programs that have associated guidelines and requirements limiting the use of those particular funds. Funding should be streamlined into a few funding programs that have flexibility and can be 

14 

applied to a wider range of programs involving maintenance and 

capacity increases. There should be a floor for these programs ensuring that funding is available for all modes. There should be 

some level of transferability among the programs at the lower levels to address local needs. The ability to leverage these funds in 

partnership with the private sector needs to be encouraged and expanded. 

Maintenance and operation of the transportation system is an 

important consideration today and into the future. Preservation of 

the current system must be a priority. National research into technology should be continued to find and develop ways to operate the 

transportation system safely and more efficiently. Intelligent 

Transportation System solutions such as the I–95 managed lanes 

and a regional transit Smartcard that we’re working on in South 

Florida will play a larger role in providing for the mobility of people and goods. 

To fund these streamlined programs, a reliable, predictable funding mechanism is needed. The gas tax has served the country well 

over the years, but no longer provides an adequate revenue stream 

to meet current and future needs. Increased vehicle efficiency and 

use of alternative fuels and energy sources is good for the environment and national goals to reduce dependency on foreign sources, 

but the transportation revenues are reduced. In addition, users of 

alternative energy sources are not paying a fair share of their impacts to the transportation infrastructure caused by vehicle use. A 

different funding mechanism is needed to ensure all users of the 

transportation system contribute to the program to provide adequate funding to construct, operate and maintain the transportation system. 

How do you provide transportation using these funds and implement the needed projects to ensure capacity in the system efficiently? This requires a balancing act between local needs and regional objectives. As indicated in my testimony, I come from a large 

area in part of the Miami Urban Area. We are working together 

at the local level with the MPOs to address those local needs, but 

we’ve also created a regional committee to try and put together regional projects and to look at the bigger picture. These types of coalitions of the MPOs and transportation service providers have been 

created in other large areas of Florida. They are balanced in the 

local and regional aspects of transportation services with the flexibility inherent in makeup of the MPOs and councils. In time, these 

structures may evolve into more regional entities to remain competitive in the national economy. 

Accountability is an issue that should be part of the process for 

providing transportation. Performance measures can play a major 

role in meeting transportation objectives and demonstrating to the 

public how funds are making a difference. These performance 

measures must be related to the overall goals and be able to show 

progress toward meeting these goals. They should be meaningful, 

easy to measure and easy to understand. 

An area to apply these performance measures to show improvement is project delivery. This is an area that continues to need 

streamlining in the various phases of project development. Opportunities exist to expedite review of plans, environment impact, 

15 

right-of-way acquisition and project approval. An example of this is 

Florida which is implementing an Efficient Transportation Decision-Making process that affords an opportunity for review by all 

agencies at the same time. There are agreements with reviewing 

agencies committing them to project review within a specific time 

period. Any problem areas are identified early on so resolution can 

begin sooner. The process results in reductions in review time and 

documentation which moves forward with the project. All phases of 

project development should be reviewed to implement streamlining 

opportunities and expedite project delivery. 

One project which I forgot to put into my testimony, but I do 

want to mention is the need for rail service along the east coast 

corridor from Jacksonville down to West Palm Beach and Miami, 

along the FEC corridor. That’s a project that would use conventional rail, not that other type of rail, and we do support that. 

In summary, the national transportation system is a key element 

of the economy and lifestyle for U.S. citizens. This system needs to 

be repaired, preserved and expanded to meet today’s needs and tomorrow’s demands. We need a simpler system to fund the program, 

flexibility to address the needs, a fair system of funding and decision-making where the demands occur and the ability to respond 

to these needs quickly. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony. 

And we’ll turn to Geoffrey Yarema and he is a nationally recognized leader in infrastructure, development and finance. Welcome, 

sir, and you’re recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF GEOFFREY YAREMA, PARTNER, NOSSAMAN 

LLP 

Mr. YAREMA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rahall and Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me 

here today. I’ve done a detailed statement and submitted it. I will 

only cover the—— 

Mr. MICA. No objection. Your entire statement will be made part 

of the record. Please proceed. 

Mr. YAREMA. I am a partner in a law firm that represents state 

and regional transportation agencies around the country. And basically they are all struggling with the same problem. That is, how 

do they procure, contract and finance their largest and most complicated projects while minimizing the use of Federal grant funds. 

That’s really the environment that we find ourselves in today. 

We’re very fortunate that we’ve been involved in delivering many 

of the signature projects around the country that have been doing 

just that. In addition, I was privileged to serve on the National 

Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, appointed by U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters, which 

two years ago produced a final report. So my testimony today really 

reflects my experience on the ground representing public agencies 

as well as the work we did on the commission. 

First, let’s focus on what is the role of the Federal Government 

and the states in delivering transportation projects. The states 

have the primary responsibility for planning, financing, delivering 

and operating the physical infrastructure. The Federal Government 

16 

historically has provided partial funding and has regulated the activity that received that funding. That’s changing. More recently 

the Federal role has evolved to offer less and less Federal grants 

and more and more loans and incentives to the states to maximize 

their contribution in delivering the infrastructure in the absence of 

the historical Federal share. 

The good news is that Congress has the ability to strengthen the 

programs that we already have to better enable states to do more 

with less Federal resources—and less predictable resources. So the 

proposals that I put forward, many of which were backed by the 

Financing Commission’s bipartisan and unanimous report, offer the 

states greater flexibility in finding innovative ways to pay for their 

own transportation projects, attracting private capital beyond what 

the public sector can produce, maintaining the user fee approach 

to transportation funding and ensuring long-term quality. 

Maybe the single most important financing step the Federal Government can take is to enhance the TIFIA program. TIFIA is a 

loan program that was created in 1998 and it is the national infrastructure bank we already have. The administration has proposed 

a national infrastructure bank, but we already have one and it 

works very well. It offers credit assistance to highways, transit, 

intercity passenger facilities, freight rail and freight transfer facilities. The problem is that it’s underfunded and undercapitalized. 

Since 1998, the TIFIA program has granted states more than $8 

billion in loans, supporting projects with a total capital value in excess of $30 billion at a cost to the Federal budget of only $1 billion. 

A leading example is from Mr. Farenthold’s state, the state of 

Texas—the North Tarrant Express project in the Dallas-Fort Worth 

region. That project, when completed, will create new tolled capacity within 13 miles of an existing highway corridor, including upgrading the existing facilities. This $2 billion project was financed 

with $573 million in state funds, $400 million in private loans, a 

$650 million TIFIA loan and $427 million in private equity. So the 

total $2 billion project was funded with $65 million in Federal 

budgetary impact, the 10 percent credit subsidy cost for the TIFIA 

loan. That’s 3.5 dollars for every hundred dollars of project. In addition to that, project revenues, not highway tax dollars, will cover 

50 years of operating and maintenance expenses, thus preserving 

the state of Texas’ limited transportation dollars for operating and 

maintaining the rest of its existing system. 

So this is the type of result that I suggest needs to be replicated 

more and more around the country. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony. We’ll now turn to Richard Lawless. He serves as president and CEO of U.S.-Japan HighSpeed Rail. And he—I’ll also note that he recently served as deputy 

under Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific security affairs. 

Welcome, sir, and you’re recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF RICHARD P. LAWLESS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

U.S.-JAPAN HIGH-SPEED RAIL 

Mr. LAWLESS. Thank you, Chairman Mica, Congressman Rahall. 

I am, of course, pleased to be here today. 

My testimony will focus on the high-speed rail passenger sector. 

