<DOC>
[107 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:88056.wais]
S. Hrg. 107-945
REAUTHORIZATION OF THE TRANSPORTATION
EQUITY ACT OF THE 21ST CENTURY ( TEA-21)
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION
of the
COMMITTEE ON
BANKING,HOUSING,AND URBAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
THE IMPLEMENTATION AND PROPOSED LEGISLATION REAUTHORIZING FUNDS OF
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION PROVISIONS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT OF
THE 21ST CENTURY (TEA-21), FOCUSING ON CERTAIN PROGRAMS INCLUDING THE
JOBS ACCESS AND REVERSE COMMUTE (JARC) PROGRAM, FUNDING ISSUES,
INVESTING IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT, AND ANALYSIS OF
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ONE YEAR AFTER SEPTEMBER 11 FOUCUSING ON MASS
TRANSIT SAFETY AND SECURITY AND PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
INITIATIVES
__________
APRIL 25, JUNE 13, 26, JULY 17, AND SEPTEMBER 18, 2002
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs
88-056 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS
PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut PHIL GRAMM, Texas
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
JACK REED, Rhode Island ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
EVAN BAYH, Indiana MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
ZELL MILLER, Georgia CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
Steven B. Harris, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Wayne A. Abernathy, Republican Staff Director
Sarah A. Kline, Counsel
Martin J. Gruenberg, Senior Counsel
Sherry E. Little, Republican Legislative Assistant
Mark Calabria, Republican Economist
Joseph R. Kolinski, Chief Clerk and Computer System Administrator
George E. Whittle, Editor
______
Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation
JACK REED, Rhode Island, Chairman
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado, Ranking Member
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
Kara Stein, Staff Director
Tewana Wilkerson, Republican Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2002
TRANSIT IN THE 21ST CENTURY: SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES
Page
Opening statement of Senator Jack Reed........................... 1
Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
Senator Allard............................................... 2
Senator Santorum............................................. 3
Senator Ensign............................................... 9
Senator Sarbanes............................................. 19
Senator Corzine.............................................. 22
WITNESSES
Jennifer L. Dorn, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration,
U.S. Department of Transportation.............................. 3
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Response to written questions of Senator Sarbanes............ 37
Faye L. Moore, General Manager, Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation
Authority...................................................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Response to written questions of Senator Carper.............. 38
Beverly A. Scott, PhD, General Manager, Rhode Island Public
Transit
Authority...................................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Larry Worth, Executive Director, Northeastern Colorado
Association of
Local Governments.............................................. 15
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Response to a written question of Senator Reed............... 41
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 2002
TEA-21: A NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP
Opening statement of Senator Jack Reed........................... 43
Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
Senator Allard............................................... 44
Senator Stabenow............................................. 45
Prepared statement....................................... 68
Senator Sarbanes............................................. 56
Senator Carper............................................... 62
Prepared statement....................................... 68
Senator Corzine.............................................. 69
Senator Crapo................................................ 69
WITNESSES
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, a U.S. Representative in Congress from
the State of Michigan.......................................... 45
Kwame M. Kilpatrick, Mayor, Detroit, Michigan.................... 46
Prepared statement........................................... 70
Response to written questions of Senator Reed................ 76
H. Brent Coles, Mayor, Boise, Idaho.............................. 49
Prepared statement........................................... 72
Kenneth Mayfield, County Commissioner, Dallas County, Texas...... 51
Prepared statement........................................... 74
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2002
TEA-21: INVESTING IN OUR ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENT
Opening statement of Senator Reed................................ 77
Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
Senator Ensign............................................... 80
Senator Miller............................................... 80
Senator Allard............................................... 81
Prepared statement....................................... 97
Senator Dodd................................................. 91
Senator Corzine.............................................. 97
WITNESSES
Carl Guardino, President and Chief Executive Officer, Silicon
Valley Manufacturing Group..................................... 78
Prepared statement........................................... 98
Herschel L. Abbott, Jr., Vice President- Governmental Affairs,
BellSouth Corporation.......................................... 81
Prepared statement........................................... 99
Response to written questions of Senator Reed................ 124
Robert Broadbent, Manager, Las Vegas Monorail Company............ 83
Prepared statement........................................... 101
Response to written questions of Senator Reed................ 124
Hank Dittmar, President, The Great American Station Foundation,
on behalf of the Surface Transportation Policy Project......... 85
Prepared statement........................................... 104
Michael A. Replogle, Transportation Director, Environmental
Defense........................................................ 87
Prepared statement........................................... 112
Additional Material Supplied for the Record
Testimony of Michael A. Replogle, Transportation Director,
Environmental Defense before the Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S.
House of Representatives, dated May 21, 2002................... 125
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2002
TRANSIT: A LIFELINE FOR AMERICA'S CITIZENS
Opening statement of Senator Reed................................ 137
Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
Senator Allard............................................... 138
Senator Shelby............................................... 139
Senator Akaka................................................ 141
Prepared statement....................................... 162
Senator Sarbanes............................................. 147
Senator Carper............................................... 149
Senator Corzine.............................................. 162
WITNESSES
Jessie Tehranchi, Birmingham, Alabama............................ 140
Prepared statement........................................... 162
Gloria McKenzie, Albany, New York................................ 141
Faye Thompson, Kenova, West Virginia............................. 143
Prepared statement........................................... 163
Lavada E. DeSalles, Member, Board of Directors, AARP............. 150
Prepared statement........................................... 164
Response to written questions of Senator Sarbanes............ 178
Andrew J. Imparato, President and Chief Executive Officer,
American Association of People with Disabilities............... 151
Prepared statement........................................... 171
Response to written questions of Senator Sarbanes............ 179
John D. Porcari, Secretary, Maryland Department of Transportation 153
Prepared statement........................................... 173
Additional Material Supplied for the Record
Testimony from the Center for Community Change, dated July 17,
2002........................................................... 181
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2002
TRANSIT SECURITY: ONE YEAR LATER
Opening statement of Senator Reed................................ 185
Opening statements, comments, or prepared statements of:
Senator Sarbanes............................................. 189
Senator Carper............................................... 190
Senator Corzine.............................................. 206
WITNESSES
Jennifer L. Dorn, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration.. 186
Prepared statement........................................... 206
Response to written questions of:
Senator Reed............................................. 241
Senator Sarbanes......................................... 243
Senator Corzine.......................................... 244
Peter Guerrero, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues,
accompanied by: Nikki Clowers, Senior Analyst; and Susan
Fleming, Assistant Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues,
U.S. General Accounting Office................................. 199
Prepared statement........................................... 212
Response to written questions of Senator Sarbanes............ 245
Additional Material Supplied for the Record
Compendium of FTA Security Program Initiative, submitted by
Jennifer L. Dorn, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration 248
TRANSIT IN THE 21ST CENTURY:
SUCCESSES AND CHALLANGES
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-538 of the
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Jack Reed (Chairman of
the Subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. The Subcommittee will come to order. I would
like to welcome everyone today to our hearing. This is the
second of several hearings, and the first held by this
Subcommittee, regarding the reauthorization of the transit
title of the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century, or
TEA-21, as it is known.
Today, we will hear from the FTA Administrator, Jennifer
Dorn, and three representatives of the varying kinds of transit
systems in our Nation. And just to give you a sense of this
variety, our last witness, Mr. Larry Worth, runs a transit
system that covers a surface area almost 10 times the size of
the area served by my State's sole transit authority.
Meanwhile, Ms. Faye Moore, who manages the Philadelphia area
transit system, provides over one million trips each day,
almost 12 times as many as Mr. Worth's system offers an entire
year. So we have a variety of transit systems, and we hope to
provide for all of them in this upcoming reauthorization.
Traffic is a growing concern across America. Turn on the
radio or TV and you hear stories about pileups and backups. In
response, more and more Americans are leaving their cars behind
for the daily commute and opting to take the train or ride the
bus. Indeed, in the past 6 years, the number of trips taken on
public transportation grew by 23 percent, growing faster than
the U.S. population, growing faster than highway use and
domestic air travel. Last year, transit grew twice as fast, 2
percent, as car use. Car use only grew by 1 percent.
Why all of this growth? I think we will hear from our
witnesses today that the answer is due mainly to the
improvements that TEA-21 helped our Nation's transit systems
make. But the issue before this Subcommittee is not just to
hear about how successful TEA-21 was, it is to hear how that
success can be continued into the future.
In other words, how do we meet the demand for transit
service across this Nation? This is the looming threat to the
success of our transit systems across the Nation. And I look
forward to working with my colleagues to address this issue.
And now, I would like to turn to Senator Allard.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. Well, first, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
thank you for holding this hearing. TEA-21 reauthorization is
an important part of what we do in the Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs Committee. So many times, it is just referred to
as the ``Banking Committee'' and we forget about the ``Urban
Affairs'' part of it, which is certainly a function under this
overall Committee that deals with a lot of important issues and
affects many lives.
This is the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation. So
I look forward to working with you in the coming months on
these TEA-21 Reauthorization hearings, Mr. Chairman. I believe
that the work we will do as part of reauthorizing TEA-21 will
be one of the most important things to come out of this
Committee in the near future.
As citizens continue to face mobility problems, whether due
to congestion, medical, or other reasons, they are increasingly
turning to transit. This increased demand has led to greater
strain on existing resources. I believe that TEA-21 provided a
good framework for dealing with such challenges. I am hopeful
that we can continue the successes, along with added
improvements.
Transit authorities are on the frontlines of the industry,
both in receiving money and delivering services. They feel the
impacts of a transportation authorization bill on a daily
basis. Thus, it is only appropriate that we hear from the
transit authorities at the Subcommittee's first TEA-21
Reauthorization hearing.
I believe we have an excellent lineup of witnesses today
and I am pleased that we were able to get such an outstanding
cross-section of our Nation's transit authorities. We will get
the benefit of hearing from small, medium, and large transit
authorities. Additionally, we can compare the experiences of a
transit authority located in rural areas versus an urban area
versus a mixed-density area.
Finally, we will get to see the differences between transit
authorities that focus on rail, as compared to buses as
compared to vans. These vastly different points of view will be
quite helpful as the Committee sits down to write a new bill.
I would like to welcome the witnesses and particularly, I
would like to extend a warm welcome to Larry Worth. Larry is
here representing the Northeast Colorado Association of Local
Governments. We refer to it as NCALG.
NCALG provides critical transportation services to the
elderly, disabled, and poor in Northeastern Colorado, a rural
area. Larry's perspective will be especially helpful since his
transit authority is so different from what we typically think
of when we talk about transit authorities.
I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize the
Colorado Association of Transit Agencies, or CASTA. CASTA is a
coalition of many Colorado transit agencies and providers, all
of whom work together to promote good, reliable transit service
in Colorado. They have offered valuable assistance to me and my
staff over the years and I appreciate their help.
I would also like to note that Larry Worth is on their
Board of Directors and has generously agreed to miss CASTA's
annual training convention to be with us here today.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to beginning the
Subcommittee's hearing on TEA-21. I know that we will have our
work cut out for us. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Allard. I look
forward to working with you on this very important
reauthorization as we begin these hearings and move forward.
Our first witness is well known to the Subcommittee. Ms.
Dorn is the Administrator of the Federal Transit
Administration. She has previously held several high-level
positions in prior Administrations. Jennifer oversees a budget
of almost $7 billion and is responsible for oversight over the
Nation's 600-plus transit grant recipients. We have your
written statement and let me suggest also that we are scheduled
to have a series of multiple votes beginning about 3:00 or 3:30
p.m.
Since your statement is in the record, if you would like to
summarize and be concise, we would appreciate that. That would
allow us to move forward.
Before you begin, Ms. Dorn, Senator Santorum has arrived.
Would you like to make a statement?
COMMENTS OF SENATOR RICK SANTORUM
Senator Santorum. I just want to say that one of the people
testifying here today is Faye Moore, who is with SEPTA. She was
the CFO and now she is the new General Manager of SEPTA. I just
wanted to welcome her to the Committee. She has a big job ahead
of her and I know she is going to focus her testimony on the
support of existing transit systems in our area, and
maintaining those systems.
I know there is a lot of areas like in Colorado and others
where you have a lot of new starts, but we also have to focus
on maintaining the infrastructure we have.
I appreciate her testimony and I thank you for having her.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator.
Madam Administrator, please begin.
STATEMENT OF JENNIFER L. DORN
ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Ms. Dorn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear at this
very important hearing. I appreciate your having it.
In his testimony before the full Senate Banking Committee
last month, Secretary Mineta identified several core concepts
that the Department of Transportation will be using as the
basis for its reauthorization proposals. In my brief oral
remarks today, I would like to reiterate the importance of
several of those concepts, expanding on four key aspects of
TEA-21: stable funding, innovative finance, transportation-
oriented economic development, and technology investments.
One of the most visible and important elements of TEA-21
has been the tremendously positive impact of stable and
dependable funding streams on transit development.
According to new research by the American Public
Transportation Association, several recent Transportation
Infrastructure Finance Innovation Act loans in New Jersey and
California received high-credit evaluations from Fitch and
Moody's, based largely on confidence in the Federal commitments
under TEA-21. The study also notes that the benefits of stable
funding go far beyond improving the ability of transit agencies
to secure long-term loans for major investments. Confidence
that formula funding levels under TEA-21 would be honored has
helped communities develop and follow multiyear fleet
replacement schedules to minimize costs. Previously, some
communities had to save up grant resources for several years in
order to have enough cash to enter into contractual agreements.
Under the TEA-21, contractors and financial institutions have
been willing to work with transit agencies to significantly
accelerate acquisitions, saving the agency time and money, and
leveraging the Federal resources.
In sum, stable formula funds help agencies do more with
limited resources because they give financial markets the
confidence to support transit investments; give communities an
incentive to commit long-term resources; and give private
industry the confidence that the transit promises necessary to
support new development will be honored.
Dependability and stability offer even more opportunities
to leverage resources when coupled with innovative financing
techniques. Under TEA-21, Congress established TIFIA financing
mechanism, a loan and loan guarantee program for surface
transportation projects.
TEA-21 made a total of $10.6 billion in lending authority
available for surface transportation projects. To date,
approximately $3.6 billion has been committed to projects and
leveraged to support over $15 billion in surface transportation
projects. This investment requires only about $190 million of
Federal budget authority, so it really leverages the scarce
Federal resources. The success of TIFIA illustrates how such
techniques can reduce the total cost of projects, speed up
implementation, and leverage Federal investments. I hope we can
work together to identify more ways in which reauthorization
can promote and support innovative financing.
With the funding made available under TEA-21, FTA has
helped many communities realize better, safer, more efficient
public transportation systems. Real success, however, comes
when people not only embrace transit, but use it to enhance the
economic vitality of their communities. Joint development
projects help communities create economic and business
opportunities in conjunction with their public transit system,
and can provide a stream of income--from park and ride lots and
other kinds of real estate investments--to the transit agency
to help keep fares down and ridership up.
TEA-21 has also helped our Nation's transportation systems
take advantage of technological developments. On a recent pre-
Olympics trip to Salt Lake City and the Utah Transit Authority,
I saw how innovative technology was helping to create real-time
improvements in transportation for the Winter Olympic Games.
Thanks to TEA-21, UTA received $3 million to support
Intelligent Transportation Systems projects, including a state-
of-the-art, voice-activated, 511 system that provided
information on public transportation, Olympic travel
information, road conditions, and other information that was
vital to moving hundreds of thousands of people in and around
Salt Lake City.
Bus rapid transit, or BRT, has also benefited from
technological advances made possible, in part, from TEA-21.
Combining exclusive transit-ways, modern stations, high-tech
vehicles, and frequent service, BRT provides, at a fraction of
the cost, the high level of service that people want and expect
from more expensive transit systems. We look forward to BRT to
be enhanced even further, as many cities across the country
have a strong interest in that type of investment.
From major urban centers to small communities, TEA-21 has
created a revolution of sorts in public transportation. This
has resulted in increased mobility, more transportation
choices, and more economically vital communities for millions
of Americans. The principles of TEA-21 have been tried and
proven and should continue as part of our guide for the future
of public transportation.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I
would be pleased to answer questions now and for the record.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Madam Administrator. And
I think the point you make is we are at the happy occasion of
celebrating success with TEA-21. And our challenge is to
maintain that success and extend it in many different ways.
Following up on your comments, Madam Administrator, what
percentage increase is needed to preserve just the current
level of transit service across America in terms of TEA-21? Do
you have an idea?
Ms. Dorn. In the most recent conditions and performance
report, and we will have one forthcoming in the next several
months that would be more updated, it is my understanding that
about $7.6 billion is needed to maintain the present system.
If the ridership growth continues at about 2.8 percent each
year, a total $14.1 billion is required each year. And as you
know, being a transit advocate and Chairman of this
Subcommittee, transit capital expenditures in total in 2001,
were approximately $9.1 billion.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much. We want to encourage, in
fact, the growth of ridership for many reasons.
Ms. Dorn. Absolutely.
Senator Reed. Congested traffic, environmental concerns,
economic development in urban areas, and rural areas, a host of
different issues. I think the bottom line is that we will need
more resources just to stay in place--not necessarily get
ahead, but just to stay in place.
We have seen over the last few weeks some incidents of
accidents on rail systems in the country, some involving
intercity Amtrak trains, but also some commuter rail systems. I
wonder what steps you are taking to deal with the safety issue,
particularly where freight service and commuter service are
sharing the same lines?
Ms. Dorn. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, that is an issue of
great concern to the Department of Transportation and my
colleague, Alan Rutter, has been carefully paying attention to
that issue on a regular basis, as well as a result of the most
recent unfortunate accidents.
As you know, commuter rail operations share tracks on the
general railroad system. As a result, through the wisdom of
Congress and tradition, the Federal Railroad Administration has
exclusive responsibility for safety regulation, which makes
sense because we want to make sure that all safety regulations
are consistent with respect to the general railroad system.
This is a matter that we, as the funding agency for
commuter rail, have real concerns about. I work closely with my
colleague, Mr. Rutter, to make sure that we are doing all that
we can to prevent the loss of life and injury.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much. You mentioned the use of
TIFIA as one way that the systems are maximized in their
resources. Is there a reason that more transit authorities are
not using TIFIA? Are there some inhibitions?
Ms. Dorn. That is what we are exploring right now, Mr.
Chairman, because we do have some available funding for loans
and loan guarantees. And while a substantial number of the
TIFIA projects that have been awarded, I believe, have been in
the transit arena--and we are pleased about that--there has
been some hesitation to use it on a more fulsome basis.
We want to figure out why that is, whether it is too
complicated, whether there is still assumed to be some risk.
Ultimately, of course, it is not a grant, it is a loan or a
loan guarantee, and so that may explain some of it.
But we are looking very carefully at that in the context of
reauthorization. We want to make sure that TIFIA is utilized as
fully as possible, and if we need to make changes, we will
obviously consider them and work with the Administration to
propose such.
Senator Reed. Thank you. And just to underscore the point
you made, a great deal of the success of these agencies'
authorities getting loans is not just the guarantee, but the
commitment to stable funding over many years. That is the
hallmark of TEA-21.
Ms. Dorn. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. And if I could just
mention, the President has strongly supported the concept of
the Highway Trust Fund utilizing gas tax receipts for
transportation infrastructure. That is a very important
commitment and that will certainly be seen as we discuss our
reauthorization proposal.
This Administration also recognizes that predictability and
guaranteed funding is one of TEA-21's biggest success stories.
It should be retained, in the view of the Administration, and
refined through reauthorization.
In an era of realism and candor, it should be recognized
that all forms of transportation must face the hard reality
that Federal financial resources are not boundless and cannot
fully fund every meritorious transportation need. But as an
advocate for transit, I feel very strongly that good, effective
transit programs can ease so many problems at the community
level, and you can count on us to bring that point to the
table.
Senator Reed. Thank you. One final question, Madam
Administrator. In your prepared testimony, you mentioned that
FTA's interest in easing the regulatory and statutory burdens
faced by transit agencies. Let me ask you to respond in writing
to this question because my colleagues are here, and I want to
give them an opportunity to ask their questions. But we will
basically get your comments on what you are doing for smaller
authorities in terms of easing regulatory burdens.
With that, thank you very much for your testimony.
Senator Allard.
Senator Allard. Yes. I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your
comments about smaller systems, as well as Ms. Dorn's comments
on smaller systems.
I do not know whether you want to elaborate any more about
some of the problems on the smaller systems, but one particular
issue we need to pay attention to is that large systems can
respond more to regulatory burdens. For the smaller systems
regulatory burdens create real problems.
I would like to hear what suggestions you may have on how
we can improve oversight, or how we can reduce the regulatory
burden, I guess is a better way of putting it, on some of these
smaller systems. If you could comment on that, I would
appreciate it.
Ms. Dorn. Absolutely. Unfortunately, for all good public
policy purposes, the outcome has been that we have developed a
confusing array of regulatory requirements. Depending upon the
pot of money for which you are applying, you have certain
numbers and types of requirements. These requirements are very
confusing to grantees. And many of those requirements, if not
all of them, have very good public policy purposes. I think in
the context of reauthorization, we need to sort that out.
Senator Allard. My question is are they driven by law, or
is it just something that has happened during the regulatory
process within the Agency?
Ms. Dorn. Both. And I can assure you that, from an
administrative point of view, where we have flexibility, we are
working aggressively to reduce those regulatory burdens. But
the vast majority of them are points of law.
Many of the larger agencies, I hate to say it, have become
used to it, and so they know how to do it. But one approach may
be the recognition that 15 percent of the funds go to 85
percent of the grantees. So the smaller grantees that have the
least number of money, but have an equal number of grant
requirements. We are trying to sort through this, program by
program, and agency by agency, to understand what would make
more sense.
I certainly am a strong advocate of oversight, but it has
to be meaningful oversight. And as we have examined the number
of oversight reviews of grantees that are required by law we
have noticed some things that we think can be changed. We can
streamline, perhaps consolidate--that is always politically
difficult to do. But I think our main point should be, what is
the value added to help ensure that the Federal dollar is being
utilized and that good stewardship happens? And I am convinced
that it is time to take a look at those.
Senator Allard. Well, as you move through this review of
how regulatory burden affects smaller entities, I hope you will
keep us informed on what you are finding out and perhaps maybe
we can be of help in that regard. We would certainly like to
sit down and look at the possibilities in which we can be
helpful.
Ms. Dorn. Thank you for that opportunity.
Senator Allard. The other area that I am particularly
concerned about, with regard to all agencies, is implementation
of what we call GPRA--that is the Government Performance and
Results Act. In your administrative duties, I would urge you to
look at how the requirements of GPRA can be met.
I think it is important for agencies to use outcome-based
management and budgeting. The Government must maintain good
oversight over Federal dollars. What suggestions do you have on
how we can improve the oversight under the new transportation
authorization bill?
Ms. Dorn. Excellent question. GPRA is a very important
wake-up call, even to an agency that does very good work.
However, we have become victims at some points of process
becoming product. And you are absolutely right to focus more on
outcome. And that is why we are taking a very careful look at
every one of the oversight reviews and the regulatory
requirements and asking ourselves--what does it mean in terms
of improving transit or improving the service to the riders?
It is premature for me to comment on specific suggestions,
but I would be happy to work with you as we move through
proposals for reauthorization, and even before that.
I am convinced that there are some administrative changes
that we can make. But, very bluntly, our focus needs to be on
results and outcome. And we have the happy occasion that good
transit projects provide some incredibly important outcomes for
communities across this country. I do not know that we are the
best at measuring those, and we need to focus on that as well.
Senator Allard. I appreciate that. Mr. Chairman, I just
have one more question and we will be finished with this panel.
Senator Reed. All right.
Senator Allard. So it might take me a little bit over my
time.
Senator Reed. Fine.
Senator Allard. We heard about the need for additional
security measures to prevent terrorism in public transit
systems. Do you think it is also important to create terrorism
liability protection for transit agencies?
Ms. Dorn. That is a very difficult and complicated
question.
Frankly, it has not come to my attention specifically as it
relates to transit agencies.
Senator Allard. Are we getting money if they ask for a loan
or something and that is not going to be a condition of the
loan or anything, as far as we know?
Ms. Dorn. No, it has not. Traditionally, transit agencies
self-insure up to a certain level.
Senator Allard. I see.
Ms. Dorn. Others are able to get other kinds of coverage.
The situation has certainly been aggravated as a result of
the terrorist incidents. But, frankly, we have not done a
thorough analysis and we would be happy to work with you to
determine the level of that problem as it relates to transit
agencies.
Senator Allard. I would appreciate hearing what you find
out in that regard.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Allard.
Senator Ensign, if you would like to make a statement and
then question the Witness, go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN ENSIGN
Senator Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator
Allard, for having this hearing today.
I look forward to working with you, Ms. Dorn, on some of
these issues, especially as we go forward and lay the
groundwork for the upcoming reauthorization of TEA-21.
I do not know if any of you have had the chance to read, I
think it was yesterday's, or Monday's Washington Post. There
was an article on the front page. It was about the transit
project that we are undertaking in Las Vegas.
Often, we think of mass transit and light rail projects as
an east coast issue. But certainly, it is moving west as we are
becoming more congested out west. Certainly Denver, Las Vegas,
other cities in the west, are growing so fast, that we just
cannot even keep up with the infrastructure needs. And so, we
are looking for new ways to handle those.
In Las Vegas, for instance, between 1990 and 2000, we grew
by 85 percent, which is a staggering number for any place,
especially in the east, to think about growing at that rate.
But what is even more remarkable is the 40 million visitors
that we have to move around a very concentrated area. And that
is usually when mass transit, works very well. We have the
Resort Corridor, this monorail project where we are working on
this.
I would like to give you just a quick overview of how we
are constructing this monorail system, and how we are doing it
so quickly with a significant savings to the Federal
Government.
This system will be America's first large-scale monorail
project. Construction is now underway of a completely privately
funded, $650 million, four-mile monorail along the Resort
Corridor. The funding was put together through the sale of tax-
free bonds. The monorail we are constructing is ahead of
schedule and will be finished in 2 years. I do not think that
usually happens in most places in the country. Obviously, the
monorail project is moving ahead very quickly.
We are seeking Federal funding to build a monorail
extension. The extension would connect to the privately funded
monorail and serve downtown Las Vegas, which is away from the
Strip. The Federal contribution for this extension would be
$120 million.
The amount of Federal funding we are seeking for the
monorail is 35 percent of the cost of the entire system. This
is a significant overmatch. The Federal Government only
requires a 20 percent match. In Las Vegas, we have come up with
65 percent of the cost. That makes us first in the Nation for
local dollars used.
I mention all of this because I think it is important for
the Bush Administration to consider prioritizing fixed
guideways and other transit projects. We should be encouraging
local communities to do their fair share. We have a limited
amount of money and local commitments should become an
important factor in deciding which projects will get Federal
dollars.
Ms. Dorn, I hope you will think about how we can look at
the Las Vegas monorail and how we can reward grant applications
where there is a significant overmatch.
And finally, we are seeking a full funding grant agreement
from the FTA and we are ready to go forward. Thank you for
including $4 million in the President's budget for the Las
Vegas project, and we look forward to working with you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Ensign. Thank you very
much for your testimony, Ms. Dorn. We really appreciate it.
It has been extremely productive working with you and we
look forward in this reauthorization to continue our work
together.
Thank you.
Ms. Dorn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate it.
Senator Allard. Are we always going to let her off this
easy?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Dorn. I was going to say----
[Laughter.]
Senator Reed. I do not know.
Ms. Dorn. But I wanted to answer more questions.
[Laughter.]
Senator Reed. This is where we ask, not plead for things.
[Laughter.]
So we are asking politely.
Ms. Dorn. I guess I would better leave now.
[Laughter.]
Senator Reed. Now is a good time to exit.
Ms. Dorn. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Reed. Thank you. Let me call up the second panel.
That would be: Ms. Faye Moore, General Manager of the
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority; Dr. Beverly
Scott, General Manager of the Rhode Island Public Transit
Authority; and Mr. Larry Worth, Executive Director of the
Northeast Colorado Association of Local Governments.
Let me take the privilege of introducing Bev Scott. Then I
would call on Senator Allard to introduce Mr. Worth. And if
Senator Santorum is here, I would ask him to introduce Ms.
Moore. If not, I will do the honors.
Beverly Scott has been the General Manager of RIPTA, the
Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, since 1996, and has led
an effort to modernize and grow RIPTA's service throughout the
State of Rhode Island, which is one of a few statewide systems
in the Nation. Bev has a wealth of experience in transit,
having worked for the Dallas system, the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority, the New York City
transit system, among many others. At RIPTA, she manages a
fleet of 241 buses and 690 employees, which carried more than
20 million passengers in the year 2001. Bev has been great to
work with on a host of issues and I want to thank her for not
only being here today, but also for the great work she does for
my home State of Rhode Island.
Senator Allard, would you like to introduce Mr. Worth?
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am going to take
just a little longer to introduce Mr. Worth.
I am pleased to welcome Larry Worth to the Subcommittee on
Housing and Transportation. I appreciate you taking the time
away from your business to be here, Larry. It is not always
easy when you are running a small operation. I know it costs
you dollars.
Larry is Executive Director of the Northeast Colorado
Association of Local Governments, also known as NCALG. It
serves six counties in northeastern Colorado, including Logan,
Morgan, Phillips, Sedgwick, Washington, and Yuma counties. For
those who are not familiar with Colorado geography, this is
rural farmland that is sparsely populated.
By operating County Express, which is a demand-responsive
service, NCALG provides critical transportation for northeast
Colorado residents. A demand-responsive service, for those who
may want to know, waits for riders to call, and then the
service picks them up after they make the call. In particular,
the transit services are crucial for elderly, disabled, and
poor residents. The ability of a sick, elderly person to access
dialysis treatment can literally mean the difference between
life and death in rural areas.
Although the Board of Directors for County Express has
defined trips for dialysis treatment and other medical
appointments as a major priority, NCALG also provides important
mobility for seniors. Transportation is provided to employment,
meal sites, shopping, education, and social/recreation
activities. NCALG faces many challenges in offering these
services, particularly related to the geography.
The six counties covered by NCALG comprise a significant
area physically. In fact, although NCALG is here representing
the interests of the small transit authorities, they are by far
the largest in terms of area that they serve. And the Chairman
mentioned that in his opening remarks. SEPTA and RIPTA serve
approximately 2,200 and 1,500 square miles, respectively. By
comparison, NCALG serves nearly 10,000 square miles, which does
not even include the many trips they provide outside the six
county area. In such a large area, they regularly transport
clients to appointments 100 or even 200 miles away.
As I noted earlier, although the counties are large
physically, the area is sparsely populated. SEPTA and RIPTA
have population densities of approximately 1,750 and 1,000
people per square mile. Northeast Colorado has only seven
people per square mile. So, obviously, congestion and pollution
are not the key factors spurring transportation services.
However, NCALG provides a service that is just as important.
I am pleased that Larry is here to explain more about what
NCALG does. There are many similar communities and transit
agencies in America. So his point of view will be very
important as we consider issues for reauthorization.
Larry, welcome to the Subcommittee, I am pleased that you
are here and we look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Worth. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Allard.
Finally, Ms. Faye Moore became the General Manager of SEPTA
earlier this year. Prior to that time, Ms. Moore served as
SEPTA's CFO, where she led the effort to balance SEPTA's
budget. Ms. Moore has used her background as an accountant to
improve SEPTA's financial status, so much so that SEPTA now is
back in the surplus category, which is quite an accomplishment.
We applaud her for that.
We will first call on Ms. Moore, then Dr. Scott and Mr.
Worth. If you could summarize, we would appreciate it. We do
anticipate these votes in the next half hour.
Your full statements are a part of the record.
Ms. Moore.
STATEMENT OF FAYE L. MOORE
GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
Ms. Moore. Thank you. I never thought after 63 days of
being the General Manager, I would appear before U.S. Senators.
But thank you for inviting me.
I am particularly pleased to be testifying before a
Subcommittee in which our Senator, Rick Santorum, serves. The
Senator has been a great friend to public transportation and a
tremendous supporter of SEPTA initiatives and programs.
As you mentioned, I am an accountant. I am a CPA, still
very proud of the fact that I am a CPA. I fully understand the
importance of maximizing the effectiveness of our resources and
in maintaining fiscal responsibility and discipline.
SEPTA is huge. We operate a multimodal transportation
network consisting of regional rail, subway, buses, trolley,
trackless trolley, and paratransit services. Each day, we
deliver well over a million trips, making us the fifth largest
transit system in the Nation. Our current annual operating
budget is $822 million and the capital budget is $496 million.
The subsidy from the Federal Government represents a
significant portion of our overall capital budget.
Since the enactment of TEA-21, we have been able to move
our subsidy from $112 million from the two main formula
programs to $167 million. Additionally, our Congressional
delegation was successful in earmarking funds from Section 5309
Bus and Access to Jobs program for SEPTA.
The Jobs Access Reverse Commute program created under TEA-
21 provides significant benefit to our region for recipients of
assistance through the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
Program. Both Senators Santorum and Specter played important
roles in the creation and annual funding for this program. We
appreciate the work they have done to improve the job prospects
of the families in our region by making public transportation
more available to those families.
TEA-21 funding increases in programs have enabled SEPTA,
among a lot of things, to: Replace stations, track, roadbed and
signal systems, construct a new terminal complex, introduce a
new fleet for our subway elevated system, which is our busiest
line, serving 150,000 daily riders; upgrade our 30-year-old
Silverliner IV regional railcar fleet, and start the
procurement process for our new Silverliner V railcars; expand
existing routes, and create new routes to serve fast-growing
suburban economic and residential centers; create partnerships
with local government to institute and expand reverse commute
service for urban residents with jobs or those who are seeking
jobs in the suburbs; study options to improve regional rail
service through construction of new rail lines, such as
Schuylkill Valley Metro and Cross County Metro.
I would be remiss if I did not take the opportunity to
thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all the Members of the
Subcommittee and Full Committee, for your efforts to make the
TEA-21 legislation a reality. TEA-21 funding has helped SEPTA
to address the transportation needs of the Greater Philadelphia
area, and to support the economic well-being of our region.
Security on the system for our customers, employees, and
surrounding communities has always been a high priority. Since
last September, transit operations across the country have
redoubled their efforts to ensure security of the systems.
SEPTA has initiated an ongoing process to evaluate our security
vulnerabilities and the role of our system in planning future
evacuation exercises, if the need ever arises.
We thank the FTA for their assistance in this. They have
provided a security review team to Philadelphia. Based on their
review, we estimate completing security upgrades for the SEPTA
system would cost in excess of $100 million.
Just some highlights that I would like you to consider for
reauthorization of TEA-21: Focus support where you get the
biggest bang for the buck. In defining funding needs, resources
should be allocated to projects and programs that will provide
benefits in areas where transit is a proven force in the
marketplace, or where compelling evidence of the need for new
services is presented. Maintain guaranteed funding. One of TEA-
21's great achievements was ensuring that transit spending
would increase at guaranteed levels. Continue program growth.
The TEA-21 era has seen record growth in transit programs.
Recent APTA studies estimated the total transit funding need at
$42 billion per year. The current Federal program, at $7.2
billion, meets about 17 percent of that goal. It is my hope
that the Subcommittee will consider significant growth in
spending for transit as part of a strategy to achieve parity
with the highway program and to meet growth in transit needs.
Improve flexible funding programs. Examine program reforms. We
are in particular looking at the requirement that you can only
get a full-funding grant agreement at the 60 percent design
level. We find that in looking at the possibilities for
Schuylkill Valley Metro, that becomes a hindrance. Equity
providers want to be involved a little before a 60-percent
design stage. Provide security funding. Transit systems like
SEPTA can be both targets for terrorists and a part of the
region's response to those acts. Meet new market challenges.
Creation of the Jobs Access Reverse Commute Program under TEA-
21 was a great response to an emerging travel market. We are
finding that with the baby boom generation, the seniors,
especially in the city of Philadelphia and the State of
Pennsylvania, will be a growing demand. SEPTA will be expected
to provide the service for that expanded market. I hope that
transit can work with the Subcommittee to develop innovative
approaches to respond to this fast-growing market.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to
testify before you today, and SEPTA is available to work with
you and the Members of this Subcommittee, as you develop
legislation to take us through the next authorization period.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Ms. Moore.
Ms. Scott.
STATEMENT OF BEVERLY A. SCOTT, PhD
GENERAL MANAGER, RHODE ISLAND
PUBLIC TRANSIT AUTHORITY
Ms. Scott. Mr. Chairman, it is always a pleasure to see you
and the Members of the Subcommittee.
As General Manager of the Rhode Island Public Transit
Authority, I welcome the opportunity to share our experiences
with you on the very positive impacts of the transit provisions
of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century on our
transit system in Rhode Island, positive experiences which we
believe are representative of most medium-sized transit
properties around the country.
The bottom line of my testimony is that TEA-21 works, that
quality public transportation is an essential national
investment which has a very direct and profound impact on our
Nation's overall competitiveness, quality of life, and national
security.
Just as our ridership in Rhode Island has increased 31
percent since the mid-1990's, as you noted earlier, national
transit ridership growth and demand for increased travel, and
more transportation service in communities of all sizes and
economic strata, has risen dramatically over the same
timeframe--and we believe will continue to do so--severely
straining the core capacity of our existing transportation
infrastructure, both rail and nonrail, as well as requiring
whole new ways of thinking and delivering services to a much
more complex and diversified travel market, particularly as we
come to grips with the special mobility challenges of an aging
America, our disabled community, and the hundreds of thousands
of rural and suburban communities across our country, which
oftentimes cannot be effectively or affordably served with just
traditional public transit services.
All of these significant special markets require a scale,
flexibility, as well as operational methods and procedures,
that are often different than conventional public transit.
In our State, which has the fifth highest per-capita of
senior citizens in the country, and 19 of 39 cities and towns
with population densities of 500 people per square mile and
fewer, our statewide public transit system not only deals with
highly concentrated urban areas, but also with these critical
mobility needs and challenges on a daily basis. This is one of
the major reasons that we embarked on our Transit 2000 system-
wide modernization plan several years ago, for all intents and
purposes, a Marshall Plan for public transportation in the
State of Rhode Island, a plan that would not have been possible
without the increased Federal transit investment in TEA-21.
Increased Federal transit investment that has had a
tremendous multiplier effect in our State. Specifically, more
than doubling dedicated State funding for public transit since
1998, up from 3 cents to 6\1/4\ cents of the State gas tax
dedicated to transit. Coupled with significant additional
transit investments and partnerships with other State agencies,
particularly in the areas of human and social services
transportation. Our tourism sector, which accounts for $2
billion in annual revenue to our State, and our local colleges
and universities. And a strong working relationship with our
unions, including extremely competitive wage rates and more
flexible work rules, coupled with a serious commitment to
employee development, training, and upward mobility that has
greatly contributed to our ability to offer new and expanded
services which address historically unmet mobility needs in our
State.
In conclusion, I will simply say from my heart that as
Americans, mobility is one of the greatest and most precious
freedoms that we enjoy. This basic cornerstone of American
life--who can or cannot get from place to place, how we plan
and conduct our daily lives, the choices we make about what we
do, and even more importantly, what we can do--are hanging in
the balance.
As you move forward to consider reauthorization of the
transit provisions of TEA-21, I can only reiterate that TEA-21
works and ask for your support of increased Federal transit
investment, continuation of the TEA-21 funding guarantee
provisions, continuation of the flexible funding provisions
that allow highway and transit funding to be transferred based
on local needs. In our State, this flexibility has translated
into $29 million in additional transit funding, and provided us
with the ability to launch our new, innovative transportation
services, as well as accelerate our acquisition of alternative
fuel vehicles. Continuation of the Jobs Access Program, which
we and others around the country have utilized to support
national welfare reform and start up our new flexible services
programs, as well as continuation of the current common
matching shares for the highway and transit projects that has
been provided in TEA-21.
Before closing, I also want to acknowledge the strong and
very helpful working relationship that we enjoy with our
Federal Transit Administration Regional Office in Boston, a
partnership that we tremendously value.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to share these perspectives on
reauthorization.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Ms. Scott. Thank you very much.
Mr. Worth.
STATEMENT OF LARRY WORTH
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTHEAST COLORADO
ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Worth. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
opportunity to be here today.
In 1981, NECTA, the Northeast Colorado Transportation
Authority, was created as a nonprofit organization serving an
area of 9,600 square miles. I was invited to talk with you
today because we operate in a very rural area. One-way trips of
50 miles are routine and many are 150 miles or more.
The total County Express trips in 2001 were 79,133. That
pales in comparison to the million per day that we hear from
our colleagues. But, still, the issues are important and we
appreciate the opportunity to present them.
What did TEA-21 do for the people of rural Northeastern
Colorado? First, it increased rural transit, bus, and bus-
related capital allowed us to buy more vehicles, to replace
some of those that have high mileage, to operate the system
more effectively, efficiently, and to provide a higher quality
of service. But we want to move away from the statistical image
of transit and put a more personal face for you because we
serve a lot of people in great distances.
The Sterling Regional Medical Center operates the only
dialysis center in Northeast Colorado. So we move John
Sanderson from Yuma to Sterling three times a week. That is 150
miles a day. We move residents from Phillips County, again 50
miles, one way from Holyoke to Sterling. We move residents 50
miles from Julesburg to Sterling, Fort Morgan to Sterling. All
of those, since it is the only dialysis center, requires us to
move distances of 50 to 100 miles one way. We would also note
that we have moved individuals from Fort Morgan to Greeley,
which is 70 miles one way. We have moved residents from Wray to
Denver for specialized treatment, 186 miles one way.
So each of those begin to put a personal face for you in
terms of the need of that resident and the long distances that
we travel in order to provide services for those clients.
We would note that without subsidies from the Federal
Transit Administration, the Older Americans Act, TANF, and from
local government and other funding sources, the area residents
could not make the kind of trips that we provide.
Transit has grown faster than any other mode of
transportation in the last 6 years, and your understanding of
our need to invest in vehicles and staff means we have been
able to do more for people. We increased our service and we
thank you for the effort in that regard. What needs to be
changed?
First, we have to look at the Medicare funding. It does not
include costs for nonemergency transportation to medical
appointments for the elderly. To meet that shortfall,
additional funding under transportation laws would be helpful.
Other regulatory burdens provide disproportionate impacts
upon rural system. I will mention just two. First is the Random
Drug and Alcohol Testing. While everybody agrees that that is a
positive and that you do not want people who are drinking and
driving on the vehicles. But when I only have two drivers in
one community and one driver is called to relieve the other
driver, there is no way, that I can maintain the
confidentiality of information when he is told that he has to
take over another driver's trip at 4:30 in the morning. Also,
the Federal Transit Administration charter bus provision
requires a fairly lengthy process to receive a waiver. Again,
this particular provision says that you cannot use public
subsidies to compete with the private sector. But in rural
communities, there may not be any other competitor and it may
be a lengthy process to move a few people for the next week's
activity. What needs to be done in the reauthorization?
First, more Federal investment for rural communities.
Colorado, is the third fastest-growing State, with a sparsely
populated rural area, Colorado is receiving a small amount of
rural formula funding, about $2 million annually. We urge you
to increase the minimum per State to $5 million annually as the
Community Transportation Association of America has called for
in its reauthorization proposal.
Roads, are essential but we need drivers and we need small
vans and minibuses to complete trips for the elderly. This is
particularly important in our area where we have 48 vehicles
and they travel 427,000 miles annually.
Consider the needs of our aging population. As you know, we
have a growing population over 85 and they are not able to
drive safely. We suggest that transit is important to provide a
stable and effective transit system. We need more vehicles in
the remote area of Colorado.
Finally, we would say, consider the impact of regulations
on the small agencies. Examine the Drug and Alcohol Regualtion
random testing requirements. Consider the FTA Charter
Provisions.
Thank you for listening, but especially, thank you for your
grand work in promoting transit on our behalf.
Senator Reed. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Worth.
Let me begin a round of questioning, and I think we will
have time to conclude our questions before the votes start.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Ms. Moore, I was struck when I looked at your written
testimony with respect to the ratio of transit spending and
highway spending. Twenty years ago, the ratio was 2:1. Now the
ratio is 4:1. So we are spending much more on highways than we
are on transit, relatively speaking, these last 20 years. And
yet, transit is growing by leaps and bounds. In fact, last
year, it grew more than automobile ridership. All of that
suggests that we should try to reach out and increase resources
for transit, I would suspect. Is that your conclusion, too?
Ms. Moore. That would be my conclusion, yes.
Senator Reed. Well, it is very important to note, as you do
in your testimony, that the ratio has not been constant, that
in fact, we are devoting a much smaller portion of
transportation dollars to transit today than we did 20 years
ago.
Ms. Moore. Correct.
Senator Reed. I think that is an important point. The other
issue I would point out, too, and this applies to all of your
colleagues, is that as we go forward with the reauthorization,
we will need the active participation of your authority and all
the authorities to make the point, both locally and nationally,
of the need for additional resources for transit. I suspect you
will join us in that effort.
Ms. Moore. Yes, sir.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much. And thank you for your
testimony today, Ms. Moore, and for your leadership at the
Philadelphia Transportation Authority.
Ms. Moore. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Ms. Scott, again, let me commend you, not
only for your excellent testimony, but for your extraordinary
leadership in Rhode Island. You indicated a 31 percent increase
in ridership. How much more money would you need, from the
Federal Government to keep up with this increase?
Ms. Scott. Next year, we are projecting a need for really
an additional $7\1/2\ million in order to be able to keep pace
with where we are, as well as do some additional modest
expansion with the flexible services. So that is really about
what the bottom line is for us in Rhode Island.
Senator Reed. And the ridership has been going up and up,
and you anticipate it continuing to go up, unless you do not
have the resources to serve it.
Ms. Scott. The ridership has been up and in fact, this year
alone, we are tracking a 6 percent increase and we are just
about 10 months through the fiscal year.
Senator Reed. One of the points you made in your testimony,
Ms. Scott, was your commitment to environmentally friendly
buses, and the fact that you have used Federal resources to
purchase those buses. Could you give us an indication of what
are some of the obstacles that you face in making the
transition to cleaner buses, be they gas-powered or clean
diesel fuel buses?
Ms. Scott. In fact, at this point in time, our fleet is
about 10 percent compressed natural gas. Everybody wants it,
but when you are talking about it, you are talking about
changes in terms of infrastructure, fueling facilities,
servicing facilities, your training and development for your
employees.
And so when one is making the commitment to in fact move to
alternative fuels, it is much more than a flavor of the month.
It is really a radical change in terms of how one is doing
business within their overall system.
I will tell you that one of the things that--and I think it
is also one of the beauties of our State in terms of being able
to maximize and leverage Federal investment--is that our
fueling facilities, just like the fueling facility down in
Newport will be a shared-use facility with other State
vehicles.
The CNG-fueling facility that we, in fact, will put in the
Providence area will be one that will be a fueling facility
that will be a backup for the entire State fleet. So, where we
can, we try to do everything that we can to maximize and
leverage the Federal investment.
Senator Reed. Thank you. I have a question for Mr. Worth,
but Ms. Moore, do you have a comment in that regard, too? Is
your system also incorporating alternative fuel vehicles?
Ms. Moore. We have placed our first order. But part of the
reason that we have not expanded it even further is for just
the reasons that she cited.
It is definitely a monumental undertaking, especially when
you have over 1,300 buses. If you move that whole fleet to an
alternative fuel, you would have to incur some major overhaul
costs.
Senator Reed. I have a question for Mr. Worth, but I have
just been notified that the first vote has been called on a
series of votes.
Let me defer to Senator Allard, who has a question for you.
Senator Allard. Yes.
Senator Reed. Senator Allard.
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the first
of nine votes we have coming up, so we probably won't be able
to come back. I appreciate your willingness to give me a chance
to ask some questions here. So I am going to prioritize my
questions.
Cashflow is often a pressing problem for small transit
authorities. As you are aware, another Colorado authority
recently considered shutting its doors after going several
months without assistance. Luckily, money came through one week
before they planned to shut down.
Do we need to provide better resources and incentives for
small authorities to build up reserves, or do we need to
directly address cashflow problems?
Mr. Worth. Well, I certainly think that you need to address
cashflow. In a small system, we are fortunate that we operate a
number of programs, and so we have some cash in the system to
carry County Express until the cashflow starts.
But this is April and I still did not have a signed
contract until April 17. That means January, February, and
March are not reimbursable in those months. We will still get
the same amount of money, but it is over 9 months instead of 12
months. So we carry the first 3 or 4 months of the system
before I am able to draw Federal monies down.
Senator Allard. Currently--this is for everybody to
answer--Federal capital grants are disbursed at a rate of 40
percent to rail starts; 40 percent to rail modernization; and
20 percent to buses and bus facilities. This is in recognition
of the much higher costs for rail projects. Yet, bus service is
much more widely offered and many States have little or no rail
service. Should the allocation be altered to account for wider
bus use, or should it be maintained to assist the cost of rail-
oriented projects?
We will start with you, Ms. Moore, and if you could keep
your comments short, please.
Ms. Moore. Well, I happen to be one that has it all. I am
okay with the mix.
Senator Allard. Okay. Ms. Scott.
Ms. Scott. I think that the current 40-40-20 is pretty much
in line, but I think that we really have to be clear about what
the actual dimension of the needs are, what amount of
investment is required on that. And if in fact that means that
there becomes some slight adjustment to the 40-40-20, then I
think that we need to be open to that.
Senator Allard. Mr. Worth.
Mr. Worth. Yes, we support the existing formula, 40-40-20.
Senator Allard. Okay. Have you asked all your questions,
Mr. Chairman?
Senator Reed. I have, but Full Committee Chairman Sarbanes
has joined us and he would like to make a statement.
Senator Allard. I will yield, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Chairman Sarbanes.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL S. SARBANES
Senator Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will
be very brief. I know there is a vote on, but there are a
couple of comments I want to make.
First of all, I want to thank all three witnesses for their
response to Senator Allard's last question. I feel very keenly
that the focus here should be to make the pie larger and we
should not fall into scrapping amongst ourselves in terms of
the allocation within the amount. We have very significant
transit needs in this country, in all dimensions. And we need,
in my judgment, to boost our commitment of resources to this
purpose. It is very important that we all join together in that
effort as we approach this reauthorization.
I apologize to the witnesses that I was not able to be here
to hear their testimony, but we will review it very carefully.
Ms. Scott, I just want to say that your work experience, at
WMATA and now up at RIPTA, certainly serves you well for
appearing before this Committee, if I may say so.
Ms. Scott. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Sarbanes. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you and
Senator Allard for calling this hearing. There has been a
tremendous increase in transit ridership. It is very impressive
and it is happened faster than highways, faster than air.
You ask, what explains this? We have increased congestion
that leads drivers to seek other options. I think we have a
growing awareness of our responsibility to use transit to ease
the environmental pressures that we are experiencing in the
country. And we have seen the economic development benefits of
transit.
But another factor in all of this was the commitment that
the Federal Government made, first, in ISTEA, and then followed
up in TEA-21, with respect to transit. We broke new ground 10
years ago with ISTEA. We put in a balanced framework for
transportation planning, which embraced all modes of
transportation.
TEA-21 built on that framework. It significantly increased
funding for transit and it provided budget guarantees to ensure
a reliable funding stream for transit. And we have been able to
work within that framework. I think it is been very salutary
and it in part helps to explain these increases in ridership
because it has allowed transit systems to improve the
frequency, the reliability, and the safety of their service,
making it a viable transportation alternative for millions of
our citizens.
I am very hopeful that the next bill that we bring out will
enable us to build upon this and to continue along this very
highly successful path.
I was struck by the diversity of our transit systems
reflected in the panel that is before us. SEPTA serves 3.8
million people, something like that.
Ms. Moore. It is 1.1 million daily riders, and over the
course of a year, over 300 million.
Senator Sarbanes. And the County Express in Northeastern
Colorado serves 70,000, I believe.
Mr. Worth. In a year, yes, 79,000.
Senator Sarbanes. So, in population, you are a much smaller
system. But in terms of square miles, you are by far the
largest system sitting at the table. In fact, I understand
County Express covers an area that is almost as large as the
entire State of Maryland, I would say with all due deference to
Colorado.
Mr. Worth. I believe that is correct, yes.
Senator Sarbanes. So we have SEPTA, who has a service area
that is high-density urban and suburban, County Express, in a
rural area, RIPTA with both high-density and low-density.
Actually, I think RIPTA is the only one at the table that
actually has a ferry service as part of their operation. And
so, we have the whole mix here.
I am struck also by your similarities. You provide people
with mobility, whether it is to a job or to schools or to a
doctor's office. And you are responding to a critical need in
your community, enhancing the quality of life.
Senators Reed and Allard have embarked on a series of very
important hearings with respect to our transit needs and how to
respond to them, laying the basis for moving forward important
legislation in the next Congress, which of course is required
by the fact that the authorization for TEA-21 will expire.
So, Mr. Chairman, Senator Allard, thank you all very much.
We appreciate the contribution.
I want to thank the witnesses for their contributions.
Ms. Moore. Thank you.
Ms. Scott. Thank you.
Mr. Worth. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The votes are in
progress now. We have a series of nine votes, I am told.
I want to thank the witnesses for their excellent testimony
and indicate that the record will remain open for 7 days. There
maybe additional questions that we will pose in writing.
We have learned today that guaranteed funding is essential,
more resources are essential, and we have to maintain the
security of our rail and transit systems throughout the
country.
Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Prepared statements and response to written questions
supplied for the record follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON S. CORZINE
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this second hearing on
reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA-21), and I would like to join you in welcoming FTA Administrator
Dorn and our other witnesses.
Mr. Chairman, as the Banking Committee begins its work on the
reauthorization of TEA-21, I look forward to working with the Committee
Members, as well as Administrator Dorn and Secretary Mineta, in
crafting legislation that helps meet our Nation's mass transit needs. I
would like to point out that nowhere in the country is the need for
mass transit more evident than in my State of New Jersey, the most
densely populated State in the Nation. A study done by the New Jersey
Institute of Technology in July 2001 found that the average New Jersey
driver spent almost 50 hours a year stuck in traffic. For all this time
stuck in traffic, that is an average cost per driver of $1,255 in
wasted gasoline and lost productivity--for a total cost of $7.3 billion
a year.
To New Jersey's credit, we have realized that we cannot build
enough roads to meet our transportation needs. We need to craft TEA-21
reauthorization legislation that operates under that premise as well.
This legislation should continue the Federal Government's commitment to
help fund existing mass transit projects. But it should also help State
and local transit agencies create new opportunities for commuters,
whether they are bus, rail, or ferry. Transit agencies need more
funding, not less, to meet the needs from their increasing levels of
ridership.
Mr. Chairman, as the Banking Committee deals with reauthorization,
I will push for funding to increase mass transit opportunities. For my
State of New Jersey that means additional funding for the Hudson-Bergen
and Newark-Elizabeth rail options as well as funding for new trans-
Hudson commuter rail tunnel.
Thank you for holding this very important hearing and I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JENNIFER L. DORN
Administrator, Federal Transit Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
April 25, 2002
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today on the success of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and to continue
the discussions about reauthorization begun by Secretary Mineta and the
full Committee last month.
Public transportation connects communities--and communities
throughout America are recognizing and capitalizing on the benefits of
more efficient, comfortable, and effective public transportation
systems. This recognition has spurred unprecedented levels of
investment in public transportation. In fact, the total capital
investment in public transportation, including State, local, and
Federal funds, has increased by nearly 90 percent over the last 10
years (1991 to 2000). The role of the Federal Government has been
stable during this period, accounting for approximately 50 percent of
capital investment in transit, and 25 percent of all public spending on
transit.
As a result of the unprecedented levels of investment in recent
years, transit has experienced the highest percentage of ridership
growth among all modes of surface transportation, growing over 28
percent between 1993 and 2001. Over the last 6 years, transit use has
grown faster than the population, and more than double the rate of
domestic air and road travel, which grew approximately 12 percent. Last
year, people rode our Nation's public transportation systems 9.5
billion times--traveling to and from work, medical appointments,
school, and social events. Nearly two-thirds of these trips were on
buses.
While most public transportation trips continue to occur in major
metropolitan areas, public transportation is becoming increasingly
important in smaller urban and rural areas, as well. Among transit
agencies that receive Section 5311 funds, the number of passenger trips
reached an estimated 154 million in 2000, an increase of 62 percent
since 1994. During the same period, passenger miles traveled increased
by an estimated 93 percent, meaning that people are not only taking
public transportation more often, but also for longer distances.
Not coincidentally, these increases in ridership have occurred
during a period when the condition of our Nation's public
transportation assets improved markedly and the availability of public
transportation increased substantially.
Nevertheless, public transportation faces new challenges in 2002
and beyond. Secretary Mineta recently noted that public transportation
must play an important role in achieving the President's three
important goals of winning the war against terrorism, protecting our
homeland, and getting the American economy moving again.
The events of September 11 have created a new reality for
Americans, one in which public transportation must be prepared to
respond to extraordinary threats and to serve as a primary means for
evacuation when that becomes necessary.
This is not an entirely new responsibility. Public transportation
has long had an important role in helping communities cope with natural
disasters. In 1989, San Francisco's rapid transportation system was
critical to the community as it coped with the collapse and
reconstruction of major roads after the Loma Prieta earthquake. And, in
1999, public transportation systems in North Carolina evacuated
residents and transported relief workers in response to Hurricane
Floyd.
But the events of September 11 gave our communities an even better
understanding of the role of public transportation during emergency
situations. In New York and Washington, public transportation safely
evacuated millions of people from the center cities, and, throughout
the Nation, public transportation systems came to the aid of people who
were stranded at unexpected destinations when air travel was halted.
Transit agencies stepped in to assist stranded passengers, offering not
only free transportation to nearby hotels, but even coordinating hotel
room availability and reservations in some locations. In North Little
Rock, for example, the Central Arkansas Transit Authority (CATA) teamed
with the local Chamber of Commerce to determine hotel availability,
make reservations, and transport over 2,000 stranded passengers to more
than 20 hotels in less than 4 hours on September 11. CATA continued to
serve as an information link for passengers over the next several days,
faxing news of airline operations to all 20 hotels, and operating free
shuttle service to the local airport, Amtrak, and Greyhound terminals
for the stranded passengers.
Soon after the September 11 attacks, FTA began implementing a major
security initiative, focused first on the Nation's high risk/high
consequence transit assets. Generally, that means the subway tunnels
and stations where the large numbers of people converge and where an
attack would cause the greatest disruption to transportation services.
Transit agencies across the country are voluntarily and
enthusiastically partnering with FTA and continue to take steps on
their own to improve the safety and security of our public
transportation systems.
As part of this initiative, FTA has engaged teams of experts in
security, antiterrorism, and transit to conduct voluntary security
assessments of 33 public transportation systems. Chosen because of
their high ridership levels, the potential vulnerability of subway
systems, and the potentially serious consequences of a successful
terrorist attack, all 33 agencies are voluntarily participating in the
assessment program. Two-thirds of the assessments have been completed
and the remainder are scheduled over the next month or so.
Each assessment includes a threat and vulnerability analysis, an
evaluation of the security and emergency response plans, and a focused
review of the community's unified emergency command structure. Based on
the findings of the assessment, FTA is offering direct technical
assistance to enhance security, modify emergency response plans,
conduct practice drills, and train employees.
The assessments are proving to be an effective tool for both the
FTA and the participating agencies. We have identified important
concerns at even the most well-prepared agencies, and have recommended
solutions to manage these risks. At the same time, we are identifying
best practices for training and response protocols, and are sharing
these with the industry. Recently, for example, guidance on responding
to a chemical attack in a subway environment was distributed to transit
agencies with underground stations; similar guidance with regard to
biological attacks will be issued soon. We are also working to make
standard operating procedures applicable to bus, light rail, and other
transit environments, and will make that available as soon as possible.
We will continue to look for new opportunities to enhance transit
security, while maintaining the open and accessible nature of our
public transportation systems.
One important lesson of September 11 has been that the safety and
security of our communities is significantly enhanced when public
transportation systems are linked to police, fire, medical, and other
emergency response agencies through community-wide planning, emergency
response drills, and centralized emergency command centers. I am proud
to report that FTA is taking the lead to bring these important
community leaders together at emergency response planning forums around
the county. We are also sending out technical teams to refine the
emergency response plans to reflect the assessment findings, and have
made $50,000 grants available to communities who need assistance to
conduct emergency drills.
Yet, even as we take new steps to ensure that our transportation
systems are as safe and secure as possible, we must also protect the
mobility of our people and the economic vitality of our communities.
Balancing this three-legged stool of security, freedom of movement, and
economic vitality is an important challenge to transportation providers
throughout the Nation.
The TEA-21 Success Story
In his testimony before the full Senate Banking Committee last
month, Secretary Mineta identified several core concepts that the
Department of Transportation will be using as the basis for its
reauthorization proposals. Today, I would like to highlight several of
those concepts, and talk more specifically with you about their
importance with regard to public transportation. These concepts are:
stable funding, innovative finance, transportation-oriented economic
development, technology investments, and streamlining.
Stability. One of the most visible and important elements of TEA-21
has been the tremendously positive impact of stable and dependable
funding streams on transit development. Dependable levels of funding--
for both formula funds and full funding grant agreements--have improved
the ability of transit agencies to finance, plan, and execute projects,
and produced real results for the transit-riding public.
For large transit agencies, dependable Federal funding is often
essential to the creation of similarly stable local funding mechanisms.
Take, for example, New Jersey's Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Project, which
includes almost 15 miles of rail line, 59 light rail vehicles, and
represents a total investment of $2.2 billion. Phase II of the Hudson-
Bergen full funding grant agreement provides $500 million in Federal
New Starts funding over 5 years. New Jersey Transit was able to issue
$450 million in grant anticipation bonds based largely on this New
Starts commitment. The bonds are structured for repayment through 2011.
However, the availability of capital now allows construction to be
completed by 2005, even though the first FFGA funds will not be
received until 2004. The bottom line: a secure Federal funding source
will permit the project to be completed 3 years early and will reduce
costs by more than $300 million.
The benefits of stable and predictable funding are not limited to
large agencies with rail or with large FFGA's. Phoenix Transit is an
agency with a fleet of 350 buses, making 33 million passenger trips
each year. Because of its limited funding stream, it cannot access
capital markets on its own. However, this agency has effectively
leveraged its FTA formula funding to speed up the procurement of Clean
Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles and fueling infrastructure by utilizing
bonds. The city of Phoenix issued $18 million in grant anticipation
bonds to Phoenix Transit based solely on the stream of formula funds
guaranteed through TEA-21. Phoenix Transit was able to upgrade its
fleet of vehicles and install the fueling infrastructure to keep the
buses rolling, all within a single year. Without the ability to
leverage the stability of its formula funds, Phoenix Transit would have
needed 3 or more years to purchase the same number of vehicles and
install the required infrastructure. Further, Phoenix Transit estimates
that it saved an average of $30,000 per bus--a total of $1.65 million--
because it was able to purchase a larger quantity of vehicles at one
time.
According to new research being conducted by the American Public
Transportation Association, several recent TIFIA loans in New Jersey
and California received high credit evaluations from Fitch and Moody's
based largely on confidence in the Federal commitments under TEA-21.
The study also notes that the benefits of stable funding go far beyond
improving the ability of transit agencies to secure long-term loans for
major investments. Confidence that formula funding levels under TEA-21
would be honored have helped communities develop and follow multiyear
fleet replacement schedules to minimize costs. Previously, some
communities had to ``save up'' grant resources for several years in
order to have enough cash to enter into contractual arrangements. Under
TEA-21, contractors and financial institutions are willing to work with
transit agencies to significantly accelerate acquisitions, saving the
agency time and money.
In sum, stable formula funds help agencies do more with limited
resources because they give financial markets the confidence to support
transit investments; give communities an incentive to commit long-term
resources; and give private industry the confidence that the transit
promises necessary to support new development will be honored.
Innovative Finance. Dependability and stability offer even more
opportunities to leverage resources when coupled with innovative
financing techniques. Under TEA-21, Congress established the
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA)
financing mechanism, a loan and loan guarantee program for surface
transportation projects. Recently, Staten Island Ferry signed a TIFIA
loan agreement for $159 million to purchase three additional ferryboats
and complete the reconstruction of its ferry terminal. In the wake of
September 11, when ferries carried over 60,000 people safely out of
Manhattan, reliable ferry service has become even more important to
mobility in the New York metropolitan region. Staten Island Ferry was
able to leverage $57 million in FTA and Federal Highway funds, along
with an additional $264 million of State and local monies, to secure
the TIFIA loan. In the absence of TIFIA, the purchase of ferryboats and
terminal modernization would have been delayed until additional funds
could be accumulated to complete the project.
TEA-21 made a total of $10.6 billion in lending authority available
for surface transportation projects. To date, approximately $3.6
billion has been committed to projects and leveraged to support over
$15 billion in surface transportation projects. This investment
requires only about $190 million of Federal budget authority. Although
TIFIA is by no means the only innovative financing mechanism available
to the industry, it illustrates how such techniques can reduce the
total cost of projects, speed up implementation, and leverage Federal
investments. The Department looks forward to working with Congress to
identify additional ways in which reauthorization can promote and
support innovative financing.
Economic Development. With the funding made available under TEA-21,
FTA has helped many communities realize better, safer, more efficient
public transportation systems. Real success, however, comes when people
not only embrace transit, but use it to enhance the economic vitality
of their community. One such city is Dallas, Texas. Although many
equate this city with large cars and wide boulevards, the city's light
rail transit (LRT) starter system has been an unqualified success.
Under TEA-21, Congress authorized a $333 million full funding grant
agreement for this project. Not only has ridership exceeded
expectations, the 12.5-mile North Central light rail extension has
helped attract more than $100 million in transit-oriented development.
Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) has joined a major development
company, a major high-tech employer, and the city of Richardson in
developing a new urban center in a high-tech business corridor adjacent
to the LRT line. In downtown Dallas, retail sales jumped dramatically,
and the in-town apartment market more than doubled from 1997 to 2000.
Prominent national companies, including Blockbuster Entertainment and
the Adam's Mark Hotel cite proximity to DART as the key factor in
locating downtown. The unqualified success of transit in Dallas has
generated overwhelming public support for plans to accelerate future
rail lines with bonds backed by a local one-cent sales tax.
The joint development provisions of TEA-21 have led to success in
other parts of the country, as well. In California, the Valley Transit
Authority of Santa Clara (VTA) has utilized joint development to create
a new revenue stream for the transit authority, while promoting
economic development in the community. VTA operates light rail and bus
services in the Silicon Valley region, an area synonymous with
innovation. They have partnered in a major mixed-use development at the
Ohlone-Chynoweth light rail station. Joint development provisions under
TEA-21 permitted the agency to use FTA funds to purchase a parking lot
adjacent to the station. VTA now receives $300,000 in annual revenue
under a 75-year lease arrangement with an adjacent residential and
retail development, and uses those funds to meet additional transit-
related needs.
Technology. TEA-21 has also helped our Nation's transportation
systems take advantage of technological developments. On a pre-Olympics
trip to Salt Lake City and the Utah Transit Authority (UTA), I saw how
innovative technology was helping to bring real-time improvements in
transportation for the Winter Olympic games. Thanks to TEA-21, the Utah
Transit Authority received $3 million to support Intelligent
Transportation Systems (ITS) projects, including a state-of-the-art
voice-activated ``511'' system that provided information on public
transportation, Olympic travel information, road conditions, and other
information that was vital to moving hundreds of thousands of people in
and around Salt Lake City.
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) has also benefited from technological
advances made possible, in part, through TEA-21. Combining exclusive
transit-ways, modern stations, high-tech vehicles, and frequent
service, Bus Rapid Transit provides--at a fraction of the cost--the
high level of service that people want and expect from more expensive
transit systems. And investments in Intelligent Transportation System
projects have made Bus Rapid Transit even more convenient, fast,
reliable, and safe. For example, Automated Vehicle Location
technologies such as satellites or roadside sensors can now track the
location of BRT vehicles, providing information for electronic ``next
vehicle'' displays at stations and on-board automated stop
announcements. Signal priority systems also use vehicle location
information to control traffic signals cycles to give priority to BRT
vehicles, while transit operators use it to achieve more consistent
passenger wait times. The signal priority system of the Los Angeles
Metro Rapid BRT system along the Ventura, Willshire, and Whittier
corridors has reduced transit travel times by 20 to 25 percent, and
total ridership is up by almost 30 percent. In Miami, ridership along
the eight-mile South Busway has doubled to over 15,000 trips per day
since it opened in 1996. And in Seattle, a regional Bus Rapid Transit
system provides no-transfer, high-speed rides for commuters going from
home to work in Seattle's downtown district.
FTA strongly believes that continued Federal investment in the
development of new transportation technology will have enormous
benefits for America--reducing congestion, improving air quality, and
making public transportation an attractive travel alternative.
Building on TEA-21
From major urban centers to small communities, TEA-21 has created a
revolution of sorts in public transportation, through predictable
funding, innovative financing, and investments in new technology. This,
in turn, has resulted in increased mobility, more transportation
choices, and more economically vital communities for millions of
Americans. The principles of TEA-21 have been tried and proven, and
should continue as part of our guide for the future of public
transportation.
Transit has experienced the highest percentage of ridership growth
among all surface transportation modes, and the demand far exceeds
currently available resources. Today, with 27 active and pending full
funding grant agreements already in place, and eight more projects
recommended for fiscal year 2003 funding, there are still 50 additional
transit projects in the New Starts pipeline in preliminary engineering
or final design--and many more in early planning stages throughout the
Nation. In communities of all sizes, from over five million in
population to less than 500,000, these projects span all types of
public transportation service, from ferry boats to commuter rail to
light rail to bus rapid transit. It is, therefore, more important than
ever that we provide stable resources, encourage cost-effective public
transportation solutions, support opportunities to partner with the
private sector, and offer innovative financing tools that will permit
communities to leverage the Federal investment in public transportation
and respond to local needs for public transportation service.
There is much more that we can do, however, to improve grant and
oversight operations. Improving our business practices, including
streamlining the grant process, is a very important part of reducing
costs and improving our transportation programs, particularly for the
smaller grantees. Indeed, FTA is pursuing a number of opportunities to
streamline and improve our business processes, even while we strengthen
our oversight programs. As we consider changes in the law, an important
question is how we can ease the statutory and regulatory burden,
particularly on smaller agencies, which typically have less capacity
and fewer resources, while continuing to ensure good stewardship of
Federal funds. As Congress and the Administration work toward a
comprehensive and successful reauthorization of TEA-21, I want to
assure you that the Department of Transportation and the Federal
Transit Administration will work with you to build on the successes of
TEA-21 and meet the future public transportation needs of America.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today. I look forward to working with you and the Subcommittee to
connect communities through improved public transportation.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF FAYE L. MOORE
General Manager, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
April 25, 2002
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My
name is Faye Moore and I am the General Manager of the Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority--better known as SEPTA. I
appreciate your invitation to come here today to testify on the
benefits to SEPTA of the TEA-21 legislation and our thoughts on how the
upcoming reauthorization of that legislation can continue the progress
we have seen since its enactment in 1998. I am particularly pleased to
be testifying before a Subcommittee on which our Senator--Rick
Santorum--serves. Senator Santorum has been a great friend to public
transportation in general and to SEPTA in particular. I look forward to
working closely with him as this Committee takes up legislation to
extend Federal support for transit.
Before I discuss the main topics of my testimony today, allow me to
begin with a little background on myself and on SEPTA.
I was selected to be General Manager of SEPTA in February of this
year. Before becoming General Manager, I served as the Chief Financial
Officer of the organization. I am a Certified Public Accountant. I know
that the image of CPA's has been somewhat tarnished in recent months,
but I assure you Mr. Chairman, I am proud of my profession and believe
my training is helping me look for value everywhere in our organization
and focus us on operating our agency in a sound and responsible manner.
I see our core responsibility to be providing quality
transportation service to our customers every day. Working with senior
management and all the dedicated men and women who make up our
workforce, my goal is to continue to build upon SEPTA's commitment to
quality public transit services.
