<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:23269.wais]
KEEPING METRO ON TRACK: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN BALANCING
INVESTMENT WITH ACCOUNTABILITY AT WASHINGTON'S TRANSIT AGENCY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 28, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-65
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
23-269 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
JON C. PORTER, Nevada BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia Columbia
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ------
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina (Independent)
------ ------
Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 28, 2005.................................... 1
Statement of:
Siggerud, Katherine, Director, Physical Infrastructure
Issues, Government Accountability Office; Dana Kauffman,
chairman of the board, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority; Richard White, chief executive officer,
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority; William
Millar, president, American Public Transportation
Association; Robert Puentes, fellow, Metropolitan Policy
Program, the Brookings Institution; and Pauline Schneider,
partner, Hunton and Williams, member, Federal City Council. 16
Kauffman, Dana........................................... 51
Millar, William.......................................... 107
Puentes, Robert.......................................... 156
Schneider, Pauline....................................... 166
Siggerud, Katherine...................................... 16
White, Richard........................................... 60
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, prepared statement of............... 198
Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia, prepared statement of................... 4
Kauffman, Dana, chairman of the board, Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, prepared statement of. 54
Millar, William, president, American Public Transportation
Association:
Prepared statement of.................................... 149
Transite Cooperative Research Program Report 85.......... 108
Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Delegate in Congress from the
District of Columbia, prepared statement of................ 8
Puentes, Robert, fellow, Metropolitan Policy Program, the
Brookings Institution, prepared statement of............... 158
Schneider, Pauline, partner, Hunton and Williams, member,
Federal City Council, prepared statement of................ 168
Siggerud, Katherine, Director, Physical Infrastructure
Issues, Government Accountability Office, prepared
statement of............................................... 19
Watson, Hon. Diane E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 195
Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 192
White, Richard, chief executive officer, Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, prepared statement of. 63
Wolf, Hon. Frank R., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia, prepared statement of................... 11
KEEPING METRO ON TRACK: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN BALANCING
INVESTMENT WITH ACCOUNTABILITY AT WASHINGTON'S TRANSIT AGENCY
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 28, 2005
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Tom Davis of Virginia, Gutknecht,
Foxx, Cummings, Watson, Van Hollen, Ruppersberger, and Norton.
Also present: Representatives Wolf, Moran of Virginia, and
Wynn.
Staff present: Melissa Wojciak, staff director; David
Marin, deputy staff director/communications director; Keith
Ausbrook, chief counsel; Mason Alinger, deputy legislative
director; Rob White, press secretary; Drew Crockett, deputy
director of communications; Shalley Kim, professional staff
member; Teresa Austin, chief clerk; Todd Greenwood, legislative
correspondent; Bill Womack, legislative director; Phil Barnett,
minority staff director/chief counsel; Kristin Amerling,
minority general counsel; Michelle Ash, minority chief
legislative counsel; Rosalind Parker, minority counsel; Earley
Green, minority chief clerk; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant
clerk.
Chairman Tom Davis. The committee will come to order.
I want to thank everybody for coming today. The purpose of
today's hearing is to highlight the vital role the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority plays in supporting the
Federal Government and to begin discussing the need for a
reinvigorated Federal commitment to the Metro system, one that
helps ensure Metro has what it needs to accommodate current and
future ridership growth.
The Federal Government's dependence on the Metro system is
undeniable. Hundreds of thousands of Federal employees and
contractors rely on the bus and the rail service of WMATA that
it provides everyday to get to and from work. In fact, half of
Metro's peak riders are Federal employees and contractors. More
than 50 Federal agencies are located adjacent to Metro
stations. As we know all too well, when Metro shuts down, the
Federal Government shuts down.
In addition to Federal employees, every day thousands of
visitors from around the world travel to Washington, DC, and
rely on the Metro system to transport them to the many sights
and landmarks of our Nation's Capital.
Unlike other transportation systems in the country, the
Washington Metro system is a national asset. Congress has
recognized this fact three times in recent decades by
authorizing and appropriating funds for construction and
capital improvements to the Metro system. As Congress has
recognized in the past, Metro is an entity in which all
American taxpayers have an interest.
It is time to recognize that shared national interest, even
if we are to protect past investments and prevent the system
from collapsing. It is time again for Congress to recognize
Metro's importance to Federal operations and commit to a long-
term partnership with WMATA and its member jurisdictions.
To help begin the dialog on the need for a renewed Federal
investment in Metro, today I have introduced legislation that
reaffirms our symbiotic relationship. This legislation amends
the National Capital Transportation Act of 1969--which marked
the Federal Government's first long-term investment in the
Metro system--to authorize $150 million annually over 10 years
for capital improvements and critical maintenance needs.
Recognizing that the Federal Government is not the only
interested or duty-bound stakeholder in WMATA's long-term
health, the legislation stipulates that the Federal investment
will be matched by State and local contributions. Specifically,
the legislation would require the jurisdictions making up the
``WMATA Compact''--Virginia, Maryland, and the District of
Columbia--to come up with a true dedicated funding stream to
pay for their share of Metro's costs before the Federal funding
is authorized.
This is good policy and I think, frankly, it is good
politics. We can't get consensus behind a $1.5 billion Federal
commitment unless we are absolutely certain that WMATA is not
going to continue reeling from year to year, tin cup in hand,
jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The current requirement of
``stable and reliable'' relief is, in reality, anything but.
Subjecting the local match to annual appropriations processes
rather than having a dedicated stream set in stone is not the
wisest way to run a railroad.
In addition to requiring a commitment from State and local
governments before the Federal contribution to Metro kicks in,
the legislation also recognizes that the well publicized
management challenges WMATA has faced in recent years have
prompted calls for enhanced oversight and accountability.
Acknowledging the need to balance new money with strengthened
oversight, the legislation would establish an inspector general
to oversee the affairs of the transit system and would require
Federal representation on the WMATA board, to be named by the
General Services Administration.
These oversight and accountability mechanisms are critical
if we are to credibly move forward with the much-needed
authorization of funds.
Finally, the bill includes language dealing with the
proposed sale or lease of Metro properties in Vienna, Takoma
Park, and Largo. These provisions reflect concerns that I, Mr.
Van Hollen, and Mr. Wynn have about the wisdom of these
proposed sales, especially at a time when we all agree better
accountability and oversight are needed.
I, for one, have yet to see a compelling fiscal case for
the sale of the parcel in Vienna, and I have to ask if Metro is
getting the best bang for its riders' buck. It is hard for me
to make a case for a renewed Federal investment in Metro if
property is so easily disposed.
In the Vienna case, WMATA's own project manager has
acknowledged that the development would result in significant
lost parking that would seriously restrain the Vienna station.
I think I have a responsibility to ask if Metro's capabilities
and limitations are being properly considered in regional land
use planning, and whether Metro has been complicit in illogical
land use decisions. I am hopeful, though, that we will be able
to work that out. We have had conversations with members of the
board and the other stakeholders in that area.
In closing, this is the first inning of a nine inning ball
game. Persuading the Federal Government to take on a new long-
term relationship with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit
Authority will itself be a long-term investment. But I am
committed, as are my colleagues, to invest the time and energy
it takes to make it happen, as are other co-sponsors of the
legislation. As we work to build support in Congress, I am
optimistic that regional jurisdictions will do what needs to be
done on their end to establish a dedicated funding stream for a
transit system we all so heavily rely on.
I welcome today's witnesses and I look forward to their
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.002
Chairman Tom Davis. I now recognize Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I begin by thanking you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
hearing and allowing my participation in witness selection.
More important, today I thank you for your work in leading us
in fashioning a major bill that takes our committee beyond
hearings to the stage of acting on what our prior hearings and
investigations have revealed.
This committee's many hearings on WMATA have revealed a
tangled web of management and financial problems. However, we
have spent most of our time and effort investigating the
system's management and operational problems. That, of course,
is what legislators do. We have held hearings on problems from
faulty escalators that Metro seemed unable to fix, to
derailments, to costly design flaws in cars Metro never caught
that may have contributed to these accidents.
We have commissioned GAO reports on Metro's problems that
have faulted management and recommended changes. Hearings and
official investigations of such problems can provide fodder for
endless hearings, fed by press reports of mishaps, crowding and
delays, not to mention phone calls, e-mails and letters from
our own constituents.
Today's hearing is something of a departure from hearings
that mostly chastise management and workers, and that, frankly,
most please the public because people believe that they have
been heard and that we have been responsive. You can depend on
elected officials to continue today and in the future to put
the people in charge of WMATA on the hot seat. Remember, that
is what we do. However, today we focus as well on issues of
Metro's deteriorating infrastructure that inevitably come with
age and use, and the seldom investigated problem of a system
overwhelmed by the inadequate funding from the regional
partners, the riding public, and the Federal Government.
Today we face the reality that it is no longer possible to
neatly separate Metro's management and funding problems into
separate columns, because our own investigations and reports
show that operations and funding have become inextricably
linked. Today we call the question on our own local
jurisdictions whose costly parochialism has kept them from
finding a dedicated source of funding, as most large systems
have done.
And today we turn the table on ourselves, with a bill that
would authorize money from the Federal Government--which helped
fund the construction of the system initially--not as a gift,
but because of the growing regional Federal workforce--now half
of all Metro riders--and costly and insufferable road
congestion and air pollution that made a new system an
imperative.
The Federal Government, of course, has become ever more
dependent on Metro, so much so that it has provided valuable
progressive incentives to Federal workers to take Metro instead
of cars. Ironically, these excellent subsidies to Federal
employees, rather than to Metro, may be the chief cause of
today's overcrowded cars and for demand that overtaxes the
aging system's capacity.
The bill we introduce today is a classic win-win that could
mean Federal funding that the region and the system have long
sought. However, it will be a lose-lose situation if any of us
hang back. This is a step I have worked to achieve for the 15
years I have been a Member of Congress, and it is so important
to the District and the region that I am co-sponsoring the bill
despite a misgiving about unrelated language that may leave the
impression that Congress is intervening into local zoning and
housing matters.
I do not have objections to the provisions requiring
negotiations with local officials, which is always appropriate,
but as is my custom, I do take issue with Federal mandates that
appear to be designed to overrule local negotiations or
democratically achieved decisions, and particularly where
affordable housing is involved in one of the priciest regions
in the country. However, Chairman Davis has assured me that any
such language is not intended to set a precedent and that he
expects resolution before the final bill.
Nothing must take our eye off the ball that has been stuck
in hearings, investigations and constituent complaints. Now is
the time to clear the field for action. The bill we introduce
today takes a step toward the most significant action for
transportation in this region since WMATA was established 40
years ago. I am pleased to join Chairman Davis and my regional
colleagues in pressing a bill that could revitalize public
transportation in the National Capital Region. I welcome
today's witnesses, whose insights can be invaluable to us as we
make improvements in the bill and head toward voting on the
bill in this committee.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.004
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Although I don't serve
on this committee, I do appreciate your giving me this
opportunity. And I also want to publicly, at the outset, thank
you for your leadership on this issue.
As you know, WMATA operates the Washington region's transit
system, including the 108-mile Metrorail system, which is vital
to the mobility in the Nation's Capital and the greater
Washington area.
I have been pleased, since coming to Congress in 1981, to
support WMATA and the Metro system. The regional bipartisan
congressional delegation over the years has worked to ensure
that the original 103-mile system was built and worked to keep
the system operating and to expand the system to meet the
growing needs.
As the former chairman of the House Transportation
Appropriations Subcommittee, I was pleased to play a role in
obtaining Federal funding to complete the construction of the
originally designed Metrorail system. Through that work, I know
first-hand the delicate balancing of funding necessary to keep
the funding there, and I think that is why you should be
congratulated for this bill.
The Metro system has been called ``America's subway,'' and
it truly is. Not only do our constituents in the greater
Washington area rely on Metro as a commuter system to get to
and from work, but it serves hundreds of thousands of visitors.
Just stop and look today, as you get on the Metro, at the
different people from all over the Nation.
Can you imagine the area without the Metro? If we think we
have near gridlock conditions today on our highways here, where
would we be without Metro? And clearly we do have gridlock
conditions on our highways today in the entire region.