And, in fact, because there has been a lively, mostly productive, I 

17 

think, but somewhat disinformed discussion about certain aspects 

of high-speed rail, I would like to discuss and share with you the 

evolution of high-speed rail in Japan in particular and offer some 

observations in that process on the current high-speed rail policies 

and programs of the United States and make some recommendations on the best way to go forward. 

For the past two years my company has been partnered with the 

premier high-speed operator in Japan, JR Central—JRC for short— 

to investigate and look for opportunities in the United States where 

that experience and that capability could be usefully deployed. 

Allow me to share with you, briefly, some background on the history of high-speed rail operations in Japan that I think have relevance to what we’re going through here in the United States. 

Japan began life—Japan high-speed rail began life as a government-owned corporation and within a couple of decades it had pretty well made a mess of that through bureaucratic mismanagement. 

It was basically going under receivership. The government of Japan 

divided its national railroad into privately-owned networks. And in 

1987, JRC assumed responsibility for the Tokyo-Osaka corridor, socalled Tokaido Shinkansen line. 

Mr. MICA. Could you just—what is JRC? 

Mr. LAWLESS. Japan Rail Corporation—Central Japan Railroad 

Corporation. It’s one of the six operating companies in Japan. 

When JRC took on that responsibility as a privately-owned company, they assumed $60 billion in liabilities for the existing system. 

That amount of money that they assumed as a liability was twice 

the then replacement value if they would have had to build that 

system anew. So they assumed all of that responsibility. Over the 

years, the 40 years of operation, JRC is a totally privately-owned 

entity with a cash flow of about $16 billion a year in annual revenue and about $1 billion a year in net income, was able to pay 

down most of that debt and in the process pay its shareholders a 

reasonable return on their investment as well as invest in new capacity and new capabilities. The core of JRC’s success was due to 

an exceptional level of service. They simply offer a very high-quality of service to the riding public. A few examples, they move 140 

million passengers a year. That equates to a train every five minutes, 323 trains a day with 1200 people on every train. The annual 

average lateness or delay on each train annual is less than 30 seconds. They have a perfect safety record, not having lost a passenger in over 45 years of operation. And at the same time having 

evolved the system through five generations of new built rolling 

stock and other systems to bring it to an optimal level of environmental friendly and efficient operations. The critical element of 

success, from day one for this system, was that it was planned, constructed and operated on a dedicated, grade separated corridor for 

the exclusive use of high-speed rail. That is to say this system operates with absolutely no commingling with freight or conventional 

passenger rail systems. 

Unfortunately this strategic concept does not seem to be well understood in the United States and this comes back to the critical 

issue that was mentioned earlier by the regulators, many of which 

in the Obama administration, I believe, simply do not appreciate 

the importance of this particular issue. There are two elements in 

18 

particular that are in the mantra of high-speed rail as it’s currently 

being discussed by the Obama administration and that is a nationwide system of high-speed rail based on the concept of inoperability. In my written remarks I go into quite a bit of detail as to 

why these two concepts are fundamentally flawed and will result 

in the private sector, which has to be involved and that’s going to 

be involved, in building these systems. Both of these concepts essentially provide a cocktail that will discourage if not make impractical the full development and deployment of these high-speed rail 

systems in the United States. 

Again, in the written remarks I go into a lot more detail, but I 

would suggest that as this committee looks at the restructuring of 

the laws and regulations, that we take some of these key considerations into account. 

I thank you. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony. 

We’ll now turn to Cheryl Stone. If you could move the mic over 

for her. 

Mr. LAWLESS. Sure. 

Mr. MICA. And Cheryl Stone is a gubernatorial appointee to the 

Florida Rehabilitation Council and the governor’s position on disabilities. She’s President of the Central Florida Center for Independent Living; and she’s also served as commissioner on Florida’s 

Commission for Transportation Disadvantaged. Welcome and 

you’re recognized. 

TESTIMONY OF CHERYL STONE, ON BEHALF OF THE 

TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY 

Ms. STONE. Thank you. 

Good morning and welcome to Central Florida. Thank you for the 

opportunity to speak to you on the issue of transportation for those 

of us that may be considered transportation disadvantaged. We are 

people who are unable to transport ourselves or even purchase 

transportation due to a disability, income status or age, and we 

have no other form of transportation available. 

My name again is Cheryl Stone and I have been transportation 

disadvantaged, or TD, as we say. Although I use a wheelchair as 

a result of polio, I’ve been able to drive most of my adult life. But 

almost 20 years ago I lost that ability for a while. I realized then 

the real meaning of ‘‘you don’t know what you got, until it’s gone.’’ 

Then I had to find transportation to get to work. At that time I was 

a clinical microbiologist. I retired after 30 years in the health care 

service. 

I used our local, but very limited para-transit service until I was 

able to drive again. But since that time I now work with others in 

my community to improve and build on our transportation successes. There are many areas within the SAFETEA–LU bill that 

impact our quality of life. I pulled out a few to show you some examples of how they have worked for us and made recommendations 

on how to make them a little better. I’d like to address a few of 

them here. The New Freedom and Job Access Reverse Commute 

Programs provide grant opportunities for transportation services go 

beyond the ADA requirements and for employment for persons who 

are transportation disadvantaged. 

19 

Here in Orange, Osceola and Seminole Counties there are over 

2,500 square miles of urban and rural communities. People often 

live in one county and work in another. Lynx, our local transit authority, has used Federal funding to create a FlexBus service beginning with a vehicle in one locality. Now there are several more 

in other areas. You are picked up within two hours of calling the 

service and can go any place on a defined route of five to seven 

miles most of the day. It’s reliable, cost effective and assessable. 

Passengers have transportation that meets their schedules and 

local businesses benefit also. 

This is an example of transit options needed for liveable communities and will help people remain in their homes as they age. It’s 

vital to maintain and expand funding for such programs and even 

for others that may have been developed with different funding 

streams, local Department of Transportation grants can be limited 

and additional monies may be needed for service development and 

program success. Such support is critical. 

Next, inclusion of persons with disabilities in the planning process is a win-win for all. Passengers with disabilities are stakeholders involved in local transportation plans with Metro plan Orlando here in Orlando. Learning that what really goes into getting 

from Point A to Point B and also becoming a forum transportation 

advocate, sort of how I started. 

At the same time we hope others understand that we don’t want 

‘‘special’’ transportation. We want access to the same transit modes 

so we too have mobility choices. This is a cross-disability effort including everything from pedestrian walkways, to giving us input on 

the latest changes to the planning agency’s website. Funding for 

planning is important, but because our citizens know our community needs best, it’s equally important for our transportation decisions to be made at the local level. By keeping it local, we will have 

greater buy-in of new ideas, particularly when we can see the immediate impact. Often the process is long and involved when coming from the top down. 

And finally, a recent Government Accountability Office report 

still shows a need for increased efforts to coordinate transportation 

services. There are proven benefits to coordination, including lower 

trip costs due to shared rides, the ability for communities to increase service hours in areas, increase safety and prove customer 

service and improve technology, all of which break down transportation barriers. 

Florida has an award-winning coordination program administered and monitored by the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged. Transportation is purchased and coordinated 

for a variety of organizations and human services agencies, including Medicaid non-emergency trips. In the 2010 annual report 51 

million trips were provided to over 800,000 persons traveling more 

than 130 miles in Florida. Not just medical trips, but for employment, education, daily activities and even volunteering. Unfortunately the coordinated system was unable to provide over 600,000 

requested trips. 

