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

81–260 PDF 2013

HOW SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION CHALLENGES IMPACT THE NATION 

(113–21) 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

PANEL ON 

21st-CENTURY FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 30, 2013 (San Bernardino, California) 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

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

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

VACANCY 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

PANEL ON 21ST-CENTURY FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, Chairman 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JANICE HAHN, California 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... iv 

TESTIMONY 

Kome Ajise, Deputy Director for Planning and Modal Programs, California 

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

Hasan Ikhrata, Executive Director, Southern California Association of Governments ............................................................................................................... 5 

Marnie O’Brien Primmer, Executive Director, Mobility 21 ................................. 5 

Scott Moore, Vice President for Public Affairs, Union Pacific Railroad .............. 5 

Michael K. Fox, Chief Executive Officer, Fox Transportation ............................. 5 

Rick Richmond, Former Chief Executive Officer, Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority .............................................................................................. 5 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Kome Ajise ............................................................................................................... 37 

Hasan Ikhrata .......................................................................................................... 45 

Marnie O’Brien Primmer ........................................................................................ 55 

Scott Moore .............................................................................................................. 58 

Michael K. Fox ......................................................................................................... 64 

Rick Richmond ......................................................................................................... 68 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

John S. Halikowski, Director, Arizona Department of Transportation, written 

testimony .............................................................................................................. 73 

Anne Mayer, Executive Director, Riverside County Transportation Commission, written testimony ........................................................................................ 85 

Janice Rutherford, President, San Bernardino Associated Governments, letter 

to Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Tennessee, May 24, 2013 ................................................................................. 93 

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env., Executive Officer, South Coast Air Quality 

Management District, letter to Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Tennessee, June 7, 2013 ................................... 96 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 81260.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 81260.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 81260.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 81260.004
(1) 

HOW SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FREIGHT 

TRANSPORTATION CHALLENGES IMPACT 

THE NATION 

THURSDAY, MAY 30, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

PANEL ON 21ST-CENTURY FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The panel met, pursuant to call, at 1:30 p.m., at 1170 W. 3rd 

Street, San Bernardino, California, Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr. 

(Chairman of the panel) presiding. 

Mr. DUNCAN. The panel will please come to order. Good afternoon, and I want to welcome everyone to this field hearing before 

the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Panel on 21stCentury Freight Transportation. 

Before we begin, the first order of business is to ask unanimous 

consent that Representative Grace Napolitano be permitted to join 

the panel for today’s hearing. Hearing no objection, that will be so 

ordered. 

This special panel was created by Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to examine the current state of freight transportation in the 

United States and how improving freight transportation can 

strengthen the United States economy. 

We have traveled to southern California because this region is 

one of the most important trade gateways in the entire country. 

There are many facilities in this area, as all of you know, that are 

critical to the efficient movement of goods into and out of and 

around the Nation. While we have the best system in the world, 

we always have to seek to try to do better, do more, and improve 

it constantly. 

The freight system in this region is truly multimodal, incorporating marine ports, border crossings, interstate highways, multiple Class I railroads, numerous State highway routes, air cargo 

facilities, intermodal facilities, and distribution and warehouse 

clusters. More than 43 percent of the Nation’s containerized imports enter the country through southern California and go all over 

the place. We heard yesterday that coming into the Ports of Long 

Beach and Los Angeles, that 75 percent of those goods go out to 

all across the Nation. They make their way to every State, every 

congressional district, supporting billions of dollars of local economic activity, and millions of jobs. The southern California freight 

2 

network tangibly impacts the lives of customers all across this Nation. 

We have an excellent panel of witnesses before us today. I am 

confident that they will be able to help us understand the unique 

freight transportation challenges facing southern California and 

how those issues impact the rest of the Nation. 

Let me just add a few things. I am in my 25th year in the Congress. I have participated in field hearings on all sorts of topics all 

across this country. Ordinarily, any committee in the Congress is 

lucky to have two or three Members travel and take time out from 

their districts or their family time to come participate in extra field 

hearings over and above what we do in Washington. I am amazed 

that 10 of the 11 Members appointed to this panel came to participate in our activities here in southern California. 

And then we have had local representation. Congressman 

Lowenthal has participated. Congresswoman Napolitano is with us 

today. I know Members of Congress sometimes are criticized. But 

I can tell you, to stay in office with just a 2-year term, you have 

to work nights and weekends and holidays. And I can also tell you 

that every Member of Congress, if they want to stay in office, they 

have to spend a lot of time at home in their districts, and all of 

these Members have taken time out that they could have been or 

should have been in their districts, or even perhaps on vacation. I 

think Congresswoman Hahn rearranged a vacation that she had 

planned, and we certainly appreciate that. These are dedicated 

Members. 

We are trying to learn. We want to hear specific suggestions. We 

hope that you will come up with some specific ideas or suggestions 

for things that need to be done, ways to make things better. 

I am going to introduce the witnesses in just a few minutes. 

First, before I call on the ranking member, Mr. Nadler, yesterday 

we were in Congresswoman Hahn’s district and I had her welcome 

the group to her district, and I would like to call on my friend, Congressman Miller, to make whatever comments he wishes to make 

at this point. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I would like to welcome you to the 

31st Congressional District, known as the Inland Empire. As we 

sat at the harbor yesterday, we looked at the containers, where 80 

percent were coming through my district, either to stay here or just 

pass through, and the impact is dramatic. 

I would like to thank SANBAG, Ray Wolfe and Wendy Strack for 

their hospitality here. They put this event on. This is very last moment, and we appreciate that opportunity. 

I remember back in 1999, Mr. Chairman, the first field hearing 

you had was in my district also, at Ontario Airport. That was the 

41st Congressional District. Now your first field hearing again is 

in the 31st Congressional District. So I want to welcome you and 

my colleagues. 

It is important that you see the impact that we face in southern 

California from the amount of cargo that is shipped through our 

areas and the needs we have to deal with air pollution and the 

quality of life and the freeway traffic we have. 

And I have some good friends, former manager of the L.A. Dodgers, Fred Claire, is here. 

3 

Stand up, Fred. 

This is our Dodger buddy here. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I have some good friends, Supervisor 

Ovitt here, some other Members, friends of mine, and just welcome 

to the 31st Congressional District. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I can’t resist telling you this. I spent 51⁄2

years as batboy for the AA Knoxville Smokies baseball team. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DUNCAN. I think I should be in Cooperstown, because I don’t 

think anybody was ever a batboy that long. But back in those days, 

minor league baseball was really minor league, and I did it the 

first season and a half for free and the next four for $1.50 a game. 

They couldn’t get anybody else to do it that cheaply. 

But we had a dinner in my district a year and a half ago, and 

Pete Rose, the famous baseball player, sat next to me at the head 

table. He was the main speaker. I told him I had been batboy for 

the Knoxville Smokies when he played for the Macon Peaches, and 

I was probably 12 or 13 at the time. But when he got up to speak, 

he said, Congressman Duncan, he said I wish you were a Senator. 

But then he said, but you were 9 years old when I played at 

Macon? He said, what the hell happened to you? He said, I thought 

I was sitting next to Colonel Sanders up here. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DUNCAN. I still love baseball. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DUNCAN. Let me just say one other thing before I call on Mr. 

Nadler. People get the wrong idea. They think we all hate each 

other in Washington, and that is so untrue because most of us get 

along really well with each other. That is especially true on the 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, because we frequently say that there is no such thing as a Republican road or a 

Democratic road or various things. So even though I am sometimes 

referred to as the chairman of this panel, I consider myself to be 

the Republican cochair, and Jerry Nadler from New York to be the 

Democratic cochair. So I consider him of equal rank to me, and I 

would like to call on him at this time. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. NADLER. I thank you for your graciousness, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for yielding the time. 

Last month, at the first hearing of the Panel on 21st-Century 

Freight Transportation of the House Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. It is a New York phone. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. NADLER [continuing]. I noted that we needed to examine 

freight challenges across the entire supply chain and develop 

multimodal freight solutions. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your 

leadership in bringing the House Transportation Committee’s 

Panel on 21st-Century Freight Transportation to southern California, because we have seen firsthand some of the challenges and 

solutions of moving goods through the supply chain by air, water, 

rail, and highway. 

4 

Yesterday, we toured the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, 

the eighth busiest port complex in the world, and learned of their 

logistics operations in moving 14 million TEUs from vessels that 

get bigger and bigger with each passing year. Today we saw firsthand how that freight must move from the ports to the Los Angeles 

Basin, through the Alameda Corridor, the Alameda Corridor-East 

and Colton Crossing to the Inland Empire and east to the rest of 

the Nation. 

Whether at LAX, the port complex, or the Alameda Corridor and 

ACE, a common thread found in each of these meetings is the critical role that these transportation facilities play in creating jobs 

and growing the economy not only in southern California but of the 

entire country. Moreover, time and time again we have heard that 

the Federal Government plays an important catalytic role in helping to finance these critical transportation investments. 

Replacing the Gerald Desmond Bridge, which we are told carries 

15 percent of all the freight in the country, with its crumbling concrete and low clearances, with a $1 billion new span is clearly important to the Port of Long Beach in southern California, but it is 

also critically important to goods movement in the entire country. 

Making the highway rail grade crossing investments of the Alameda Corridor-East project is important to the San Gabriel Valley, 

but without this investment traffic delays at crossings could increase by 300 percent, and that is a grave concern not only for 

southern California but to the manufacturers awaiting parts in 

Kansas City and elsewhere. 

These projects, both of which received large congressionally directed Projects of National and Regional Significance funding in 

2005, clearly illustrate the catalytic role that Federal investments 

can play in financing freight projects. 

Moreover, as we have heard throughout this visit and we will 

hear again from our witnesses today, it is extremely difficult for individual States to dedicate a significant part of their limited infrastructure investment resources to one of these high-cost projects 

because freight does not vote. We have often said this country is 

governed by a one-person, one-vote rule, but not a one-container, 

one-vote rule, and freight, as a result, sometimes gets short shrift. 

The cost of these projects are extremely high, often in the billions 

of dollars, and the benefits are diffuse. Thus, States are often unwilling to expend their limited Federal and State resources on 

these big-ticket investments, especially when voters are much more 

interested in seeing ribbon cuttings that will benefit them directly 

for things like highways, mass transit, and commuter rail. 

However, the Federal Government can weigh the broader job creation, economic, environmental and trade export benefits of these 

projects. It is for these reasons that I strongly support providing 

guaranteed Federal funding and a robust program of guaranteed 

Federal funding for the Projects of National and Regional Significance Program. In addition, we should focus these investments on 

freight projects that will greatly benefit the Nation. It is our opportunity, this special task force, to give freight a vote. We can be the 

catalyst to get the economy moving again and provide for the longterm economic growth of the Nation. 

5 

But we must provide, in the next transportation bill, in my opinion, and I hope the witnesses will address this, a program for investments of national and regional significance, and a well-funded 

one. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for leading this enlightening 

committee visit, and I look forward to our witnesses’ testimony. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much. 

Before we get to the next person, let me just very quickly introduce the members of this panel. Most of you or many of you probably know Congresswoman Janice Hahn, who headed up our program yesterday. 

Congressman Albio Sires from New Jersey. 

Congressman Dan Lipinski from Chicago. 

Most of you know Congresswoman Grace Napolitano from southern California. 

Congresswoman Corrine Brown from Jacksonville, Florida. 

You just heard from Congressman Jerry Nadler. 

You know Congressman Gary Miller. 

Congressman Richard Hanna from New York, just outside of Syracuse. 

Congressman Markwayne Mullin, who is a very successful businessman, but also a former rodeo bull rider. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DUNCAN. So we have a wide variety on this panel. 

Our witnesses today. The first witness is Mr. Kome Ajise, the 

deputy director for planning and modal programs for the California 

Department of Transportation. 