As America's subway, Metro is a unique transit system which
operates as a true Federal, State and local partnership. Every
level of government benefits from the system and every level
has a responsibility to ensure that the system continues to run
efficiently.
Sadly, the system is not healthy. A recent four-part series
in the Washington Post pointed out the obstacles facing Metro,
which I won't elaborate on today. A blue ribbon panel and a
Heritage Foundation report have both concluded it is vital for
Metro to find a dedicated funding source to keep the system
viable.
Again, I want to thank you for the leadership, and I am
pleased to support this legislation. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Frank R. Wolf follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.006
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Wolf, thank you. And thanks for all
the work you have done through the years in getting funding for
this system as well.
Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank my
colleagues for being on the panel. I appreciate your inviting
me to share this hearing with you, because I know that we are
all equally proud of the fact that we have the privilege of
representing the National Capital Region in the U.S. Congress,
as well as the most efficient and effective Federal workforce
that any nation can boast of, and, of course, the seat of the
world's greatest democracy.
Metro is the linchpin that literally binds all of those
entities and interests together. But Metro is confronting a
crisis. Some may be of its own making; years of deferred
maintenance and a patchwork of cobbled together State and local
funding. But that is understandable when you consider the fact
that Metro is the only transit system in the country without a
dedicated source of revenue.
Most of its problems are in response to development beyond
its control, immense demands on regional growth, proposed
expansion of the core system--which I think is absolutely
necessary--and a surge in new ridership, for which they are to
be congratulated. But all have contributed to inconveniencing
riders with service disruptions and raising doubts about
Metro's future success.
I know my colleague and friend has crafted legislation to
re-establish a new Federal commitment that we desperately need
to keep Metro on track. And, in fact, your legislation, Mr.
Chairman, goes even further than the recommendations of the
recent blue ribbon panel. It will provide incentives to create
a dedicated local source of revenue, which I absolutely believe
is essential.
But the Federal funds it authorizes will have eight car
trains on the system during peak hours of ridership, something
that my constituents on the crowded Orange Line know will be
very welcome relief. And if this legislation comes with a
greater Federal say on Metro's board, I think that is
appropriate. If the Federal Government is going to continue to
be expected to foot half of the capital costs, then there
should be Federal representation. And I think a Federal
perspective might help in bringing about the kind of consensus
that is necessary among sometimes competing parochial
interests.
Mr. Chairman, Metrorail is an indispensable part of the
solution to our problems in the National Capital Region.
Certain key road systems should be built, obviously. But we
cannot pave our way out of our congestion problems. We estimate
that there is going to be a need for 800,000 more residential
units over the next decade. And that comes from Steve Foler.
And we may well see that just in northern Virginia. It is Metro
that presents the only way to deal with that massive expansion.
But as you know, Mr. Chairman, from our discussions over
the past week--and I understand from Ms. Norton you have had
similar discussions with Ms. Norton--I have been reticent to go
on this bill. I went on because I agree with 95 percent of what
is in the bill. It is a good bill. But the 5 percent I take
exception to.
We have worked together on so many issues, and I could give
a long list of them. Lorton comes to mind and any number of
others. But, as you know, I think you are wrong on terms of the
legislation that restricts Metro from being able to sell its
property and restricts Fairfax County from being able to
determine its land use and zoning decisions. It is not in my
district, I understand that, but it sets a precedent that I
think is an unfortunate land use precedent.
The only way, as Ms. Norton suggested, that we can provide
affordable housing for our workforce, never mind low-income
people, for our workforce, we have to go up. There is no more
land. And if we are going to go up and still enable people to
get to work and to shop, etc., we have to have public transit
where they live, so that they can live, they can shop, they can
work without having to get into an automobile. And the only way
to do that is to have much higher density around our Metro
stations.
The jurisdictions that are not willing to do that, they
have to be subsidized by those who are, and ultimately it will
be D.C. and Arlington and, to some extent, Maryland suburbs who
do that subsidization. I think that is wrong. I do think we
ought to be focusing our development around Metro stations with
as high a density as we can accommodate. And I don't think the
decision that you have made with regard to the Vienna Metro is
consistent with that objective. You know that, but I have to
say it on the record.
Chairman Tom Davis. Well, I have to say on the record I am
sure your constituents in Reston will be very happy with the
fact that you have come out for much higher densities along
that corridor as well, that is going to be the price. We are
losing 650 parking places in Vienna under the proposed rule at
this point at the terminus of Metro. It is not in your
district.
And, you know, this isn't a precedent. You and I worked
together in the Lorton area for a land transfer down there. We
got into the land use issues. And, frankly, this is staying in
the bill until my concerns are addressed. I hope that they will
be addressed. But you brought it up, so I am going to just tell
you that is the price of poker here.
Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues.
First of all, let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
leadership in putting together the authorization legislation
and reaching out to members of the region on a bipartisan
basis.
I think we all understand the critical role that Metro pays
in the economic health of this region as part of the strategy
to reduce congestion and also, at the same time, to try and
keep our air clean. We have been through very hot days
recently. We know the impact of smog. And obviously to the
extent we can get cars off the street and people onto Metro, we
both reduce congestion and also can help our air quality in
this region.
It is obviously an important lifeline to the Federal
Government, given the number of Federal employees that use the
Metro system and are a part of working everyday for the people
of our country through their service in the Federal Government.
And it is essential in so many other ways to this region.
So I want to thank WMATA for its efforts over many, many
years. It has faced tremendous challenges and tremendous
growth, and we have seen the impact of those challenges, I
think, recently in a number of the stories that we saw in the
Washington Post and other areas that has overwhelmed in many
ways our capacity to deal with the system on a daily basis.
This bill contains two major components, and they are tied
together: one is resources; the other is accountability. On the
resources front, I think we all understand that Metro, given
its growth and anticipated growth in the future, is going to
require additional resources. The dedicated funding provisions
in this bill will hopefully provide a predictable and reliable
source of revenue. And the Federal component is essential, and
I think it is warranted given the fact that the Metro system is
essential to the operations of the Federal Government, and we
are, of course, in our Nation's Capital here.
That Federal commitment I think can only be justified,
however, if we ensure Federal taxpayers that there is the
accountability piece to it, No. 1; and, No. 2, that they have
some participation on the board. And this bill deals with both
those issues: on the accountability side through the creation
of the inspector general, and on the board side by allowing
Federal representatives.
So I think it is a good package. We face increasing
challenges and also threats. In the aftermath of the Madrid and
London bombings, we are going to have to obviously be more
vigilant than ever, and that is going to require additional
resources in the system. I know that we will have a continued
oversight over the progress Metro is making in that area and
making sure that we provide for the safety of the riders on
Metro.
Let me just briefly mention one of the local provisions in
this bill that deals with Takoma Park. And I want to make it
clear that the provision in this bill does not do anything to
stop the development at the Takoma Park Metro station. It is
not the intent to stop the development at the Takoma Park Metro
station. It is designed entirely to ensure that the community
is given a fair opportunity to provide input into that effort
and to make sure that a number of concerns are addressed in a
fair way.
And I want to thank WMATA representatives for some of their
early meetings that have already been had with members of the
community, but we want to make sure that we have full and fair
participation of the community in that process to make sure
that the project is the very best project it can be and meet
the interests of everybody in the community.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I look forward
to the hearing and the work on the legislation.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
I might add our provisions don't stop any development. That
is not our goal. Counties make land use. All we can look at is
protecting Metro's interests in this as well.
Mr. Wynn, would you care to make an opening statement?
Mr. Wynn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time I am going
to defer, but I do want to take a moment to thank you for
calling this hearing and for your initiative with regard to the
Metro system. I certainly appreciate it and look forward to the
hearing. And I will have some comments perhaps later on. Thank
you.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. It has been a long
time since we have had this kind of Federal commitment for
funding Metro, and hopefully, working together with our local
partners, we can keep our investment in the system solid and
keep this a great system.
We will have our first panel. Members will have 7 days to
submit opening statements for the record. Our witness panel:
Katherine Siggerud, who is the Director of Physical
Infrastructure Issues at the Government Accountability Office;
Dana Kauffman, a board chairman for the Washington Metropolitan
Area Transit Authority, no stranger to us; and Richard White,
the chief executive officer, Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority.
And thank you, Dana, for being here.
I might add Dana serves on the County Board in Fairfax and
served under Joe Alexander, who is also a former chair. Thanks
for being here, Dana.
William Millar, the president of the American Public
Transportation Association. Thank you for being here.
Robert Puentes, who is a fellow at the Metropolitan Policy,
Brookings Institute; and Pauline Schneider, who is a partner at
Hunton and Williams, and a member of the Federal City Council.
It is our policy we swear witnesses in before we testify,
so just rise and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Ms. Siggerud, you have done a lot of work on this. Why
don't you start, and then we will move right down the line.
Your entire testimony is part of the record and questions will
be based on the entire testimony.
Ms. Siggerud, thank you for being with us.
STATEMENTS OF KATHERINE SIGGERUD, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; DANA
KAUFFMAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA
TRANSIT AUTHORITY; RICHARD WHITE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY; WILLIAM MILLAR,
PRESIDENT, AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION; ROBERT
PUENTES, FELLOW, METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM, THE BROOKINGS
INSTITUTION; AND PAULINE SCHNEIDER, PARTNER, HUNTON AND
WILLIAMS, MEMBER, FEDERAL CITY COUNCIL
STATEMENT OF KATHERINE SIGGERUD
Ms. Siggerud. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, and
members of the Washington area delegation, I am pleased to
testify before you today on issues related to the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority [WMATA].
Recently, a regional panel reviewed WMATA's funding and
found that it faces substantial financial and budgetary
challenges. Last month, the Washington Post series article also
outlined operational issues that affect the reliability of its
transit services.
At the same time, ridership is at an all-time high, making
WMATA the second largest rail system and the fifth largest bus
system in the country. It is imperative that WMATA remain an
adequately funded and well managed organization because it
provides an indispensable transit option for hundreds of
thousands of Washington area commuters, including Federal
Government employees; also for tourists and others who travel
in the region every day.
My statement today is based on the interim results of work
that you requested that GAO undertake. I will discuss first
WMATA's responsibilities for serving the interest of the
Federal Government and the Washington region; second, the
current funding challenges facing WMATA and options proposed;
and, third, options in providing safeguards and oversight of
any additional Federal assistance provided to WMATA should
Congress decide to do so.
Turning now to my first topic. Using data from WMATA's 2002
passenger survey, a significant portion of Metrorail riders
were Federal employees at that time. Estimates for the peak
period times were that 41 percent of the riders are Federal
employees and 37 percent in the afternoon peak period. Looking
at this issue another way, about 40 percent of Federal
employees use Metrorail.
Federal agencies specifically rely on WMATA's services. OPM
considers Metro's operating status as to be key to the
decisions about closing the Federal Government in times of
emergency. The General Services Administration and the National
Capital Planning Commission instruct Federal agencies to locate
near transit stops as part of an effort to reduce congestion
and improve air quality.
WMATA also plays an important role in transporting people
to special events that occur because Washington is the Nation's
Capital. These include rallies, celebrations on the Mall, and
inaugurations.
WMATA has also taken on significant responsibility with
regard to security of its passengers and facilities. WMATA
trains first-responders in emergency management techniques at
its facility in Landover. The Metrorail system is the first in
the country to equip selected rail stations with chemical early
warning systems. WMATA has stepped up police presence in
response to heightened terrorist alerts and incurred
significant overtime costs as a result. The Federal Government
has paid for a portion of these security-related costs.
With regard to funding, WMATA's challenges are most acute
for its capital projects. WMATA is to be commended for the
capital planning effort it undertook, in part in response to
our 2001 recommendation. Nevertheless, this plan demonstrated
that the costs of maintaining and enhancing the system exceed
available resources.
A regional panel convened last September and estimated that
WMATA would have a total budgetary shortfall of $2.4 billion
through fiscal year 2015 if it went forward with the projects
in its capital improvement plan. We believe that the budgetary
shortfall may be even greater because the estimate did not
include the costs of providing paratransit services, as
required under the Americans With Disabilities Act, these costs
are significant. In fact, the panel estimated these services
could result in an additional shortfall for WMATA of about $1.1
billion.