By 2015, the estimated potential TD population in Florida may 

grow to over eight million persons. This will include the baby 

boomers who are living longer, veterans and other who may have 

20 

a disability and more persons who, because of hard economic times, 

are low income. Incentives for coordination and strong policies to 

prevent efforts to block coordination at Federal, state and local levels are necessary to keep all citizens engaged in life activities. 

Transportation is about choices. Personally I’m still looking forward to and support efforts to achieve the various rail projects that 

will be in our future not only because there will be more choices, 

but I know that such projects will also bring needed improvements 

in our local infrastructure, like roadways and transit services. No 

one type of transportation stands alone and access to all is the true 

meaning of independence. Thank you again for your time and attention. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you again for your testimony of each of 

the witnesses this morning. 

First of all, I’d like to ask unanimous consent that the testimony 

provided by Sharon Calvert on behalf of the Florida Alliance be 

made part of today’s hearing record. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

21 


Insert offset folio 4 here 65738.004
22 


Insert offset folio 5 here 65738.005
23 


Insert offset folio 6 here 65738.006
24 


Insert offset folio 7 here 65738.007
25 


Insert offset folio 8 here 65738.008
26 


Insert offset folio 9 here 65738.009
27 


Insert offset folio 10 here 65738.010
28 


Insert offset folio 11 here 65738.011
29 


Insert offset folio 12 here 65738.012
30 


Insert offset folio 13 here 65738.013
31 


Insert offset folio 14 here 65738.014
32 

Mr. MICA. And we’ll reiterate for anyone who arrived late that 

Mr. Rahall has asked that we pass a resolution in the Committee 

to leave the record open for two weeks, for a period of two weeks, 

so if you have suggestions or comments, we are only able to accommodate a limited number of witnesses at a formal hearing. But we 

can add your testimony or commentary to the record. You can do 

so through submitting that to myself, Ms. Brown who represents 

this area or to the Committee and it will be made part of the 

record. 

With that we’ll begin a round of questioning. And I’ll yield first 

to the ranking member, Mr. Rahall, the gentleman from West Virginia. You’re recognized. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank all of our witnesses for very interesting testimony. As you heard me say at the 

beginning, what may work here in Central Florida doesn’t necessarily work in rural parts of our Nation. That would apply to 

quite a bit of the testimony I heard this morning. 

But nonetheless, let me say that I do believe that a transportation policy should be national in scope and be able to connect all 

of our 50 states together just as with the original division of our 

interstate system. Certainly we in West Virginia, and I know my 

dear friend Corrine has already alluded to this, we do get more 

than we pay back on a per dollar basis into the Highway Trust 

Fund because of our unique circumstances. As I said in my opening 

comments, we have rugged terrain. It costs much more to build a 

mile of road in West Virginia than it would here in Florida, 24 to 

25 times more. 

In addition, our state legislature in the past has stepped up to 

the plate, raised our state gas tax in order to leverage more Federal dollars. And certainly I would think it would be in Florida’s 

best interest to attract tourists from Michigan, if you want them 

to come down to Disney World, they should not have to travel over 

Mickey Mouse roads to get here. So it’s important that we have 

good roads in West Virginia to bring tourists here to the state of 

Florida. 

Let me ask you in particular, Mr. Burleson, you advocated the 

vehicle miles traveled formula as opposed to any gas tax increase. 

At the same time you were advocating doing away with transit 

funding out of the Highway Trust Fund, I assume transferring it 

over to general revenues, which I don’t know where we’d get the 

money there to pay for transit. Plus the fact that the DOT would 

seem to push people more into transit because of the added cost of 

having to pay that type of fuel tax. 

Would you respond to that, plus a second part of it is: If you’re 

against raising the gas tax, does the VMT have the potential to be 

even more burdensome versus a small increase in the gas tax to 

the consumer, to the driving public? 

Mr. BURLESON. Thank you, Mr. Rahall. I was not—first off, I’m 

not opposed to raising the gas tax, but I recognize the political climate we’re in. My concept of VMT would be that you would abolish 

the gas tax and replace it with VMT tax. So depending upon what 

rate it was at, it could be no more than the funding that’s there 

now. But it does allow for all of the alternative fuel vehicles to also 

pay their share. 

33 

Mr. RAHALL. Where do we get transit funding? 

Mr. BURLESON. Again, yeah, that’s—I’m glad I’m not in your 

shoes, but I think that that is a—much more of an issue for the 

general fund at the Federal level and it’s much more in my mind 

a local funding issue than it is a Federal funding issue. 

Mr. RAHALL. Would any others wish to comment on any part of 

what I just said? 

Mr. YAREMA. The National Surface Transportation Financing 

Commission did look at the long-term feasibility of the gas tax and 

concluded, as Mr. Burleson has suggested, that it’s fatally flawed. 

So we recommended that we transition to replace the gas tax with 

a vehicle miles traveled fee or what I prefer to call the road user 

charge. One of the benefits of the road user charge is that it could 

be revenue neutral, as compared to the gas tax, and still achieve 

certain significant efficiencies because currently most users of the 

highway system don’t have any clue how much gas tax they pay. 

They also have no clue that the gas tax is one of the few taxes that 

actually goes down every year because it’s not indexed to inflation 

and it hasn’t been increased since 1993. 

So the VMT or road user charge will offer the opportunity to 

show users what they’re actually paying. The Federal Highway Administration and AASHTO have done an analysis that shows that, 

if users knew what they were actually paying to use the roads, it 

will affect their driving behavior. As a result, we’d be able to get 

about 30 percent more use out of our existing infrastructure than 

we’re currently getting now just by that feedback mechanism that’s 

created. So we will be able to do more with less even if it remains 

revenue neutral. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. As Mr. Burleson said, I think you would want 

to replace the gas tax with a VMT-type fee so that you do catch 

those vehicles who aren’t paying their fair share. As for transit 

funding, I don’t have an answer for that, but you’ve got to have a 

multi-modal transportation system. I come from an area where a 

third of the population is over 60 and in two weeks I’ll be one of 

those. So as our transit operator once told the traffic engineer, 

some day you’ll need me, so we do need to provide a transit system 

for those people who cannot drive any longer or should not be driving. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I would yield the balance of my time to Representative Brown. 

Mr. MICA. Ms. Brown, you’re recognized. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all of the witnesses 

and I would hope that in the future that we have more comprehensive of additional segments of the transportation issues to address 

us. At the idea that, you know, 50 years ago Eisenhower came up 

with the highway system and it was wonderful. It worked. I mean, 

it hooked our country up. 

But now we’re into another phase and we need additional—not 

that we don’t need the comprehensive highway system, someone 

here said, well, we need to change the formula. Let me explain 

something to you about changing the formula. Regardless of how 

many members you have in the House, you’ve got a hundred senVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:55 Jul 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULLCO~1\3-14-1~1\65738.TXT JEAN
34 

ators and not one of them want a change in the formula. It was 

a major issue for Florida to change that formula in 1992 working 

with Texas and California and you’re not going to get any changes 

because you don’t have any additional revenue to put in the funding. 

I guess I want to ask as many questions that I want to ask, but 

I guess I’ll go to the rail. We need a comprehensive rail. I understand we can’t have high-speed unless we have a dedicated source 

of tracks. But you mentioned the rail from Jacksonville to Miami. 

I am very supportive of that kind of rail, but regardless you’ve got 

to upgrade the tracks. We’re working on a loan program that work 

with that particular industry. It’s comprehensive. We need 

SunRail. We need a comprehensive transportation system. It is not 

just building another road. And, in fact, if we look at another road, 

basically it’s not the cost that tear it up. It’s the trucks and we 

don’t charge them what you have to charge them to run over the 

roads. 