The next witness is Mr. Hasan Ikhrata, executive director of the 

Southern California Association of Governments. 

Ms. Marnie O’Brien Primmer, who is the executive director of 

Mobility 21. 

Mr. Scott Moore, vice president for public affairs of Union Pacific 

Railroad. 

Mr. Mike Fox, CEO of Fox Transportation. 

And finally, Mr. Rick Richmond, former chief executive officer of 

Alameda Corridor-East Construction Authority. 

So all of your full statements will be placed in the record, as is 

traditional in all hearings. We ask that you limit your oral presentations to 5 minutes. 

And, Mr. Ajise, we will start with you, please. 

TESTIMONY OF KOME AJISE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING AND MODAL PROGRAMS, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT 

OF TRANSPORTATION; HASAN IKHRATA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS; MARNIE O’BRIEN PRIMMER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

MOBILITY 21; SCOTT MOORE, VICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC 

AFFAIRS, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD; MICHAEL K. FOX, 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FOX TRANSPORTATION; AND 

RICK RICHMOND, FORMER CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ALAMEDA CORRIDOR-EAST CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY 

Mr. AJISE. Thank you very much, Chair Duncan and Ranking 

Member Nadler, for coming out here, distinguished panel members. 

6 

It is our delight to have you here in California, and especially in 

southern California. 

We appreciate the opportunity to testify before you. We feel like 

it is a recognition of this panel’s—the panel’s recognition of the 

critical nature of southern California’s place in the national freight 

system is why we are here today, and we really appreciate that. 

It is our hope that such awareness by this panel and the work of 

this committee will result in a stronger Federal partnership in developing a freight movement infrastructure, especially in southern 

California. 

With the Los Angeles region having the sixth largest economy in 

the world, southern California’s freight transportation challenges 

are indeed the Nation’s challenges. Fortunately, the Nation is exceptionally well served by the complex and continually improving 

southern California freight system. The region’s seaports, airports, 

ports of entry, railroads, roadways, and intermodal yards, as well 

as trans-loading facilities and warehouses not only support the 

freight mobility that serves approximately 40 percent of the Nation’s international container shipments, but it also clearly is the 

greenest and the cleanest of any part of the national system, if not 

on the planet. 

This unparalleled freight volume that we have coming through 

southern California does indeed present challenges to the region, 

but also impacts the Nation. The State of California and the southern California region have been very proactive in addressing many 

of those challenges, resulting in reduced regional impacts and sustained benefits to the Nation. 

There is also a need for a stronger Federal presence, we believe, 

and a need for a greater level of Federal fiscal involvement in addressing the southern California freight issues as a result. We believe a dedicated source of freight funding is needed that does not 

siphon funding from other transportation funds that are also very 

important. 

As the ninth largest economy in the world, California has long 

recognized the need to support the freight industry so that our 

economy will continue to be a global leader. In 2007, the State 

issued a comprehensive State freight plan known as the Goods 

Movement Action Plan. In many respects, we think the GMAP, or 

the Goods Movement Action Plan, has been a template for some of 

the policies that have come out in MAP–21, and we are gratified 

by that. 

California’s adoption of the Goods Movement Action Plan had a 

companion fiscal element that brought new State revenues through 

a voter-approved bond process to the table. In 2006, Prop 1–B bond 

program devoted $2 billion to the Trade Corridor Improvement 

Fund. The bond funds attracted a wide range of additional private, 

local, regional and Federal funds, resulting in a current program 

of about 69 freight projects valued at about $6.5 billion, with the 

majority of those projects in southern California. 

The Trade Corridor Improvement Funds project included seven 

seaport projects to the tune of $1.3 billion; six railroad projects, 

about half-a-billion of that; about 28 railroad grade crossing 

projects, about $2 billion of that; and about 15 highway projects, 

to the tune of about $1.4 billion. 

7 

MAP–21 includes designation of a national priority freight network that will consist of no more than 30,000 highway miles nationwide. Our department and some of our regional partners have 

analyzed California’s highway system to identify which routes 

carry the highest truck volumes. One of the significant challenges 

we have in southern California is that some of the most critical 

high-volume routes are not interstate highways. They are State 

highways that may be overlooked as part of the national freight 

policy consideration because the data that we are using to determine those are not typically ones that are collected by the Federal 

Highway Administration, especially under the freight analysis 

framework. 

Of particular concern to us in southern California are State 

Routes 57, 58, 60 and 91, among many others. These are high-volume State routes that are not interstates that do indeed carry and 

shoulder a lot of the freight volume in southern California, and 

most of this volume, as the chairman has stated, are goods moving 

out of the State to other parts of the country. 

In a related matter, the vast majority of the containerized cargo 

that comes into and leaves the ports are packed into standard 20- 

or 40-foot marine containers. Many of these containers arrive in 

other ports, are loaded directly onto trains at the ports and are 

hauled to locations throughout the country. Many more of these 

containers are transported by truck to trans-loading facilities 

where they are unloaded and repacked into 53-foot containers that 

are put on tractor rigs and then trucked to distant locations. The 

truck trips between the ports and these trans-loading facilities are 

not counted. So these are also elements of the system that are left 

out. 

In conclusion, based on the MAP–21 guidelines, the State has 

formed a Freight Advisory Committee to assist us in developing a 

freight mobility plan and to provide advice to us. This committee 

cuts across a large cross-section, and we expect that that group will 

have more to bring to the table in freight conversations. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Ikhrata? 

Mr. IKHRATA. Chairman Duncan, Congressman Nadler and Congressman Miller, distinguished members of the panel, thank you 

for being here. Thank you for coming to southern California. It is 

a privilege to be in front of you testifying about an issue that is 

very important to 191 cities, 6 counties, and over 18 million residents that my organization represents. 

I am sure you heard a lot of the things over the past few days 

about how important goods movement is to southern California. 

What I am going to do today is present to you some of the challenges and opportunities and some of the recommendations as you 

work on your panel’s recommendations. 

Our board, which represents 191 cities—our president, Greg 

Pettis, is here, and some of our board members are here today— 

appreciate very much your work on MAP–21, the bipartisan manner in which MAP–21 was enacted. We think that work set the 

stage for your work now on this important issue. 

Our agency, along with other agencies, has worked over the last 

20 years, as Congresswoman Hahn would know in her time at 

8 

SCAG, to highlight that goods movement is an important issue. 

The issues we put on the table are issues that are national in nature, and not only specific to southern California. You mentioned, 

Chairman, 43 percent of the containers move through our largest 

port complex. We have the fifth largest airport that handles about 

$70 billion of high-value goods. We have Port Hueneme in Ventura 

County, which handled about $7 billion in 2012 of automobile and 

agricultural product. We have border crossings with our largest 

trading partner, Mexico. All of this together creates more than 

60,000 jobs directly, 1.6 million jobs related, and over $30 billion 

local, State, and Federal revenues. So this is not small change 

when we talk about our ports. 

I just want you to know that in 2012, our ports handled about 

12 million 20-foot equivalent units—TEUs. Any forecast you look at 

says that will grow—there is a national forecast which says this 

number is going to go to 60 million in 2020, or our Ports Capacity 

Forecast, which says we are going to have 42 million containers 

shipped through the ports by 2035. Add to that the fact that southern California is the third largest manufacturing center in the 

United States. It is only after the State of California and the State 

of Texas. All of this says that we are not only shipping the goods 

to the rest of the Nation, but we need the infrastructure to make 

sure that these goods continue to move in a very safe manner. 

In the last 20 years, working with our partners, stakeholders, 

public and private, we put together a regional transportation plan, 

a freight regional transportation plan that was approved by the 

Federal Government and the State government, that was applauded by our partners, environmental groups, private sector, 

public sector, our transportation agencies. This plan identified $60 

billion worth of investments needed to make sure southern California will continue to be the gateway for the rest of the Nation. 

It is important for any discussion—and I am sure you hear this, 

and you probably don’t want to hear it anymore—but a Federal 

role in this important issue for our Nation is paramount. We cannot continue to slip. When you look at reports that rank our Nation’s infrastructure 17th, down from 7th just 5 years ago, I am 

sure you don’t want that. We want to be number 1. We deserve to 

be number 1. 

Therefore, there is definitely a Federal role that our board feels 

very strongly that you should play, and oftentimes you probably 

think, oh, they are asking for money. We are not. We are asking 

for money, yes, but this is not the Federal role we are talking 

about. 

Our Nation needs to continue to be competitive globally. Our Nation’s competitiveness depends on how well we do in providing the 

infrastructure in this region. 

I want to conclude by saying this. First, we all heard about the 

Highway Trust Fund and the fact that the Highway Trust Fund’s 

imbalance has to be dealt with. We can’t ignore it. Very soon we 

are going to run out of money. Now, there are all kinds of options— 

user fees, taxes, whatever options, a combination of all those options. But as our national leaders, you want to make sure that you 

balance that. 

9 

Second, a Federal funding source that does not compete with existing sources is needed for goods movement. I know we don’t have 

enough money to fund everything, but we also have a role as a national government to play in making sure we accelerate project delivery. According to our State Department of Transportation, a 

major project right now takes 17 years to build. We hired six economists, independent economists throughout southern California that 

say if we accelerate that by 5 years, we save billions of dollars, and 

we create a lot of jobs in accelerating by just 5 years. 

And we appreciate the Federal agencies. We know there are Federal staff here. We work well with them together. You need to empower them to do more so we can accelerate the movement that we 

talked about. 

And lastly, the public expects us to use the dollar wisely, and one 

way to use that dollar wisely is to make sure when we move it, we 

move it fast, safe. I would ask you to support H.R. 974 that some 

of the members authored here that puts forth a freight fund that 

is competitively handled, not formula driven, based on competitive 

grants. 

I applaud your hearing today. I appreciate being in front of you. 

I am grateful for you to be here, and I will be happy to answer the 

questions of this panel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Primmer? 

Ms. PRIMMER. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nadler and 

Mr. Miller. Thank you and welcome to your district. My name is 

Marnie Primmer. I am the executive director of Mobility 21, and 

we represent 21 million Americans here in southern California, 

about 7 counties, from Ventura all the way down to San Diego and 

Imperial. One of our partners is SCAG, and I am very grateful to 

hear them championing one of the issues that we feel is a huge solution for freight, and that is a dedicated source of funding that is 

separate and apart from the Highway Trust Fund that would be 

used solely for freight purposes. 

I have had the opportunity to meet with some of the panel members on this topic, and it is near and dear to our heart. So rather 

than reiterating my written testimony, which I know you all have, 

I wanted to focus, as Mr. Nadler requested, on the solutions for 

freight with the time that I have left. 

While Congress authorized the Projects of National and Regional 

Significance, the $500 million that was authorized was not appropriated. Obviously, that is a huge concern for our region, and we 

support fully appropriating the funds that would be available for 

the Projects of National and Regional Significance. 

However, we do not view that as enough for the needs of freight. 

As you heard Hasan mention, in this region alone we have $60 billion worth of projects. There are billions of dollars’ worth of projects 

across the Nation in addition to that that need to be funded to keep 

our system globally competitive, and that is going to require an additional source of funding beyond those that have already been 

identified. 

Additionally, we are extremely supportive of the expansion of the 

TIFIA program and the ability of freight projects to compete for 

TIFIA loans. However, that is a financing mechanism. It is not a 

10 

funding mechanism, and we would like to see an additional source 

of funding dedicated to freight that would be compiled by the local 

agencies such as SCAG and our transportation agencies, our ports, 

the Alameda Corridor-East Authority, and others here in southern 

California who know exactly what our community needs, and others throughout the Nation that are doing similar things now. 