In dealing with its funding challenges, WMATA, unlike other
major transit systems, does not have a dedicated source of
revenue. We have noted this as the limiting factor for WMATA in
reports dated all the way back to 1979. As a result, the
regional panel concluded that the Washington region does need
such a source. The panel also concluded that the Federal
Government should help to address the budgetary shortfall,
particularly for capital maintenance and system enhancement,
citing specifically the benefits WMATA provides to the
Washington region and to the Federal Government. We would note
that any decision to provide additional Federal support should
be balanced against competing claims on Federal resources and
consider the Federal fiscal constraints.
To the extent that this committee and the Congress as a
whole decide to provide additional funding, Congress should
also have reasonable assurances that it will be spent
efficiently and effectively. Congress has long recognized the
benefits of spending safeguards, especially for high-cost
transportation infrastructure projects, and of management
oversight for the local agencies that receive the funding.
I am pleased to say that, according to my discussions with
your staff, several of the safeguards we identified are under
consideration. Examples include, first, matching requirements
for capital projects. Federal law has historically controlled
the use of Federal transportation funds, including instituting
matching requirements to ensure local contributions.
Second, Federal oversight through the Federal Transit
Administration. This project management oversight program run
by FTA reviews transit projects to determine whether they are
on time and on budget. This oversight has been useful in
monitoring several recent WMATA projects. Third, congressional
oversight. This would include specifying the types of eligible
projects and also requiring periodic reporting to Congress on
plans for using Federal funds and the results of the
investment.
Finally, Congress could institute additional oversight for
WMATA. Our ongoing work shows that WMATA already has multiple
oversight entities, including the FTA program, the Office of
Auditor General, and an external auditor to review the
financial statements. It has also recently sought reviews from
the American Public Transportation Association.
Nevertheless, should the Congress decide that a different
approach to oversight is necessary, we hope it would be
structured in a way to complement and integrate the existing
current oversight and to inform WMATA management and its board
of overall management and operational challenges.
This concludes my statements. I am happy to take questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Siggerud follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.038
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Chairman Kauffman, thanks for being with us.
STATEMENT OF DANA KAUFFMAN
Mr. Kauffman. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
members of the committee, and my Congressman and friend, Jim
Moran. I am pleased to discuss the policy issues you have
raised, as well as the fundamental reforms we, as the Metro
Board, are working to implement to help improve the service to
our customers.
Before I do that, however, I would like to personally thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for your draft bill. It is the first
substantive proposal for transit funding that the Washington
region has seen in more than a generation, and I look forward
to working with you to make it happen, while keeping local land
use decisionmaking local.
In your invitation, you asked why Congress should again
authorize funding for Metro and why its needs are dissimilar to
those of other transit systems. When Congress enacted the
National Capital Transportation Act in 1960, it recognized the
necessity to create a unique Federal financial support,
declaring, ``the creation of certain major transportation
facilities are beyond the financial capability of local
governments in the region.'' Forty-five years later, Mr.
Chairman, this still holds true.
WMATA is unique among transit systems across the Nation in
serving two States, the District of Columbia, and the Federal
enclave. No other transit system in the Nation has the Federal
Government as the primary employer in its service area. Not
only is the Federal Government the dominant consumer of Metro
daily service, it imposes a multitude of special demands for
extraordinarily large events on the National Mall and security
needs.
Metro, in fact, was vital in getting people home with our
Nation was attacked on September 11th. This unique importance
was affirmed in the recent blue ribbon panel report which
found, ``Over the past 50 years, every administration has
supported Metro because of its essential nature to the Federal
operations in the National Capital region.''
Your second question asked why it is necessary to have
State and local dedicated funding and why it doesn't exist. The
1980 Stark-Harris bill, authorizing Federal construction funds
for Metro, included a requirement for ``stable and reliable''
non-Federal funding to meet Metro's ongoing operating and
maintenance costs. The blue ribbon panel found that the
implementation of ``stable and reliable'' has fallen short of
expectations.
While funding has regularly flowed to Metro, it is subject
to the annual budget and appropriations process of two States,
the District of Columbia, five local jurisdictions in Virginia,
and the Federal Government. Frankly, it is like passing the hat
to keep the doors of the Washington Monument open; it is
funding by lowest common denominator.
As you well know, this is perhaps the most politically
complex region in the country, and devising an equitable
approach to dedicated funding has been and continues to be a
daunting task. It is now time to bring the region together to
reach consensus on a new State-local-Federal partnership with
permanent, stable, predictable, dedicated funding sources so
Metro does not have to reel from one funding crisis to another.
Your next question was about the Board's review of the
Metro budget. There are multiple layers of budget review. The
Board's Budget Committee reviews the budget in great detail,
followed by extensive review by local government staff, formal
comment by Maryland, the District, and State and local
governments in Virginia. The Board's Budget Committee receives
and discusses monthly reports on the execution of the budget,
approves all significant contracting actions, and retains
authority of all programming funds it incurs after budget
adoption.
All that being said, Mr. Chairman, we can do better. For
the fiscal year 2007 budget, Budget Chairman Committee Gladys
Mack and I are working on adding performance measures and
longer term strategic reviews. Our Riders' Advisory Council is
also expected to weigh in on Metro's budget.
You posed the question does the Board composition leave it
vulnerable to political pressures. Well, anybody that
represents the sometimes divergent needs of Maryland, Virginia,
and the District, as well as two counties and three cities in
Virginia, two counties in Maryland, inevitably will face
political tugs and pulls. The range of opinions, backgrounds,
and experiences among the stakeholders can make consensus
difficult, but, frankly, it is one of our biggest strengths.
The political pressures on our Board are not necessarily
vulnerability, but, rather, they ensure that we are sensitive
and accountable to the public and the consumers we serve. Also
to further ensure our accountability to our riders, we will
have in place by the end of this year a Riders' Advisory
Council to give the Board real time feedback on the service to
our customers.
You asked, with additional Federal funding, would it be
appropriate to add Federal representation to the Board. Given
the strong Federal investment and interest in maintaining a
healthy Metro, many of my colleagues and I would be open to a
stronger partnership with the Federal Government, including a
seat on the WMATA Board, if that participation is clearly
linked to the appropriation of significant additional Federal
funds.
Your final question was whether there is adequate oversight
and my opinion on the concept of adding an inspector general.
WMATA's Office of the Auditor General is robust, with a staff
of 27 that provides independent appraisals of WMATA operations
and business practices, and monitors compliance with laws and
regulations. This group, which unearthed many of the concerns
highlighted in recent Post stories, has been given greater
procedural authority to ensure action when future concerns are
raised.
Also, in the past 4 years, Metro has been subject to 10 FDA
reviews, 3 GAO reviews, 2 outside audits, and 2 peer reviews.
Finally, the Board, at my request, is currently considering
options for even more effective oversight, including the
possibility of having an audit function or inspector general
reporting directly to the Board.
I would like to close by extending my appreciation on
behalf of the Board for the thoughtful and rigorous process you
are undertaking to examine Metro's needs and organizational
effectiveness, and to advance the discussion of stable funding
and new Federal funding. Like Metro or not, support its
expansion or not, even our harshest critics must acknowledge
that Metrorail and bus system is integral to any effort to keep
this region moving.
This February, when I made my first remarks as Metro
chairman, I said the following: ``I don't underestimate the
enormous challenge all our stakeholders will face to establish
the stable and reliable funding we need to keep America's
subway in good repair. However, we have been talking about this
since 1979. Now we must test to see if anybody is listening.''
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for listening and acting.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kauffman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.044
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much, Chairman Kauffman.
Mr. White.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD WHITE
Mr. White. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this
morning, and thank you for your longstanding support of Metro,
all of you.
My name is Richard White, and I am the general manager and
chief executive officer of the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority. I request that my full statement be inserted
for the record, along with several attachments, including the
answers to the six questions posed in your invitation letter.
More than 50 years ago, the Federal Government in its
region forged a unique and vital partnership to pursue a grand
vision to design and build a rapid transit system that would
serve the Federal Government and be worthy of the Nation's
Capital. Over 30 years ago, the responsibility for operating
and maintaining a regional bus system was also transferred to
Metro.
By any measure, Metro has succeeded beyond anyone's
expectations in meeting Congress's goals. In fiscal year 2005,
WMATA carried 344 million passenger trips on rail and bus. The
original 103-mile Metrorail regional system cost $10 billion to
construct, 69 percent of which was paid for by the Federal
Government. The value of this asset represents $24 billion in
today's dollars.
I would like to submit for the record a chart that shows
how Metro's fiscal year 2006 totaled $1.6 billion operating and
capital budgets, which are funded with a combination of $832
million, or 53 percent, in non-Federal funds; $579 million, or
36 percent, in fares and other non-passenger revenues; and $179
million, or 11 percent, in Federal funds. Metro provides an
excellent return on this investment, particularly to the
Federal Government.
What makes the Metro system unique among transit systems is
that Metro was built primarily to serve the Federal workforce
and to serve the National Capital area, and it has done so
admirably for decades. But Metro is now a mature system and it
faces a new set of challenges. Our infrastructure is aging; 60
percent of our Metrorail system is more than 20 years old and
the average age of our bus fleet is 9.91 years. And daily
ridership has grown by 33 percent in the last 8 years.
The cost of operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation
have outstripped the funding ability of our State and local
funding partners. We need the Federal Government to help keep
the system healthy if we are going to continue to serve the
Federal Government reliably.
Since the Federal Government has limited its transit
support to capital funding in recent years, I will focus my
remarks on our capital funding needs.
Our State and local funding partners stepped up to the
plate last fall and signed the Metro Matters Funding Agreement,
substantially increasing their funding commitments to provide
$3.3 billion in capital funds through the year 2010. Over the
life of the Metro Matters agreement, $1.7 billion, or 51
percent, is planned to come from non-Federal funds and $1.6
billion, or 49 percent, from Federal funds. The agreement
envisions both continuing Federal transit formula funds and
$260 million in new discretionary Federal funding.
But the Metro Matters agreement is a short-term interim fix
through the year 2010. New agreements will need to be
negotiated and implemented by the year 2008 in order to allow
lead time for new long-term capital projects.
After an exhaustive review, the report of the Metro Funding
Panel, sponsored by the Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments, the Greater Washington Board of Trade, and the
Federal City Council was completed in January of this year and
found that, even after accounting for periodic future fare
increases and inflationary adjustments to existing State and
local subsidies, Metro faces a $2.4 billion shortfall,
comprised of $1.88 billion in capital funds and $500 million in
operating funds, over the next 10 years, excluding a $1.1
billion projected shortfall associated with paratransit costs.
The panel recommended the Federal Government defray 50 percent
of Metro's projected shortfall, or $940 million of the capital
shortfall, based on the Federal Government's dependence on
Metro.
Added to the $260 million in new Federal funding
anticipated in the Metro Matters Funding Agreement, the capital
shortfall is envisioned to be $1.2 billion for the Federal
Government. This amount of funding will enable Metro to
continue our ongoing infrastructure renewal program, equip 75
percent of rush hour trains with eight-car trains, purchase 275
buses, make improvements on 140 miles of bus routes, and
provide other passenger amenities. It does not include funding
for fixed guideway expansion.
At the same time, we are advocating a continuing
partnership with the Federal Government in keeping the Metro
system in a state of good repair. We are also seeking State and
local dedicated funding. In fact, WMATA is the only major
public transportation system in the country without a dedicated
funding source to pay for operations and capital requirements.
The need to address this shortcoming is becoming more and
more urgent. The June 2004 report by the Brookings Institution,
revealingly titled ``Washington's Metro: Deficits by Design,''
concluded that WMATA receives less than 2 percent of its
capital and operating funding from dedicated sources, as
compared to a national average of 34.7 percent.
Mr. Kauffman's and my extended testimony describe a number
of organizational improvements designed to make our service
more reliable and our agency more accountable and responsive to
the public. I don't deny that we have our challenges. We
recognize that we need to change the way we manage our
challenges, and many of these changes are well underway and are
producing positive results. Our railcar reliability has
improved 42 percent between December of last year and May of
this year, and is expected to improve even further by the end
of this year due to recently implemented organizational changes
and contract management changes.
Overall, the availability of our 588 escalators has
improved 3 percent over the past 5 years. As a result, 93
percent of the time passengers can find a working escalator,
and they can find a working elevator 97 percent of the time.