So no form of transportation pays for itself whether it’s aviation, 

roads and, you know, there’s not really a real strong support in this 

room for a transit, but it was a part of it. So I guess I don’t have 

a lot of time until my time comes, but I can just ask you Mr. 

Bruno, tell me about the SunRail and how the communities have 

worked together to come up with another form of getting people out 

of one car on that road and putting in maybe 30 or 40,000 people 

a day traveling that route. 

Mr. BRUNO. Thank you, Representative Brown, for asking that 

question. I think it’s very important for us to have SunRail in 

Volusia County and in your opening remarks you have indicated 

that some 40,000 people travels Volusia County, Seminole and Orange County every day for employment. So it is very important. I 

also sit on the Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating 

Board so I know the needs of our community. 

We have—our senior population just gets more senior every day 

and we are not able to travel. Tourism is very important to Volusia 

County. You know, we have to start somewhere. SunRail is a good 

start. We envisioned having Amtrak hopefully coming down the 

east coast with a stop in the Daytona Beach area. SunRail from 

Daytona Beach hopefully to Orlando and then on to Tampa Bay in 

the future. And then for the Amtrak to continue down or highspeed to continue down—in the future down to the Miami Beach 

area. 

You can’t build any more lanes on I–4. It’s very dangerous. Even 

coming over here today, we probably would have been here an hour 

and a half earlier if it was not for the traffic on I–4. So thank you 

for asking the question. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Whitfield, you want to respond to that? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes. I agree that there’s more than just sticking 

the train on the track, but I believe that we have commitments 

from most of the cities along that area to provide for these stations 

as their part of the deal. The extension would also require construction of a crossing between the CSX track and the FEC track 

in West Palm Beach which will allow for the Amtrak service to continue to the south, but would also allow for the local commuter 

35 

service to extend into the northern end of Palm Beach County and 

eventually to the counties further up. 

In the northern part of Palm Beach County there is a large 

biotech area with Scripps and Max Planck and additional land set 

aside for about eight million square feet of related industries that 

would open up to more people—more jobs that would be available 

to a larger population. I might mention, too, that in South Florida 

we have ten- and twelve-laned sections of I–95 that still don’t work. 

Ms. BROWN. Let me just add with that, because I’m very supportive of the project that you’re talking about, but it relies on the 

Federal, state, local working together, and private. And it relies on 

accountable partners and if one partner is not accountable—because this whole project, whether it goes forward or not, is dependent on whether or not the Federal come up with the, I guess, seed 

money or whatever you want to say, to get the project going. So it 

takes a partnership and it takes not just the Federal Government 

putting up the money and then we don’t have no working relationship with the state and local, it takes all of that to make those 

projects work. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, it does. I believe you had over 160 resolutions and letters of support from all of the Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations, from all the cities, from all the counties that are involved. You’ve had strong commitment in the working relationship 

with those areas as far as the beginning of the planning phase of 

it, identifying property and making commitments for the stations 

themselves, working strongly with Amtrak—— 

Ms. BROWN. Sir, let me just say, also I’ve been working with the 

Federal Government with this project. It is a project that I think 

have a lot of possibilities. But once again, it still takes that partnership. What if the state decides, well, I don’t want to be a partner in this, so then what happens? What happens—you talk about 

how many resolutions. Do you know what is a resolution? We got 

all kinds of resolutions and the legislature will pass bills, what 

does that mean? As we go forward, we’ve got to make sure that it 

means something when a state commit money, when the locals 

commit money and the Federals commit money. And privates, their 

concern particularly with Florida, that you make commitments. 

What does that mean when you can just change your mind because 

you have an election? That is a problem when you’re talking about 

Federal taxpayer’s dollars. 

I yield back my—— 

Mr. MICA. Did you want to direct that question to—— 

Ms. BROWN. I don’t know who can answer it. Who can answer 

it? 

Mr. MICA. Did you want to comment—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I can’t really speak for the state of Florida. 

Ms. BROWN. No, you can’t. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. In the local area, I know that there are particular funds under the formulas, Federal funds allocated to the 

local areas for a decision. Many years ago Palm Beach County’s 

MPO put on the record a commitment of $25 million of those Federal funds that are allocated by formula to the Palm Beach MPO 

for an extension of train service to the northern end of Palm Beach 

County. And we anticipated that would be used as seed money to 

36 

match any Federal or state funds that come down for extension of 

those services and could become part of what would be needed for 

the Amtrak service. 

Ms. BROWN. Sir, from the state, if you can answer one question: 

What is the status of that study and when can we get a copy of 

it or do we have to subpoena it? We paid for it. 

Mr. PRASAD. Congresswoman Brown, the study was released last 

week and I’ll get you a copy of it this morning. 

Ms. BROWN. Do you have both studies that was done? 

Mr. PRASAD. We have actually the charge. The studies are not 

final until the end of the month because they’re going through a 

peer review, but the charge, both the studies on the ridership and 

revenues are available. Those were released last Tuesday and I will 

get you a copy of it this morning. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MICA. Recognize that young lady from Hawaii, Ms. Hirono. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the issues that 

this Committee has spent time on is really how we are going to pay 

for all of the different trust funds and this includes the Airport 

Trust Fund, the Highway Trust Fund, the Harbor Trust Fund and 

this whole idea of can we encourage more intermodal discussion, 

decision-making. I think one of the people testifying talked about 

how our system should really compliment each other, the different 

modes of transportation. And I think it was Mr. Lawless who particularly mentioned that. 

So would you suggest in our—in the Surface Transportation Bill 

that we encourage our systematize or institutionalize the need for 

these different modes of transportation entities to have to coordinate or talk to each other because that’s what you-all are having 

to do at the local and state levels now. Any thoughts, any comments, any of you? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I totally agree with you. One of the important 

things that we try to do in the area is to set everyone down in the 

same room to share our plans. We recently did a regional 

multimodal transportation plan that involved the transit operators 

for each of the three counties, the Commuter Rail Authority, the 

ports, the airports, the MPOs, all the people who are involved in 

providing the transportation services. Each of our long-range plans 

contain intermodal hubs that will provide for the ability to transfer 

from one mode to the other. 

It’s very important to make that as easy as possible for the public because they don’t want to transfer and change seats a lot of 

times and if they do have to change seats, it needs to be rapidly. 

So transportation hubs that provide for these intermodal shifts are 

very, very important to the process. 

Ms. HIRONO. Anyone else? 

So you would agree that we should try and put in some language 

into our transportation bill that would—we may actually have to 

force these different institutions to talk to each other, the aviation, 

the—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I’m not sure I want to say force, but maybe 

strongly encourage. 

Ms. HIRONO. Strongly encourage. 

37 

Mr. WHITFIELD. You need to keep in mind that it’s transportation 

mobility, moving people and goods, however it takes place in whatever mode. 

Ms. HIRONO. Agreed. 

I was curious, Mr. Lawless, about your experience with the Japanese high-speed train system. And you really made a good case for 

how important it is to have these trains run on their own tracks. 

Now Europe also has high-speed rail, do they have dedicated tracks 

in Europe, too? 

Mr. LAWLESS. They do and they also have shared track. So depending on the situation, they do run increasingly on their more 

dedicated newer lines fully-dedicated high-speed rail. When we say 

shared track there, we mean something a little bit different. It 

could be a similar-type vehicle only running at a lower speed, perhaps servicing other communities along the way. 