The five counties that make up our service region rely upon a
strong public transportation network to support their economic and
social growth and stability. SEPTA's network consists of a variety of
different modes of transit service. We have commuter rail, heavy rail,
light rail, streetcars, ``trackless trolleys'' (known elsewhere as
electric trolley buses), buses, and paratransit service. Each day, we
provide 1,050,000 trips--making us the sixth largest transit system in
the Nation. Our annual operating budget is $822 million for the current
year and our capital budget is $496 million per year.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government is a substantial
contributor to our capital budget. So let me turn my attention now to
the Federal programs of TEA-21 and how they have helped us make
improvements to our system.
First and foremost, TEA-21 has made significant additional dollars
available to SEPTA. For example, in the last year of the previous
authorization period, fiscal year 1997, SEPTA received $112 million
from the two main formula programs from which we receive assistance--
Section 5307 Urban Formula Grants and the Section 5309 Rail
Modernization program. In the current year, fiscal year 2002, we have
received $167 million from those two programs. Thanks to the assistance
of our Congressional delegation, we have also been successful in
gaining funding from programs, such as Section 5309 Bus and Access to
Jobs, for which Congress earmarks funds in annual appropriations bills.
In addition to increased funding, we also benefited from the
creation of new programs in TEA-21. In particular, the Jobs Access
Reverse Commute program has produced substantial benefits in our region
for current, past, and possibly future recipients of assistance from
the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program (TANF). Both of our
Senators, Senator Santorum and Senator Specter, have played an
important role in the creation and annual funding of that program. We
appreciate the work they have both done to improve the job prospects of
families in our region who are struggling to make ends meet.
The increase in funding and new programs in TEA-21 have allowed
SEPTA to achieve some of the key goals we set out for ourselves in the
5 year business plan we developed in 1997. Some of the goals we have
achieved with Federal assistance in the TEA-21 era include:
<bullet> Replacement of structures, track, roadbed, and signal systems,
development of a new terminal and introduction of a new fleet of
railcars on the Market-Frankford Subway/Elevated line. This is our
busiest line, serving 150,000 riders per day. It was originally
opened for service in 1922.
<bullet> Updating of the fleet on our regional rail system through the
upgrade of our Silverliner IV cars and initiating procurement of
Silverliner V cars.
<bullet> Expansion of service in our fast-growing suburbs through the
purchase of new buses and through matching our fleet to the market
by placing small buses on suburban routes where they are most
appropriate.
<bullet> Partnership with local governments to institute and expand
reverse commute service for residents of low- and moderate-income
urban neighborhoods who either seek or have jobs in the suburbs.
<bullet> Improvements to stations and transfer facilities to provide
more parking and better links between transportation modes.
<bullet> Studies of options for improving our service through the
construction of new rail lines such as Schuykill Valley Metro and
Cross County Metro.
We recognize that this Subcommittee and the full Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs worked hard to produce the TEA-21
legislation and I would be remiss if I did not pause after delineating
some of our successes under the program to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
all the Members of this Subcommittee and Full Committee, for the work
you did to make the legislation a reality. As you can see, it has
helped to produce real gains in the Philadelphia region.
One issue which has come very much to the forefront in recent
months, which none of us foresaw when TEA-21 was drafted, is that of
the security of our system. Those of us who operate transit systems
were so proud of the way our colleagues in New York, New Jersey, and
Washington, DC responded to the September 11 attacks on our Nation. The
events of that day showed clearly the paradox transit faces when
thinking about the terrorist threat against the United States--our
facilities are targets and escape routes all at the same time.
Philadelphia was spared the horrors of that particular day last
September. However, we are aware that our city contains historic
landmarks, such as the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall, and City Hall,
which our enemies may view as targets in the future. With that in mind,
we have been evaluating our vulnerabilities to attack and the ways in
which our system can play a role in any evacuation which may be
required in the future.
We have been assisted in our efforts by the Federal Transit
Administration, which sent a security audit team to Philadelphia
recently as part of its security audit of the top 30 transit systems in
the country. Our initial estimate is that the cost of making the
necessary security repairs to our system would be $100 million.
As you look ahead to the reauthorization of TEA-21, we have some
thoughts on how the programs can be improved even more. I know you will
be spending many, many hours examining options for program improvements
in the months ahead. As you do, I hope you will keep in mind some broad
principles which I believe will help produce legislation of maximum
benefit to public transportation service in our region and across the
country.
Here are the key principles I believe should be part of your
deliberations:
<bullet> Focus support where you get the biggest bang for the buck. The
Federal transit program has for a generation been a needs-based
program. In defining needs, the Federal Government should look to
place its resources behind projects and programs which will provide
benefits in areas where transit is a proven force in the
marketplace or where compelling evidence of the need for new
service is presented.
SEPTA applies this same principle to the management of its
own capital program. That is one of the reasons why we are the
only rail property which built its core system without Federal
funds and which has never built new or expanded service using
Federal New Start funds. Over the life of the Federal program
we have always felt it better to focus on modernizing our
existing system and adding capacity to it. Going forward, we
will be continuing to modernize the Market-Frankford line,
buying new rail cars for our commuter rail system and otherwise
focusing on preserving--and even improving--the quality of our
existing system.
Even with this focus on rebuilding however, we are prepared
to respond to new opportunities as evidence mounts that our
suburban communities require new rail service to deal with
growing congestion on their road networks. With that in mind,
we are exploring two promising New Start projects. The
Schuykill Valley Metro project would place service much like
what you have here on the Washington Metro system on an
existing railroad line connecting Philadelphia with Reading in
the Lehigh Valley. The Cross County Metro system would also run
on existing tracks in our suburban areas and would connect our
major regional lines. The result would be vastly improved
suburb-to-suburb rail travel options.
<bullet> Maintain guaranteed funding. One of the great achievements of
TEA-21 was its provisions to ensure that transit spending would
increase at guaranteed levels which would not be affected by the
annual appropriations process. This principle of assured funding is
essential to a program which focuses on capital expenditures.
Capital programs require reliable funding from year-to-year so that
long-term procurements and construction projects can be carried-
out.
<bullet> Continue program growth. The TEA-21 era has seen record growth
in the transit program. However, the program continues to fall
behind the growth curve for the Federal highway program. For
example, 20 years ago, the ratio of funding for the Federal-Aid
Highway program as compared to the Federal transit program was
approximately 2-to-1. Today, that ratio is more than 4-to-1. While
it is undeniable that the need for work on our highway network has
grown considerably in the last 20 years, it is hard to imagine the
rate of growth in the need has been twice that in the transit
program. Recent studies by the American Public Transit Association
(APTA) have estimated the total funding need for transit to be $42
billion per year. The current Federal program (at $7.2 billion per
year) meets about 17 percent of that goal. It is my hope the
Committee will consider significant growth in Federal spending for
transit as part of a strategy to catch-up to the growth in the
highway program and the growth in transit needs.
<bullet> Improve flexible funding programs. One way to address the
growing gap between highway and transit funding would be to improve
flexible funding programs such as Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality (CMAQ) and the Surface Transportation Program (STP) to
provide additional encouragement to States and regions to allocate
funds to transit. These programs were an important innovation in
the early 1990's, but there is room for improvement to encourage
use of flexible funds. These Federal programs should address
transportation deficiencies in heavily traveled and congested
regions by providing flexible funding resources for viable public
transit options.
<bullet> Examine program reforms. As SEPTA evaluates the potential to
develop the Schuykill Valley Metro project, we have taken note of
the fact that the Federal transit program includes at least one
important barrier to using design/build contract techniques. In
current practice, the Federal Transit Administration requires that
a project be 60 percent designed before a Full Funding Grant
Agreement can be completed for it. Waiting until that level of
design to lock-in a contractor robs a project sponsor of most of
the benefits of the design build approach. I hope the Subcommittee
will review ways to remove this barrier while still preserving the
necessary Federal oversight role.
<bullet> Provide security funding. As I noted earlier, transit systems
such as ours are both targets for international terrorists and part
of the response to terrorism. The Administration and Congress have
recognized the link between the foreign threat to our Nation and
the security of our transportation facilities through the creation
of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Given that the
actions we need to take at SEPTA flow directly from this foreign
threat, we believe the Federal Government should make available
significant new funds from outside the traditional transit program
to meet this need.
<bullet> Meet new market challenges. As I said before, the creation of
the Jobs Access Reverse Commute program by TEA-21 was a good
response to a market which was developing in the late 1990's. As we
approach the next authorization period, another market which is
expanding enormously is that of transit service for the elderly.
Demographic changes can be sweeping, but the good news is we can
see them coming. The baby-boom generation will enter its seventh
decade during the next authorization period. Many elderly who do
not fall under the protection of the Americans with Disabilities
Act will need expanded, flexible transit service. We will be called
upon to provide that service and will benefit from assistance from
the Federal Government as we do so. I hope we can work with this
Committee to develop innovative approaches to respond to this fast-
growing market.
Mr. Chairman, before closing, I feel it is important to mention
another key issue which is now before the Senate and which may well be
included in the upcoming TEA-21 reauthorization. That issue is the fate
of Amtrak. As you look at the pros and cons of providing additional
assistance to Amtrak, it is my hope you will keep in mind the
importance to commuters up and down the East Coast of improving and
maintaining the rail infrastructure on the Northeast Corridor. SEPTA
operates it busiest commuter lines on Amtrak right-of-way. Together
with our colleagues in Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York,
Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, we carry many multiples
of the passenger load carried by Amtrak over those tracks each day. As
you consider the future of service on the Northeast Corridor, please
keep in mind that most of the people using it are customers of the
commuter railroads. In the absence of a financially healthy intercity
rail operator on that line, the burden on the commuter agencies to
maintain service would be impossible to bear.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today. SEPTA hopes to work with you and each Member of this
Subcommittee as you develop legislation to take us through the next
authorization period.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF BEVERLY A. SCOTT, PhD
General Manager, Rhode Island Public Transit Authority
April 25, 2002
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. As
General Manager of the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA), I
welcome this opportunity to share my thoughts with you on the positive
impacts of the transit provisions of the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century (TEA-21)--on our transit system in particular--and
other medium-sized transit properties.
The Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA)--one of only four
statewide transit systems in the country--has the primary
responsibility for directing statewide public transit service. RIPTA is
managed under the direction of a seven-member Board of Directors. Rhode
Island's statewide public transit network includes a fleet of 250
buses--10 percent of which are fueled by compressed natural gas, 120
paratransit vans, commuter rail, Amtrak service, water transportation
service from Providence to Newport, and a statewide carpool/commuter
benefits program. In fiscal year 2001, approximately 21 million
passenger trips were carried on RIPTA's bus and paratransit services.
As the statewide public transit organization, RIPTA is charged with
the responsibility for ``mobility management'' and has a primary role to expand the access and mobility opportunities for Rhode Islanders by
undertaking actions and supportive strategies, directly and in
collaboration with others, to provide a full range of travel options to
the single-occupant automobile. A copy of RIPTA's TRANSIT 2000 Service
Plan--the transit authority's comprehensive, multiyear transit
improvement plan has been included (Exhibit 1).
TEA-21--Expanding Mobility Opportunities
RIPTA has experienced ridership growth of 31 percent since the mid-
1990's--thanks in large measure to increased Federal investment in
public transportation. Building on the framework established under
ISTEA, TEA-21 has given us the additional funding, predictability of
resources, and flexibility to make improvements necessary to bring our
statewide transit system up to a ``state of good repair'' and at the
same time--make modest, but strategic investments for the future.
In the final analysis, TEA-21 has allowed us to more effectively
meet the mobility needs of Rhode Island residents, our communities, and
visitors to the State. Increased Federal transit investment and
guaranteed funding levels--have also made it possible for us to
leverage local reinvestment in public transportation.
This additional local investment--coupled with your national
leadership to increase public transit funding--have made it possible
for our transit system to: reinvest responsibly; make significant
strides in returning our statewide public transit system to a ``state
of good repair'' and begin implementing new, innovative services.
Bottom line, over the past several years, TEA-21 funding has
allowed the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority to:
<bullet> Significantly improve service reliability;
<bullet> Introduce new and innovative transit services--with an
emphasis on addressing unmet mobility needs in historically under
served communities;
<bullet> Introduce new technologies--including the State's first
alternative fuel vehicles, a modern communications systems;
<bullet> Replace and upgrade the system's extremely aged bus fleet;
<bullet> Provide basic customer amenities--like new bus stop signs,
shelters, bike racks, and better public information;
<bullet> Begin building a network of Transit Centers and hubs
strategically located throughout the State;
<bullet> Begin the deployment of ITS applications;
<bullet> Implement a serious training and employee development program;
and
<bullet> Most Importantly--build strategic local partnerships and
improve the overall image of public transportation in our State.
Highlights of RIPTA's TEA-21 Initiatives
The Providence LINK--Introduction of RIPTA's First Alternative Fuel
Fleet
In July 1999, with the opening of the Providence Place Mall--the
largest covered urban mall in New England--RIPTA introduced its
Providence LINK downtown circulator system--utilizing vintage-design
trolleys--powered by compressed natural gas, the transit system's first
alternative fuel vehicle fleet. A circulator system that connects
virtually every major downtown location--including City Hall, the State
Capitol, Providence's financial district, the new mall, major
hospitals, hotels, restaurants, the local arts & entertainment
district, and all of the downtown colleges and universities--the LINK
carries approximately 65,000 passengers each month--and is a hit with
both local residents and travelers. Funded by a CMAQ grant, the LINK is
designed to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality.
The Providence to Newport Ferry Demonstration Project
With CMAQ funding, RIPTA launched its water ferry demonstration
service in summer 2000, connecting our Ocean State's two major
destination locations--the capitol city of Providence and the city by
the sea, Newport. Providing both residents and travelers with an
additional option to single occupancy vehicle use--this new service
exceeded its goal of 40,000 passengers during its first year of
operation. This number represents the removal of over 19,000 vehicles
from heavily congested roads between Providence and Newport.
Flexible Services--Jobs Access Funds Help Expand Mobility Opportunities
Rip's FLEX service is a demand-response community circulation
service utilizing smaller vehicles. This flex zone services combine
fixed pick-up points within a designated geographical area with the
added convenience and flexibility of advance reservation features. In
all instances, our Flex services have been designed to ``connect'' with
RIPTA's fixed-route transit network and other key intermodal
connections.
These new transit services offer a practical and affordable public
transportation option--particularly for residents in Rhode Island's low
density rural and suburban communities that have traditionally had
little or no access to conventional public transportation service--and
special needs groups--like our working disabled, seniors, and working
parents with childcare needs transitioning from welfare to work.
Expanding RIPTA services would not have been possible without the
cooperation and support of RIPTA's largest union--the Amalgamated
Transit Union, Local 618. In 1998, RIPTA and ATU Local 618 were able to
negotiate one of the more progressive transit contracts in the
country--providing for a Flexible Services Division Rate at 47 percent
of a top bus operator's wage rate--making it possible for RIPTA to
affordably expand service.
Partially supported with Jobs Access funds, RIPTA currently has
five very successful flexible services in operation--providing service
to the communities of Westerly, Narragansett, Portsmouth/Tiverton,
Woonsocket, and West Warwick. This past year, our State's Jobs Access-
funded services were cited for their innovation and creativity--and
received one of ten national recognition awards from the American
Public Transportation Association.
One of our Jobs Access-funded Flex services was designed in
partnership with the Rhode Island Department of Human Services (DHS).
This service which is open to the public--specifically targets DHS
clients transitioning from welfare-to-work programs with transportation
to jobs and job-related training. This specially designed service also
provides transportation for their children to daycare providers.
RIPTA's Jobs Access program uses parental input to help coordinate pick
up times and locations and also accommodates parents, allowing them up
to 15 minutes to bring their children into daycare facilities before
returning to the Flex vehicle to continue on to work. A RIPTA Mobility
Specialist provides complete trip planning for each passenger. Job
Access Flex is currently providing open door service in two communities
Woonsocket and West Warwick. In the first year of operation, the Job
Access Flex transportation service has clocked over 25,000 passenger
trips.
WorkLINK--New Flex Service Targets Disabled Residents
Who Need Transportation-to-Work
Launched in October 2001, WorkLINK is a pilot program funded by
State and Jobs Access funds which targets the transportation needs of
the working disabled in our State--with a priority on residents in
communities with little or no access to conventional public
transportation or ADA paratransit services. RIPTA partnered with the
Governor's Commission on the Disabilities, the Rhode Island Department
of Labor & Training, Rhode Island Department of Mental Health,
Retardation & Hospitals, Rhode Island Department of Human Services,
Rhode Island Disability Law Center, and other local disability advocacy
organizations to develop this pilot program.
The planning work took almost a year--including an extensive
statewide survey of the mobility needs of our disabled residents--the
most up-to-date factual information on the unmet work-related
transportation needs of Rhode Island residents with disabilities. Once
again, without Jobs Access funding, we would not have been in a
position to initiate this service last year.
A State of Good Repair--A Necessary Investment in Equipment and
Facilities
As a result of additional Federal transit funding and
predictability of resources, RIPTA has been able to implement a
multiyear capital program to replace and upgrade its aging fleet and
facilities. Since TEA-21, RIPTA has purchased 60 new buses--including
40-foot Orions manufactured in New York, NOVA 30-foot and 40-foot buses
from New Mexico, and CNG trolleys from Kansas. This past week, we also
began receiving delivery of five 30-foot CNG low floor buses. All of
the buses replaced were well beyond their useful service life--some as
old as 16 years. TEA-21 funding has also enabled RIPTA to implement a
structured replacement cycle for its extensive statewide paratransit
vehicle fleet.
Over the past several years, we have also purchased 35 new vehicles
to replace old paratransit vans used for our nationally recognized
statewide coordinated paratransit system--``the RIde''--which provides
both ``ADA-mandated'' transit services for seniors and disabled
residents who are unable to utilize conventional public transit
service. Our statewide RIde Program provides human and social
services--funded transportation services for seniors, people with
disabilities, and low-income residents--with funding provided by the
Department of Elderly Affairs, Mental Health & Retardation, the
Department of Human Services, the Governors Commission on Disabilities,
and local communities.
RIPTA's First Major Bus Rehabilitation Program
Today, 1,992 buses are being rehabilitated which will extend their
useful life by an additional 5 years. Phase I of the project is being
performed by the Blitz Corporation of Chicago, Illinois--the oldest and
largest bus manufacturer in the United States. At Blitz, each of these
46 vehicles will receive new engines that meet current EPA emissions
standards, new transmissions, new undercarriages, and new wheelchair
lifts for improved performance.
With the recent opening of RIPTA's newly constructed John H. Chafee
Heavy Maintenance & Operations Center--which replaces RIPTA's 100 year
old central maintenance garage, Phase II of this extensive bus
rehabilitation program is being performed in-house by RIPTA's own
maintenance employees--a real first and source of pride for our
employees--who now have the opportunity and the resources to learn how
``to fish'' for themselves. This phase of the rehab includes overhaul
and rebuild of the buses' heating and air conditioning systems;
installation of new brakes, tires, passenger seating; and complete
interior and exterior painting.
The Kennedy Plaza Transportation Center--A State Landmark
This past Saturday, RIPTA opened the first phase of its Kennedy
Plaza Enhancement Project--which serves as a key connection point for
80 percent of our statewide bus service. Located directly in the public
square of downtown Providence, this historic space has been the nexus
for transportation and commerce within the State and Rhode Island's
capitol city for over 125 years.
RIPTA's modern Intermodal Transportation Center (ITC) building in
the redesigned Kennedy Plaza will open early this fall. The entire
project has been developed with significant customer and general public
input. The ITC will substantially enhance the levels of service,
convenience, and security available to commuters, visitors and
pedestrians in downtown Providence. When completed, this state-of-the-
art intermodal transportation facility will also house Greyhound,
Bonanza, Amtrak's self ticketing service, a small Police Substation,
and a local arts and entertainment office.
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS Demonstration Project)
The application of new technologies is a key element of the new
Kennedy Plaza ITC. RIPTA's strategy in this regard is three-fold.
First, introduce relatively low-cost applications that are both visible
and immediately beneficial, for example, APC's, information kiosks,
self-ticketing machines, talking ATM's, audible lights and message
signs, blinking lights and call boxes on bus stops, automated schedule
information, and surveillance cameras. Second, incrementally build the
appropriate systemwide platform and infrastructure that facilitates
phased ITS implementation--as pilot projects are refined and funding
becomes available. Finally, implement the authority's ``ITS
Demonstration'' Project at Kennedy Plaza. Key elements of the project
include onboard electronics (voice and data transmission) for the
Providence LINK trolley system, GPS locator, and an onboard computer
with a mobile data terminal; the ability to provide ``real-time''
trolley information; and ``next bus'' type passenger information signs
at key trolley locations along the trolley routes which pass every
major key location in the downtown Providence area.
The purpose of this ITS Demonstration Project is to provide RIPTA
customers and the general pubic with an opportunity to personally
``see'' and ``experience'' the value and benefits to be derived from
the application of intelligent transportation systems--in a small,
controlled environment. It will also permit RIPTA to implement and
refine these highly beneficial--and at the same time--expensive
applications on a smaller scale before taking them to full system
build-out.
Phase I of this ITS Demonstration Project--$1.5 million was
appropriated in fiscal year 2002 as part of the Bus Discretionary
program. The remaining $2.5 million has been requested for the upcoming
year.
Conclusion--TEA-21 Works!
Mr. Chairman, the tangible results we have experienced in our
State--which are mirrored by communities across the country--
demonstrate that public transit definitely makes a positive difference
and that TEA-21 Works! As you move forward to consider reauthorization
of the transit provisions of the Act, we strongly ask for your support
of increased Federal transit investment, a continuation of the TEA-21
funding guarantee provisions, continuation of the flexible funding
provisions that allow highway and transit funds to be transferred based
on State need; as well as continuation of the current common matching
shares for highway and transit projects as provided in TEA-21.
Finally, I cannot end without expressing our pride in your national
leadership role on this important issue; and thanking you--on behalf of
our many customers, employees, and the general public--for all of your
extraordinary help and support to improve public transportation in our
State.
* * * * * * *
EXHIBIT 1
Rhode Island Public Transit Authority's
Transit 2000 . . . Expanding Mobility Opportunities
Expanded mobility--the effective movement of people and goods is
critical to our State's revitalization. At the Rhode Island Public
Transit Authority (RIPTA), we believe that Transit 2000--our new vision
and direction for statewide transit services--offers an important
component of the State's overall mobility solution.
Since RIPTA's creation in 1964, the travel patterns and mobility
needs of Rhode Islanders have changed dramatically. This ``changing
face of mobility'' is not unique to Rhode Island. It is the result of
two major phenomena that have occurred across the United States during
the past several decades. Specifically, widely dispersed land use and
growth patterns characterized by dramatic population shifts to
metropolitan and suburban areas; and major demographic shifts--
particularly the rapid movement of women into the workforce, special
mobility needs of dependent children, and the graying of America.
As populations have increasingly dispersed--automobile ownership
and single occupancy vehicle trips--the greatest single source of air
pollution--have skyrocketed. Most of us are continually challenged to
figure out how to effectively balance our day-to-day responsibilities--
family, employment, medical and recreational--with convenient and
reliable transportation options. All too often, the only reasonable
choice--for those fortunate enough to have a choice--is the single
occupancy vehicle.
We are not antiautomobile. We are committed to providing realistic,
economical transportation alternatives--quality mobility choices--to
the single occupancy vehicle trip. This can only happen if we work
together to provide other travel options that conveniently meet the
mobility needs of Rhode Island residents and visitors. From our vantage
point, our ultimate success in achieving this objective is much more
dependent on the establishment of supportive land use, development, and
governmental policies than on transit subsidies.
Transit 2000 is the result of a year-long review of virtually every
aspect of our statewide transit system--both transit and paratransit
services. Our strategy links Rhode Island's cities and towns with a
broad array of quality transportation choices--specifically
``tailored'' to more effectively meet the mobility needs of Rhode
Island residents, communities, and visitors. Key elements of our new
statewide transit strategy are:
<bullet> Improving overall service reliability, convenience, and
attractiveness--with an emphasis on restructuring our core transit
services and replacement of the system's extremely aged bus fleet,
facilities, and basic passenger amenities.
<bullet> Establishing a network of major transit centers and transfer
hubs strategically located throughout the State--and sensitive to
the special accessibility needs of our elderly and disabled
customers.
<bullet> The introduction of new mobility options to the single
occupancy vehicle trip--like our ``Express Travel'' Ridesharing
Program that includes a guaranteed ride home.
<bullet> Innovations like the introduction of new technologies
(alternative fuel vehicles, SMART fare collection systems,
Computer-Aided Vehicle Dispatch, a new radio communications system)
and more flexible service delivery strategies.
<bullet> Transit services ``tailored'' for different communities,
travel needs, and population densities, including--frequent
``fixed-route'' and ``community circulator'' transit services for
our State's most densely populated urban core areas; new ``cross-
town'' services and improved ``express'' bus service for
established suburban centers of the State; and the introduction of
``flexible,'' ``demand-response'' and/or expanded ``paratransit''
services to complement peak period commuter services for our low-
density communities across the State that cannot be effectively
served by traditional bus service.
Transit Choice . . . One Size Does Not Fit All
This guide will help you better understand the different elements
of RIPTA's Transit 2000 Service Plan.
Flex Service includes a wide range of new service strategies
specifically designed to serve Rhode Island's low-density suburban and
rural communities--including community circulators using smaller
vehicles that provide limited but predictable internal service
(including both fixed points and reservation features) as well as
connections to key activity centers throughout the State.
Park-N-Ride Commuter Services specifically designed to provide peak
period commuter service to downtown Providence, other major activity
centers, and transfer hubs across the State.
Specialized Paratransit Services--the ``RIde Program''--to address
the special mobility needs of disabled residents and senior citizens.
Specific program eligibility and funding for this coordinated
transportation service is provided by RIPTA, the Rhode Island
Department of Elderly Affairs, the Rhode Island Department of Mental
Health & Retardation, the Governors Commission on Disabilities, and the
Rhode
Island Department of Human Services.
RIPTA's Transit 2000 Service Plan is a comprehensive modernization
plan for Rhode Island's statewide transit system. The first phase
focuses on restructuring RIPTA's ``core'' transit services (replacing
and/or eliminating low productivity services), upgrading basic
passenger amenities throughout the State--bus stops, bus shelters,
customer information, simplification of RIPTA's overall fare structure;
beginning replacement of the system's increasingly aged bus fleet;
completion of the Kennedy Plaza Intermodal Transportation Center (ITC)
in downtown Providence, including implementation of an extensive
downtown circulator system in Providence and a complementary Newport
system utilizing compressed natural gas, trolley buses; completion of
the Pawtucket Transit Center; renovation of the Newport Gateway Center;
and the implementation of select pilot projects across the State which
include the Newport-to-Providence Water Ferry project, demonstrations
of RIPTA's new ``flexible'' service models; and beginning
implementation of new technologies, including new communications and
fare collection systems.
Over the next few years, we are also in a unique position to
benefit significantly from rail service improvements in the Northeast
Corridor. At RIPTA, we look forward to working with other key
partners--both locally and regionally--to ensure integrated planning,
intermodal coordination, and maximum positive impact for our State from
these new rail service opportunities.
The second phase of Transit 2000 will focus on completing the core
network of key transit centers and hubs, implementing new technologies;
bringing successful pilot and demonstration projects to scale; and
above all--working in partnership with key stakeholders throughout our
State to establish transit friendly land use, growth, and development
strategies.
Transportation is first and foremost about ``people'' and ``quality
of life.'' Who can (or cannot) get from place to place? How we plan and
conduct our daily routines? The choices we make about what we do.
Today, we have the need, challenge, and the opportunity to work
together to rebuild and strategically reinvest in our statewide transit
system. In the final analysis, how we choose to address the critical
issues of ``mobility'' and ``access'' will determine the overall
economic well being,
environmental quality, character and livability of communities
throughout Rhode Island.
Many thanks to the thousands of Rhode Islanders--both transit
riders and nonriders--who provided us with their recommendations on
improving transit services. We also want to express appreciation to
RIPTA employees, and our two unions--the Amalgamated Transit Union,
Local 618 and the Laborers' International Union, Local 808 for their
strong partnership in working to improve transit service to the
residents and visitors of our State.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF LARRY WORTH
Executive Director, Northeast Colorado Association of Local Governments
April 25, 2002
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today.
In 1981, the Northeastern Colorado Transportation Authority (DBA
County Express) was created as a nonprofit organization to provide
public transportation for area residents in the 9,600 square mile
service area which includes the six northeastern counties of Colorado.
This is not the mountain area of our State; it is a part of the rolling
ranch country known as Colorado's eastern plains. I was invited to talk
with you today because we operate in a very rural area. One way trips
of 50 miles are routine and many are 150 miles or more. For this
service, 48 vehicles--vans and minibuses--are used.
The Board of Directors for County Express has defined trips for
dialysis treatment and other medical appointments as a major priority
of this public transportation system. Several of the nursing homes and
assisted living facilities in Northeastern Colorado have contracted
with County Express to transport their residents to medical, social,
recreation, and shopping establishments. The cost for each trip is very
high due to the long distances involved in this low-density
agricultural and small town environment.
Non-emergency medical transportation, known as HealthRide provides
transportation at no cost to the rider to hospital facilities in
Sterling, Brush, and Greeley through a negotiated contract with Banner
Health systems. This Public/Private partnership creates a new model to
deal with the increasing costs for the Medicaid program.
Total County Express trips in 2001 were 79,133. Most passengers are
elderly and/or disabled individuals, often in wheelchairs, who are
transit dependent and wish to remain near family and friends rather
than move to a larger town with more medical facilities.
The six county population increased from 60,000 to nearly 70,000
from 1990 to 2000. Most of the population growth has been concentrated
in Morgan and Logan counties including the incorporated towns of
Wiggins, Log Lane Village, Fort Morgan, Brush, and Sterling.
What did TEA-21 do for the people of rural northeastern Colorado?
Increased rural transit and bus and bus-related capital funding allowed
us to buy more vehicles, replace a portion of our aging, high mileage
fleet, and provide more and higher quality service to our passengers.
The real impact in our area is not in the numbers and statistics but in
the people.
John Sanderson lives in Yuma and needs kidney dialysis three times
a week in Sterling. Round trip mileage per day is 150 miles. The cost
to County Express is $1 per mile or $150 per day or $450 per week for
transportation. John is unable to drive, but if he could he would have
to pay $52 per day out of pocket, based on mileage reimbursement to
drive himself. Federal funds are essential for his transportation.
Phillips County resident Tom Heath travels from Julesburg to Sterling
100 miles roundtrip three times a week. That remote county targets its
funding toward life saving nonemergency medical trips. County Express
takes Susan Romero from her rural home to work each day in Sterling.
What is unusual is that it also takes her four children to school along
the way. They live outside the area served by the school bus. After
school, the children are taken to childcare. At the end of Susan's
workday she is picked up, then the children and they are returned home.
This transit service is funded in part by TANF funds. Al Parrish, 67
traveled from Brush to Greeley for radiology treatment, a distance of
70 miles one way, 5 days a week for 7 weeks. His eyes are not good
enough to drive that far. Jan Foley of Wray travels to Denver for
medical treatment 186 miles one way.
On most weekdays, a County Express HealthRide bus travels three
times between Sterling and Greeley. It also stops in Brush and Fort
Morgan. People who live off the route can get a separate delivery to
one of the regular stops. The story is clear, County Express moves a
small number of people great distances for very good reasons. Without
subsidies from FTA, Older Americans Act, TANF, local government and
other funding sources, area residents could not make these essential
trips.
Transit has grown faster than any other mode of transportation in
the last 6 years. Your understanding of our need to invest in vehicles
and staff means we have been able to do more for people. We have
increased our service and we thank you for your good work on our
behalf.
What needs to be changed? Medicare funding does not include the
cost of long distance transportation to medical appointments for our
elderly population in northeastern Colorado. In order to meet that
shortfall, additional funding under transportation laws would help.
Other regulatory burdens disproportionately impact rural transit
systems. Random Drug and Alcohol Testing, for example, is difficult due
to the high cost of bringing staff in to a medical center or paying for
mobile testing while maintaining confidentiality. Federal Transit
Administration charter bus provisions require a lengthy process for a
waiver. In our community, there are few options for a group to charter
a bus.
What needs to be done in the reauthorization?
More Federal Investment for Rural Transit
Colorado with its growing population, the third fastest growing
State, with a sparsely populated rural area is receiving a small amount
of rural formula funding, about $2 million annually. We urge you to
increase the minimum per State to $5 million annually as the Community
Transportation Association of America has called for in its
reauthorization proposal.
Demand for public transportation services is greater than County
Express can provide. At the Federal level we see that there is much
focus on the transit needs in cities and they do need more passenger
transportation. They certainly have terrible congestion problems. But
what about those in the rural areas and small towns who cannot drive
because of low vision or physical disabilities, who live far from
medical facilities and grocery stores?
Roads, are essential but we need drivers and small vans or
minibuses on them to complete the trip. Transportation facilities and
maintenance are a major problem with 48 vehicles traveling 427,000
miles annually.
Consider the Needs of Our Aging Population
You are aware of the fast growing 85-plus population. Relatively
fewer in this age group are able to drive safely and need a stable
effective transit service to remain in their homes. More access to
medical services is essential. We need more vehicles more often in the
remote areas of northeastern Colorado.
Sedgewick County has oldest average population in the State. People
move from farm to town into assisted living or a nursing facility. They
stay in northeast Colorado because they want to stay networked with
people they grew up with.
Connections Within Rural Areas and With Small and Large Urban Areas
Make sure low-income people living in rural areas can get to jobs.
The economic benefits of public transit can be significant. Continue
the Job Access Reverse Commute program.
Consider the Impact of Regulations on Small Rural Transit Agencies
Examine Drug and Alcohol Regulation random testing requirements.
Consider FTA Charter regulations intended to protect private operators
impact on rural communities with few options.
Thank you for listening.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SARBANES FROM JENNIFER
L. DORN
Q.1. I was heartened to hear the details of FTA's efforts to
help some of our Nation's largest transit systems come to terms
with a post-September 11 world. What is the FTA doing to assist
smaller- and medium-sized properties?
A.1. The FTA is focused on providing solid technical assistance
to facilitate the security of our Nation's transit systems. We
plan to provide oversight, training and testing resources and
share best practice materials with transit agencies in an
effort to assist them in developing security plans that meet
the security demands of their respective systems and riding
public. To further this effort, we are making security and
training resources available so that transit agencies will be
able to create and implement emergency response plans tailored
to their local needs.
For example, we are now in the process of conducting 17
regional security forums across the country to provide hands on
assistance to mid-size transit agencies in developing emergency
response plans and training of the transit workforce. These
forums will help transportation and emergency response agencies
work together to prepare and protect their community with
coordination, communication, planning, and practice of safety
and security measures. The goals is for participants to gain a
better understanding of the roles played by each agency and
begin the process of developing the plans, tools, and
relationships necessary to respond effectively in an emergency
situation.
We have also developed security awareness courses for
frontline employees and supervisors through the National
Transit Institute (NTI). Recognizing that many small and medium
transit agencies have limited training staff, NTI will directly
deliver training to frontline employees and supervisors of
these agencies. NTI will provide training to the training staff
of larger transit agencies who will then conduct training for
employees' at their respective agencies. FTA is also looking to
expand security and emergency management courses, now offered
through the Transportation Safety Institute of the Research and
Special Programs Administration.
Last, FTA is offering funding to medium-sized transit
agencies to practice emergency response plans and procedures
with local police, fire, and other emergency response agencies
in their communities.
Q.2. In your prepared testimony, you mention that FTA is
interested in easing the regulatory and statutory burdens faced
by transit agencies, especially smaller agencies. Could you
describe these perceived burdens in greater detail?
A.2. An array of statutory requirements has been created in an
effort to promote good public policy. However, some of these
requirements may be confusing or burdensome to smaller transit
agencies. In many instances, depending on which program funds
for which one is applying, smaller agencies are required by law
to comply with the same requirements as larger systems, which
generally have more resources to devote to such issues. There
is generally little flexibility that allows FTA to apply these
Federal requirements differently, yet still effectively, based
on the size or nature of the recipient.
In addition to major transit agencies in large urbanized
areas, FTA also funds small rural systems that may have very
small fleets that provide only demand responsive services, or
private nonprofit agencies that may have a single vehicle to
provide transportation services to their own clients. For
example, FTA's Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program
requires that all recipients under the program, regardless of
the size or nature of the recipient, comply with terms and
conditions of the Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program.
Many of the small nonprofit recipients under the JARC program
are not traditional public transportation providers. They find
the Federal requirements associated with the funds extremely
daunting, which caused some to opt out of the program. For
others, it caused a delay in implementing the projects. We are
reviewing our program requirements and will be proposing
recommendations to ease these burdens as part of the
Administration's surface transportation reauthorization
package.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CARPER FROM FAYE L.
MOORE
Q.1. What is SEPTA's relationship with Amtrak?
A.1. SEPTA has a significant transportation relationship with
Amtrak in the Southeastern Pennsylvania Service Area. Amtrak
provides physical plant and operational support services for
SEPTA trains, which operate on Amtrak territory. SEPTA's
contractual relationships with Amtrak are basically covered
under numerous service and lease agreements covering on and off
corridor services, propulsion power, station leases, and force
account work for construction, flagging, design, engineering,
and maintenance. For fiscal year 2002 alone, SEPTA anticipates
that expenses to be paid to Amtrak will total more than $28
million.
Q.2. To what extent does SEPTA's commuter trains share track
with Amtrak?
A.2. Over half of SEPTA's 548 scheduled weekday trains utilize
approximately 100 miles of Amtrak right-of-way.
The R1 Airport Line operates on approximately 1 mile of
Amtrak's Northeast Corridor (NEC) track. The R2 Marcus Hook/
Wilmington/Newark Line to Wilmington, Delaware operates on
approximately 35 miles of Amtrak's 1NEC track. SEPTA's R5
Thorndale/Paoli Line, from Thorndale Station to Center City
Philadelphia, operates on approximately 25 miles of track along
the Harrisburg extension of the NEC. The R6 Cynwyd Line
operates on 1 mile of NEC track. The R7 Trenton Line operates
on approximately 30 miles of NEC track. Finally, the R8
Chestnut Hill West Line operates on approximately 4 miles of
NEC track.
Amtrak also provides SEPTA with layover and storage at a
number of terminal locations such as Trenton, NJ. Additionally,
two of SEPTA's rail vehicle maintenance and repair facilities,
Frazer and Overbook Yards and Shops, directly connect to
Amtrak's right-of-way providing SEPTA's only means of access
for the large number of trains that run to and from these
facilities each day.
Of the approximately 150 commuter rail passenger stations
served by SEPTA's Railroad Service, 47 of them are
geographically located on Amtrak owned and operated territory.
These 47 stations include some of the most heavily used
stations by SEPTA passengers. Additionally, SEPTA has a
separate lease agreement for use of 30th St. Station
Philadelphia, through which all of our commuter rail lines
traverse.
Q.3. What is the amount of coordinating SEPTA does with Amtrak
with respect to scheduling?
A.3. SEPTA and Amtrak maintain an extremely close coordination
effort in regard to scheduled operations. Any potential
schedule changes initiated by either party on the Amtrak
Northeast Corridor or Harrisburg Lines require even further
coordination to implement. The two agencies exchange schedules
in an effort to dovetail any respective needs and to resolve
conflicts which may arise as a result of schedule changes.
While SEPTA and Amtrak have regularly scheduled changes to
timetables, we discuss all issues, even minor changes or
additions, as both agencies have a customer base to satisfy.
Q.4. What, if any, maintenance or construction projects does
SEPTA jointly work with Amtrak?
A.4. SEPTA works very closely with Amtrak on a number of
maintenance and construction projects each year. Both the
Authority and Amtrak have advanced a significant number of
projects in the Commonwealth to upgrade the rail infrastructure
to bring the existing facilities to a state of good repair.
Annually, SEPTA pays to Amtrak trackage rights fees in
excess of $20 million dollars to operate on both the Northeast
Corridor between Newark, Delaware and Trenton, New Jersey and
between Philadelphia and Thorndale on the Philadelphia to
Harrisburg rail line.
The trackage rights payments provide resources to Amtrak to
maintain and upgrade the track and associated infrastructure
(power, signals, and catenary) in this right-of-way. In
addition, SEPTA leases stations on these rail lines and
advances capital projects to bring these stations to a state of
good repair along with expanding parking facilities. In the
last few years, SEPTA and Amtrak have worked together to
advance major improvements at more than 10 stations, investing
more than $50 million in station and parking improvements. In
addition, SEPTA contributed more than $10 million of Federal
and State capital grants toward the construction of Amtrak's
Centralized Traffic Control facility at Amtrak's 30th Street
Station.
Q.5. What are SEPTA's views on franchising?
A.5. Franchising could prove to be potentially problematic for
SEPTA in light of the established methods, procedures, and
operating parameters discussed above. In addition, SEPTA has
serious concerns over this issue as it relates to the Northeast
Corridor or the Harrisburg Extension of the NEC, which could
result in one operator for each line or many operators for
pieces of both lines. The unknown structure of any potential
franchising with multiple operators causes concerns over
station ownership, control of track rights, dispatching,
maintenance, and SEPTA's overall input on decisionmaking. There
could also be varying standards of investments in
infrastructure maintenance which could be inconsistent with the
transportation needs of SEPTA.
Q.6. What kind of challenges would it present to SEPTA if
multiple carriers were running routes along the Northeast
Corridor?
A.6. Significant challenges currently exist with just one
carrier along the Northeast Corridor. The major challenge SEPTA
would face if multiple carriers ran along the Northeast
Corridor would be coordination among those carriers and SEPTA's
input in decisionmaking. To introduce multiple carriers, or
freight operators, would further constrain an already
cumbersome decisionmaking process. Further, establishing
protocols for conflict resolution could potentially result in
the overall degradation of service that SEPTA provides to its
daily passengers.
Q.7. What kinds of maintenance and capacity needs currently
exist along the Northeast Corridor?
A.7. Capacity along the Northeast Corridor is currently at a
premium. There are several areas where Amtrak, SEPTA, and New
Jersey Transit presently share trackage on the Northeast
Corridor. All three agencies share trackage in Trenton, New
Jersey. Through diligent coordination overseen by Amtrak, these
three services flow through the station. Currently, when Amtrak
trains divert from the inner tracks to the outer tracks to
access the platforms at Trenton, SEPTA train movements are
greatly affected.
Closer to Philadelphia there is a similar situation where
we share trackage rights for a distance of approximately 6
miles including a point at Zoo Interlocking where one track in
each direction is used. Close schedule coordination is required
to avoid conflicting movements.
Further down the Northeast Corridor in the State of
Delaware, Amtrak, and SEPTA service share two tracks for a
distance of over six miles north of Wilmington and a mile and
half just south of Wilmington. The sharing of trackage is
further constrained by the need for SEPTA service to operate on
a single track (in both directions) on the Northeast Corridor
to serve the single platform Churchman's Crossing Station.
Amtrak and SEPTA also share trackage on the Harrisburg Line
just West of Zoo Interlocking where SEPTA has the higher
traffic levels, but Amtrak's schedules are integrated into the
Northeast Corridor operation and are somewhat less flexible.
In regard to maintenance, annual maintenance of railroad
right-of-way is an important aspect of providing quality
intercity and commuter rail service. Whether it is annual brush
cutting, tie renewal and surfacing, it is critical that the
infrastructure be maintained and not allowed to fall into a
state of disrepair. Although Congress has provided significant
financial resources to Amtrak to upgrade the infrastructure of
the Northeast Corridor and to acquire the new high-speed rail
cars, the continuation of an annual maintenance program, and
capital investment of the physical plant is essential.
In addition, Amtrak, who owns the Philadelphia to
Harrisburg rail line, has made very few capital improvements
over the years on this rail line. The line has old track,
signals, power, and related infrastructure requiring
significant capital and maintenance investments. Many of
SEPTA's service delays on this line can be directly attributed
to the deteriorated state of the infrastructure.
I hope that the above satisfactorily addresses the
questions raised by Senator Carper. I would also like to extend
my sincere thanks for having had the opportunity to testify
before the Housing and Transportation Subcommittee's oversight
hearing on Transit in the 21st Century: Successes and
Challenges. If I may be of any further assistance to you or the
Committee, please do not hesitate to contact my office.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION OF SENATOR REED FROM LARRY WORTH
Q.1. You mentioned that many of your passengers use your
service to get to needed medical help, which Medicare does not
cover. Is Medicaid an alternative source of funding to cover
the cost of these riders?
A.1. Medicare does not cover nonemergent transportation for
clients to medical facilities and appointments. Currently, the
only reimbursement for nonemergency transportation is the
Medicaid program. In order for Medicaid to reimburse this cost,
the client must be eligible for Medicaid and have the prior
authorization from the County Department of Social Services.
The only other alternative is private pay from the individual
or insurance if it is available to the individual.
TEA-21: A NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met at 10 a.m. in room SD-538 of the
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Jack Reed (Chairman of the
Subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. The Subcommittee will come to order.
Good morning. Welcome to today's hearing, the second in a
series of hearings the Subcommittee will hold on the
reauthorization of TEA-21. In most instances, it would be a
rare hearing, indeed, where a witness from Boise, Idaho and a
witness from Detroit, Michigan, would come and deliver the same
message about the same program.
Too often, different regions tell us that Federal programs
suffer from a one-size-fits-all approach. That is not the case
today. The diverse panel from which we will be hearing
represents a broad spectrum of communities that support transit
and dedicating scarce resources to a balanced national
transportation policy.
Mayors Kilpatrick and Coles, as well as Commissioner
Mayfield, all believe that transit must be part of their
community's future. They recognize that roads alone cannot do
the job of getting people to work, building a sustainable
downtown, helping individuals make a transition from welfare to
work, or meeting clean air mandates. Only a locally developed
transportation plan that incorporates highway, transit
services, car-pooling, ferries, and a variety of options can
achieve that goal. TEA-21 has provided guaranteed resources and
flexibility so that communities as diverse as Detroit, Dallas,
and Boise can develop that balanced local policy.
Some of you may have seen some recent press reports
pointing out that the vast majority of Americans use their cars
to commute and shop and that TEA-21's investment in transit has
not paid off. But the facts are quite compelling for a
different conclusion.
Transit has the highest ridership in 40 years. Over the
past 6 years, the transit growth has increased 23 percent. That
is faster than the U.S. population growth. It is faster than
highway use. And it is a faster growth rate than domestic air
travel. That is testimony to the success of TEA-21.
Indeed, the hallmark of TEA-21, and its predecessor, ISTEA,
was the recognition that our national policy needed a flexible,
balanced transportation approach, not a one-size-fits-all edict
from Washington. And the fact that transit has grown faster
than all other modes of transportation would seem to be very
compelling evidence that TEA-21 works.
But even though TEA-21 has been a success, there are
questions that this Subcommittee must confront. The question
that has and will concern me most throughout this process is
how do we meet the demand for greater transit funding?
I know that each of our witnesses has the desire to expand
transit services in their communities. But such expansion will
not come cheap. Nor will it come from simply reslicing the
funding pie. To meet this demand, we will need to draw not only
on the Members of this Subcommittee on both sides of the aisle,
but also on local officials to preserve and grow our Nation's
transit systems.
And now, let me recognize the Ranking Member, Senator
Allard.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this
hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to hear from elected
officials as we continue in the TEA-21 reauthorization process.
It is imperative that we secure the input of all of our
transit leaders. It has always been a priority of mine to seek
the perspective of community leaders who know firsthand the
needs of the public.
Public transit serves incredibly important purposes,
providing affordable mobility, congestion management, and
supporting smart growth. TEA-21 has provided a strong framework
for Congress to address the country's transportation needs and
has been successful in many ways. From the experienced
witnesses we have here today, I hope we will hear not only of
the success of the Federal transit programs in their areas, but
also some suggestions for changes or improvements.
I also want to be sure to give consideration to small-size
towns and rural areas during our discussion here today. Small
communities and rural areas have many important transit needs,
and services like paratransit can be vital to a town's
survival.
Because of the complexity of transit programs, local
officials from small towns face barriers. It is important that
transit programs are available to all city officials and
leaders, no matter the size of the area they represent. For
example, in smaller areas, there are often part-time elected
city officials or staff that are responsible for running
multiple agencies. These individuals do not have the
opportunity or resources to develop expertise with all transit
programs. But it is important that we consider their concerns
and issues in this discussion.
I thank the Chairman again for holding this hearing and I
look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Allard.
We are very lucky today. Our panel consists of Mayor Kwame
Kilpatrick of Detroit, Mayor Brent Coles of Boise, Idaho, and
Commissioner Ken Mayfield of Dallas County.
At this point, I would like to recognize Senator Stabenow
of Michigan, for the purposes of not only her opening
statement, but also an introduction of the Mayor.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW
Senator Stabenow. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for your
leadership on this very critical issue.
It is wonderful to see the Mayor of the great city of
Detroit here with us today, as well as Congresswoman Carolyn
Cheeks Kilpatrick. I am extremely proud of the city of Detroit
and of Mayor Kilpatrick. He brings a very strong vision of
revitalization and a history of leadership from the city of
Detroit.
Before being elected to this office, he served in the
Michigan House of Representatives where he served as Democratic
leader. I also should indicate that Congresswoman Kilpatrick
and I came into the State House of Representatives as well in
1979. We were both 5 years old, just for the record.
[Laughter.]
We then came into the U.S. House together and she has been
a shining star for us in Michigan. We are so proud of you.
Prior to becoming Mayor, Mr. Kilpatrick served as Vice
Chairman of the Transportation Committee in the State House. So
he brings a tremendous amount of expertise. He has been working
hard to revitalize Detroit, with a redevelopment plan that
includes affordable housing, safe public transit, and a modern
downtown Woodward Avenue Corridor area.
I am very pleased that we are working together on a
Federal-local partnership that will bring what is necessary to
build a strong rail and bus transit system in the city of
Detroit.
I also, Mr. Chairman, for the record, do have more
information that I would like to leave regarding the needs of
Michigan. While transit discussions often focus on rail and
subway systems, States like Michigan that do not have major
subway systems, also have tremendous mass transit needs.
I would like to submit for the record----
Senator Reed. Without objection.
Senator Stabenow. --what our needs are. I would just also
indicate for the record that, right now in Michigan, we are
only receiving 42 cents back for every transportation dollar
sent to Washington. And I am looking forward with the
Chairman's leadership, that we will be able to put in place
policies that will increase that number. The State of Michigan
has buses in every county and needs in every county, and we
need to be addressing that and bringing back a larger share of
dollars into Michigan.
So, again, thank you for this very important hearing.
And I would like at this point, if the Chair would agree,
to recognize the Congresswoman from the city of Detroit, the
great State of Michigan, for a few comments before we hear from
the Mayor.
COMMENTS OF CAROLYN CHEEKS KILPATRICK
A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Representative Kilpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Ranking Member, Senator Allard, and to my colleague, Senator
Stabenow, for your leadership on this very most pressing issue.
I will be very brief.
I am a Member of the Appropriations Committee of the U.S.
House, where I serve on the Transportation Committee. I want to
commend the Senate for putting in $4 billion over the
recommendation. And I hope that when we meet in conference that
we can sustain some of those fundings, so that our cities,
counties, and States across America can really realize an
adequate, efficient, and safe transportation system.
Transit is the key to development, and with your
leadership, I am confident that we will keep America moving and
growing.
Thank you very much.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Congresswoman.
At this time, let me recognize Mayor Kilpatrick.
Mayor, we will take your statement at this time.
STATEMENT OF KWAME M. KILPATRICK
MAYOR, DETROIT, MICHIGAN
Mr. Kilpatrick. Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chairman
and Members of the Subcommittee.
I want to thank you first for giving me this opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss the importance of Federal
assistance for public transportation for the city of Detroit.
It is a particular pleasure to appear before a Committee on
which Senator Stabenow serves. We are lucky to have her working
for us here in Washington on issues that are important to the
city of Detroit and the State of Michigan such as affordable
housing, homeownership, and, of course, public transportation.
During my campaign for mayor, I spent a lot of time talking
with the people of Detroit about a new vision. Part of this
vision is improving the quality of life, which includes a
variety of transportation methods that are needed to connect
the downtown area with our neighborhoods and opportunities for
jobs that are further away from home. Detroit will always be
the Motor City, but our citizens also want alternative forms of
transportation, such as buses, trains, light rail vehicles, and
people movers.
I have a long-standing interest in transportation issues.
Prior to my position as Mayor of the city of Detroit, I was a
Member of the State legislature for 5 years, served as Vice
Chairman of the Transportation Committee and was also
Democratic leader. In that role, I had the opportunity to
observe how Federal assistance affects transportation
throughout the State of Michigan. My goal remains the same as
it is was then--to bring Federal, State, and local governments
to the table to enhance transportation options for our
citizens.
Since becoming Mayor of Detroit, I have focused on
developing a clearer picture of transportation options
available to our city. The city of Detroit is currently
examining several transportation alternatives, including a
Detroit Area Regional Transportation Authority, of which I am
the prime sponsor along with a partnership with the Federal
Government to make these plans a reality. I have also been
working with the automotive community to encourage new
technolologies to support alternative forms of transportation.
As previously stated, Congresswoman Kilpatrick, someone I
have known my entire life----
[Laughter.]
--is not only a major partner in bringing about a regional
coordinated transit plan in the Detroit metropolitan area, but
she is also a part of bringing that Federal partnership to the
table, along with Senator Stabenow.
I would like to first discuss how the Federal Transit
Program is performing in the city of Detroit and the
surrounding region. Southeastern Michigan is an unusual region
where transit service is concerned--the city of Detroit is the
major transit operator. As Mayor, I oversee the Detroit
Department of Transportation (DDOT). We operate 520 buses,
employ more than 1,700 people, and carry more than 41 million
riders per year. According to the American Public
Transportation Association (APTA), DDOT ranks among the top 35
transit agencies nationwide in terms of the number of
passengers carried. The city of Detroit also oversees the
Downtown People Mover, an automated rail guideway system that
serves as a major circulator connecting office, hotel,
entertainment, and residential centers in our downtown area.
The city's suburban bus agency--SMART bus service--operates
approximately 250 buses around the city of Detroit.
Like all transit providers, the city of Detroit has
benefited significantly from funding increases made available
during the TEA-21 authorization period. The most important
evidence of the impact of this Federal program is the reduction
in the age of our bus fleet. In 1993, the average age of our
buses was 10.1 years. Today, thanks to the additional funding
approved by this Committee, our average bus age is 5.6 years.
Our city has also benefited from the Jobs Access and
Reverse Commute Program. Through expanded community-based and
private van services, we have been able to service residents
that are primarily located in empowerment zones. The
collaboration of DDOT, the City's Employment and Training
Division, and other stakeholders serve as a key component in
helping people make the transition from welfare to work.
Transportation needs have also been cited as being the
number-one hindrance to economic independence in the city of
Detroit. So we need more.
As the city of Detroit looks to the future, we hope to make
major improvements to the city's transportation infrastructure.
We are seeking support from the Committee to create
partnerships and opportunities between Federal, State, and
local governments.
Here are some of the transit needs the city of Detroit has
identified which we seek to address. Our Downtown People Mover,
which is now 15 years old, is in dire need of repair and will
require significant upgrades if it is to remain a key public
transit circulator in downtown Detroit. We have identified an
estimated $37.9 million of repairs and improvements needed to
upgrade the People Mover.
A Downtown Central Transit Terminal is needed to link
together our existing bus and people mover systems with
improved pedestrian walkways and possible rail or bus stations.
This proposed terminal will cost us about $45 million.
Our bus system needs maintenance and heavy repair garages,
which could cost the city up to $120 million.
Development of a Center City Loop rail service, comprised
of modern-day structures, will improve mobility in the core of
Detroit, will connect the new downtown area, which is rich in
business, entertainment, and cultural activities and will
stimulate neighborhood growth through transit development
opportunities. Providing a feasibility study through
preliminary engineering is projected to cost $20 million.
The Woodward Avenue Corridor--Southeastern Michigan's main
street--has been the subject of transportation studies for a
generation. The most recent alternative analysis, completed in
May 2000, reviewed light rail, commuter rail, people mover and
bus rapid transit options for this corridor. We are now working
to move ahead to implement an alternative transit method in
this corridor.
The Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments, SEMCOG,
is examining rail service from downtown to the Detroit
Metropolitan Airport. The city is also supportive of this idea
as part of a regional package of improvements that include
upgrades to the transit system within the city of Detroit.
Meeting these major needs will require a lot of work in our
State and region. Our State legislature is reviewing a proposal
which will provide a new organizational structure for our
transit agencies, which I spoke to earlier.
I support changes that will allow for a truly regional
approach to improving our transit service, provided that the
city of Detroit has an appropriate voice in the decisions that
will be made. We believe in regional cooperation, not regional
control.
As we seek regional transportation solutions in
Southeastern Michigan, the city of Detroit looks to Congress
for assistance in providing the funds to meet our
transportation needs. Transit programs need to be funded at an
adequate, ongoing level by incorporating the following ideals:
One, the transit program should grow to $14 billion, the annual
level suggested by APTA. Two, the guaranteed funding program--
which protects the transit program from the ups and downs of
the annual appropriations process--should be continued. Three,
flexible funding programs such as the Surface Transportation
Program and the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program,
should be reauthorized. Four, funding to improve the security
of our transit systems should be provided from new Federal
resources. Responding to terrorist threats against our Nation
is a matter of national policy, and the financial burden for
making necessary improvements cannot fall solely on existing
Federal, State, and local funding sources. Our initial review
of security needs on the DDOT system indicates it would cost us
more than $30 million to make the necessary improvements.
Detroit is the largest border crossing in North America.
The
Detroit River runs between the United States and Canada. About
$1.4 billion in trade comes across our river every single day.
Like so many other cities, we are seeking funding to revitalize
transportation along our waterfront. One item on our agenda is
establishing bike paths, which would directly improve the
quality of life for Detroit citizens. Our waterfront is a
recreational gem that must be redeveloped.
I look forward to working with the Members of this
Committee to refine these principles and I want to work with
you in every way I can to build support for your efforts to
enact legislation that embodies them all.
I am impressing upon my administration and my constituents
the importance of moving Right Here, Right Now, which was the
mantra of our campaign and our vision, to solve our
transportation problems.
I know this Committee is prepared to move ahead as well,
and I, as the Mayor of the city of Detroit, will be there to
work with you as we move forward in this process.
Thank you once again, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Subcommittee, and also Senator Stabenow, for allowing me to
appear before you today.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mayor.
Thank you, Congresswoman.
Let me now introduce our second witness, Mayor Brent Coles
of Boise, Idaho.
Our colleague, Senator Crapo, very much wanted to be here,
but he is unavoidably detained. But he has a statement which I
would like to submit for the record. And it will be submitted,
without objection.
Mayor Coles has led the city of Boise since 1993. He has
served as the President of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. He
has presided over a city that has experienced one of the
highest rates of population growth in the country. With all of
the economic growth this migration has created, Mayor Coles has
had to draw on his background as a professional planner to
ensure his city remains an attractive place to live and work.
And we are delighted, Mayor Coles, that you are with us
today. Your statement, and all the statements, will be part of
the record. So if you would like to summarize, that is entirely
appropriate.
Mayor Coles.
STATEMENT OF H. BRENT COLES
MAYOR, BOISE, IDAHO
Mr. Coles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Allard,
and Senator Stabenow.
It is a pleasure to be here with you and it is in some ways
an historic moment for a mayor like myself to be here in front
of the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation.
I am grateful for that opportunity, to give you my input
and the input of the citizens of a community that is responding
to such significant growth. It is also an honor to be here with
Mayor Kilpatrick and Commissioner Mayfield. I appreciate my
colleagues and the work we do at the local level. I am sure
that is why you asked us to be here, that we could give you the
local perspective of what the citizens in our community, what
our local economies are going through, what the future of the
United States of America means when you get down to the local
businesses, local cities, neighborhoods, and citizens. What can
we do to maintain our status as the world leader in the
economy?
And, for us to remain competitive, a national
transportation policy is of utmost significance. Your
attention, and the Administration's attention to local
economies will mean the difference whether or not we can
maintain the competitive edge that our Nation has sustained
over generations. So what do we do now? How can we move
forward?
TEA-21 was an ISTEA visionary. No question about it. At the
Federal level, cooperating and directly working with, local
governments--absolutely visionary. And that opportunity has
been taken advantage of by the mayors and county commissioners
and regional transit authorities across this Nation. We have
been able to do innovative things because you have given us
tools to do so.
The city of Boise has a population of 190,000. And when I
became mayor, it was about 100,000. It is just about doubled in
size. Its regional population has grown to 400,000, the second
fastest-growing region in America over the past decade. What a
tremendous change. And also, what a tremendous opportunity.
We see in Boise, Idaho companies like Hewlett Packard and
Micron Technology. They are competing on a global basis. And
for me as Mayor, to work with the CEO of Micron, where that
Board of Directors is responding to those who have invested in
that company, and they say, ``where should we build the next
fabrication plant?''
I am competing with not just cities across the United
States of America, but I am competing with cities in the world.
They can build that fabrication plant in Boise, Idaho, or they
can build it in Korea. Or they can build it somewhere in Asia
or somewhere in Europe. They can choose where they are going to
invest. And one of the things they look at is transportation.
Can they move their employees back and forth from their homes
and from their areas of commerce into the working location?
Every freeway offramp, what do we do? We begin building
more freeway offramps. But we also need to be building rapid
rail systems, commuter rail, light rail, bus systems, investing
in those systems. If we do not, as they look at where their
next fabrication plant is going to go, they will be looking at
other cities around the world who have been able to invest
because Federal, State, or regional governments have cooperated
with local governments and private entrepreneurs and have been
able to build the transportation system that is comprehensive.
A comprehensive transportation system with all our partners
working together can and should be the priority of TEA-21 and
ISTEA. And since they have been so visionary, the
reauthorization of that bill is very important to us. And
whatever you can add to that bill that streamlines the
allocations of funds to cities, counties, or regional transit
authorities that have responsibility for the bus and train
systems in their local area is very important to us.
Our State transportation authorities are getting it, but
have not got it in every instance. Their constituents continue
to ask them to build more freeway lanes. So, in Boise, Idaho,
when we look at the congestion, the growth of the past decade,
we appreciate the investment of $100 million into our freeway
system. But we also need the investment of $100 million into a
light rail system that we do not have today.
In fact, the citizens of the city of Boise, through their
property taxes, went out and bought 18 miles of railroad right-
of-way that Union Pacific was abandoning. When they announced
the abandonment they said they were going to take out the rails
and would give, or at least allow us to purchase the right-of-
way for a bike pathway or something like that. And as Mayor of
the city of Boise, I told them I would lay down in front of
those tracks before I would let them rip them out.
We may not be able to use them today, but we will use them
in the future. And the citizens of Boise said, we agree, Mayor.
Take our property tax dollars, which is 60 percent of our
budget. Use that to buy 18 miles that are not even in our city
limits, because if those 18 miles would have been ripped out,
we would never again have been able to link up to an Amtrak
system. Amtrak has left Idaho. We believe it should come back,
linked to a light rail system, or linked to a bus system.
You have a local system, a regional system, a statewide
system, and a national system that can link together. That is
important to our economy, and our future. It is also important
to any emergency preparedness that we are talking about. When
the airports went down, we relied upon rail, didn't we? We
relied upon buses and our automobiles. And in most areas of the
country, outside of the east coast and the west coast, there
wasn't much of a rail system that we could depend upon during
that period of need.
I thank you very much for the opportunity to testify with
you. When I am referring to direct dollars to local
governments, it is that suballocation that is a part of TEA-21.
We think that can be strengthened, enhanced, and appreciate
working with you to see that that happens.
Thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mayor.
Let me now introduce our final witness, Ken Mayfield, who
has been a Dallas County Commissioner since 1994, and is
President-elect of the National Association of Counties. He is
particularly interested in transportation policy. He is head of
a group, Texas 21, for transportation planning for the State of
Texas.
We have already agreed that Dallas County is very much
bigger than Rhode Island, so we do not have to get into that.
[Laughter.]
But, Commissioner Mayfield, we welcome your appearance. You
represent a very important part of government, which is the
counties of this Nation.
Thank you very much, Commissioner.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH MAYFIELD
COUNTY COMMISSIONER, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
Mr. Mayfield. Thank you, Chairman Reed, Ranking Member
Allard, and Senator Stabenow.
NACo has been a long-time supporter of the Federal transit
program. County governments operate approximately one-third of
the Nation's transit systems. Transit, whether it is rail, bus,
or van--urban, suburban, or rural--is an essential component of
our transportation system. In many of our urban and suburban
counties, it is congestion that is the motivating force behind
the need to establish and fund a transit system. Environmental
concerns and the transportation needs of the economically
disadvantaged or others. How we address congestion is probably
the most important and difficult issue Congress will have to
face in the reauthorization of TEA-21. Solutions are elusive
and complex. However, with congestion increasing and commute
times up, a reauthorization bill that does not seriously attack
this problem would be flawed. County officials believe that
transit has a key role to play in addressing the congestion
crisis.
NACo applauded the actions in Congress and specifically in
this Committee during debate surrounding TEA-21 that led to a
significant increase in funding for the Federal transit
program. The 40 percent increase in transit funding has been
extremely helpful to NACo members, as well as other local
governments. The inclusion of a guaranteed funding requirement
for transit has been a key and we urge that this be continued
in the reauthorization, along with the general fund
contribution. Elected county officials across the country are
hearing from their constituents that transit is important and
in many urban and suburban communities, rail systems are being
proposed. While I am sure that not every plan will result in a
system, there is a demand out there that requires a larger
Federal transit program.
Dallas is one of the communities that has greatly benefited
from the Federal transit program and from the increase in
funding we experienced in TEA-21. Our light rail system
ridership last year was 11\1/2\ million passenger trips. Since
our system opened in 1996, we have had well over 50 million
passenger trips. Currently, DART is undertaking the largest
light rail expansion program in North America.
Dallas has experienced explosive growth over the last
several decades, along with the resulting congestion. In the
late 1970's, a number of forward-thinking community leaders
proposed an area-wide transit system for Dallas and Fort Worth.
However, it was too expensive, too soon, and not well thought
out. When it went to the voters, it lost big time. Some people
thought at that time the anti-
transit sentiment in Dallas would never change, just like the
winning ways of the Cowboys. They were wrong. In 1983, a
referendum was passed in Dallas and individual cities
throughout Dallas, Collin, and Denton Counties that approved a
one-cent sales tax dedicated to the Dallas Area Rapid Transit,
DART.
With the passage of the sales tax, a funding source was
created that led to investment in light rail, bus service
improvements, commuter rail, HOV lanes, and carpooling. There
are 13 individual communities that are part of DART. Even
though the sales tax was passed in 1983, and tax collection
begin in 1984, it was not until 1996 that light rail opened in
Dallas. From 1983 until 1996, most communities and citizens
stuck with the promise of transit and continued paying into the
system. Our 20-mile light rail starter system has exceeded
everyone's expectations in terms of ridership and economic
development. While developers waited until the system was
complete to begin investments, they are now fully engaged and
operating major projects around many of the systems' 23
stations. The starter system cost $860 million and was built on
time and within budget. Incidentally, that $860 million
includes everything--rails, cars, and a 3-mile tunnel from
downtown Dallas to Mockingbird Lane. The one-cent sales tax
paid for 80 percent of the starter system and the Federal
transit program paid for the other 20 percent, $160 million.
An additional 23 miles of light rail will be opening this
year. The passage in August 2000, of a bond proposal will
dramatically accelerate additional light rail expansion through
2010. This bond proposal was supported by 77 percent of those
voting, another example of the broad support the light rail
system has in our community. These new projects together cost
$992 million, of which 66 percent was raised locally. However,
I must emphasize that without the $333 million in Federal new-
start funds, we could not have moved ahead. While economic
development followed DART's starter light rail system, the
success of that system made believers out of the development
community. Rather than taking a wait-and-see attitude,
developers have jumped in and have already built a number of
projects adjacent to the new lines. To date, over $1 billion
has been invested in private development along DART's existing
and future light rail lines. A University of North Texas study
projects DART's current expansion program and operations will
pump $3.7 billion into the regional economy and support
approximately 32,000 jobs through 2003. Between 1996 and 1998,
taxable values for property near light rail stations were about
25 percent higher than comparable properties not served by
rail. Downtown Dallas residential and commercial development
has experienced an upswing with the advent of transit.
Rather than being perceived as being in competition with
highway building, these projects complement our highway system
in Dallas. The North Central Line parallels the North Central
Expressway where TXDOT is currently undertaking a huge
interchange project known as the High-Five Project. Our new
light rail system is opening at the right time to give
commuters an alternative to the congestion that is inevitably
being created by this large construction project. And that is
how we view transit in Dallas--as a transportation alternative.
We do have plans for additions to the DART system. The
Southeast Line would extend 10.2 miles to Fair Park and
Pleasant Grove, all within Dallas County, by 2008. The 17\1/2\
mile Northwest Line will go along the I-35 corridor to Denton
County by 2008, including a stop at Love Field. A 13-mile
branch of this line will go to Las Colinas and on to Dallas-
Fort Worth Airport by 2010. While we will continue our policy
of a local overmatch, we will need Federal funding for both of
these projects.
Thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Commissioner. I want to
thank all the witnesses for excellent testimony, which
illustrates the compelling role of transit at the local level.
That is one issue that we want to clarify with our questioning.
Let me begin.
Mayor Kilpatrick, one of the concerns I have is that if we
do not continue the support that we have in the present transit
act, not only won't we make the improvements, but the systems
are likely to slip backward in terms of deferred maintenance,
all the things you have been able to fix with TEA-21. Is that
your perception?
Mr. Kilpatrick. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. That is a huge
concern for me and the city of Detroit.
As you know, most urban cities in America have aging
transit infrastructures. One of the things that we frequently
discuss is the age of our roads and the disrepair that our
roads are in. Some of the systems that we have been able to put
in place because of TEA-21, ISTEA, and those visionary
programs, they will start to diminish in impact if we do not
have new money coming to the table.
For the city of Detroit to be globally competitive, we are
the 10th largest economy in the United States of America, and
the 37th largest economy in the world. With the amount of trade
that just goes across our border, if we do not have our money
in the right places throughout the city, it can stop the
American economy.
We saw that after September 11. When you have 8-mile back-
ups of trucks--with just-in-time delivery being a huge issue in
the city of Detroit--it stopped the entire economy of
Americans, especially the manufacturing economy.
So if we do not have new money coming to the table to
continue the repair of the infrastructure, to continue programs
that make us globally competitive, to continue to move people
more effectively and efficiently, we will have significant
problems.
And finally to that point, about 45 percent of the people
that live in the city of Detroit own cars, even though it is
the Motor City. And about 75 percent of the jobs are outside of
the city in the immediate suburban areas. If we do not have new
money coming to the table to continue the programs that were
started when this legislation was passed, we will hinder
economic independence in the city, too, which could lead to
further problems.
Senator Reed. Thanks, Mayor Kilpatrick.
Mayor Coles, you pointed out the international parameters
that you have to be concerned about in terms of the transit
policy and everything else. But I wondered about the same
question--without increases in support for transit, not only
will Boise be denied expansion, but would its current programs
you have in place be jeopardized.
Mr. Coles. Yes, absolutely. And in two areas. One, TEA-21
has created a vision for us. We have been able to bring the
smaller rural cities into the larger rural cities and create
this vision. We have been able to use those dollars to create a
plan of an overall regional transportation system, and we will
not be able to fund the plan. We will have this great vision
and all of our hopes will be dashed. And two, the existing
transportation system, which is inadequate, but we have buses
out there on the roads. We have been able to convert those to
compressed natural gas. But if you cannot turn those over and
buy new equipment and take care of your needs, you will lose
the ridership and the economy will fail.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mayor Coles.
Commissioner Mayfield, from your very articulate testimony
about the plans to expand the system in Dallas County, I
presume that you think that we are going to have a vigorous
transit title in the reauthorization bill. Otherwise, those
2010 targets might be difficult to achieve.