When you identify that freight network, as Mr. Ajise mentioned, 

it needs to be more than just highway lane miles. It needs to include multimodal facilities like those you have toured here in 

southern California over the last couple of days, but also some that 

you have not had a chance to visit yet, from Ventura up to our border crossings down in San Diego. So there are many other facilities 

that are worthy of investment right here in southern California 

that support trade in each of your congressional districts. 

In addition to that, the dedicated source of funding that we envision would not be something that goes on ad infinitum. Once the 

projects have been funded, we envision that it would sunset. We 

would envision that it would be lock-boxed so that it can only be 

used for freight. It can’t be used for some library in North Dakota 

someplace. We want to make sure that freight gets its due, and I 

applaud Mr. Nadler for taking a multimodal approach and all of 

you for taking time out of your districts to be here and learn firsthand why southern California really is the heart of our national 

freight network. 

But there are issues here in southern California that you have 

in each of your congressional districts, and that is why there needs 

to be a national plan. That is why we all need to work together to 

make sure that the freight that starts here makes it to your district without impacting consumers, without impacting taxpayers 

unnecessarily. 

Our region has worked together, as Hasan mentioned, in a bipartisan manner, in a public-private partnership, including the environmental community, to develop a plan that is ready and willing 

to put freight to work right here in southern California supporting 

good paying jobs. But we can’t do that without a strong partnership, and I think you all being here right now is the first step towards that. 

Mobility 21, as a nonprofit, has worked with stakeholders not 

only here in southern California but elsewhere throughout the 

country to really rally around this idea of a separate dedicated 

fund for freight, and we look forward to being a resource to you and 

your committee staff as you work to do the recommendations that 

this committee will be putting forward to the panel. Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Very good. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Moore? 

Mr. MOORE. Chairman Duncan, Ranking Member Nadler, and 

members of the panel, my name is Scott Moore, vice president, 

public affairs, Union Pacific Railroad. I appreciate the opportunity 

to summarize my submitted testimony and summarize our operations in the Western U.S., as well as here in California. 

Union Pacific, 151 years old. But today’s railroad operates in 23 

States and operates on just under 32,000 miles of track. We have 

45,000 employees with about a $4.3 billion payroll. When we talk 

about investing in infrastructure, our railroad across the West last 

11 

year spent about $3.7 billion, this year will spend about $3.6 billion. To give you an idea of what that may buy, last year we installed 4.1 million new railroad ties across our system and replaced 

over 1,000 miles of track, all the while continuing to invest in terminal facilities, as well as in new locomotives. 

Here in California, we have over 3,200 miles of track, making us 

the largest railroad in the Golden State. We have an annual payroll of over $430 million, with just under 5,000 employees. In 2012, 

we had capital spent in the State of California of $376 million. 

Now, our business in California is varied, but certainly intermodal is key. In our intermodal franchise, there is really two parts 

to it. There is the international container traffic, which you have 

been seeing out here, which passes through the west coast ports 

primarily in 20-, 40-, or 45-foot containers. The domestic business 

includes container and trailer traffic traveling primarily in 53-foot 

containers. Additionally, less than truckload and package carriers 

with time-sensitive business requirements are also an important 

part of that domestic shipment. Union Pacific overall in our system, 54 percent of that intermodal traffic is international, 46 percent is domestic. 

Now, much of this intermodal traffic, of course, flows through, in 

and out of the L.A. Basin, and roughly half of those 5,000 employees in California are based here in southern California. In our network, we operate 10 intermodal facilities, four of which are here in 

the L.A. Basin. Two of those, our intermodal container transfer facility by the port and our East L.A. yard, are two of our top-producing intermodal yards. The four L.A. Basin facilities combined 

just do over 1 million lifts. This compares to 4 million across our 

system, and compares to a second one in Chicago with 1.4 million 

lifts. 

While we have a number of routes into and out of the L.A. Basin, 

our main corridor is what we call our Sunset Corridor. This line 

runs across Arizona to New Mexico to El Paso. Once in Texas, that 

line branches out, where we have the ability to serve Chicago via 

Kansas City, Memphis via Dallas, and New Orleans via southern 

Texas. We have invested well over $1 billion in the last 10 years, 

double tracking this line, L.A. to El Paso, and at the end of last 

year we were 70 percent complete. 

In addition to investing in track improvements in the L.A. Basin, 

we are working to modernize our ICTF facility that I mentioned. 

By using advanced and mechanized technology, we can improve our 

throughput at that facility, decrease the footprint, and reduce the 

level of noise and lighting at the facility. We made application for 

this project in 2007 and are still unclear when we may be able to 

move forward and modernize the facility. 

Beyond our investments in southern California, we have a variety of public-private partnerships that also play an important role 

in the Basin. Next to the CREATE project in Chicago, probably one 

of the country’s premier public-private partnerships is the Alameda 

Corridor. Multiple railroads and government agencies worked together on the trench that I think many of you just went through. 

We also continue to work with Alameda Corridor Transportation 

Authority, but also the Alameda Corridor-East Construction AuVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:39 Sep 19, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\PANELO~1\5-30-1~1\81260.TXT JEAN
12 

thority, which was established to minimize the flow of goods in the 

San Gabriel Valley. 

Most recently, we have partnered with a variety of entities on 

the Colton Crossing railroad project, which consists of TIGER funding, Prop 1B funding, BNSF private dollars, Union Pacific private 

dollars, and sponsored by SANBAG, the building we are in. Eliminating gridlock at Colton Crossing is key. It is one of the busiest 

graded rail intersections in the country. It will relieve rail congestion, reduce wait time and delays for motorists, and improve air 

quality in southern California. 

In the future, the L.A. Basin will continue to be a critical point 

for goods movement. Even with the expansion of the Panama 

Canal, we expect traffic to continue to increase into and out of the 

L.A. Basin ports. The Basin is an important part of our system, as 

well as the country’s freight infrastructure network. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Moore. 

Mr. Fox? 

Mr. FOX. Congressman Duncan, Congressman Nadler, and members of the committee, thank you so much for traveling to southern 

California. I know this is terrible weather for you, but thank you 

very much for coming. 

By the way, Fred, Scott has a great voice. I think he is the next 

Vin Scully. 

This is the right place for a meeting like this, in San Bernardino, 

the heart of the Inland Empire. The 31st District my friend Gary 

Miller represents is a critical district for what happens not only in 

this region but for the country and for the supply chain network. 

In the Inland Empire, there is 1.7 billion square feet of warehouse and distribution space. It is massive and it is growing. Each 

day we truck 10,000 containers to the Inland Empire, and it is not 

an easy task. Today we have problems, and I am going to address 

those in my oral testimony. 

In 2006, when the Long Beach and Los Angeles Port reached 

record numbers, we did more with the same number of vehicles 

and trucks than we do today. In 2006, there were five night gates. 

Today we only have four night gates. In 2006, the terminals were 

open during lunch and breaks. Now they close for 2 hours on those 

four night gates. That creates congestion in the terminals and a 

lack of productivity. 

In 2006, most terminals had wheeled operations where the containers were on the wheels waiting for the drivers, and that is 

what drivers do: deliver. They shouldn’t be sitting in the port terminals, and that is what they do today. Today it is a grounded operation at all terminals. That means as the containers come off the 

ships, they are placed on chassis, they are stacked, and drivers now 

must enter a port terminal at all 13 terminals, get in line to find 

a chassis, get in line to have a container stacked onto a chassis, 

get in another line to out-gate, and this takes about 2 hours as an 

average today. This is not the best utilization of the drivers’ time, 

and it certainly affects the supply chain. 

The near-term solution to this is to implement five night gates, 

Sunday through Thursday night. Sunday is when there is the least 

amount of traffic on our local freeway system, so we can deliver a 

13 

lot of freight on Sunday night. Also, we have—I won’t point out the 

individual—we have Walmart in the audience, and they would love 

to have their freight on Monday mornings, which we could do if we 

had a Sunday night gate. Today, Walmart must wait until Tuesday 

morning to get their containers and work those. 

If we are going to attract business to southern California and 

have a positive effect to the rest of the country, we need a Sunday 

night gate so that the large distribution centers, particularly here 

in the Inland Empire, can have their freight Sunday night and 

work their freight Monday morning when the warehouse staff 

comes in. 

So the near-term solutions, which are not very costly, are five 

night gates, Sunday through Thursday; let the terminals work or 

demand that the terminals work throughout lunch breaks, don’t 

shut down for 2 hours; and put the containers on wheels so that 

we can expedite drivers in and out of the port terminals. That is 

the only way to handle volumes as they grow. 

In 2013, we are starting to approach the 2006 record year that 

was set by both ports. Now, the long-term solution has some hurdles, and Scott and I have talked about this, and there are some 

hurdles, but it is something that the committee should really look 

at, and that is the establishment of an inland port here in the Inland Empire. With the massive distribution network that we have 

here in the Inland Empire, we need an inland port. And the answer, gentlemen and ladies, is not sending more trucks into the 

port. That is not the answer. I am a trucking guy who says don’t 

send more trucks to the port. The answer is put the containers on 

a train that is located within the port complex, rail those containers to the inland port here in the Inland Empire, reposition our 

trucks from our trucking community out here and do local trucking. We can do a lot more trucking and a lot more deliveries if we 

are not wasting time on public highways and sitting in lines at the 

port terminals. 

It also creates more space for the port terminals, which they desperately need. I know we are talking about adding lanes on other 

freeways throughout the southern California area. In fact, the 710, 

we are talking about adding two lanes at the cost of $6 billion. We 

probably need the lanes, but at $330 million per mile and the time 

it takes to build those lanes, I think this is a much better way to 

use the money, and that is let’s utilize the various modes of transportation, get trucks off the freeway, clean up the environment, 

and have better utilization of our vehicles. 

I have 20 seconds left. So, Chairman Duncan, I will yield my 

time to Fred Claire so he can talk baseball. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Fox. 

Mr. Richmond? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Nadler, and members of the committee. I appreciate also your attendance here, and certainly the turnout is really impressive. 

I am going to ask if you could follow through—I have some slides 

that were distributed to you, and I am going to walk through them 

quickly. I will walk through them quickly and kind of explain what 

we have been up to at the ACE Construction Authority. 

14 

My name is Rick Richmond. I am the recently retired chief executive officer of the ACE Construction Authority. I appreciate the 

opportunity to be here. 

The first slide that is in your packet is a depiction of what is 

called the ACE Trade Corridor, which is a four-county area involving about 280 miles of rail lines on the two railroads, Burlington 

Northern and UP. The area that I work for is the shaded green 

area. That is known as the San Gabriel Valley in Los Angeles 

County, but the three other counties surrounding it are also involved in the same work that we are doing. 

Mention has been made of policy. There is clearly a policy in 

southern California to shift the modes out of the ports more in the 

direction of rail and away from truck, and that is a strategy that 

involves congestion relief, air quality improvements, and a whole 

lot of other related activities. 

But for us involved in the communities out there along the rail 

lines, there are some other effects that are resulting from that. 

Currently on that network that you see there, there are about 100 

trains a day operating, and when we say trains, we are talking 

about typically a mile to 2-mile-long trains. These are not minor 

train movements. They are major. That is projected to grow to upwards of 250 trains a day with the increase in traffic coming 

through the ports. 

There are 131 grade crossings in that area shown on the map. 

So there are 131 places where the train basically stops cross-traffic 

to get through. 

The next slide, I won’t spend any time on it, but this is the program that we have adopted within our organization that was mentioned. It is a part of the overall corridor, and what you see on 

there are all the grade crossing locations. Everywhere you see a 

name is a grade crossing location, 54 of them in our jurisdiction. 

We have adopted a program and have been working for a number 

of years on a program to eliminate 24 of the 54 crossings. We are 

not trying to get rid of every crossing. That is not practical. So we 

are trying to deal with the worst, and also dealing with some safety 

improvements. 