But if I may offer something to your previous question, because 

I think it was a very good question. In the last year or so working 

with the FDOT people on the previous project here in Tampa/Orlando, we were very, very encouraged by the attitude they took and 

the degree of planning that had gone into conceptualizing what 

multimodal connections would look like along that entire Tampa/ 

Orlando high-speed rail route. Recognizing that even where there 

were not stations now and even where there weren’t interconnections yet, the advent of the construction and the operation or 

maybe just the beginning of the construction and operation, would 

essentially create transit-oriented development centers which in 

and of themselves are very valuable to the community and would 

then draw the local planners, regional, metropolitan planners to 

adjust their local transit and multimodal systems be they bus, be 

they streetcar, be whatever they are to accommodate that new 

high-speed rail station and around that high-speed rail station create a real estate development opportunity and a tax revenue opportunity that otherwise never would have existed there. 

So there’s a lot to this and I think as you look at how the laws 

might be changed ever so slightly, there may be ways to incentivize 

people to build things simply because building a given rail line, 

high-speed rail line, SunRail, whatever, is going to create an opportunity for a transit-oriented development city center key to that. 

That has been the experience in Japan. It’s been the experience in 

Europe and it works. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you. I agree. 

I yield back. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, young lady. I’ll yield now to the gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Farenthold. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Prasad, in Texas and we heard a little bit about it earlier, 

we’re experimenting with totally additional capacity. Have you-all 

started doing that in Florida or is that something you-all are looking at, any successes or failures you can report? 

Mr. PRASAD. We have done I–95 express in Miami-Dade County, 

the first project to an urban partnership agreement where we 

added an additional lane of capacity to managed lanes, and it’s 

been great success. The general purpose lanes, the average traffic 

speed has gone from 20 miles an hour to 40 miles an hour and 

38 

we’re maintaining average speed through the express lanes at 50 

miles an hour. 

So again as I’ve mentioned in my testimony, express lanes and 

tolling new capacity on interstates will greatly enhance general 

purpose lanes, as is shown in Miami. The general purpose lanes 

are moving much faster than they’ve ever been because of our investments on the I–95 express lanes. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. And, Mr. Burleson, you were talking about the 

vehicle miles traveled tax. One of the concerns that I consistently 

hear about is the idea that big brother is watching you. Do you conceive of a system where we can eliminate the concerns that big 

brother is watching and knows where you are at all times through 

GPS’s in your car. 

Mr. BURLESON. Yes, sir, I do. I mean, I think that the full advantage of VMT ties itself into a GPS system where you can charge 

people different rates for driving at different times of the day or 

night. But I think you could have—— 

[Brief interruption.] 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. I don’t know if that’s me or you. 

Mr. BURLESON. I don’t know. Sorry. 

You can have something as simple as a reader that would simply 

read your mileage when you pulled into the gas station or the plugin or whatever you have, the number of miles you’ve driven since 

the last time you filled up, 325 miles, let’s say, and you’re charged 

a penny a mile or something like that. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. And, Mr. Lawless, you were relatively proud of Public-Private Partnership of the rail in Japan. 

There are several routes that are—I guess would be considered the 

plum routes for high-speed rail within the U.S., the northeast corridor in Texas we’ve got the Austin/San Antonio/Houston triangle. 

Here in Florida you’ve got one coming into here. 

What level—at what point is that something that could be done 

entirely by the private sector or how much is the government going 

to have to kick in? Could we just work on the right-of-way condemnation program with you? Or how much of the money are we 

going to have to throw in? My understanding of most rail services 

is it’s able to cover the operating costs pretty regularly, but there’s 

no reasonable way to recover the initial capital investment. 

Mr. LAWLESS. It’s an excellent question. I think it is totally corridor specific. That’s why I mentioned there’s a recent study by 

America 2050. I don’t know if you’re familiar with it. It treats 

Texas very aggressively and positively obviously, what will our 

country look like in 2050 and it looks at city pair or coupled city 

pairs. And I think by taking a look at those critical city pairs, and 

you have three of them in Texas, you can see pretty much where 

it’s going to be a reasonable proposition as long you have a minimum regulatory interference to build on a private basis or a very 

tight public-private basis. And by that I mean, that the state basically perhaps provides the right-of-way, perhaps on a lease basis, 

but otherwise gets out of the way of the private sector. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Is it entirely—basically entirely private? 

Mr. LAWLESS. Essentially private, but the right-of-way issue is 

very important and having that right-of-way to build a system, 

even if it is only 40-feet wide, is very important. 

39 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. We love our private property rights in Texas. 

Witness the Trans-Texas corridor. 

All right. I’ll yield back the remainder of my time. Thank you 

very much. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

And I’ll yield myself such time as I may consume here. I’m just 

making a note of some of the transportation initiatives for either 

high-speed or commuter rail in Central Florida. I wrote down, I 

know in 1983 when I was chief of staff for Senator Hawkins, she 

received the first $500,000 study. In 1989 there was—actually 

there was a state commission on rail, then there’s proposed demo 

project in ’92, then we had Lynx take over some of the projects. We 

had a light rail proposal back in ’98. That spent about $100 million. 

We have about $100 million into the current commuter rail proposal. All total I’d say the community’s spent about a quarter of a 

billion dollars and so far all we have is a bunch of studies to show 

for it, which is pretty frustrating because you can’t even get to the 

point of going forward with the project without having the preliminary engineering and study to get the cost. 

Maybe Mr. Bruno and our Assistant Secretary could tell us 

how—now this is only one example, Ms. Hirono—I know I was out 

in Hawaii 15 years ago with her predecessor, a wonderful lady 

who’s left us, but looked at the Honolulu light rail. Now that’s coming back finally, but they spent probably $100 million in just studying it. Either of you local official or state official, can you—is there 

anything we can do, we’ve been through three governors on some 

of these projects and huge amounts of money spent and not much 

progress. Mr. Bruno? 

Mr. BRUNO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question. I think 

that we have done everything we could possibly do. We have a 

great working relationship. It’s a great partnership with the Federal Government putting in 50 percent of the funds. The state putting in 25 percent—— 

Mr. MICA. Though the good stuff is nice, Mr. Bruno, but tell us 

about maybe the time, you know, these things going fast, you 

know, high speed forward or low gear or what. 

Mr. BRUNO. I’m anticipating that we’re still staying on track for 

the opening in 2013 of SunRail—— 

Mr. MICA. Well, my point though is: How long has this one been 

going on. 

Mr. BRUNO. For too many years, way too many years. 

Mr. MICA. Any idea of speeding up the process. 

Mr. BRUNO. I don’t know how we can speed up the progress anymore than we have. We’ve got all of our cities on board. We’ve got 

the train stations designed and ready to go. We’ve—— 

Mr. MICA. What you’re saying is you’ve done your part. Maybe 

you can tell us Mr. Prasad—— 

Mr. PRASAD. Well, as you know—— 

Mr. MICA [continuing]. The nice smooth Federal process. 

Mr. PRASAD. The discussion in the high-speed rail or SunRail is 

what is the return on investment. There’s a lot of discussion about 

transit-oriented development. We have a case that—— 

Mr. MICA. Well, you’re still not answering my question. My question is: The process, this goes on and on and on and we’re spending 

40 

a lot of money. Is it a smooth process that goes forward in a rapid 

order or can it be—can something be done to change that. 

Mr. PRASAD. I’m not so sure. These are complex projects and 

we’re focused on rail. But if you look at tunnel projects or major 

infrastructure projects, it takes a lot of years and a lot of partners 

and a lot of funding sources to make it happen. 

Mr. MICA. Well, those aren’t the answers that I was trying to get. 