Mr. Mayfield. Absolutely. And there is such support for
light rail because it has worked in Dallas. It is really a
model.
We just had the Republican State convention in Dallas at
the downtown convention center, where they expanded that. It is
the largest political gathering in the United States, bigger
than the national convention. We have more delegates who come.
And without the light rail, where a station was located half a
block from where you go to get in, to move people in and out,
it would have been a horror story for those commuting to work,
because of the traffic and congestion. And we were able to move
delegates in and out, at lunchtime, whatever, with ease, taking
the light rail system up even to Park Lane 10 miles north in
Dallas. They could go shopping if they wanted to, or out to
Irving, or within the west end of the downtown district to go
eating where there are numerous restaurants and shops.
Senator Reed. I think all of your comments have underscored
the critical economic development aspect of good transit
systems. You do not attract visitors. You cannot accommodate
major meetings in your communities. You cannot get people
without cars from their home to work in the suburbs or from the
suburbs to work in the city.
I have a few moments before I recognize Senator Allard. A
quick comment about the increased security concerns and
additional resources, Commissioner, and we will go down. Do you
see that as another significant cost?
Mr. Mayfield. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. As we all hear
about the threats to specifically subway systems or transit
systems, we are going to have to beef up security. There is no
question about it, to make sure that the alternative is a safe
alternative. Otherwise, you won't get the ridership.
Senator Reed. Mayor Coles, the same question.
Mr. Coles. Mr. Chairman, thank you. No question about it.
Of course, we saw that first impact on our own airport, hiring
16 additional police officers for our airport, having to expand
the size of the airport so that we could accommodate the x-ray
systems, $2 million for that. Another million dollars every
year for operations, just like that, placed on our local
economy.
Senator Reed. And if we do not provide sufficient resources
for transit, your ability locally to provide dollars is
constrained today because of security concerns and many other
concerns.
Mr. Coles. Absolutely. We cannot grow our budget, so we
have to take it out of somewhere else to place it on security.
Senator Reed. Mayor Kilpatrick, is that similar?
Mr. Kilpatrick. This is a huge issue for us, being an
international border. Between September 11 and December 31, our
Detroit Police Department spent $3 million dollars just
patrolling the border alone. About $10 million will be spent
this year on border security.
You have local police departments protecting national
security now, which is money that I have to take out of my
general fund that would have been used for transportation and
infrastructure repair. I am pulling back more and more
transportation dollars. So we really need money there to step
up some of our security efforts.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mayor Kilpatrick, Mayor
Coles, and Commissioner Mayfield.
We have been joined by the Chairman of the Full Committee,
Senator Sarbanes.
Senator Sarbanes, do you have an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL S. SARBANES
Senator Sarbanes. Chairman Reed, I will be very brief. And
I appreciate the courtesy of my colleagues.
First of all, I apologize not being here in order to hear
the statements. And I am going to have leave, unfortunately,
but that is life in the Senate, if I may say so.
I want to thank you very much, and Senator Allard, for
convening this hearing to continue our consideration of Federal
transit programs as we prepare to reauthorize TEA-21 next year.
This is all a lead-up to the major challenge which this
Committee will face at the beginning of the next Congress
because the TEA-21 authorization expires next year and we
obviously have to put the next step in place for the 21st
Century.
I do want to say, and it is one of the reasons that I was
drawn to come, how impressed I am with the diversity of this
panel, both geographically and politically.
When this Committee considered the authorization of ISTEA,
the TEA-21 predecessor, over a decade ago, transit was seen by
many as a necessity in certain large urban centers of the
country, but of limited relevance in many other areas of the
country.
But I am now heartened that a little over a decade later,
we have people from Boise, Dallas, and Detroit, all here today,
advocating the continuation and strengthening of our Federal
transit.
It is my own view that without committed leadership at the
local level, transit would not have been able to achieve the
record of success that it has witnessed in the last decade. It
is now up at levels not seen since the 1950's.
Transit ridership has grown faster than any other mode. So,
I think that these hearings are an important prelude as we move
toward a reauthorization next year.
I did want to stop in, as it were, both to thank Chairman
Reed and Senator Allard for the hearing, and also to thank the
witnesses for taking time out of what I know are very busy
schedules to be with us.
I think it is fair to say that the outcome of the debate on
this bill will really shape the parameters of America into the
future. The population of the country is expected to grow
another 100 million people in the next 50 years. If we are not
to become absolutely gridlocked and congested, we have to have
innovative ideas with respect to transit and commit the
resources in order to address this situation.
I am also very pleased to welcome the witnesses. The
characteristics of your communities differ, but you are
responding to similar challenges in terms of mobility needs,
population, and development growth.
We certainly welcome the multimodal approach you have taken
toward these channels and I just wanted to express my
appreciation for coming and being with us today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Chairman Sarbanes.
Senator Allard.
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Coles, in your prepared comments, you expressed some
concerns regarding a breakdown between State and local transit
officials. Would you care to elaborate on those comments? Do
you think this is a problem that just occurs sporadically, or
is it more widespread?
Mr. Coles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Allard, TEA-21
and ISTEA are visionary. They have asked State transit
authorities to, instead of just building freeways and highways,
to look at and participate in transit systems.
For most States, that was new thinking. And it is taken the
decade to provide that opportunity and change within our State
governments.
But, also, we see it as a challenge as mayors in whether it
is a transportation issue or other issues, when dollars go to
the capitals of our States, then we have another layer of
bureaucracy with which to deal to verify why in fact we need
those dollars in our cities or in our regions.
And so, not only at the Federal level are we competing for
those dollars, then we are again at the State level. And in
many cases, ISTEA, as it should be, it is flexible. Or TEA-21
is flexible.
Dollars can be used for air quality mitigation. Well, are
you going to pave more roads, so you reduce the dust, or are
you going to buy compressed natural gas buses so that you can
reduce participate matter? You have choices.
And we have to compete. We have to verify. We have to
demonstrate to State transportation boards as to why we should
be buying buses as opposed to maybe paving more roads.
So, it just makes it more difficult. I think that we have
seen that philosophy generated all across our State
governments.
Senator Allard. Now those that have an opposing point of
view may say that some local communities do not have the
expertise, and will also make the statement, if it goes in to
the State, the State becomes a participant and it may add
dollars to the pot. The opposing point of view may say that
localities do not have the financial resources to be able to
address their problems. Can you comment to those arguments?
Mr. Coles. Well, there is certainly a legitimate statement
there. If the State government is willing to participate. In
the State of Idaho, unlike in Texas were they were able to pass
a one-cent sales tax, our State government has not given local
governments the authority to even ask our citizens for a cent,
quarter-cent, or anything for money toward any local need, let
alone transportation.
Our State government is holding those dollars very tightly
and are not necessarily a partner in adding new dollars to the
Federal dollars that are coming in.
We have to generate the local dollars through property
taxes, which are not very popular, to match anything the
Federal Government has, and the State government does not add
dollars to it.
Senator Allard. Do you think it would be a good idea to
require the States to put a match in?
Mr. Coles. Mr. Chairman, Senator Allard, I think the
opportunity for a match is certainly an idea. But I think many
State governments would say, ``if we have to match it, we will
not do it.''
Senator Allard. Okay. Also, I want to carry this national
angle a bit further. There have also been a lot of requests for
mass transit systems and what not, and they have grown
considerably since we last passed TEA-21.
So the issue that we are faced with here in the Committee
is do we leave the match at 20 percent and then let somebody
make a decision as to what is more worthy. Or do you increase
the amount of the match, saying that only the more worthy
projects will come up to that increased match, meaning they are
the ones that are most committed to mass transit. Would you
comment on that thought?
Mr. Coles. Well, thank you, again, Mr. Chairman, and
Senator Allard. That is a very specific question, one that I
would probably like to think about before I responded at the
national level like this. But I will. You have asked a very
thoughtful question.
If you increase the match, then what you said is true.
Those who are more committed will go out and find those
matching dollars. But you will also leave that question where
the newer systems, the more rural systems that have less local
ability to come up with the dollars, not only do they lack
possibly the expertise, but the ability because their economy
is struggling, or that they are in a rural area, and they are
trying to compete. It would be a greater challenge for them.
The opportunity there would be, as you indicated on the
previous question, for the State to step in and be a partner.
So you have the State, you have the city government, local,
county, and regional governments, and hopefully, private
partner entrepreneurs who will also invest in that partnership.
Senator Allard. I would like to have Mr. Mayfield and Mr.
Kilpatrick comment about this State, Federal, and local
relationship. Is the framework that we have now an adequate
framework, or do we need to change this framework to make it
more workable? And if we do, what would be your suggestions?
Mr. Kilpatrick. I feel like Mayor Coles did, to do this at
the spur of the moment. But I will comment.
I have been on both sides, as a former legislator who was
always aggressively talking about the deliberative process and
how we needed an opportunity to look at certain things that
were going to the local level, and being on the other side as
mayor, an executive of the city, and saying, ``Lansing, pretty
much be damned.''
I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, Senator Allard, there has to
be an ideology change and focus on the State level. The total
focus of the ISTEA funds, when they came through Michigan, was
for new road construction. The multimodal concept, the concept
of building in and redeveloping core communities, that was not
present.
We are in a situation now where we are forced in the
Detroit community to partner now locally. For the first time in
20 years, we have been able to bring suburban community
officials, the executives of these suburban communities, to the
table with us, the mayors. And we are all advocating now for a
regional approach to solving transportation problems because it
plays into the urban sprawl issue and all the other issues that
people are experiencing in older suburbs near the city of
Detroit.
We are going to Lansing and saying release the money. Let
us have a change in philosophy where we talk about building
back into our core communities, some of the older suburbs and
some of the older urban communities near the city of Detroit.
So as far as the framework, you spoke about a mandated
match. And I agree with Mayor Coles. If you did that, Lansing
would probably say, ``we are not doing anything, then, if we
have to match it.''
I like the framework now. But I also like what we are doing
in Michigan with the framework that you mentioned. So, I guess
I am saying that I like what you are doing.
But on the local level, we have to really organize locally
and thrive globally. If you can have something in there that if
the local community has organized and submits a plan, and there
shall be something that the State has to do. If anything can
change in that type of language or authorization when you go up
for reauthorization next year, where the local community says,
``this is what we are doing, bring all the communities
together--seven communities in the Detroit metropolitan area,
we are all saying the same thing, and the State can just thumb
their nose at it.'' That becomes a problem and an issue for us
in metropolitan Detroit.
I do not know what can be done with the language on the
national level, but it has to be something. I agree with Mayor
Coles. If the local community is begging for something, then
the State has to act in uniform with what the local community
is saying.
Senator Allard. I do not know whether you want him to
answer my question. My time is expired, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Please. Go ahead, Senator.
Senator Allard. Mr. Mayfield, do you want to respond?
Mr. Mayfield. I would just say that we changed the
department from the Highway Department to the Texas Department
of Transportation a few years ago. It has taken a little bit to
change the mindset from just thinking of highway construction
and funding to multimodal, which obviously includes transit.
But I chair a statewide transportation coalition that is
made up of cities, counties, and chambers of commerce and
businesses all over the State, to provide some leadership to
the Texas Department of Transportation to get them to look at
the multimodal aspect of transportation funding.
Now in the State of Texas, we only have money to fund about
40 percent of the projects that we need in the State.
In the Dallas-Ft. Worth area, we are a nonattainment area.
DART is a very important part of our SIP--State Implementation
Plan--to relieve that congestion and thus, improve our air
quality and bring us into standards.
We have worked well with the Texas Department of
Transportation. Mike Baron is the Executive Director there. We
meet with him on a regular basis.
We have not had the problems, but we have a funding source.
In our area, we have a cent sales tax that is dedicated to DART
for those cities and communities that want to get involved.
And of course, we overmatch. I think we have been very
fiscally responsible with our funds in our light rail system.
And we have been very successful in that mode. But in other
areas, I see the mindset. I am not advocating any kind of a
change at this point.
Senator Allard. I realize the questions I have asked about
what is the proper match and also, the State/Federal, are
complicated questions. And I think you, Mr. Chairman, will keep
this open for comments later on.
Senator Reed. Absolutely.
Senator Allard. So if you think about some things that you
would like to add, perhaps you would like to put it in a more
organized form, we would certainly welcome that. We would like
to have those additional comments here at the Committee.
Mr. Coles. Mr. Chairman, if I may. Apparently, the U.S.
Conference of Mayors has thought about this and I was pondering
it myself. Personally, as I thought about it, the 80/20 match
is something that we have planned for over a period of years
and it is a target that locally, we have planned for and worked
toward. So to change it is a major change. The U.S. Conference
of Mayors believes the 80/20 match is appropriate and would
like to keep it at the 80/20.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Allard.
Senator Stabenow.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to
each of you for sharing your perspectives, particularly Mayor
Kilpatrick. We appreciate your perspective from Detroit.
Let me indicate that I find it is interesting in debates
that we have here frequently in the Congress, we talk about
local control, which frequently means States, and flexibility
at the State level. I would share the concerns expressed that
we need to be focusing on and supporting local control, meaning
cities, counties, regions.
So that you are the local control, and you know what is
best. And I know the challenge of bringing together the
communities and counties around metro Detroit and what that
means, and when we have communities coming together and all
speaking with one voice. I think we need to give great
credibility to that and do whatever we can to be supportive of
the people's needs through local control.
So I appreciate all of you being here. And having been a
former county commissioner and chaired a board of commissioners
myself, I appreciate, Mr. Mayfield, what you do at the county
level.
Let me ask Mayor Kilpatrick just for a moment to speak
about issues of congestion. I have to first indicate, Mr.
Chairman, that we expect a great deal of congestion in the city
of Detroit this evening when the Red Wings win the
championship.
[Laughter.]
So we look forward and relish that congestion this evening.
[Laughter.]
Senator Levin and I have a wonderful bet with our North
Carolina colleagues and expect some great barbecue as a result
of that win this evening.
But let me ask the mayor, in general, people think of us as
the Motor City. We do want people buying automobiles,
particularly domestic automakers.
People assume that in metro Detroit, we can move easily
from one destination to another. And yet, we know that there
has been a study by Texas A&M University in 1999 that showed
that congestion costs Detroit drivers more than $2.8 billion a
year, or about $700 per driver. And when you compare us to
other urban areas, drivers in Detroit experience greater
traffic delays than drivers in New York, Chicago, or
Philadelphia.
I wonder if you might speak about the challenges because of
congestion in metro Detroit and how that relates back to the
critical need for additional resources for public transit.
Mr. Kilpatrick. Thank you very much, Senator Stabenow.
That is a huge question and I will speak to the first
point, the aspect of local control. We live in an era now, and
Mayor Coles mentioned the U.S. Conference of Mayors, when
mayors are truly on the frontlines of homeland defense, on the
frontlines of providing quality services for the city they
represent. If that local control can reach the cities, that
would be absolutely fantastic from this level.
Let me just say something on the issue of congestion, which
is a huge issue in metropolitan Detroit. The Chairman asked if
we do not receive these funds, if we do not have an opportunity
to compete for this new reauthorization, will it roll back the
time?
It absolutely would because of the decay of roads, because
of congestion, because of the amount of truck traffic that
comes across our border every day, because of the issues of
staying in attainment in a huge manufacturing area, congestion
adds to the problems for all of those things.
When people, goods, and services are not allowed to move
effectively and efficiently in an area of this country that
depends on just-in-time delivery for its survival, congestion
is more than just a traffic jam. It can be a hindrance and
sometimes bring a complete halt to the metropolitan economy.
That is been a huge issue for us in the city of Detroit for 20
years plus, almost 30 years now. We have been talking about how
we alleviate some of the congestion problems that we have.
In a city that is known as the Motor City, everyone, when
they are 16 years old, goes out and tries to get an American
car. We all go out and try to get a GM, a Ford, or a Chrysler.
What happened now, we are bumper to bumper. As the continuing
development of the Detroit metropolitan region goes further and
further out, commonly known as urban sprawl, we are
experiencing now more and more backups from downtown Detroit to
almost 22 miles away from the city now.
To alleviate that problem, we have conducted several
studies within the city of Detroit by the Detroit Regional
Chamber of Commerce to say that most of those people would take
a cleaner, safer, more efficient, more effective mode of
transportation in and out of work every day if we did not have
this problem.
The money that we get can be better spent on proactive
transit items like light rail, and different modes of
transportation to make sure we have clean, safe air and quality
air in the city of Detroit, continue to be national
entertainment leaders.
We can also alleviate some of the pressures that we have on
our just-in-time delivery and our economy, moving people
services, and goods more effectively and efficiently.
Congestion is a huge issue in the city of Detroit.
Senator Stabenow. I wonder also if you might follow up.
The Chairman talked about economic development. We have a
new state-of-the-art airport that we are very proud of in Wayne
County, in Detroit, and I know that there are also challenges
now in moving people from the airport into the city.
Mr. Kilpatrick. Yes. Another huge issue. A $1.2 billion new
terminal that we have really organized locally to build. The
county took leadership on that.
This is one of the huge issues that we have been studying.
As a matter of fact, I put the money back in the budget in 1997
for a feasibility study to be done for a rail link to go from
our metropolitan airport to downtown Detroit.
We have interviewed several people. We have had focus
groups talk about why they haven't located companies inside the
city of Detroit because of the lack of that access from the
airport to the central business district downtown. The tracks
are there. The switches are on the tracks. We are all ready to
go. We just need some help from the Federal level to get that
done.
We are hosting the Super Bowl in 2006 in the city of
Detroit. A brand new state-of-the-art urban stadium, Ford Field
was just built. We have, as I said before, a cultural center
that is thriving. There are more theater seats in our cultural
center than at any other place in this country, Broadway being
the expection. But we do not have that link to move people from
the airport to the central business district. It is hindering
our national trade shows, our convention bookings, and economic
development with companies locating around the city of Detroit,
especially now as we move more into fuel-cell technology
research.
Our manufacturing leaders have taken the leadership in that
role. GM, the largest corporation in the world, located on our
riverfront, is really advocating for this to move forward so
that we can enhance the quality of business and economic
development in the Detroit metropolitan area.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Stabenow.
Senator Carper of Delaware, your opening statement and your
questions.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THOMAS R. CARPER
Senator Carper. I have a statement that I would like placed
into the record. I, just want to say to each of you, welcome.
We are delighted that you are here.
Mayor Kilpatrick thank you for sharing Senator Stabenow,
with us. She is a joy to serve with and we are grateful that
you have sent her our way.
Mr. Kilpatrick. You are welcome.
Senator Carper. She started off her questioning with a
comment on the Red Wings. In Delaware, we have 300 chickens for
every person.
[Laughter.]
You have heard the old saying--do not count your chickens
before they hatch.
[Laughter.]
And I hope the Red Wings win. So we will see.
Senator Stabenow. Good.
Senator Carper. I want to start off my question with
another sport. What is wrong with the Tigers? What is going on?
Senator Stabenow. Please.
Mr. Kilpatrick. Tigers--wait a minute.
[Laughter.]
Excuse me, Senator Carper, the Tigers are coming back now.
Senator Stabenow. Yes, they are.
Mr. Kilpatrick. They are almost at .500. We have been the
butt of too many jokes. We were on Jay Leno and now they have
decided to play.
Senator Stabenow. That is right.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. I have been a Tiger fan since I was about
10 years old. All my life, I wanted to be third baseman for the
Detroit Tigers. And this year, Mr. Chairman, when they opened 0
and 11, I thought my time had come.
[Laughter.]
I was ready to suit up.
[Laughter.]
We are happy that you are here and we welcome you very
much. Rick Wagoner was in town with a bunch of people just the
other night and showing us the Autonomy and a number of other
fuel cell vehicles that we hope will be plying the streets of
this Nation and our highways before long. It can only be good
for our air and for our economy. So it is great.
I want to ask, Mr. Coles, who is your governor now?
Mr. Coles. Governor Kempthorne.
Senator Carper. Didn't he used to work here?
Mr. Coles. Yes, he did.
Senator Carper. How is he doing?
Mr. Coles. Governor Kempthorne is doing a fabulous job for
the State of Idaho.
Senator Carper. I hosted, as Chairman of the National
Governors Association, in 1998, right after the election, we
hosted him and a bunch of governors and their spouses for New
Governors School. He and his wife were good enough to come,
along with--gosh, who else did we have? Jeb Bush was there,
Gray Davis was there. We had some guy from Minnesota. What is
his name? Jesse.
[Laughter.]
And Dirk came as well. I said to him at the end of the New
Governors School, I said, ``you should go back to Idaho. You do
a great job as governor. But some day I want you to become
Chairman of the National Governors Association.''
So when you see him, tell him that an old governor, now a
Senator, says he still thinks that he would be a great
candidate to be Chairman of the NGA. And my hope is that,
before long, he will be. Give him my best.
Mr. Coles. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Let me ask you a question if I could. I am
looking at Mayor Kilpatrick's testimony. I am looking at the
bottom of the page. He is talking about the time when he was
Vice Chairman of the Transportation Committee before he was
Mayor.
And he says, ``My goal was the same as it is now--to bring
Federal, State, and local governments to the table to enhance
transportation options for our citizens.''
One of the things that I could never understand when I was
Governor for 8 years, I could never understand why, when
Delaware got its Federal transportation money, including
congestion mitigation money, I could not use that money in the
way I thought was best for my State. We could use that money in
Delaware for freight railroads. We could use that money for
bicycle paths. We could use that money for highways. We could
not use it for inner-city passenger rail, even if that made
sense for us in our State.
And in terms of options, I would just ask, Mr. Coles, do
you have any thoughts in terms of whether States should have
the discretion to use a portion of their Federal transportation
monies for inner-city passenger rail? Does that make sense to
you or not?
Mr. Coles. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Senator Carper,
absolutely. There is no question, the flexibility should be
increased. Where our local priorities are, if we are trying to
reduce congestion through a rail system, that should be where
we should be able to use it. If it is a bus system, then fine.
If we can use it on bicycle pathways, then great. But we are
the ones who should be able to make that decision, and the
greater the flexibility, the better.
Thank you.
Senator Carper. We are in the throes of a discussion on
funding for a whole lot of Federal programs. One of them is
what we are going to do to fund national passenger rail for our
country.
Each of you comes from States where you get I think some
passenger rail service, some States more than others. Nobody
uses as much as the Northeast Corridor. But we are trying to
figure out how much money should be appropriated for Amtrak, to
provide passenger rail service, not just for the Northeast
Corridor, but all over the country in the next year. I think
Amtrak has requested $1.2 billion.
I would just ask, and I will stick with you, Mayor Coles,
does that seem like a reasonable request or an unreasonable
request?
Mr. Coles. Mr. Chairman, Senator Carper, this country needs
a national rail policy. We subsidize our highways. We subsidize
our airports. And I do not know why we think Amtrak should be
self-supporting.
It is rail systems, passenger systems. They are not going
to be self-supporting. They are not anywhere in the world. And
$1.2 billion is a very good request. It is a request that
should be supported and increased, if possible. We need a
national rail system for the United States of America.
Senator Carper. Thank you. I used to be part of the
National Governors Association, which I dearly loved to be. And
I think I probably told my colleagues that more times than they
cared to hear. I like being part of this outfit, too.
You are part of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, I think for
both of you. Who heads that up now?
Mr. Kilpatrick. It is about to be Menino, Mayor Menino from
Boston.
Senator Carper. Okay.
Mr. Kilpatrick. He will be elected Tuesday.
Senator Carper. On Tuesday.
Mr. Kilpatrick. Tuesday.
Senator Carper. So are you all about to meet?
Mr. Kilpatrick. Yes, tomorrow.
Senator Carper. Okay. During the course of your time
together, will you be discussing transportation issues at some
length? And will you be considering at all rail transportation
issues? Is that something that is going to be on your agenda?
And if so, can you give me some idea of what you think will
happen?
Mr. Kilpatrick. Yes. At the last conferences, in DC and New
York, we met in two cities back in February. One of the huge
issues was the Amtrak situation and making sure that there was,
with Amtrak, a tremendous focus on local passenger traffic and
receiving taxpayer dollars as well, part of the $1.2 billion
that the Committee is considering. And we are going to further
those conversations. There is a Subcommittee that will be
meeting on transportation issues in Madison, Wisconsin, and
those meetings start on Saturday, to talk about transportation
in rural, suburban, and urban areas, national agenda items like
the Amtrak issue. We will have some kind of paper that comes
out of that conference.
Mr. Coles. Mr. Chairman, if I may.
Senator Reed. Yes.
Senator Carper. Yes, sir.
Mr. Coles. Senator Carper, 2 years ago I was President of
the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
Senator Carper. Were you really?
Mr. Coles. Yes, sir, and it was a great privilege.
Senator Carper. Isn't that great? That is quite an honor.
Congratulations.
Mr. Coles. Fabulous. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Did they pay you extra for that?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Coles. No.
Senator Carper. It is a lot of extra work, though, isn't
it?
Mr. Coles. Just traveled more.
Senator Carper. Did you get to keep your frequent flier
miles?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Coles. I did. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Strike that from the record, please.
[Laughter.]
Senator Reed. I feel like Judge Judy here.
[Laughter.]
Stop badgering the witness. Go ahead, answer, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Coles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At that time, we called
upon the Administration and that was the transition between the
Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration. We wrote a
10-point domestic policy plan, which includes a rail system and
a national rail policy for the United States of America.
We held right here in the train station a conference on
rail. Then Senator Trent Lott came over. We spoke about
subsidizing rail in America and a national rail policy. And the
U.S. Conference of Mayors continues under the presidency of
Mayor Menino, Mayor Morale of New Orleans was the past
President.
The new President, Mayor Menino, will continue with the
request for a national rail policy and the support of Amtrak,
air, and cars. We need a three-prong system across the United
States of America to keep our economy going.
Senator Carper. Good. Thanks. And in conclusion, I would
just say to our witnesses and our colleagues, in my view, when
Amtrak was created 31 years ago, the private railroads went out
of the passenger business. They pretty much said to this new
entity, here's our old locomotives, our old passenger cars, our
old dining cars, our old track beds, our old wiring, our old
signaling system, our old repair shops. And by the way, we will
throw in these old train stations as well. Good luck.
Railroads are capital intensive, as we know. Amtrak has
been starved for capital, almost from its inception. Most other
countries around the world decide to support their passenger
railroads on the operating and on the capital side. And they do
so out of their naked self-interest because they think it
reduces their dependence on foreign oil. It does. They think it
reduces the congestion in airports and on highways. It does.
And they think it reduces the amount of emissions, the bad
stuff that goes up into our air from our cars, trucks and vans,
and that is true, too.
My own view is that we should provide a dedicated source
for Amtrak going forward. And what I would suggest is that we
add a penny to the gasoline tax. Not take a penny out of the
existing tax, but add a penny to it and just earmark that for
capital for Amtrak. And my hope is that the mayors will see fit
to support that and we can work on that going forward.
Thank you very much.
When I walked into the room, Mr. Chairman, the young lady
who is standing back there guarding the door said to me, ``you
know, Senators do not normally come in that entrance.'' She
looked at me and she said, ``would you like to sit in back in
the back row?''
[Laughter.]
And I said, no, I think I will sit up front.
[Laughter.]
You are probably thinking, well, I should have sat in the
back. Right?
[Laughter.]
Welcome all of you. Thank you for coming.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Carper. No one is a more
articulate spokesperson for rail and Amtrak than Senator Carper
of Delaware and his colleague, Senator Biden. That is of great
interest to this Committee, but of critical interest to the
Commerce Committee and I know that you are working closely with
them.
Do any of my colleagues have any other additional comments
or questions for the panel?
[No response.]
It is an excellent panel. You have given us perspectives
from the local level, the most important level, the public
servants who serve on a day-to-day, face-to-face basis the
people of America. And I think what you have said is that TEA-
21 is working very well when it comes to transit policy. It
provides guaranteed funding, which is critical for your plans,
most of which you are projecting and planning today is based
upon the assumption that you are going to get this funding
beyond the authorization period and into the next bill, and we
hope that we can continue that guarantee.
Also, the flexibility. And one thing that we have to be
very concerned about in terms of flexibility is we do not tilt
the field to favor highways over transit any more than it might
be today. You cannot give flexibility to local communities if
it costs more to play on the transit part of the field than the
highway side of the field. They have to have a real choice. And
I think TEA-21 did that, and I hope it will continue to do
that.
And finally, comprehensive transportation planning. I think
all of your comments--Mayor Kilpatrick, Mayor Coles, and
Commissioner Mayfield--underscored the point that
transportation policy is no longer just a city struggling with
a municipal bus system. It is a regional issue. It requires
regional cooperation and State cooperation. And I believe that
TEA-21 has enabled that type of cooperation.
So, we have a lot to be pleased with. Ultimately, I hope
that we can continue this effort. The critical issue, as I
mentioned in my opening statement, remains, will we have the
resources to support the flexibility, the comprehensive
planning? Will we have sufficient resources in the transit
portion of the new reauthorization so that you can continue to
do what you have been doing extremely well?
And I thank you for that.
Let me also indicate procedurally that it is the intention
of the Subcommittee to hold a hearing on June 26, to hear from
the business community and environmentalists about the benefits
of TEA-21 and transit issues.
And if anyone has any questions or submissions for the
formal hearing record, I would ask that you provide them to the
Committee Clerk by Monday of next week.
Thank you very much, and if there are no additional
questions, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:16 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Prepared statements, and response to written questions
supplied for the record follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on our Nation's
mass transit needs. Ensuring safe and efficient public transportation
is one of the most critical issues that we face as Members of this
Committee. I look forward to working with the Chairman, and all Members
of this Committee, as we craft a strong mass transit title to the
upcoming TEA-21 reauthorization in the next year.
I am extremely proud to have the Mayor of Detroit, Kwame Kilpatrick
testifying before this Committee today. Mayor Kilpatrick brings a
strong vision of revitalization and a history of leadership to the city
of Detroit. Before being elected to this office, Mayor Kilpatrick
served in the Michigan House of Representatives, where he served as
Democratic Leader, and as Vice Chairman of the Transportation
Committee. As Mayor, he is working hard to reinvigorate Detroit with a
redevelopment plan that includes providing affordable housing, safe
public transit, and a modern downtown Woodward Avenue Corridor area. I
am proud to be working with him to create a strong Federal and local
partnership to make these improvements happen, in particular to
continue to build a strong rail and bus transit system in Detroit.
While transit discussions often focus on rail and subway systems,
States like Michigan that do not have a major subway system also have
tremendous mass transit needs. In the year 2000 alone, Michigan buses
carried over 91 million passengers. There are bus systems operating in
every one of Michigan's 83 counties, from our largest city, Detroit, to
our most rural counties in the Upper Peninsula. These bus systems
provide vital services to our communities in Michigan. Whether it is
our working families, college students, the disabled or members of the
retired community, they all rely on Michigan's transit system to get
them to work, school, or other destinations, safely and quickly.
Despite covering all counties, transit service in many areas is
minimal, creating a real hardship for these communities. Even though
Michigan must rely solely on buses for mass transit, our State lacks
the capital investment it needs to simply keep up existing service even
though ridership is increasing. In 2002, Michigan received $28 million
in bus discretionary funds for capital projects but our capital needs
for buses, facilities, and equipment exceeded $100 million. Michigan
will simply have to carryover this shortfall until next year when we
probably will get much less than we need for that year. This means we
will fall further and further behind in meeting our public transit
needs.
This shortfall exists despite the significant contribution by
Michigan taxpayers. Michigan ranks sixth, behind five States with rail,
in direct support for its public transit systems. In fiscal year 2000,
Michigan provided $192 million in State funds to support local and
intercity bus transit, marine and ridesharing services. Local transit
agencies contributed a similar amount in local funds and farebox
revenue.
Despite, this strong State and local commitment to transit,
Michigan does not receive the same commitment in Federal dollars. On
average, between fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 2001 Michigan only
received about 42 cents back for every transportation dollar it sent to
Washington.
I am pleased to be here today as we begin our work on improving our
mass transit programs. I hope to be able to work with my colleagues on
this Committee to help States like Michigan, increase access to public
transportation, which will improve our economy and our quality of life.
Thank you.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR THOMAS R. CARPER
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this second Subcommittee
hearing on TEA-21 reauthorization. Thank you to our witnesses for
traveling so far to share their views with us today.
In Delaware, like in many States, some of the biggest and most
important transportation projects we will embark on in the coming years
will be transit and rail projects. From upgrading our bus fleet to
improving capacity along the piece of the Northeast Corridor that we
host, we are being forced by the tremendous amount of growth we have
seen in recent years to spend much of our time and resources finding
ways to get people off congested roads and on public transportation.
There are three things I think Congress should do this year and
during TEA-21 reauthorization to help States like mine meet their
citizens' transportation needs.
One of those things is to prevent Amtrak from dissolving. The
Senate Budget Committee included the $1.2 billion Amtrak needs to
survive through fiscal year 2003 in its Budget Resolution. We need to
follow through now and make sure Amtrak actually gets $1.2 billion in
the fiscal year 2003 Transportation Appropriations Bill. This is even
more critical now that Amtrak has been forced to use the likelihood
that they will get $1.2 billion next year as collateral on a $200
million loan that Amtrak President David Gunn has told us they need to
be able to continue operations through the end of this year. An Amtrak
shutdown will severely hamper transit operations in the Northeast
Corridor and make it more difficult for transportation officials across
the country to move people around. Congress and the President need to
work together to make sure it does not happen.
The second thing we can do to help States with large public
transportation needs is to expand the flexibility built into ISTEA and
TEA-21. TEA-21 currently allows States certain leeway in moving money
between the highway and transit program but I believe Congress did not
go far enough 5 years ago. The State of Delaware can spend its Federal
highway dollars to improve its piece of Interstate 95 to accommodate
more drivers. It can also spend that money on transit and freight rail
projects, intercity bus service or even on bike paths. It cannot use
any of it, however, to make improvements to the Amtrak-owned tracks
running alongside Interstate 95 so that more of the Delawareans who use
that congested road every day to get from their homes in the suburbs to
jobs in Wilmington or Philadelphia can take an Amtrak or SEPTA train
instead.
Transportation officials should be able to spend their Federal
transportation dollars on the most pressing transportation needs in
their region whether they are highway, transit, or intercity rail
service. This added flexibility would not cost the Federal Government
anything and would not force any State to spend their transportation on
anything they do not want to spend it on. It would simply give States
the ability to address their citizens' transportation needs in the way
they think best.
Finally, the third thing we should do is provide Amtrak with a
dedicated source of capital funding. Without that, Amtrak will continue
to go from crisis to crisis as it has for years now.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from the
panel on these issues and on what they think worked and did not work in
TEA-21.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON S. CORZINE
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this third hearing on
reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century--
TEA-21, and I would like to join you in welcoming our witnesses.
Mr. Chairman, as the Banking Committee continues its work on the
reauthorization of TEA-21, I look forward to working with you and the
Members of the Committee to craft legislation that does its best to
help our Nation's transit systems. As someone who represents a State
with the third largest transit system in the country, I realize we need
to provide as much funding as possible to assist these systems to meet
the needs of their riders. In fact, nowhere in the country is the need
for mass transit more evident than in the Great State of New Jersey,
the most densely populated State in the Nation. A study done by the New
Jersey Institute of Technology in July 2001 found that the average New
Jersey driver spent almost 50 hours a year stuck in traffic. For all
this time stuck in traffic, that is an average cost per driver of
$1,255 in wasted gasoline and lost productivity--for a total cost of
$7.3 billion a year. To New Jersey's credit, we have realized that we
cannot build enough roads to meet our transportation needs. We need to
craft TEA-21 reauthorization legislation that operates under that
premise as well. This legislation should not only continue the
commitment we made under TEA-21 to help fund existing mass transit
projects but also help State and local transit agencies create new
opportunities for commuters, whether they are bus, rail, or ferry.
Transit systems need more funding, not less, to meet the needs from
their increasing levels of ridership.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you to develop
legislation that continues to provide State, city, and local transit
agencies with a stable guaranteed source of funding. I will also try to
see that that level is funding is increased.
Finally, I will also work to continue innovative financing methods,
like the transfer program that allows some highway funds to be transfer
for mass transit uses.
Thank you.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR MIKE CRAPO
I like to offer my regrets that I am unable to attend this hearing.
Unfortunately, I am attending to pressing family matters in Idaho.
Nonetheless, I am pleased that Brent Coles, the Mayor of Boise, Idaho,
is able to attend and speak at this hearing regarding the
reauthorization of TEA-21. In addition to his capacity as Mayor, Mr.
Coles is a member of the Regional Public Transit Authority and the
Treasure Valley Partnership.
Mayor Coles has been a leader in fostering regional cooperation and
coordination of transit, and has actively supported the creation of a
regional public transit authority in southwest Idaho. The significance
of transit operations will continue into this century, and it is
important to develop and keep in mind a sense of the needs of local
governments prior to any action on our part.
In metropolitan areas such as Boise, more must done to address the
transit needs of rural and disabled passengers while providing extended
service to the growing needs of a metropolitan population.
Since Boise, Idaho, is one of the fastest growing metropolitan
areas in the country, Mayor Coles' testimony will be invaluable for our
Committee as we work to reauthorize the transit portion of TEA-21 and
improve transit programs in America.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF KWAME M. KILPATRICK
Mayor, Detroit, Michigan
June 13, 2002
Good Morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I want to
thank you for giving me the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the importance of Federal assistance for public transportation
for the city of Detroit. It is a particular pleasure to appear before a
Committee on which Senator Debbie Stabenow serves. We are lucky to have
her working for us here in Washington on issues that are important to
the city of Detroit such as affordable housing, homeownership, and--of
course--public transportation.
During my campaign for Mayor last year, I spent a lot of time
talking with the people of Detroit about a new vision. Part of this
vision is improving the quality of life, which includes a variety of
transportation methods that are needed to connect the downtown area
with our neighborhoods and opportunities for jobs that are further away
from home. Detroit will always be the ``Motor City,'' but our citizens
also want alternative forms of transportation such as buses, trains,
light rail vehicles, and people movers.
I have had a longstanding interest in transportation issues. Prior
to my position as the Mayor of Detroit, I was a member of the State
legislature for 5 years and served as Vice Chairman of the
Transportation Committee. In that role, I had the opportunity to
observe how Federal assistance affects transportation throughout the
State of Michigan. My goal has remained the same--to bring Federal,
State, and local governments to the table to enhance transportation
options for our citizens.
Since becoming the Mayor of Detroit, I have focused on developing a
clearer picture of transportation options available to our city. The
city of Detroit is currently examining several transportation
alternatives and will continue to work in partnership with the Federal
Government to make these plans a reality. I have also been working with
the automotive community to encourage new technology to support
alternative forms of transportation.
I would like to first discuss how the Federal Transit Program is
performing in the city of Detroit and the surrounding region.
Southeastern Michigan is an unusual region where transit service is
concerned--the city of Detroit is the major transit operator. As Mayor,
I oversee the Detroit Department of Transportation (DDOT). We operate
520 buses, employ more than 1,700 people, and carry 41 million riders
per year. According to the American Public Transportation Association,
DDOT ranks among the top 35 transit agencies nationwide in terms of
passengers carried. The city of Detroit also oversees the Downtown
People Mover, an automated rail guideway system that serves as a major
circulator connecting office, hotel, entertainment, and residential
centers in our downtown area. The City's suburban bus agency (SMART bus
service) operates approximately 250 buses.
Like all transit providers, the city of Detroit has benefited
greatly from funding increases made available during the TEA-21
authorization period. The most important evidence of the impact of this
Federal program is the reduction in the age of our bus fleet. In 1993,
the average age of our buses was 10.1 years. Today, thanks to the
additional funding approved by this Committee, our average bus age is
5.6 years. Our City has also benefited from the Jobs Access and Reverse
Commute Program. Through expanded community-based and private van
services, we have been able to service residents that are primarily
located in empowerment zones. The collaboration of DDOT, the City's
Employment and Training Division, and other stakeholders serve as a key
component in helping people make the transition from welfare to work.
As the city of Detroit looks to the future, we hope to make major
improvements to the City's transportation infrastructure. We are
seeking support from this Committee to create partnership opportunities
between Federal, State, and local governments. Here are some of the
transit needs the city of Detroit has identified which we seek to
address:
<bullet> Our Downtown People Mover--now 15 years old--is in dire need
of repair and will require significant upgrades if it is to remain
a key public transit circulator in downtown Detroit. We have
identified an estimated $37.9 million of repairs and improvements
needed to upgrade the People Mover.
<bullet> A Downtown Central Transit Terminal is needed to link together
our existing bus and people mover systems with improved pedestrian
walkways and possible rail or bus stations. This proposed terminal
will cost about $45 million.
<bullet> Our bus system needs maintenance and heavy repair garages
which could cost the City up to $120 million.
<bullet> Development of a Center City Loop rail service, comprised of
modern-day structures, will improve mobility in the core of
Detroit, will connect the new downtown area, which is rich in
business, entertainment, and cultural activities, and will
stimulate neighborhood growth through transit development
opportunities. Providing a feasibility study through preliminary
engineering is projected at a cost of $20 million.
<bullet> The Woodward Avenue Corridor--Southeastern Michigan's main
street--has been the subject of transportation studies for a
generation. The most recent Alternative Analysis--completed in May
2000--reviewed light rail, commuter rail, people mover, and bus
rapid transit options for this corridor. We are now working to move
ahead to implement an alternative transit method in this corridor.
<bullet> The Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments is examining
rail service from Downtown to the Detroit Metropolitan Airport. The
City is also supportive of this idea as part of a regional package
of improvements that include upgrades to the transit system within
the city of Detroit as well.
Meeting these major needs will require a lot of work in our State
and region. Our State legislature is reviewing a proposal, which will
provide a new organizational structure for our transit agencies. I
support changes that will allow for a truly regional approach to
improving our transit service, provided that the city of Detroit has an
appropriate voice in the decisions that will be made.
As we seek regional transportation solutions in Southeastern
Michigan, the city of Detroit looks to Congress for help in providing
the funds to meet our transportation needs. Transit programs need to be
funded at an adequate, ongoing level by incorporating the following
ideals:
<bullet> The transit program should grow to $14 billion, the annual
level suggested by APTA.
<bullet> The guaranteed funding program--which protects the transit
program from the ups and downs of the annual appropriations
process--should be continued.
<bullet> Flexible funding programs--such as the Surface Transportation
Program (STP) and the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program
(CMAQ) should be reauthorized.
<bullet> Funding to improve the security of our transit systems should
be provided from new Federal resources. Responding to terrorist
threats against our Nation is a matter of national policy, and the
financial burden for making necessary improvements cannot fall
solely on existing Federal, State, and local funding sources. Our
initial review of security needs on the DDOT system indicates it
would cost us more than $ 30 million to make the necessary
improvements.
Detroit is the largest border crossing in North America; the
Detroit River runs between the United States and Canada. Like so many
other cities, we are seeking funding to revitalize transportation along
our waterfront. One item on our agenda is establishing bike paths,
which will directly improve the quality of life for Detroit citizens.
Our waterfront is a recreational gem that must be redeveloped.
I look forward to working with the Members of this Committee to
refine these principles and want to work with you in every way I can to
build support for your efforts to enact legislation that embodies them.
I am impressing upon my administration and my constituents the
importance of moving RIGHT HERE and RIGHT NOW to solve our
transportation problems. I know this Committee is prepared to move
ahead as well, and I, as Mayor of Detroit, will be there to work with
you as we move forward in this process together.
Again, thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to appear before
you today.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF H. BRENT COLES
Mayor, Boise, Idaho
June 13, 2002
Good morning Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Allard, and Members of
the Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you today.
I am Brent Coles, Mayor of Boise, Idaho, where I have served as
Mayor since January 1993, following 10 years of service on the City
Council. In addition, I am also a member of the Regional Public Transit
Authority and the Treasure Valley Partnership which I will speak to
later in this presentation.
I am delighted to share this panel with Detroit Mayor Kwame
Kilpatrick and Dallas County Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield.
Economic Importance of Boise
With a metropolitan area population of 403,817, Boise is the hub of
commerce, banking and government for the State. Many large regional,
national, and international companies are headquartered here, including
Simplot Corporation, Boise Cascade, Albertsons, Micron Technology, and
Hewlett-Packard. As a major tourist and business destination nestled
against the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, it is the economic engine
for the region. This is in great measure because of our regional focus
on improving the Federal, State, and local transportation networks that
connect us to the global economy.
I am also here today as a past President and a Trustee of the U.S.
Conference of Mayors. The Conference of Mayors represents more than
1,000 cities with a population of more than 30,000. The Nation's mayors
know first hand that sustained national economic growth can only be
possible through continued investment in the transportation of U.S.
metropolitan areas.
Tomorrow, the U.S. Conference of Mayors will release our annual
Metro Economies study, which makes it clear that metro areas must
continue to be the object of national and State infrastructure
investment to sustain U.S. global competitiveness. I firmly believe
that the TEA-21 law and its predecessor ISTEA have significantly
contributed to the overall economic growth that our Nation experienced
in the last decade.
TEA-21 Successes
I applaud the dramatic changes Congress has instituted in the last
two surface transportation reauthorization bills. Cities are
implementing new transportation opportunities provided by TEA-21 to
meet the ever-increasing demand on our public transportation
infrastructure, both highways and transit.
Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize that I strongly believe in the
success of the TEA-21 partnership. This law has provided my city of
Boise and cities across the Nation with the transportation resources to
enhance the quality of life for my constituents and increase
competitiveness in the world economy. The partnership has introduced
long-term economic, social, and environmental consequences into
national transportation policy.
Though suburban sprawl may conjure up visions of LA or Phoenix, the
rugged, southwest corner of Idaho also faces significant traffic and
air quality problems stemming from rapid growth. During the past
decade, Boise, Idaho had the second highest growth rate in the country.
For the first time, our residents began to think seriously about
transportation issues. Our legendary ``rush-minutes'' lengthened and
people began to experience longer, less tolerable commutes.
Policymakers began to look at ways to protect our quality of life from
the impacts of sprawl. Our highly conservative region began to discuss
ideas like transit oriented development, protection of open space, and
commuter rail.
Four years ago, we formed a working group called the Treasure
Valley Partnership. The Partnership consists of mayors and
commissioners from general purpose governments in two counties. This
group embodies the collaborative principles set out in TEA-21. As a
Partnership, we have brought together business, community groups, and
local government to make new connections between transportation and
land use. I believe that our entire process of governance in the region
has been improved and policy decisions are made in a more informed and
strategic manner, so that all citizens are better served.
The Partnership began to look seriously at what our region will
look like at full build-out. For the first time, we put our
comprehensive plans side by side to see if they are consistent with
each other. Our planning staffs have begun to talk more and cooperate
more. Our transportation plans have more regional buy-in.
The Partnership has directly benefited from TEA-21. Working in
collaboration with Idaho Smart Growth and our MPO, we obtained a
$500,000 grant for a visioning process that has engaged the entire
region in a discussion of sprawl and traffic, and their link to land
use. The money has been leveraged with other grant funds to conduct
pilot projects which model the conclusions of the broader study.
Based on the principles of TEA-21, the city of Boise purchased more
than 18 miles of railroad track and right-of-way that was about to be
abandoned by Union Pacific Railroad. We used general fund property tax
dollars for this purchase, even though the track is located entirely
outside our corporate city limits. We raised private funds to purchase
Boise's historic train depot in order to preserve the infrastructure
that will be needed someday for commuter and passenger rail service in
our region.
The residents of our two-county area went to the Idaho Legislature
for the authority to establish regional transit programs. Then, voters
overwhelmingly approved creation of a regional transit authority. We
have yet to be given a dedicated funding source by the Legislature, but
Boise City has provided funding to hire an executive director and we
are allowing the regional transit authority to assume operation of our
bus system.
This is progress that would not have occurred without the guidance
and encouragement provided by ISTEA and TEA-21. There is more to be
done, but we believe we are on the right track
Local Decision Making and Public Participation Needed to
Reach Full Intent of the Law
Mr. Chairman, I want you to know that I consider the fundamental
composition of the TEA-21 law as essentially sound and should be
preserved. The U.S. Conference of Mayors also shares this position.
The law provided the tools and the laboratory, but it did not
guarantee success. This is up to mayors working with citizens
identifying true transportation priorities and ensuring that those
locally identified priorities are funded at the State. In enacting
ISTEA, Congress recognized that for flexibility to result in good
choices, people with on the ground experience need a strong role in
decisionmaking. The intention was to turn over significant authority to
State and local government, and assert the importance of a strong local
role in project selection. ISTEA recognized that
everyone had a stake in the outcome of transportation decisions, and
that participation by citizens and nongovernmental organizations should
be fully integrated into the planning and implementation of projects.
Mr. Chairman, this is where this very good law breaks down.
Nationally, State Departments of Transportation are controlling every
aspect of this legislation that was intended to empower cities and
communities. Citizens are calling for increased public transportation
and State Departments of Transportation continue to build highways.
Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee, I am fortunate to have
a State Department of Transportation whereby the Administration
understands that the essential role of transportation is to improve not
only the State but also my region's economic and social health.
Unfortunately, when I visit with my colleagues nationally, I find my
generally positive experience with the State Department of
Transportation to be unique. This is where the U.S. Conference of
Mayors will make a good law even better in the reauthorization. This is
the single failing in the law.
The law has not been completely implemented. As a result, the
Nation's mayors do not see the Federal, State, and local partnership
developed to the point where it is promoting the full intent of ISTEA
and TEA-21. Despite much progress, we have failed to fully capitalize
on the many opportunities this law intended to make available to our
cities. I see the reauthorization of the surface transportation program
as that opportunity to reach full potential of the law.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors is developing a detailed set of
recommendations on TEA-21 reauthorization that we will share with the
Subcommittee shortly. I do however offer suggestions on the issue of
suballocation of State Federal surface transportation funds to cities,
counties, or regional transportation authorities. In the
reauthorization of TEA-21, we call on the Federal Government to
preserve and grow a program that suballocate surface transportation
funds to metropolitan areas for the repair and maintenance of existing
urban highways while giving equal weight to expanding public transit
systems, congestion mitigation, safety programs, intermodal projects,
land use, and environmental stewardship.
As mentioned previously, the intent of the law recognized the value
of local decisionmaking and public participation. If you want local
elected officials and the public engaged in transportation planning,
there must be legitimate funds on the table that are subject to the
process. Larger MPO's, those serving areas with a population of 200,000
or more, are the only substate agencies who have any confidence about
annual funding, and it is only that fraction of TEA-21 highway funds
that are suballocated in the law, funding that on a national scale
represents about six cents of every dollar made available to the
States. The U.S. Conference of Mayors decisively believes that more
funding resources should be moved from the State DOT's to local
government. We are supporting State suballocation of Federal surface
transportation funds directly to cities, counties, or their regional
transportation agency. This is a cornerstone of our reauthorization and
we are exploring the best way to achieve this objective.
Closing Comments
Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by emphasizing that I believe in the
TEA-21 partnership and want to build upon this success. The Nation's
mayors value our seat at the table in this process and accept the
responsibility of planning and implementing innovative transportation
strategies to meet the needs of our citizens. It is clear to us that
suballocation of Federal surface transportation funds directly to
cities, counties, or their regional transportation agency will ensure
that as regional leaders, we have the resources to meet expectations of
our constituents to provide transportation solutions that better fit
their life needs and lifestyles.
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, as you move forward on
the reauthorization of TEA-21 you can count on my active participation
and support on this important issue.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENNETH MAYFIELD
County Commissioner, Dallas County, Texas
June 13, 2002
Good morning, Chairman Reed. I am Kenneth Mayfield, County
Commissioner from Dallas County, Texas, and President-elect of the
National Association of Counties (NACo).\1\ I very much appreciate the
opportunity to testify today before the Senate Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affair's Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation
on the reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21) and more specifically on the Federal transit program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NACo is the only national organization representing county
government in the United States. Through its membership, urban,
suburban, and rural counties join together to build effective,
responsive county government. The goals of the organization are to:
Improve county government; serve as the national spokesman for county
government; serve as a liaison between the Nation's counties and other
levels of government; achieve public understanding of the role of
counties in the Federal system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NACo has been a long time supporter of the Federal transit program.
County governments operate approximately one-third of the Nation's
transit systems. Transit, whether it is rail, bus, or van--urban,
suburban, or rural--is an essential component of our transportation
system. In many of our urban and suburban counties, it is congestion
that is the motivating force behind the need to establish and fund a
transit system. Environmental concerns and the transportation needs of
the economically disadvantaged also drive transit. How we address
congestion is probably the most important and difficult issue Congress
will have to face in the reauthorization of TEA-21. Solutions are
elusive and complex. However, with congestion increasing, more vehicles
on the roads, and commute times up, a reauthorization bill that does
not seriously attack this problem would be flawed. County officials
believe that transit has a key role to play in addressing the
congestion crisis.
NACo applauded the actions in Congress and specifically in the
Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee during debate
surrounding TEA-21 that lead to a significant increase in funding for
the Federal transit program. The 40 percent increase in transit funding
has been extremely helpful to NACo members as well as other local
governments that operate and have expanded their transit systems.
Including a guaranteed funding requirement for transit has been key and
we urge that this be continued in the reauthorization along with the
general fund contribution. Elected county officials across the country
are hearing from their constituents that transit is important and in
many urban and suburban communities rail systems are being proposed.
While I am sure that not every plan will result in a system, there is a
demand out there that requires a larger Federal transit program.
Dallas is one of the communities that has greatly benefited from
the Federal transit program and from the increase in funding we
experienced in TEA-21. Our light rail system ridership last year was
11.5 million passenger trips. Since our system opened in 1996, we have
had well over 50 million passenger trips. Currently, DART is
undertaking the largest light rail expansion program in North America.
Dallas has experienced explosive growth over the last several
decades along with the resulting congestion. In the late 1970's, a
number of forward thinking community leaders proposed an area-wide
transit system for Dallas and Ft. Worth. However, it was too expensive,
too soon, and not well thought out. When it went to the voters, it lost
big time. Some people thought at that time the antitransit sentiment in
Dallas would never change, just like the winning ways of the Cowboys.
They were wrong. In 1983, a referendum was passed in Dallas and
individual cities throughout Dallas, Collin, and Denton counties that
approved a one-cent sales tax dedicated to the Dallas Area Rapid
Transit (DART) for public transit.
With the passage of the sales tax, a funding source was created
that lead to investment in light-rail, bus service improvements,
commuter rail, HOV lanes, and carpooling. There are 13 individual
communities that are part of DART. Even though the sales tax was passed
in 1983 and tax collection began in 1984, it was not until 1996 that
light rail opened in Dallas. From 1983 until 1996, most communities and
citizens stuck with the promise of transit and continued paying into
the system. Our 20 mile light rail starter system has exceeded
everyone's expectations in terms of ridership and economic development.
While developers waited until the system was complete to begin
investments, they are now fully engaged in operating major projects
around many of the systems 23 stations. The starter system cost $860
million and was built on time and on budget. Incidentally, that $860
million includes everything--rails, cars, and a 3 mile tunnel from
downtown Dallas to Mockingbird Lane. The one-cent sales tax paid for 80
percent of the starter system and the Federal transit program paid for
the rest--$160 million.
An additional 23 miles of light rail will be opening this year. The
11.2 miles Northeast Light Rail Extension goes from Dallas to Garland.
The North Central Extension will serve parts of Dallas and Collin
counties by reaching out to Richardson and Plano. The passage in August
2000 of a bond proposal will dramatically accelerate additional light
rail expansion through 2010. Seventy-seven percent of those voting
supported this bond proposal, another example of the broad support the
light rail system has in our community. These two new projects together
cost $992 million of which 66 percent was raised locally. However, I
must emphasize that without the $333 million in Federal new start
funds, we could not have moved ahead.
While economic development followed DART's starter light rail
system, the success of that system made believers out of the
development community. Rather than taking a ``wait and see'' view,
developers have jumped in and have already built a number of projects
adjacent to the two new lines. At Galatyn Park a new 11-story hotel has
been constructed next to the light-rail station and in downtown Plano
high-end apartments with extensive retail space have been opened. To
date, over $1 billion has been invested in private development along
DART's existing and future light rail lines. A University of North
Texas study projects DART's current expansion program and operations
will pump $3.7 billion into the regional economy and support
approximately 32,000 jobs through 2003. Between 1996 and 1998, taxable
values for property near light rail stations were about 25 percent
higher than comparable properties not served by rail. Downtown Dallas
residential and commercial development has experienced an upswing with
the advent of transit.
Rather than being perceived as being in competition with highway
building, these projects complement our highway system in Dallas. The
North Central Line parallels the North Central Expressway where TXDOT
is currently undertaking a huge interchange project known as the High-
Five Project. Our new light rail system is opening at the right time to
give commuters an alternative to the congestion that is inevitably
being created by this large construction project. And that is how we
view transit in Dallas--as a transportation alternative. We do have
plans for the additions to the DART system. The Southeast Line would
extend 10.2 miles to Fair Park and Pleasant Grove, all within Dallas
County, by 2008. The 17.5 mile Northwest Line will go along the I-35
corridor to Denton County by 2008, including a stop at Love Field. A 13
mile branch of this line will go to Las Colinas and on to Dallas-Forth
Worth Airport by 2010. While we will continue our policy of a local
overmatch, we will need Federal funding for both these projects.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to
answer any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR REED
FROM KWAME M. KILPATRICK
Q.1. What lessons his Detroit learned from its People Mover
system that it plans to incorporate into its future transit
plans?
A.1. Detroit is downtown People Mover system has made rail
transit a safe, reliable, efficient, and accessible
transportation option for all of Detroit's citizens. This
light-rail system provides connections between the courts and
administrative offices of several levels of government, sports
arenas, exhibition centers, major hotels, and commercial,
banking and retail districts. Service is frequent, unencumbered
by vehicle or pedestrian traffic, and conveniently available
throughout the central business district. Not only does the
People Mover enhance business development and pedestrian travel
by moving people effectively throughout the City, but it
compliments other forms of public and private transportation as
well.
The Detroit People Mover has also proven to be an
indispensable method of transit during large-scale events,
transporting 35,000 North American International Auto Show
visitors throughout the City and over 13,000 passengers to and
from Joe Louis Arena during Detroit Red Wing hockey games. The
city of Detroit plans to utilize rider data gathered from these
peak passenger times to augment the Detroit People Mover's
services during future large-scale events such as Super Bowl XL
in 2006.
Q.2. Do you see rail or bus service as the priority for
Detroit?
A.2. Efficient light-rail service, when combined with carefully
designed roadways, comprehensive bus services, and clear
traffic and parking policies, comprise a coherent
transportation system. However, a light-rail system cannot be
successful without the integration of these supporting
elements. Detroit is committed to building these key transit
compliments to achieve a fully incorporated transportation
system for the City. The construction of the Detroit Department
of Transportation's (DDOT) Downtown Transportation Center,
which will work directly with the People Mover, will strengthen
its viability as a major transit operator for the City. The
coordination of all transit services, in conjunction with the
Detroit People Mover, will be essential for the achievement of
safe, reliable, efficient, and accessible transportation for
both the citizens of Detroit and visitors to the City from
around the State, the country, and the world.
TEA-21: INVESTING IN OUR ECONOMY AND ENVIRONMENT
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m. in room SD-538 of the
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Jack Reed (Chairman of
the Subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. The Subcommittee will come to order.
I want to welcome the witnesses. This is a very important
panel of business leaders and environmental leaders here to
discuss the critical issues of transit in the United States as
we prepare for the reauthorization next year.
Let me just advise the panel and everyone else that both
Senator Allard and I are engaged in the debate on the national
missile defense which is taking place on the floor which will
begin at 11 a.m. And so, I would ask the witnesses to adhere as
closely as possible to the 5 minute rule in terms of your
presentations. All of your statements will be made part of the
record, so that you can summarize and abbreviate when and if
possible.
Let me introduce the witnesses first, and then they may
begin their testimony.
Mr. Carl Guardino is President and CEO of the Silicon
Valley Manufacturing Group, which represents 190 companies
employing a quarter of a million workers who fuel our Nation's
high-tech sector. Mr. Herschel Abbott is Vice President of
Governmental Affairs for BellSouth. He is here to describe
BellSouth's effort to integrate transit into his company's
relocation efforts. Mr. Robert Broadbent is the Manager of the
Las Vegas Monorail Company, who has years of experience in
transportation and business. Mr. Hank Dittmar is a Board Member
of the Surface Transportation Policy Project, with a wealth of
experience in transportation policy. And Mr. Michael Replogle
is Transportation Director for Environmental Defense. He has
been involved in transportation policy for 25 years.
I know my colleague, Senator Ensign, plans to join us at
some time so that he can also welcome Mr. Broadbent. And my
colleague, Senator Miller, similarly, would like to welcome Mr.
Abbott. When they arrive, we will make sure that happens.
At this point, let me recognize Mr. Guardino for his
testimony.
STATEMENT OF CARL GUARDINO
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SILICON VALLEY MANUFACTURING GROUP
Mr. Guardino. Thank you, Chairman Reed. It is a pleasure to
be here this morning to speak to you from a business
perspective about TEA-21's benefits for economic development,
for my comments about TEA-21's matching requirements, the Act
in general, recommendations on the reauthorization of TEA-21,
and Silicon Valley's future transit needs, all in 5 minutes or
less.
[Laughter.]
By a quick way of reference, the manufacturing group was
formed by David Packard, Co-Founder of the Hewlett Packard
Company back in 1978, as a way for CEO's in Silicon Valley to
get directly and personally involved in the issues that
impacted the economic health of our region, State, and Nation.
But also, equally important, the quality of life of their
employees, their families, and the broader community.
Needless to say, the issues that we focus on that impact
both the economic health and quality of life cover five core
areas, in addition to transportation, affordable homes,
education, the environment, and energy.
As you know from the employers and their employees in your
States, traffic congestion has a direct impact on not only the
quality of life of your constituents, but also on the economic
health of your communities and companies as well.
Each year, I sit down with 95 of the top CEO's in Silicon
Valley and ask them a very simple question: For your company in
Silicon Valley, what are the key issues that impact your
ability to stay healthy and competitive, as an employer? The
top responses, for 5 years running, are traffic relief and
affordable homes.
The reason is clear. In an Information Age Economy, workers
in Silicon Valley and in many of the communities that each of
you represent, workers can work anywhere in the world they
want. And they are only going to choose to work in our States
if we ensure that we have reduced traffic and provide viable
alternatives to the automobile.
It would be easy for me as a business leader to appear
before you to discuss transit and transportation needs and to
not do anything directly about it. At the Manufacturing Group,
we continue to do what we can to put our wallets where our
words are.
In 1984, we led the first countywide effort in California's
58 counties to become a self-help county. That is, a county
that was willing to tax ourselves through a voter-approved
ballot initiative to fund our own improvements. That 10 year,
half-cent sales tax raised $1 billion in local funds and built
three key transportation improvements, all completed on-time
and on-budget.
In 1996, recognizing that additional improvements were
needed, we once again spearheaded a half-cent sales tax, this
time to last for 9 years, which is generating $1.4 billion in
local revenues. That measure, which includes 18 specific
transportation improvements, 65 percent rail transit and 35
percent roads, will be completed, as promised, on-time and on-
budget, by April 2006.
Then in November 2000, we co-led an effort to tax ourselves
with a 30 year, half-cent sales tax for a traffic relief
measure that will generate more than $6 billion in local funds,
for a measure that is 100 percent transit. Santa Clara County
voters passed that initiative by a resounding 72 percent of the
vote.
All told, those three local measures alone will generate
more than $8.4 billion in local transportation funding. It is
important to note that 41 cents of every dollar we raise in
sales tax revenue is paid for by employers. And in a global
marketplace, where our employers cannot pass off those
additional costs to customers, we view these measures not as a
tax, but as an investment in our economies and in our workers'
quality of life.
There are two quick points that I would like to make about
the renewal of TEA-21.
First, please retain the flexibility provisions of the
ISTEA and TEA-21. This has allowed local decisions and local
input about how dollars are spent. In Silicon Valley and the
Bay Area, through our MPO, the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, this has meant the ability to direct dollars to
either greatly needed road improvement, a new rail line, an
enhanced bus system, whatever we needed to meet local needs to
fight congestion.
Second, a quick comment about the New Starts Program. In a
time of limited Federal resources, where you are asked to fund
numerous worthwhile improvements throughout the country, I
would underscore the need to leverage each one of those
taxpayer dollars to the fullest. As I described above, our
region has stepped up to the plate with local funds that well
exceed the minimum 20 percent non-Federal match. We believe
Congress should consider rewarding ``Super Matched'' projects,
such as the Silicon Valley Rapid Rail Corridor in my area with
credit enhancement techniques or other Federal guarantees to
ease project financing. This will also provide an incentive to
other areas around the Nation to step up to the plate as well.
With limited dollars, we need to seek out and reward those
communities that have shown a strong willingness to help
themselves, to partner with you, and to find more local funding
to match Federal funding.
Finally, I am honored that you have asked what improvements
are important to the ongoing success of Silicon Valley and the
Bay Area region. Working through the MTC's 2 year planning
process, the nine county San Francisco Bay Area has developed
an improvement plan that includes top-tier priorities for
Federal funding consideration.
First, our current number one priority is to finish the
greatly anticipated BART or Bay Area Rapid Transit line to San
Francisco International Airport. It is vital to our region's
economy.
As we complete the BART 2 SFO extension, the Bay Area
stands united behind two equally important regional
improvements--both with considerable amounts of matching funds
from the local level.
I will mention just one of these improvements that was
funded through our November 2000, half-cent sales tax, the
Silicon Valley Rapid Rail Corridor, which would bring BART to
Silicon Valley and would eliminate nearly 80,000 automobile
trips every workday. Sixty-one percent of those capital costs
and the ongoing operation funds were funded through that sales
tax measure in November 2000. Seventeen percent more has been
allocated from our State legislature and governor. We have a 78
percent local and State match, seeking 22 percent over the next
10 years in Federal funds.
We hope that with such a considerable overmatch, that we
will look forward to making this improvement a reality within
the next decade.
It is an honor to be here and an honor to forge worthwhile
partnerships like this between the Federal Government, local
and State government, and those of us in the private sector.
Thank you very much for allowing me to speak to you today.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Guardino.
Let me now call upon my colleagues, because I do believe
that they have a word of introduction for their guests.
Let me turn to Senator Ensign, please.
COMMENTS OF SENATOR JOHN ENSIGN
Senator Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
conducting this hearing.
I want to introduce a good friend who we have come to know
over the years, a very talented individual, Bob Broadbent. He
was the Mayor of Boulder City and Clark County Commissioner for
a combined 23 years. He looks a lot younger than that.
Mr. Broadbent was appointed by President Reagan to serve as
the Commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and was
also appointed by President Bush to serve on the Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency. He served on the Board of Governors for the
Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority and was Director of
the Clark County Department of Aviation for 11 years. And
during Bob's tenure as the Director of Aviation for Clark
County, Las Vegas McCarran Airport went from the 23rd to the
10th largest airport in the Nation.
Bob knows just a little bit about construction after
serving at the airport during that time.
Bob's name really is synonymous with calling in the cavalry
in Clark County. The monorail project which he has overseen is
$20 million under-budget and ahead of schedule. This is the
first privately financed public transportation system in the
world.
It is mainly because of Bob's talent that we have been able
to realize this for our community. Bob has some suggestions
about improving the way that we build public transportation
systems. There are too many disincentives for the private
sector to participate in financing public transportation
systems, and I think, Mr. Chairman, that he will add a lot to
the hearing today and, hopefully, will help us improve the
legislation that we are working on.
So thank you for allowing me to interrupt, and I need to
excuse myself.
Thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Ensign.
Senator Miller.
COMMENTS OF SENATOR ZELL MILLER
Senator Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you for holding this hearing.
I wanted to come here just for a few minutes myself and say
how much I appreciate the fact that you have invited a
Southerner to be one of the witnesses in this hearing this
morning. You could not have found a better one.
Mr. Herschel Abbott is, of course, the Vice President of
Governmental Affairs for BellSouth in Atlanta, and before that,
he was in charge of BellSouth's operation in Louisiana.
BellSouth and Mr. Abbott have a wonderful story to tell. I
am sure he will get into it and tell it better than I can. But
we are very proud of what BellSouth has done with what we call
the Atlanta Metro Plan, which has relocated almost 10,000
employees into three new office buildings that have been built
over or near our MARTA transit system. And this has helped
tremendously in reducing commute time, congestion and negative
emissions, car emissions.
And so, I just wanted to come here and listen to my fellow
Georgian, and thank you for having him as a witness.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Miller.
Senator Allard, your comments?
COMMENTS OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to submit
my statement for the record and just make some brief comments
here.
Senator Reed. Without objection.
Senator Allard. I am looking forward to your testimony, Mr.
Broadbent, in particular, your testimony on how we get the
private sector involved in the mass transit system. I also
think that in our mass transit systems, we need to encourage
more local participation, more accountability.
I was glad to hear the comments that your projects are
getting done on time, or ahead of time, on budget schedule.
Those are important parameters and I am going to be looking in
legislation for incentives that encourage more local match,
that would encourage staying on time with your projects and
everything else.
So that is a good start.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Allard.
Mr. Abbott, please.
STATEMENT OF HERSCHEL L. ABBOTT, JR.
VICE PRESIDENT- GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
BELLSOUTH CORPORATION
Mr. Abbott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee.
I am Herschel Abbott. I cannot count the number of times
that I have testified before legislative bodies and
commissions, but this is one of the first times, one of the few
times when I can say that I am really glad to be here because
we have a great story to tell.
At a time when we read all too often about questionable
corporate conduct, I get to tell you that my company,
BellSouth, is a real hero back in Atlanta, a hero that displays
the kind of leadership that Americans expect and deserve from
their corporations.
In Atlanta, BellSouth is relocating and consolidating
approximately 9,800 employees. We are now building three new,
energy
efficient building centers with a total of 2.7 million square
feet to
facilitate that relocation and consolidation. The budget for
that is $750 million of our money. Putting those buildings and
employees on top of or near mass transit, the MARTA in Atlanta,
which is a tremendous partner for us. I will talk about MARTA
in a second.
In cooperation with MARTA, we are building free and secure
parking facilities at MARTA's rail heads, so that our employees
can come in and have a free place to park that is secure and
then get on the MARTA and go to their places of employment.
The process, which is scheduled to be complete in September
2003, will have six major office complexes, all on or near rail
stops, giving our employees the option of taking the rail to
work and the option of traveling between those buildings
without cranking up their cars, because we have a lot of
movement of employees back and forth between the buildings
during the day. Now, they can move back and forth more quickly
without ever getting in their cars. And it will greatly reduce
the number of car trips and we
will have built a model for sustainable business growth in an
urban setting. This is not the first time BellSouth has worked
to create a business in an urban city. In 1980, we built the
first 45-story building in Atlanta over a mass transit
facility, and that is the BellSouth Center. Thirty percent of
the employees in that building ride mass transit.
Let me set the stage for our most recent initiative.
For those of you whose principal experience with Atlanta is
changing planes at Hartsfield Airport, let me tell you that
Atlanta is a clean, vibrant city with friendly people and lush
green suburbs. People tend to like Atlanta. They have been
flocking there since the 1960's. In fact, between 1960 and
2000, Atlanta has not seen a decade's worth of growth where it
grew by less than 27 percent. Growth in the most recent decade,
1990 to 2000, was 39 percent, with metro Atlanta growing by
500,000 people during that decade. The region is home to three
of the Nation's fastest growing counties--Forsyth, Henry, and
Paulding.
Atlantans now have a metropolitan area of approximately 4
million residents and suburbs that stretch almost to Tennessee
in the north, and to Alabama in the west, almost to South
Carolina in the east, and deep into the flatlands of Georgia to
the south.
California is not the only place where people love their
cars. They say that Atlantans would drive from the kitchen to
the bedroom if they could figure out how to get the car in the
house.
[Laughter.]
The growth has taken its toll. Atlantans endure the
Nation's longest commute--unless The Post was right last week,
I think, when they announced that D.C. had, as I recall, the
longest commute. But let me tell you--Atlanta is right up
there, with an average round trip of 34 miles for every person.