The next four slides I will just quickly run through. They are a 

status report of where we are. The next two slides are all the 

projects that are either done or in construction. It accounts for 14 

of the 24 total number of crossings. Those are projects that are, as 

I say, either constructed and in service or—they are either in service or in construction. 

The next slide—and I apologize for walking you through so many 

slides, but the next slide is five projects that we are all now in design, and those are projects that are fully funded. If you add these 

projects to the others I mentioned, you are up to a total of 21 crossings that we are fully funded and either have eliminated or will be 

eliminating. 

In the final one of these slides is all of our active projects—sorry, 

projects that are not yet active because of basically waiting for the 

funding needed to finish the program. You will see on that slide 

that we are about $235 million short to finish this program. 

Now, the next slide, I want to get to the point of the Federal 

issue for us. The next slide is a pie chart of how we have funded 

15 

the program to date. We have pieced together from various sources 

over about a 10-year period the $1.5 billion. And if you look at the 

different shares, what you will see is that the local and State are 

substantial. In the last few years we have gained significant support at the local and State level. The Federal number, as you’ll see, 

is about 16 percent of our total. 

Now, interestingly, we got started in this program as a result of 

TEA–21, an earmark, frankly, that got us started in this program. 

We know the discussion over earmarks. I think we are an example 

of how they can work well. I don’t think we would have started the 

project without it. It got us going with $135 million, which we have 

now pieced together and grown up to $1.5 billion from all these 

various sources. 

The point I would make as we go toward reauthorization, the 

Federal source is going to be—to be quite honest, we are close to 

tapped out from the State and local because there really aren’t any 

in the wings. There really probably isn’t a new funding source from 

the State and local sources—that we can count on, certainly. And 

we are obviously therefore focused on the reauthorization, where 

we think there is a good case to be made for the kind of work that 

we are doing. 

The last slide, which I want to spend a moment on, is what we 

specifically would look for and suggest you consider as you go forward. As mentioned, there needs to be a freight program in the reauthorization bill. It can happen a number of ways. Congressman 

Sires’ bill is beneficial in our view because it broadens out the 

scope of the existing MAP–21 discussion, which really talks about 

highways, and it needs to be broadened out to pick up rail, air, sea, 

et cetera. The freight program can operate under that legislative 

vehicle, but also PNRS in the past has been a source for us to get 

going on this program. We would look for some modifications to 

PNRS because right now our work is ineligible under PNRS. It is 

restricted to transit and certain other activities. Freight needs to 

be called out and, frankly, mitigation of freight issues needs to be 

called out because we are largely a mitigation program. 

So I realize I have extended past my time, but I will conclude 

at that and be happy to answer any questions, and thank you 

again for being here. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much. 

I am going to go to Mr. Nadler and Mr. Miller for the first questions. But let me just say, first of all, that Mr. Ikhrata and Mr. 

Richmond both talked about the importance of the Federal role, 

and all of us on this committee believe that there is an important 

and legitimate Federal role. In fact, I have chaired three different 

subcommittees on this committee and I can tell you, people in California sometimes use the airports in Texas, and vice versa. People 

in Ohio sometimes use the roads in Tennessee, and vice versa. People in New York sometimes use our waste water and drinking 

water systems in Florida, and vice versa. 

So there is a very important Federal role, but there is also a very 

important State and local role, and I am very impressed by how 

much your State and local governments have come up with in this 

area. 

16 

But this panel was given the assignment, the charge, the jurisdiction to look across all the panels, because our subcommittees are 

limited to the jurisdiction that they are specifically assigned to. But 

we have been asked to try to bring these things all together, and 

so that is what we are trying to work on. 

Mr. Nadler? 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me start by saying that every witness—I am glad to hear almost unanimity among all the witnesses. Everyone seems to agree 

that State and local funding sources are not sufficient to do the 

freight projects that are necessary. Everyone agrees the freight 

projects must be funded on a multimodal basis. Everybody agrees 

that we need a significant Federal source of funding to supplement 

State and local efforts. Everybody agrees that that funding source 

should be available for freight and separate from the Highway 

Trust. And I think I heard everybody agree that it should be done 

on a competitive basis and not on a State formula basis. I certainly 

agree with all of that. 

Let me ask you a couple of specific questions before I get to the 

elephant in the room, a very specific question. Ms. Primmer, you 

said that the dedicated source of freight funding should sunset. 

Why should it sunset? Isn’t it going to be needed indefinitely? 

Ms. PRIMMER. Well, in my experience, I think because we are 

asking stakeholders to really step up in terms of a dedicated source 

of funding, their expectation is that it is not going to be forever, 

that it is going to fund a specific set of projects that are going to 

have a direct return—— 

Mr. NADLER. But when we finish the specific set of projects, don’t 

you think the country will need another specific set of projects 10 

years from now? I mean, is our freight network going to be finished 

forever? 

Ms. PRIMMER. No, I do not believe our freight network will be 

finished forever. However, I do think that there is accountability on 

the part of the public sector that needs to recognize the contributions by the private sector, and the private sector is going to require a little bit of assurance from the public sector that we have 

done what we said we were going to do and that they have gotten 

a return on the investment that they are making. Part of the comfort level with the private sector in stepping up and contributing 

to a new source of funding is going to be the lock box and the sunset that come with the program. 

Mr. NADLER. The lock box, yes. The sunset, I am not so sure. 

Mr. Fox, a very specific question for you. You recommended in 

terms of local California, southern California issues, that an inland 

terminal be established, essentially. That is very interesting. You 

make an interesting case, but why are you telling us this? Isn’t 

that a decision for a local government in California to make and 

then come to the Federal Government and say here is what we are 

proposing, here is why we are proposing it, and help us fund it? 

Mr. FOX. Well, I think the answer probably is yes, but I think 

the answer also is, it is not going to work unless the Federal Government gets involved. 

Mr. NADLER. Gets involved with funding it. But we should determine the policy initially? 

17 

Mr. FOX. Well, this affects the country, and I think because it 

does affect the country, it needs to be looked at by the Federal Government. 

Mr. NADLER. OK. Thank you. 

Let me ask everybody here. As I said, everybody agrees, and 

probably most of the people on this panel agree, not necessarily all 

of them but probably most, that there ought to be a dedicated 

source of Federal funding for what we call Projects of National and 

Regional Significance, which is to say freight projects that State 

and local governments can’t handle by themselves. 

The big elephant in the room is where should that funding come 

from. There is tremendous political opposition, obviously, to increasing the gasoline tax, to making it inflation sensitive. The 

Highway Trust Fund is not going to have sufficient funding from 

current sources. Does anybody have any suggestions as to where 

we should get a $2 billion annual—somebody suggested that figure 

maybe should be $3 million, or I don’t know what the figure should 

be. But does anybody have a suggestion or suggestions, plural, as 

to where we can get a dedicated Federal funding source? 

Mr. IKHRATA. Congressman, I would suggest that we put all of 

those sources that you mentioned on the table. I don’t think one 

source is going to be sufficient and enough to fulfill the needs that 

we have. But I think it should be for both the public and the private sector, but all sources that we talked about, whether it is expansion of TIFIA, which was great but not enough. I think we need 

to enhance that program. H.R. 974 calls for a dedicated fund that 

various fees could be put on the table. But I don’t think one source 

is going to cut it. I think all of these sources should be on the table 

for discussion. 

Mr. NADLER. Anybody else comment on where we can get the 

funding for a dedicated source? 

Ms. PRIMMER. I agree with Mr. Ikhrata. We should not be looking for a magic bullet here. If there were one, we would already 

have it. There is going to need to be multiple tools in the toolbox. 

The dedicated source of funding that I mentioned, we have been 

talking to some private sector stakeholders and their desire to participate. I think that that is one option that should be considered. 

Obviously, expanding the Projects of National and Regional Significance would also be an important part of the funding program. The 

qualified transportation improvement bonds that are being proposed by L.A. Metro have the potential to be used for freight programs. The expanded TIFIA program is also a way to fund freight. 

So I think if you are trying to fit everything into one little box, 

we are never going to get there. The beauty of the dedicated fund 

that I referenced is that it would be determined by the local communities. So our region has developed a goods movement action 

plan. So in order to be eligible to be part of that dedicated source 

of funding, the project is going to have to be on that goods movement action plan. It is not just going to be some random thing. 

The private sector then knows this is a promise that you are 

going to get for participation in this dedicated source of funding. 

These are the projects, this is the benefit to your bottom line in 

terms of the reliability, the speed to market that you are going to 

receive for that investment that you are willing to make. And I 

18 

think it is a strong partnership from the Federal Government to 

enable that fund to exist that is really needed. 

Mr. NADLER. I see my time has expired. Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. It is interesting. We have a trucker 

advocating rail capacity enhancements. I think that is the first 

time I have ever heard that before, industry crossovers. But I think 

it is because of the complexity of the situation that we are dealing 

with in southern California. 

Ms. Primmer, you have talked a little bit about your concept on 

the freight trust fund. I guess how would you structure the freight 

trust fund in more specificity, and how would you prioritize key 

freight projects that were done in a fair fashion? 

Ms. PRIMMER. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller. Let me first say 

that there is still much work to be done on this. This is an idea 

that we have been developing a policy for for the last couple of 

years, but we have not come up with a specific set of criteria. I 

would look forward to working with your staff and the committee—— 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I would like to work with you because it is something that is very interesting to me because of the 

impact we face in this region and the issues we need to deal positively with to mitigate that impact. 

Ms. PRIMMER. I would greatly appreciate the opportunity to work 

with you, Mr. Miller, and any others of the panel that would be interested. You have been a great champion for freight in this region. 

Obviously, the Devore Interchange right here in San Bernardino is 

in need of funding. The ACE Corridor is in need of funding. There 

are port projects that are in need of funding. So there is no shortage here in southern California of what projects would be eligible 

for it. It is what would be palatable to the private sector, what 

would be palatable to the port community, what would be palatable 

to the inland communities that are bearing the necessary mitigations, and what type of agreement can we come up with. All of this 

involves stakeholders. 

Like I mentioned, we have started those discussions, but we need 

to move forward with those. And with your support, I would like 

to do that. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I would love to work with you. 

Mr. Fox, you were very specific on certain situations that industries are facing at the ports. Congressman Hahn is very involved 

with that because she lives above it and has to look down on it 

every day in her life. 

So what can Congress do to mitigate some of the impacts you are 

facing there? What do you believe we can do? 

Mr. FOX. Well, that is a tough one. I am not sure in terms of 

Congress legislating something to make the ports more efficient, 

but that is really the center issue, that they are not efficient. 

In 2006, we did more business with the same number of trucks 

than we do today. For example, in 2006, one truck could deliver 

four to five loads to greater Los Angeles. It could deliver three 

loads here to the Inland Empire. Today, volumes are approaching 

2006 levels. That is the good news. The bad news is that that same 

19 

truck can only do two loads to L.A.; it used to do five. It can only 

do one or two to the Inland Empire; it used to do three. And again, 

that is all because of decisions made by terminal operators. 

I know you know the subject very well, Ms. Hahn, but it is not 

about labor, because it is the same labor force we had in 2006. It 

is about terminal operators making decisions to have less labor, 

close down for lunch, put containers on a grounded operation rather than wheeled, and only have four nights. All three of those areas 

can be changed immediately, and we can be more efficient as these 

volumes grow for the next few years. We can handle the volumes 

with the 9,000 trucks that are servicing the ports today. 

We don’t even really need 9,000 trucks. We need 7,000 trucks for 

today’s volume. As it grows, we will need the 9,000. But 5 years 

from now, that will not be enough trucks. Sending another 3,000 

or 4,000 or 5,000 trucks to the port creates more congestion not 

only in the port terminal but on the freeways. 