There’s really—some of the process just goes on and on and approvals take so long and situations change. But what I’m looking for 

is changes in the Federal process so that this is—we aren’t wasting 

taxpayer’s money. We aren’t spending career after career of people’s lives pursuing these projects and getting nowhere. 

Maybe, Mr. Lawless, well, you did describe the Japanese projects 

and I guess they privatized, was that in ’87? 

Mr. LAWLESS. Yes, that’s correct. 

Mr. MICA. And since then you said that last year that—since the 

private takeover they’ve actually made money. 

Mr. LAWLESS. They’ve made money. Every year they pay down 

their debts and they’ve made money to the degree that they’ve now 

committed to build, on their own from their own resources, a $60 

billion complimentary system running on the same line. 

Mr. MICA. And I know you didn’t want to be critical of the 

Obama administration, but you said that they’re headed in the 

wrong direction and that they were—I guess 76 of the 78 awards 

went to Amtrak projects on freight rail lines, which—which would 

not necessarily separate that traffic or that kind of service; is that 

correct? 

Mr. LAWLESS. Yes, that’s correct. 

Mr. MICA. OK. Ms. Stone, you talked about—a little bit about the 

problems with the disadvantaged. And one of the things we’ve 

heard before is there’s a disconnect or problems between different 

types of transit services for the disadvantaged. There’s some Medicare, I guess, Medicaid, maybe veterans’ programs, there’s other 

public transportation. And it seems we’re going around in circles 

and sometimes spending too much money. 

We had Cathy Brown who heads the Counseling on Aging, what 

did she say, they had to drive 130 miles or something to get service. There’s a disconnect in providing some of these services. Could 

you elaborate? 

Ms. STONE. Yes, there certainly are still some major gaps in the 

coordinated system. But as I mentioned in my testimony, here in 

the state of Florida for over 30 years we have had a coordinated 

system that is working. It is—we have very good data to stand on. 

Our current issue is with the issue of health care. I think that’s 

everybody’s interest anymore and transportation for those folks 

that need to go to physician appointments and treatments, et 

cetera. And within the SAFETEA–LU it does require the government—or at least encourages government agencies to be purchasing transportation from a coordinated system so that you can 

have a shared ride, keep the costs down. We’re looking at, here in 

the state of Florida, the potential that the Medicaid patients will 

be put into—or are encouraged to go into private HMOs. And then 

those HMOs would have the ability to pull those patients from the 

coordinated system and do their own transportation or broker it 

41 

out thereby fracturing the coordinated system that we have had in 

place for so long. 

What you’re looking at is people that are used to calling one 

number to set up their transportation. If they’re going to a Medicaid compensable medical event, they’re going to have to call another number. They’re going to go in maybe a different vehicle. 

Then to go to the pharmacy to get a prescription filled, they have 

to call another number and go to another company. We’re very, 

very concerned about that in the state of Florida. And in doing 

some of research for this, it’s gone from over 100 something fragmented services in the United States down to maybe 80 that are 

bumping into each other. 

Again, I want to offer to the Federal Government our program 

here in Florida. It is award-winning. It’s a model and since the beginning of SAFETEA–LU, other states have looked to us to help 

them set up their coordinated system. We need help from Federal 

and state level to keep that coordinated system intact and to do 

whatever is necessary, listen to us, listen to the people who ride 

the system, listen to the people who have been funding the system, 

to the providers, to help us keep it together so that we’re not wasting money and wasting time. It’s a shame that it could take someone as long as two hours to get to a doctor’s appointment or get 

back. It shouldn’t be that way. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

Mr. Yarema, one of the keys to going forward is finding a good 

way to finance transportation. And you said, of course historically 

there are fewer grants and more loans. Some of you-all talked 

about leveraging to maybe three times whatever the figure was. I 

think South Carolina has for every public dollar they leverage, it’s 

seven. 

Can you think of any ways or recommend to the Committee how 

we could improve leveraging or financing specifically? I know you 

talked about changing some of the source and basis, but as a matter of leveraging, any ideas? 

Mr. YAREMA. Well, if you take an existing revenue stream, 

whether it’s a toll revenue stream or a tax revenue stream, if 

you’re interested in getting as much up front monies advanced for 

construction out of that given stream, private financing is preferable to municipal financing. So if we’re trying to jump start the 

economy and to create more jobs now, private financing is going to 

be more effective in doing that. That was proven with the two 

projects here in Florida—the I–95 managed lanes project and the 

Port of Miami tunnel project—and with the Texas and Virginia experience. 

So, by maximizing the use of TIFIA, in the form of subordinated 

debt, you are helping to attract non-Federal capital above it and 

below it, giving the public the best leverage for each Federal dollar 

spent on transportation capital improvements. 

Mr. MICA. So we’re very supportive, almost across the board, for the consolidation of programs. I was surprised to learn the $2,000 

limit Mr. Prasad said on Davis-Bacon or that threshold, and it’s not 

so much the terms, but the paperwork, is that what you said? 

Mr. PRASAD. Yes, Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. So we could look at some sort of an exception there. 

42 

And Mr. Whitfield brought up something the Committee hasn’t 

paid much attention to and I’m not sure how we do that. Support 

research and technology, sometimes it changes with transportation 

initiatives that we develop from that research, can move traffic 

faster and better. Any idea in how that should be structured, Mr. 

Whitfield? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Currently there are some Federal programs that 

do research into these types of things. It all comes under, I think, 

intelligent transportation services and that’s where we get the signalization coordination, the dynamic message signs on the interstate that tells you when there’s an accident ahead, all different 

types of things. 

Mr. MICA. Well, my question really deals more with how do you 

do that if we’re consolidating programs and probably won’t earmark programs like we have in the past. Any incentives, anything 

that could be held out there to—any innovative ways to get this accomplished and get people interested in intelligent transportation 

systems or reforms? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I think in some case it’s going to be the public 

is going to demand it because we can’t widen the roads anymore, 

so we’ve got to use it more smartly. So then we start looking at 

some type of competition as to how would you go about using this 

roadway more efficiently or what technologies are out there that 

could do a better job of providing these types of coordination or 

technology solutions so that we can implement those and move 

more traffic on what we have today. 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Burleson mentioned some stability. We gave you 

that through September, which is a minor miracle plucking that 

out last week. But there’s some people that say, well, let’s just do 

a short-term bill for a couple of years and maybe the finances will 

get better and we can go back and take a bite at it. My inclination 

is a six-year long-term bill and try to put as many innovations and 

financing, getting more and using less. 

What’s your recommendation on behalf of the Transportation 

Builders? 

Mr. BURLESON. Mr. Chairman, I agree with you completely. We 

need a six-year bill. 

Mr. MICA. He goes to the head of the class. 

All right. Well, it is hard to plan when you have sporadic policy 

and funding formulas. I think I’ve covered most of the questions 

that I had left here. The tolling issue is a touchy one. I banned tolls 

on the interstate through this part of Central Florida, which is in 

the current legislation only—and I would be a strong opponent to 

tolling any existing capacity. I think, Mr. Burleson, you recommended the same thing, existing capacity. Mr. Whitfield, you 

strayed from the path, but we’ll forgive you. 

The problem I have in Central Florida, we have about—from 

where you’re sitting right now we have about 150 miles of toll 

roads that were developed locally, not to mention the State Turnpike, which was another 150 miles of toll road all financed—when 

people—if they got on the interstate here and we only have Interstate 4 going through here, we have no bypasses. The only bypasses are toll roads that have been built by the community. PeoVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:55 Jul 06, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULLCO~1\3-14-1~1\65738.TXT JEAN
43 

ple pay twice, once at the pump and once at the toll booth. So 

that’s been my concern. 