They spend 69 hours annually, the equivalent of almost 9
workdays, sitting in traffic.
At the same time, new road projects have been stalled
because the region is too frequently out of compliance with the
Federal Clean Air Act standards, an average between May and
September of 11 days.
Those are the challenges that Atlanta faces.
The challenge BellSouth faced 3\1/2\ years ago was
symptomatic of Atlanta's rapid growth. We had in our employee
population a growth of 22 percent between 1993 and 1999, from
15,000 to 18,000. Like the city, we not only grew, but also we
spread out. Before we created the Atlanta Metro Plan, we had at
least 61 buildings in known facilities. At the completion of
this project, we will have five office projects that stretch
from downtown to the near north side.
When we move into the project when it is completed, we will
have 85 percent of our employees in metro Atlanta working
within walking distance of MARTA, or over MARTA itself.
One of BellSouth's goals is to be a great place to work.
This plan moves us to this goal because it saves employees
time. It saves employees money. It saves wear and tear on the
employee's spirit. It is environmentally sound, and it is at
least a small step in reducing this Nation's demand for oil.
We are very proud of this project. And if I may beg one
moment's indulgence, just let me say about MARTA, what a
wonderful partner they have been. How important it is to the
city of Atlanta that reauthorization go forward. They are in
desperate need of expanding their railheads to the north, to
the west, and those are under study. I cannot think of a more
useful goal to pursue.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Abbott.
Mr. Broadbent.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT BROADBENT
MANAGER, LAS VEGAS MONORAIL COMPANY
Mr. Broadbent. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear
today to share with you our experience in the creation and
implementation of the first truly public-private partnership in
the United States for a modern, urban-grade rail transit
project in Las Vegas.
I want to thank Senator Ensign for his invitation and for
his support of the Las Vegas Monorail project.
After years of planning, our business community became very
frustrated with the traditional model for developing and
financing a Federally-funded rail system. In 1997, the MGM
MIRAGE and Park Place Entertainment hired me to assemble a team
to build such a project.
On September 20, 2000, the team I led closed a $650 million
financing package to build the $400 million backbone of what we
intend to be an 18 mile regional transit system. This first
segment is a 4 mile monorail system with seven stations now
under construction along the Las Vegas strip corridor, an area
of population density equivalent to midtown Manhattan. The
financing for this original segment is entirely private, with
no Government monies needed to fund capital or operating
expenses.
We were able to finance the initial segment of our project
without Government funds. We will still need the active
participation of Government.
Senator Reid provided critical leadership at all stages
along the way and we wish to take this opportunity to thank him
sincerely and to acknowledge his outstanding efforts.
Our Governor, Kenny Guinn, agreed to use a nonprofit
corporation to own and operate the project, appointing its
directors. The Regional Transportation Commission of Southern
Nevada agreed to work with us to ensure the compatibility of
the monorail with its extensive and important CAT bus system.
This project is now owned by a nonprofit corporation, the
Las Vegas Monorail Company, and the initial segment is
scheduled to open in 2004. When it does, it will serve over 20
million passengers in its first year of operation.
Now, in order to finance the important extensions to our
initial backbone segment, our public-private partnership is
working very closely with our new Federal partner--the U.S.
DOT--to obtain a full funding grant agreement to fund less than
17 percent of the cost of the combined system.
We are also working with U.S. DOT to secure next year a
TIFIA loan to leverage the new private-sector resources we are
attracting for extensions. Hopefully, this will permit a
seamless construction of the next phase, an extension, with
huge cost savings. You will not be surprised to hear that we
have been confronted with a number of important Federal
disincentives to attracting private capital, innovation and
initiative, to major rail transit.
For your consideration in reauthorizing TEA-21, I offer the
following recommendations.
The Section 5309 Funding Process. Congress should work with
the FTA to refine the full funding grant agreement process to
facilitate public-private partnerships. But for a conventional
Federally-funded transit project, the time between selection of
a project for a full funding grant agreement and the actual
execution of the contract can take a year or more. In most
cases this is satisfactory because other project activities,
the grantee must perform, keep full funding grant agreement
execution from being on the critical path. In the case of a
public-private partnership, such as that which
we are pursuing for the FTA-funded extensions to the Las Vegas
Monorail, we will be ready to close our project financing and
issue a notice to proceed to our Design-Build contractor
immediately on getting a full funding grant agreement. Thus, a
year delay between full funding grant agreement approval and
execution is an unnecessary delay in delivering the project.
Consider the FTA current requirements of advanced final
design to the greatest extent possible before executing an
FFGA. There is concern that the timing for funding and the
start of design construction will not be compatible for the
monorail. This requirement is certainly not conducive to
minimizing financial risk to the Federal Government.
Under Design-Build, a guaranteed, firm, fixed price is
obtained before final design is completed because detailed
information about utility relocation and land acquisition, the
two biggest unknowns in rail development process, is obtained.
With a properly structured Design-Build contract, with an up-
front guaranteed fixed price, the Federal Government
effectively transfers the financial risk to the contractor.
The NEPA. Congress should make clear that it did not intend
NEPA to prevent the completion of procurement activity ahead of
the issuance of a record of decision. One of the key values of
public-private partnerships is their ability to accelerate
construction. And no one suggests that construction should
commence before a record of decision, but FTA and FHWA are
reading NEPA to prevent the issuance of an RFP, the selection
of a contractor and the award of a contract pending a final
ROD, all actions that have nothing to do with the selection of
a project alternative or even the decision not to build. If an
FTA grantee wishes to use his own funds to move along the
selection of a contractor, to be prepared to move quickly if
the lead agency selects a ``build'' alternative, this is
taking actions in parallel rather than in sequence. This is not
prejudicing the outcome of the NEPA process in any way.
Likewise, current land acquisition regulations prohibit
even private entities from going out and securing land, or even
securing
options for land, that could become part rail projects until
the record for decision for the new start project is obtained
as part of the NEPA process.
The Design-Build and DBOM contracting. Congress should also
continue to encourage Design-Build and Design-Build Operate
Maintain contracting for Federally-funded projects and remove
as many regulatory barriers as possible to State and local
grantee use of innovative procurement processes in their award.
The key to success, as with anything else, is how to use
them. I offer this conclusion from my own perspective, from the
perspective of the monorail's original sponsors, and from the
experience that we are seeing on the ground. Today, the Las
Vegas Monorail is halfway through its 40 month development
process. It is on-time and $20 million ``under'' budget. And
remember, we awarded the DBOM contract in advance of the final
design.
The TIFIA program. Congress should reauthorize the TIFIA
program and refine it to encourage more private investment
projects supported by TIFIA.
I won't go into it in the long part of TIFIA because of
time, but Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to brief
you on the Las Vegas Monorail, and offer my experience and my
suggestions for TEA-21 reauthorization.
The public-private partnerships are not a panacea and will
never justify a reduction in the amounts needed to be
appropriated for surface transportation. There are simply too
many already unfunded needs. They are proving, however, to be
an increasingly valuable tool to supplement available grant
funds and to narrow the gap between needs and resources.
I will be pleased to answer any questions.
Thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Broadbent.
Mr. Dittmar.
STATEMENT OF HANK DITTMAR
PRESIDENT, THE GREAT AMERICAN STATION FOUNDATION
ON BEHALF OF THE
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT
Mr. Dittmar. Chairman Reed and Senator Allard, thank you
for the opportunity to appear today.
I am Hank Dittmar. I am the President of the Great American
Station Foundation. I am appearing here today on behalf of the
Surface Transportation Policy Project, where I serve as a
Member of the Board of Directors. We are a coalition of groups
dedicated to improving transportation policy.
I will try to briefly summarize my testimony, understanding
that you have a difficult time schedule.
First, I want to commend you and the State of Rhode Island,
Mr. Chairman, for the leadership that you have shown in
advancing the principles of ISTEA and TEA-21, and in moving
forward to integrate intercity rail, commuter rail and aviation
through the project at the T.F. Green Station at the airport.
This kind of project and this kind of leadership by a State
really exemplifies the kind of inter-governmental, inter-modal
partnership that we need to put together to help our Nation
travel into the next century.
That said, I want to focus on transit's benefits for
economic development for transit users in the business
community.
Michael Replogle, who is a member of our coalition, will
focus on the energy and environmental benefits.
I would make seven key points.
First, transit ridership is growing and this growth
reflects its increasing value to the transit user. What we have
seen in the last couple of years is record ridership increases
in transit with growth in big cities like New York of 2.9
percent, Los Angeles of 16 percent, but also growth in our
medium-size cities, like 11.7 percent in Albuquerque, 6.7
percent in Providence, 7.7 percent in Denver, 5 percent in
Boise City, Idaho, or 16 percent in Oklahoma City.
Clearly, what is happening is not confined to the
traditional transit cities of the northeast and the west coast.
It is really a national phenomenon. And I think that tells us
something important about transit, which is that people are
valuing the option that it provides to leave the automobile at
home, at least part of the time. It is really not about the
automobile or transit. It is about the additional choices that
are afforded to consumers by having transit available for
trips.
Second, I believe the demand for transit is only going to
grow in the coming decades. The 2000 census results show us
that household size is shrinking. We have more households of
empty-nesters, singles, and nonfamily residents. The
traditional nuclear family that made up 40 percent of
households in 1970 is now less than 24 percent. This, along
with immigration, bode well for transit's gains in the future.
Third, access to transit has become a key factor in
corporate location decisions. Jones Lang LaSalle found that 77
percent of New Economy companies rated access to mass transit
as an extremely important factor in making corporate location
decisions.
Fourth, development near transit is seen as a sound
investment choice. PricewaterhouseCoopers emerging trends in
real estate advised investors this year: Markets served with
mass transportation alternatives and attractive close-in
neighborhoods should be positioned to sustain better long-term
prospects as people strive to make their lives more convenient.
Fifth, transit provides a substantial economic benefit to
the user, enabling them perhaps to not have that third car,
that fourth car, in some neighborhoods, the second car, saving
a good part of the cost of car ownership and making that
available.
Sixth, wealth-creating activities, such as homeownership.
Fannie Mae and others are pursuing now transit-efficient
mortgages which recognize the savings to be gained from living
in transit-rich neighborhoods and using that income to enable
people to buy homes.
Seventh, transit spurs development. Transit-oriented
development, we are completing a study in Arlington County,
Virginia, which found that the county has captured over 13
million square feet of office space and 2 million square feet
of retail in the corridor along the metro station and that that
corridor generates 33 percent of the county's real estate tax
on 7 percent of the land.
That said, I would like to summarize briefly a few issues
that our coalition believes that you should consider in the
reauthorization.
First, that this Committee, with joint jurisdiction over
housing and transit, could begin to look at the linkages
between affordable housing and transit. The States of
California and Maryland have acted to give priority to projects
near transit, in allocating their share of low-income housing
tax credits, enabling low-income people to walk to transit
instead of own cars.
Second, we believe you should treat transit the same as
highways. If you are considering changing the match for new
starts and new transit capacity, then this should be
accompanied with a change in the match for new highway capacity
as well, treating them the same.
Third, we believe there needs to be established a new
transit
innovation initiative, patterned after the service and methods
demonstration program, which looks at transit service
innovations, including public-private partnerships, evaluates
them and creates transferable results for importation to other
areas.
Fourth, we believe the job access and reverse commute
program can be improved by increasing its focus on replacement
jobs within core urban areas served by transit and improving
transit to those areas.
Fifth, we believe that there are a number of things that
can be done to enable transit-oriented development, by
loosening up regulations that have prevented public-private
partnerships to emerge around stations and perhaps finance
transit facilities.
Last, we believe that the Committee should exercise its
joint jurisdiction with the Environment and Public Works
Committee over the planning and project selections of TEA-21,
adjusting metropolitan planning organizations to reflect the
changed realities of the 2000 census, and moving to use new
decision support tools to integrate alternative scenarios into
transportation corridor studies.
I want to thank you for offering me the opportunity to be
here today and I will await any questions.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Dittmar.
Mr. Replogle, please.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. REPLOGLE
TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE
Mr. Replogle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to talk today about the environmental benefits of
transit. I think the accomplishments of this Committee and its
leadership in showing that transit can produce positive
benefits for the environment are quite remarkable.
We have done a lot since TEA-21 was passed. Transit
ridership is hitting record levels. And with that, we are
taking record numbers of cars off of our roads to cut
greenhouse gas emissions to help protect public health from
criteria pollutants.
We need to do more as we look to TEA-21 reauthorization to
build on these successes to guarantee additional funding for
transit investments that help clean up the air, and to help our
communities deal with other health risks related to
transportation, such as the recent research that shows that
cancer risks of those living close to major highways with high
traffic volumes are at unacceptable levels. Transit can help us
avoid and mitigate some of those cancer risk problems as well.
As we look forward, we see that, despite the progress on
clean air, that we still have a growing number of Americans
living in areas with unhealthy air quality. In fact, the
numbers jump by almost 50 percent as we adopt a new national
ambient air quality standard and recognize that the health
science shows that more Americans are living in places where
the air is not healthy to breathe. We have seen new links
showing that high ozone levels actually cause asthma in
children who exercise more.
These are some very troubling health problems that transit
investments can help us deal with.
Climate change is another growing problem. Twenty-eight
percent of all of the climate change emissions come from
transportation. Transit has a huge role to play here. Full
buses are six times more efficient than cars. Full rail cars
are 15 times more efficient than the typical commuter's
automobile.
For every 10,000 solo commuters who leave their cars at
home and commute on transit for a year, we cut our fuel
consumption by 2.7 million gallons. While intercity rail
carries only about 1 percent of all passenger miles traveled by
Americans, it accounts for only one-tenth of a percent of our
energy consumption for transportation. Protecting Amtrak and
investing in more high-speed, intercity rail needs to be part
of our agenda to protect the environment.
Public transportation as a whole is cutting our gasoline
use in America by more than 1\1/2\ billion gallons a year and
preventing the emission of 63,000 tons of hydrocarbons and
78,000 tons of nitrogen oxides. These do not even count the
benefits that we get because transit supports alternative
patterns of living where people can live in buildings and
neighborhoods that use less energy. Research shows that
transit-supported compact developments use 10 percent to 30
percent less overall energy compared to low-density sprawl
development.
We have success stories all over the country.
Just to pick one, the city of Denver is doing some really
stunning work in making transit work to revitalize cities and
communities like the old Englewood Mall, which was a few years
ago a dead and dying suburban mall; now it has been reborn as a
mixed-use urban center.
We are seeing transit use go way up, far greater than
ridership projections, in Denver and many other cities. To
enable transit to do the best job possible we need to make sure
that we are getting good accountability for how the money gets
spent under all of our transportation programs.
ISTEA and TEA-21 created new systems for planning, for
managing, and for monitoring the performance of transportation.
And with those systems, we are able to better look at and
anticipate these impacts.
Communities are finding that transit investments are often
the best way to accommodate mobility and meet air quality and
other goals. There is a risk that environmental streamlining
proposals proposed by some could undermine this important
accountability and undermine our investments in transit and our
choices and the information needed to make wise choices for
communities.
In closing, I think we need to be looking particularly to
increase funding available for the Congestion Mitigation Air
Quality program (CMAQ) in the reauthorization to account for
the increased population living in nonattainment areas. We
should not be undercutting the pollution reduction programs
funded by CMAQ by holding that program constant.
I note that there is a lot more that we can do as well with
incentives, like enhancing commuter choice options, that
encourage employers, as BellSouth has done, to provide transit
benefits to employees to help cut traffic and to help leverage
more private investment to support transit operations.
Thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Replogle, for your
excellent testimony. And I want to thank all the witnesses for
their testimony. I assume we will have about 20 minutes before
we have to get to the floor. So, you have allowed us sufficient
time to ask questions, and I thank you for that also.
Let me begin.
Mr. Replogle, you have done extensive research and there is
a question that always comes up with respect to transit--is it
over-subsidized compared to other modes of transportation? Do
you have a conclusion based upon your research?
Mr. Replogle. Yes. In all of the research that I have done
on this we can see that all motorized modes of transportation
have substantial subsidies in our society and, in fact, across
much of the world. Transit is not over-subsidized. In fact, I
think when one looks at the total costs of all the different
modes of transportation, we find that our highway system
actually only covers about 60 or 65 percent of the cost of
operating and maintaining that system out of taxpayer dollars.
There are a lot of hidden subsidies in all of our systems
of transportation financing. In order for transit to compete
against all of these subsidies, we have to provide a sound base
for public support for transit. And we should sustain and
expand that support.
Senator Reed. Thank you. One other question. You have
mentioned the tax incentives, commuter choice, I think one
particular one. Which steps should we take when it comes to tax
policy to help reduce congestion and environmental adverse
impacts?
Mr. Replogle. Well, I think there is more that Congress can
do to support commuter choice, encouraging employers to pay for
the transit benefits for employees and to offer cash in lieu of
parking incentives that can help level the playing field when
commuters consider how to get to work.
There are three bills that have been introduced in
Congress. One would raise the tax-exempt benefit for employee
commute benefits for transit to be equal to that for parking
benefits. Right now, parking still gets a preferential benefit
of $180 a month, where transit is capped at $100 a month tax
benefit. This harms people who use commuter rail and other more
expensive forms of transit.
A second bill would extend Federal tax credits to employers
who pay for transit benefits, building on the successful model
of half a dozen States, such as Maryland, that offers a 50
percent tax credit for employers who pay for transit benefits
for their employees.
The third bill would extend commuter choice benefits to
bicycle commuters, rewarding employers who offer bicycle
benefits to their employees who choose to peddle to work. I
think we can also go beyond that and recognize additional
incentives like Maryland has done for cash in lieu of parking
incentives, which right now are taxable income. This inhibits a
lot of employers from offering a $2 to $3 a day nontaxable
incentive for commuters willing to give up a parking space.
Studies in Southern California and Minnesota show that
where such incentives are offered, on average, 1 out of 8
commuters who now drive to work find another way to get to work
and take that money, switching to car pools, transit, walking,
or biking. It is a very cost-effective way.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much. I am going to try to
work my way down the panel as my time allows.
Mr. Dittmar, you mentioned several initiatives that we
could undertake. You also mentioned the growing ridership on
transit. Let me ask you, in your view, what is the most
important single thing we can do to encourage this ridership
increase as we reauthorize TEA-21?
Mr. Dittmar. I think the ridership growth is driven, as I
said, by demographic factors. But it is also driven by the
increasing availability, convenience, and attractiveness of
transit.
So continuing to invest in growing transit systems, both
through New Starts, rail and rapid bus, but also in investing
in and encouraging existing systems to improve the headways and
convenience of existing systems is critical.
If you have to wait half an hour for a bus on a road, it is
less likely that you will use it, than if the bus arrives
frequently enough that you do not have to refer to a schedule.
The third thing relates to the commuter choice piece that
Michael was talking about. I think it is very important to
integrate, to make transit more attractive for the user by
simplifying the fare structures and making it easier for people
to get access to these commuter choice benefits. And sadly, I
think a lot of transit agencies have not really moved with
alacrity into offering the commuter choice programs in an
employer- or employee-friendly manner.
A move to encourage smart cards and other fare medium that
are easily portable and not complicated, I think, would get a
lot more people on transit.
The Committee, I think, could craft legislation to
encourage transit operators to do more in this area.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Dittmar.
Let me for the moment defer my questions until the second
round, if time is available.
We have been joined by Senator Dodd. I don't know if you
would like to make an opening statement now, Senator Dodd.
COMMENTS OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD
Senator Dodd. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just move
along. I apologize. We had a hearing and mark-up downstairs in
the Labor Committee dealing with some cancer issues that we are
trying to grapple with. And I apologize for not being here
earlier.
Thank you for today's hearing, and I thank our witnesses as
well for their testimony. I have a question or two when it gets
to the appropriate time. This is extremely worthwhile and it is
a very good use of the Subcommittee's time. I think this is the
third hearing we have had in this area, to really help us build
a body of evidence here as we approach these issues.
Just the one observation, Mr. Chairman, because we are
dealing with this Amtrak issue and trying to resolve what to do
about it.
We lurch from crisis to crisis. As someone pointed out to
me the other evening, we have spent roughly $500 billion of
taxpayer's money to subsidize the infrastructure of automobiles
over the last 40, 45 years. We have spent $25 billion in the
last 35 years on passenger rail service subsidy. Just no
comparison.
The idea in a society as complex as ours that we somehow
expect one system of transportation to be operating in the
black on its own, and every other form of transportation to
receive public support for its maintenance and well-being, is
ludicrous in the 21st Century.
This is going to be a very important debate we are about to
enter into. But I suspect and I hear voices like our friend and
colleague from Colorado, for instance. This is no longer a
coastal question of east coast/west coast, but mass transit
issues are now becoming important in centers all across the
country, as he has pointed out in his own State. This is going
to be a very important discussion and debate and you are
contributing to it by your presence here.
Thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Dodd.
Senator Allard, please.
Senator Allard. Thank you.
Mr. Dittmar, maybe you are the one to answer this question.
Do you happen to have any idea of what capacity of mass
transit--taking the total capacity of mass transit in America,
do we have any idea which percentage of that is being utilized?
Mr. Dittmar. I would be happy to try to get back to you
with an answer on that.
Senator Allard. Yes, I would like to have it.
Mr. Dittmar. I do not want to answer off the top of my
head.
Senator Allard. And I would be interested to know which
areas are under-utilized and which areas might be over-
utilized. I think that would be helpful to the Committee, if
you could get that kind of information.
Mr. Dittmar. It is interesting. I also think that there is
this new phenomenon that people have been talking about called
the Tipping Point. And I think that that really does apply to
mass transit and to Amtrak, that you have to, to achieve
success, you have to get enough service out there that people
can count on. In many places, we are offering lifeline service
that is under-utilized and do not have funds to get to the
point where we can offer enough service to really begin to give
people what they can count on.
And so, I think a question such as yours may help us get at
that point as well.
Senator Allard. Okay. Then, Mr. Broadbent, I was interested
in your comments on the public-private relationship and to what
is called the Design-Build approach and the problems that you
ran into there, because we have a Design-Build project in
Colorado, in Denver. It is a multimodal system highway and mass
transit train.
Mr. Broadbent. Right.
Senator Allard. If I understood your comments, there was
the delay in getting through the paperwork. You apply for
funding, you get your loan, and that is costing you money every
day that that gets delayed and you want to see that speeded up.
Environment protection assessment, the NEPA process, was a
concern to you. Land acquisition and also TIFIA. You wanted us
to continue with TIFIA. Now on the land acquisition, you said
that you wanted to have that easier to acquire the land. Does
that mean that you want the right of eminent domain?
Mr. Broadbent. No. At the present time, we have been
selected by our MPO, the regional transportation commission, to
extend the monorail downtown. We are in the final process of an
EIS on that project. And until we get a ROD, we know where the
route is going. We have chosen the route. It has also gone
through the public hearing processes. Those are all done. We
would like to be able to go option some of that land before the
price goes sky-high.
We know the land--we do not need much because we are on
public highway. But right now, we are prevented from going and
even talking to owners of property until after we get a record
of decision. So it is costly to us and it is costly to the
Government.
If we are willing to do it at our own risk--now maybe we
option it too high and the Federal Government won't pay that
much. Well, that is our risk.
Senator Allard. You are paying for the full thing.
Mr. Broadbent. We are going to put two-thirds--in our
project to go downtown, two-thirds of the money is coming from
private investments, one-third from the Federal Government. So
if we are willing to risk that money, we should be able to do
it.
Senator Allard. Give you more flexibility.
Mr. Broadbent. And save money.
Senator Allard. We might look at an incentive system of
public-private cooperation. If we are going to go more to the
public side, we need to put some incentives in there so that
cities and individuals like yourself will look more seriously
at the private alternatives. Is that correct?
Also, the first part you talked about--was it Section
53409? I cannot remember.
Mr. Broadbent. Section 5309.
Senator Allard. Section 5309. Specifically, what was the
concerns you had with that Section?
Mr. Broadbent. There are a number of concerns we have. It
is the Federal funding and it is the timing of the Federal
funding.
We will get a record of decision on our environmental
impact statement probably by December. Under normal
circumstances, it takes you a year to get a full-funding grant
agreement.
In December, when we get our ROD, we will already have a
guaranteed fixed price. We already have contracts ready to be
entered into to Design-Build the facility, and we have to wait
a year to get a full funding grant agreement so we can sell
bonds and do it. It is just the timing. They need to compress
that time and give us the authority to do it.
Senator Allard. Mr. Abbott, on Atlanta, how long have you
had your mass transit system?
Mr. Abbott. I am not certain how long MARTA has been there.
It has been there at least 10 years, but it has continued to
grow.
Senator Allard. A relatively new system.
Mr. Abbott. It is a new system.
Senator Allard. And you are looking at extending those
lines out to those subdivision areas that are growing. Is that
what you are looking at?
Mr. Abbott. It has been extended once. It is generally a
north-south, east-west pattern in the city. They have made a Y
off the north pattern and now they are looking at extending the
northern and western routes.
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired. I
do have a number of other questions I wanted to ask, but
because of our time limit, I would like to submit these
questions, and if they could respond back to the Subcommittee,
I would appreciate that.
Senator Reed. Let me just generally announce that the
record will remain open until next Wednesday for questions or
additional material that you might want to provide to the
Subcommittee for this hearing.
At this point, let me recognize Senator Dodd for questions.
Senator Dodd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, I thank
all of you for being here. This is very important. I thank the
Chairman for conducting the hearing. It is refreshing and it
gives us an opportunity to look at a broad range of impacts,
both positive and negative that, obviously, transportation has
on our communities.
In my view, transit is an absolutely critical part of any
solution obviously to our transportation questions. Mr.
Dittmar, you have given us some good data and trendlines, which
are encouraging, I think. And the last point you made in
response to Senator Allard about having a predictable, reliable
alternative transit does an awful lot. It is the
unpredictability of it that really does contribute to a lot of
under-usage, I suspect. If we could solidify that point, I
think you can see what can happen when that occurs.
So much of this is important. You really cannot talk about
communities improving it all unless there is a better
coordination at the State and local level.
I have three quick questions for you.
One, whether we should be giving FTA any new authorities? I
would be curious about what your views might be on that.
Then, we looked at the transportation issues of some
agencies under the medical transportation programs at Health
and Human Services. I am told that there is more of a resource
allocation there than at FTA, and that one of the costs of
Medicare we are looking at is transportation.
I don't think there has been any good auditing of this to
give us some idea of where our dollars are being spent in areas
where we could vastly improve the cost and effectiveness of
these programs on an issue like that.
And then, whether or not there are any opportunities to
focus Federal efforts to improve our ability to work with State
and local governments, is my third question.
Mr. Dittmar, wherever you want to start.
Mr. Dittmar. Well, I indicated in my testimony a couple of
new authorities need to be given to FTA. In particular, we need
to authorize them or provide them with more flexibility to
allow their grantees to undertake public-private partnerships
around transit stations. In particular, a number of places
where people have tried to do affordable housing projects on
land that was purchased originally for parking, but no longer
needed, or other housing projects.
Current regulations only allow them to do that under a
ground lease, and there is no ability to--which prevents
public-private financing if it is difficult to finance projects
off of a ground lease.
So there needs to be some authority there.
I think you hit the nail on the head, Senator, with respect
not only to medical transportation, but also social service and
senior, and transportation in general.
Senator Dodd. I just mentioned medical as an example. That
is one that seems rather egregious to me.
Mr. Dittmar. In my career, I have been in a number of
positions with Government where we have tried to actually
coordinate those kinds of transportation systems with the
public transit systems.
Typically, they get grants to buy vehicles that are under-
utilized. They subsidize them on a per-trip basis four to five
to six times the amount that a transit user is subsidized, and
are unwilling to mix their clientele with public transit
clienteles.
I have worked with the FTA and HHS at the Federal level. At
the State level, in the State of California, with the
Department of Human Services and have had real resistance from
those agencies in even telling us how much money that they are
spending on transportation.
I believe this is another area where you need to provide a
stick, but it is going to be a difficult one because you are
crossing some jurisdictional boundaries in terms of asking for
the information. But I would be happy to work with you on that.
Senator Dodd. I would be very interested, Mr. Chairman, if
we could get some ideas specifically on how we might do it. I
think it is one of these areas that we could really have some
cost savings and expanded use of transit and save some real
dollars in the process. I would be very interested in where you
have had some better experiences and how you worked it out, how
did it happen? What was done?
Mr. Dittmar. We can certainly collect that. As to your
final question, the State and local partnership, I think we
have a situation where transit agencies and transit starts are
increasingly financed by local agency partners.
In some States--Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Maryland--
are the key examples, the transit agencies are actually State
agencies. In most cases, the States finance highways and local
agencies finance public transit. And trying to get those
ownership biases out of the system is indeed a big challenge
for us as we move forward. It really depends on the
metropolitan planning process, and you have jurisdiction there.
Senator Dodd. Mr. Guardino.
Mr. Guardino. Thank you, Senator Dodd. Three quick points
on your last question about how we can leverage Federal with
State and local matches.
Senator Dodd. Yes.
Mr. Guardino. First, recognize and reward the super-matches
to leverage scarce Federal dollars. Second, incent transit that
is linked with appropriate land uses that will maximize that
investment of taxpayer dollars. And third, retain TEA-21's
flexibility for local decisionmakers to best address local
needs, so that we can invest in transit with TEA-21 dollars.
Senator Dodd. Mr. Broadbent.
Mr. Broadbent. Senator Dodd, I think that, in our case, we
already have good cooperation. In Nevada, we have good
cooperation with local government and with the State. What we
do not have is the ability to fund a Design-Build like we are
doing, and that is a matter of changing the FTA's authority.
The authority only recognizes the standard way of building
projects--preliminary engineering, final engineering, go out to
bid.
With our project, with 5, 10 percent of design, we actually
got a fixed price, a Design-Build contract, an O&M contract,
sold bonds, and we are ready to go ahead and build. And that
authority is there under the Federal Government, but it is
really burdensome.
Senator Dodd. Yes. Good point.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Replogle. I would just like to address the last
question that you offered.
We are hearing a lot of complaints from some quarters about
the delays in the project review process and the need to
streamline all of that. I think we can do a much more effective
job with that, and it is being done in some States by better
integrating transportation planning with natural resource
planning and growth management and land-use planning at the
State, regional, and local levels, and seeking to better
harmonize those efforts.
Many of the problems of project delays are caused by a lack
of consensus at the local level on what it is that needs to be
done or a lack of local funding match.
A lot of the consensus problems can be dealt with by better
involving the public and resource agencies early and
effectively in the planning process, so that you can head off
the really negative adverse impacts early before you get well
down the line and then find that they cause delays because you
have to go back and fix things that should have been avoided in
the first place.
I believe one thing that you just might want to consider is
to strengthen the metropolitan planning process that was set up
by ISTEA, and perhaps establish a State planning organization
and process to coordinate transportation, land-use, natural
resource, and growth management policies and to seek better
harmonization.
Senator Dodd. That is what we have done in Connecticut. It
is working fairly well. We are a small State. Obviously, in
Hanover, it has worked very well. John Roland, our Governor,
and others have really worked very hard to have more of a State
plan and look at it that way.
Mr. Replogle. Yes. I think Oregon has perhaps done the best
job of integrating these things.
Senator Dodd. Have they?
Mr. Replogle. Yes, Senator Dodd, especially with the ``Land
Use Transportation Air Quality (LUTRAQ) 2040 Plan process and
with the Willamette Valley process that is looking at the
Interstate 5 corridor.
Senator Dodd. Good suggestion.
Thank you all.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Dodd.
Again, I want to thank all the witnesses for their
excellent testimony. I have additional questions, but I think
the best way to do this is to submit them to the relevant
witnesses and ask that you respond prior to next Wednesday, or
at your earliest convenience.
This has been our third hearing. It was insightful about
the many different issues we have to face when it comes to
reauthorizing the TEA-21 legislation.
Thank you very much.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Prepared statements, response to written questions, and
additional material supplied for the record follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
I would like to thank the Chairman for convening this hearing. This
is the third hearing in our series on TEA-21 reauthorization, and I
appreciate his leadership. We have heard from excellent panels
representing a variety of viewpoints, and their perspectives will be
helpful as we sit down to write a bill.
TEA-21 has been a tremendous success. It has provided a good
framework, and I am hopeful that we can continue its successes, along
with added improvements. All across the country people have new or
improved access to mass transit options. I look forward to the
opportunity to continue that momentum.
Today's witnesses should have a great deal to add to the
Subcommittee's TEA-21 body of knowledge. I am particularly interested
in hearing from Mr. Broadbent about his experiences in Las Vegas. While
many people cite the need for increased mass transit, few will come to
the table with a signed check. That is exactly what has happened in Las
Vegas. I am intrigued to see what we can learn from this
example to create more public-private partnerships.
I also look forward to hearing from our other witnesses. I know
that they all care deeply about mass transit and will have a great deal
to add to the Subcommittee's dialogue. Thank you all for being here
today. I believe that TEA-21 reauthorization will be one of the most
important things to come out of this Committee in the near future, and
your participation is helpful.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to continuing our examination of TEA-
21.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON S. CORZINE
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this latest hearing on
reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century--
TEA-21, and I would like to join you in welcoming our witnesses.
Mr. Chairman, as the Banking Committee continues its work on the
reauthorization of TEA-21, it is clear that we need to do as much as
possible to help get people off our crowded roads. Just this week, we
saw another indication of how traffic in the United States is getting
worse: The Texas Transportation Institute issued its most recent
traffic congestion survey of our Nation's urban areas and found that in
the year 2000, urban drivers across the country sat in rush hour
traffic for an average of 62 hours. That was up from 60 hours in 1999
and 16 hours in 1982.
Sixty-two hours a year, Mr. Chairman. For the New York metropolitan
area, which includes northern New Jersey's commuters, this delay was
greater: 73 hours a year. All this traffic congestion cost our Nation
billions in lost productivity. It also caused increased levels of air
pollution from all those cars stopped in traffic.
Mr. Chairman, as we consider today the return to our economy and
environment from our investment in mass transit, we have clear evidence
of how important it is to not only continue our commitment to help fund
existing mass transit projects but to also increase it as well. We need
not only to help maintain our Nation's mass transit infrastructure but
also to create new opportunities for commuters, whether they are by
bus, rail, or ferry.
I would also like to take a moment to discuss the problems facing
Amtrak. The Administration is playing a high stakes game of chicken
with Amtrak. We only have days before it shuts down. The Administration
needs to work with Congress to provide the $205 million in funding for
Amtrak to survive. If Amtrak shuts down, this would be a catastrophe
for New Jersey's mass transit riders: 82,000 daily commuters--over
three-fourths of New Jersey Transit's rail passengers--would have to
find another way to work. That is because many of New Jersey Transit's
lines share the infrastructure with the Northeast Corridor.
I call upon the Administration now to support efforts to include
$205 million in funding for Amtrak in the Supplemental Appropriations
legislation pending in the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you to develop
legislation that continues to provide State, city, and local transit
agencies with a stable guaranteed source of mass transit funding. Thank
you for holding this hearing and I am looking forward to hearing from
our witnesses.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARL GUARDINO
President and Chief Executive Officer
Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group
June 26, 2002
Chairman Reed and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for your
kind invitation for me to speak before you, from a business
perspective, about TEA-21's benefits for economic development and the
business community, and for my comments on TEA-21's matching
requirements, the Act in general, recommendations on the
reauthorization of TEA-21, and Silicon Valley's future transit needs.
Background of SVMG
By way of background, the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group was
formed in 1978 by David Packard, Co-Founder of Hewlett Packard, as a
way for CEO's and Senior Executives to get directly and proactively
involved in issues of importance to the economic health of Silicon
Valley, and the quality of life of their employees.
Today, the SVMG represents 190 of Silicon Valley's most respected,
private sector employers, who collectively provide 275,000 local jobs,
or nearly one of every four private sector jobs in all of Silicon
Valley. Needless to say, these numbers do not include the jobs these
companies provide around the entire State, our Nation, and world. It
focuses on five core issues: Transportation, affordable homes,
education, the environment, and energy.
Business Perspective on Traffic Relief
As you all know from the employers and their employees in your
States, traffic congestion has a direct impact on not only the quality
of life of your constituents, but on the economic health of our
communities as well.
In making that statement, I want to provide you with more than an
anecdote. Each year, as CEO of the Manufacturing Group, I sit down for
one-on-one visits with 95 of the top CEO's in Silicon Valley, and ask a
simple question: For your company, here in Silicon Valley, what are the
key issues that impact your ability to stay healthy and competitive, as
an employer. The top responses, for 5 years in a row, are traffic
relief and affordable homes.
The reason is clear--in an Information Age Economy, workers in
Silicon Valley and in many of the communities each of you represent,
workers can work anywhere in the world they like. They will only choose
to work in our States if we ensure that we have reduced traffic, and
provide viable alternatives to the automobile.
Local Actions--Deeds Louder Than Words
It would be easy for me to appear before you to discuss transit
needs but to not do anything about it. At the Manufacturing Group, we
continue to do what we can to put our wallets where our words are.
In 1984, we led the countywide effort in California to become a
self-help county--that is, a county that was willing to tax themselves,
through a voter approved ballot initiative, to fund improvements
ourselves. That 10 year, half cent sales tax raised $1 billion in local
funds, and built three key transportation improvements, which were
completed on-time and on-budget.
In 1996, recognizing that additional improvements were needed, we
once again spearheaded a half-cent sales tax, this time to last for 9
years, which would generate $1.4 billion. That measure, which includes
18 improvements--65 percent rail transit and 35 percent roads, will be
completed, as promised, by the deadline in April 2006.
In November 2000, we co-led an effort to tax ourselves with a 30
year, half-cent sales tax, for a traffic relief measure that will
generate more than $6 billion in local funds, for a measure that is 100
percent transit. Santa Clara County voters passed that initiative by a
resounding 72 percent of the vote.
All told, those three measures alone will generate more than $8.4
billion in local funding. It is important to note that 41 cents of
every dollar we raise in sales tax revenue is paid for by employers. In
a global marketplace, where our employers cannot pass off those
additional costs to customers, we view these measures not as a tax, but
as an investment in our economy and in our workers.
Feedback on TEA-21 Renewal
There are two key points I would like to make about the renewal of
TEA-21.
First, retain the Flexibility provisions of ISTEA and TEA-21. This
has allowed local decisions and local input about how dollars are
spent. In Silicon Valley and the Bay Area, through our MPO--the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission--this has meant the ability to
direct dollars to a greatly needed road improvement, or a new rail
line, or an enhanced bus system. That flexibility is key to areas
throughout our States, especially urban and suburban areas that need as
many tools in the toolkit as possible.
Second, the New Starts Program. In a time of limited Federal
resources, where you are asked to fund numerous worthwhile improvements
throughout the country, I would underscore the need to leverage each
one of those taxpayer dollars to the fullest. As I described above, our
region has stepped up to the plate with local funds that well exceed
the minimum 20 percent non-Federal match. We believe that the Congress
should consider rewarding ``Super Matched'' projects, such as the
Silicon Valley Rapid Rail Corridor in my area with credit enhancement
techniques or other Federal guarantees to ease project financing. This
will also provide an incentive to other areas around the Nation to step
up to the plate as well. With limited dollars, we need to seek out and
reward those communities that have shown a strong willingness to help
themselves, to partner with you, and to find funding to match
Federal funding.
Improvements for Silicon Valley
Finally, I am honored that you have asked what improvements are
important for the ongoing success of Silicon Valley and the Bay Area
region. Working through the MTC's 2 year planning process, the nine
county San Francisco Bay Area has developed an improvement plan known
as MTC Resolution Number 3434 that includes top-tier priorities for
Federal funding consideration.
First, our current Number One priority is to finish the greatly
anticipated BART (or Bay Area Rapid Transit) line to San Francisco
International Airport. It is vital to our region's economy, and we
stand together with the rest of the region in support of this important
improvement.
As we complete the BART to SFO extension, the Bay Area stands
united behind two equally important regional improvements--both with
considerable amounts of matching funds from the local level. These two
improvements are the Silicon Valley Rapid Rail Corridor, bringing BART
from the East Bay to Silicon Valley, and the Third Street light rail
project in downtown San Francisco. Let me briefly expand on the
improvement closer to home.
The Silicon Valley Rapid Rail Corridor, bringing BART to Silicon
Valley, would ease traffic congestion into and out of Silicon Valley,
and will take nearly 80,000 travelers out of their cars on a daily
basis. Underscoring the region's desire to build this improvement, our
November 2000 sales tax measure will fund 61 percent of the capitol
costs, along with ongoing operations costs, with roughly $3 billion
local dollars. Working with our Governor and State Legislature, we have
secured another 17 percent of the funds from the State. We come to you
with 78 percent in local and State funds, seeking-- over the next 10
years-- only 22 percent in Federal funds.
We hope this significant overmatch shows our commitment to traffic
relief for workers in Silicon Valley and the Bay Area, and we look
forward to making this improvement a reality.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thanks again for your
time and attention. It is an honor to be here, and an honor to forge
worthwhile partnerships like this between the private and public
sectors.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HERSCHEL L. ABBOTT, JR.
Vice President- Governmental Affairs, BellSouth Corporation
June 26, 2002
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am Herschel Abbott,
Vice President-Governmental Affairs for BellSouth. I spent most of my
life practicing law but now I am a recovering lawyer and I direct
BellSouth's legislative and regulatory presence in Washington. I cannot
count the number of times I have testified before various commissions
or lawmaking bodies, but I can tell you this is one of the times when I
am delighted to be here.
At a time when you cannot open the morning paper without fresh
evidence of corporate misdeeds, I get to sit here and tell you that my
company, BellSouth, is a hero back in its hometown of Atlanta, Georgia;
a hero of the leadership that Americans expect and deserve from
business.
In Atlanta, BellSouth's headquarters city, BellSouth is:
<bullet> Relocating and consolidating approximately 9,800 employees.
<bullet> Building three new, energy efficient business centers with a
total of more than 2.7 million square feet to facilitate that
relocation and consolidation. The estimated budget for that
construction is $750 million.
<bullet> Putting those buildings and employees on top of or near mass
transit rail stops.
It is a process scheduled to be complete in September 2003. When it
is complete, BellSouth will:
<bullet> Have six major office complexes all on or near rail stops,
giving many of its employees the option of taking rail to work and
many more the option of traveling between buildings without
cranking their cars.
<bullet> Greatly reduce the number of car trips generated by its
employees during the
critical workday hours, when air quality deteriorates rapidly.
<bullet> Successfully built a model for sustainable business growth in
an urban setting.
In fact, BellSouth's effort is the continuation of a longstanding
commitment to urban development, going all the way back to 1980 when
the company built the 45 story BellSouth Center, the first office
building in Atlanta with a mass transit station underneath. Thirty
percent of our employees there ride public transportation.
But now let me briefly set the stage for our more recent
initiative.
For those of you whose only experience of Atlanta is changing
planes at Hartsfield Airport, let me tell you that Atlanta is a clean,
vibrant city with friendly people and lush green suburbs. People tend
to like Atlanta. They have been flocking there since the 1960's. In
fact, between 1960 and 2000, Atlanta has not seen a decade where it
grew by less than 27 percent. Growth in the most recent decade, 1990 -
2000, was 39 percent, with metro Atlanta adding nearly a half-million
out-of-state residents since 1990. The region is home to three of the
Nation's fastest-growing counties: Forsyth, Henry, and Paulding.
Atlantans now have a metropolitan area with approximately 4 million
residents and suburbs that stretch, it seems, to Tennessee in the
north; to Alabama in the west; toward South Carolina in the east; and
into the flatlands of south central Georgia to the South.
California is not the only place where people have fallen in love
with their cars. It is said of Atlantans that they would drive from the
kitchen to the bedroom if only they could figure out how to get the car
in the house. Had metro Atlanta sprawled the way it does now in the
summer of 1864, General Sherman and his troops would still be strung
out between Chattanooga and Atlanta with their turn signals on trying
to merge into southbound traffic on Interstate 75.
The growth has taken its toll. Atlantans endure the Nation's
longest commute--an average daily round trip of 34 miles for every
person in Atlanta. They spend 69 hours annually, or nearly 9 workdays a
year, sitting in traffic.
At the same time, new road projects have been stalled because the
region is too frequently out of compliance with Federal Clean Air Act
standards for ground-level ozone. Atlanta exceeds acceptable Federal
air quality standards an average of 11 days each year during the ozone
season of May to September.
That is the challenge Atlanta faces.
The challenge BellSouth faced 3\1/2\ years ago was symptomatic of
Atlanta's rapid growth. BellSouth's Metro Atlanta employee population
grew 22 percent between 1993 and 1999, from approximately 15,000 to
well over 18,000.
Like the city, we not only grew, but we also spread out. Before we
created our Atlanta Metro Plan, we had a total of 61 leased and owned
facilities for office workers. With the completion of the Atlanta Metro
Plan, the great majority of BellSouth's white-collar workers will go to
work in five office complexes that stretch from downtown to the city's
near north side along one of Atlanta's main commuter rail lines.
After moves to the three new facilities, BellSouth will have
relocated approximately 9,800 employees from more than 20 properties,
with the result that approximately 85 percent of BellSouth's employees
in metro Atlanta will be working within walking distance of a rail
line.
Of course, this is a plan that makes good business sense. But it is
also a plan that consciously and determinedly makes good civic planning
sense. If I can finish by bragging, it points the way for other
companies in Atlanta and elsewhere. It is an example of a company, led
by our Chairman and CEO Duane Ackerman, which set out to do the right
thing--not only for its employees and shareholders, but also its city
and the environment. And that is real civic leadership.
Thank you for your attention. At the appropriate time, now or
later, I would be happy to try to answer any questions you may have.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT BROADBENT
Manager, Las Vegas Monorail Company
June 26, 2002
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today and to share with you
my recommendations for developing and financing the Nation's surface
infrastructure. I have been privileged to lead a long life of public
service, at all levels of government. But nothing has been more
rewarding than the central role I was honored to play in the creation
and implementation of the first true public-private partnership in the
United States for a modern, urban grade rail transit project.
On September 20, 2000, a team I led closed a $650 million financing
deal to build the $400 million backbone of what we intend to be a 18
mile regional trail transit system serving Clark County, Nevada. The
initial backbone segment is a 4 mile monorail system in the Las Vegas
Strip Corridor, an area with a population density equivalent to Midtown
Manhattan. With seven stations it will connect over 4.4 million square
feet of conference and convention space, including the world's largest
convention center, to over 80,000 hotel rooms, many major resorts, and
population centers.
The financing for this initial segment is entirely private, with no
government monies needed to fund capital or operating expenses. For the
record, I have brought a copy of the official statement for the bonds
the State of Nevada Department of Business and Industry issued on
behalf of the nonprofit Las Vegas Monorail Company, now the owner of
the project.
The Las Vegas Monorail Company is led by a board of directors that
is composed of outstanding and widely acknowledged community leaders,
each appointed by the Governor of the State of Nevada. My partner and I
manage its day-to-day operations. The initial segment is under
construction today and is scheduled to open in January 2004. When it
does, it will serve over 20 million passengers in its first year of
operation.
The need for this system is great. We, in Las Vegas, have been
blessed with a rapidly expanding economy and are one of the fastest
growing regions in the country. But as this Committee knows, with
growth and prosperity comes serious traffic congestion and air quality
challenges. For those of you who are familiar with Las Vegas, you know
this has certainly been true for us.
After years of planning, our business community became frustrated
with the traditional model for developing and financing a Federally-
funded rail transit system. These leading business executives were used
in making decisions and in building billion dollar projects quickly. In
fact, the success of the Las Vegas economy depends upon it.
They decided that they had to find a better way for the public and
private sectors to work together--in a way that may be unfamiliar to
the FTA, but was standard operating procedure for businesses around the
country that must be innovative and cost effective to serve their
customers. Our clients asked: Why should transportation development
take more time, be more expensive to build and operate, and less
responsive to the customer than any other business dependent on
patronage?
In 1997, MGM MIRAGE and Park Place Entertainment, two of the
largest gaming companies in the world, took the challenge. They hired
me away from McCarran International Airport, where as Director, I had
overseen its expansion from the 23rd largest to the 10th largest
airport in the country in less than 11 years. They hired a team to work
with me that included the country's best investment bankers and
attorneys in innovative project development and finance. They
contributed some of the best management talent these major corporations
possessed to direct and guide our efforts. They found the leading
contractors and systems suppliers in the world to deliver the project.
They deployed a team to help them do what had not been done
before-- create a true public-private partnership in rail transit which
employs several important tools, including, among others, attracting
private sector cash, services and property to urban rail; creating and
borrowing against project revenues; establishing an innovative form of
governance; and utilizing DBOM contracting.
While we were able to finance the initial segment of our project
without Government funds, we still needed the active cooperation of
Government. Senator Reid and Senator Ensign provided critical
leadership at all stages and we wish to take this opportunity to thank
them and to acknowledge their outstanding efforts. The Nevada State
Legislature adopted a new State law authorizing monorail franchises.
Governor Kenny Guinn agreed to use a nonprofit corporation to own and
operate the project, appointing its directors. The State Board of
Finance agreed to issue our bonds on a conduit basis. The Clark County
Board of Commissioners adopted special ordinances and awarded the
franchise the Legislature authorized. The Regional Transportation
Commission of Southern Nevada agreed to work with us to ensure the
compatibility of the monorail with its extensive and important CAT bus
system.
Now, in order to finance the important extensions to our initial
backbone segment, our public-private partnership is working closely and
cooperatively with our Federal partner--the U.S. DOT. Specifically, we
are working with the FTA, Administrator Dorn, and the Congress to
obtain a full funding grant agreement to fund less than 15 percent of
the costs of the combined system. And we are working with the U.S. DOT
to secure a TIFIA loan to leverage the new private sector resources we
are attracting for the extensions. This will permit us to build the
extensions with huge time and cost savings, by utilizing our already
mobilized construction forces and reserved vehicle manufacturing
capacity, among other things. We are truly excited about the
transportation benefits this public-private partnership is bringing to
Clark County, one of the Nation's fastest growing regions.
Over the course of our work, we have been confronted with a number
of important disincentives to attracting private capital, innovation,
and initiative to major rail transit. We believe our experiences are
instructive on how Congress can act to facilitate, rather than inhibit,
more successful public-private partnerships in surface transportation.
For your consideration in reauthorizing TEA-21, I offer the following
recommendations:
Section 5309 Funding Process
Congress should work with the FTA to refine the full funding grant
agreement process to facilitate quicker deployment of public-private
partnerships. For example, for a conventional Federally-funded transit
project, the time between project selection for an FFGA and actual
execution of the FFGA can take a year or more. In most cases this is
satisfactory because the grantee has received approval to enter final
design and can undertake that work during this interim period, which
keeps FFGA execution from being on the critical path. In the case of a
public-private partnership, like our FTA-funded extensions to the Las
Vegas Monorail, the phasing of work is very different. We will issue a
single notice to proceed for final design, construction, and systems
supply all in one; and we will not issue that NTP until we have closed
the financing for the entire project. Since we cannot close our
financing until the FFGA is executed, the typical FFGA process, when
applied to a public-
private partnership like ours, could unnecessarily delay by a year or
more a project otherwise completely ready for construction, while we
wait for the FTA and Congress to execute a FFGA.
Generally, the FFGA process is set up to ensure that project design
has been advanced to a level sufficient to control the risk of project
cost increases. In the case of a public-private partnership like ours,
the FTA need not rely on any estimate. With properly structured Design-
Build contracts, we will have a firm fixed price and a guaranteed
completion date before final design is even commenced and before FFGA
approval. This transfers the risk of cost increases to the contractor,
a result necessary to meet rating agency requirements. I can assure you
the private credit markets demand much more risk control and mitigation
than the FTA does.
I would like to praise Administrator Dorn for her recognition of
this challenge, for her efforts to reform the process, and for her
tireless advocacy for other needed industry reforms that are long
overdue. We urge this Committee to work with her to streamline the
process.
Internal Revenue Code Private Activity Rules
Congress should modernize the Internal Revenue Code rules on
private activity and management contracts as they apply to surface
transportation. For the Las Vegas Monorail we were and continue to be
actually forced to turn down true private equity offered for the
project because it would have disqualified us from issuing tax exempt
debt for an important public transit project. This is not the result
Congress intended when it adopted these restrictions. Moreover, these
same restrictions do not apply to airports and solid waste facilities,
for reasons no one has been able to explain to me. For the record I
have brought a report that examines this issue in more depth and I
commend it to you.
I know this Committee is already quite familiar with this issue. In
2000, Senator Smith authored a bill to cure these exact problems. Both
Houses of Congress ultimately passed this important curative
legislation as part of a larger tax bill that year, but unfortunately
President Clinton vetoed the larger bill.
We strongly encourage this Committee to work again with the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee, the Senate Finance Committee,
and the House Ways and Means Committee so that needed private equity
and innovation can be incorporated into surface transportation
development without sacrificing access to the tax exempt financing
markets.
Internal Revenue Code Advance Refunding Rules
Congress should modernize the IRS rules applicable to surface
transportation to permit two advance refundings. Most conventional
transportation projects are
funded on a pay as you go model or with bonds backed by tax revenues.
As such, sponsoring agencies issue bonds only to advance funds as
needed for construction. A key difference with a public-private
partnership like ours is that we must issue bonds that are not
dependent on tax revenues, but on the project's own revenues for a
return. To do this the markets require that we have 100 percent of all
capital costs funded upfront, at the time they invest in our project.
This means that we are issuing bonds many years removed from the
economic conditions that will affect the project when it has opened and
ramped up.
In our case, if the interest rate environment becomes more
favorable over time, the IRS rules prevent us, unlike other businesses,
from refunding our bonds more than once, even though doing so would
help us keep our transit fares down, pay off our debt quicker, and
leverage our dollars more efficiently. These rules are even more
puzzling because there is no loss to the Treasury for permitting
advance refundings, as other experts in the field have previously
documented. The result is that under existing rules we can do only one
advance refunding of the currently issued debt for the Las Vegas
Monorail. This is clearly a major handicap to an urban rail project
that again is being built and operated without a dollar of Government
funds.
I urge this Committee again to work with your colleagues on Senate
Finance and House Ways and Means to cure this significant disincentive
to effective public-
private partnerships in transportation.
Design-Build and DBOM Contracting
The Congress should continue to encourage Design-Build and DBOM
contracting for Federally-funded projects and remove as many regulatory
barriers as possible to State and local grantee use of innovative
procurement processes in their award. I know that some Members of
Congress and many special interests, which have a large stake in the
status quo of low bid contracting, oppose these tools and urge even
more regulation of their use than already exists. They point to
projects that used some form of Design-Build and declare the tool
itself to be fatally flawed.
Well, they could not be more wrong. The fact is that Design-Build
and DBOM contracts are essential and effective building blocks for
public-private partnerships in transportation. The key to success, as
with anything else, is how you use them. I offer this conclusion from
my own perspective, from the perspective of the monorail's original
sponsors, and from the experience we are seeing on the ground.
My career has included directing the Bureau of Reclamation and
McCarran International Airport and serving on the governing boards of
Clark County and the Las Vegas Visitors and Convention Authority, the
largest such facility in the world. During this life in public service,
I have spent more than 40 years looking out for the public interest in
public works construction. I am a firm believer in Design-Build.
In addition, MGM MIRAGE and Park Place Entertainment, the original
private sponsors of the Las Vegas Monorail, are companies that clearly
know large scale construction. In fact, the continued vitality of their
annual earnings statements depends in no small part on efficiently
developing and operating billion dollar projects and performing very
significant upgrades to their facilities with useful lives much shorter
than public works projects. They examined the options for delivering
and equipping the initial monorail segment for Las Vegas. They applied
their own experience, they looked at the experience elsewhere and they
concluded that DBOM contracting was ideal, but only under certain
conditions. They insisted on the best advisors to put the documents
together and the selection of the best team of contractors. They made
their selections based upon qualifications and experience. They then
engaged in sole source negotiations.
The confidence these large companies had in the tool and the
process has proven well placed. Today, the Las Vegas Monorail is
halfway through its 40 month development phase. It is on-time and $20
million under budget. And remember, we awarded the DBOM contract in
advance of final design.
I urge the Committee to continue its support for Design-Build and
to permit grantees more flexibility under the Third Party Contracting
Rules in selecting contractors based on qualifications and in
negotiating with those selected.
NEPA
Congress should make clear to the U.S. DOT modal administrations
that it did not intend NEPA to prevent the completion of procurement
activity ahead of the issuance of records of decision. One of the key
values of public-private partnerships is their ability to accelerate
construction. We all recognize the major contribution to environmental
planning that NEPA has brought to major Federal actions. And no one
suggests that construction should commence before a ROD. But FTA and
FHWA are reading NEPA to prevent the issuance of an RFP, the selection
of a
contractor and the award of a contract pending a final ROD, all actions
that have nothing to do with the selection of a project alternative or
even the decision not to build. If an FTA grantee wishes to use its own
funds to move along the selection of a contractor, to be prepared to
move quickly if the lead agency selects a ``build'' alternative, this
is taking actions in parallel rather than in sequence. This is not
prejudicing the outcome of the NEPA process in any way. Again
Administrator Dorn and Regional Administrator Rogers should be
commended for the flexibility they are showing in working with our
public-private partnership. This Committee, in reauthorizing TEA-21,
should support their vision.
TIFIA
Congress should reauthorize the TIFIA program and refine it to
encourage more private investment in projects supported with TIFIA
credit. This program has been possibly the single most important
benefit for public-private partnerships in transportation and this
Committee must be commended for its vision in enacting it. More and
more projects are beginning to understand the opportunities it offers
both
to fill the gaps in finance plans and to make finance plans more
efficient and cost
effective. While it is possible the program will end the authorization
period under
subscribed, this is not a reflection on the program's value or its
potential utility. Rather, it reflects the very long lead times that
projects suffer through as they design finance plans and adapt, often
only with new State legislation, to new financing methods.
In reauthorizing the TIFIA program, I suggest more thought be given
to the blending of private investment and TIFIA credit. Several of the
current applicants for TIFIA credit, a group that will soon include the
Las Vegas Monorail, are requiring their private contractors to
contribute subordinated debt or equity investments to the plan of
finance. Indeed, rating agencies and bond insurers have come to
expect contractors to take part of their fee in the form of a project
investment. This is a result that Congress should be encouraging of
course. The good news is that the contracting community has developed
the capacity to make these investments. The bad news is that, if the
owner is using TIFIA credit, TEA-21 currently offers the owner a
Hobson's choice--either make the contractor's credit investment grade
according to rating agency criteria, a result more favorable to the
contractor than the owner wants or needs to allow; or place the
contractor's investment subordinate to TIFIA in right of payment, a
result the contractors cannot suffer if the TIFIA instrument is large.
This challenge can be cured quite simply: Refining TIFIA to permit
developer subdebt senior to TIFIA without requiring it to be investment
grade and to allow the payment of equity returns and payoff of
developer subdebt as long as the TIFIA obligor is meeting all its debt
service obligations and coverage ratios. To allay concerns about the
diminution in the quality of the TIFIA credit, TIFIA could limit the
amount of such subdebt or private equity payoff to a specified
percentage of a project's costs.
Again, I urge this Committee to support reauthorization of TIFIA at
no less than the levels authorized in TEA-21 and to create modest new
flexibility to further
enhance its obvious success in facilitating effective public-private
partnerships.
I appreciate the opportunity to brief you on the Las Vegas Monorail
and to offer my experiences and suggestions for TEA-21 reauthorization.
Public-private partnerships are not a panacea and will never justify a
reduction in the amounts needed to be appropriated for surface
transportation. There are simply too many already unfounded needs. They
are proving, however, to be an increasingly valuable tool to supplement
the available grant funds and to narrow the gap between needs and
resources.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HANK DITTMAR
President, The Great American Station Foundation
on behalf of the
Surface Transportation Policy Project
June 26, 2002
Mr. Chairman, I am Hank Dittmar, President, The Great American
Station Foundation. I am pleased to appear here this morning to present
testimony on behalf of the Surface Transportation Policy Project where
I serve as a Member of the organization's Board of Directors.
The Surface Transportation Policy Project or STPP is a nationwide
network of hundreds of organizations, including planners, community
development organizations, and advocacy groups, devoted to improving
the Nation's transportation system. I would note also that I appear
here today with a representative of the STPP coalition, Michael
Replogle, where we share and we support his comments for the
record of this hearing.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss TEA-21's benefits
for economic development, transit users and the business community and
to offer our views on how the reauthorization of TEA-21 can increase
these benefits for the Nation.
Overview
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you and your State for its
innovative use of TEA-21 resources and describe briefly how one
project--the Warwick Intermodal Project--exemplifies the vision of this
law and its predecessor, ISTEA.
As President of The Great American Station Foundation, I support
initiatives that promote investment in intermodal connections through
train station rehabilitation and development. One example is your
State's effort to develop the commuter rail/Amtrak intermodal station
in Warwick, connecting T.F. Green Airport to Amtrak's Northeast
Corridor and commuter rail service. Here you have an intermodal
project, linking commuter rail transit and intercity passenger rail
with the State's major
airport, while relieving congestion on I-95, one of the Nation's most
significant
Interstate corridors. This investment also provides benefits for
freight and passengers traversing the I-95 corridor and positions the
airport to deliver more efficient access and utilization of airport air
capacity benefiting the entire Northeast. Mr. Chairman, I applaud your
leadership in support of this important project.
Under TEA-21, the State of Rhode Island receives the lion's share
of the Federal funds that flow to the State, those provided under the
highway title of the Act and other resources under the transit title.
It also owns and operates T.F. Green Airport and is the owner/operator
of I-95 and a partner with MBTA on commuter rail service. It is also
one of several States, with the leadership of the late Senator
Claiborne Pell, that worked toward development of Amtrak's Northeast
Corridor. Armed with the Act's flexibilities and motivated by its own
ownership interests, the State pursued an intermodal investment that
instructs all of us as to the possible.
Across the country, we only see a few other examples of such
projects, which also have similar ownership characteristics. At the
Newark airport, the State-owned airport is connected by a new fixed
guideway to the Amtrak Northeast Corridor, NJ Transit and other rail
services. In Chairman Sarbanes' State, the State of Maryland provides
rail transit through its MARC trains and partners extensively with
Baltimore's LRT, systems that link to the airport and to Amtrak's
Northeast Corridor, all the while providing relief to the congested I-
95 and BW Parkway corridors.
These airport connections deployed ISTEA/TEA-21 resources without
the modal bias that generally characterizes so many other areas, where
State ownership of transit systems and airports is the exception in
that most transportation assets are owned and/or operated at the local
and regional levels.
Part of the debate over TEA-21 renewal needs to be focused on
strategies and incentives that help us better align resources and
investment decisions with the agencies that are responsible for these
systems. How transportation funds are now being flexed to transit makes
this point. Five out of six Title I dollars flexed to transit are by
local decisionmakers using funds provided to their MPO's. When States
flex dollars, it is generally to Section 18 for rural transit needs.
While local agencies nationwide only have direct access to less than 10
percent of total Title I funding, they account for more than 80 percent
of all funds flexed to transit. The State of California alone accounted
for more than one-half of all flexed funding over the last 4 years,
aided by that State's suballocation law which directs more TEA-21
dollars to MPO's and local agencies than provisions of TEA-21.
Mr. Chairman, developing airport connections that work and
supporting local efforts to flex transportation funds to priority
transit needs explains why our coalition has placed such a high
priority on making the intergovernmental partnership work together more
cooperatively. We need to find new ways to ``incentivize'' State and
local partners to deliver investments that better integrate our
transportation assets and systems. And to be successful in this regard,
we must take stock of how the flow of funds (for example who controls
TEA-21 resources and who own or operates the systems) affects outcomes.
While we know that a substantial share of all Title I funding flows to
the States regardless of their ownership profiles, it is noteworthy
that FTA's resources flow directly to the agencies that provide the
service, be it a city or county agency, a regional agency, a State
agency, or multistate provider.
Related to these partnership issues, I would emphasize that this
Committee shares jurisdiction over the intergovernmental partnership
for highways and transit, through the rules for State and metropolitan
planning and project selection.
Mr. Chairman, we also see other opportunities to strengthen
transportation policy connections to other areas. As one example, we
are finally starting to reap the benefits of Tax Code changes aimed at
equalizing benefits between parking and commute benefits, a provision
that has been particularly powerful in boosting transit use in this
region. Directly before this Committee is how we can forge stronger
linkages between Federal housing policy and transportation investment.
Next month the Senate is expected to begin debate on the TANF
reauthorization where transportation-related issues figure prominently
in efforts to help many Americans make the transition from welfare to
work.
TEA-21's Benefits for Economic Development, Transit Users,
and the Business Community
With that overview, I would like to turn to a discussion of the
economic and the business community benefits of TEA-21 investments.
Transit Ridership Growth Reflects its Value to the User
Transit ridership has increased each of the last 4 years, revealing
a growing interest in transit in a range of city types and locales. A
preponderance of this ridership growth is in New York City, as a
preponderance of transit use is centered in New York. However, many
other cities and urban areas around the country are experiencing
increased ridership. In fact, the greatest percentage increase in the
first four quarters of 2001 occurred in communities with 50,000 -99,999
in population, where bus ridership grew 10.25 percent over 2000 --which
also was a banner year for transit. And what is happening in big cities
like New York (2.9 percent), Washington (5.85 percent), and Los Angeles
(15.8 percent) cannot explain an 11.7 percent increase in Albuquerque,
6.7 percent in Providence, 7.7 percent in Denver, 5 percent in Boise
City, or 15.67 percent in Oklahoma City.
These ridership gains, while still leaving transit far behind auto
use, tell us something important is happening in transportation:
Increasingly people are valuing the option that transit provides to
leave the automobile at home. This choice factor is important, and it
highlights an important American value: In increasingly congested
locations, especially along clogged suburban arterials, the option of
living in the city and utilizing mass transit is becoming more
attractive to a growing number of
people. Transit provides an option to driving, and creates redundancy
in a transportation system increasingly characterized not by network
conditions, but by channelization onto a limited set of freeways and
multilane arterials.
There is Growing Market Demand for Transit
There is clear evidence of a rebound of commercial and residential
vitality in many urban communities, and evidence also that traditional
population centers have become more attractive to empty nesters and
singles as a place to live; employers as a place to locate; and
investors as a place to seek gains in real estate. This metropolitan
core resurgence appears to be sparking a transit ridership surge, and
in fact, the existence of public transit may be part of the explanation
for the economic resurgence of downtowns and urban neighborhoods.
These newfound interests in the metropolitan core are being
attributed to many conditions. Some see the increased attraction to
urban places as the result of changes in our basic demographics. The
2000 Census results clearly show that household size is shrinking,
producing more households of empty nesters, singles, and nonfamily
residents. The traditional nuclear family that made up 40 percent of
households in 1970 is now less than 24 percent. According to former
Census Bureau Director, Martha Farnsworth Riche, the new age
distribution is more of a pillar than a pyramid, with a population by
2020 of ``nearly an equal number of school aged kids, young
professionals, parents, young retirees, and the elderly.'' (Farnsworth,
March 2001.)
While the predominant population pattern is that suburbs grew
faster than their central cities, most large cities saw population
gains in the 1990's. In a recent article describing the boom in in-fill
development in Austin, Texas, John McIlwain, a senior resident fellow
for housing issues at the Urban Land Institute, characterized the
movement back to the Nation's cities as being led by two groups--young
tech workers who favor urban living to life in the suburbs and the baby
boomers. ``Their dog has died, their kids have left home, and they are
free at last.'' (Austin American-Statesman, March 16, 2002.)
Besides Austin, strengthening of the metropolitan core through in-
fill development is also evident in the most unlikely places. Look at
Houston, where downtown residential properties are being built for the
first time in decades. And adjacent neighborhoods, such as the never-
before fashionable Heights, are attracting 30-something, marrieds with
children. Or Memphis, where city policies to preserve historic
structures, improve transit, and rebuild blighted industrial areas
increased downtown residents by 18 percent during the 1990's to almost
10,000, with an astonishing 1,500 new housing units built by the end of
2001. (Downtown Developer, Summer 2001.) Not a prediction anyone would
have made in 1977, when the city launched its redevelopment efforts.
Another key finding of the 2000 Census was the unequivocal
diversity added to our Nation as a result of immigration from other
countries, principally Hispanic and Asian households. Historically,
most immigrants and most minorities live in cities, and while there is
a significant trend toward minority migration to the suburb,
demographer William Frey projects that most immigrants will continue to
be
concentrated in more dense urban locations.
This urban concentration along with the lower income levels of most
immigrant households has historically meant that these households own
fewer automobiles and drive less. According to Catherine Ross and Anne
Dunning's analysis of the 1995 National Personal Transportation Survey,
African-Americans, Asians, and Hispanics are all more likely to use
public transit or walk. For immigrants, this may be due not only to
income and poverty level, but also to cultural factors, including the
fact that they have lived in places where transit use was the norm
rather than the
exception. As immigrants assimilate into the population, therefore, we
can expect
to see higher levels of driving as their incomes rise, but also a
continued willingness to use public transit, particularly if its
availability, quality, and convenience continue to increase.
Access to Transit Has Become a Factor in Corporate Location Decisions
The 1990's also revealed unique challenges for the exurban areas.
Whether you are in the distant suburbs of St. Louis or of Atlanta you
are likely to need the same things: More infrastructure and available
workers. As places to work, most major cities offer employers both in-
place infrastructure and an available workforce with established
transit systems that make businesses accessible to all workers,
including sought after entry-level employees. By the mid-1990's, these
assets became
increasingly evident to small and large employers particularly in the
growing service sector.
A recent survey by Jones Lang LaSalle in its Property Futures
publication found that 77 percent of New Economy companies rated access
to mass transit as an
extremely important factor in selecting corporate locations. According
to the 2001 survey of 350 New Economy companies: ``Employers concerned
with staff retention regard the public transportation issue as
critical. Young and cyber-savvy staff increasingly reject the
traditional commuter lifestyle. . . . Urban locations, though not
always CBD's, will continue to be desirable. This is reinforced by the
importance of public transportation to companies and workers.'' An
example in Atlanta was the decision by BellSouth to relocate its entire
Atlanta metropolitan workforce--some 20,000 workers--into three
locations within walking distance of Metro stations.
Moreover, overwhelmingly, replacement jobs continue to be located
in established urban areas near transit. While some researchers have
made much hay arguing that most ``new jobs'' are located in exurban
locations, the fact remains that most job openings are for replacement
jobs. As Qing Shen of the University of Maryland demonstrated in a
recent study of the Boston metropolitan area, ``preexisting employment
is still highly concentrated in the central city.'' (Qing Shen, Winter
2001.)
Development Near Transit is Seen as a Sound Investment Choice
By the late 1990's, real estate analysts began to see accessible
urban locations in a new light as well. The 2001 issue of
PricewaterhouseCoopers' Emerging Trends in Real Estate continued to
advise investors to seek out opportunities in what they dub 24-hour
cities, with mixed-use development and mass transit access. According
to the report, which is compiled from dozens of interviews with real
estate investors and professionals: ``Major 24-hour metro markets
maintain their preeminence while some suburban areas struggle with
sprawl and congestion issues. `Subcities'--our new term for suburban
locations that are urbanizing and taking on 24-hour market
characteristics--show particular promise for investors.''
(PricewaterhouseCoopers and Lendlease, Emerging Trends in Real Estate
2001.) Recent brownfields legislation should improve the interest in
existing urbanized locations even more.
Increasingly, real estate investors are looking for value in
established communities. PricewaterhouseCoopers' Emerging Trends report
for 2002--prepared post 9/11
--warns investors away from apartments, retail, and auto dependent
suburban locations, while advising investors to buy and hold in 24
cities.
Interviewees have come to realize that properties in better
planned, growth-constrained markets hold value in down markets
and appreciate more in upcycles. Areas with sensible zoning
(integrating commercial, retail, and residential), parks and
street grids with sidewalks will age better than places
connected to disconnected cul-de-sac subdivisions and shopping
strips, navigable only by car. Booming populations and wide-
open spaces in the Sunbelt's expanding suburban agglomerations
can provide developers and investors with short-term
opportunities to cash in on growth waves--but the returns, on
average have not been competitive. . . . Markets served with
mass-transportation alternatives and attractive close-in
neighborhoods should be positioned to sustain better long-term
prospects as people strive to make their lives more convenient.