We have been working with the disabled community to develop
a new, more rigorous and effective contract for paratransit
service. We are currently evaluating proposals and expect to
award a new contract this coming fall. In addition, in the
interim, we have added improved safeguards to our existing
contract.
We have established a strict protocol for making and
enforcing audit and safety recommendations. The policy
establishes procedures for resolving areas of dispute and for
ensuring implementation of recommended actions. For a complete
list of procedures for the safety intervention program, please
refer to attachment 3 of my testimony.
Our message today is that the Federal Government and the
region have made a substantial investment in an extremely
valuable asset that is designed to serve the Federal workforce
and the National Capital Region. We must act expeditiously to
protect that substantial public investment. Now is the time to
recommit to the original Federal-State-local partnership and
put Metro on a stable funding course to avoid slipping into
serious disruption.
I commit to you that we recognize and we are facing up to
our need for improvement. We look forward to working with you
and the entire National Capital Region to address this urgent
matter and to move forward with your important and timely
funding initiative.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. White follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.088
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. White.
Mr. Millar.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM MILLAR
Mr. Millar. Mr. Chairman, good morning, and thank you for
having me back. I will be speaking specifically about how
transit systems around the country are--generally, oversight
occurs in several different ways. Certainly, the citizen
members and elected officials who serve on transit boards is a
significant way; reports that are required by Federal, State,
and local governments and the audits thereto; and many transit
systems have strong internal audit departments which review
various aspects of the operation. There has also been a recent
trend to the appointment of inspectors general, and I will
speak specifically to those major properties who have those
points.
Starting with the first point here, the transit boards
around the country, recently, a report done through the Transit
Cooperative Research Program was completed a couple years ago,
Special Report No. 85--and I would submit that for the record
with my testimony.
Chairman Tom Davis. Without objection, it will be placed
into the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.127
Mr. Millar. Thank you.
It surveyed a number of transit boards and chief executive
officers around the country about the issues of oversight and
accountability. Generally speaking, it found the transit boards
are charged to serve as the policymakers of the transit system.
Transit governance includes usually strategic guidance, legal
and fiduciary oversight, and customer representation. Boards
frequently engage outside experts to assist them in these
tasks. For example, it is very normal for boards to hire
independent external auditors to review the accuracy of their
financial accounting, but also to review internal controls and
related issues.
While each transit system's local enabling legislation
provides the board authority to govern, it generally fails to
provide specific details on the process of that governance. And
given that lack of specificity, in some instances there may be
a lack of clarity between what belongs to the board versus the
day-to-day responsibilities of the CEO and staff. Thus,
frequently, in the best-run transit systems, effort is put in
by both parties to make sure that line is clear and
appropriate.
Because of this, APTA's Transit Board Member Committee has
developed guidance for its board members in the form of a
handbook. The handbook points out various issues and discusses
the board's policymaking function and defines the general rules
and principles that seem to apply.
Obviously, as I said before, different boards are governed
by different statutes, so it is difficult to generalize, but in
the areas of strategic interest, budget, fiduciary matters are
the main areas where they work. Management, on the other hand,
is involved in the day-to-day operation of the system.
Interestingly enough, the report points out the importance
of the strong and solid working relationship between the CEO of
the organization and the board. And, again, the most successful
organizations work hard on that relationship.
With regard to the issue of Federal oversight of transit
agencies, I believe that both Ms. Siggerud's testimony and Mr.
White's testimony spoke to the many, many different ways that
the Federal Government is involved in the oversight, whether it
is specific audits that are required to receive Federal funds,
such as under OMB Circular A-133, or the Triennial Audits that
the Federal Transit Administration is required to produce, or
specific audits for specific compliance areas, such as Buy
America regulations, things of that sort. There are also audits
related to post and pre-award of certain types of procurements
that are involved. So it is a very extensive oversight required
by the Federal regulations.
Most transit systems also employ an internal audit
function. The internal auditing is intended to be an
independent objective assurance that the activities that are
carried out, usually by the staff, add value and improve the
organization's operations. It also usually includes a review of
organizational objectives and how the activities of the staff
help to meet those objectives.
Generally speaking, the audit staff has full and
unrestricted access to all activities, records, data files,
personnel and physical properties that allow them to perform
their internal audits. They typically would audit things such
as fare collection practices, capital assets and the use and
protection thereof, personnel performance, ethics issues
involving allegations of fraud and waste. Sometimes this audit
function is a separate department within the transit agency;
sometimes it reports to the CEO, sometimes it reports to the
board, and sometimes it reports to both the CEO and the board.
You asked specifically about the use of inspectors general
for oversight, and I would say this is a growing trend,
particularly among the largest transit systems. Several transit
systems, including the New York Metropolitan Transportation
Authority, the Nation's largest, the Chicago Transit Authority,
the Nation's second largest, and the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the third largest, each
employ the inspector general approach. In each case the
inspector general is independent and reports to the transit
board or some outside entity.
The inspectors general and their staffs generally, as with
the audits before, have full and free and unrestricted access
to transit property records, reports, audits, reviews, and
other information. Usually, the inspector general prepares
reports and audits of information. That information is normally
made available to the public. The inspectors general will also
review adopted performance measures, those adopted by the board
or required of legislatures, and also review the performance
against those. They will then typically publicize that.
My full testimony contains additional information, and at
the right time I would be pleased to answer any questions about
it. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to be
with you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Millar follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.134
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Puentes, thank you for being with us.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT PUENTES
Mr. Puentes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee. I appreciate being invited to testify today on the
unique funding challenges of the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority.
I am Robert Puentes, a fellow with the Metropolitan Policy
Program at the Brookings Institution.
As Mr. White mentioned, in June 2004, Brookings released a
paper entitled ``Washington Metro: Deficits by Design.'' This
research examined the unusual financial structure of WMATA and
found that the agency's serious budgetary challenges owe in
large part to its problematic revenue base.
I will focus my comments this morning on key elements of
that research, including the importance of a stable and
dedicated revenue source for WMATA and the issue of increased
oversight and accountability.
As has been discussed this morning, because of the lack of
a stable and dedicated revenue stream, WMATA must rely
excessively on general fund revenues from its partners just to
keep the system functioning. This is, of course, a difficult
problem for any transit agency, but for the fourth largest
agency in the country such an over-reliance is extraordinary
and problematic for several reasons.
First, it has long been understood that the lack of a
dedicated revenue source is both unique and challenging for
WMATA. As has been mentioned this morning, a 1979 GAO report
stated that competition for local revenues and the increasing
burdens of property taxes made a new and dedicated source for
WMATA almost mandatory.
Another GAO report in 1983 noted that the Stark-Harris Act,
which authorized $1.7 billion in Federal money for construction
expenses, required the local governments to establish a stable
and reliable source of revenue. According to the GAO, the
purpose of this requirement was to ensure that, once the rail
system was built, there would be sufficient revenues available
to maintain and operate it. We are feeling the effects of that
today.
Next, WMATA's financial arrangement differs sharply from
how virtually all transit agencies throughout the country are
funded. You have heard that this morning as well. In terms of
capital expenses, 21 percent of WMATA's funds come from local
general revenue sources in 2002, compared to less than 5
percent nationally.
On the operating side, WMATA's 15 percent local revenue
figure compares to only about 8 percent nationally. Therefore,
a significant component of WMATA's annual funding is vulnerable
to competition with other pressing local priorities and WMATA
must compete each year with other basic local expenditures,
such as police, schools, and parks, as well as other
transportation services.
This over-reliance on local funds puts tremendous strains
on the annual budget process. For one thing, as was mentioned,
although the local partners have reaffirmed their commitment to
WMATA over and over again, concerns that one or more partners
may balk at their annual bill are ever-present.
In addition, the general lack of year-to-year assurance in
the budget process makes it more challenging for WMATA to plan
for large capital projects. As many projects extend and must be
financed well over single-year budget cycles, a stable and
dedicated source of revenue would provide WMATA the ability to
more carefully and efficiently plan and finance such projects.
Finally, a lack of stable and dedicated source of revenue
also threatens the agency's creditworthiness. Moody's Rating
Service recently pointed out that as a multi-jurisdictional
entity without a dedicated funding source to support operations
and capital needs, WMATA is vulnerable to some degree of
appropriations risk. Among other things, this risk makes it
potentially difficult and more expensive for WMATA to borrow
funds and issue bonds for capital investments.
Mr. Chairman, for all these reasons, the need for a
dedicated source of revenue for WMATA is clear. Now, some have
argued that dedicated revenue sources could be generated and
administered in the District, Virginia, and Maryland
independently according to their particular preferences and
traditions. However, given that WMATA is often cited as one of
the few truly regional collaborations in this metropolitan area
and the wide distribution of benefits received from the
service, a revenue source enacted at the regional level would
certainly be preferable to patchwork of separate local sources.
Last, it is true that the oversight and attention that the
local and State governments give to WMATA is intense, and there
is no reason to assume that this scrutiny would not continue.
We heard this morning of the many ways that the oversight is
continuing anyway. Nevertheless, some measure of increased
oversight and accountability should be made a condition
associated with any dedicated revenue source.
It is important to point out, though, that although
increased oversight and accountability is largely common for
transit agencies, as Mr. Millar pointed out, it is largely
unprecedented when considered in the context with other Federal
policy initiatives related to surface transportation. The
starkest example is the $287 billion transportation bill that
Congress will send to the President this week. Although it is
wholly related, that bill is utterly lacking in accountability,
despite the much larger price tag and ultimately much larger
impact on the Nation's transportation system.
As my comments and research have tried to illustrate, the
challenges WMATA faces are very complex and unique. WMATA does
need a stable, reliable, and dedicated source of revenue to
better maintain and operate the existing system, take the
pressure off the region's local governments, and ensure better
long-term planning and ultimately better land use.
Certainly, pitfalls do exist. Implementation is certainly
not easy. And yet, Mr Chairman, the Washington metropolitan
area cannot afford to have a transit system that is hampered
from operating at its fullest and most efficient potential.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before
you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Puentes follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.142
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Ms. Schneider, thanks for being last, but not least. We
appreciate your being here.
STATEMENT OF PAULINE SCHNEIDER
Ms. Schneider. Thank you, Chairman Davis and members of the
committee. My name is Pauline Schneider. I am a partner at
Hunton and Williams, and I come here today as a member of the
blue ribbon task force that was responsible for preparing the
Metro funding report that was issued in January of this year.
As a follow-on to my service on that task force, I have agreed
to serve as vice chair of the Business Transportation Action
Coalition [BTRAC], which was formed by the Greater Washington
Board of Trade, the Federal City Council, and the Downtown
Business Improvement District to educate the public at large
and advocate for a balanced solution to generate support for a
dedicated, long-term, stable source of funding for Metro. I
applaud you this morning for introduction of your legislation
that the panel is discussing.
BTRAC's founding members, sponsors, and participating
organizations all agree on one fundamental premise: we must
secure a long-term, stable, dedicated funding source for Metro
to meet the current and future needs.
The task force report indicated that there was a gap of
approximately $2.4 billion needed during the next 10 years to
finance Metro's operating and capital needs. The report also
emphasizes that the Metropolitan Washington Transit Authority
is unique among major transit systems in the United States in
that it has no major source of dedicated funds. Unfortunately,
WMATA must annually appeal to two States, the District of
Columbia, eight local jurisdictions, and the Federal Government
for funding and support.
Without the additional $2.4 billion identified, Metro will
be unable to pay for the maintenance and capital improvements
necessary to counter inevitable effects of the aging system or
to purchase the railcars and buses necessary to accommodate
increasing demands of expanding ridership.
Three additional points need to be made about this $2.4
billion. This level of funding assumes: one, paratransit costs
are addressed separately; two, State and local government
contributions will increase to 5.3 percent annually, as opposed
to the current annual increases of 3\1/2\ percent; and, three,
there will continue to be modest fare increases.
As we noted, the Metro system here gets a greater amount of
its support from the fare box than any other major transit
system in the United States. However, if State and local
contributions were frozen at the current levels, the Metro
panel estimated that we would need an additional $460 million
per year from the supporting jurisdictions.