And then nationally, I don’t believe you have an interstate system if you have a toll road every few miles. So the question on the 

balance of the footprint is a subject for discussion. Any recommendations, Mr. Whitfield? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I don’t stray entirely from that. We do call for 

the extension of the managed lanes that DOT has in the south up 

into Palm Beach County that would be toll lanes at that time. 

Mr. MICA. Well, that was a marginal project because we use 

some of the inside safety lane and an HOV lane, but that one got 

away. 

But your commentary was interesting because even with 12 

lanes of traffic, those dedicated lanes have—and I guess they got 

at least one more lane out of that having improved traffic flow 

down there. But if anyone wants a glimpse of what you don’t want 

to have, just go down to South Florida. I was there last weekend. 

Or out in Los Angeles where we did the hearing. I think I counted 

like 18 lanes and I couldn’t count them because I didn’t want be 

distracted at all, but I think I got to 18 and stopped. 

And then the development along those interstates, whether, 

again, you come to Miami or Los Angeles is not very desirable what 

happens when you get that much concrete or asphalt laid out. 

Any other members have questions? 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Rahall. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is in regard 

to NEPA Reform and the fact that we have five pilot projects underway currently. Or rather five pilot programs that allow five 

states to assume sovereignty, if you will, or responsibility over 

their NEPA obligations. Only one has participated, that being the 

state of California. And what we’ve heard from the other four, that 

their basic problem is that states are not willing to waive sovereign 

immunity. 

So my question would be: Would Florida be willing to assume 

this responsibility and waive your sovereign immunity? 

Mr. PRASAD. We’ll have to get back to you on that one. 

Mr. RAHALL. OK. But you understand the pilot programs that 

are in effect? 

Mr. PRASAD. Yes. 

And, if I may, the testimony I mentioned about the way to 

streamline some of the processes is to look at it on a state-by-state 

basis and see if the states have the sophistication and have laws 

in place and processes in place that far exceed what the Federal 

Government requires, then why create both sets of rules. I’m not 

saying—I think the pilot project can be expanded to where on a 

state-by-state basis the FHWA or the DOT secretary can certify the 

state—that the state has processes that far exceed the Federal 

standards so we don’t have duplicate business in the process. 

Mr. RAHALL. Right. I understand that call for reform and certainly it’s legitimate. I think the concern is that in planning documents there may not be sufficient quality and they would not develop with public participation. I think that’s an important point to 

not have those planning documents submitted where there was not 

44 

public participation involved in it. So that’s certainly a concern that 

a lot of members of our committee have in that regard. 

Mr. Yarema, you mentioned the PPP’s method of developing 

projects. And again, coming from a rural area, my concern there is 

that the private sector would cherry pick the revenues—the 

projects that have a revenue stream obviously, whereas in rural 

areas we may not have projects with sufficient revenue stream to 

attract a private sector for the PPP. 

Mr. YAREMA. That’s right. 

Mr. RAHALL. So what’s our problem? I mean, what’s our—— 

Mr. YAREMA. You know, in reality, rural districts should be the 

biggest champions for these kinds of programs because, if the 

urban areas are using less and less Federal funds because their 

projects are more self-sustaining, that means the limited Federal 

funds can be spread to the rural areas more aggressively. 

Mr. RAHALL. If we find those Federal funds. 

Mr. YAREMA. Whatever Federal funds there are. The idea is that, 

if an urban project can support itself or can do it with very little 

Federal support, that should be a desirable result for rural interests. State legislatures with significant rural constituencies are 

analyzing that concept, and the more and more they see it, the 

more and more they appreciate it. 

Mr. MICA. Ms. Brown. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just say, once again, this is an example why we need a 

broader participation because I and the Committee, we’ve had lots 

of discussion about super projects and how we streamline them and 

how can we cut down on the time. But it’s very important that we 

have kind of a one-stop committee process and have all of the other 

players in the room that can make a decision. But, for example, we 

were here today, we were talking about the Davis-Bacon Act. I 

mean, we can’t just change Davis-Bacon with nobody being here 

from Labor. So everybody got to be in the room when you’re discussing major changes in any programs just for the information of 

everybody in the room. 

Mr. Burleson, I have a question for you because we had a lot of 

discussion and I voted for a stimulus bill that we—you know, nobody was really in favor of it, but we monitored the transportation 

dollars, every dime. We saw what projects, what roles and the status of it, and I want to know how your people benefited from those 

stimulus dollars in Florida. 

Mr. BURLESON. It was great for us. I only wish there was more. 

Ms. BROWN. I understand it was great for you, but how many 

jobs—do you know—I mean, one of the things that happened here 

in Florida is that none of the projects—no one knew, you know, it 

was just like it came from anywhere, the mayor, it came from us, 

it came from the Federal Government trying to make sure that we 

help trying to pull the economy around, but no one knew it because 

it had no indication that they were Federal dollars. So could you 

tell me how many jobs we generated. 

Mr. BURLESON. I can’t give you a specific number, but I can tell 

you that not only did it generate jobs, I think what it did more 

than that is it prevented an awful lot of people in our industry 

from being laid off, which I think is the same. 

45 

Ms. BROWN. Oh, I think so. I think so. 

OK. Mr. Lawless, I’m very—I traveled all over the world with the 

high-speed rail and, of course, I like the dedicated sources. We 

have the number one freight in the world and we want to keep it 

that way. But in some areas we can coexist and have more speed 

or better speed if we fix some of the tones. 

But this project, the high-speed project in Florida was the project 

that was ready to go. It started with Bob Graham some years ago, 

Lawton Childs, all of the environmental studies was done, we had 

many, many private partners, maybe you was one of them that 

wanted to participate, but the key is that we knew that it would 

be the first real high-speed in Florida and then we want it to go 

on to Miami, which we knew was a money maker. 

Can you tell me anything about—you know, there’s been discussions and I think some people just kind of stuck-on stupid when 

it comes to giving misinformation. Can you tell me whether or 

not—what you think about the project? Because it didn’t just happen, it took a lot of work, the people up here over a period of years 

to get it to happen. There was no other project in the entire country that had a 90 percent funding and it wasn’t money from a foreign source, it was our tax dollars coming back to Florida. 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Lawless. 

Mr. LAWLESS. Yes, a couple of comments. 

Absolutely this project was shuttle ready and the finest highspeed rail, true high-speed rail project in the United States and in 

fact it would have become the poster child for all high-speed rail 

in the United States. Every aspect of this—in the year that we’ve 

been associated with it as one of the eight competing teams, we’ve 

been exceptionally pleased with the quality of the interaction we’ve 

had with the FDOT people who are very well-prepared in this 

whole process, they’ve done their homework. 

I think the big disappointment for all of the competitors—I can’t 

speak for them, but I will—is that we assumed the process would 

be one where the feasibility study was released, people could then 

take on more of what was there and what wasn’t there with the 

updated statistics. And based on that, we would be able to make 

much better decisions about the degree to which we were willing 

to share in the risk of the project. And then the next process would 

have been, as you know, soon following on the release of the request for information, which would have been, again, stimulated 

the eight teams to make their proposals. 

The only negative side I would say, there is something I mentioned in my testimony, and, again, FDOT was there with us the 

whole time and worked very hard on this. We were very pleased 

with the dialogue we had with them. Was the lack of regulatory 

certainty. There were huge issues related to the standards that 

were going to be applied to this system, very unfortunately. And 

because of that regulatory uncertainty, many of us had real problems with what we would eventually build. But that said, we could 

have worked through that I think and reached a conclusion with 

FRA, with the support, again, a very well-organized FDOT. So we 

were disappointed that things did not progress. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you gentlemen and the young lady. 