(Jones Lang LaSalle, 2001.)
In addition, suburban areas are actively trying to add density,
mixed use, and transit. In Dallas, the expansion of the DART transit
system in the suburbs is prompting the development of 24 hour dense
town centers, such as Addison Circle, which is expected to accommodate
10,000 people in a few years. Even further out, the development of
Legacy Town Center in Plano and the redevelopment of Plano Town Center
are mixed-use examples. Closer in, the Uptown area near Dallas's
downtown has added 10,000 residents in mixed-use multifamily
developments
within the past 5 years and the Emerging Trends report rates it as the
strongest residential market in the metropolitan area. Similar trends
can be seen in Montgomery County and Arlington County in the Washington
area.
Transit Provides a Substantial Economic Benefit to the User
The consumption of transportation has a major impact on household
budgets for all Americans. The American Automobile Association
estimates the annual cost of owning and operating an automobile at
$7,363 in 1999. About 75 percent of that cost is fixed costs such as
car payments and insurance, and this means that there is little
financial incentive for drivers to drive less once they made the
investment in a car. Nationally, transportation expenditures account
for 17.5 percent of the
average household's budget, according to an analysis of Bureau of Labor
Statistics data by the Surface Transportation Policy Project and the
Center for Neighborhood Technology. (STPP & CNT, Driven to Spend,
2000.) The proportion of household expenditures that is devoted to
transportation has grown as our use of the automobile has grown, from
under $1 out of $10 in 1935 to $1 out of $7 in 1960, to almost $1 out
of $5 from 1972 through today.
The transportation burden borne by American households falls most
heavily upon the poor and lower middle class, as the less a family
makes, the more of its budget goes to transportation. The poorest
quintile of American households spend 36 percent of their budgets on
transportation, while the richest fifth spend only 14 percent. This
means that the poorer a family is, the less money it has available for
other expenses such as housing, medical care, or savings. In fact,
transportation takes up the second largest percentage of the household
budget, ahead of food, education, medical care and clothing, only
behind expenses for housing.
The cost of transportation varies widely from region to region, and
within metropolitan areas. Scott Bernstein and Ryan Mooney of the
Center for Neighborhood Technology recently analyzed data from the
Consumer Expenditure Survey from 1998 -1999 and revealed that
transportation costs can vary from 14 percent of a household's total
expenditures in the New York Metropolitan area to as much as 22 percent
in Houston.
Research at the metropolitan level done by John Holtzclaw, Robert
Clear, and myself shows that these variations in driving and vehicle
ownership and hence transportation costs can be explained by a
combination of factors, including neighborhood design and transit
availability and frequency, when income and household size were
controlled for. This study which analyzed odometer readings collected
as part of air quality inspection and maintenance programs, found that
the residents of denser, transit rich neighborhoods drove far less and
spent far less on transportation than people who lived in areas not
served by transit. (Holtzclaw, Clear, Dittmar, et. al., Transportation
Planning and Technology, 2002.)
Transit's Impact on Wealth Creation
The growing proportion of consumer expenditures that is devoted to
transportation inhibits families from devoting their income to saving
or investing, and indeed, may be part of the reason why so many
families have to send two people to work. For the fact is that spending
on transportation by poor families, unlike spending on homeownership or
investing in education, has a very poor return on investment because
autos, unlike houses, are depreciating assets. Ten thousand dollars
invested in a car declines to a value of about $4,000 in 10 years time,
while investment in homeownership builds equity and often appreciates.
Similarly, investment in college education for one's children
increases their earning power over their lifetime. The fact that the
poorest families must spend over a third of their income on
transportation means that they are least able to invest in activities
that offer them the opportunity to build wealth. It is indeed ironic
that many progressive social scientists believe that the best way to
help former welfare recipients secure jobs is to give them automobile
purchase assistance, thereby trapping them into the poverty cycle even
more profoundly, as the poor typically end up with less reliable cars
which are more expensive to operate and maintain.
Some lending institutions are also changing loan criteria to
reflect the hundreds of dollars in savings per month that can be
experienced in denser, transit rich neighborhoods. The Location
Efficient Mortgage (SM) a product of Fannie Mae and a consortium of
groups called the Institute of Location Efficiency, allows prospective
homebuyers in denser transit-rich neighborhoods to use their
transportation savings to help them afford a home in these
neighborhoods. The program, which has been introduced in Chicago and
Seattle and San Francisco, is under study in Atlanta, Portland, and
Philadelphia, and Fannie Mae has announced plans to introduce a less
comprehensive product with smaller savings in Minneapolis-St. Paul and
Baltimore. In essence, financial institutions are now sending a
message--if you save money by driving less, we will take that into
account and offer you more funds to purchase a home. This kind of
market adjustment is a positive response to the economic benefits of
transit investment upon households.
Transit Spurs Development
As indicated earlier, real estate investors are recognizing that
development near transit has locational advantages, and a new style of
development is emerging in response to this fact. Transit oriented
development is the new term used to characterize mixed use, walkable
development located within one-half mile of a transit stop, and
evidence indicates that as new transit systems--whether light or
commuter rail or rapid bus--are introduced, development follows. A
recent study by the University of North Texas found that the new DART
system in the Dallas region has already generated over $800 million in
development, and that the full system is projected to generate $3.7
billion in economic activity upon build out. (University of North
Texas, 2000.) Typical of these projects is Mockingbird Station, which
features a multiscreen cinema, upscale retail, office space, and 211
loft apartments that are within walking distance of the light rail
stop. The project was built without public subsidy.
The potential for transit-oriented development to build both
economic value
and staying power in a region is evidenced in the National Capital
region by both
Montgomery County, Maryland, and Arlington County, Virginia. My
organization is completing a case study of Arlington County, which has
pursued a policy of concentrating its development activity along the
Rosslyn-Ballston Corridor since the construction of the Washington
Metro. Our forthcoming study found that development along transit
allowed the county to capture over 13 million square feet of office
space and 2 million square feet of retail since 1980. The corridor has
increased in population from 19,838 in 1980 to 34,485 in 2000,
reversing a steep population decline in the Seventies. Land value
within the corridor near the four stations increased by 81 percent from
1992-2002, an average annual increase of 6.1 percent, generating over
$109 million in property taxes in 2002 alone. The corridor generates
approximately 33 percent of the County's real estate tax on 7.7 percent
of the County's land. According to the study, ``Even with the economic
downturn and the residual affects of the 9/11 incident (which affected
Arlington directly through the bombing of the Pentagon and the
subsequent shutdown of National Airport and several major arterials),
February 2002 vacancy rates were at 10 percent. This is half of the
vacancy rate of suburban office concentrations in outlying Virginia
such as Tyson's Corner and Reston. The office rents in the Rosslyn-
Ballston Corridor also
command a rent premium over other office locations in the Northern
Virginia
marketplace.'' (TransManagement, Inc. for Great American Station
Foundation,
forthcoming.)
Transit-oriented development clearly commands an advantage in the
emerging marketplace, and this offers an opportunity for transit
systems to recapture value, both from underutilized land around their
stations, and potentially from development occurring near stations
through benefit assessment districts. Such schemes could help to
finance transit system expansion by providing a revenue stream to repay
debt.
Transit-oriented development clearly has a role to place in making
housing more affordable, as the data on housing and transportation
expenditures clearly indicate. In addition to the measures discussed
above, many transit-oriented developments include affordable housing.
We have studied two such projects in detail. The first is Ohlone-
Chenoweth in Santa Clara County, California, where a underutilized park
and ride lot and private land have been developed with 135 very low-
income units, 194 units affordable to households at 50 - 60 percent of
median income, and a third project with market rate housing. The second
project is Barrio Logan apartments in San Diego along the San Diego
trolley, which includes 144 low-income units financed through CRA
commitments and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit. Both projects have
been successful in meeting both housing and transit goals.
Indeed the States of California and Maryland, recognizing the value
of access to transit to low-income families have acted to give priority
to projects near transit in allocating their share of Low Income
Housing Tax Credits. Perhaps a similar priority action could be made
for other housing programs under the jurisdiction of the Committee. At
the least, the clear connection emerging between transit, housing and
wealth creation underscores the wisdom of the Senate in placing both
housing and transit under the jurisdiction of the same Committee.
TEA-21 Reauthorization Issues
Mr. Chairman, while the STPP is still in the process of developing
its full reauthorization package, there are several areas that I
address on behalf of our coalition.
Treat Transit the Same as Highways
I lead with this policy recommendation given its very high priority
within our coalition. In earlier debates on ISTEA and TEA-21, STPP and
its coalition partners were strong proponents of the 80/20 matching
share for transit projects to ensure that options for future
transportation investments were not biased toward one modal investment
over another. There are now efforts, both in the Administration and in
the Congress, to control demand for FTA's ``New Starts'' program by
rationing money through reductions in the Federal matching share. We
strongly oppose this approach.
Rather than focusing on ways to grow the resources to support the
accelerating pipeline of demand for new rail and busway projects, which
is where we believe efforts should be directed, some are seeking to
manage demand by spreading available funds and requiring significantly
higher overmatchs.
It is clear that ISTEA fundamentally shifted our thinking about
what future investments are needed in support of local and regional
economic development. Since local decisionmakers were invited into the
dialogue on transportation investment, through the planning process and
other means, we have seen an explosion of interest in rail transit
investment. In fact, a disproportionate share of recent ridership gains
have been driven by the New Starts programs and rail transit overall.
To illustrate the strong demand for rail transit, I would note that
of the Nation's top 50 metropolitan areas, all but two were planning a
new start project, adding to an existing system or have a new system
under construction. These are obviously our largest economic regions,
but the interest in and support for rail transit and other fixed
guideway projects such as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) goes well beyond
these areas.
Rationing the demand for new start dollars by shifting the Federal
match is evidence of a larger problem. There are now examples where new
start project sponsors won't receive their full Federal funding
commitments pursuant to existing FFGA's until after the project has
been completed and is operating. These developments suggest that there
is an urgent need to find additional resources to meet this growing
demand under the program.
Mr. Chairman, the key message of our coalition is that the Federal
shares on rail and highway projects should be the same. If there is
decision to reduce the Federal share for new start projects, it should
be coupled with a change in the Federal match for new highway capacity
projects. This core principle of parity between transit and highways is
one we would urge this Committee to adhere to as you develop
legislation renewing TEA-21.
Transit Innovations Initiative
Mr. Chairman, I would urge this Committee to look for additional
incentives to prompt transit providers to embark on the next generation
of system improvements, like innovative ways to promote institutional
cooperation as I discussed earlier, deploy new technologies, or
coordinate investments with local land use plans, as examples of target
areas of inquiry. As we look to grow transit use and the knowledge that
supports these efforts, we must make the relatively modest investments
here to prompt further transit innovations, just as the earlier Service
and Methods Demonstrations Program laid the foundation for services and
transit improvements that are growing transit service today.
We would urge that such a program, investing funds with transit
providers and others, should be required to ensure that the results are
transferable, including strong information and technical assistance
features, and that there is a strong evaluation element. We recognize
that earmarking would be a threat to such an initiative, as it has with
other existing programs, but we would urge you to move forward with
such a program anyway, given the need for modest funding in this area.
Shift Focus of JARC Program to Existing Areas
A key policy initiative in TEA-21 was the enactment of the Jobs
Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Program which was one of STPP's top
priorities. We commend this Committee for your leadership in
successfully garnering support for the enactment of this program. Since
1998, we have developed a substantial record showing how this
relatively modest commitment of resources made a difference in taking
on the very large task of helping the many people transitioning from
welfare to work. Much of the early debate and program emphasis was on
transit and other transportation services aimed at connecting workers,
often in cities, to job centers, which were generally further away in
suburban locations. We are now more knowledgeable about some of the
real challenges that exist and the opportunities that are available.
One recommendation is to refocus some of the resources on improving
transit services within core built-up areas, which are not always well-
served. The research shows that there are more jobs available to
workers in their existing core areas through attrition and replacement
jobs in much closer proximity. JARC
resources should be redirected to these core areas as well to help
improve transit services where such services now exist or can be
readily expanded, avoiding car purchase assistance that places these
individuals and their families at considerable financial risk. Mr.
Chairman, we would be pleased to work with the Committee and provide
suggestions on this redirection of the program.
Commute Benefit and Transit Assistance
One of the most powerful actions taken by the Congress in support
of public transportation over the last decade were changes in the Tax
Code in 1993 that made commute benefits more viable and expansive. With
TEA-21, this benefit now provides $100 per month in pretax income and
narrowed the disparity with parking which is set at $185 per month.
Unfortunately, this benefit has not been aggressively marketed,
described, or made easy for the private sector to administer and
provide to their employees. We believe that transit providers haven't
done all they can do to make this benefit more readily available to
employers and employees. We would urge you to look at ways to prompt
providers, including conditioning future FTA formula funds, to put
programs in place that assist employers in delivering the benefit more
efficiently.
Consistency of Highway Reviews and Transit Project Oversight
I want to commend this Committee for your oversight of the
forecasting, planning and project delivery of FTA's programs where such
progress has been made that now transit proponents are in the position
to cite the ``New Starts'' process as a model for other Federal capital
programs. Congressional scrutiny directed at transit capital efforts in
previous years has resulted in numerous reforms that make project
sponsors meet rigorous standards for new investments, which ensures
strict cost controls and other outcomes during the construction cycle
and subsequent operation of the project.
In your joint review of the legislation renewing TEA-21, we would
urge you to work with the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
to share some of these innovations such as FFGA's with the highway
program. We need to ensure some balance so that the rigors, including
strict cost controls, that now apply to transit capital projects are
extended in similar ways to larger highway projects,
ensuring some level of consistency between these modes. Importantly,
there are
examples of runaway highway capital projects where unchecked project
costs have adverse impacts on State transportation plans, displacing
resources destined for other transportation investments. Mr. Chairman,
you and this Committee should be proud of the safeguards that you have
put in place for major transit capital projects and the record you have
built in delivering increased accountability in the use of Federal
funds.
Further Enable TOD
Transit and more broadly Transportation-Oriented Development is an
area that we are now reviewing to determine how existing law can be
further developed to support these efforts. Initially, we are
recommending that broader eligibility be accorded to TOD initiatives in
station projects, so that the shell for key services such as customer
serving retail, day care, and social services can be constructed as
part of FTA-funded projects. One example we have found is the
Maplewood, New Jersey Transit Concierge, in which local businesses have
banded together to offer all of their services and products through a
concierge located in the station building. In addition, we have
discovered that certain provisions of the current Joint Development
regulations regarding leasing are serving as a barrier to the financing
of affordable housing at transit station locations. A legislative
solution may be required. Finally, we recommend that the Innovative
Finance provisions of TEA-21 be amended to allow value capture from
transit-oriented development to be counted as a revenue stream to
finance New Starts.
Planning and Corridor Studies
The Committee has joint jurisdiction with the Environment and
Public Works Committee over the planning and project selections
provisions of TEA-21. These provisions, which govern both State and
metropolitan planning for highways and transit, are far reaching and
comprehensive. The 2000 Census will require adjustment to most
metropolitan areas, and this may offer an opportunity to enhance the
metropolitan planning process by reaffirming the status of the
Metropolitan Planning Organizations, their representativeness and their
planning processes. We are particularly interested in ensuring that the
planning process becomes more of a strategic planning process geared
toward economic and environmental outcomes. One way to do this is to
use new decision support tools to integrate alternative land use
scenarios into transportation corridor studies. Such scenario-based
planning can help to break the logjam that exists between local zoning
and the market demand for transit-oriented development and walkable
communities by demonstrating the public support for these kinds of
projects.
Closing Comments
In this testimony, I have outlined some initial recommendations on
ways to improve the transit program as you move forward with
legislation renewing TEA-21. STPP is now crafting a much broader agenda
that will offer further detail on these and other program areas such as
ADA and paratransit, clean air-related improvements and program
flexibility. We will share these and other proposals with you and the
Committee once we finalize our agenda.
Mr. Chairman, I want to close my comments by recognizing the
considerable progress that has been made in increasing the use of
public transit, which continues to outpace the growth of both vehicle
and air travel. This is a result of the commitment of resources under
TEA-21. It is also due to other factors and trends
underway in America. And, Mr. Chairman, transit's success is also the
result of the leadership that this Committee has provided on these
issues. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. REPLOGLE
Transportation Director, Environmental Defense
June 26, 2002
Good morning, Chairman Reed and Members of the Subcommittee. I am
speaking on behalf of Environmental Defense, an organization with
300,000 members that seeks to integrate law, science, and economics to
find practical solutions to environmental problems.
TEA-21: A Success for Transit
TEA-21 provided vital guarantees for increased transit funding
while sustaining important accountability and incentive reforms of the
ISTEA law. In response to these reforms and funding, Americans have
taken back to public transportation in droves. Since 1995, transit
ridership has grown by one-fourth, to over 9.5 billion rides, the
highest in more than four decades. Over the last 6 years transit use
has grown faster than the population (8 percent), highway use (15
percent), and domestic air travel (13 percent; 19 percent prior to 9/
11/01).
TEA-21's support for public transportation has promoted economic
development, the environment, and public health, offering guaranteed
funding and incentives to encourage State and local progress for clean
air, smart growth, and equitable access to opportunities.
Reauthorization of TEA-21 should build on this success with increased
guaranteed funding for transit, greater transparency for how tax funds
are spent on transportation, and stronger public accountability for
State, regional, and local transportation system performance measured
against national, State, and regional objectives, including goals for
environmental protection and equity.
America Can Do Better
Thirty-two years after the 1970 Clean Air Act, 140 million
Americans--including 70 percent of the people most vulnerable to air
pollution--live in areas that exceed the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, exposing them to unhealthful air pollution that leads to
premature death, cancer, hospitalization, and impaired life quality.
The number of smoggy days increased 18.5 percent between 2000 and 2002
in the 58 percent of U.S. counties with air quality monitors. And
recent research in California and Colorado shows that those living
close to very high traffic volume highways face unacceptable cancer
risks--as high as 1 in 500--due to exposure to traffic-related toxic
air pollutants that will increase if roads are further expanded. (South
Coast Air Quality Management District, Multiple Air Toxics Exposure
Study--II, March 2000.) On top of this, the U.S. accounts for vastly
disproportionate greenhouse emissions, with 5 percent of the world's
people using more than one third of all energy for transportation
purposes worldwide. While the transit-related provisions of a
reauthorized TEA-21 alone won't solve these problems, they are a
critical opportunity to address them.
Some States are making greater use TEA-21's opportunities to
develop balanced transportation systems that expand transit choices.
But others are making little progress and devote a large share of their
attention to the failed strategy of trying to build their way out of
congestion. In a third of the States, constitutional restrictions limit
States' ability to use their own gas tax for anything other than roads.
In many regions transportation planning expends little effort to
consider transit and growth management strategies that could provide
attractive alternatives to the
current plan of business-as-usual road system expansions that
accommodate and
support sprawl and subsidize driving, while neglecting the needs of
pedestrians, bicyclists, and those without cars. Improved data
collection and impact analysis tools and stronger planning requirements
are needed if State and local agencies are to comprehend, identify, and
invest in better system management. By improving integrated
performance-oriented planning at the State and regional level, we can
address demands to streamline the project review process in a manner
that delivers better projects that also protect the environment, public
health, and the ability of the public and local officials to know about
the effects of major decisions before they are final, a core principal
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
Protecting Public Health with Better Transit
Investment in clean public transportation reduces smog and
particulate air pollution that harms the health of children, the
elderly, and those with respiratory disease. Increased investment in
clean transit can provide vital remediation for these risks by helping
to reduce traffic. Riding transit is also far safer than driving, which
causes 42,000 U.S. deaths a year and 3 million injuries. Deaths and
injuries from motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for
persons of every age range from 4 to 33 years old. The National Safety
Council estimates that riding the bus is over 170 times safer than car
travel. If the Nation's roadway users had the same accident rate as
buses, 21,000 motorist lives would be saved annually in collision
accidents alone. Across all modes of public transportation, accidents
per million
passenger miles decreased by nearly 28 percent between 1993 and 1999;
transit
passenger injuries per million passenger miles declined nearly 24
percent.
Atlanta's experience during the Olympic Games in 1996 shows how
much transit can cut traffic, boost system efficiency, and protect
public health. By leasing 1,000 added buses, enhancing the
transportation system management, and the marketing improved travel
choices during the Olympics, Georgia officials cut the number of cars
in the morning rush hour by 23 percent. This reduced traffic led to
lower air pollution emissions, with a 28 percent drop in smog
concentrations even as the region accommodated over one million
additional visitors. This in turn caused the number of asthma acute
care events to decrease 42 percent during this period. (Freidman,
Michael S., Powell, Kenneth E., Hutwagner, Lori, Graham, Leroy M.,
Teague, W. Gerald; Journal of the American Medical Association,
February 21, 2001, vol. 285, no. 7, pg. 897- 901.)
Transit is Vital to Cut Climate Change Emissions
Transit has a key role to play in reducing our Nation's growing
dependence on oil and highly disproportionate contribution to human-
induced climate change. Transportation accounts for about 28 percent--a
growing share -- of U.S. climate change emissions. Yet the fuel
efficiency of a fully occupied rail car is 15 times greater than that
of the typical commuter's automobile. Full buses are 6 times more
efficient. A bus with as few as seven passengers is more fuel efficient
that the average solo commuter car trip.
For every 10,000 solo commuters who leave their cars at home and
commute on transit for 1 year, the Nation reduces fuel consumption by
2.7 million gallons. While intercity rail accounts for about 1 percent
of all passenger miles traveled by Americans, it accounts for only 0.1
percent of U.S. energy consumption for transportation. In Japan and
Germany, where high-speed rail is common, trains consume only a sixth
to an eighth as much energy as jet aircraft carrying similar passenger
loads. Protecting Amtrak and investing in a modern national intercity
high-speed rail system must be part of our national agenda to protect
the environment.
Several State studies have illustrated rail's benefits for energy
conservation, air pollution, and global warming. For example, in
California, a recent State study concluded that the State-supported
intercity train network will prevent 265 million motor-vehicle-miles
from being driven in 2002. While the resulting reduction in gasoline
consumption is offset by increased diesel consumption by trains, the
State projects a net saving of 7.3 million gallons of gasoline in 2002,
helping to reduce both air pollutant emissions and the demand for
imported oil. (California Department of Transportation, California
State Rail Plan 2001-2002 to 2010-2011, 2001, p. 16.) A gasoline saving
of this magnitude would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 140
million pounds, which is the equivalent of taking 12,000 cars off the
road for a year. A study done for the Coalition of Northeast Governors
in 1990 estimated that the introduction of high-speed rail service
between Boston and New York would save 20 million gallons of jet fuel
and 4.5 million gallons of gasoline per year. Although some pollution
is generated from the electricity that powers the trains, the net
effect of high-speed rail between Boston and New York would be to
eliminate almost 2,700 tons of smog-forming pollutants each year.
Public transportation has been estimated to cut gasoline use by
more than 1.5 billion gallons a year and to prevent the emission of
63,000 tons of hydrocarbons and 78,000 tons of nitrogen oxides. These
numbers don't even consider the much greater indirect energy and
environmental benefits of the efficient housing and work environments
made possible only by the availability of rich transit networks in
places like New York City, San Francisco, and Washington, DC. And vital
new economic centers, such as San Jose, Denver, and Portland, Oregon,
could not sustain and manage their growth without having invested
heavily in transit.
Transit Sustains and Builds Energy-Efficient,
Lower-Pollution Communities
To comprehend the true environment and public health benefits
produced by America's public transportation systems, we must consider
how community patterns of travel, commerce, and urban development are
transformed when high-quality transit services are consistently
developed and sustained over the long-term. A recent study by the
National Transit Cooperative Research Program of the National Academy
of Sciences found that transit-supported compact developments yield 10
to 30 percent less overall community energy use and pollution compared
to low density, car-dependent sprawled development, as well as lower
total social and infrastructure costs. Many regional and subregional
studies using best practice analysis tools to compare alternative
investment strategies and related policies, that is, in Denver,
Portland (OR), Sacramento, and Washington, DC, have found that transit
supported strategies can accommodate equivalent amounts of new
development with significantly less traffic and pollution while
automobile-oriented strategies induce added traffic and pollution.
Indeed, by focusing growth around an expanded transit system,
reducing expenditures on roads, and adopting an urban growth boundary
and pedestrian-friendly urban design standards, Portland, Oregon, has
pursued a path different from most other U.S. metropolitan areas. Since
the adoption of the 235,000-acre growth boundary in 1979, Portland,
Oregon, has urbanized just 39,000 acres. At the same time the
population inside the boundary has increased by more than a third. No
new road capacity has been added to the downtown for nearly a quarter
century although employment has nearly doubled in that time to 109,500.
Transit carries the equivalent of two lanes of traffic on every major
thoroughfare to downtown. Portland tore out a six-lane expressway to
create a downtown river front park, traded in the money for two new
freeways and invested in transit. Between 1990 and 1996, transit
ridership grew 20 percent faster than the growth in vehicle miles
traveled, 41 percent faster than the growth in transit service and
nearly 150 percent faster than the growth in population. Portland's
adopted regional plan envisions a 40 percent increase in population and
just a 2 percent increase in land area by 2017.
The experience of most cities with less consistently transit-
focused policies has been that urban land consumed per person has
skyrocketed, exacerbating car dependence. Seattle's experience is
typical, with a 38 percent population increase accompanied by an 87
percent increase in urban land area between 1970 and 1990.
Another region facing sprawl pressures that are being countered
with better transit is Denver, which anticipates accommodating a
million new residents in the coming 20 years. A recent survey by the
Downtown Denver Partnership shows that before the new Southwest light
rail line opened, one in four downtown commuters used transit; since
the new line opened, one in three do. It is estimated that it would
take 175 additional miles of highway in the Denver metro region to
carry all the people who use transit today. Recent public transit
investments have been very successful; both the light rail and the bus
and carpool lanes on north I-25 have exceeded projections for
ridership. The 14 mile light rail system takes 525 bus trips off city
streets each day. One light rail train can replace over 200 single
occupant vehicles. More than 33,000 people ride the light rail daily
about 30 percent above the original ridership projections. New transit
investments are not only alleviating traffic congestion and cutting
pollution, but also they are revitalizing communities by serving as
infrastructure for creating new town centers and livable, walkable
communities. The once dead Englewood mall has been reborn in the past 2
years as a mixed-use city center with homes, offices, stores, cultural,
and civic uses, thanks to Denver's Southwest light rail line that now
serves it. And the growth
attracted to this center otherwise would likely have taken a much more
polluting,
car-dependent form at the periphery of the metro area, but for Denver's
transit-supportive policies.
The large transportation and energy cost savings produced by
transit translate into higher real estate values for neighborhoods with
good transit access. Single-family residences in Boston are valued an
average of 6.7 percent higher in neighborhoods with rail stations
compared to neighborhoods without them according to a 1994
Transportation Research Board study. In Portland, Oregon, residential
properties within 500 meters of light rail station are valued at 10.6
percent more than comparable properties farther away.
Transit Reduces Water Pollution and Protects Parks and Ecosystems
By supporting more compact development patterns, transit investment
can reduce conversion of open space to urban uses, reduce impermeable
surface coverage in critical watersheds, and provide access to our
Nation's parks while protecting them from damage caused by traffic.
Surfaces paved to accommodate traffic are responsible for substantial
storm-water pollution and water quality degradation in coastal
estuaries, streams, lakes, and near-shore ocean environments. In
contrast to the space-intensive demands of air and auto travel, which
require ever-larger airports and ever more lanes of freeway, rail
service can be increased mostly along existing rights of way. Rail
stations accommodate many more passengers than airports while taking up
far less land. Penn Station in New York, for example, accommodates more
travelers every day than the 25 biggest airlines handle at Los Angeles
International, Chicago O'Hare, and Newark International airports
combined.
Accountability: Key to Better Transit, Expedited Project Delivery, and
Sustained Public Support for Transportation Funding
Public support for transportation funding will be sustained only if
Federal, State, and local agencies improve transparency about how they
spend money and can be held more accountable for the long-term effects
of transportation projects, programs, and plans. This requires better
integration of transportation, natural resource, and land use plans and
transportation project reviews at all levels of government for better
coordinated decisionmaking that supports wise system stewardship, with
better consideration of alternatives for impact avoidance and
mitigation. Such an
approach to improving transportation project delivery could lead to
more effective investments with broad public support, with more
investment in transit, and better protection of public health and the
environment.
Some State DOT's are carrying through on the mandate of TEA-21 to
integrate the Major Investment Study requirements into NEPA project
reviews and the transportation planning process, despite the absence of
DOT regulations, and by doing so are considering smart system
management, pricing, partial build scenarios, and smart growth
strategies as they consider major new investments. Some States are
pursuing stewardship initiatives to change the culture of State DOT's
and to foster closer planning and operational partnerships with State
resource agencies and key stakeholders. Most States have improved
interagency cooperation so that their transportation plans conform with
their adopted air pollution control plans. To accomplish this, some
regions, like Charlotte, North Carolina, are adopting air pollution
control strategies, such as new regional transit, that will help offset
future emission increases from highway transportation. Congress should
encourage these best practices.
Other transportation agencies and road builders are trying to
scapegoat environmental laws for their own administrative failures
which are manifested in a lack of local consensus on proposed projects,
insufficient State and local funding match dollars, and stalled reviews
due to inadequate consideration of alternatives, inadequate mitigation
and avoidance of adverse impacts, and efforts to end-run Federal
requirements. These interests want to expedite transportation project
delivery by weakening the Clean Air Act conformity requirements,
setting deadlines for project reviews, diminishing consideration of
alternatives and indirect impacts, limiting opportunities for
stakeholders and resource agencies to influence decisions, and limiting
judicial review. Congress should reject these proposals that would
undermine core environmental protections, spur greater conflict, erode
public support for transportation funding, and make it less likely that
communities will consider and implement investments and policies that
improve and support transit.
In those few places where transportation and air quality plans in
recent years have come into serious conflict, such as Atlanta,
transportation conformity lapses have led not to a cut off of Federal
transportation funds--as road builders often falsely assert. Instead,
Federal, State, and local funds have been redirected away from major
road expansions and into transportation projects that are beneficial or
neutral for air quality, including highway safety projects, park-and-
ride lots, HOV lanes, sidewalks and bike paths, bridge reconstruction,
traffic signalizations, and intersection improvements. During a
conformity lapse, funds may also go to major transit projects that have
been recognized as transportation control measures in State
Implementation Plans (SIP's) for air quality. But many State and local
agencies have failed to include their major transit projects in SIP's.
This administrative shortcoming puts the funds for these air quality
improvement projects at risk if there is a conformity lapse. Having
transit project funding held hostage to continued funding for sprawl
and traffic-inducing highways serves only the road builders'
interests. The Congress could remedy this problem by stating that major
transit investments should be treated as conformity-exempt and by
allowing new transit projects that have not previously been part of a
conforming transportation plan and program to be added to nonconforming
transportation plans and programs during conformity lapses.
In reauthorizing TEA-21, the Congress should reduce the number of
segmented project analyses, encouraging fewer, better-coordinated
evaluations of alternatives. State and metropolitan areas should
develop and periodically update, with public involvement, integrated
transportation, natural resource protection, and growth management
plans that consider at least one alternative scenario that considerably
reduces traffic growth through better system management. Agencies
should annually report on the current and projected performance of
their transportation system management, investment, and proposed
programs and plans, accounting for cumulative and secondary impacts on
growth patterns, public health, greenhouse gas emissions, the
achievement of natural resource planning goals for air, water, and
habitat protection, and the provision of equal access to jobs and
public facilities for all residents, including those without cars,
without undue time and cost burdens.
California's recently enacted AB2140 law provides a model for this:
(1) establishing a standardized set of basic transportation performance
indicators related to safety, congestion, road repair needs and public
transit that each region must begin to track; (2) establishing a
standard method of financial reporting to help the public and local
officials know what their money's being spent on; and (3) requiring an
``alternative planning scenario'' in the development of each region's
20 year transportation plan in order to provide a clear alternative to
present growth patterns that could minimize future demand on
transportation infrastructure while reducing congestion, protecting
open space, and saving taxpayers money. Adopting a Federal version of
AB2140 in TEA-3 would give the public and local elected officials
expanded transportation investment choices including options to better
support transit and manage both traffic and land development,
supporting an environmentally sound approach to expediting project
delivery.
Assure Integrity to Models and Analysis
A decade after ISTEA, many transportation agencies still use
transportation analysis models that reflect the assumptions of the
1970's, ignoring walking, biking, urban design, induced traffic, and
the land use impacts of transportation policies. The Federal Travel
Model Improvement Program should foster adoption of best practices, but
has had only modest effect. While some metropolitan areas, such as
Portland, Oregon, and Sacramento, California, have developed more
policy-sensitive modeling tools to appraise the traffic, transit, air
quality, and equity impacts of various policies, many agencies have
done only defensive just-in-time model fixes to produce answers that
help justify locally sought projects. The result is the recurrent
widespread under-estimation of air pollution from traffic, mis-
estimation of travel demand for new transit systems and roads, and
poorly supported investment decisions made on the basis of faulty data,
models, methods, and forecasts. Recent independent audits of computer
travel models in Washington, DC, and other regions have exposed serious
flaws in official Metropolitan Planning Organization models that bias
their findings strongly against transit investments and smart growth
strategies and strongly in favor of expanded highway investments.
Unless improved, these discredited models will be subject to growing
challenge from a variety of stakeholders, including resource agencies,
civic groups, environmental groups, and urban core development
interests that are put at disadvantage by these obsolete and poorly
calibrated tools.
America needs a new and much stronger national transportation data
center to replace the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. This center
should help set a core set of uniform standards for travel survey data
collection, transportation network coding, spatial data analysis, and
evaluation, developing a new generation of scientifically valid methods
for local, regional, and national travel behavior analysis to support
performance-based funding and decisionmaking. Local innovation should
be encouraged to augment this core set of measurement systems. To
improve their
validity and performance, regional travel models should be subject to
adequately
funded independent oversight and critique by impartial experts, with
open public access to data and software setups to facilitate public
interest audits of assumptions and model performance.
Level the Playing Field Between Roads and Transit on New Starts
The TEA-21 transit New Starts Program sets the rules for funding
new transit projects. This successful program has helped spur
competition for new projects,
encouraged greater local funding, and more efficient design and project
selection for system expansion, with far greater demand for funds than
available under TEA-21. We support substantially increased funding for
transit New Starts, as demand for such environmentally sound
investments is growing. Scarcity of New Starts funds have led to many
negotiated Federal funding far less than the 80 percent provided for
under law, with the program now approaching a 50-50 Federal-local
funding split.
But even more importantly, new highway projects should be subject
to the same rules and competition for local match as new transit
projects. This would help
assure a wiser use of scarce Federal transportation resources, greater
private participation, increased reliance on environmentally sensible
and fiscally prudent motorist user fees to cover project costs, and
better overall project selection. If a 50-50 split is adopted for
transit New Starts, as proposed by some, a similar split should
similarly be adopted for all new road projects financed with Federal
funds. Fiscal prudence in reauthorization would suggest far more
attention be paid to completing the job that ISTEA started on leveling
the playing field between highways and transit.
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Funding:
Vital For Transit and Public Health
The $8.1 billion 6 year Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program
(CMAQ) has had 44 percent of its funds expended 1992 -1999 on air
quality beneficial transit projects. Funding for CMAQ should be
substantially expanded in TEA-21 reauthorization in recognition of the
increased problem of air quality nonattainment. Eligibility for traffic
flow enhancement projects under CMAQ should be limited, as there are
ample other sources of Federal and State funds available for these
types of projects. CMAQ should not be opened up to become a general
operating assistance program for transit, but should focus on funding
innovative air pollution reducing initiatives and a wide array of
strategies and programs to reduce or to managing travel demand,
including incentives for smart growth, revision of local zoning,
parking, and design codes, creation of accessory apartments near jobs
and transit, freight and goods movement management strategy planning,
traffic calming, and much better data collection and analysis to
support and evaluate these initiatives before and after implementation.
State and local air quality agencies should be given authority to
allocate CMAQ funds in consultation with transportation agencies to
foster more cost-effective and innovative investments.
The U.S. EPA has promulgated new health standard based National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act in
recognition that the old NAAQS were insufficiently protective of public
health. The Supreme Court has upheld this new standard following an
industry challenge, and new designations are now overdue. The national
air quality monitoring network shows that more than 166 million people
live in counties with monitors showing unhealthful levels of ozone
under the new standard, compared to 117 million in areas designated
nonattainment under the old standard. When actual designations of new
nonattainment areas are made for ozone, including additional proximate
counties without monitors, and also for fine particulate matter, it is
likely that the population living in nonattainment areas will likely
increase by half. Currently only ozone nonattainment area population is
recognized in TEA-21's CMAQ obligation formula. It is equitable to
recognize fine particulate nonattainment area population as well.
Reauthorization apportionments should recognize that the expanded scope
of funding needs by proportionate expansion of CMAQ funding based on
both population and the degree of pollution remediation needed.
Otherwise existing nonattainment areas will suffer crippling cut-backs
in funds for air pollution reduction programs even while being asked to
take additional steps to further cut pollution to protect public
health.
Affirm a National Mobility Goal: Equal Access to Opportunities
Congress should assure America lives up to its reputation as a land
of opportunity by assuring access for all in TEA-21 reauthorization.
Recent U.S. DOT guidance seeks to assure that transportation plans and
decisions comply with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by
considering effects on the distribution of benefits and burdens related
to transportation and assuring adequate public involvement in the
planning process. Several recent studies suggest a pattern of declining
access to jobs and public facilities for those without cars as more
jobs locate in places without transit access. The adopted $35 billion
20 year Atlanta transportation plan, for example, shows that the share
of jobs reachable by those without cars declines from 2000 to 2005 and
does not get back to 2000 levels until after 2015. A disproportionate
share of those without cars in Atlanta and nationally are African-
Americans and nearly 94 percent of public assistance recipients do not
own cars and rely on public transportation. And by 2020, 40 percent of
the U.S. population will be senior citizens and many will be unable to
drive.
Congress should affirm in TEA-3 a national mobility goal to provide
equitable
access to jobs, health, education, public facilities, and other
opportunities for the young, the old, the disabled, and others without
cars without undue time and cost burdens. Regional Transportation Plans
should be required to demonstrate how this goal will be achieved and
short-term Transportation Improvement Programs should demonstrate
timely progress toward that goal. We can achieve this goal with
expanded support for public transportation, better coordinated urban
development and transportation, efforts to make neighborhoods safe and
attractive places to walk, bike, and use public transportation.
Strengthen Commuter Choice: Boost Employer Support for Transit
Federal and State tax policies are a part of the recent story of
transit resurgence. For the vast majority of working Americans, a free
parking space at work has for decades been the sole commuter benefit
offered by employers because that was until recently the only tax-free
commute benefit worth speaking of. So if you drive alone to work you
gain the benefit. If you take transit, carpool, walk, or bike, you lose
the benefit and likely pay your own daily transit fare. With this kind
of incentive, it is no surprise that on any given day 9 out of 10
American commuters drive to work and 9 out of 10 of the cars driven to
work have one occupant. Yet the 85 million ``free'' or subsidized
employer parking spaces actually cost American business more than $36
billion per year. By spurring more driving, these subsidies exacerbate
traffic congestion and air pollution. A Congressional study found that
``free'' parking of all kinds costs our society over $250 billion per
year.
In 1998, Congress took steps to make tax policies more equal for
all commuters, allowing employers to offer tax-free transit and vanpool
benefits of up to $100 a month, with taxable cash-in-lieu-of-parking
benefits allowable for the first time. Tax-free benefit limits for
employer-provided parking were set at $175 per month--a practice which
still leaves solo drivers at an advantage. Allowing employee-paid
pretax transit benefits saves transit-using employees over $400 a year
while saving employers a smaller amount on withholding. Having
employers pay for transit is a bigger incentive for employees. Offering
such a benefit to Federal executive agency employees in the national
capital region induced 11 percent of employees who used to drive to
work to switch to transit, taking 12,500 cars off the region's crowded
roads every workday. At firms in California and Minnesota offering a $2
a day incentive instead of free parking, one out of eight who used to
drive are finding another way to get to work. Such benefits help
employers attract and retain employees and provide the greatest help to
low and moderate wage workers who spend the largest share of their
incomes commuting and often ride transit, carpool, bike, or walk to
work.
The cost of such employer provided transit benefit programs to
employers is very small and can easily be fit within the scope of
ordinary cost-of-living increases offered by most employers to their
employees on a periodic basis. State tax credits can make this cost
even smaller. For example, in Maryland, if an employer offers an
employee a cost of living increase, for each $1 in after-tax cost to
the employer, the employee typically receives $0.53 in after-tax
income. If that same $1 in after-tax employer expense is instead
devoted to an employer-paid qualified transit benefit of $60 a month,
the typical Maryland employee who receives it ends up gaining $1.76 in
after-tax benefits, thanks to the leveraging effect of Federal and
State tax provisions.
The savings for employees offered by the Federal tax law changes
are significant and make a high level of employer and employee
participation in the next several years realistic across America. For
example, an employee earning $50,000 per year who spends $780 annually
on transit ($65/month) could realize a tax savings (at 42 percent) of
$328 as a result of paying their transit cost using pretax dollars,
exercising one of the new Commuter Choice options, while their employer
would gain payroll tax savings (at 7.65 percent) of $60 per employee
(Arthur Andersen). Even if the cost to set up and administer the
program equals 2 percent of the transit
benefit, the employer will still enjoy payroll savings of $44.
Employers are likely to face new costs to offer transit passes or added
cash income in lieu of parking, but these can also translate into
substantial cost savings of several types. It is much cheaper for an
employer to boost nontaxable employee benefits than to offer added
taxable income to retain or attract workers, which is an increasing
issue in a tight labor market. If the employer is able to expand
employment without adding more parking spaces or to otherwise avoid the
cost of building, leasing, or maintaining parking spaces for workers,
capital cost savings can amount to $5,000 to $20,000 per avoided space
and operating costs can amount to $750 to $3,000 or more per year per
avoided space. Such savings are often significant enough to more than
pay for a cash in lieu of parking or transit pass benefit.
Commuter Choice programs have been shown to unite the diverse
interests of environmentalists, business, labor and transit, and
highway advocates. Most realize that Commuter Choice is good for
business and for communities. Commuter Choice is a voluntary incentive
that boosts travel options and supports more efficient use of the roads
and transit we already have. It can provide quick relief to traffic-
strained communities and will expand market opportunities for new forms
of access to suburban jobs. Low- and moderate-income workers benefit
particularly, since commuting costs represent a larger relative burden
on them, and they tend to be more reliant on ridesharing and transit.
The Alliance for Clean Air and Transportation, a national group
representing a diverse array of sectors, including the road builders,
automobile industry, environmentalist and health groups, the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Highway User
Federation, American Automobile Association, the National Association
of Regional Councils, and the U.S. DOT and EPA, in February 2000,
adopted a consensus goal of making Commuter Choice benefit programs a
standard part of the American worker benefit program over the next 5
years.
However, Commuter Choice will have an effect on air pollution only
if people know about it and use it, and if the opportunities for cost
savings offered by aggressive implementation of these incentives are
made evident and available to developers, building owners and tenants,
and commuters. Marketing alone has been shown to be inadequate to win
widespread adoption of Commuter Choice incentives. There are many
strategies that can be taken by States, regional bodies, and local
municipalities to foster rapid and widespread adoption of Commuter
Choice incentives so these might become available to the average
commuter. Additional financial incentives and support by transportation
agencies and other Government bodies are essential to rapid adoption of
Commuter Choice voluntary incentives and can be highly cost-effective
in reducing congestion and pollution.
The DOT and EPA are promoting Commuter Choice, but Congressional
action is needed to further expand efforts to foster widespread
adoption of these voluntary incentives. EPA estimates that if half of
all U.S. employees were covered under these commuter benefits, traffic
and air pollution could be cut by the equivalent of taking 15 million
cars off the road every year, saving American workers about $12 billion
in fuel costs. For every 10 percent of U.S. employees participating,
commute VMT would be cut by 3.2 percent, or 20 billion miles, with
emission reductions of 54,000 tons VOC, 480,000 tons CO, 33,600 tons
NOx, and 2.36 million tons CO<INF>2</INF>. In SIP Development Guidance:
Using Emission Reductions from Commuter Choice Programs to Meet Clean
Air Act Requirements, EPA estimates reductions of 26 -30 percent in
commute vehicle trips for a full Commuter Choice program. Los Angeles
research shows that those who receive free parking at work drive 72
cars per 100 employees, while those who paid for parking at work drove
53 cars per 100 employees, or 26 percent less (D. Shoup, ``An
Opportunity to Reduce Minimum Parking
Requirements,'' Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter
1995, pages 14 -28.).
Congress should take further steps to encourage employer support
for such ``Commuter Choice'' initiatives. Congress should support for
the following bills that would do this:
<bullet> The Commuter Benefits Equity Act of 2001 (H.B. 318) would
provide equal tax-treatment for parking and transit benefits.
<bullet> The Bike Commuter Act (H.R. 1265) would allow employees who
bike to work the same financial incentives as transit users.
<bullet> The Mass Transit Tax Credit Act of 2001 (H.R. 906) would
provide a 25 percent tax credit to employers for the cost of
providing transit benefits to their employees. This is modeled
after measures adopted by several States--including Maryland,
Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, Georgia, and New Jersey--that have
begun offering tax credits of up to 50 percent and up to $50 per
employee per month for employer-paid nondriving commuter benefits.
TEA-3 should also require that local and State officials do more to
consider integrating Commuter Choice into their transportation plan and
program development. In all nonattainment areas, transportation
programs should assure that potential air pollution reduction benefits
from Commuter Choice will be realized in a timely manner. These would
include provision of these benefits to State and local government
employees, aggressive marketing of these benefits to employers and
employees, inclusion of Commuter Choice programs in local planning,
development review, and other decisionmaking procedures and favorable
local and State tax treatment. Such new travel demand management
activities and incentives should be given priority by including them in
air quality SIP's as Transportation Control Measures.
This promotion should include marketing, technical, and
administrative assistance, new transit fare products, such as deep-
discount bulk purchase transit and vanpool benefits for 100 percent of
an employer's workforce in the region, and new financial incentives for
employers and employees that are adjusted annually in an effort to meet
stated performance targets. State Implementation Plans should
include targets, timetables, and expanded funding commitments for (a)
providing
different segments of the labor force with Commuter Choice options of
various types and (b) achieving increased levels of use of various
Commuter Choice incentives by various portions of the labor force.
These targets could be used as the basis for estimating SIP credits if
accompanied by commitments to reasonably linked funding and policy
commitments that could be anticipated to meet these targets.
Financing Transit With Automated Road Pricing
Another promising option that TEA-21 supports is automated time-of-
day tolls and High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes, which allow solo drivers
to pay to use High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, while giving a free
ride to buses, vans, and sometimes carpools. These can put to work
unused capacity in HOV lanes and help pay for expanded transit
services. A network of HOT lanes on existing highways is likely to
provide more effective congestion relief than building new roads. New
outer beltway toll roads are likely to bring more sprawl and put more
jobs out of reach for those without cars, hurting the poor and the
environment. Why not instead give time-stressed travelers a way to buy
relief from growing congestion delays in existing freeway corridors and
finance better transit?
HOT lanes in existing road corridors can expand both travel choices
and equity. HOT lane critics unfairly bash them as ``Lexus Lanes,''
serving only the rich. Real-world HOT lanes look more like ``Lumina
Lanes,'' used by people of widely varying incomes who occasionally need
to bypass traffic delays that disrupt their social, family, or work
life. A working class mom who is facing a $1 a minute penalty for
picking her kids up late at day care is happy to pay $4 to save 20
minutes by using the HOT lane on those several days a month when she
needs it. The typical users in California spend less than $20 a month
on HOT lane tolls, using them on days they are in a real rush. If HOT
lane revenues fund new bus services, as on San Diego's I-15 HOT lane,
everyone wins. Lower income transit users and carpoolers get access to
otherwise inaccessible suburban jobs. Drivers benefit from reduced road
congestion and better services and choices. If HOT lane revenues help
pay for the road, those who drive most are paying more of their fair
share, helping all taxpayers win. Road user fees don't nearly cover the
full cost of building and operating America's roads, which remain
subsidized by broader taxes. And with new accounting rules forcing
fuller disclosure of deferred maintenance, transportation providers
need new sources of revenue to maintain systems, expand choices, and
cope with growing travel demand.
New nonstop electronic toll technology means motorists do not need
to slow down to pay tolls. And HOT lane fees--higher in rush hour and
discounted at other times--keep traffic flowing without wasting scarce
road capacity like HOV lanes do. This makes it possible to contemplate
future conversion of some existing general-purpose lanes to HOT lanes,
particularly where new capacity is being added to existing roads. HOT
lane experience indicates this strategy can garner popular support. On
California's Route 91, diversion of traffic onto HOT lanes has reduced
congestion on the entire road and increased the number of passengers
per car to 1.6, compared to the average of 1.2. Similar incentives have
been implemented or are being considered in Texas, Florida, Colorado,
Georgia, New Jersey, New York, and other States.
The Port Authority of NY-NJ in March 2001, introduced time-of-day
tolls on Hudson River bridges and tunnels and Staten Island bridges,
giving discounts for electronic toll payers who avoid rush hours and
charging a premium in the time of most concentrated demand, just like
movie theaters and many other services. This helps reduce congestion by
shifting the time of day of traffic. Toll revenues support better PATH
transit and regional transportation infrastructure and services. The NJ
Turnpike, NY Thruway Authority, and other tolling agencies have
implemented time-of-day tolls to manage traffic.
Congress should encourage States and transportation facility
operators to replace obsolete toll booths that cause congestion and
pollution with new barrier-free customer-friendly tolling systems using
toll transponders and image processing and billing systems. Congress
should encourage State motor vehicle agencies to issue toll
transponders with motor vehicle registrations to encourage their
widespread availability in States where tolls are used. Congress should
eliminate restrictions on
tolling highways that were constructed with Federal aid, which can now
only be tolled under limited pilot projects authorized by TEA-21.
Promote Smart Transit Fare Payment Systems for Productivity Gains
Transit can also be made more efficient by better management. There
are many things that should be done in this regard, including improving
fare collection systems and giving buses and trolleys greater priority
in traffic. Enhancing priority for buses and trolleys in traffic can
increase average transit travel speeds, schedule
adherence, and the number of passenger seat-miles per hour that can be
carried by existing transit vehicles. A key part of this strategy
involves upgrading traffic signals to support greater priority in
traffic for buses, so they can hold a green signal green for a few
extra seconds, or advance a red signal to green to avoid an extra stop.
The strategy can also include building or configuring bus queue jumper
lanes at key traffic bottlenecks to speed bus traffic past congestion,
creating dedicated bus lanes, and bus boarding stations. These are
often combined to provide ``Bus Rapid Transit,'' which can often
provide many of the benefits of fixed guideway rail services quickly at
a lower cost.
Across America, buses are slowed by passengers who must file
through the vehicle's narrow front door to board and pay an exact cash
fare. Encouraging near
universal use of prepaid transit fare instruments and other high
efficiency transit
payment options, as in Europe and Japan, enhances productivity of
existing and new transit services by reducing delays related to fare
payment at time of boarding. Instead of having people pay cash on
boarding, require that passengers carry a
prepaid transit pass, or other fare media that must be validated before
or immediately after boarding a transit vehicle, and which at a premium
cost could be
purchased on board the vehicle. Greater use of daily, weekly, monthly,
and annual
transit passes helps accomplish this. Fare inspectors roaming transit
systems and
spot checking to verify that passengers are carrying a valid proof of
fare payment or a pass, with large fines for fare evasion assure broad
compliance. This enables boarding of buses through both front and rear
doors, which boosts transit vehicle productivity.
Provide Safe Routes to Schools and Transit by Foot and Bike
Transit is only useful when people can get to and from its stops.
Thus, a key part of the transit success story is also attributable to
TEA-21's increased support for investments in walking and bicycling.
TEA-21 reauthorization should take further actions to assure a safe
route to schools and transit stops across America, adapting successful
strategies from the most bicycle and pedestrian friendly communities.
This should include requiring transit agencies to develop least-cost
transit access plans that consider and compare walk, bike, and
automobile access opportunities to expand the market reach along all
their transit lines. It should include accelerated funding to local
governments to enable the build-out of the 20 year bike and pedestrian
plans in the next 3 years, planning funds to engage in local area
pedestrian and bicycle planning to identify key barriers and safety
problems, and delay of some road projects to provide funds to retrofit
sidewalks, bike paths, and traffic calming measures within a half-mile
of all transit stops and schools.
About 40 percent of Americans own bicycles, and many of these
people live \1/4\ of a mile to 2 miles away from express transit stops.
Few of these people now use transit to get to work, in part because of
the lack of an inexpensive, convenient, safe, and fast transit access
system suited to trips of this distance. In the Silicon Valley of
California, 40 percent of those using bicycle lockers at rail stations
leave bicycles in them overnight and use them to get from the station
each morning to their nearby schools and employment, just as in the
Netherlands.
Another means of reducing traffic is to implement neighborhood
traffic calming to reduce motor vehicle speeds on many streets to
improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists, and reduce
emissions from car travel. Traffic calming has been shown by research
to reduce idle times by 15 percent, gear changing by 12
percent, brake use by 14 percent, and gasoline use by 12 percent,
injuries by 60 percent, fatalities by 53 percent, and air pollution by
10 to 50 percent. The majority of all urban and suburban streets and
roads are already quite suitable for bicycling, with relatively low
traffic speeds and low traffic volumes. However, such residential
streets usually lead to bicycle-hostile major roads before reaching
major activity centers and schools. Frequently, development of small
missing links can make the difference between safe bicycle access and
lack of access. Experience shows that high levels of bicycle use only
occur where the street system is bicycle-friendly. Where well-connected
networks of bicycle friendly streets, bicycle paths, and bicycle lanes
have been provided--such as Davis, Palo Alto, and Santa Barbara,
California, Madison, Wisconsin, and Gainesville, Florida--bicycle mode
shares of 10-25 percent are common. Where such networks are not
available, only the hardiest of cyclists take to the roads for
purposeful travel, leading to bicycle mode shares of 2 percent or less.
(Michael Replogle, Bicycle and Pedestrian Policies and Programs in
Asia, Australia, and New Zealand, U.S. Federal Highway Administration,
Washington, DC 1993). Marketing, education, and promotion programs are
also needed to encourage greater and safer use of bicycles for short
utilitarian trips, including transit access, particularly in
conjunction with initiatives that reduce the current barriers of theft,
security, safety, and legitimacy which impede nonrecreational bicycle
use in America.
Build Guarded Bike Parking at Major Transit Stops
U.S. metro areas have invested in costly park-and-ride systems that
have made transit increasingly dependent on the automobile. Other
regions, especially in Europe but also in some United States
communities, have been strengthening the potential for people to walk
and bicycle to and from transit, boosting ridership at a far lower
cost. In much of Europe, the fastest growing and often predominant
access mode to suburban express transit services is the bicycle. Bike-
and-ride services expand the potential market area of express public
transportation at low cost without the very high air pollution emission
and energy use rates per VMT, excessive space requirements, and high
capital costs of automobile park-and-ride systems. While park-and-ride
enables those living in lower density areas to travel from home-to-
transit stop, bike-and-ride systems providing secure overnight bicycle
parking can facilitate both access and egress to transit, enabling
travelers to get from transit stops to nearby workplaces and schools
which are otherwise unreachable by transit. Bicycle access can be
invaluable in adapting transit to serve 21st Century suburban
development patterns.
In many U.S. communities, transit access planning looks only at
automobile access. Yet many people do not use transit because they
cannot find affordable or available parking nearby when they want it.
It costs $5,000-$20,000 to build a single additional parking space, and
$750-$3,000 a year to operate a park-and-ride space. Providing bike
lockers, bike racks, and guarded bicycle parking at transit stops can
free up car parking spaces for those who cannot bike or who live too
far to bike to transit, while offering a low-cost healthy way for those
\1/2\ mile to 2 miles from the transit station or stop get to and from
transit. Guarded bike parking at transit is a predominant part of
transit access in European and Japanese suburbs, where it costs \1/10\
to \1/100\ as much as auto parking at transit to provide and operate.
And secure overnight bike parking at transit allows people to get from
transit to nearby schools and jobs that are beyond walking distance of
the transit stop.
In 1996, the city of Long Beach implemented the Nation's first
attended bicycle parking facility, or ``Bikestation.'' These facilities
provide a range of clean transportation options--including secure,
bicycle parking, bicycle repairs and accessory sales, changing and
restrooms, and bicycle rentals. Bike stations have since opened in the
communities of Palo Alto and Berkeley and are under development in San
Francisco, Denver, Seattle, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles and Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. (See www.bikestation.org.)
Conclusion
Transit has a vital role to play in solving environmental, public
health, and equity problems that must be addressed if we are to enjoy
sustainable economic development in America's diverse communities and
regions. ISTEA and TEA-21 began to better align funding, planning
requirements, and incentives with national and local goals for equal
access to opportunities, healthful air quality, and efficient mobility.
But TEA-3 needs to go farther in providing funding for transit and
encouraging State and local action to get on with key overdue reforms.
Accountability for how funds are spent and their impacts is key to
getting better travel choices for all Americans and protecting our
health and environment.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR REED
FROM HERSCHEL L. ABBOTT, JR.
Q.1. Does BellSouth plan to offer its employees Commuter Choice
tax benefits? Do you have any suggestions on how to make this
program more attractive to employers?
A.1. BellSouth is offering parts of the Commuter Choice program
to our employees in Atlanta, like the pretax employee
deductions for mass transit cards and preferential parking for
carpoolers. (BellSouth subsidizes about 60 percent of the
monthly transit passes, then provides the cards to employees at
about 40 percent of face value on a pretax basis.) As a
suggestion to improve the program, I would recommend increasing
the tax incentives for employers who support mass transit use
and telecommuting.
Q.2. Have you heard from business leaders in other parts of the
country who would like the kind of transit service you have in
Atlanta? If so, could you provide a list to the Subcommittee?
A.2. We have not heard specifically from other businesses, per
se, about how they could do something like we have done with
the Atlanta Metro Plan. Of course, mass transit would need to
be available for any similar plan to be workable. We have,
however, spoken at forums arranged by groups like ULI and AEDC,
which included business attendees. The primary interest we have
received has been from economic development councils looking
for similarities, where mass transit exists.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR REED
FROM ROBERT BROADBENT
Q.1. Why did Las Vegas choose monorail technology over the more
common light rail and bus rapid transit (BRT) technology?
A.1. Monorail technology was chosen over more common light rail
and BRT technology for the following reasons:
<bullet> It is elevated and less intrusive.
<bullet> It can be built in restricted areas where height and
right of way is restricted.
<bullet> It has a turning radius of 150 feet, which light rail
elevated has not yet accomplished.
<bullet> It is sleek and meets the vision of the resorts.
Q.2. I applaud your efforts to create such strong public-
private partnership to build the Las Vegas monorail system. Do
you think the same kind of partnership can be created to
support the maintenance and operation of transit systems?
A.2. We are developing the same kind of partnerships on fares.
Working with resorts, the Las Vegas Convention & Visitors
Authority, Convention sponsors and vacation trip sponsors, we
think we will be very successful.
IMPROVING EFFICIENCY OF AMERICA'S
TRANSPORTATION WITH BETTER PLANNING AND
SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL A. REPLOGLE
Transportation Director, Environmental Defense
Before the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. House of Representatives
May 21, 2002
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I have
been invited this morning to discuss how we might improve the
efficiency of America's surface transportation system with better
planning and system management, speaking on behalf of Environmental
Defense, an organization with 300,000 members that seeks to integrate
law, science, and economics to find practical solutions to
environmental problems.
Operations and System Management: Boosting Efficiency and Cutting Costs
How we price, manage, and operate transportation sends powerful
signals to consumers, affecting our travel choices, shaping our cities,
and quality of life. For much of the last century, Government funding
for transportation, tax policy, and transportation pricing policies
promoted private motor vehicle use and worked against other means of
travel. This created unprecedented mobility, but it also led to sprawl,
induced traffic, increased air and water pollution, and reduced access
to opportunities for those without cars. By managing our transportation
system to favor motorists, we have reduced transportation choices and
imperiled the historic human right of being able to walk safely where
we live and work, causing Americans to be far less physically active.
Recent research shows our transportation management decisions have a
profound effect on individual and public health, contributing to asthma
and other respiratory diseases, cancer, obesity, and impaired mental
health. Changes in how we manage, price, and operate transportation can
improve our health, boost transportation system efficiency, protect our
environment and natural resources, and reduce the costs of our very
expensive system of mobility, while expanding the travel choices,
employment opportunities, and economic productivity.
Better System Management: Cheaper and Faster than Building New Roads
Atlanta's experience during the Olympic Games in 1996 is
illustrative of how much transportation system management can cut
traffic, boost system efficiency, and protect public health. By leasing
1,000 added buses, focusing on transportation system management, and
marketing improved nondriving travel choices during the Olympics,
Georgia officials cut the number of cars in the morning rush hour by 23
percent. This reduced traffic led to lower air pollution emissions,
with a 28 percent drop in smog concentrations even as the region
accommodated over one million additional visitors. This in turn caused
the number of asthma acute care events to
decrease 42 percent during this period.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Freidman, Michael S., Powell, Kenneth E., Hutwagner, Lori,
Graham, Leroy M., Teague,
W. Gerald; Journal of the American Medical Association, February 21,
2001, vol. 285, no. 7, pgs. 897- 901.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning studies by various other metropolitan regions suggest that
similar benefits can be achieved elsewhere with pragmatic steps to
manage traffic, expand traveler's choices, and provide smart
transportation pricing incentives. My extensive
review of the research and my experience over the past 25 years
suggests that with the right mix of policies, better transportation
system management can cut forecast traffic growth by 20 to 30 percent
over the 20 year time horizon of most regional long-range
transportation plans. Many of these strategies can deliver traffic
relief quickly without extensive public investment, through public-
private partnerships, marketing, and improved service delivery. Taken
together, these management strategies can provide more effective and
long-lasting congestion relief at a lower cost than most highway system
expansion proposals.
Moreover, improved traffic operations can enable us to more
efficiently accommodate the remaining traffic on our existing highways,
rendering unnecessary a
significant share of proposed new highway expansions. Where modest
expansion of highways is warranted, it must be viewed as a critical
opportunity to improve how we manage both the existing and new
capacity, by enabling strategies like fully automated time-of-day
facility pricing. Pursuing these smarter management strategies will
require some retooling of our transportation agencies and industry, but
will provide major opportunities for economic growth with better
environmental and
fiscal stewardship and protection of public health.
TEA-3: Stewardship and Integrated Planning for
Better Transportation Management
The 1991 ISTEA reforms--reaffirmed and extended in the 1998 TEA-21
law--
expanded opportunities for State and local governments to pursue smart
transportation system management to curb traffic growth. States have
flexibility to use Federal transportation funds to support transit,
pedestrian safety, and market incentive programs, such as promoting
employer-paid transit benefits and cash-in-lieu-of-parking benefits.
There is greater accountability for States and regions to consider the
short- and long-term effects of transportation decisions on air quality
and transportation system performance. Transit ridership has grown
faster than the number of miles driven by motorists for the past 3
years, reaching its highest level in 40 years. In many cities, transit
agencies are straining to keep up with ridership growth as many urban
areas regain residents and vitality. Last year, for the very first time
in the United States since the 1970's, the number of miles driven per
person declined.
But while some States and regions are making greater use of these
opportunities for smarter system management, others are making little
progress and continue to devote a large share of their attention to the
failed strategy of trying to build their way out of traffic congestion.
In a third of the States, archaic constitutional restrictions limit the
ability of States to use their own gas tax resources for anything other
than road investments. In many metropolitan regions the transportation
planning process expends little effort to consider transportation and
growth management strategies that could provide attractive alternatives
to the current plan of business-as-usual road system expansions that
accommodate and that support sprawl and subsidize driving while
neglecting the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and those without
cars. Improved data collection and impact analysis tools and stronger
planning requirements are needed if State and local agencies are to
comprehend, identify, and invest in better system management. By
improving integrated performance-oriented planning at the State and
regional level, we can address demands to streamline the project review
process in a manner that delivers better projects that also protect the
environment, public health, and the ability of the public and local
officials to know about the effects of major decisions before they are
final, a core principal of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA).
Some State DOT's are carrying through on the mandate of TEA-21 to
integrate the Major Investment Study requirements into NEPA project
reviews and the transportation planning process, and by doing so are
considering smart system management, pricing, partial build scenarios,
and smart growth strategies as they consider major new investments.
Some States are pursuing stewardship initiatives to change the culture
of State DOT's and to foster closer planning and operational
partnerships with State resource agencies and key stakeholders. Other
State DOT's are seeking to scapegoat environmental laws for their own
administrative failures, which are manifested in a lack of local
consensus on proposed projects, insufficient State and local funding
match dollars, and stalled reviews due to inadequate consideration of
alternatives, inadequate mitigation and avoidance of adverse impacts,
and efforts to end-run Federal requirements. Proposed arbitrary
deadlines, circumscribed public involvement, and short-circuited
transportation project review procedures would erode accountability and
threaten to divide the diverse coalition that has long supported
Federal transportation funding programs.
As TEA-21 is reauthorized, a new TEA-3 law should strengthen
accountability, transparency, and performance-oriented planning
requirements. It should assure timely consideration of opportunities
for improved transportation system management, pricing reform, and
stewardship. State and metropolitan areas should be
required to develop and to periodically update integrated
transportation, natural resource protection, and growth management
plans that consider at least one alternative scenario that considerably
reduces traffic growth through better system management. Agencies
should annually report on the current and projected performance of
their transportation system management, investment, and proposed
programs and plans, accounting for cumulative and secondary impacts on
growth patterns, public health, greenhouse gas emissions, the
achievement of natural resource planning goals for air, water, and
habitat protection, and the provision of equal access to jobs and
public facilities for all residents, including those without cars,
without undue time and cost burdens.
California's recently enacted AB2140 law provides a model for this:
(1) establishing a standardized set of basic transportation performance
indicators related to safety, congestion, road repair needs and public
transit that each region must begin to track; (2) establishing a
standard method of financial reporting to help the public and local
officials know what their money's being spent on; and (3) requiring an
``alternative planning scenario'' in the development of each region's
20 year transportation plan in order to provide a clear alternative to
present growth patterns that could minimize future demand on
transportation infrastructure while reducing congestion, protecting
open space, and saving taxpayers money. As part of TEA-3, this analysis
should also be required to consider market incentive and transportation
system and demand management strategies.
Across America, we are on a crash course with worsening traffic
congestion, crumbling roads and bridges, and investment levels that
cannot even keep up with maintaining the infrastructure we have.
Adopting a Federal version of AB2140 in TEA-3, with mandates to
consider and provide this information, would allow us to plan for
better transportation projects, help us judge how effectively we are
spending transportation funds, and help us target resources on reducing
congestion with management strategies, providing more convenient
alternatives to being stuck in traffic, fixing our roads and bridges,
and better coordinating future transportation and growth needs.
Commuter Choice Benefits:
A Quick, Cheap Way to Cut Commuter Traffic by 25 Percent
Federal and State tax policies are a part of the recent story of
transit resurgence. For the vast majority of working Americans, a free
parking space at work has for decades been the sole commuter benefit
offered by employers because that was until recently the only tax-free
commute benefit worth speaking of. So if you drive alone to work you
gain the benefit. If you take transit, carpool, walk, or bike, you lose
the benefit and likely pay your own daily transit fare. With this kind
of incentive, it is no surprise that on any given day 9 out of 10
American commuters drive to work and 9 out of 10 of the cars driven to
work have one occupant. Yet the 85 million ``free'' or subsidized
employer parking spaces actually cost American business more than $36
billion per year. By spurring more driving, these subsidies exacerbate
traffic congestion and air pollution. A congressional study found that
``free'' parking of all kinds costs our society over $250 billion per
year.
In 1998, Congress took steps to make tax policies more equal for
all commuters, allowing employers to offer tax-free transit and vanpool
benefits of up to $100 a month, with taxable cash-in-lieu-of-parking
benefits allowable for the first time. Tax-free benefit limits for
employer-provided parking were set at $175 per month--a practice which
still leaves solo drivers at an advantage. Allowing employee-paid
pretax transit benefits saves transit-using employees over $400 a year
while saving employers a smaller amount on withholding. Having
employers pay for transit is a bigger incentive for employees. Offering
such a benefit to Federal executive agency employees in the national
capital region induced 11 percent of employees who used to drive to
work to switch to transit, taking 12,500 cars off the region's crowded
roads every workday. At firms in California and Minnesota offering a $2
a day incentive instead of free parking, one out of eight who used to
drive are finding another way to get to work. Such benefits help
employers attract and retain employees and provide the greatest help to
low- and moderate-wage workers who spend the largest share of their
incomes commuting and often ride transit, carpool, bike, or walk to
work.
The cost of such employer provided transit benefit programs to
employers is very small and can easily be fit within the scope of
ordinary cost-of-living increases
offered by most employers to their employees on a periodic basis. State
tax credits can make this cost even smaller. For example, in Maryland,
if an employer offers an employee a cost of living increase, for each
$1 in after-tax cost to the employer, the employee typically receives
$0.53 in after-tax income. If that same $1 in after-tax employer
expense is instead devoted to an employer-paid qualified transit
benefit of $60 a month, the typical Maryland employee who receives it
ends up gaining $1.76 in after-tax benefits, thanks to the leveraging
effect of Federal and State tax provisions.
The savings for employees offered by the Federal tax law changes
are significant and make a high level of employer and employee
participation in the next several years realistic in Houston and
elsewhere. For example, an employee earning $50,000 per year who spends
$780 annually on transit ($65 a month) could realize a tax savings (at
42 percent) of $328 as a result of paying their transit cost using
pretax dollars, exercising one of the new Commuter Choice options,
while their employer would gain payroll tax savings (at 7.65 percent)
of $60 per employee (Arthur Andersen). Even if the cost to set up and
administer the program equals 2 percent of the transit benefit, the
employer will still enjoy payroll savings of $44. Employers are likely
to face new costs to offer transit passes or added cash income in lieu
of parking, but these can also translate into substantial cost savings
of several types. It is much cheaper for an employer to boost
nontaxable employee benefits than to offer added taxable income to
retain or attract workers, which is an increasing issue in a tight
labor market. If the employer is able to expand employment without
adding more parking spaces or to otherwise avoid the cost of building,
leasing, or maintaining parking spaces for workers, capital cost
savings can amount to $5,000 to $20,000 per avoided space and operating
costs can amount to $750 to $3,000 or more per year per avoided space.
Such savings are often significant enough to more than pay for a cash
in lieu of parking or transit pass benefit.
Commuter Choice programs have been shown to unite the diverse
interests of environmentalists, business, labor and transit, and
highway advocates. Most realize that Commuter Choice is good for
business and for communities. Commuter Choice is a voluntary incentive
that boosts travel options and supports more efficient use of the roads
and transit we already have. It can provide quick relief to traffic-
strained communities and will expand market opportunities for new forms
of access to suburban jobs. Low- and moderate-income workers benefit
particularly, since commuting costs represent a larger relative burden
on them, and they tend to be more reliant on ridesharing and transit.
The Alliance for Clean Air and Transportation, a national group
representing a diverse array of sectors, including the road builders,
automobile industry, environmentalist and health groups, the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Highway User
Federation, American Automobile Association, the National Association
of Regional Councils, and the U.S. DOT and EPA, in February 2000
adopted a consensus goal of making Commuter Choice benefit programs a
standard part of the American worker benefit program over the next 5
years.