I think there is money that is being spent State and federally on 

our highway system. As a trucker, I am saying let’s stop spending 

money on the highway system. Let’s get the UP or the BN involved 

and have a daily shuttle train and take 500 to 1,000 trucks off the 

road going between the port and the Inland Empire daily. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Mr. Moore, how do you see that 

working in your position at the Colton Crossing here? 

Mr. MOORE. Well, we are always looking for more business, Congressman. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MOORE. But we have studied this in the past. In 2005, we 

worked with the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority to develop a pilot here in Colton. It ultimately did not work. There 

wasn’t a business model to make it work. More recently, Mr. 

Ikhrata and SCAG did a study on that as well, and once again the 

economics don’t work. That sort of movement, because of the additional lifts, additional labor, consuming rail capacity, it cannot be 

price competitive today with a truck move. Now, that may change 

in the future, but not today and probably not yet, unfortunately. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I see my time has expired. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Ms. Brown is next. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. And I think I had better start out by 

saying, first of all, I am a rail supporter. After I say that, there are 

some things I need to clear up. 

First of all, Ms. Primmer, in looking at this chart that was 

passed out, ‘‘Funds Committed to Date,’’ we have the number one 

rail, freight rail in the world. Everywhere I go people ask me about 

freight rail, and I am asking them about passenger rail. If you see 

the Federal Government share, the local share, the State share, we 

have to get our partners that are making money, those stakeholders, to invest in the system. 

And to think that we are going to come up with some national 

funding for freight, and only freight will be able to participate, and 

we are going to have a lock box for freight, that is not going to happen. Maybe they will tell you it is going to happen, but I will tell 

you it is not going to happen. 

20 

You have to have a system that is multimodal, maybe a system 

like with the TIGGER grants that will open it up to other forms 

of transportation. But to say we are just going to do freight, I 

mean, that is just not going to happen. 

And, Mr. Fox, we were at the port, and it was very interesting, 

and we were trying to get a water bill, and if so, I think they said 

$2 billion a year would fund the problems that we are having in 

all of the ports. I see the Jacksonville Port didn’t even make it to 

this chart. So we really are having a problem. However, the issues 

that you are talking about are issues that you can negotiate tomorrow with the port. 

Mr. FOX. No. No, we can’t. 

Ms. BROWN. It is not a Federal issue. 

Mr. FOX. We cannot negotiate with the port. We have nothing— 

we have no involvement with setting terminal operations. 

Ms. BROWN. I know, but we don’t either, to my knowledge. 

Mr. FOX. Well, it is interstate freight. 

Ms. BROWN. No, sir. 

Mr. FOX. Yes, it is. It comes from other countries. 

Ms. BROWN. You are talking about whether we do 7 days or 

whether we do 5 days, whether they are open 24 hours. We discussed that, how much time they take for lunch. That is not international negotiations. Maybe the staff can clear it up for me. I 

don’t think we have anything to do with it. 

Mr. FOX. Well, there are always incentives. 

Ms. BROWN. I am just telling you, in talking to the port, that is 

not what they told us yesterday. 

Mr. FOX. Well, I can tell you as a trucker, I have nothing to do 

with setting port policy. 

Ms. BROWN. And we don’t, either. I mean, we don’t either, and 

we are trying to get them additional funds. But even if we do the 

things that we need to do at the port, if you have the congestion 

on the highway, it doesn’t work. It is intermodal. 

Mr. FOX. That is what I am saying, take trucks off the freeway 

system. 

Ms. BROWN. In some countries, trucks can’t go. You have to put 

them on the train and send them. So, yes, there are some things 

that we could do. But did you want to respond to my comments? 

Ms. PRIMMER. I would, please. I didn’t mean to imply that the 

mitigations that are involved with freight would not be eligible as 

projects. Certainly, there are air quality issues, there are impacts 

to the communities that support the freight. Ms. Napolitano’s district is a prime example of the impact that freight has on local 

communities. 

What I intended to imply was that it should only be available to 

use immediately adjacent to freight facilities, and I am sorry I relied on my written testimony to flesh some of that out. But the facilities that would be eligible would be part of the multicounty 

Goods Movement Action Plan in our case. In other States, it might 

come from the State DOT or come from another NPO plan, but 

they would be identified by the communities that are most impacted, such as the communities like Ms. Napolitano’s and Ms. 

Hahn’s that are bearing the brunt of the commerce that goes out 

to the rest of the Nation. 

21 

Ms. BROWN. Well, there are many areas. For example, Chicago. 

We are going to visit that in the New York area. I mean, so there 

are many areas that would be eligible as we develop a policy and 

try to come up with funding to finance these policies. 

Ms. PRIMMER. Absolutely. But there needs to be a freight nexus 

in order for a project to be included. 

Ms. BROWN. Freight, port, multimodal. 

Ms. PRIMMER. Absolutely. 

Ms. BROWN. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Hanna? 

Mr. HANNA. Mr. Fox, the things that you talk about seem to be 

absolutely in line with what I would consider to be common sense. 

What is wrong, really? I mean, you are asking this committee to 

consider somehow as if it has the authority to deal with it. Clearly, 

the State has some authority to deal with it. There must be something going on that you are not talking about. It is too obvious. 

Mr. FOX. Well, sometimes the most critical things are the most 

obvious things. There are two issues, near-term and long-term. 

Look, the ports were never more efficient than they were in 2006 

when business was good. So that is part of the obvious answer to 

this, is that there was more volume that justified more labor. It 

justified having wheedled operations. The terminals are getting 

away from providing chassis. It is a very complex issue, and I don’t 

mean to oversimplify it. It is a very complex issue, no doubt about 

it. 

The bottom line here is there are so many stakeholders involved, 

the steamship lines, the terminal operators. I don’t think labor is 

even part of the issue at all. I think it is the people paying the 

bills. And if we don’t get the people paying the bills to correct the 

situation, as volumes grow we are going to have more congestion 

and the Panama Canal is going to start looking a lot better. 

Mr. HANNA. So implicit in what you are saying is that there is 

enough money to go around to allow this inefficiency to continue, 

and there is nobody invested in stopping it? 

Mr. FOX. The different stakeholders are so focused on their own 

budgets that they are not looking long term at the big picture. 

Mr. HANNA. There is no central authority to discuss this that you 

can go to? 

Mr. FOX. I would like to know who it is. 

Mr. HANNA. Mr. Ikhrata? 

Mr. IKHRATA. Yes, thank you. 

Ms. HANNA. Would you like to take a shot at that? 

Mr. IKHRATA. Sure. I think what Mr. Fox is saying, and not to 

disagree with some of the things he said about maybe the Federal 

Government or the local government or the State government 

shouldn’t invest in the highway, I have a different opinion about 

that. But this points to how complex the issues are. I mean, if it 

is simply by just putting a short-haul trailer, like Mr. Scott mentioned, to solve the problem, we will. But it is more complex than 

that. Study after study said that economically it doesn’t pan out. 

Therefore, the short haul, which is a component to what Mr. Fox 

is talking about, is not going to work. 

22 

But this points to an important thing. I can tell you this, we 

have been discussing this issue for over 20 years now because it 

is important not only to this region but to the Nation. And this 

issue is very complex, no question about it. It needs to involve all 

stakeholders, private, public, Mr. Fox, Mr. Scott, everybody. 

I will point to the fact that in our region, we actually are well organized. Our State in 2006, put a bond out, $2 billion of which 

is specific to goods movement, because of the importance of goods 

movement. So there is more than a discussion. There is part of 

Government, a debate about what is the best solution. But one solution you should never doubt, that this region and this Nation 

need to maintain its existing infrastructure and need to build additional infrastructure. And I believe, Congresswoman Brown, that 

multimodal infrastructure investment in this Nation is warranted. 

The sad accident in Seattle a couple of days ago taught us something. In this region, there are 2,300 bridges that are classified obsolete or structurally deficient. That doesn’t mean they are going 

to fall down tomorrow, but they need attention. 

So the thing I want you to remember is the investment in infrastructure and maintaining the infrastructure is a key, regardless of 

these local issues—— 

Mr. HANNA. Well, we all agree with you. 

Ms. O’Brien, who would you like us to tax? I mean, that is a fair 

question, right? You must have something in your mind. You are 

a big organization. 

Ms. PRIMMER. That is absolutely a fair question, and the answer 

is no one that doesn’t agree to it. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HANNA. Well, that is not going to be a whole lot of people. 

Ms. PRIMMER. No. And what I mean by that is I work with stakeholders every day, and what I am hearing from them is if there is 

a return on that investment, if there is a bottom-line benefit to my 

business, I am in. So the people that are going to benefit from—— 

Mr. HANNA. But the degree to which they are in may be the 

question. 

Ms. PRIMMER. The people that are going to benefit from the system need to be partners in developing the plan, and that is exactly 

what Mobility 21 does. 

Mr. HANNA. I am almost out of time. But we need to know what 

that ratio is, what that looks like in reality so that we know if anything is done at all towards that end, we have willing partners that 

have an idea that it is not going to be a nickel or a dime, it could 

be a lot more. 

I yield back. 

Ms. PRIMMER. Thank you. That is a possibility, and we would be 

more than happy to work with the committee on that. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Hahn? 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to the panelists who are here today testifying before the Panel on 21st-Century Freight Transportation. Isn’t it 

great that we have all these Congress Members from across this 

country spending 3 days here to really see for themselves how important our ports and our transportation system is to the entire 

23 

country? I feel very hopeful that we will come up with some good 

recommendations as we create the first-ever national freight policy 

in this country. 

Mr. Fox, I, of course, am very sympathetic to what you are saying. It was I, under my brother’s leadership when he was mayor 

of Los Angeles, that actually created the off-peak cargo movement 

system which we call PierPASS. I was charged with the task of 

bringing together all the stakeholders, both ports, labor, warehouse 

distribution centers, the Walmarts, the Sears, the Targets, and we 

came up with what we now call PierPASS, which was intended to 

move cargo off-peak hours. I understand we are up to about 50 percent cargo that is moved off-peak. 

But I am with you. I always wanted it to be five nights a week, 

on the weekends. I think that makes sense. I think it will give us 

more use of our current infrastructure. I think we have to use our 

infrastructure smarter before we can expect to build out some of 

our infrastructure. And I think the truckers, they don’t want to be 

on the road with us either. They don’t think we know how to drive. 

So they are happy not to be fighting with commuters. 

So even though it is not our jurisdiction, which has never 

stopped me before from doing anything, I would be happy to facilitate a working group at the ports, and I know Alan Lowenthal will 

work with me because he was also instrumental in having legislation ready to mandate off-peak cargo movement. We didn’t have to 

do that because we came up with a plan that worked before that. 

So we will get together with both ports. We will put a group of 

stakeholders together and see how we can move forward in moving 

more of this cargo off-peak. I think that makes sense for the entire 

region. So I will work with you on that. 

Mr. Richmond, I was interested in your idea of mitigation and 

wondering if we create a national freight policy, do you think a 

part of that policy should be some sense of mitigation? I think we 

are going to have to be real with building projects and how that 

impacts our communities, and I think we do have to have mitigation. I am curious to know whether that should be part of our national freight policy. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Absolutely, and it is right now a little bit silent. 

Some of the existing legislation is silent, at best, on that subject. 

And you know from your experience with the Alameda Corridor, 

while it is a fantastic facility and it does a great job to move 

freight, most of what went into that project was mitigation. 

Ms. HAHN. Right. 

Mr. RICHMOND. I mean, it is primarily a mitigation project when 

you scratch away all of the components. So, absolutely, it has to be 

part of any authorizing program, it seems to me, because otherwise 

you are really stuck with the issue of investing taxpayer money, 

presumably, into what is essentially a private enterprise. I mean, 

the beneficiaries of much of the activity here is private enterprise. 