The business community is very concerned about the
implications and potential adverse effects on the system of a
current lack of a dedicated source. We are not insensitive to
the management and safety issues plaguing Metro. But we feel
confident that the steps are being taken to address some of the
operational problems that were highlighted in the recent Post
articles. Constant diligence on cost containment and
organizational efficiencies are required from Metro's
management.
Notwithstanding these concerns, we do not want our transit
system to experience a repeat of the deterioration, the
physical and operational decay that nearly destroyed the New
York transit system in the early 1970's. Such a downward spiral
would negatively affect our region's mobility, economic
prosperity, emergency preparedness, as well as our image as a
world-class destination location.
Since this is the third most congested region in the
country, Metro is critical in providing an alternative to our
increasingly clogged roadways, since it carries the equivalent
of 1,400 lane miles of highway everyday. In addition, Metro
provides the spine around which additional new transit-oriented
development can help accommodate the 2 million new residents
forecasted to locate in our region over the next 25 years.
Some would argue that the Federal Government has made
substantial contributions--and we agree--in the past and should
not be expected to continue those contributions. We have a
different perspective. Of the 700,000 daily users of Metro, the
largest single beneficiary is the Federal Government, with more
than 40 percent of peak hour riders being members of the
Federal Government employees. Most Metro stations have been
purposefully located adjacent to or in very close proximity to
Federal buildings, so the enormous benefits to the Federal
Government continue. Your legislation obviously recognizes this
fact.
In view of these considerations, we urge you to provide the
maximum Federal support necessary to help close this funding
gap and to put our Metro system back on track as it needs to
be. Thank you for the opportunity to comment, and I would be
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Schneider follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.146
Chairman Tom Davis. Well, thank you very much.
Let me start by saying, as we drafted this, we basically
took the GAO report, we took some of the recommendations from
some of the other groups and moved the stable and reliable
source of revenue, which has been anything but stable and
reliable through the years, and tried to move this to something
more definite.
The theory here is that by holding out a good chunk of
money, that the localities and the States involved will be able
to come up with something that is dedicated. It doesn't
necessarily mean a new tax. It can take existing revenue
sources, but just dedicate them year-to-year.
Let me start. The first question is as Metro does its
budget--and I will start, Mr. White, with you--what has stable
and reliable meant? Do you know what to count on each year, or
are there years that you would like to get a certain amount,
but it becomes something that is driven by the jurisdictions
deciding what they want to give you?
Mr. White. In years past, the way the process has worked is
that we generally try to identify a target through the board's
adoption of policy guidance to the staff and how to build a
budget. It has largely been a year-to-year budget, so one of
the limitations is really the inability to pretty much plan
beyond the first year, certainly from an operations point of
view. On the capital side we did get some accommodations
recently with the Metro Matters Funding Agreement, which sort
of does give us some 6-year planning predictability, but it
sort of ends at the end of that period.
Now, what has happened historically, Mr. Chairman, are
there times when one funding partner or more than one funding
partner is sort of unable to kind of meet its responsible
share, which is determined by a very complex set of formulas,
and generally what happens is our budget guidance changes, even
after the budget has been developed, and we are asked to cut
some more money or come up with alternative ways of trying to
fit in to the new affordability definition.
Chairman Tom Davis. That is no way to run a railroad.
Mr. White. No. It's the lowest common denominator,
budgeting and policymaking, is really what it amounts to.
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Kauffman, do you concur with that,
having sat on the board?
Mr. Kauffman. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. I don't think the
challenge we face is a lack of information; it is a lack of
stability and the challenges of a timeframe. We are having to
whip around a budget within the constraints of State budget
timing, local budget timing. And with your bill, that would
give us more of the stability to think longer term and to put
things in place our customers need to have.
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Puentes, should a dedicated funding
stream cover both operating and capital expenses?
Mr. Puentes. The primary burden, I think, on the budgetary
process now is on the operating side. I think it is incumbent
upon WMATA to decide what would serve them best. But it does
seem to be that the operating subsidy--which, again, comes from
local general revenue funds, for the most part--is really where
some of the more contentious problems are, because those funds
are competing with other highly competitive local needs--parks,
schools, open space; these issues that we talk about every day.
So on the operating side it seems to be where a lot of the
attention is. But in terms of longer range planning, then I
think WMATA would argue for more of a diversity.
Chairman Tom Davis. One of the points the GAO argues is
that the oversight has really not been what it should have
been. Is that fair, Ms. Siggerud? And my concern is if you
start getting a dedicated funding stream, does that decrease
oversight? If it becomes an automatic, does that decrease it or
does the inclusion of an IG and maybe a more active board, do
these kind of things make up for that? Any thoughts on that? I
will ask you and Mr. Millar and anybody who would like to
address that.
Mr. Millar. In general, packages that I am familiar with
around the country, when new revenues come in, usually there is
additional oversight that is brought about, either by the kinds
of suggestions that your bill would include--in Pennsylvania,
for example, there was a requirement for publicly adopted,
publicly reported upon performance measures, for example. So
generally both happen.
Chairman Tom Davis. I understand. We are trying to do that.
But I am just saying right now you have to go back to each
jurisdiction every year. And I am sure when Mr. Kauffman goes
back to his board and other members go back to their board,
they say how is it doing? Gee, we don't think they are doing so
well. And they give it a scrutiny before they spend that money,
because that money is competing with schools, it is competing
with public safety and other areas.
Now, all of a sudden there is a dedicated funding stream
that goes automatically. We are putting some additional
safeguards in, but is the tendency then, with the money
automatically coming in, to take one's eye off the ball? That
is my question.
Mr. Millar. That has not been my experience.
Chairman Tom Davis. OK. That is my question.
Mr. Millar. That has not been my experience.
Mr. Kauffman. If I could jump in, Mr. Chairman. I look at
financial oversight for an organization like WMATA as being
three parts. First is the classic following the money, the
second is balancing priorities and strategic thinking, and the
third is responsiveness to the customers' interest.
For following the money, Mr. Chairman, we have the FTA and
the GAO that are going to be lovingly at my side all the time,
just as they are this morning. Balancing priorities, local
policymakers on this board will ensure that the balance is
there. The dedicated funding will make strategic thinking real.
And, last, as far as responsiveness to the customer
interest, we try to do that as members of the board. We could
do better, and that is why we need that rider's advisory
counsel.
Chairman Tom Davis. And if the new Federal seat is created,
you would not have a problem if that seat were reserved for a
Metro rider, for example?
Mr. Millar. No. I think that might also make the process of
amending the compact easier, because, frankly, how big of a
board do you have to have to make things work as far as
representation? If we have this giant phalanx, future chairmen
of the board may have an even tougher job of herding cats than
I do from time to time. But if you keep it as a reasonable
number to ensure representation and that representative members
include the dollars on the table, it makes sense.
Chairman Tom Davis. OK. All right.
Did you want to answer that too, Mr. Puentes? Did you want
to make any comment?
Mr. Puentes. Just to quickly chime in. Given the history of
the local governments' involvement in WMATA over the years, and
given that, based on our experience of looking at transit
agencies and their local government relationships all across
the country, it does seem to be hard to believe that there
would be any less scrutiny from the local governments on WMATA,
given the bill that you have presented here today.
There are a few agencies, I think, a few metropolitan areas
in the country where the local governments recognize the
importance of the transit system and take advantage of that as
well as the local governments have here in this region. So that
certainly does exist.
But all that being said--and this is not an indictment on
WMATA--there does seem to be a need for increased oversight and
accountability for transportation systems all throughout the
country, transit, highways, what have you. So for the most
part, any kind of increased oversight and accountability is
generally welcome, and from our experience is wholly necessary.
Again, not an indictment of WMATA, but, for the most part, any
kind of increased accountability is certainly appropriate.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to get to the root of this dedicated funding
notion, first by asking this question. As we look at the
difficulty we have had in this region getting anywhere on
dedicated funding, first let me ask this question. Of those
systems that have dedicated funding, are any of the systems
structured like our system across State lines or across county
lines? Is one of the chief obstacles here that we are dealing
with such vastly different jurisdictions, and is this
comparison entirely fair if that is the case?
I don't know what the answer is, but if we keep comparing
it as if everybody else is exactly like us and yet they have
done it, then we look kind of stupid. Is there more to it than
that; if not multi-jurisdiction, something else perhaps? I
would welcome whoever wants to start on that one.
Mr. Puentes. Again, based on the research that we did
particularly on this issue, your comments are very well taken.
There is absolutely no agency in the country that works under a
government structure as complex as the one here in this region.
I don't believe there is also another agency that operates
multi-State. I think the agencies in New Jersey do, but, for
the most part, most of the agencies operate within single
States.
So your point is very well taken. Probably the reason we
are in this State today is because of the very complex
government structure that does exist, the Federal oversight,
the three States, etc. That being said, it does make the point
even more important, that because we have these complex
arrangements, it probably argues that a regional source of
revenue is more necessary in this region than it is in some
other places.
Mr. Millar. There are some systems that operate in at least
two States and are funded by those jurisdictions. I think of
the St. Louis Metro system. They have one form of dedicated
funding on the Missouri side of the river, another form of
dedicated funding on the Illinois side of the river. Kansas
City's system is another example. Parts of the New York system
operate in three States; however, they do so under a
contractual arrangement with the other States, so I am not sure
that is exactly comparable to what we see here.
Ms. Norton. Somebody needs to look closely at how Missouri
got two different jurisdictions to do what they do so we don't
keep making these comparisons without getting to the
complexity. Easy comparisons confuse rather than illuminate the
problem-solving I think we must do. So I find what you have
said very important, and I will attempt to find out, at least
about Missouri.
One of the reasons that you find these three jurisdictions
unwilling to do dedicated funding at least two of them don't
want to tax you for what they do in their own jurisdiction,
much less for something that will go perhaps to the entire
region, God forbid. Therefore, it does seem to me that we need
to be far more explicit on what dedicated funding would do for
the public. I mean, they look at the council, at the county
governments, every year. They have to pay their dues in some
form or fashion.
You could argue--let me be the devil's advocate--that, OK,
Metro and Metro board, you know that you are going to get your
dues; ``approximately what they are going to be,'' so why don't
you do planning based on that? Since no jurisdiction could
default entirely, why do you need a ``dedicated source of
funding?'' What would it mean to the problems Metro has? What
would it mean to the average rider?
Mr. Kauffman. Ms. Norton, if I could begin responding to
that. Both Mr. White and I used that term ``lowest common
denominator,'' and to try to make that real is the challenge on
a year-to-year basis of making the funding real to be able to
serve our customer, whatever jurisdiction has been the most
fiscally strained sets the pattern for what the funding will
be.
Ms. Norton. The absolute number, are you saying?
Mr. Kauffman. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Because it is a percentage that the formula
attributes each to. What kind of variations are there in the
amount you would expect? I mean, are there really large
fluctuations between what you would expect in a given year and
what you get in a given year?
Mr. Kauffman. I can't give you an exact percentage, but I
know, going back, when the District of Columbia was working
through its fiscal crisis to the great situation they are in
now, that set the bar. Maryland today is certainly looking at
how to husband all of their resources. That sets the bar.
But what this legislation that you are proposing today,
that you all are working on today, it fundamentally changes the
argument. I look at it this way: trying to set the argument on
a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis of, gosh, we have to step
up and fund Metro. Well, then we get into balancing all the
competing priorities, etc.
But by putting this legislation on the table, it says, look
folks, if we don't come to consensus, if we don't stand and
respond to this, then the money goes away. So it fundamentally
changes the decisionmaking dynamics for the political leaders
who have to make it happen for the riders.
Chairman Tom Davis. Would the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Norton. I will yield.
Chairman Tom Davis. Let me just followup on that, Mr.
Kauffman. If we were to tie funding that, in fact, if you
didn't reach that consensus, the money goes away at a certain
date--for example, tie this--I will just pick a date, 2007.
That if this wasn't in place in dedicated funding, that $150
million went away, would that, you think, be more of an
incentive to localities, that if they didn't enact this, they
lose that money, as opposed to just having an authorization
bill that would be for 10 years, whenever they get around to
it?
Mr. Kauffman. Well, it is unusual for a politician to ask
to have a sword tied over his or her head, but I----
Chairman Tom Davis. I am not asking you to endorse it, I am
just asking the practical effect.