However, Commuter Choice will have an effect on air pollution only
if people know about it and use it, and if the opportunities for cost
savings offered by aggressive implementation of these incentives are
made evident and available to developers, building owners and tenants,
and commuters. Marketing alone has been shown to be inadequate to win
widespread adoption of Commuter Choice incentives. There are many
strategies that can be taken by States, regional bodies, and local
municipalities to foster rapid and widespread adoption of Commuter
Choice incentives so these might become available to the average
commuter. Additional financial incentives and support by transportation
agencies and other government bodies are essential to rapid adoption of
Commuter Choice voluntary incentives and can be highly cost-effective
in reducing congestion and pollution.
The DOT and EPA are promoting Commuter Choice, but Congressional
action is needed to further expand efforts to foster widespread
adoption of these voluntary incentives. The EPA Office of Mobile
Sources estimated that a national commuter choice program assuming a 10
percent employee participation rate would generate a reduction in
commute VMT of 3.2 percent, reductions in VMT of 20 billion miles,
emission reductions of 54,000 short tons hydrocarbons (VOC), 480,000
short tons Carbon Monoxide, 33,600 short tons Nitrogen Oxides, and
2,360,000 metric tons Carbon Dioxide. In State Implementation Plan
Development Guidance: Using Emission Reductions from Commuter Choice
Programs to Meet Clean Air Act Requirements, EPA estimates a typical
expected reduction of 26 -30 percent in commute vehicle trips for a
full Commuter Choice program. Research in Los Angeles shows that those
who received free parking at work drove 72 cars per 100 employees,
while those who paid for parking at work drove 53 cars per 100
employees, or 26 percent less. (Donald Shoup, ``An Opportunity to
Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements,'' Journal of the American Planning
Association, Winter 1995, pp. 14 -28.)
Congress should take further steps to encourage employer support
for such ``Commuter Choice'' initiatives. We urge your support for the
following bills that would do this:
<bullet> The Commuter Benefits Equity Act of 2001 (H.B. 318) would
provide equal tax-treatment for parking and transit benefits.
<bullet> The Bike Commuter Act (H.R. 1265) would allow employees who
bike to work the same financial incentives as transit users.
<bullet> The Mass Transit Tax Credit Act of 2001 (H.R. 906) would
provide a 25 percent tax credit to employers for the cost of
providing transit benefits to their employees. This is modeled
after measures adopted by several States including Maryland,
Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, Georgia, and New Jersey that have
begun offering tax credits of up to 50 percent and up to $50 per
employee per month for employer-paid nondriving commuter benefits.
TEA-3 should also require that local and State officials do more to
consider integrating Commuter Choice into their transportation plan and
program development. In all nonattainment areas, transportation
programs should assure that potential air pollution reduction benefits
from Commuter Choice will be realized in a timely manner. These would
include provision of these benefits to State and local government
employees, aggressive marketing of these benefits to employers and
employees, inclusion of Commuter Choice programs in local planning,
development review, and other decisionmaking procedures, and favorable
local and State tax treatment. Such new travel demand management
activities and incentives should be given priority by including them in
air quality SIP's as Transportation Control Measures.
This promotion should include marketing, technical, and
administrative assistance, new transit fare products, such as deep-
discount bulk purchase transit and vanpool benefits for 100 percent of
an employer's workforce in the region, and new financial incentives for
employers and employees that are adjusted annually in an effort to meet
stated performance targets. State Implementation Plans should include
targets, timetables, and expanded funding commitments for (a) providing
different segments of the labor force with Commuter Choice options of
various types and (b) achieving increased levels of use of various
Commuter Choice incentives by various portions of the labor force.
These targets could be used as the basis for estimating SIP credits if
accompanied by commitments to reasonably linked funding and policy
commitments that could be anticipated to meet these targets.
The municipal, regional, and State agencies within the
nonattainment area should identify for priority funding in
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Regional Transportation
Plan (RTP) Commuter Choice promotion initiatives and related
incentives. This could include funding for: (a) additional transit
rideshare, and alternative commute program marketing, paid advertising,
and transportation management associations, (b) development of new
prepaid discount transit fare instruments and seamless regional transit
fare and service coordination designed to facilitate easy marketing
(that is, an unlimited use $60 a month regional transit pass and
vanpool pass that can be purchased by or through employers), (b)
promotion of prepaid employer-subsidized transit fare instruments to
both employers and employees, (c) transit fare buy-down programs that
match employer contributions toward employee transit commute benefits
with public sector subsidies (like the Montgomery County, Maryland,
Fare Share program) or tax credits (like the Maryland or Oregon State
Tax Credits for employers who pay for transit benefits or who offer
cash in lieu of parking payments).
Municipalities should consider how to incorporate incentives for
adoption and use of Commuter Choice incentives by employees, employers,
and developers through additional flexibility in the application of
zoning parking requirements. They could require that leases and
property transactions separately identify the cost of parking spaces
and offer options for reduced parking in exchange for covenants and
agreements to incorporate cash in lieu of parking and employer paid
transit benefits in building leases and other real estate transactions.
Municipalities could agree to require Commuter Choice strategies to be
considered in traffic planning, site plan and development review
decisions, zoning and parking ordinance revisions, access-to-jobs
programs and local tax policy, with timetables for modification of
ordinances. These activities are eligible for funding through the
Transportation Improvement Program under various Federal funding
sources.
Opening the Door to Efficient Traffic Management with
Automated Road Pricing
Another promising option for unclogging roads, especially in more
congested metropolitan areas, is automated time-of-day tolls and High
Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes, which allow solo drivers to pay to use High
Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, while giving a free ride to buses, vans,
and sometimes carpools. These can put to work unused capacity in HOV
lanes and help pay for expanded transportation choices. A network of
HOT lanes on existing highways is likely to provide more
effective congestion relief than building new roads. New outer beltway
toll roads are likely to bring more sprawl and put more jobs out of
reach for those without cars, hurting the poor and the environment. Why
not instead give time-stressed travelers a way to buy relief from
growing congestion delays in existing freeway corridors?
HOT lanes in existing road corridors can expand both travel choices
and equity. HOT lane critics unfairly bash them as ``Lexus Lanes,''
serving only the rich. Real-world HOT lanes look more like ``Lumina
Lanes,'' used by people of widely varying incomes who occasionally need
to bypass traffic delays that disrupt their social, family, or work
life. A working class mom who is facing a $1 a minute penalty for
picking her kids up late at day care is happy to pay $4 to save 20
minutes by using the HOT lane on those several days a month when she
needs it. The typical users in California spend less than $20 a month
on HOT lane tolls, using them on days they are in a real rush. If HOT
lane revenues fund new transit, as on San Diego's 1-15 HOT lane,
everyone wins. Lower income transit users and carpoolers get
access to otherwise inaccessible suburban jobs. Drivers benefit from
reduced road congestion and better services and choices. If HOT lane
revenues help pay for the road, those who drive most are paying more of
their fair share, helping all taxpayers win. The reality is that road
user fees do not nearly cover the full cost of building and operating
America's roads, which remain subsidized by broader taxes. And with new
accounting rules forcing fuller disclosure of deferred maintenance,
transportation providers need new sources of revenue to maintain
systems, expand choices, and cope with growing travel demand.
New nonstop electronic toll technology means motorists do not need
to slow down to pay tolls. And HOT lane fees--higher in rush hour and
discounted at other times--keep traffic flowing without wasting scarce
road capacity like HOV lanes do. This makes it possible to contemplate
future conversion of some existing general-purpose lanes to HOT lanes,
particularly where new capacity is being added to
existing roads.
HOT lane experience indicates this strategy can garner popular
support. On California's Route 91, diversion of traffic onto HOT lanes
has reduced congestion on the entire road and increased the number of
passengers per car to 1.6, compared to the average of 1.2. Similar
incentives have been implemented or are being considered in Texas,
Florida, Colorado, Georgia, New Jersey, New York, and other States.
The Port Authority of NY-NJ in March 2001, introduced time-of-day
tolls on the Hudson River bridges and tunnels and Staten Island
bridges, giving discounts for electronic toll payers who avoid rush
hours and charging a premium in the time of most concentrated demand,
just like movie theaters and many other services. This helps reduce
congestion by shifting the time of day of traffic. Toll revenues
support better PATH transit and regional transportation infrastructure
and services. The NJ Turnpike, NY Thruway Authority, and other tolling
agencies have implemented time-of-day tolls to manage traffic.
Congress should encourage States and transportation facility
operators to replace obsolete toll booths that cause congestion and
pollution with the new barrier-free customer-friendly tolling systems
using toll transponders and image processing and billing systems.
Congress should encourage State motor vehicle agencies to issue toll
transponders with motor vehicle registrations to encourage their
widespread availability in States where tolls are used. Congress should
eliminate restrictions on tolling highways that were constructed with
Federal aid, which can now only be tolled under limited pilot projects
authorized by TEA-21. Automated time-of-day tolls are a very promising
tool for transportation facility management and financing.
Use-Based Car Insurance:
A Voluntary Incentive to Cut Total Driving by 10 percent or More
Use based car insurance is a very promising near-term voluntary
market-based strategy that could save consumers money, cost nothing to
the public sector, and cut air pollution and traffic congestion by 10
percent to 12 percent or more (Todd Litman, Distance-Based Vehicle
Insurance: A Practical Strategy for More Optimal Pricing, Victoria
Transport Policy Institute, August 2001). Unlike Commuter Choice which
affects primarily work travel, distance-based car insurance would also
help curb emissions from nonwork travel, which constitutes
approximately three-fourths of all driving.
The State of Texas has already begun taking steps to adopt
distance-based insurance, enacting in May 2000 H.B. 45, a law which
authorizes insurance companies to offer distance-based motor vehicle
insurance policies. The Federal Highway Administration is supporting
research and pilot projects for use-based insurance in Georgia and
Massachusetts, and efforts are underway to expand State incentives for
this innovation in other States.
Under current term-based insurance pricing, motorists who drive
less than the
average pay much higher costs per mile for car insurance than those who
drive
more than average, which encourages more driving and pollution. For
example,
for an intermediate size car, insurance premiums typically represent a
cost even
greater than fuel and oil costs, about one-fifth of the typical total
financial costs of owning a car. When insurance premiums are converted
to distance-based charges, motorists can save money by driving less and
combining trips. Newly available data indicate that distance-based
insurance pricing is more actuarially accurate, and therefore more
equitable and economically efficient than current pricing. Distance-
based insurance provides specific benefits including reduced accidents,
traffic congestion, and pollution, facility cost savings, insurance
affordability, and increased consumer welfare. Vehicle travel foregone
consists of low-value trips that consumers willingly give up in
exchange for financial savings. Distance-based premiums would use
``odometer audits'' to provide accurate mileage data, which is
estimated to have incremental costs averaging $7.50 per vehicle year.
Research suggests total benefits of distance-based insurance to be many
times greater than costs, with a benefit:cost ratio of 50:1 estimated
for the case of British Columbia. Motorists are expected to reduce
their average mileage by about 10 percent under distance-based pricing,
providing net savings to the vast majority of consumers. Even high
mileage drivers experience virtually increase in total vehicle costs if
they reduce their mileage as predicted. Higher-mileage drivers would
also benefit most from reduced traffic congestion, accident risk, and
pollution.
In TEA-3 Congress should provide ample funding-- on the order of
$25 million a year--for expanded research and pilot testing of this
market-based strategy, including risk sharing with insurance companies
pilot testing this approach to policy pricing, paying for expanded
actuarial research, marketing, partnership development, evaluation, and
promotion. The potential payoff--a reduction of 10 percent in traffic
while saving consumers money and reducing accidents and casualty losses
to the
insurers--is well worth such up front investment to help jump start
this market
innovation.
Beyond the Gas Tax: Cutting Traffic by a Third with Road User Fees?
Automobile manufacturers are beginning to offer an array of more
fuel efficient vehicle options for motorists, including new higher
efficiency hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles like the Honda Impact,
Toyota Prius, Honda Civic, and Ford RAV- 4. Efforts to develop natural
gas, electric, and fuel cell vehicles offer some promise for a
reduction in petroleum dependence before the end of the 20 year
transportation plans adopted by regions under TEA-21. While these will
not immediately impact Federal and State revenues from gasoline taxes,
which comprise the major source of transportation funding, it would be
prudent for Congress to support experiments by States and regions to
develop transportation user fees other than the gas tax to
assure stable financing of transportation systems into the future. Such
user fees, while politically challenging to put into place, could also
play an important role in managing traffic growth and congestion.
Congestion pricing and road tolls, mileage or emission based
registration fees, VMT fees, use-based auto insurance, and gasoline tax
increases could all produce significant traffic and pollution
reduction. Expert analysis of likely impacts of such strategies in many
other metropolitan areas have found substantial traffic and
corresponding emission reductions possible as a result of any one of
these strategies. For example, a study by the California Air Resources
Board found that congestion pricing fees of $0.10 a mile would yield a
NOx reduction of 2.5 percent in the South Coast region of California
under 1991 conditions, increasing to 3.6 percent with a $0.19 per mile
fee under 2010 conditions. They found that a $0.50/gallon fuel increase
would yield NOx reductions of 3.3-3.8 percent in various California
metro areas under 1991 or 2010 conditions. They found a $.02/mile VMT
fee would reduce NOx emissions by 3.6 - 4.3 percent in various
California metro areas under 1991 or 2010 conditions. They found
emission fees reducing NOx emissions by 4.2-17.3 percent depending on
assumptions in various California metro areas. Combining congestion
pricing of $0.09/mile in peak, a $1 a day employee parking charge, a
$0.50/gallon fuel tax increase paid at the pump, and a mileage and
emissions based fee of $40 - $400/year, with current transit service,
they found NOx emissions reduced by 9.9-12.1 percent in San Francisco,
Sacramento, San Diego, and Los Angeles under 1991 or 2010 conditions.
Combining the same congestion pricing with a $3/day employee
parking charge, a $2/gallon gas increase paid at the pump, and mileage
and emission fees of $10-$1,000/year, with extensive transit investment
would cut NOx emissions in these same cities by 32.0-34.9 percent under
1991 or 2010 conditions. (California Air Resources Board,
Transportation Pricing Strategies for California: An Assessment of
Congestion, Emissions, Energy, and Equity Impacts, November 1996,
Sacramento, CA, tables 7-11 to 7-18.) The EPA Pricing Guidance
document, Opportunities to Improve Air Quality through Transportation
Pricing Programs, September 1997, states that ``VMT fees of $0.01 to
$0.05 a mile alone would reduce gaseous emissions and VMT by about 4 to
11 percent, while a VMT fee weighted for emissions was estimated to
have a significantly greater impact on emissions, particularly for VOC
and NOx.'' (pg. 32) This report summarizes various studies to conclude
that added fuel taxes of $0.40 to $2 a gallon usually reduce NOx
emissions 1.2- 6.9 percent. At the pump VMT fees of $0.01 to $0.05 per
mile usually reduce emissions 5-8.6 percent. Traffic reductions
correspond closely to these reported NOx reductions.
As part of TEA-3, Congress should assure a well-funded broad-based
program to encourage State and local research and pilot testing of
transportation user fee incentive strategies like these, as well as
completely voluntary market incentive
strategies, such as use-based car insurance, discussed above.
Promote Smart Transit Fare Payment Systems for Productivity Gains
Transit should also be made more efficient by better management.
There are many things that could be done, including better fare
collection systems and greater priority in traffic.
Enhancing priority for buses in traffic can increase average
transit travel speeds, schedule adherence, and the number of passenger
seat-miles per hour that can be carried by existing transit vehicles. A
key part of this strategy involves upgrading traffic signals to support
greater priority in traffic for buses, so they can hold a green signal
green for a few extra seconds, or advance a red signal to green to
avoid an extra stop. The strategy can also include building or
configuring bus queue
jumper lanes at key traffic bottlenecks to speed bus traffic past
congestion.
Across America, buses are considerably slowed by people lining up
at the door at busy bus stops to pay their fares. Encourage near
universal use of prepaid transit fare instruments and other high-
efficiency transit payment options that will enhance productivity of
existing and new transit services by reducing delays related to fare
payment at time of boarding, as in Europe and Japan. Greater use of
daily, weekly, monthly, and annual transit passes helps accomplish
this. Instead of having people pay cash on boarding, require that
passengers carry a prepaid transit pass, or other fare media that must
be validated before or immediately after boarding
a transit vehicle, and which at a premium cost could be purchased on
board the
vehicle. Fare inspectors roaming transit systems and spot checking to
verify that passengers are carrying a valid proof of fare payment or a
pass, with large fines for fare evasion assure broad compliance. This
enables boarding of buses through both front and rear doors, which
boosts transit vehicle productivity.
Provide Safe Routes to Schools and Transit by Foot and Bike
Initiating a range of actions to make it safe and attractive to
walk and bike to all schools and transit stops throughout the region by
2005, adapting successful strategies from the most bicycle and
pedestrian friendly communities in America and abroad. This should
include accelerated funding to local governments to enable the build-
out of the 20 year bike and pedestrian plans in the next 3 years,
planning funds to engage in local area pedestrian and bicycle planning
to identify key barriers and safety problems, and delay of some road
projects to provide funds to retrofit sidewalks, bike paths, and
traffic calming measures within a \1/2\-mile of all transit stops and
schools. A significant share of traffic is related to parents driving
students to schools because it is not safe or attractive to walk there.
Bicycle-hostile street environments near most U.S. schools, transit
stops, and stations also pose a significant barrier to more widespread
use of bicycles. The majority of U.S. cyclists are not comfortable
riding in fast or heavy traffic unless offered separate paths or lanes.
A large, but not well connected, network of low-speed, low-volume,
relatively bicycle-friendly streets exist in most U.S. suburbs.
However, without penetrator bicycle paths connecting major transit
stops, employment, residential areas, and shopping centers, only a
minority of cyclists will consider it attractive to bicycle to transit.
Marketing, education, and promotion programs are also needed to
encourage greater and safer use of bicycles for short utilitarian
trips, including transit access, particularly in conjunction with
initiatives that reduce the current barriers of theft, security,
safety, and legitimacy which impede nonrecreational
bicycle use in America.
About 40 percent of Americans own bicycles, and many of these
people live \1/4\ mile to 2 miles away from express transit stops. Few
of these people now use transit to get to work, in part because of the
lack of an inexpensive, convenient, safe, and fast transit access
system suited to trips of this distance. In the Silicon Valley of
California, 40 percent of those using bicycle lockers at rail stations
leave bicycles in them overnight and use them to get from the station
each morning to their nearby schools and employment, just as in the
Netherlands.
Another means of reducing traffic is to implement neighborhood
traffic calming to reduce motor vehicle speeds on many streets to
improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists, and reduce
emissions from car travel. Traffic calming has been shown by research
to reduce idle times by 15 percent, gear changing by 12 percent, brake
use by 14 percent, and gasoline use by 12 percent. A Federal Highway
Administration report, Project for Public Spaces, The Effects of
Environmental
Design on the Amount and Type of Bicycling and Walking, National
Bicycling and Walking Study, Federal Highway Administration, October
1992, Washington, DC, discusses the German experience with traffic
calming demonstration projects in six cities and towns in the early
1980's: ``The initial reports showed that with a reduction of speed
from 37 km/h (23 mph) to 20 km/h (12 mph), traffic volume remained
constant, but there was a 60 percent decrease in injuries, and a 43
percent to 53 percent reduction in fatalities. Air pollution decreased
between 10 percent and 50 percent. The German Auto Club, skeptical of
the official results, did their own research which showed broad
acceptance after initial opposition by the motorists. Interviews of
residents and motorists in the traffic calmed areas showed that the
percentage of motorists who considered a 30 km/h (18 mph) speed limit
acceptable grew from 27 percent before implementation to 67 percent
after implementation, while the percentage of receptive residents grew
from 30 percent to 75 percent.'' This experience of
initial skepticism of traffic calming, followed by its widespread
popularity after implementation, has been experienced in hundreds of
communities across Europe, Japan, and Australia, along with the a large
number of United States communities which have adopted such strategies
in the 1990's. The widespread acceptance of traffic calming in recent
years by U.S. traffic engineers (particularly with promotion by the
Institute for Transportation Engineers) and by many communities makes
this strategy a reasonably available to metropolitan areas across the
U.S. today.
Street space needs to be allocated to the bicycle in areas where
traffic volumes or traffic speeds are high if bicycles are going to be
used to reach these areas. The majority of all urban and suburban
streets and roads are already quite suitable for bicycling, with
relatively low traffic speeds and low traffic volumes. However, such
residential streets usually lead to bicycle-hostile major roads before
reaching major activity centers and schools. Frequently, development of
a few small missing links can make the difference between safe bicycle
access and lack of bicycle access. Without separate bicycle paths or
bicycle lanes, only the small share of cyclists who are more highly
skilled will be attracted to use this mode of transportation to make
day-to-day trips. Experience in many cities and towns in America and
elsewhere shows that high levels of bicycle use only occurs where the
street system is bicycle-friendly. Where well-connected networks of
bicycle friendly streets, bicycle paths, and bicycle lanes have been
provided--such as Davis, Palo Alto, and Santa Barbara, California,
Madison, Wisconsin, and Gainesville, Florida--bicycle mode shares of
10-25 percent are common. Where such networks are not available, only
the hardiest of cyclists take to the roads for purposeful travel,
leading to bicycle mode shares of 2 percent or less. These
relationships can also be observed in other affluent countries in
Europe and Asia. (Michael Replogle, Bicycle and Pedestrian Policies and
Programs in Asia, Australia, and New Zealand, U.S. Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, DC 1993).
Metro areas can elect to complete their 20 year bicycle
transportation plans on an accelerated basis. A bicycle and pedestrian
SIP commitment might also include funding of a program for community-
based bicycle and pedestrian planning and improvements. In a very large
share of communities there is significant unmet demand for the retrofit
of sidewalks, for pedestrian traffic safety improvements, for enhanced
connections of neighborhoods to schools, and for better pedestrian and
bicycle access to public transportation. A SIP commitment to fund
planning and public involvement to identify, design solutions, and
address local needs such as these is a critical part of assuring
effective additional efforts in this arena beyond the accelerated
funding of TIP and RTP bicycle and pedestrian projects. Guarded bicycle
parking centers could be located at major transit stops in metro areas
where there is strong latent transit from travelers who live or work at
a radius of more than \1/2\ mile and less than 2 miles from the transit
center, where there is inadequate automobile park-and-ride capacity,
where the topography, market demographics, and community climate of
opinion and community texture appear most favorable.
Pilot projects could include funding for improvements to bicycle
and pedestrian safety on routes leading to stations and transit stops
especially within a 1 mile radius. Funding could be provided for
marketing and evaluation. A bundle of such measures, as described
above, could be employed to make all areas within a \1/2\ mile of
transit stops and schools safe and attractive places for walking and
bicycling around metropolitan areas. Within a several year period this
could result in significant traffic reduction as people gained new
options for access without use of a car.
Congress needs to expand funding dedicated to nonmotorized
transportation programs, promotion, planning and safety so that we can
achieve all that is possible from these most friendly and inexpensive
travel modes.
Build Bike Stations at All Major Transit Stops
U.S. metro areas have invested in costly park-and-ride systems
which have made transit increasingly dependent on the automobile. Other
regions, especially in Europe but also in some United States
communities, have been strengthening the potential for people to walk
and to bicycle to and from transit, boosting ridership at a far lower
cost. In much of Europe, the fastest growing and often predominant
access mode to suburban express transit services is the bicycle.
Despite rapid growth in the number of motor vehicles, suburbanization,
and the emergence of polycentric metropolitan areas, bicycle access to
most European railways has gained market share at the same time that
bus and walk access has declined. Bike-and-ride services expand the
potential market area of express public transportation at low cost
without the very high air pollution emission and energy use rates per
VMT, excessive space requirements, and high capital costs of automobile
park-and-ride systems. While park-and-ride enables those living in
lower density areas to travel from home-to-transit stop, bike-and-ride
systems providing secure overnight bicycle parking can facilitate both
access and egress to transit, enabling travelers to get from transit
stops to nearby workplaces and schools which are otherwise unreachable
by transit. Bicycle access can be invaluable in adapting transit
systems to the emergent suburbanized polycentric metropolitan land use
patterns found in Europe, Japan, and North America.
Many people do not use transit because they cannot find affordable
or available parking nearby when they want it. It costs $5,000 -
$20,000 to build a single additional parking space, and $750 - $3,000 a
year to operate a park-and-ride space. Providing bike lockers, bike
racks, and guarded bicycle parking at transit stops can free up car
parking spaces for those who cannot bike or who live too far to bike to
transit, while offering a low cost healthy way for those \1/2\ mile to
2 miles from the transit station or stop get to and from transit.
Guarded bike parking at transit has been a predominant part of transit
access in European and Japanese suburbs for decades, where it costs \1/
10\ to \1/100\ as much as auto parking at transit to provide and
operate. And secure overnight bike parking at transit allows people to
get from transit to nearby schools and jobs that are beyond walking
distance of the transit stop.
In 1996, the city of Long Beach implemented the Nation's first
attended bicycle parking facility, or ``Bikestation.'' These facilities
provide a range of clean transportation options--including secure,
bicycle parking, bicycle repairs and accessory sales, changing and
restrooms, and bicycle rentals. Bikestations have sinced opened in the
communities of Palo Alto and Berkeley and are under development in San
Francisco, Denver, Seattle, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles and Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. (See www.bikestation.org)
Encourage Accessory Apartments Near Jobs and Transit
Many people end up living far from work because they cannot find
affordable housing closer by. But local zoning codes often impede
homeowners from developing invisible infill affordable housing--
accessory apartments. This can be a potent traffic reduction strategy,
cutting trip lengths, car dependence, and sprawl. Transportation plans
should be required to consider how affordable accessory housing units
in areas near transit and job centers, more opportunities for live-work
space, and more transit oriented development could cut traffic and to
identify barriers to these forms of market-based community development.
Reforming zoning codes that make it difficult, costly, and time-
consuming to create accessory apartments in neighborhoods near transit
and job centers and provide technical assistance to homeowners
interested in creating such units in these areas can be useful steps
forward.
Conclusion
The 1991 ISTEA law, which was reauthorized in 1998 with few major
changes as TEA-21, gave individuals, States, and companies greater
flexibility to invest in or use what ever means of transportation best
suits their needs. ISTEA and TEA-21 began to better align
transportation price signals with national and local goals for expanded
and more equal access to opportunities, healthful air quality, and
efficient mobility. These laws created new incentive-based pilot
projects, like the Value Pricing Program. But more needs to be done.
Many States have focused increased funds to expand the public's travel
choices, but others have not. Congress should demand more
accountability for how funds are spent.
Throwing more money into road building and streamlining project
reviews to curtail consideration of environmental factors in
transportation decisions won't solve congestion. But better
accountability, planning, consideration of alternatives, and support
for new smart incentive strategies can help local and State agencies,
business, and citizens cut their way through our traffic mess and boost
transportation equity. Congress has a key role in helping State and
local governments and their private partners make this transformation
from trying to build our way out of congestion and into the new
information era, where we manage congestion and expand choices and
smart incentives.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
TRANSIT: A LIFELINE FOR
AMERICA'S CITIZENS
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met at 2:50 p.m. in room SD-538 of the
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Jack Reed (Chairman of
the Subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. Let me call the hearing to order, and welcome
you all this afternoon.
There is a vote in progress at this moment. Senator Allard
is at the vote. He will return promptly. Also, I know that
Senator Shelby wants to be here personally to introduce Ms.
Tehranchi, and when he arrives, he will do that.
Let me give my opening statement and then as my colleagues
arrive, I will ask them to speak and then we will introduce the
first panel and begin our testimony.
Welcome to our panels. Today, we will examine the
importance of our Nation's transit investment for the disabled,
senior citizens, and hard working low-income Americans.
Over the past few months, our Subcommittee has heard from
the Department of Transportation, the Federal Transit
Administration, transit operators, business people, elected
officials, and environmentalists, all of whom have given us
their recommendations for the reauthorization of TEA-21.
This afternoon, we will hear from the people who actually
use transit. Indeed, for our first panel of witnesses, transit
is a lifeline to the outside world and employment. Without
transit, these Americans would be far less able to join us and
share their compelling stories of overcoming obstacles.
Our second panel will provide us with recommendations to
ensure that seniors, the disabled, and lower-income Americans
can continue to depend upon public transportation for mobility
and freedom. We know that a person without a car or someone who
cannot drive faces very real mobility challenges in our
country.
For example, there are 25 million transit-dependent people
with disabilities and 30 percent of disabled Americans have a
problem with inadequate transportation, compared to 10 percent
of those without disabilities.
In addition, we know that today, 14 percent of those over
65 use transit, but as America's elderly population grows and
more of us can no longer drive, the demand for fixed-route and
paratransit service is sure to increase proportionately.
Finally, families with incomes under $15,000 make up 61
percent of transit riders in our Nation's rural communities--
not our cities, but our rural communities.
Addressing these needs is an important part of our effort
to reauthorize TEA-21, and I look forward to hearing from
today's witnesses. With their help, we can produce a
reauthorization bill that responds to the needs of all of our
Nation's transit riders.
Now let me recognize Senator Allard for his opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize for being just a little late. We had a vote
going.
I want to thank you for holding this hearing. As we
continue in the TEA-21 authorization process, it is important
for us to take a look at specific programs and hear from those
who the programs serve. Today, we are looking at the Elderly
and Persons with Disabilities Program and the Job Access and
Reverse Commute Program. Both of these programs serve a
population of transit-dependent riders. I am very interested to
hear how we can improve these programs for this population in
the reauthorization of TEA-21.
Larry Worth is the Executive Director of the Northeast
Colorado Association of Local Governments, or NECALG, talked to
this Subcommittee in April about paratransit services, and his
testimony highlighted the importance of services for the
elderly, disabled, and impoverished in the large, rural area
NECALG covers. It is often in the isolated, rural areas of this
country that this is the largest population served by transit
services.
Larry talked about the importance of continued funding for
the Job Access Program for those individuals living in rural
areas who have no other way to get to work but through transit.
He emphasized the positive impact TEA-21 has had on rural
northeastern Colorado, with the increased transit and bus and
bus-related capital allowing them to purchase more vehicles to
serve those with great need, whether that be an elderly
individual needing a ride to a doctor's appointment or a
disabled individual who has no other means of transportation.
I welcome the opportunity today to hear the perspective of
other individuals who utilize transit services throughout this
country, especially those who are transit-dependent, and
hopefully, we can hear from some with firsthand experience
about what we can do to improve their services.
I thank the Chairman, again, for holding this hearing and I
look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
I apologize again because I have another committee going on
and I will have to split early. But I want to thank everybody
for coming forward and testifying. I know it is not easy. It is
not easy getting here. It is not easy to find the place of the
hearing. And it costs a little bit and sometimes it means you
have to be away from your jobs and your businesses and what
not.
I appreciate the sacrifice you are making to testify here.
Thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Allard.
Now, I would like to recognize Senator Shelby for his
opening statement. He would like to introduce our first
witness.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, it is really a pleasure for me to come here
to the Subcommittee this afternoon and introduce Ms. Jessie
Tehranchi of Birmingham, Alabama, seated right here on our
left.
I have worked with her on a number of issues. She has been
an advocate for the disabled population of the city of
Birmingham, my State of Alabama, and in fact, the whole Nation.
She recently represented my State of Alabama at the
National Patient Advocate Foundation Congress, and represented
us well. She has been very active in the effort to restore one
of Birmingham's most treasured symbols, the Vulcan statue, and
to make sure its facilities include, Mr. Chairman,
accessibility for all of Alabama's citizens, and their guests.
Ms. Tehranchi has been a dedicated advocate on behalf of
efforts to address mobility needs for persons with
disabilities. It is such a great pleasure for me to introduce
her here. I have worked with her. I know her. She does good
things and I know she has trouble getting around, but she never
lets that stop her, Mr. Chairman, whether it is raining,
whether it is hot, like it is today, or it is snowing. She is
going to be there.
I have to go to another committee, but I am going to stay
around a few minutes.
Thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Shelby.
Before I call on Ms. Tehranchi, let me also introduce our
other panelists. Joining Ms. Tehranchi at the witness table is
Ms. Gloria McKenzie of Albany, New York. She is a success story
in the value of transit and the Job Access and Reverse Commute
Program. And she is here to join us to describe her transition
from a JARC client to someone who is today employed as a Trip
Planner for the Capital District Transportation Authority.
Welcome, Ms. McKenzie, thank you.
Ms. Faye Thompson, who joins us from Kenova, West Virginia,
where she has found that the Wayne County X-Press is essential
to getting her to and from medical appointments and maintaining
her independence.
Welcome again, Ms. Thompson.
I will just remind the witnesses, your formal statements
will be made a part of the record. If you would like to
summarize, that would be appreciated. Five minutes will be
allotted.
I have had the pleasure also of meeting Ms. Tehranchi. In
fact, she told me that in Birmingham, Senator Shelby, your
nickname is Vulcan, and the statue was dedicated to you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Shelby. I'll tell you what. I wish it were. But we
appreciate the Senate and the House joining me in our efforts
to help restore that and make it accessible to everyone. We
received some Federal money, thanks to a lot of help here. But
most of the money was private money, local money. Vulcan is
very important to us down there. I am glad to be part of it.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator.
Ms. Tehranchi.
STATEMENT OF JESSIE TEHRANCHI
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA
Ms. Tehranchi. I want to thank both of you for that
beautiful introduction, and I feel very privileged to be doing
what I am doing today. As all of you know, I am from
Birmingham, Alabama. I am glad to be here representing the
Transportation Equity Network, which is a national coalition of
grassroots organizations concerned with transit.
Fifteen years ago, I was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.
It has been really a challenge.
I became aware of the importance of a quality public
transportation, however, in 1995, when the Birmingham bus
service just automatically shut down. What happened there were
the people on kidney dialysis could not get to the doctors for
kidney dialysis treatment. People who used the bus to get to
work could not get to work, and other things that people use
bus service for.
Greater Birmingham Ministries and the Alabama Kidney
Foundation called this rally. They said, rain or shine, we are
going to meet and we are going to protest this. We will
actually just have a rally about it. It was an outcry from the
public. They could not believe that this was happening in
Birmingham.
They did have the rally. It turned out there was five
inches of rain that day, but 80 people showed up for the rally.
Several people in wheelchairs like me were there. At that time,
I was still driving. But not long after that, because of the
disability of multiple sclerosis, I quit driving.
That is why I am here today. I am basically here to tell
you that I know this issue. This is a serious issue. It is an
issue to me. I never thought I would be here. It is an issue to
too many people and it is something your group must address and
help us with.
I use CLASTRAN, which is a paratransit service that serves
the communities around Birmingham. Although this service is
much needed and much used, I have been stood up by this service
a few times. And that is because the drivers, the dispatchers,
all those people work very hard, but sometimes it happens, and
a lot of it has to do with a lack of funding. This is something
that we hope that you people will help us with and provide it
for everybody else in the country.
I am a member of several organizations in Birmingham. One
is the Government Relations Committee of the Alabama Chapter of
the Multiple Sclerosis Society, which Senator Shelby mentioned.
I am on the Alabama Disability Action Coalition. We were the
ones who were responsible for Vulcan being accessible, by the
way. I am also Transportation Chair for the League of Women
Voters of Greater Birmingham; and I am an active volunteer in
Alabama Arise, a coalition working on the issues of low-income
people, and I serve on the statewide task force for disability
transportation issues. These organizations understand that
transportation is a definite necessity.
In Alabama, there are 900,000 transportation disadvantaged;
and the population in Alabama is only 4 million.
People must have transportation to stay integrated into
society: To work, to shop, for recreation, for medical
services, to vote, to function independently. Accessible
transportation allows people with disabilities free movement in
society.
As this Committee prepares for the reauthorization of TEA-
21, I urge you to remember the importance of ensuring that
transit users have a voice in the issues that affect transit
service. Transit users must be voting members of the
Metropolitan Planning Organizations, the Department of
Transportation, and the other transit agencies.
Congress must also pay attention to the metropolitan and
statewide planning process, and the metropolitan certification
process. TEA-21 reauthorization is an important opportunity to
ensure transit user involvement, to clarify the importance of
civil rights and environmental justice, and to more fully
address the needs of transit dependent people.
Thank you for letting me come today.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Ms. Tehranchi, for your statement.
We appreciate it very much.
Before I call on Ms. McKenzie, we have been joined by
Senator Akaka. Senator, do you have an opening statement or
comment that you would like to make now?
COMMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA
Senator Akaka. Mr. Chairman, yes, I have a statement. Would
you please include it in the record?
Senator Reed. Without objection. Thank you, Senator.
Ms. McKenzie, please.
STATEMENT OF GLORIA McKENZIE
ALBANY, NEW YORK
Ms. McKenzie. Good afternoon. My name is Gloria McKenzie
and I am a Trip Planner for the Capital District Transportation
Authority in Albany, New York. I want to thank the
distinguished Members of this Committee for affording me this
opportunity to share with you my thoughts about the
reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century.
As a single mother with two children, living in public
housing, and on public assistance, I was referred to an
employment and training program with the goal being that I
secure full-time employment in order to support my family and
myself. In order to achieve this goal, the local Department of
Social Services provided me with subsidized public
transportation in the form of a bus pass, which allowed me to
have access to a training program. Upon securing employment, my
bus pass was maintained allowing me to get to and from work on
a daily basis. I can assure you that without this ongoing
support of my public transportation needs, it would have been
difficult for me to continue doing the work necessary to secure
employment and to take care of my family needs.
Today, I come before you in my capacity as a trip planner,
and along with the coordinator and my two fellow trip planners;
we manage the public transportation trip needs of individuals
in a four county area that makes up the Capital District's Job
Access and Reverse Commute Program. My job is to work with any
and all individuals, but specifically with TANF and low-income
individuals to help them manage their public transportation
mobility needs, which primarily consist of access to employment
centers, child care facilities, and education and training
centers.
CDTA's JARC Program consists of expanded shuttle service to
major areas of employment, a safety net brokerage, trip
planners to address the mobility needs of customers, and a
coordinator who works with employers, local government
officials, and the community addressing the mobility needs of
the community at large.
Matching funds from Community Solutions for Transportation
dollars providing for service extensions on existing routes and
a Pass Program allowing individuals access to the entire
service delivery system. Our program has been embraced by the
community, and CDTA is perceived as an involved and concerned
partner in resolving the transportation needs of citizens and
has received an award from the American Public Transportation
Association as one of the top ten welfare-to-work
transportation programs in this country.
I would like to provide you with three examples of
individuals whose lives have been impacted by our JARC Program.
A DSS caseworker referred a single mother with two children
who had taken a job in a health care facility and was facing
the daunting task of trying to get one child to school, get the
second child to a day care center, and then get herself to work
by 8 a.m. We were able to use regular bus service to get both
the older child to school, and the younger child to the day
care center. However, by the time the day care center opened,
the mother did not have enough time to then use fixed-route bus
service to get to work on time. I was then able to refer the
mother to the safety net program, which provided taxi service
to get her to work. Her trip at the end of her work day, while
a long one, could be negotiated with the regular bus service.
A Department of Labor employment counselor, operating out
of the ``One-Stop'' employment center, referred a young
gentleman, who took a job at a local Wal-Mart, which required
that he take three buses to get to work. I met with this
gentleman and his employment counselor and we mapped out the
routes and times of the trips he would need to take in order to
get to work.
The Center for the Disabled called upon me to work with one
of their disabled clients who had taken a job in a health care
facility. Along with a counselor from the Center, we rode the
bus with this individual to and from work for a 5 day period,
insuring that the client understood how to use the bus, to ask
the driver for assistance, and to generally make her
comfortable with using public transportation, a skill she
needed to master to maintain a level of self-sufficiency.
CDTA's JARC Program currently provides 2,060 trips per
month on its fixed-route service for individuals using the
TANF-funded bus passes and provides service to another 200
individuals by way of the Demand Response service, that is,
passengers calling ahead for service. In the areas where we
have Expanded Shuttle Service hours, there are over 160
employers providing approximately 30,000 jobs with over 9,000
entry-level jobs, which TANF and low-income persons pursue.
In conclusion, I would just like to say that there are many
individual stories I could have shared with you, if time had
permitted, that would demonstrate the vital role that JARC-
funded programs and services have in assisting individuals in
securing and maintaining employment, and ultimately supporting
the overall well-being of families.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to share my
thoughts with you.
I would like to submit for the record additional testimony
from the Center for Community Changes.
Thank you.
Senator Reed. Without objection, it will be added to the
record.
Thank you very much, Ms. McKenzie, for your statement.
Ms. Thompson, welcome.
STATEMENT OF FAYE THOMPSON
KENOVA, WEST VIRGINIA
Ms. Thompson. Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, it is
really an honor for me to be here with you today and to get to
talk about something that is very dear to me. First, let me
tell you a little bit about myself. My late husband and I
raised three sons, and believe me, that was an experience in
itself.
[Laughter.]
My husband worked for the Norfolk & Western Railway. When
our children enrolled in school, I decided to go back to school
myself because I wanted to be an elementary teacher. I taught
school in a one-room schoolhouse in rural Appalachia in West
Virginia. And that is quite an experience, too.
I saw the many challenges of the rural Appalachian people
while I was teaching, so I changed careers and became a Social
Worker for the Department of Health and Human Resources. This
was also in rural West Virginia.
Throughout my career, I have worked with low-income
families and one of the biggest challenges that we have ever
faced is lack of transportation. Every survey that they have
sent out, that has been the number one thing on it. At that
time there was no public transportation in Wayne County.
Throughout my 22 years as a social worker, there was always the
need for individuals to access services. Services were out
there, but they had to get to them.
Throughout my life I have been a very independent person,
as you can tell. I have raised three children and had not one,
but two, careers. I have always had the privilege of having my
own car. You know, we get used to it. We take it for granted.
We walk in and get our car keys and walk out the door and go
where we want to.
Even though I have always recognized the need for rural
transportation, I never thought that it would be something that
I would use. After my husband passed away, I lived alone in our
home for a while, and then downsized to an apartment because
our house was too big. I was still at that time able to go to
my homemaker meetings, my church services, do volunteer work,
and different things like meet my friends for lunch and go for
social activities. But then, my physician told me that I was
going to have to have both knees replaced. Well, this was quite
a shock. He told me that I would have to have physical therapy
after I left the hospital three times a week for several weeks.
My two older sons lived out of State. The youngest one had
a family and worked during the day, so it wasn't possible for
him to take me. That is when it dawned on me that I was one of
those people that needed transportation. I wasn't independent
any more.
I was able to obtain the medical services that I needed and
the transportation to therapy by public transportation, which I
had never needed before.
Being a member of the Wayne County Community Services
Organization Board of Directors, I can sit here in front of you
today and let you know how important public transportation is
to the people. How it enables them to access needed service.
Wayne X-Press Public Transit System in Wayne, West
Virginia, provides transportation services to people for
medical appointments, to jobs, to job interviews, to job
training, to social activities, to senior citizen centers, and
for the Adult Day treatment program, which is very important,
for parental education classes, and general education training.
So, I am here today to ask you, distinguished ladies and
gentlemen, to continue funding for the public transit systems
because it is the lifeline of the public. I want to invite all
of you to Wayne County, West Virginia, to, as we say, ``hop
aboard'' the Wayne County X-Press.
Thank you very much.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Ms. Thompson.
I thank you all for your excellent testimony. Let me ask a
question or two and then see if Senator Akaka has questions.
You have all made a compelling case for the essential need
of mass transit for disabled citizens and senior citizens and
also for low-income Americans who are going into the work
force.
The availability of transit is one issue, but also, people
knowing that it is available is a second issue. So if you all
could comment on that. Do you think there are a lot of people
in Birmingham that are disabled or seniors, who are not aware
of the services or cannot access the services?
Ms. Tehranchi. Well, there has been some advertising about
our services, the CLASTRAN service. There are two separate
paratransit services in the metro area of Birmingham. One is
VIP and that is the Birmingham Jefferson County Transit
Authority. That is their service. CLASTRAN is pretty much a
rural county, Shelby County, the county next to Jefferson
County that Birmingham is in--there is some advertising, not a
lot. Word of mouth. People know about it. But the problem is
there are a lot of people who want to use it, but cannot get it
because it is just overcrowded.
Like, for instance, I have to make an appointment about a
week ahead, sometimes even more, to get a service to go on just
one short trip. There is not enough of it for them to really do
a mass advertising campaign.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Ms. McKenzie, you have a very unique position because you
have used it to educate yourself--mass transit I am talking
about--and now you are helping others. Do you see a lot of
people out there that need the service or that want the
service, but there is limited resources?
Ms. McKenzie. I do. From the service that I do, with
helping the population in general, every day, there are people
using this transportation every opportunity that they can get,
to go to work, to get their children to day care so they can
get to work, to seek employment, whatever the case may be. I
get calls from them all the time.
Senator Reed. I will follow up by asking, are some people
frustrated in finding employment or day care, not because it
doesn't exist, but because they physically cannot get there and
you see those people and they are just stuck?
Ms. McKenzie. Yes. There are times I have had clients that
are really frustrated, not because, like you said, because of
day care issues. It is because they do not have the
transportation to get to where they have to go. Or they have to
leave home maybe 2 hours ahead of time just to be to their
appointment because the connections aren't there, or maybe
because they just do not have the means to get there. That is a
problem. That is an issue right there by itself.
Senator Reed. One other issue that I have encountered is
that frequently we encourage parents to be more involved in the
education of their children. But if you do not have your own
car and you work some place else and you have to get back to
pick up your child, have an interview with the teacher, and the
mass transit system doesn't work well, you are in a bind.
Ms. McKenzie. Yes, you are.
Senator Reed. You cannot do what you want to do, which is
help your child, and then I think you are afraid your child
will suffer.
Ms. McKenzie. Yes.
Senator Reed. Yet, you have to choose between a job and
being part of that. Does that happen often?
Ms. McKenzie. I have seen that, but not too much--in the
beginning I did. It has kind of leveled out a little bit. I
still run into cases with that now. We still have some.
Senator Reed. Well, again, thank you very much.
Ms. McKenzie. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Not only for your testimony, but everyone,
for your example, too.
Ms. McKenzie. Thank you.
Senator Reed. Ms. Thompson, you make the point, which some
people I think see mass transit as an urban problem, getting
from Queens to Brooklyn, and back and forth. But Wayne County
in West Virginia, the number one problem is transit and the
people getting around.
Ms. Thompson. Right. I found this out more, I guess, after
I started to work as a social worker, because we had so many
clients that I think would have loved to have worked, but they
had no way to get there. At that time, we had no public
transportation. The buses do not run out in the sticks, like
Mill Creek and other places like that.
We also use ours for dialysis patients. That is another
very important thing. We have some people who have to go two to
three times a week. Just like I had to go for my therapy. I
probably wouldn't be walking as well today if I had not had
that. That rehab is rough, but you have to go through it.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much. And thank you again for
your testimony.
Senator Akaka, do you have any questions?
Senator Akaka. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to welcome this panel to the Committee. I find that
your remarks of using these services can help us improve it.
Ms. Tehranchi, you have been using the public
transportation and paratransit services in Birmingham, Alabama,
and have been trying to, with the efforts of others, increase
public access to public transportation. What changes have you
seen, even 10 years back, for people with disabilities in these
transit services?
Ms. Tehranchi. If Senator Shelby was still here, we would
enjoy talking about this because of what is going on in the
Birmingham area that is relevant to me and anybody else who
happens to be in a wheelchair. The fact that our buses that we
received in the past 2 or 3 years are accessible. That means
that I can get on a bus with a scooter and get around. That is
in Birmingham's metro area. That is where the buses are served.
But there is this increased use of the service. We have ended
up getting new people in charge of the paratransit services and
they are very dedicated to getting service to as many people as
possible.
I would say that is a very good thing that has happened in
the past 3 or 4 years.
Senator Akaka. Ms. McKenzie, I also want to commend you for
where you are now, and the help you have been giving as a trip
planner for people that need assistance.
Ms. McKenzie. Yes, thank you.
Senator Akaka. What changes could you recommend to improve
the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program?
Ms. McKenzie. That is kind of hard. I guess just to keep
adding services in the areas where people would be able to get
access to them, so that they can get around to seek employment,
for day care, for whatever reasons they might need to be out
there.
Senator Akaka. Thank you.
Ms. Thompson, we are glad to have you here, and hearing you
say that you have moved from being a teacher to what you are
now, and that you ride the X-Press to get to and from medical
appointments. What steps do you think the Federal Government
should take to encourage more people to utilize transit
services?
Ms. Thompson. I do not think we need to encourage them so
much. We need to get more money in there to expand the routes.
We need money for upkeep, capital improvements, and additional
training for the bus drivers.
We do quite a bit of advertisement and I just think we need
more money to get those things in place.
Senator Akaka. We need resources.
Ms. Thompson. Yes, new resources. That is right.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Akaka.
Again, let me thank you all for your compelling testimony
and for your firsthand experiences. It will be crucial in our
deliberations as we go forward to reauthorize the TEA-21 Act.
Thank you so much.
Now, I will call the second panel forward. Thank you very
much.
[Pause.]
Let me welcome the second panel and also recognize Senator
Sarbanes, the Chairman of the Committee, who has joined us. I
will introduce Ms. DeSalles and Mr. Imparato. And then Senator
Sarbanes, your opening comments and your introduction of
Secretary Porcari.
Senator Sarbanes. Good.
Senator Reed. We are joined today by Ms. Lavada E.
DeSalles. Ms. DeSalles is a Member of the AARP Board of
Directors and has a history of involvement in issues affecting
seniors. She retired in 1994 after 32 years with the State of
California's Employment Services Agency. She is here to testify
about the AARP's recent report: Understanding Senior
Transportation.
We are also joined by Mr. Andy Imparato, who is the
President and CEO of the American Association of People with
Disabilities, an organization dedicated to economic and
political empowerment for over 56 million Americans with
disabilities. He has held a number of senior governmental
positions, including serving as the General Counsel of the
National Council on Disability, an independent Federal entity.
Thank you, Mr. Imparato, for being here.
Chairman Sarbanes.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL S. SARBANES
Senator Sarbanes. Thank you very much, Chairman Reed. I
want to thank you for calling this hearing as we anticipate
consideration of the Federal transit program in preparation for
reauthorizing TEA-21, the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century, which will be one of the main items of business
before this Committee next year. We are trying to anticipate
that and get started early in building a hearing record and
also getting the benefit of the counsel and advice of people
all across the country.
I also want to thank the witnesses who are here. Some have
traveled quite a distance and we appreciate that. We think this
discussion is vitally important as we seek to address the
future of transportation in this country. This issue, our
investment in transit, and what it means to those who cannot or
choose not to drive, is a very important question.
Basic mobility is part of what makes Americans a free
people. For many of us, our mobility options are quite varied--
ride the train to work, take the bus to the mall, drive the car
to the doctor. But for others, driving is not an option. And
for many of our fellow citizens, the only answer is public
transportation.
By 2020, not all that far away, there will be 6\1/2\
million Americans over the age of 85. That is a 62 percent
increase from just a couple of years ago. Many will be,
obviously, nondrivers. There are more than 50 million people in
the country with some type of disability, many of whom cannot
drive a car. Many millions more have household incomes too low
to allow them to purchase and maintain a vehicle.
Actually, we had testimony not too long ago before this
Committee that the annual cost of owning and operating a car
was estimated to be over $7,000 a year.
I do not think most Americans appreciate the costs that are
connected with an automobile, I think essentially because they
do not figure the capital costs into it.
Providing these Americans, and young people as well, who
are not yet at the age of driving, access to public
transportation is an investment with very significant benefits.
Obviously, this is what we are trying to address.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to introduce
Senator--Secretary. I did not mean to demote you.
[Laughter.]
Secretary Porcari, I do want to say that Mr. Imparato is
also a distinguished Marylander and we are pleased that he is
here today as well.
John Porcari, the Secretary of the Maryland Department of
Transportation, has done just an outstanding job. Our
Department of Transportation is the largest State agency. It
has almost 10,000 employees. It has an annual capital and
operating budget of approximately $2.5 billion.
Maryland has a consolidated transportation fund. We fund
all of the transportation activities out of a consolidated
fund. Managing the agency and Maryland's intermodal
transportation system is a very big job. We are talking about
thousands of miles of highways and transit routes, a major
international airport, BWI, actually the fastest-growing in the
country, and one of the largest seaports on the East Coast.
So it is a real challenge and Secretary Porcari has
excelled at it.
We have made substantial advances under his leadership in
improving transportation facilities and services. He has paid
special attention to managing our State's congestion problem
and improving mobility. And the Department has made very
effective use of the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program and
has arguably the best such program in the country.
We certainly have the biggest map in the country.
[Laughter.]
Senator Reed. It is bigger than Rhode Island.
Senator Sarbanes. Yes.
[Laughter.]
We very much welcome him coming today and contributing to
the work of the Committee.
I am going to have to apologize to our witnesses because I
am not going to be able to stay. I will certainly read and
study all of the testimony, but as it works around here, there
is always conflicting engagements. I am involved in another
project of some size and dimension and I will get on to paying
attention to it. But I did want to come thank you for this
terrific job with, not only this hearing, but also the whole
series that you have been doing, and to thank our witnesses.
And particularly to underscore that we have worked very closely
with Secretary Porcari. He is a very able and committed public
servant and I am glad he is here today. We are going to have
the benefit of his thinking on some of these important issues.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
Senator Carper has joined us. Senator, do you have an
opening statement?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THOMAS R. CARPER
Senator Carper. I do. To our neighbor from Maryland,
welcome. To the representative from AARP, welcome as well.
Before I became a Senator, I had the privilege of being
Governor and lead Governor on welfare reform within the
National Governors Association, lead Democratic Governor at
least. We focused a whole lot on things we need to do to help
people move from dependency to independence, from welfare-to-
work.
Among things that people need, they need a job. They need
help with child care. They need help with health care. They
need a way to get to their job. And if you did not have a job,
if you did not have the health care, if you did not have help
on child care, and if you did not have a way to get to your job
and back home, we found that it was very difficult to help
people make that transition and to do it on a more permanent
basis.
For that reason alone, today's hearing is important. And as
we approach the next step in reauthorization of our major
transportation funding program, it is critical.
I would also add to that that today in America, 75 percent
of our people live within 50 miles of one of our coasts. Think
about that--75 percent of Americans live within 50 miles of one
of our coasts, which says to me and maybe to you that we are a
lot more congested than we used to be. One only has to try to
drive, as I did the other day, through your State and mine to
get to BWI to pick up our son coming back from Boy Scout camp,
just how congested I-95 can be.
Half of the oil that we will use in America today to drive
our cars, trucks, and vans, really, to propel our country,
comes from overseas from places where a lot of people do not
like us and do not wish us well.
And on a day as warm as today, I am reminded of the threat
that global warming poses to our way of life and to all of us.
I joke with people about Delaware. Delaware has some
wonderful coastal resorts, as does Maryland, as does Rhode
Island.
Senator Reed. Indeed.
Senator Carper. A lot of people spend part of their summers
at Fenwick Island, Bethany Beach, Dewey Beach, Rehoboth, and
Lewes. I joke with people--if we do not do something about
global warming, by the end of the century, people won't be
buying beach front property at any of those places. They will
be buying it at Dover or at Wilmington.
And to the extent that we can find ways to encourage people
to use transit, we are going to be putting less CO<INF>2</INF>
into the air and will be doing a good thing for our
environment.
For all those reasons, this is important. I look forward to
your testimony. Thank you very much for joining us.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator.
Ms. DeSalles, thank you.
STATEMENT OF LAVADA E. DeSALLES
MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AARP
Ms. DeSalles. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee,
thank you for the introduction.
Again, my name is Lavada DeSalles and I serve on the AARP
Board of Directors.
We appreciate very much this opportunity to present our
views regarding transit programs for older Americans. The need
for transit services among older persons will become
particularly strong in the years ahead with the aging of the
Baby Boom generation. Tomorrow's seniors will have become
accustomed to a high level of mobility and will expect that
level of mobility to continue into their later years.
From our research, we know that mobility is a critical
element of overall life satisfaction and is strongly linked to
feelings of independence. Indeed, the impact of the lack of
mobility can be devastating. At a recent AARP focus group, one
of the participants said him and his wife's world have been
reduced to one square mile since he had stopped driving.
Currently, the use of public transportation by older
persons is limited. However, an AARP survey found that 14
percent of nondrivers 75 years of age and older say that public
transportation is their primary mode, and nearly 20 percent say
they use public transportation on a monthly basis. This tells
us that public transportation services can play an important
role in enhancing mobility for these nondrivers.
AARP's Understanding Senior Transportation Survey also
found several problems that made the respondents less likely to
use public transportation. These included concerns about crime,
unavailable destinations, and the trip length of time.
TEA-21 has provided a stable and dependable funding stream
for transit programs. AARP believes significant additional
investment in transit is needed in order to reach those older
persons now and in the future for whom transit is unavailable
or inadequate to meet their transportation needs.
AARP supports greater funding for the Sections 5310 elderly
and disabled and the 5311 rural programs. Funding for Section
5310 in particular is woefully inadequate.
Many local human services programs provide transportation
for their clients who would otherwise be unable to get
services. As a result, a multiplicity of transportation
operations has emerged, many of them perform similar services
in the same communities.
Studies by AARP and others have found that coordination
efforts could provide many benefits, including lower trip
costs, extended hours of service, and a greater choice of
destinations. An excellent example may be found in the
Chairman's home State of Rhode
Island. The paratransit system there is called The RIde and is
coordinated Statewide and nationally recognized.
Another area in need of increased funding is ADA
paratransit. AARP is concerned that some systems may use the
eligibility screening process to limit use of ADA services. We
believe there should be greater consistency in determining
eligibility, as well as more attention given to standards of
service, quality of service, and customer service.
Finally, we recognize that many of the changes required to
meet the mobility challenges of older persons now and in the
future will occur at the local level. Metropolitan planning
organizations must become more aware of the transportation
needs of their elderly residents and integrate approaches to
meeting these needs into their planning processes.
In sum, AARP believes that transportation choices are
essential in maintaining older persons' independence and
quality of life. TEA-21 offers a solid foundation on which to
build greater mobility for all Americans.
I thank you for this opportunity to testify before you
today and I welcome any questions that you might have.
Senator Reed. Thank you for your excellent testimony.
Let me recognize, Mr. Imparato.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW J. IMPARATO
PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PEOPLE
WITH DISABILITIES
Mr. Imparato. Thank you, Chairman Reed, Senator Carper, and
Senator Akaka for being here.
I think it is particularly appropriate that we are doing
this hearing a week before the anniversary of the Americans
with Disabilities Act. This year, the anniversary is
particularly significant for us in the disability community
because a few weeks ago, we lost our Martin Luther King--Justin
Dart. We are going to be doing a memorial service on July 26,
the anniversary, in honor of Justin.
Regarding Justin, one of the last times I heard him speak
was at a transportation event that Secretary Mineta hosted. He
was very eloquent about the importance of mass transit for
people with disabilities in particular.
I think that you have heard from a number of the witnesses
and I am really glad that you had Jessie Tehranchi as a
witness. I know Jessie. She is a member of AAPD and a very
vocal member of AAPD. I am glad to have the opportunity to
testify with her.
I really have three points I want to emphasize. You have my
written statement. The points are, and they are not rocket
science, but I think they are important.
The first point is that mass transit is really critical for
people with disabilities and we are a major stakeholder for
many mass transit systems, whether we live in an urban area or
a rural area.
The second point is that when you increase Federal dollars
for mass transit in general, it benefits people with
disabilities disproportionately because we do
disproportionately rely on mass transit.
The third point is that if we are going to increase the
Federal investment in mass transit, which AAPD strongly
supports, let's take this opportunity to make transit operators
take the civil rights requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act more seriously, and more consistently ensure
that accessibility is part of the modernization of our mass
transit systems.
On the issue of why people with disabilities care about
mass transit, two good examples are in the audience today.
I have with me Kim Borowicz, who is an intern working at
AAPD, and she is the President of the Disabled Students Union
at Michigan State University. She is a woman with a visual
disability who uses mass transit and cannot drive.
We also have in the audience Liz Savage, who is a brilliant
civil rights lawyer who currently works at the Arc of the
United States. She was the person in charge of enforcement of
the ADA for the Justice Department under the Civil Rights
Division in the Clinton Administration. She also has a visual
disability and depends on mass transit to get to work.
Both Kim and Liz have a lot to contribute. I am confident
that when Kim graduates from Michigan State, she will have an
important job, hopefully working for AAPD. We wouldn't have the
ADA if it wasn't for Liz Savage. Mass transit gets them to
work. So that is one critical piece.
We talk about the fact that 70 percent of people with
significant disabilities are not working. Part of the reason
for that is many of them are isolated. Many of them cannot get
to the fixed-route system from where they live, and that is an
issue of curb cuts. It is an issue of pedestrian access. And
many of them do not have a fixed-route system that is
accessible, even if they could get to it.
So, clearly, if we want the vision of the ADA, equal
opportunity, equal employment opportunity in particular, and
full participation, we need to invest more in mass transit.
You all know what is going on in State budgets right now.
If the Federal Government does not step up to the plate and
help the States invest in mass transit, they are going to have
a hard time doing it on their own.
Just specifically, a couple of the statistics in my written
testimony that I wanted to highlight.
The National Organization on Disability did a survey,
finding that 30 percent of people with disabilities identified
that they had problems with inadequate transportation in their
local communities, as compared with 10 percent of the general
public.
And the National Center for Health Statistics did a survey
that found that 5.5 million people reported that they never
drive because of an impairment or health problem. So, we are
talking about a large population.
In the context of the TEA-21 reauthorization, we strongly
encourage you to look at stronger enforcement of the ADA. And
we think one way to accomplish that is to empower the Secretary
of Transportation to have more authority to coordinate and make
sure that there is consistency across all of the modes that are
charged with enforcing the ADA within the Department of
Transportation.
We strongly agree with the AARP's recommendation that you
increase funding for Section 5310 that provides funding for
transportation for people with disabilities and for seniors.
And we think it is important that you disseminate more
information about what people's rights are to people who are
protected by the ADA and more information to transit providers
so they know what their obligations are.
Thank you very much.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much for your very succinct
and very thoughtful testimony.
Secretary Porcari, please.
STATEMENT OF JOHN D. PORCARI
SECRETARY, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
Secretary Porcari. Thank you. Good afternoon.
For the record, I am Maryland's Transportation Secretary
John Porcari. I am honored to be here today to talk about the
needs of our transit-dependent citizens and, in particular,
Maryland's experience with our Job Access and Reverse Commute
Program.
First and foremost, I want to recognize the leadership of
this Subcommittee, in particular, Chairman Reed, for the energy
and enthusiasm that you are bringing to this topic and to
reauthorization in general. We very much appreciate that.
We have to remember that these programs provide assistance
to people who are engaged in a struggle to survive. I would
like to offer some perspectives from our own experience here in
Maryland administering a job access program.
But first, if I may, let me get to the bottom line.
This program has been a success in Maryland and given what
we have seen it do in practice, it should be reauthorized. In
fact, we believe the national funding level should be
increased, perhaps from the fiscal year 2003 level of $150
million per year nationally up to about $175 million.
Second, the process used to appropriate the funds should
remain unchanged. It works well. If, however, any consideration
is given to distributing the funds on a formula basis rather
than a discretionary basis, we urge that you take into
consideration urban unemployment and poverty levels because
statewide averages are certainly very deceiving in this area.
In Maryland, we are ranked as a wealthy State overall, but
8.5 percent of our residents still live in poverty. The problem
is most severe in our most urban and rural jurisdictions--
Baltimore City and Somerset County, for example. The service
sector jobs that offer real hope for poor people in these areas
are often located in the suburbs, where transit services are
few and far between.
So the solution for us has been innovative and flexible
transportation services, the kind of services funded through
the Job Access Program. The most successful projects are those
that combine program funds with other Federal transit funds. We
believe this focus on coordination with social service needs is
one of the hallmarks of our program.
Since the inception of our Maryland program, 45 different
services throughout Maryland have received funding under this
program. As you see on the map, and in your handouts, the
program has literally reached every corner of our State with
programs in both the rural and urban areas and suburban areas
as well.
To date, through fiscal year 2002, Maryland has received
$12.5 million in program funds. A positive feature of this
Maryland program is that funding from other Federal programs
can be used for the 50 percent match. For example, the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, can be used
as the 50 percent match. And this helps increase coordination
between our transportation and our human services agencies
throughout the State.
One specific example is the Career Caravan, which connects
Baltimore City residents with suburban Howard County. The
Career Caravan is a great partnership. It is organized by the
Empowerment Zone in southwest Baltimore, which has the mission
of identifying ready-to-work people. The Empowerment Zone can
combine transportation to work funded by this program with
skills, training, child care, drug treatment, and a host of
other wrap-around services that together meet the needs of the
clients.
With these program funds, the transit providers have helped
thousands of welfare recipients get to new jobs and to
transition toward independence.
Since our program began in 1999, more than 1.3 million
passenger trips have been provided through Job Access-funded
services in Maryland. But the program cannot simply be judged
on the numbers.
The bottom line is that this program is changing people's
lives. Thanks to this program, Linda Carter of Baltimore City,
who was having trouble finding work, now uses the Career
Caravan that I just mentioned, their transportation service to
get to her job at a retail establishment in Columbia, Maryland.
This service made her job possible because it was the only way
that she could get to work for the early morning hours that
that particular job required.
Another great success story comes from the Work Force
Transportation Referral Center. This Center is a unique
collaborative
effort between Sojourner Douglas College, Baltimore City's
Housing Authority, the Baltimore County Department of Social
Services, and our Maryland Department of Transportation,
Maryland Transit Administration.
Thanks to this group, Madeline Brooks was able to get a job
in Towson, even though it required getting transportation
during irregular hours. This service that was provided under
this program allowed her to get transportation from her home in
Pikesville all the way to Towson.
She got her first job in March of 2001. Since then, Ms.
Brooks has been able to save enough money to buy her own car
and in June, she bought a home and left Section 8 housing. Job
Access has helped Madeline Brooks become an independent person
without any additional county, State, or Federal assistance.
This is what the program is all about, changing lives.
The challenge to all of us now is to maintain and build
upon the existing services funded through this program. The
bottom line is transportation connects people to opportunities.
That is why the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program is so
important to us.
Thank you.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, again for
your excellent testimony. We appreciate all your comments.
Let me begin the questioning by picking up an issue that
was raised by Ms. DeSalles. The perception of the elderly that
there is crime on transit and that dissuades them from using
transit.
One, is it a perceptual problem, or is it a real problem?
And second, if it is a real problem, is that a manifestation of
systems that just do not have the resources to provide the
types of systems and protections and everything else that we
need?
Ms. DeSalles. There, of course, is the reality of crime,
which would require large amounts of money to provide
protection. But we have found that among seniors, it is more of
a problem of perception of crime. And so they isolate
themselves in their homes to prevent what they sense might
happen.
There are some relatively inexpensive ways in which to ease
those fears and that is, making certain that our transportation
systems involve stops that are in well-lighted areas, where
there are people around, things that give you a sense a comfort
as you wait.
Senator Reed. Well, thank you. This whole issue, the points
you raised and some of the other points, and together with our
other hearings, suggest to me that we have made some real
progress over the last several years in mass transit, in terms
of ridership growing, in terms of those old perceptions of
never get on mass transit because you would run into a criminal
element or problems.
My fear is we will lose those unless we keep investing at a
significant level. Of course, Andy, you have pointed out how,
if we are going to go forward with reauthorization, we have to
keep our commitment to ADA that is curb cuts and that is buses
like in Birmingham that will be fully accessible to handicapped
individuals.
All of this suggests, to me at least, and I must say that I
am not the most objective on this point, is that this is not
just a question of maintaining what we have. It is actually
putting some additional resources in to keep the system moving,
to attract the riders. And without the riders, no system will
be able to operate without huge subsidies.
So, you might comment, Andy, and then Mr. Secretary, and
Ms. DeSalles.
Mr. Imparato. Yes, I could not agree more. I should point
out on a personal level, I live in Baltimore. I take the MARC
train every day to Union Station and then I take the Metro to
Farragut North. It is crystal clear to me that Maryland has
figured out mass transit. The MARC train is a modern train. It
is a comfortable ride. It is a very pleasant way to commute.
The District of Columbia has not figured it out. The Metro
is
incredibly crowded and gets more crowded every day. If you need
elevators in the DC Metro, a lot of times you are out of luck.
And I am sure you have read in The Washington Post about some
of the problems.
You are right. Some localities need more help than others,
and I would say that DC and the DC Metro area is an area that
needs a lot of help.
I am involved in the Olympic bid here in part because I am
hoping that with the new resources that will come in, if we get
the Olympics, we can really modernize the transit operations
around DC because it is desperately needed.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Go right ahead, Ms. DeSalles.
Ms. DeSalles. We can also work to make more destinations
available. There are many people that do not use the
transportation because of the limits of that. Certainly for
employment and for medical appointments, it is very necessary.
It is also necessary to enhance the social life of older
people, getting to where you need to go.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, your comments. You have particular expertise
in all of these issues.
Secretary Porcari. You have made some very important
points, Mr. Chairman. I think perhaps the most important one is
that you simply cannot stop the level of investment in transit
and expect transit ridership to continue to go up.
The MARC service, for example, that Mr. Imparato had
mentioned is very, very capital intensive, and we have made a
long-term commitment to upgrade the rolling stock, to make the
improvements that are necessary.
What we have found is that if you provide safe, clean,
affordable and convenient service for transit, people will use
it. I believe also the reality is that, in many States,
Maryland in particular, given the growth in population over the
next 20 years and the growth in congestion, no matter what we
do with all of the transportation modes, that transit has to be
an integral part of the solution.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
I have additional questions, but Senator Akaka, please.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. DeSalles, in your statement, you mentioned that,
currently, the use of public transportation by older persons is
limited. And in Honolulu, Hawaii, we have a successful program
which seniors are provided with a 2 year pass for $25. The pass
provides unlimited bus travel throughout the island of Oahu.
This bus circles the island. What other incentives are being
used across the country to encourage seniors to utilize public
transit? And what could be done to encourage seniors to utilize
public transit?
Ms. DeSalles. Well, I have been fortunate enough to take a
trip around the island for $1 on that system that you are
referring to, and it is wonderful. It might have been a little
easier in Oahu to develop that because it is self-contained.
What is causing a lot of problems is in our rural areas
where transportation is very, very limited. An example--I live
in Sacramento, California, and we have mass transit there. But
a few miles away, in the foothills, it is virtually impossible
for seniors to get any place easily and cheaply by bus.
We need additional funding for the services that can go
door to door. We need to certainly continue services for the
disabled. But we need services for that segment of our
population, people in their late 70's, early 80's, that do not
drive any longer. We need to provide more money for services to
enable them to participate.
Transportation systems must have riders in order to
generate income. So it is kind of like a chicken and egg
situation. You have to have the service before you can get the
riders. Then I think the riders will utilize it.
Senator Akaka. You are correct. Ridership is very important
to whatever the transit system is.
Ms. DeSalles. Absolutely.
Senator Akaka. So the other part of my question was, is
there a way of increasing senior participation in transit?
Ms. DeSalles. Other than what I mentioned about the reduced
fares and the availability. I think that public education
helps. Many seniors may be aware of services available in their
area. But in areas where they are unaware, then we need to
publicize those services.
Senator Akaka. I should tell you then that I should have
been educated in Hawaii because I am entitled to use the
transit system with a senior card. But I have not.
[Laughter.]
Ms. DeSalles. Because you did not know about it or you just
haven't?
Senator Akaka. Well, I really did not know about it.
Ms. DeSalles. Okay.
Senator Akaka. I thought I had to pay my way but because of
this hearing, I learned about it.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Imparato, you mentioned in your statement that,
according to a population-based survey, 30 percent of disabled
Americans have a problem with inadequate transportation. What
would you recommend to provide greater transit opportunities
for people with disabilities and reduce the number of people
whose transit needs are currently not met?
Mr. Imparato. Thank you for your question, Senator Akaka.