46 

What we’ll do, we’re going to have to complete the hearing at this 

time. The members do have a vote on the floor at 6:30 and we have 

one opportunity to catch a flight at 1:30. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Mica? Excuse me. 

Mr. MICA. Yes, Ms. Brown. 

Ms. BROWN. You know, I represent the area with you and last 

night at the dinner discussion we were discussing Eatonville. And 

so Ms. N.Y. Nathiri is here and she has a little information—I’m 

not going to call it a gift—for each of the members so they would 

know something about our area. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you so much. N.Y. Nathiri, we’re so 

pleased to have her. She has just done an incredible job, actually 

put together the Zora Neale Hurston Festival over the years. You’ll 

be pleased to know, Ms. Nathiri, too, I took all of the members to 

a quick little tour before the hearing to Eatonville and actually 

showed them the memorial and provided Ms. Hirono, and the other 

members will have available Dust Tracks on the Road, which is the 

autobiography of our favorite daughter of Eatonville. But thank 

you so much for coming and for your hospitality today and remembering the members. 

Ms. NATHIRI. Absolutely. 

Chairman Mica, we go back a very long way. And on behalf of 

the Association to Preserve the Eatonville Community, I just want 

to acknowledge that back in 1989 you led the effort to actually 

make that so, so it’s good to be in your district. And, of course, 

we’re very proud that Congresswoman Corrine Brown represents 

us. 

On behalf of Mayor Brown we have just a token, a book here on 

Zora Neale Hurston and we hope that you will come back in August of 2012 when Historic Eatonville celebrates its 125th anniversary as the oldest incorporated African American municipality in 

the United States. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you again. Thank you for your wonderful leadership and making your great American well-known who hasn’t 

been known and deserves that notoriety for her incredible cultural 

and literary contributions. 

Also, I want to thank our witnesses for being with us and appreciate your testimony. We will leave the record open, as you heard. 

I thank the members for traveling long distances and what we’ll 

do, too, is we don’t want to ignore anyone, but we’ve got to request 

the members if they could please—we’ll have a few minutes for just 

comments to the press at the back of the room to the side. And 

with that, we’ll end. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. MICA. We’ll go forward to catch that 1:30 plane. 

Ms. BROWN [continuing]. Just one question logistically, if someone didn’t testify but they want to put information on the record, 

because I know Linda Stewart is here and she wanted to, on the 

environmental—— 

Mr. MICA. Anyone that would like to submit any information, 

Mr. Rahall has passed a resolution leaving the record open for a 

period of two weeks. They could submit their testimony or recommendations, commentary to Ms. Brown, myself or to the panel, 

and we’ll make it part of the record. 

47 

We thank everyone for attending. There being no further business before the Committee of the House Representatives on Transportation and Infrastructure, this meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

48 


Insert offset folio 15 here 65738.015
49 


Insert offset folio 16 here 65738.016
50 


Insert offset folio 17 here 65738.017
51 


Insert offset folio 18 here 65738.018
52 


Insert offset folio 19 here 65738.019
53 


Insert offset folio 20 here 65738.020
54 


Insert offset folio 21 here 65738.021
55 


Insert offset folio 22 here 65738.022
56 


Insert offset folio 23 here 65738.023
57 


Insert offset folio 24 here 65738.024
58 


Insert offset folio 25 here 65738.025
59 


Insert offset folio 26 here 65738.026
60 


Insert offset folio 27 here 65738.027
61 


Insert offset folio 28 here 65738.028
62 


Insert offset folio 29 here 65738.029
63 


Insert offset folio 30 here 65738.030
64 


Insert offset folio 31 here 65738.031
65 


Insert offset folio 32 here 65738.032
66 


Insert offset folio 33 here 65738.033
67 


Insert offset folio 34 here 65738.034
68 


Insert offset folio 35 here 65738.035
69 


Insert offset folio 36 here 65738.036
70 


Insert offset folio 37 here 65738.037
71 


Insert offset folio 38 here 65738.038
72 


Insert offset folio 39 here 65738.039
73 


Insert offset folio 40 here 65738.040
74 


Insert offset folio 41 here 65738.041
75 


Insert offset folio 42 here 65738.042
76 


Insert offset folio 43 here 65738.043
77 


Insert offset folio 44 here 65738.044
78 


Insert offset folio 45 here 65738.045
79 


Insert offset folio 46 here 65738.046
80 


Insert offset folio 47 here 65738.047
81 


Insert offset folio 48 here 65738.048
82 


Insert offset folio 49 here 65738.049
83 


Insert offset folio 50 here 65738.050
84 


Insert offset folio 51 here 65738.051
85 


Insert offset folio 52 here 65738.052
86 


Insert offset folio 53 here 65738.053
87 


Insert offset folio 54 here 65738.054
88 


Insert offset folio 55 here 65738.055
89 


Insert offset folio 56 here 65738.056
90 


Insert offset folio 57 here 65738.057
91 


Insert offset folio 58 here 65738.058
92 


Insert offset folio 59 here 65738.059
93 


Insert offset folio 60 here 65738.060
94 


Insert offset folio 61 here 65738.061
95 


Insert offset folio 62 here 65738.062
96 


Insert offset folio 63 here 65738.063
97 


Insert offset folio 64 here 65738.064
98 


Insert offset folio 65 here 65738.065
99 


Insert offset folio 66 here 65738.066
100 


Insert offset folio 67 here 65738.067
101 


Insert offset folio 68 here 65738.068
102 


Insert offset folio 69 here 65738.069
103 


Insert offset folio 70 here 65738.070
104 


Insert offset folio 71 here 65738.071
105 


Insert offset folio 72 here 65738.072
106 


Insert offset folio 73 here 65738.073
107 


Insert offset folio 74 here 65738.074
108 


Insert offset folio 75 here 65738.075
109 


Insert offset folio 76 here 65738.076
110 


Insert offset folio 77 here 65738.077
111 


Insert offset folio 78 here 65738.078
112 


Insert offset folio 79 here 65738.079
113 


Insert offset folio 80 here 65738.080
114 


Insert offset folio 81 here 65738.081
115 


Insert offset folio 82 here 65738.082
116 


Insert offset folio 83 here 65738.083
117 


Insert offset folio 84 here 65738.084
118 


Insert offset folio 85 here 65738.085
119 


Insert offset folio 86 here 65738.086
120 


Insert offset folio 87 here 65738.087
121 


Insert offset folio 88 here 65738.088
122 


Insert offset folio 89 here 65738.089
123 


Insert offset folio 90 here 65738.090
124 


Insert offset folio 91 here 65738.091
125 


Insert offset folio 92 here 65738.092
126 


Insert offset folio 93 here 65738.093
127 


Insert offset folio 94 here 65738.094
128 


Insert offset folio 95 here 65738.095
129 


Insert offset folio 96 here 65738.096
130 


Insert offset folio 97 here 65738.097
131 


Insert offset folio 98 here 65738.098
132 


Insert offset folio 99 here 65738.099
133 


Insert offset folio 100 here 65738.100
134 


Insert offset folio 101 here 65738.101
135 


Insert offset folio 102 here 65738.102
136 


Insert offset folio 103 here 65738.103
137 


Insert offset folio 104 here 65738.104
138 


Insert offset folio 105 here 65738.105
139 


Insert offset folio 106 here 65738.106
140 


Insert offset folio 107 here 65738.107
141 


Insert offset folio 108 here 65738.108
142 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 109 here 65738.109