And as you have heard from this discussion today, when you 

scratch below the surface and people talk about doing things more 

efficiently, you immediately run into the multiple handoffs involved 

in this business and the fact that any particular approach to make 

things work better usually lands in one place, and that is when it 

starts to sort of fall apart if you don’t force the issue. 

24 

So I think the mitigation has got to be part of what is addressed 

in any project. 

Ms. HAHN. Well, I appreciate you saying that because I don’t 

think we expand our ports or build more projects without making 

sure that we mitigate the impacts on the surrounding communities. 

I will say I am encouraged by this panel that one of the sources 

of revenue that we are exploring is the harbor maintenance tax, 

which is a tax that is collected but it is not used for the purpose 

of maintaining our ports and harbors in this country. 

The other thing that I would like us to look at is I have always 

felt like a percentage of the customs district revenue ought to be 

spent where it is collected for improving the infrastructure. The 

L.A. district takes in a whopping amount. It is—how much is it, 

Lori? Let’s see, $14 billion annually just in the L.A. customs district, and it is based on containers, because containers represent 

commerce, and it has always been a value of commerce. 

But my feeling is that every container, and I think we have seen 

this, that comes into the ports also represents risk. It represents 

risk to our infrastructure, to our security, to our environment, and 

I think that money we should look at as a possible fund, not the 

whole thing, maybe just a percentage of where it is collected across 

this country, and use it to put back into our infrastructure needs 

in this country. It might be something that we could look at. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Lipinski? 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Brown said we are going to be in Chicago looking at some 

of these things. I hope we are in Chicago looking at some of these 

things. I know that I have heard many times in the last 2 days 

how, even though we are 2,000 miles away, how important what 

is going on in Chicago and finishing up the CREATE program is 

to even out here, because that is so important to moving freight in 

the country. 

But if we are looking at one thing that was mentioned, Ms. 

Napolitano, we could probably compare the need for grade separations in our districts. I am glad we had this opportunity to get out 

of Washington and come to California because it seems like there 

is so much greater concern that I have heard in the last 2 days 

about the impacts on local communities than I usually hear in 

Washington. Grade separations, I know there are issues, numerous 

issues, but grade separations with railroads is one of the big ones, 

and I am very impressed at how much has been put into that, how 

much funding out here has been put into that by the State and the 

MTA. 

I see 2 percent from the railroads, and that is a big question: Do 

railroads have a responsibility? How much responsibility do they 

have? Because railroads can say these are our lines, we run our 

trains, and that is it. There is a regulation that says if there is any 

Federal money spent on a grade separation, railroads have to put 

at least 5 percent towards that, and I think that is important. I 

would like to see more money coming from the railroads on that, 

but these are difficult things to work out. 

One thing that we are sort of dancing around here and not really 

addressing is that in the freight system, as Ms. Primmer said, we 

25 

should tax, we should get the funding from those who benefit. Well, 

who benefits? Everyone is going to point to somebody else in terms 

of who benefits off of any type of improvements. And in the end, 

everyone might point to, well, it is the American consumer that 

benefits, so they should pay for it. 

I am not saying I have an answer to who exactly benefits and 

who should pay how much in this, but everyone can point to each 

other in terms of who benefits. If you are moving the product you 

can say, well, it is the retailers that are benefiting because they are 

getting cheaper rates for getting the product, or you can say that 

producers are benefiting. Everyone can point somewhere else and 

say where is the benefit. I think that has been one of the problems 

with coming up with how we are going to do this. 

On top of that, you have the fact that the railroads are private. 

So where does that come in? Where does that come into the picture? The railroads are private; our roads are public for the most 

part. How does this all come together? 

So, does anyone have an answer? I don’t expect an answer. Does 

anyone have anything they have to say about these complicated 

questions of where is the money coming from, and then where is 

the money going to go to? How much do the railroads—helping the 

railroads—yes, it helps freight movement. It helps the railroads 

also because they are private entities. I am not saying we shouldn’t 

do it. I certainly support that. I supported that with CREATE. But 

how do we draw those lines? 

Mr. IKHRATA. Well, Congressman, we have examples in this region where partnerships, public and private, worked. The Alameda 

Corridor. At the time, it was the biggest public works project, $1.4 

billion, where you had public and private money, and she will tell 

you the amount of stakeholders and the amount of meetings it 

took, but it did happen at the time, in 1985. It took us from 1985 

to 2005 to open. At the time, it was the biggest public works project 

and it involved many stakeholders. 

So I think it is possible to be able to say not only who benefits 

and who pays, but how do we work together to make sure we all 

benefit. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. How does the Federal Government get involved in 

helping to promote this kind of—— 

Mr. IKHRATA. The Federal Government was at the table with Alameda Corridor, and it should be at the table on all these projects 

because, as I stated earlier, if there is a national policy that is 

needed, this is it. Freight movement is it, in my view. This is one 

of those few examples where, whether you are in Chicago—and I 

talk to my colleagues in Chicago almost every week—I think we all 

agree on the national importance of this issue to all of the Nation, 

not just to southern California. Sometimes we are selfish. We say 

southern California, we handle 43 percent. But we believe it is important to Chicago and New York and Florida, every place in the 

Nation. When the ports have a strike, by district, you can see the 

economic disadvantage, the economic hardship in every district 

around the country. 

So, yes, it works everywhere, and I think partnerships with other 

States, partnership with the private sector is needed, not only to 

26 

build the infrastructure but also to mitigate the impacts to the 

communities. 

Mr. AJISE. Congressman, real quickly, I think your statement basically elucidates how complex the issue is in trying to bring everybody together and decide on one funding source, and we are not 

going to do that. But it requires a multiple stakeholdership conversation. 

The importance of the Federal role is it is very difficult for us 

to take any action in one region that may disincentivize activities 

at that port to the benefit of other ports. So the Federal role comes 

in where we all get together and then decide on what a national 

policy is going to be that incentivizes the sourcing of funds to do 

the activities we are talking about. I think trying to assess benefits 

is a good start. That brings everybody to the table. 

An example that we had was with the Trade Corridor Improve- ment Program. We had $2 billion, and the money was basically 

spent in four different regions of the State, but the stakeholdership 

in each of those regions came together and added to what was coming to them to increase and leverage $6.9 billion as a result of that 

conversation. All of those monies came from other sources that benefitted from those projects that we put together. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Mullin? 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to be on this panel. 

I find it pretty interesting that the gentleman who is thinking 

out of the box gets hit on the most. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Fox, I don’t mean that in a lovely way. But I 

am intrigued because what you are saying makes sense, but as I 

have pointed out multiple times, in politics that doesn’t always 

play any role. 

How much thought have you really put into it, though? I mean, 

have you looked at the logistics behind it? Have you looked at 

where this inland port would be? The funding, would the private 

sector be willing to put money into it? I mean, the role that I feel 

like the Federal Government could play is bringing everybody to 

the table and then try to help speeding up all these studies that 

we have to do, studies to make sure the environment and this bird 

and this crab and all this stuff is protected. I would think that we 

would be maybe to facilitate a little bit in that way? 

Mr. FOX. Well, OK. It sounds like a couple of questions there. 

Mr. MULLIN. I know there was. I have a lot more, too. 

Mr. FOX. OK. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FOX. Thanks for recognizing that I am getting beat up here. 

Appreciate that. 

You know, this is not a new idea. It has been discussed and 

looked at and studied. I think one study by the Tioga Group that 

was done in 2005 was, in my view, somewhat of a negative report, 

but it was also done at a time when the economy was kind of 

changing and so forth. I think the time is right now, more than 

ever before, for a couple of reasons. 

27 

Port volumes are getting back to where they used to be. That is 

a good thing. Congestion is worse than it has ever been on our freeway system and in the port terminals. We have a State that is 

looking at environmental issues and providing funding. 

One thing that Ms. Hahn knows better than anybody is that we 

have 9,000 new trucks working the port. Well, that is good and 

bad. It is great because the environment has been cleaned up, and 

Ms. Hahn deserves a lot of credit for that. I think we are at 72 or 

85 percent—the numbers have changed recently—in terms of less 

pollutants in the local community. That is fantastic. But it also 

means that we have less truck drivers available. 

I am telling the panel, in 5 years from now, we are going to have 

a problem having enough port drivers to do the work as volumes 

increase. And if we don’t fix the productivity issue, we are not 

going to have enough port drivers to do the work. So I am getting 

to your answer. 

The inland port has to happen for the next 10 years or 20 or 30 

years down the road. If we don’t start talking about it now, bring 

the stakeholders together and plan for it, and implement it in 5 or 

10 years from now, or sooner, we are going to have major, major 

issues. 

Mr. MULLIN. And I understand what you are saying, take the 

focus a little bit off the roads for now, because we can add the third 

lane, the fourth lane, the fifth lane if we want to. But if we can’t 

get in and out of the port, the congestion at the port, it doesn’t 

make any difference how much we expand the roads. So that 

makes perfect sense to me. 

But is the private sector, is Union Pacific, are the different railroads willing to invest in something like that? I understand the 

touching of the containers. The more times you touch something, 

the more it costs. But will it offset the amount of time that we are 

waiting? Ultimately, we are the ones who pay for it, the consumers. 

The longer Mr. Fox’s trucks have to sit at the port, he has to pass 

that on to us. So where is the offset and where is the balance? 

At what point, Mr. Moore, have you guys looked at that, where 

the balance is tipped enough to where it would make you want to 

invest in it? 

Mr. MOORE. Well, I mentioned the growth in our domestic freight 

movement, which is inside the U.S., so to speak. But the answer 

to the question historically is when does it make sense to do rail, 

when does it make sense to do truck? That business is shrinking 

by 400 miles. I mean, today it doesn’t work. It is easier to truck 

to Phoenix. There are 10 million trucks going to San Francisco, 

zero going on rail, because it is cheaper to do it that way. 

Mr. MULLIN. Sure. 

Mr. MOORE. Until those dynamics change, and someday they will 

as that continues to shrink, at that point in time is probably when 

a purely private model could work. But that is probably premature 

today without some sort of public subsidy. 

Mr. MULLIN. Real quick, my next question is to you. You had 

said in your testimony that your company is investing and has a 

clear plan to invest in the future. How much hindrance through 

regulatory studies and different EPA studies and everything does 

28 

that have in your consideration of where to invest and how to invest? 

Mr. MOORE. I—— 

Mr. MULLIN. What kind of impact does it have when you are 

talking about dealing with the Federal Government? 

Mr. MOORE. Well, I was going to say California is a special place 

to invest and build because of the State laws there. But that has 

an impact—I mean, the Federal issues are not as great, quite 

frankly, in this area as the State issues are. 

Mr. MULLIN. Good enough. Well, I can’t help you with the State 

side of things. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MULLIN. I thank God every day I live in Oklahoma, so I am 

good. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Sires? 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here 

and all the people that are sitting here listening to us. 

Like I mentioned yesterday, I come from the other side, New Jersey. I represent the Port of Newark, the Port of Elizabeth. When 

you talk about congestion, where there is water, air, highway, 

roads, we have it. 

I am glad I came on this trip because one of the differences that 

I have been able to observe is that the concern here is how to get 

the trucks and move the merchandise, which is about 75, 80 percent, into the interior of the country. In my district, 80 percent of 

the merchandise that comes in through the port is consumed within the region. 

So one of the reasons—and I thank you for bringing up the bill, 

the legislation that I put together—is because for many years I 

have been very concerned about moving the freight within the region. That is why I think we have to do multimodal. Every single 

way that you can move freight has to be looked at and intelligently 

worked on so we can move that freight, because you are going to 

get as crowded as I am. Sooner or later, it is coming. 

What concerned me, Mr. Fox—I know you are getting beat up, 

but one more is not going to do anything. One of the things we talk 

about is putting together competitive grants to build whatever infrastructure you need. If you have all those issues that you are 

talking about, why should I put together a program of competitive 

grants when you are so inefficient? Why should I give you money 

if this port is so inefficient? Why don’t I take that money and put 

it someplace where it is more efficient? 