I think one of the basic principles of disability policy is
that when you do something new, do it right and build in access
and make it state of the art. And I think one of the most
tangible impacts the ADA has had is on buses because it has a
very simple rule --if you are going to buy a new bus, the bus
has to be accessible.
I think one of the challenges for us is to take this great
equipment that is coming down the pike and train staff so that
they know all of the access features and how to use them.
We have had problems in some cases with drivers not wanting
to call out stops for blind and visually impaired and other
riders who need the stops to be called out. And we have had
problems with some drivers not wanting to let service animals
get on a bus in some jurisdictions.
That is a training issue.
I believe one of the challenges as we move into the next 10
years, post-ADA, is to take this great equipment and make sure
that everybody is trained in how to use it and do some of the
outreach like you were talking about with seniors, so that
riders with disabilities know that these features are there.
I took a bus recently in Baltimore and I was very
impressed. They called out all the stops electronically and it
had them going across an LED screen, so if you were deaf, you
could still see what stop you were coming to. It helped me
because I had never taken this route. And I knew exactly where
I was at every point. I think for seniors, that is helpful,
too. If the stops are being called out, they may not be able to
see the street, but maybe they can hear or see the screen
telling them where they are.
Senator Akaka. I am glad you mentioned training because in
Hawaii drivers were commended for the courtesy shown to riders.
I mention that because we hear from riders when drivers are
not courteous. Then they do not want to ride. But there are
also those drivers, as you point out, who stop mid-way to let
people off or to get them on. By doing that, people tend to use
the buses or the transit more.
I think that what you mentioned about training is so
important to increasing traffic.
Mr. Secretary, what have you learned during the
implementation of the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program
that you would want to share with other transit administrators
attempting to provide services for Reverse Commuters?
I ask that, too, because I have been trying to read the
chart that is behind you.
Secretary Porcari. Senator, first and foremost, there is no
cookie cutter solution. I think the most important lesson is
that you need to tailor the approach to the particular area.
That chart is a little bit busy. The reason it is is that
there are a variety of approaches. These are local transit
systems in Maryland, working through our Maryland Transit
Administration. And we are, in essence, bundling those grants
and having a statewide program. So in a rural area, it may be
vanpooling service. It may be extending the hours of a small
local transit system to meet the particular needs of employees.
It may be adding routes in other jurisdictions. It is a
combination or a hybrid in many.
What we have found to be the most important lesson is that
if it is truly going to work for Job Access and Reverse
Commute, it has to start at the local level. You have to truly
listen. And you have to tailor it to what those particular
needs are.
Senator Akaka. Maryland is such a diverse State. I commend
you for trying to tailor the transit system to the needs in
your local communities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Akaka.
Let me follow up with a couple of additional questions. I
think, Mr. Secretary, you had a comment with respect to
increasing senior usage when Senator Akaka addressed his
question to the panel. If you might.
Secretary Porcari. Yes, Mr. Chairman. One additional
suggestion that has been very successful for us is Neighborhood
Shuttle Service, where, in addition to mainline bus service or
light rail or heavy rail, we have begun implementing, and
again, it has been very successful, to have neighborhood
shuttles, which are smaller, low floor buses that are going
through residential areas. They are connecting with the
shopping centers, and they are connecting with the light rail
station. They are providing very customer-friendly and very
unobtrusive transit service that may be particularly appealing
to our seniors because it will be coming right through your
neighborhood.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
One of the issues that comes up invariably is the fact that
any time you have a scarce resource, you have to allocate it.
You do it several ways, and one way is the eligibility rules. I
know in ADA, in terms of paratransit, there are certain
eligibility rules. If you could comment, Mr. Imparato, Mr.
Secretary, and Ms. DeSalles, about the status from your
perspective of the ADA eligibility rules for paratransit or for
some of these innovative services that are not traditional
buses and trains.
Mr. Imparato. Well, I think the whole paratransit issue is
an issue on which there is some tension in the disability
community because, on the one hand, those of us who focus on
national policy, we are trying to make the fixed-route systems
as accessible as possible and now we are trying to focus on
training issues and path of travel issues between the house or
the apartment and the system, so that people do not have to
rely on paratransit. And one of the reasons we are doing that
is exactly what Jessie Tehranchi talked about.
Think about it. For you as a Senator, if you had to give a
week's notice before you could get transportation to where you
wanted to go. Your schedule changes on an hourly basis. It
would be very hard for you to get everywhere you need to go if
you had to give a week's notice. So given the level of funding
for paratransit, it is not going to meet the needs.
On the other hand, it is very popular for a lot of people
with disabilities, in part because they do not have curb cuts,
they do not have a way to get to the fixed-route system.
So there is that tension.
I think that we would like to see more investment in the
fixed-route system and getting people to the fixed-route
system. But we would also like to see paratransit operators get
enough funding to meet the demand, which continues to be more
than what they are able to provide.
Senator Reed. Mr. Secretary, your perspective?
Secretary Porcari. Mr. Chairman, I think nationwide,
virtually every large jurisdiction that is providing
paratransit systems has some similar experiences in that the
demand is far outstripping our financial ability to provide it.
I do not think any of us are satisfied, frankly, with the
service we are providing for the disabled community. There are
service improvements that we need to make and there are some
specific elements with paratransit service. For example, the
so-called Lifeline Services, kidney dialysis patients, for
example, where it is clearly a matter of medical emergency to
provide that service on a regular basis. And many of the
systems have, in essence, set up a service within a service to
accommodate that.
Some of the strategies that have helped a little bit are
making fixed service free for eligible paratransit users for
those that can either occasionally or consistently use that
service. But especially given the changing demographics in
America, as the population ages, we are clearly going to have
to provide better paratransit service in the future. It is one
of our most pressing service delivery issues on a day-to-day
basis.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Ms. DeSalles, you mentioned in your testimony, and a final
question I have for all the panelists, what is your advice on
coordination because that seems to be an issue in all of your
testimony, how to better coordinate services. Any thoughts you
or AARP have we would appreciate.
Ms. DeSalles. Well, there is an excellent example in
Arizona, the Maricopa Transportation Planning Group. We
certainly believe that older persons, as was testified to
earlier, should participate on those planning boards to
represent the needs. It is a truism that coordination brings in
lower cost and advanced services.
We need to impress upon, at the local level, that
consideration be given to including the transportation needs of
people in all of the planning processes.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Mr. Imparato.
Mr. Imparato. Yes. I think, as with many issues,
coordination is most important on the ground, if you will. What
is going on in Providence is more important than what happens
in Washington. But the Federal agencies can make it easier for
people at the local level to pool their resources and to create
efficiencies.
I think an example is, during welfare-to-work, there was an
effort to coordinate resources from the Department of Labor,
from the Department of Transportation, and from the Department
of Health and Human Services to do whatever it would take to
get people from where they were to where they needed to be,
both for purposes of child care and for purposes of employment.
That same kind of coordination is going to be needed if we
are going to do something about the 70 percent of people with
significant disabilities who are not working, many of whom want
to work.
We need to look at what is the role of health and human
services and all the entities that it funds? What is the role
of labor and all the entities that it funds? What is the role
of transportation? How do we make them work together? And then
there are education elements to it and recreation elements to
it. But clearly, the coordination is a buzzword. It is an
important concept.
I guess what I am finding is it is not happening as much at
the local level as it needs to. And whether it is happening in
Washington or not, we need to make sure it happens locally.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Porcari. Mr. Chairman, it is an excellent
question.
I think one of the greatest aspects of this Job Access and
Reverse Commute Program is that it not only permits, but also
in many ways encourages the kind of coordination at the State
and local level, at the State level with our State Department
of Human Resources where the transportation services under this
program are a means to an end. They are connecting people with
opportunities. They are bringing people to jobs.
At the local level, it works that way as well where it just
is a tool in the toolkit, if you will, on welfare-to-work
initiatives, on connecting people with opportunities in
general.
The flexibility inherent within this program has been a
real asset in using it with TANF and other services to connect
people.
Senator Reed. Well, thank you very much.
I also want to thank my colleagues who joined me,
particularly Senator Akaka, and thank both panels for excellent
testimony. Their experiences and millions of others that they
symbolize are improved by the very existence of transit
service. So the seniors, disabled Americans, and working
Americans who need to get to their workplace and get their
children to day care and to school can. And it is the
responsibility of our Subcommittee to keep their experiences in
mind as we work on the reauthorization of TEA-21 because their
needs go to the heart of our Nation's promise of opportunity,
freedom, and independence in your personal life.
I would note that the record will remain open for 5 days
for Members to submit statements and also for questions that
will be presented to the panelists for the record.
If there are no further comments, and I do not think there
are, I will thank everyone and adjourn the hearing.
Secretary Porcari. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Imparato. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Prepared statements, response to written questions, and
additional material supplied for the record follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. AKAKA
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Federal Government has a significant
role in the effectiveness of transit which provides essential access to
education, employment, medical care, and other activities of daily
life. In fiscal year 2002, Federal funding to local transit agencies
totaled $6.7 billion. Communities must have effective transit systems.
Many individuals depend on public transit for their mobility.
The Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Formula Program makes
grants to States for distribution to nonprofit agencies to meet the
tailored needs of the elderly and individuals with disabilities. This
Federal program is particularly important in Hawaii. Hawaii has a large
and growing elderly population. Between 1990 and 2000, Hawaii's
population of residents over the age of 65 grew by 29 percent. This was
the fifth fastest rate of growth in that age demographic in the
country. Hawaii received $421,383 for the Elderly and Persons with
Disabilities Formula Program in fiscal year 2002.
Today, we will further examine ways in which we can improve and
expand services for the disabled, elderly, and low-income families in
the reauthorization of TEA-21. This discussion is extremely significant
for Hawaii as we evaluate ways to provide better transportation
services for those with special needs. I thank the witnesses for
appearing today and I look forward to their testimony.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON S. CORZINE
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this latest hearing on
reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century--
TEA-21, and I would like to join you in welcoming our witnesses.
Mr. Chairman, as the Banking Committee continues its work on the
reauthorization of TEA-21, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss how
TEA-21 can do a better job in meeting the needs of those who depend on
public transportation for their basic mobility. First and foremost
among these needs is the need to ensure that we secure funding for the
programs that focus the most on the transit-dependent: The Elderly and
Persons with Disabilities Formula Program and the Job Access and
Reverse Commute Program. These programs have been beneficial throughout
the country and especially in my own State of New Jersey.
For fiscal year 2002, New Jersey received $2.47 million in funding
under the Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program. This money
helped senior citizens throughout the State in getting to doctors'
appointments, run shopping errands, and visiting friends. Basically, it
left them with the ability to remain as independent as possible.
For fiscal year 2002, I was proud to work with my colleague,
Senator Torricelli, to make sure that New Jersey received $3 million
for its share of the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program. This
helped connect welfare recipients with work, as well as provide access
to suburban employees who must reverse commute from the city to suburb
to find work.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you to develop
legislation that continues to provide funding for these and other
important programs. Thank you for holding this hearing and I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JESSIE TEHRANCHI
Birmingham, Alabama
July 17, 2002
Mr. Chairman, my name is Jessie Tehranchi and I live in Birmingham,
Alabama. I am glad to be here representing the Transportation Equity
Network, a national coalition of grassroots organizations concerned
with transit.
Fifteen years ago, I was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. The
challenge of multiple sclerosis has taught me a lot.
I became aware of the importance of a quality public transportation
system in 1995, when the bus system in Birmingham suddenly closed. This
was an alarming time for people who used transit to get to jobs and
other services. People on kidney dialysis could not get to clinics!
Because of the outcry of the community, Greater Birmingham Ministries
and the Alabama Kidney Foundation organized a rally in downtown
Birmingham. Even with the storm warnings predicted, the rally was still
planned. Eighty people showed up--many of them in wheelchairs--in five
inches of rain. On that day the Citizens for Transit Coalition was
organized.
My eyes were opened from that experience; and since then my
multiple sclerosis condition has progressed, and I no longer drive.
I use CLASTRAN, the paratransit service that serves the communities
around Birmingham. Although this service is much needed and much used,
I have been stood up by this service more than once in the past years.
CLASTRAN--the drivers, dispatchers, and administration--tries very
hard, but these gaps in service illustrate why greater investment in
transit and paratransit are necessary.
I am a volunteer member of a number of organizations. This
includes: The Government Relations Committee of the Alabama Chapter of
the National Multiple Sclerosis Society and a member of the Alabama
Disability Action Coalition. I am the Transportation Chair of the
League of Women Voters of Greater Birmingham. I am an active volunteer
in Alabama Arise, a coalition working on issues that affect low-income
persons, and I serve on the statewide task force for disability
transportation issues.
These organizations understand that transportation IS A NECESSITY.
In Alabama, there are more than 900,000 transit disadvantaged
persons. The State of Alabama has a population of some 4 million.
People must have transportation to stay integrated into society: To
work, to shop, for recreation, for medical services, to vote, to
function independently.
Accessible transportation allows people with disabilities free
movement in society.
As this Committee prepares for the reauthorization of TEA-21, I
urge you to remember the importance of ensuring that transit users have
a voice in the issues that affect transit service.
Transit users must be VOTING members of the Metropolitan Planning
Organizations, Departments of Transportation, and transit agencies.
Congress should also pay close attention to the metropolitan and
statewide planning process, and the metropolitan certification process.
TEA-21 reauthorization is an opportunity to ensure transit user
involvement, to clarify the importance of civil rights and
environmental justice, and to more fully address the needs of transit
dependent people.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to offer to you my
thoughts for better transportation access to all our citizens.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF FAYE THOMPSON
Kenova, West Virginia
July 17, 2002
Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, it is an honor to be with you
here today to talk about something that is dear to my heart. First of
all, let me tell you something about myself. My late husband and I
raised three sons, and that was an experience in itself. After my
children started school, my husband who was employed by the Norfolk and
Western Railroad went to work and I started back to school to become an
elementary school teacher in a one room schoolhouse in rural
Appalachia, West Virginia.
I saw the many challenges of the rural Appalachian people, so I
changed careers and became a Social Worker for the Department of Health
and Human Resources in rural West Virginia. Throughout my career, I
worked with low-income families and one of the biggest obstacles of
obtaining services was the lack of transportation. At that time there
was no public transportation in Wayne County. During the 22 years of my
career there was always a need for individuals to access services.
Throughout my life, I have been a very independent person as you can
see, raising a family, starting not just one career but two in my life,
and having the privilege of having my own transportation. Most of us
take for granted picking up our car keys, going out of the house, and
going anywhere we want to go.
Even though I have always recognized the need for rural
transportation, I never thought that it would be something that I would
need. After my husband passed away, I lived alone in my home. I then
downsized to an apartment. I was still able to go to my homemaker
meetings, church activities, Board Member meetings, volunteer work, and
continued to meet my friends for lunch and social activities. My
physician informed me that I was going to have to have both of my knees
replaced. He stated that after my surgery and rehabilitation that I
would need to go to physical therapy three times a week for several
weeks. My two eldest sons both live out of State and my youngest son
works full-time, therefore, they were unable to take me to my therapy
sessions. I then realized that I was one of the people who needed
transportation. I was no longer independent and this was quite a shock
to me. Thanks to public transportation I was able to obtain the medical
services that I needed.
Being a member of Wayne County Community Service Organization, Inc.
Board of Directors, I can sit here today in front of you and let you
know how important the Public Transit System is to the people. How it
enables them to access needed services. Wayne X-Press Public Transit
System in Wayne, West Virginia, provides transportation services to
people for medical appointments, to jobs, job interviews, job training,
social activities, senior citizen centers, Adult Day treatment
programs, general education training, parenting classes, etc. I am here
today to ask you distinguished ladies and gentlemen to continue funding
for Public Transit Systems. Why, because it is the lifeline for the
public. I invite all of you to Wayne County, West Virginia, to ``hop
aboard'' the Wayne X-Press.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAVADA E. DeSALLES
Member, Board of Directors, AARP
July 17, 2002
Good afternoon, Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Allard, and the other
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee on Housing and
Transportation. My name is Lavada DeSalles. I serve as a Member of the
AARP Board of Directors. I appreciate this opportunity to present our
views regarding transit programs for older Americans-- offered in
support of the Subcommittee's development of legislation to reauthorize
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21.
Demographic Shift
In the course of this series of hearings, the Subcommittee has
heard testimony regarding older persons' growing need for transit
services. This need will become particularly strong in the years ahead.
The United States is an aging Nation. By 2030, nearly every fifth
person in the United States will be age 65 and older. In the next two
decades, the fastest growing age segment will be persons over the age
of 85. This age segment is projected to reach approximately 6.5 million
by the year 2020, compared with 4 million in 1998. Tomorrow's seniors
will have been accustomed to a high level of mobility and will expect
that level of mobility to continue into their later years.
Quality of Life
Basic transportation is a given for most of us, and like the
utilities that we take for granted, we do not take notice until a power
shortage, water or gas shutoff upsets our expectation. Many older
adults, however, know too well that without a transportation connection
many community services and social activities are simply nonexistent
for them. From our research, we know that mobility is a critical
element of overall life satisfaction and is strongly linked to feelings
of independence. The corollary lack of satisfaction in the absence of
mobility is illustrated by a comment from an AARP focus group
participant living in the suburbs. The participant related his
experience that his and his wife's ``world had been reduced to one
square mile'' since he had stopped driving.
Aging in Place
Transportation is a crucial component of the infrastructure of a
livable community for older Americans who are aging in place. According
to the 2000 Census, only
4.2 percent of persons 65 and older moved during the previous year,
compared to
16.6 percent of younger persons. When elderly persons do move, they
tend to move
within the same county. This phenomenon of aging in place is occurring
to a large degree in the suburbs. In the year 2000, 56 percent of
elderly persons lived in suburban areas, 23 percent in rural areas, and
21 percent in central cities. This geographic distribution has
consequences for the modes of travel available to individuals. Public
transit is limited in suburban and rural areas. As a result, residents
must rely heavily on the private automobile.
Use of Public Transportation
As people age, they make fewer trips in their community. Over half
of those age 75 and above take fewer than five trips out of their homes
per week, compared to one-third of those ages 50 to 74 who take fewer
than five trips out their homes per week, according to AARP's
``Understanding Senior Transportation Survey (2002).'' This reduction
in travel is related in large part to driving cessation.
Currently, use of public transportation by older persons is
limited. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (Omnibus
Survey, May 2002), 11 percent of all persons age 65 and older, drivers
and nondrivers alike, reported using public transportation the previous
month. However, among nondrivers 75 years of age and older, 14 percent
identify public transportation as their primary mode, and nearly 20
percent say that they use public transportation on a monthly basis,
according to the Understanding Senior Transportation Survey. This
suggests that public transportation services can play a very important
role in enhancing mobility for these nondrivers.
The AARP's Understanding Senior Transportation Survey also reported
several problems respondents identified that made them less likely to
use public transportation. These include concerns about crime,
unavailable destinations, and trip length of time.
Interaction of Health and Community Mobility
Not surprisingly, the Understanding Senior Transportation Report
found that driving is the usual mode of transportation for adults age
50 and older, although the percentage of those who are licensed and who
drive regularly declines slowly up to age 85, after which there is a
substantial reduction in driving. Driving, as well as use of other
modes of transportation, is greatly affected by an individual's health
and functioning. Indeed, the same report showed that health and
functional status, not chronological age, is the strongest predictor of
transportation mobility. While over 90 percent of healthy persons age
75 and older drive, fewer than two-thirds of those in poor health still
drive.
Further, individuals age 85 and older with excellent health and
functional status are more mobile than their younger counterparts with
poor health and functional status. The wide variation of health and
functioning among the elderly suggests the need for a family of
transportation services to meet diverse needs.
TEA-21 Transit Investments
TEA-21 has provided a stable, dependable funding stream for transit
programs. With the increase in transit investments under TEA-21,
transit ridership has seen strong growth. AARP believes significant
additional investment in transit is needed to reach those older persons
now and in the future for whom transit is unavailable or inadequate to
meet their transportation needs.
Need for Greater Transit Coordination
Older persons may be served by several transportation programs.
While some use regular fixed-route service in urbanized areas, others
rely on the nonurbanized,
elderly and disabled, and complementary ADA paratransit services. Human
services transportation programs have developed to serve the needs of
clients who, for the most part, were otherwise unable to access
services. Over the years, this has resulted in a multiplicity of
transportation operations performing similar services independently in
the same communities. Studies by AARP and others have found that
coordination efforts can provide many benefits, including lower trip
costs, extended hours of service, and a greater choice of destinations.
An excellent example may be found in the Chairman's home State of Rhode
Island, where the paratransit system, ``the RIde,'' is coordinated
statewide and is nationally recognized.
Greater Funding for Formula Grant Programs
AARP supports greater funding for the Sections 5310 elderly and
disabled and 5311 nonurbanized formula programs, in particular. The
Section 5310 program provides capital assistance for specialized
transportation for the elderly and persons with disabilities. While
Section 5310 could benefit from greater coordination with other human
services and public transit services, nevertheless the program serves
needs that would not be met otherwise. Funding for Section 5310,
however, is woefully inadequate for a national program. The need is
great as well for increased funding for the Section 5311 nonurbanized
program, which provides operating and capital assistance to transit
providers in rural areas. Nearly one-third of trips provided by Section
5311 transit operators are made by elderly persons. Many of these
individuals are disabled as well. Still, fully 41 percent of persons
age 60 and above live in rural areas that do not have transit services.
Many of these trips provide vital linkages to medical care, as
outpatient care takes a more prominent role in health care delivery.
Greater Resources Needed for ADA Paratransit
Another area in need of increased funding is ADA paratransit. More
than half of those who qualify for ADA transportation are age 65 or
older. AARP is concerned by reports that some systems may use the
eligibility screening process to reduce demand for ADA service. While
AARP believes that it is quite appropriate for persons who can use
fixed-route buses to do so, it is unfair to make eligibility too
strict, denying eligibility to persons needing services, as a strategy
to reduce costs. The concern with growing ADA paratransit demand has
also contributed to widely varying eligibility standards in transit
systems across the country. We believe there should be greater
consistency in determining eligibility, as well as more attention to
standards of service. Progress could be made toward achieving each of
these objectives through enhanced subsidies to public transportation
providers. Subsidies should be targeted to assisting providers to meet
the real needs of their customers with disabilities, irrespective of
age.
Engaging the Planning Process to Meet the Transportation
Needs of Older Persons
Finally, we recognize that many of the changes required to meet the
mobility challenges of older persons now and in the future will have to
occur at the local level. A few metropolitan planning organizations
(MPO's), such as the Maricopa Association of Governments in Arizona,
have met this challenge head on by developing a comprehensive plan on
aging and mobility. Maricopa is an exception, however. MPO's across the
country must become more aware of the transportation needs of their
elderly residents, and integrate approaches to meeting these needs into
their planning processes. One viable approach some communities have
taken is to encourage land uses, such as mixed-use developments, that
bring together housing for the elderly, retail, health, transportation,
and social services facilities. The reauthorization of TEA-21 presents
an opportunity to consider the value of formally incorporating a
targeted assessment of senior transportation concerns into the planning
process. Another way to increase attention to senior transportation
needs would be to ensure that older persons are represented on MPO's.
In sum, AARP believes that transportation choices are essential in
maintaining older persons' independence and quality of life. The
transportation needs of older Americans are great and growing, and will
require multiple solutions at all levels of government going forward.
TEA-21 offers a solid foundation on which to build greater mobility for
all older Americans. Thank you for this opportunity to testify before
you today. For the committee's review, I have attached summaries of the
AARP research reports mentioned in my testimony. I welcome any
questions you may have.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANDREW J. IMPARATO
President and Chief Executive Officer
American Association of People with Disabilities
July 17, 2002
Chairmen Sarbanes and Reed, Ranking Members Allard and Santorum,
and distinguished Members of the Committee, my name is Andrew J.
Imparato and I am the President and CEO of the American Association of
People with Disabilities (AAPD), based here in Washington, DC. Thank
you for giving me the opportunity to testify today about the importance
of mass transit for the more than 56 million Americans with
disabilities in the United States and their family members and friends.
AAPD is a national membership organization promoting political and
economic empowerment for children and adults with disabilities in the
United States. With more than 30,000 members around the country, AAPD
is the largest national cross-disability membership organization in the
United States.
Before joining AAPD as its first full-time President and CEO in
November of 1999, I served as General Counsel and Director of Policy
for the National Council on Disability (NCD), a small Federal agency
charged with advising the President and Congress on public policy
issues affecting people with disabilities. While at NCD, I oversaw the
production of many reports from the Council addressing transportation
access issues for disabled Americans. Before joining NCD, I worked as
an attorney with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the
U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Disability Policy, and the Disability Law
Center in Boston, Massachusetts. On a more personal note, I am a person
with a psychiatric disability (bipolar disorder) and I have used mass
transit for all of my professional career, first using the ``T'' in
Boston and then using the Metro Subway system and the MARC commuter
rail for the last 9 years.
When AAPD surveyed its membership last December, the members
identified transportation, housing, health care, and long-term care as
their top four priority issues for public policy advocacy. Without
accessible, affordable transportation, it is difficult if not
impossible for disabled Americans to have equal access to housing,
health care, or long-term care. Similarly, meaningful access to
transportation is critical for Americans with disabilities to
participate fully in basic activities such as education, employment,
worship, job training, recreation, and other features of community life
that most people take for granted.
According to a population-based survey conducted in 2000 by the
Harris Poll and funded by the National Organization on Disability,
approximately 30 percent of
disabled Americans have a problem with inadequate transportation,
compared to approximately 10 percent of the general population.
Moreover, according to a 1994-1995 survey by the National Center for
Health Statistics, almost 5.5 million Americans report that they never
drive because of an ``impairment or health problem.''
Viewed collectively, these statistics paint a picture that disabled
Americans are a key stakeholder for mass transit providers around the
country. Accessible, affordable mass transit is a necessary
prerequisite for any community that seeks to live up to the letter and
spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). For America to
achieve the goals of the ADA--equality of opportunity, full
participation, economic self-sufficiency, and independent living--
America must expand its investment in accessible, affordable mass
transit. Although the disability community has seen significant
progress in the accessibility of mass transit systems in the almost 12
years since the enactment of ADA, we remain concerned about
inconsistent compliance with the ADA's requirements. Moreover, mass
transit often falls victim to the budget axe, thanks in part to
America's love affair with the automobile and our collective inability
to prioritize mass transit as the preferred means for transporting our
public. This causes those who rely on mass transit to be forced to use
a taxicab for many destinations, an option that is often neither
accessible nor affordable.
Over the last several months, Easter Seals Project ACTION has
convened two meetings of leaders from the disability and transit
communities to develop joint recommendations and action plans for
increasing availability of accessible, affordable transportation. The
recommendations that were developed represent the broad goals of the
participants and efforts underway to work together to achieve these
goals. Many of the recommendations can and should be addressed in the
reauthorization of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA-21) and the other
legislative vehicles. The primary recommendations developed during
these national meetings are:
<bullet> Enhance partnerships between transportation providers,
advocates, and disability/human service providers.
<bullet> Coordinate information related to the ADA regulations, Federal
rulings, and procurement.
<bullet> Integrate accessible transportation into all aspects of
transit operations.
<bullet> Enhance education and training for the transportation
providers and the disability community.
<bullet> Improve the coordination of transportation services and
funding across Federal
agencies, possibly through an Executive Order requiring all Federal
agencies that support transportation to coordinate their programs
and funding to maximize
accessibility and affordability.
<bullet> Ensure that Federally-funded programs that promote employment
opportunities for people with disabilities place a high priority on
identifying accessible, affordable transportation that can enable
individuals to pursue their career goals.
<bullet> Ensure that accessible, affordable transportation receives the
priority funding that it deserves in carrying out the President's
New Freedom Initiative for People with Disabilities and
implementing the Supreme Court's Olmstead decision requiring access
to home and community-based supports for people who seek to leave
institutions.
The participants in the national meetings placed a significant
emphasis on the need for coordination of services, information, and
training. The goal of the reauthorization of TEA-21 should be that
accessibility is built into all aspects of transit operations and that
existing services are better coordinated to meet the needs of people
with disabilities.
In addition to the specific priorities that emerged from the
summit, I want to take this opportunity to emphasize the importance of
strong enforcement of the access requirements of the ADA in the context
of mass transit. In 2000, the National Council on Disability issued a
report called Promises to Keep: A Decade of Federal Enforcement of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. In this report, NCD documented
significant problems with lack of consistency in enforcement both
within and across Federal agencies. In the executive summary, NCD
commented:
The Department of Transportation is one of the clearest
examples of inconsistent intra-agency enforcement activity. Six
quasi-independent modes with DOT are responsible for enforcing
the many transportation provisions of ADA. Each mode is
different, sometimes strikingly so, in the interpretation of
ADA requirements, the approach to complaint investigation, and
the priority placed on public education. Some modes habitually
gave the covered entities broad discretion in meeting ADA's
accessibility requirements and timetables, while others
communicated a clear expectation of timely compliance. While
some modes were proactive in disseminating public information
with specific information to consumers about their rights,
others provided only the most general information on grounds
that it was not within their purview to provide more specific
information about rights under the law. This kind of
inconsistency greatly undercut DOT's overall effectiveness in
establishing an expectation of compliance with ADA's
nondiscrimination mandate among all the covered entities within
its purview.
NCD's findings were echoed in the recent national meetings convened
by Project ACTION and in AAPD's experience as a disability membership
organization. Among the specific issues requiring attention is the
ongoing need to increase the accessibility of fixed-route service.
Advocates noted that ADA compliance had focused largely on accessible
vehicles, and customer service has been neglected. For instance, the
failure (sometimes refusal) of drivers to call stops limits access for
blind and visually impaired riders; and the ongoing refusal to allow
service animals to board buses denies access to people with a wide
range of disabilities who use service animals. People also raised
problems with broken lifts, resulting in no access for a user with a
mobility impairment who requires a functional lift to board. Some
chronic problems are being addressed by automated announcements and low
floor buses, on which all passengers board by ramp. In the context of
the metro system here in DC, The Washington Post has documented
recently the chronic problem of elevators going out of operation and
significantly increasing the travel time of people who rely on
elevators to take the metro.
Advocates have also raised concerns about the broader access of
communities,
noting the need to work with local governments to ensure that
inaccessible sidewalks and lack of curb cuts do not limit access to
fixed-route transit. When the path of travel from a person's house or
apartment to the fixed-route system is not accessible, many riders are
forced to take paratransit, which is more costly and less
efficient.
Although NCD's report and the national meetings resulted in a
number of specific recommendations for improving enforcement of the
transportation requirements in ADA, I am concerned that we must also
remain vigilant that we not move backward with regard to accessibility.
Some would seek to use changes in the political environment to revisit
the access requirements in ADA either in statute or through
administrative interpretation. To avoid administrative erosion and to
enhance enforcement, I strongly recommend that the Office of the
Secretary of Transportation assert leadership in developing and
implementing a strong and consistent expectation of demonstrated
compliance with the ADA's access requirements among all of DOT's
grantees. It is critical that the ADA be viewed as a national civil
rights law requiring strong, consistent, and fair enforcement not
simply a technical regulation to be administered like a grant
requirement within the discretion of a particular mode.
Perhaps just as important as the increased role of the Office of
the Secretary, I strongly recommend that the Department of
Transportation receive significant new funding to carry out an ongoing
program of trainings in multiple locations and multiple languages for
end-line consumers, advocates, and transit providers so that they know
ADA's requirements and what to do when a violation occurs.
Thank you again for providing me this opportunity to testify. I
welcome the opportunity to answer any questions that you may have.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN D. PORCARI
Secretary, Maryland Department of Transportation
July 17, 2002
Jobs Access in Maryland
The successful transition of people with low incomes from welfare-
to-work is top priority for the State of Maryland. Recognizing that
these individuals face many challenges when attempting to access
employment opportunities, including a lack of personal transportation,
gaps in current public transit, nonstandard work hours, and new job
locations far from their homes, Maryland has been aggressive in seeking
Federal assistance through the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC)
Program. The result is a program that allows local transportation
providers to implement new bus routes, extend the hours of existing
services, and initiate specialized transportation services that meet
many of these needs and link workers with job opportunities. Maryland
has thus far benefited from use of $12.5 million in Job Access and
Reverse Commute funds. Reauthorization of the JARC Program at or above
the fiscal year 2003 level is vital to ensure Maryland can continue
these efforts.
Through its welfare reform efforts since 1996 Maryland has seen
large reductions in the numbers of individuals receiving public
assistance. Through concerted efforts by State welfare administrators,
with support from other State, regional, and local efforts including
those of public transit providers, many Marylanders who had been
reliant on welfare have successfully transitioned off public funding.
Maryland's Family Investment Administration reports the number of State
welfare recipients has decreased from a total of 227,887 in January
1995, to 67,725 recipients as of January 2002.
However, continued progress has been more difficult, as shown by a
recent increase in the total number of recipients with 68,263
recipients in the State's welfare program in March 2002. This increase
suggests that recent economic trends, with slowing economic growth, may
be impacting continued efforts to reduce the numbers of Maryland
residents reliant on welfare. While the State of Maryland has made
significant progress in helping welfare recipients find employment
since welfare reform began in 1996, 8.5 percent of Maryland residents
remain living in poverty.
The State's highest poverty rates are in urban Baltimore City and
rural Somerset County. In addition, service sector industries with
entry-level positions and with irregular hours, often located in
suburban areas not served with traditional transit services, are among
the industries showing the State's most rapid expansion. These factors
highlight the need for innovative and flexible transportation services,
such as those funded through the JARC Program, to meet local community
needs.
The State's JARC Program is administered by the Maryland Transit
Administration (MTA), an agency of the Maryland Department of
Transportation. The MTA also administers other Federal and State
transit funding programs to the rural and small urban area
transportation providers that operate across the State, allowing JARC
funding to be viewed in context with all available resources and
allowing for coordinated services and maximum benefits. While the JARC
Program is open to all eligible applicants, we have found the most
successful projects are those combined with services funded through
other Federal transit sources such as the Section 5307 and Section 5311
programs.
Projects funded through Maryland's JARC Program are evaluated for
consistency with the State's Job Access and Reverse Commute
Transportation Plan and coordination with local human service agencies
and existing transportation providers. We believe this focus on
coordination is one of the hallmarks of our program. All JARC funding
is granted to local or regional service providers, and since the
inception of the program 45 different services have received funding.
As depicted in the attached map,* the program has reached every corner
of the State, with projects in both rural and the urban areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Held in Committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both the funding and the coordination aspects of the JARC Program
have been instrumental to the State's efforts to increase and improve
transit services in Maryland, and attain Governor Parris N.
Glendening's goal of doubling transit ridership by 2020. We look
forward to continuing to use the JARC Program to expand mobility
options, particularly for those reliant on transportation alternatives.
Job Access Program Spurs Coordination at State and Local Levels
A positive feature of the JARC Program that has benefited Maryland
is that funding from other Federal programs may be used for the
required 50 percent match. Specifically, Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families, or TANF, funds can used for this match and help increase
collaboration between transportation and human service agencies. We
believe reauthorization of the JARC Program should maintain, and
possibly further formalize, this key coordination tool.
In Maryland, this aspect of the program has greatly assisted with
coordination
efforts. MTA works closely with the Maryland Department of Human
Resources (DHR) on the JARC Program. DHR administers the State's TANF
funds, and has provided nearly $6 million in matching funding both
directly from the State level and through local departments of Social
Services through the first 3 years of the program.
The partnership between the MTA and DHR built upon one that existed
before the JARC Program and that resulted from another Federal
initiative. Both agencies are represented on the Maryland Coordinating
Committee for Human Services Transportation. This Committee was an
outcome of a November 1995 meeting convened by the Federal Transit
Administration and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The Maryland Coordinating Committee began as an ad hoc committee, and
was formalized through an Executive Order by Governor Glendening in
October 1997.
In addition to social service agencies, workforce development
organizations are actively involved in the JARC Program. The result is
increased coordination at the State level, improved collaboration among
local transit providers and human service agencies and a more
coordinated effort to connect people with jobs.
Legislation Formalizes Maryland's Job Access Program
Even though Maryland is hopeful the JARC Program will be
reauthorized at the Federal level, the State took a proactive stance to
assure the program's sustainability. The MTA introduced a bill during
the 2001 Maryland General Assembly
session to establish a Job Access Program within the Maryland
Department of Transportation budget. This legislation was modeled after
a similar State program that funds general-purpose transportation
services for the elderly and persons with disabilities. The Job Access
bill passed, and was signed by Governor Glendening in April 2001.
This legislation outlined the application procedures and the local
matching fund requirements, beginning with the State's fiscal year 2003
program. While the legislation does not mandate a specific annual
allotment for the program, it affirms the State's commitment to
employment-oriented transportation. Maryland, though, anticipates the
Federal program will be reauthorized so these funds can continue to
help support the State's efforts to connect low-income workers with
employment
opportunities.
Services Funded Through JARC Program
Several JARC services target the need to connect urban residents
with the increasing number of jobs in the suburbs:
<bullet> The ``Career Caravan'' connects Baltimore City residents with
employment sites in suburban Howard County.
<bullet> New bus service provides transportation to the Arundel Mills
Mall, a shopping and entertainment complex that opened in November
2000, as the largest in Maryland. Over 3,000 jobs were created with
the mall opening, and with an additional 3,000 expected over the
next 5 years as the peripheral mall area is fully developed.
<bullet> A new bus route serves the BWI Airport and Columbia areas,
providing access to numerous employment centers.
<bullet> Reverse commute bus service connects Baltimore City and
Baltimore County job seekers with companies in Harford County
desperately in search of workers.
Several Job Access projects target the need to provide transit
services to new employment centers previously without transit service,
or provide later service to meet the needs of second and third shift
workers. For example:
<bullet> Bus service in Annapolis was extended to five major employment
centers outside Annapolis previously without bus service. Fifteen
new bus stops were added along this extension, providing access to
approximately 220 employers and over 6,500 job opportunities.
<bullet> In Charles County, expanded service hours on each of the
system's five primary routes connects low-income residents to over
250 employers with evening and late night job opportunities. In
addition, the expanded service provides additional access to the
local Department of Social Services where customers can obtain job
training and attend computer and parenting classes.
<bullet> Montgomery County extended the hours of eight bus routes to
serve the first and last Metrorail trains. These extended service
hours mean greater access for many low-income people to second and
third shift employment opportunities.
<bullet> In Prince George's County, hours were extended on a Metrobus
bus route that serves the Hillcrest Heights, Marlow Heights, Temple
Hills, and District Heights areas. This extension provides later
bus service in highly populated low-income residential areas of the
County for individuals seeking employment, and also helps meet the
needs of later work shifts.
<bullet> In addition, Prince George's County implemented the ``Job
Transportation Service'' (JTS), a coordination effort with United
Parcel Service to transport TANF
recipients to jobs at their site.
Some jurisdictions have implemented specialized services to meet
their local needs, particularly in more rural areas. For example,
Washington County, through a partnership between the public transit
service and the local Department of Social Services implemented a new
employment transportation program to connect low-
income workers to employment sites.
The Job Access Program has spurred regional efforts to help people
connect with job opportunities. On Maryland's Lower Eastern Shore,
projects funded through the Job Access Program have begun to address
transportation gaps in this region, and have provided the foundation
for a coordinated regional approach to the transportation issues facing
the area.
JARC Program Impact
The role of Maryland's welfare-to-work transportation services,
developed in regions throughout the State with support from JARC grant
funds, must be highlighted in the State's efforts to reform welfare.
From reverse commute services in the Baltimore area, later hour feeder
bus service to and from rail stations in the Maryland suburbs of
Washington, DC, additional demand response service to employment sites
and to commuter bus stops in the Western Maryland area, and new
regional routes serving multiple jurisdictions in the Chesapeake Bay
region, public and nonprofit transit providers have assisted thousands
of welfare recipients and other lower-income residents access new jobs
and job-related activities and transition toward independence and self-
support. In all, over 1.3 million passenger trips have been provided
through JARC-funded services.
But the JARC Program cannot be judged simply on numbers. As a
result of the program, greater coordination now exists between transit
providers and human service agencies--both at the local and State
levels. New and stronger partnerships are working together to bridge
the transportation gap for many low-income individuals. And most
important, former welfare recipients are now self-sufficient. The
following account epitomizes the positive aspects of the JARC Program.
One JARC-funded project supports efforts to better coordinate
existing services and provides low-income individuals greater access to
jobs and employment-related locations. Sojourner-Douglass College, in
partnership with the Housing Authority of Baltimore City (HABC),
Baltimore County Department of Social Services (DSS), and the MTA,
implemented the Workforce Transportation Referral Center, or WTRC, at
the College. The WTRC provides information on existing public
transportation services to employment sites and day care facilities,
and will coordinate demand-
response services when transportation needs are not served by public
transit. HABC and both Baltimore City and Baltimore County DSS have
provided significant matching funds for this project.
Baltimore County DSS is extremely pleased with this service, and
the support it provides in removing transportation barriers, accessing
jobs, and enhancing labor markets to families working toward self-
sufficiency and independence. One success story has been Ms. Madeline
Brooks who began using the WTRC services in March 2001, and was able to
obtain transportation to her place of employment which required
irregular work hours. Ms. Brooks was then able to purchase a car, and
in June 2002, bought a home and left the Section 8 Housing Program. She
is now
totally self-sufficient, free from any county, State, or Federal
assistance.
Challenges and Needs
The challenge is maintaining and building upon existing services
funded through the JARC Program. It is critical the JARC Program is
seen as long-term funding source. Otherwise, important transit services
tailored to low-income workers will vanish, as will their means to
greater employment options and self-sufficiency.
As mentioned above, much of the matching funding for JARC is
through the TANF Program, a completely separate Federal funding
program. To ensure the coordination emphasized by the JARC Program, it
is important these two sources are always viewed together.
It would be more effective if JARC funds could be applied for along
with other Federal transit funding, and reporting guidelines consistent
with these programs. This would allow even better integration with
other transit services, and allow JARC-funded projects to be more
easily reviewed in context with services funded through other programs.
While we believe a formula method for dispersing JARC funds would make
this process more efficient, this could greatly reduce the amount of
funds our State is receiving and seriously jeopardize continuation of
existing services. If a decision is made to formulize the JARC Program,
we hope that FTA will take into account past funding levels.
And despite considerable progress, however, there remain over
68,000 welfare recipients in the State, and, according to the State's
welfare office, approximately 15,500 of these are adults that could
potentially transition to work activities. While some of these
Marylanders remaining on welfare may be the more difficult cases due to
length of time on welfare, limited education, or other factors, with
the necessary support services in place, including transportation,
Maryland is committed to assisting its remaining welfare recipients
transition toward gainful employment and to assisting those with
minimum wage positions work toward higher wages and more stable
employment. These specific transportation needs still remain:
<bullet> Additional transit services to connect urban areas to jobs in
outlying or suburban locations.
<bullet> Additional transit services that cross county boundaries to
allow transit riders to access jobs in another county or State.
<bullet> Many transit services, particularly in smaller communities and
rural counties, do not operate late enough in the evenings or on
weekends when entry level jobs tend to be available.
<bullet> Some rural parts of the State have no public transit services
that are suitable for work trips because they are designed to serve
senior nutrition sites or other social service functions.
Recommendations Regarding Continuation of the Program
With the approach of the reauthorization of the Nation's highway
and transit
programs, we offer the following recommendations concerning the Job
Access and Reverse Commute Program:
1. The program should be reauthorized.
2. The national funding level should be increased, perhaps
from its proposed fiscal year 2003 level ($150 million) to at
least $175 million per year (a 16 percent increase).
3. The process used for award of funds should remain
unchanged. If there is consideration given to distributing the
funds based on a formula rather than on a discretionary basis,
it would be critical that any formula take into consideration
urban unemployment and poverty levels, variations between these
levels and outlying suburban employment levels, and relative
trends.
In conclusion, while we have focused today on how the Job Access
and Reverse Commute Program has benefited Maryland specifically, we
know from our conversations and correspondence with other States and
regions that we are not the only ones who face this transportation
challenge, and have used the program successfully to address it. In a
Nation devoted to automobiles, we must challenge ourselves to remember
the plight of those without them, and act to assure that transportation
does not become one of the impediments to successful integration into
our economy and great society.
Thank you for the opportunity to share these thoughts with you
today.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SARBANES FROM LAVADA
E. DeSALLES
Q.1. What do you think should be the number one priority for
reauthorization of TEA-21?
A.1. AARP sees the number one priority for reauthorization as
increased transit funding, particularly funding that can be
used for both capital and operating expenses for accessible and
human services transportation. The older population is
projected to increase significantly in the years ahead, yet
transit services are limited in the suburban and rural areas
where most of these individuals live. Transit provides vital
connections to community and to social activities for people
who cannot or choose not to drive, particularly for the fastest
growing age segment, those age 75 and over. Greater funding is
needed both to improve existing service with greater choice of
destination and more hours of operation, as well as to
create services in underserved areas. Additional resources are
also needed to support better paratransit services required
under
the ADA.
An example is the Section 5310 program, which provides
capital assistance for specialized transportation for the
elderly and persons with disabilities. Funding for the Section
5310 program is not keeping pace with new requests for support
from local human services agencies, nor is funding sufficient
to expand existing services with new vehicle purchases to any
significant degree. Some States report that requests for
funding exceed available funds by 40 percent and more. This
funding constraint has meant that the vast majority of dollars
is directed to replacing older vehicles, rather than allowing
agencies to improve existing, or create new, services.
Q.2. What do you see as the most important element of TEA-21 to
preserve in the next bill?
A.2. Guaranteed funding was a major accomplishment of TEA-21. A
stable funding stream helps State and local government plan and
budget for their formula program matches. This predictable
funding stream also increases the ability of transit planners
to take a more rational, longer-term perspective. Such a
perspective is exactly what is needed in charting the course
for meeting the transportation challenges of the aging baby
boom generation.
Q.3. What do you think is the most important change to TEA-21
that should be made in the next bill?
A.3. TEA-21 affords an opportunity to address the need for
improved paratransit service for persons with disabilities who
cannot use fixed-route transportation. We are concerned that
some transit agencies have raised eligibility standards for
these services in order to hold down costs. The number of older
persons with functional disabilities in the future will far
exceed current numbers. For many of these individuals,
paratransit will be a lifeline, providing access to such
essentials as groceries, meals programs, medicines, and doctor
appointments.
Paratransit services for persons with disabilities can be
improved by establishing greater consistency in eligibility
standards and by increasing attention to standards of service.
Increased support to transit agencies will be required to
accomplish these goals.
Q.4. Do you believe the guaranteed funding stream has benefited
transit, and would you support its continuance?
A.4. Yes, we believe the guaranteed funding stream has
benefited transit, and we support its continuance. See above.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SARBANES FROM ANDREW
J. IMPARATO
Q.1. What do you see as the number one priority for
reauthorization of TEA-21? What do you see as the most
important element of TEA-21 to preserve in the next bill? What
do you believe is the most important change to TEA-21 that
should be made in the
next bill?
A.1. I would say that the number one priority for
reauthorization of TEA-21 is making sure that the
transportation sections of President Bush's New Freedom
Initiative for people with disabilities are included and funded
without taking money from existing programs. As President Bush
has noted, inadequate transportation inhibits employment for
all people, but is an even greater barrier to people with
disabilities. New Freedom Initiative policies seek to test new
transportation ideas and develop partnerships to increase
access to alternate means of transportation, such as vans with
specialty lifts, modified automobiles, and ride-share programs
for those who cannot get to buses or other forms of mass
transit.
Direct infusion of funding into transportation programs
will benefit local economies. Cambridge Systematics, Inc.,
reports in ``Public Transportation and the Nation's Economy''
that businesses and local communities have benefited from
transit operations spending, with a $32 million increase in
business sales and an additional 570 jobs for each $10 million
in public transportation investments.
<bullet> The President requested but did not receive $45
million in the fiscal year 2002 budget for the Department
of Transportation pilot transportation programs.
<bullet> The President requested but did not receive $100
million in the fiscal year 2002 budget for the Department
of Transportation for a matching grant program for
community-based transportation alternatives.
<bullet> The President has sought authorization to establish
the Department of Transportation's New Freedom Initiative
Program and requests $145 million in fiscal year 2003 for a
competitive grants program to provide additional
transportation services for job access and a pilot program
to demonstrate innovative solutions for transportation
problems still faced by persons with disabilities.
<bullet> The President's fiscal year 2003 budget expands the
funding for the Job Access and Reverse Commute Program to
the full authorization level of $150 million, an increase
of $50 million since the President took office. This
program includes job-related transportation services for
people with disabilities.
As we increase Federal funding to provide enhanced access
for travelers with disabilities, it is critical that we work at
the same time to enhance knowledge of and compliance with the
civil rights requirements of ADA and other Federal, State, and
local disability rights laws that affect transportation
providers. Travelers with disabilities and the organizations
that serve them desperately need training and user-friendly
``know your rights'' materials in multiple languages and
multiple formats. At the same time, covered entities would
benefit from user-friendly training for front line staff and
supervisors.
With regard to what is the most important element of TEA-21
to preserve in the next bill, I would suggest that the Congress
should make it a priority to maintain the commitment to the
principle of parity between transit and other modes. This means
making sure that the amount of Federal funding for transit
should be as close to 30 percent of the funds in TEA-21 as
possible (thought the ratio of transit to highway funding has
gotten worse in the last couple of years, the ratio was close
to 30 percent just after TEA-21 was passed). Also, at this
point the Administration looks like they will seek to change
the local match requirement for new transit rail programs to 50
percent (it is currently 20 percent). If this occurs, it will
make it much more difficult to get new rail projects started
and bias new construction toward highways which will have an
easier match requirement in the bill. Accordingly, I would
strongly encourage you to maintain the 20 percent local match
requirement for new transit rail programs and not allow that
figure to be increased.
Q.2. Many in the transit industry credit TEA-21's funding
guarantees with reinvigorating the transit program in America.
The guarantees have given transit planners a measure of
certainty that the Federal Government will stand by the
promises made in TEA-21. Do you believe the guaranteed funding
stream has benefited transit, and would you support its
continuance?
A.2. Yes, I believe the guaranteed funding stream has benefited
transit, and has benefited travelers with disabilities more
specifically. Yes, I would support its continuance, but again I
remain hopeful that some of the new funding could be allocated
explicitly for outreach, technical assistance, and enforcement
activities related to compliance with the requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and other civil rights laws.
Thank you for your follow up questions, and thanks again
for the opportunity to testify on this important topic.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY GLORIA McKENZIE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE JOB ACCESS AND
REVERSE COMMUTE COMPETITIVE GRANT PROGRAM
PREPARED BY THE CENTER FOR COMMUNITY CHANGE
July 17, 2002
The Transportation Equity Network (TEN) is a national coalition,
convened by the Center for Community Change, of grassroots
organizations across the country working to advance the equity in
local, regional, and national transportation policy and planning
practices. TEN members are committed to ensuring that community voices
continue to be heard in the implementation of the Job Access and
Reverse Commute Program and as the law is discussed in Congress.
Background
In 1996, Congress enacted the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act, also known as the Welfare Reform Act,
which abolished the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
Program and replaced it with the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) block grant program. This new law created a system of
time-limited benefits and work requirements. For millions of families,
the urgency of finding work or allowable work activities in the face of
an approaching deadline brought to light the many institutional and
emotional challenges that unemployed people confront. Transportation is
one of these challenges.
Even prior to welfare reform, organizations of low-income people
and some local governments already understood that the transportation
barriers faced by the low-income people were preventing them from
finding and keeping jobs in the low-wage labor market.
<bullet> Transportation can be a major expense for working families on
fixed budgets, whether they rely on personal vehicles or public
transportation.
<bullet> Many low-income families are unable to afford to purchase or
maintain a vehicle, and public transportation systems often do not
connect workers to employment through existing routes.
<bullet> According to the American Public Transportation Association,
about 40 percent of these people are low-income. Yet, an estimated
38 million low-income people,
according to Census figures, are considered transportation
disadvantaged--and
likely to rely on others for their mobility.
<bullet> Modeling the outdated hub-and-spoke pattern, most urban public
transportation systems are designed to connect suburban commuters
to downtown jobs, but they do not connect central city residents to
areas of job growth in the suburbs. Government studies have
estimated that in some metropolitan areas up to two-thirds of job
growth has taken place in suburban communities. As a result,
central city residents, who are often low-income minorities, have
been isolated from economic opportunities.
<bullet> In rural areas, access to jobs is complicated by the fact that
only 60 percent of rural communities have public transportation
services. Of these communities, 25 percent have only infrequent
service; service, under these conditions, cannot reliably serve
daily access to jobs needs. In these unserved and underserved
areas, many low-income families have no other option but to rely on
their own vehicles if they have one, which all too often let them
down.
<bullet> Both rural and urban low-wage employees find it difficult to
find transportation to work for second- and third-shift jobs, which
are more prevalent in the low-wage workforce, since community
transportation services frequently do not operate during these
late-night and early-morning hours.
<bullet> Working parents with children face the additional challenge of
relying on public transportation to make multiple trips--to
childcare, school or training, shopping and work. In some cases,
this ``trip-linking'' has meant adding hours to the morning
commutes of low-wage working families, and increasing the
likelihood that they may be late to work and vulnerable to losing
their jobs or being penalized by their welfare caseworkers.
<bullet> Where community transportation services are available, working
parents are often unaware of them. The challenge, in these cases,
is to raise awareness about these services and how to access them.
In the wake of welfare reform, community groups began organizing to
ensure access to public transportation. In 1998, a national coalition
of progressive local and national organizations, including the
Transportation Equity Network, formed a broader Access Coalition to
advocate for a new Federal grant program that would support local
transportation initiatives to connect low-income families to job
opportunities. When Congress enacted the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century (TEA-21)--a $217 billion transportation bill--it
included up to $750 million over 5 years for the Job Access and Reverse
Commute (Job Access) Competitive Grant Program.
The Job Access and Reverse Commute Program was intended to provide
grants to communities on a competitive basis to provide transportation
services to low-
income families that otherwise have a difficult time getting to jobs
and related services. The Job Access Program authorizes two kinds of
grants: Job Access projects aimed at developing new transportation
services for low-income workers and /or filling in gaps in existing
services, and Reverse Commute projects aimed to provide transportation
to suburban jobs from urban, rural, and other suburban locations. These
programs recognize that two-thirds of all new jobs are in the suburbs
while three-fourths of low-income workers and individuals moving from
welfare-to-work live in inner cities and rural areas.
Job Access grants fund projects that transport welfare recipients,
disabled residents, and other low-income individuals in urban,
suburban, or rural areas to and from jobs, job-training programs, and
education activities related to their employment. This program has been
critical in addressing the gaps in existing transportation systems and
easing the efforts of low-income families as they try to get to the
jobs and services they need to move from welfare-to-work.
Best Practices
The JARC Program helps to highlight the need for collaboration
among various transportation stakeholders--human service agencies,
transit agencies, departments of transportation, local governments, and
affected constituencies. When considering these applications, the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) places special emphasis on
consultation with the community to be served, including welfare
recipients and low-income individuals, individuals with disabilities,
migrant workers, Native Americans, and community-based, faith-based,
and other organizations addressing the needs of such individuals.
Grants are awarded based on the coordinated human services /
transportation planning process and the extent that all stakeholders
were consulted in the process and the Area-Wide Job Access and Reverse
Commute Transportation Plan. They are also awarded based on how
effectively the Area-Wide Plan identifies the gaps, offers pragmatic
solutions, and meets the needs of low-
income workers trying to access jobs.
Community-based organizations play a critical role in connecting
transportation providers to the community to be served and ensuring
that the needs of the community are met. Take for example, the lesson
learned in Jacksonville, Florida:
In 1998, the Interchurch Coalition for Action, Reconciliation
and Empowerment (ICARE) in Jacksonville, Florida, began a
listening process with their 35 member churches to determine
what were the most pressing issues affecting their
congregations. After extensive meetings with their
constituents, the overwhelming response was transportation and
the lack of access to jobs in the Jacksonville area. As a
result, ICARE formed a committee to conduct research on the
various alternatives and solutions available, and which were
successful in similar communities.
After conducting the research, ICARE then initiated
discussions with members of Jacksonville's local metropolitan
planning organization, the local transportation authority, and
the local workforce investment board about various alternatives
in getting low-income workers to available jobs. On February
11, 1999, ICARE hosted a public meeting of roughly 700
community members at which they publicly asked representatives
from the Jacksonville Transit Authority (JTA) and the MPO to
work with ICARE to address their communities' transportation
needs. After ICARE convinced them that increasing ridership on
public transportation was a joint priority, the transit
authority and the transportation planning organization agreed.
The ICARE committee met about nine times in the coming months
to
discuss the findings of their research. They then outlined the
four recommendations:
1. A timely and convenient bus service from the north side of
the city, where many need jobs, to the south side, where there
is substantial job growth. At that time, there was limited
service on the north side. Passengers had to make several
connections, which lengthened their commutes to 2 hours each
way. ICARE called for more direct service connecting the two
sides of the city.
2. Create a major north-side transportation hub to serve as a
center for buses. This would more efficiently connect people to
where they need to go.
3. Develop more extensive marketing to increase community
knowledge of existing transportation resources available and to
increase ridership.
4. Research other areas in the Jacksonville area that would
benefit from expanded transportation services and from
increased access to employment opportunities.
By January 2000, the JTA created a direct bus line from the
north to the south of the city and cut the commute time for
riders on this route in half. Ridership along the new route
increased by 300 additional people. The transit authority and
the MPO were convinced that their partnership with ICARE had
been fruitful. Naturally then, when the opportunity arose to
apply for a Federal Job Access block grant, ICARE coordinated
the application process for a grant with WorkSource (the local
workforce investment board), the MPO, Goodwill Industries,
Inc., the local housing authority, and other groups interested
in access to jobs. Matching funds were secured from WorkSource
and the MPO, while the remaining groups provided technical
input. Their successful bid resulted in an award of $1 million
for the Jacksonville area.
Learning from the extensive research that resulted in the new
north-south bus route, the Job Access grant was used to reroute
other bus lines to maximize ridership and access to jobs.
ChoiceRide, a vanpool shuttle service, was also created through
the Job Access grant. ICARE conducted outreach among employers
to get them involved in getting employees to work through
subsidies for the ChoiceRide program.
Job Access funds were also used to contract with van
companies to offer shuttle services to and from the airport,
about 25 miles from the city. As a large area employer,
transportation to and from the airport is critical in meeting
employees' needs, but buses servicing the airport were coming
back empty due to low ridership. The van shuttle service now
provides transportation on a cost-effective scale. The JTA is
also looking at other lines with low ridership and rerouting
them to connect people where they are to where they are going.
Likewise, the success of the partnerships created through the
JARC Program has allowed the JTA to build longer-term alliances
among the local university and local businesses that are unable
or do not want to provide parking lot spaces. Increased transit
would ease congested parking and traffic while promoting local
businesses and services.
Finally, at ICARE's suggestion, the JTA is now doing a
corridor study to put together a master regional plan for
transportation. ICARE has met twice with JTA to provide input
into that study, and has also conducted outreach to other
groups that may provide valuable input. Possible transportation
alternatives for the region include a light rail system.
Community members were able to successfully identify and
address community needs in a more concrete way than local
agencies had in the past. Grassroots involvement also served to
educate the broader community about existing transportation
routes and what services were needed to
address gaps. The JARC collaboration process is essential in
providing comprehensive solutions to low-income families'
barriers to employment.
Problems with Implementation
Earmarking
Since the inception of the program, despite protests from the
Federal Transit Administration and community organizations involved in
the creation of the program, Members of Congress have chosen to earmark
significant chunks of the funds available for the Job Access Program.
In fiscal year 2001, Congress earmarked roughly 85 percent of the total
funds appropriated for the program.
This process results in even less money available for the
competitive grant program, and, therefore, encourages less innovation.
But of particular concern to the Transportation Equity Network,
however, is that earmarking results in less public involvement in the
planning process. Groups with political clout are guaranteed funding
without having submitted JARC applications that require extensive
community collaboration, and often receive JARC funding without a
demonstrated need for these funds.
Local Match
Federal JARC grants require a 50-50 match. While various sources of
Federal funds can be used as a match, this match is difficult to raise
locally, especially for already strapped public transportation systems
and social services agencies. The match requirement actually prevents
many needy applicants from applying, despite pressing local needs.
Securing the local match is a hindrance to sustaining projects over
time:
<bullet> Transit agencies often fail to have the resources to take over
JARC projects
despite the demonstrated value of projects.
<bullet> Effective JARC strategies consistently have to struggle on an
annual basis to
secure resources for the match.
And because the JARC grants are 1 year grants, securing and
sustaining local matches for worthy projects that receive matching
Federal funds for only 1 year
discourage local investment in JARC projects.
Suggestions for JARC Reauthorization
<bullet> Significantly increase funding for the Federal Job Access and
Reverse Commute Program to at least $300 million a year. Available
JARC funds have been fully obligated every year since its
enactment, and due to a combination of factors, many worthy
projects have remained unfunded. Such an increase would be an
important investment in addressing the needs of welfare recipients
and other low-income families by providing local jurisdictions with
adequate flexible resources to address gaps in public
transportation service.
<bullet> Eliminate earmarking in the Job Access Program to strengthen
the role of community organizations and human service providers in
the planning and development of proposals. One method to limit
earmarks would be to apply processes to the JARC Program, similar
to those used in the New Starts Program where FTA is required to
rate projects based on clear criteria and submit recommendations on
funding to Congress prior to appropriations decisions.
<bullet> Simplify regulatory barriers that make it difficult for the
TANF block grant to be used as a match for the JARC Program--such
barriers include but are not limited to varying accounting rules
and eligibility requirements. Congress may consider using the
Department of Housing and Urban Development's income eligibility
guidelines in lieu of the 150 percent of Federal poverty level
standard to account for discrepancies between the urban and rural
costs of living and transit issues facing both.
<bullet> Increase resources for the Federal Transit Administration to
provide technical
assistance to nontraditional transportation providers as they apply
and implement JARC Programs. While encouraged in the JARC
guidelines, nontraditional transportation providers, including
faith-based and community organizations, found Federal regulatory
hurdles often insurmountable. FTA has a responsibility to shepherd
these groups through the implementation process, and resources
should be allocated accordingly. Congress should also explore ways
in which some DOT and DOL regulations can be eased so that smaller
nonprofit organizations, tribal organizations, and other entities
unaccustomed to running the transit-related programs may more
easily do so.
<bullet> Allow TEA-21 flexible funds to be used to cover the costs of
physical capital improvements at transit centers that would be
targeted to the needs of low-income families--workforce development
centers, childcare centers and related programs. Resources for such
purposes have been difficult for local communities to obtain
without an infusion of outside funding, but where transit centers
have been designed with such uses in mind, the results have been
very successful. Examples include: Columbus, OH; Washington, DC;
and San Jose, CA. Allow TEA-21
flexible funds to be used as a match for the Job Access and Reverse
Commute Program.
<bullet> In the broader reauthorization bill, require coordination
among transportation
departments, transit agencies, MPO's, welfare agencies, workforce
investment boards, and other entities with a stake in employment
transportation. Such interaction will allow for better planning for
the development of new services and the improved coordination of
existing services.
TRANSIT SECURITY: ONE YEAR LATER
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs,
Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met at 2:35 p.m. in room SD-538 of the
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Jack Reed (Chairman of
the Subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. Let me call the hearing to order.
Almost 1 year ago, this Subcommittee held a hearing on our
Nation's transit security systems in the wake of the tragic
events of September 11. At that time, we learned about the
important role that transit played in evacuating the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon. We also realized that those same
subways and buses are a potential target for terrorists.
Today, we will hear from Federal Transit Administrator
Jenna Dorn and then the General Accounting Office's Peter
Guerrero. Chairman Sarbanes and I requested that the GAO
conduct an investigation into the transit security challenges
facing the thousands of FTA grant recipients, both big and
small. At present, the GAO is about midway through this
project.
As Administrator Dorn and Mr. Guerrero will point out, our
Nation's buses and subways are like all other public places and
services--they are a potential target for those who threaten
the mobility that has made our society a beacon of freedom and
opportunity. We will also hear that the FTA and our transit
systems have been aware of these threats for some time and have
taken steps to counter them. Indeed, from the installation of
high-tech chem/bio detectors to new communications equipment to
simple locks that bar access to subway tunnels, America's
transit operators and their employees are working very hard to
make their
riders safer.
In many cases, the FTA has inspired these steps, and I say
inspired because while the FTA has made great efforts in
transit
security, it has done so with an extremely limited budget. And
many systems are making difficult choices between security and
vital investments to maintain the growth of transit service. In
addition, the creation of the Transportation Security
Administration and the likely creation of a Department of
Homeland Security could greatly alter the FTA's role in transit
security with unknown consequences.
Indeed, the GAO points out that these relationships are
evolving, but it is clear that there is a need for more
assistance, information, and funding when it comes to transit
security.
These two issues, resources and responsibility, are at the
heart of today's hearing and hold great import for this
Subcommittee's work on the reauthorization of TEA-21.
When Senator Allard arrives, I will obviously ask him to
make his statement. We are delighted today to have as our first
witness, Jenna Dorn, who is, as I have said, the Federal
Transit Administrator. She has done a remarkable job. Welcome
back Jenna.
Ms. Dorn.
STATEMENT OF JENNIFER L. DORN
ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Dorn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for those kind
comments.
I appreciate the opportunity and I would request that in
addition to our full statement, FTA be allowed to provide a
compendium of the activities and the outcomes and products of
the FTA effort over the last year to provide a more full
accounting of the activities and allow the Subcommittee to
assess in its leisure the kinds of things that have been
happening in the industry.
Senator Reed. Without objection.
Ms. Dorn. Thank you very much.
As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, FTA has been quite
aggressive in assessing and assisting transit agencies across
the country in an effort to deal with transit security and
terrorist threats. And the most important part of that effort
is that we have done so with the full support and cooperation
of the industry. I think that is notable. It is exceptional.
And we are privileged to work with them in a very positive and
collaborative fashion.
As a result of that collective approach, and the heightened
concern and awareness of the industry, I believe that America's
transit systems are safer, better prepared, and more security-
conscious than ever.
Now, are the Nation's transit systems now terrorist-proof ?
Absolutely not, and of course not. The very nature of transit
systems--open, accessible systems, to allow the freest movement
of the greatest number of people in a confined environment--
produces, of course, inherent vulnerabilities.
Saying that, however, FTA and transit agencies have done
much and we have learned more.
First of all, I think it is important to set the framework
about how FTA approached this. With such a complex problem as
protecting against terrorist environment, we have to take a
similarly complex approach. But it is a practical approach, as
well. It is a holistic systems approach, because the system is
only as strong as its weakest link.
Therefore, we have had five components in the FTA process.
First, to evaluate the current situation through in-depth
assessments of the security readiness at our one hundred top
transit
agencies.
Second, to develop a plan to address these deficiencies as
they were identified.
Third, to test the plan in realistic situations.
Fourth, to train employees to understand and implement the
plan.
Fifth, to undertake research to enhance human capabilities.
The threat and vulnerability assessments we have conducted,
I believe, have been the most important investment we have made
in security. I have mentioned that we have completed 36 transit
agency security assessments, which represents 90 percent of the
transit ridership across America.
We have utilized expert teams in security, counter-
terrorism, and transit operations.
What we found from the assessments validated our approach.
First, that a risk-based approach is absolutely fundamental. It
is vital that transit agencies assess the high-consequence/
high-threat areas and facilities and prioritize them.
That is a very different way to look at security than has
been traditionally done by transit agencies, where the previous
focus was on crime control.
So the value added to that security assessment has been
bringing those teams out, helping to define and to prioritize
the risks, and
setting a process by which you can dynamically continue to do
the
scenario-based assessments to determine where you should put
your resources.
The second piece that is a fundamentally important learning
from the security assessments is that, given the openness of
the system, we must focus on planning, employee training, and
practicing. And, sometimes, that is under-estimated.
There is always this kind of aura about new, fancy
technology--that it can be a panacea. But, indeed, there is no
technology bullet to ensure that travelers and public
transportation systems are ultimately protected or that we can
ultimately prevent any terrorist activity.
We certainly can make some significant inroads, and the key
to doing that is employee training. That is still transit's
primary antiterrorism tool.
Not only are the employees the eyes and ears of the system,
but they also are our first line of defense and response.
And I am pleased to say that in a collaborative effort with
the unions and with the transit agencies, we have turned
training into high gear--a number of new courses, a number of
new delivery mechanisms. We are really turning up the juice in
the effort on training that will give a great deal of bang for
the buck for any investment from any sector.
The second learning that is important to note as a result
of these emergency security assessments is emergency response.
And as a result of what we learned in the assessments, we are
sending out 60 technical assistance teams. We have had the
assistance of the FBI to help us prioritize where we need to go
first, and we will help improve the plans and reduce the
vulnerabilities that we have noted. We will help customize
training needs assessments for particular transit agencies. We
want to fill the gaps that have been identified.
In addition, I think that we underestimated the importance
of strengthening the relationship of transit with first
responders--emergency responders, police and fire.
As a result, we have already completed 8 of 17 security
forums throughout the country, where we emphasize the role that
transit can play through scenario exercises, et cetera, so that
we are sure that our emergency response plans are not only good
for the city, but also are good for the suburbs as they relate
to the city, as well.
Another important lesson we learned is practice, practice,
practice is imperative. As a result, we have now distributed 83
grants to transit agencies across the country so that they can
conduct full-scale, community-wide drills. Not modest
practices, but full-scale, community-wide drills.
I am proud to say that we had minimum requirements. A
letter needed to be sent about how these were going to be
conducted and that an evaluation would be provided, and then
the money was out the door. So, already, a number of these are
planned for the next couple of months.
With respect to technology, again, I would emphasize the
key we found, that investments need to be focused on enhancing
human capabilities. As I mentioned, there is not a silver
bullet, but technology can help reduce the demand on our
employees and help us be better equipped.
We also need to leverage the research that is being
conducted across Government, whether it be DOE or DoD, which we
have done, as you mentioned, in the Project PROTECT Program,
Mr. Chairman.
I cannot underestimate the importance of information-
sharing among and between transit agencies and the provision of
technical assistance. We have done a whole host of things with
the industry in regard to that, from developing secure websites
for exchange of best practices amongst agencies, to the
distribution of chem/biological guidelines so that subway
operators will know what to do if that happens.
Finally, intelligence dissemination. There certainly has
been much improvement in that arena nationally and locally. We
have a significant way to go in that regard.
At the Department of Transportation, we have refined and
dramatically improved our ability to communicate real-time with
the transit agencies. We are setting up a secure website with
the FBI that local transit managers can hook into to understand
better the trends and what is happening. And we are working
with industry to develop a trend analysis capability with
respect to terrorist threats.
It brings to mind the point of wisdom with respect to the
President's proposal and Congress' consideration of the
Department of Homeland Security.
We absolutely need to maximize our intelligence-sharing
capability across sectors and across the industry, and I know
that the proposal Congress is considering will help do that. It
will also perform the fundamentally important role of
prioritizing our resources.
A solid foundation has been created for that by the
establishment through Congress of the Transportation Security
Administration, the TSA, where overall responsibility for
transportation security has been placed in a single entity.
You mentioned the issues surrounding that, Mr. Chairman,
and obviously, it is something that we are paying very close
attention to. We recognize and support the fact that TSA will
set the priorities, the strategies, and the budgets--with the
assistance, the advice, the counsel, and the continued
involvement of FTA.
I am proud to say that TSA and FTA have already begun to
develop a very strong relationship. We are in synch on almost
all the issues that we are dealing with. Already, TSA has been
a real asset to FTA because of its intermodal approach. It
allows us to take the holistic approach that we think is
important.
It is important also to recognize, as TSA recognizes, that
they cannot achieve the desired level of security in isolation.
Security, like safety, must be an integral part of the Federal
transit programs that FTA administers and we need to work
together. They understand that and believe me, it is a daily
matter, rather than a weekly or monthly matter, when we work
together.
Then the really tough part comes, and I think this comes
for all industries, all modes, all aspects of American life.