Mr. Kauffman. But I would ask, as a practical effect, I
would welcome that, because it forces us to get, yes, there may
be fine points with which we disagree, but let us come to an
agreement and come to an agreement now, while the money is
here. It has to be a clear and present risk of loss of funding
to ensure that we will come together. And I would, frankly,
welcome that.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
OK, I am going to go with Mr. Moran first, then Mr. Van
Hollen. We will all get a shot.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Davis. And, again, thank you for
having the hearing and the legislation, Mr. Chairman.
In my opening remarks I spoke about finding ways to
encourage jurisdictions to allow greater densities at existing
and future Metrorail stations. In the case of Arlington, the
county committed to concentrate mixed use commercial office and
high-density residential development within a quarter mile of
its two Metrorail corridors. A lot of people didn't like the
high density, but with that density they were able to
concentrate on just 11 percent of its land, preserving the
balance for low-density single-family residential housing,
garden style apartments, retail, and green space.
Those two rail corridors today boast more office space than
Dallas, Denver, or Pittsburgh, but have nowhere near the same
city's traffic congestion. Thirty-nine percent of those who
live in the Metro corridor take transit to work and 10 percent
walk. So half of the people that live there don't get into an
automobile to clog up our congested roads.
More than half of the county's tax revenue is generated
from the businesses around Metro. This steady source of revenue
has enabled the county to maintain its public services and the
lowest property tax rates in the region.
What I want to ask you is have you considered any possible
legislative language that would encourage other jurisdictions
to follow Arlington's model? I mean, have you considered taking
the initiative in terms of planning in a way that would be
proactive?
Mr. Kauffman. Mr. Moran, I will try to begin the response
to that. One of the things that we have tried to recognize as a
Metro board is that the primacy of land use remains a local
decisionmaking issue. We certainly have worked to encourage,
foster what is defined as smart growth, and we try to ensure
that elements of that are evaluated for the benefit of the
Metro system. But ultimately, when it comes to what takes place
on a given piece of ground in a given jurisdiction, we rely on
that being a wise decision made in the best interest of the
locality.
Mr. Moran. Well, we are good friends, Dana, but that was
sort of a predictable response.
Mr. Kauffman. But what we have done--I will augment that.
Mr. Moran. Let me go on, because I am not going to put you
guys on the spot. Just think about it in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I want to share this with you because it does
impact a great deal on the money that we are going to be
fighting to get for the Dulles rail corridor. It was always
going to be that we were going to be paddling uphill to be able
to get the kind of money that was originally projected to pay
for the Dulles rail corridor. Now we are going upstream against
a current, when we are told that the cost is going to be $2.4
billion.
I am going to say for the record, when I look at the land
use planning around the four current Metro stations that are
planned for Dulles rail, I think it is deficient, it is
insufficient, and I don't think it justifies the kind of cost
that is going to be necessitated to pay for those four Metro
stations.
And as Mr. White knows, I take serious issue with the
assumptions that they are going to generate enough people using
those Metro stations to justify that capital investment at
Tysons. We need high-rise residential buildings at the Metro
station. To think that we are going to attract people to come
to Metro, walk across, for example, Route 123 to go shopping,
and then lug two arms full of products that they purchased at
Tysons back to the Metro station and then go on to their place
of residence is not going to happen. We need residential high
rises built into those Metro stations, and we need to provide
housing for the people that are working at Tysons.
I think that the planning at Tysons is deficient. And, yet,
Metro stands back and really says that it can say nothing or do
nothing about it, and yet you have to advocate to get that kind
of funding. And it is going to affect our ability to extend
Metro where it needs to get to, which is to Dulles rail through
Reston. So this is a very serious issue, and I want to see if
either of you have any ideas as to how we can lower that cost
attributed to the four Metro stations at Tysons Corner.
Mr. White. I think you are asking two questions, Mr. Moran:
the issues associated with lowering the cost and, the second,
the land use.
Mr. Moran. I would be happy if you respond to even one of
them.
Mr. White. I will do my best to try to answer the two as
best I can. And I think the issue of land use I would probably
like to defer to Mr. Kauffman on.
We understand that we do have a challenge on our hands. As
you know, this is a project that is under the leadership of the
State Department of Rail and Public Transportation, so in this
particular instance Metro is really one of the local partners
who is a technical agent for the project working under the
leadership direction of the State on implementing this project.
We do know that there is considerable work that needs to be
done to lower the cost of this proposal that has come in under
the public-private transportation act partnership with the
Dulles transit partners----
Mr. Moran. I am going to interrupt you, not because I don't
take particular umbrage at your answer. You are going to give
me the answer I could have predicted. But yes or no, do you
have any plans currently under consideration that would
significantly reduce the cost at Dulles?
Mr. White. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Moran. At Tysons for the Dulles rail? You do?
Mr. White. Yes. We are working together with the State to
make an August submittal to the Federal Transit Administration
to lower that cost into an acceptable range, and we are very
focused on trying to achieve that.
Mr. Moran. OK. I will be anxious to see those.
I don't want to monopolize the time. I have one other quick
question, though, before Chris gets an opportunity to ask it,
and it is of Mr. Kauffman.
We are going to add 18,500 more workers at Fort Belvoir,
probably at the engineer proving ground. What is the cost of
extending public transit, whether it is Metrorail or a shuttle
bus or whatever, using the Springfield station? What do you
estimate is going to be the cost to serve that vastly expanded
population of workers and the contractors that will accompany
them?
Mr. Kauffman. First and foremost, I want to say on the
record that I welcome the opportunities that the base closure
realignment could bring to the Richmond Highway corridor and to
central Springfield. I have to look at the costs. We have done
some estimates, both in 1999 and again revisited in late 2004.
They are orders of magnitude figures, Congressman Moran, and
they vary from $600,000 on up--excuse me, $600 million. I am
sorry, $600 million on up.
And the challenge is not only looking at it in terms of
what governments can provide, but I have already raised with
some folks how about a PPTA type of arrangement for extending a
light rail from Franconia-Springfield on to serve the area. So
certainly we would want to see some Federal seed money that
could perhaps fund the PPTA, just as we are discussing for rail
to Dulles.
The other thing I just would like to answer, Mr. Moran,
going back to your last question on Tysons and whether or not
it is a prudent investment of dollars. Demographically and as a
job center of Fairfax County is an urban area, but is somewhat
kicking and screaming that we are working with our citizens to
help them realize that we are in fact an urban area.
When it comes to where Tysons will be, as we speak there is
a visioning process going on. We pulled the plans for Tysons
out of our normal area plan review process and, frankly,
looking at what does Tysons as a designated key town center--
not town center, but urban center for Fairfax County, what will
it look like? And I think, Mr. Moran, by the time it is done,
you will see something that is on a par with Arlington. I have
no doubt about that. And would more than justify the rail
service to it.
Mr. Moran. Well, thank you, Mr. Kauffman. I don't have any
time left, clearly, but I do want to thank Mr. White for his
leadership. I think he is a true professional and a very
responsive and responsible one. And I thank you for all the
time you have dedicated and your great leadership as well,
Dana.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Moran.
Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
all the witnesses for their testimony this morning. Just a
couple points and then a question.
First, I just want to underscore what Chairman Davis talked
about with respect to having the Federal representative to the
board also play the role of a representative of the Metro
riders, a consumer of the Metro services. I think that is
important. I applaud the creation of the advisory committee,
17-member, I believe, advisory committee. But I do think it is
also important to have, among the key criteria for selecting
the Federal representatives, the question that they reflect the
ridership and the concerns of the ridership as well.
Second, I just wanted to mention that as part of the
transportation authorization bill, which I hope will pass the
House and the Congress soon, includes a number of new start
designations in the Washington area, the Maryland part of the
Washington area, including the corridor city's transit way,
which would extend the Metro line by not necessarily Metro, but
transit services beyond Shady Grove, which, as you know, is one
of the most crossed and used terminuses on the Metro system, up
beyond Shady Grove to Clarksburg, and the goal is eventually
toward Frederick. And I look forward to working with you as we
do that to relieve the congestion on I-270, which very quickly
gets filled up; and having that extension I think would help
relieve a lot of that congestion.
With respect to the funding goals that you have outlined
here this morning and the projections of shortfalls in the
future and how this bill and the Federal contribution can help
address those, my question is are the future security needs of
the Metro system, including our responses to the terrorist
threats, are those funds included in the numbers that you have
provided us this morning? That is one question. And the other
question relates to what measures are you taking now throughout
the Metro system with respect to the threat of terrorist
attacks?
As I am sure you know, there have been a number of both
letters to the editors and articles in the Washington Post
about riders responding to Metro's call for people to report
suspicious activity, to report whether or not they see
unattended bags and backpacks on the Metro. And at least
according to the press reports, the response from the Metro
system has not been what it should be in terms of quickly
responding to those requests. So if you could please address
those questions.
Mr. White. Yes. Thank you, Congressman, for those
questions.
On the security funding, in our Metro Matters Funding
Agreement there are proposed investments that have come out of
two separate vulnerability assessments that have been conducted
by the Federal Government, one by the Department of
Transportation and the second one by the Department of Homeland
Security. So they are not in the bill that the chairman has
introduced; they are separate from that under the funding
agreements that have already been executed.
However, there is one major caveat and proviso: it is
assumed that those projects are 100 percent federally funded,
and thus far there have been obviously limits to the amount of
investments that the Federal Government has made on transit
security. We did receive $6.5 million coming out of the $250
million that was approved for transit security. There is an
allocation that we are awaiting, it is release of another $12
million. So there are sums of money, but they are still quite a
bit short of the need that has been identified of about $143
million.
So the direct answer to your question is no, there is
nothing in this bill related to the security side; it is under
a separate set of assumptions that we are working on pursuing
the appropriation and authorization actions of the Congress
with respect to transit funding under the Department of
Homeland Security. We know there are a number of things that
are not investment-intensive that we can and should be doing.
We do know that this money has some target hardening that we
think is very important to do, and we believe very strongly we
need to get this capital investment money.
And, in the interim, we are continuing to work with our
10,000 employees and with our 1.2 million passenger trips each
day to try to help supplement them and have them be our eyes
and ears to look out for suspicious actions. Obviously there
was one issue that you reported just the other day that was in
the newspaper that spoke to one of the responses by one of our
train operators, which sort of drew into question how well they
responded. In that particular instance, it was determined that
this was really an unattended package, it didn't really fit the
definition of what our people have been trained to look for.
However, what the train operator should have done when they
went to that railcar to investigate that is, they should have
taken that package and done something with it, either brought
it over to a station manager or took it with them to their
train operator compartment. That train operator did not do
that; he left the package behind, creating some questions in
the minds of customers and some concerns in the minds of
customers. So clearly that was not a good execution action by
that train operator, and we are completing our investigation
work on that and there will obviously be a level of discipline
that will have to be done in conjunction with that less than
perfect response.
As it pertains to just general threat responses, our chief
is very, very aggressive and proactive in her outreach and her
review of best practices across the country and the world. We
are attempting to do every kind of procedure that has sort of
been known and used elsewhere in the country and the world to
keep our customers and our employees safe.
We are examining the issue of random searches. We have not
implemented that measure. We would want to have a public
discussion around that before we were to move in that
direction, unless circumstances absolutely dictated that we do
it. She has also done a considerable amount of outreach with
the Federal family and State and local family of law
enforcement, and we really see a higher presence of officers
who are non-Metro officers than we have ever seen before as
they are now more recognizing of the risk to our transit
environment and more of a willingness on their part to help
assume the risks of law enforcement.
So this partnership has really expanded the presence of
enforcement, and we will continue to try and do that as we
pursue other options, such as whether it makes sense to do
inspections.
Mr. Van Hollen. Mr. Chairman, if I could just briefly
followup on that.
Chairman Tom Davis. Sure.
Mr. Van Hollen. First of all, I am not advocating the
random searches. I think you are right, you should go through a
thorough process, an open process before you make any decisions
in that regard.
Let me just make sure I understand your answer to the
funding response, though. My understanding is that you are
about $143 million short, as of today, with respect to funds to
meet some of the security requirements that you are budgeting,
is that right?
Mr. White. That is correct, Congressman.