So when we talk about competitive grants, that is taken into consideration. We would be happy to have it in New Jersey, by the 

way. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FOX. Well, you know, the local ports—let me just say, because I know there is some port representatives here—there are 

issues, but it is still a very effective port when you look at the volumes compared to any other port in the country. It is a very efficient port complex, L.A. and Long Beach. There are issues, but 

there are issues everywhere. 

29 

There also is the deep channel ‘‘depth’’ where the larger ships 

can come in, and that is very unique for this country, and that is 

a competitive advantage for Long Beach and L.A. I think there are 

50- and 53-foot depths, and that is where the steamship lines went. 

They went to larger cargo vessels with many more containers, up 

to 18,000 TEUs, with less sailings. That is cost competitive. That 

creates immediate congestion when you dump 18,000 containers 

into a terminal. 

I think the congestion that I am talking about, these are simple 

fixes. For the long term, yes, it is complicated for the UP or the 

BN to provide a shuttle train to an inland port. But let me also 

say that based on the trucking rates, where they are today versus 

when the studies were done 10 or 15 years ago, that gap has come 

down quite a bit. There is not a big gap between trucking a container from the Long Beach Port or L.A. Port to the Inland Empire 

versus putting 250 containers on a train and amortizing that cost 

over 250 containers. That gap is shrinking. It is much smaller. 

I think it takes Federal subsidy for it to work, or a combination 

of State and Federal subsidy. But I think a program can be put together, and I think over the next 5 or 10 years when it is implemented, we can have daily shuttle trains to the Inland Empire, create jobs, get rid of congestion on the freeways. 

Mr. SIRES. You know, I certainly agree with you. I certainly 

agree that the Federal Government has a role to play in this big 

infrastructure project, because I saw what happened in my district. 

We have a bridge in Bayonne, New Jersey, that needs to be raised 

65 feet. What happened was the Port Authority of New York and 

New Jersey put together $1 billion, along with the other projects. 

But what happened is now to go through the tunnel from New Jersey to New York, by the year 2015 I think it is going to be $15 because that money was just passed on to everybody that uses those 

tunnels that the port authority is involved with. 

So if you don’t get the Federal Government involved somewhere 

in assisting—I am not saying that they should pay for the entire 

thing—the public is just going to be stuck, just like you are going 

to have here. The people in this area are going to have these big 

bills to deal with in order to alleviate the situation that you are 

going to confront here in the near future. 

So I am a big believer that there is a role, smartly. I mean, I 

don’t believe in just doling out money, but this is for the betterment of the country. At the end of the process, this country is going 

to be better off if we can make the changes that move the freight 

throughout the country. 

I am sorry. You have a—— 

Mr. IKHRATA. Just to tell you how complex this is, I mean, the 

inland port issue was looked at several times. Mr. Fox mentioned 

the Tioga Group study that SCAG funded. But remember that 80 

percent of the truck traffic is not port related. It is due to manufacturing that ends up on the highway but goes to the warehousing. 

So that makes the concept much more challenging. I mean, if every 

truck that we are talking about is coming from the port, going in 

one route and going to the warehousing, that is one thing. But a 

lot of it is related to manufacturing along the freight corridors, so 

30 

that makes the concept harder. It doesn’t mean that it is a bad concept. It could be worth it. 

But, Congressman, I want to take one thing you said about why 

should you fund us if we are not competitive, and we say don’t fund 

us if we are not competitive. I think this program should be funded 

based on what is the best for the Nation, the best projects for the 

Nation to be funded, and I believe we have many, many areas 

where we could point to the best projects that will benefit the rest 

of the Nation. So I think we should be competitive. I can tell you 

that this region has done enough to tell you we can compete with 

other regions, and there are good projects in other regions that 

should be funded also. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Fox. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you. Before we go to Ms. Napolitano, Ms. 

Brown told me that she needed 10 seconds. I told her if she did 

something in 10 seconds, I would be shocked. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. DUNCAN. So she said she could do it in 30 seconds. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Fox, I think we are calling on you because we 

like Fox News. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BROWN. But seriously, one of the things from the port that 

they told us yesterday, besides the depth, 76 and over 53 feet, one 

of the things they talked about, the new technology is coming online and that they would need a couple of thousand less truck drivers because of the new technology that is coming online. So keep 

that in mind as we move forward, that there is new technology that 

says it is going to expedite the processing at the port. I don’t know, 

but this is what I was told. 

In addition to that, all of you can think about it and give it to 

us later. We talked for 17 years about getting a super project online. What are some of the one-stop permitting things that we can 

do so that we can expedite those times? California is an example. 

You have all these different committees and groups on super 

projects. We need to be able to get everybody in the room and expedite those projects. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you. 

Ms. Napolitano? 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And being the last 

one, I think everything else has been asked except one area. But 

I want to make a couple of comments with Mobility 21. You haven’t 

been in my area in over 4 years, so I have no idea what the heck 

is going on. That is mostly L.A., so I take exception to some of the 

things that are being planned without the San Gabriel Valley being 

involved. 

As far as the funding, the trust funds, I haven’t seen a fund that 

hasn’t been utilized for something other than. I mean, it may be 

related, but not necessarily totally dedicated. So lock boxes may be 

well and good, except we need to be sure that that money is going 

to the proposed projects only. If that is where the money is going 

to come from, the dedicated, and then the shippers can understand 

that this is money that is going to benefit their on-time delivery 

31 

or being able to do things that are specific to including that money 

in the trust fund. 

One of the areas that we have not talked about, Mr. Moore, is 

the impact of the widening of the Panama Canal. How is that going 

to affect the railroads and the jobs and the cargo movement, especially of Mexico and Canada, or also preparing for that? And some 

of the other ports in other parts of the Nation are also deepening 

their channels. 

Mr. MOORE. Well, Congresswoman, we need specifics. We say we 

don’t have a favorite port, but there is really only one port area 

where we are spending $1 billion building a double track two and 

trying to spend a half a billion dollars to improve our facilities. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. That is my point. 

Mr. MOORE. So we are going to believe what we think, and our 

thought is that certainly after the lockout and other issues here in 

2002 to 2003, many companies went to a four corners strategy, and 

a diversion primarily has already occurred, is what our opinion is. 

So that is why we are continuing that investment and continuing 

to move forward, because we think the overall value of the deep 

water ports that you have here, the infrastructure you have in the 

L.A. Basin, including the warehouses, that rail-land bridge to 

points east is what is going to have the most value to the customer. 

As long as that is still true, business is still going to come through 

here, as well as on our railroad. 

So that is why we think we will see what the charges for that 

Panama Canal item, and certainly there is a gulf port coast that 

could have some of that traffic. But as I said, there is only one 

place to invest the kind of money we are building in L.A., and we 

still think it is coming here. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. That is commendable. I know the Canadians 

are building a lot of infrastructure to try to compete. So that brings 

up the question about our shippers who have an option to deliver 

and divert cargo through these foreign ports into our markets to 

avoid the harbor maintenance tax in our ports. But what should 

Congress, what should we do to tax trans-ship cargo coming from 

Canada or Mexico in order to level the playing field? Anybody? 

Ms. PRIMMER. Ms. Napolitano, thank you for the opportunity to 

answer, and I will be sure and meet with your staff after the hearing today to go over how we can be more involved with your district. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. You are using my time, ma’am. To the question. 

Ms. PRIMMER. The Federal Government needs to take the growth 

of Canadian and Mexican ports very seriously. They pose a competitive threat to the U.S. west coast ports and the millions of jobs 

they support. However, the most effective response to this competition is for the U.S. to develop a national freight strategy with clear 

alignment at the State, local, and Federal levels. A national strategy was developed in Canada, and that is a big part of the reason 

why they have been so effective. 

With respect to a cross-border fee, I think the question comes 

back to this: Can we use HMT in a way that returns a benefit to 

those who pay it? Can we use it in a way to enhance the competiVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:39 Sep 19, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\PANELO~1\5-30-1~1\81260.TXT JEAN
32 

tiveness of our national freight system? If we can fix this, then the 

competitive impact has been negated. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. So what would be the suggestion to be able to 

level that playing field? 

Ms. PRIMMER. I would propose that it is more than a simple matter of fairness with regards to the HMT. It is and must continue 

to be viewed as a scarce source of funding that is dedicated to our 

national freight system. If shippers pay money into the fund and 

don’t see a direct and commensurate benefit in return, then we are 

losing an opportunity—— 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. I am talking about the freight from Canada 

and Mexico coming into the United States to avoid paying the tax. 

Ms. PRIMMER. I am sorry. I didn’t understand that last part. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Canada is building a lot of infrastructure to be 

able to go through the northern part of the United States and 

trans-ship into the U.S., and so is Mexico. How are we going to be 

able to tax that to be able to level the playing field for the harbor 

maintenance tax that is payable at our ports? 

Ms. PRIMMER. I don’t have an answer for that. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Anybody? 

Mr. IKHRATA. I think, Congresswoman, one way to do it is to 

make sure we build and invest in our infrastructure as they do, so 

we can compete with these things. I would say that sometimes implementing the new taxes, it might be more costly and less effective 

than it is for us to improve our infrastructure to make sure we can 

compete with these ports. 

Mr. AJISE. I just want to add that I think, Mr. Moore mentioned 

it, the efficiency of being able to get goods from the ports of Long 

Beach/L.A. across country I think is a competitive advantage we 

have. To the extent that we continue to improve that infrastructure 

to be more competitive, I think it is a moot point that they would 

go to those other ports. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. I have a little bit of a difference of opinion. It 

is my own opinion, and yes, the harbors have done a tremendous 

amount of work and have changed in the last decade, that I know 

of, since I sat on transportation at the State level. So we hope that 

this will be enough to be able to keep our ports competitive. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Moore, we have talked for a long time in our committee 

about environmental streamlining. We are tried to do more of it in 

MAP–21, but we still run into delays and problems. All of these 

transportation and infrastructure projects in our country, most of 

them have been taking two or three times longer than most other 

developed nations, and I understand that with your intermodal 

container transfer facility, is it correct that you first applied or 

started in 2007 and the environmental review process is still going 

on? 

Mr. MOORE. Yes. We put our application in for our facility in 

2007 and still haven’t got a draft environmental statement. Our 

competitor, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, I believe, started theirs 

in 2005 and just had EIR clearance in the last month. 

But those issues are really more about State issues. The California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, is what the issue is 

33 

there, and there has been a lot of talk in the last 12 months, from 

the Governor on down, about changing that. I don’t know how optimistic I am that that is really going to happen, but—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. That is going to be what I was going to ask. You 

said this State was a special place, implying that it is more difficult 

to meet the State requirements than the Federal requirements. Of 

course, these projects not only take two or three times longer, they 

end up costing two or three times more, and we are going to have 

to probably give more of the Federal funding to the States that are 

getting things done, I would think. So are you seeing any efforts 

to speed these things up here in the State? 

Mr. MOORE. Seeing conversations about that. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Conversations. OK. 

Mr. Richmond, we were just with Matt Rose all morning with the 

BNSF, and he talked about your Alameda Corridor project, and he 

said it began in 1987 and was completed in 2002. I just wonder 

what mistakes were made or what could we learn from that 15 or 

16 years? Could we do a project of that scope someplace else in 

California or in the country now in less time, or could we do that 

type of project again? Tell us what lessons you learned from that. 

I am sure you have thought about that. 

Mr. RICHMOND. I will try to briefly respond. Actually, Ms. Hahn 

could give you even better firsthand knowledge. But this also predates my involvement out here. But I know that for an extended 

early period of time, there was controversy over many of the issues 

that you are hearing about today, over exactly how the project was 

going to get done, whether there was really a buy-in, enough consensus about being happy with the way the project was proposed. 