And that is, balancing the interests of security against other
interests of mobility and the economic viability of the
Nation's transit systems.
There comes a point, and I am confident that we will not
reach this point, but, obviously, in the theoretical point,
there comes a time when security enhancements can undermine
and/or destroy the viability of public transportation systems.
As our experience showed on September 11, robust public
transportation systems are essential to national security.
Buses and trains were key in evacuating New York and
Washington, and cities across the country. They were used to
transport emergency workers and supplies, establish emergency
triage centers, and create temporary shelters for victims.
On a final note, FTA is really unique in one particular
respect. We are not a regulatory agency. Yes, we have used the
power of the purse to ensure that Federal funds are spent
appropriately and effectively. But we have not had to rely on
regulations to persuade the industry to do the right thing.
Just as we have worked with the transit community
successfully in safety without regulation, we are doing so, I
believe, in security. And as Admiral Loy has said to me on a
number of occasions, building consensus and buy-in with the
industry is far more successful than mandates.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer
any questions.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Madam Administrator, for
your testimony and for your service. We appreciate you being
here.
Let me recognize first Chairman Sarbanes, for any comments
that he might have, and then Senator Carper.
COMMENT OF SENATOR PAUL S. SARBANES
Senator Sarbanes. Mr. Chairman, I will defer until you do
your questioning and then I will take my regular round.
Senator Reed. Senator Carper, do you have any comments?
COMMENTS OF SENATOR THOMAS R. CARPER
Senator Carper. Just briefly. Ms. Dorn, thank you very much
for joining us today.
The homeland security legislation, creating a Department of
Homeland Security, is before the Senate as we speak and it has
attached to it an amendment that was adopted that would
authorize some $1.2 billion to enhance rail security.
We have, as you know, tunnels that run under the city, that
run under Baltimore into New York. There are several tunnels
where hundreds of thousands of people travel every day. They
are old, some almost as old as the Civil War, some that date
back to the last century. They are poorly lit, poorly
ventilated. There is little in the way of escape routes.
We provided significant authorization for funding to try to
upgrade those systems. They are used by Amtrak, but
particularly the tunnels going into New York City are used far
more by commuters than by Amtrak.
I am supposed to go preside at 3:00 p.m., so I am not going
to be here to ask questions of you. But it would be interesting
to know your take on that legislation, which is part of the
homeland security bill. If you could maybe provide some
comments for the record, I would appreciate it.
Ms. Dorn. Absolutely. Thank you, Senator. Will do.
Senator Carper. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Madam Administrator, let me first ask, does the FTA know
how much transit agencies are spending on safety and security
improvements. Are you monitoring their expenditures in a
general way?
Ms. Dorn. Not in a definitive way. Certainly in a way that
would be evidenced through our security assessments. They are
free to show us, and do, often, what they are spending on
different things. But I wouldn't say in a systematic way, other
than the requirement that FTA imposes on all transit agencies
larger than 200,000 population where a 1 percent security
expenditure is required, unless there is a waiver granted.
And I would just note on that, in the past months, we
believe it is appropriate to no longer grant the waiver. What
we need to do is to establish that that 1 percent is spent and
we would like to know how it is spent.
The only condition under which we would grant a waiver is
if the transit agency could demonstrate that they have spent
that portion through non-Federal funds and could establish
that.
Senator Reed. Does transit security need its own dedicated
source of funding, in your view? This relates to Senator
Carper's question, which is, we are authorizing funding for
inter-city rail. With all these different funds sources, does
transit need a separate funding, restricted funding?
Ms. Dorn. At some point, that may be the decision of the
now Office of Homeland Security, or TSA.
At this point, I think the most fundamental need is that
there be a place where the prioritization of resources across
the modes of transportation and across industries can be made.
Certainly, I will be a strong advocate, based on the
evidence that we have collected, about where any funds that
would be available should be spent and in what priority order.
But I cannot pretend to speak for larger issues or for
prioritizing the resources, and that is why I think it is a
tremendous advantage to have TSA already in operation with
regard to prioritizing the expenditures across the modes of
transportation and, if and when the Department of Homeland
Security comes into play, then that will give even a broader
assessment.
So, I think it is premature to say that piece, and I would
not be in a position to assess risks beyond the transit risks
that we see.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Let me move then to a more specific question, which would
be, if you had additional resources, where would you deploy
these resources? What is the highest priority that you are not
reaching now with your limited resources? Is it assessment
teams going out to look at more transit systems? What is it?
Ms. Dorn. If, in the wisdom of the Executive and
Legislative Branches there were additional funds to be had, I
think FTA is in a very good position after doing these risk
assessments to know where we could get the most bang for the
buck. And clearly, some of the things that we have found really
emphasize training, because training--whether it is front-line
employees or supervisors--is an absolutely imperative part in
an open and accessible system. So, I would say that that is
fundamental.
Certainly there are some other vulnerabilities that have
been identified generically, things like more effective
emergency response plans and access control issues.
Each of those is being worked on carefully. But I think we
would have a clear idea, if more money was to be allocated, how
it could be most effectively used.
Senator Reed. Again, you are only assessing a fraction of
the transit systems. Is there a plan that you have to, as we go
forward, to go out and make more assessments on smaller
systems?
Ms. Dorn. We certainly wouldn't be closed to that. I would
emphasize, though, that we are affecting through our
assessments 90 percent of transit ridership and at least that
much of the critical infrastructure. However, we also think
that many lessons learned can be passed on--and we are already
doing so--to the smaller transit agencies and the bus-only
agencies.
We have a very significant portfolio of both best practices
and training programs that we are getting out with the
collaboration of the unions and others, to make sure that the
bus systems and the smaller systems around the country can
benefit. So, I would be pleased to provide that more
extensively for the record.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Ms. Dorn. I have one or two other
questions, but my time has expired. Let me recognize the
Chairman for his statement and questions.
Chairman Sarbanes.
Senator Sarbanes. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Reed.
First of all, I want to thank you for convening this
hearing. Actually, I think this is the fifth hearing on transit
that the Subcommittee has held this year in preparation for the
reauthorization of TEA-21, and I want to thank you for the very
fine work that has been done on that issue.
The events of September 11, 2001, were a daunting national
tragedy. But even in the immediate aftermath of the attack,
Americans showed great resolve in moving forward with the
business of the country. We have made significant progress on
many issues since that day, even as we continue to remember and
mourn those who were tragically lost.
Of course, one of the issues that received heightened
attention is security, and this Subcommittee actually held a
hearing shortly after last September 11, just weeks after the
attack, to assess the security of our Nation's public transit
systems.
I appreciate the Subcommittee's efforts in this regard.
We saw the potential of public transportation to serve our
needs under those stressful circumstances. On that morning,
transit agencies across the country ran extra trains and buses
in order to move people out of the cities, playing a
particularly vital role in the evacuation of New York and
Washington.
But it is very clear public transportation faces unique
challenges in the safety and security area. By its very nature,
public transit has to be easily accessible. It runs on
identified routes at published times. It needs an extensive
network of road and rail, spanning a wide geographic area.
So it has to be open and accessible for its use. But, of
course, that intensifies some of the security problems. And of
course, we have had a huge jump in transit ridership. It is
growing faster than any other mode of transportation.
I know that self-examination is going on. We very much
appreciate your testimony as we look ahead.
I have just a couple of questions that I want to ask.
First of all, I want to move off the particular subject
matter, to ask the Administrator, where are you on preparing
the reauthorization request, which is an issue that we will
have to address in the next Congress?
Ms. Dorn. We have had extensive efforts over the months to
put together a proposal, which we are now finalizing within the
Department. And we would expect that, after other consultations
with the Secretary, that we would move that forward to the
Office of Management and Budget, in time for consideration
simultaneously with the 2004 budget, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sarbanes. When would you expect putting it out for
public examination and when would you expect actually sending
it
to the Congress, or letting the Congress have it so that we can
ex-
amine it?
Ms. Dorn. The plan is that simultaneously or very near the
time that the President puts forward his 2004 budget in the
February timeframe would be when the reauthorization proposal
would also be sent to Congress.
Senator Sarbanes. We were able in the last reauthorization
to significantly increase the commitment to transportation
across all modes that were encompassed within the TEA-21
legislation, which, of course, was not just transit, but
encompassed highways as well. That was in response to the
obvious growing demand. The demand has continued to grow, and
we have a lot of pressures to respond to it, reflected in part,
I think, by the number of new start requests that the
Department has been receiving. Does your planning take that
into account? What time period will you use for the
reauthorization? Over what period of time?
Ms. Dorn. A 6-year authorization is intended at this point.
Senator Sarbanes. Six years. Well, that is a long stretch
of time. Do you expect that we are going to see a
responsiveness to the pressing need?
Ms. Dorn. Yes, I do. Whether or how much of an increase
that would be is really premature for me to comment. But you
can count on all of us at the Department of Transportation to
be advocates for our Nation's infrastructure.
Senator Sarbanes. I think that is extremely important. Once
you lock it in in the Administration, it becomes difficult to
significantly change the dimensions.
So, I think if there is going to be a significant increase
in the dimensions, which I feel keenly is very much needed, you
all will have to be in there fighting for it tooth and nail, I
would say. And I see you nodding your head. That doesn't show
up on the record.
Ms. Dorn. Yes, sir.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sarbanes. I take it that is a yes.
Ms. Dorn. Yes, sir.
Senator Sarbanes. All right.
Mr. Chairman, if I could ask a couple of other questions?
Senator Reed. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman, go right ahead.
Senator Sarbanes. We sometimes think in this country that,
we figure out how to do things and we do not have any lessons
to learn from others. Other transit systems in other countries
have been challenged with important security problems in the
past. We are now confronting this issue in a very direct way.
But the British have had to face this problem. They had a
significant terrorist issue. The Japanese had a major incident
that occurred in their subway system.
So other large cities have confronted the issue of
terrorist attacks. How much sharing of information, strategies,
technology, and best practices, are we doing with these other
countries?
To what extent have we reached out to see what they are
doing, perhaps brought them here or gone there, in order to see
what ideas we can gather in order to address our own situation?
Ms. Dorn. Very important question, Mr. Chairman. And from
day one, we have sought and received the active cooperation and
participation in a number of important events and activities
from the international community. We recognize that the
international perspective and unfortunate experience is really
key to having lessons learned for us as well.
International individuals who have had experience in Paris
and London and Japan and other countries have played an active
role in roundtables that we have convened for top transit
officials across the country. We have solicited expertise from
the Israeli government to evaluate and to revise our training
programs.
We continue to promote their active information-sharing
with us, and us with them, frankly. And yesterday and today,
there is an international summit sponsored by the FTA and APTA,
in which more of this information is being shared. We have had
several visits by transit officials to Japan, particularly, and
I think we are taking advantage of their unfortunate experience
and the lessons learned in as significant a way as possible.
Senator Sarbanes. Well, I am encouraged to hear that. I
think we may learn some very valuable lessons.
Ms. Dorn. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Sarbanes. Let me ask you this, if I may.
Senator Reed. Go right ahead, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sarbanes. I appreciate your statement that: ``I am
certain that the Committee understands the need to avoid a
public discussion of our specific findings about particular
transit sys-
tems . . .'' I accept that. But let me ask a hypothetical
question. I want to get some definition for all of this. Let's
assume there is some hypothetical transit system out there. You
are working with transit systems all around the country. You
come in in order to be of assistance to them and so forth and
so on.
What is the agenda you have done to help my hypothetical
transit system, just picking things that have actually occurred
in fact that have enabled you to significantly enhance the
security situation for this hypothetical transit system?
And the more specific you can get in outlining what it is
that has been done, how this has resulted in boosting or
improving the security situation, the better.
Ms. Dorn. Okay. The security assessments which we have done
have both specific transit agency applicability and generic
value-added. So depending on the nature of your own transit
system, there would be unique recommendations depending on
whether it was an old system, a new system, a subway, a light
rail. So that is the advantage of sending in teams. We did not
do cookie-cutter. We went in to each of the 36 transit systems.
So there are a unique set of issues that would relate to a
particular transit system.
However, there are also generic issues which we examine
throughout. Number one, this whole threat and vulnerability
assessment--determining what particular risks a transit agency
has and what are the high-risk assets and the critical assets--
that is a systematic approach that most transit agencies have
not used in the past.
So that intellectual approach to figuring out where your
specific vulnerabilities are, what the scenarios are, and what
counter-measures you can take, it is a process, and a learning
process that we have worked with transit agencies on. Some are
more sophisticated about it than others. Others, they only
concentrated on crime control. The very aspect of evaluating
the risk was a key change.
Then, understanding the role of emergency response planning
and how to develop a good emergency response plan for their
particular transit agency has been very important.
The technical assistance teams that we are sending to 60
transit agencies as a follow-on to that assessment will very
specifically hone in. How can you get a better emergency
response plan? What kind of training do you have now for your
employees? How can you improve it? How can we make sure that
you have a dynamic process for threat assessment? So that still
is very much catered to an individual transit agency.
We also generically understood that training has not been
emphasized, for either front-line employees or supervisors. We
have developed a whole host of new training courses and new
ways of delivering those training courses. We are working
closely and carefully with the unions and with management to
ensure that it is a priority.
I believe that transit agencies would say that those first
three efforts I described have been a value-added. In addition
to that, we have worked very closely with the industry to
determine what kind of research needs are there, what would
help you most.
We identified $2 million so that we could, with industry,
determine what are the 10 or 12 or 14 most important research
projects that would be a real asset.
With regard to emergency response planning capability, the
transit agencies do not always have a seat at the table in
emergency response, which is so ironic. Even in some larger
cities, the transit agencies simply served as the
transportation vehicle for people who were doing the drills.
They did not understand the critical role that you outlined,
Mr. Chairman, of transit in the event of a terrorist attack or
an emergency.
So, we have held security forums in 17 cities across the
country, with mayors, emergency responders, fire, police, and
transit officials, all sitting around tables to enhance their
emergency response planning capability and do scenario-based
exercises.
That is a really important component because one of the
things we found in the security assessments is that you may
have a large city that has a very good and robust emergency
plan, but the surrounding areas may not be hooked into that
plan. And if I work in the inner city and need to get to the
suburb, I do not care about what the jurisdictional boundaries
are. Those are just some of the activities.
We have also made sure that our transit people locally are
tied into the FBI. The intelligence-sharing and information
piece has been a real bugaboo for all. We know that has to be
improved and, fortunately, the FBI, at a national level and at
most local levels, has been very willing to include transit in
what they call the Joint Task Force on Terrorism. And that
piece is very important.
We also have developed secure websites for our transit
colleagues, so that they can add a law enforcement level. They
can understand better what is happening out there, and they can
share information among and between transit agencies.
We are trying to determine whether or not an industry-based
information-sharing system similar to what the American
Association of Railroads has done would be worthwhile. That
would be a modal effort focused on information about transit
threats, so that you can share New York with Washington with
Florida, what has been happening, that there can be trend
analyses, et cetera.
So, I think we have a fairly rich compendium of things
that, we believe, are not just activities. They are value-
added, and if they are not, we take them off the books.
We do not have a lot of money. I am convinced that we are
spending the money we have, which is adequate, in the best way
at this point in time.
Senator Sarbanes. Well, it is interesting. The latter
examples you gave, I understand them because they were pretty
specific.
In other words, transit now sits at the table with all of
the actors of the emergency response teams, which is something
at least most of them were not doing before, as I understand
it. They are now tied in in terms of communication with the FBI
in order to exchange information and so forth.
I did not quite get down into the level of specificity I
would have liked in the earlier examples you gave. What are
some of the changes that you have helped to institute in the
way transit systems work that address the security problem?
Just very specific things.
Ms. Dorn. I do not want to get too deep in this, although I
would be very happy to have a private briefing with you.
But let me just say that I think that with TSA's
cooperation and with FTA, we have been able to think and work
outside the transit box. And by that I mean, if you have a
significant intermodal transit center, what we have found is
that very often, because every-
one had been in the past concerned about liability issues and
``I
will take care of my stuff,'' people have not been thinking
about
whether it is a commuter rail owned by a local transit agency
or it is the local taxicab or the vendor or the Amtrak train
that comes into the station.
Everybody's been concerned about their own thing.
So to be able to collaboratively work on the risks and
vulner-
abilities and develop particular counter-measures for
particular places, is something on which, with the cooperation
of the industry and all the agencies and vendors at the table,
I think we have been able to make some improvements. However,
we have not reached the millennium in that regard. It is a new
way of thinking and it requires a new discipline and a new
culture to work outside of whatever your specific operational
responsibilities are.
Now, we could go through transit agency by transit agency
and specifically list for you in a closed session the
particular vulner-
abilities we found. What we have found is that transit agencies
have been very responsive in terms of trying to fill those
gaps. And certainly there are gaps that they probably do not
choose to fill or cannot at this point fill. But they have to
make the trade-offs in terms of risks and other investments
that need to be made.
Senator Sarbanes. Can I ask one final question?
Senator Reed. Certainly, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sarbanes. The tragedy in New York, as I indicated
at the outset, still is very much in our minds and memory, but
we do now have a chance on the World Trade site to do major
things with respect to transit.
I know that the New York people have some very ambitious
plans in that regard. How much are you involved in that and how
supportive are you being from the Federal level so that out of
this tragedy, we can really put in place something that is
significantly better than what was there before?
Ms. Dorn. FTA views this as a very important
responsibility. As the President has indicated, we need to do
everything we can in the Federal Government to help bring New
York back.
On the one hand, we recognize that transportation has
always been, and should continue to be, a community-based plan.
So, we are working very closely with the local decisionmakers
about how and where they want to spend that money, particularly
at the site.
However, we are very, very concerned that our role be to
expedite in whatever way we can the process so that there are
no unnecessary delays. We are eager to move these processes and
to move the projects, more importantly, forward as aggressively
as possible. And we have worked cooperatively with FEMA in
terms of determining how we can channel that money directly so
that the funds can be spent for the projects. It has been a
cooperative effort all around with the governors, the mayors,
the head of FEMA, the head of the Department of Transportation.
I feel very confident about the New York recovery office that
we have established specifically for these projects. We do not
want anything to be delayed or get lost in other priority
projects. This is a very important priority of the FTA and we
do not plan on failing.
Senator Sarbanes. Good. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. I want to particularly associate myself with
the comments about the reauthorization and the need for the
Administration to develop a robust plan to continue the
progress that we have made over the last several years.
Senator Sarbanes. We wait with hopeful expectation, Madam
Administrator.
Ms. Dorn. Thank you, I think.
[Laughter.]
Senator Reed. Let me ask a final series of questions.
I understand that you are working to develop a memorandum
of understanding between FTA and the new Transportation
Security Administration. That is correct, I believe.
Ms. Dorn. We are exploring a number of formal mechanisms by
which we could make it very clear who does what. We already
have had many very fruitful discussions and this happens across
Government all the time in terms of sorting out a complex set
of situations. I am confident that we will work toward a
solution where transit will be well served.
Senator Reed. Well, let me suggest a series, and this is
certainly not an exhaustive list, of categories. You might just
acknowledge that you are specifically working on those or
comment specifically.
First, obviously, defining the clear roles between the TSA
and the FTA with regard to both transit security and transit
safety.
I think those are issues that are not identical, and they
raise issues that I think are not well defined between you and
the Transportation Security Administration.
I would hope also that you would endeavor to identify a
single point of contact for Federal funding for local transit
agencies. I cannot think of anything more frustrating than to
have transit agencies running between you and the Transit
Safety Administration.
Identifying--and you alluded to this in your testimony--how
threat information will be shared between transit agencies, the
FTA and the TSA.
And you have again identified this as one of the key
issues. How do you move information around in a timely fashion?
Funding priorities, who will set those? How will they be set?
Also, in light of our debate on the floor today, what will
be the impact of moving TSA to the Department of Homeland
Security in terms of formal relationships between you and TSA?
You have already done such commendable work. I would hope
that your work would not be lost and there would be some way
that you would guarantee that it would be taken on by the new
Transportation Security Administration.
These are some of the items that I think hopefully you
would address. I will leave it up to the executive to determine
whether it has to be memorialized in an MOU or it is something
that is a policy or routine. But, obviously, I think, and I
think you recognize also, this is something that should be done
in the near-term.
Ms. Dorn. Excellent. Just a couple of comments, Mr.
Chairman. Something that has not been brought up until you just
did. And that is the intimate relationship of security and
safety, and the intimate relationships of both to the day-to-
day operations of transit systems.
TSA recognizes, FTA recognizes, and certainly the industry
recognizes that you cannot carve out security and have this
artificial ``you do this'' and ``we will do the other.''
It will not work and that is not the way we are going. I am
very pleased to recognize that this takes a very careful and
common sense approach. And Admiral Loy has been superb about
both of those aspects.
I certainly recognize that the single point of contact is
imperative. The President and the Administration recognize that
in the recovery efforts and the use of money for the New York
issue. They did not want FEMA to have part of the money and FTA
to have part of the money, and then have the local people try
to figure out who does what. So, we worked that out very well
and I know that we can do the same here.
Also, TSA has been very supportive of our risk-based
approach. They know. They have been briefed extensively on what
we have done and in fact we have phoned home fairly regularly
because we wanted to make sure that we are on the same page. I
have every reason to believe that we are on the same page, and
that Admiral Loy's leadership will ensure that we can work
effectively together. But you raise some very important issues
and all of them are on our list as well.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much. Unless Senator Sarbanes
has other questions, thank you very much, Madam Administrator.
Ms. Dorn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Reed. Let me ask Mr. Guerrero to come forward to
start the second panel.
[Pause.]
Our second witness this afternoon is Peter Guerrero,
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues for the General
Accounting Office. Joining him are Ms. Nikki Clowers and Ms.
Susan Fleming, who are intimately involved in the GAO's review
of transit security.
Thank you, Mr. Guerrero. Please go ahead.
STATEMENT OF PETER GUERRERO
DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES
ACCOMPANIED BY:
NIKKI CLOWERS, SENIOR ANALYST AND
SUSAN FLEMING, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES
U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. Guerrero. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for asking us to do this work and to testify today on this
issue that is of vital importance to Americans.
Over a year has passed since the terrorist attacks of
September 11, and while most early attention, as you know,
focused on airport security, emphasis on the other modes of
transportation, including transit security, has since grown.
Events around the world and new intelligence information
unfortunately indicate that the threat to mass transit is real.
Today, I will discuss challenges in securing mass transit
systems, steps that agencies have taken to enhance the safety
and security of their operations, and the Federal role in this
area.
My comments are based on preliminary work that the GAO has
conducted involving site visits to 10 transit agencies across
the country, a survey of 200 transit agencies, and countless
interviews with DOT officials and industry experts. Transit
agencies face significant challenges in making their systems
secure. These challenges can be grouped into three categories.
First, as we heard today, certain characteristics make
transit systems both vulnerable and difficult to secure. By
their nature, they are open. They have high ridership, fixed
infrastructure, and usually large investments in
infrastructure. Also, they are often
located in areas that are target-rich for terrorists. In short,
they are attractive. But their openness makes it impractical to
use certain security measures that have been used in aviation,
such as metal detectors. Further complicating transit security
is the need for transit agencies to balance security concerns
with accessibility, convenience, and affordability.
Because transit riders can choose other means of
transportation in many cases, such as personal automobiles,
transit agencies must compete for riders. To remain
competitive, they must offer convenient quality service at low
cost. Therefore, security measures that limit accessibility,
cause delays, increase fares, or create other inconveniences
could push people away from transit and back into their cars.
Second, funding identified security enhancements is a
challenge for many transit agencies. Although some security
improvements such as removing trashcans from station platforms
and increasing the alertness of transit system employees have
little or no cost, most improvements require substantial
funding.
For example, some of the commonly identified security needs
of the agencies we visited are upgraded communications systems,
additional fencing and surveillance equipment, and redundant
control centers. The total estimated cost of just eight
agencies we visited was over $700 million. We estimate that the
total costs of security improvements for all transit agencies
could be in the billions.
Funding these security improvements is problematic for a
number of reasons. Recently, with the sluggish economy, the
transit agencies we visited are experiencing declining revenues
due to decreased ridership. They depend also very often on
local and State sales tax revenue. These revenues are also
down.
In the best of times, these systems have competing
priorities, and security and safety is one of a number of
priorities they must fund.
And finally, there are often strings attached to Federal
assistance that limit flexibility, such as the prohibition for
large systems using Federal funds for operating expenses.
Third, coordination among transit stakeholders can also
prove to be challenging. A number of stakeholders must be
involved in transit security decisionmaking, including all
levels of Government and the private sector. Coordination among
stakeholders is integral to enhancing transit security, and a
lack of coordination can create problems such as duplication of
effort.
Our discussions with transit agency and local government
officials and our preliminary survey results indicate that
coordination on emergency planning is generally taking place
between transit agencies and local levels of government despite
some challenges, but appears to be minimal between transit
agencies and governments at the regional, State and Federal
levels.
Despite these formidable challenges in securing transit
systems, transit agencies have taken a number of steps to
improve the security of their systems.
The agencies we visited were implementing strategies to
improve both safety and security prior to September 11, and the
events of September 11 have elevated the importance of
security-related activities as well. As a result, these
agencies have implemented new initiatives or have increased the
frequency of existing activities since last September.
For example, many have assessed their vulnerabilities,
provided additional employee training on how to handle
emergencies, revised emergency plans, conducted multiple
emergency drills, and intensified the security presence in
their systems.
I would now like to turn to the Federal Government's role
in transit security.
We found that this role is evolving. For example, though,
FTA, as you heard today, has limited regulatory and oversight
authority, it has undertaken various initiatives and has
increased funding for transit security since last September.
In addition, the Aviation Transportation Security Act
created TSA and gave it responsibility for transit security.
However, TSA has yet to assume full responsibility for the
security of any transportation mode other than aviation.
Much needs to be worked out here and TSA and FTA are de-
veloping a memorandum of understanding that will define each
agency's roles and responsibilities for transit security.
Although most of the transit agencies we visited said FTA
security initiatives have been useful, they would like the
Federal Government to provide more assistance to support
transit security.
Specifically, agencies we visited mentioned the need for
the Federal Government to provide help with security
clearances, supply increased funding for security improvements,
and invest more in security-related research and development.
In addition, the transit agencies would like the Federal
Government to provide additional information on a number of
issues, including the availability of Federal grants, best
practices, real-time threat information, and information on
available security-related technologies.
In considering the Federal Government's role in funding
transit safety and security initiatives, several issues need to
be addressed, including developing Federal funding criteria and
performance goals and measures that can be used to assess our
progress in this important area.
While the total cost of all needed transit security
improvements throughout the country is unknown, given the size
of the Nation's transit systems, these costs could be, as I
said earlier, in the billions of dollars. Because requests for
Federal dollars for transit security can be expected to exceed
available resources, criteria for distributing Federal funds
will be needed.
Transit agencies we met with identified a number of
possible Federal funding criteria that could be used to
distribute the Federal funds, including ridership levels,
populations of cities the transit agency serves, identified
vulnerabilities of the agency, and the number and type of
unique assets of the agency.
In general, the transit agency officials we spoke to
believe funding criteria should direct Federal dollars to
agencies that are most at risk and/or most vulnerable to a
terrorist attack.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, securing the Nation's transit
system is not a short-term or easy task. Many challenges must
be overcome. FTA and transit agencies we visited have made a
good start in enhancing the security, but more work is needed.
Transit agencies' calls for increased funding join the list for
competing claims for Federal dollars and difficult trade-offs
will have to be
made to ensure that finite resources are directed to the areas
of highest priority.
Next year's reauthorization of TEA-21 provides an
opportunity to examine the Federal Government's role in funding
transit security improvements. Because requests for Federal
assurance will probably exceed available resources, criteria
will be needed for determining which transit security
improvements merit Federal support. In addition, the Federal
Government could take steps and actions to assist agencies as
they press forward with their security improvements, such as
providing additional information on security matters and
removing the prohibition on using urbanized area formula funds
for operating expenses.
We will continue to monitor these issues for the
Subcommittee. We expect to issue a final report before the end
of this year.
This concludes my summary statement. Our full statement is
of course submitted for the record. I would be pleased to
answer any questions.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Guerrero.
You have identified one major issue among the several you
have talked about. That is the criteria for distributing
Federal funds. That is multifaceted.
First, criteria among competing transit systems, and then,
at a different level, criteria among different modes of
transportation--aviation, surface rail, highways, et cetera. Do
you have any views, based on your analysis, about what might be
a good criteria among those you mentioned?
Mr. Guerrero. I think that one way to think about the needs
of transit systems is all systems, regardless of size or type
of service provided, whether they are rail only, rail and bus,
bus only, whatever, have a certain baseline of needs. They need
assistance to do planning, to develop emergency preparedness
plans. They need assistance to train staff. They need
assistance for drills and exercises to make sure that their
plans are working, and then to identify problems with those
plans so that they can improve on them and so forth.
Those are needs that are shared by all systems. And it
would seem reasonable that Federal support be provided to
assist all agencies in helping them with that baseline of
required needs.
In addition, certain agencies do face unique challenges
because of the size, scope, density, nature of their
operations, unique features and so forth.
Once individual agencies conduct a risk assessment and
identify their unique vulnerabilities, it seems reasonable that
assessments serve as a second line level of criteria for
determining which agencies to target additional funds.
And certainly the things that we have heard for that
consideration is population density, unique assets, unique
vulnerabilities of particular assets--bridges, tunnels, and so
forth--that are critical and that are extremely vital to the
continued success of that system. There is a second line set of
criteria, and we will be spelling that out further in our final
report to you.
Senator Reed. Good.
At the Federal level, as we apportion funds between
highway, transit, ports, et cetera, with respect to security, I
think we all anticipate that there will be questions about
where the money goes, what is the most important use. Do you
have any views on that?
Mr. Guerrero. In listening to experts over the last year, I
would say that, almost without exception, what I have heard is
that aviation is clearly the one that comes to mind because
that was what happened on September 11. And we have put a lot
of resources into that. There is a very ambitious schedule and
timeframe for addressing security in that area. In addition to
aviation, the other two that seem to rise to the top are ports
and transit.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Based on your work, are you finding differences in
preparedness based on the size of the transit system? Can we
assume that the big properties are serious and the small ones
are strapped for cash? What inferences can we draw?
Ms. Clowers.
Ms. Clowers. What we found in our site visits is that all
agencies are acting aggressively to improve safety and
security. While safety and security were a priority prior to
September 11, after September 11, security issues were
elevated.
All of the transit agencies we visited are doing such
things as increasing emergency drilling, conducting
vulnerability assessments, and tightening access. So based on
the site visits that we have done, I do not think that we can
say that the big agencies are doing more than smaller agencies.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Is there any difference in terms of modes of transit policy
challenges or funding challenges--surface buses, subway
systems, light rail? Is there anything we can glean from
looking at the different modes of transportation and transit?
Mr. Guerrero. Yes. The kinds of things that you would do,
for example, for a system that is primarily a bus system is you
would want to secure, for example, the maintenance and storage
facilities. You might want to ensure that there are adequate
locks on ignitions and that there is adequate security around
those areas.
That looks different from securing a subway system where
you have tunnels. You may have bridges associated with subway
systems. You may have the intermodal centers like a Penn
Station in New York that we talked about earlier in this
hearing. These assets present a unique set of challenges.
So there are different kinds of things that you would do
with different systems and there are different price tags
associated with those. And key to all of this is ensuring that
systems, whether they are large, small or medium, and wherever
they are located, that they have done essentially a
vulnerability and risk assessment and have determined where
their vulnerabilities are and have a plan or strategy for
addressing them.
I actually, want to commend, the FTA for having I think
initially focused on security assessments. I think that is the
place to start, and that is the vehicle for identifying
specifically what will need to be done for different systems
and across different modes.
Senator Reed. Administrator Dorn made the point that the
biggest bang for the buck seems to come from training. Is that
your impression after your initial review of the area?
Ms. Fleming. I would say that, in our view, in talking to
the experts in the field, that is the case. In the site visits,
we found that everybody was doing some level of training prior
to September 11 and they certainly have increased it since last
September. More people within the agencies are being trained.
They are being trained more frequently, more drills, more
employee awareness. It is something that the studies have shown
is a tremendous bang for the buck.
Mr. Guerrero. Training, Mr. Chairman, clearly is among the
top three. When we asked in our survey of transit agencies for
what do they need additional resources for, training was one of
the top three. The other was surveillance and surveillance is
both the hardware and an operations issue. It can be both
cameras and the cop on the beat.
And then the third area that they identified was enhanced
communications. There is some unique aspects of certain systems
in identifying needs to have redundancies in terms of control,
operations, and equipment.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
You mentioned that the systems you reviewed had about $700
million in required spending that is not yet available, and
that, overall, all the systems, you thought would cost about a
billion. Do you have a more precise figure for the overall cost
to bring standards up to adequate measures?
Mr. Guerrero. Unfortunately, we cannot generalize. The best
we can do is tell you what we learned from each of those
systems. And while I cannot generalize from that and say, well,
there are 6,000 systems across the country, and if eight of
them are telling us that they need $700 million, then you can
do the multiplication. It is not quite that simple. And so, we
will look more closely and see if we can pin that number down a
little bit better in terms of the aggregate.
Senator Reed. Yes, go ahead.
Ms. Clowers. I would just add that, in our survey, we
surveyed 200 transit agencies and we asked them about their
funding needs. And hopefully, we will be able to put a cost
estimate on their identified needs.
Mr. Guerrero. We did design that survey so that we could
have some representative kinds of things to say.
Senator Reed. I think one of the points you made in your
testimony, Mr. Guerrero, deserves repeating. And that is, these
are nonavoidable costs in many cases if we are serious about
security.
They are occurring at the worst fiscal time in most cities
and municipalities, as their tax rolls shrink, as the economy
declines, as ridership might decline.
And without Federal assistance, these needs could all go
unmet, and we would regret it in the future when an incident
that might have been mitigated or prevented occurs.
Mr. Guerrero. That is correct. We have also seen some hard
trade-offs being made to date, where capital improvements and
capital expenses have been deferred, to address the very
important issue of security. And that can be done in the short
term. But the long-term consequences for mass transit are to
make it less appealing, less viable as an alternative, and so
forth.
Senator Reed. It is a vicious circle. As the ridership
declines, the incentive to provide more resources for security
and safety declines also. So your insights in the report will
be very useful in trying to support appropriate levels of
funding.
Let me ask a final question. In your review, have you found
some innovative practices, techniques that bear publication,
without being too specific? Is there anything out there that
you find innovative, which we should encourage systems to
emulate throughout the country?
Ms. Clowers. We did find some unique practices among the 10
transit agencies that we visited.
For example, one agency has trained a number of their city
police officers to drive their buses. They have been licensed
to drive the buses and they receive frequent driver training.
That way, in an emergency, the police officers can drive the
buses in to evacuate people and won't put the operators in
harm's way.
Another unique practice was an agency after September 11
adopted an employee suggestion program, because the employees
are out there on the street every day and can see potential
vulnerabilities or ways to improve security, if they submit a
security improvement that is implemented, they receive a day
off.
Another agency not only uses outside experts to conduct
vulnerability assessments, but they also use their internal
people,
maybe specialized in certain areas like electricians, to help
conduct
vulnerability assessments. Again, these employees know the most
about the systems and probably any potential vulnerabilities of
the system.
Senator Reed. Great. Thank you.
Let me thank you for your excellent testimony and your
work, both what you have accomplished already and what you will
do in the next several months.
I want to thank you, Mr. Guerrero, and your colleagues for
your testimony, and Ms. Dorn, too. There will be a period of
time in which we will reserve the right to ask questions for
the record and we would ask that you respond promptly to those
questions.
The testimony this afternoon has given us a greater
understanding of the steps that have already been taken to
improve security. I believe that the FTA and the industry have
taken some impressive steps, but we have a long way to go
before we feel more secure about our transit systems in the
United States.
The challenges are significant and we view those challenges
not only in terms of today's hearing, but also in terms of next
year's reauthorization.
You have pointed out, based on your study of eight or so
systems, $700 million of unmet needs for security. The bottom-
line pricetag is probably in the billions nationwide. Yet,
today, FTA has received only about $30.8 million. So there is a
resource issue here. We
have to meet our security needs, and I do not think we can ask
the
transit authorities throughout the country to do more with
less.
Clearly, we are asking them to do more in terms of security.
In the coming weeks and months, I hope and expect that we
will work with FTA, the Nation's transit systems, unions, and
others, with the advice and help of the GAO, to get the best
security we can for the transit public. They demand that, they
require that. It is an essential component of our Nation, our
economy, and we have to ensure that transit is available, and
we will do that.
Thank you for joining us, and at this point, I would
adjourn the hearing.
[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Prepared statements, response to written questions, and
additional material supplied for the record follow:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR JON S. CORZINE
Chairman Reed, thank you for calling this second hearing of the
Subcommittee on Housing and Transportation to discuss the important
issue of the safety of our transit systems. As we move forward in
fortifying our Nation in the aftermath of September 11, I look forward
to hearing from Federal Transit Administrator Dorn and the General
Accounting Office about the progress we have made in securing our
Nation's mass transit system and what remains to be done.
Mr. Chairman, since our Nation was viciously attacked on September
11, we have taken a long look at how to make our modes of
transportation safe and secure. Most of our attention has focused on
aviation. But now we must consider the security needs of our mass
transit system as well.
One of the many lessons we learned from this tragedy in my home
State is how much of a strain a terrorist attack can put on a mass
transit network. I am proud to say that the State agencies that
coordinate transit between New York and New Jersey--New Jersey Transit
and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey--met the challenge of
helping to evacuate thousands from lower Manhattan. We need to make
sure that all transit agencies are able to assist in the event of any
disaster--natural or otherwise.
We need to do all that we can to ensure that our bus, trains, and
ferries are as secure as they possibly can be. I will look hard at the
question of how additional funds may be set aside for safety under the
reauthorization of TEA-21. I will also work hard to obtain additional
money for New Jersey under the appropriations process. I was proud that
along with Senator Torricelli, I was able to obtain $100 million to the
Federal Transit Administration for Transit Improvements, including
improvements to the damaged PATH tunnel to the World Trade Center.
Senator Torricelli and I were also able to obtain $100 million for
repairs to the aged Amtrak-owned tunnels that go to New York City under
the Hudson and East Rivers. These funds will enable the metropolitan
New York region, including northern New Jersey, to better respond in
the event of an emergency, whether natural or man-made.
Mr. Chairman, we also to ensure that there are enough mass transit
options to support our cities both during normal times, as well as in
times that are not normal. We saw the crush of people that were forced
to leave both New York and Washington on foot on September 11. In order
for mass transit to be truly a safe and secure option, it must also be
an option that is readily available. That is why I am supporting major
rail projects for the New York metropolitan area such as building a
rail tunnel under the Hudson River from New York into New Jersey. Only
by increasing the availability of mass transit, as well as increasing
the safety levels on buses, trains, and ferries, can we say that we
have a safe and secure transit system.
Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses.
----------
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JENNIFER L. DORN
Administrator, Federal Transit Administration
September 18, 2002
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) concerning the progress of our security initiative
and our collaborative efforts to keep America's transit passengers safe
and to protect the vital transportation assets of this Nation.
In my testimony today, I will address three specific topics that I
understand are of particular interest to the Subcommittee: (1) FTA's
activities to improve the security of America's transit systems; (2)
FTA's statutory authority with regard to transit security matters; and
(3) the working relationship between FTA and the Transportation
Security Administration (TSA).
Before I begin, I want to thank Secretary Mineta for his unfailing
support and commitment to protecting Americans traveling on every form
of transportation. While much attention has been given to the
significant changes underway in the aviation industry, Secretary Mineta
has lent his considerable influence and intellect to the vigorous
pursuit of security improvements in surface transportation, as well.
In addition, we look forward to Congressional approval of the
President's proposed Department of Homeland Security. The creation of a
single agency charged with preventing terrorist attacks in the United
States, reducing America's vulnerability to terrorism, minimizing
damage and expediting recovery from such attacks is critical. The
Department of Homeland Security will be in a position to assess threats
and vulnerabilities across industries and regions, and to undertake the
comprehensive prioritization of needs and the allocation of resources.
We are fortunate at the Department of Transportation to have the
Transportation Security Administration positioned to undertake such
prioritization with regard to transportation security needs, and we
look forward to working with the new Department of Homeland Security to
ensure that transit security issues continue to receive due
consideration and are addressed appropriately.
In the year since the tragic events of September 11 changed our
understanding of the term ``transit safety and security,'' we have made
it a priority of the Federal Transit Administration to do all that we
can to help communities become better prepared to respond to emergency
situations. Shortly after that horrifying day, FTA launched an
ambitious five-part security initiative. We created the framework of
that initiative based on a holistic, systems approach to improving
security in any transit system: (1) evaluate the current situation
through in-depth security assessments, (2) develop a plan to address
deficiencies, (3) test the plan in realistic situations, (4) train
employees to understand and implement the plan, and (5) undertake
research to enhance our human capabilities. The appropriateness of
these basic components--assessment, planning, testing, training, and
research--has been borne out by our security assessment results. I
would note that this initiative focuses significant attention and
resources on improving our human capability to respond to security
threats and incidents. It acknowledges that technology can be helpful,
but there is no technology that will secure the open environment of our
Nation's transit systems. FTA's security initiative has been funded
with $12.1 million of fiscal year 2002 money that has been refocused on
security and by $18.7 million of emergency supplemental funds,
providing a total of $30.8 million for this important effort.
I am pleased to report that, today America's transit systems are
safer, better prepared, and more security-conscious than ever.
Secretary Mineta recently noted that public transportation must
play an important role in achieving the President's three important
goals of winning the war against terrorism, protecting our homeland,
and getting the American economy moving again. As our security
initiative recognized, more can be done and is being done to make
public transportation as safe and secure as possible. At the same time,
we must be careful to protect the freedom of movement that we all
cherish and continue to promote the economic vitality of our
communities and our Nation. Keeping this three-legged stool of
security, economic vitality, and personal freedom in balance is a
challenging responsibility, but one that we are pursuing with passion
and conviction.
Upgrading Transit Security
Over the past year, teams of experts in security, antiterrorism,
and transit have conducted security assessments of 36 public
transportation systems using a proven threat and vulnerability
assessment methodology. We focused first on the Nation's high-risk/
high-consequence transit assets. Generally, that meant transit systems
with tunnels and stations where large numbers of people converge, and
where an attack would cause the greatest disruption to transportation
services. All of the transit agencies participated in the assessment
program voluntarily. The assessments considered the entire
transportation system and network in each area, not just the physical
assets of one mode or site. Each assessment identified high-risk/high-
consequence assets, evaluated security gaps, made recommendations to
reduce security risks to acceptable levels, educated transit agencies
on threat and vulnerability analysis, and reviewed agencies' emergency
response plans, particularly their degree of coordination with
emergency responders throughout the region. Based on the findings of
these assessments, FTA is deploying emergency response planning and
technical assistance teams to 60 transit agencies to help them develop
and update their security response plans, develop agency-specific
protocols to respond to different Office of Homeland Security threat
levels, conduct training needs assessments, and develop agency-specific
security awareness materials for employees and customers. We have
completed the pilot phase of this project with three transit agencies,
and plan to send Technical Assistance Teams to at least 30 transit
agencies by the end of fiscal year 2003. These agencies were identified
in conjunction with the FBI, which has assisted us in prioritizing and
targeting our resources based on intelligence information about threats
and vulnerabilities.
The security assessments proved to be an effective tool for both
the FTA and the participating transit agencies. We identified important
concerns at even the most well prepared agencies, and have recommended
solutions to manage these risks. At the same time, we are identifying
best practices for training and response protocols, and are sharing
these with the industry. The assessments were also critical in our
efforts to develop appropriate system-wide programs to help the transit
industry prevent and mitigate the potential effects of a terrorist
attack.
I am certain that the Subcommittee understands the need to avoid a
public discussion of our specific findings about particular transit
systems, but I would like to provide you with an overview of our key
findings, as well as an indication of how FTA's security initiative is
helping to address these issues.
Findings of Assessment
System Design
First, new systems and those undergoing renovation or modernization
should use design criteria that support security objectives. Important
considerations include designing stations for easy detection, so people
cannot leave objects hidden out of sight; separating public and private
spaces in facilities, so that access to controls and equipment can be
restricted; and designing facilities for easy decontamination and
recovery operations. As a result of this finding, FTA is incorporating
security design as a component of the New Starts development and
evaluation process. Grant recipients in urbanized areas are already
required, as a condition of their funding, to establish comprehensive
safety and security programs and to demon-
strate their technical capacity to carry out those programs.
Intelligence and Information Sharing
The second finding was that timely and specific sharing of threat
information and intelligence is needed at both the national and local
level. Often, the most pertinent information is available from other
local officials--especially local police and other law enforcement
agencies. To establish this information flow, FTA has worked with the
FBI to create collaborative relationships between transit agencies and
local FBI officials. Last June, I sent a letter to our largest transit
agencies, encouraging them to participate in the FBI's Joint Terrorism
Task Force in their community. The FBI sent similar letters to each
Task Force, encouraging them to contact the transit agencies in their
region to invite them to join. Most of the largest transit agencies
have now established working relationships with the law enforcement and
intelligence sharing groups, such as the Joint Terrorism Task Force.
While local intelligence information links are necessary, they are,
clearly, not sufficient. One of the first actions that the FTA
undertook after September 11 was to
establish a communication link with the 100 largest transit agencies,
whose passengers account for an estimated 90 percent of all transit
riders in the Nation. We have developed written procedures to guide
communication flow, ensuring not only that the information is accurate
and official, but also that it gets to the people who need it in a
timely manner. Using e-mail, fax and phone, if necessary, we now have
the capacity to communicate with transit agency officials around-the-
clock. This system has already been used a number of times to
communicate threat information, as well as specific advice about how to
proactively respond. For example, when the Office of Homeland Security
recently raised the threat warning level to ``orange,'' FTA sent out an
advisory to transit agencies with a list of specific measures that they
should consider in the context of their own system operations. In
addition, the FTA Regional Offices have established liaisons to the
largest transit agencies, creating a 24-hour person-to-person contact
with these transit agency operations centers. In the event of a
catastrophic transit incident, the Regional liaison will go to the
affected operations center to act as an information link between the
Department of Transportation and the transit agency.
FTA has also undertaken several steps to provide more and better
intelligence
information to transit agency officials. Transit agencies will soon
receive letters
inviting them to participate in the FBI's Infraguard program, which
will provide them with access to a secure website that contains
security sensitive information, advisories, and best practice
information developed by FTA. The FBI will manage and control access to
the site, and will undertake the necessary clearance checks for
participants. We have been assured that the FBI will handle these
clearances expeditiously.
In addition, FTA is continuing to work with the transit industry
and the intelligence community to establish a means for sharing threat
and intelligence information concerning transit. Our goal is to create
a communications network that not only disseminates alerts, but also
collects information from transit agencies, provides a means to
identify patterns and trends, and shares that analysis with the
industry.
Transit Employee Security Training
The third important finding of our security assessments reinforced
a lesson learned from our colleagues in New York and Washington: There
is no substitute for security awareness and emergency preparedness
training for transit employees. As FTA's security assessments
underscored, America's transit environments are inherently open and
accessible, with many high-risk/high-consequence assets. We cannot
place a metal detector at every bus stop, or a fence and a checkpoint
at every subway portal. Instead, we must rely on--and cultivate--human
capabilities to prevent, detect, and respond to security threats.
The 400,000-plus transit employees throughout America are the
``eyes and ears'' of our most important security system. Transit
employees travel the same routes, maintain the same facilities, and see
the same people every day as they go about their duties. They are in
the best position to identify unusual packages, suspicious substances,
and people who are acting suspiciously. But they need to acquire skills
in what to look for and how to respond, skills that can be acquired
through rigorous emergency planning, regular emergency testing and
drills, and extensive training.
To ensure that such training is available, FTA has partnered with
the Transportation Safety Institute (TSI) and the National Transit
Institute (NTI) to expand course offerings on security to a broader
audience. FTA, in conjunction with NTI, has also launched an aggressive
nationwide schedule to deliver comprehensive security awareness courses
targeted to front-line transit employees and supervisors, free of
charge. Course offerings include security planning, weapons of mass
destruction, bus and rail hijacking, and crime prevention through
environment design. Over the past year, 134 transit employees were
trained to deliver four security training courses to other transit
employees at their own agencies. In addition, NTI delivered the course
at 10 locations directly to 522 transit employees, generally at smaller
transit agencies. This month NTI will also be distributing more than
3,000 compact discs containing a computerized version of the basic 2-
hour security awareness course for employees, tailored for bus, light
rail, and heavy rail. Finally, eight updated Transit Safety Institute
courses, including system security, emergency incident management, bus
hijacking, and weapons of mass destruction have been delivered to over
950 transit managers.
Over the next several months, FTA also plans to launch a new
program, including training materials, posters, pocket cards, brochures
and other materials, to teach and remind transit workers about what to
look for, how to respond to a threat, and whom to notify. We will be
working with industry stakeholders, including transit unions, to
develop and deliver these materials.
Emergency Response Capability
Training is not limited, however, to classrooms. Those who will
have to respond boldly and expeditiously should an attack occur need
hands-on practice. Full-scale drills reinforce emergency response
procedures and help communities work out specific details and back-up
plans.
Which leads me to the fifth important finding of our security
assessments: Emergency response must be transit's primary antiterrorism
tool. The reality is that we will never be able to guarantee the
complete safety and security of our transit passengers and employees.
With 1,500 people per minute entering Penn Station in New York, for
example, even random searches of every sixth or sixtieth person would
unduly disrupt daily travel patterns. Being prepared to respond quickly
and effectively to an event--minimizing loss of life and mitigating
damage to property--is essential.
To be ready to respond, transit agencies need written emergency
response plans that include a unified command structure, and they must
conduct realistic drills that are specific to their own operations. To
assist transit agencies in these efforts, FTA has awarded 83 grants to
fund emergency response drills. One important condition of these grants
is that the drills must include the participation of local and regional
police, fire and emergency response agencies. There is no doubt that
the safety and security of our communities is significantly enhanced
when public transportation systems are linked to police, fire, medical,
and other emergency response agencies. Community-wide planning,
emergency response drills, and unified emergency command centers make
this critical link effective.
As you might imagine, these important links have not been
established in every community. So, in addition to providing grants for
emergency response drills that include these important community
responders, the FTA is taking the lead to bring these key players
together at emergency response planning forums around the
county. With the eager participation and support of elected officials
and emergency response organizations, FTA is conducting 17 Emergency
Preparedness and Security Forums around the country to promote regional
collaboration and coordination among emergency service responders and
transit agencies. In the eight 2-day forums held to date, more than
1,200 transit leaders, law enforcement, fire, and medical emergency
response personnel have begun or continued the important process of
building relationships and collaborative plans for emergency response.
Technology Development and Deployment
Finally, the assessments confirmed that technology can play an
important, but not an exclusive, role in transit security. There is no
technological ``quick fix'' for security concerns, nor is there a
technological proxy for an alert and well-prepared transit workforce.
Furthermore, the assessments found that many transit systems can make
better use of the security technology they already have. For example,
all of the transit agencies that participated in the security
assessment program had closed circuit television cameras to help deter
and detect terrorist activity. It was not always used effectively,
however.
Overall, FTA believes it can best assist transit agencies in the
area of technology by continuing its programs to identify and adapt
security technologies developed by other agencies and industries, such
as the military, for the transit environment. FTA has been involved
with security development and deployment for a number of years. Most
notably, under our security initiative, FTA has accelerated the
development of Project PROTECT, a chemical detection system for use in
subways that was prototyped in the Washington, DC Metro system. Testing
of Project PROTECT is currently being expanded to an older transit
system in order to evaluate its usefulness in alternative environments.
FTA has collaborated with many agencies, including the Department of
Defense, the Department of Energy, and the Transportation Research
Institute, to identify promising technologies that may be applicable to
transit systems, and we will continue to do so.
FTA's Statutory Authority
As you are aware, the FTA is prohibited by law from regulating the
day-to-day operations of a transit agency. Working within its statutory
role, FTA is providing technical and financial assistance to transit
agencies, which have enthusiastically participated in FTA's security
assessments and initiatives.
In addition, the FTA utilizes its current statutory authority--the
``power of the purse''--to ensure that certain safety and security
requirements are met as a condition of grant receipt. For example,
recipients of Section 5307 Urban Area formula funds must spend 1
percent of these funds on safety and security measures, unless they
certify that such expenditures are unnecessary. FTA enforces this
requirement through an annual certification process and triennial
reviews.
FTA also has statutory authority to undertake a number of other
safety and security activities, including:
<bullet> The development and delivery of safety and security curricula
through the National Transit Institute at Rutgers University (49
U.S.C. 5315).
<bullet> Capital grants to transit systems for crime prevention and
security (49 U.S.C. 5321).
<bullet> Investigation of whether FTA-funded equipment, facilities, or
operations cause a serious hazard and, if so, requiring corrective
action (49 U.S.C. 5329).
<bullet> A review of safety and security in the context of oversight
program reviews for New Starts and other major capital grants (49
U.S.C. 5327(c)(2)).
<bullet> Research, development and demonstration projects in the area
of safety and security (49 U.S.C. 5312).
<bullet> The creation of ``joint partnership'' agreements to introduce
and deploy safety and security innovations with terms more
favorable than may be permitted under FTA contracts, grants, or
cooperative agreements (49 U.S.C. 5312(d)).
<bullet> Access to the services of experts and consultants with respect
to security matters under contracts awarded by other Federal
agencies, such as the Departments of Defense and Energy and FEMA
(e.g., the Economy Act, 31 U.S.C. Section 1535).
The effectives of these statutory tools is evidenced by the
enviable safety record of the transit industry. Indeed, with regard to
fatalities, the National Safety Council reports that riding the bus is
47 times safer than traveling by car, and rail transit passengers are
23 times safer than automobile travelers. Without regulatory mandates,
transit agencies, unions, and industry groups have demonstrated a
remarkable level of cooperation and collaboration to ensure that public
transportation is the safest mode of travel. They eagerly participate
in FTA safety training programs, willingly assist in the development
and distribution of best practices and other guidance, and
enthusiastically seek and receive technical assistance to improve their
safety practices. Over the past year, I have witnessed this same
commitment with respect to security matters.
In sum, Mr. Chairman, at this time I do not believe that FTA
requires additional regulatory authority. We have a variety of tools at
our disposal to assist transit agencies, excellent oversight and
enforcement mechanisms tied to our formula grant programs, and the
enthusiastic participation of transit agencies in programs to enhance
transit security. Furthermore, TSA has statutory authority to develop
any necessary standards and regulations. I would note, however, as
Admiral Loy has said on numerous occasions, success depends on the
support and willful compliance of the industry; we will achieve better
results without mandates and regulations.
The Role of TSA in Transit Security
The Aviation and Transportation Security Act recognized the
importance of security for all modes of transportation and related
infrastructure. The Act established the Transportation Security
Administration, consolidating overall responsibility for transportation
security in a single entity. Under the leadership of Secretary Mineta
and Admiral Loy, TSA is taking a practical and appropriate approach to
trans-
portation security, working closely with all of the operating
administrations to prioritize security needs and resources. Admiral
Loy, for example, has shown a willingness to recognize that the strong
relationships forged by FTA with transit stakeholders are an essential
component of TSA's success. We believe that these efforts will only be
enhanced and strengthened by the creation of the President's proposed
Department of Homeland Security, which will have the necessary
information
and resources to prioritize the full range of our Nation's security
investments and
activities.
FTA and TSA are working together to delineate carefully the roles
and responsibilities of our agencies based on existing legal
authorities and our respective core competencies. We are making very
good progress. We plan to establish a strong, strategic relationship
between FTA and TSA. Both agencies recognize that the Federal
Government cannot achieve the desired level of security if agencies act
in isolation. A strong partnership between the agencies is required,
and recognition that, like safety, security must be an integral part of
Federal transit programs.
Last March, Secretary Mineta reminded us that, even as we improve
the security of our Nation's transportation systems, we must ``renew
our commitment to strengthen America's freedom of movement, and enhance
the capabilities of our transportation systems to effectively grow
America's economy.'' Together, over the coming months, FTA and TSA will
pursue the President's Homeland Security Goals, focusing our efforts
on: Preventing terrorist attacks through improved intelligence and
information sharing; reducing the vulnerability of transit systems to
terrorist attacks; and minimizing potential damage and speeding
recovery should an attack occur. I am confident that FTA's partnership
with the TSA will not only enhance transit security, but also, as the
Secretary called upon us to do, help protect our way of life.
As our experience on September 11 demonstrated, robust public
transit systems are essential to our national security. Transit trains
and buses were key to the swift evacuation of the affected areas; they
were used to transport emergency workers and supplies to the rescue and
recovery sites; and they served as emergency triage centers and
temporary shelters. We cannot, in the name of security improvements,
compromise the mobility of our Nation or the viability of our public
transportation systems.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, the Nation's transit operators are to be commended
for their impressive gains in security. I am particularly pleased that
these gains have been achieved through exceptional collaboration at all
levels of Government, and among a variety of stakeholders, including
private industry, transit unions, elected officials, law enforcement
agencies, and other emergency responders.
I also want to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to
provide this important update on transit security. I look forward to
continuing to work with you to keep Americans safe and moving on public
transportation.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR REED
FROM JENNIFER L. DORN
Q.1. Does FTA know how much transit agencies are spending on
safety and security improvements?
A.1. The law requires every Federal transit recipient of
urbanized formula funds to spend at least 1 percent of its
funding on security projects, unless the grantee can
demonstrate to the Secretary's satisfaction that the
expenditure is unnecessary. FTA reviews and monitors the
grantee's program to be sure they have met the statutory
minimum spending but in the past we have not maintained records
or requested reports on total capital security and spending.
Mindful of the need to ensure that transit agencies are
focusing increased attention security, we have determined that
a grantee will not be able to ``certify out'' of this spending
requirement, unless it can demonstrate that an equivalent
amount from other funding sources is being used for security
projects.
We are also enhancing our oversight by now requiring
grantees to identify the specific security projects for which
the expenditure is made. This will allow the FTA to track
trends in security expen-
ditures, which will assist us in refining our technical
assistance
programs.
Q.2. Does transit security have to have its own dedicated
source of funding?
A.2. The FTA currently has the flexibility to provide funding
for security, although transit security expenditure
determinations are primarily a local issue. FTA's formula
capital grants are available for transit agencies to use for
capital security projects, and transit agencies in areas with
populations less than 200,000 may use these formula funds for
operating expenses, including security operations.
In addition, the FTA provides training, technical
assistance, guidance materials, and research to help transit
agencies address their security needs. As we work with the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), we will continue
to assess and evaluate transit vulnerabilities, and we will
make funding recommendations, as appropriate.
Q.3. Does the FTA believe that it or the TSA should distribute
any current or future dedicated transit security funds?
A.3. FTA's current security programs have provided a strong
basis for the transit industry to respond to the new security
challenges after September 11. The creation of TSA and the
proposals for the Department of Homeland Security will provide
additional programs and resources to assist the transit
industry. The FTA and TSA are working cooperatively to
establish common sense approaches that balance security with
the realities of an open, and accessible transit system.
As TSA develops and prioritizes overall transportation
security issues, the FTA will continue to exercise leadership
in the area of
transit safety and security. We plan to establish a strong,
strategic relationship with TSA. Both agencies recognize that
the Federal Government cannot achieve the desired level of
security if agencies act in isolation. Our strong partnership
recognizes that, like safety, security must be an integral part
of Federal transit programs.
I believe that as we continue to work cooperatively to
synergize our respective security responsibilities, we
anticipate that FTA is likely to be in the best position to
administer TSA's grants to transit agencies through our
established grant procedures. This will ensure that the TSA's
grant process is as efficient as possible for transit grantees.
Q.4. Should the requirement that transit agencies spend 1
percent of their urbanized area formula funds on security be
changed? What is an adequate percentage of urbanized formula
funds that should be spent on security?
A.4. For many transit systems, FTA's minimum 1 percent
requirement is adequate. Recognizing that security is largely a
local issue, our assessments found that many transit systems
spend beyond the FTA minimum requirement.
As I indicated previously, the effectiveness of safety and
security cannot be determined by the amount of money spent;
however, after September 11 many transit systems have refocused
their efforts in this area and have made tremendous progress in
improving their security posture. We will continue to assess
funding needs and make recommendations, as appropriate.
Q.5. What challenges has the FTA faced in obtaining and
disseminating intelligence information?
A.5. Our security assessments revealed that timely and specific
sharing of threat information and intelligence is needed at
both the national and local level. Often, the most pertinent
information is available from other local officials, especially
local police and other law enforcement agencies.
To establish this information flow, FTA has worked with the
FBI to create collaborative relationships between transit
agencies and local FBI officials and other law enforcement
officials. We will continue to encourage and build upon these
local relationships.
In addition, the FTA receives and distributes DOT's threat
and intelligence information directly to transit agencies
through the Transportation Security Information Report (TSIR)
system. The FTA also participates in the Transportation
Information Operations Center (TIOC), which collects and
distributes emergency and threat information to all
transportation modes. Both of these systems have been tested
and used numerous times over the last year.
FTA is also working with the American Public Transportation
Association to include public transit in the Surface
Transportation Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ST-
ISAC). The ST-ISAC will provide transit specific intelligence
and analysis to the transit industry, the ST-ISAC will also
establish communication links with transit agencies to collect
and share security and intelligence information among transit
agencies.
Q.6. What is the feasibility of sharing information on new
technologies with transit agencies and of FTA working with
other Federal agencies to establish decontamination standards?
If feasible, when could these efforts begin?
A.6. FTA is already working to share information with other
Federal agencies on new technologies to enhance transit
security. We are currently partnering with the Department of
Energy (DOE) on the PROTECT chemical detection system, as well
as the development of standard protocols and procedures for
handling suspicious substances.
The FTA will continue to work with the DOE and the
Environmental Protection Agency to apply the technologies, and
plans to share information on decontamination and detection in
transit environments in fiscal year 2003.
Q.7. Has FTA experienced any problems with coordination among
other Federal agencies?
A.7. The FTA has found other Federal agencies very eager to
help, coordinate, and learn from each other. Within the
Department of Transportation, a number of interagency groups
are working to
address issues that cross modal boundaries, such as
intelligence
sharing, credentialing, Intelligent Transportation Systems, and
research. We are also working with theDOE and the FBI on
research, communications, and intelligence projects.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION OF SENATOR SARBANES
FROM JENNIFER L. DORN
Q.1. Administrator Dorn, in your response before the Committee,
you indicated that annual capital investment needs for rural
operators over the next 20 years are estimated to be $241
million to maintain the conditions and performance of those
systems. What is the estimated cost to improve conditions and
performance of rural operators? I am also interested in knowing
how these estimates were generated. Does the Federal Transit
Administration regularly collect data on rural ridership,
vehicle conditions, service areas and other relevant measures?
If not, what is the basis for the estimate of rural needs?
A.1. The capital investment requirements for rural operators
are estimated to be $782 million in 2000 dollars to Improve
Conditions and Performance to an average level of ``good.'' FTA
does not regularly collect data on rural ridership, vehicle
condition, and other pertinent measures. For this report, FTA
uses data on rural transit collected through surveys by the
Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA). The
most recent survey was in 2000; the previous survey was
conducted in 1944. These data include the number and age of
rural transit vehicles, according to vehicle type, such as
buses classified according to size or vans.
Investment requirements for rural areas presented in the
current Conditions and Performance Report were based on the
data collected by CTAA in 2000. Requirements were determined by
estimating the number of vehicles that will need to be replaced
in each year over the 20-year investment period, and
multiplying the total number of vehicles in each category by an
estimated average vehicle purchase price. Average purchase
prices were based on information reported to FTA by transit
operators for vehicle purchases made between 1998 to 2000.
The number of rural vehicles that will need to be purchased
to Maintain or Improve Conditions is calculated by dividing the
total number of each type of vehicle by its replacement age,
with different assumptions made about the replacement ages
required to Maintain or Improve Conditions. The replacement age
to Maintain Conditions is assumed to be higher than the
industry recommended replacement age because surveys have
revealed that transit vehicles are often kept beyond their
recommended useful life. The Maintain Conditions replacement
age is calculated by multiplying the industry recommended
replacement age for each vehicle type by the ratio of the
average age to the industry recommended age of large buses. The
replacement age to Improve Conditions is assumed to equal the
industry-recommended replacement age.
The Improve Conditions scenario also assumes additional
vehicle purchases in the first year to eliminate the backlog of
overage vehicles. The number of vehicles necessary to Improve
Performance was estimated by increasing fleet size by an
average annual rate 3.5 percent over the 20-year projection
period. The 1944 study by CTAA, and more recent studies
examining rural transit investment requirements in five States,
identified considerable unmet rural transit needs in areas
where there is either no transit coverage or substandard
coverage. The assumed 3.5 percent growth to fulfill these unmet
rural investment requirements is less than half the 7.8 percent
average annual increase in the number of rural vehicles in
active service between 1994 and 2000, but is believed to be
sufficient since the population of rural areas is declining.
Between 1990 and 2000, the population in areas with less than
50,000 inhabitants decreased by 3.4 percent.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR CORZINE
FROM JENNIFER L. DORN
Q.1. Senator Torricelli and myself were able to obtain $100
million for life safety upgrades to the 100 year old Amtrak
tunnels under the Hudson and East Rivers in the New York City
Region. The Administration had made $77 million of that
available for reimbursement to Amtrak. Can you tell how much of
that has been released and when the remaining $23 million will
be available?
A.1. The entire $77 million is available to Amtrak, although
only $26 million has been ``released'' (that is, cash provided
to Amtrak) to date. (The grant provides funds to Amtrak as its
bills come due). FRA's grant agreement with Amtrak was for $77
million because this was the amount Amtrak believed it could
obligate in fiscal year 2002. The agreement will be amended to
include the remaining $23 million when Amtrak identifies the
next priorities for funding, and indicates that additional
funds need to be obligated to keep the program on schedule. FRA
anticipates that this will occur early in fiscal year 2003.
Q.2. The Administration recently announced $4.55 billion for
rebuilding the transportation infrastructure in lower Manhattan
damaged by the September 11 terrorist attacks. It is my
understanding that this money is comprised of the $1.8 billion
included for the FTA in the fiscal year 2002 Supplemental
Appropriations bill, and $2.75 billion from FEMA. It is also my
understanding that a local working group of the City of New
York, State of New York, the Metropolitan Transit Authority,
the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Lower
Manhattan Development Corporation will be developing a
consensus on how that money will be spent and reporting to the
FTA, FEMA, and FHA. I am concerned that, other than the Port
Authority, no New Jersey entities are part of this group
developing the consensus-spending plan. I believe that New
Jersey's input is particularly relevant since, as you well
know, it will affect so many commuters traveling into downtown
New York from New Jersey. I understand that New Jersey is
developing a proposal for ways to ease access into Manhattan,
which may be eligible for some of this funding.
Will you work to ensure that New Jersey entities have a
voice in the process of determining how to spend the $4.55
bilion? Will you consider proposals from New Jersey entities to
ease access into Manhattan when determining how to spend the
$4.55 billion?
A.2. Recognizing that New Jersey commuters were significantly
affected by the September 11 terrorist attacks, a significant
portion of the Federal funding for emerging and interim
transportation projects--over $200 million in projects funded
by FTA and FEMA--is funding projects physically located in New
Jersey.
This funding for emergency and interim transportation
projects was appropriated under the fiscal year 2002 Department
of Defense Appropriations Act, Public Law 107-117. Virtually
all of these funds will greatly benefit New Jersey residents
commuting to Lower Manhattan, as well as to other destinations
in Manhattan.
Most recently, however, the Congress has made available
$4.55
billion in FTA and FEMA funding under the 2002 Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to
Terrorist Attacks on the United States, Public Law 107-206, to
specifically ``replace, rebuild, and enhance the public
transportation systems serving the Borough of Manhattan''
through projects that will ``improve substantially the mobility
of commuters in Lower Manhattan.''
New York Governor Pataki has assembled a group of
decisionmakers including the State of New York, City of New
York, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Lower Manhattan
Development Corporation, to select and prioritize the most
effective transportation projects to be implemented with the
available funding. The State of New Jersey has a voice in this
decisionmaking process through the Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey. It is likely that these projects will be
located in Lower Manhattan, adjacent to or in proximity to, the
World Trade Center site. Clearly, however, these projects will
significantly improve transportation services for the hundreds
of thousands of New Jersey residents who commute daily to
Manhattan. FTA and FEMA will continue to work with this group
of State and local decisionmakers to identify projects to be
funded from the $4.55 billion.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS OF SENATOR SARBANES
FROM PETER GUERRERO
Q.1. Based on your work, are you finding differences in transit
agencies' preparedness based on their size?
A.1. During our site visits to 10 transit agencies, we did not
observe any substantial differences in the emergency
preparedness of these agencies based on their size. In
particular, we found all 10 agencies we visited, regardless of
size, are working hard to enhance safety, security, and
preparedness. Transit agencies we visited were implementing
strategies to improve both safety and security prior to
September 11; however, the events of September 11 elevated the
importance of security-related activities. As a result, the
transit agencies we visited implemented new security
initiatives or increased the frequency of existing activities
since last September. Examples of security measures implemented
since September 11 include: conducting security assessments to
identify vulnerabilities and needed improvements; implementing
quick, inexpensive security improvements (e.g., removing
trashcans); increasing emergency drills; and increasing
security presence (e.g., additional personnel and requiring
personnel to wear bright vests).
Additionally, preliminary survey results indicate that
large and small transit agencies identified similar funding
priorities for improving preparedness. For example, large and
small agencies identified enhanced communication systems,
surveillance equipment, and additional training as top
priorities. However, while the needs of large and small transit
agencies are consistent, it is important to note that costs
associated with implementing these improvements will vary by
ridership, the size of the service area, and the extent of
existing infrastructure.
We will further explore the differences between large and
small transit agencies in our analysis of our survey data.
Q.2. When will the information clearinghouse for transit
agencies be completed and what type of information will be
shared? What is the timeline for starting the Information
Sharing Analysis Center (ISAC), which will provide intelligence
information to transit agencies, and what is the timeline for
expanding ISAC beyond the top 20 agencies?
A.2. According to FTA officials, FTA's information
clearinghouse or Infragard, will post industry best practices
and allow for the exchange of information relevant to
infrastructure protection, education, and outreach in a secure
environment. Also according to FTA officials, the top 100
transit agencies can apply to use the Infragard system.
According to FTA officials, FTA will first make ISAC
available to the top 50 transit agencies but may include
additional agencies in the future. However, FTA officials could
not provide a timetable for the launch or expansion of the
ISAC. According to FTA officials, the American Public
Transportation Association is taking the lead on the ISAC
project and as such, is responsible for establishing the
timeframes.
Q.3. Should the transit agencies in areas with populations over
200,000 be allowed to use urbanized area formula funds on
security operation costs?
A.3. Congress may want to consider removing this prohibition
for security operating expenses for several reasons. During our
site visits, several agencies commented that the prohibition
presents a funding challenge. The agencies noted that a good
portion of their safety and security needs are considered
operating expenses (e.g., security personnel and training).
Because of this prohibition, agencies cannot use their
urbanized area formula funds to pay for these expenses.
Although eliminating the restriction dies not increase funding
for the agencies, it does give them greater flexibility in
using their Federal dollars for safety and security measures.
This additional flexibility may be beneficial for transit
agencies as they try to pay for needed security improvements,
especially given the tight budget environments of many transit
agencies. Moreover, removing this restriction is a cost neutral
action--that is, it would not require additional Federal
dollars.
Q.4. In your work, have you heard concerns from transit
agencies about not being able to use urbanized area formula
funds for operating expenses?
A.4. Yes. During our site visits, several agencies commented
that the prohibition presents a funding challenge. The agencies
noted that a good portion of their safety and security needs
are considered operating expenses (that is, security personnel
and training). Because of this prohibition, agencies cannot use
their urbanized formula funds to pay for these expenses.
Although eliminating the restriction does not increase funding
for the agencies, it does give them greater flexibility in
using their Federal dollars for safety and security measures.
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>