Mr. Van Hollen. All right. I look forward to working with
you and the chairman on those issues. I want to also thank you,
Mr. White, and the others at Metro for your responsiveness to
the questions that I know my office has raised and many others
have raised. So thank you very much.
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. White, I have a couple questions I
just want to ask. On this alternative discipline policy, we
note that two bus drivers who caused injuries to people after a
Metro bus lost their control in 2000, a driver fell asleep at
the wheel and hit a pole, another one which sent six passengers
to the hospital; and they switched the driver's job and made
her a subway station manager.
In another case a driver hit a pedestrian, Patricia Ann
Skinner, a 35-year-old editor at a newsletter publishing
company. The driver had seen Skinner, honked the horn
repeatedly, waved her arms, but never applied the brakes.
According to the accident investigation, it said Skinner's life
changed forever that day because she lost a leg from the hip
down. Metro paid her millions in an undisclosed settlement,
according to the Washington Post. And the driver became a
subway station manager.
This isn't how you get managers, is it?
A couple other questions. The agency continued to forge
ahead with a pilot program introduced last year called
Alternative Discipline instead of suspending and docking the
pay of people who violate safety rules. Managers put a letter
in their files and allowed the workers to stay on the job. This
has undergone some criticism. Is this still in operation? I
would just get your reaction to what is going on.
And then I would ask Mr. Millar, is this commonplace and
how is it working? Because that has been a common criticism and
I have to raise it.
Mr. White. No. I appreciate the question, Mr. Chairman.
Ironically, this concept came as a cost containment
measure. We spoke about the various pressures that the
Authority is under and the various thought processes that have
driven us in different directions, and the board commissioned
an independent review to come up with what are the various
ideas that we can do to contain our costs.
One of the areas was the use of overtime. As you know, if
we have an employee who is disciplined and is now off the
clock, if you will, serving a suspension, what we have to do is
we have to backfill that job and pay time and a half, usually
through overtime, to someone to make up for that suspension. So
the thought was that what you would do would be have the person
still serve and work for the Authority without the need for the
Authority to backfill that position on overtime, but also to
have the discipline entered into their record so it is the
progressive discipline and ultimately is treated with
seriousness. And if there is a pattern of inappropriate
behavior, it can lead up to suspensions or dismissals from the
Authority.
So I think the theory was a good theory. It sort of was
considered one of the more progressive labor management
approaches in terms of how management works in a collective
bargaining environment. Sometimes it has unintended
consequences.
And what we have done, Mr. Chairman, is two things: we have
carved out safety and security actions, inappropriate actions
that are defined as safety and security issues are now carved
out of this alternative discipline program that can lead to
immediate suspensions or immediate dismissals; and, No. 2, it
is a pilot only, and it will continue as a pilot. We have the
right to re-evaluate that together with our union and to move
off of alternative discipline.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Kauffman. Mr. Davis.
Chairman Tom Davis. Yes, please, Mr. Kauffman.
Mr. Kauffman. If I could piggy-back on that, perhaps using
a more recent example that was also brought up earlier, this
issue of a bag being left behind and the lack of a perceived
response. As you can imagine, we as a board were embarrassed by
that and jumped into it, quite frankly, with both feet.
And we insisted to know, first, is there standard operating
procedure; do we have something in place? You know, we have
asked our riders to step up. What are we doing to step up to
ensure that we are there for our riders? We got the information
back; it made sense.
Then we insisted that management is out there and the word
got down that this is not a forgivable type of thing. We want
this done, we want it exactly enforced; we want the spot
management checks and we want disciplinary action taken,
because, again, if we are to ask our riders to be more vigilant
in a time of crisis, then we need to be also delivering top-
quality service to our riders, and we expect the most of our
employees.
Chairman Tom Davis. OK. Thank you.
I am going to allow Members, if they want, to stay and ask
other questions. Would you like some questions? You have just
come in here.
Mr. Cummings. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just have a few
questions.
Chairman Tom Davis. Sure.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you.
I was just wondering, this Post report, Mr. White, which
says investigation also found that the agency ignored safety
warnings--and this is what I am concerned about--and failed to
effectively manage its program to transport the disabled. What
is that about?
Let me tell you why I ask you that. As a member of the
Transportation Committee in Baltimore, one of our biggest
complaints is coming from the disabled, and considering we are
celebrating now the 15th anniversary of ADA, I am just
wondering why do we have those problems in this day and in this
age?
Mr. White. Yes, Congressman Cummings. I think you have two
questions: one is on the safety side and how the management and
staff respond to that; and, second, how we are managing our
disabled services, our paratransit disabled services. I think
what the review found was that in some cases we have a
checkered record of how quickly management responds to internal
audit reviews and findings, safety and quality assurance
reviews and findings, all of which result in a report, a set of
findings and recommendations, and a set of recommended
corrective actions for that particular manager or that
particular department to implement.
We are not proud to say that there have been instances
where some of the management response has been much slower than
it should have been or in some cases were ignoring the kinds of
recommendations that came out of these internal audit findings.
That is not an acceptable situation.
What we have now implemented recently is what I call an
intervention process, where there will be clearly a system of
internal reviews that will, if necessary, bucket all the way up
into my office to ensure that the corrective actions are taken.
The audit department will track these. If, working
cooperatively with the management of the organization, it is
determined that someone is not acting appropriately or quickly,
there will be an intervention process, there will be
consequences for that manager for not moving forward with that,
and we will ensure that the necessary intervention takes place.
We have a lot of good internal checks and procedures, and I
think we got all the kinds of things that a big complex agency
needs to have, but we just don't always have perfect execution
everyday, and we have to make sure that we reduce the frequency
with which that happens. So that is my answer, Congressman, to
the issue of the responses on safety and internal audit
findings.
On the disabled service, this is a very difficult problem
that challenges WMATA and every transit agency across the
country, to meet its responsibilities under the Americans With
Disabilities Act to provide a complementary set of paratransit
services. You speak to the problems that have happened in
Baltimore. I think every system across the country has
struggled with providing quality service that meets the
responsibilities of the ADA for disabled people who are
absolutely dependent upon that service for their quality of
life, and trying to ensure that service is done in a way that
is also affordable. We cannot deny trips to eligible people who
have a need to make those trips, and we are also trying to
reconcile that against all these competitive budget pressures
that we are trying to manage.
In our case, Congressman Cummings, we are seeing 20 to 25
percent annual growth rates under this paratransit contract. It
started at about $10 million 7 or 8 years ago; it is over $50
million now. So it is an extraordinary unfunded mandate that is
very difficult for local transit agencies to respond to. We had
an independent review done of this, Congressman, different
ways.
We have looked at the Baltimore model. I know they have
come up with some new ways of implementing that service. We
have a new request for proposals on the street. We have a whole
new way we are going to try and deliver that service and step
up Metro's internal capabilities to ensure that the contractor
is performing successfully.
So I think we have recognized the kinds of things that need
to be done to make the service better than it is today. We
certainly pledge to you, to the members of this committee, to
our disabled community that we are very focused on making sure
that we fulfill our responsibilities of meeting that
requirement.
Mr. Cummings. Let me ask you this very quickly, two things.
Your research, did they discover why it is that, I mean, that
is quite a bit, five times, I think, the increase, why that is,
as far as the need for disabled services?
And the other thing that I am concerned about is just the
general idea of service to those who ride. Sometimes, you know,
there comes a point when you have to fire people, Mr. White,
sadly. And I am just wondering when I read this piece in the
Post, that supervisors who exercised poor judgment or were
involved in safety incidents were reassigned rather than fired.
And I know that it is hard to come by jobs and all that,
and I sympathize with people in getting jobs. But, I tell you,
I think that we owe the public excellence, and sometimes I
think that they don't always get the excellence that they
deserve. And if there is any other kind of business that people
are not presented with the kind of service, you go out of
business. I practiced law for a number of years, and if I
didn't do the job, and do it well, I was out of business.
So, I mean, I know what you said a moment ago about the
buck possibly having to stop at your office. I would hope that
it doesn't have to go that far. But the word has to go out that
the public deserves to have excellent service.
Mr. White. Yes, sir. Your point is well taken. We accept
your comment. I will take the second question first and then
kind of finish back up on the paratransit side.
Absolutely, we need more management accountability. There
are people who have been dismissed from the Authority over the
last several months, at least a half a dozen very senior
managers who have been asked to leave the Authority or who have
been encouraged to take early retirement. We recognize that we
need to be more active in dealing with some of the
inconsistencies of management performance. I pledge to you,
sir, that we are going to be much more aggressive than we have
been in the past to make sure that management is on top of its
game and it is accountable for its performance and for its
behavior.
We have designated a higher number of people who have at-
will employment status. I serve at the pleasure of the board of
directors and I am an at-will employee to my 12-member board,
and we have to have more of our managers recognize that they
also have the same degree of performance requirement and
insecurity around, if they have a track record of
nonperformance, then, as an at-will employee, they may face the
dismissal call. And they have to be prepared to face that and
recognize that their job status is now in at-will.
That I think has shaken up a number of people in the
organization who can't fall into the comfort of a personnel and
disciplinary system that allows people to sort of skate for a
while until a compelling record can be made against a
management performance that would lead to dismissal. When you
are at-will, you are in an entirely different ball game, and I
think that has gotten the attention that it was intended to get
inside of the organization.
On the paratransit side, the increase I think has been
driven by a number of things. We do have a very active
lifestyle of disabled people in our community, and they really
have, ironically, as the service got better, they found it to
be more desirable to do and increased the utilization of the
service. And then when more demand gets put on the system, it
makes it tougher to keep the reliability up, and then the
reliability seems to drop down while the demand increases until
we can get that whole thing corrected.
Another thing is that we want to make sure that only people
who are the intended users of the service, we have tightened
down on eligibility certifications to make sure that only those
people who meet the definitions of disability under ADA are
qualified. And if anybody has an individual pattern of abuse in
the use of the service, like they chronically, habitually
cancel their service at the last second or they don't show for
their service call, that there are consequences, including
their being removed and suspended from the service.
So we have attempted to take some proactive steps to make
sure that the people use the service properly, only those
people who are eligible to use the service do use it, and we
are trying to encourage people financially, by offering free
fares, to move on to the regular service, the accessible
Metrorail and Metro bus service, including allowing their
companion to ride for free. So we have tried to do a set of
actions that I think are designed to try and make the system
perform better.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you for your questions.
I have to get some questions on the record. I have to talk,
Ms. Siggerud, to you.
How essential do you think Metro is to the Federal
Government's operations? Can you provide any examples of
Metro's unique contributions to those operations?
Ms. Siggerud. I think it is clear from what you have heard
today that Metro is very essential to the Federal Government's
operations. There are a number of Federal policies that have
led directly to that result. The siting of Federal agencies at
or near transit stops and the increase in the number of
benefits that Federal employees have had available to them to
encourage them to use transit has led to I believe the
statistic is about 40 percent of Federal employees using
Metrorail at some point. So it is clear that the Federal
Government relies on Metro. If we look at, for example, the
case of Hurricane Isabel a few years ago, OPM decided to close
the Federal Government because Metrorail was unable to operate
above ground during those winds.
There are also a couple of unique contributions I might
talk about, some security issues. The Metro Police are full
partners with the Secret Service and the Capitol Police in
terms of providing explosive detection and other kinds of
security whenever the President, the Vice President, or a
foreign dignitary needs that kind of service.
Chairman Tom Davis. What would be the effect on the
Government's operations if Metro weren't viable?
Ms. Siggerud. Well, I think we have heard a clear case that
the Federal Government does need a well functioning and well
managed system. If the Metro transit service were not
available, clearly those 40 percent of employees who ride Metro
would either be using other transit services or, more likely,
using our roads. We know that Washington, DC, is in fact the
second or the third--I believe the third--most congested area
in the country.
Chairman Tom Davis. OPM claims that it does not rely on
Metro, surprisingly, in part because Federal employees could
telework instead of coming to work. Now, that really, in my
opinion, doesn't jive with the anemic telecommunicating rates
that I have seen coming out of the Federal Government. Any
comment on that?
Ms. Siggerud. Sure.
Chairman Tom Davis. It seems to be missing.