That took up a lot of time, I think. Once they got past that, it 

moved relatively quickly. 

In our work, and we are an extension beyond the existing Alameda Corridor that you traveled on, we haven’t had that kind of 

a problem because what we are doing basically is well received in 

the communities because we are basically trying to clean up a 

problem that if we don’t do it, it is going to be a problem. It has 

not been an environmental—everyone has got problems with 

CEQA. We don’t have to do anything under CEQA if we are doing 

a grade separation. So there is an example in CEQA where it is 

positive. We are basically exempt from the process. 

So it really depends, I guess, on what you are proposing and to 

what degree you are really impinging on people. Ms. Hahn could 

give you much more of a firsthand view of exactly what went into 

the Alameda Corridor. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you. 

Ms. Primmer, you—oh, yes, Mr. Ikhrata. 

Mr. IKHRATA. Yes. I think, to add to what Rick said, parallel reviews help. There are multiple agencies, Federal and State, that 

have to review a project, and one agency works for the other. So 

if you somehow figure out a way to review them at the same time, 

then that saves a lot of time. 

Mr. DUNCAN. That is what we have tried to do in MAP–21. 

Mr. IKHRATA. That is correct, and we appreciate that, and we 

hope we expand on that. So empowering the Federal departments 

to do that saves a lot of time for sure. 

34 

I want to say, and my good friend Scott here mentioned CEQA, 

and we believe there is a lot of room to fix some of the aspects of 

CEQA at the State level, and there is actually a bill going through 

Sacramento right now trying to do just that. But the whole issue 

of making a project that takes 17 to 20 years has huge benefits economically speaking and otherwise, and I think we have specific recommendations that would love to work with the committee on 

them, on how to do that and save many, many years on every 

major project. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, we have got to speed these things up. The 

last two major studies by the Federal Highway Administration, one 

study said 13 years, one study said 15 years from conception to 

completion. Many years ago when I chaired the Aviation Subcommittee, the Atlanta airport people came to us and they said 

that it took 14 years from conception to completion for their newest 

runway, which is now several years old, and it took only 99 construction days. It took them that long to get all the approvals, and 

they were so relieved to get all the final approvals and permits and 

so forth that they did that in 33 24-hour construction days. I mean, 

it is crazy. 

But, Ms. Primmer, you mentioned this dedicated source of funding. Do you primarily envision that as a user fee type of funding, 

or what? 

Ms. PRIMMER. Yes. I do believe that a user fee would be an acceptable way to have a dedicated source of funding. I envision it 

as being something that can be used around the seaport communities within a certain radius of the seaports in order to support 

the connection points between the ports and the inland distribution 

and warehousing here in our region, and certainly in other parts 

of the country as well. 

I would just like to take a moment to thank Mr. Miller for his 

work on breaking down barriers in MAP–21 and taking a leadership role there. 

Mr. DUNCAN. He sure did, yes. 

All right. Mr. Ajise, in 2007, California came up with this Goods 

Movement Action Plan, and basically that is, in a way, what we are 

trying to come up with. Tell us what lessons you have learned that 

could help us in our efforts now. We are trying to do that, of 

course, nationwide. But you have had 6 years’, 7 years’ experience 

with that. Has it worked? Has it done some good, or has it fallen 

short? 

Mr. AJISE. It has actually worked. We learned some lessons 

about how it could work better, and we are in the process of 

crafting a new goods movement plan as we speak and expect to 

transfer some of those lessons from the GMAP process. I think the 

GMAP was able to set us up for setting up a goods movement-specific program which became the TCIF, the bond program for the 

Trade Corridor Improvement Program. So we were able to go from 

a plan to a funding element because we had consensus around the 

GMAP as to what were true goods movement type projects. 

But I think what was key, though, what we learned most importantly in the process is the value of bringing all the stakeholders 

to the table, and the ones that were not at the table, either through 

just omission or just not knowing that they were key stakeholders, 

35 

I think that is where the problem was. That is who caused the 

most problem, because they were not at the table at the time. 

But what we are learning now is understanding and defining 

what stakeholdership is around freight movement, and it is not 

your typical run-of-the-mill of everybody that you think should be 

around the table, because actually what we have today is more inclusive. So we expect to use that lesson well to bring others to the 

table that are not typically at the table when you are talking about 

projects. 

But I think the focus on understanding that freight movement is 

a business, and having that as a core element of the discussion, understanding that it is a business that also wants to be responsible 

to the community, and bringing that together ultimately I think is 

the lesson learned. 

Mr. DUNCAN. We have 10 minutes before we have to leave to 

stay on our schedule. Before Mr. Nadler and I close it out, I want 

to ask Mr. Miller and Ms. Hahn if they have anything else they 

would like to say. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Well, I feel for the process of CEQA 

because I authored language to say you didn’t have to go through 

NEPA if you met or exceeded those standards, so that helped a lot. 

But we need to drop a bomb on the State or something to get them 

to do something more realistic because, honestly, approving these 

projects—— 

VOICE. You really don’t mean that. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. No, I don’t mean it. But approving 

these projects is so time-consuming, expensive, cumbersome, and 

the delays you face cost just millions and millions of dollars in the 

process of waiting for the project to come to fruition. I thank you. 

Ms. Hahn? 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you. I heard that was Jesse’s voice from the 

back, and actually that is what I was going to say, is I think we 

should all just come to the realization that these great transportation projects are necessary for this country to remain competitive 

globally. This is about creating jobs. This is about easing congestion. This is about moving goods. But I think we have to come to 

the realization that there has to be mitigation for these projects. 

The health of my constituents in Wilmington and San Pedro 

shouldn’t be compromised just so goods can arrive in Oklahoma on 

time. While the ports are a huge economic engine, they are actually 

the largest polluters in this region. 

So, I agree. I mean, I think the EIRs need to be accurate so that 

we don’t have appeals and we don’t have lawsuits, and let’s get the 

stakeholders in the front, work with the Coalition for Clean Air, 

the NRDC, the AQMD. Get them to the table in the beginning and 

find out how we can mitigate these projects. That is the reality 

going forward, and I think we all agree to that. These projects will 

be done quicker, and at the end of the day they will be better 

projects. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. 

Mr. Nadler? 

Mr. NADLER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank everybody for participating in this. I think, at least around this 

36 

roundtable, I suppose, there is wide agreement, not on everything, 

but wide agreement. 

But one question we really didn’t get an answer to, and I am not 

sure if we are capable of getting an answer now, we agree that 

there ought to be a trust fund, we agree X dollars ought to be 

spent, but where the money comes into that trust fund from no one 

has really been willing to say, and that is the biggest problem we 

are going to have to face in Washington, obviously, because everything else we talk about is pretty meaningless if there is no source 

of those funds. 

We can talk about a trust fund and how we allocate the funds 

from that trust fund, but how the money gets into the trust fund 

is crucial. There is a—some would call it a problem, some wouldn’t, 

but there is clearly an unwillingness among many in Washington 

to increase the gasoline tax, to index it to inflation, or to bring in 

other revenue sources. So we are going to have to figure that one 

out. Otherwise, we are not going to have a revenue source or 

sources from which to fund what we want to fund, although everyone agrees, or at least everyone in this room agrees that we need 

a robust freight policy and a robust freight fund from the Federal 

Government to supplement State and local efforts. 

But we are going to have to face that key question, period. I hope 

we can get some guidance on that because that is—I mean, we are 

going to come back in this committee and the task force is going 

to recommend a unified freight policy. I am sure we are going to 

recommend some sort of trust fund. We are going to recommend 

Federal participation. We are going to recommend standards. But 

how to fund it, I don’t know if we are going to be able to recommend, but someone is going to have to figure that out. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much. 

Let me just close by saying a couple of things. In addition to our 

briefings at the airport and at the ports and with the railroad people and all, we had a very good roundtable yesterday with eight 

witnesses, eight experts, and then, of course, culminating with this 

hearing here this afternoon. We appreciate the hard work that all 

of our witnesses have put into this, and the time. 

But we had quite a few other people or groups that wanted to 

testify. Now, we couldn’t accommodate everybody, but we can accommodate everybody in this way. If any of you on the panel have 

any additional ideas that you have thought of or think of later, or 

if anybody in the audience wishes to submit some suggestions, we 

are open to that. The only thing I would ask, we don’t need a lot 

of flowery generalities. What we need, we need specific, detailed 

suggestions, and that is what we want. 

And so with that, I thank all of you—OK, you can. 

All right. 

VOICE. Because none of these speakers—— 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Let me tell you, sir, I have tried to be 

very fair to everybody in this, but we are not going to do this. 

This hearing is now concluded. 

[Whereupon, at 3:26 p.m., the panel was adjourned.] 

37 


Insert offset folio 5 here 81260.005
38 


Insert offset folio 6 here 81260.006
39 


Insert offset folio 7 here 81260.007
40 


Insert offset folio 8 here 81260.008
41 


Insert offset folio 9 here 81260.009
42 


Insert offset folio 10 here 81260.010
43 


Insert offset folio 11 here 81260.011
44 


Insert offset folio 12 here 81260.012
45 


Insert offset folio 13 here 81260.013
46 


Insert offset folio 14 here 81260.014
47 


Insert offset folio 15 here 81260.015
48 


Insert offset folio 16 here 81260.016
49 


Insert offset folio 17 here 81260.017
50 


Insert offset folio 18 here 81260.018
51 


Insert offset folio 19 here 81260.019
52 


Insert offset folio 20 here 81260.020
53 


Insert offset folio 21 here 81260.021
54 


Insert offset folio 22 here 81260.022
55 


Insert offset folio 23 here 81260.023
56 


Insert offset folio 24 here 81260.024
57 


Insert offset folio 25 here 81260.025
58 


Insert offset folio 26 here 81260.026
59 


Insert offset folio 27 here 81260.027
60 


Insert offset folio 28 here 81260.028
61 


Insert offset folio 29 here 81260.029
62 


Insert offset folio 30 here 81260.030
63 


Insert offset folio 31 here 81260.031
64 


Insert offset folio 32 here 81260.032
65 


Insert offset folio 33 here 81260.033
66 


Insert offset folio 34 here 81260.034
67 


Insert offset folio 35 here 81260.035
68 


Insert offset folio 36 here 81260.036
69 


Insert offset folio 37 here 81260.037
70 


Insert offset folio 38 here 81260.038
71 


Insert offset folio 39 here 81260.039
72 


Insert offset folio 40 here 81260.040
73 


Insert offset folio 41 here 81260.041
74 


Insert offset folio 42 here 81260.042
75 


Insert offset folio 43 here 81260.043
76 


Insert offset folio 44 here 81260.044
77 


Insert offset folio 45 here 81260.045
78 


Insert offset folio 46 here 81260.046
79 


Insert offset folio 47 here 81260.047
80 


Insert offset folio 48 here 81260.048
81 


Insert offset folio 49 here 81260.049
82 


Insert offset folio 50 here 81260.050
83 


Insert offset folio 51 here 81260.051
84 


Insert offset folio 52 here 81260.052
85 


Insert offset folio 53 here 81260.053
86 


Insert offset folio 54 here 81260.054
87 


Insert offset folio 55 here 81260.055
88 


Insert offset folio 56 here 81260.056
89 


Insert offset folio 57 here 81260.057
90 


Insert offset folio 58 here 81260.058
91 


Insert offset folio 59 here 81260.059
92 


Insert offset folio 60 here 81260.060
93 


Insert offset folio 61 here 81260.061
94 


Insert offset folio 62 here 81260.062
95 


Insert offset folio 63 here 81260.063
96 


Insert offset folio 64 here 81260.064
97 


Insert offset folio 65 here 81260.065
98 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 66 here 81260.066