Ms. Siggerud. Yes. I know that you have been a very big
supporter of telework and getting more Federal agencies to make
that available to their employees. But I think the reality of
the situation is that telework is appropriate for some
employees and on a part-time basis, it is not a full-time
solution to the mobility problems that face our region.
Office of Personnel Management also encourages car-pooling.
That is another option to using transit. However, the Hurricane
Isabel example that I mentioned, along with the various weather
situations that hit us in the winter here, make it clear that
OPM makes decisions about the operating status of the
Government that is very clearly reliant on Metro's operating
status.
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. White, how are Metro's operations
affected by these special events: inaugurations, protests? Now
you have the Nationals games, which I guess is helping
ridership and some of those areas.
Mr. White. Well, those are good problems to have when we
provide an essential service to the community and the kinds of
things that people come to the National Capital Region to
enjoy. Some of those that happen every year, like the 4th of
July types of events; the inauguration, which takes place every
4 years. Some of the occasional events such as the President
Reagan state funeral and other things like that, when we find
those major events that take place, obviously the Federal
response, there is a fair amount of shutting down of the road
and perimeter systems, there is a lot of perimeter security
that has taken place when hundreds of thousands of people are
coming to the downtown area to try to enjoy the festivities and
the celebrations. And everybody is told and recommended to take
Metro to do that.
So we are a workhorse every day; we are like a Clydesdale
when it comes to these kinds of special events in terms of the
burden that is put on Metro. Virtually every person that can
work is working that particular day. We run the wheels off of
every train we have and most of the buses that we have to
support those events.
So it is something we sort of built into our culture of the
organization in terms of how we do that--and we are probably
best when it comes to these special events--but clearly it
places a big burden on the organization in terms of how we use
our manpower and the costs associated with it. We like to have
that burden, but it is a challenge to us nevertheless.
Chairman Tom Davis. The main thrust of the system has been
moving people out from the suburbs into the city to places of
work. How much are we getting that is now counter to that,
people moving from the city to employment places in the
suburbs? And shouldn't that be an object of Metro, to try to
enhance that?
Mr. White. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. When the people
deigned the system some 40 years ago, it was based upon the
predicted growth patterns that were going to take place. And
certainly on the rail side, we are a radial rail system. Our
job is to bring people from the suburbs to the central city
through major radial corridors of travel. And the whole layout
of the Metrorail system was based upon those predicted travel
points of origin and destination, population and employment.
And I think that has been the case.
But over the last decade, I think we have seen that we have
what we call clusters of employment centers. The District of
Columbia will always be the largest single job center. I don't
think anybody is predicting that not to be the case. But there
is an explosion of activity centers in the suburban areas that
are their own employment and trip generation centers that makes
this travel pattern in the metropolitan area now a spider Web
travel pattern; it is no longer radial.
Chairman Tom Davis. Unfortunately, a lot of that is not
around Metro stations.
Mr. White. And a lot of that is not around Metro. This is
where the bus system needs to play a bigger part. A rubber tire
system is much more versatile than a heavy rail fixed
investment.
Chairman Tom Davis. But are you seeing much going out on
the blue line, the orange line? Do you see an increase now of
people coming out to the suburbs?
Mr. White. There is tremendous reverse commute travel,
which is, of course, great for public transportation because it
makes a more effective use of our capacity for two-way use,
rather than one-way.
Chairman Tom Davis. To the extent that is enhanced, that
helps the system, right, because the trains are going there
anyway?
Mr. White. It absolutely does. For example, the Tysons
investment that we talked about, that is a 30 percent reverse
commute corridor. That is extremely high reverse commute, and a
good example of an area that is not served by public
transportation today that, when it is served, is much more
effective two-way travel.
Chairman Tom Davis. Of course. That makes sense.
Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Just a couple more questions, Mr Chairman.
Let me raise a very tricky question, but I think it has to
be raised for the public record. My understanding is there has
been no fare increase for 8 years. Is that true? If that is
true--this is my question, and here I want to raise a
disclaimer to my constituents: I am not here advocating a fare
increase. Hear me, hear me.
Nevertheless, I wonder if we are doing anybody any favor. I
remember WASA, the chairman will remember when we had to reform
WASA altogether. It had a similarly long period of no fare
increase, and then we were going to reform it, some of the
money is going to have to come from rate payers and, of course,
then everybody screams and yells.
So the real question is, do you want to take the screaming
and yelling little by little or what is the theory behind
keeping fares unchanged for 8 years? Are you sending the
message that you really don't intend to raise fares? And isn't
it fair for the public to believe that is the message they
have? If that is not the message, what is it that you intend to
do?
Mr. Kauffman. Ms. Norton, if I could start, and I am sure
others may wish to weigh in. Certainly what the customer pays
is a part of covering the total cost of the ride. Only you were
gracious enough to remember that we went 8 years without a fare
increase. What most of our riders remember is the last 2 years
they have gotten fare increases. The challenge is how to find a
predictable increase, frankly, that would be tied to a
defendable indicator, whether some sort of a measure, whether
it is cost of living----
Ms. Norton. Is that so hard to do?
Mr. Kauffman. It is to get agreement on what that is.
Ms. Norton. Has anybody tried on your board?
Mr. Kauffman. We have tried actually on the board to do
either a 2-year budget or to tie it to a regular indicator. The
challenge, Ms. Norton, has been what this committee is talking
about today: in the absence of having a level table so we know
what the total funding pie is going to be, getting into what
that fixed percentage is on the rider is put up in the air.
What I would certainly have to acknowledge is that today
there is a great disparity on the percent of the cost of the
ride borne by our rail versus the cost of the ride borne by our
bus customer. Right now, on a regular basis, over three-
quarters of the cost of providing service to our rail customer
is paid for by the customer; whereas, somewhat less than a
third is paid on the bus side. So trying to determine what is a
fair predictable increase is also at bar.
Ms. Norton. Well, again, I happen not to think that is
rocket science. It is interesting you say it is linked to
dedicated funding or anything else. I do think that, again, it
would help us on this side to see some at least skull work
being done by Metro on this very troublesome issue.
Mr. Kauffman. Well, it is, but let me just, again, be very
frank. My colleagues from Maryland would probably just as soon
have it all borne by the customer. So we have to strike the
balances of jurisdiction.
Ms. Norton. And I have real concern when fares apply across
the board, you know, if you are low-income or high-income,
which leads to my next question. Is there any other system
which has subsidized fares? Some of our people can actually get
away with paying, if they work for the Federal Government,
virtually no fares or at least a subsidized fare. Is that found
anywhere else in the United States?
Mr. Millar. Perhaps I should lead the comment on that. It
is not uncommon at all to have employer subsidy, such as has
been discussed today with the Federal Government, to WMATA.
They go under various names: transit check is one very common
one, and things of that sort. So that is a pretty typical and
common way that fares are subsidized around the country.
Ms. Norton. I am sorry, I was distracted.
Mr. Millar. OK. I am sorry.
Ms. Norton. A typical way is what?
Mr. Millar. The subsidization of transit fares by employers
is fairly common around the country. It certainly happens more
here than other places.
Ms. Norton. Well, it happens more here because we have the
granddaddy of all employers. What I want to know, and this is
what I would ask Ms. Schneider, is whether or not there are any
businesses in this region that have followed the leadership,
the very ample and, I must say, generous leadership, on this
score, it seems to me, the Federal Government has stepped up to
the plate. Are there any employers who have done that? Does the
Board of Trade, Chamber of Commerce, Federal City Council have
any recommendation to employers along that score? Do you think
they should?
Ms. Schneider. There are significant numbers of businesses
that provide support for their employees who use public
transit. I don't have the exact number, but we can get that
number for you. But it is comparable to what the Federal
Government provides.
Mr. White. Ms. Norton, in our transit benefit program that
we are speaking of right now, there is approximately 150,000
Federal employees that are enrolled, taking advantage of that
benefit that the Federal Government provides to them. And I
believe the number is around 60,000 to 70,000 members who are
private sector members who also take advantage of that benefit
that is offered by their private sector employer, be it a pre-
tax benefit or the full kind of benefit that the Federal
Government offers.
Ms. Norton. That is very, very important; it is an example
of where the Federal Government takes leadership. And, in a
real sense, private employers have to do it. You may have
worked for a Federal employer or you may work for a Federal
employer, and then the private employer wants you and you say,
oh my goodness, I get this very good subsidy from the Federal
Government and, increasingly, everybody understands what they
have to do in order to compete with one another.
This is a final question. I was struck, Ms. Siggerud, by
your analysis of what happened when the New York City Transit
Agency tied funding to oversight. And then you outlined how the
oversight was done; it looks like it was fairly effective. And
here I am referring to the part of your testimony that says,
again, tied to oversight. For example, the mean distance
between failures has increased from less than 7,000 miles in
1981 to nearly 140,000 miles in 2003.
This is a system that already had dedicated funding, I take
it, at the time. So my question is whether you think it is the
oversight that matters most, given, I take it, that in 1981 New
York already had some dedicated funding. They must have been
talking about increased funding to the system.
Ms. Siggerud. I haven't done the analysis to know whether
the funding or the oversight was more important, but I think
that what is important is that they go hand in hand. What the
MTA oversight felt was that if we are going to make additional
revenue available to the New York City subway and transit
system, that we ought to have some accountability. And as my
statement said, there was a capital board set up, along with, I
believe, don't quote me, but I believe there was also an
inspector general set up for that organization.
Ms. Norton. Inspector general capital program oversight?
Ms. Siggerud. Right.
Ms. Norton. And transportation capital review board? All
three were there?
Ms. Siggerud. Correct. All those were established, and they
report variously, but mostly to the Governor of the State of
New York. And Mr. Millar also has some information on that.
But what I think is important with regard to Metro here is
we noted that there are a variety of levels and types of
oversight that occur. You have the Federal oversight that
relates to compliance with Federal law and with the use of
Federal capital funds; you have an auditor general and a
variety of other organizations. I think the key here is to ask
the question whether, when you put all of that together, we
answer the sorts of questions that we can identify the major
operating and managing challenges that are facing WMATA.
And in creating an inspector general, should this
legislation go forth, it needs to be charged with really
complimenting and integrating the existing oversight and
reporting to the board on the performance concepts. I believe
Mr. Millar mentioned looking at the performance of the system
and understanding the components of it are very important. The
inspector general should be charged with those sorts of high-
level tasks, in addition to integrating all of the other
oversight that occurs.
Ms. Norton. Ms. Siggerud, you, faithful to GAO's sense of
the Federal deficit, indicated that the Federal Government
would have to make sure that whatever was done for Metro met
its competing priorities. And I just want to say for the record
the breakdown of this system 1 day is billions of dollars that
the Federal Government could never recover, and the chairman's
job and my job is to make people understand that.
In terms of competing priorities, you have 200,000 people.
You try putting them out of commission by what happens to Metro
in 1 day, and you will figure out what your competing
priorities ought to be. I am very concerned----
Chairman Tom Davis. It would make Tractor Man look like
nothing.
Ms. Norton. Tractor Man is a very good example. At least
that was when people were at work and were going home.
Finally, let me say I am very concerned. As a member of the
Homeland Security Committee, I sat in a hearing with Ms.
Hanson, your chief, and learned that Metro has gotten $15
million since September 11th for security that is dedicated
funding; whereas, before September 11th, for safety it had
gotten $50 million for security.
I know you are ahead of many other systems, but I am
concerned that your blue ribbon panel costs do not include and
could not include security. I am not sure how much real
preventative maintenance it includes. It is one thing to step
up and fund the system. It is another thing to kind of keep
that going so that you don't fall back and don't have to,
therefore, do it all over again.
Anyway, we are going to try, but I must say that those of
you at the table representing the business community,
representing Metro and its board and, therefore, our region,
really have to step up first. Once you step up, it seems to me
it gives the chairman and the regional delegation what it takes
to move forward, put something on the table for the Federal
Government and say ``your move.''
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
I want to thank all of you for being here. This is an
important first hearing for us. We will do more, but this is a
draft. The legislation that we have put forward is kind of our
opening. There will be a lot of give and take as we move
forward, and I look forward to working with all of you as we
try to perfect this, move it out of committee and to the House
floor.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[The prepared statements of Hon. Henry A. Waxman, Hon.
Diane E. Watson, and Hon. Elijah E. Cummings follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3269.158
<all>